CAR_Public/190823.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, August 23, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 169

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Vega Suit Seeks Damages Over Defective Earplug
ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS: O'Brien Suit Challenges Sale to Cisco
AKORN INC: Preliminary Hearing Monday on Securities Class Accord
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Olberg May Amend Complaint, Add Parties
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bid to Dismiss Schultz Suit Denied w/o Prejudice

ARONESTY AND SANTORO: Buscemi Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
ASCOT RIDGE: Haughwout et al. Seek Unpaid Wages for Cleaners
BANK OF AMERICA: Lusnak Seeks to Certify Loan Customers Class
BARCO ENTERPRISES: Kyzar Sues Over Unpaid Wages
BELL AND MCCOY: McLeod Seeks Proper Wages, Asserts FLMA Rights

BLAZIN WINGS: Removes Woods Case to Northern Dist. of California
BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Brown BELO Suit With Prejudice
CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE: FAC in Cooley Dismissed With Prejudice
CAMELBAK PRODUCTS: Sells Defective Water Bottles, Lepkowski Asserts
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Janik Suit Over Data Breach

CAPITAL ONE: Merritt Sues Over Data Security Breach
CELEBRITY CRUISES: Johnson Brings Class Action Over TCPA Violation
CHEMOURS COMPANY: $1.7MM Disbursed for Medical Monitoring
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Causes of Action in Cape Fear River Suit Tossed
CHEMOURS COMPANY: County of Dutchess Suit Underway

CHICAGO TITLE: 2d Cir. Affirms Gale Suit Dismissal w/o Prejudice
CKF ENTERPRISES: Court Stays Ware Labor Suit Until Oct. 25
CLOUDERA INC: Dvornic Hits Share Drop Over Obsolete Software
CONTRACT CALLERS: Kelly Sues Over Confusing Debt Collection Letter
CRAY INC: Faces Hewlett Packard-Merger Related Suits

CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Huggins Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Infineon Merger-Related Suits
DALLAS, TX: Court Narrows Claims in Gbalazeh Suit
DANIEL COONEY: Web Site Violates Disabilities Act, Picon Alleges
DAVITA INC: Still Defends Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Suit

DC TRANSPORT: Court Amends Prelim Approval of Bykov Suit Settlement
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Multiple Motions in Consolidated NY Suit Pending
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Olivares Suit v. Futuredontics Ongoing
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Securities Class Action Ongoing in E.D.N.Y.
DIALAMERICA MARKETING: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Edwards Says

ELI LILLY: 7th Cir. Appeal in Medical Mutual of Ohio Suit Pending
ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Actos-Related Class Suits in Canada
FLORIDA: Harrell et al. Seek to Certify 2 Subclasses
FORD MOTOR: Cook Suit Moved From M.D. Alabama to E.D. Michigan
FORD MOTOR: Goodfriend Sues Over False Fuel Economy Ads

GEO GROUP: Immigration Detainees' Class Suits Ongoing
GMRI INC: Does not Pay Managers Overtime Wages, Hurn Suit Says
GOLD CROWN: Hankins Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
GREENSPOON MARDER: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in LaPan Suit
HORIZON GLOBAL: Elston Seeks to Certify FLSA Class

HUGOTON ROYALTY: Chieftain Settlement Hearing Still Set for Oct. 7
ICONIX BRAND: Still Defends Securities Class Lawsuit in S.D.N.Y.
IMPERIAL LLC: Faces Melvin Suit for Discrimination and Retaliation
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Jansen Hits Share Price Drop
JUBILANT DRAXIMAGE: Faces Suit Over Radioactive Medicine Monopoly

KASPER TOYOTA: Gangluff Remanded to Ohio State Court
KC PLUMBING: Diaz Seeks Overtime Pay, Claims Retaliation
KRAFT HEINZ: Amended Complaint Filed in Osborne ERISA Lawsuit
KRAFT HEINZ: Still Defends 3 Securities Class Suits in N.D. Ill.
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Tanious Class Suit Transferred to C.D. California

LOS CASTILLOS: Santana Seeks OT Wages for Deli Staff
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Sarasota GEDBPP Suit Asserts Securities Act Breach
MDL 2905: Copley v. ZF TRW over Defective Airbag Moved to Calif.
MDL 2905: Samouris v. ZF TRW over Defective Airbag Moved to Calif.
MDL 2905: Santos v. ZF TRW over Defective Airbag Moved to Calif.

MELINTA THERAPEUTICS: Appeal from Nixed Class Suit Still Pending
NATIONWIDE BANK: Court Denies Filing of SAC in Hughes Suit
NEW BALANCE: Carrillo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Lassair et al. Seek to Certify Contamination Suit
NEW YORK: Education Board Files Appeal v. Paul in Gulino Suit

NEWELL BRANDS: Continues to Defend Oklahoma Firefighters Suit
NEWELL BRANDS: Cosolidated Class Suit in New Jersey Ongoing
OMNICELL INC: Bursick Class Action Ongoing
OMNICELL INC: Management Conference in Heard Suit Set for Oct. 3
OMNICELL INC: Mazya Class Action Underway

ONCTERNAL THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Merger-Related Class Suits
PASCO COUNTY, FL: Squitieri, et al. Seek to Certify Class
PK MANAGEMENT: Kansas Court Grants Bid to Amend Riley Suit
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: UTVs Do not Meet OSHA Standards, Guzman Says
PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal in Trojan Class Action Still Pending

PROSHARES TRUST II: Defendants Seek Dismissal of Consolidated Suit
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Johnson ERISA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
RESPIRE MEDICAL: Does not Properly Pay Employees, Hoke Suit Says
RETIREMENT COMMITTEE: Kirk Suit Asserts ERISA Breach
RHODES ENTERPRISES: Davis Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages

ROYAL PLAZA: Pillco Sues Over Unlawful Wage and Tips Distribution
RUBY'S MIDTOWN: Hickey Hits Misappropriated Tips
SAKS FIFTH AVENUE: Morrison Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Class Certification Hearing Set for Sept.6
SANSONE JR'S 66: MadeUnsolicited Phone Calls, Manopla Suit Asserts

SIGNET JEWELERS: PERS of MS Opposes Petition to Appeal to 2nd Cir.
SKINNER SERVICES: Court Certifies Reporting Class
SLOAN ENVIRONMENTAL: Huddleston Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
SLOMIN'S INC: Turizo Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
SOC LLC: Court Denies Bid for Sanctions in Risinger Suit

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Clark-Alonso Sues Over Illegal Call Recordings
SPRINGFIELD: 1st Cir. Affirms Class Cert Denial in ADA Suit vs SPDS
SUFFOLK COUNTY: Newkirk et al. Seek to Certify Class
SUNTRUST BANK: Asks Georgia High Court to Review Bickerstaff Order
SUNTRUST BANKS: Wants Remaining Claims in ERISA Case Tossed

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Automated Calls Invade Privacy, Huff Says
TEEKAY OFFSHORE: Monosson Sues Over Violation of Fiduciary Duties
TERRILL OUTSOURCING: Ward Sues over Debt Collection Practices
TRIHEALTH INC: Plan Members Sues Over Mismanaged Retirement Fund
U.S. BANK: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Guiette Suit

UNITED AIRLINES: Bid to Remand Brown Suit to State Court Granted
US BANK: Continues to Face Class Suits Related to RMBS Trusts
VERB TECHNOLOGY: Kim Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
VICAL INCORPORATED: Lanzet Files Suit Over Sale to Brickell
WALMART INC: Jewell Sues for Failure to Warn of Dangerous Herbicide

WELLS FARGO: ATM Access Fee Suit Ongoing
WELLS FARGO: Continues to Defend Hernandez and Coordes Class Suit
WELLS FARGO: Mortgage Fees Final Approval Hearing Set for Oct. 9
WELLS FARGO: Nov. 7 Final OK Hearing on Interchange Litig. Accord
WELLS FARGO: Oct. 9 Auto Insurance Settlement Fairness Hearing

WHATCOM COUNTY, WA: Kortlever Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
WILL COUNTY, IL: Court Denies Motion to Certify Class as Moot
XCESS, INC: Slack Seeks Minimum Wages, Tips for Exotic Dancers
ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN: Concealed Deadly Airbag Defect, Lawrence Says
ZOLL MEDICAL: Sharma Seeks Unpaid Wages for Sales Agents


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 237 Talcum Suits vs. Colgate-Palmolive Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 357 Cases vs. AK Steel Still Pending at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Appeals Jury Verdict in Oklahoma Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Records $783MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $5.4MM Liability at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deem's Case Subject to Admiralty Jurisdiction
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Still Defends Falk PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Unit Remains Subject to PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has $41.1MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UTC Records $328MM Asbestos Liability at June 30



                            *********

3M COMPANY: Vega Suit Seeks Damages Over Defective Earplug
----------------------------------------------------------
Angel Luis Dumont Vega, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 3M Company, 3M Occupational
Safety LLC, Aearo Holdings LLC, Aearo Intermediate LLC, Aearo LLC,
and Aearo Technologies LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01723 (D.
P.R., July 26, 2019), seeks to recover actual, compensatory,
consequential, incidental and punitive damages, attorneys' fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, legal and equitable relief
resulting from negligence and for breach of implied and express
warranty.

Defendants sold dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs to the US Armed
Forces for use as hearing protection for military personnel,
protecting against the disorienting effects of loud impulse noises
such as improvised explosive devices and gun fire, yet still allow
the service member to hear low-level noises critical to mission
safety such as commands, footsteps and encroaching enemies. It,
however, dislodges from the ear in a manner that is imperceptible
to the wearer. 3M settled a False Claims Act lawsuit with the
United States Government for over $9 million but has yet to remedy
the harm it caused to the tens of thousands of service members,
including Vega, a retired United States Army National Guard.

3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Paul, Minnesota. Aearo Group is a wholly owned
subsidiary of 3M Company. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Rivera Velez, Esq.
     P.O. Box 191059
     San Juan, PR 00919
     Telephone: (787) 620-2856
     Fax. (787) 777-1589
     Email: wrvlaw@gmail.com

            - and -

     Gregory F. Cox, Esq.
     Michael A. Burns, Esq.
     Caroline L. Maida, Esq.
     MOSTYN LAW FIRM
     1509 Lopez Landron
     Piso 12, Suite 2
     San Juan, PR 00911
     Tel: (787) 886-2748
     Fax: (844) 270-4288
     Email: gfcdocketefile@mostynlaw.com
            epefile@mostynlaw.com

            - and -

     Bryan Aylstock, Esq.
     AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
     17 E. Main Street, Suite 200
     Pensacola, FL 32502
     Tel. (850) 202-1010
     Fax. (850) 916-7449
     Email: baylstock@awkolaw.com


ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS: O'Brien Suit Challenges Sale to Cisco
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT O'BRIEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., MURUGESAN SHANMUGARAI,
BENNY P. MIKKELSEN, VINCENT ROCHE, DAVID J. ALDRICH, PETER Y.
CHUNG, LAURINDA Y. PANG, STAN J. REISS, and JOHN RITCHIE, Case No.
1:19-cv-01463 (D. Del., Aug. 5, 2019), is brought on behalf of
stockholders for breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of the
Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to Cisco Systems, Inc., and
Amarone Acquisition Corp., as a result of an unfair process for an
unfair price, and to enjoin an upcoming stockholder vote on a
proposed all-cash transaction valued at a price of $70 per share.

Acacia is organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and has
its principal place of business in Maynard, Massachusetts.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Acacia develops, manufactures, and sells high-speed coherent
optical interconnect products in the United States, China, Germany,
Thailand, and internationally.  The Company offers embedded and
pluggable module products consisting of optical interconnect
modules with transmission speeds ranging from 100 to 1,200 gigabits
per second for use in long-haul, metro, and inter-data center
markets.

Non-Defendant Cisco designs, manufactures, and sells Internet
Protocol based networking and other products related to the
communications and information technology industry worldwide.
Cisco is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
California and has its principal place of business in San Jose,
California.  Cisco is Acacia's fifth largest customer, accounting
for 14 percent of the company's $339.9 million in revenue last
year.

Non-Defendant Merger Sub is a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
created to effectuate the Proposed Transaction.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667-6200
          E-mail: mackerman@brodskysmith.com


AKORN INC: Preliminary Hearing Monday on Securities Class Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
Akorn, Inc. has entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement consistent with the terms of the non-binding agreement
in principle to resolve claims in the putative class action
litigation captioned In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity Securities
Litigation, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2019.

Hearing on the lead plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement is set for August 26, 2019.  Any objections to the
motion for preliminary approval are due no later than August 19,
2019.

Akorn, Inc. previously disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Company
and the other defendants in a putative class action litigation
captioned In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity Securities Litigation,
C.A. No. 18-cv-1713 (N.D. Ill.) concerning certain alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Securities
Class Action") entered into a non-binding agreement in principle to
resolve the Securities Class Action and the claims of the putative
class (the "Class Claims").

On August 9, 2019, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement consistent with the terms of the
non-binding agreement in principle (the "Securities Class Action
Settlement Agreement") to resolve the Class Claims, and lead
plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
Securities Class Action Settlement Agreement and certain related
matters.  As previously disclosed, the court has set a hearing on
the motion for preliminary approval for August 26, 2019.  Any
objections to the motion for preliminary approval are due no later
than August 19, 2019.

The terms of the Securities Class Action Settlement Agreement
provide for the release of Class Claims by the putative class in
exchange for a combination of (i) up to US$30 million in insurance
proceeds from the Company's D&O insurance policies, (ii) the
issuance by the Company of approximately 6.5 million shares of the
Company's common stock and any additional shares of Company common
stock that are released as a result of the expiration of out of the
money options through December 31, 2024 (collectively, the
"Settlement Shares") and (iii) the issuance by the Company of
contingent value rights ("CVR") with a five year term, subject to
an extension of up to two years under certain circumstances.  Under
the terms of the Securities Class Action Settlement Agreement,
holders of the CVR would be entitled to receive an annual cash
payment from the Company of 33.3% of "Excess EBITDA" (i.e.,
earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization
(EBITDA) above the amount of EBITDA required to meet a 3.0x net
leverage ratio, assuming a US$100.0 million minimum cash cushion,
before any such CVR payment is triggered).  To the extent any such
annual payments are triggered under the CVR, they are capped at an
aggregate of US$12.0 million per year and US$60.0 million in the
aggregate during the term of the CVR.

Upon certain change of control transactions during the term of the
CVR, if the Company's senior debt and other debt for borrowed money
is repaid in full in cash, the CVR would entitle the holders
thereof to a cash payment in the aggregate amount of US$30.0
million (the "Change of Control Payment").  If the Company is the
subject of a voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy filing during the
term of the CVR, the CVR agreement would provide that holders of
the CVR would receive in the aggregate a US$30.0 million general
unsecured claim (which general unsecured claim will be subordinated
to the Company's senior debt in accordance with the terms of the
Securities Class Action Settlement Agreement) (the "Bankruptcy
Claim").  The US$60.0 million cap on annual payments would not
apply to the Change of Control Payment, if any or affect the
Bankruptcy Claim, should it arise.  No further amounts would be
payable under the CVR following such a change of control
transaction or bankruptcy event.  The Securities Class Action
Settlement Agreement contemplates that the Settlement Shares and
the CVR will be issued pursuant to the exemption from registration
provided by Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

The Securities Class Action Settlement Agreement is subject to
numerous terms and conditions including, among other things, (i)
the unilateral right of the Company and the other defendants in the
Securities Class Action to terminate the Securities Class Action
Settlement Agreement if persons who purchased a number of shares
exceeding an agreed threshold opt out of and elect not to
participate in or be bound by its terms and (ii) final approval of
the Securities Class Action Settlement Agreement by the court.
There can be no guarantee that the Company and the other defendants
will not exercise their termination right or that the Securities
Class Action Settlement Agreement will receive court approval.

The foregoing description of the Securities Class Action Settlement
Agreement does not purport to be complete and is subject to, and
qualified in its entirety by, the full terms of the Securities
Class Action Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement,
dated as of August 9, 2019, is available at https://is.gd/Nny2NI

The Company and the other defendants in the Securities Class Action
have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims alleged
in the Securities Class Action, and the entry into the Securities
Class Action Settlement Agreement is not an admission of wrongdoing
or acceptance of fault by the Company or any of the other
defendants.

Akorn, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, and markets generic and branded prescription
pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter (OTC) consumer health products,
and animal health pharmaceuticals in the United States and
internationally. The company operates in two segments, Prescription
Pharmaceuticals and Consumer Health. Akorn, Inc. was founded in
1971 and is headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Olberg May Amend Complaint, Add Parties
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFF OLBERG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. C18-0573-JCC (W.D. Wash.),
Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend their complaint and add parties.

On April 18, 2018, the Plaintiffs initiated the class action
against the Defendant, alleging that it violated the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, Revised Code of Washington section 19.86,
by relying on manipulated automobile valuation data to underpay the
Plaintiffs' total claims for insured loss vehicles.  The Plaintiffs
allege that in making these condition adjustments, the Defendant
used valuation reports provided by CCC Information Services ("CCC")
which purported to contain values for comparable used vehicles
recently sold or for sale in the geographic area of the insured as
a basis for valuing loss vehicles.  They allege that the Defendant
instructed CCC regarding the data included in CCC's reports and
decided "whether to base the valuation on gray-market vehicles that
are not comparable to the insured vehicle.  In its answer, the
Defendant generally denied the Plaintiffs' allegations, but
admitted to using CCC's valuation reports.

The Plaintiffs amended their complaint, joining Plaintiffs Michael
Clothier and Jacob Thompson and Defendant Allstate Fire and
Casualty Insurance Co., and adding allegations related to those
parties.  Per the extended case schedule, the parties will file
pleadings regarding class certification beginning Sept. 20, 2019.

The Plaintiffs again move to amend their complaint to join CCC as a
Defendant; to add allegations regarding gray market vehicles and
CCC's role in the calculation and use of condition adjustments; to
allege the Defendants' and CCC's conspiracy; and to clarify the
class definition.  The Plaintiffs claim that their proposed
amendments will "aid in efficient adjudication" of their claims and
are based on newly discovered evidence.

The Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' motion to amend, alleging
that the proposed amendments are made in bad faith, unduly delayed,
prejudicial, and futile.  

Judge Coughenour finds that the parties do not dispute that CCC was
involved in the calculation of condition adjustments that are the
subject of Plaintiffs' claims.  There are common questions of law
and fact as to CCC's and Defendants' actions and duties.  Thus,
joinder of CCC as a Defendant is proper.

The Judge next evaluates other factors pertaining to the
Plaintiffs' proposed amendments.  He finds that the Defendants have
not shown that the Plaintiffs knew or should have known the facts
contained in their proposed amendments such that they should have
included those facts in their initial complaint.  The Plaintiffs
cite to new evidence obtained during discovery as the source of
their proposed amendments regarding gray market vehicles and CCC's
involvement.  Their actions do not suggest bad faith or undue
delay: The Plaintiffs moved to amend within a reasonable time of
receiving the Defendants' supplementary discovery responses and
portions of the Defendants' contract with CCC, and after the
parties' telephonic conferences regarding discovery matters.
Moreover, the deadlines for class certification are still months
away.  Thus, the Plaintiffs' motion to amend does not unduly delay
litigation.

He also finds that the parties do not dispute that CCC was directly
involved in the transactions underlying the Plaintiffs' claims.
The parties also do not dispute that an agreement existed between
CCC and the Defendants.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs' conspiracy
claim is not futile, as the Plaintiffs' allegations raise a
reasonable expectation that discovery will shed further light on
their proposed conspiracy claim.

Finally, the Defendants claim that the Plaintiffs' amendments would
be prejudicial because they would change the nature of the suit,
require duplicative discovery and depositions, increase litigation
costs, and conflate the actions and duties of CCC and the
Defendants.  For the reasons already set forth by the Court, and
for the sake of judicial efficiency, the Judge holds that the
Defendants' claim of prejudice does not outweigh the reasons for
allowing the amendment.

For these reasons, Judge Coughenour granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for leave to amend complaint and add parties.  The Plaintiffs will
file their second amended complaint within 14 days of the date the
order is issued.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/TU6OZb from Leagle.com.

Jeff Olberg, an individual & Cecilia Ana Palao-Vargas, an
individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by David L. Woloshin --
dwoloshin@astorweiss.com -- ASTOR WEISS KAPLAN & MANDEL, LLP, pro
hac vice, Dina S. Ronsayro -- dronsayro@astorweiss.com -- ASTOR
WEISS KAPLAN & MANDEL, LLP, pro hac vice, John M. DeStefano --
‎johnd@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, pro hac
vice, Marc A. Goldich , AXLER GOLDICH LLC, pro hac vice, Robert B.
Carey --  ‎rob@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP,
pro hac vice & Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

Michael Clothier, an individual & Jacob Thompson, an individual,
Plaintiffs, represented by Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP.

Allstate Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Peter J. Valeta -- valeta@cozen.com -- COZEN
O'CONNOR, pro hac vice, Wendy Enerson -- wenerson@cozen.com --
COZEN O'CONNOR, pro hac vice, Anusha E. Jones -- aejones@cozen.com
-- COZEN O'CONNOR & William Harrison Walsh -- wwalsh@cozen.com --
COZEN O'CONNOR.

Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, an Illinois
Corporation, Defendant, represented by William Harrison Walsh,
COZEN O'CONNOR.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bid to Dismiss Schultz Suit Denied w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARGARET SCHULTZ, individually, and on behalf of a
putative class, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 18-80633-CIV-ALTMAN/Branno (S.D. Fla.), Judge Roy K.
Altman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida denied without prejudice the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss.

On May 14, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
against American Airlines ("AA"), alleging breach of contract and
unjust enrichment.  On May 25, 2017, the Plaintiff saw a flight
listed for $197 on AA's website.  When she "clicked" on the
corresponding link to pay -- and after proceeding through a series
of screens that required her to enter her passenger and credit card
information -- AA's website informed her that the price of the
ticket had increased to $297.

The operative complaint, now in its third iteration ("TAC"),
contains a single breach of contract claim and is the subject of
AA's Motion to Dismiss, filed on Nov. 16, 2018.  The Court referred
the Motion to the Magistrate Judge for a Report & Recommendation
("R&R").  On March 27, 2019, after oral argument, and with the
benefit of briefing by both parties, the Magistrate Judge issued an
R&R recommending that the Plaintiff's claims be dismissed with
prejudice.

AA's central argument is that the TAC should be dismissed for
failure to state a claim.  Specifically, AA says that, as a matter
of law, the parties never entered into a valid contract for a $197
ticket -- and that, as a result, AA could not have breached that
non-existent contract.  AA also contends that the ADA preempts the
Plaintiff's breach of contract claim.  In support of this position,
it argues that the Plaintiff's claim would require the Court to
create a new, enforceable state law right to purchase a particular
flight at a particular price once American advertises it on its
website.  And, because this new state law right would obligate AA's
behavior with respect to "price and ticket services," AA says the
Plaintiff's breach of contract claim does not meet the "voluntary
commitment" exception the Supreme Court recognized in Am. Airlines,
Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (1995).

Schultz unsurprisingly disagrees.  In her account, AA offered her
an airline ticket for $197 and then reneged on that offer once she
clicked "pay now."  Moreover, Schultz adds, citing the Supreme
Court's holding in Wolens, the ADA does not preempt her state-law
breach of contract claim.

Congress enacted the ADA in 1978 to deregulate domestic air
transportation.  The ADA preempts state-law claims, statutes, or
regulations "relating to rates, routes, or services of any air
carrier.  The Supreme Court has, however, carved out a narrow
exception to the ADA's preemption provisions for suits alleging
that an airline breached its obligations under a contract.  As the
Wolens Court noted, the "terms and conditions airlines offer and
passengers accept are privately ordered obligations" that are not
preempted by the ADA.  This limit on the ADA's preemptive scope
allows state-law claims against airlines for "routine
breach-of-contract claims" because analyzing these claims "simply
holds the parties to their agreements."  The Wolens exception,
then, permits state-law suits against airlines only where an
airline has "dishonored a term the airline itself stipulated" to,
and "confines courts, in breach-of-contract actions, to the
parties' bargain, with no enlargement or enhancement based on state
laws or policies external to the agreement."  Because the TAC
purports to raise a fairly routine breach of contract claim -- that
is, that the airline "dishonored a term" it had "stipulated" to --
Judge Altman finds that Schultz's breach of contract claim is not
preempted by the ADA.

The Plaintiff concedes that AA refused to issue her a ticket -- or
enter into a contract -- for $197.  Instead, she argues that AA's
advertisement of a $197 ticket was a firm offer she was entitled to
accept.  AA, for its part, argues that, under well-established
principles of contract law, its advertisement constituted, not an
offer, but an invitation to negotiate.

The Judge finds that because the availability of Schultz's seat --
no less than the price Schultz would have to pay for that seat --
was subject to the vagaries of supply and demand, Schultz has
failed to show that AA's advertised fare was "clear, definite, and
explicit, and left nothing open for negotiation."  As the TAC makes
clear, a passenger's contract with AA is composed of (1) the issued
ticket and (2) the terms and conditions set out in the "Conditions
of Carriage."  Schultz concedes that AA never accepted her money or
issued her a ticket --two facts that, per the express terms of the
"Conditions of Carriage," belie her contention that the order form
she filled out constituted her acceptance of an offered contract.

The Judge holds that the record contains little evidence, one way
or the other, on some of the inferences he has made in the Order.
In this respect, he notes that the discovery deadline has passed,
the dispositive motions deadline is tomorrow, and the Court's
adjudication of these legal questions would benefit from a more
developed evidentiary record on, among other things, the operation
of AA's pricing matrix, the number of consumers who purchased
tickets for Schultz's flight while she was navigating through the
order screens, whether Schultz's chosen seat could be reserved or
otherwise held before she clicked "pay now," and the specific
information AA conveyed to Schultz before she clicked "pay now."
As such, AA's Motion to Dismiss is denied without prejudice.

The Judge has conducted a de novo review of the record, the Report,
and the the parties' filings, and has otherwise carefully reviewed
the applicable law.  For the foregoing reasons, he did not adopt
the Magistrate Judge's R&R, and denied without prejudice the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/UC1KGm from Leagle.com.

Margaret Schultz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mason Kyle Kerns --
Mason@MasonKernsLaw.com -- Mason Kerns Law, P.A., Robert E.
Burkett, Jr. -- BOBBURKETTLAW@GMAIL.COM -- BURKETT LAW OFFICE &
Jeremy Harris Block, Mason Kerns Law, P.A.

American Airlines, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Marks
, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice, James E. Brandt, Latham &
Watkins LLP, pro hac vice, Michael E. Bern, Latham & Watkins LLP,
pro hac vice & Humberto H. Ocariz -- hocariz@shb.com -- Shook,
Hardy & Bacon L.L.P..


ARONESTY AND SANTORO: Buscemi Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Buscemi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Aronesty And Santoro, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-23112 (S.D. Fla., July 26, 2019), seeks statutory
damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Aronesty and Santoro operates as "Hair By Scott & Company," a
full-service hair salon. To promote its services, it engages in
unsolicited SMS ads sent en masse via an auto dialer. Buscemi did
not give his express written consent to be contacted in such
manner, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


ASCOT RIDGE: Haughwout et al. Seek Unpaid Wages for Cleaners
------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT HAUGHWOUT and DONNA HAUGHWOUT individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ASCOT RIDGE CORP,
SCOTT DECKER, JEFFREY GOLOWNER, DESPINA BONKOWSKI (a/k/a DESPINA
RAFTOPOULOS), ELIZABETH TOBIO, INGER NIELSON, JAMES POPPE (a/k/a
"JIM POPPE"), VINCENT BONKOWSKI, HARVEY FRIEDMAN, ANDREW VOllBECK,
GIANCARLO SCACCIA, and MAUREEN MOONEY, the Defendants, Case No.
610749/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Aug. 8, 2019), alleges that the Defendants
violated the New York Labor Law arising from their decision not to
pay employees minimum wages, wages for all hours worked, keep
records, provide wage statements (pay stubs), provide wage notices,
pay wages timely, and pay for the costs of tools.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants from approximately 1999
until approximately August 1, 2019. They performed cleaning,
maintenance work for the lot and building at 1 Ascot Ridge Great
Neck, New York 11021.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: 212 317-1200
          Facsimile: 212-317-1620
          E-mail: michael@faillacelaw.com
                  ctucker@falaillacclaw.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Lusnak Seeks to Certify Loan Customers Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DONALD M. LUSNAK, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-01855-GW-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
will move the Court on November 14, 2019, for an order:

   1. certifying a class:

      "all mortgage loan customers of Bank of America -- for loans
      made by  Bank of America or where Bank of America purchased
      obligations secured by the property -- whose mortgage loan
      is for a one -- to four- family residence located in
      California, and who paid Bank of America money in advance
      for payment of taxes and assessments on the property, for
      insurance, or for other purposes relating to the property,
      and did not receive at least 2 percent simple interest per
      annum on the amounts so held by Bank of America from July 1,

      2008 to the date of class certification."

   2. appointing Plaintiff as class representative to represent
      the Class; and

   3. appointing his counsel (Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
      LLP and McCune Wright Arevalo LLP) as Class Counsel to
      represent the Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:

          Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
          Avery S. Halfon, Esq.
          Roger N. Heller, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
          BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3336
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: msobol@lchb.com
                  rheller@lchb.com
                  ahalfon@lchb.com

               - and -

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          Elaine S. Kusel, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  esk@mccunewright.com

BARCO ENTERPRISES: Kyzar Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------
KARLY KYZAR, SARAH LITTLE AND ELIZABETH PRUITT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BARCO
ENTERPRISES, INC., JOHN D'ANTONI MARIANNE HOOD, LOGAN MCCOY and
MICHAEL RYAN, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00521-JWD-RLB (M.D. La.,
Aug. 12, 2019) is a collective action complaint in connection with
unpaid straight time, unpaid overtime, and an improperly reduced
sub-minimum wage hourly rate paid to restaurant servers at The
Chimes, a restaurant operated by the Defendants at three locations
in Baton Rouge and Covington in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiffs and the collective action class were pressured by
Defendants to work "off the clock" without being compensated for
mandatory work performed before and after each meal shift, notes
the complaint. They were not paid an overtime rate of one and
one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay when their hours
(both compensated and uncompensated) exceeded 40 per week. For the
hours they were compensated for, Plaintiffs and the collective
action class were improperly paid the federal sub-minimum wage
"tipped" hourly rate. Moreover, Defendants did not satisfy the
strict federal requirements that would permit them to pay their
servers the "tipped" wage rate, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs have worked for Defendants as servers at The Chimes
restaurant.

Barco Enterprises operates as "The Chimes" and is domiciled in
Baton Rouge. "The Chimes" is the trade name of a Louisiana
restaurant enterprise that currently has three locations – two in
Baton Rouge and one in Covington.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Daniel B. Davis, Esq.
     Randall E. Estes, Esq.
     Vivian Jeansonne, Esq.
     ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC
     850 North Boulevard
     Baton Rouge, LA 70802
     Phone: (225) 336-3394
     Facsimile: (225) 384-5419
     Email: dan@estesdavislaw.com
            randy@estesdavislaw.com
            vivian@estesdavislaw.com


BELL AND MCCOY: McLeod Seeks Proper Wages, Asserts FLMA Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA MCLEOD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. BELL AND MCCOY COMPANIES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-02995 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 12, 2019) is a collective
action and lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated employees to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages
from Defendant; and to vindicate her rights under the Family and
Medical Leave Act.

Plaintiff's employment letter stated that she would be categorized
as a salaried employee. Her duties included speaking with
customers, entering orders, correcting errors, and ensuring
correctness of shipping, that were all duties of a non-exempt
employee. Notwithstanding this, she was not paid overtime for hours
worked over 40. In April of 2018, Plaintiff discovered that she was
seven weeks pregnant and immediately notified her supervisor. In
July of 2018, Plaintiff was advised by her Ob/Gyn that she was
high-risk; Plaintiff had high blood pressure and complications with
sciatic nerve pain. Notwithstanding this, Defendant demanded that
Plaintiff work through lunch, denied her leave to attend doctor
appointments, and insisted that she stay late to make up time. The
Defendant also failed to calculate FMLA leave in the method most
favorable to her and failed to provide proper notice as proscribed
by the Department of Labor, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in the Expediting Department in
September 2016.

Defendant Bell and McCoy Companies, Inc. is a domestic for-profit
corporation doing business in the state of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Samantha Martinez, Esq.
     325 Heights Blvd.
     Houston, TX 77007
     Phone: (713) 333-3270
     Telecopier: (713) 333-3275
     Email: sam@mtzfirm.com


BLAZIN WINGS: Removes Woods Case to Northern Dist. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blazin Wings, Inc. removed the case styled NICOLE WOODS, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. BLAZIN' WINGS, INC., a Minnesota Corporation, doing
business as BUFFALO WILD WINGS GRILL & BAR; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. HG19018687 (Filed May 13,
2019), from the Superior Court in the State of California for the
County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on Aug. 8, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-04608
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts six causes of action for failure to provide
lawful meal periods; failure to authorize and permit lawful rest
periods; failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from
employment; knowing and intentional failure to comply with accurate
itemized wage statement provisions;  and violation of unfair
competition law.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          STACEY E. JAMES, Esq.
          KHATEREH S. FAHIMI, Esq.
          NOAH J. WOODS, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101.3577
          Telephone: 619 232 0441
          Facsimile: 619 232 4302
          E-mail: sjames@littler.com
                  sfahimi@littler.com
                  nwoods@littler.com

BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Brown BELO Suit With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GEORGE ROY BROWN, JR., v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION
INC., ET AL., SECTION I, Civil Action No. 18-9927 (E.D. La.), Judge
Lance M. Africk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana granted BP Exploration & Production, Inc. and BP
America Production Co.'s motion for summary judgment.

