CAR_Public/190826.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, August 26, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 170

                            Headlines

2U INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action
2U INC: Faces Harper Securities Suit Over Declining Share Prices
2U INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
2U INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit
2U INC: RM Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

3M COMPANY: Laborer's Fund Hits Share Price Drop
ABBVIE INC: Faces 12 Class Suits by Indirect HUMIRA Buyers
ABBVIE INC: Settlement in Rubinstein Suit Wins Initial Approval
ABBVIE INC: Still Defends Suit Over AndroGel "Sham Litigation"
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Shaw Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.

ADVANCED LOAN: Silvera Files Class Suit in Florida
ALLIED CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
ALLSTATE FIRE: Cody Files Class Suit in Texas
ALTA MESA: Plumbers Suit Transferred to Southern District of Texas
AMNEAL PHARMA: Appeal in Williams Class Suit Underway

AMNEAL PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Digoxin Drug-Related Suit Pending
AMNEAL PHARMA: Document Discovery in Generic Pricing Suit Ongoing
AMNEAL PHARMA: Opana ER(R) Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
AMNEAL PHARMA: Settlement Reached in Sergeants Benevolent Suit
ANGI HOMESERVICES: Conner Files Class Suit under ADA

APPLE INC: Lopez Challenges Illegal Recording of Communications
APPLE INC: Siri Recordings Spawn Class-Action Lawsuit
APPLE INC: Williams, et al. Sue over iCloud Service Rate
ARONESTY AND SANTORO: Buscemi Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
ARROWHEAD PHARMA: 9th Cir. Affirms Order of Dismissal

ARROWHEAD PHARMA: Suit over Hepatitis B Drug Research Ongoing
BDJ TRUCKING: Yata's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Advisement
BELLICUM PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Kakkar Class Suit Pending
BIZQUALIFY LLC: Seeks Prelim. OK of $695K Settlement in Hu Suit
BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Bid to Dismiss Mishal & Berger Suit Pending

CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Justiss Hits Share Price Drop
CAPITAL ONE: Fadullon Sues Over Credit Card Data Breach
CAPITAL ONE: Harn Sues Over Credit Card Data Breach
CAPITAL ONE: Howitt Files Sues Over Data Breach
CAPITAL ONE: Miller Files Class Suit in Washington

CAPITAL ONE: Tester Files Class Suit in Virginia
CAPITALA FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss Paskowitz Suit Still Pending
CARIBBEAN CAR: Mirabal Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
CASA SYSTEMS: IPO-Related Class Suits Underway in Massachusetts
CB RESTAURANTS: Padilla Balks at "House Fees" for Exotic Dancers

CHAMBERS FINE: Picon Files Class Suit under ADA
CHANEL JOHNSON: El Files Class Suit in New Jersey
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Trejo Seeks Unpaid Wages for Workers
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Reached in Tagalogon Class Suit
CINEMARK USA: Brown Settlement Agreement Preliminarily Approved

CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: $15.7MM Remains to be Paid from Settlement
CONTRA COSTA: Violates TCPA by Sending Unsolicited Fax, Katz Say
CONTRACT FREIGHTERS: Merrill Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Skibbe Sues over Share Price Drop
CURO GROUP: Continues to Defend Yellowdog Partners Class Suit

DETROIT EDISON: Court Dismisses With Prejudice Nolan ERISA Suit
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Suit in Arkansas Still Pending
E&A PROTECTIVE: Denied Drivers Meal Breaks, Gas Mileage Refunds
EATON, OH: Quinn et al. Seek OT Wages for Firefighters
EDEN MANAGEMENT: Bayeg Sues Over Biometrics Data Sharing

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Generic Drug Pricing Litigation Ongoing
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Mesh Liability Payments Reaches $3.4 Billion
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Trial in Opioid Related Suit to Begin Oct. 2019
ENDURANCE INT'L: Machado Settlement Fairness Hearing on Sept. 13
ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Still Awaits Court OK on McGee Settlement

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Paul Files Class Suit under FDCPA
EQUITY BANCSHARES: Suit Alleges Misleading Financial Report
EVOLENT HEALTH: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
EVOLENT HEALTH: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Bid to Dismiss Patel Suit

FACEBOOK INC: Loses Appeal, Class Action Over Facial Recognition
FISHER PRICE: Wray Suit Transferred to Western Dist. of New York
FLYING POINT SPORT: Olsen Suit Alleges Violation under ADA
FMH LP: Deleston Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
FORD MOTOR: Agrees to $17MM Settlement Over Infotainment Woes

FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Weidman's Brake Defect Suit
FORD MOTOR: Pinon Suit Transferred to Eastern District of Michigan
FORD MOTOR: Riverside Alleges False Fuel-Economy Ratings
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Misled Investors in Baker Hughes Deal, Suit Says
GENERAL MILLS: Newman Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois

GENERAL MOTORS: Truesdell Sues Over Defective Headlights
GERALD PETERS: Picon Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
GERAWAN FARMING: Court OKs $5MM Class Settlement in Amaro Suit
GHS INTERACTIVE: Cunningham Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Haut Sues Over Misrepresentation of Vanilla

GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: New York Class Suit Over 1MDB Scandal Ongoing
GOLDMAN SACHS: New York Suit Over FX Transactions Ongoing
GOLDMAN SACHS: NY Securities Class Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
GREENE NAFTALI: Picon Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act

HEADWAY TECH: Faces Suit Over Hard Drive Component Price-fixing
HEADWAY TECH: Suit Claims Price-Fixing of HDD Suspension Assemblies
HEALTH INSURANCE: Schick Suit Moved to S.D. California
HELIUS MEDICAL: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
HELIUS MEDICAL: Sept. 9 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline

HERON THERAPEUTICS: Wong Securities Class Suit Ongoing
HERTZ LOCAL: Denied Workers Pay Slips, Meal Breaks, Says Ramirez
HOWARD ZUCKER: Court OKs Class Certification in Guadagna
HSBC USA: Faces Ortega Class Action
HUCKBERRY INC: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act

INEOS STYROLUTION: Foth Suit Dismissed Per Settlement Agreement
INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Skrzeczkoski Class Suit Ongoing
INTERSECT ENT: Nov. 1 Hearing to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Dolan Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
JONES FINANCIAL: 8th Cir. Appeal in McDonald Suit Pending

JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Discrimination Class Suit Underway
JONES FINANCIAL: Renewed Bid to Dismiss Bland Suit Pending
JUUL LABS: R.E. Alleges Deceptive Trade of e-Cigarette Products
KC PLUMBING, LLC: Diaz Seeks Overtime Pay, Claims Retaliation
KIMPTON HOTEL: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Anderson Suit

LOZANO INSURANCE: Jointly Move to Notify Class in Mosley Suit
LVNV FUNDING: Soussana Files FDCPA Suit in Calif.
M&T BANK: Settlement of Suit v. Wilmington Trust Finally Approved
MAINSTREET REALTORS: Sued over Unsolicited Calls & Text Messages
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Zeisset Class Suit Underway

MAMMOTH ENERGY: Faces Two Class Suits in Oklahoma
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Still Defends Class Action in Puerto Rico
MDL 2904: Brown-Wells Suit over Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2904: DeMarshall v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2904: Finch v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated

MDL 2904: Grauberger v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2904: Hively v. LABCORP. over Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2904: Mayer v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2904: Worthey v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated
MELINTA THERAPEUTICS: Court Closes Naples Class Suit

MIDLAND CREDIT: Doerwald Suit Moved to E.D. New York
MORGAN STANLEY: Bid to Dismiss GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit Underway
NCAA:  Neglected Student-Athletes' Safety, Leiss Suit Says
NCAA: Wakely Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety
NEW MEXICO: APS Wins Dismissal of FAPE IDEA Suit

NHK GROUP: Integrity Files Antitrust Trust Suit in Michigan
NIGHT STAR: Illegally Towed Parked Vehicle, Green Says
NORTH COAST MEDIA: Newell Sues over Pre-Recorded Phone Messages
NORTHWEST COLLECTORS: Schmieder Files Consumer Class Action
OMEGA FLEX: Missouri Class Action Ongoing

ONSHORE QUALITY: Robertson Seeks Overtime Wages for Workers
PACIFIC FERTILITY: Court Narrows Claims in Egg Storage Litigation
PERMITS ETC: Reed Seeks Minimum Wage for Exotic Dancers
PETROS & SON'S: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA/NJWHL, Lema Says
PHARMAPACKS LLC: Diaz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act

PLASTIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE: Walk and Estrada Seek OT Pay for Clerks
POLEKATZ GENTLEMEN'S: Exotic Dancers Not Contractors, Suit Says
POWERSTROKE WELL: Lechot Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PUBLIX SUPER: Rivera Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
REILY FOODS: 1st Cir. Flips Dismissal in Dumont Suit

REMAX REAL: Tikotzky Sues over Unsolicited Calls & Text Messages
SANDHU INDUSTRIES: Ortega Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SANYO ENERGY: Ziccarello Suit Transferred to District of New Jersey
SAVING INSURANCE: Moore Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Mediation in Agar Suit Set for Dec. 11

SHUTTERFLY INC: Gordon to Halt Merger Deal, Seeks Financials
SIRIUS XM: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of DPPA CFAA Suit
SKINNER SERVICES: Court OKs Class Certification in Pineda Suit
SMOKERS GOODS: Ruos et al. Seek Overtime Wages
STAND UP: Court OKs Arbitration in Townsend FLSA Suit

SUNRISE SENIOR: Tunstall Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
TAIYAKI NYC: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
TATCHA LLC: Dawson Files ADA Class Suit in New York
TENET HEALTHCARE: Maderazo Class Suit Ongoing
TRACE STAFFING: Harake Seeks Certification of Class Under FCRA

TRACTOR SUPPLY: Hornbeck Moves for Prelim. Approval of Settlement
TRAVELCENTERS: Bid to Dismiss Ohio Class Suit Pending
TRIHEALTH INC: Forman Sues Over Mismanaged Retirement Fund
TYSON FOODS: Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit Ongoing
TYSON FOODS: Fed Cattle Antitrust Litigation Ongoing

TYSOON FOODS: Peterson Suit over Inflated Beef Price Underway
U.S. IMMIGRATION: Nightingale Seeks to Certify Two Classes
UNITED STATES: Removes Zhuravleva Suit to S.D. California
US CONFERENCE: Franchell Files Class Suit in NY for Personal Injury
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit by Puerto Rico Retirement Fund

USHEALTH ADVISORS: Odom Sues over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Wolther Class Suit
VIRGINIA COMMUNITY: Moore Sues over Employee Stock Ownership Plan
VIVINT: Perrong Files Class FDCPA Suit in Utah
VM TRUCKING: Court Partly Affirms Summary Judgment in Morales Suit

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in DSG Transmission Suit
WELLS FARGO: Oct. 9 Final Settlement Approval Hearing in Sales Suit
WELLS FARGO: Settlement of Institutional Investors Suit Okayed
WELLS FARGO: Still Faces Suit over Debit Card Order of Posting
WHITESTONE REIT: Co-Lead Plaintiffs Appointed in Clark Class Suit

ZIMMER BIOMET: Shah Class Certification Bid Underway

                            *********

2U INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of 2U
Inc. (NASDAQ: TWOU) between February 25, 2019 and July 30, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased 2U Inc. securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit 2U Inc. Shareholder
Class Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company faced increasing competition in
online education and particularly regarding graduate programs; (2)
that the Company faced certain program-specific issues that
negatively impacted its performance; (3) that, as a result, the
Company's business model was not sustainable; (4) that the Company
would slow its program launches; and (5) 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."

The truth began to emerge on May 7, 2019, when the Company
disclosed declining enrollments in some of its largest graduate
programs.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $15.16 or nearly 26%
to close at $44.77 per share on May 8, 2019.

On July, 30, 2019, after the market closed, the Company reported a
larger-than-expected loss for second quarter 2019.  The Company
also revised its guidance for fiscal 2019, expecting a net loss
between $157.5 and $151.5 million.

On this news, 2U's common stock fell $23.70 or nearly 65% to close
at $12.80 per share.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 7, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased TWOU securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit https://tinyurl.com/y3xo6hyz
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact Information:

         Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: https://www.bernlieb.com
         Tel.: (877) 779-1414
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


2U INC: Faces Harper Securities Suit Over Declining Share Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
AARON HARPER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. 2U, INC., CHRISTOPHER J. PAUCEK, and CATHERINE A.
GRAHAM, Case No. 1:19-cv-07390 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2019), is brought
on behalf of those that purchased 2U securities seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Mr. Harper alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that the Company faced increasing competition in online
education and particularly regarding graduate programs and that the
Company faced certain program-specific issues that negatively
impacted its performance.  He contends that when the truth began to
emerge and when the Company disclosed declining average enrollments
in some of its largest graduate programs, the Company's share price
fell, thus, harming him and other shareholders.

2U is incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its principal
executive offices located in Lanham, Maryland.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of 2U.

2U is an education technology company that works with universities
to provide online graduate programs and certificates for working
adults.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: 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
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  clinehan@glancylaw.com
                  prajesh@glancylaw.com


2U INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against 2U, Inc. (NASDAQ: TWOU) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired the securities of 2U between
February 25, 2019 and July 30, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges that, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company faced increasing competition in online
education and particularly regarding graduate programs; (2) the
Company faced certain program-specific issues that negatively
impacted its performance; (3) as a result, the Company's business
model was not sustainable; (4) the Company would slow its program
launches; and (5) as a result, 2U's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the October 7, 2019
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


2U INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP alerts investors in 2U, Inc. (TWOU)
to the securities class action, Harper v. 2U, Inc. et al., No.
1:19-cv-07390, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

If you invested in 2U between February 25, 2019 and July 30, 2019
(the "Class Period") and suffered losses you do not need to sign up
to be included in the putative class of investors.

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

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must move the Court no later than October 7, 2019 (the "Lead
Plaintiff deadline").  Contact Hagens Berman immediately for more
information about the case and being a lead plaintiff
https://www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/TWOU or contact Reed
Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling
510-725-3000 or emailing TWOU@hbsslaw.com

According to the Complaint, Defendants misrepresented and concealed
the following: (1) 2U faced increasing competition in online
education and particularly regarding graduate programs; (2) 2U
faced program-specific issues that negatively impacted its
performance, including 2U's grad business; (3) 2U's business model
was unsustainable; and (4) 2U would slow its program launches.

On July 30, 2019, the market learned the truth when Defendants
announced disappointing Q2 2019 financial results and revised U2's
2019 guidance to double its expected loss.  Analysts immediately
downgraded the stock, including Oppenheimer which said 2U was
"uninvestable given the uncertainty over its business model."

This news drove the price of 2U shares steeply lower on July 31,
2019.

"We're focused on investors' losses and the extent to which 2U may
have misled investors about the sustainability of its business
model," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers:  Persons with non-public information regarding 2U
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.  Under the new program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC.  For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or
email TWOU@hbsslaw.com.

About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys.  The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation.  More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com.  For the latest news visit our newsroom or
follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw.

Contact:
Reed Kathrein, Esq.
Tel.: 510-725-3000
Email: reed@hbsslaw.com  [GN]


2U INC: RM Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased 2U, Inc.
(NASDAQ: TWOU) common stock February 26, 2018 and July 30, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

2U shareholders may, no later than October 7, 2019, move the Court
for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you purchased
shares of 2U and would like to learn more about these claims or if
you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas,
Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign up online.

On May 7, 2019, the Company lowered its revenue guidance for fiscal
2019 to a range of $534 to $537 million, from prior guidance range
of $546.6 to $550.8 million, due to declining average enrollments
in some of its largest graduate programs.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $15.16, or nearly 26%,
to close at $44.77 per share on May 8, 2019, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Then on July 30, 2019, after the market closed, the Company
reported a larger-than-expected loss for second quarter 2019. The
Company also revised its guidance for fiscal 2019, expecting a net
loss between $157.5 and $151.5 million, compared to prior net loss
guidance between $79.0 and $77.2 million, because it would
"moderate [its] grad program launch cadence."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $23.70, or nearly 65%,
to close at $12.80 per share on July 31, 2019, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company faced increasing competition in
online education and particularly regarding graduate programs; (2)
that the Company faced certain program-specific issues that
negatively impacted its performance; (3) that, as a result, the
Company's business model was not sustainable; (4) that the Company
would slow its program launches; and (5) 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.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than October 7,
2019, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that
the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other
counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C.
(Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by
email at rm@maniskas.com

RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm.  RM LAW,
P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal
courts nationwide.

Contact:

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire
         RM LAW, P.C.
         1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
         Berwyn, PA 19312
         Tel.: 484-324-6800, 844-291-9299
         Email: rm@maniskas.com  [GN]


3M COMPANY: Laborer's Fund Hits Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------
Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Welfare Fund,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. 3M Company, Inge G. Thulin, Michael F. Roman and
Nicholas C. Gangestad, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-15982, (D. N.J.,
July 29, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

3M is a multinational conglomerate corporation whose common stock
trades on the New York Stock Exchange. It produces per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances used in industrial and consumer
products, including non-stick cookware, water-repellent clothing,
camping gear, shoes, stain resistant fabrics, textiles and carpets,
cosmetics, surfactants for electronics manufacturing, and products
that resist grease, water, and oil, such as coated papers for
fast-food takeout. The substances allegedly do not break down
molecularly, thus causing harm to the environment with some states
claiming that it has contaminated their tap water.

These omissions and misrepresentations caused 3M's stock price to
trade at artificially inflated prices. The price of 3M common stock
declined from its close of $163.35 per share on May 28, 2019 to
trade as low as $160.50 per share in intraday trading and close at
$161.40 per share on May 29, 2019.

Plaintiff purchased 3M shares and lost substantially after
corrective disclosures. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      77 Water Street
      55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
      Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
      Telephone: (212) 584-0700
      Fax: (212) 584-0799
      Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

             - and -

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      Email: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com


ABBVIE INC: Faces 12 Class Suits by Indirect HUMIRA Buyers
----------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that between March and May 2019, 12 putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois by indirect HUMIRA
purchasers, alleging that AbbVie's settlements with biosimilar
manufacturers and AbbVie's HUMIRA patent portfolio violate state
and federal antitrust laws.

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


ABBVIE INC: Settlement in Rubinstein Suit Wins Initial Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that a court has granted preliminary approval
to the parties' settlement agreement in Rubinstein, et al. v
Gonzalez, et al.

In November 2014, five individuals filed a putative class action
lawsuit, Rubinstein, et al. v Gonzalez, et al., on behalf of
purchasers and sellers of certain Shire plc (Shire) securities
between June 20 and October 14, 2014, against AbbVie and its chief
executive officer in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois alleging that the defendants made
and/or are responsible for material misstatements in violation of
federal securities laws in connection with AbbVie's proposed
transaction with Shire.

In July 2019, the court granted preliminary approval to the
parties' settlement agreement.

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


ABBVIE INC: Still Defends Suit Over AndroGel "Sham Litigation"
--------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend suits,
including a class action case, in Pennsylvania over alleged "sham
litigation" related to AndroGel.

In September 2014, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") filed a
lawsuit against AbbVie and others in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the
2011 patent litigation with two generic companies regarding
AndroGel was sham litigation and the settlements of that litigation
violated federal antitrust law.

In May 2015, the court dismissed the FTC's settlement-related
claim.

In June 2018, following a bench trial, the court found for the FTC
on its sham litigation claim and ordered a disgorgement remedy of
$448 million, plus prejudgment interest. The court denied the FTC's
request for injunctive relief.

AbbVie is appealing the court's liability and disgorgement rulings
and, based on an assessment of the merits of that appeal, no
liability has been accrued for this matter.

The FTC is also appealing aspects of the court's trial ruling and
the dismissal of its settlement-related claim.

One purported class action on behalf of direct AndroGel purchasers
based on the trial court's ruling in the FTC's case is also pending
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and is stayed pending the appeals in the FTC's case.

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

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Shaw Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jasmaine Shaw, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.,
Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., Hollister Co. and Does 1-50,
Inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 30-2019-01068593 (Cal. Super., May
8, 2019), was removed to the U.S. District Court for Central
California on July 31, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-01490.

Figueroa seeks redress for Defendants' failure to provide meal and
rest breaks, failure to provide itemized wage statements, interest
thereon at the statutory rate, actual damages, all wages due
terminated employees, costs of suit, prejudgment interest and such
other and further relief pursuant to the California Labor Code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders.[BN]

Defendants are represented by:

      Emily T. Patajo, Esq.
      Rachael Lavi, Esq.
      Cassidy C. Veal, Bar No. 323899
      LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
      2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
      Telephone: (310) 553-0308
      Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
      Email: epatajo@littler.com
             rlavi@littler.com


ADVANCED LOAN: Silvera Files Class Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Loan
Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Silvera, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Advanced Loan Systems, LLC doing business as: Oneloanplace.com, a
Florida Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00383 (N.D. Fla.,
Aug. 14, 2019).

The case type is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

Advanced Loan Systems, LLC is a loan agency in Tallahassee,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



ALLIED CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Allied Capital Corp., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-06559 (C.D. Cal., July 29, 2019), seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Allied Capital Corp. is an online marketing company that conducted
telemarketing campaigns in order to promote its business. Fabricant
claims to have received auto-dialed telemarketing calls on his
phones. Fabricant's phone is registered in the National Do-Not-Call
registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLSTATE FIRE: Cody Files Class Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allstate Fire and
Casualty Insurance Company. The case is styled as Andrea Cody,
Traevion Love, Brittany Burk, and Dana Whitfield, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Allstate
Fire and Casualty Insurance Company and Allstate County Mutual
Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01935-K (N.D. Tex.,
Aug. 13, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract:
Insurance filed for Breach of Insurance Contract.

Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company operates as an
insurance firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John Scott Black, Esq.
   Daly & Black PC
   2211 Norfolk Street, Suite 800
   Houston, TX 77098
   Tel: (713) 655-1405
   Fax: (713) 655-1587

     - and -

   Richard D Daly, Esq.
   Daly & Black PC
   2211 Norfolk Street, Suite 800
   Houston, TX 77098
   Tel: (713) 655-1405
   Fax: (713) 655-1587
   Email: rdaly@dalyblack.com


ALTA MESA: Plumbers Suit Transferred to Southern District of Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. ALTA MESA RESOURCES, INC. f/k/a SILVER RUN
ACQUISITION CORPORATION II, JAMES T. HACKETT, THOMAS J. WALKER,
WILLIAM D. GUTERMUTH, JEFFREY H. TEPPER, DIANA J. WALTERS and
RIVERSTONE INVESTMENT GROUP LLC, the Defendants, and Camelot Event
Driven Fund, A Series of Frank Funds Trust, the Movant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00920 (Filed Jan. 30, 2019), was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District Southern of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston) on Aug
12, 2019. The Southern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 4:19-cv-02982 to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of
Securities Exchange Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Lynn N. Hughes.

Alta Mesa is an independent oil and gas exploration and production
company.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund
are:

          David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER ET AL
          58 S Service Road, Ste 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          E-mail: drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          LERACH COUGHLIN ET AL
          58 S Service Rd Ste 200
          Melville, NY 11747-2342
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100

Attorneys for Defendants are:

          Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          500 W 2nd Street, Floor 19, Suite 140
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 710-5960
          E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com

               - and -

          James Christian Word, Esq.
          Jessica Leigh Bengels, Esq.
          LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP
          Washington, DC 20004, Ste 1000
          Telephone: (202) 637-2200
          E-mail: christian.word@lw.com

Attorneys for Camelot Event Driven Fund are:

          Christopher J Keller, Esq.
          Francis P McConville, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0853
          Facsimile: (212) 883-7053
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  fmcconville@labaton.com

AMNEAL PHARMA: Appeal in Williams Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the appeal in the
class action suit initiated by Emielou Williams is ongoing.

On August 3, 2017, plaintiff Emielou Williams filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California in the
County of Alameda on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated against Impax alleging violation of California Business
and Professions Code section 17200 by violating various California
wage and hour laws, and seeking, among other things, declaratory
judgment, restitution of allegedly unpaid wages, and disgorgement.


On October 10, 2017, Impax filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike
Class Allegations. On December 12, 2017, the Court overruled
Impax's Demurrer to Plaintiff's individual claims. However, it
struck all of plaintiff's class allegations.

On March 13, 2018, plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint once
again including the same class allegations.

The Company filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike Class Allegations
on April 12, 2018.

On September 20, 2018, the Court again struck plaintiff’s class
allegations; plaintiff has appealed this most recent order to the
California State Court of Appeal. Plaintiff filed her opening
appellate brief on February 22, 2019; Impax's brief in response was
filed on April 18, 2019; plaintiff filed her reply brief on May 7,
2019; and Impax filed a surreply on May 22, 2019. The appeal has
now been fully submitted on the briefs.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


AMNEAL PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Digoxin Drug-Related Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the class action
suit related to the price fixing of the generic drug digoxin, is
pending.

On April 17, 2017, Lead Plaintiff New York Hotel Trades Council &
Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund filed an
amended class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated against Impax and four current or former
Impax officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

Plaintiff asserts claims regarding alleged misrepresentations about
three generic drugs.

Its principal claim alleges that Impax concealed that it colluded
with competitor Lannett Corp. to fix the price of generic drug
digoxin, and that its digoxin profits stemmed from this collusive
pricing.

Plaintiff also alleges that Impax concealed from the market
anticipated erosion in the price of generic drug diclofenac and
that Impax overstated the value of budesonide, a generic drug that
it acquired from Teva.

On June 1, 2017, Impax filed its motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On September 7, 2018, the Court granted Impax's motion,
dismissing plaintiffs' claims without prejudice and with leave to
amend their complaint.

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint October 26, 2018. Impax
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on December
6, 2018; plaintiffs' opposition thereto was filed on January 17,
2019; and Impax's reply in support of its motion to dismiss was
filed on February 7, 2019.

A hearing before the Court on the motion to dismiss took place on
May 2, 2019.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


AMNEAL PHARMA: Document Discovery in Generic Pricing Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that  the consolidated
class action suit entitled, In Re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing
Antitrust Litigation, is proceeding to document discovery.

Between March 2016 and January 2019, numerous complaints styled as
antitrust class actions on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect
purchasers (or end-payors) and several separate individual
complaints on behalf of certain direct and indirect purchasers (the
"opt-out plaintiffs") have been filed against manufacturers of
generic digoxin, lidocaine/prilocaine, glyburide-metformin, and
metronidazole, including Impax.

The end-payor plaintiffs comprise Plaintiff International Union of
Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund; Tulsa Firefighters
Health and Welfare Trust; NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund; Pipe Trade
Services MN; Edward Carpinelli; Fraternal Order of Police, Miami
Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Nina Diamond; UFCW Local 1500
Welfare Fund; Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund; The City
of Providence, Rhode Island; Philadelphia Federation of Teachers
Health and Welfare Fund; United Food & Commercial Workers and
Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust; Ottis McCrary; Plumbers
& Pipefitters Local 33 Health and Welfare Fund; Plumbers &
Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Unite Here
Health; Valerie Velardi; and Louisiana Health Service Indemnity
Company.

The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprise KPH Healthcare Services,
Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc.; Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc.;
César Castillo, Inc.; Ahold USA, Inc.; and FWK Holdings, L.L.C.

The opt-out plaintiffs comprise The Kroger Co.; Albertsons
Companies, LLC; H.E. Butt Grocery Company L.P.; Humana Inc.; and
United Healthcare Services, Inc.

On April 6, 2017, the JPML ordered the consolidation of all civil
actions involving allegations of antitrust conspiracies in the
generic pharmaceutical industry regarding 18 generic drugs in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ("E.D. Pa."), as In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals
Pricing Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2724).

Consolidated class action complaints were filed on August 15, 2017
for each of the 18 drugs; Impax is named as a defendant in the 2
complaints respecting digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine.

Impax also is a defendant in the class action complaint filed with
the MDL court on June 22, 2018 by certain direct purchasers of
glyburide-metformin and metronidazole.

Each of the various complaints alleges a conspiracy to fix,
maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate
markets or customers for the particular drug products at issue.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.

On October 16, 2018, the Court denied Impax and its co-defendants'
motion to dismiss the digoxin complaint. On February 15, 2019, the
Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to
dismiss various state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust
enrichment claims brought by two classes of indirect purchasers in
the digoxin action.

The Court dismissed seven state law claims in the end-payor
plaintiffs' complaint and six state law claims in the indirect
reseller plaintiffs' complaint.

Motions to dismiss the glyburide-metformin and metronidazole
complaint, as well as 2 of the complaints filed by certain opt-out
plaintiffs, were filed February 21, 2019.

On March 11, 2019, the Court issued an order approving a
stipulation withdrawing the direct purchaser plaintiffs'
glyburide-metformin claims against Impax. Document discovery
otherwise is proceeding.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


AMNEAL PHARMA: Opana ER(R) Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend itself against Opana ER(R) Antitrust
Litigation.

From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints styled as class actions
on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers (also known
as end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf
of certain direct purchasers (the "opt-out plaintiffs") were filed
against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and Impax.

The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprise Value Drug Company and
Meijer Inc. The end-payor plaintiffs comprise the Fraternal Order
of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Wisconsin Masons'
Health Care Fund; Massachusetts Bricklayers; Pennsylvania Employees
Benefit Trust Fund; International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 138 Welfare Fund; Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity
Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana; Kim
Mahaffay; and Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare
Trust Fund.

The opt-out plaintiffs comprise Walgreen Co.; The Kroger Co.;
Safeway, Inc.; HEB Grocery Company L.P.; Albertson’s LLC; Rite
Aid Corporation; Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.; and CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML") ordered the pending class
actions transferred to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois ("N.D. Ill.") for coordinated
pretrial proceedings, as In Re: Opana ER Antitrust Litigation (MDL
No. 2580). (Actions subsequently filed in other jurisdictions also
were transferred by the JPML to the N.D. Ill. to be coordinated or
consolidated with the coordinated proceedings, and the District
Court likewise has consolidated the opt-out plaintiffs' actions
with the direct purchaser class actions for pretrial purposes.)

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an
anticompetitive settlement agreement with Impax to delay generic
competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal
antitrust laws.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.
Discovery, including expert discovery, is ongoing.

On March 25, 2019, plaintiffs filed motions for class certification
and opening expert reports. Defendants' oppositions to class
certification and rebuttal expert reports are due to be filed in
August 2019. No trial date has been scheduled.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the
claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any
adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations,
cash flows and/or overall financial condition.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


AMNEAL PHARMA: Settlement Reached in Sergeants Benevolent Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has
reached a settlement in principle with plaintiffs in the case,
Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund v. Actavis,
PLC, et. al., subject to execution of definitive documentation.

In August 2015, a complaint styled as a class action was filed
against Forest Laboratories (a subsidiary of Actavis plc) and
numerous generic drug manufacturers, including Amneal, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
involving patent litigation settlement agreements between Forest
Laboratories and the generic drug manufacturers concerning generic
versions of Forest's Namenda IR product.

The complaint (as amended on February 12, 2016) asserts federal and
state antitrust claims on behalf of indirect purchasers, who allege
in relevant part that during the class period they indirectly
purchased Namenda(R) IR or its generic equivalents in various
states at higher prices than they would have absent the defendants'
allegedly unlawful anticompetitive conduct.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution.

On September 13, 2016, the Court stayed the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs’ claims pending factual development or resolution of
claims brought in a separate, related complaint by direct
purchasers (in which the Company is not a defendant).

On September 10, 2018, the Court lifted the stay, referred the case
to the assigned Magistrate Judge for supervision of supplemental,
non-duplicative discovery in advance of mediation to be scheduled
in 2019.

The parties thereafter participated in supplemental discovery, as
well as supplemental motion-to-dismiss briefing. On December 26,
2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part motions to
dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims.

On January 7, 2019, Amneal, its relevant co-defendants, and the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs informed the Magistrate Judge that
they had agreed to mediation, which occurred in April 2019.

In June 2019, the Company reached a settlement with plaintiffs,
subject to Court approval.

The amount of the settlement is not material to the Company's
consolidated financial statements.

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

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


ANGI HOMESERVICES: Conner Files Class Suit under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
ANGI Homeservices, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. ANGI Homeservices,
Inc., Homeadvisor, Inc. and IAC/InterActiveCorp., Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-04680 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 14, 2019).

ANGI Homeservices offers a digital marketplace for home services,
connecting millions of homeowners across the globe with home
service professionals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


APPLE INC: Lopez Challenges Illegal Recording of Communications
---------------------------------------------------------------
FUMIKO LOPEZ, and FUMIKO LOPEZ, as guardian of A.L., a minor,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
APPLE INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 5:19-cv-04577-NC (N.D.
Cal., Aug. 7, 2019), arises from the Defendant's unlawful and
intentional recording of individuals' confidential communications
without their consent, in violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California
Unfair Competition Law.