On Jan.  11, 2013, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier approved the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement ("MSA"), which includes a Back-End Litigation Option
("BELO") permitting certain class members who follow procedures
outlined in the MSA to sue BP for later-manifested physical
conditions.  Those individuals who worked as clean-up workers in
response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill are members of the
class covered by the MSA.

The case arises from Brown's alleged exposure to oil and gas
dispersants while he worked as a clean-up worker in response to the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  Brown was diagnosed in July 2014 with
chronic damage to his conjunctiva, chronic rhinosinusitis, reactive
airways dysfunction syndrome, and chronic eczematous reaction; and
in October 2015 with neurocognitive disorder with behavioral
changes and specific learning disorder with impairment in reading.

BP does not dispute that Brown was a clean-up worker after the oil
spill and that he is a member of the class covered by the MSA.  BP
also does not dispute that Brown's alleged conditions, diagnosed
after April 16, 2012, fit within the MSA's definition of a
later-manifested physical condition.

The Defendants move for summary judgment, however, arguing that
Brown cannot prove legal causation.  Specifically, it argues that
Brown must prove that his alleged conditions were legally caused by
his exposure to substances related to the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill and that he will not be able to meet his burden of proof in a
bench trial before the Court.

Judge Africk finds that to date, Brown has not indicated that he
has retained an expert who will testify on his behalf at trial, and
he has not disclosed to BP any expert reports in compliance with
the Court's June 12, 2019 deadline.  The only evidence before the
Court with respect to Brown's medical condition and that relates to
causation is a medical examination report performed by Dr. Dung
Michael Tran at the East Jefferson Parish Family practice health
clinic on July 2, 2014.

Essentially for reasons assigned by BP in its unopposed motion for
summary judgment, the Judge finds that Dr. Tran's report is not
competent summary judgment evidence.  Brown has failed to present a
genuine issue of material fact or present any evidence that would
support the fact that his injuries were caused by his alleged
exposure to oil and dispersants while he worked in response to the
spill.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Africk granted the motion for
summary judgment, and dismissed with prejudice all the claims
asserted by Brown against BP.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 9, 2019 Order and Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/vrNwKl from Leagle.com.

George Roy Brown, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Howard L. Nations
-- info@howardnations. com -- Nations Law Firm & Jade M. Ruiz,
Nations Law Firm.

BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company,
Defendants, represented by Sean Matthew Toomey --
stoomey@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Alexander J. Baynham --
ajbaynham@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore --
cbwilmore@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Devin C. Reid --
stoomey@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Don Keller Haycraft --
dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis & Russell Keith Jarrett --
dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis.


CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE: FAC in Cooley Dismissed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERRY C. COOLEY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE LAW
ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-02961-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the
Defendants' motions to dismiss the First Amended Class-Action
Complaint ("FAC").

The case arises out of Mr. Cooley's attempt to end his union
membership after the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. Am. Fed'n
of State, Cty., & Mun. Employees, Council 31, 138 S.Ct. 2448
(2018).  Mr. Cooley brings the putative class action alleging the
California State Law Enforcement Association ("CSLEA") violated his
constitutional rights by refusing to accept his resignation from
union membership, by continuing to deduct union-related fees from
his paycheck, and for having assessed him the equivalent of
now-impermissible agency fees.

On Feb. 22, 2019, Mr. Cooley filed the FAC alleging five counts:
(1) declaratory judgment; (2) injunctive relief; (3) monetary
relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; (4) conversion and trespass to
chattels; and (5) unjust enrichment. The FAC includes additional
allegations regarding Mr. Cooley's purported union membership
application; allegations that California Government Code Sections
1152(a) and 1153(a) are unconstitutional; and allegations as to
certain anticipated affirmative defenses.  But the foundation of
the FAC remains the same as in the original complaint: that the
Union violated Mr. Cooley's constitutional rights by refusing to
accept his resignation and by continuing to collect money from his
paycheck.  Mr. Cooley seeks a refund of all compulsory fees paid
before Janus, and all dues paid after Mr. Cooley's attempted
resignation in the wake of Janus.

Union Defendants, CSLEA and the California Association of Law
Enforcement Employees, move to dismiss Mr. Cooley's claims.
Defendant Xavier Becerra ("State") moves to dismiss Mr. Cooley's
claims that California Government Code Sections 1152(a) and 1153(a)
are unconstitutional.

Mr. Cooley opposes the motions.  He argues that, under Janus, he
has a constitutional right to resign his union membership at his
discretion and with immediate effect.  He further contends, with
his attempted resignation after Janus, he revoked any purported
consent to pay the Union and that the Union must therefore refund
to him all dues deducted from his paycheck after he announced his
desire to withdraw from the Union.  Mr. Cooley also asserts an
entitlement to a refund of the compelled portion of his membership
dues -- equivalent to the Union's charged fair-share service fee
(or agency fee) -- paid to the Union before Janus was decided

Judge Mendez concludes that the FAC's five counts seek relief on
the overlapping legal theories.  Mr. Cooley's suit rises and falls
with his claims of constitutional rights violations under Janus.
Because Mr. Cooley's legal theories fail to support any of the
causes of action, each count of the FAC is dismissed.

For these reasons, he granted the Union Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, and granted the State's Motion to Dismiss.  While leave to
amend should be freely given under certain circumstances, in the
case, the Plaintiff has already amended his complaint once and,
given that the legal issues clearly predominate over any factual
disputes, the Judge finds that a second bite at the apple is
futile.  He dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/aKOcvV from Leagle.com.

Terry C. Cooley, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley A. Benbrook --
brad@benbrooklawgroup.com -- Benbrook Law Group, Jonathan F.
Mitchell -- jonathan.mitchell@interpret.la -- Mitchell Law, PLLC,
pro hac vice & Talcott J. Franklin -- tal@talcottfranklin.com --
Talcott Franklin P.C., pro hac vice.

California Statewide Law Enforcement Association & California
Association of Law Enforcement Employees, as an individual
defendant and as Representative of the Class of all Affiliate
Associations of the California Statewide Law Enforcement
Association, Defendants, represented by Cassandra M. Ferrannini --
cferrannini@downeybrand.com -- Downey Brand LLP & Christopher Miles
Kolkey -- ckolkey@downeybrand.com -- Downey Brand LLP.

Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the
State of California & Adria Jenkins-Jones, Defendants, represented
by Maureen C. Onyeagbako, Department of Justice, Office of The
Attorney General.

William D. Brice, Movant, represented by Steven R. Burlingham,
Gary, Till, Burlingham & Lynch.


CAMELBAK PRODUCTS: Sells Defective Water Bottles, Lepkowski Asserts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL LEPKOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAMELBAK PRODUCTS, LLC and
CAMELBAK INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-04598
(N.D. Cal., Aug. 8, 2019) is a class action suit brought against
Defendants for manufacturing, distributing, and selling defective
CamelBak eddy Water Bottles.

CamelBak warranted that the CamelBak eddy is "spill-proof."
However, the design of the CamelBak eddy is fundamentally
defective. The bottles are not "spill-proof" because water may run,
flow, or fall out of the bottles. Plaintiff brings this action on
behalf of herself and a class of all similarly situated purchasers
of the CamelBak eddy in the United States for: (i) violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (ii) breach of express warranty; (iii)
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (iv) unjust
enrichment; (v) violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act ("CLRA"); (vi) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"); (vii) violation of California's False Advertising Law
("FAL"); (viii) negligent misrepresentation; and (ix) fraud.

Plaintiff Lepkowski purchased a CamelBak eddy Water Bottle 25 oz
for approximately $15 from Sports Basement in Berkeley,
California.

CamelBak Products sells hydration products, such as hydration packs
and water bottles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Phone: (925) 300-4455
     Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
     Email: ltfisher@bursor.com

          - and -

     Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     2665 S. Bayshore Dr. Ste. 220
     Miami, FL 33133-5402
     Phone: (305) 330-5512
     Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
     Email: scott@bursor.com


CAPITAL ONE: Faces Janik Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------
MARSHA B. JANIK, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CAPITAL
ONE, N.A., and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., Defendants, Case No. v
(D. Conn., Aug. 9, 2019) is an action on behalf of a nationwide
class and a Connecticut subclass against Defendants because of
their failure to protect the confidential information of millions
of consumers and small businesses, including financial information
(e.g., bank account numbers, fragments of transaction history,
self-reported income, and credit scores) and/or personal
information.

Defendant Capital One Financial Corporation, through its
subsidiaries, including Defendants Capital One, N.A., and Capital
One Bank (USA), N.A., is one of the largest credit card issuers in
the United States. Plaintiff Marsha Janik is an individual residing
in Southington, Connecticut, who has been a credit card customer of
Capital One.

Class members provided their Sensitive Information to Capital One
with the understanding that Capital One and any business partners
to whom Capital One disclosed the Sensitive Information would
comply with their obligations to keep such information confidential
and secure from unauthorized disclosures.  However, a data breach
occurred in March 2019 and Defendants did not publicly disclose the
data breach until July 29, 2019-- four months after the data breach
first occurred, nearly two weeks after they learned of the breach,
and three months after the Sensitive Information of over 100
million consumers was posted on GitHub.

The Defendants' security failures demonstrate that they failed to
honor their duties and promises by not maintaining an adequate data
security system to reduce the risk of data breaches and
cyber-attacks; adequately monitoring its system to identify the
data breaches and cyber- attacks; and adequately protecting
Plaintiff's and class members' Sensitive Information. Plaintiff and
the class members have, thus, been injured by the disclosure of
their Sensitive Information in the Data Breach, says the
complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James E. Miller, Esq.
     Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
     SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
     65 Main Street
     Chester, CT 06412
     Phone: 860-526-1100
     Fax: 800-300-7367
     Email: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
            lrubinow@sfmslaw.com


CAPITAL ONE: Merritt Sues Over Data Security Breach
---------------------------------------------------
TYRONE MERRITT, JOSEPH ROYAL, JR., and JOHN SPACEK, individually
and as representatives of the class, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE, N.A., and CAPITAL ONE BANK
(USA), Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01048 (E.D. Va., Aug. 9, 2019)
is a case about one of the largest data security breaches in
history, affecting millions of consumers who have entrusted their
confidential personal and banking information to Capital One.

On July 29, 2019, Capital One publicly acknowledged that it was
subject to one of the largest data breaches in history. The data
security breach disclosed the personal information related to
approximately 100 million Capital One accounts. The information
stolen in the breach includes names, mailing addresses, telephone
numbers, email addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth,
credit histories, and portions of credit card customer data. As a
result of Capital One's failure to protect its customers' sensitive
information, the plaintiffs and class members have been exposed to
fraud, identity theft, and financial harm, and are subject to a
heightened, imminent risk of such harm in the future. The
Plaintiffs seek redress individually, and on behalf of those
similarly-situated, for the injuries sustained as a result of
Capital One's negligent and intentional violations of law, says the
complaint.

Capital One Financial Corporation, a bank holding company, is
ranked as one of the 10 largest banks in the United States by
assets.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     GEOFFREY R. McDONALD, ESQ.
     JUSTIN M. SHELDON, ESQ.
     FRANK H. HUPFL, ESQ.
     GEOFF McDONALD & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     3315 West Broad Street
     Richmond, VA 23230
     Phone: (804) 888-8888
     Fax: (804) 359-5426
     Email: GMcDonald@mcdonaldinjurylaw.com
            JSheldon@mcdonaldinjurylaw.com
            FHupfl@mcdonaldinjurylaw.com

          - and -

     W. DANIEL "DEE" MILES, III, ESQ.
     ARCHIE I. GRUBB, II, ESQ.
     LESLIE L. PESCIA, ESQ.
     BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
     218 Commerce Street
     Montgomery, AL 36104
     Phone: (334) 269-2343
     Fax: (334) 954-7555
     Email: Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
            Archie.Grubb@BeasleyAllen.com
            Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com



CELEBRITY CRUISES: Johnson Brings Class Action Over TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CELEBRITY CRUISES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 0:19-cv-62003-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 9, 2019) is a putative
class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In efforts to drum-up business, Defendant would often send
marketing text messages providing different types of offers and
savings for future purchases without first obtaining express
written consent to send such marketing text messages as required to
do so under the TCPA. These messages were sent using mass-automated
technology through a third-party company hired by Defendant to send
marketing text messages on Defendant's behalf en masse.

Defendant knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA, causing
injuries to Plaintiff and members of the putative class, including
invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion, says the complaint. Through
this putative class action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to
halt Defendant's illegal conduct. Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendant.

Plaintiff is a natural person, and was a resident of Broward
County, Florida.

Defendant is one of the world's largest passenger-cruise lines,
offering cruises, vacation packages, and other travel services to
consumers nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     JIBRAEL S. HINDI, ESQ.
     THOMAS J. PATTI, ESQ.
     The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi
     110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954-907-1136
     Fax: 855-529-9540
     Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
            tom@jibraellaw.com


CHEMOURS COMPANY: $1.7MM Disbursed for Medical Monitoring
---------------------------------------------------------
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
disbursed approximately $1.7 million from escrow related to medical
monitoring.

The obligation was previously assigned to E. I. du Pont de Nemours
and Company ("DuPont"), but was reassigned to Chemours after the
Company's separation from DuPont on July 1, 2015.

In 2004, DuPont settled a class action captioned Leach v. DuPont,
filed in West Virginia state court, alleging that approximately
80,000 residents living near the Washington Works facility had
suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure
to PFOA in drinking water.

Among the settlement terms, DuPont funded a series of health
studies by an independent science panel of experts ("C8 Science
Panel") to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any
probable link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement,
between exposure to PFOA and disease.

The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the
settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and
pregnancy-induced hypertension, including preeclampsia, kidney
cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, and
diagnosed high cholesterol.

Under the terms of the settlement, DuPont is obligated to fund up
to $235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class
members and pay the administrative costs associated with the
program, including class counsel fees.

The court-appointed Director of Medical Monitoring implemented the
program and testing is ongoing with associated payments to service
providers disbursed from an escrow account which the Company
replenishes pursuant to the settlement agreement.

As of June 30, 2019, approximately $1.7 million has been disbursed
from escrow related to medical monitoring.

While it is reasonably possible that the Company will incur
additional costs related to the medical monitoring program, such
costs cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties
surrounding the level of participation by eligible class members
and the scope of testing.

In addition, under the Leach settlement agreement, DuPont must
continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of
PFOA in water to six area water districts and private well users.

At separation, this obligation was assigned to Chemours and is
included in the $22 million accrued for these matters at June 30,
2019 and December 31, 2018.

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: Causes of Action in Cape Fear River Suit Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 a court has dismissed
the medical monitoring, injunctive demand, and many other alleged
causes of actions in lawsuits against DuPont and the Company in
North Carolina federal court.

Civil actions have been filed against E. I. du Pont de Nemours
(DuPont) and Chemours in North Carolina federal court relating to
discharges from the Fayetteville site.

These actions include a consolidated action brought by public water
suppliers seeking damages and injunctive relief, a consolidated
purported class action seeking medical monitoring, and property
damage and/or other monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of the
putative classes of property owners and residents in areas near or
that draw drinking water from the Cape Fear River, and an action by
private well owners seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

It is possible that additional litigation may be filed against the
Company and/or DuPont concerning the discharges.

Ruling on the Company's motions in April 2019, the court dismissed
the medical monitoring, injunctive demand, and many other alleged
causes of actions in these lawsuits.

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: County of Dutchess Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------
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 a class action suit initiated by the County
of Dutchess, New York.

In June 2019, the County of Dutchess, New York filed a putative
class action on behalf of other state water suppliers having any
detectable amounts of PFOA and/or perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
(PFOS) in their water supply.

The matter was filed directly into the AFFF MDL against numerous
defendants who allegedly designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF).

Plaintiffs seek damages including treatment, extending and/or
modifying systems, and testing.

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 TITLE: 2d Cir. Affirms Gale Suit Dismissal w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN Q. GALE, JOHN Q. GALE, LLC, FKA Gale &
Kowalyshyn, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, GALE & KOWALYSHYN, LLC,
Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY, LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION,
individually and as a successor in interest to Transnation Title
Insurance Company, OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, TICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,
TICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED GENERAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees, TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 17-3497-cv (2d Cir.), Judge Barrington D.
Parker of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut's order
dismissing the Fourth Amended Complaint ("FAC") without prejudice.

Plaintiff-Appellant Gale is a Connecticut attorney, who, along with
John Q. Gale, LLC, formerly known as Gale & Kowalyshyn, LLC,
different iterations of his law firm, sued the
Defendants-Appellees, a group of title insurance companies,
alleging that they violated a Connecticut law that allows only
attorneys admitted to practice in Connecticut to act as real estate
title agents.  

Gale also works as a real estate title agent, writing title
policies.  Generally, under Connecticut law, only attorneys
licensed to practice in Connecticut may act as title agents in that
state.  Gale claims, however, that the Defendants-Appellees, title
insurance companies that do business in Connecticut, have been
employing for work as title agents individuals who are not licensed
Connecticut attorneys.

In 2006, Gale sued Defendants, contending that they had tortiously
interfered with business opportunities and violated Connecticut
statutes regulating trade practices.  Jurisdiction was predicated
on the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  Gale sought to
represent a class consisting of Connecticut attorneys and law firms
that worked in the title insurance industry, and he sought
injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages.

In the original complaint, the Plaintiffs included class-action
allegations and maintained those allegations through three
subsequent amendments to the original complaint.  The District
Court exercised federal jurisdiction over the initial and the
amended complaints under the CAFA, which confers jurisdiction when,
among other things, the case "is a class action."

After approximately 12 years of litigation, the Plaintiffs filed a
FAC that removed all class-action allegations and asserted only
state law claims on behalf of the individual Plaintiffs.  The
District Court for the District of Connecticut concluded that the
withdrawal of the class-action allegations divested it of CAFA
jurisdiction and dismissed the FAC without prejudice.

The Plaintiffs appeal, principally contending that the amendment
did not divest the District Court of jurisdiction.  Their main
contention is that the case should be governed by the
time-of-filing rule, which states that the jurisdiction of the
Court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action
brought.  The Plaintiffs claim that because the case was a class
action when it was filed, the District Court continues to have CAFA
jurisdiction after the FAC.

Judge Parker holds that this contention misunderstands the
time-of-filing rule and, in any event, was rejected in Rockwell
Int'l Corp. v. United States.  In Rockwell, the Court emphasized
that jurisdiction must be supported solely by the allegations in
the amended complaint and made clear that the rule that
subject-matter jurisdiction depends on the state of things at the
time of the action brought, does not suggest a different
interpretation.  The time-of-filing rule applies to changes of the
"state of things," but not to changes of the "alleged state of
things."  Therefore, because a court can look only to the amended
complaint to ascertain jurisdiction, "withdrawal of those
allegations that support a court's jurisdiction" will defeat
jurisdiction "unless they are replaced by others that establish
jurisdiction."  Therefore, by removing all class-action allegations
in the FAC, the Plaintiffs divested the District Court of CAFA
jurisdiction.

The Judge agrees with Judge Chatigny that when (i) federal
jurisdiction in a case filed originally in federal court rests
solely on CAFA, (ii) the jurisdiction-granting class-action
allegations are eliminated from the complaint, and (iii) no new
jurisdiction-granting allegations are added, the district court is
divested of CAFA jurisdiction and must dismiss the complaint.

Accordingly, Judge Parker affirmed the judgment of the District
Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/4MVvPe from Leagle.com.

Mathew P. Jasinski -- mjasinski@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC,
Hartford, CT, for appellants John Q. Gale, John Q. Gale, LLC, FKA
Gale & Kowalyshyn, LLC.

Ross L. Hirsch -- rhirsch@herrick.com -- (Arthur G. Jakoby --
ajakoby@herrick.com -- on the brief), Herrick, Feinstein LLP, New
York, N.Y., for appellees Chicago Title Insurance Company,
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, Fidelity National Title
Insurance Company, Lawyers Title Insurance Company, Ticor Title
Insurance Company, Ticor Title Insurance Company of Florida,
Transnation Title Insurance Company.

Frank J. Silvestri, Jr. -- fsilvestri@verrilldana.com -- Verrill
Dana LLP, Westport, CT, for appellee Old Republic National Title
Insurance Company.

Gerard D. Kelly -- GKELLY@SIDLEY.COM -- Kevin M. Fee --
KFEE@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, for appellee
Stewart Title Guaranty Company.


CKF ENTERPRISES: Court Stays Ware Labor Suit Until Oct. 25
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JULIA WARE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CKF ENTERPRISES,
INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5: 19-183-DCR (E.D.
Ky.), Judge Danny C. Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, granted
in part and denied in part the parties' motion to stay litigation
and toll the statute of limitations.

The Plaintiffs filed a purported class action Complaint, asserting
that the Defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act ("KWHA").  They contend
that they worked over 40 hours per week as independent contractors
for the Defendants, but their pay did not include an overtime
premium.  While the Plaintiffs assert that they were classified as
independent contractors, they contend that the Plaintiffs and
members of the class are actually employees as a matter of economic
reality.

The parties have tendered a stipulation and proposed agreed order
to stay litigation and toll the statute of limitations.  Their
filing has been docketed as a motion.  The stipulation and proposed
agreed order states that the parties have conferred and agreed to a
framework for exploring settlement through alternative dispute
resolution, including mediation.  Further, the parties indicate
that a stay would allow them to focus on the mediation process and
would promote judicial economy.  They also request that the Court
sets aside the deadline to conduct the Rule 26(f) meeting, and
extends the submission deadline for a proposed discovery plan until
the stay has been lifted.

Judge Reeves finds that because the present case is asserted to be
a class action (if subsequently certified), there is a strong
public interest in encouraging settlement.  Further, staying the
proceedings would conserves judicial resources while allowing the
parties to attempt settlement through alternative dispute
resolution.  Accordingly, a stay would promote judicial economy and
is in the public and the parties' best interest.

Next, he finds that the parties have failed to demonstrate that
equitable tolling is appropriate.  The Plaintiffs filed the action
against the Defendants which indicates that they have pursued their
rights.  However, it is ultimately unnecessary to conclude whether
it is sufficient to satisfy the first element of the Pace test
because the second element has not been briefed. The parties fail
to indicate whether some extraordinary circumstance stood in the
way of the Plaintiffs asserting their claims.

Further, the Judge specifically rejects tolling for all the
putative opt-in Plaintiffs.  It appears premature to grant blanket
tolling for the Plaintiffs who are currently hypothetical and have
not yet come before the court.  Because the Judge cannot identify
the putative opt-in Plaintiffs, he cannot determine whether they
have diligently pursued their rights or whether some extraordinary
circumstance stood in the way.

Finally,  the parties request that the Court toll the statute of
limitations of the KWHA for the length of the stay.  The KWHA does
not specify a statute of limitations for wage and hour claims.  The
Judge finds that while the parties do not assert the residency of
the Defendants, the Judge will assume for purposes of the analysis
that they are residents of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. However,
the parties do not indicate that the defendants are absent from the
Commonwealth or are absconding or concealing themselves.
Accordingly, the tolling provision does not apply to the present
case and the statute of limitations under the KWHA will not be
tolled during the stay.

Based upon the foregoing, Judge Reeves granted in part and denied
in part the parties' joint stipulation and proposed agreed order to
stay litigation and toll the action.  He granted the parties' joint
stipulation to stay the litigation docketed as a motion.  The case
will be stayed until Oct. 25, 2019.  He denied the parties' joint
stipulation to toll the statute of limitations docketed as a
motion.  The parties will file a joint status report regarding the
outcome of the mediation efforts on Oct. 28, 2019.  The Court does
not expect to extend the deadline so the parties should proceed
accordingly.  The deadlines set forth in the Order for Meeting and
Report are continued generally.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 9, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/i4myT4 from Leagle.com.

Julia Ware, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Ralph Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexandra K. Piazza
-- apiazza@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, David
M. Blanchard, Blanchard & Walker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Frances J.
Hollander, Blanchard & Walker, PLLC, pro hac vice, Harold L.
Lichten -- hlichten@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, PC, pro
hac vice, Olena Savytska -- osavytska@llrlaw.com -- Lichten &
Liss-Riordan, PC, pro hac vice, Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen --
sschalman-bergen@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice &
Shanon J. Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., pro
hac vice.

CKF Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Optim Support, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Jaron P. Blandford --
jblandford@mcbrayerfirm.com -- McBrayer PLLC, Jon A. Woodall --
jwoodall@mcbrayerfirm.com -- McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland,
PLLC & Cynthia L. Effinger -- ceffinger@mcbrayerfirm.com --
McBrayer PLLC.

Crinda Francke, Defendant, represented by Jaron P. Blandford,
McBrayer PLLC, Jon A. Woodall, McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie &
Kirkland, PLLC & Cynthia L. Effinger, McBrayer PLLC.


CLOUDERA INC: Dvornic Hits Share Drop Over Obsolete Software
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrei Dvornic, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cloudera, Inc., Thomas J. Reilly, Jim
Frankola, And Michael A. Olson, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04310
(N.D. Cal., July 26, 2019), seeks to recover damages caused by
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Cloudera is a software company specializing in the provision of
data management, machine learning, and advanced analytical tools to
businesses. Its chief product platform is a hybrid open source
software, or "HOSS," model which combines its proprietary software
with open source technology, most notably the Apache Software
Foundation's open-source Hadoop software. Cloudera went public in
an initial public offering in April 2017, selling 17.25 million
shares of common stock at $15.00 per share and raising over $258
million in gross offering proceeds.

Cloudera's Hadoop-based technology had become increasingly
outdated, and was being surpassed by new cloud-based offerings by
competition and failed to identify large enterprises interested in
adopting its platform. As a result, Cloudera needed to spend an
increasing amount of capital on sales and marketing activities to
generate new revenues. The Company provided a disappointing outlook
for fiscal 2019, with total revenues of only $435 million to $445
million, representing a sharp deceleration in growth. In addition,
it expected negative operating cash flows for the year of between
$370 million and $375 million and non-GAAP losses of $0.62-$0.59
per share. On this news, the price of Cloudera common stock fell
over 40% to $13.29 per share on abnormally high volume of nearly 28
million shares on April 4, 2018.

On October 3, 2018, Cloudera merged with its primary competitor in
the Hadoop data analytics space, Hortonworks, Inc. in a
stock-for-stock deal, valued at $5.2 billion. However, the merged
entity would need to take a $62 million loss because of purchase
price accounting adjustments and also a $28 million write-down of
deferred commission expenses. In addition, customers were simply
migrating to a different form of data architecture and were
abandoning the Hadoop-based platform as obsolete. Cloudera common
stock fell over 40% to just $5.21 per share on abnormally high
volume of over 57 million shares on June 6, 2019.

Dvornic purchased Cloudera securities at artificially inflated
prices and suffered significant losses and were damaged thereby.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (818) 532-6499
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

              - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


CONTRACT CALLERS: Kelly Sues Over Confusing Debt Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vickie Kelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Contract Callers, Inc., a Georgia
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00110-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss.,
Aug. 8, 2019) is an action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, for a finding that Defendant's form debt collection letter
violates the FDCPA, and to recover damages for Defendant's
violation of the FDCPA.

The Defendant sent Ms. Kelly a form collection letter, dated
February 1, 2019, which stated that the original creditor is Second
Round Sub, LLC. However, Second Round Sub was never the "original"
creditor to whom Ms. Kelly owed a debt, the complaint asserts. Ms.
Kelly says the original creditor for the account at issue was
Comenity Bank for a Woman Within credit account. The Defendant's
letter alarmed and confused Ms. Kelly because she never had an
account with Second Round Sub, the complaint. relates

Plaintiff Vickie Kelly is a citizen of the State of Mississippi,
from whom Defendant attempted to collect a defaulted consumer
debt.

Defendant CCI operates a nationwide defaulted debt collection
business and attempts to collect defaulted debts from consumers in
virtually every state, including consumers in the State of
Mississippi.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edwin Woods, Jr. , Esq.
     Bond, Botes & Woods, P.C.
     5760 I-55 North Frontage Road, Suite 100
     Jackson, MS 39211
     Phone: (601) 353-5000
     Email: ewoods@bondnbotes.com

          - and -

     Bradford W. Botes, Esq.
     Bond, Botes, Reese & Shinn, P.C.
     15 Southlake Lane, Suite 140
     Birmingham, AL 35244
     Phone: (205) 802-2200
     Fax: (205) 870-3698
     Email: bbotes@bondnbotes.com

          - and -

     David J. Philipps, Esq.
     Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
     Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
     Philipps & Philipps, Ltd.
     9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
     Palos Hills, IL 60465
     Phone: (708) 974-2900
     Fax: (708) 974-2907
     Email: davephilipps@aol.com
            mephilipps@aol.com
            angie@philippslegal.com


CRAY INC: Faces Hewlett Packard-Merger Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------
Cray 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 been named as a defendant
in lawsuits challenging its merger deal with Hewlett Packard.

On May 16, 2019, the Company entered into an agreement and plan of
merger, (the "Merger Agreement"), with Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Company, a Delaware corporation ("HPE"), and Canopy Merger Sub,
Inc., a Washington corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of HPE
("Merger Sub").

On June 19, 2019, a putative shareholder class action complaint was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King
County against Cray and the individual members of Cray's Board of
Directors, captioned Keith v. Cray Inc., et al., Case No.
19-2-16273-2 SEA (the "Keith Complaint"), asserting that the Board
of Directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed transaction with HPE by, among other things, allegedly
conducting a flawed and conflicted sales process and by causing to
be disseminated a materially incomplete and misleading proxy
statement.

On June 24, 2019, a similar putative shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
Washington for Snohomish County against Cray and the individual
members of Cray's Board of Directors, captioned Delman v. Ungaro,
et al., Case No. 19-2-05756-31 (the "Delman Complaint").

On July 10, 2019, another similar putative shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
Washington for King County against Cray and the individual members
of Cray's Board of Directors, captioned Rapacki v. Cray, et al.,
Case No. 19-2-18093-5 SEA (the "Rapacki Complaint" and together
with the Keith Complaint and the Delman Complaint, the "State Court
Actions").

On June 20, 2019, a putative shareholder class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court, District of Delaware,
against Cray, the individual members of Cray’s Board of
Directors, HPE and Merger Sub, captioned Davie v. Cray Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01148-UNA (the "Davie Complaint").

On June 21, 2019, another putative shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the same court against Cray, the individual
members of Cray's Board of Directors, HPE and Merger Sub, captioned
Kent v. Cray Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01157-UNA (the "Kent
Complaint"), and on June 24, 2019, an individual action was filed
in the same court against the same defendants, captioned Stein v.
Cray Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01188-UNA (the "Stein Complaint"
and together with the Davie Complaint and Kent Complaint, the
"Delaware Complaints").

On July 2, 2019, a putative shareholder class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington against Cray and the individual members of Cray's
Board of Directors, captioned Epstein v. Cray Inc., et al., Case
No. [2:19-cv-01026] (the "Epstein Complaint" and together with the
Delaware Complaints, the "Federal Court Actions").

The Federal Court Actions each assert that defendants violated
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making untrue
statements of material fact and omitting certain material facts
related to the contemplated merger in the proxy statement.

The State Court Actions and the Federal Court Actions seek, among
other things, an order enjoining defendants from consummating the
Merger, money damages and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees.


The probable outcome of the State Court Actions and the Federal
Court Actions cannot be determined, nor can the Company estimate a
range of potential loss.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend those actions. As a result, the
Company considers the likelihood of a material loss related to
these matters to be remote.

Cray Inc., incorporated on December 7, 1987, is engaged in
designing, developing, manufacturing, marketing and servicing the
high performance computing (HPC) market, primarily categories of
systems known as supercomputers. The Company provides data
analytics, artificial intelligence and storage solutions. The
Company's segments include Supercomputing, Storage and Data
Management, Maintenance and Support, and Engineering Services and
Other. The company is based in Seattle, Washington.


CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Huggins Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------
SHERRY HUGGINS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CURALEAF HOLDINGS, INC., JOSEPH LUSARDI,
NEIL DAVIDSON, and JONATHAN FAUCHER, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-04640 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 12, 2019) is a class action on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded Curaleaf securities between November 21, 2018 and
July 22, 2019, inclusive. Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

On November 21, 2018, Curaleaf issued a press release entitled,
"Curaleaf Launches CBD Consumer Product Line," announcing that it
had launched Curaleaf Hemp, a line of hemp-based CBD products for
sale on a new website, http://www.curaleafhemp.com/.On April 23,
2019, Curaleaf filed with the Canadian Securities Exchange Audited
Financial Statements for the period ended December 31, 2018 (the
"2018 Financials"). The 2018 Financials were signed by Defendants
Lusardi and Davidson. The 2018 Financials contained signed
certifications by Defendants Lusardi and Davidson attesting to the
accuracy of the financial statements and the disclosure of all
fraud. On May 10, 2019, Curaleaf issued a press release entitled
"Leading Cannabis Company Curaleaf Enters CBD Pet Market With New
Bido Brand."

However, the statements were materially false and/or misleading
because they misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects,
which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Curaleaf, on its website and
social media pages, marketed its CBD products to be used as drugs
and dietary supplements, contrary to law; (ii) Curaleaf also sold
unapproved animal drugs on its website; (iii) such conduct would
result in a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA"); and (iv) 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.

On July 22, 2019, the FDA sent a warning letter to Curaleaf
regarding several CBD products sold at http://curaleafhemp.com.The
Warning Letter noted that Curaleaf was selling unapproved new and
misbranded drugs, improperly marketing its CBD products as dietary
supplements, and selling unapproved new animal drugs in violation
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. On this news, shares
of Curaleaf fell $0.58 per share, or 7.27%, to close at $7.40 per
share on July 23, 2019, damaging investors. 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, says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased Curaleaf securities during the Class Period.

Curaleaf purports to operate as an integrated medical and wellness
cannabis operator in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
            ahood@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 377-1181
     Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
     Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

          - and -

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


CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Infineon Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Cypress Semiconductor 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 has been named as a defendant in several class action suits
related to its merger with Infineon.

On June 3, 2019, Cypress entered into an agreement and plan of
merger with Infineon and IFX Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, among other
things, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the
Company continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Infineon. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the
Company's shareholders will receive $23.85 in cash for each share
of Cypress common stock owned. The consummation of the Proposed
Transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including the
approval of the stockholders of Cypress.

Following the public announcement of the Merger Agreement,
purported stockholders of the Company filed nine lawsuits against
the Company and the members of its Board of Directors: Wang v.
Cypress Semiconductor Corp. et al., 19-cv-03855 (N.D. Cal., filed
July 3, 2019); Wheby v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. et al.,
19-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed July 8, 2019); Baxter v. Cypress
Semiconductor Corp. et al., 19-cv-03944 (N.D. Cal., filed July 9,
2019); Salpeter-Levy v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. et al.,
19-cv-06369 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 10, 2019); Jeweltex Mfg. Inc.
Ret. Plan v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. et al., 19-cv-03978 (N.D.
Cal., filed July 11, 2019); Hatt v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. et
al., 19-cv-15400 (D.N.J., filed July 15, 2019); Starosciak v.
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation et al., 19-cv-01315 (D. Del.,
filed on July 16, 2019); Fredericks v. Cypress Semiconductor
Corporation et al., 19-cv-04139 (N.D. Cal., filed on July 18,
2019); and Nozawa v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation et al.,
19-cv-06821 (S.D.N.Y., filed on July 23, 2019).  

Wheby, Baxter and Nozawa are purported class actions and eight
complaints contend, among other things, that the Company's
preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14A, filed July 2, 2019,
misstates or fails to disclose certain allegedly material
information in violation of federal securities laws (Fredericks
alleges similar theories based on the Company's definitive proxy
statement on Schedule 14A, filed July 16, 2019).  

Each seeks equitable relief, including seeking an injunction of the
merger, among other remedies.  

Cypress said, "Although we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of
these cases with certainty, the Company believes that these
lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend against them
vigorously."

Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, incorporated on September 26,
1986, manufactures embedded system solutions for automotive,
industrial, home automation and appliances, consumer electronics
and medical products. The Company's segments include
Microcontroller and Connectivity Division (MCD), and Memory
Products Division (MPD). Its programmable systems-on-chip,
general-purpose microcontrollers, analog integrated circuits (ICs),
wireless and Universal Serial Bus (USB)-C based connectivity
solutions and memories help engineers design differentiated
products. The company is based in San Jose California.


DALLAS, TX: Court Narrows Claims in Gbalazeh Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the case, YVETTE GBALAZEH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
DALLAS, TEXAS, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-0076-N (N.D.
Tex.), Judge David C. Godbey of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, (i) granted in part
and denied in part the City's motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1);
and (ii) denied the City's motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The case is about the enforcement of three panhandling laws in
Dallas, Texas.  Dallas Ordinance Section 31-35 prohibits
solicitation by coercion, after sunset, and in certain specified
areas of the City.  Dallas Ordinance Section 28-63.3 prohibits
solicitation of occupants of vehicles from public property adjacent
to the roadway.  Section 28-63.3 defines solicitation as, either
orally or in writing, (1) asking for a ride, employment, goods,
services, financial aid, monetary gifts, or any article
representing monetary value, for any purpose; or (2) offering to
sell something; or (3) giving away goods, services or publications;
or (4) asking for signatures on a petition.  The final law, Texas
Transportation Code Section 552.007 prohibits a person standing in
a roadway to solicit a ride, contribution, employment, or business
from an occupant of a vehicle.  The statute makes a single
exception for individuals that have gained the permission of local
government to solicit charitable contributions, i.e., local fire
departments' "fill the boot" campaigns.

Plaintiffs Gbalazeh, Lee Sunbury, and Fred Sims allege that they
have been cited under each of these laws, and that all three
violate their First and Fourth Amendment rights.  In addition to
retroactive relief regarding their previous convictions, they seek
injunctive and declaratory relief stating the laws are
unconstitutional and preventing future enforcement.  By previous
Orders, the Court granted the Plaintiffs a preliminary injunction
with respect to section 28-63.3 and section 552.007, but not for
section 31-35.  The City now moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

The City argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over the Plaintiffs' claims for three reasons: (1) the Plaintiffs'
claims violate the abstention doctrine established in Younger v.
Harris; (2) the Plaintiffs' claims constitute collateral attacks on
final state court judgments in violation of the doctrine
established by Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. and D.C. Court of
Appeals v. Feldman; and (3) the Plaintiffs have failed to show they
have an injury under section 31-35 that satisfies the standing
requirements in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife.

Judge Godbey disagrees with the City's first and third arguments,
and agrees with its second only with respect to the Plaintiffs'
claims for retroactive relief.  He holds that Younger does not
strip the Court of subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs'
claims.  Younger abstention does not bar the Plaintiffs' claims
because they did not have an adequate opportunity to raise their
constitutional claims in state court.  The Municipal Courts may be
able to acquit them of a charge based on their constitutional
arguments, but the courts cannot grant an injunction enabling them
to legally engage in the activity going forward.

The Judge can clearly distinguish the sought after retroactive
relief (record expungement) from the prospective relief
(declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the constitutionality
of the laws).  Doing differently and adopting the City's position
would essentially insulate the laws from challenge.  The Plaintiffs
need to be injured by one of the laws to have standing.  But, under
the City's logic, if they pay the fine or accept an alternative to
custody, they cannot challenge the law's constitutionality to
protect what they believe to be their First Amendment right.  To do
so they would seemingly have to submit to custody and try their
luck with a habeas petition.  He rejects this reading of the law.
While the Plaintiffs cannot seek retroactive relief regarding their
past arrests or citations, they may continue to seek injunctive
relief regarding the future enforcement of the laws.

The Judge holds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a
threat of future prosecution under section 31-35 to establish an
injury-in-fact at the motion to dismiss stage.  They plead that the
City's historic enforcement of section 31-35, the fact that the
Dallas Police Department ("DPD") issued the nonenforcement policy
just after Plaintiffs filed the case, and the policy's temporal
wording create a real possibility that the City may resume
enforcing the ordinance at any time.  The Plaintiffs also allege
that this possibility is causing them to refrain from engaging in
what they believe to be constitutionally protected speech.  Such
allegations are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

The City argues that the Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed
under rule 12(b)(6) for two reasons: (1) the statute of limitations
bars all of the Plaintiffs' claims concerning events that occurred
before May 14, 2016; and (2) the Plaintiffs' fail to make out a
plausible claim under 28 U.S.C. Section 1983, the First Amendment,
and the Fourth Amendment.

The Judge holds that the Plaintiffs, including Gbalazeh, have
alleged enough of an injury at this stage to challenge section
31-35.  He sees no reason why it would have held differently at the
time Gbalazeh filed the Original Complaint.  If anything, the
threat of prosecution was even more credible at that time
considering that DPD had not yet issued the nonenforcement policy.
Accordingly, he holds that the claims in the Second Amended
Complaint relate back to the Original Complaint, and that the
Plaintiffs' claims are therefore not barred by the statute of
limitations.

Finally, given the plausibility of the First Amendment claims, the
Judge holds it is plausible that the Plaintiffs were deprived of
their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search
and seizure.  And given the plausibility of those violations, and
taking all inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor, the Judge holds
that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently made out a claim for
municipal liability under section 1983: they have identified a
policy maker (the City) that promulgated an official policy (the
three challenged laws) that became the moving force behind a
violation of constitutional rights (the First and Fourth
Amendments).

For the reasons stated, Judge Godbey granted the City's rule
12(b)(1) motion with respect to only the Plaintiffs' claims for
retroactive relief.  He denied the rest of the City's rule 12(b)(1)
motion, and the entirety of the City's rule 12(b)(6) motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 9, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/QddtvG from Leagle.com.

Yvette Gbalazeh, Lee Sunbury & Fred Sims, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Ramon
de Jesus Rodriguez -- Ramon@rrtxlaw.com -- Murphy Rodriguez, PLLC &
Christopher S. Murphy, Murphy Rodriguez, PLLC.

City of Dallas Texas, a municipality of the State of Texas,
Defendant, represented by Sonia Tahira Ahmed, City of Dallas
Attorney's Office, Justin Henry Roy, Dallas City Attorney's Office
& Kathleen MacInnes Fones, Dallas City Attorney's Office.


DANIEL COONEY: Web Site Violates Disabilities Act, Picon Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
YELITZA PICON AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED
v. DANIEL COONEY FINE ART, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-07357-JPO
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2019), alleges that in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Defendant's Web site is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers,
including the Plaintiff.

The Defendant is a Domestic Business Corporation registered to do
business in the State of New York with a principal place of
business located at 508-526 West 26th Street, in New York City.
The Defendant operates its art gallery, as well as the Website, and
advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                  DanaLGottlieb@aol.com


DAVITA INC: Still Defends Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
DaVita Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend the Peace
Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Georgia securities class
litigation.

On February 1, 2017, the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund
of Georgia filed a putative federal securities class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
against the Company and certain executives.

The complaint covers the time period of August 2015 to October 2016
and alleges, generally, that the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws concerning the Company's financial
results and revenue derived from patients who received charitable
premium assistance from an industry-funded non-profit organization.


The complaint further alleges that the process by which patients
obtained commercial insurance and received charitable premium
assistance was improper and "created a false impression of DaVita's
business and operational status and future growth prospects."

In November 2017, the court appointed the lead plaintiff and an
amended complaint was filed on January 12, 2018. On March 27, 2018,
the Company and various individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss.

On March 28, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado denied the motion to dismiss.

The Company answered the complaint on May 28, 2019.

The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend this
action accordingly.

DaVita Inc. provides kidney dialysis services for patients
suffering from chronic kidney failure or end stage renal disease
(ESRD). The company operates kidney dialysis centers and provides
related lab services in outpatient dialysis centers. The company
was formerly known as DaVita HealthCare Partners Inc. and changed
its name to DaVita Inc. in September 2016. DaVita Inc. was founded
in 1994 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


DC TRANSPORT: Court Amends Prelim Approval of Bykov Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VALERIY BYKOV, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DC TRANSPORT, INC., a
California Transport Company; DC TRANSPORT, INC., a Texas
Corporation; DC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. dba DC TRANSPORT
state of corporation unknown; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01691 DB (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Deborah Barnes of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California has issued an order amending Order Granting
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement nunc pro tunc.

The Court entered its Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement on March 28, 2019.  The Order preliminarily
approved the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release of Class
Action entered by the Parties and filed with the Court on Feb. 11,
2019, ordered notice to be sent to the potential settlement class
members, set certain deadlines, and made various other provisions.

Paragraph I.4 of the Agreement defines the Settlement Class as the
Plaintiff and all other California residents who work or worked as
truck drivers and who are or have been classified as independent
contractors by the Defendants from March 9, 2017 through the date
of preliminary approval.  The Defendant has represented that the
Settlement Class consists of approximately 92 Class Members.

The Agreement also has an escalator provision, at paragraph VIII.3
of the Agreement, which states that in the event the class list
contains more than 102 Class Members, then the Gross Settlement
Value will be increased proportionately for each additional Class
Member over 102.

Judge Mitchel R. Goldberg (Ret.) analyzed the Defendants' finances,
including reviewing profit and loss statements, balance sheets, tax
returns, and actual and projected cash flow statements.  In his
declaration, Judge Goldberg stated the Defendants' Financials, a
lump sum settlement payment in an amount materially greater than
the $475,000 settlement payment required under the parties'
Memorandum of Understanding, would be expected to impose a
significant financial hardship or material adverse effect on the
Defendants that could threaten their continued business operations.
It is his opinion that the $475,000 lump sum settlement amount is
fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

The Defendants have advised the Plaintiffs' counsel that the
Defendants' present financial condition is worse than the
projections provided to Judge Goldberg and the Defendants project
continued declines throughout 2019.

In preparing the class list to provide to the settlement
administrator after the Order was signed, the Defendants determined
that the actual number of the class members was higher than
previously thought.  The electronic log data that they provided to
the Plaintiff's counsel went back as far as Jan. 1, 2018, because
that is when the Defendants' independent contractors began using
electronic logs. The electronic log data contained time data for 92
independent contractors who were active at the time the log data
was generated, and this was the total number of independent
contractors who had used electronic logs since they were put into
place in January 2018.

In addition to the 92 independent contractors who were active at
the time the electronic time data was generated, the comprehensive
spreadsheet provided to the Plaintiff's counsel also identified an
additional 24 drivers who had driven for the Defendants from Jan.
1, 2018 until the date of the mediation, but who were not active at
the time the electronic log data was generated.  In other words,
the total number of drivers from Jan. 1, 2018 to the time of the
mediation was in fact 116 (117 including the Plaintiff), not 92.

Since the date of the mediation, six additional drivers drove for
the Defendants following the time documents were provided shortly
before mediation, bringing the total number of drivers who drove
for the Defendants from Jan. 1, 2018 to the present to 122 (123
including the Plaintiff).

The Defendant has represented that it does not have the financial
ability to pay an additional amount under the escalator provision
of the Agreement, for the additional 20 drivers over and above the
102 figure within the buffer of the escalator clause.  This
representation is supported by the prior declaration of Judge
Goldberg.  If the Court requires, the Defendant will submit an
additional declaration from Judge Goldberg.

The Parties agree that a modification of time period in the
definition of "Settlement Class" (in paragraph I.4 of the
Agreement) from March 9, 2017 to Jan. 1, 2018 is warranted based on
the Defendant's ability to pay, and will not change the fairness
analysis and will more adequately represent the group of
individuals that the Parties discussed at mediation.

The total class size following the modification of the time period
to cover Jan. 1, 2018 forward is 123 drivers, reflecting the 92
drivers who were active at the time the electronic log data was
provided; the 24 drivers who drove for the Defendants following
Jan. 1, 2018 but who were not active on the date of the mediation;
the six drivers who drove for the Defendants following the time
documents were provided shortly before the mediation; and Plaintiff
Bykov.

The Parties agree that the Settlement is still fair and reasonable
with the additional drivers, as the average payout to the class
members and average weekly contract amount is reasonable and
justified under the circumstances.  Specifically, the average
payout to the class members (assuming 92 class members plus the
Plaintiff) will decrease from $3,405.91 to $2,575.20.  However,
since the Settlement Agreement contemplates up to 102 class members
(plus the Plaintiff) being included in the settlement as it now
stands, the average payout per class member would actually be
$3,075.24 for up to 102 drivers under the current deal, so the
reduction in the average payout per class member, if the Court
allows the parties to amend the settlement via this Stipulation,
will only decrease by an average of $500.04 per class member.

Under the prior analysis, the class members would have received
approximately $18.61 for every week that they contracted with
Defendant during the class period.  However, including the
additional 10 class members allowed under the Settlement Agreement,
the class members will receive $16.98 per workweek.  Including the
additional class members will result in each class member receiving
approximately $15.97 for every week that they contracted with the
Defendants during the class period.  Therefore, including the 123
class members will only decrease the pay out for each workweek by
$1.01 per workweek;

The Plaintiff's counsel has also agreed, if necessary, for the
Court to approve the modification, to reduce its fee request from
25% of the Gross Settlement Amount to 20%.  If the Plaintiff's
counsel reduces its attorneys' fees to 20%, then the average payout
for all the 123 class members will be $2,768.29, which is only a
reduction of, on average, $306.95 from the actual average payout
per class member contemplated under the Settlement Agreement in its
existing framework versus with the additional drivers being
included for the existing settlement amount with no escalated
amount;

In light of Defendants' confirmed inability to pay and demonstrated
worsening financial condition, the Plaintiffs' counsel has agreed
to waive the escalator provision in Paragraph VIII.3 of the
Agreement, such that no increase will be made to the Gross
Settlement Value based on the modified Settlement Class from 92 to
123.

For the foregoing reasons, the Parties respectfully requested the
Court to approve, the following proposed change to paragraph I.4
of the Agreement:  The 'Settlement Class' will be defined as
'Plaintiff and all other California residents who work or worked as
truck drivers and who are or have been classified as independent
contractors by Defendants from Jan. 1, 2018 through the date of
preliminary approval.'

They respectfully request the Court to approve a modification nunc
pro tunc to page 11, lines 4-8 of the Court's March 28, 2019 Order
approving the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the
Settlement.  The modified language will read: "2. Pursuant to Rule
23, and for purposes of settlement only, the following class,
estimated to consist of 123 truck drivers, is preliminarily and
conditionally certified: 'Plaintiff and all other California
residents who work or worked as truck drivers and who are or have
been classified as independent contractors by Defendants from
January 1, 2018 through the date of preliminary approval.'"

The Parties also respectfully request that the Court order that the
previously approved class notice be amended, nunc pro tunc, to
indicate that the definition of "Settlement Class" has been
modified.

The Parties additionally request that the Court reset the deadlines
that are already running to the date of approval of the Amended
Preliminary Approval Order.

The Parties additionally request that the Court modify paragraph
VIII.3 of the Agreement, which presently states, "In the event the
class list contains more than 102 Class Members, then the Gross
Settlement Value will be increased proportionately for each
additional Class Member over 102" to "In the event the class list
contains more than 123 Class Members, then the Gross Settlement
Value will be increased proportionately for each additional Class
Member over 123."

Magistrate Judge Barnes granted the parties' May 24, 2019
stipulated motion to amend the preliminary approval order.  She
vacated the July 12, 2019 hearing of the parties' stipulated motion
to amend the preliminary approval order.

Good cause exists to modify Page 11, lines 4-8 of the Order
Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement nunc pro
tunc to read: "2. Pursuant to Rule 23, and for purposes of
settlement only, the following class, estimated to consist of 123
truck drivers, is preliminarily and conditionally certified:
'Plaintiff and all other California residents who work or worked as
truck drivers and who are or have been classified as independent
contractors by Defendants from Jan. 1, 2018 through the date of
preliminary approval.'"

Good cause exists to amend Paragraph I.4 of the Agreement to define
the "Settlement Class" as the Plaintiff and all other California
residents who work or worked as truck drivers and who are or have
been classified as independent contractors by the Defendants from
Jan. 1, 2018 through the date of preliminary approval.

The Class Notice previously approved by the Court will be amended
to reflect the following definition for class members: "The
Plaintiff and all other California residents who work or worked as
truck drivers and who are or have been classified as independent
contractors by Defendants from Jan. 1, 2018 through the date of
preliminary approval."

The Final Approval Hearing Schedule is as follows:

     a. Defendant to provide Class List to the Settlement
Administrator - Within 7 calendar days of the date of the Order

     b. Settlement Administrator to mail Notice - Within 21
calendar days of the date of the Packet to Class Members Order

     c. Deadline for Class Members to object to, or opt out of the
Settlement - Within 30 calendar days after mailing of the Notice
Packet by the Settlement Administrator.

     d. Plaintiff to file Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and
Service Payment - Not less than 25 calendar days after the mailing
of the Notice Packet

     e. Deadline for Plaintiff to file Motion for Final Approval -
Not less than 28 calendar days before the Final Approval Hearing

Good cause exists to amend paragraph VIII.3 of the Agreement to "In
the event the class list contains more than 123 Class Members, then
the Gross Settlement Value will be increased proportionately for
each additional Class Member over 123."

Pursuant to the Plaintiff's counsel's stipulation, the Class
Attorney Fees will not exceed 20% of the gross settlement amount.

A Final Approval hearing on the question of whether the proposed
Settlement, including the requested attorneys' fees and costs to
Class Counsel that will be included in the forthcoming motion for
fees and costs, and whether the Class Representative's Incentive
Award should be finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate
as to the members of the Class is set for Dec. 20, 2019 at 10:00
a.m. in courtroom no. 27.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/IPrhtD from Leagle.com.

Valeriy Bykov, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Justin Ackermann --
cja@ackermanntilajef.com -- Ackermann & Tilajef, PC & Jonathan
Melmed, Melmed Law Group P.C.

DC Transportation Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Brandon
Reed McKelvey -- brandon@medinamckelvey.com -- Medina McKelvey LLP
& Timothy B. Nelson, Medina McKelvey LLP.


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Multiple Motions in Consolidated NY Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona 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 motions lodged in a
consolidated shareholder class action in New York state court
seeking to dismiss an amended complaint, to stay discovery pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss, and to stay litigation remain
pending.

On June 7, 2018, and August 9, 2018, two putative class action
suits were filed, and later consolidated, in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York claiming that the Company
and certain individual defendants, violated U.S. securities laws
(the "State Court Class Action") by making material
misrepresentations and omitting required information in the
December 4, 2015 registration statement filed with the SEC in
connection with the Merger.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants failed to
disclose, among other things, that a distributor had purchased
excessive inventory of legacy Sirona products and that three
distributors of the Company's products had been engaging in
anticompetitive conduct.

The plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of a class of
former Sirona shareholders who exchanged their shares for shares of
the Company's stock in the Merger.

The Company has filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, to
stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss, and to
stay all proceedings pending resolution of a federal class action.


These motions are pending before the court.

Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was formerly known as
DENTSPLY International Inc. and changed its name to DENTSPLY SIRONA
Inc. in February 2016. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Olivares Suit v. Futuredontics Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona 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 Futuredontics, Inc.
continues to defend a class action lawsuit initiated by Henry
Olivares.

On January 25, 2018, Futuredontics, Inc. received service of a
purported class action lawsuit brought by Henry Olivares and other
similarly situated individuals in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles.

In January 2019, an amended complaint was filed adding another
named plaintiff, Rachael Clarke, and various claims.

The plaintiff class alleges several violations of the California
wage and hours laws, including, but not limited to, failure to
provide rest and meal breaks and the failure to pay overtime.

The parties have engaged in written and other discovery.

On February 5, 2019, Plaintiff Calethia Holt (represented by the
same counsel as Mr. Olivares and Ms. Clarke) filed a separate
representative action in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging a
single violation of the Private Attorneys' General Act that is
based on the same underlying claims as the Olivares/Clarke lawsuit.


On April 5, 2019, Plaintiff Kendra Cato filed a similar action in
Los Angeles Superior Court alleging a single violation of the
Private Attorneys' General Act that is based on the same underlying
claims as the Olivares/Clarke lawsuit.

The Company continues to vigorously defend against these matters.

Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was formerly known as
DENTSPLY International Inc. and changed its name to DENTSPLY SIRONA
Inc. in February 2016. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Securities Class Action Ongoing in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend against a securities class action lawsuit before the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

On December 19, 2018, a related putative class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against the Company and certain individual defendants (the "Federal
Class Action").

The plaintiff makes similar allegations and asserts the same claims
as those asserted in the State Court Class Action.

In addition, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated
U.S. securities laws by making false and misleading statements in
quarterly and annual reports and other public statements between
February 20, 2014, and August 7, 2018.

The plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of a putative class
consisting of (a) all purchasers of the Company's stock during the
period February 20, 2014 through August 7, 2018 and (b) former
shareholders of Sirona who exchanged their shares of Sirona stock
for shares of the Company's stock in the Merger.

The Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint is due to be
filed by August 15, 2019.

Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was formerly known as
DENTSPLY International Inc. and changed its name to DENTSPLY SIRONA
Inc. in February 2016. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.


DIALAMERICA MARKETING: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Edwards Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA EDWARDS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. DIALAMERICA MARKETING, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-01782
(N.D. Ohio, Aug. 6, 2019), accuses the Defendant of not paying its
non-exempt employees, including the Plaintiff and the class, for
all hours worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

DialAmerica Marketing, Inc. is a foreign corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and licensed to
conduct business in the State of Ohio.  The Defendant conducted
business in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and its principal place of
business in Ohio is located in Cuyahoga County.

DialAmerica provides call center services to its customers and
maintains numerous call centers throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


ELI LILLY: 7th Cir. Appeal in Medical Mutual of Ohio Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Medical Mutual of Ohio's
appeal from the order dismissing its lawsuit is currently pending
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The company is a defendant in approximately 470 Axiron personal
injury/product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving
approximately 470 plaintiffs.

In about one-third of the cases, other manufacturers of
testosterone are named as co-defendants. Nearly all of these
lawsuits have been consolidated in a federal multi-district
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

A small number of lawsuits have been filed in state courts. The
cases generally allege cardiovascular and related injuries.

The company has reached agreement on a settlement framework that
provides for a comprehensive resolution of nearly all of these
personal injury claims alleging cardiovascular and related injuries
from Axiron treatment. There can be no assurances, however, that a
final settlement will be reached.

The company is also been engaged in litigation with Medical Mutual
of Ohio ("MMO"), which filed a class action complaint against
multiple manufacturers of testosterone products, including the
company, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, on behalf of third-party payers who paid for those
products and is seeking damages under the Federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

MMO's motion for class certification was denied, and in February
2019, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of
defendants, dismissing MMO's lawsuit with prejudice. MMO's appeal
of this dismissal is currently pending before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Eli Lilly said, "We continue to believe all of these lawsuits are
without merit and are defending against them vigorously."

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.


ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Actos-Related Class Suits in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the company continues to
defend class action suits in Canada related to Actos.

The company is named along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd.
and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as a defendant in four
purported product liability class actions in Canada related to
Actos, which the company commercialized with Takeda in Canada until
2009, including one in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al.), one in Quebec (Whyte
et al. v. Eli Lilly et al.), one in Saskatchewan (Weiler v. Takeda
Canada Inc. et al.), and one in Alberta (Epp v. Takeda Canada Inc.
et al.).

In general, plaintiffs in these actions alleged that Actos caused
or contributed to their bladder cancer.

Eli Lilly said, "We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and
we and Takeda are defending against them vigorously."

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.


FLORIDA: Harrell et al. Seek to Certify 2 Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CLAYTON HARRELL, by and
through his next Friend, Connie Harrell, and AUSTIN TRUEBLOOD, by
and through his guardian, Suzanne Trueblood, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
CHAD POPPELL, in his official capacity as Secretary for the FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, and MARY MAYHEW, in her
official capacity as Secretary for the FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH
CARE ADMINISTRATION, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00912-BJD-MCR
(M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask for an order:

   1. certifying two subclasses:

      Subclass One:

      "Individuals who have been, are, or will be eligible for
      Medicaid pursuant to an Adoption Assistance Agreement and
      whose Medicaid coverage subsequently ended or will end
      under the Adoption Assistance category but who may remain
      eligible for another category of Medicaid"; and

      Subclass Two:

      "Individuals who have been, are, or will be eligible for
      Medicaid pursuant to the receipt of SSI benefits and whose
      Medicaid coverage subsequently ended or will end due to
      the cessation of SSI benefits but who may remain eligible
      for another category of Medicaid"; and

   2. designating Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel.

      Clayton Harrell and Austin Trueblood brought this action
      to challenge Defendants' pattern and practice of failing
      to conduct ex parte reviews for two categories of Medicaid
      participants: adopted children who formerly received
      Medicaid pursuant to an Adoption Assistance Agreement
      ("Adoption Assistance Medicaid"), and former Supplemental
      Security Insurance ("SSI") recipients.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Katy DeBriere, Esq.
          Katherine DeBriere, Esq.
          FLORIDA HEALTH JUSTICE PROJECT, INC.
          126 W. Adams Street
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 356-8371, ext. 333
          Facsimile: (904) 356-8780
          E-mail: debriere@floridahealthjustice.org

               - and -

          Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
          Rachel Siegel-McLaughlin, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS FLORIDA
          1000 N. Ashley Dr., Suite 640
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (850) 488-9071, ext. 9762
          Facsimile: (859) 488-8640
          E-mail: amandah@disabilityrightsflorida.org
                  rachels@dsiabilityrightsflorida.org

               - and -

          Marc Cohan, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW
             & ECONOMIC JUSTICE, INC.
          275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 633-6967
          E-mail: cohan@nclej.org

FORD MOTOR: Cook Suit Moved From M.D. Alabama to E.D. Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled WILLIAM DON COOK, individually and
behalf of all others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00335, was transferred on August 6, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The Michigan District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-12309-SFC to the proceeding.

The class action lawsuit is brought by Plaintiff William Don Cook,
on behalf of a class of current and former owners or lessees of
model year 2017 through 2019 Ford automobiles that were marketed
and sold with false fuel-economy ratings.  Such vehicles include
the 2019 Ford Ranger, 2018 Ford F-150.  The Plaintiff contends that
Ford represented to customers their vehicles had achieved specific
Miles Per Gallon estimates but Ford concealed that it conducted
inadequate and inaccurate EPA fuel economy testing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
          Leslie L. Pescia, Esq.
          Christopher Daniel Baldwin, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          272 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          E-mail: Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Leslie.Pescia@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Chris.Baldwin@BeasleyAllen.com

               - and -

          Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Boggs, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com
                  jboggs@baileyglasser.com


FORD MOTOR: Goodfriend Sues Over False Fuel Economy Ads
-------------------------------------------------------
HILARY GOODFRIEND, KATHRYN HUMMEL and SCOTT FORMAN, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-12377-SFC (E.D. N.Y.,
Aug. 12, 2019) is an action seeking relief for the injuries
sustained as the result of the inaccurate testing methods used by
Ford to ascertain the fuel economy ratings of their vehicles and
the resulting material misstatements of fuel economy, as well as
implicitly the accuracy of such ratings, used in the marketing and
sales of the Class Vehicles.

This is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs individually
and on behalf of all current and former Ford vehicle owners and
lessees of model years 2017-2019 (the "Class Vehicles") that were
marketed and sold with overstated fuel economy and who reside in
New York, Florida, and New Jersey. Ford announced on February 21,
2019 its fuel economy testing procedures that it performs in order
to receive official Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") fuel
economy ratings were not accurate and as a result the Class
Vehicles' fuel economy had been overstated. These fuel economy
ratings, resulting from mandated tests outlined and specified in
federal law, exist to help foster realistic metrics so that
consumers can compare them with vehicles of other manufacturers.
These metrics are one of the most important factors in a new-car
buyers' purchase decisions.

Ford has now admitted that its testing methods were incorrect and
produced artificially high fuel economy ratings. Ford's failure to
correct its false advertised MPG estimates, and concomitant failure
to disclose the defects in its fuel economy testing, constitutes
actionable misrepresentations, unfair, unlawful, fraudulent, and
deceptive business practices in violation of the consumer
protection laws of New York, New Jersey and Florida, and a breach
of Ford's express and implied warranties, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs all have purchased or leased a Ford model with inflated
fuel economy claims.

Ford is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of
business
and national headquarters located in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Melissa Emert, Esq.
     Howard T. Longman, Esq.
     STULL, STULL & BRODY
     6 East 45th Street, Suite 500
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 687-7230

          - and -

     Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
     KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
     747 Chestnut Ridge Road
     Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
     Phone: (845) 356-2570


GEO GROUP: Immigration Detainees' Class Suits Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, 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 filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment in the lawsuit initiated by the State
of Washington Attorney General based on the Company's position that
its legal defenses prevent the case from proceeding to trial.

Former civil immigration detainees at the Aurora Immigration
Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2014,
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado (the "Court").

The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the
Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the federal Trafficking
Victims Protection Act ("TVPA").

The plaintiff class claims that the Company was unjustly enriched
because of the level of payment the detainees received for work
performed at the facility, even though the voluntary work program
as well as the wage rates and standards associated with the program
that are at issue in the case are authorized by the Federal
government under guidelines approved by the United States Congress.


On July 6, 2015, the Court found that detainees were not employees
under the Colorado Minimum Wage Order and dismissed this claim. In
February 2017, the Court granted the plaintiff-class' motion for
class certification.

The plaintiff class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages,
exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees
and costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper.

In the time since the Colorado suit was initially filed, three
similar lawsuits have been filed -- two in Washington and one in
California.

In Washington, one of the two lawsuits was filed on September 9,
2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The second was filed on September 20, 2017 by the State Attorney
General against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of
Washington for Pierce County, which the Company removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 9,
2017.

In California, a class-action lawsuit was filed on December 19,
2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S.
District Court Eastern Division of the Central District of
California.

All three lawsuits allege violations of the respective state's
minimum wage laws. However, the California lawsuit, like the
Colorado suit, also includes claims that the Company violated the
TVPA and California's equivalent state statute.