Siri is a voice-recognition software program developed by Apple
that allows individuals to use their voice to ask questions and
receive answers based on information available on the Internet.
Apple preloads Siri on devices it manufactures, including Apple's
iPhone smartphones, iPad tablets, Apple Watches, AirPod headphones,
HomePod smart speakers, MacBook laptops, and iMac computers ("Siri
Devices").

Apple knows that unauthorized recordings are common and as such
tasks its human reviewers with, among other things, identifying
whether Siri was deliberately activated or not, the Plaintiffs
allege.  Despite this, Apple has not informed consumers they are
regularly being recorded without consent, the Plaintiffs add.

Apple Inc. is a business incorporated under the laws of the State
of Delaware with its principal place of business located in
Cupertino, California.

Apple is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,
distributing, and selling, inter alia, smartphones, tablet
computers, wearable technology, headphones, laptops and desktop
computers that come with software programs that Apple develops
pre-installed.  Apple designs its products in California, and its
marketing efforts emanate from California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


APPLE INC: Siri Recordings Spawn Class-Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Ed Hardy, writing for Cult of Mac, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been proposed to prevent Apple from recording Siri
commands without users' express consent.  And the plaintiffs want
restitution, of course.

Apple admits it made recordings of people talking to the Siri
voice-control system to improve the system. As part of the process,
some of these were listened to by humans.

A whistleblower claims third-party contractors working for Apple
frequently overheard private conversations that were recorded when
an iPhone or Apple Watch mistakenly believed that the user had
activated Siri. This caused the company to suspend its practice of
having people review recordings.

"We are committed to delivering a great Siri experience while
protecting user privacy," Apple said in a statement. "While we
conduct a thorough review, we are suspending Siri grading globally.
Additionally, as part of a future software update, users will have
the ability to choose to participate in grading."

Lawsuit demands permanent changes

A suit filed in the Nothern District of California accuses Apple of
"unlawful and intentional recording of individuals' confidential
communications without their consent from approximately October
2011 to the present."

As evidence, they point out that Apple's privacy policy says "We
may collect and store details of how you use our services,
including search queries. This information may be used to improve
the relevancy of results provided by our services." The plaintiffs
do not believe that this covers the company recording accidental
Siri interactions and letting third-party contractors listen to
them, especially when the people being recorded are children.

They want Apple to get consent before recording any minor's Siri
interactions, and all previous ones deleted. As mentioned, the
company has already promised to allow people to opt out of its Siri
review program. And anyone can make their iPhone stop making these
recordings.

The plaintiffs in the proposed class action lawsuit also want
"restitution of Plaintiffs' and the Class members' money and
property lost as a result of Apple's acts of unfair competition."
This comes from their claim that they bought Apple devices because
these would better protect their privacy than rivals' would,
something they say these secret recordings indicate isn't true.

If Apple doesn't rectify their complaints within 30 days, the
plaintiffs warn that they'll seek punitive damages.

Not yet a class action

A lawsuit like this one isn't actually a class action yet. The
plaintiff, Fumiko Lopez and a minor, have asked that it be
certified one, but it's up to the court. The court will base its
decision on whether a sufficient number of people have been harmed
to warrant a class action. [GN]


APPLE INC: Williams, et al. Sue over iCloud Service Rate
--------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA M. WILLIAMS AND JAMES STEWART, On Behalf of Themselves And
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. APPLE, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-04700 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 12, 2019),
alleges breach of contract, violations of California's False
Advertising Law and violations of California's Unfair Competition
Law.

The Plaintiffs bring the class action complaint against Apple, Inc.
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons in
the United States who during the Class Period paid for
subscriptions to Apple's iCloud service.

Apple's iCloud service provides users the ability to store their
digital data on remote servers, as opposed to keeping the data
stored merely on the users' devices. This is commonly referred to
as "storing on the cloud."

Apple sold subscriptions to the putative class members by which
Apple represented to class members that, in exchange for paying
Apple the iCloud monthly subscription fees, Apple would provide
them with cloud storage. In truth and in fact, however, Apple
lacked the necessary infrastructure to provide this service at the
time it sold it. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and the putative class
members, instead of storing class members' data on Apple cloud
servers and facilities, Apple actually stored users' data on cloud
facilities owned and operated by other entities, like Amazon,
Microsoft or Google -- all undisclosed to these class members who
paid and entrusted Apple to store their data.

The selection of a cloud storage provider is a significant and
material consideration, as it involves entrusting all of a user's
stored data—including sensitive information like photographs,
documents of all kinds, and e-mail content—to be stored by the
cloud storage provider. Thus, users have an interest in who is
offering this storage and taking custody of their data. For this
reason, in Apple's iCloud subscription contract, Apple went to
great lengths to represent and assure iCloud subscribers that Apple
was the provider of the cloud storage service being purchased by
the putative class members. Apple highlighted as much in its iCloud
contract for U.S. subscribers,the lawsuit says.

Touting itself as the provider of the iCloud service (when, in
fact, Apple was merely reselling cloud storage space on cloud
facilities of other entities) allowed Apple not only to obtain paid
subscriptions of class members who subscribed to iCloud believing
that their cloud storage was being provided by Apple, but also
allowed Apple to charge a premium for its iCloud service because
subscribers placed a value on having the "Apple" brand as the
provider of the storage service for their most sensitive data.

In fact, at the time that Apple was selling iCloud storage as its
own to subscribers, but actually reselling (unbeknownst to class
members) cloud storage provided by Amazon or Microsoft, these rival
entities (i.e., Amazon or Microsoft) were providing cloud storage
services to the public at prices lower than Apple's iCloud. Class
members, therefore, paid a premium for their belief and
understanding that their data would be stored by Apple.

Cloud storage involves stashing data on hardware in a remote
physical location, which can be accessed from any device via the
internet. Clients send files to a data server maintained by a cloud
provider instead of (or as well as) storing it on their own hard
drives. Cloud storage systems generally encompass hundreds of data
servers linked together by a master control server.[BN]

Counsel for James Stewart and Andrea M. Williams are:

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.C.
          4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 546 4435
          E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com

               - and -

          Azra Mehdi, Esq.
          THE MEHDI FIRM, P.C.
          One Market
          Spear Tower, Suite 3600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 293-8039
          Facsimile: (415) 293-8001
          E-mail: azram@themehdifirm.com

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. [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


ARROWHEAD PHARMA: 9th Cir. Affirms Order of Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued a memorandum affirming the
district court's dismissal of all claims in a consolidated class
action.

The Company and certain executive officers were named as defendants
in a putative consolidated class action in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California regarding
certain public statements in connection with the Company's drug
research programs.  

The consolidated class action, initially filed as Meller v.
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-08505 (C.D.
Cal, filed Nov. 15, 2016 ), Siegel v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-8954 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 2, 2016), and
Unz v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No.2:17-cv-00310
(C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 13, 2017) asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding
certain public statements in connection with the Company's drug
research programs and seek damages in an unspecified amount.  

Additionally, a putative stockholder derivative action captioned
Johnson v. Anzalone, et al., (Los Angeles County Superior Court,
filed January 19, 2017) asserting substantially similar claims is
pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court and is stayed pending
the related consolidated class action.

Two additional putative stockholder derivative actions, captioned
Lucas v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:17-cv-03207 (C.D. Cal., filed
April 28, 2017), and Singh v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:17-cv-03160
(C.D. Cal., filed April 27, 2017), alleging breach of fiduciary
duty by the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the
alleged facts underlying the securities claims, are pending in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  

The Lucas and Singh actions have been consolidated. On December 21,
2017, the federal district court dismissed the consolidated class
action with prejudice.  On July 23, 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued
a memorandum affirming the district court's dismissal of all claims
in the consolidated class action. The Lucas and Singh actions are
stayed pending resolution of the Ninth Circuit appeal.  

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
vigorously defend itself in these matters. The Company makes
provisions for liabilities when it is both probable that a
liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably
estimated.  

No such liability has been recorded related to these matters. The
Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter and
cannot accurately estimate any potential liability the Company may
incur or the impact of the results of this matter on the Company.

Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. develops medicines for the
treatment of intractable diseases in the United States. The company
was formerly known as Arrowhead Research Corporation and changed
its name to Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in April 2016.
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was incorporated in 1989 and is
headquartered in Pasadena, California.


ARROWHEAD PHARMA: Suit over Hepatitis B Drug Research Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a putative consolidated class action suit
regarding the company's public statements in connection with its
hepatitis B drug research.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as
defendants in a putative consolidated class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
regarding certain public statements in connection with the
Company's hepatitis B drug research.  

The consolidated class action, initially filed as Wang v. Arrowhead
Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-07890 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct.
10, 2014), and Eskinazi v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No.
2:14-cv-07911 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 13, 2014), asserted claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and sought damages in an unspecified amount.  

Additionally, three putative stockholder derivative actions
captioned Weisman v. Anzalone et al., No. 2:14-cv-08982 (C.D. Cal.,
filed Nov. 20, 2014), Bernstein (Backus) v. Anzalone, et al., No.
2:14-cv-09247 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 2, 2014); and Johnson v.
Anzalone, et al., No. 2:15-cv-00446 (C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 22,
2015), were filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, alleging breach of fiduciary duty
by the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the alleged
facts underlying the securities claims.  

An additional consolidated derivative action asserting similar
claims was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, initially
filed as Bacchus v. Anzalone, et al., (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 5,
2015); and Jackson v. Anzalone, et al. (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 16,
2015).  

Each of these suits seeks damages in unspecified amounts and some
seek various forms of injunctive relief.  

On October 7, 2016, the federal district court dismissed the
consolidated class action with prejudice. Following the dismissal
of the consolidated class action, the parties for the Weisman and
Johnson actions jointly stipulated to dismiss the actions, with the
parties bearing their own fees and costs.  

The parties to the Bernstein and consolidated derivative action
agreed to stay the matters pending the resolution of the Ninth
Circuit appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated class action.


On February 15, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum
affirming the district court’s dismissal of all claims.  

Plaintiffs in the consolidated derivative action voluntarily
dismissed their case.  The parties to the Bernstein action filed a
stipulation to continue the stay of the action pending resolution
of the Ninth Circuit appeal in Meller v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-08505 (C.D. Cal.).  

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
vigorously defend itself in each of these matters. The Company
makes provisions for liabilities when it is both probable that a
liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably
estimated.  No such liability has been recorded related to these
matters.  

The Company does not expect these matters to have a material effect
on its Consolidated Financial Statements.

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

Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. develops medicines for the
treatment of intractable diseases in the United States. The company
was formerly known as Arrowhead Research Corporation and changed
its name to Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in April 2016.
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was incorporated in 1989 and is
headquartered in Pasadena, California.


BDJ TRUCKING: Yata's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Advisement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman has taken under advisement the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled
Hamimi Yata, et al. v. BDJ Trucking Co., et al., Case No.
1:17−cv−03503 (N.D. Ill.).

The status hearing in the lawsuit, which was set for August 16,
2019, is stricken.[CC]


BELLICUM PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Kakkar Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the defendants in
Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair and Alan
Musso, have sought dismissal of the case.

On February 6, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair
and Alan Musso was filed against the Company, and certain of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division.

A second substantially similar class action was filed on March 14,
2018 by plaintiff Frances Rudy against the same defendants in the
same court.  

The lawsuits purport to assert class action claims on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from May
8, 2017 through January 30, 2018.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, by making
materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
clinical trials being conducted in the U.S. to assess rivo-cel
(rivogenlecleucel, formerly known as BPX-501) as an adjunct T-cell
therapy administered after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell
transplantation.  

The complaints purport to assert claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  

The complaints seek, on behalf of the purported class, an
unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses
of attorneys and experts, and other relief.

On April 9, 2018, the District Court consolidated the two lawsuits
under the Kakkar action. On March 26, 2019, the court appointed
lead plaintiffs to represent the putative class and on May 15,
2019, plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint.

On July 5, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company, focuses on discovering and developing novel cellular
immunotherapies for the treatment of hematological cancers, solid
tumors, and orphan inherited blood disorders in the United States
and internationally. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


BIZQUALIFY LLC: Seeks Prelim. OK of $695K Settlement in Hu Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit styled QIUZI HU, an individual, EDWIN
RAMIREZ, an individual, IVAN RONCERIA, an individual, WENZHI FEI,
an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. JOSE M. PLEHN-DUJOWICH, a.k.a. JOSE M. PLEHN, an
individual; BIZQUALIFY LLC, a California limited liability company;
and POWERLYTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
3:18-cv-01791-EDL (N.D. Cal.), jointly move the Court for an order
preliminarily approving the Parties' Stipulation of Class Action
Settlement and Release of Claims, pursuant to which the Defendants
agreed to pay $695,000 into a Settlement Fund.

Following an arm's-length negotiation, and with the assistance of
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero, the Parties reached terms
of settlement at the April 23, 2019 settlement conference.  The
Parties thereafter entered into the Class Settlement Agreement.

The proposed Class Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement
Class as "all Class Members," including Class Representatives, who
do not opt out of the settlement:

     All Class Members, including Class Representatives, who do
     not exclude themselves from the Class or Settlement Class,
     pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 6.3 of the
     Settlement Agreement and the Class Notice.

Under the Settlement, the Defendants have agreed to pay a sum of up
to $695,000 into a Settlement Fund, comprised of:

   a. $375,000 in exchange for a general release of all claims by
      the Settlement Class;

   b. Up to $20,000, in an amount to be determined by the Court,
      as incentive awards to Class Representatives; and

   c. Up to $300,000, in an amount to be determined by the Court,
      as payment for the reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and
      expenses incurred by the Settlement Class, which funds are
      to be paid to Class Counsel.

The Parties also ask the Court to direct the Class Counsel, in its
capacity as Settlement Administrator, to disseminate the Notice of
Class Action Settlement, Claim Form, and Opt-Out Form to the
Settlement Class by e-mail and, where possible, mail.  The Parties
further ask the Court to schedule a Final Approval Hearing for the
purpose of receiving evidence, argument, and any objections
relating to the Parties' Class Settlement, and to set the amounts
to be paid by the Defendants in the form of incentive awards to
Class Representatives and reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses to Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on October 1, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs, Class, Subclass, and FLSA Collective are
represented by:

          Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq.
          Krista L. Baughman, Esq.
          Gregory R. Michael, Esq.
          DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
          177 Post Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 433-1700
          Facsimile: (415) 520-6593
          E-mail: harmeet@dhillonlaw.com
                  kbaughman@dhillonlaw.com
                  gmichael@dhillonlaw.com

Defendants Jose M. Plehn-Dujowich and BizQualify LLC are
represented by:

          Loren Kieve, Esq.
          KIEVE LAW OFFICES
          2655 Steiner Street
          San Francisco, CA 94115
          Telephone: (415) 364-0060
          E-mail: lk@kievelaw.com


BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Bid to Dismiss Mishal & Berger Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Court in the
class action suit initiated by Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger held
a hearing on the motion to dismiss and has taken the issue under
advisement.

On May 25, 2018, plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger (on
behalf of themselves and the purported class, Plaintiffs) initiated
a purported class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the Court) against the following defendants:

the Company, Boardwalk GP, LP (Boardwalk GP), Boardwalk GP, LLC and
Boardwalk Pipelines Holding Corp. (BPHC) (together, Defendants),
regarding the potential exercise by Boardwalk GP of its right to
purchase the issued and outstanding common units of the Company not
already owned by Boardwalk GP or its affiliates (Purchase Right).

On June 25, 2018, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, subject to
the approval of the Court (the Proposed Settlement).

Under the terms of the Proposed Settlement, the lawsuit would be
dismissed, and related claims against the Defendants would be
released by the Plaintiffs, if BPHC, the sole member of the general
partner of Boardwalk GP, elected to cause Boardwalk GP to exercise
its Purchase Right for a cash purchase price, as determined by the
Company's Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited
Partnership, as amended (the Limited Partnership Agreement), and
gave notice of such election as provided in the Limited Partnership
Agreement within a period specified by the Proposed Settlement.

On June 29, 2018, Boardwalk GP elected to exercise the Purchase
Right and gave notice within the period specified by the Proposed
Settlement. On July 18, 2018, Boardwalk GP completed the purchase
of the Company's common units pursuant to the Purchase Right.

On September 28, 2018, the Court denied approval of the Proposed
Settlement. On February 11, 2019, a substitute verified class
action complaint was filed in this proceeding.

In July 2019, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss and
has taken the issue under advisement.

Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates integrated natural gas and natural gas liquids and other
hydrocarbons (NGLs) pipeline and storage systems in the United
States. The company operates natural gas pipeline systems in the
Gulf Coast region, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, as well as the
Midwestern states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and
Ohio; and NGLs pipelines and storage facilities in Louisiana and
Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP was founded in 2005 and is
headquartered in Houston, Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP is
a subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipelines Holding Corp.


CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Justiss Hits Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------
Scott Justiss, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Canntrust Holdings Inc., Peter Aceto and
Greg Guyatt, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07164 (S.D. N.Y., July 31,
2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

CannTrust is a Canada-based producer of medical and recreational
cannabis. Unknown to investors, CannTrust allegedly was growing
cannabis in five unlicensed locations causing its Pelham, Ontario
greenhouse to be noncompliant with certain Canadian regulations and
had shipped unlicensed cannabis in violation of the Canadian
Cannabis Act.

On July 8, 2019, following this disclosure, the price of
CannTrust's common stock declined on the NYSE by $1.11 per share or
over 22%, from a closing price of $4.94 per share on July 5, 2019,
to close at $3.83 per share on July 8, 2019 on heavy trading
volume. Justiss owns CannTrust common stock. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Jonathan Lindenfeld, 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
             jlindenfeld@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

             - and -

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


CAPITAL ONE: Fadullon Sues Over Credit Card Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Fadullon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Capital One Financial
Corporation, Amazon Web Services, Inc., Paige A. Thompson and Does
1-10,, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01189, (W.D. Wash., July 30,
2019), seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other and
further relief resulting from negligence and violations of
Washington Consumer Protection Act, the Washington Data Breach
Disclosure Law and the California Data Breach Law.

On July 29, 2019, it was reported that Capital One and Amazon Web
experienced an unauthorized access by a hacker who obtained certain
types of personal information relating to people who had applied
for credit card products and used them to purchase from Amazon.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
     T. David Copley, Esq.
     Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Tel: (206) 623-1900
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
            dcopley@kellerrohrback.com
            claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com

            - and -

      Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Theodore W. Maya, SBN 223242
      Bradley K. King, SBN 274399
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      10728 Lindbrook Drive
      Los Angeles, California 90024
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
             tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
             bking@ahdootwolfson.com
             rglezakos@ahdootwolfson.com


CAPITAL ONE: Harn Sues Over Credit Card Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
Matthew Harn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital
One Bank (USA), N.A., and Capital One, N.A. and Does 1-10,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-02441, (D. Kan., July 31, 2019), seeks
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other and further
relief resulting from breach of contract, negligence, unjust
enrichment and violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act.

On July 29, 2019, it was reported that Capital One experienced an
unauthorized access by a hacker who obtained certain types of
personal information relating to people who had applied for credit
card products.

Capital One is a bank holding company and financial institution
that offers credit cards to consumer applicants throughout the
United States. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq.
      FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
      32 Corporate Woods, Suite 600
      9225 Indian Creek Parkway
      Overland Park, KS 66210-2000
      Tel: (913) 253-2144
      Fax: (866) 347-1472
      Email: snehrbass@foulston.com


CAPITAL ONE: Howitt Files Sues Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------
Stephen Jeffrey Howitt, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Capital One Financial
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-07161, (S.D. N.Y., July 31,
2019), seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other and
further relief resulting from negligence and violations of New York
general business laws.

On July 29, 2019, it was reported that Capital One and Amazon Web
experienced an unauthorized access by a hacker who obtained certain
types of personal information relating to people who had applied
for credit card products and used them to purchase from Amazon.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
     THE GRANT LAW FIRM
     521 5th Ave., 17th Floor
     New York, NY
     Tel: (212) 292-4441
     Fax: (212) 292-4442
     Email: lgrant@grantfirm.com
            dcopley@kellerrohrback.com
            claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com


CAPITAL ONE: Miller Files Class Suit in Washington
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Financial
Corporation. The case is styled as Kelly Miller, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital
One Financial Corporation, Capital One, National Association and
Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02447-JEB (D.C. Wash., Aug. 13, 2019).

Capital One Financial Corporation is a bank holding company
specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking and savings
accounts headquartered in McLean, Virginia. Capital One is ranked
10th on the list of largest banks in the United States by
assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
   NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
   1211 Avenue of the Americas
   40th Floor
   New York, NY 10036-8718
   Tel: (917) 438-9102
   Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com



CAPITAL ONE: Tester Files Class Suit in Virginia
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Financial
Corporation. The case is styled as Maria de Lourdes Tester and
Tracy Elizabeth Masi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Capital One Financial
Corporation, Capital One, N.A. and Capital One Bank (USA),
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00579 (E.D. Va., Aug. 13, 2019).

Capital One Financial Corporation is a bank holding company
specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking and savings
accounts headquartered in McLean, Virginia. Capital One is ranked
10th on the list of largest banks in the United States by
assets.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Jeffrey Arnold Breit, Esq.
   Breit Cantor Grana Buckner, PLLC
   Towne Pavilion Center II
   600 22nd St, Suite 402
   Virginia Beach, VA 23451
   Tel: (757) 622-6000
   Email: jbreit@bdbmail.com




CAPITALA FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss Paskowitz Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Capitala Finance Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company's motion to
dismiss the case, Paskowitz v. Capitala Finance Corp., et al., is
still pending.

On December 28, 2017, an alleged stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit complaint, Paskowitz v. Capitala Finance Corp., et
al., in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California (case number 2:17-cv-09251-MWF-AS) (the "Paskowitz
Action"), against the Company and certain of its current officers
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock between January 4, 2016 and August 7, 2017.


On January 3, 2018, another alleged stockholder filed a putative
class action complaint, Sandifer v. Capitala Finance Corp., et al.,
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (case number 2:18-cv-00052-MWF-AS) (the "Sandifer
Action"), asserting substantially similar claims on behalf of the
same putative class and against the same defendants.

On February 2, 2018, the Sandifer Action was transferred, on
stipulation of the parties, to the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina.

The Sandifer Action was voluntarily dismissed on February 28, 2018.
On March 1, 2018, the Paskowitz Action was transferred, on
stipulation of the parties, to the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina (case number
3:18-cv-00096-RJC-DSC).

On June 19, 2018, the plaintiffs in the Paskowitz Action filed
their amended complaint. The complaint, as currently amended,
alleges certain violations of the securities laws, including, inter
alia, that the defendants made certain materially false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
business, operations, and prospects between January 4, 2016 and
August 7, 2017.

The plaintiffs in the Paskowitz Action seek compensatory damages
and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but did not
specify the amount of damages being sought. Defendants have moved
to dismiss the amended complaint.

Capitala Finance said, "While the Company intends to vigorously
defend itself in this litigation, the outcome of these legal
proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty."

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

Capitala Finance Corp. is a Business Development Company
specializing in traditional mezzanine, senior subordinated and
unitranche debt, first-lien and second-lien loans, equity
investments in sponsored and non-sponsored lower and traditional
middle market companies. The company is base in Charlotte, North
Carolina.


CARIBBEAN CAR: Mirabal Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
RIGOBERTO ANDUX MIRABAL, GABRIEL CANO ARANGO, YOAN AQUINO MARTINEZ,
LUCAS PEDRONZO TOLEDO, JULIO CESAR OCHOA, NELSON BATISTA CORBO,
WILLIAM RICARDO ANTUNEZ VALDEZ, and THE ESTATE OF CARLOS ALBERTO on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated who were
employed by Caribbean Car Wash, Inc. Plaintiffs, v. CARIBBEAN CAR
WASH, INC., ULPIANO RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, and OMAR
RODRIGUEZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-16608 (D. N.J., Aug. 13,
2019) is an action arising out of Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiffs the minimum wage, overtime compensation, and other
monies, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL").

The Defendants intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly have
engaged in a policy, pattern, and/or practice of violating the FLSA
and NJWHL. This policy, pattern, and/or practice has included but
is not limited to failing to pay all tips received by its tipped
employees to those employees in occupations which "customarily and
regularly receive tips" by permitting the taking of tips and
gratuities by management personnel; failing to provide required
notice of the tip credit provisions of the FLSA; failing to pay
Plaintiffs the proper minimum wage for each hour worked; and
failing to pay Plaintiffs the proper overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times the regular rate for work in excess
of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are individuals residing in the State of New Jersey who
were employees of Defendants.

CCW is a business incorporated in the State of New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Avi Mermelstein, Esq.
     ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN
     200 Park Avenue, Suite 1700
     New York, NY 10166
     Phone: (212) 490-3600
     Fax: (212) 682-0278
     Email: avi@adklawfirm.com


CASA SYSTEMS: IPO-Related Class Suits Underway in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in two class action suits related to its
initial public offering (IPO).

On May 29, 2019 and July 3, 2019, two putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the Massachusetts Superior Court against the
Company and certain of its directors and officers, among others,
alleging claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's common
stock in and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
(IPO).

Plaintiffs base their claims on allegations that the defendants
made material misrepresentations and omissions in documents that
the Company issued in connection with its IPO.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including
counsel and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages, and equitable and injunctive relief.

No amounts have been accrued for this matter in the quarter ended
June 30, 2019 as the Company does not believe the likelihood of a
material loss is probable.  

Casa Systems said, "Although the ultimate outcome of this matter
cannot be predicted with certainty, the resolution of this matter
could have a material impact on the Company's results of operations
in the period in which the matter in resolved."

Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, is provides
a software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the
Company offers solutions for next-generation distributed and
virtualized architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and
wireless networks. Its products include axyom software platform,
delivery platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion
products. The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.


CB RESTAURANTS: Padilla Balks at "House Fees" for Exotic Dancers
----------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH PADILLA on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CB RESTAURANTS, INC. d/b/a
SUGAR'S GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, GLENN WILLIAMS, TERESA THOMPSON, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00970 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 9, 2019), seeks
to recover minimum wages, house fee charges, tips, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

CB Restaurants required and/or permitted Sarah Padilla 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, and even those were partly
confiscated by the club.

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 lawsuit says.

Defendants operate an adult entertainment club in Texas, under the
name of "Sugar's Gentlemen's Club".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CHAMBERS FINE: Picon Files Class Suit under ADA
-----------------------------------------------
Chambers Fine Art Inc is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Yelitza Picon, and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Chambers Fine Art Inc, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07544 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 13, 2019).

Chambers Fine Art is an art gallery based in New York City and
Beijing that specializes in Chinese contemporary art.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHANEL JOHNSON: El Files Class Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chanel Johnson. The
case is styled as Erwin El, Plaintiff v. Chanel Johnson also known
as: officer Chanel Johnson, in her official capacity, M. Bowe, also
known as: Supervisor M. Bowe, in his individual capacity and
Plainfield Police Department and all others similarly situated,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-16693-SDW-LDW (D. N.J., Aug. 14,
2019).

The case type is stated as Civil Rights: Other.

The Defendants are government representative exercising government
functions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.




CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Trejo Seeks Unpaid Wages for Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Trejo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC (dba
SPECTRUM), TWC ADMINISTRATION, LLC, And DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV28173 (Cal. Super., Aug.
13, 2019), alleges that Plaintiff has not been paid all wages owed
for all hours worked as required under California law.

The similarly situated individuals include non-exempt employees who
are not parties to an arbitration agreement with Defendant and who
performed retail sales work as employees of Defendants, worked
overtime and earned commission and/or bonus pay within the four
years preceding the filing of the lawsuit. Time Warner Employees
are not compensated by Defendants for all hours they worked and/or
for all wages earned, including, but not limited to properly
computed and calculated overtime.

Plaintiff worked overtime and earned bonus and commission wages.
During his employment with Defendants, like other members of the
California Class, Plaintiff worked in excess of eight hours in a
workday and/or in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff has been injured by the illegal practices and conduct
alleged in this complaint. Plaintiff claims under California law
are similar to and typical of the claims of the members of the
California Class.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Matthew Righetti, Esq.
          RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
          456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94101
          Telephone: (415) 983-0900
          Facsimile: (415) 397-9005
          E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Reached in Tagalogon Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2019, for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2019, that a
settlement has been reached in the class action suit entitled,
Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.

On December 10, 2015, a former restaurant management employee filed
a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
alleging that the Company improperly classified its managerial
employees, failed to pay overtime, and failed to provide accurate
wage statements, in addition to other claims.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under the California Labor
Code Private Attorney General Act in addition to other monetary
payments (Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.;
Case No. BC603620).

On July 29, 2016, the company filed a response to the complaint. On
March 7, 2019, the parties participated in voluntary mediation,
which concluded without the parties reaching a resolution.

On June 4, 2019, the parties notified the Court that they reached a
tentative agreement to settle this case. The settlement agreement
is subject to documentation and court approval.

Cheesecake Factory said, "Based on the current status of this
matter, we have reserved an immaterial amount in anticipation of
settlement."

The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated, incorporated on February 13,
1992, is engaged in the restaurant and bakery business. As of March
2, 2017, the Company operated 208 Company-owned restaurants: 194
under The Cheesecake Factory mark, 13 under the Grand Lux Cafe mark
and one under the Rock Sugar Pan Asian Kitchen mark. The Company's
segments include The Cheesecake Factory restaurants, and other. It
also operates bakery production facilities, which produce desserts
for its restaurants, international licensees and third-party bakery
customers. The company is based in Calabasas Hills, California.


CINEMARK USA: Brown Settlement Agreement Preliminarily Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the settlement agreement
in the case, Silken Brown v. Cinemark USA, Inc., has been
preliminarily approved by the Court and is subject to final
approval later this year.

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

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

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

The Settlement Agreement was preliminarily approved by the Court
and is subject to final approval later this year. During 2018, the
Company recorded a litigation reserve based on the proposed
Settlement Agreement.

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

Cinemark USA, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates in the
motion picture exhibition industry. The company operates in two
segments, U.S. Markets and International Markets. As of December
31, 2018, it operated 546 theatres and 6,048 screens in the United
States and Latin America. The company was incorporated in 1984 and
is headquartered in Plano, Texas. Cinemark USA, Inc. is a
subsidiary of Cinemark Holdings, Inc.


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: $15.7MM Remains to be Paid from Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company's remaining
loss accrual in a class action lawsuit over royalty interest claims
totals $15.7 million at June 30, 2019, representing additional
settlement obligations expected to be substantially satisfied in
the third quarter of 2019.

In November 2010, a putative class action was filed in the District
Court of Blaine County, Oklahoma by Billy J. Strack and Daniela A.
Renner as trustees of certain named trusts and on behalf of other
similarly situated parties against the Company.

The Petition, as amended, alleged the Company improperly deducted
post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other
royalty interest owners from crude oil and natural gas wells
located in Oklahoma.

The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims, including breach of
contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and
other claims and sought recovery of compensatory damages, interest,
punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the proposed class.
The Company denied all allegations and denied that the case was
properly brought as a class action.

Due to the uncertainty of and burdens of litigation, in February
2018 the Company reached a settlement in connection with this
matter, which was subsequently approved by the District Court of
Garfield County, Oklahoma in June 2018.

Under the settlement, the Company initially expected to make
payments and incur costs associated with the settlement of
approximately $59.6 million and accrued a loss for such amount at
December 31, 2017.

In the third quarter of 2018, the Company made payments totaling
$45.8 million to satisfy the majority of its obligations under the
settlement. The Company's remaining loss accrual for this matter
totals $15.7 million at June 30, 2019, representing additional
settlement obligations expected to be substantially satisfied in
the third quarter of 2019.

The accrual for this matter is included in "Accrued liabilities and
other" on the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Continental Resources, Inc. explores for, develops, and produces
crude oil and natural gas properties primarily in the north, south,
and east regions of the United States. The company sells its crude
oil and natural gas production to energy marketing companies, crude
oil refining companies, and natural gas gathering and processing
companies. Continental Resources, Inc. was founded in 1967 and is
based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CONTRA COSTA: Violates TCPA by Sending Unsolicited Fax, Katz Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY KATZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONTRA COSTA SELF HELP FOUNDATION INC.; TUNISIA ISMALIA
EVANS ALSALAHUDDIN, and DOES 1 - 10, inclusive, Case No.
4:19-cv-04587-DMR (N.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2019), accuses the Defendants
of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending
unsolicited advertisement messages via "telephone facsimile
machines" to the Plaintiff and the class.