On July 2, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in
the Washington Attorney General's Tacoma lawsuit based on the
Company's position that its legal defenses prevent the case from
proceeding to trial.

The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously
defend itself and has consistently refuted the allegations and
claims in these lawsuits.

The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to these matters
at this time, as a loss is not considered probable nor reasonably
estimable at this stage of the lawsuits.

GEO Group said, "We establish accruals for specific legal
proceedings when it is considered probable that a loss has been
incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.
However, the results of these claims or proceedings cannot be
predicted with certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of one or
more of these claims or proceedings could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows. Our accruals for loss contingencies are reviewed
quarterly and adjusted as additional information becomes available.
We do not accrue for anticipated legal fees and costs, but expense
those items as incurred."

The GEO Group, Inc. is the first fully integrated equity real
estate investment trust specializing in the design, financing,
development, and operation of correctional, detention, and
community reentry facilities around the globe. The company is
basedin Boca Raton, Florida.


GMRI INC: Does not Pay Managers Overtime Wages, Hurn Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL HURN and JOSE VIEIRA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GMRI, Inc., and DARDEN
RESTAURANTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03582-CAP (N.D.
Ga., Aug. 8, 2019) is a Collective Action Complaint against
Defendants, seeking all relief available under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 on behalf of Plaintiffs and all current and
former similarly situated Restaurant Managers ("RMs").

Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated RMs were required to
work more than 40 hours in a workweek while employed by Defendants
in order to complete their job duties. However, in accordance with
Defendants' policy, pattern, and/or practice, they were
misclassified as exempt from overtime compensation and were not
paid at the mandated rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked
in excess of 40 in a work week. The Defendants systematic failure
and refusal to pay Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated RMs
for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek violates the FLSA, says
the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as RMs at Olive Garden
restaurants.

Defendants own and operate 850 "Olive Garden" branded restaurants
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Edward D. Buckley, Esq.
     Rachel Berlin Benjamin, Esq.
     Isaac Raisner, Esq.
     BUCKLEY BEAL, LLP
     600 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3900
     Atlanta, GA 30308
     Phone: (404) 781-1100
     Facsimile: (404) 781-1101
     Email: edbuckley@buckleybeal.com
            rberlin@buckleybeal.com
            iraisner@buckleybeal.com

          - and -

     Jason Conway, Esq.
     CONWAY LEGAL, LLC
     1700 Market Street, Suite 1005
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 278-4782
     Facsimile: (215) 278-4807
     Email: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com


GOLD CROWN: Hankins Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Nichole Hankins and Charles Dudding, individually and on behalf of
all a class of similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOLD CROWN
MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00630-BP (W.D. Mo.,
Aug. 8, 2019) is a lawsuit brought as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid wages owed to
Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated workers employed at
Defendant's apartment complexes in Missouri and Kansas.

GCM advertises low paying hourly jobs on Craigslist and other
websites to attract disadvantaged workers who are in dire need of
employment. The Defendant's policy and practice is to take
advantage of these workers and deny them their earned wages and
overtime pay in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs work in maintenance, apartment leasing and property
management jobs at Defendant's apartment complexes in Gladstone,
Missouri; Overland Park, Kansas; and Kansas City, Kansas.

GCM is a Missouri real estate management company. GCM owns and
manages various apartment complexes in the Kansas City area.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael Williams, Esq.
     Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
     Amy R. Jackson, Esq.
     WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
     1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
     Kansas City, MO 64105
     Phone: (816) 945-7110
     Fax: (816) 945-7118


GREENSPOON MARDER: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in LaPan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Greenspoon Marder LLP filed an appeal from a Court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled LaPan v. Greenspoon Marder P.A., et al.,
Case No. 17-cv-130, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Vermont (Rutland).

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

The proposed class includes:

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

The appellate case is captioned as LaPan v. Greenspoon Marder P.A.,
et al., Case No. 19-2332, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

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

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

Defendant-Appellant Greenspoon Marder LLP is represented by:

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


HORIZON GLOBAL: Elston Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ELIZABETH ELSTON,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. HORIZON GLOBAL AMERICAS, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-02070-KHV-GEB (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff moves the Court
for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying her claims as a collective action
      pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   2. authorizing a notice to be mailed to all members of the
      class consisting of:

      "non-exempt hourly laborers and others with similar job
      titles, duties and compensation structures employed by
      Defendant at any time within the past three years";

   3. requiring Defendant to provide to Plaintiff the following
      within 10 days of the Court's Order: a list in electronic
      and importable format of the first and last names, last-
      known mailing address and email address, telephone numbers,
      dates of employment, location of employment, date of birth,
      and the last four digits of the individual's social security

      number, of all members of the putative class;

   4. requiring Defendant to post Notice of this lawsuit in
      conspicuous locations where it employs its non-exempt hourly

      laborers and others subject to similar compensation
      policies;

   5. tolling the statute of limitations period for the putative
      class members from the date of filing of Plaintiff’s motion

      for conditional class certification until the close of the
      opt-in period;

   6. designating Elston as class representative; and

   7. approving Elston's counsel to act as class counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Kathryn S. Rickley, Esq.
          Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
          OSMAN & SMAY LLP
          8500 W. 110th Street, Suite 330
          Overland Park, Kansas 66204
          Telephone: (913) 667-9243
          Facsimile: (866) 470-9243
          E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com
                  krickley@workerwagerights.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Stocker, Esq.
          Kathleen Anderson, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          71 Monroe Avenue N.W., Suite 1000
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2694
          E-mail: Jennifer.stocker@btlaw.com
                  Kathleen.anderson@btlaw.com

HUGOTON ROYALTY: Chieftain Settlement Hearing Still Set for Oct. 7
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing on the claims related to the settlement of a royalty class
action lawsuit styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc.
in Coal County District Court, Oklahoma, is scheduled for October
7, 2019, according to Hugoton Royalty Trust's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019.

As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, a royalty
class action lawsuit was filed against XTO Energy styled Chieftain
Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in Coal County District Court,
Oklahoma, in December 2010.  XTO Energy removed the case to federal
court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.  The plaintiffs allege
that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from royalty payments on
Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent efforts to secure the best
terms available for the sale of gas and its constituents, and
demanded an accounting to determine whether they have been fully
and fairly paid gas royalty interests.  The case was certified as a
class action in April 2012, then decertified in July 2013.

XTO Energy advised the Trustee that in December 2017, it reached a
tentative settlement with the plaintiffs for US$80 million and up
to an additional US$750,000 for costs to administer the settlement
following final approval.  In March 2018, XTO Energy advised the
Trustee that it believed the portion of the settlement that relates
to the Trust could be as much as US$20 million, but the settlement
allocable to the Trust could not be finally determined until after
the judge approved the plaintiffs' final plan of allocation.

On July 27, 2018 the final plan of allocation was approved by the
court.  Based on the final plan of allocation XTO Energy has
advised the Trustee that it believes approximately US$24.3 million
in additional production costs should be allocated to the Trust.

On May 2, 2018, the Trustee submitted a demand for arbitration
seeking a declaratory judgment that the Chieftain settlement is not
a production cost and that XTO Energy is prohibited from charging
the settlement as a production cost under the conveyance or
otherwise reducing the Trust's payments now or in the future as a
result of the Chieftain litigation.

The hearing on the claims related to the Chieftain settlement has
been scheduled for October 7, 2019.  Other Trustee claims related
to disputed amounts on the computation of the Trust's net proceeds
for 2014 through 2016 were bifurcated from the issues regarding
XTO's right to charge the Chieftain settlement as a production cost
and will be heard at a later date, which is still to be
determined.

Hugoton Royalty said, "If the approximately US$24.3 million
allocated portion of the Chieftain settlement results in an
adjustment to the Trust's share of net proceeds, it would result in
additional excess costs under the Oklahoma conveyance that would
likely result in no distributions under the Oklahoma conveyance for
several years, or more depending on the results of operations of
the underlying properties, while these additional excess costs are
recovered."

Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the laws of
Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into
on December 1, 1998 between XTO Energy Inc. (formerly known as
Cross Timbers Oil Company), as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as
trustee.  Southwest Bank is now the trustee of the Trust.


ICONIX BRAND: Still Defends Securities Class Lawsuit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. remains a defendant in a consolidated
securities class action suit in New York, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

Three securities class actions have been consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
the caption In re Iconix Brand Group, Inc., et al., Docket No.
1:15-cv-4860, against the Company and certain former officers and
one current officer (the "Class Action").

The plaintiffs in the Class Action purport to represent a class of
purchasers of the Company's securities from February 22, 2012 to
November 5, 2015, inclusive, and claim that the Company and
individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making allegedly
false and misleading statements regarding certain aspects of the
Company's business operations and prospects.

On October 25, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint filed by the Company and the
individual defendants with leave to amend.  On November 14, 2017,
the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint.

On February 2, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint.  The Company and the individual
defendants intend to vigorously defend against such claims.

Iconix Brand said, "At this time, the Company is unable to estimate
the ultimate outcome of these matters, but has recorded a
preliminary estimate of a settlement, which the Company believes
will fully be covered by insurance."

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

Iconix Brand Group, Inc., a brand management company, owns,
licenses, and markets a portfolio of consumer brands across the
women's, men's, and home industries in the United States and
internationally. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. was founded in 1978 and
is based in New York, New York.


IMPERIAL LLC: Faces Melvin Suit for Discrimination and Retaliation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Melvin, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. IMPERIAL, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-00729-SLP (D. Okla., Aug. 12, 2019) is an action for race
discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act, including differential treatment based upon race
and wrongful termination of employment. Additionally, Plaintiff
seeks compensation for himself and all others similarly situated
for Defendant's intentional misclassification of employees as
exempt in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff also
seeks unpaid wages for Defendant's intentional violation of the
Oklahoma Protection of Labor Act.

Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek but were not paid overtime for
hours worked in excess of 40. Other, non-African America employees
with equal or lesser experience than Plaintiff, performing the same
or substantially similar job functions and responsibilities started
their employment with Defendant at a higher rate of pay than
Plaintiff.

Plaintiff complained to Defendant about the disparity in pay
between himself and other, non-African American employees on
multiple occasion, including in the month prior to his termination
but the Defendant took no remedial action in response to Plaintiffs
complaint, and the differential treatment continued, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is African American and was an employee of Defendant from
approximately August 2, 2016 until his termination on or around May
31, 2017, as a route sales delivery drive.

Imperial, L.L.C., a domestic limited liability company operating in
Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     D. Colby Addison, Esq.
     Leah M. Roper, Esq.
     LAIRD HAMMONS LAIRD, PLLC
     1332 S.W. 89th Street
     Oklahoma City, OK 73159
     Phone: 405.703.4567
     Facsimile: 405.703.4567
     Email: colby@lhllaw.com
            leah@lhllaw.com


INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Jansen Hits Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
MARC JANSEN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES INC.,
ANDREAS FIBIG, and RICHARD A. O'LEARY, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-07536 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 12, 2019) is a class action on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
IFF securities between May 7, 2018 and August 5, 2019, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

IFF purports to be an "innovator of sensory experiences" by
creating products that consumers taste, smell, or touch. IFF
acquired Frutarom Industries Ltd. ("Frutarom") in October 2018 for
$7.1 billion. After the acquisition, the Company's product
portfolio includes natural colors, antioxidants for food
preservation, nutraceuticals, ingredients for infant formula and
proteins for elderly nutrition, and expanded core product lines
with savory solutions aimed at the meat and fish industry, citrus
and other natural flavors, specialty ingredients, and new cosmetic
actives. On August 5, 2019, after the market closed, the Company
disclosed that Frutarom had "made improper payments to
representatives of a number of customers" in Russia and Ukraine and
that "key members of Frutarom's senior management at the time were
aware of such payments." The Company also reduced its 2019
financial guidance for sales to a range of $5.15 billion to $5.25
billion, from a range of $5.2 billion to $5.3 billion, and for
adjusted earnings per share to a range of $4.85 to $5.05, from
$4.90 to $5.10. On this news, the Company's share price fell $22.56
per share, or nearly 16%, to close at $118.91 per share on August
6, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Frutarom had bribed
customers in Russia and Ukraine; (2) that senior management at
Frutarom were aware of such improper payments; (3) that, as a
result, Frutarom's financial results were materially overstated;
(4) that, as a result of the improper payments, the Company was
reasonably likely to face regulatory scrutiny; (5) that the Company
had not completed adequate due diligence before acquiring Frutarom;
(6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was unlikely to
achieve purported synergies from the acquisition; and (7) that, as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Marc Jansen purchased IFF securities during the Class
Period.

IFF purports to be an "innovator of sensory experiences" by
creating products that consumers taste, smell, or touch. IFF
acquired Frutarom Industries Ltd. ("Frutarom") in October
2018.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     230 Park Ave., Suite 530
     New York, NY 10169
     Phone: (212) 682-5340
     Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
     Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

          - and -

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Facsimile: (310) 432-1495


JUBILANT DRAXIMAGE: Faces Suit Over Radioactive Medicine Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IONSOUTH-MOBILE, LLC, formerly known as COX NUCLEAR PHARMACY d/b/a
IONSOUTH DIAGNOSTIC PHARMACY LLC, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, and UPPI, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. JUBILANT
DRAXIMAGE INC. d/b/a/ JUBILANT RADIOPHARMA, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00518-N (S.D. Ala., Aug. 12, 2019) is a complaint against
Defendant for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and
common law.

This action involves radiopharmaceutical products.
Radiopharmaceuticals are a class of low-level radioactive medicines
used for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Diagnostic
radiopharmaceutical products are typically used in conjunction with
imaging devices to scan vital organs; therapeutic
radiopharmaceutical products can be used, for example, to treat
certain cancers. Ionsouth and members of the Class are nuclear
pharmacies. Nuclear pharmacies are specialized pharmacies that
prepare patient-ready doses in response to hospital or imaging
center orders (prescriptions) for radiopharmaceuticals. Nuclear
pharmacies purchase radiopharmaceutical products from JDI, as well
as from other radiopharmaceutical manufacturers. Nuclear pharmacies
can be either independently owned, such as Ionsouth, or part of a
corporate-owned network. Plaintiff UPPI is the largest association
of independent and institutional nuclear pharmacies in the United
States. Over 70 independent nuclear pharmacies, including Ionsouth,
are UPPI members.

In May 2017, a JDI affiliate purchased Triad Isotopes, Inc., the
second-largest network of nuclear pharmacies in the United States.
With this acquisition, it acquired over 50 nuclear pharmacies.
These pharmacies directly compete with Ionsouth and members of the
Class. On June 17, 2019, JDI's parent company, Jubilant Pharma
Limited ("JPL"), announced that Triad Isotope nuclear pharmacy
business would be integrated with JDI's radiopharmaceutical
manufacturing business as a single company: Jubilant Radiopharma
(JDI's nuclear pharmacy division will be referred to herein as
"Triad Isotopes"). In recent years, JDI has aggressively sought to
increase revenue and expand market share. It has done this not by
competing vigorously on the merits but instead by engaging in
unlawful conduct to monopolize or attempt to monopolize the markets
for MAA, DTPA, MDP, Sestamibi, and Sodium Iodine I-131 in the
United States, says the complaint. JDI's anticompetitive conduct
involved abusing its position as sole supplier in the U.S. of two
critical radiopharmaceutical cold kits: MAA and DTPA. Cold kits
designed to prepare MAA and cold kits designed to prepare DTPA are
referred to herein as JDI's "Sole-Source Products" or "MAA and DTPA
cold kits."

JDI's multi-faceted anticompetitive scheme has come to the
attention of U.S. government law enforcers. On September 24, 2018,
JPL disclosed that in May 2017 it was "notified that the United
States Federal Trade Commission had begun a non-public
investigation into certain competition law matters relating to our
sales and distribution practices in our radiopharmaceuticals
business and our then pending acquisition of substantially all of
the assets which comprised Triad's radiopharmacy business."
Additionally, it disclosed that "in February 2018, our Company and
Triad received two civil investigative demands ('CIDs') from" the
USFTC requesting certain information about our business and
operations." Upon information and belief, the FTC's investigation
is ongoing. As a result of JDI's anticompetitive conduct, Ionsouth
and members of the Class have been injured in their business and
property during the Class Periods, and their injury is continuing.
Both Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, treble damages, and/or
related relief under federal antitrust laws and common law.

Plaintiff Ionsouth-Mobile, LLC is an Alabama company with its
principal place of business at 146 South Florida Street, Mobile,
Alabama 36609.

Defendant JDI is one of the largest radiopharmaceutical
manufacturers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Douglas L. McCoy, Esq.
     HAND ARENDALL HARRISON SALE LLC
     Merchants Plaza
     104 Saint Francis Street, Suite 300
     Mobile, AL 36602
     Phone: 251-694-6255
     Email: DMccoy@handfirm.com

          - and -

     Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
     Jay L. Himes, Esq.
     Christopher J. McDonald, Esq.
     Robin A. van der Meulen, Esq.
     Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 907-0700
     Email: gasciolla@labaton.com
            jhimes@labaton.com
            cmcdonald@labaton.com
            rvandermeulen@labaton.com
            jcrevier@labaton.com

          - and -

     Jeffrey S. Jacobovitz, Esq.
     ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP
     1775 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20008
     Phone: (202) 677-4056
     Email: Jeffrey.jacobovitz@agg.com


KASPER TOYOTA: Gangluff Remanded to Ohio State Court
----------------------------------------------------
Judge James G. Carr of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Western Division, remanded the case, Sandra
Gangluff, Plaintiff v. Kasper Toyota Scion, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 3:19CV521 (N.D. Ohio), to the Court of Common Pleas, Erie
County, Ohio.

The case is a consumer case.  Gangluff alleges that Defendant
Kasper sold her a car at an inflated price and that Kasper has
similarly overcharged other customers.  She further claims that
Kasper and Defendants National Warranty Administration Network, LLC
and National Automotive Experts, LLC breached National's lifetime
warranty, which Kasper sold with her car.

Gangluff brings individual and class claims against Kasper under
Ohio's consumer protection laws, Ohio Rev. Code. Sections 1345.01,
et seq.  She raises individual claims against Kasper for fraud and
against all the Defendants for common-law breach of warranty and
federal statutory breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act ("MMWA").

Gangluff originally filed her complaint in the Erie County, Ohio
Court of Common Pleas.  The Defendants removed the complaint to the
Court.

Pending is Gangluff's motion to remand.

Initially, she argued that the Court must remand her case because
the complaint names less than 100 Plaintiffs.  The Defendants
responded that the minimum-Plaintiff requirement does not apply
here and that Gangluff's complaint puts $50,000 in controversy.  On
reply, Gangluff argued that $50,000 is not in controversy because
only her MMWA claim, exclusive of her state-law claims, factor in
to the amount in controversy.

Judge Carr subsequently granted the parties leave to brief the
issue of whether he may consider Gangluff's state-law claims in
determining the amount in controversy.

On review of the pleadings and the briefs, Judge Carr finds that
the Defendants' notice of removal does not allege that $50,000 is
in controversy, much less provide facts supporting such an
assertion.  National attempts to cure this shortcoming in its
opposition brief, arguing that, because Gangluff seeks noneconomic
damages and three times economic damages, including the cost of the
Vehicle, her claims "presumably exceed $50,000."

He cannot rely on National's brief to establish jurisdiction
because it is not part of the pleadings.  And, even if he could
consider National's brief in assessing jurisdiction, its
presumption that Gangluff's damages exceed $50,000 does not suffice
to carry the Defendants'] burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.  Accordingly, the
Defendants have not met their burden to show that at least $50,000
is in controversy.

Gangluff also argues that the Court does not have jurisdiction over
her claims because her class complaint names one Plaintiff, which
is insufficient to establish jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. Section
2310(d)(3)(C).  The Defendants counter that subsection (C) does not
apply because Gangluff's MMWA claim is an individual, not a class,
claim.

Section 2310(d)(3)(C) applies if Gangluff's complaint is an action
brought as a class action.  The statute does not specify whether an
"action" includes the entire case or the MMWA claims only.  But
that distinction does not matter in the instant case.  The Judge
holds that if Section 2310(d)(3)(C) does not include Gangluff's
individual MMWA claim, jurisdiction is still lacking for the
reasons stated.  And if the statute covers Gangluff's entire case,
jurisdiction fails for the additional reason that the complaint
names less than 100 Plaintiffs.

Based on this, Judge Carr granted Gangluff's motion to remand, and
remanded the case to the Court of Common Pleas, Erie County, Ohio.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3H1de8 from Leagle.com.

Sandra Gangluff, Plaintiff, represented by John T. Murray --
john@lesliemurraylaw.com -- Leslie Murray Law, Leslie O. Murray --
leslie@lesliemurraylaw.com -- Leslie Murray Law, Michael L. Berler,
Frederick & Berler, Michael L. Fine, Frederick & Berler & Ronald I.
Frederick , Frederick & Berler.

Kasper Toyota Scion, Defendant, represented by John C. Camillus &
David Alan Brown -- dbrown@stockampbrown.com -- Stockamp & Brown.

National Warranty Administration Network LLC & National Automotive
Experts, LLC, Defendants, represented by Andrew J. Seger --
aseger@nationalautomotiveexperts.com -- National Automotive
Experts.


KC PLUMBING: Diaz Seeks Overtime Pay, Claims Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------
Marlon Diaz, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. KC Plumbing, LLC, and
Kolbe Coto-Cruz, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04321, (E.D. N.Y., July
26, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and any other
statutory penalties as recoverable, compensatory damages sustained
as a result of Defendants' retaliation, including back pay, front
pay, punitive damages, redress for failure to provide wage
statements, costs and disbursements incurred in connection with
this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness
fees and other costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Laws.

Diaz worked for KC Plumbing, a plumbing company owned/managed by
Kolbe Coto-Cruz, as a plumber from in or around October 2016 until
his termination on May 5, 2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Caitlin Duffy, Esq.
      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Tel. (516) 248-5550
      Fax. (516) 248-6027


KRAFT HEINZ: Amended Complaint Filed in Osborne ERISA Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Kraft Heinz Company said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 29, 2019, that the Company's Employee Benefits Administration
Board and certain of its current and former officers and employees
are currently defendants in one class action lawsuit, Osborne v.
Employee Benefits Administration Board of Kraft Heinz, which was
filed on March 19, 2019 in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit purport to represent a class of current
and former employees who were participants in and beneficiaries of
various retirement plans which were co-invested in a commingled
investment fund known as the Kraft Foods Savings Plan Master Trust
(the "Master Trust") during the period of May 4, 2017 through
February 21, 2019.

An amended complaint was filed on June 28, 2019.  The amended
complaint alleges violations of Section 502 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") based on alleged breaches
of obligations as fiduciaries subject to ERISA by allowing the
Master Trust to continue investing in the Company's common stock,
and alleges additional breaches of fiduciary duties by current and
former officers for their purported failure to monitor Master Trust
fiduciaries.  The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount,
attorneys' fees, and other relief.

The Kraft Heinz Company manufactures and markets food and beverage
products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.
Its products include condiments and sauces, cheese and dairy
products, meals, meats, refreshment beverages, coffee, and other
grocery products. The company was formerly known as H.J. Heinz
Holding Corporation and changed its name to The Kraft Heinz Company
in July 2015. The Kraft Heinz Company was founded in 1869 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


KRAFT HEINZ: Still Defends 3 Securities Class Suits in N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Kraft Heinz Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 29, 2019, that the Company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors are currently defendants in three
securities class action lawsuits filed in February, March, and
April 2019.

The first filed action, Hedick v. The Kraft Heinz Company, was
filed on February 24, 2019 against the Company and three of its
officers (the "Hedick Action").

The second filed action, Iron Workers District Council
(Philadelphia and Vicinity) Retirement and Pension Plan v. The
Kraft Heinz Company, was filed on March 15, 2019 against, among
others, the Company and six of its current and former officers (the
"Iron Workers Action").

The third filed action, Timber Hill LLC v. The Kraft Heinz Company,
was filed on April 25, 2019 against, among others, the Company and
six of its current and former officers and one of its directors
(the "Timber Hill Action").

All of these securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

Another securities class action lawsuit, Walling v. Kraft Heinz
Company, was filed on February 26, 2019 in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against,
among others, the Company and six of its current and former
officers (the "Walling Action").  Plaintiff in the Walling Action
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of his complaint, without
prejudice, on April 26, 2019.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits purport to represent a class of all
individuals and entities who purchased, sold, or otherwise acquired
or disposed of publicly traded securities of the Company (including
in the Timber Hill Action, the purchase of call options on Company
common stock, the sale of put options on Company common stock, and
the purchase of futures on the Company's common stock) from May 4,
2017 through February 21, 2019, in the case of the Hedick Action
and the Walling Action, and from July 6, 2015 through February 21,
2019, in the case of the Iron Workers Action and the Timber Hill
Action.

The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly
materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public
statements, press releases, investor presentations, earnings calls,
and SEC filings regarding the Company's business, financial
results, and internal controls.  The plaintiffs seek damages in an
unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and other relief.

The Kraft Heinz Company manufactures and markets food and beverage
products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.
Its products include condiments and sauces, cheese and dairy
products, meals, meats, refreshment beverages, coffee, and other
grocery products. The company was formerly known as H.J. Heinz
Holding Corporation and changed its name to The Kraft Heinz Company
in July 2015. The Kraft Heinz Company was founded in 1869 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Tanious Class Suit Transferred to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Landstar System, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that defendants have filed a
Notice of Removal that resulted in the removal of the class action
suit initiated by Hany Tanious from state court to federal court,
where it was assigned to Judge Dale S. Fischer of the United State
District Court for the Central District of California.

On January 25, 2019, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino against Landstar System, Inc. and Landstar Ranger, Inc.
(together, the "Defendants").

The complaint purports to bring this action on behalf of Hany
Tanious, as an individual, and "all owner operators who performed
work for the Defendants, and who were classified as independent
contractors, during the four years preceding the filing of this
action through the present."

On June 11, 2019, the Defendants filed a Notice of Removal that
resulted in the removal of the case from state court to federal
court, where it was assigned to Judge Dale S. Fischer of the United
State District Court for the Central District of California.

Mr. Tanious is a truck owner-operator and formerly an independent
contractor who was a party to an independent contractor operating
agreement with Landstar Ranger, Inc.

The complaint asserts claims based on the alleged misclassification
of Mr. Tanious as an independent contractor and alleges violations
under California law relating to overtime, minimum wage, meal and
rest breaks, failure to reimburse certain expenses, wage
statements, waiting time and unfair competition.

Mr. Tanious is seeking, on behalf of himself and the purported
class, payment of minimum wages, restitution and certain statutory
damages and penalties, including compensatory, consequential,
general, liquidated and special damages.

None of the California Labor Code provisions under which Mr.
Tanious seeks relief apply to independent contractors. Due to a
number of factors including the preliminary status of this matter,
the Company does not believe it is in a position to conclude
whether or not there is a reasonable possibility of an adverse
outcome in this case or what damages, if any, the plaintiffs would
be awarded should they prevail on all or any part of their claims.


However, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses and it
intends to assert these defenses vigorously.  

Landstar System, Inc. provides integrated transportation management
solutions in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and
internationally. It operates through two segments, Transportation
Logistics and Insurance. Landstar System, Inc. was founded in 1968
and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.


LOS CASTILLOS: Santana Seeks OT Wages for Deli Staff
----------------------------------------------------
MILENA MARIA SANTANA CHALAS, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LOS CASTILLOS MINI MARKET
CORP. (D/B/A LOS CASTILLO MINI MARKET & DELI CORP), ROMAN SANCHEZ ,
ANDRES CASTILLO , CARLOS CASTILLO , and JUAN OSORIO, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07406 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2019), seeks
minimum wage and overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants Los Castillos Mini
Market Corp. She was employed as a cook, cleaner, and general
assistant at the deli and worked in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the
hours that she worked.

Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a mini market and deli
located at 1601 University Avenue, Bronx, New York, 10453 under the
name "Los Castillo Mini Market & Deli Corp".[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

MAMMOTH ENERGY: Sarasota GEDBPP Suit Asserts Securities Act Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CITY OF SARASOTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION
PLAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. MAMMOTH ENERGY SERVICES, INC., ARTY STRAEHLA, and MARK LAYTON,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00720-SLP (W.D. Okla., Aug. 6, 2019), seeks to
recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Plaintiff contends that it has purchased Mammoth securities and
was economically damaged when the truth emerged that the Defendants
misrepresented certain adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, the Plaintiff
alleges, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Mammoth's subsidiary, Cobra
Acquisitions LLC, improperly obtained two infrastructure contracts
with Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority ("PREPA") that totaled
over $1.8 billion; (2) specifically, the contracts were awarded as
the result of improper steering and not a competitive Request For
Proposal (RFP) process; and (3) as a result, the Defendants'
statements about Mammoth's business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

Mammoth is a Delaware corporation and its principal executive
offices are located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of Mammoth.

Mammoth purports to operate as an oilfield service company
operating in three segments: Infrastructure Services, Pressure
Pumping Services, and Natural Sand Proppant Services.  The Company
serves government-funded utilities, private and public investor
owned utilities, co-operative utilities, independent oil and
natural gas producers and land-based drilling contractors in North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry A. Tawwater, Esq.
          Darren M. Tawwater, Esq.
          THE TAWWATER LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          14001 Quail Springs Pkwy
          Oklahoma City, OK 73134
          Telephone: (405) 607-1400
          Facsimile: (405 607-1450
          E-mail: LAT@tawlaw.com
                  DTaw@tawlaw.com


MDL 2905: Copley v. ZF TRW over Defective Airbag Moved to Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Thomas Copley, Marvin Coyner, and Elizabeth Evans, the
Plaintifs, v. ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., Hyundai Motor
America, Inc., and Kia Motor America, Inc., the Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00707 (Filed May 10, 2019), was transferred from the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Aug. 8,
2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:19-cv-06901-JAK-FFM to the proceeding.

The Copley case is being consolidated with MDL 2905 in re: ZF-TRW
AIRBAG CONTROL UNITS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on August 7, 2019. These actions share
common factual questions arising from allegations that airbag
control units manufactured by the ZF-TRW defendants are defective,
in that an electrical overstress condition can cause a malfunction
of the ACU's application specific integrated circuit. Because of
this alleged defect -- which may affect more than 12 million
vehicles made bymultiple automakers, including FCA, Honda,
Hyundai/Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota -- there is a risk that the
airbag could fail to deploy in an accident. In its August 7, 2019
Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Central
District of California will serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Centralization would eliminate duplicative discovery
and other pretrial proceedings, as well as the possibility of
inconsistent rulings on class certification, Daubertmotions, and
other pretrial matters, and conserve judicial and party resources.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt. The
lead case is 2:19-ml-02905-JAK-FFM.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are:

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
          Erika Keech, Esq.
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
          Erika Keech, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com
                  ekeech@kellerrohrback.com

MDL 2905: Samouris v. ZF TRW over Defective Airbag Moved to Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Gary E. Samouris and Nida Edith Samson, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintifs, v.
ZF-TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., TRW Automotive U.S. LLC, American
Honda Motor Co., Inc., and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-11215 (Filed April 26, 2019), was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on
Aug. 8, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-06896-JAK-FFM to the proceeding.

The Samouris case is being consolidated with MDL 2905 in re: ZF-TRW
AIRBAG CONTROL UNITS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Aug. 7, 2019. These actions share
common factual questions arising from allegations that airbag
control units manufactured by the ZF-TRW defendants are defective,
in that an electrical overstress condition can cause a malfunction
of the ACU's application specific integrated circuit. Because of
this alleged defect -- which may affect more than 12 million
vehicles made bymultiple automakers, including FCA, Honda,
Hyundai/Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota -- there is a risk that the
airbag could fail to deploy in an accident. In its August 7, 2019
Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Central
District of California will serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Centralization would eliminate duplicative discovery
and other pretrial proceedings, as well as the possibility of
inconsistent rulings on class certification, Daubertmotions, and
other pretrial matters, and conserve judicial and party resources.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt. The
lead case is 2:19-ml-02905-JAK-FFM.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are:

          David J. Shea, Esq.
          SHEA AIELLO, PLLC
          26100 American Drive, 2nd Floor
          Southfield, MI 48034
          Telephone: (248) 354-0224
          E-mail: david.shea@sadplaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
          OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, New Jersey 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  cbartlett@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Mark J. Dearman, 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: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
                  mdearman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

MDL 2905: Santos v. ZF TRW over Defective Airbag Moved to Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ADALGISA SANTOS, CARL PAUL MAURILUS, and COURTNEY MAINE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintifs, v. ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG, ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS
CORP., TRW AUTOMOTIVE INC., TRW AUTOMOTIVE U.S. LLC, TRW VEHICLE
SAFETY SYSTEMS INC., HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD., AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR
CO., INC., HONDA OF AMERICA MFG. INC., HONDA R&D CO., LTD., TOYOTA
MOTOR CORP., TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., TOYOTA MOTOR
ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC., HYUNDAI MOTOR
GROUP, HYUNDAI MOTOR CO., and HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, the
Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-61174 (Filed May 8, 2019), was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on
Aug. 8, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-06895-JAK-FFM to the proceeding.

The Santos case is being consolidated with MDL 2905 in re: ZF-TRW
AIRBAG CONTROL UNITS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Aug. 7, 2019. These actions share
common factual questions arising from allegations that airbag
control units manufactured by the ZF-TRW defendants are defective,
in that an electrical overstress condition can cause a malfunction
of the ACU's application specific integrated circuit. Because of
this alleged defect -- which may affect more than 12 million
vehicles made bymultiple automakers, including FCA, Honda,
Hyundai/Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota -- there is a risk that the
airbag could fail to deploy in an accident. In its August 7, 2019
Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Central
District of California will serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Centralization would eliminate duplicative discovery
and other pretrial proceedings, as well as the possibility of
inconsistent rulings on class certification, Daubertmotions, and
other pretrial matters, and conserve judicial and party resources.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt. The
lead case is 2:19-ml-02905-JAK-FFM.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          David Boies, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749-8200
          Facsimile: (914) 749-8300
          E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Mark J. Heise, Esq.
          Stephen N. Zack, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 2800
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 539-8400
          Facsimile: (305) 539-1307
          E-mail: szack@bsfllp.com
          mheise@bsfllp.com

MELINTA THERAPEUTICS: Appeal from Nixed Class Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Plaintiff's appeal
from a court-approved motion to dismiss a consolidated class action
suit in North Carolina is still pending.

On November 3, 2017, Melinta merged with Cempra, Inc. in a business
combination.  Prior to the merger, on November 4, 2016, a
securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States
District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, Durham Division,
naming Cempra, Inc. (now known as Melinta Therapeutics, Inc.) (for
purposes of this Contingencies section, "Cempra") and certain of
Cempra's officers as defendants.

Two substantially similar lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court, Middle District of North Carolina on November 22,
2016, and December 30, 2016, respectively.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, on July
6, 2017, the court consolidated the three lawsuits into a single
action and appointed a lead plaintiff and co-lead counsel in the
consolidated case.

On August 16, 2017, the plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  The plaintiff alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with
allegedly false and misleading statements made by the defendants
between July 7, 2015, and November 4, 2016 (the "Class Period").

The plaintiff sought to represent a class comprised of purchasers
of Cempra's common stock during the Class Period and sought
damages, costs and expenses and such other relief as determined by
the court.  On September 29, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

After the motion to dismiss was fully briefed, the court heard oral
arguments on July 24, 2018.  On October 26, 2018, the court granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the plaintiff's
consolidated amended complaint in its entirety.

On November 21, 2018, the plaintiff filed its notice of appeal, and
on December 20, 2018, the Fourth Circuit entered its briefing
schedule.  The appellant filed its brief on January 28, 2019; the
appellee filed its response brief on February 27, 2019; and the
appellant filed its reply brief on March 20, 2019.  The court has
not yet ruled on the appeal.

Melinta Therapeutics said, "We believe that we have meritorious
defenses and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.  It is
possible that similar lawsuits may yet be filed in the same or
other courts that name the same or additional defendants."

Melinta Therapeutics, Inc., a commercial-stage pharmaceutical
company, discovers, develops, and commercializes various
anti-infectives for the treatment of bacterial infectious diseases
in North America. Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2000
and is headquartered in New Haven, Connecticut.


NATIONWIDE BANK: Court Denies Filing of SAC in Hughes Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSHUA HUGHES, Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE BANK,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01235 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Mark R. Hornak
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
denied the Plaintiff's Conditional Motion nunc pro tune for Leave
to File Second Amended Complaint and Request Leave to Conduct
Limited Discovery as to Jurisdiction, Or in the Alternative,
Request to Transfer Case Pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section
5103(b).

The Plaintiff initiated the action individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated against Defendant Nationwide Bank on
Sept. 17, 2018.  The Complaint states that the consumer protection
class action seeks equitable, declaratory, and monetary relief to
redress the Defendant's pattern and practice to fail to provide
commercially reasonable post-repossession consumer disclosure
notices.

The Defendant answered the Complaint and filed a Motion for Partial
Judgment on the Pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(c) -- seeking dismissal of Count II of the Plaintiff's Complaint
for failure to state a claim and lack of standing -- and a Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Allegations under Rule 23(d)(1)(D).  
Instead of filing a response to the Motion for Partial Judgment,
the Plaintiff filed a flurry of motions seeking various forms of
relief -- Motion to Determine Choice of Law, MOtion to Amend, and
Motion to Stay.

The Court denied the Motion to Stay.  The Plaintiff has already
been granted (over the objections of opposing counsel) limited
discovery as provided for in the Court's Jan. 8, 2019.  While it
provided the Plaintiff some leeway to gather information about his
case prior to formal discovery, the Court intends to manage the
case in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
complaint, Rule 12 response, discovery -- in that order, absent
good cause, which (at this point) the Plaintiff has not
demonstrated.

In a detailed Opinion, the Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion to
Amend.  The Proposed Amended Complaint ("PAC") failed to adequately
plead subject-matter jurisdiction.  Because the PAC failed to
establish the citizenship of any purported class member or even the
Plaintiff himself, the PAC failed to establish subject-matter
jurisdiction under Section 1332(d).  As such, the Court denied the
Motion to Amend without prejudice to the Plaintiff curing this
simple error.  However, this defect -- failing to establish
minimally diverse parties -- also appeared in the Initial
Complaint, and it is a defect that is similarly fatal to Section
1332(a) diversity jurisdiction.  Because the Initial Complaint
failed to plead subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court dismissed
the Initial Complaint without prejudice to the Plaintiff curing
this "likely curable" defect.

Because the Court assumed that the subject-matter jurisdiction
defect would be an "easy fix," its Opinion went on to address the
core arguments presented in the Motion to Amend, relating to what
state law applies to the Plaintiff's individual and class claims.
ThePlaintiff's Complaint asserted that his own individual claims
fall under the Pennsylvania UCC, but the Complaint's class
description included individuals from other states, in which cases
the equivalent statute in that state applies to the individual
proposed class member's claims.  But the Plaintiff sought leave to
amend the Initial Complaint to plead that Ohio substantive law
applies to his individual UCC claims and to amend the class and
subclass descriptions and to include "alternative" classes and
subclasses.  The Court ultimately concluded that Pennsylvania law
applied to the Plaintiff's individual claims.  It Ordered that any
Second Proposed Amended Complaint comply with that determination.

The Court granted the Plaintiff "another, final, opportunity to
move anew for amendment," with a Court-imposed deadline of May 31,
2019.  The Plaintiff then filed his Second Motion to Amend (with no
accompanying brief in support and out of time) on June 1, 2019.

Contrary to the title of his Motion, the Plaintiff does not seek,
at this time, leave to amend his initial Complaint.  Rather, he
admits that he is not able to cure the procedural deficit regarding
subject matter jurisdiction because his counsel does not have a
good faith belief that the CAFA requirements have been satisfied.
While the Court's prior Opinion focused on the Plaintiff's failure
to plead minimum diversity in both the initial Complaint and PAC,
the Plaintiff now asserts that the problem he faces is that he has
no good faith belief that there are a sufficient number of putative
class members in the main class of the initial Complaint (i.e. the
numerosity requirement) to trigger CAFA jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff requests leave to propound two interrogatories on the
Defendant: (i) admit that, after investigation, the Bank affirms
that there are at least 100 putative class members in the Main
Class of the proposed Second Amended Complaint; and (ii) admit
that, after investigation, the Bank affirms that the amount in
controversy as reflected in the proposed Second Amended Complaint
exceeds $5 million.

Only once the Defendant responds in the affirmative would the
Plaintiff move for leave to file a Second Proposed Amended
Complaint.  If it responds in the negative, the Plaintiff will then
request the matter be transferred to state court.  The Plaintiff
admits that he seeks transfer in order to ensure the tolling of the
claim for him and the absent putative class members.  He then cites
illness and computer difficulty as the reasons for his late filing.


The only question facing the Court at this juncture is whether the
Plaintiff will be given leave to propound the interrogatories on
the Defendant.  Judge Hornak holds that the answer to that question
is no.  He finds that the Plaintiff's civil action was dismissed
without prejudice.  The Plaintiff's request for discovery prior to
filing an operative complaint runs afoul of the applicable Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

He therefore denied the Plaintiff's request.  The Plaintiff is now
out of time to file a Second Proposed Amended Complaint, and his
counsel admitted in his motion that he is not able to cure his
jurisdictional deficiencies.  The case will be dismissed without
prejudice for want of federal subject-matter jurisdiction to the
Plaintiff filing suit in state court.

Further leave to amend is denied, since as noted, the Plaintiff's
counsel concedes that he cannot plead the requisite jurisdictional
facts, so leave to amend is futile.  The Judge opines that the
Plaintiff has been given multiple opportunities by the Court to
cure his deficiencies within the parameters of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and -- despite clear instructions from the Court on
how to cure his deficiencies and warnings from the Court that the
Plaintiff is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- has
failed to do so.  Any statute of limitations or tolling issues must
be taken up by the appropriate state court at the appropriate
time.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 9, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/WKE0HS from Leagle.com.

JOSHUA HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Richard E. Shenkan, Shenkan
Injury Lawyers, LLC.

NATIONWIDE BANK, Defendant, represented by Albert G. Lin --
alin@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP & Marissa A. Peirsol --
mpeirsol@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice.


NEW BALANCE: Carrillo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------
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 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. This 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 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


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Lassair et al. Seek to Certify Contamination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ERIC LASSAIR, PATRICIA
LASSAIR, AND TELEJACKS & THINGS, INC., the Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF
NEW ORLEANS, ET AL., JANIS VAN MEERLED, Case No.
2:19-cv-11377-JTM-JVM (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order certifying a class of:

"current or former residents, home owners and/or business owners,
members of school populations, and members of churches, who have
lived, attended school, attended church, worked and/or were
otherwise physically located within ten square blocks of the
excavation site located in the 3400 block of Lowerline Street, near
the intersection of Coolidge Court and Lowerline Streets in New
Orleans, Louisiana, where hazardous radiation exposure was
documented by the U.S. EPA, and who were not adequately warned
and/or protected from exposure to Radium-226, Radon-222 and other
radioactive materials from 2013 forward by the City of New Orleans
ans remediation contractors, despite knowledge of actual or
potential exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants."

The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages resulting from nuclear
incident, i.e., exposure to Radium-226, Radon-222 and other
radioactive materials in a geographic area of New Orleans,
Louisiana commonly referred to as "Ger Town".[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Suzette P. Bagneris, Esq.
          Emile A. Bagneris, III, Esq.
          THE BAGNERIS FIRM, LLC
          2714 Canal Street, Suite 403
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 810 3995
          E-mail: sbagneris@bagnerislawfirm.com

               - and -

          Madro Banderies, Esq.
          Post Office Box 56458
          New Orleans, LA 70156
          Telephone: (504) 552 9040
          Facsimile: (504) 324 0648
          E-mail: madro@banderieslaw.com

NEW YORK: Education Board Files Appeal v. Paul in Gulino Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on June 26, 2019, in the lawsuit titled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 2,
2019, the Board filed appeals from the District Court's judgment
entered on June 6, 2019, in the lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on
November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.
The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in
the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant,
the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of
New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass
certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to
obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-2292, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Adriana Paul is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NEWELL BRANDS: Continues to Defend Oklahoma Firefighters Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension
and Retirement System v. Newell Brands Inc., et al.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in a putative securities
class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Hudson County, on behalf of all persons who acquired Company common
stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the April 2016 acquisition of
Jarden (the "Registration Statement").

The action was filed on September 6, 2018, and is captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell
Brands Inc., et al., Civil Action No. HUD-L-003492-18.

The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the
securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements and
omissions in the Registration Statement regarding the Company's
financial results, trends, and metrics.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but has not specified the amount of
damages being sought.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

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

Newell Brands Inc. designs, manufactures, sources, and distributes
consumer and commercial products worldwide. Newell Brands Inc. was
formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and changed its name to
Newell Brands Inc. in April 2016. The company was founded in 1903
and is based in Hoboken, New Jersey.


NEWELL BRANDS: Cosolidated Class Suit in New Jersey Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit in New Jersey under Civil
Action No. 18-cv-10878 (JMV)(JBC) bearing the caption In re Newell
Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The Company and certain of its officers have been named as
defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits, each
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired our common stock between February 6, 2017 and January 24,
2018.

The first lawsuit was filed on June 21, 2018 and is captioned Bucks
County Employees Retirement Fund, Individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk,
Ralph J. Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-10878 (United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey).

The second lawsuit was filed on June 27, 2018 and is captioned
Matthew Barnett, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk, Ralph J.
Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-11132 (United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey).

On September 27, 2018, the court consolidated these two cases under
Civil Action No. 18-cv-10878 (JMV)(JBC) bearing the caption In re
Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court also named
Hampshire County Council Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff in the
consolidated case.

The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the
securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding the Company's business, operations, and
prospects between February 6, 2017 and January 24, 2018.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of
damages being sought.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

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

Newell Brands Inc. designs, manufactures, sources, and distributes
consumer and commercial products worldwide. Newell Brands Inc. was
formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and changed its name to
Newell Brands Inc. in April 2016. The company was founded in 1903
and is based in Hoboken, New Jersey.


OMNICELL INC: Bursick Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------
Omnicell, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitle, Bursick v. Omnicell, Inc. et
al.

On July 18, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

The complaint, captioned Bursick v. Omnicell, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-04150, alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements beginning in October 2018 regarding revenue recognition,
customer concerns about implementation issues, and a purported need
to write off inventory.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.


The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Omnicell, Inc. provides automation and business analytics software
solutions for medication and supply management in healthcare
worldwide. The Company operates through two segments, Automation
and Analytics, and Medication Adherence. The Company was formerly
known as Omnicell Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to
Omnicell, Inc. in 2001. Omnicell, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is
headquartered in Mountain View, California.


OMNICELL INC: Management Conference in Heard Suit Set for Oct. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Omnicell, 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 case management
conference in Corey Heard, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Omnicell, Inc., has been set for October 3,
2019.

A class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, on June 5,
2019, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division, captioned Corey Heard, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Omnicell, Inc., Case No.
2019-CH-06817.

The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages in the
form of statutory damages for willful and/or reckless or, in the
alternative, negligent violation of BIPA, and certain declaratory,
injunctive, and other relief based on causes of action directed to
allegations of violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA) by the Company.

The complaint was served on the Company on June 13, 2019. The
Company must file a response to the complaint by August 14, 2019.

The Court has scheduled a case management conference for October 3,
2019. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Omnicell, Inc. provides automation and business analytics software
solutions for medication and supply management in healthcare
worldwide. The Company operates through two segments, Automation
and Analytics, and Medication Adherence. The Company was formerly
known as Omnicell Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to
Omnicell, Inc. in 2001. Omnicell, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is
headquartered in Mountain View, California.


OMNICELL INC: Mazya Class Action Underway
-----------------------------------------
Omnicell, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Yana Mazya, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northwestern Lake
Forest Hospital, Northwestern Memorial Healthcare, Omnicell, Inc.
and Becton Dickinson, Case No. 2018-CH-07161.

On June 6, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against a
customer of the Company, the customer's parent company and two
vendors of medication dispensing systems, one of which is the
Company, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division, captioned Yana Mazya, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital,
Northwestern Memorial Healthcare, Omnicell, Inc. and Becton
Dickinson, Case No. 2018-CH-07161.

The complaint sought class certification, monetary damages in the
form of statutory damages for willful and/or reckless or, in the
alternative, negligent violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), and certain declaratory,
injunctive, and other relief based on causes of action directed to
allegations of violation of BIPA and of negligence by the
defendants. The complaint was served on the Company on June 15,
2018.

The Company's obligation to respond to the complaint was held in
abeyance pending a decision of the Illinois Supreme Court in a
separate case involving BIPA issues.

The Illinois Supreme Court issued its decision in that case on
January 25, 2019. On April 10, 2019, subsequent to the court's
issuance of an order granting the plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding
a second named plaintiff and an affiliate of the Company's customer
as an additional defendant and, in addition to making other
modifications to the complaint, removing the separate cause of
action directed to negligence.

The court established a deadline of May 13, 2019 for the defendants
to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint.

On May 10, 2019, defendants Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital,
Northwestern Memorial Healthcare, and Northwestern Memorial
Hospital removed the case to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

Subsequently, on May 17, 2019, the Company and the other defendants
in the case each filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a cause of action upon which relief could be
granted.

On June 14, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to
state court. The Court then entered an order, on June 19, 2019,
denying plaintiffs' motion to remand, granting defendants' motions
to dismiss with respect to the additionally-named plaintiff, and
continuing the motions to dismiss with respect to the
originally-named plaintiff.

On July 2, 2019, the Court entered an order remanding the case to
state court and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss without
prejudice to renewal of the motions in state court.

The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Omnicell, Inc. provides automation and business analytics software
solutions for medication and supply management in healthcare
worldwide. The Company operates through two segments, Automation
and Analytics, and Medication Adherence. The Company was formerly
known as Omnicell Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to
Omnicell, Inc. in 2001. Omnicell, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is
headquartered in Mountain View, California.


ONCTERNAL THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Merger-Related Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc. continues to defend putative class
actions related to a merger completed in June 2019, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

On March 6, 2019, the Company, then operating as GTx, Inc. ("GTx"),
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, as
amended (the "Merger Agreement"), with privately-held Oncternal
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Private Oncternal") and Grizzly Merger Sub,
Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub").
Under the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub merged with and into Private
Oncternal, with Private Oncternal surviving as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger").  On June 7, 2019, the
Merger was completed.  GTx changed its name to Oncternal
Therapeutics, Inc., and Private Oncternal, which remains as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, changed its name to
Oncternal Oncology, Inc.

Between April 10 and May 1, 2019, three putative class action
lawsuits and one individual lawsuit were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware: Wheby  v. GTx, Inc. et al.,
Miller v. GTx, Inc. et al., Tabb v. GTx, Inc. et al., and Living
Seas LLC v. GTx, Inc. et al. (collectively, the "Delaware
Actions")

On April 11 and 23, 2019, two putative class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York:
Kopanic v. GTx, Inc. et al. and Cooper  v. GTx, Inc. et al.
(collectively, the "New York Actions" and, together with the
Delaware Actions, the "Actions").

The Actions name as defendants the Company and its former board of
directors, and, in the case of the Wheby and Miller actions,
Private Oncternal and Merger Sub.  The Actions allege that
defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
as well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, in connection with
the Company's filing of the Registration Statement in connection
with the Merger.

Three of the Delaware Actions have now been voluntarily dismissed
with prejudice: the Wheby action on June 12, 2019; the Miller
action on July 15, 2019; and the Living Seas action on June 26,
2019.

At June 30, 2019, the Company cannot predict the outcome of or
estimate the possible loss or range of loss from any of these
matters.

Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology
company, develops various product candidates for the treatment of
cancer.  The Company is headquartered in San Diego, California.


PASCO COUNTY, FL: Squitieri, et al. Seek to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CHRISTOPHER J. SQUITIERI, et
al, Individually and on behalf of the class, the Plaintiffs, vs.
PASCO COUNTY SHERIFF CHRISTOPHER NOCCO et al, the Defendants, Case
No. 8:19-cv-00906-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:

   a. certifying a class of:

      "all persons legally authorized to be employed in the
      United States who are or have been employed with the Pasco
      County Sheriff's Office, its subsidiaries or affiliates in
      Florida at any time from May 2011 to the present";

   b. designating Plaintiffs as class representative for the
      Class; and

   c. designating Plaintiffs' counsel be designated as Class
      counsel.

The Plaintiffs seek redress for Defendants' depression of their
wages through violations of the federal and state Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) statutes.
Plaintiffs' claims are appropriate for class certification because
the answers to the critical questions of whether Defendants have
conducted or participated in a RICO enterprise are the same for
every class member. The proof that Defendants have engaged in such
a pattern of racketeering activity is the same whether this case is
an individual plaintiff's RICO action or a class action.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          John F. McGuire, Esq.
          McGUIRE LAW OFFICES, P.A.
          1173 N.E. Cleveland Street
          Clearwater, FL 33755
          Telephone: 727 446-7659
          Facsimile: 727 446-0905
          E-mail: mlawoff1@tampabay.rr.com

PK MANAGEMENT: Kansas Court Grants Bid to Amend Riley Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEORA RILEY, et al., Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PK MANAGEMENT, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-2337-KHV-TJJ (D. Kan.), Magistrate
Judge Teresa J. James of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint.

On June 6, 2018, the Plaintiffs brought the putative class action
in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas.  Defendant PK
Management timely filed a notice of removal. The Court has set a
limited number of Scheduling Order deadlines, culminating with a
briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class
certification.  The parties have engaged in significant discovery
and the Court has ruled on a number of discovery-related motions.
The deadline for the Plaintiffs to seek leave to amend their
complaint was May 20, 2019.  On that date, the Plaintiffs filed the
instant motion.

The Plaintiffs' original class action petition includes seven
counts.  And because the Plaintiffs filed the case in state court,
the original pleading does not use the language of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b) to describe the types of class actions it
asserts.  In their proposed Second Amended Class Action Complaint,
the Plaintiffs (1) conform their pleading to reflect the language
of Rule 23(b) regarding the types of class actions they assert, and
add a "limited fund class" under Rule 23(b)(1)(B); (2) add factual
allegations learned in discovery; (3) add a count alleging
negligence against all the Defendants; and (4) seek punitive
damages in the counts alleging violations of an implied warranty of
habitability (Count Two), breach of statutory duty to materially
comply with lease and to provide habitable housing (Count Three),
nuisance (Count Seven), and negligence (Count Eight).

The Defendants filed a joint response objecting only to the
proposed inclusion of punitive damages.  They argue that a prayer
for punitive damages would be futile and should therefore be
rejected.

Although the Defendants recite the correct legal standard for
determining futility, Magistrate Judge James finds that their
argument applies a much more stringent standard that essentially
examines whether the pleading could be defeated by a motion for
summary judgment.  She notes that the Plaintiffs were precluded
from including a prayer for punitive damages in the petition they
filed in state court.  Under Kansas law, a party may not plead
punitive damages before being granted leave to do so.  And, the
Plaintiffs demonstrate they have met their applicable burden.

The Magistrate concludes that the Plaintiffs' proposed Second
Amended Class Action Complaint is not futile.  The Plaintiffs
should be afforded the opportunity to offer evidence to support
their allegations.  The Defendants suffer no prejudice from the
amendment, and she finds that justice requires granting the
Plaintiffs' motion.

Therefore, she granted the Motion to Amend Complaint.  In
accordance with D. Kan. Rule 15.1(b), the Plaintiffs will
electronically file and serve their Second Amended Class Action
Complaint within five business days of the date of the order.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 9, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/RXcwdE from Leagle.com.

Leora Riley, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Terri Ozburn, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Bryce B. Bell --
bbb@belllawkc.com -- Bell Law, LLC, Gina M. Chiala, Heartland
Center for Jobs and Freedom, Inc., pro hac vice, Jeffrey M. Lipman
-- info@lipmanlawfirm.com -- Lipman Law Firm, PC, pro hac vice,
Mark W. Schmitz -- ms@belllawkc.com -- Bell Law, LLC & Zachary D.
Poole, ZDP Law, LLC.

PK Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by Derek H. Mackay --
mackay@knightnicastro.com -- Knight Nicastro MacKay, LLC & Pamela
Winter -- winter@knightnicastro.com -- Knight Nicastro MacKay,
LLC.

Central Park Investors, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jacqueline
M. Sexton, Foland, Wickens, Roper, Hofer & Crawford, PC & Zachary
Tyler Bowles, I, Foland, Wickens, Roper, Hofer & Crawford, PC.

Aspen Companies Management, LLC & Central Park Holdings, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Jeffrey A. Bullins, Simpson, Logback,
Lynch, Norris, PA, John G. Schultz, Franke Schultz & Mullen, PC,
Michael T. Halloran, Franke Schultz & Mullen, PC, Nicholas D.
Savio, Franke Schultz & Mullen, PC & Phillip R. Raine, Simpson,
Logback, Lynch, Norris, PA.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: UTVs Do not Meet OSHA Standards, Guzman Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL GUZMAN and JEREMY ALBRIGHT, individually on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; POLARIS SALES,
INC., a Minnesota corporation; POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., a
Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01543 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 8, 2019) is an
action against Defendants on behalf of all persons who purchased in
California in the four years preceding this Complaint Polaris
Utility Terrain Vehicles ("UTV") that Polaris
claimed/advertised/marked/certified that the vehicles' rollover
protection system ("ROPS") complied with the department of
Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA")
requirements/standards for agricultural tractors.

According to the complaint, none of the Class Vehicles sold by
Polaris meet the OSHA requirements. Polaris has staved off federal
regulations by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC")
in part by causing the adoption of newly created industry standards
as part of the self-regulation revolution. Even after adopting farm
tractor standards issued for worker safety on farms in the early
1970s, Polaris cheats and does not even meet those standards, it
adds.

Roof strength is a vital safety concern to consumers given the
strong likelihood of UTVs rolling over. The failure to meet all
applicable federal and state statutes, standards, regulations, and
self-adopted regulations, including OSHA requirements is material
information for consumers purchasing/leasing UTVs, such as the
Class Vehicles. Unless otherwise stated, Plaintiffs allege that any
violations by Polaris were knowing and intentional, and that
Polaris did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any
such violation.

Plaintiffs are individuals who reside in the County of Orange,
State of California.

Polaris sold vehicles to members of the general public.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John P. Kristensen, Esq.
     KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
     12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
     Los Angeles, CA 90066
     Phone: (310) 507-7924
     Fax: (310) 507-7906
     Email: john@kristensenlaw.com

          - and -

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (866) 598-5042
     Facsimile: (866) 633-0028
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

          - and -

     Christopher W. Wood, Esq.
     DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP
     20 Bicentennial Circle
     Sacramento, CA 95826
     Phone: (916) 379-3500
     Facsimile: (310) 379-3599
     Email: cwood@dbbwc.com


PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal in Trojan Class Action Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric 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 Court
of Appeals in Oregon has yet to rule on an appeal from a decision
in the Trojan Investment Recovery litigation.

In 1993, Portland General Electric Company (PGE) closed the Trojan
nuclear power plant (Trojan) and sought full recovery of, and a
rate of return on, its Trojan costs in a general rate case filing
with the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (OPUC).

In 1995, the OPUC issued a general rate order that granted the
Company recovery of, and a rate of return on, 87% of its remaining
investment in Trojan.

Numerous challenges and appeals were subsequently filed in various
state courts on the issue of the OPUC's authority under Oregon law
to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment. In
2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon
Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the
OPUC for reconsideration.

In 2003, in two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed
against PGE on behalf of two classes of electric service customers:
i) Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland General
Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court (Circuit Court); and
ii) Morgan v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County
Circuit Court. The class action lawsuits seek damages totaling $260
million, plus interest, as a result of the Company's inclusion, in
prices charged to customers, of a return on its investment in
Trojan.

In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) issued a ruling ordering
the abatement of the class action proceedings.

The OSC concluded that the OPUC had primary jurisdiction to
determine what, if any, remedy could be offered to PGE customers,
through price reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on
the Trojan investment that the Company collected in prices.

In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE to
provide refunds, including interest, which refunds were completed
in 2010. Following appeals, the 2008 Order was upheld by the Oregon
Court of Appeals in 2013 and by the OSC in 2014.

In 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Circuit Court lifted
the abatement on the class action proceedings and heard oral
argument on the Company's motion for Summary Judgment.

In March 2016, the Circuit Court entered a general judgment that
granted the Company's motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed all
claims by the plaintiffs.

In April 2016, the plaintiffs appealed the Circuit Court dismissal
to the Court of Appeals for the State of Oregon.

A Court of Appeals decision remains pending.

PGE believes that the 2014 OSC decision and the Circuit Court
decisions that followed have reduced the risk of any loss to the
Company beyond the amounts previously recorded and refunds
discussed above. However, because the class actions remain subject
to a decision in the appeal, management believes that it is
reasonably possible that such a loss to the Company could result.
As these matters involve unsettled legal theories and have a broad
range of potential outcomes, sufficient information is currently
not available to determine the amount of any such loss.

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

Portland General Electric Company, an integrated electric utility
company, engages in the generation, wholesale purchase,
transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the
state of Oregon. The company was founded in 1930 and is
headquartered in Portland, Oregon.


PROSHARES TRUST II: Defendants Seek Dismissal of Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
ProShares Trust II (the "Trust") and ProShare Capital Management
LLC (the "Sponsor"), on August 2, 2019, sought the Court's order
dismissing the consolidated action captioned In re ProShares Trust
II Securities Litigation, according to the Trust's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019.

The Sponsor and the Trust are named as defendants in the following
purported class action lawsuits filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on the following dates:
(i) on January 29, 2019 and captioned Ford v. ProShares Trust II et
al.; (ii) on February 27, 2019 and captioned Bittner v. ProShares
Trust II, et al.; and (iii) on March 1, 2019 and captioned Mareno
v. ProShares Trust II, et al.

The allegations in the complaints are substantially the same,
namely that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933
Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the 1934 Act by
issuing untrue statements of material fact and omitting material
facts in the prospectus for ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures
ETF, and allegedly failing to state other facts necessary to make
the statements made not misleading.  Certain Principals of the
Sponsor and Officers of the Trust are also defendants in the
actions, along with a number of others.

On April 29, 2019, the Court entered an order consolidating the
three suits into a single action captioned In re ProShares Trust II
Securities Litigation, and requiring that the lead plaintiff file
an amended consolidated complaint by June 21, 2019.

The counsel for the Trust believes the amended consolidated
complaint (as with the original complaint) is without merit and
that the lawsuit will not adversely impact the operation of the
Trust, ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF, or any of its
other Funds.  The Trust and the Sponsor intend to vigorously defend
against the lawsuit.  The Trust and the Sponsor cannot predict the
outcome of the lawsuit.  Accordingly, no loss contingency has been
recorded in the Statement of Financial Condition and the amount of
loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.
ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF may incur expenses in
defending against the lawsuit.

ProShares Trust II (the "Trust") is a Delaware statutory trust
formed on October 9, 2007 and is currently organized into separate
series (each, a "Fund" and collectively, the "Funds").


PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Johnson ERISA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNY JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of a class
of persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the Providence
Health & Service 403(b) Value Plan, the Providence Health &
Services Multiple Employer 401(k) Plan, and the Providence Health &
Services 401(a) Service Plan, Plaintiff, v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH &
SERVICES, et al., Defendants, Case No. C17-1779-JCC (W.D. Wash.),
Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiff's (i) motion
for final approval of class settlement, certification of settlement
classes, and approval of class notice; and (ii) motion for attorney
fees, expenses and class contribution award.

The Parties have entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement
dated Jan. 25, 2019, that provides for a complete dismissal with
prejudice of all claims asserted in the Action against the
Defendants by the Settlement Class Members on the terms and
conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, subject to the
approval of the Court.  By order dated Feb. 22, 2019, the Court (1)
conditionally certified the Settlement Class and appointed the
Class Counsel; (2) preliminarily approved the Settlement; (3)
directed notice to the Settlement Class Members and approved the
Plan of Allocation and form and manner of Notice; (4) appointed a
Settlement Administrator; (5) scheduled a Fairness Hearing; and (6)
scheduled a hearing on Class Counsel's motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Expenses and the payment of a Case Contribution Award.

The Court conducted a hearing on July 9, 2019.  Having reviewed and
considered the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiff's Motion for an
Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and a Lead Plaintiff Case
Contribution Award, all papers filed and proceedings held, Judge
Coughenour affirmed the Court's determinations in the Preliminary
Approval Order certifying, solely for the purposes of effectuating
the proposed Settlement on a non-opt-out basis, the Action as a
class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure with the following Settlement Class: All
Current and Former Participants in the Providence Health & Services
401(a) Service Plan, the Providence Health & Services Multiple
Employer 401(k) Plan, the Providence Health & Services 403(b) Value
Plan, or in any plan merged into the 401(a), 401(k) or 403(b)
Plans, or in any successor plan into which 401(a), 401(k) or 403(b)
Plans may be merged, who maintained a balance of any amount in the
Plans from Nov. 28, 2011 to the date of entry of the Preliminary
Approval Order.

Pursuant to, and in accordance with, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the Judge fully and finally approved the
Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement in all respects
including, without limitation, the amount of the Settlement; the
releases provided for therein; and the dismissal with prejudice of
the claims asserted in the Action against the Defendants by the
Settlement Class Members.

As of the Effective Date, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), all of
the claims asserted in the Action against the Defendants by the
Plaintiff and the Settlement Class Members are dismissed with
prejudice.  The Parties will bear their own costs and expenses,
except as otherwise expressly provided in the Settlement
Agreement.

It is appropriate to award fees from the Settlement Fund based on
the percentage-of-recovery method.  A fee equal to 25% of the
common settlement fund is fair and reasonable.

The Judge awarded the Plaintiff's counsel $562,500 for attorneys'
fees and $32,000 for reimbursement of expenses, and awarded
Plaintiff Jenny Johnson a case contribution award of $3,000, to be
paid from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.

There is no just reason to delay entry of this Judgment as a final
judgment with respect to the claims asserted in the Action against
the Defendants by the Settlement Class Members.  Accordingly, the
Clerk of the Court is expressly directed to immediately enter the
final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) as against the
Defendants.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/nV1zBz from Leagle.com.