Contra Costa Self Help Foundation is a business entity that
provides community services.  Tunisia Ismalia Evans Al-Salahuddin
is the Chief Financial Officer of Foundation.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONTRACT FREIGHTERS: Merrill Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
FRANKLIN MERRILL; ANTHONY GLOVER; KEITH HERRING; ANTHONY DENNIS;
LARRY JURCAK; SAMI NASR; RONALD DENNIS; RODNEY LACY; JAMES
NEWBERRY; TAMI POTIRALA; CRAIG WILLIAMS; ZIGMUND GUTOWSKI; JOSEPH
HORION; ERIC ARD; ALLEN CASHMAN; ADAM HEIDE; EDUARDO SUSTAITA; JOSE
GARCIA; ERIC ROBERTSON; BECKY AUSTIN; JEFFREY BIGGS; PAULA HORION;
JOSE LIMON; GERORD THOMAS; JAIME PARRALES; TURRELL SANDERS; EARNEST
WARD, JR.; CHRISTOPHER ZDENEK; DANNY LLOYD; DUANE VANDERKAMP; JOEY
BROWN; MELANIE BROWN; ORLANDO LEBRON; CHARLES TANKSLEY; GARY
GRUBBS; CHRIS BEAUPRE; RAYNOLD CORNEILLE; JULIAN LAFRANKS; ANDRE
ELLIS; BENJAMIN JOHNSON; ELVRETT LITTLEJOHN; JESSIE BRAXTON, JR.;
JOHNNIE WYNNE; STEVEN KORTMAN; TERRY JONES; DONALD CREASMAN;
ALEXANDER FLANIGAN; and TIM HOLLINGSWORTH; all individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. CONTRACT FREIGHTERS, INC. a/k/a CFI, a Missouri
corporation registered to conduct business in Colorado; TRANSFORCE,
INC., a Canadian corporation; XPO LOGISTICS TRUCKLOAD, INC., a
Missouri corporation registered to conduct business in Colorado;
and CON-WAY TRUCKLOAD INC., a Missouri corporation registered to
conduct business in Colorado, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02309
(D. Colo., Aug. 13, 2019) is a collective action pursuant under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

All named Plaintiffs are similarly situated: they are all
employees, or former employees, of Defendants, and Defendants have
failed to pay them minimum wage on many occasions due to improper
deductions from Plaintiffs' pay, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are, or were formerly, employed by Defendants.

Defendant was, and remains, in the business of assisting companies
in shipping goods all over the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John R. Crone, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN R. CRONE, LLC
     4550 E Cherry Creek Drive South, #1003
     Glendale, CO 80246
     Phone: (907) 317-2066
     Email: John@crone-law.com


CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Skibbe Sues over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SKIBBE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CURALEAF HOLDINGS, INC., JOSEPH
LUSARDI, NEIL DAVIDSON, and JONATHAN FAUCHER, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-04486 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2019), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case 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.

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 common
shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages.

Curaleaf purports to operate as an integrated medical and wellness
cannabis operator in the United States. Curaleaf is incorporated in
Canada and has headquarters in Massachusetts.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com

CURO GROUP: Continues to Defend Yellowdog Partners Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CURO Group Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a securities class action lawsuit entitled, Yellowdog
Partners, LP v. CURO Group Holdings Corp., Donald F. Gayhardt,
William Baker and Roger W. Dean.

On December 5, 2018, a putative securities fraud class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company and its chief executive
officer, chief financial officer and chief operating officer in the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas, captioned
Yellowdog Partners, LP v. CURO Group Holdings Corp., Donald F.
Gayhardt, William Baker and Roger W. Dean, Civil Action No.
18-2662.

On May 31, 2019, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint naming
Doug Rippel, Chad Faulkner, Mike McKnight, Friedman Fleischer &
Lowe Capital Partners II, L.P., FFL Executive Partners II, L.P.,
and FFL Parallel Fund II, L.P. as additional defendants.

The complaint alleges that the Company and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and that certain defendants
also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as "control
persons" of CURO.

Plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a class of
investors who purchased Company common stock between April 27, 2018
and October 24, 2018.

Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class period,
the Company made misleading statements and omitted material
information regarding its efforts to transition the Canadian
inventory of products from Single-Pay loans to Open-End loans.

Plaintiffs assert that the Company and the individual defendants
made these misstatements and omissions to keep the stock price
high. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

While the Company is vigorously contesting this lawsuit, it cannot
determine the final resolution or when it might be resolved.

CURO Group said, "In addition to the expenses incurred in defending
this litigation and any damages that may be awarded in the event of
an adverse ruling, management's efforts and attention may be
diverted from the ordinary business operations to address these
claims. Regardless of the outcome, this litigation may have a
material adverse impact on results because of defense costs,
including costs related to indemnification obligations, diversion
of resources and other factors."

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

CURO Group Holdings Corp., a diversified consumer finance company,
provides consumer finance to a range of underbanked consumers in
the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The company was
formerly known as Speedy Group Holdings Corp. and changed its name
to CURO Group Holdings Corp. in May 2016. CURO Group Holdings Corp.
was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Wichita, Kansas.


DETROIT EDISON: Court Dismisses With Prejudice Nolan ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LLESLIE D. NOLAN, Plaintiff, v. DETROIT EDISON
COMPANY, DTE ENERGY CORPORATE SERVICES, LLC, DTE ENERGY COMPANY
RETIREMENT PLAN, DTE ENERGY BENEFIT PLAN ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE,
JANET POSLER, QUALIFIED PLAN APPEALS COMMITTEE, MICHAEL S. COOPER,
RENEE MORAN and JEROME HOOPER, Defendant, Case No. 18-13359 (E.D.
Mich.), Judge David M. Lawson of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, (i) granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss and (ii) dismissed as moot their
motion for judgment on the administrative record.

In 2002, the Detroit Edison and its affiliated companies ("DTE")
implemented a new retirement plan.  Up to that point, DTE offered
its employees a traditional defined benefit plan -- the Employees'
Retirement Plan of the Detroit Edison Company or Traditional Plan
-- wherein a retired employee would be paid an annuity calculated
on a formula based on the employee's salary and years in service.
The new plan is known as a "Cash Balance Plan," which has been
described as a species of defined benefit plan, but also as a
hybrid between a defined contribution plan and a defined benefit
plan as it contains attributes of both.  Under the Cash Balance
Plan, the company established a hypothetical retirement account for
each employee, which would grow from two sources: annual
contribution credits (equal to a percentage of the participant's
eligible earnings), and "interest credits" (initially linked to the
interest rate of government-issued Treasury Bonds).

When DTE made the change, it did not require existing employees who
had earned benefits under the old plan to switch to the new plan.
Instead, it provided a window for those employees to elect to stay
with the Traditional Plan or opt in to the new one, thereby
allowing them to receive future retirement benefits under one plan
or the other, but not both.  That choice carried some measure of
risk, because no certain prediction could be made that at
retirement time an individual employee would do better under the
new plan than the old one.

There was a further catch.  Existing employees who elected to
switch to the new Cash Balance Plan would have their accrued
retirement benefits frozen and then receive a hypothetical
retirement account balance based on what they had accrued already
under the Traditional Plan, projected forward to their retirement
date, and then reduced to present value.  That established their
opening cash balance, against which future accruals would be
measured. In one way, that benefited them.  It provided a guarantee
that no matter how slowly their cash balance account grew compared
to the opening balance, they would be guaranteed the monthly
benefit upon retirement they had earned as of the date the account
was frozen, and no less.  Indeed, ERISA requires as much.  But
their cash balance account would not grow beyond that initial
balance until their accumulated credits caught up to that initial
balance, a phenomenon known in pension jargon as wear away.

Plaintiff Nolan elected to switch to the Cash Balance Plan in the
spring of 2002, after she had worked at DTE for just over 23 years.
When she went to retire in 2017 after 38 years with the company,
she was unpleasantly surprised to learn that her pension benefit
had not grown much since her account was frozen in 2002.  She
believed that she should receive a monthly benefit as calculated
under the Traditional Plan plus the amount accrued under the Cash
Balance Plan since 2002, irrespective of the wear away.

On Oct. 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed her putative class action
complaint against the Defendants under various sections of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").  She alleges
that the Defendants breached the terms of the retirement plan, they
failed to explain the election in terms that could be understood by
the average person, and they failed to give notice that the new
plan could result in a reduction of accrued benefits.  

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants breached the terms of the
benefits plan (Count I), failed to state the terms in a manner
calculated to be understood by the average plan participant (Count
II), and failed to give notice of an amendment to the plan that
resulted in a significant reduction (Count III), all in violation
of ERISA.  

The Defendants responded to the complaint with a motion to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  DTE argues that
the complaint fails to state a claim for violation of ERISA's
disclosure requirements and seeks dismissal of Counts II and III.
It also filed a motion for judgment on the administrative record as
to Count I.

The Court heard oral argument on May 8, 2019.  

Judge Lawson finds that the materials furnished by the Defendants
to their employees in 2002 plainly state that a retiree electing to
switch to the Cash Balance Plan would receive the "greater of" the
accrued benefit under the traditional plan or under the Cash
Balance Plan, but not both.  The Defendants did not breach the plan
when calculating the Plaintiff's monthly pension payment upon her
retirement.  And the plan materials provided notice that benefits
under the new plan could be less, using language that could be
understood by the average person.  Moreover, all of the Plaintiff's
claims are time-barred.  Count I is time-barred and Counts II and
III fail as a matter of law.

Accordingly, because the Plaintiff has not stated a laim for which
relief can be granted, the Judge granted the Defendants' motion and
dismissed the complaint with prejuduce.  He dismissed as moot the
Defendants' motion for judgment on the administrative record.

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

Leslie D Nolan, Plaintiff, represented by Eva T. Cantarella --
ecantarella@hertzschram.com -- Hertz, Schram.

Detroit Edison Company, DTE Energy Corporate Services LLC, DTE
Energy Company Retirement Plan, DTE Energy Benefit Plan
Administration Committee, Janet Posler, Qualified Plan Appeals
Committee, Michael S Cooper, Renee Moran & Jerome Hooper,
Defendants, represented by Antoinette S. Porter, One Energy Plaza,
Christopher K. Meyer -- CMEYER@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP &
Mark B. Blocker -- MBLOCKER@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Bid to Drop Suit in Arkansas Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the
company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a purported
class action complaint filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas, remains pending.

In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center.

The Company answered the original complaint in 2009, and there was
no other activity in the case until May 2017.

At that time, plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting new
causes of action. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants
breached their statutory and contractual obligations to the
patients of the Center over a multi-year period by failing to meet
minimum staffing requirements, failing to otherwise adequately
staff the Center and failing to provide a clean and safe living
environment in the Center.

The Company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying
plaintiffs' allegations and asked the Court to dismiss the new
causes of action asserted in the amended complaint because the
Company was prejudiced by plaintiff's long delay in filing the
amended complaint.

The Court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, so the
lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified
by the court as a class action.

Diversicare Healthcare said, "The Company intends to defend the
lawsuit vigorously."

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

Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides post-acute care
services to skilled nursing center, patients, and residents
primarily in the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest United States.
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
based in Brentwood, Tennessee.


E&A PROTECTIVE: Denied Drivers Meal Breaks, Gas Mileage Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bobby Lee Hansen and Jackie Thompson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. New Prime, Inc. and
Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. l9STCV264l9, (Cal.
Super., July 30, 2019), seeks redress for failure to provide meal
periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime, complete and
accurate wage/leave statements, reimbursement of gas mileage and
resulting from unfair business practices, waiting time penalties
for unpaid wages due upon termination and in violation of the
California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code,
including declaratory relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief,
costs and attorneys' fees.

New Prime is a trucking and logistics company for general freight
and refrigerated food throughout California and neighboring states
where Hansen and Thompson worked as truck drivers from April 2018
through January 2019 and May 2017 through March 2019 respectively.
They claim to be was misclassified as independent contractors.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
      ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
      1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
      Los Angeles, CA 90035
      Telephone: (310) 277-0614
      Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
      Email: cja@ackermanntilajef.com

             - and -

      Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
      MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
      1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
      Los Angeles, CA 90035
      Telephone: (310) 824-3828
      Facsimile: (310) 862-6851
      Email: jm@melmedlaw.com


EATON, OH: Quinn et al. Seek OT Wages for Firefighters
------------------------------------------------------
JAMES L. QUINN, RANDALL K. ANDERSON, JAMES H. ROBERTS, MALLORY
LEWIS, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF EATON, OHIO, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00241-TMR (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 9, 2019),
seeks to recover overtime compensation, declaratory judgment,
equitable and other relief available under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

While working at the rank of Captain or Lieutenant, Plaintiffs'
primary job duty has been, and remains, to protect and serve the
public by engaging in fire suppression, emergency response and
related non-exempt activities. At fire and emergency scenes, the
Plaintiffs work side-by-side with other front-line first
responders, entering burning buildings, performing manual fire
suppression work, providing emergency medical care, and performing
other non-exempt duties.

Eaton is a city in and the county seat of Preble County, Ohio,
United States approximately 24 mi west of Dayton.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          Henry Arnett, Esq.
          LIVORNO & ARNETT CO., LPA
          1335 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: 614.224.7771
          Facsimile: 614.224.7775
          E-mail: counsel@oapff.org

               - and -

          Sara L. Faulman, Esq.
          John W. Stewart, Esq.
          McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
          1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833-8855
          E-mail: slf@mselaborlaw.com
                  jws@mselaborlaw.com

EDEN MANAGEMENT: Bayeg Sues Over Biometrics Data Sharing
--------------------------------------------------------
Bertrand Bayeg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Eden Management, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2019CH08821 (Ill. Cir., July 29, 2019), seeks an injunction
requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the
capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, statutory
damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees in
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Eden Management operates as Eden Supportive Living, where Plaintiff
worked at their facility in Illinois. He was required to "clock-in"
and "clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints and
that Menasha improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data
without informed consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
      Michael Hilicki, Esq.
      KEOGH LAW, LTD.
      55 W. Monroe St, Suite 3390
      Chicago, Illinois 60603
      Tel: (312) 726-1092
      Fax: (312) 726-1093
      Email: Keith@KeoghLaw.com
             mhilicki@keoghlaw.com


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Generic Drug Pricing Litigation Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the defendants motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' overarching conspiracy claims in Generic Drug
Pricing Matters remains pending.

In December 2014, the company received a grand jury subpoena from
the Antitrust Division of the DOJ issued by the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania addressed to Par
Pharmaceuticals.

The subpoena requested documents and information focused primarily
on product and pricing information relating to the authorized
generic version of Lanoxin (digoxin) oral tablets and generic
doxycycline products, and on communications with competitors and
others regarding those products. The company is cooperating with
the investigation.


In May 2018, the company and its subsidiary PPCI each received a
CID from the DOJ in relation to a False Claims Act investigation
concerning whether generic pharmaceutical manufacturers engaged in
price-fixing and market allocation agreements, paid illegal
remuneration and caused the submission of false claims. The company
is cooperating with the investigation.

Similar investigations may be brought by others or the foregoing
matters may be expanded or result in litigation. The company is
unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to estimate the
possible range of any losses that could be incurred. Adjustments to
its overall liability accrual may be required in the future, which
could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Since March 2016, various private plaintiffs and state attorneys
general have filed cases against the company's subsidiary PPI
and/or, in some instances, the Company, Generics Bidco I, LLC, DAVA
Pharmaceuticals, LLC and/or PPCI, as well as other pharmaceutical
manufacturers and, in some instances, other corporate and/or
individual defendants, alleging price-fixing and other
anticompetitive conduct with respect to generic pharmaceutical
products.

These cases, which include proposed class actions filed on behalf
of direct purchasers, end-payers and indirect purchaser resellers,
as well as non-class action suits, have been consolidated and/or
coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
under the caption In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust
Litigation (MDL No. 2724).

The various complaints and amended complaints generally assert
claims under federal and/or state antitrust law, state consumer
protection statutes and/or state common law, and seek damages,
treble damages, civil penalties, disgorgement, declaratory and
injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Some claims are based
on alleged product-specific conspiracies.

The allegations relating to the company's subsidiaries in certain
of the various complaints focus primarily on one or more of the
following products: amitriptyline, baclofen, budesonide, digoxin,
divalproex ER, doxycycline hyclate, doxycycline monohydrate,
entecavir, fluoxetine, flutamide, hydroxyurea, labetalol, nystatin,
omega-3-acid ethyl esters, propranolol and/or zoledronic acid.
Other claims allege broader, multiple-product conspiracies
involving various combinations of these and/or other products.

Under these overarching conspiracy theories, plaintiffs seek to
hold all alleged participants in a particular conspiracy jointly
and severally liable for all harms caused by the alleged
conspiracy, not just harms related to the products manufactured
and/or sold by a particular defendant.

In October 2018, the MDL court denied defendants' motions to
dismiss federal antitrust claims relating to digoxin, divalproex ER
and doxycycline hyclate, among other products.

In February 2019, the MDL court dismissed certain state law claims
relating to these same products, but allowed other state law claims
relating to those products to proceed. In February 2019, the
defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' overarching conspiracy
claims; that motion remains pending. The MDL court has also allowed
certain discovery.

Endo said, "We will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing
matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best
interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the
foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the
outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any
losses that could be incurred. Adjustments to our overall liability
accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows."

Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded
pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally.
The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Mesh Liability Payments Reaches $3.4 Billion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Company has made
total mesh liability payments of approximately $3.4 billion.

Since 2008, the company and certain of its subsidiaries, including
American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc. (subsequently converted to
Astora Women's Health Holding LLC and merged into Astora Women's
Health LLC and referred to herein as AMS and/or Astora), have been
named as defendants in multiple lawsuits in various state and
federal courts in the U.S. (including a federal multidistrict
litigation (MDL) pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia (MDL No. 2325)), and in Canada
and other countries, alleging personal injury resulting from the
use of transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat pelvic
organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

In January 2018, a representative proceeding (class action) was
filed in the Federal Court of Australia against American Medical
Systems, LLC. In the various class action and individual
complaints, plaintiffs claim a variety of personal injuries,
including chronic pain, incontinence, inability to control bowel
function and permanent deformities, and seek compensatory and
punitive damages, where available.

The company and certain plaintiffss counsel representing
mesh-related product liability claimants have entered into various
Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) and other agreements to resolve
up to approximately 71,000 filed and unfiled mesh claims handled or
controlled by the participating counsel.

These MSAs and other agreements were entered into at various times
between June 2013 and the present, were solely by way of compromise
and settlement and were not in any way an admission of liability or
fault by the company or any of its subsidiaries.

All MSAs are subject to a process that includes guidelines and
procedures for administering the settlements and the release of
funds. In certain cases, the MSAs provide for the creation of
qualified settlement funds (QSFs) into which funds may be deposited
pursuant to certain schedules set forth in those agreements. All
MSAs have participation requirements regarding the claims
represented by each law firm party to the MSA.

In addition, one agreement gives the company a unilateral right of
approval regarding which claims may be eligible to participate
under that settlement.

To the extent fewer claims than are authorized under an agreement
participate, the total settlement payment under that agreement will
be reduced by an agreed-upon amount for each such non-participating
claim. Funds deposited in QSFs are considered restricted cash
and/or restricted cash equivalents.

Distribution of funds to any individual claimant is conditioned
upon the receipt of documentation substantiating the validity of
the claim, a full release and dismissal of the entire action or
claim as to all AMS parties and affiliates.

Prior to receiving funds, an individual claimant is required to
represent and warrant that liens, assignment rights or other claims
identified in the claims administration process have been or will
be satisfied by the individual claimant. Confidentiality provisions
apply to the amount of settlement awards to participating
claimants, the claims evaluation process and procedures used in
conjunction with award distributions, and the negotiations leading
to the settlements.

In June 2017, the MDL court entered a case management order which,
among other things, requires plaintiffs in newly-filed MDL cases to
provide expert disclosures on specific causation within one hundred
twenty (120) days of filing a claim (the Order).

Under the Order, a plaintiff's failure to meet the foregoing
deadline may be grounds for the entry of judgment against such
plaintiff. In July 2017, a similar order was entered in Minnesota
state court.

In June 2018, at the request of the MDL court, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation entered a minute order suspending the
transfer of cases into the MDL.

Subsequently, the MDL court issued a pretrial order discontinuing
the direct filing of claims in MDL No. 2325. The MDL court also
issued similar orders in other MDLs involving claims against other
mesh manufacturers.

To date, the Company has made total mesh liability payments of
approximately $3.4 billion, $306.4 million of which remains in the
QSFs as of June 30, 2019.

Endo International said, "We currently expect to fund into the QSFs
the remaining payments under all settlement agreements during 2019.
As the funds are disbursed out of the QSFs from time to time, the
liability accrual will be reduced accordingly with a corresponding
reduction to restricted cash and cash equivalents. In addition, we
may pay cash distributions to settle disputes separate from the
QSFs, which will also decrease the liability accrual and decrease
cash and cash equivalents."

Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded
pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally.
The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Trial in Opioid Related Suit to Begin Oct. 2019
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio (MDL No. 2804), has set October
2019 as trial date for the claims of two Ohio
counties (Track One plaintiffs) in Opioid-Related Matters.

Since 2014, multiple U.S. states, counties, other governmental
persons or entities and private plaintiffs have filed suit against
us and/or certain of our subsidiaries, including Endo Health
Solutions Inc. (EHSI), EPI, PPI, Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.
(PPCI), Endo Generics Holdings, Inc. (EGHI), Vintage
Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Generics Bidco I, LLC and DAVA
Pharmaceuticals, LLC, as well as various other manufacturers,
distributors and/or others, asserting claims relating to
defendants' alleged sales, marketing and/or distribution practices
with respect to prescription opioid medications, including certain
of our products.

As of July 29, 2019, the cases of which the company is aware
includes, but are not limited to, approximately 18 cases filed by
or on behalf of states; approximately 2,300 cases filed by
counties, cities, Native American tribes and/or other
government-related persons or entities; approximately 153 cases
filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health and welfare
funds or other third-party payers and approximately 131 cases filed
by individuals. Certain of the cases have been filed as putative
class actions.

In addition to the litigation in the U.S., in August 2018, an
action against Paladin Labs Inc., EPI, the Company and various
other manufacturers and distributors was commenced in British
Columbia on behalf of a proposed class of all federal, provincial
and territorial governments and agencies in Canada that paid
healthcare, pharmaceutical and treatment costs related to opioids.


In May 2019, two putative class actions were filed in Canada,
seeking relief on behalf of Canadian residents who were prescribed
opioid medications.

One of the actions (filed in Ontario Superior Court) names Paladin
Labs Inc., the Company and EPI along with several other defendants,
and the other action (filed in Quebec Superior Court) names Paladin
Labs Inc. along with several other defendants.

Many of the U.S. cases have been coordinated in a federal MDL
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio (MDL No. 2804).

In March 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a
statement of interest in the case, and in April 2018 it filed a
motion to participate in settlement discussions as a friend of the
court, which the MDL court granted.

The MDL court has issued a series of case management orders
permitting motions to dismiss addressing threshold legal issues in
certain cases (and has issued orders granting in part and denying
in part some of those motions), setting a trial date in October
2019 for the claims of two Ohio counties (Track One plaintiffs),
allowing certain discovery and establishing certain other deadlines
and procedures, among other things.

In June 2019, defendants in the Track One cases, including the
company'ssubsidiaries, filed various motions for summary judgment,
and the Track One plaintiffs also filed motions for summary
judgment on certain issues.Other cases remain pending in various
state courts.

In some jurisdictions, such as Connecticut, Illinois, New York,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia, certain
state court cases have been transferred to a single court within
their respective state court systems for coordinated pretrial
proceedings. The state cases are generally at the pleading and/or
discovery stage with certain of these cases scheduled for trial
beginning in 2020.

The complaints in the cases assert a variety of claims including,
but not limited to, claims for alleged violations of public
nuisance, consumer protection, unfair trade practices,
racketeering, Medicaid fraud and/or drug dealer liability statutes
and/or common law claims for public nuisance,
fraud/misrepresentation, strict liability, negligence and/or unjust
enrichment.

The claims are generally based on alleged misrepresentations and/or
omissions in connection with the sale and marketing of prescription
opioid medications and/or an alleged failure to take adequate steps
to prevent abuse and diversion.

Plaintiffs generally seek declaratory and/or injunctive relief;
compensatory, punitive and/or treble damages; restitution,
disgorgement, civil penalties, abatement, attorneys' fees, costs
and/or other relief.

Endo International said, "We will continue to vigorously defend the
foregoing matters and to explore other options as appropriate in
our best interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the
foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the
outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any
losses that could be incurred. Adjustments to our overall liability
accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows."

Endo International plc manufactures and sells generic and branded
pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally.
The company was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ENDURANCE INT'L: Machado Settlement Fairness Hearing on Sept. 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the
Court has scheduled a hearing for September 13, 2019 to determine
whether the proposed settlement in the case, Machado v. Endurance
International Group Holdings, Inc., et al., is fair, reasonable and
adequate and whether the case should be dismissed with prejudice.

On May 4, 2015, Christopher Machado, a purported holder of the
Company's common stock, filed a civil action in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the
Company and its former chief executive officer and former chief
financial officer, captioned Machado v. Endurance International
Group Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-11775-GAO.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 8, 2015, a
second amended complaint on March 18, 2016, and a third amended
complaint on June 30, 2017.

In the third amended complaint, plaintiffs Christopher Machado and
Michael Rubin allege claims for violations of Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of the Company's securities between October 25, 2013
and December 16, 2015, including persons or entities who purchased
or acquired the Company's shares pursuant or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the
Company's October 25, 2013 initial public offering.

The plaintiffs challenge as false or misleading certain of the
Company's disclosures about the total number of subscribers,
average revenue per subscriber, the number of customers paying over
$500 per year for the Company's products and services, and the
average number of products sold per subscriber.

The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and the purported
class, compensatory damages, rescissory damages as to class members
who purchased shares pursuant to the offering and the plaintiffs'
costs and expenses of litigation.

On January 12, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion to stay all
proceedings pending the outcome of a mediation between the parties.


The court granted the stay on February 21, 2018 and later extended
the stay to allow the parties to discuss a potential resolution of
this matter.

The parties then negotiated the terms and conditions of a
stipulation and agreement of settlement and related papers, which,
among other things, provide for the release of all claims asserted
against the Company and its former chief executive officer and
former chief financial officer.

On July 6, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion seeking
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, certification of a
proposed settlement class, and approval of notice to the settlement
class.

On January 2, 2019, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and scheduling a hearing for September 13,
2019 to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate and whether the case should therefore be
dismissed with prejudice.

The Company's combined contribution to the settlement pool under
this proposed settlement and the potential settlement of the McGee
litigation discussed below would be approximately equal to the $7.3
million it reserved for these matters during the year ended
December 31, 2018.

Endurance International said, "The Company cannot make any
assurances as to whether or when the Machado settlement will be
approved by the court."

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

Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides cloud-based platform solutions for small-and
medium-sized businesses in the United States and internationally.
The company operates in three segments: Web Presence, Domain, and
Email Marketing. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts.


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Still Awaits Court OK on McGee Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a court
presiding over William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al., has
not yet ruled on plaintiff's unopposed motion seeking preliminary
approval of a proposed settlement, certification of the proposed
settlement class for settlement purposes only, and approval of
notice to the settlement class.

On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee
v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant
Contact and two of its former officers.

An amended complaint, which named an additional former officer as a
defendant, was filed December 19, 2016.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading
statements, and non-disclosure of material facts, regarding
Constant Contact's business, operations, prospects and performance
during the proposed class period of October 23, 2014 to July 23,
2015.

The parties mediated the claims on March 27, 2018, and as a result
of that mediation reached an agreement in principle with the lead
plaintiff to settle the action.

The parties then negotiated the terms and conditions of a
stipulation and agreement of settlement and related papers, which,
among other things, provide for the release of all claims asserted
against Constant Contact and its former officers.

On May 18, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion seeking
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, certification of
the proposed settlement class for settlement purposes only, and
approval of notice to the settlement class. The court has not yet
ruled on this motion.

The Company's combined contribution to the settlement pool under
this proposed settlement and the potential settlement of the
Machado litigation discussed above would be approximately equal to
the $7.3 million it reserved for these matters during the year
ended December 31, 2018.

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

Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides cloud-based platform solutions for small-and
medium-sized businesses in the United States and internationally.
The company operates in three segments: Web Presence, Domain, and
Email Marketing. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Paul Files Class Suit under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Alberto Paul, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Enhanced
Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04664 (E.D.
N.Y., Aug. 13, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Michael Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza
   Ste 5th Floor
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com

     - and –

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



EQUITY BANCSHARES: Suit Alleges Misleading Financial Report
-----------------------------------------------------------
Equity Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company is defending
against a purported class action suit in the Southern District of
New York.

On May 13, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative securities class action lawsuit in federal court in the
Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of
its executive officers.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company made materially misleading
positive statements about the Company's business, operations and
prospects starting on May 11, 2018, that these statements caused
the Company's securities to be overvalued and that the "truth" came
out on January 24, 2019, when the Company disclosed that a credit
relationship was downgraded and further on April 22, 2019, when the
Company disclosed a $14.5 million provision for loan loss against
that credit relationship.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and it
intends to vigorously defend against all claims asserted.  

Equity Bancshares said, "At this time, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate the outcome of this litigation."

Equity Bancshares, Inc., incorporated on August 23, 2002, is a bank
holding company. The Company's principal activity is the ownership
and management of its subsidiary, Equity Bank (the Bank). The Bank
provides a range of financial services primarily to businesses and
business owners, as well as individuals through its network of over
49 branches located in Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma. The
company is based in Wichita, Kansas.


EVOLENT HEALTH: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia against Evolent Health, Inc. ("Evolent" or the "Company")
(EVH) on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Evolent common stock between March 3, 2017 and
May 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased Evolent common stock during the Class Period and
wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the Court by no later than October 7, 2019. You may
contact David Kaplan, Esq. -- dkaplan@saxenawhite.com -- an
attorney and Director at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights
regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the
class action. You may also retain counsel of your choice and need
not take any action at this time to be a class member.

Evolent provides health care delivery and payment services to a
national network of health systems across Medicare, Medicaid and
commercial markets.  By the end of 2018, Evolent had contractual
relationships with over 35 operating partners.  Many of these
"partners" were either related parties, or companies in which
Evolent had significant ownership or had provided financing at the
onset of the relationship.  Evolent's largest and most important
partner was University Health Care, Inc., d/b/a Passport Health
Plan ("Passport"), which represented 20% of the Company's revenues.
   

The Complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Evolent and
certain of its senior executives ("Defendants").  The action
alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants issued a series of
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about Evolent's business, operations, and prospects,
including Evolent's "partnership" with Passport specifically. Among
other things, Defendants mispresented and failed to disclose that:
(1) Evolent's partnership model did not align the Company's
interests with those of its partners, as the model was designed to
inflate the Company's revenue by extracting enormous administrative
and management fees at the expense of its operating partners such
as Passport; (2) Passport was struggling financially, particularly
after Kentucky cut its reimbursement rates, and the partnership
between Evolent and Passport was becoming increasingly
unsustainable; (3) Evolent was draining Passport of functions,
employees and money, to such an extent that Passport was left on
the verge of insolvency; (4) Passport was conducting a bidding
process for several months to sell itself to prevent liquidation;
and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements
were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Ultimately, on May 29, 2019, Evolent shocked investors when it
unexpectedly announced that it was buying a controlling interest in
Passport, which was essentially a bailout of the financially
distressed health plan.  Evolent acquired Passport despite
previously stating that it had no intention of buying Passport or
any other health plans for the foreseeable future, and that
acquiring health plans was not part of its strategic focus.  In
addition, Evolent admitted that Passport was performing poorly and
was not being run or managed properly, despite paying massive
management fees to Evolent for what was previously understood by
investors to be an aligned relationship.  In reaction to these
disclosures, Evolent's stock price plummeted nearly 30%.  

You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively
joining the class action at www.saxenawhite.com

Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, and
California, concentrates its practice on prosecuting securities
fraud and complex class actions on behalf of institutions and
individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous
securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered
hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and
is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts
throughout the United States.