Jenny M Johnson, individually, and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, and on behalf of the Providence Health &
Service 403(b) Value Plan, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas P.
Needham, IZARD KINDALL & RAABE LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory Y.
Porter
-- gporter@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER, pro hac vice,
Julie Siebert-Johnson -- jsjohnson@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK LLP, pro hac vice, Mark George Boyko --
mboyko@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER, pro hac vice, Mark
K.
Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP,
pro hac vice, Mark P. Kindall -- mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- IZARD,
KINDALL & RAABE LLP, pro hac vice, Clifford A. Cantor & Michael L.
Murphy -- mmurphy@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser, LLP.

Providence Health & Services, Providence Health & Services Human
Resources Committee & John and Jane Does, Defendants, represented
by Brian D. Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS, pro hac
vice, Meaghan VerGow -- mvergow@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP,
pro hac vice & Medora A. Marisseau -- mmarisseau@karrtuttle.com --
KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL.


RESPIRE MEDICAL: Does not Properly Pay Employees, Hoke Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hoke, Donovan Garcia, Jairo Ospina, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Respire Medical
Holdings LLC., Whole You Inc., d/b/a Respire Medical, and David
Walton, jointly and severally Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04594
(E.D. N.Y., Aug. 9, 2019) is a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and class action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure and the New York Labor Law against Defendants, arising
out of Defendant's systematic, companywide wrongful classification
of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees or other
similarly titled positions as exempt from the overtime compensation
requirements of the FLSA and NYLL.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs worked anywhere from 45 to
75 hours per week and were paid at an hourly rate ranging from
$10.00 per hour to $19.00 per hour. Although they were purportedly
"salaried" employees, their paycheck was docked if they did not
work the required 45 hours. Plaintiffs were not paid at an overtime
rate of one-and-one-half their regular rate of pay for the overtime
hours that they worked. The Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of requiring Plaintiffs to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the overtime compensation required by
federal and state law and regulations.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as "Technical Training
Manager", "Senior Technician" and "Product specialist".

Defendants own, operate, or control a manufacturing company that
makes sleep apnea Devices in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lina Stillman, Esq.
     Stillman Legal, PC
     42 Broadway, 12th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 203-2417
     Website: www.FightForUrRights.com


RETIREMENT COMMITTEE: Kirk Suit Asserts ERISA Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Becky Kirk, Perry Ayoob, and Dawn Karzenoski, as representatives of
a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the
CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan,
Plaintiffs, v. Retirement Committee of CHS/Community Health
Systems, Inc., CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc., John and Jane
Does 1-20, Principal Life Insurance Company, Principal Management
Corporation, and Principal Global Investors, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00689 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 8, 2019) is an action under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), against
Defendants.

CHS is the "plan sponsor" within the meaning of the ERISA, and it
has ultimate decision-making authority with respect to the
management and administration of the Plan and the Plan's
investments. Plaintiffs are former participants of the Plan.

Both CHS, as plan sponsor, and the Retirement Committee, as plan
administrator, were subject to fiduciary duties with respect to the
Plan. The CHS Defendants breached these fiduciary duties by
maintaining excessively expensive and poorly performing index funds
in the Plan that were managed by Principal. The marketplace for
index funds is highly competitive, with several companies offering
index fund products that track benchmark indices with a high degree
of precision, while charging very low fees. However, the CHS
Defendants did not give any serious consideration to these
competitive index fund offerings in the marketplace, and instead
used Principal's proprietary index funds, despite fees that were
several times higher than marketplace alternatives that tracked the
exact same index. Not only were the Principal index funds far more
expensive, they were also of significantly lower quality, notes the
complaint.

Contrary to its fiduciary duties, Principal engaged in self-serving
conduct that harmed Plan participants, and the CHS Defendants have
failed to address these fiduciary breaches or take any remedial
action.

Based on this conduct, Plaintiffs assert a claim against all
Defendants for breach of their fiduciary duties of loyalty and
prudence (Count 1), and assert a claim against the CHS Defendants
for failing to properly monitor other fiduciaries (Count 2), says
the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jerry Martin, Esq.
     David Garrison, Esq.
     Philips Plaza
     414 Union Street, Suite 900
     Nashville, TN 37219
     Phone: (615) 244-2202
     Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
     Email: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com

          - and -

     Kai H. Richter, Esq.
     Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
     Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
     Brock J. Specht, Esq.
     Jacob T. Schutz, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
     4600 IDS Center
     80 S 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: 612-256-3200
     Facsimile: 612-338-4878
     Email: krichter@nka.com
            lukas@nka.com
            cengstrom@nka.com
            bspecht@nka.com
            jschutz@nka.com

RHODES ENTERPRISES: Davis Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
NeELLE DAVIS, TAMIKA OSBORNE and TAMRAN YOUNG, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. RHODES ENTERPRISES, INC.,
R.E.B. ENTERPRISES, INC., S.M.C. ENTERPRISES, INC., SRL
ENTERPRISES, INC., OML ENTERPRISES, INC. and STEPHEN R. LEE, Case
No. 2:19-cv-03538-PD (E.D. Pa., Aug. 6, 2019), seeks to recover
minimum wages and overtime compensation for the Defendants' severs,
runners and other tipped staff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, the Pennsylvania
Wage Payment and Collection Law and Pennsylvania common law.

Rhodes is a corporation registered to do business in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business
located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  REB is a corporation
registered to do business in the Commonwealth.  SMC is a
corporation registered to do business in the Commonwealth.  SRL is
a corporation registered to do business in the Commonwealth.  OML
is a corporation registered to do business in the Commonwealth.
The Individual Defendant is the president of numerous corporate
shell companies, including the Defendant Corporations.

The Defendants own and/or operate several franchise restaurants
doing business as IHOP.  The Defendants own and/or operate IHOP
(aka "International House of Pancakes") in Pennsylvania and other
states along the east coast of the United States.  The IHOP
restaurants are franchisees of Dine Brands Global, Inc., formerly
known as DineEquity, Inc., the self-described "largest full-service
dining company in the world" with over 3,600 restaurants and some
200,000 team members.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ian M. Bryson, Esq.
          DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2950
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 391-4790
          E-mail: ian@dereksmithlaw.com


ROYAL PLAZA: Pillco Sues Over Unlawful Wage and Tips Distribution
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARINA PILLCO and JACKELINE JAGUANDE, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs, v. ROYAL PLAZA, INC and
ANTHONY J. LACAVA, JR., Defendants, Case No. 19-2320 (Commonwealth
of Mass., Aug. 8, 2019) is an action Against Defendants concerning
unlawful wage and tips distribution practices at the Best Western
Royal Plaza Hotel & Trade Center in Marlborough, Massachusetts.

In order to provide banquet services, Defendants employ a mix of
regular and temporary' banquet servers and bartenders. However, the
Defendants pay their banquet servers and bartenders at a wage rate
less than the basic minimum wage. The Defendants have unlawfully
retained a portion of the 12 percent gratuity to pay for
administrative expenses, including administrative expenses relating
to the provision of temporary workers, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are employed as banquet servers at the Royal Plaza Hotel
in Marlborough, Middlesex County, Massachusetts.

Royal Plaza, Inc. is a Massachusetts corporation in the business of
hotel management that maintains a principal office at 375 Totten
Pond Road in Waltham, Middlesex County, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Hillary Schwab, Esq.
     Brant Casavant, Esq.
     FAIR WORK P.C.
     192 South Street. Suite 450
     Boston. MA 02111
     Phone: (617)607-3261
     Fax: (617)488-2261
     Email: hi1lary@fairworklaw.com
            rache@fairworklaw.com


RUBY'S MIDTOWN: Hickey Hits Misappropriated Tips
------------------------------------------------
James Hickey, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RUBY'S MIDTOWN LLC, 219 MULBERRY, LLC,
NICHOLAS MATHERS, TIMOTHY SYKES AND THOMAS LIM, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-07452 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 9, 2019) is a collective action
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York
Labor Law to recover unpaid minimum wages, unlawfully
misappropriated tips, and other monies.

The Defendants established and imposed a tip pool upon Ruby's food
service worked, and also required food service workers to share a
percentage of their tip with the back-of-house staff, including the
chef. The back-of-house/kitchen staff had no interaction with
customers at Ruby's. By mandating the participations of
back-of-house staff in the tip pool, the Defendants have violated
both the FLSA and NYLL, asserts the complaint.

As a results, the Defendant have failed to compensate their food
service worked at the federal and state minimum wage, and
unlawfully misappropriated a portion of their tips. Plaintiff seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants' unlawful
actions, return of the tip credit, return of the misappropriated
tips, return of unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs as permitted in accordance with the FLSA
and NYLL.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a server at the Murray Hill
location from December 2016 through the end of January 2017 and
from June 2017 through March 2018.

Defendants are New York limited liability companies that own and
operate Ruby's, a restaurant with locations at 442 Third Avenue,
and 219 Mulberry Street, in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
     The Klein Law Group, P.C.
     39 Broadway, Suite 1530
     New York, NY 10006
     Phone: 212-344-9022
     Facsimile: 212-344-0301


SAKS FIFTH AVENUE: Morrison Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
AURORA MORRISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE LLC, SAKS DIRECT, INC.,
SAKS DIRECT, LLC D/B/A SAKS DIRECT II, LLC, and SAKS INCORPORATED
D/B/A SAKS DEPARTMENT STORES, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07487
(S.D. N.Y., Aug. 9, 2019) is an action against Defendants to stop
Defendants' practice of sending unlawful, unsolicited text messages
to the telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for
all persons injured by their conduct.

In an effort to solicit potential and former customers, Defendants
send text messages to consumers who never consented to receive
them, notes the complaint. The Defendants willfully violate the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act with this widespread campaign of
sending unsolicited text messages, it adds.

Plaintiff AURORA MORRISON is a natural person who resides in New
York, New York.

Defendants operate "Saks Fifth Avenue," a chain of luxury
department stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aaron Siri, Esq.
     Mason Barney, Esq.
     Brian Rabkin, Esq.
     SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
     200 Park Avenue
     17th Floor
     New York, NY 10166
     Phone: (212) 532-1091
     Fax: (646) 417-5967


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Class Certification Hearing Set for Sept.6
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on class certification in a securities litigation against
SandRidge Mississippian Trust I has been scheduled for September 6,
2019, according to the Trust's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated unitholders of the Trust,
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Trust, SandRidge
Energy, Inc. ("SandRidge") and certain current and former executive
officers of SandRidge, among other defendants (the "Securities
Litigation").

The complaint, which was amended on November 11, 2016 (adding Ivan
Nibur, Lawerence Ross, Jase Luna, and Mathew Willenbuncher as lead
plaintiffs) and supplemented on May 1, 2017, asserts a variety of
federal securities claims on behalf of a putative class of (a)
purchasers of common units of the Trust in or traceable to its
initial public offering on or about April 7, 2011, and (b)
purchasers of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II
("SDR") in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about
April 17, 2012.

The claims are based on allegations that SandRidge and certain of
its current and former officers and directors, among other
defendants, including the Trust, are responsible for making false
and misleading statements, and omitting material information,
concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves.
The plaintiffs seek class certification, an order rescinding the
Trust's initial public offering and an unspecified amount of
damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs.  As a result of
its reorganization in bankruptcy in 2016, SandRidge is a nominal
defendant only.

On August 30, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  As a result of the Court's order, the only
claims remaining in the litigation are the plaintiffs' claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (the "Exchange Act Claims").  In
addition, because of the Court's order, the only remaining
defendants in the litigation are the Trust, James D.  Bennett,
Matthew K.  Grubb, Tom L.  Ward, and SandRidge as a nominal
defendant only.

On September 11, 2017, the Court entered a subsequent order
granting in part and denying in part the remaining defendants'
motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Claims and finding that the
plaintiffs may pursue certain of the Exchange Act Claims against
the respective remaining defendants.  In November 2017, the
plaintiffs' counsel informed counsel to the Trust that,
notwithstanding the dismissal of all claims against SDR, the
remaining claims in the litigation against the Trust are being
asserted not only by purchasers of common units of the Trust, but
also by purchasers of common units of SDR.

On January 19, 2018, the Trust filed a Motion for Partial Judgment
on the Pleadings as to any claims against it brought by purchasers
of common units of SDR, arguing that non-purchasers of common units
in the Trust lack statutory standing to pursue claims against the
Trust.  On January 18, 2019, the Court granted the Trust's motion
dismissing claims brought by purchasers of common units of SDR.

On July 2, 2018, defendants filed a motion for partial judgment on
the pleadings, arguing that all claims asserted on behalf of the
members of the putative class are barred by the statute of
limitations.  On March 26, 2019, the Court denied the motion
without prejudice should discovery reveal a basis for again
challenging the timeliness of plaintiffs' claims.

Discovery closed on June 19, 2019 and a hearing on class
certification has been scheduled for September 6, 2019.

Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, the Trust may incur
expenses in defending the litigation, and any such expenses may
increase the Trust's administrative expenses significantly.  The
Trust will estimate and, if the Trustee deems it appropriate, begin
reserving funds for potential losses that may arise out of
litigation to the extent that such losses are probable and can be
reasonably estimated.  Significant judgment will be required in
making any such estimates and any final liabilities of the Trust
may ultimately be materially different than any estimates.  The
Trust is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or
estimate a range of any potential loss the Trust may incur in
connection with the Securities Litigation, and has not established
any reserves relating to the Securities Litigation.  The Trust may
withhold estimated amounts from future distributions to cover
future costs associated with the litigation if determined
necessary.  The Trust has not yet fully analyzed any rights it may
have to indemnities that may be applicable or any claims it may
make in connection with the Securities Litigation.

SandRidge Mississippian Trust I (the "Trust") is a statutory trust
formed under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant to a trust
agreement, as amended and restated, by and among SandRidge Energy,
Inc. ("SandRidge"), as Trustor, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust
Company, N.A., as Trustee (the "Trustee"), and The Corporation
Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee (the "Delaware Trustee").


SANSONE JR'S 66: MadeUnsolicited Phone Calls, Manopla Suit Asserts
------------------------------------------------------------------
AARON MANOPLA, individually and of behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. SANSONE JR's 66 AUTOMALL A New Jersey
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-16522 (D. N.J., Aug. 9,
2019) is a complaint against Defendant to secure redress because
Defendants willfully violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
and invaded Plaintiff's privacy by causing unsolicited phone calls
and text message to be made to Plaintiff's and other class members'
cellular telephones through the use of an auto dialer and with the
use of pre-recorded messages.

The Defendant made one or more unauthorized phone call to
Plaintiff's cellular phones using an automatic telephone dialing
system for the purpose of soliciting business from Plaintiff.
However, Sansone failed to get the requisite prior consent prior to
sending these text messages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Lenorowitz is currently a citizen of New Jersey and
currently resides in Ocean County, New Jersey.

Sansone operates a car dealership.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
     Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
     MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
     701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
     Asbury Park, NJ 07712
     Phone: (732) 695-3282
     Fax: (732) 298-6256
     Email: Ari@MarcusZelman.com
            YZelman@MarcusZelman.com


SIGNET JEWELERS: PERS of MS Opposes Petition to Appeal to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff and Class Representative Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi filed with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit an opposition to the Defendants'
petition for permission to appeal from the District Court's class
certification decision entered in the consolidated lawsuit entitled
In re SIGNET JEWELERS LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
1:16-cv-06728-CM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

PERS of MS contends that the District Court's class-certification
decision is garden-variety, and presents no issues requiring
interlocutory review.  The Defendants' Petition insinuates that
Chief Judge McMahon was biased in "sustain[ing] the
harassment-related claim by any means necessary" and "twist[ing]"
that claim "to Avoid Binding Dispositive Precedent," PERS of MS
says.

"This tactic is misplaced.  The District Court's decisions comport
with Supreme Court and Second Circuit law.  The Petition is
meritless," PERS of MS adds.

The appellate case is captioned as In re SIGNET JEWELERS LIMITED
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 19-2268-cv, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in August
2016, two alleged Company shareholders each filed a putative class
action complaint in the District Court and its then-current Chief
Executive Officer and current Chief Financial Officer (Nos.
16-cv-6728 and 16-cv-6861, the "S.D.N.Y. cases").

On September 16, 2016, the District Court consolidated the S.D.N.Y.
cases under case number 16-cv-6728.  On April 3, 2017, the
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, purportedly on behalf
of persons that acquired the Company's securities on or between
August 29, 2013, and February 27, 2017, naming as defendants the
Company, its then-current and former Chief Executive Officers, and
its current and former Chief Financial Officers.[BN]

Lead Plaintiff and Class Representative Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi is represented by:

          John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
          Jai K. Chandrasekhar, Esq.
          Rebecca E. Boon, Esq.
          Michael M. Mathai, Esq.
          Brenna D. Nelinson, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: johnr@blbglaw.com
                  jai@blbglaw.com
                  rebecca.boon@blbglaw.com
                  michael.mathai@blbglaw.com
                  brenna.nelinson@blbglaw.com


SKINNER SERVICES: Court Certifies Reporting Class
-------------------------------------------------
JOSE PINEDA, JOSE MONTENEGRO, MARCO LOPEZ, and JOSE HERNANDEZ, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. SKINNER SERVICES, INC., d/b/a SKINNER DEMOLITION,
THOMAS SKINNER, DAVID SKINNER, ELBER DINIZ, and SANDRO SANTOS, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-12217-FDS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge
F. Dennis Saylor IV entered an order on August 8, 2019:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for certification of a
      Reporting Class:

      "all manual laborers who worked at Skinner Services, Inc. at

      any time from August 5, 2013 through February 29, 2016,
      except those laborers (a) residing exclusively in Boston,
      Cambridge, Somerville, Medford, Everett, Chelsea, or
      Brookline, Massachusetts during the time period; and/or (b)
      who are immediate family members of the Defendant";

   2. denying Defendants' motion to decertify FLSA collective; and

   3. granting Plaintiffs' motion to reform the collective.

The Defendants separately suggest that plaintiffs have made a
procedural error by failing to file a second motion for conditional
certification.

However, the second stage of the FLSA certification process is
"typically precipitated by [defendants'] motion for
decertification." As defendants have already filed such a motion in
this litigation, it is unnecessary for plaintiffs to file a
duplicative motion for final certification, the Court said.[CC]

SLOAN ENVIRONMENTAL: Huddleston Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
JERRY HUDDLESTON, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
employees, Plaintiffs, v. SLOAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., a
Michigan corporation, and ERIC SLOAN, an individual, Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-12364-MFL-RSW (E.D. Mich., Aug. 9, 2019) is a
collective action brought by Plaintiff Huddleston on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated current and/or former hourly
employees of Defendants to recover damages for Defendants' willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and its
attendant rules and regulations.

The Defendants willfully violated the FLSA by knowingly suffering
or permitting Plaintiffs to work in excess of 40 hours per week
without paying overtime compensation at a rate of one-and-one-half
times the regular rate, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Huddleston began working for Defendants in April 2014 as
an hourly supervisor.

Defendants are in the business of providing asbestos, mold, and
lead abatement services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jesse L. Young, Esq.
     Thomas J. Cedoz, Esq.
     KREIS ENDERLE, P.C.
     8225 Moorsbridge, P.O. Box. 4010
     Kalamazoo, MI 49003-4010
     Phone: (269) 324-3000
     Email: jyoung@kehb.com
            tcedoz@kehb.com


SLOMIN'S INC: Turizo Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------
RYAN TURIZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SLOMIN'S, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-61989-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 8, 2019), contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In efforts to drum-up business, Defendant began a marketing
campaign which instructed listeners, viewers, or readers of its
advertisement call "#250" to receive a "free" Slomin's Home
Security devise(s) and/or hardware, as such devises and/or hardware
require the user to agree pay monthly and/or annual fee to
function. Once an individual called #250, Defendant would
surreptitiously obtain the individual's cellular telephone number
and, without the consent of the individual, begin directly
marketing its services and products to the individual.

Defendant has sent at least one thousand illegal text messages over
the last four years preceding this lawsuit, the lawsuit says.

Slomin's offers Free Home Security System Equipment & Installation.
We offer home heating oil & central air services.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-907-1136
          Facsimile: 855-529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com

SOC LLC: Court Denies Bid for Sanctions in Risinger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KARL E. RISINGER, Plaintiff, v. SOC LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:12-cv-00063-MMD-PAL (D. Nev.), Judge Miranda
M. Du of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada denied
Defendants SOC, LLC SOC-SMG, Inc., and Day & Zimmermann, Inc.'s (i)
motion for reconsideration (motion for leave to file supplemental
memorandum in support)), and (2) their contempt motion.

The case is a class action involving a dispute over the terms of
employment for armed guards hired to work in Iraq.  

The Plaintiff plans to introduce the results of a survey at trial
through an expert witness -- William Buckley -- to prove the class'
damages.  The survey essentially asked the respondents to estimate
how often they worked more than six 12-hour days per week.

In an earlier motion, the Defendants sought to exclude the survey
results as unreliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.
The Court found that the survey results were admissible but
precluded Buckley from extrapolating the survey results (from the
159 respondents) to the entire class (consisting of about 1,000
individuals).

The motions pending before the Court relate to the admissibility of
these survey results.  The Defendants move for reconsideration --
on the basis of newly discovered evidence -- of the Court's order
finding the survey results admissible.  The newly discovered
evidence consists of Facebook messages exchanged between Risinger
and certain other class members in a group thread that purportedly
demonstrate the class counsel's substantive involvement in the
survey's administration as well as bias in the results.  While the
Plaintiff contends that the Facebook messages do not support a
different outcome, there is no serious dispute that the messages
constitute newly discovered evidence.  Accordingly, Judge Du
considers the merits of the Defendants' motion.

The Defendants first argue that the Facebook messages show that the
class counsel -- not the Plaintiff's expert witness, William
Buckley -- conducted the survey, rendering the results biased and
unreliable.  The Court previously rejected this argument because
the evidence at the time showed that the class counsel's
involvement was "merely ministerial (e.g., mailing and collecting
the surveys)."  The Defendants' newly discovered evidence does not
persuade the Court otherwise.  Even assuming that the class counsel
was feeding responses to Risinger behind-the-scenes, the messages
do not show that the survey was unreliable or biased.

The Defendants' second argument relates to Risinger's distribution
of the survey via the Facebook group thread.  They argue that the
participants in the Facebook group thread are not representative of
the typical class member because they worked at LBS -- a
particularly demanding site -- and had expressed particular
interest in the litigation by joining the Facebook group thread.
Thus, their responses to the survey skewed the results.  The Judge
holds that concerns about lack of random sampling and
self-selection bias are irrelevant in the context of a census.  And
while the survey is not a census of the whole class, it may be used
as a census of the 159 individuals who responded.  Accordingly, she
rejects the Defendants' second argument.

The Defendants' third argument is based on different evidence --
emails between the class counsel and Buckley.  But the Plaintiff
asserts that these emails do not constitute newly discovered
evidence" because they were produced prior to the Defendants'
initial motion.  The Defendants do not counter the Plaintiff's
argument in their reply.  Given that the emails between the class
counsel and Buckley apparently do not constitute newly discovered
evidence, the Judge holds that they cannot form the basis of a
motion for reconsideration, and she will not consider them.
Accordingly, she rejects the Defendants' third argument.

After conducting depositions of the 11 survey respondents, the
Defendants filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental
memorandum in support of their motion for reconsideration.  The
Plaintiff opposed the motion on the ground that the new evidence in
the supplemental memorandum would be cumulative of what the Court
has already considered.  The Judge considers the information in the
supplemental memorandum because it constitutes "newly discovered
evidence," although none of it causes the Court to change course.
Accordingly, she grants the Defendants' motion for leave to file a
supplemental memorandum in support of their motion for
reconsideration.

The Defendants first assert that the survey respondents were
confused by the questions and regularly provided inaccurate
information.  The Plaintiff argues that the inaccuracies in the
survey responses are "minimal and not material."  The Judge holds
that the Defendants have failed to identify any additional
irregularities, thus reinforcing the view that the vast majority of
the 159 responses were accurate.  And even examining the
discrepancies in detail reveals little of concern.  She agrees with
the Plaintiff that difference is probably not very significant,
particularly if overestimates and underestimates are averaged out
among the respondents.

The Defendants next argue that the counsel for the Plaintiff
altered the content of survey responses to inflate damages.  They
exaggerate the issue.  Some respondents provided overlong answers
that the class counsel condensed, and others made obvious typos
that the class counsel attempted to correct (thrice erroneously).
These seem to be nothing more than good faith errors, and the
Defendants remain free to exploit those errors to cast doubt on the
survey results at trial.  They still have not, however, shown
grounds for excluding the survey results altogether.

Accordingly, the Judge denied the Defendants' motion for
reconsideration.

The Court certified a class consisting of armed guards who worked
for SOC in Iraq between 2006 and 2012.  It later clarified that
Reclassified Guards -- individuals who held job titles other than
"Guard" during their employment with the Defendants because the
Defendants changed their job title and/or salaries upon, or shortly
after, their arrival in Iraq -- were members of the class because
they were, in effect, armed guards who worked for SOC in Iraq
between 2006 and 2012.

After the Court made this clarification, the Plaintiff sought to
reopen fact and expert discovery to, inter alia, conduct a survey
of the Reclassified Guards.  Magistrate Judge Leen denied the
Plaintiff's request, finding that he failed to diligently pursue
earlier opportunities to conduct discovery related to the
Reclassified Guards.  The Plaintiff objected to Judge Leen's order,
and the Court overruled the objection.

The Defendants move for sanctions because the class counsel sent a
survey to the Reclassified Guards anyway.  The Judge finds that the
Defendants' motion is premature because the Plaintiff has not yet
made any effort to introduce this evidence to the Court or to the
jury at trial.  While the Plaintiff's conduct is puzzling given the
Court's prior determination that it would not permit discovery
related to the Reclassified Guards, there is no actual conflict
before the Court at this time.  The JUdge denied the Defendants'
contempt motion without prejudice.

Judge Du notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to
several cases not discussed.  She has reviewed these arguments and
cases and determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do
not affect the outcome of the motions before the Court.

She therefore ordered that the Defendants' motion for leave to file
a supplemental memorandum in support of their motion for
reconsideration is granted.  She denied the Defendants' motion for
reconsideration, and denied without prejudice their contempt
motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/LBoQsI from Leagle.com.

Karl E. Risinger, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher I. Ritter
-- critter@earlysullivan.com -- Early Sullivan Wright Gizer &
McRae -- dmcrae@earlysullivan.com -- LLP, Devin A. McRae, Early
Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, Erik C. Alberts --
erik.alberts@ea-lawfirm.com -- Law Offices of Erik C. Alberts &
Scott E. Gizer -- sgizer@earlysullivan.com -- Early Sullivan
Wright Gizer & McRae LLP.

SOC LLC, doing business as SOC Nevada LLC, SOC-SMG, Inc. & Day &
Zimmerman, Inc., Defendants, represented by Daniel P. Mach --
danielmach@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel, Keith H. Forst --
keithforst@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP, pro hac vice, Kristen L. Martini -- kmartini@lrrc.com --
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Tara Melissa Lee --
taralee@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP, pro hac vice & E. Leif Reid -- lreid@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca
Rothgerber LLP.

Day & Zimmerman, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel P. Mach,
Quinn Emanuel, Derick Koo Sohn, Jr., Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP, Keith H. Forst, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP, pro hac vice, Kristen L. Martini, Lewis Roca Rothgerber
Christie LLP, Tara Melissa Lee, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice & E. Leif Reid, Lewis Roca
Rothgerber LLP.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Clark-Alonso Sues Over Illegal Call Recordings
------------------------------------------------------------------
MIKE CLARK-ALONSO, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated Individuals Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES
CO.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
RG19030839 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Aug. 12, 2019) is a
class action lawsuit which arises out of Defendant's policy and
practice of recording and/or monitoring, without the consent of all
parties, (1) California residents' telephone calls to Defendant's
toll-free Rapid Rewards customer service telephone number and, on
information and belief, (2) Defendant's return calls to California
residents.

The Defendant intentionally and surreptitiously recorded and/or
monitored telephone calls made or routed to Defendant's Rapid
Rewards number, says the complaint. The Defendant recorded and/or
monitored calls without warning or disclosing to inbound callers
and, on information and belief, recipients of outbound calls that
their calls might be recorded or monitored, in violation of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), says the complaint.

Plaintiff Mike Clark-Alonso is an individual and was a California
resident.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a Texas corporation with its headquarters
in Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric A. Grover, Esq.
     Robert W. Spencer, Esq.
     KELLER GROVER LLP
     1965 Market Street
     San Francisco, CA 94103
     Phone: (415) 543-1305
     Facsimile: (415) 543- 7861
     Email: eagrover@kellergrovcr.com
            rspencer@kellergrover.com

         - and -

     Scot Bernstein, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN,
     A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
     101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
     Folsom, CA 95630
     Phone: (916) 447-0100
     Facsimile: (916) 933-5533
     Email: swampadero@sbemsteinlaw.com


SPRINGFIELD: 1st Cir. Affirms Class Cert Denial in ADA Suit vs SPDS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment denying Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification in the cases captioned THE
PARENT/PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY LEAGUE; DISABILITY LAW CENTER, INC.;
M.W., a minor, by his temporary guardian, F.D., on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated students, Plaintiffs,
Appellants/Cross-Appellees, S.S., a minor, by his mother, S.Y., on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated students, Plaintiff,
v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS; SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Defendants, Appellees/Cross-Appellants, DOMENIC SARNO, in his
official capacity as Mayor of City of Springfield; SUPERINTENDENT
DANIEL J. WARWICK, in his official capacity as Superintendent of
Springfield Public Schools, Defendants. Nos. 18-1778, 18-1813,
18-1867, 18-1976. (1st Cir.).

The Plaintiffs’ appeal the District Court’s denial of their
motion for class certification.
The underlying suit alleges that the City of Springfield,
Massachusetts, and Springfield Public Schools (SPS) violated Title
II of the ADA by unnecessarily segregating students with mental
health disabilities in a separate and inferior school, the
Springfield Public Day School (SPDS). S.S., then an SPDS student,
brought the suit on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of all
students with a mental health disability who are or have been
enrolled at SPDS. Two associations, the Parent/Professional
Advocacy League (PPAL) and Disability Law Center (DLC), joined S.S.
as plaintiffs.

They seek injunctive and declaratory relief, including an order
that defendants provide the class plaintiffs with school-based
behavior services in neighborhood schools to afford them an equal
educational opportunity and enable them to be educated in
neighborhood schools.

The district court denied class certification on both Rule 23 and
exhaustion grounds. First, plaintiffs' failure to satisfy Rule
23(a)'s commonality requirement provides a basis for affirming the
denial of class certification.

Rule 23(a)(2) makes the identification of questions of law or fact
common to the class a prerequisite for class certification. A
question is common if it is capable of classwide resolution which
means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an
issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in
one stroke.

Under that definition, the Supreme Court explained in Wal-Mart,
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011), what
really matters to class certification is not the raising of common
questions as much as the capacity of a class-wide proceeding to
generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the
litigation. Those common answers typically come in the form of a
particular and sufficiently well-defined set of allegedly illegal
policies or practices that work similar harm on the class
plaintiffs.

Consistent with this standard, in class actions relating to special
education which are usually brought under the Individual with
Disabilities Act (IDEA), plaintiffs can satisfy Rule 23(a)'s
commonality requirement by identifying a uniformly applied,
official policy of the school district, or an unofficial yet
well-defined practice, that drives the alleged violation.

So, for example, classes have been certified under the IDEA to
challenge: (1) a school district's policy, called upper-level
transfer, of automatically moving students who had aged out of
autism support classrooms at one school to another school, without
involving the students' IEP teams and (2) a district's policy of
delaying the start of services offered in IEPs, like speech
therapy, until two weeks into the school year, In these examples,
it is easy to see how the policies anchor common questions does
upper-leveling or delaying the start of services violate the IDEA?
The answers to which could resolve an issue that is central to the
validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.

In each example, the harm to the class members is (in part) that
the policy precludes, across-the-board, the individualized
assessments and services that the IDEA requires and that harm is
likely to have similar causes the policy and effects denial of
services appropriate to that individual student across the class.


Identification of an unofficial yet well-defined practice or set of
practices that is consistently and uniformly applied might also
satisfy the commonality prerequisite. But, in a suit like this one
challenging hundreds of individualized decisions made in a
decentralized environment, satisfying the commonality requirement
in this way requires proof of some common mode of exercising
discretion.

The plaintiffs say that they have satisfied this standard by
offering evidence that Springfield engages in common practices of
disability discrimination and that those practices create harms
common to the children of the proposed class. Plaintiffs frame the
question of law common to the class, whether Springfield
discriminates against the class, in violation of the ADA, by
failing to provide SBBS in neighborhood schools and instead placing
them in the inferior Public Day School where they are segregated
and deprived of educational opportunities equal to those provided
to their peers without a disability.

Searching for an answer to that question able to drive the
resolution of the litigation, plaintiffs point to the report of
their expert, Dr. Peter Leone. They characterize Dr. Leone's report
as finding the following: (1) that Springfield made common
(incorrect) assumptions about the class members and offered them a
common set of (insufficient) services (2) that all the children
whose files he reviewed could successfully attend neighborhood
schools if appropriate services were provided and (3) that the
quality of education in the Public Day School for every child there
was markedly inferior to the quality of education the children in
the potential class would have received in neighborhood schools.