CONTACT INFORMATION:

         David Kaplan, Esq.
         Saxena White P.A.
         12750 High Bluff Drive, Suite 475
         San Diego, CA 92130
         Tel: (858) 987-0860
         Fax: (858) 369-0096
         Website: www.saxenawhite.com
         Email: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com [GN]


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

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between March 3, 2017
and May 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to
contact the firm before October 7, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Evolent's partnership model was built
from the ground up to inflate the Company's revenue with huge fees
and management expenses siphoned from operating partners including
Passport. The partnership between Passport and Evolent quickly
became unsustainable, especially when combined with complicating
factors for Passport's operations in Kentucky. Passport was left on
the brink of insolvency due to the Company draining it of employees
and money. In fact, Passport was selling itself off in a bidding
process to avoid insolvency. Based on these facts, the Company's
public statements were false and materially misleading throughout
the class period. When the market learned the truth about Evolent,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

Contact:

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


FACEBOOK INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Bid to Dismiss Patel Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit issued an Opinion
affirming the District Court's judgment denying Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss in the case captioned NIMESH PATEL, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; ADAM PEZEN; CARLO LICATA,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant-Appellant. No.
18-15982. (9th Cir.).

Facebook users living in Illinois brought a class action against
Facebook, claiming that Facebook's facial-recognition technology
violates Illinois law. Class representatives Adam Pezen, Carlo
Licata, and Nimesh Patel each live in Illinois. The plaintiffs
allege that Facebook violated the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA), which provides that any person aggrieved by a
violation of its provisions shall have a right of action against an
offending party.

According to the complaint, Facebook violated sections 15(a) and
15(b) of BIPA by collecting, using, and storing biometric
identifiers a scan of face geometry, from their photos without
obtaining a written release and without establishing a compliant
retention schedule.

Facebook moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint for lack of
Article III standing on the ground that the plaintiffs had not
alleged any concrete injury. While Facebook's motion to dismiss was
pending, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court denied
Facebook's motion to dismiss.  

To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must have suffered
an injury in fact an invasion of a legally protected interest which
is (a) concrete and particularized; and (b) actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical. A plaintiff does not necessarily meet
the concrete injury requirement whenever a statute grants a person
a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to
vindicate that right. In other words, for Article III purposes, it
is not enough for a plaintiff to allege that a defendant has
violated a right created by a statute; the Court must still
ascertain whether the plaintiff suffered a concrete injury-in-fact
due to the violation.

Facebook argues that the plaintiffs' complaint describes a bare
procedural violation of BIPA rather than injury to a concrete
interest, and therefore plaintiffs failed to allege that they
suffered an injury-in-fact that is sufficiently concrete for
purposes of standing. Plaintiffs, in turn, argue that Facebook's
violation of statutory requirements amounted to a violation of
their substantive privacy rights, and so they suffered a concrete
injury for purposes of Article III standing.

In addressing these arguments, the Court first considers whether
the statutory provisions at issue were established to protect the
plaintiff's concrete interests as opposed to purely procedural
rights.

In its recent Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has
recognized that advances in technology can increase the potential
for unreasonable intrusions into personal privacy. These concerns
extend to sense-enhancing thermal imaging, GPS monitoring for
extended periods of time. Technological advances provide access to
a category of information otherwise unknowable and implicate
privacy concerns in a manner as different from traditional
intrusions as a ride on horseback is different from a flight to the
moon.

In enacting BIPA, the General Assembly found that the development
and use of biometric data presented risks to Illinois's citizens,
and that the public welfare, security, and safety will be served by
regulating the collection, use, safeguarding, handling, storage,
retention, and destruction of biometric identifiers and
information.

Interpreting the statute, the Illinois Supreme Court concluded that
the strategy adopted by the General Assembly through enactment of
BIPA was to protect individuals' biometric privacy by (1) imposing
safeguards to insure that individuals' and customers' privacy
rights in their biometric identifiers and biometric information are
properly honored and protected to begin with, before they are or
can be compromised and (2) by subjecting private entities who fail
to follow the statute's requirements to substantial potential
liability.

Based on this interpretation, the Illinois Supreme Court concluded
that an individual could be aggrieved by a violation of BIPA
whenever a private entity fails to comply with one of section 15's
requirements, because that violation constitutes an invasion,
impairment, or denial of the statutory rights of any person or
customer whose biometric identifier or biometric information is
subject to the breach. Individuals are not required to sustain a
compensable injury beyond violation of their statutory rights
before they may seek recourse.

Therefore, the Court concludes that the statutory provisions at
issue in BIPA were established to protect an individual's concrete
interests in privacy, not merely procedural rights.

The Court next turns to the question whether the specific
procedural violations alleged in this case actually harm, or
present a material risk of harm to, such interests.

Facebook's relevant conduct, according to the complaint, is the
collection, use, and storage of biometric identifiers without a
written release, in violation of section 15(b), and the failure to
maintain a retention schedule or guidelines for destroying
biometric identifiers, in violation of section 15(a). The
plaintiffs allege that a violation of these requirements allows
Facebook to create and use a face template and to retain this
template for all time. Because the privacy right protected by BIPA
is the right not to be subject to the collection and use of such
biometric data, Facebook's alleged violation of these statutory
requirements would necessarily violate the plaintiffs' substantive
privacy interests.

As the Illinois Supreme Court explained, the procedural protections
in BIPA are particularly crucial in our digital world because when
a private entity fails to adhere to the statutory procedures the
right of the individual to maintain his or her biometric privacy
vanishes into thin air.

The Court concludes that the plaintiffs have alleged a concrete
injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's August 8, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6d8xrjg from Leagle.com.

Lauren R. Goldman -- lrgoldman@mayerbrown.com -- (argued), Andrew
J. Pincus -
apincus@mayerbrown.com -- and Michael Rayfield --
mrayfield@mayerbrown.comMayer Brown LLP, New York, New York, for
Defendant-Appellant.

John Aaron Lawson -- alawson@edelson.com -- (argued) and Rafey S.
Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, San Francisco,
California; Susan K. Alexander -- salexander@rgrdlaw.com -- and
Shawn A. Williams -- shawnwrgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, San Francisco, California; Michael P. Canty --
mcanty@labaton.com -- and Corban S. Rhodes -- crhodes@labaton.com
-- Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, New York; for
Plaintiffs-Appellees.
  
Susan Fahringer -- SFahringer@perkinscoie.com -- and Nicola Menaldo
-- nmenaldo@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle,
Washington; Neal Kumar Katyal -- neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com --
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, D.C.; Lauren Ruben --
Lruben@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Denver, Colorado;
Thomas P. Schmidt, Hogan Lovells US LLP, 875 Third Avenue New York,
NY 10022; Sara Solow, Hogan Lovells US LLP, 1735 Market St., 23rd
Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103; for Amicus Curiae Internet
Association.


FACEBOOK INC: Loses Appeal, Class Action Over Facial Recognition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenblatt, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that
Facebook Inc. has failed to undo a ruling that allows millions of
its users to band together in a lawsuit accusing the social network
of gathering and storing biometric data without consent,
potentially exposing the company to billions of dollars in
damages.

A federal appeals court in San Francisco on August 7 rejected the
company's request to block the privacy suit from proceeding as a
class action on behalf of Illinois Facebook users going back to
2011 whose photos were tagged and collected in a company-controlled
database.

The decision exposes the company to potentially huge penalties
under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act of 2008, which
provides for fines of $1,000 to $5,000 each time a person's image
is used without consent. The appeals court said the lower court
"did not abuse its discretion in determining that a class action
was superior to individual actions in this case."

Facebook said it planned to seek further review of the ruling.

"We have always disclosed our use of face recognition technology
and that people can turn it on or off at any time," a company
spokesman said.

The appeal delayed a trial that had been set for July 2018 before a
judge who was unsympathetic to Facebook's arguments for limiting
its legal exposure. Now that Facebook has lost the appeal, the case
will once again move closer to a courtroom.

A high-stakes trial could hardly come at a worse time for Facebook,
which has been under siege by activists, regulators, lawmakers and
prosecutors over its privacy practices.

Facebook launched a feature in 2010 that allowed users to identify
people they recognized in photos using a tool that automatically
matched names to faces on pictures uploaded to the social-media
site.

The company was sued in 2015 over claims that it "secretly amassed
the world's largest privately held database of consumer biometric
data." Citing an Illinois law, one of only a handful in the U.S.
regulating biometrics, subscribers alleged they never gave Facebook
permission to use their faces as biometric identifiers, while the
company countered that all users could opt out at any time.

Google won dismissal of a similar case in December 2018. [GN]


FISHER PRICE: Wray Suit Transferred to Western Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Renee Wray, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Fisher-Price, Inc. and
Mattel, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01603 (June 4,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York (Buffalo) on Aug. 13, 2019. The Western
District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01067-GWC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford.

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for children and infants, headquartered in East Aurora, New York.
Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Mark Allen Smith, Esq.
          CARUSO LAW FIRM PC
          1325 East Fifteenth Street, Suite 201
          Tulsa, OK 74120
          Telephone: (918) 583-5900
          Facsimile: (918) 583-5902

               - and -

          Anthony Calbert Savastano, Esq.
          DUTHIE SAVASTANO BRUNGARD, PLLC
          P.O. Box 219
          1010 Main Avenue
          Durango, CO 81302
          Telephone: (970) 247-4545
          Facsimile: (970) 247-4546

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Adrianne Elizabeth Marshack, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 371-2500
          Facsimile: (714) 371-2550
          E-mail: amarshack@manatt.com

FLYING POINT SPORT: Olsen Suit Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------------
Flying Point Sport, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Flying Point Sport, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04669 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 13, 2019).

Flying Point Surf & Sport sells boating-related, clothing and
accessories, jewelry and gifts, toys and sporting goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
   New York, NY 10170
   Tel: (212) 764-7171
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com



FMH LP: Deleston Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------
FMH, L.P. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jermaine
Deleston, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FMH, L.P. doing business as: Francis Marion
Hotel a South Carolina limited partnership, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07550 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 13, 2019).

FMH, L.P. is a 3-star hotel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Erik Mathew Bashian, Esq.
   Bashian & Papantoniou, P.C
   500 Old Country Road, Suite 302
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 279-1555
   Fax: (516) 213-0339
   Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Agrees to $17MM Settlement Over Infotainment Woes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ronan Glon, writing for Digital Trends, reports that developing
technology that works flawlessly is expensive, but releasing a
piece software with annoying glitches can cost even more. Ford has
agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit filed by motorists who
experienced problems with its early infotainment systems for $17
million, though it completely denies wrongdoing.

The plaintiffs all have one thing in common: They purchased or
leased a Ford or a Lincoln vehicle between 2010 and August of 2013
equipped with a touchscreen-based software called MyFord Touch or
MyLincoln Touch. The two systems are very similar, and they were
available in a wide variety of models, including the Fusion, the
MKX, and the MKZ. Ford and Lincoln often either charged extra for
the feature, or made buyers step up to a more expensive trim level
to unlock it.

The honeymoon period didn't last long. According to the lawsuit,
the software didn't respond to voice commands, didn't connect to
the owner's mobile phone, provided the wrong directions to the
destination entered, froze, or crashed. While there's no indication
these problems caused crashes or injuries, they left many motorists
without features that they paid for, including navigation. Bill
Ford, a member of the Blue Oval's founding family and its executive
chairman, had to wait for his system to reboot before he could
reach his destination. Mark Fields, Ford's president, allegedly
punched his touchscreen.

Ford asked Microsoft to help it fix the issues, and it rolled out
several updates, but the problems continued for nearly two more
years. The company's modern-day infotainment systems are much
better, considerably more reliable, and far easier to use, and it
hopes the settlement will allow it to finally leave MyFord Touch
and MyLincoln Touch behind.

Only residents of California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio,
North Carolina, Washington, and Virginia are eligible to receive
part of the $17 million settlement. Motorists who needed to get an
infotainment-related problem fixed once can ask for $100. Those
whose car went into the shop twice can receive $250. The poor souls
who drove through the service department's door three or more times
can claim $400, and motorists whose software annoyed them but
didn't require repairs can get up to $45. Current and former owners
have until September 24 to file a claim. [GN]


FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Weidman's Brake Defect Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL WEIDMAN, RAUL VALENTIN, ERICA GOMEZ, PERRY
BURTON, TERESA PERRY, and ROY NAASZ, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-12719 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Gershwin A.
Drain of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Class Action Complaint,
filed on Dec. 18, 2018.

The Plaintiffs are six individuals from five different states who,
at varying times between 2015 through 2017, purchased a Ford F-150
truck.  They allege that each of these vehicles contains a
defective front brake master cylinder that places it at risk of
suddenly and unexpectedly losing braking ability.  They assert that
the master cylinders in all the F-150 trucks, model years 2013
through 2018, have a "defective sealing mechanism that is
inadequate to prevent brake fluid from leaking," causing reduced or
lost braking ability.

Plaintiffs Weidman, Naasz, and Perry allege that they experienced
some loss of braking force while driving.  Specifically, Plaintiff
Weidman maintains that his brakes failed within five months of
purchasing his truck.  Plaintiff Perry's brakes failed with less
than 20,000 miles on her truck and Plaintiff Naasz's brakes failed
while he was trying to slow down for a freeway off-ramp.  In each
case, Ford technicians diagnosed the problem as a failed master
cylinder.

The Plaintiffs further allege that Ford's pre-sale knowledge of the
master cylinder defect is evident from internal documents that it
provided to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
They further assert that there are an exceptionally high number of
consumer complaints regarding the master cylinder defect, beginning
with the model year 2013.

Ford admitted the existence of the master cylinder defect in a
safety recall.  However, the Plaintiffs complain that the recall
was inadequate because it only covered F-150s from model years 2013
through 2014.  The recall was also inadequate because it simply
provided for the replacement of the defective master cylinder with
another defective master cylinder.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of all "current
or former owners and/or lessees" of model year 2013 through 2018
Ford F-150 trucks under federal law, as well as seek to certify, on
multiple claims, separate Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia and
Texas state classes for vehicles purchased or leased in those
states.

Presently before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.  The Plaintiffs filed their
Response in Opposition on Jan. 23, 2019.  The Defendant filed a
Reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss on Feb. 6, 2019.  Upon
review of the parties' submissions, Judge Drain concludes that oral
argument will not aid in the disposition of the matter.
Accordingly, he resolves the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment on the briefs.

The Judge granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
Motion.  He dismissed Counts 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21,
22 and 24.  Counts 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20 and 23
remain.

Among other things, he finds that Plaintiff Perry's breach of
express warranty claim fails (Counts 3 and 15).  The Plaintiffs
fail to allege that the problems with the brake system reoccurred.
He similarly dismissed Plaintiff Perry's implied warranty claim
(Count 16), as the Plaintiff has not provided controlling authority
that the Georgia courts would permit an implied warranty claim to
proceed without allegations that the vehicle was inoperable or
unusable.  Count 1 (Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act) is dismissed.  The
Defendant is correct that if the Court finds the Plaintiffs have
failed to adequately plead express and implied warranty claims,
their claim under the MMWA also fails.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims
(Counts 6, 9,13,18 and 24) fail because Ford's Limited Warranty
covers the same subject matter.  The Plaintiff counters that it is
well established in the Sixth Circuit that a plaintiff may plead
unjust enrichment in the alternative.  However, the Defendant
acknowledges the existence of the limited warranty.  While the
Plaintiff argues that it would be improper at the pleading stage to
dismiss this claim because the Defendant may dispute the allegation
in a subsequent stage of the proceeding, the Judge finds that the
Defendant does not appear likely to do that.  Because Ford admits
to the existence of a valid contract such that whether a contract
exists is not at issue for the factfinder, the Plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claims fail.  The Judge therefore dismissed Counts 6, 9,
13, 18 and 24.  

A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/rONnRB from Leagle.com.

Paul Weidman, Raul Valentin, Erica Gomez, Perry Burton & Teresa
Perry, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark P. Chalos, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@dlcfirm.com --
DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Daniel R. Ferri -- dferri@dlcfirm.com
-- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, H. Clay Barnett, III --
Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com -- Beasley Allen Law Firm, John E.
Tangren -- jtangren@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC,
Melvin B. Hollowell , The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Sharon S.
Almonrode -- ssa@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C., W.
Daniel Miles, III -- Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com -- BEASLEY ALLEN
CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC, William Kalas, The Miller Law Firm,
P.C. & E. Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law
Firm.

Roy Naasz, consolidated from 18-13165, Plaintiff, represented by
Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm, Mark P. Chalos, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., W.
Daniel Miles, III, BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC &
William Kalas, The Miller Law Firm, P.C.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Randall William
Edwards -- redwards@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Scott
Michael Hammack -- shammack@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP &
Stephanie A. Douglas -- douglas@bsplaw.com -- Bush Seyferth &
Paige.


FORD MOTOR: Pinon Suit Transferred to Eastern District of Michigan
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Ramiro Antonio Sandoval Pinon, on Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Ford Motor
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02044, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit)
on Aug. 13, 2019. The Eastern District of Michigan Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-12374-SFC to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Sean F. Cox. The suit alleges violation
of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Ford Motor is an American multinational automaker that has its main
headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. It was
founded by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903. The
company sells automobiles and commercial vehicles under the Ford
brand and most luxury cars under the Lincoln brand.[BN]

FORD MOTOR: Riverside Alleges False Fuel-Economy Ratings
--------------------------------------------------------
RIVERSIDE TURF FARM, INC. and FRANK B. FLANDERS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-12376-SFC (M.D.
Fla., Aug. 12, 2019), alleges that the Defendant marketed and sold
vehicles including the 2019 Ford Ranger and 2017- 2019 Ford F-150
with false fuel-economy ratings.

The case is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs on behalf
of themselves and a class of current and former owners or lessees
of model year 2017 through 2019 Ford automobiles.

Plaintiffs' experts have examined nominal road load numbers that
Ford used for fuel economy and emissions certifications for the
2018 F-150 and 2019 Ranger as reported to the EPA and CARB. When
compared with other vehicles of the same class with similar weights
and dimensions, Ford's road loads plotted against speed produced
curves that were abnormally low, especially in the lower speed
ranges more heavily weighted in federal MPG determinations.

Ford represented to customers their vehicles had achieved specific
MPG estimates. Ford, however, concealed that it conducted
inadequate and inaccurate EPA fuel economy testing, resulting in
Class Vehicles with overstated miles-per gallon EPA fuel economy
ratings, the lawsuit says.

Ford's EPA fuel economy ratings and advertising statements
overstated by a material amount the actual numbers that the
required testing would have produced. These misstatements are
material because the EPA numbers provide a necessary tool for
vehicle comparison for consumers when evaluating vehicles to lease
or purchase, and they exist to help foster realistic numbers with
which consumers can compare one of the most important factors in
new-car buyers' purchase decisions.

The action seeks relief for the injuries sustained as the result of
the inaccurate testing methods used by Ford to ascertain the fuel
economy ratings of its vehicles and material misstatements
regarding those ratings used in the marketing and sales of certain
2017-2019 Ford vehicles in the United States.

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

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are:

          Charles Hudson, Esq.
          L. Shane Seaborn, Esq.
          PENN & SEABORN LLC
          1971 Berry Chase Place
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Telephone: 334 676-1626
          Facsimile: 334 687-5111
          E-mail: Charlie@pennandseaborn.com
                  Shane@pennandseaborn.com

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Misled Investors in Baker Hughes Deal, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TRI-STATE JOINT FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GREGORY D.
BRENNEMAN, CLARENCE P. CAZALOT, JR., WILLIAM EASTER III, LYNN L.
ELSENHANS, ANTHONY G. FERNANDES, CLAIRE GARGALLI, PIERRE JEAN-MARIE
HENRI JUNGELS, JAMES A. LASH, J. LARRY NICHOLS, JAMES W. STEWART,
CHARLES L. WATSON, MARTIN S. CRAIGHEAD, AND KIMBERLY ROSS, the
Defendants, Case No. 2019-0638 (Del. Chy., Aug. 13, 2019), alleges
breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting thereof, and
tortious manipulation of and fraud upon a board process in
connection with the combination of Baker Hughes with GE's Oil and
Gas sub-segment to form Baker Hughes, a General Electric Company,
which deal closed on July 3, 2017.

The lawsuit contends that GE knowingly provided Baker Hughes, its
Board and advisors, false financial statements that significantly
inflated the prospects of its struggling oil and gas business. The
Board approved the merger agreement and recommended that
shareholders do the same based on those false financials.

After signing the merger agreement and receiving audited financials
that portrayed a fundamentally less valuable deal for Baker Hughes
stockholders, the Board and GE inexplicably hid from investors the
massive divergence between the unaudited financials on which the
deal was negotiated and structured and those disclosed in Baker
Hughes' definitive proxy statement.

Worse yet, GE O&G was a non-publicly traded segment of GE, making
it difficult for Baker Hughes investors to value GE O&G
independently and further increasing stockholders' reliance on the
Board's recommendation. If a corporate board's recommendation is to
mean anything -- as it does under Delaware's corporate statute and
common law -- the deal the target board believes it is recommending
to its stockholders must fundamentally resemble the deal actually
effected upon shareholder approval.

GE also knew or acted with reckless indifference as to whether its
GE O&G Forecasts were reliable, as these forecasts themselves were
designed to be comparable to the earnings stated by the Unaudited
Financial Statements. The intent and purpose of providing these
false Unaudited Financial Statements and unreasonable Forecasts was
to lure Baker Hughes into a hasty business combination with GE
O&G.

Baker Hughes in fact relied on these Unaudited Financial Statements
to assess the business combination. GE knew that once the Board had
entered into the Transaction, it would be difficult for the Baker
Hughes Board to back out (and trigger a second failed merger
attempt for the Company), despite the magnitude of the difference
between the deal they believed they were approving and the deal
they actually secured.

The Form S-4 -- on which GE and Baker Hughes collaborated -- stated
that Baker Hughes had found the Comparable Financial Statement
Covenant had been satisfied, which falsely indicated that GE O&G's
revised audited financials did not reflect more material, negative
information about GE O&G than the unaudited financials. During the
two weeks between the release of GE O&G's audited financials and
the filing of the S-4, the Board had not met.

Thus, GE intentionally created an informational vacuum regarding
both GE O&G's actual financial conditions and the vast
discrepancies revealed by the Comparable GE O&G Audited Financial
Statements. The creation and maintenance of that informational
vacuum caused the Board to continue with the Closing of the deal.

GE knew that misleading Baker Hughes stockholders was an essential
element to its scheme to acquire Baker Hughes and thereby attempt
to salvage its own O&G business. This business combination was
value-destructive for Baker Hughes stockholders.

As a result, Plaintiff and the Class, in their capacity as Baker
Hughes stockholders, have been injured and suffered damages in an
amount to be determined at trial.

GE is a global high-tech industrial company.[BN]

Counsel for Tri-State Joint Fund are:

          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          Alla Zayenchik, Esq.
          Jacqueline Y. Ma, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ B ERGER &
          GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400

               - and -

          Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
          HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA &
          CHEVERIE LLP
          112 Madison Ave, 10th Flr.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 213-8311

               - and -

          Thomas A. Uebler, Esq.
          Joseph L. Christensen, Esq.
          Hayley M. Lenahan, Esq.
          MCCOLLUM D'EMILIO SMITH UEBLER LLC
          Little Falls Centre Two
          2751 Centerville Road, Suite 401
          Wilmington, DE 19808
          Telephone: (302) 468-5960

               - and -

          Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
          GROSSMANN LLP
          500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 364-3600

GENERAL MILLS: Newman Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned CONNIE NEWMAN, individually, and on behalf of
all similarly situated current citizens of Illinois, Plaintiff, v.
GENERAL MILLS, INC. AND GENERAL MILLS SALES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 19-L-0455, was removed from the Circuit Court for the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Aug. 13,
2019, and assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00890-NJR-RJD.

The Complaint alleges two causes of action against General Mills:
(1) violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act ("ICFA"), and (2)
unjust enrichment. These causes of action derive from Plaintiff's
allegation that the labeling of General Mills Fruit Roll Up brand
products ("Fruit Roll Ups") are false or misleading because the
labels state the Fruit Roll Ups are "naturally flavored" and
contain "no artificial flavors" when the Fruit Roll Ups contain
malic acid.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David C. Nelson, Esq.
     Nelson & Nelson, Attorneys at Law, P.C.
     420 N. High St.
     P.O. Box Y
     Bellevile IL 62220
     Email: dnelson@nelsonlawpc.com

          - and -

     Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
     Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
     Eggnatz | Pascucci
     7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230
     Davie, FL33314
     Email: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com
            MPascucci@justiceearned.com

          - and -

     Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
     Armstrong Law Firm LLC
     8816 Manchester Rd., No. 109
     St. Louis, MO 63144
     Email: matt@mattarmstronlaw.com

          - and -

     Alexander J. Korolinsky, Esq.
     The Law Offices of Alexander J.
     Korolinsky, P.A.
     1001 Brickell Bay Drive, Suite 2700
     Miami, FL 33131
     Email: korolinsky@ajklegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Kathleen A. Stetsko, Esq.
     131 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 1700
     Chicago, IL 60603-5559
     Phone: (312) 324-8400
     Fax: (312) 324-9400

          - and -

     Charles C. Sipos, Esq.
     Lauren W. Staniar, Esq.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
     Seattle, WA 98101-3099
     Phone: (206) 359-3316
     Fax: (206) 359-4316
     Email: CSipos@perkinscoie.com
            LStaniar@perkinscoie.com

          - and -

     David T. Biderman, Esq.
     PERKINS COIE LLP
     1888 Century Park E., Suite 1700
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721
     Phone: 310.788.9900
     Facsimile: 310.843.1284
     Email: DBiderman@perkinscoie.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Truesdell Sues Over Defective Headlights
--------------------------------------------------------
Jason Truesdell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. General Motors LLC, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-02268, (E.D. Mo., July 25, 2019), seeks actual and punitive
damages, injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further
relief resulting from unjust enrichment and breach of implied
warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Truesdell purchased a 2014 Cadillac SRX that he claims has a
headlight defect that causes the headlights to unexpectedly and
prematurely wear-out and fail due to the fact that its seals in the
exterior housing units wear out, allowing moisture to accumulate
and condense and corroding lamp assembly components. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
      Daniel S. Levy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD, LLC
      1010 Market Street, Suite 1645
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Tel: (314) 241-5799
      Fax: (314) 241-5788
      Email: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com
             dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com


GERALD PETERS: Picon Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Peters Gallery 2, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Yelitza Picon, and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Gerald Peters Gallery 2, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-07551 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 13, 2019).

Gerald Peters is a Santa Fe art gallery featuring major works in
American Western Art, regional southwest painting, Naturalism and
Contemporary art.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GERAWAN FARMING: Court OKs $5MM Class Settlement in Amaro Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Eastern District of California
issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Approval of a Class Action Settlement in the case RAFAEL MARQUEZ
AMARO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GERAWAN FARMING, INC., et al.,
Defendants. No. 1:14-cv-00147-DAD-SAB. (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs are former employees who worked as field workers for
defendants. The Defendants grow and harvest grapes, oranges, and
various stone fruits in California. The Defendants employ seasonal
workers such as plaintiffs who are fired at the end of each harvest
and are subsequently rehired for the next harvest to assist with
preparing trees and vines and with harvesting fruit.

The Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Gerawan Farming, Inc. and
Gerawan Farming Partners, Inc. (defendants) alleging violations of
the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act
(AWPA).

Here, plaintiffs move for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement. Though Rule 23 does not explicitly provide for such a
procedure, federal courts generally find preliminary approval of
settlement and notice to the proposed class appropriate if the
proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed,
non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not
improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or
segments of the class, and falls with the range of possible
approval.

Preliminary Fairness Determination

In particular, preliminary approval of a settlement and notice to
the proposed class is appropriate if: (i) the proposed settlement
appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive
negotiations and (ii) the settlement falls within the range of
possible approval, has no obvious deficiencies, and does not
improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or
segments of the class.  

Procedural Fairness

The Plaintiffs contend that the parties reached this settlement
agreement following the exchange of discovery, depositions of
defendants' 30(b)(6) witnesses, certification of the classes,
extensive motion practice, and arm's length negotiations with the
assistance of a skilled mediator.

The Plaintiffs maintain that the proposed settlement agreement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of all known facts and
circumstances and is in the best interest of the class. Based on
these representations, it appears that the parties' negotiations
constituted genuine, informed, arm's length bargaining.

Substantive Fairness

Adequacy of the Settlement Amount

To evaluate the fairness of the settlement award, the court should
compare the terms of the compromise with the likely rewards of
litigation. It is well-settled law that a cash settlement amounting
to only a fraction of the potential recovery does not per se render
the settlement inadequate or unfair. To determine whether a
settlement falls within the range of possible approval a court must
focus on substantive fairness and adequacy and consider plaintiffs'
expected recovery balanced against the value of the settlement
offer.

Here, the total proposed settlement is for $5,000,000. The portion
of the settlement allocated to the settlement class is an estimated
$3,365,000. Plaintiffs' counsel estimates the maximum possible
recovery with respect to all of the claims to be $16,458,758. Thus,
the proposed allocation of $3,365,000 to the settlement class under
the proposed agreement represents approximately 20 percent of
plaintiffs' maximum possible recovery. This settlement amount is
not per se unreasonable, and district courts in California have
found lower percentage recoveries under some circumstances to be
reasonable for this purpose.

Attorneys' Fees

When a negotiated class action settlement includes an award of
attorneys' fees, the fee award must be evaluated in the overall
context of the settlement. At the same time, the court has an
independent obligation to ensure that the award, like the
settlement itself, is reasonable, even if the parties have already
agreed to an amount. Where, as here, fees are to be paid from a
common fund, the relationship between the class members and class
counsel turns adversarial. As a result, the district court must
assume a fiduciary role for the class members in evaluating a
request for an award of attorney fees from the common fund.  

To assess whether the percentage requested is reasonable, courts
may consider a number of factors, including: The extent to which
class counsel achieved exceptional results for the class, whether
the case was risky for class counsel, whether counsel's performance
generated benefits beyond the cash settlement fund, the market rate
for the particular field of law (in some circumstances, the burdens
class counsel experienced while litigating the case (e.g., cost,
duration, foregoing other work), and whether the case was handled
on a contingency basis.

Here, in addition to the AWPA claim, plaintiffs bring various
California state law claims. Accordingly, California law governs
the award and calculation of attorneys' fees. Under California law,
the primary method for establishing the amount of reasonable
attorney fees is the lodestar method.

The proposed settlement in this case provides that class counsel
will seek an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed one-third, or
$1,500,000, of the total settlement amount. This amount is above
the Ninth Circuit's benchmark. However, this percentage of
attorneys' fees is not unreasonable as an upper bound. As such, the
court approves the attorneys' fee request on a preliminary basis.
In connection with the final fairness hearing, the court will cross
check the requested attorneys' fees with the lodestar amount based
upon counsel's submission and make a final determination of whether
the requested amount is reasonable.

Incentive Payment

While incentive awards are fairly typical in class action cases,
they are discretionary sums awarded by the court "to compensate
class representatives for work done on behalf of the class, to make
up for financial or reputational risk undertaken in bringing the
action, and, sometimes, to recognize their willingness to act as a
private attorney general.

Here, plaintiffs have requested a total incentive award of $20,000,
with each named plaintiff receiving $10,000. In support of this
request, plaintiffs contend that they have expended significant
time and effort to assist with litigation by providing information
regarding the nature of their claims, consulting with class counsel
on multiple calls, regularly discussing the status of the case, and
providing information to other class members.  

An incentive award of $20,000 amounts to 0.4 percent of the overall
settlement amount of $5,000,000. In comparison, under the net
settlement amount of $3,365,000 for the class, each of the 6,417
class members would receive an average payment of roughly $524.
This is in line with other incentive awards that have been approved
by this court. Because the court finds that the proposed incentive
award is reasonable, the court approves it on a preliminary basis.


A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y53qyxmw from Leagle.com.

Rafael Marquez Amaro, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated & Jesus Alarcon Urzua, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Eric Bryce Kingsley
-- eric@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley & Kingsley APC, Liane
Katzenstein Ly  -- liane@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley &
Kingsley, APC, Marcos Rodrigo Camacho, Law Offices of Marcos
Camacho, 227 California Ave.Bakersfield, CA 93304, A Law
Corporation & Mario Martinez -- mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com --
Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch, APLC A Law Corporation.

Gerawan Farming, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant,
represented by David Abba Schwarz -- dschwarz@irell.com -- Irell &
Manella, Patrick Moody -- pmoody@theemployerslawfirm.com --
Barsamian and Moody, Ronald H. Barsamian, Barsamian & Moody, Theane
Diana Evangelis Kapur- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher, Bradley Joseph Hamburger -- bhamburger@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP, Tiffany X. Phan -- tphan@gibsondunn.com
-- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP & Victor Jih -- VJih@irell.com --
Irell & Manella LLP.

Gerawan Farming Partners, Inc., a California Corporation,
Defendant, represented by David Abba Schwarz, Irell & Manella,
Patrick Moody, Barsamian and Moody, Ronald H. Barsamian, Barsamian
& Moody & Victor Jih, Irell & Manella LLP.


GHS INTERACTIVE: Cunningham Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Cunningham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GHS Interactive Security, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-06599 (C.D. Cal., July 30, 2019), seeks actual
monetary loss or the sum of five hundred dollars for each violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the
Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, treble damages, pre-judgment
interest, costs and such further relief.

GHS Interactive Security offered a "free" home security system by
placing telemarketing calls to Cunningham's phone via an
auto-dialer with a prerecorded voice without prior written express
consent. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roger Furman, Esq.
      7485 Henefer Avenue
      Los Angeles, California 90045
      Telephone: (310) 568-0640
      Facsimile: (310) 694-9083
      Email: roger.furman@yahoo.com

             - and -

      Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
      BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
      85 Miles Avenue
      White Plains, NY 10606
      Tel: (914) 358-5345
      Fax: (212) 571-0284
      Email: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com


GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Haut Sues Over Misrepresentation of Vanilla
----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Haut, Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Glanbia Performance Nutrition
(Manufacturing), Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-04566 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 7,
2019), alleges violations of the New York General Business Law,
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and consumer protection
statutes of other states and territories in connection to vanilla
content in the Company's products.

Glanbia manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
ready-to-eat ("RTE") oatmeal cups and packets under the ThinkThin
and Think! brands ("Products").  The Products are available to
consumers nationwide from third-party retailers, including brick
and mortar and online stores and directly from the Defendant's Web
site.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Products contain misleading and
deceptive representations of their vanilla ingredient.  The
Plaintiffs add that the Defendant's conduct was misleading,
deceptive, unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair because (1) it gives
the impression to consumers the Products contain more of the
characterizing ingredients than they actually do and (2) the
ingredient list does not dispel ambiguity but reinforces the
front-label impression as to a greater amount of the characterizing
ingredients.

The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business in Downers Grove, Illinois (DuPage County).  The Defendant
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Glanbia PLC, an Irish food and
beverage conglomerate with specialties in nutrition and dairy
products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss the class action suit initiated by direct purchasers of
foreign exchange instruments that opted out of a class settlement
reached with, among others, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and Group Inc.,
is pending.

GS&Co. and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in an action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on November 7, 2018 by certain direct purchasers of foreign
exchange instruments that opted out of a class settlement reached
with, among others, GS&Co. and Group Inc.

The second amended complaint, filed on June 11, 2019, generally
alleges that the defendants violated federal antitrust and state
common laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate
the foreign currency exchange markets and seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory,
punitive, treble and other damages.

Defendants moved to dismiss on July 25, 2019.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: New York Class Suit Over 1MDB Scandal Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a putative securities class action lawsuit
related to disclosures concerning 1Malaysia Development Berhad
(1MDB).

On December 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Group Inc. and certain current and former officers
of the firm alleging violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the
Exchange Act with respect to Group Inc.'s disclosures concerning
1MDB and seeking unspecified damages.

The firm is cooperating with the DOJ and all other governmental and
regulatory investigations relating to 1MDB and is engaged in
discussions with various governmental and regulatory authorities.
Proceedings by the DOJ or other governmental or regulatory
authorities could result in the imposition of significant fines,
penalties and other sanctions against the firm, including
restrictions on the firm's activities.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: New York Suit Over FX Transactions Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit related to
foreign currency exchange markets.  

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the
defendants named in putative class actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in
September 2016 on behalf of putative indirect purchasers of foreign
exchange instruments.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on June 30, 2017,
generally alleged a conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency
exchange markets and asserted claims under federal and state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws.

On March 15, 2018, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
in its entirety, and on October 25, 2018, plaintiffs' motion for
leave to replead was denied as to the claim under federal antitrust
law and granted as to the claims under state antitrust and consumer
protection laws.

On November 28, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended complaint asserting claims under various state antitrust
laws and state consumer protection laws and seeking treble damages
in an unspecified amount.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: NY Securities Class Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York has stayed the
proceedings in a securities class action pending an appellate
court's decision.

Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group Inc.'s
public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's activities in
the collateralized debt obligation market, and the firm's conflict
of interest management.

The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which
names as defendants Group Inc. and certain current and former
officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and seeks unspecified damages.

The defendants have moved for summary judgment. On December 11,
2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted the defendants'
petition for interlocutory review of the district court's August
14, 2018 grant of class certification. On January 23, 2019, the
district court stayed proceedings in the district court pending the
appellate court's decision.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GREENE NAFTALI: Picon Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------
Greene Naftali Gallery Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Yelitza Picon, and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Greene Naftali Gallery Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-07543 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 13, 2019).

Greene Naftali Gallery Inc. is an Art gallery in New York City, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



HEADWAY TECH: Faces Suit Over Hard Drive Component Price-fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ferzula Elmazi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Headway Technologies, Inc., Hutchinson
Technology Inc., Magnecomp Precision Technology Public Co. Ltd.,
NAT Peripheral (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., NAT Peripheral (H.K.) Co.,
Ltd., NHK Spring Co. Ltd., NHK International Corporation, NHK
Spring (Thailand) Co., Ltd., NHK Spring Precision (Guangzhou) Co.,
Ltd., SAE Magnetics (H.K.) Ltd., and TDK Corporation, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-12244, (E.D. Mich., July 30, 2019), seeks damages,
injunctive relief and other relief pursuant to the Sherman Act,
federal antitrust laws, state antitrust, unfair competition,
consumer protection laws and the laws of unjust enrichment.

Defendants are manufacturers of hard disk drive suspension
assemblies. Elmazi purchased at least one HDD suspension assembly
indirectly from at least one Defendant and claims that they
conspired to fix prices of and allocate market shares for these
suspension assemblies.

Suspension assemblies are a component of hard disk drives and are
installed in a variety of electronic products. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
      E. Powell Miller, Esq.
      THE MILLER LAW FIRM, PC
      950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
      Rochester, Michigan 48307
      Tel: (248) 841-2200
      Fax: (248) 652-2852
      Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
             ssa@millerlawpc.com

             - and -

      Hollis Salzman, Esq.
      Kellie Lerner, Esq.
      Noelle Feigenbaum, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 980-7400
      Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
      Email: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
             KLerner@robinskaplan.com
             NFeigenbaum@RobinsKaplan.com

             - and -

      Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100
      Mountain View, CA 94040
      Telephone: (650) 784-4040
      Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
      Email: ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com

             - and -

      Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
      Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
      ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
      3620 East Layton Avenue
      Cudahy, WI 53110
      Tel: (414) 482-8000
      Fax: (414) 482-8001
      Email: meldridge@ademilaw.com
             sademi@ademilaw.com


HEADWAY TECH: Suit Claims Price-Fixing of HDD Suspension Assemblies
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW MICRO, INC., the Plaintiff, vs. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC
CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL
(H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION
(GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK
CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-02196 (D. Minn., Aug.
9, 2019), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief and other
relief pursuant to federal antitrust laws, state antitrust, unfair
competition, consumer protection laws, and the laws of unjust
enrichment.

The lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and
their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares
for hard disk drive ("HDD") suspension assemblies. As Assistant
Attorney General of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division
Makan Delrahim described, HDD suspension assemblies are "critical
to the operation and performance of electronic devices, and their
impact on American consumers and business is direct and
substantial."

HDD suspension assemblies are a component of hard disk drives,
which use magnetism to store information electronically. HDDs use
recording heads, attached to sliders, to read from and write onto
rapidly spinning disks. HDD suspension assemblies hold the
recording heads close to the disks and provide the electrical
connection from the recording heads to the hard disk drives’
circuitry.

HDDs containing HDD suspension assemblies are sold both as
stand-alone devices and incorporated into a variety of ubiquitous
electronics such as computers, gaming systems, printers, and copy
machines.

The Defendants manufactured and sold HDD suspension assemblies
throughout and into the United States. As of 2016, Defendants TDK
and NHK, along with their subsidiaries, were the leading
manufacturers of HDD suspension assemblies, with a combined
worldwide market share of approximately 90%.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes are:

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          LARSON | KING, LLP
          2800 Wells Fargo Place
          30 East Seventh Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Victoria Sims, Esq.
          Joel Davidow, Esq.
          Daniel Cohen, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
                  joel@cuneolaw.com
                  danielc@cuneolaw.com
                  vicky@cuneolaw.com

HEALTH INSURANCE: Schick Suit Moved to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case, Silvia Schick, James Nethnay, James Schaffer, Joseph
Bond, Lisa Graham, Lynne Crowton, and Michael Scott Hoge,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Respondents, Case No.
8:19-cv-00588 (Filed Mar. 27, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego)
on Aug. 13, 2019. The Southern District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01511 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff
sues over unsolicited telephone sales.

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., incorporated on October 26,
2012, is a developer, distributor and cloud-based administrator of
individual and family health insurance plans (IFPs) and
supplemental products, which include short-term medical (STM)
insurance plans, and guaranteed-issue and underwritten hospital
indemnity plans.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Adrian R Bacon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
          324 S Beverly Drive Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com

               - and -

          Todd Friedman, Esq.
          KIRKLAND AND ELLIS
          601 Lexington Ave
          New York, NY 10022
          (212) 446-4800
          E-mail: todd.friedman@kirkland.com

Attorneys for the Respondent are:

          Ashley L Shively, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          50 California Street, Suite 2800
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 743-6900
          Facsimile: (415) 743-6910

HELIUS MEDICAL: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:  HSDT) and
certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United States
District Court, for the Southern District of New York, and indexed
under 19-cv-07171, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise Helius securities between November 9, 2017, and April 10,
2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Helius securities during the
class period, you have until September 9, 2019, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Helius Medical Technologies, Inc., a neurotechnology company,
focuses on developing, licensing, or acquiring noninvasive
technologies for the treatment of symptoms caused by neurological
disease or trauma. The company's product is Portable
Neuromodulation Stimulator ("PoNS"), a medical device for the
treatment of chronic balance deficit associated with a mild to
moderate traumatic brain injury. Its PoNS device treats
neurostimulation of cranial nerves via the tongue to restore lost
function.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) the clinical
study on the use of PoNS did not produce statistically significant
results regarding the effectiveness of the treatment; (ii) as a
result, the clinical study did not support the Company's
application for regulatory clearance; (iii) as a result, the
Company was unlikely to receive regulatory approval of PoNS; and
(iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On January 25, 2019, the Company announced that it had received a
request for additional data and information from the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (the "FDA") related to the Company's request
for de novo classification and 510(k) clearance of PoNS.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.48, or
approximately 6%, to close at $7.13 per share on January 25, 2019,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

On April 10, 2019, the Company revealed that the FDA had denied
regulatory clearance of the PoNS device because the Company had not
provided sufficient clinical data to show the device was
effective.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.11, or more than
66%, to close at $2.10 per share on April 10, 2019, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

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

CONTACT:

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


HELIUS MEDICAL: Sept. 9 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Helius Medical Technologies, Inc.
(NASDAQ: HSDT) from November 9, 2017 through April 10, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important September 9, 2019
lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Helius investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Helius class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1496.html or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the clinical study on the use of the Portable
Neuromodulation Stimulator ("PoNS") did not produce statistically
significant results regarding the effectiveness of the treatment;
(2) the clinical study did not support Helius' application for
regulatory clearance; (3) Helius was unlikely to receive regulatory
approval of PoNS; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about Helius' business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
9, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1496.html or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com

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

Contact Information:

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


HERON THERAPEUTICS: Wong Securities Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Heron Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a purported federal securities class action suit initiated
by Jimmy Wong.

On June 3, 2019, a purported federal securities class action
complaint was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer by Jimmy Wong, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated (the 'Plaintiff"), in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California (the "Complaint").

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges certain violations of
federal securities laws in connection with the decline in market
value of the Company's securities following the Company's
announcement of its receipt of a Complete Response Letter (CRL)
from the the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the
New Drug Application  (NDA) for HTX-011.

The Plaintiff seeks class action certification, damages in an
unspecified amount, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, fees
and costs and such other relief as the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California may deem just and proper.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in the case.

Heron Therapeutics said, "Due to the early stage of this
proceeding, we are not able to predict or reasonably estimate the
outcome or possible losses relating to this matter."

Heron Therapeutics, Inc., incorporated on February 5, 1987, is a
biotechnology company. The Company is engaged in developing
pharmaceutical products for patients suffering from cancer or pain.
The company is based in San Diego, California.


HERTZ LOCAL: Denied Workers Pay Slips, Meal Breaks, Says Ramirez
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Ramirez, on behalf of himself and other current and former
non-exempt Hertz employees, Plaintiff, v. Hertz Local Edition
Corp., Hertz Local Edition Transporting, Inc., Hertz Local Edition
Transporting and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV26477 (Cal. Super., July 30, 2018), seeks unpaid wages and
interest thereon for failure to pay for all hours worked and
minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or permit required meal
periods, failure to authorize or permit required rest periods,
statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment, injunctive relief and other equitable
relief, reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to California Labor
Code and costs and interest.

Ramirez was employed by Hertz in a non-exempt position at their
9000 Airport Blvd., Los Angeles location. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lavi, Esq.
      Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
      Anwar D. Burton, Esq.
      LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
      8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 432-0000
      Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
      Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
             vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
             aburton@lelawfirm.com


HOWARD ZUCKER: Court OKs Class Certification in Guadagna
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification in the case captioned SALVATORE GUADAGNA,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. HOWARD ZUCKER, as Commissioner of the New York State
Department of Health, Defendant. No. 2:17-cv-03397 (ADS)(AKT).
(E.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiff commenced this putative class action against the
defendant Howard Zucker, as Commissioner of the New York State
Department of Health (DOH), alleging that the Defendant violated
the Medicaid Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794 and
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.

The Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for class certification with
the following revised class definition:

     All Medicaid recipients who were enrolled in the GuildNet
MLTCP in Suffolk, Nassau, or Westchester County as of March 1, 2017
and who suffered reductions in care without constitutionally and
statutorily mandated prior notice and opportunity to be heard when
they transferred to new MLTCPs as a result of GuildNet's closure in
their counties of residence.

Numerosity

Rule 23(a)(1) requires the movant to show that the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The
numerosity requirement in Rule 23(a)(1) does not mandate that
joinder of all parties be impossible only that the difficulty or
inconvenience of joining all members of the class make use of the
class action appropriate.

According to the Plaintiff, at least 550 GuildNet enrollees
transferred to a new MLTCP and suffered reductions in care after
learning of GuildNet's impending closure. As support, he cites a
chart produced by the Defendant detailing the type and level of
long-term care received by individuals who changed MLTCPs between
April 1, 2017 and October 1, 2017. The chart shows the services
received from GuildNet immediately before transferring to the new
MLTCP and the services received immediately upon transfer. The
Plaintiff contends that none of these individuals received adequate
notice because the DOH treated all of them as if they were
voluntarily transferring to a new plan.

In the Court's view, this evidence suffices to establish
numerosity.

The Court finds the Plaintiff satisfied his burden of demonstrating
numerosity.

Commonality

Under Rule 23(a)(2), there must be questions of law or fact common
to the class. A question is common if it is capable of classwide
resolutionwhich 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.

Here, the following common question exists capable of class-wide
resolution whether a statutory or constitutional mandate existed
requiring the Defendant to compel MLTCPs who accepted former
GuildNet enrollees to provide notice and fair hearing rights. The
Plaintiff alleges that the DOH knew of GuildNet's intention to
close and was thus required by the Medicaid statute and the
Constitution to adopt remedial measures protecting those rights,
whereas the Defendant alleges that no legal basis exists for
demanding additional action by the DOH. Resolving this legal
dispute will conclusively resolve the Defendant's liability to the
class as a whole, favoring certification.  

To supposedly show the absence of a common question, the Defendant
shifts the focus to the providers who received the members of the
putative class. GuildNet enrollees transferred to numerous
different managed care organizations, including 49 MLTCPs.
According to the Defendant, the new providers made individualized
determinations of the level of service to provide transferred
enrollees. In doing so, the provider assessed each enrollee's
particularized infirmities, abilities, and home environments and
then designed a plan of care tailored to that enrollee's unique
needs. The Defendant thus believes that hundreds of distinct
questions regarding the circumstances of each potential class
member exist, rather than a single class-wide question.

However, the Defendant's argument mischaracterizes the nature of
the dispute. The Plaintiff is not challenging the assessments of
the providers who received former GuildNet enrollees. Instead, the
Plaintiff questions the lawfulness of the DOH's overarching policy
regarding the transfer of enrollees from GuildNet to those
providers. If the Medicaid statute and/or Constitution obligated
the DOH to impose notice and fair hearing requirements on receiving
providers, then the Defendant's failure to implement a policy to
that affect violated the rights of the entire class.

If, on the other hand, no such statutory or constitutional mandate
existed, then the putative class's claims fail as a matter of the
law. Either way, the Court can generate a common answer that will
drive the resolution of the case without second-guessing the
assessments of the post-GuildNet providers.
  
Therefore, the Court finds the Plaintiff satisfied his burden of
demonstrating commonality.

Typicality

The typicality prong of Rule 23(a)(3) requires that `the claims or
defenses of the representative parties be typical of the claims or
defenses of the class. The typicality requirement is satisfied when
each class member's claim arises from the same course of events and
each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the
defendant's liability.

Here, the Plaintiff and the putative class members were subject to
the same course of conduct by the DOH, and will proceed on
virtually the same legal theories, satisfying the typicality
inquiry.  

The Defendant objects that GuildNet's conduct cannot be imputed to
the DOH and that the Court has already found that the DOH provided
adequate notice. Putting aside the fact that these arguments are
merely another failed attempt to litigate the merits of the
Plaintiff's case, they are applicable to the putative class as a
whole, and not just to the Plaintiff. As a result, they fail to
show that the Plaintiff is subject to unique defenses that would
make his claims atypical of the proposed class.  

Therefore, the Court finds the Plaintiff satisfied his burden of
demonstrating typicality.

Adequacy

No identifiable actual or potential conflicts exist between the
Plaintiff and other members of the putative class. All proposed
class members suffered reduction of Medicaid services without
receiving adequate notice. Also, the final relief sought by the
Plaintiff on behalf of the proposed class is the same relief that
he seeks for himself, namely, an order compelling DOH to restore to
former GuildNet enrollees the level of care that they were
previously receiving from GuildNet, until and unless they receive
an adequate and timely notice and the opportunity to contest any
reduction. These facts clearly establish his adequacy to represent
the proposed class.  

The Defendant's only objection that awarding an injunction would be
improper relates solely to the merits of the relief requested by
the class writ large. It has no bearing on the capacity of the
Plaintiff to adequately represent the interests of other class
members.  

The Court finds the Plaintiff satisfied his burden of demonstrating
adequacy.

The Court grants the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2). The Court defines the class as follows:

     All Medicaid recipients who were enrolled in the GuildNet
managed long-term care plans in Suffolk, Nassau, or Westchester
County as of March 1, 2017 and who suffered reductions in care
without prior notice and opportunity to be heard when they
transferred to new managed long-term care plans as a result of
GuildNet's closure in their counties of residence.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Memorandum
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3vpks86 from
Leagle.com.

Salvatore Guadagna, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Wait Taylor,
NYLAG, Elizabeth A. Jois, New York Legal Assistance Group, Jane
Greengold Stevens, New York Legal Assistance Group & Julia Grossman
Russell, New York Legal Assistance Group, 7 Hanover Sq Fl 18, New
York, NY 10004-4027.

Howard Zucker, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of
Health, Defendant, represented by Dorothy O. Nese, Office of the
New York State Attorney General.

GuildNet, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Jordan B. Leader
-- jleader@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose.


HSBC USA: Faces Ortega Class Action
-----------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a purported class action suit entitled,
Frank Ortega v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association.

In June 2019, plaintiff filed a purported class action in
California Superior Court in Los Angeles County based upon an
October 2018 data breach experienced by HSBC Bank USA. The
purported class members are HSBC Bank USA customers from October 4,
2018 to October 14, 2018 whose personal information allegedly was
compromised. Plaintiff alleges he suffered actual harm in the form
of fraudulent charges on his account, as well as continuing harm
resulting from the compromise of his and other purported class
members' personal data. The complaint asserts claims for breach of
contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
violation of the California Business and Professions Code 17200,
negligence, and violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act 1750,
and seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. The
case is at a very early stage.

HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer
and commercial banking products, and related financial services in
the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in
New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc.

HUCKBERRY INC: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Huckberry Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian
Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Huckberry Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-04668 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 13, 2019).

Huckberry is an independent online retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


INEOS STYROLUTION: Foth Suit Dismissed Per Settlement Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry in the case styled Anthony Foth, et
al. v. INEOS Styrolution America, LLC, Case No. 1:19−cv−00460
(N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Sharon
Johnson Coleman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- the Court grants the parties' Rule 41(a) stipulation to
      dismiss;

   -- the Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed without prejudice with
      the right to reinstate within 30 days to enforce the terms
      of the parties' settlement agreement;

   -- the dismissal without prejudice will automatically convert
      to dismissal with prejudice after 30 days if Plaintiffs'
      claims are not reinstated beforehand;

   -- the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is stricken as
      moot;

   -- Status hearing set for September 6, 2019, is stricken; and

   -- Civil case terminated.[CC]


INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Skrzeczkoski Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Intelligent Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a securities class action suit initiated by
Michael Skrzeczkoski.

On or about July 9, 2019, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (Case No. 1:19-cv-03949) by Michael Skrzeczkoski,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
against the company, its executive officers, and each member of the
Board of Directors.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of the
company's press releases and Securities and Exchange Commission's
(SEC's) filings were misleading as a result of the failure to
disclose alleged related party transactions affecting revenue
recognition and the absence of disclosure regarding certain
allegations against director Parker H. Petit in connection with his
former position with MiMedx, Inc.

The complaint seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs and
unspecified damages on behalf of purchasers who acquired our stock
during the period from January 23, 2019, through May 29, 2019, and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result of the alleged
misleading statements.

Intelligent Systems said, "We dispute these claims and intend to
defend the matter vigorously. We have not determined the likelihood
of loss to be probable nor is any potential loss estimable at this
time, therefore we have not recorded any related liability as of
June 30, 2019."

Intelligent Systems Corporation, incorporated on November 8, 1991,
is engaged in the business of providing technology solutions and
processing services to the financial technology and services
market. The Company's financial transaction solutions and services
(FinTech) operations are conducted through its CoreCard Software,
Inc. (CoreCard) subsidiary. The company is based in Norcross,
Georgia.


INTERSECT ENT: Nov. 1 Hearing to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------------
Intersect ENT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court has set a
hearing for November 1, 2019, on the motion to appoint lead
plaintiff.

On or about May 15, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company,
Avi Yaron, filed a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
entitled Yaron v. Intersect ENT, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-02647, against the Company and certain individual officers
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that the Company and the individual officers
made false and/or misleading statements about the Company's
business and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

On July 15, 2019, the purported stockholder filed a motion to be
appointed lead plaintiff.

The court has set a hearing date to decide that motion for November
1, 2019.

Once a lead plaintiff is appointed, the Company expects the lead
plaintiff to file an amended complaint. The Company believes this
lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against
it.

Intersect said, "As of June 30, 2019, the Company has not recorded
a contingent liability associated with this lawsuit, as the Company
has not determined that a loss is probable. In addition, any
possible loss or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated at
this time."

Intersect ENT, Inc., incorporated on October 6, 2003, is a
commercial-stage drug-device company. The Company develops drugs
for patients with ear, nose and throat (ENT) conditions. The
company is based in Menlo Park, California.


JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Dolan Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, Milita Barbara Dolan, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Jetblue Airways Corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-mc-00059 (Filed July 31, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Ft Lauderdale) on Aug. 12, 2019. The Southern District of
Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:19-mc-62009-MGC to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Marcia G.
Cooke.

JetBlue Airways Corporation, stylized as jetBlue, is a major
American airline low cost passenger carrier, and the sixth largest
in the United States by passengers carried.[BN]

JONES FINANCIAL: 8th Cir. Appeal in McDonald Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2019, that the
appeal in the consolidated case, McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co.,
L.P., et al., remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.

On August 19, 2016, JFC, Edward Jones and certain other defendants
were named in a putative class action lawsuit (McDonald v. Edward
D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by a
participant in the Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k)
Plan (the "Retirement Plan").  

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Retirement Plan participants and seeks declaratory and
equitable relief and monetary damages on behalf of the Retirement
Plan.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the McDonald
lawsuit which was granted in part dismissing the claim against JFC,
and denied in part as to all other defendants on January 26, 2017.

On November 11, 2016, a substantially similar lawsuit (Schultz, et
al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) was filed in the same
court.  The plaintiffs consolidated the two lawsuits by adding the
Schultz plaintiffs to the McDonald case, and the Schultz action was
dismissed.  

The plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated complaint on
April 28, 2017. On December 13, 2018, the court entered a
preliminary order approving a class action settlement agreement
reached among the parties.

Following a fairness hearing held on April 18, 2019, the court
entered judgment on April 22, 2019 in which it granted final
approval of the settlement, effected a full release of claims by
the settlement class in favor of the defendants, and dismissed the
consolidated lawsuit with prejudice.  On June 14, 2019, the lone
objector filed an appeal to the judgment approving the settlement.
The appeal is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.


JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Discrimination Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2019, that the
company continues to defend the case, Bland v. Edward D. Jones &
Co., L.P., et al., discrimination class action suit.

On May 24, 2018, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit (Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co.,
L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois by a former financial advisor.  

An amended complaint was filed on September 24, 2018, under 42
U.S.C. Section 1981, alleging that the defendants discriminated
against the former financial advisor and financial advisor trainees
on the basis of race.  

On November 26, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint adding an allegation of discrimination of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The lawsuit seeks equitable and
injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.

Edward Jones and JFC deny the allegations and intend to vigorously
defend this lawsuit.

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

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.


JONES FINANCIAL: Renewed Bid to Dismiss Bland Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2019, that
defendants in Bland, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et al.
wage and hour class action suit, have filed a renewed motion to
dismiss that amended complaint.

On March 13, 2018, JFC and Edward Jones were named as defendants in
a purported collective and class action lawsuit (Bland, et al. v.
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et al.) filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois by four former
financial advisors.  

The lawsuit was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well
as Missouri and Illinois law and alleges that the defendants
unlawfully attempted to recoup training costs from departing
financial advisors and failed to pay all overtime owed to financial
advisor trainees among other claims.  

The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory
and liquidated damages.  

JFC and Edward Jones deny the allegations and intend to vigorously
defend against the allegations in this lawsuit.

On March 19, 2019, the court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss all claims, but permitting the
plaintiffs to amend and re-file certain of their claims.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 3, 2019. Defendants
have filed a renewed motion to dismiss that amended complaint.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.


JUUL LABS: R.E. Alleges Deceptive Trade of e-Cigarette Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
R.E., individually and as parent and legal guardian of her minor
child, P.K.E.; on behalf of themselves and on behalf of those
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. JUUL LABS, INC., ALTRIA
GROUP, INC., and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00591 (Aug. 13, 2019), targets Defendants' unlawful scheme
of engaging in consumer transactions in a manner that represents an
unfair method of competition and unfair, deceptive, fraudulent acts
and practices in the conduct of the tobacco trade and commerce
including the JUUL products.

P.K.E. is only 16 years old and addicted to an e-cigarette referred
as "JUUL product". Health authorities consider youth e-cigarette
use an epidemic. Mimicking Big Tobacco's past marketing practices,
the Defendants prey on youth to recruit replacement smokers for
financial gain. Altria recently acquired a 35% stake in JUUL which
is the country's lead e-cigarette seller. Altria also owns Philip
Morris, which sells Marboro, the country's most popular
cigarette.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Ben Salango, Esq.
          Brett J. Preston, Esq.
          Dan R. Snuffer, Esq.
          PRESTON & SALANGO, P.L.L.C.
          206 Capitol Street, Second Floor
          Post Office Box 3084
          Charleston, WV 25331
          Telephone: (304) 342 0512
          Facsimile: (304) 342 0513
          E-mail: brett@wvlawyer.com
                  bsalango@vlawyer.com
                  dsnuffer@vlawyer.com

               - and -
          Scott S. Segal, Esq.
          C. Edwards Amos, II
          THE SEGAL LAW FIRM
          810 Kanawha Blvd., East
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 344 9100
          Facsimile: (304) 344 9105

KC PLUMBING, LLC: 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, 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


KIMPTON HOTEL: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Anderson Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
in the case captioned MICHELLE ANDERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
KIMPTON HOTEL & RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Defendant. Case No.
19-cv-01860-MMC. (N.D. Cal.).

In their complaint, plaintiffs allege Kimpton uses an online
reservation system that facilitates the booking of hotel
reservations. Plaintiffs further allege that Kimpton informed its
customers, including each of the three plaintiffs, that hackers may
have accessed reservation information. In particular, Kimpton
advised its customers in writing that, during said seven-month
period, there was unauthorized access of Sabre Hospitality
Solutions SynXis Central Reservations system (Sabre), a provider of
reservations services that had been enlisted by Kimpton as a
vendor.

The Plaintiffs allege on behalf of each plaintiff three causes of
action arising under California law, and, on behalf of Thomas
alone, five additional causes of action arising under,
respectively, the laws of Arizona, Colorado, Pennsylvania, New
York, and Texas.

Kimpton seeks dismissal for lack of standing and, in the
alternative, for failure to state a claim.

Here, Kimpton raises both types of challenges. At the outset,
Kimpton offers evidence it contends is sufficient to demonstrate
the falsity of plaintiffs' allegations that they booked
reservations at Kimpton what Kimpton characterizes as the Breach
Window and consequently, Kimpton argues, plaintiffs could not have
suffered an injury fairly traceable to Kimpton. Next, Kimpton
challenges the sufficiency of plaintiffs' allegations that they
incurred an injury in fact and that any such injury is causally
linked to Kimpton.

Anderson

The Plaintiffs allege Anderson had a reservation for a room at
Kimpton's Sir Francis Drake Hotel in San Francisco, California
during the time of the Data Breach. Kimpton has offered undisputed
evidence, however, that its records reflect only one reservation
for Anderson at the Sir Francis Drake Hotel, which reservation,
made on May 4, 2016, was for a two-night stay beginning May 21,
2016. Because an unauthorized third party who accessed the Sabre
system during the Data Breach period could only have obtained PII
for customers whose stay ended no earlier than June 11, 2016, i.e.,
no earlier than sixty days before August 10, 2016, Anderson's
reservation would not have been in the Sabre system in the period
during which third parties had access to said system.

Consequently, plaintiffs have failed to show Anderson suffered any
injury by reason of the breach of Sabre's system.

The complaint, as alleged on behalf of Anderson, is subject to
dismissal for lack of standing.

Ainsworth

The Plaintiffs allege Ainsworth had a reservation for a room at
Kimpton's Sir Francis Drake Hotel in San Francisco, California
during the time of the Data Breach. Kimpton offers evidence,
however, that the only reservation in its records for Ainsworth is
a reservation made on February 4, 2016, for a stay from March 29,
2016, through April 1, 2016, which evidence plaintiffs have not
disputed. For the reasons discussed above, such reservation would
not have been in the Sabre system in the period during which third
parties are alleged to have had unauthorized access to said system
and consequently, plaintiffs have failed to show Ainsworth suffered
any injury by reason of the breach of Sabre's system.

The complaint, as alleged on behalf of Ainsworth, is subject to
dismissal for lack of standing.

Thomas

The Plaintiffs allege that, during the Data Breach period, Thomas
had reservations at seven different Kimpton hotels.

Kimpton first challenges the allegation by offering evidence that
its records for Jake Thomas include only three reservations, two of
which, in 2011 and 2015, respectively, predate the Breach Window,
and the third of which, although made on February 6, 2017, was not
made through the Sabre system, but, rather, through Expedia, under
which circumstance no payment card information is entered into the
Sabre reservation system. In support of their opposition, however,
plaintiffs have submitted a declaration from Thomas, in which he
states he made his reservations under the name Jacob Thomas not
Jake Thomas.

In support of their claims, plaintiffs allege Kimpton failed to
implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices
appropriate to protect Thomas's PII, failed to establish and
implement appropriate administrative, technical, and physical
safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of Thomas's
PII did not take all obligatory precautions to properly safeguard
PII from unauthorized access  and "opted to maintain an
insufficient and inadequate system to protect Thomas's PII, with
the result that Thomas's PII was left inadequately protected by
Kimpton. Plaintiffs fail to allege, however, any facts to support
those conclusory allegations. In particular, the complaint does not
allege the nature of any assertedly reasonable, appropriate,
obligatory, sufficient and/or adequate action Kimpton failed to
take.

The complaint, as alleged on behalf of Thomas, is subject to
dismissal for lack of standing.