The problem with the plaintiffs' reliance on Dr. Leone's report is
that the report claims to find a pattern of legal harm common to
the class without identifying a particular driver a uniform policy
or practice that affects all class members of that alleged harm.
Similar problems were fatal to the evidence presented by the
proposed class in Wal-Mart. There, the plaintiffs alleged that
female employees of Wal-Mart had suffered a Title VII injury apt
for class resolution but the Supreme Court held that the
commonality requirement was not satisfied because plaintiffs had
offered no glue holding the alleged reasons for the alleged Title
VII violations together.

Significantly, Wal-Mart managers were given discretion to make
employment decisions about individual employees.  And the Supreme
Court found it quite unbelievable that all managers would exercise
their discretion in a common way without some common direction.
Plaintiffs identified no common, official policy or direction, and
the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs' statistical and
anecdotal evidence did not prove a common mode of exercising
discretion.

Here, the plaintiffs do not, in Dr. Leone's report or elsewhere,
allege that a particular, official SPS policy violated the ADA.
Indeed, basic facts would belie a claim that SPS had a uniform
policy governing the placements and services of students with
behavioral disabilities: it is telling that SPS educates a larger
number of students with behavioral disabilities in neighborhood
schools than it does in SPDS. And it is revealing that some
neighborhood schools offer support programs for students with
behavioral disabilities.  

Nor does Dr. Leone's report claim that individual IEP teams
exercised discretion in a common manner. For his study, Dr. Leone
scrutinized the materials of twenty-four individual students
enrolled at SPDS and 130 IEPs of other individual SPS students with
behavioral difficulties. His study yielded no evidence that SPS
places students at SPDS using some method, such as boilerplate
IEPs, that would suggest a common mode of exercising discretion.

Absent such a common driver, answering the plaintiffs' suggested
question does the failure to provide SBBS result in violations of
the ADA? requires individualized determinations which defeat
commonality. For one, whether a given student's placement at SPDS
violates the ADA by unlawfully segregating the student or by
providing unequal educational benefits will depend on that one
student's unique disability and needs. And whether the failure to
provide SBBS is the cause of any ADA violations will also depend on
whether SBBS would be effective for a particular child.

Yet, importantly, as the district court explained, the term SBBS
was created for this litigation and does not refer to a single
program that has been formally studied and found effective for
students like those in the proposed class. On the evidence offered
by plaintiffs, then, the question does the failure to provide SBBS
violate the ADA?  is likely to yield individualized rather than
common answers. The district court thus did not abuse its
discretion in denying class certification for lack of commonality.

Next, the district court held that all class members must exhaust
before forming a class, since the members of the proposed class may
achieve a remedy through an IDEA administrative hearing related to
the claims raised here. The Courtdo not go so far. Plaintiffs argue
that we should adopt a rule that no one other than the class
representative is required to exhaust. The school system says that
we should adopt a rule that all class members must exhaust. We
decline to do either here.

As to the plaintiffs' argument, there are simply too many factual
variations, and the relief sought is too broad, to say here that
only the class representative must exhaust. Plaintiffs do not say
if any members of the putative class have exhausted their IDEA
remedies, save for S.S. Again, the putative class is all students
with a mental health disability who are or have been enrolled in
SPS's Public Day School who are not being educated in an SPS
neighborhood school.

Surely, relevant facts about the affected students such as the type
and degree of mental health disability  differ substantially across
this group, and accordingly the administrative processes and
results might differ substantially as well. Adoption of the
plaintiffs' position that only a single class representative need
exhaust before going forward with a class action would undermine
the broader purposes of the exhaustion requirement.

The Court must respect, as a general matter, the notion, grounded
in deference to Congress' delegation of authority to coordinate
branches of Government, that agencies, not the courts, ought to
have primary responsibility for the programs that Congress has
charged them to administer. McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 145
(1992), superseded by statute on other grounds, as recognized in
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 740 (2001). On the facts pled and
the claims made and without more, we cannot accept the argument
that only the class representative need exhaust, which would render
the exhaustion requirement nearly meaningless here.

In several cases cited by the plaintiffs, the suits were attempting
to challenge what were characterized as a policy or practice. These
cases do not stand for the much broader proposition that when, as
here, no common policy or practice is plausibly challenged, only
the class representative must exhaust. Further, in Hoeft, the Ninth
Circuit referred to representative plaintiffs, in the plural, as
part of the prerequisite for class-wide judicial intervention. As
to cases concerning actions under Title VII, plaintiffs there
challenged any policy, practice, custom or usage or employment
practices. Further, Congress had expressly ratified this
construction of Title VII in the specific context of the award of
backpay to a class member who had not exhausted.
Albemarle did not create a general rule for all class actions,
across all statutory contexts, the plaintiffs read this case far
too broadly.

Our approach is similar to that of the Tenth Circuit in Association
for Community Living in Colorado v. Romer, 992 F.2d 1040 (10th Cir.
1993), which the plaintiffs cite. The Court do not hold that every
plaintiff in a class action must exhaust the IDEA's administrative
remedies in every conceivable IDEA case. Perhaps in some cases,
exhaustion of some number of truly representative claims would
suffice for a class action to go forward, presuming the other
requirements for class certification were met. And the Court thinks
it possible that, on a particular set of facts and claims, all
class members would indeed have to exhaust.

Here, the plaintiffs do not offer us any argument in this area
except that it suffices for a single class representative to
exhaust. Accordingly, the Court deems as waived any argument about
the greater-than-one number and the types of class members who
would need to exhaust for a proper class action on these facts. The
Court needs not venture further into this area, then, as the Court
decides only the case and arguments in front of us. Our conclusion
that exhaustion by a single plaintiff does not suffice here
supports our holding on the denial of class certification.

Affirmed.

A full-text copy of the First Circuit's August 8, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5veaguf from Leagle.com.

Jeff Goldman -- jeff.goldman@morganlewis.com -- with whom Robert E.
McDonnell -- robert.mcdonnell@morganlewis.com -- Michael D.
Blanchard -- michael.blanchard@morganlewis.com -- Elizabeth
Bresnahan -- elizabeth.bresnahan@morganlewis.com -- Matthew T.
Bohenek -- matthew.bohenek@morganlewis.com, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Alison Barkoff -- abarkoff@cpr-us.org -- Deborah A. Dorfman --
ddorfman@cpr-ma.org -- Sandra J. Staub, Center for Public
Representation, 22 Green Street, Northampton, Massachusetts 01060,
Ira Burnim -- irab@bazelon.org -- Jennifer Mathis, and Bazelon
Center for Mental Health Law, 1101 15th Street NW Suite 1212,
Washington, DC 20005, were on brief, for
appellants/cross-appellees.

Aaron M. Panner -- apanner@kellogghansen.com -- Matthew M. Duffy --
mduffy@kellogghansen.com -- and Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &
Frederick, P.L.L.C. on brief for Former U.S. Department of
Education Officials, Massachusetts Advocates for Children,
Massachusetts Association for Mental Health, and Mental Health
America, amici curiae.

Howard Schiffman -- howard.schiffman@srz.com -- Thomas P. DeFranco
-- thomas.defranco@srz.com -- and Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP on brief
for National Disability Rights Network, American Association of
People with Disabilities, and National Council on Independent
Living, amici curiae.

Stephen L. Holstrom and Lisa C. deSousa, with whom Edward M.
Pikula, City of Springfield Law Department, Melinda M. Phelps --
mphelps@bulkley.com -- and Bulkley, Richardson & Gelinas LLP were
on brief, for appellees/cross-appellants.


SUFFOLK COUNTY: Newkirk et al. Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
Lance Newkirk, Meesha Johnson, Dorothy W. Christopher G., on behalf
of themselves, and all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
vs. Frances Pierre, Commissioner of the Suffolk County Department
of Social Services, in her official capacity, the Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-4283 (NGG)(SMG) (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court for an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
      23(a) and (b)(2) and certifying a class of:

      "all Suffolk County residents with disabilities who: (1)
      have applied for or will apply for Supplemental Nutrition
      Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, or Temporary
      Assistance (TA), from the Suffolk County Department of
      Social Services (SCDSS) since July 1, 2018 and are
      entitled to reasonable accommodations in the application
      process to participate in or benefit from these programs;
      and/or (2) have been found eligible for such programs and
      are entitled to reasonable accommodations in order toenjoy
      equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from them";

   2. appointing the Empire Justice Center and the National
      Center for Law and Economic Justice as counsel for the
      certified class.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Greg Bass, Esq.
          Marc Cohan, Esq.
          Travis W. England, Esq.
          Jen Samantha D. Rasay, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW
            AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
          275 Seventh Ave, Ste. 1506
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 633-6967
          E-mail: Bass@nclej.org
                  Cohan@nclej.org
                  England@nclej.org
                  Rasay@nclej.org

               - and -

          Linda Hassberg, Esq.
          Saima Akhtar, Esq.
          EMPIRE JUSTICE CENTER
          Touro Law Center PAC
          225 Eastview Drive, Room 222
          Central Islip, NY 11722
          Telephone: (631) 650-2305
          E-mail: LHassberg@empirejustice.org

SUNTRUST BANK: Asks Georgia High Court to Review Bickerstaff Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, 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
petitioned the Georgia Supreme Court to review a decision granting
plaintiff's motion for class certification in Bickerstaff v.
SunTrust Bank.

This case was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12,
2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010.

Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account
which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually
interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of
Georgia.

Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and criminal
usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and purports to
bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who incurred
such overdraft fees within the four years before the complaint was
filed where the overdraft fee resulted in an interest rate being
charged in excess of the usury rate.

On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and that motion was denied but the ruling was later
reversed and remanded by the Georgia Supreme Court.

On October 6, 2017, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for
class certification and the decision was affirmed by the Georgia
Court of Appeals on March 6, 2019.

The Bank filed a petition with the Georgia Supreme Court on April
15, 2019, asking the court to review the decision.

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

SunTrust Banks, Inc. operates as the holding company for SunTrust
Bank that provides various financial services for consumers,
businesses, corporations, institutions, and not-for-profit entities
in the United States. It operates in two segments, Consumer and
Wholesale. SunTrust Banks, Inc. was founded in 1891 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Wants Remaining Claims in ERISA Case Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, 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 motion for partial
summary judgment as to successor liability and a separate motion
for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the remaining claims in a
class action lawsuit have been filed by the defendants and are
pending.

On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors, and
employees of the Company were named in a putative class action
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by offering
certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan.


The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan
participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan
accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek to recover
alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a
result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds.

This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District Court").

Subsequently, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a substantially similar
lawsuit against the Company naming two new plaintiffs.

On June 27, 2014, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al.,
another putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties
associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as
investment options in the Plan, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia but then was transferred to the
District Court.
After various appeals, the cases were remanded to the District
Court.

On March 25, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was filed,
consolidating all of these pending actions into one case. The
Company filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint on
June 6, 2016.

Subsequent to the closing of fact discovery, plaintiffs filed their
second amended consolidated complaint on December 19, 2017 which
among other things named five new defendants.

On January 2, 2018, defendants filed their answer to the second
amended consolidated complaint. Defendants' motion for partial
summary judgment was filed on January 12, 2018, and on January 16,
2018 the plaintiffs filed for motion for class certification.
Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment was granted by the
District Court on May 2, 2018, which held that all claims prior to
March 11, 2005 have been dismissed as well as dismissing three
individual defendants from action.

On June 27, 2018, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. On March 29, 2019, the District Court
dismissed RidgeWorth Capital Management, Inc. from the lawsuit and
on July 16, 2019, the District Court dismissed plaintiffs' claim
for successor liability.

A motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the remaining
claims has been filed by the defendants and is pending.

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

SunTrust Banks, Inc. operates as the holding company for SunTrust
Bank that provides various financial services for consumers,
businesses, corporations, institutions, and not-for-profit entities
in the United States. It operates in two segments, Consumer and
Wholesale. SunTrust Banks, Inc. was founded in 1891 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Automated Calls Invade Privacy, Huff Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEMETRIUS HUFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05351 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 8, 2019) is an
action for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act , resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant, in negligently, knowingly and/or willfully placing,
through its agents, automated telephone calls to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone, in violation of the TCPA and related
regulations, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Plaintiff did not give Defendants his express consent, invitation
or permission to contact him using an automatic telephone dialing
system and/or an artificial and/or prerecorded voice message, says
the complaint. Despite Plaintiff's request that Defendants cease
placing telephone calls to his cellular telephone, Defendants
placed more calls after Plaintiff's request was made. Plaintiff
estimates that Defendants have placed at least 50 additional
telephone calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone from January of
2019 through the present.

Plaintiff is an individual who was residing in the City of Chicago,
County of Cook, and State of Illinois.

Synchrony was engaged in the business of consumer lending, which
often results in the attempted collection of debts allegedly owed
to Synchrony by consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David B. Levin, Esq.
     Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
     333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
     Northbrook, IL 60062
     Phone: (224) 218-0882
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com


TEEKAY OFFSHORE: Monosson Sues Over Violation of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN A. MONOSSON and MARK WHITING, on Behalf of Themselves and
Similarly Situated Unitholders of TEEKAY OFFSHORE PARTNERS L.P.,
Plaintiffs, v. TEEKAY OFFSHORE PARTNERS L.P., TEEKAY OFFSHORE GP
L.L.C., BROOKFIELD ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., BROOKFIELD BUSINESS
PARTNERS, L.P., WILLIAM UTT, IAN CRAIG, KENNETH HVID, CRAIG LAURIE,
DAVID LEMMON, JIM REID, DENIS TURCOTTE, GREG MORRISON, WILLIAM
TRANSIER, WALTER WEATHERS, INGVILD SAETHER, JAN RUNE STEINSLAND,
and CYRUS MADON, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07522 (S.D. N.Y.,
Aug. 12, 2019) seeks to prevent Brookfield from stealing their and
other Teekay common unitholders' investments through Brookfield and
Defendants' violation of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs hereby bring
this action to seek an injunction against Brookfield's proposed
transaction, as well as damages that have resulted and will result
from Defendants' fiduciary duty breaches.

Teekay's business has strong fundamentals because it benefits from
high barriers to entry, stable relationships with large producers,
and a stable source of revenue through long-term contracts.
However, due to mismanagement and poor capital allocations, it
faced a cash crunch and a steep decline in market capitalization
between 2014 and 2016. In June 2017, Brookfield, an asset
management company with experience in real estate and natural
resources, rode to Teekay's rescue with a white-knight offer that
infused Teekay with over $600 million in cash; Brookfield's
investment eventually grew to over $1.5 billion, and the cash
infusion allowed Teekay to pay off debt, retire preferred units and
therefore save on dividend payments, and purchase assets that would
promise to lead to growth. While Brookfield's investments
ostensibly were to aid in Teekay's growth, they also served to keep
Teekay's debt level high and dividend payouts to common units low.

The short-term pain has depressed Teekay's common unit trading
price. Brookfield justified its trading-price-depressing actions as
investments that would pay off in the long term, and indeed, some
of those investments – such as the financing of new shuttle
tankers – were meant to pay off by late 2019 and 2020. Despite
Teekay's issuance of low dividends for its common units, Teekay's
strong business fundamentals and Brookfield's seeming support led
other large investors, such as Plaintiffs and several institutions,
to remained invested because of the evidence that Teekay's trading
price was vastly undervalued compared to its fundamentals, and that
the common units were on the verge of shooting up in value as
Teekay's capital-intensive investments were on the verge of paying
off.

In any event, because Brookfield has already caused Teekay to
undertake numerous actions that led to the common unit trading
price being depressed, Brookfield can simply buy the common units
at a low price on the open market if its low-ball offer is
rejected. Brookfield has a call right to buy out all non-Brookfield
common units once it holds 80% of Teekay's common units. Brookfield
already holds 73% of the common units, so it would only need to
purchase 7% of the common units on the open market to exercise its
call right. But what Brookfield has done, and what it has caused
the other Defendants to do, violates Defendants' contractual
fiduciary duties under the respective partnership agreements.

The General Partnership Agreement specifies that the directors of
the General Partner owe fiduciary duties to the partnership. The
Limited Partnership Agreement specifies that the General Partner
has to act in "good faith," which means it has to take actions it
"reasonably believes" to be in the "best interests" of the
Partnership, which is a contractual fiduciary duty akin to the
entire fairness standard in Delaware corporate law. Brookfield has
the same fiduciary duties as the General Partner because it
controls and directs the actions of the General Partner, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs have been a continuous unitholder of Teekay.

Teekay is a leading services provider in the offshore petroleum
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
     Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
     Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
     Jeffrey P. Jacobson, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
     The Helmsley Building
     230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
     New York, NY 10169
     Phone: 212-223-6444
     Facsimile: 212-223-6334
     Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
            dbroggi@scott-scott.com
            rswartz@scott-scott.com
            jjacobson@scott-scott.com

          - and -

     Geoffrey M. Johnson, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
     12434 Cedar Road, Suite 12
     Cleveland Heights, OH 44106
     Phone: (216) 229-6088
     Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
     Email: gjohnson@scott-scott.com


TERRILL OUTSOURCING: Ward Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Ward, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Terrill Outsourcing Group, LLC d/b/a
Superlative RM, Crown Asset Management LLC, and John Does 1-25, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03582-PD (E.D. Pa., Aug. 7, 2019),
seeks to recover damages resulting from Defendants' deceptive,
misleading and false debt collection practices.

Some time prior to November 7, 2018, an obligation was allegedly
incurred to Synchrony Bank. The Bank Obligation arose out of a
transaction in which money, property, insurance or services which
were the subject of the transactions were used primarily for
personal, family or household purposes. The alleged Obligation is a
"debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5).

The Defendants collect and attempt to collect debts incurred or
alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or household
purposes on behalf of creditors using the mail, telephone and
internet, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Antranig Garibian, Esq.
          GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 326-9179
          E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com

TRIHEALTH INC: Plan Members Sues Over Mismanaged Retirement Fund
----------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Forman, Nichole Georg and Cindy Haney, individually and as
representatives of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries on
Behalf of the TriHealth, Inc. Retirement Plan, Plaintiffs, v.
TriHealth, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00613, (S.D. Ohio, July
26, 2019), seeks to enforce TriHealth's liability under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to compensate the
retirement plan losses resulting from TriHealth's breaches of
fiduciary duty.

Plaintiffs are members/beneficiaries of the TriHealth, Inc.
Retirement Plan wherein TriHealth exercises discretionary authority
or discretionary control over the 401(k) defined contribution
pension plan that it sponsors and provides to its employees.
Plaintiffs claim that between 2013 and 2017, the administrative
fees charged to Plan participants is greater than 90 percent of its
comparator fees when fees are calculated as cost per participant or
when fees are calculated as a percent of total assets. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert R. Sparks, Esq.
     STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA
     150 E. Fourth Street, 4th Floor
     Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
     Telephone No.: (513) 621-2120
     Facsimile No.: (513) 241-8259
     Email: rrsparks@strausstroy.com

            - and -

     Jordan Lewis, Esq.
     JORDAN LEWIS, P.A.
     4473 N.E. 11th Avenue
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
     Telephone No.: (954) 616-8995
     Facsimile No.: (954) 206-0374
     Email: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com

            - and -

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
     First Tennessee Plaza
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Tel: (865) 247-0080
     Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

            - and -

     Charles Crueger, Esq.
     Benjanim Kaplan, Esq.
     CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC
     4532 North Oakland Avenue
     Whitefish Bay, WI 53211
     Tel: (414) 210-3868


U.S. BANK: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Guiette Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as VIRGINIA GUIETTE, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
U.S. Bank National Association, the Hon. Judge Timothy S. Black
entered an order on Aug. 8, 2019:

   1. conditionally certifying a settlement class;

      "all users or subscribers to a wireless or cellular service
      within the United States who used or subscribed to a phone
      number to which U.S. Bank National Association made or
      initiated one or more Calls during the Class Period using
      any automated dialing technology or artificial or
      prerecorded voice technology, according to U.S. Bank's
      available records, and who are within Subclass One and/or
      Two, which are defined as follows:

      Subclass One consisting of:

      "persons who used or subscribed to a cellular phone number
      to which U.S. Bank made or initiated a Call or Calls in
      connection with a Residential Mortgage Loan:"; and

      Subclass Two consisting of:

      "persons who used or subscribed to a cellular phone number
      to which U.S. Bank made or initiated a Call or Calls in
      connection with a Home Equity Loan.

   2. preliminarily approving class action settlement;

   3. approving notice plan; and

   4. setting final approval hearing

The Court adopts the percentage-of-the-fund approach as to
attorneys' fees to Class Counsel and Orders attorneys' fees in the
amount of 25% of the Settlement Fund -- i.e. $667,584.00 -- to
Class Counsel.  The Court Orders reimbursement of Class Counsel's
costs of $11,074.20 to Class Counsel from the Settlement Fund. The
Court Orders a Service Award of $5,000.00 be paid to the named
Plaintiff, Virginia Guiette, from the Settlement Fund. The Court
Orders payment of $362,164.84 from the Settlement Fund to Rust
Consulting, Inc. for its claims administration of the Settlement.

After deducting Class Counsel attorneys' fees, Class Counsel costs,
Plaintiff's service award, and Rust Consulting, Inc.'s claims
administration costs, the Court Orders that each Class Member
making a valid and timely claim is entitled to a pro rata share of
the remaining Settlement Fund of $1,624,512.96 -- or approximately
$84.15 for each of the 19,304 Class Members making a valid claim,
inclusive of 46 class members making a late, but otherwise valid
claim.[CC]

UNITED AIRLINES: Bid to Remand Brown Suit to State Court Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael M. Anello of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California remanded the case, ELLA BROWN, an
individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., an
Illinois Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 19cv537-MMA (JLB) (S.D.
Cal.), back to the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego.

The Plaintiff, a California resident, has been employed as a
non-exempt ramp agent by the Defendant in California since
September 2016.  She claims she is entitled to overtime pay and
meal rest periods dating back to the start of her employment.  The
Plaintiff alleges that the Class Period for the action is any time
during the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint (Feb.
14, 2019) and ending on a date as determined by the Court.

On Feb. 14, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action in
San Diego Superior Court on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated California employees.  She alleges six claims
for relief: (1) unlawful business practices, in violation of Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; (2) failure to pay
minimum wages, in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 1194, 1197,
1197.1; (3) failure to pay overtime compensation, in violation of
Cal. Lab. Code Sections 201, 510, 1194, 1198; (4) failure to
provide required meal periods, in violation of Cal. Lab. Code
Sections 226.7, 512; (5) failure to provide required rest periods,
in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226.7, 512; and (6) failure
to provide accurate itemized statements, in violation of Cal. Lab.
Code Section 226.

The Plaintiff defines the proposed class as all individuals who are
or previously were employed by the Defendant in California and
classified as non-exempt employees.  She excludes from the proposed
class all persons that are or were employed by the Defendant in the
position of Flight Attendant.

The Defendant removed the action to the Court on March 21, 2019.
The Plaintiff filed the instant motion to remand on April 19, 2019.
There is no dispute that the proposed class includes more than 100
employees.  Thus, the issues before the Court are: (1) whether the
parties are minimally diverse; and (2) whether the Defendant has
shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million.

As an initial matter, in her reply brief, the Plaintiff requests
that the Court takes judicial notice of a May 2019 opinion from the
Eastern District of California, Gonzalez v. Hub Int'l Midwest Ltd.
However, she asks the Court to judicially notice the opinion not to
establish the facts of the case, but rather as supplemental
authority for the Court to consider.  Judge Anello holds that the
request is misguided as a request for judicial notice is not a
proper vehicle for legal argument.  Accordingly, he denied the
Plaintiff's request for judicial notice.

In sum, the Judge finds that the Defendant has failed to carry its
burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.  As a result, the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction and remand is proper.  Based on
the foregoing, he granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand, and
remanded the action the action back to state court.  The Clerk of
Court is instructed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/2d17z5 from Leagle.com.

Ella Brown, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Norman B.
Blumenthal -- norm@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik, Aparajit Bhowmik -- aj@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Ruchira Piya Mukherjee, Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Victoria Bree Rivapalacio, Blumenthal
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

United Airlines, Inc., a Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Adam P. KohSweeney -- akohsweeney@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Meyers
LLP.


US BANK: Continues to Face Class Suits Related to RMBS Trusts
-------------------------------------------------------------
USAA Auto Owner Trust 2017-1 disclosed in its Form 10-D/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly
distribution period from April 1, 2019 to April 30, 2019, that U.S.
Bank National Association remains a defendant in multiple actions
alleging individual or class action claims related to residential
mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts.

In the last several years, U.S. Bank National Association ("U.S.
Bank") and other large financial institutions have been sued in
their capacity as trustee or successor trustee for certain RMBS
trusts.  The complaints, primarily filed by investors or investor
groups against U.S. Bank and similar institutions, allege the
trustees caused losses to investors as a result of alleged failures
by the sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and servicers to comply with
the governing agreements for these RMBS trusts.

Plaintiffs generally assert causes of action based upon the
trustees' purported failures to enforce repurchase obligations of
mortgage loan sellers for alleged breaches of representations and
warranties, notify securityholders of purported events of default
allegedly caused by breaches of servicing standards by mortgage
loan servicers and abide by a heightened standard of care following
alleged events of default.  Currently, U.S. Bank is a defendant in
multiple actions alleging individual or class action claims against
it.

U.S. Bank denies liability and believes that it has performed its
obligations under the RMBS trusts in good faith, that its actions
were not the cause of losses to investors, that it has meritorious
defenses, and it has contested and intends to continue contesting
the plaintiffs' claims vigorously.  However, U.S. Bank cannot
assure you as to the outcome of any of the litigation, or the
possible impact of these litigations on the trustee or the RMBS
trusts.


VERB TECHNOLOGY: Kim Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
BUMJIN KIM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. VERB TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC., and RORY J.
CUTAIA, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06944 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 9,
2019) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Verb securities
between January 3, 2018 and May 2, 2018, both days inclusive,
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 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

On January 3, 2018, the Company announced a purported agreement
with Oracle America, Inc. which received widespread attention. The
Company made this announcement via a filing with the SEC on Form
8-K, which omitted the text of the agreement itself. During the
Class Period, the stock increased from approximately $0.12 per
share on January 3, 2018 to $2.70 per share on April 19, 2018, an
astonishing increase of over 2000%.

However, the Plaintiff alleges that statements filed in relation to
the agreement were materially false and/or misleading because they
misinterpreted and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business and operations which were known to
Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements as to the scope
of the Agreement with Oracle as the Company did not have a contract
with Oracle to jointly develop and market the Company's product.

Plaintiff purchased Verb securities during the Class Period at
artificially inflated prices.

Verb purportedly operates as an applications services provider with
cloud Based software products for businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Phone: (310) 405-7190
     Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com


VICAL INCORPORATED: Lanzet Files Suit Over Sale to Brickell
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID M. LANZET, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. VICAL INCORPORATED, VIJAY B. SAMANT, ROBER
C. MERTON, R. GORDON DOUGLAS, RICHARD M. BELESON, GEORGE J. MORROW,
GARY A. LYONS, and THOMAS E. SHENK, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-07528 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 12, 2019) is a class action brought
by Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
public stockholders of Vical Incorporated against the Defendants,
including Vical and the members of the Company's Board of Directors
for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the proposed merger under which Vical
will be acquired by Brickell Biotech, Inc.

On June 2, 2019, Vical, Brickell, and Victory Subsidiary, Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of Vical ("Merger Sub") entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement,
Merger Sub, a wholly owned subsidiary of Vical formed in connection
with the Proposed Transaction, will merge with and into Brickell,
with Brickell surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Vical. On
July 12, 2019, in order to convince Vical's public common
stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
Defendants filed a materially incomplete and misleading proxy
statement with the SEC in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, says the complaint.

As stated in the Proxy, following consummation of the Proposed
Transaction, Vical stockholders will own 40% of the combined
company and Brickell shareholders will own 60% of the combined
company (the "Merger Consideration").

However, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading
information concerning (a) financial projections for the Company
and Brickell; (b) the valuation analyses prepared by MTS Health
Partners, L.P.'s ("MTS"), in support of its fairness opinion; (c)
potential conflicts of interest faced by MTS; and (d) the
background process leading up to the Proposed Transaction.

The Proxy disclosed that a special meeting of Vical's stockholders
will be held on August 30, 2019 to vote on the Proposed
Transaction. It is therefore imperative that the material
information that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed prior
to the Stockholder Vote so Vical stockholders can properly exercise
their corporate voting rights, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a Vical stockholder.

Vical is a company historically focused on research and development
of biopharmaceutical products for prevention and treatment of
chronic or life-threatening infectious diseases, including
antiviral and antifungal candidates in clinical development.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin A. Kuehn, Esq.
     Fletcher W. Moore, Esq.
     MOORE KUEHN, PLLC
     30 Wall Street, 8th floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 709-8245
     Email: jkuehn@moorekuehn.com
            fmoore@moorekuehn.com


WALMART INC: Jewell Sues for Failure to Warn of Dangerous Herbicide
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY JEWELL, Individually and on behalf of all others situated,
Plaintiff, v. WALMART, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-04088-SOH
(W.D. Ark., Aug. 12, 2019) is an action both on Plaintiff's behalf
and on behalf of a Class, comprised of all individuals similarly
situated within the State of Arkansas, to redress the unlawful and
deceptive practices employed by Wal-Mart in connection with its
sale of the herbicide Roundup, which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate. Glyphosate is known to be a Class 2A herbicide, meaning
it is probably carcinogenic to humans.

The Defendant markets, advertises, distributes and sells various
formulations of Roundup 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. As a retail distributor of
Roundup, Defendant is provided a Safety Data Sheet ("SDS") by the
manufacturer, which provides detailed information as to the
products' hazards. Despite its knowledge of the SDS, Defendant does
not warn consumers they may be exposed to glyphosate through
inhalation and skin contact, says the complaint.

The Defendant further omits proper use instructions, e.g. advising
consumers to use a gas mask respirator when using Roundup. The
Defendant was aware of the present and substantial danger to
consumers while using or misusing the Product in an intended and
reasonably foreseeable way and has not disclosed the potential
risks to consumers.

The Defendant's reckless, knowing, and/or willful omission of the
carcinogenic and/or otherwise harmful components to Roundup
products constitutes unlawful and deceptive business practices
violate Arkansas's Deceptive Trade Practices Act (the "ADTPA"),
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Anthony Jewell is an individual, a resident of Texarkana,
Arkansas, and a member of the Class.

WALMART, INC. is the largest home improvement retailer in the
United States and is engaged in the marketing, sale, and
distribution of the herbicide Roundup, with the active ingredient
glyphosate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steve Harrelson, Esq.
     HARRELSON LAW FIRM, P.A.
     1321 Scott Street
     Little Rock, Arkansas 72202-5051
     Phone: (501) 476-3012
     Fax: (870) 772-0302
     Email: steve@harrelsonfirm.com


WELLS FARGO: ATM Access Fee Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & 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 a class action suit related to ATM Access Fee in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

In October 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action, Mackmin,
et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al., against Wells Fargo & Company, Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., Visa, MasterCard, and several other banks in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Plaintiffs allege that the Visa and MasterCard requirement that if
an ATM operator charges an access fee on Visa and MasterCard
transactions, then that fee cannot be greater than the access fee
charged for transactions on other networks, violates antitrust
rules.

Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees where available under federal and state law.

Two other antitrust cases that make similar allegations were filed
in the same court, but these cases did not name Wells Fargo as a
defendant.

On February 13, 2013, the district court granted defendants'
motions to dismiss the three actions.

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissals and, on August 4, 2015, the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
vacated the district court's decisions and remanded the three cases
to the district court for further proceedings.

On June 28, 2016, the United States Supreme Court granted
defendants' petitions for writ of certiorari to review the
decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia.

On November 17, 2016, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the
petitions as improvidently granted, and the three cases returned to
the district court for further proceedings.

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

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Continues to Defend Hernandez and Coordes Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & 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 a putative class action suits entitled, Hernandez v. Wells
Fargo, et al., and Coordes v. Wells Fargo, et al.

Plaintiffs representing a putative class of mortgage borrowers have
filed separate putative class actions, Hernandez v. Wells Fargo, et
al., and Coordes v. Wells Fargo, et al., against Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California and the United States District Court for the District
of Washington, respectively.

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

Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo improperly denied mortgage loan
modifications or repayment plans to customers in the foreclosure
process due to the overstatement of foreclosure attorneys' fees
that were included for purposes of determining whether a customer
in the foreclosure process qualified for a mortgage loan
modification or repayment plan.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Mortgage Fees Final Approval Hearing Set for Oct. 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & 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 a court overseeing the
litigation over mortgage interest rate lock extension fees has
scheduled a final approval hearing for October 9, 2019.

On April 20, 2018, the Company entered into consent orders with the
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Bureau of Consumer
Financial Protection (BCFP) to resolve, among other things,
investigations by the agencies into the Company's compliance risk
management program and its past practices involving certain
automobile collateral protection insurance (CPI) policies and
certain mortgage interest rate lock extensions.

The consent orders require remediation to customers and the payment
of a total of $1.0 billion in civil money penalties to the
agencies. The Company was named in a putative class action, filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging violations of federal and state consumer fraud
statutes relating to mortgage rate lock extension fees.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss and the court granted the
motion.

Subsequently, a putative class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon, raising similar
allegations.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this action and the court
granted the motion.