Failure to State a Claim

The Court will afford plaintiffs leave to amend to allege facts to
support plaintiffs' standing to assert the claims they seek to
bring against Kimpton. Under such circumstances, and given
plaintiffs' assertion in their opposition that they intend to amend
if provided such opportunity, the Court finds it appropriate to
address the additional issue raised in Kimpton's motion to dismiss,
specifically, whether plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted.

First Claim for Relief

In the First Claim for Relief, plaintiffs allege Kimpton breached
its contractual obligations owed to plaintiffs. In support thereof,
plaintiffs allege Kimpton's customers, such as plaintiffs, are
required to read and accept the terms of Kimpton's Privacy Policy
before their hotel reservation can be confirmed and consequently,
the promises made in the Privacy Policy are contractual in nature.

Kimpton argues the complaint fails to include facts to support a
finding that Kimpton breached the above-quoted provision. As set
forth below, the Court agrees.

In endeavoring to plead Kimpton's breach of the contractual
provision on which they rely, plaintiffs do no more than allege
Kimpton, as set forth above, failed to act in a reasonable and
appropriate manner and failed to take obligatory, sufficient and
adequate steps to protect plaintiffs' PII. Plaintiffs do not,
however, plead any facts to support those conclusory assertions.  

The First Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal.

Second Claim for Relief

In the Second Claim for Relief, plaintiffs allege Kimpton violated
Section 1798.81.5 of the California Civil Code, which provides that
any business that owns, licenses, or maintains personal information
about a California resident shall implement and maintain reasonable
security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the
information, to protect the personal information from unauthorized
access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.

As Kimpton points out, however, plaintiffs fail to allege any facts
in support of their conclusory assertion that Kimpton violated
Section 1798.81.5 by failing to implement and maintain reasonable
security procedures and practices.
  
The Second Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal.

Third Claim for Relief

In the Third Claim for Relief, plaintiffs allege Kimpton violated
Section 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code, which
prohibits, inter alia, unlawful business practices. Plaintiffs base
their claim on Kimpton's alleged violation of Section 1798.81.5  as
well as Kimpton's alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. Swection 45, which
statute prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or
deceptive acts or practices.

To the extent the claim is based on an alleged violation of Section
45, the claim likewise is subject to dismissal, for the reason that
such claim is based on plaintiffs' allegations that Kimpton failed
to use reasonable measures to protect private [i]nformation and
failed to comply with applicable industry standards but plaintiffs
fail to allege what reasonable measures Kimpton failed to use or
how Kimpton deviated from or otherwise failed to conform to any
industry standard.  

Accordingly, the Third Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal.

Fourth Claim for Relief

In the Fourth Claim for Relief, plaintiffs allege Kimpton violated
the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, Arizona Revised Statutes Section
44-1522, which Act makes it unlawful to engage in a deceptive or
unfair act or practice in connection with the sale or advertisement
of any merchandise.

Kimpton argues the Fourth Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal
for several reasons. As set forth below, the Court agrees.

First, the allegations in the complaint indicate this claim is
barred by the applicable statute of limitations, which is one year.
In particular, plaintiffs allege Kimpton advised Thomas of the data
breach on July 28, 2017, i.e., a date more than one year before
April 5, 2019, the date on which the complaint was filed, and fail
to plead any facts to support a finding that an exception to the
statute of limitations exists.

Second, the claim is wholly based on the same conclusory
allegations on which plaintiffs base the First Claim for Relief,
i.e., their claim for breach of contract  and, for the reasons
stated above with respect to the First Claim for Relief, said
allegations are insufficient to state a cognizable claim.

The Fourth Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal.

Fifth Claim for Relief

In the Fifth Claim for Relief, plaintiffs allege Kimpton violated
the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Colorado Revised Statutes
Section 6-1-105, which Act prohibits any deceptive trade practice.
The allegedly deceptive trade practices on which plaintiffs base
this claim are the same practices on which plaintiffs base the
Fourth Claim for Relief.  

For the reasons stated above with respect to the Fourth Claim for
Relief, the Court finds the conclusory allegations by which such
practices are described are insufficient to state a cognizable
claim.  

The Fifth Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal.

Sixth Claim for Relief

In the Sixth Claim for Relief, plaintiffs allege Kimpton violated
the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law, Pennsylvania Statutes and Consolidated Statutes Section 201-3,
which Law prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in the conduct of any
trade or commerce. The allegedly unfair or deceptive acts on which
plaintiffs base this claim are the same practices on which
plaintiffs base the Fourth and Fifth Claims for Relief.  

For the reasons stated above with respect to the those two Claims
for Relief, the Court finds the conclusory allegations made in
support of the Sixth Claim for Relief are insufficient to state a
cognizable claim and, to the extent the Sixth Claim for Relief is
based on misrepresentations and omissions, it fails to comply with
Rule 9(b).

The Sixth Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal.

Seventh Claim for Relief

In the Seventh Claim for Relief, plaintiffs allege Kimpton violated
New York General Business Law Section 349, which prohibits
deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business.The
allegedly deceptive acts or practices on which plaintiffs base this
claim are, with one exception, the same practices on which
plaintiffs base the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Claims for Relief.

For the reasons stated above with respect to those three Claims for
Relief, the Court finds the conclusory allegations made are
insufficient to state a cognizable claim and, to the extent the
Seventh Claim for Relief is based on misrepresentations and
omissions, it fails to comply with Rule 9(b).  

The Seventh Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal.

Eighth Claim for Relief

In the Eighth Claim for Relief, plaintiffs allege Kimpton violated
the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices, Consumer Protection Act, Texas
Business and Professions Code Section 17.46, which Act prohibits
false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of
any trade or commerce. The allegedly deceptive acts or practices on
which plaintiffs base this claim are the same practices on which
plaintiffs base the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Claims for
Relief. For the reasons stated above with respect to those four
Claims for Relief, the Court finds the conclusory allegations made
are insufficient to state a cognizable claim and, to the extent the
Eighth Claim for Relief is based on misrepresentations and
omissions, it fails to comply with Rule 9(b),  

The Eighth Claim for Relief is subject to dismissal.

Accordingly, Kimpton's motion to dismiss is granted, and the
complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5cfq34o from Leagle.com.

Michelle Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Jake Thomas & Tom Ainsworth, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented
by B. Bobby Saadian -- bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com -- Wilshire Law
Firm, Justin F. Marquez -- justin@wilshirelawfirm.com -- Wilshire
Law Firm, PLC, Robert James Dart -- rdart@wilshirelawfirm.com --
Wilshire Law Firm & Thiago Merlini Coelho --
thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com -- Wilshire Law Firm.

Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC, a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, represented by Jon Peter Kardassakis --
Jon.kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP & Dyanne Jinhyung Cho  -- dyanne.cho@lewisbrisbois.com --
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP.


LOZANO INSURANCE: Jointly Move to Notify Class in Mosley Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Parties in the lawsuit captioned SHERI MOSLEY individually and
on behalf all others similarly situated v. LOZANO INSURANCE
ADJUSTERS, INC., FRANK LOZANO, LISETTE LOZANO, and ANCHOR INSURANCE
HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00379-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla.), jointly
move the Court to order notice to be issued to the putative class
according to their proposed form and process.

The Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this action on April 3, 2019,
alleging claims on behalf of herself and similarly situated
persons.  The Court designated the case as a Track Two case and
issued a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Scheduling Order.

At this point, the Parties want to attempt to settle the claims in
the case.  In pursuit of that end, they have agreed to proceed as
follows:

   1. The following persons should be sent notice of the alleged
      claims:

      Individuals who worked for Lozano Claims Adjusters in
      Florida as licensed insurance claims adjusters and who were
      classified as independent contractors, paid a day rate for
      their work, and not paid overtime wages for hours worked
      more than 40 in a workweek between April 4, 2016 and the
      date of final judgment in this matter (the "FLSA
      Collective");

   2. Plaintiffs' Counsel shall issue notice to the FLSA
      Collective members by first class mail, e-mail, and text
      message in the forms attached as Exhibits A (mail and
      e-mail) and B (text message);

   3. No later than August 16, 2019, or within seven days of the
      Court's Order approving the notice and process, whichever
      is later, Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs' Counsel with
      the FLSA Collective members' names, last known mailing
      address, last known personal e-mail address, last known
      mobile telephone number, and an employee number or unique
      identifier for each FLSA Collective member.  They will
      produce the information in separate columns in a
      manipulable electronic spreadsheet format, such as Excel
      ("Notice List");

   4. No later than August 23, 2019, or within seven days of
      receiving the Notice List, whichever is later, Plaintiffs'
      Counsel shall send FLSA Notice to the FLSA Collective
      members by first class mail, e-mail, and text message in
      the forms attached as Exhibits A (mail and e-mail) and B
      (text message);

   5. FLSA Collective Members shall have 60 calendar days from
      the issuance of notice to join their claims to the action
      ("Notice Period");

   6. The Defendants will supply to the Plaintiffs' Counsel the
      last four digits of the social security numbers of those
      FLSA Collective Members whose notice is returned as
      undeliverable;

   7. Plaintiffs' Counsel shall re-mail and e-mail notices that
      are returned as undeliverable for those individuals for
      whom Counsel can find better mailing or e-mail addresses;
      and

   8. Within 30 days of sending FLSA Notice, Plaintiffs' Counsel
      shall send a follow-up notice to those FLSA Collective
      Members who have not opted into the collective action in
      the form attached as Exhibit G to the Declaration of
      Michael J.D. Sweeney.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
          GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC
          260 Fair Street
          Kingston, NY 12471
          Telephone: (845) 255-9370
          Facsimile: (845) 255-6849
          E-mail: msweeney@getmansweeney.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Linda Bond Edwards, Esq.
          RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
          Post Office Box 10507
          Tallahassee, FL 32302-2507
          Telephone: (850) 222-6550
          Telecopier: (850) 222-8783
          E-mail: ledwards@rumberger.com


LVNV FUNDING: Soussana Files FDCPA Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LVNV Funding, LLC.
The case is styled as Israel Soussana, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Law Offices of
Robert J. Colclough, III, LVNV Funding LLC and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-07082 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 14,
2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

LVNV Funding, LLC is a debt purchasing agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amir J Goldstein, Esq.
   Amir J Goldstein Law Offices
   7304 Beverly Blvd., Suite #212
   Los Angeles, CA 90036
   Tel: (323) 937-0400
   Fax: (866) 288-9194
   Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com


M&T BANK: Settlement of Suit v. Wilmington Trust Finally Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
M&T Bank Corporation  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a settlement agreement
in the class action suit against Wilmington Trust Corporation has
been approved by the court.

Wilmington Trust Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of M&T, was
the subject of a class action lawsuit alleging that Wilmington
Trust Corporation's financial reporting and securities filings
prior to its acquisition by M&T in 2011 were in violation of
securities laws.  

In April 2018, the parties reached an agreement in principle and a
formal settlement agreement was executed and filed with the court
later in the second quarter of 2018.  The proposed settlement was
preliminarily approved by the court in July 2018.   

In the first quarter of 2018, the Company increased its reserve for
litigation matters in anticipation of the settlement.  

The settlement amount of $200 million was paid, pursuant to the
settlement agreement, during the third quarter of 2018. The
settlement agreement was approved by the court in the fourth
quarter of 2018.

M&T Bank Corporation operates as the holding company for
Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company; and Wilmington Trust,
National Association that provide retail and commercial banking
services. The company is based in Buffalo, New York.


MAINSTREET REALTORS: Sued over Unsolicited Calls & Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ETA TIKOTZKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff vs. MAINSTREET REALTORS and JOHN DOES 1-25,
the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-01493 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 9, 2019),
seeks to secure redress because Defendants willfully violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and invaded Plaintiff’s
privacy by causing unsolicited phone calls and text messages 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 18 phones using an automatic telephone dialing
system for the purpose of soliciting business from Plaintiff.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (323) 979-2063
          Facsimile: (323) 488-6748
          E-mail: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com

               - and -

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com

MAMMOTH ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Zeisset Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the defendants in
Matthew Zeisset, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated vs. Higher Power Electrical, LLC, Cobra Acquisitions LLC,
and Cobra Energy, LLC (formerly Christopher Williams, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Higher Power
Electrical, LLC, Cobra Acquisitions LLC, and Cobra Energy, LLC),
have moved to dismiss Mr. Zeisset's claims and compel them to
arbitration on an individual basis.

On April 16, 2019, a putative class and collective action lawsuit
alleging that the Company failed to pay a class of workers overtime
in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and Puerto Rico law
was filed titled Christopher Williams, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated vs. Higher Power Electrical, LLC,
Cobra Acquisitions LLC, and Cobra Energy, LLC in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico.

On June 24, 2019, the complaint was amended to replace Mr. Williams
with Matthew Zeisset, another former Higher Power employee, as the
named plaintiff.

The defendants have moved to dismiss Mr. Zeisset's claims and
compel them to arbitration on an individual basis.

The Company is evaluating the background facts and at this time is
not able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will
have a material impact on the Company’s financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.

Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.


MAMMOTH ENERGY: Faces Two Class Suits in Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in two class action suits in the Western
District of Oklahoma.

In June 2019, the Company was served with two class action lawsuits
filed in the Western District of Oklahoma alleging that several of
the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) contained material misrepresentations and omissions in
violation of federal securities laws.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and will
vigorously defend the actions. However, the Company continues to
evaluate the background facts and at this time is not able to
predict the outcome of these lawsuits or whether they will have a
material impact on the Company's financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.

Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.


MAMMOTH ENERGY: Still Defends Class Action in Puerto Rico
---------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend itself against a putative class action lawsuit
related to an electrical failure in Puerto Rico.

On June 27, 2018, the Company's registered agent notified the
Company that it had been served with a putative class action
lawsuit titled Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc.; Multisystem Restaurant
Inc.; Restaurant Operators Inc.; Apple Caribe, Inc.; on their own
behalf and in representation of all businesses that conduct
business in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico vs. Mammoth Energy
Services Inc.; Cobra Acquisitions, LLC; D. Grimm Puerto Rico, LLC;
Aseguradoras A, B & C; John Doe; Richard Doe, in the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico Superior Court of San Juan.

The plaintiffs allege negligent acts by the defendants caused an
electrical failure in Puerto Rico resulting in damages of at least
$300 million.

The Company believes this claim is without merit and will
vigorously defend the action. However, the Company continues to
evaluate the background facts and at this time is not able to
predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have a
material impact on the Company's financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.

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

Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.


MDL 2904: Brown-Wells Suit over Data Breach Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, DENISE BROWN-WELLS, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LABORATORY
CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00627 (Filed June 24, 2019), was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Aug.
12, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:19-cv-16577 to the proceeding.

The Brown-Wells case is being consolidated with MDL 2904 in re:
AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY
BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019.
These actions arise out of a data security breach on the systems of
American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a breach that reportedly
compromised patient data 1 that various medical diagnostic testing
companies had provided to AMCA for billing and collection purposes,
including Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Quest), Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings (LabCorp), Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc.
(Bio-Reference), and others. Quest, LabCorp, and Bio-Reference
publicly announced the breach in early June 2019, and the putative
class actions now before the Panel soon followed.

In its July 31,2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common factual questions in all actions
unquestionably arise from the same recently-disclosed breach of
AMCA's systems from August 2018 through March 2019, through which
an unauthorized user allegedly gained access to patients' personal
and financial information, including social security numbers and
credit card and bank account information, and patients' medical
information. Thus, discovery and motions concerning AMCA's data
security practices, how the unauthorized access occurred, and the
investigation into the breach will be substantially the same in all
actions. The Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an
appropriate transferee district. All defendants and plaintiffs in
over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on
the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending.
Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there,
and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this
district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Madeline Cox
Arleo. The lead case is 2:19-md-02904-MCA-MAH.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jean S. Martin, Esq.
          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          2018 Eastwood Road, Ste. 225
          Wilmington, NC 28403
          Telephone: (813) 559-4908
          Facsimile: (813) 222-4795
          E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com
                  jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

MDL 2904: DeMarshall v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, Michael DeMarshall, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OPTUM360 LLC, QUEST
DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, and LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA
HOLDINGS, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-01764 (Filed July 3,
2019), was removed from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey (Newark) on Aug. 12, 2019. The Northern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-16562 to the
proceeding.

The DeMarshall case is being consolidated with MDL 2904 in re:
AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY
BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019.
These actions arise out of a data security breach on the systems of
American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a breach that reportedly
compromised patient data 1 that various medical diagnostic testing
companies had provided to AMCA for billing and collection purposes,
including Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Quest), Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings (LabCorp), Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc.
(Bio-Reference), and others. Quest, LabCorp, and Bio-Reference
publicly announced the breach in early June 2019, and the putative
class actions now before the Panel soon followed.

In its July 31,2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common factual questions in all actions
unquestionably arise from the same recently-disclosed breach of
AMCA's systems from August 2018 through March 2019, through which
an unauthorized user allegedly gained access to patients' personal
and financial information, including social security numbers and
credit card and bank account information, and patients' medical
information. Thus, discovery and motions concerning AMCA's data
security practices, how the unauthorized access occurred, and the
investigation into the breach will be substantially the same in all
actions. The Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an
appropriate transferee district. All defendants and plaintiffs in
over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on
the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending.
Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there,
and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this
district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Madeline Cox
Arleo. The lead case is 2:19-md-02904-MCA-MAH.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Brant D Penney, Esq.
          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          W1050 First National Bank Bldg.
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com


               - and -

          David P. McLafferty, Esq.
          MCLAFFERTY & ASSOC, P.C.
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 940-4000
          Facsimile: (610) 940-4007

               - and -

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
          E-mail: espector@srkattorneys.com


Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Kadee Jo Anderson, Esq.
          STINSON LLP
          50 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 335-1728

               - and -

          Andy Kabat, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 Lasalle Avenue, Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349-8794
          Facsimile: (612) 339-4181

               - and -

          Alicia Paller, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          555 Thirteenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-6404

MDL 2904: Finch v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------
The case, ASHLEY FINCH, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OPTUM360 LLC, QUEST
DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, and LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA
HOLDINGS, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-01764 (Filed June 13,
2019), was removed from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Newark) on Aug. 12, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-16573-MCA-MAH to the
proceeding.

The Finch case is being consolidated with MDL 2904 in re: AMERICAN
MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019. These
actions arise out of a data security breach on the systems of
American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a breach that reportedly
compromised patient data 1 that various medical diagnostic testing
companies had provided to AMCA for billing and collection purposes,
including Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Quest), Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings (LabCorp), Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc.
(Bio-Reference), and others. Quest, LabCorp, and Bio-Reference
publicly announced the breach in early June 2019, and the putative
class actions now before the Panel soon followed.

In its July 31,2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common factual questions in all actions
unquestionably arise from the same recently-disclosed breach of
AMCA's systems from August 2018 through March 2019, through which
an unauthorized user allegedly gained access to patients' personal
and financial information, including social security numbers and
credit card and bank account information, and patients' medical
information. Thus, discovery and motions concerning AMCA's data
security practices, how the unauthorized access occurred, and the
investigation into the breach will be substantially the same in all
actions. The Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an
appropriate transferee district. All defendants and plaintiffs in
over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on
the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending.
Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there,
and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this
district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Madeline Cox
Arleo. The lead case is 2:19-md-02904-MCA-MAH.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Todd C. Werts, Esq.
          Bradford B. Lear, Esq.
          2003 West Broadway, Suite 107
          LEAR WERTS LLP
          Columbia, MO 65203
          Telephone: 573-875-1991
          Facsimile: 573-875-1985
          E-mail: lear@learwerts.com
                  werts@learwerts.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Callahan
          CALLAHAN LAW FIRM, LLC
          222 W. Gregory Blvd., Ste. 210
          Kansas City, MO 64114
          Telepone: 913-601-1620
          E-mail: ryan@callahanlawkc.com

               - and -

          Lynn Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: 317-636-6481
          Facsimile: 317-636-2593
          E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

MDL 2904: Grauberger v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, EMORY GRAUBERGER, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
INCORPORATED; OPTUM360 SERVICES, INC.; and AMERICAN MEDICAL
COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03102
(Filed June 4, 2019), was removed from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Aug. 9, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-16541
to the proceeding.

The Grauberger case is being consolidated with MDL 2904 in re:
AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY
BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019.
These actions arise out of a data security breach on the systems of
American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a breach that reportedly
compromised patient data 1 that various medical diagnostic testing
companies had provided to AMCA for billing and collection purposes,
including Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Quest), Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings (LabCorp), Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc.
(Bio-Reference), and others. Quest, LabCorp, and Bio-Reference
publicly announced the breach in early June 2019, and the putative
class actions now before the Panel soon followed.

In its July 31, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common factual questions in all actions
unquestionably arise from the same recently-disclosed breach of
AMCA's systems from August 2018 through March 2019, through which
an unauthorized user allegedly gained access to patients' personal
and financial information, including social security numbers and
credit card and bank account information, and patients' medical
information. Thus, discovery and motions concerning AMCA's data
security practices, how the unauthorized access occurred, and the
investigation into the breach will be substantially the same in all
actions. The Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an
appropriate transferee district. All defendants and plaintiffs in
over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on
the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending.
Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there,
and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this
district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Madeline Cox
Arleo. The lead case is 2:19-md-02904-MCA-MAH.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Brenton Jeremy Goodman, Esq.
          Levin Papantonio, Esq.
          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          Nicholas Ryan Barthel, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523

               - and -

          Matthew D. Schultz, Esq.
          LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS
          MITCHELL RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A.
          316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7140
          Facsimile: (850) 436-6140

               - and -

          William Franklin Cash, III
          316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600s
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7000
          E-mail: bcash@levinlaw.com

Attorneys for Quest Diagnostics Incorporated are:

          Amy P. Lally, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 595-9500
          Facsimile: (310) 595-9501

Attorneys for OPTUM360 Services, Inc. are:

          Steven Andrew Erkel, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          560 Mission Street, Suite 2100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 243-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 243-1001

MDL 2904: Hively v. LABCORP. over Data Breach Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, GENE HIVELY, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF
AMERICA HOLDINGS and LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, doing
business as LABCORP., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00609 (Filed
June 18, 2019), was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Aug. 12, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-16584
to the proceeding.

The Finch case is being consolidated with MDL 2904 in re: AMERICAN
MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019. These
actions arise out of a data security breach on the systems of
American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a breach that reportedly
compromised patient data 1 that various medical diagnostic testing
companies had provided to AMCA for billing and collection purposes,
including Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Quest), Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings (LabCorp), Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc.
(Bio-Reference), and others. Quest, LabCorp, and Bio-Reference
publicly announced the breach in early June 2019, and the putative
class actions now before the Panel soon followed.

In its July 31,2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common factual questions in all actions
unquestionably arise from the same recently-disclosed breach of
AMCA's systems from August 2018 through March 2019, through which
an unauthorized user allegedly gained access to patients' personal
and financial information, including social security numbers and
credit card and bank account information, and patients' medical
information. Thus, discovery and motions concerning AMCA's data
security practices, how the unauthorized access occurred, and the
investigation into the breach will be substantially the same in all
actions. The Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an
appropriate transferee district. All defendants and plaintiffs in
over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on
the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending.
Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there,
and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this
district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Madeline Cox
Arleo. The lead case is 2:19-md-02904-MCA-MAH.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Narendra K. Ghosh
          PATTERSON HARKAVY, LLP
          100 Europa Dr., Ste. 420
          Chapel Hill, NC 27517
          Telephone: (919) 942-5200
          Facsimile: (919) 942-5256

               - and -

          Carlos E. Mahoney, Esq.
          GLENN, MILLS, FISHER & MAHONEY, P.A.
          P.O. Drawer 3865
          Durham, NC 27702
          Telephone: (919) 683-2135
          Facsimile: (919) 688-9339

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Catherine R. L. Lawson
          Scott Elliott Bayzle, Esq.
          PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP
          PNC Plaza
          301 Fayetteville St., Ste. 1400
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 890-4640

MDL 2904: Mayer v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------
The case, Johanna Mayer individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
INCORPORATED; OPTUM360 SERVICES, INC.; and AMERICAN MEDICAL
COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01029
(Filed June 5, 2019), was removed from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Aug. 9, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.2:19-cv-16543
to the proceeding.

The Mayer case is being consolidated with MDL 2904 in re: AMERICAN
MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019. These
actions arise out of a data security breach on the systems of
American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a breach that reportedly
compromised patient data 1 that various medical diagnostic testing
companies had provided to AMCA for billing and collection purposes,
including Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Quest), Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings (LabCorp), Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc.
(Bio-Reference), and others. Quest, LabCorp, and Bio-Reference
publicly announced the breach in early June 2019, and the putative
class actions now before the Panel soon followed.

In its July 31,2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common factual questions in all actions
unquestionably arise from the same recently-disclosed breach of
AMCA's systems from August 2018 through March 2019, through which
an unauthorized user allegedly gained access to patients' personal
and financial information, including social security numbers and
credit card and bank account information, and patients' medical
information. Thus, discovery and motions concerning AMCA's data
security practices, how the unauthorized access occurred, and the
investigation into the breach will be substantially the same in all
actions. The Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an
appropriate transferee district. All defendants and plaintiffs in
over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on
the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending.
Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there,
and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this
district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Madeline Cox
Arleo. The lead case is 2:19-md-02904-MCA-MAH.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
          Brian D. Chase, Esq.
          Ian M Silvers, Esq.
          BISNAR CHASE LLP
          1301 Dove Street Suite 120
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 752-2999
          Facsimile: (949) 752-2777

               - and -

          Jordan S. Esensten, Esq.
          Robert L Esensten, Esq.
          ESENSTEN LAW
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1660
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 273-3090
          Facsimile: (310) 207-5969

MDL 2904: Worthey v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, Paula Worthey, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS ; OPTUM360
SERVICES, INC.; and AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-05210 (Filed June 5, 2019), was
removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Newark) on Aug. 9, 2019. The Northern District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No.2:19-cv-16544 to the proceeding.

The Worthey case is being consolidated with MDL 2904 in re:
AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY
BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019.
These actions arise out of a data security breach on the systems of
American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a breach that reportedly
compromised patient data 1 that various medical diagnostic testing
companies had provided to AMCA for billing and collection purposes,
including Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Quest), Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings (LabCorp), Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc.
(Bio-Reference), and others. Quest, LabCorp, and Bio-Reference
publicly announced the breach in early June 2019, and the putative
class actions now before the Panel soon followed.

In its July 31,2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common factual questions in all actions
unquestionably arise from the same recently-disclosed breach of
AMCA's systems from August 2018 through March 2019, through which
an unauthorized user allegedly gained access to patients' personal
and financial information, including social security numbers and
credit card and bank account information, and patients' medical
information. Thus, discovery and motions concerning AMCA's data
security practices, how the unauthorized access occurred, and the
investigation into the breach will be substantially the same in all
actions. The Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an
appropriate transferee district. All defendants and plaintiffs in
over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on
the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending.
Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there,
and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this
district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Madeline Cox
Arleo. The lead case is 2:19-md-02904-MCA-MAH.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Michael Hayden Reed, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          E-mail: michael.reed@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          125 Maiden Lane, Suite 5c
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (917) 336-0171
          Facsimile: (917) 336-0177

               - and -

          Russell Marc Yankwitt, Esq
          YANKWITT LLP
          140 Grand Street, Suite 705
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 686-1500
          E-mail: russell@yankwitt.com

MELINTA THERAPEUTICS: Court Closes Naples Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Melinta Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed 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 Court has closed
the putative class action suit filed by James Naples against the
Company and its Board of Directors.

On December 3, 2018, James Naples, a purported Company shareholder,
filed a putative class action suit against the Company and its
Board of Directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, alleging that the Board had breached its fiduciary duties
related to a proposed, and subsequently abandoned, US$75,000 common
stock financing that was contemplated with affiliates of Vatera
Holdings LLC.  The suit alleged that the Board of Directors
breached its fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to
disclose all material information to Company shareholders.  The
suit sought, among other things, to enjoin the shareholder vote on
the financing proposal until additional disclosures were issued.

On February 27, 2019, the suit was voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice as moot, though the court retained jurisdiction solely
for the purpose of adjudicating a claim by the plaintiff for
attorneys' fees and expenses.  The Company subsequently agreed to
pay US$350,000 to plaintiff's counsel for attorneys' fees and
expenses in full satisfaction of the claim for attorneys' fees and
expenses in the Action.

The Court has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment
on, the payment of the attorneys' fees and expenses or their
reasonableness.  The Court closed the matter on June 6, 2019.

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.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Doerwald Suit Moved to E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
The case, Frank Doerwald and Paula Dowsett on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 605054/2019, was
removed from the  Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip)
on Aug 9, 2019. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-04586 to the proceeding. The suit demands
$501,000 worth of damages. The suit alleges violation of Fair Debt
Collection Act.

Midland Credit was founded in 1953. The company's line of business
includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively
short periods.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Dana Brett Briganti, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
          E-mail: dbriganti@hinshawlaw.com

MORGAN STANLEY: Bid to Dismiss GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re GSE
Bonds Antitrust Litigation, is pending.

On May 23, 2019, plaintiffs in a series of putative class action
complaints filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint. The first action naming the Firm was styled
Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. BofA Secs, Inc., et al., and the
consolidated action is now styled In re GSE Bonds Antitrust
Litigation.

The purported class period in the consolidated amended complaint is
now from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2016.

On June 13, 2019, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint.

Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, provides various
financial products and services to corporations, governments,
financial institutions, and individuals in the Americas, Europe,
the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. The company operates through
Institutional Securities, Wealth Management, and Investment
Management segments. Morgan Stanley was founded in 1924 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.

NCAA:  Neglected Student-Athletes' Safety, Leiss Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER LEISS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03446-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind.,
Aug. 13, 2019) seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained a
result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety
of generations of Texas Christian University ("TCU")
student-athletes.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other TCU football players from
the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly
and for profit. As a direct result of Defendant's acts and
omissions, Plaintiff and countless former TCU football players
suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA
football. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in
order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA
accountable, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Christopher Leiss is a natural person and citizen of the
State of Texas.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Hampton.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

          - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NCAA: Wakely Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety
--------------------------------------------------------
JOHN WAKELY, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03419-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., Aug. 12, 2019), seeks redress for
injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for
the health and safety of generations of James Madison University
(JMU) student-athletes.

According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football
players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football
season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers --
are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when
playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.

But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't
wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would
be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.

Football players were under Defendant's care. Unfortunately,
Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that would
haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing for
decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger
of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff
experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to
protect Plaintiff and other football players from the long-term
dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for
profit.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive
injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this
Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights
and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit says.

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

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713.554.9099
          Facsimile: 713.554.9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589 6370
          Facsimile: 312 589 6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

NEW MEXICO: APS Wins Dismissal of FAPE IDEA Suit
------------------------------------------------
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico issued
a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Plaintiff, v. LINDSAY SLEDGE et al., Defendants. LINDSAY SLEDGE et
al., Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS et al., Defendants. Consolidated with Civ. No. 18-1029
KK/LF, Civ. No. 18-1041 KK/LF. (D.M.N.).

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs Lindsay Sledge and David Guba
(Parents) allege the following. Parents' daughter P. S.-G.
(Student) has Dravet syndrome and as a result has had
life-threatening seizures since infancy. Her seizures are unchecked
by traditional pharmaceuticals, however, the administration of
cannabis daily as a preventative and at the onset of seizures has
significantly reduced their frequency and length.

At an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meeting in the spring of
2018, Parents requested homebound services for Student for the
2018-2019 school year, when she would be attending kindergarten.
APS again rejected Parents' request.

Parents submitted a request for an administrative due process
hearing against APS and the New Mexico Public Education Department
(NMPED), alleging that these entities had denied Student a free
appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In her decision, the DPHO found
that APS had denied Student a FAPE and ordered it to provide
Student with homebound services and an abbreviated school schedule
to allow Student to interact with peers. The DPHO also ordered a
limited remedy against the NMPED.
  
APS filed a civil action in this Court appealing the DPHO's
decision. Parents, in turn, filed this cross-appeal on seeking
limited review and modification of the DPHO's decision to: (a)
award Mother compensation for accompanying Student to preschool in
2017 and 2018; (b) find that the NMPED denied Student a FAPE and,
(c) award Parents their attorneys' fees and costs, all pursuant to
the IDEA.  

In addition, Parents allege that Defendants discriminated against
Student on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act and pursuant to this statute seek: (a)
damages for Mother's wage loss and Student's pain and suffering;
(b) a declaratory judgment that the CUA discriminates against
children with disabilities and (c) an award of attorneys' fees and
costs.  

In its motion, Albequerque Public School (APS) seeks dismissal of
Parents' IDEA claim challenging the adequacy of the remedy the DPHO
ordered against APS, and of Parents' Section 504 claims against it.
The NMPED and the State of New Mexico (State Defendants), in turn,
seek dismissal of all of Parents' claims against them.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face. A claim is facially plausible when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.

Parents' IDEA Claim Against APS

In its Motion to Dismiss, APS first seeks dismissal of Parents'
claim challenging the adequacy of the remedy the DPHO ordered
against it pursuant to the IDEA. An eligible child acquires a
substantive right to such an education once a State accepts the
IDEA's financial assistance.
A free appropriate public education (FAPE) includes both special
education and related services. Special education is specially
designed instruction to meet the unique needs of a child with a
disability, while related services are the support services
required to assist a child  to benefit from that instruction.  

The IDEA requires special education and related services to conform
to the child's IEP, which describes the special education and
related services that will be provided.

In their cross appeal, Parents challenge the adequacy of the remedy
the DPHO ordered against APS under the IDEA, claiming that the DPHO
should have ordered APS to compensate Mother for accompanying
Student to preschool in 2017 and 2018.  

In its Motion to Dismiss, APS argues that the Court should dismiss
this claim because Parents have failed to allege a violation of the
IDEA and thus are not entitled to any remedy. Specifically, APS
argues that the IDEA does not require APS to either provide medical
cannabis to Student or accommodate the use of same, and therefore
Parents' claim fails to state a cause of action under the IDEA.

In its Memorandum Opinion and Ordered, this Court ruled that: (1)
the IDEA does not require APS to administer or accommodate the
administration of cannabis to Student but (2) Parents nevertheless
met their burden of proving that APS failed to offer Student a FAPE
for kindergarten and are entitled to relief under the IDEA.

However, the Court also ruled that Parents did not meet their
burden of proving that APS denied Student a FAPE for preschool,
id., and this ruling forecloses Parents' claim that the DPHO should
have ordered APS to compensate Mother for accompanying Student to
school during her preschool years.

Initially, as explained at some length in its Memorandum and
Opinion and Order, the Court agrees that the IDEA does not require
APS to administer or accommodate the administration of cannabis to
Student. The administration of cannabis to Student has at all
relevant times been unlawful under the federal Controlled
Substances Act (CSA) and it would be absurd to interpret the IDEA
to require APS to commit or accommodate a federal crime to satisfy
its obligation to provide Student with a FAPE.  

Nevertheless, in its review of the administrative record this Court
found that Parents met their burden of proving that APS failed to
offer Student a FAPE for kindergarten. In particular, the Court
found that, in Student's IEP for the 2018-2019 school year, APS
proposed that Student should attend full-day kindergarten at her
neighborhood school even though the school would lack any means of
providing or obtaining timely treatment for her life-threatening
seizures. The IEP in question rejected homebound services for
Student, but did not indicate that Parents would either provide
Student's school with prescription medication to treat her seizures
or accompany Student to school to administer treatment themselves.


Thus, the IEP would have put Student's life or health at
unreasonable risk; and, an educational program that puts a child's
life or health at unreasonable risk is not reasonably calculated to
enable the child to receive educational benefits and therefore not
a FAPE. In light of this ruling, APS' argument that Parents have
failed to plead their entitlement to any remedy under the IDEA is
doomed to failure.

However, in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, this Court ruled that
Parents did not meet their burden of proving that APS denied
Student a FAPE for preschool. In particular, the Court found that
the plan for Mother to accompany Student to preschool was not a
requirement, but rather a choice Mother made to effectuate the IEP
team's mutual preference for Student to attend preschool and also
accommodate her own preference for Student to have access to
cannabis.

This ruling also defeats Parents' claim that the DPHO should have
ordered APS to compensate Mother for accompanying Student to
preschool. Courts may only grant equitable relief to remedy a
demonstrated violation of the IDEA and such relief must be within
the range of reasonable choices in seeking to achieve the IDEA's
purposes.. With respect to Student's preschool years, the Court has
already found that there was no demonstrated violation of the IDEA
to remedy. With respect to Student's kindergarten year, the Court
finds that, as a matter of law, compensating Mother for
accompanying Student to preschool is outside the range of
reasonable choices to remedy APS' failure to offer Student a FAPE
for kindergarten, because the remedy would be wholly unrelated to
the violation.  

The Court will grant APS' motion to dismiss Parents' claim
challenging the adequacy of the remedy the DPHO ordered against APS
under the IDEA.

Parents' Section 504 Claims Against APS

APS also seeks dismissal of Parents' claims that it discriminated
against Student based on her disability in violation of Section
504. The Supreme Court recently addressed the interplay of the IDEA
and Section 504, noting that, important as the IDEA is for children
with disabilities, it is not the only federal statute protecting
their interests.

In their Complaint, Parents correctly allege that the
then-applicable version of the CUA prohibited the storage or
administration of cannabis by school staff or on school grounds.
Thus, by Parents' own admission and in conformity with federal law
APS refused to allow its personnel to store Student's cannabis on
school grounds or administer it to her, not because of Student's
disability, but rather because the storage and administration of
cannabis was illegal.

Critically, Parents do not allege that APS administered cannabis to
nondisabled students or stored cannabis for them; nor do they
allege that APS refused to administer legal medications to Student
or store legal medications for her. In short, Parents' allegations
that APS discriminated against Student on the basis of disability
amount to no more than threadbare recitals of the elements of a
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements and do not
count as well-pleaded facts.

The Court will therefore grant APS' motion to dismiss Parents'
Section 504 disability discrimination claims against it.

Parents' IDEA Claims Against the NMPED

According to Parents' Complaint, these claims are based on the
NMPED's failure to act to enforce the rights of students with
disabilities in New Mexico and seek amendment to the CUA to allow
children to receive medical cannabis during the school day from
school staff to ensure that they can attend school and receive
special education in their LRE.

In their Motion to Dismiss, the State Defendants argue that Parents
fail to state a claim against the NMPED under the IDEA because the
NMPED has no obligation to seek amendment to the CUA, and also
because such an amendment would be futile.  

The Court agrees that there is simply no provision in the IDEA that
can be reasonably interpreted to obligate the NMPED to seek
amendment of a state statute such as the CUA to allow school
personnel to administer cannabis to qualified students on school
grounds.  

The IDEA does not unambiguously require state educational agencies
to pursue legislative amendments in general, or legislative
amendments allowing schools to violate federal law in particular.
Thus, to read this requirement into the IDEA would raise a serious
doubt about the statute's constitutionality, while construing the
statute to exclude such a requirement would fairly avoid the
question.

The Court finds that Parents have failed to state a claim against
the NMPED under the IDEA.

Parents' Section 504 Claims Against the State Defendants

Parents also assert that the State Defendants discriminated against
Student on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504 by
prohibiting her from receiving cannabis from school personnel or on
school grounds pursuant to the CUA Parents further seek a
declaration that the CUA in effect at the relevant time illegally
discriminated against Student on the same basis.

In support of these claims, Parents again allege that the State
Defendants should have sought amendment of the CUA to allow
qualified students to receive cannabis from school staff during the
school day. However, this allegation fails to state a claim against
the State Defendants under Section 504.

As a matter of law, the Court finds that the State Defendants'
alleged prohibition of the administration of cannabis by school
staff on school grounds, and their alleged failure to seek
amendment of the CUA, were not based on Student's disability as
required to state a claim under Section 504. Rather, the State
Defendants' alleged acts and failures to act applied to disabled
and nondisabled individuals alike and were based on the identity of
the substance at issue, i.e., cannabis, and the laws prohibiting
its possession and use. Notably, Parents do not allege that the
State Defendants permitted school staff to administer cannabis to
nondisabled individuals on school grounds, nor do they allege that
the State Defendants prohibited school staff from administering
legal medications to Student or other disabled students on school
grounds.

The Court will stop short of holding that Student, as a young child
whose parent gives her cannabis to treat a life-threatening seizure
disorder, is excluded from the protections of Section 504 or
subject to school discipline because she is currently engaging in
the illegal use of drugs, as the State Defendants seem to suggest.
However, the foregoing statutory provisions confirm that Section
504 does not require states to permit or accommodate the use of
cannabis.

Because the facts Parents have alleged do not give rise to the
inference that the State Defendants acted or failed to act on the
basis of Student's disability, the Court will grant the State
Defendants' motion to dismiss Parents' Section 504 claims against
them.

Albuquerque Public Schools' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion for Partial
Dismissal is granted.

The Plaintiffs' claim challenging the adequacy of the remedy the
DPHO ordered against APS pursuant to the IDEA, and Plaintiffs'
claims against APS pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act, are dismissed with prejudice and Defendants State of New
Mexico and New Mexico Public Education Department's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint to Enforce IDEA and the Prohibition
Against Disability Discrimination in Public Education is granted.
Plaintiffs' claims against the State Defendants are dismissed with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxrwq6cz from
Leagle.com.

Albuquerque Public Schools, Plaintiff, represented by Barry J.
Berenberg, Walsh Gallegos Trevino Russo & Kyle, PC & Evelyn
Howard-Hand, Walsh, Gallegos, Trevino, Russo & Kyle, P.C., 500
Marquette Ave., N.W.Suite 1310, Albuquerque, NM 87102

Lindsey Sledge & David Guba, as parents of P.S.G., on behalf of
P.S.G., Defendants, represented by Gail S. Stewart --
gstewart@66law.com -- Steven Granberg Attorney at Law PA.


NHK GROUP: Integrity Files Antitrust Trust Suit in Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Integrity Financial Services of Tampa Bay Inc. and Cowden
Associates, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NHK Spring Co. Ltd., NHK International
Corporation, TDK Corporation, NAT Peripheral (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd.,
NAT Peripheral (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., NHK Spring (Thailand) Co.,
Ltd., TDK Corporation, Magnecomp Precision Technology Public Co.
Ltd., SAE Magnetics (H.K.) Ltd, Hutchinson Technology Inc. and John
Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-12258, (E.D. Mich., July 31,
2019), seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief pursuant
to the Sherman Act, federal antitrust laws, state antitrust, unfair
competition, consumer protection laws and the laws of unjust
enrichment.

Defendants are manufacturers of hard disk drive suspension
assemblies. Suspension assemblies are a component of hard disk
drives and are installed in a variety of electronic products.

Integrity Financial Services is a full-service residential and
commercial lending company. It claims to have purchased hard disk
drive suspension assemblies indirectly from one or more defendants.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
      Jay L. Himes, Esq.
      Domenico Minerva, Esq.
      Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq.
      Tianran Song, Esq.
      Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 907-0700
      Fax: (212) 818-0477
      Email: gasciolla@labaton.com
             jhimes@labaton.com
             kgarvey@labaton.com
             dminerva@labaton.com
             jcrevier@labaton.com
             tsong@labaton.com

             - and -

      Paul F. Novak, Esq.
      Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq.
      Diana Gjonaj, Esq.
      Tiffany Ellis, Esq.
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
      3011 West Grand Blvd., Suite 2150
      Detroit, Michigan 48202
      Telephone: (313) 800-4170
      Email: pnovak@weitzlux.com
             dgjonaj@weitzlux.com
             dstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com
             tellis@weitzlux.com


NIGHT STAR: Illegally Towed Parked Vehicle, Green Says
------------------------------------------------------
NIKIRA GREEN, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. ALBERT SIORDIA DBA
NIGHT STAR TOWING, a business entity unknown; DR. M. FORGHANI,
S.C., an Illinois corporation aka WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER, a business
entity unknown, and DOES 1 Through 75, Inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 30-2019-01089316-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Sup., Aug. 12, 2019),
alleges that Defendants illegally towed Plaintiff's vehicle.

The Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of herself
and all similarly situated persons whose cars have been towed by
Night Star Towing in violation of the California Department of
Motor Vehicle Section 22658, and California Unfair Competition
Law.

On or about 1:30 pm on May 9, 2019, the Plaintiff parked her
Vehicle, in the parking lot of FORGHANI aka WHC for less than an
hour as she had done on numerous occasions even though she was not
a patient because there was no signage that indicated that vehicles
would be towed.

The receptionist and manager at Night Star refused to let Plaintiff
retrieve her belongings and personal possessions unless she paid
the excessive gate fee of $85. She explained she did not have the
$85 but needed her work boots and personal items. Under CVC
22658(b), Night Star cannot lawfully charge Plaintiff an $85 gate
fee to retrieve her personal belongings from her Vehicle, the
lawsuit contends.  As a result, the Plaintiff suffered sleepless
nights, depression and made it difficult for her to be with her son
and to take care of his health problems.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Craig J. Beauchamp, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG J. BEAUCHAMP
          1502 N. Main St.
          Santa Ana, CA 92701
          Telephone: 949 689-9709

NORTH COAST MEDIA: Newell Sues over Pre-Recorded Phone Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOUREY NEWELL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. NORTH COAST MEDIA, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01811 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 9, 2019), contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited pre-recorded messages to wireless phone users, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

North Coast used a software program to transmit thousands of
unsolicited pre-recorded messages to Plaintiff and proposed Class
Members. By using an automated telephone dialing system to send
thousands of messages without first obtaining the prior express
written consent of recipients, North Coast violated the TCPA.

On July 29, and August 1 and 7, the Plaintiff received a
pre-recorded message call from North Coast to his cellular
telephone number. The pre-recorded message was identical on both
calls, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff and the other call recipients were harmed by these
calls. They were temporarily deprived of legitimate use of their
phones because the phone line was tied up during the telemarketing
calls and their privacy was improperly invaded. Moreover, these
calls injured Plaintiff and the other call recipients because they
were frustrating, obnoxious, annoying, were a nuisance, and
disturbed the solitude of Plaintiff and the class.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
          E-mail: mboyle@meyerwilson.com
                  mwilson@meyerwilson.com

               - and -

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (617) 485-0018
          Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

NORTHWEST COLLECTORS: Schmieder Files Consumer Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northwest Collectors,
Inc. The case is styled as Sarah Schmieder
individually and on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Northwest Collectors, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05457 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 13, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer
Credit.

NorthWest Collectors is a full service collection & credit
reporting agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Omar TayseerSulaiman, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Email: osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com

     - and -

   James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com



OMEGA FLEX: Missouri Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------
Omega Flex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a re-filed class action suit in Missouri.

In March 2017, a putative class action case was re-filed against
the Company and other parties in Missouri state court after the
predecessor case was dismissed without prejudice by the federal
court.

The Company successfully removed the case to federal court and is
currently vigorously defending the case.

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

Omega Flex, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells flexible metal hoses and accessories in the United States and
internationally. The company was formerly known as Tofle America,
Inc. and changed its name to Omega Flex, Inc. in 1996. Omega Flex,
Inc. was founded in 1975 and is based in Exton, Pennsylvania.


ONSHORE QUALITY: Robertson Seeks Overtime Wages for Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARIAH ROBERTSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ONSHORE QUALITY CONTROL
SPECIALISTS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00803-RP (W.D.
Tex., Aug. 13, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Robertson and the other employees like him regularly worked for QCS
in excess of 40 hours each week.

But QCS never paid these employees overtime for the hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.

Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, QCS paid these
employees a day rate with no overtime compensation.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

PACIFIC FERTILITY: Court Narrows Claims in Egg Storage Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned IN RE PACIFIC
FERTILITY CENTER LITIGATION. Case No.18-cv-01586-JSC. (N.D. Cal.).

Pacific Fertility markets and sells egg and embryo cryopreservation
services. Cryopreservation involves preservation of tissue using
cooling techniques. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, Prelude took over
operation of Pacific Fertility's egg and embryo storage facilities
through its newly created operating subsidiary. Prelude is
unlicensed and operates a national network of egg and embryo
long-term freezer storage facilities staffed by non-clinical
non-medical employees.

Both Prelude and Pacific MSO insist that Plaintiffs' complaint must
be dismissed in its entirety as to them because Plaintiffs' group
pleading violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)'s notice
requirement. Prelude also moves to dismiss Plaintiff's bailment
claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Finally, both Prelude and Pacific MSO move to dismiss
Plaintiffs' premises liability and fraudulent concealment/UCL
claims for failure to state a claim, albeit on slightly different
grounds as discussed below.

Plaintiffs' Group Pleading Adequately Puts Defendants on Notice

Rule 8(a)(2) requires only a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give
the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.

Here, the FAC allegations adequately put Prelude and Pacific MSO on
notice of the claims against them. Plaintiffs allege that Prelude
took over Pacific Fertility's egg and embryo storage in September
2017 and that in connection with that takeover, Prelude created
Pacific MSO to assist with the egg and embryo storage operation.
Neither this transaction nor the existence of Prelude and Pacific
MSO were disclosed to Plaintiffs until sometime after the Tank 4
incident. While the background allegations often include and/or
language with respect to Prelude and Pacific MSO, the allegations
under each of the claims are as to each defendant separately.   

To the extent that the same allegations are pled as both, that is
because at this stage of the litigation Plaintiffs do not know
which defendant did what. Given Plaintiffs' lack of knowledge of
either defendant until after this action was filed, it is only
through discovery that they will be able to differentiate
meaningfully between the liability of the defendants. Further,
given the close relationship between these defendants and the fact
that they share the same counsel, they are aware of the actions
they may have taken to give rise to Plaintiffs' legal claims. Under
these circumstances, Plaintiffs' allegations provide sufficient
notice to Prelude and Pacific MSO as to the nature of the claims
asserted, including what conduct is at issue.

Prelude and Pacific MSO's motions to dismiss predicated on Rule
8(a) are denied.

Plaintiff's Bailment Claim

Prelude's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' bailment claim is twofold.
First, Prelude insists that the claim fails because Plaintiffs have
not pled that it took possession of Plaintiffs' tissue. Second,
Prelude maintains that the claim is duplicative of the negligence
claim.

A bailment is generally defined as the delivery of a thing to
another for some special object or purpose on a contract, express
or implied, to conform to the objects or purposes of the delivery
which may be as various as the transactions of men.

Plaintiffs allege that Prelude received for safekeeping Plaintiffs'
irreplaceable personal property to be safely and securely kept for
the benefit of Plaintiffs. Further, under Pacific Fertility's
agreement with Prelude, Prelude was identified as responsible for
determining the method, details, and means of performing [egg and
embryo storage] Services. Notwithstanding these allegations,
Prelude insists that the FAC fails to allege that it as opposed to
Pacific MSO took custody of the property at issue Plaintiffs'
tissue.  

Plaintiffs have nonetheless not alleged sufficient facts to give
rise to a bailment claim against Prelude. At oral argument,
Plaintiffs conceded that their bailment claim does not arise out of
a contract; instead, Plaintiffs contend that their bailment claim
is a negligence bailment claim not requiring an express or implied
contract.  

In Whitcombe, 2 F.3d at 313, the court considered whether a claim
for bailment existed between an automobile property owner and a
marine terminal operator when the property owner deposited
automobiles with a freight forwarder who contracted with a shipping
company who turned the automobiles over to the marine terminal
operator who provided stevedoring services. The automobiles were
damaged while in the care of the marine terminal operator. Applying
California law, the Ninth Circuit found that a bailment was created
between the property owner and the marine terminal operator based
on the principle that when a cargo owner voluntarily delivers cargo
to a terminal operator for storage and eventual shipment, a
bailment is created between the owner and the terminal operator.

Plaintiffs' urging that the same principle applies here is
unpersuasive. Plaintiffs did not deliver their property to Prelude
for storage and eventual shipment, and did not even deliver it to a
different entity for delivery to Prelude for storage and eventual
shipment pursuant to an implied or express contract. The
circumstances alleged here are entirely different from Whitcomb.
Plaintiffs delivered their property to Pacific Fertility for
storage and with no knowledge that Pacific Fertility would hand
over storage to Prelude. Plaintiffs do not cite any case which
supports the creation of a bailment between the plaintiff and the
ultimate possessor in such circumstances.  

While pleading of alternative theories of relief on the same set of
facts is, of course, quite proper and is often done where there is
a legally recognized basis for recovery in both contract and tort.
Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts that support a bailment
claim, that is, a contractual theory of recovery. Plaintiff's
bailment claim against Prelude is dismissed.

Plaintiffs' Premises Liability Claim

Prelude and Pacific MSO advance the same three reasons for
dismissal of Plaintiffs' premises liability claim: (1) it is
legally indistinct from the negligence claim (2) Plaintiffs have
failed to plead facts which would give rise to an independent
premises liability clam and (3) premises liability only protects
individuals coming onto land and not the property they leave
behind.

First, while the elements of a negligence claim and a premises
liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that
duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury, the duty of care
arises differently in the two claims; that is, a premises liability
claim is grounded in the possession of the premises and the
attendant right to control and manage the premises, accordingly,
mere possession with its attendant right to control conditions on
the premises is a sufficient basis for the imposition of an
affirmative duty to act. Plaintiffs contend that as with their
bailment claim they are allowed to plead alternative claims and
that discovery will shed light on whether the negligence and
premises liability claims will merge.

The Court agrees that Prelude's motion is premature to the extent
that it is based on the overlapping nature of these claims.

Second, Plaintiffs have adequately pled facts which would suggest a
plausible basis for a premises liability claim. Plaintiffs allege
that Prelude and Pacific MSO owned, leased, and/or occupied the
property, premises, machinery, and equipment, including Tank 4, on
the premises at 55 Francisco Street, Suite 500, San Francisco,
California 94133. With respect to Pacific MSO, Plaintiffs
specifically allege that while it is a Delaware corporation, its
principal executive office is located at 55 Francisco Street, San
Francisco. Likewise, with respect to Prelude, Plaintiffs have pled
that it is a Delaware corporation, but that it operates Pacific
Fertility's storage facility at 55 Francisco Street, San
Francisco.

Prelude's factual argument that it has produced documents showing
that its corporate headquarters are in Tennessee such that
Plaintiffs cannot allege that it owned, leased, or possessed the
real property at 55 Francisco Street is improper at the pleadings
stage.  

Finally, Prelude and Pacific MSO's argument that premises liability
only extends to individuals and not the property they leave behind
is likewise improper at this stage. Neither Prelude nor Pacific MSO
have cited a case which holds that premises liability only covers
injuries to persons and not property and the Court is unaware of
any. Indeed, the law is to the contrary. Defendants' attempt to
discredit this language from Wilson, Wilson v. Rancho Sespe, 207
Cal.App.2d 10, 17 (1962), as running afoul of the Restatement of
Torts Section 318 limitation of premises liability claims to bodily
injury is unpersuasive. Neither the cases Defendants cite nor any
other case post-Wilson that the Court could find holds that
premises liability only covers bodily injury. The Court thus cannot
say as a matter of law that Plaintiffs' premises liability claim
fails because they seek redress for injury to their property as
opposed to their persons.

Prelude and Pacific MSO's motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' premises
liability claim are therefore denied.

Plaintiffs' Fraudulent Concealment Claim and UCL Claims

Finally, Prelude and Pacific MSO move to dismiss Plaintiffs'
fraudulent concealment and UCL claims (predicated on the same
fraud) on the same grounds. As a threshold matter, they both insist
that Plaintiffs' complaint fails to meet Rule 9(b)'s specificity
requirement because of group pleading and because it fails to
specific the who, what, when, where, and how of the alleged fraud.
In addition, Prelude and Pacific MSO contend that Plaintiffs have
failed to adequately plead that they concealed a material fact or
that they owed Plaintiffs a duty to disclose.

Plaintiffs' Allegations Satisfy Rule 9(b)

The elements of a claim for fraudulent concealment are: (1)
concealment or suppression of a material fact (2) by a defendant
with a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff (3) the defendant
intended to defraud the plaintiff by intentionally concealing or
suppressing the fact (4) the plaintiff was unaware of the fact and
would not have acted as he or she did if he or she had known of the
concealed or suppressed fact and (5) plaintiff sustained damage as
a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact. Fraud
claims are subject to the heightened pleading standard of Rule
9(b), which requires a plaintiff to state with particularity the
circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. A plaintiff must
include the who, what, when, where, and how of the fraud.  

Here, Plaintiffs allege that Prelude and Pacific MSO knowingly and
intentionally failed to disclose and actively concealed: (1) that
they had acquired control over the storage of Plaintiffs' eggs and
embryos from PFC, had no license, and had no medical personnel on
staff and (2) that their systems and processes in place to
safeguard the eggs and embryos were inadequate.

Plaintiffs also allege that Prelude and Pacific MSO failed to
disclose that they were not employing reasonable processes and
systems to safeguard Plaintiffs' eggs and embryos and failed to
disclose that there had been a change in control over tissue
storage, and that their storage systems and processes were
inadequate. For the same reason Plaintiffs' group pleading of these
allegations is sufficient for purposes of Rule 8(a), it is likewise
sufficient for purposes of Plaintiffs' fraud claims under Rule
9(b). Given Prelude and Pacific MSO's parent and subsidiary
relationship and Plaintiffs' limited knowledge of the operation of
this relationship, Plaintiffs permissibly plead their claim as to
both defendants equally.  

Plaintiffs have Adequately Alleged Concealment of a Material Fact

Prelude and Pacific MSO next argue that Plaintiffs have failed to
adequately plead concealment of a material fact because Plaintiffs
have not specified with particularity how their alleged failure to
disclose that they had taken over the tissue management from
Pacific Fertility was material; that is, what they would have done
differently if this information was disclosed. Plaintiffs, however,
did plead what they would have done differently: Had either or both
PFC and Prelude disclosed that Prelude had taken control of PFC's
egg and embryo storage operation or that the Prelude's storage
monitoring and alarm systems and other processes were deficient,
nonfunctional, or incapable of protecting their eggs and embryos in
the event of a tank failure, Plaintiffs would not have purchased or
continued using the egg and embryo storage services.

Plaintiffs have alleged that they would have behaved differently
ceased purchasing or using the egg and embryo services had they
known that Prelude and/or Pacific MSO had taken over the tissue
storage operation from Pacific Fertility. At the pleading stage,
the Court must accept this allegation as true.

Likewise, Plaintiffs have adequately pled how the systems and
processes were inadequate Prelude lacked monitoring, alarm, and
response systems and processes sufficient to detect and prevent
harm from a dangerous temperature rise in Tank 4 and how these
facts were intentionally concealed Plaintiffs were not notified of
Prelude and Pacific MSO's existence until after the March 2018
incident.  

Plaintiffs have Not Adequately Alleged a Duty to Disclose

Lastly, Prelude and Pacific MSO argue that they had no duty to
disclose their role in the tissue storage operation or any details
of the tissue storage operation. There are four circumstances in
which nondisclosure or concealment may constitute actionable fraud:
(1) when the defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with the
plaintiff (2) when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of
material facts not known to the plaintiff (3) when the defendant
actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff and (4) when
the defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses
some material facts.

Plaintiffs contend that the duty arises here because Defendants
have exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to Plaintiffs;
however, it is not enough to plead that Defendants had exclusive
knowledge Plaintiffs must also plead a relationship between the
parties which gives rise to the obligation to disclose this
information.  Plaintiffs do not allege any such relationship or
transaction.

Plaintiffs' fraudulent disclosure claim is dismissed. Because
Plaintiffs' UCL claim is predicated on the same factual
allegations, it is likewise dismissed.

In summary, Prelude and Pacific MSO's motion to dismiss is granted
in part and denied in part. The motions to dismiss for failure to
satisfy Rule 8(a)'s notice pleading requirement and to dismiss the
premises liability claim under Rule 12(b)(6) are denied. Prelude's
motion to dismiss the bailment claim is granted with leave to
amend. Prelude and Pacific MSO's motion to dismiss the fraudulent
concealment and UCL claims based on Plaintiffs' failure to allege a
duty to disclose is granted with leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y57ho7ja from Leagle.com.

R. E., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Eric H. Gibbs -- ehg@classlawgroup.com --
Gibbs Law Group LLP, Amy Marie Zeman -- amz@classlawgroup.com --
Gibbs Law Group LLP, Daniel C. Girard -- dgirard@girardsharp.com --
Girard Sharp LLP, Dylan Hughes -- dsh@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs
Law Group LLP, Jordan S. Elias -- jelias@girardsharp.com -- Girard
Sharp LLP, Joseph G. Sauder -- mds@sstriallawyers.com -- Sauder
Schelkopf LLC, pro hac vice, Sarah Robin London, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP, 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San
Francisco, CA 94111-3339, Steven M. Tindall --
smt@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP, Tiseme Gabriella
Zegeye, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, LLP 275 Battery
Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 & Adam E. Polk,
Girard Sharp LLP.  

Megan Bauer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Jonathan Bauer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam Brett Wolf --
awolf@pwcklegal.com -- Peiffer Wolf Carr & Kane, Adam E. Polk --
apolk@girardsharp.com -- Girard Sharp LLP, Joseph G. Sauder, Sauder
Schelkopf LLC, pro hac vice, Sarah Robin London, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP,Steven M. Tindall, Gibbs Law Group LLP,
Tiseme Gabriella Zegeye, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, LLP
& Tracey B. Cowan -tcowan@pwcklegal.com -- Peiffer Wolf Carr &
Kane.

Pacific Fertility Center, Defendant, represented by Joseph Spalding
Picchi -- jpicchi@glattys.com -- Galloway, Lucchese, Everson &
Picchi A Professional Corporation & Aaron Thomas Schultz --
aschultz@glattys.com -- Galloway, Lucchese, Everson & Picchi.

Prelude Fertility, Inc. & Pacific MSO, LLC, Defendants, represented
by Erin McCalmon Bosman -EBosman@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster
LLP, Benjamin Scott Kagel -- bkagel@mofo.com -- Morrison Foerster,
David Frank McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster
LLP, Julie Yongsun Park -- juliepark@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster LLP & William Francis Tarantino -wtarantino@mofo.com --
Morrison & Foerster LLP.


PERMITS ETC: Reed Seeks Minimum Wage for Exotic Dancers
-------------------------------------------------------
TYHESIA REED, On Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly Situated
Individuals, the PLAINTIFF, vs. PERMITS, ETC., INC. d/b/a THE ROSE
GENTLEMAN'S CLUB d/b/a FLASHDANCE, the DEFENDANT, Case No.
9:19-cv-81145-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 13, 2019), alleges that
Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and all other members of the
class and collective as "independent contractors" and failed to pay
them minimum wage compensation they were entitled to under the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act.

The class and collective is composed of female employees who,
during the relevant time period of June 2016 through the date of
judgment in this case, worked as exotic dancers for Defendant and
were denied their fundamental rights under applicable state and
federal laws.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class are:

          David B. Sacks, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID B. SACKS
          4494 Southside Boulevard, Suite 101
          Jacksonville, FL 32216
          Telephone: (904) 634-1122
          E-mail: david@lawofficejacksonville.com

               - and -

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com

PETROS & SON'S: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA/NJWHL, Lema Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Lema, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Petros & Son's, Inc. of Ewing N.J. d/b/a Ewing Diner,
Petros Grumitsaris a/k/a Peter, and Peter Kritsikokas, Case No.
3:19-cv-16457 (D.N.J., Aug. 7, 2019), alleges that the Defendants
have committed widespread violations of the Federal Labor Standards
Act and of the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law by failing to
adequately pay its employees, including the Plaintiff, overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

Petros & Son's, Inc., of Ewing, New Jersey, trading as Ewing Diner,
is a corporation incorporated under the laws of New Jersey and has
its registered office in W. Trenton, New Jersey.  The Individual
Defendants are owners, officers, and/or managing agents of the
Defendant Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Qinyu Fan, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
          E-mail: qfan@hanglaw.com


PHARMAPACKS LLC: Diaz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------
Pharmapacks, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Edwin
Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Pharmapacks, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07615
(S.D. N.Y., Aug. 14, 2019).

Pharmapacks, LLC is an E-commerce service in Islandia, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal



PLASTIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE: Walk and Estrada Seek OT Pay for Clerks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMIE WALK AND JUDITH ESTRADA on behalf of themselves, and all
other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, the
Plaintiffs, v. PLASTIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY CENTER, SC AND JOHN
A. KOTIS, INDIVIDUALLY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05422
(N.D. Ill., Aug. 12, 2019), seeks overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff is a current employee who has worked for Defendants
since approximately February 2019 and performs billing, collections
and other clerical office work for Defendants.

Walk is compensated on an hourly basis and works over 40 hours per
week and is denied overtime pay by Defendants for such hours.

The Plaintiff is a current employee who has worked for Defendants
since approximately February 2019 as a surgical assistant and
performs related clerical work for Defendants. Estrada is
compensated on an hourly basis and works over 40 hours per week and
is denied overtime pay by Defendants for such hours.