In addition, former team members have asserted claims, including in
pending litigation, that they were terminated for raising concerns
regarding mortgage interest rate lock extension practices.

Allegations related to mortgage interest rate lock extension fees
are also among the subjects of two shareholder derivative lawsuits
consolidated in California state court.

The parties have entered into an agreement to resolve the state
court action pursuant to which the Company will pay plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and undertake certain business and governance
practices.

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July
12, 2019, and scheduled a final approval hearing for October 9,
2019.

Wells Fargo said, "This matter has also subjected the Company to
formal or informal inquiries, investigations or examinations from
other federal and state government agencies. In December 2018, the
Company entered into an agreement with all 50 state Attorneys
General and the District of Columbia to resolve an investigation
into the Company's retail sales practices, CPI and GAP, and
mortgage interest rate lock matters, pursuant to which the Company
paid $575 million."

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Nov. 7 Final OK Hearing on Interchange Litig. Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & 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 a hearing to consider
final approval of the settlement of the money damages class claims
in the Interchange Litigation is scheduled for November 7, 2019.

Plaintiffs representing a putative class of merchants have filed
putative class actions, and individual merchants have filed
individual actions, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo &
Company, Wachovia Bank, N.A., and Wachovia Corporation regarding
the interchange fees associated with Visa and MasterCard payment
card transactions.

Visa, MasterCard, and several other banks and bank holding
companies are also named as defendants in these actions.

These actions have been consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. The amended and
consolidated complaint asserts claims against defendants based on
alleged violations of federal and state antitrust laws and seeks
damages, as well as injunctive relief.

Plaintiff merchants allege that Visa, MasterCard, and payment card
issuing banks unlawfully colluded to set interchange rates.
Plaintiffs also allege that enforcement of certain Visa and
MasterCard rules and alleged tying and bundling of services offered
to merchants are anticompetitive.

Wells Fargo and Wachovia, along with other defendants and entities,
are parties to Loss and Judgment Sharing Agreements, which provide
that they, along with other entities, will share, based on a
formula, in any losses from the Interchange Litigation.

On July 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard, and the financial institution
defendants, including Wells Fargo, signed a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiff merchants to resolve the consolidated
class action and reached a separate settlement in principle of the
consolidated individual actions.

The settlement payments to be made by all defendants in the
consolidated class and individual actions totaled approximately
$6.6 billion before reductions applicable to certain merchants
opting out of the settlement.

The class settlement also provided for the distribution to class
merchants of 10 basis points of default interchange across all
credit rate categories for a period of eight consecutive months.

The district court granted final approval of the settlement, which
was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit by settlement objector merchants. Other merchants opted out
of the settlement and are pursuing several individual actions.

On June 30, 2016, the Second Circuit vacated the settlement
agreement and reversed and remanded the consolidated action to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
for further proceedings.

On November 23, 2016, prior class counsel filed a petition to the
United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the reversal of the
settlement by the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied the
petition on March 27, 2017. On November 30, 2016, the district
court appointed lead class counsel for a damages class and an
equitable relief class.

The parties have entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the
money damages class claims pursuant to which defendants will pay a
total of approximately $6.2 billion, which includes approximately
$5.3 billion of funds remaining from the 2012 settlement and $900
million in additional funding.

The Company's allocated responsibility for the additional funding
is approximately $94.5 million. The court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement in January 2019, and scheduled a final
approval hearing for November 7, 2019. Several of the opt-out and
direct action litigations were settled during the pendency of the
Second Circuit appeal while others remain pending.

Discovery is proceeding in the opt-out litigations and the
equitable relief class case.

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

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Oct. 9 Auto Insurance Settlement Fairness Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & 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 a court has granted
preliminary approval of a class action settlement and scheduled a
final approval hearing for October 9, 2019.

On April 20, 2018, the Company entered into consent orders with the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to resolve, among other things,
investigations by the agencies into the Company's compliance risk
management program and its past practices involving certain
automobile collateral protection insurance (CPI) policies and,
certain mortgage interest rate lock extensions.

The consent orders require remediation to customers and the payment
of a total of $1.0 billion in civil money penalties to the
agencies.

In July 2017, the Company announced a plan to remediate customers
who may have been financially harmed due to issues related to
automobile CPI policies purchased through a third-party vendor on
their behalf.

Multiple putative class action cases alleging, among other things,
unfair and deceptive practices relating to these CPI policies, have
been filed against the Company and consolidated into one
multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.

The Company has reached an agreement in principle to resolve the
multi-district litigation pursuant to which the Company has agreed
to pay, consistent with its remediation obligations under the
consent orders, approximately $424 million in remediation to
customers with CPI policies placed between October 15, 2005, and
September 30, 2016.

The settlement amount is not incremental to the Company's
remediation obligations under the consent orders, but instead
encompasses those obligations, including remediation payments to
date.

The settlement amount is subject to change as the Company finalizes
its remediation activity under the consent orders. In addition, the
Company has agreed to contribute $1 million to a common fund for
the class.

The district court scheduled a preliminary approval hearing for
August 5, 2019.

A putative class of shareholders also filed a securities fraud
class action against the Company and its executive officers
alleging material misstatements and omissions of CPI-related
information in the Company's public disclosures.

Former team members have also alleged retaliation for raising
concerns regarding automobile lending practices.

In addition, the Company has identified certain issues related to
the unused portion of guaranteed automobile protection (GAP) waiver
or insurance agreements between the customer and dealer and, by
assignment, the lender, which will require remediation to customers
in certain states.

The Company is subject to a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
alleging that customers are entitled to refunds in all states.

Allegations related to the CPI and GAP programs are among the
subjects of shareholder derivative lawsuits pending in federal and
state court in California.

The court dismissed the state court action in September 2018, but
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in November 2018.

The parties to the state court action have entered into an
agreement to resolve the action pursuant to which the Company will
pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and undertake certain business and
governance practices.

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July
12, 2019, and scheduled a final approval hearing for October 9,
2019.

These and other issues related to the origination, servicing, and
collection of consumer automobile loans, including related
insurance products, have also subjected the Company to formal or
informal inquiries, investigations, or examinations from federal
and state government agencies.

In December 2018, the Company entered into an agreement with all 50
state Attorneys General and the District of Columbia to resolve an
investigation into the Company's retail sales practices, CPI and
GAP, and mortgage interest rate lock matters, pursuant to which the
Company paid $575 million.

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

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WHATCOM COUNTY, WA: Kortlever Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GABRIEL KORTLEVER, SY EUBANKS, and ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON;
WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00823
(W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

On May 23, 2019, the Court entered its Order Granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and
Directing Notice to Plaintiff Class.  A fairness hearing on final
approval of the Settlement Agreement was held before the Court on
July 9, 2019.

For purposes of settlement only, Judge Robart certified the case as
a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), he certified for settlement
purposes only the Settlement Class of all non-pregnant individuals
with disabling opioid use disorders ("OUD") who are incarcerated,
or who will be incarcerated in the future, in the Whatcom County
Jail.

The Judge has appointed (i) Plaintiffs Gabriel Kortlever and Sy
Eubanks as the Class Representatives; and (ii) Lisa Nowlin and John
Midgley of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington
Foundation, and Bart Freedman of K&L Gates LLP, as the co-lead
counsel for the Settlement Class.

He approved the payment of $1,000 each to the Class
Representatives, and $25,000 to the Class Counsel for attorneys'
fees and expenses as fair and reasonable.

Class Representatives Kortlever and Eubanks will conclusively be
deemed to have irrevocably released, relinquished, and forever
discharged all claims against all released entities and individuals
as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.  The Settlement Agreement
provides:

     9.1 As of the Effective Date, Plaintiffs Gabriel Kortlever and
Sy Eubanks fully release and forever discharge the Defendants from
all claims for declaratory relief and injunctive relief that were
brought or could have been brought in the Action.

     9.2 As of the Effective Date Plaintiffs Gabriel Kortlever and
Sy Eubanks fully release and forever discharge the Defendants from
all claims arising out of, or in any way relating, to the Action;
including, but not limited to, any general, special, exemplary, and
punitive damages claims that were brought, or could have been
brought, in the Action.

The Judge dismissed the action with prejudice as to all the
Settlement Class members.

The Clerk will enter a final judgment dismissing with prejudice all
claims against the Defendants, without fees or costs except as
provided for in the Settlement Agreement and ordered by the Court.
A judgment dismissing the case will be entered immediately.

The dismissal of the claims against Defendant is without prejudice
to the rights of the Parties to enforce the terms of the Settlement
Agreement and the rights of the Class Counsel to seek the payment
of fees and costs as provided for in the Settlement Agreements.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/mtq7nL from Leagle.com.

Gabriel Kortlever & Sy Eubanks, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Bart J. Freedman --
bart.freedman@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP, Christina A. Elles --
Christina.Elles@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP, John B. Midgley, ACLU
OF WASHINGTON, Mark M. Cooke, ACLU OF WASHINGTON, Todd L. Nunn --
todd.nunn@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP & Lisa Nowlin, ACLU OF
WASHINGTON.

Whatcom County, Washington & Whatcom County Sheriff's Department,
Defendants, represented by Kristofer John Bundy --
kris@kulshanlaw.com -- KULSHAN LAW GROUP, PLLC & George C. Roche,
WHATCOM COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.


WILL COUNTY, IL: Court Denies Motion to Certify Class as Moot
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Andrea Dunn, the Plaintiff,
v. County Of Will, et al., the Defendant, Case No.:
1:18−cv−06304 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Charles P. Kocoras
entered an order denying a motion to certify class as moot.

Will County is a county in the northeastern part of the state of
Illinois.[BN]

XCESS, INC: Slack Seeks Minimum Wages, Tips for Exotic Dancers
--------------------------------------------------------------
TOSHIANA SLACK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS, the
Plaintiffs, v. XCESS, INC., and JASON ENGLISH, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00160-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., Aug. 8, 2019), seeks to
recover minimum wages, misappropriated funds (house fees),
misappropriated tips, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required and/or permitted
Toshiana Slack and others similarly situated to work as exotic
dancers at their adult entertainment club but refused to compensate
them at the applicable minimum wage. In fact, Defendants refused to
compensate them whatsoever for any hours
worked. Plaintiffs' only compensation was in the form of tips from
club patrons.

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

The Defendants purposefully misclassify dancers, including
Plaintiffs, as independent contractors so that they do not have to
compensate them at the federally mandated minimum wage rate, the
lawsuit says.

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

          Ryan P. Sink, Esq.
          FOX WILLIAMS & SINK, LLC
          6177 North College Avenue
          Indianapolis, IN 46220
          Telephone: 317-254-8500
          E-mail: rsink@fwslegal.com

ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN: Concealed Deadly Airbag Defect, Lawrence Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaya Lawrence, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG, ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE
HOLDINGS CORP., TRWAUTOMOTIVE INC., TRW AUTOMOTIVE U.S. LLC, TRW
VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS INC., TOYOTA MOTOR CORP., TOYOTA MOTOR
SALES, U.S.A., INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING
NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00369-RH-CAS
(N.D. Fla., Aug. 8, 2019) is a case presenting another example of
an airbag manufacturer and automakers conspiring to conceal a
deadly airbag defect, once again putting profits ahead of safety.

This action concerns defective airbag control units ("ACUs")
designed and manufactured by ZF Friedrichshafen AG, ZF-TRW
Automotive Holdings Corp., and its related entities ("TRW"), which
are installed in certain Toyota, Honda, Acura, Hyundai, Kia,
Mitsubishi, and Fiat Chrysler vehicles. Because of their defective
design, TRW's ACUs are unreasonably susceptible to damage or
electrical overstress conditions, which prevent the vehicles'
airbags from deploying and the seatbelt pretensioners from engaging
during a collision, thereby failing to protect vehicle occupants in
a crash. Defendants manufactured, sold, and leased vehicles
containing TRW's Defective ACUs--concealing the defect and
knowingly misrepresenting that their vehicles are safe for
consumers and the public, notes the complaint.

As a result of this misconduct, Plaintiff and members of the
proposed Classes were harmed and suffered actual damages. Plaintiff
and the Classes did not receive the benefit of their bargain;
rather, they purchased or leased vehicles that are of a lesser
standard, grade, and quality than represented, and they did not
receive vehicles that met ordinary and reasonable consumer
expectations regarding safe and reliable operation. Purchasers or
lessees of the Class Vehicles paid more, either through a higher
purchase price or higher lease payments, than they would have had
the ACU Defect been disclosed. Plaintiff and the Classes were
deprived of having a safe, defect-free airbag installed in their
vehicles, and Defendants unjustly benefited from their
unconscionable failure in recalling defective products, as they
have avoided incurring the costs associated with recalls and
installing replacement parts for years, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff Kaya Lawrence resides in Tallahassee, Florida. She owns a
2019 Toyota Corolla, which she purchased new in August 2018 from
Legacy Toyota in Tallahassee, Florida.

ZF Friedrichshafen AG ("ZF-TRW") is a foreign for-profit
corporation who is a worldwide supplier of driveline and chassis
technology for cars and commercial vehicles, including active and
passive safety technology.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
     Hirlye R. "Ryan" Lutz, III, Esq.
     Adam W. Pittman, Esq.
     Lauren S. Miller, Esq.
     CORY WATSON, P.C.
     2131 Magnolia Avenue South
     Birmingham, AL 35205
     Phone: (205) 328-2200
     Fax: (205) 324-7896
     Email: jtapley@corywatson.com
            rlutz@corywatson.com
            apittman@corywatson.com
            lmiller@corywatson.com

          - and -

     Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq.
     PRICE ARMSTRONG LLC
     2226 1st Ave S Suite 105
     Birmingham, AL 35233
     Phone: 205.706.7517
     Fax: 205.209.9588
     Email: nick@pricearmstrong.com

          - and -

     Ryan Hobbs, Esq.
     BROOKS, LEBOEUF, BENNETT, FOSTER & GWARTNEY, PA
     909 East Park Avenue
     Tallahassee, FL 32301
     Phone: 850.222.2000
     Fax: 850.222.9757
     Email: rhobbs@tallahasseeattorneys.com


ZOLL MEDICAL: Sharma Seeks Unpaid Wages for Sales Agents
--------------------------------------------------------
SANJEEV SHARMA, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-999, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ZOLL
MEDICAL CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01249 (W.D.
Wash., Aug. 8, 2019), alleges that Defendant failed to pay wages
when due. The action is based on Defendant's policy and practice to
illegally withhold wages from its commissioned sales agents.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a commissioned sales
agent of Defendant's medical equipment.  Defendant purposefully
underpaid commissions that Plaintiff earned pursuant to his
contract with Defendant.

ZOLL develops and markets medical devices and software
solutions.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
          Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
          EMERY | REDDY, PLLC
          600 Stewart St., Ste 1100
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 442-9106
          Facsimile: (206) 441-9711
          E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
                  reddyp@emeryreddy.com

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 237 Talcum Suits vs. Colgate-Palmolive Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company is facing 237 individual asbestos-related
cases pending in state and federal courts throughout the United
States as of June 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

Colgate-Palmolive states, "The Company has been named as a
defendant in civil actions alleging that certain talcum powder
products that were sold prior to 1996 were contaminated with
asbestos.  Most of these actions involve a number of co-defendants
from a variety of different industries, including suppliers of
asbestos and manufacturers of products that, unlike the Company's
products, were designed to contain asbestos.

"As of June 30, 2019, there were 237 individual cases pending
against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the
United States, as compared to 229 cases as of March 31, 2019 and
239 cases as of December 31, 2018.  During the quarter ended June
30, 2019, 25 new cases were filed and 17 cases were resolved by
voluntary dismissal, dismissal by the court, judgment in the
Company's favor or settlement.  During the quarter ended June 30,
2019, one case resulted in an adverse jury verdict after a trial,
which the Company plans to appeal.

"During the six months ended June 30, 2019, 62 new cases were filed
and 64 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal, dismissal by the
court, judgment in the Company's favor or settlement.  The value of
the settlements and of the adverse jury verdict in the quarter and
the year-to-date period presented was not material, either
individually or in the aggregate, to each such period's results of
operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/1rGA2k


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 357 Cases vs. AK Steel Still Pending at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation had 357 asbestos-related cases pending
at June 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "...[S]ince 1990 we have been named as a
defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result
of exposure to asbestos.  The great majority of these lawsuits have
been filed on behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to
asbestos while visiting the premises of one of our current or
former facilities.  The majority of asbestos cases pending in which
we are a defendant do not include a specific dollar claim for
damages.  In the cases that do include specific dollar claims for
damages, the complaint typically includes a monetary claim for
compensatory damages and a separate monetary claim in an equal
amount for punitive damages, but does not attempt to allocate the
total monetary claim among the various defendants.

"Since the onset of asbestos claims against us in 1990, six
asbestos claims against us proceeded to trial in five separate
cases.  Five out of six claims concluded with a verdict in our
favor.

"Based upon present knowledge, and the factors above, we believe it
is unlikely that the resolution in the aggregate of the asbestos
claims against us will have a materially adverse effect on our
consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial
condition.  However, predictions about the outcome of pending
litigation, particularly claims alleging asbestos exposure, are
subject to substantial uncertainties.  These uncertainties include
(1) the significantly variable rate at which new claims may be
filed, (2) the effect of bankruptcies of other companies currently
or historically defending asbestos claims, (3) the litigation
process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case,
(4) the type and severity of the disease each claimant is alleged
to suffer, and (5) the potential for enactment of legislation
affecting asbestos litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/tEghlY


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Appeals Jury Verdict in Oklahoma Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that it is appealing a judgment entered on a
jury verdict in an asbestos case in state court in Oklahoma against
a party that was indemnified by the Company and another unrelated
defendant.

The Company states, "On June 14, 2019, judgment was entered on a
jury verdict in an asbestos case in state court in Oklahoma against
a party that was indemnified by us and another unrelated defendant.
The judgment amount was US$8.1 million against both defendants
jointly and severally.  We are appealing that judgment and intend
to contest the matter vigorously, which may include asserting
contribution claims against the other defendant.  We continue to
vigorously defend all asbestos claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/tEghlY


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Records $783MM Liability at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. estimates US$783 million as of June 30, 2019, for
the aggregate liability for both asbestos-related claims asserted
but not yet resolved and potential asbestos-related claims not yet
asserted, including estimated defense costs.

In its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, the
Company states, "Like many other industrial companies that have
historically operated in the United States, the Company, or parties
the Company is obligated to indemnify, continues to be named as one
of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions.
The Company has an estimated liability of US$783 million as of June
30, 2019 for asbestos-related claims and associated costs through
2074, which is the last date by which the Company currently
estimates it is likely to have resolved all asbestos-related
claims.  The Company additionally estimates that, as of June 30,
2019, it has aggregate insurance coverage available in the amount
of US$386 million to satisfy asbestos-related claims and associated
defense costs."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/PxO406


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $5.4MM Liability at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation has US$5,417,000 asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable as of June 30,
2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Like many industrial manufacturers, the
Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation.  In continually
evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-related
liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the incidence
of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the
mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its
recent and historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases
pending against it, the status and results of broad-based
settlement discussions, and the number of years such activity might
continue.  Based on this review, the Company has estimated its
share of liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related
personal injury claims.  This estimate is highly uncertain due to
the limitations of the available data and the difficulty of
forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can
affect the range of the liability.  The Company will continue to
study the variables in light of additional information in order to
identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact
on the range of liability that is probable and estimable.

"Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between US$4,100,000 and US$8,000,000 using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 37 years from June
30, 2019.  The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates
US$5,417,000, which is included in the accrued general and product
liability costs in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of
June 30, 2019.  The recorded liability does not consider the impact
of any potential favorable federal legislation.  This liability
will fluctuate based on the uncertainty in the number of future
claims that will be filed and the cost to resolve those claims,
which may be influenced by a number of factors, including the
outcome of the ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations,
defensive strategies, and the cost to resolve claims outside the
broad-based settlement program.  Of this amount, management expects
to incur asbestos liability payments of approximately US$2,000,000
over the next 12 months.  Because payment of the liability is
likely to extend over many years, management believes that the
potential additional costs for claims will not have a material
effect on the financial condition of the Company or its liquidity,
although the effect of any future liabilities recorded could be
material to earnings in a future period.

"The Company believes that a share of its previously incurred
asbestos-related expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are
covered by pre-existing insurance policies.  The Company has
engaged in a legal action against the insurance carriers for those
policies to recover these expenses and future costs incurred.  When
the Company resolves this legal action, it is expected that a gain
will be recorded for previously expensed cost that is recovered.
During quarters ended June 30, 2019 and 2018, the Company received
settlement payments of US$290,000 and US$484,000, respectively, net
of legal fees, from its insurance carriers as partial reimbursement
for asbestos-related expenses.  These partial payments have been
recorded as a reduction of cost of products sold in the Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations.  The Company is continuing
its actions to recover further past costs and to cover future
costs."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Yb5f9T


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deem's Case Subject to Admiralty Jurisdiction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington granted Plaintiff's motion to apply maritime
law in the case styled Sherri L. Deem, Plaintiff, v. Air & Liquid
Systems Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. C17-5965 BHS,
(W.D. Wash.).

The Court also granted Defendants FMC Corporation's and McNally
Industries, Inc.'s motion to dismiss all of Plaintiff's remaining
claims to the extent she brought claims under any law other than
Washington law.

Mr. Deem worked at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard from 1974 to 1981
as an apprentice and journeyman outside machinist. Mr. Deem alleges
that he was exposed to asbestos-containing products during his
employment.

On November 20, 2017, Plaintiff, individually and as the personal
representative of the estate of Thomas Deem, filed a complaint
against numerous defendants seeking damages for the
asbestos-related death of Mr. Deem. Deem filed a separate action
for wrongful death against another twenty-three defendants on June
28, 2018, in Deem v. Armstrong Int'l, Inc., et al., Cause No.
3:18-cv-05527 BHS, which was consolidated with the instant case for
the purposes of discovery and for pretrial matters through summary
judgment.

Both complaints contain the same product liability claims including
negligence, strict products liability, and "any other applicable
theory of liability," including "if applicable RCW 7.72 et seq.,"
and allege that the defendants' actions or omissions "proximately
caused severe personal injury and other damages to Plaintiff's
decedent, including his death." On April 25, 2019, the Court
granted summary judgment for FMC and McNally on Deem's claims to
the extent they were brought under Washington law.

In this case, FMC and McNally argue that Deem "has failed to meet
her burden that any of Mr. Deem's alleged exposure to asbestos
occurred on navigable waters." While it is true that Deem's
"complaint is devoid of any allegation that Mr. Deem's exposure
took place aboard vessels in navigable waters or at drydock at
PSNS," Deem's vagueness could have been based on the facts known at
the time of filing, which appear to be that Mr. Deem worked at
PSNS, his work entailed both land-based machine shop work and
ship-based repair work, and he died from mesothelioma. Regardless,
the Court said that the proper standard is preponderance of the
evidence, not specificity of the complaint.

In support of her allegation that Mr. Deem's injuries occurred in
the repair and maintenance of naval vessels, Deem submits the
deposition testimony of Mr. Deem's coworkers, Lawrence Foster and
David Wingo, Jr. Foster testified that he worked with Mr. Deem in
the PSNS marine machinist apprentice program where "they would
either remove valves or repair valves in place, pumps, various
mechanical equipment... and on steam turbines somewhat and air
compressors." Wingo's testimony is similar in all relevant aspects.
Wingo even worked with Mr. Deem for a longer period of time because
they both worked at PSNS after the apprentice program ended.

FMC and McNally moved to dismiss Deem's complaint as to any "claims
that arise under any substantive body of law other than Washington
state law with prejudice." The Court granted the motion to dismiss,
concurring with FMC and McNally that Deem's claims are vague and
subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim.

Nonetheless, the Court found that Deem has met her burden on the
locality test since Foster and Wingo's testimony firmly establishes
that Mr. Deem was exposed to dust on board ships that were
allegedly equipped with products that contained asbestos. Since FMC
and McNally did not offer evidence to contest these facts,
allegations, and reasonable inferences, the Court found that FMC
and McNally have failed to conclusively establish that Deem's
maritime claims would be futile. Therefore, the Court granted Deem
leave to amend her complaint.

A copy of the Order dated August 6, 2019, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yyozz82z from Leagle.com.

Sherri L. Deem, individually and as Personal Representative for the
Thomas A. Deem, deceased, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Jean
McLafferty -- mclafferty@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK &
BENDER, Lucas W.H. Garrett -- garrett@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER
GOLDMARK & BENDER, Thomas J. Breen -- breen@sgb-law.com --
SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Benjamin H. Adams -- badams@dobllp.com
-- DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, pro hac vice, Charles W. Branham, III
, DEAN OMAR BRANHAM SHIRLEY LLP, pro hac vice, David C. Humen --
dhumen@dobslegal.com -- DEAN OMAR BRANHAM SHIRLEY LLP, pro hac vice
& Jessica Dean -- jdean@dobllp.com -- DEAN OMAR BRANHAM SHIRLEY
LLP, pro hac vice.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually, Defendant,
represented by Brady L. Green , WILBRAHAM LAWLER & BUBA PC, pro hac
vice, Edward J. White , WILBRAHAM LAWLER & BUBA PC, pro hac vice,
Kevin J. Craig -- kcraig@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
LLP, Mark B. Tuvim -- mtuvim@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY
MANSUKHANI LLP, Trevor J. Mohr -- tmohr@grsm.com -- GORDON REES
SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP & James G. Scadden -- jscadden@grsm.com
--GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP, pro hac vice.

CBS Corporation, formerly known as Viacom Inc successor in interest
CBS Corporation formerly known as Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher G. Conley --
cgconley@ewhlaw.com -- EVERT WEATHERSBY HOUFF, pro hac vice,
Christopher S. Marks -- cmarks@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP,
David A. Speziali , SPEZIALI, GREENWALD & HAWKINS, pro hac vice,
Erin P. Fraser -- efraser@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP, John
W. Elder -- jwe@painetarwater.com -- PAINE TARWATER BICKERS LLP,
pro hac vice, Lawrence D. Wilson -- ldwilson@ewhlaw.com -- EVERT
WEATHERSBY HOUFF, pro hac vice & William D. Harvard --
wdharvard@ewhlaw.com -- EVERT WEATHERSBY HOUFF, pro hac vice.

Foster-Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher S. Marks -- cmarks@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP,
David A. Speziali , SPEZIALI, GREENWALD & HAWKINS, pro hac vice &
Erin P. Fraser -- efraser@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher S.
Marks -- cmarks@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP, David A.
Speziali , SPEZIALI, GREENWALD & HAWKINS, pro hac vice, Erik
Nadolink -- nadolink@wtotrial.com -- WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP,
pro hac vice, Erin P. Fraser -- efraser@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM
KEALE LLP & John Fitzpatrick -- fitzpatrick@wtotrial.com -- WHEELER
TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP, pro hac vice.

IMO Industries Inc, individually, Defendant, represented by James
Edward Horne -- jhorne@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL &
Michael Edward Ricketts -- mricketts@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS
HONEYWELL.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut --
aeraut@rizzopc.com -- RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

FMC Corporation, individually and as & McNally Industries LLC,
individually and as, Defendants, represented by Katherine M. Steele
, BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY, Rachel Tallon Reynolds , LEWIS BRISBOIS
BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, Rick C. Shea , SWANSON MARTIN & BELL LLP, pro
hac vice & Ryan Wheeler , SWANSON MARTIN & BELL LLP, pro hac vice.

Gardner Denver Inc, Defendant, represented by Claude Bosworth --
cbosworth@rizzopc.com -- RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Armstrong International Inc, Defendant, represented by Bennett J.
Hansen -- bhansen@pregodonnell.com -- PREG O'DONNELL & GILLETT,
PLLC, David E. Chawes -- dchawes@pregodonnell.com -- PREG O'DONNELL
& GILLETT, PLLC & Stephanie B. Ballard -- sballard@pregodonnell.com
-- PREG O'DONNELL & GILLETT, PLLC.

ITT LLC, Crosby Valve LLC, Goulds Pumps Inc & Grinnell LLC,
Defendants, represented by Ronald C. Gardner --
rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

John Crane Inc, Defendant, represented by Daira S. Waldenberg --
dwaldenberg@selmanlaw.com -- SELMAN BRIETMAN LLP.

Cleaver-Brooks Inc, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. O'Connell ,
DANIEL J O'CONNELL & ASSOC, pro hac vice, Meredith S. Hudgens --
mhudgens@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD, pro hac vice &
Timothy Kost Thorson -- thorson@carneylaw.com -- CARNEY BADLEY
SPELLMAN PS.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Deborah K. St.
Lawrence Thompson -- deborah.thompson@nelsonmullins.com -- NELSON
MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP, pro hac vice, Katherine A. Lawler
-- katherine.lawler@nelsonmullins.com -- NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin J. Craig -- kcraig@grsm.com --
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP, Mark B. Tuvim -- mtuvim@grsm.com
-- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP, Peter W. Sheehan, Jr. --
peter.sheehan@nelsonmullins.com -- NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH LLP, pro hac vice, Thurman W. Zollicoffer, Jr. --
thurman.zollicoffer@nelsonmullins.com -- NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH LLP, pro hac vice & Trevor J. Mohr -- tmohr@grsm.com --
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP.

The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Brian Bernard
Smith -- bsmith@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD & James D.
Hicks -- jhicks@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD.

Velan Valve Corp, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig --
kcraig@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP, Mark B. Tuvim
-- mtuvim@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP & Trevor J.
Mohr -- tmohr@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Still Defends Falk PI Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation continues to face lawsuits alleging personal
injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain
clutches and drives previously manufactured by The Falk
Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter
ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "In connection with the Company's acquisition
of The Falk Corporation ("Falk"), Hamilton Sundstrand provided the
Company with indemnification against certain products-related
asbestos exposure liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant
to such indemnity obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to
defend and indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos
claims, and that, with respect to these claims, such indemnity
obligations are not subject to any time or dollar limitations.

"Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple
lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk.  There are approximately 100
claimants in these suits.  The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined.  Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity obligations
and has paid 100% of the costs to date."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/HfLfz3


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Unit Remains Subject to PI Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation's Prager subsidiary remains subject of claims
by multiple claimants alleging personal injuries due to the alleged
presence of asbestos in a product it manufactured, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2019.  However,
all the claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district Litigation
inactive docket.

Rexnord states, "...[T]he Company does not believe that they will
become active in the future.  To date, the Company's insurance
providers have paid 100% of the costs related to the Prager
asbestos matters.  The Company believes that the combination of its
insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity obligations will
cover any future costs of these matters.

"In connection with its sale, Invensys plc ("Invensys") provided
the Company with indemnification against certain contingent
liabilities, including certain pre-closing environmental
liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity
obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and indemnify the
Company with respect to the matters relating to the Ellsworth
Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims.  The indemnity
obligations relating to the matters are subject, together with
indemnity obligations relating to other matters, to an overall
dollar cap equal to the purchase price, which is an amount in
excess of US$900 million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/HfLfz3


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has $41.1MM Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc. disclosed in a press release on July
25, 2019, that it has accrued asbestos liabilities of US$41,104,000
as of June 30, 2019, compared to US$45,117,000 as of December 31,
2018.

A full-text copy of the Company's July 25, 2019 Press Release is
available at https://is.gd/nOJpB5


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UTC Records $328MM Asbestos Liability at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Technologies Corporation (UTC) recorded US$328 million as of
June 30, 2019, for its estimated total liability to resolve all
pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through
2059, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "...[L]ike many other industrial companies, we
and our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos
integrated into certain of our products or business premises.
While we have never manufactured asbestos and no longer incorporate
it in any currently-manufactured products, certain of our
historical products, like those of many other manufacturers, have
contained components incorporating asbestos.  A substantial
majority of these asbestos-related claims have been dismissed
without payment or were covered in full or in part by insurance or
other forms of indemnity.  Additional cases were litigated and
settled without any insurance reimbursement.  The amounts involved
in asbestos related claims were not material individually or in the
aggregate in any year.

"Our estimated total liability to resolve all pending and
unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is
approximately US$328 million and is principally recorded in Other
long-term liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet
as of June 30, 2019.  This amount is on a pre-tax basis, not
discounted, and excludes the Company's legal fees to defend the
asbestos claims (which will continue to be expensed by the Company
as they are incurred).  In addition, the Company has an insurance
recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of
approximately US$147 million, which is included primarily in Other
assets on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30,
2019.

"The amounts recorded by UTC for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance recoveries are based on currently available information
and assumptions that we believe are reasonable.  Our actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than
those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the
assumptions.  Key variables in these assumptions include the number
and type of new claims to be filed each year, the outcomes or
resolution of such claims, the average cost of resolution of each
new claim, the amount of insurance available, the allocation
methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer with whom we
have reached settlements, the resolution of coverage issues with
other excess insurance carriers with whom we have not yet achieved
settlements, and the solvency risk with respect to our insurance
carriers.  Other factors that may affect our future liability
include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, legal rulings
that may be made by state and federal courts, and the passage of
state or federal legislation.  At the end of each year, the Company
will evaluate all of these factors and, with input from an outside
actuarial expert, make any necessary adjustments to both our
estimated asbestos liabilities and insurance recoveries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/SI5G5N



                            *********

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 ***