The Defendant provides medical and surgical services, primarily
cosmetic and plastic surgery procedures, to patients. The
Defendant's primary practice is located in Arlington Heights,
Illinois.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff, and all other Plaintiffs similarly
situated, known or unknown, are:

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450

POLEKATZ GENTLEMEN'S: Exotic Dancers Not Contractors, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CEAIRA REED, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
Plaintiffs, v. POLEKATZ GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, LLC, STEPHEN H.
DABROWSKI, SHANE FULTS, JEFFREY MIKE, and FRANK LAPORT, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05382 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 9, 2019),
alleges that Defendants misclassify dancers, including Plaintiffs,
as independent contractors so that they do not have to compensate
them minimum wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants required Ceaira Reed 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,
the Defendants refused to compensate Plaintiffs whatsoever for any
hours worked. The Plaintiffs' only compensation was in the form of
tips from club patrons and even some of those tips were illegally
confiscated by the club.

The Defendants also violated the FLSA by failing to pay time and a
half to their employees when they worked more than 40 hours a week.
The Defendants took money from Plaintiffs in the form of "house
fees" or "rent".

Plaintiffs were also required to divide tips with Defendants'
managers and employees who do not customarily receive tips.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

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

POWERSTROKE WELL: Lechot Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN LECHOT, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, v. POWERSTROKE WELL CONTROL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19 cv-02315 (D. Colo., Aug. 13, 2019) is a Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") lawsuit against Defendant due to Defendant's failure
to pay certain workers overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in
a week.

Instead of paying workers overtime, Powerstroke paid them a set
daily rate for each day worked, regardless of how maw many hours
they worked in a week. This violates the FLSA because employees
paid on a day rate basis are still owed an overtime premium for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. Therefore, Lechot and the
other employees paid according to Powerstroke's day rate pay plan
are entitled to recover their unpaid overtime and other damages,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Lechot was employed by Defendant as a Snubbing
Supervisor.

Powerstroke is an oilfield services company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

          - and -

     Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: 713-352-1100
     Facsimile: 713-352-3300
     Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com


PUBLIX SUPER: Rivera Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------
MISMA RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-62000-RKA (S.D. Fla., Aug. 9, 2019),
contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise,
in part, by sending unsolicited text message to wireless phone
users, in violation of 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.

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.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of
herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant.

Defendant is a supermarket chain with more than 1,215 locations
throughout the Southeastern United States.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          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

REILY FOODS: 1st Cir. Flips Dismissal in Dumont Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, issued an
Opinion reversing the District Court's judgment granting
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned KATHY DUMONT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, Appellant, v. REILY FOODS COMPANY; NEW ENGLAND COFFEE
COMPANY, Defendants, Appellees. No. 18-2055. (1st Cir.).

Defendant New England Coffee Company, operating as a subsidiary of
Reily Foods Company, sells a Hazelnut Creme coffee. Kathy Dumont
contends that she purchased the coffee because she thought that a
coffee styled Hazelnut Creme contained some hazelnut. After
learning that the Hazelnut Creme coffee contained no hazelnut at
all, Dumont brought this putative class action challenging the
coffee's labeling as a violation of Massachusetts' consumer
protection laws.

Suing individually and on behalf of a putative nationwide class of
allegedly similarly situated consumers, Dumont claimed that the
packaging was (1) an unfair and deceptive practice under
Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A and (2) untrue and
misleading advertising under Massachusetts General Laws chapter
266, section 91.

The district court dismissed Dumont's complaint without leave to
amend. Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), the court held
that the complaint offered insufficient detail regarding the
circumstances of plaintiff's purchase and that it therefore failed
to pass muster under the relevant pleading standard.

Dumont's argue that the district court erred in its conclusion that
her complaint provided insufficiently particularized facts to
satisfy Rule 9(b). The Court reviews de novo the dismissal of a
complaint for failure to comply with Rule 9(b).

Rule 9(b) provides that, in alleging fraud or mistake, a party must
state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or
mistake.

Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the defendants
urge us to affirm on the alternative basis that the complaint
failed to state a claim for a violation of chapter 93A.

Chapter 93A prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or
commerce. On appeal, Dumont argues solely that the labeling was
deceptive not that it was unfair.

An advertisement is deceptive when it has the capacity to mislead
consumers, acting reasonably under the circumstances, to act
differently from the way they otherwise would have acted to entice
a reasonable consumer to purchase the product.

One might presume that a reasonable consumer who, like Dumont,
cared whether the coffee she intended to purchase contained real
hazelnut would check the list of ingredients. On the other hand,
perhaps a reasonable consumer would find in the product name
sufficient assurance so as to see no need to search the fine print
on the back of the package, much like one might easily buy a
hazelnut cake without studying the ingredients list to confirm that
the cake actually contains some hazelnut.

And the complaint makes clear that convention in the industry
presumably in large part because of federal labeling requirements
is to state on the front of a package containing a product that is
nut flavored but that contains no nuts that the product is
naturally or artificially flavored. Indeed, another Reily Foods
subsidiary that sells a hazelnut coffee includes a flavoring
disclosure on the front of its package.

The Court dissenting colleague points out that the package says
Freshly Ground 100% Arabica Coffee. The proposition by no means
unreasonable is that a consumer could read this statement in
isolation as saying that the package contains only coffee and
Arabica coffee at that, with no nuts or anything else. But a
consumer might instead read this statement as saying that 100% of
the coffee in the package is of the Arabica variety. After all, if
there is nothing in the package other than coffee, what does
Hazelnut Creme mean to say? Indeed, even Reily Foods concedes that
the package also contains some flavoring, so it cannot be the case
that 100% Arabica Coffee means the package contains coffee alone.

None of this is to say that the dissenting colleague's reading is
by any means unreasonable. To the contrary, the Court would likely
land upon that reading were the Court in the grocery aisle with
some time to peruse the package. That being said, the Court thinks
it best that six jurors, rather than three judges, decide on a full
record whether the challenged label has the capacity to mislead
reasonably acting, hazelnut-loving consumers.

And the Court sees no unfair cost in recognizing a state-law claim
that can only be lodged against manufacturers that fail to adhere
to the rules and safe harbors that have been created by the FDA and
that help form consumers' expectations in reading labels.
Therefore, and while it is certainly a close question for the
reasons well marshalled by the thoughtful dissent, the Court holds
that Dumont's complaint states a plausible claim for relief.

The defendants propose one additional alternative ground for
affirming the dismissal of Dumont's complaint: Even if the
complaint alleges a claim under chapter 93A, they argue, that claim
is impliedly preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FDCA).

The defendants contend only that the application of chapter 93A as
proposed by Dumont is impliedly preempted as an attempt to use a
state law to enforce federal requirements, thereby potentially
interfering with federal enforcement of the food-labeling
provisions of the FDCA.

In support of this argument, the defendants point to the Supreme
Court's opinion in Buckman Company v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee,
531 U.S. 341 (2001). In that case, patients who suffered injuries
from implantation of orthopedic bone screws sought damages under
state tort law on the theory that the defendant made fraudulent
representations to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the
course of obtaining approval to market the screws.  

The Court decided that the claims conflicted with and were
therefore impliedly preempted by the FDA's statutory enforcement
scheme.  

Dumont agrees with the defendants that this reasoning in Buckman
applies by analogy to her claim implicating federal food-labeling
requirements. Dumont argues, therefore, that chapter 93A predates
the applicable federal requirements, and that she is not seeking to
impose state-tort liability because the label violates the FDCA,
but rather because it independently violates chapter 93A.
Defendants, in turn, do not argue that chapter 93A is not a
traditional tort-like law that predates the FDCA.

Based on the parties' foregoing positions, the Court therefore
presumes but do not hold that Dumont's complaint is preempted
unless the conduct it pleads: (1) violates FDCA labeling
requirements and (2) would also violate chapter 93A even if the
FDCA did not exist. With that test in mind, the Court turns back to
the complaint.

Dumont contends, though, that the complaint also seeks to vindicate
the separate and independent right to be free from deceptive and
unfair conduct. And the complaint can indeed be read to allege
liability not because the label constitutes misbranding under
federal law, but rather because the label has the capacity to
deceive or mislead reasonable consumers, in violation of chapter
93A. Under that reading of the complaint, the allegation that the
label violated the FDCA serves simply to counter a claim of express
preemption.

The Court finds nothing in Buckman to suggest that such an indirect
relationship between a state-law claim and federal law warrants
preemption, at least as long as the factfinder avoids equating
violation of the federal law with deception under the state law.
Suppose, for example, that a pharmacist told a patient that a
product was FDA approved, but it was not. The Court doubts that the
consumer's fraud claim under state common law would be preempted
merely because the consumer's reliance evidence was buttressed by
the background knowledge that FDA approval connotes efficacy and
safety.

The Court concludes, in sum, that under the parties' chosen
standard, Dumont's claim under chapter 93A is not impliedly
preempted by federal law.
    
The Court reverses the district court's dismissal of the
complaint.

A full-text copy of the First Circuit's August 8, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y52ypo7p from Leagle.com.

John T. Longo, 681 Smith Street, Providence, RI 02908-3502 and
Citadel Consumer Litigation, PC on brief for appellant.

Timothy H. Madden -- thm@dcglaw.com -- Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar,
LLP, Mark A. Cunningham -- mcunningham@joneswalker.com -- Thomas A.
Casey, Jr. -- tcaseyjr@joneswalker.com -- John R. Guenard --
jguenard@joneswalker.com -- and Jones Walker LLP, on brief for
appellees.


REMAX REAL: Tikotzky Sues over Unsolicited Calls & Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ETA TIKOTZKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. REMAX REAL PROS, a California
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-01494 (C.D. Cal., Aug.
9, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited phone calls and
sending text message to wireless phone users, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Re/Max Real Pros operates a real estate company. Unfortunately for
consumers, Re/Max Real Pros utilizes a sophisticated telephone
dialing system to call consumers with pre-recorded messages and
with text individuals en masse promoting its services. However,
Re/Max Real Pros fails to get the requisite prior consent prior to
sending these text messages.

Furthermore, Defendant fails to have procedure in place to ensure
that they were not calling and/or messaging consumers on the
National Do Not Call Registry.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq.
          E-mail: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (323) 979-2063
          Facsimile: (323) 488-6748

               - and -

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: yzelman@MarcusZelman.com
          Website: www.MarcusZelman.com

SANDHU INDUSTRIES: Ortega Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Rudy Ortega, Darwin Hernandez and Ostin Hernandez, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SANDHU INDUSTRIES, INC., SANDHU BUILDERS 1 INC., KING HWY NY LLC
and TEJPAL SANDHU, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04661 (E.D. N.Y.,
Aug. 13, 2019) is an action against Defendants to recover unpaid
wages on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly
situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New
York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of
Labor Regulations, ("NYLL").

The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees premium overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of forty hours per week in violation of both the FLSA and
the NYLL. The Defendants also willfully disregarded and
purposefully evaded record keeping requirements of the FLSA and the
NYLL by failing to maintain accurate records of the hours worked by
and wages paid to Plaintiffs, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as construction laborers.

Defendants are engaged in the construction industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Peter A. Romero, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
     825 Veterans Highway, Suite B
     Hauppauge, NY 11788
     Phone: (631) 257-5588
     Email: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com


SANYO ENERGY: Ziccarello Suit Transferred to District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Richard Ziccarello, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Sanyo Energy (U.S.A.)
Corporation, SANYO NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, and PANASONIC
CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, the Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-01995 (April 12, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Aug. 13,
2019. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-16623 to the proceeding.

Sanyo Energy was founded in 1999. The Company's line of business
includes the manufacturing of storage batteries.[BN]

SAVING INSURANCE: Moore Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE MOORE on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. SAVING INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. and
RICHARDSON MARKETING GROUP, the LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-05413 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 12, 2019),  contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing
unsolicited telemarketing calls to wireless phone users, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, calls were made to residential
telephone lines despite their presence on the National Do Not Call
Registry, such as the Plaintiff's.

The Plaintiff never consented to receive the calls. Because
telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of
thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the
Plaintiff bring this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide
class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls
from or on behalf of the Defendants, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (617) 485-0018
          Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Mediation in Agar Suit Set for Dec. 11
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sensient Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that parties in
the class action suit Agar v. Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC,
have agreed to submit this case to mediation, which is currently
scheduled for December 11, 2019.

On March 29, 2019, Calvin Agar (Agar), a former employee, filed a
Class Action Complaint in Stanislaus County Superior Court against
Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (SNI). On May 22, 2019, Agar filed
a First Amended Class Action Complaint against SNI (the Complaint).


Agar alleges that SNI improperly reported overtime pay on
employees' wage statements, in violation of the California Labor
Code. The Complaint alleges two causes of action, and both concern
the wage statements.

The Complaint does not allege that SNI failed to pay any overtime
due to Agar or any of the putative class or group members. The
Complaint merely challenges the manner in which SNI has reported
overtime pay on its wage statements.

SNI maintains that it has accurately paid Agar and the putative
class members for all overtime worked, and that they have not
experienced any harm. SNI further maintains that the format of its
wage statements does not violate the requirements of state law or
any specific guidance from California decisional law, the
California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or the
California Labor Commissioner's Office. Finally, SNI contends that
certain of the state law claims are subject to mandatory individual
arbitration.

SNI filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint on
July 10, 2019. SNI continues to evaluate the developing legal
authority on this issue. SNI intends to vigorously defend its
interests, absent a reasonable resolution. The parties have agreed
to submit this case to mediation, which is currently scheduled for
December 11, 2019.

Sensient Technologies Corporation, incorporated on December 7,
1882, is a manufacturer and marketer of colors, flavors and
fragrances. The Company uses technologies at facilities around the
world to develop specialty food and beverage systems, cosmetic and
pharmaceutical systems, specialty inks and colors, and other
specialty and fine chemicals. The company is based in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.


SHUTTERFLY INC: Gordon to Halt Merger Deal, Seeks Financials
------------------------------------------------------------
David Gordon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, plaintiff, v. Shutterfly, Inc., William J. Lansing,
Elizabeth Sartain, Brian Thomas Swette, Thomas D. Hughes, Eva
Manolis, Henry Tayloe Stansbury, Ann Mather, Elizabeth S. Rafael,
Ryan O'Hara and Michael P. Zeisser, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-04335 (N.D. Cal., July 29, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants
and all persons acting in concert from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the merger of Shutterfly and Apollo Global
Management, LLC, rescinding it in the event defendants consummate
the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees
and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

Shutterfly shareholders stand to receive $51.00 in cash for each
share of stock they own.

Shutterfly is a retailer and manufacturing platform for
personalized products and communications while Apollo is a global
alternative investment manager.

The merger's proxy statement failed to provide the line items used
to calculate EBITDA non-GAAP metric or a reconciliation of this
non-GAAP projection to its most comparable GAAP measure. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (424) 256-2884
      Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
      E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com

              - and -

      Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
      James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
      New Yor006B, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
             jwilson@faruqilaw.com


SIRIUS XM: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of DPPA CFAA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned
JAMES E. ANDREWS, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.; DOES, 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees. No. 18-55169. (9th
Cir.).

In his complaint, Andrews apparently unaware of the agreements
between Auto Source, AutoManager, and Sirius XM pursuant to which
his personal information was shared alleged that Sirius XM obtained
his name and address, as well as his phone number, from the motor
vehicle records, most likely the registration documents submitted
to the DMV after he purchased the car. Andrews filed a putative
class action complaint in the district court, alleging violations
of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA) and seeking
an injunction and statutory damages of $2,500 for each violation.

Because the court found that Sirius XM obtained Andrews's personal
information from his driver's license and the Form 262, neither of
which, it determined, constituted a DMV record it concluded that
the undisputed facts establish that Sirius XM did not use personal
information`from a motor vehicle record and that Sirius XM was
therefore entitled to summary judgment on the DPPA claim.

Turning to Andrews's motion for leave to amend, the district court
concluded that amendment would be futile because the proposed
amended complaint failed to allege that he had suffered a loss or
damage cognizable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291. The
Court reviews de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment.
A court's denial of leave to amend is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion.

DPPA

Andrews contends that the district court erred when it granted
summary judgment in favor of Sirius XM, arguing that the company
violated the DPPA's prohibition on using and disclosing personal
information derived from DMV records when it obtained his name,
address, and phone number from his driver's license and the Form
262. He urges us to issue a limited ruling holding that where a
plaintiff can establish that a third party accessed a report
whether it be an accident report or dealership record of sales)
containing information from a driver's license issued by a state
DMV the plaintiff can state a claim for violation of the DPPA.

Origins and Scope of the DPPA

Congress enacted the DPPA in 1994, in response to a troubling
phenomenon that occurred throughout the 1980s and early 1990s state
DMVs' practice of selling or freely disclosing drivers' personal
information, which led to unfortunate consequences ranging from the
trivial onslaughts of random solicitations to the tragic the
murders of several people by stalkers or ex-spouses.  

Accordingly, concerned that personal information collected by
States in the licensing of motor vehicle drivers was being released
even soldwith resulting loss of privacy for many persons, Congress
provided federal statutory protection through the DPPA.  

Andrews's Claim

To prevail on his DPPA claim, Andrews must satisfy Secion 2722(a)
and prove that (1) Sirius XM knowingly obtained his personal
information (2) from a motor vehicle record (3) for a
nonpermissible use.  

The first and third elements are undisputed here: Sirius XM
obtained and used Andrews's name and telephone number, personal
information as defined by the DPPA, for nonpermissible promotional
purposes.  

The DPPA defines a motor vehicle record as any record that pertains
to a motor vehicle operator's permit, motor vehicle title, motor
vehicle registration, or identification card issued by a department
of motor vehicles.

Sirius XM argues that a driver's for use in the normal course of
business by a legitimate business, but only to verify the accuracy
of personal information submitted by the individual and if such
information as so submitted is not correct or is no longer correct,
to obtain the correct information in limited circumstances. Section
2721(b)(3), license cannot qualify under that definition, citing to
the district court's analysis:

A driver license, although it contains personal information
contained in the records of the DMV, is not itself a record
contained in the records of the DMV. Nor does it make sense to
include a driver license as a motor vehicle record when a motor
vehicle record is defined as any record that pertains to a motor
vehicle operator's permit. Interpreting the statute as [Andrews]
suggests and construing a motor vehicle record to include a driver
license would render the definition's use of both record and
pertains to as surplusage because the driver license would be
pertaining to itself and ignore the requirement that it also be a
record.

The Court is not wholly persuaded by this linguistic analysis of
the DPPA. Sirius XM argues, as the district court concluded, that
construing a motor vehicle record' to include a driver license
would render the definition's use of both record' and pertains to'
as surplusage, but a record is defined as, among other things,
information that is inscribed on a tangible medium.

A driver's license is a tangible document that serves as proof of
an individual's permission to operate a motor vehicle, and can
therefore be considered a record. And, although Sirius XM raises a
fair point as to whether pertains to would be rendered surplusage,
it would make little practical sense that a photocopy of a driver's
license which is indisputably a record that pertains to a motor
vehicle operator's permit could be a qualifying motor vehicle
record, but the actual license lying right next to it on the desk
at the DMV, containing identical personal information, could not.

The Court is therefore unconvinced that a driver's license is not a
record based solely on the wording of the statute's definition.

But just because a driver's license is a record does not
necessarily mean it is a motor vehicle record. Reading Section
2722's words in their context and with a view to their place in the
overall statutory scheme, the Court concludes that a driver's
license in the possession of its owner is not a qualifying motor
vehicle record under the DPPA.

Andrews contends that Sirius XM's conduct violated the literal text
of the statute. But, even if the statute could be read to cover
this conduct, the Court will not adopt a literal interpretation
that would thwart the purpose of the overall statutory scheme or
lead to an absurd result. Andrews's expansive conception of the
DPPA does not align with the statute's clear purpose. And, although
both Andrews and Sirius XM utilized a considerable quantity of
briefing ink trading hypotheticals and parading various horribles
in support of their respective positions, the Court concludes that
Andrews's position yields the more absurd results.

Aggrieved plaintiffs, Andrews included, might have other statutory
remedies to rectify alleged abuses of their personal information.
But the DPPA a statute concerned solely with the actions of state
DMVs and those who illicitly retrieve information from them—is
not the proper vehicle for such redress, where, as here, the source
of that information is a driver's license in its owner's
possession.

Sirius XM correctly observes that the DPPA was not designed to
remedy every misuse of personal information that happened to come
from a driver's license. Instead, its scope is limited to
impermissible disclosures by state DMVs to those who seek
information from them. Andrews concedes that neither Sirius XM nor
anyone else requested or acquired his information from the
California DMV. Therefore, we conclude that Sirius XM's conduct,
annoying as it might have been, did not violate the DPPA.

CFAA

Andrews also challenges the district court's conclusion that
amending his complaint to add a claim under the CFAA would have
been futile.

The CFAA makes it unlawful to, among other things, intentionally
access a computer without authorization and obtain information from
any protected computer. It provides a private right of action for
any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of
the statute against the violator to obtain compensatory damages and
injunctive relief or other equitable relief, but only if the
conduct involves 1 of the factors set forth elsewhere in the CFAA.


Accordingly, because Sirius XM allegedly stole the personal
information without compensating Andrews, he lost the value of that
information and the opportunity to sell it.

The CFAA, however, defines loss as any reasonable cost to any
victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting
a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or
information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue
lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred
because of interruption of service.

The Court further observes that the CFAA is an anti-hacking
statute, not an expansive misappropriation statute. The statute's
loss definition with its references to damage assessments, data
restoration, and interruption of service clearly limits its focus
to harms caused by computer intrusions, not general injuries
unrelated to the hacking itself. Given this circumscribed focus,
and the principle that a general statutory term should be
understood in light of the specific terms that surround it, the
Court will not expand the CFAA's limited conception of loss to
include the sort of injury pleaded in Andrews's proposed amended
complaint.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded
that an amendment adding a CFAA claim to Andrews's complaint would
have been futile.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's August 8, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5s3nzeu from Leagle.com.

Jeffrey Wilens -- jeff@lakeshorelaw.org -- (argued), Lakeshore Law
Center, Yorba Linda, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Shay Dvoretzky -- sdvoretzky@jonesday.com -- (argued) and Jeffrey
R. Johnson -- jeffreyjohnson@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Washington,
D.C.; Thomas Demitrack -- tdemitrack@jonesday.com -- Jones Day,
Cleveland, Ohio; Lee A. Armstrong -- laarmstrong@jonesday.com --
Jones Day, New York, New York; for Defendants-Appellees.


SKINNER SERVICES: Court OKs Class Certification in Pineda Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued a Memorandum Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned JOSE PINEDA, JOSE MONTENEGRO,
MARCO LOPEZ, and JOSE HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SKINNER SERVICES, INC.,
d/b/a SKINNER DEMOLITION, THOMAS SKINNER, DAVID SKINNER, ELBER
DINIZ, and SANDRO SANTOS, Defendants. Civil Action No.
16-12217-FDS. (D. Mass.).

This case concerns claims by manual laborers against their
employer, Skinner Services, Inc. d/b/a Skinner Demolition
(Skinner), and supervisors Thomas Skinner, David Skinner, Elber
Diniz, and Sandro Santos, for violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and Massachusetts wage laws.

After discovery, plaintiffs moved to certify two classes as to
their state-law claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23. The first putative class, the Reporting Class, consists of
individuals who allege that they were not compensated for travel
time between Skinner's headquarters and jobsites.

The second putative class, the Uniform Class, consists of
individuals who allege that their paychecks were subject to
mandatory deductions for uniform cleaning services.

In addition, because plaintiffs seek certification pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3), they must also establish that questions of law or fact
common to class members predominate over any questions affecting
only individual members, and that a class action is superior to
other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy. Plaintiffs must establish each of those elements by a
preponderance of the evidence.

The 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
Defendants.

Numerosity

In the First Circuit, a class size of more than 40 persons is
generally found to establish numerosity. The putative Reporting
Class includes approximately 109 persons. Therefore, the numerosity
requirement is satisfied.

Common Questions of Law and Fact

An individual question is one where members of a proposed class
will need to present evidence that varies from member to member,
while a common question is one where the same evidence will suffice
for each member to make a prima facie showing or the issue is
susceptible to generalized, class-wide proof

In their opposition brief, defendants raise a variety of
counterarguments. First, they attack the credibility of the named
and opt-in plaintiffs and note various inconsistencies in their
deposition testimony. For example, Pineda testified as follows:

   Q: I need to get it clear on the record. If you drove to a work
site or to the shop, it was at your own will and not at the
direction of Skinner Services, correct?A: It is correct.

He also testified, "If the jobsite was near my house, I would drive
there directly”. However, as plaintiffs note, in response to a
separate line of questioning by defense counsel, Pineda clearly
testified that he always had to go to the Yard. Defendants further
note that Pineda testified that presently, he prefers to go to the
shop because it reduces his] cost. But the operative word is
presently Pineda's current preference to arrive at the Yard to use
company transportation does not undermine his assertion that during
the relevant class period, he was required by Skinner management to
do so.

Defendants' other attacks on the credibility of other plaintiffs do
not change the disposition of the class-certification motion. For
example, defendants note that Lopez testified that he had never
seen a written statement memorializing the Policy.  It goes without
saying that such an admission is hardly surprising indeed,
plaintiffs allege that the Policy was unwritten, and that is
supported by the report written by the primary Department of Labor
investigator. Defendants make a stronger attack on Montenegro's
credibility. Montenegro alleged that Santos forged his signature on
the Cintas uniform laundering agreement, but later appeared to
backtrack, claiming that the signature on the form was his.

However, to the extent defendants rely on their own deposition
testimony in support of their opposition to class certification,
such testimony is also clouded by inconsistencies. For example,
defendants testified that, during the class period, supervisors
would tell laborers which jobsites to report to for the following
day. However, defendants have not produced any corroborating
evidence, such as printouts of email or text messages, to
substantiate that assertion, despite a discovery request.  

Second, defendants contend that one common answer is not possible
based on the unique circumstances of each individual employee. They
raise a variety of issues that they claim require individualized
analyses that preclude class certification. However, some of these
issues are irrelevant to the class-certification question. And
defendants' argument that laborers reported to the Yard of their
own volition or upon an order by their supervisors only bolsters
the rationale for class certification. As plaintiffs note, if
defendants are correct that reporting was not mandatory, then they
will prevail on the common and predominant issue.

Third, defendants dispute that common evidence exists that will
resolve the question of class certification. In support, they rely
on Ruiz v. Citibank, N.A., 93 F.Supp.3d 279 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), where
the district court held that plaintiffs not adduced sufficient
evidence to support the inference of a de facto illegal labor
policy.  

Fourth, defendants briefly state that hours spent by laborers may
be exempt from the overtime regulations of the FLSA and
Massachusetts law pursuant to the Motor Carrier Exemption for time
spent working as a truck driver, loader, or truck driver's helper.
However, as a procedural matter, FLSA exemptions must be asserted
in pleadings as an affirmative defense. Defendants failed to do so
here, and thus have waived this argument.

Typicality

The typicality requirement is satisfied `when the named plaintiff's
injuries arise from the same events or course of conduct as do the
injuries that form the basis of the class claims and when the
plaintiff's claims and those of the class are based on the same
legal theory. Here, the alleged injuries lost wages all arise out
of plaintiffs' allegation that Skinner refused to pay them for
mandatory time spent loading tools at and traveling to and from the
Yard. Accordingly, plaintiffs have met the typicality requirement.

Adequacy

To satisfy the adequacy requirement, the moving party must show
first that the interests of the representative party will not
conflict with the interests of any of the class members, and
second, that counsel chosen by the representative party is
qualified, experienced and able to vigorously conduct the proposed
litigation.

Rather, defendants only contend that the named plaintiffs' interest
conflict with those of the FLSA collective. After this court
conditionally certified the collective action, several dozen
Skinner laborers opted into the FLSA action, of which nine were
discovered to be members of the Boston Crew. As explained above,
plaintiffs concede that the Boston Crew was never subject to the
Policy, and thus have excluded them from the Reporting Class.
Defendants contend that the exclusion of the Boston Crew
demonstrates a bias toward the proposed Rule 23 Reporting class
that could substantially prejudice a substantial portion of the
FLSA Optin class, as plaintiffs have to argue that laborers who
reside in greater Boston were not similarly aggrieved by the
alleged unwritten reporting policy. Plaintiffs counter that it was
impossible to know that the Policy did not apply to the Boston Crew
until conditional certification was granted and discovery was
underway. In any event, however, plaintiffs' separate motion for
reformation, which will be addressed below, moots this objection.


Whether Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate

The aim of the predominance inquiry is to test whether any
dissimilarity among the claims of class members can be dealt with
in a manner that is not inefficient or unfair. Here, the
predominance factor weighs strongly in favor of certification.  

Defendants' predominance arguments, distilled to their essence,
amount to either outright denials of the existence of such a policy
which again, only strengthens plaintiffs' case for class
certification or claims that individualized proof of damages
predominate. Plaintiffs dispute that an individual damages inquiry
is necessary, as they have proffered an expert report and model
that may be used to calculate classwide damages. But even if such
an inquiry were necessary, the Court could bifurcate the liability
and damage trials, appoint a special master to preside over
individual damages proceedings, or simply decertify the class after
the liability trial.  

Superiority

A Rule 23(b)(3) class action is particularly superior where class
treatment can vindicate the claims of 'groups of people whose
individual claims would be too small to warrant litigation.'

Here, several factors support the conclusion that a class action is
superior to other available methods of adjudication. In light of
the common questions of law and fact, only a limited number of
plaintiffs need testify to establish liability. And because almost
all of the putative class members would recover at most a few
thousand dollars, it is doubtful that plaintiffs would be able to
bring individual lawsuits. Furthermore, a class adjudication is
often superior in the employment context where the risk of employer
reprisal may deter employees from bringing claims on an individual
basis.  

Because a class action will more efficiently resolve the Reporting
Class claims than would a series of individual cases, plaintiffs'
motion to certify will be granted as to the Reporting Class.

Uniform Class

Because plaintiffs allege that Skinner forced its employees to
enroll in the Cintas uniform cleaning service, they seek to certify
a Uniform Class defined as follows:

All manual laborers who worked at Skinner Services, Inc. at any
time from August 5, 2013 through present, from whose paychecks a
uniform cost was deducted.

Numerosity

The putative Uniform Class includes approximately 43 persons, which
exceeds the threshold required to establish numerosity.  

Common Questions of Law and Fact

There are common questions of law and fact as to the Uniform Class.
Whether Skinner violated the Massachusetts Wage Act depends on
whether it forced plaintiffs, through coercion or intimidation,
into signing up for the Cintas uniform cleaning program, and
whether the deductions were valid attachments, assignments, or
set-offs. These questions may be answered through common evidence,
and there is no reason to think that the answers will vary between
class members.

In opposition, defendants contend that the uniform deductions are
permissible as a "valid set-off" because the employees voluntarily
used and benefitted from the" program. In support, they rely on
Cormier v. Landry's Seafood House-N.C., Inc., 2015 WL 12732419 (D.
Mass. Feb. 23, 2015), in which the putative class was comprised of
servers at Massachusetts restaurants. The defendant maintained an
Employee Discount Program, through which employees could for
example receive complimentary coffee and drinks and 50% discounts
on food and entertainment options at defendant's facilities.  To
participate in the program, employees had to agree to have a
bi-weekly $9.50 enrollment fee deducted from their paychecks.

However, because it was undisputed that enrollment in the benefit
program was completely voluntary and that plaintiffs encountered no
difficulty in unenrolling, the court held that the bi-weekly
deductions were valid set-offs under Section 150 of the Wage Act.
By contrast, even if one were to assume that uniform costs could be
properly deducted from wages, here plaintiffs have proffered
evidence that their enrollment in the Cintas cleaning program was
involuntary.

Whether the deductions are valid set-offs is a common question of
fact.

Typicality

The typicality requirement is also satisfied. As with the Reporting
Class, the alleged injuries—lost wages—arise out of the same
course of conduct, Skinner's putative coercion of laborers into
enrolling into the cleaning program.

Adequacy

Defendants do not appear to contest the adequacy prong of the Rule
23(a) analysis as to the Uniform Class. In any event, there is no
reason to doubt that the named plaintiffs will adequately represent
the interests of the putative class, and that plaintiffs' counsel
are qualified to prosecute the class claims.

Predominance

Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions
concerning only individual class members. Indeed, the threshold
question is whether Skinner required its laborers to enroll in the
Cintas cleaning program. If, as defendants contend, enrollment was
entirely voluntary, then they will prevail on the issue of
liability if the weekly deductions were valid set-offs. If not,
then the only other substantial question is damages, which
presumably may be calculated without undue difficulty from
Skinner's payroll records.

Superiority

Finally, a class action is superior to other available methods of
adjudication. There are a limited number of issues of law and fact
that will control the outcome of the Uniform Class claims.
Moreover, the potential amount of damages is considerably less than
at stake in the Reporting Class, further strengthening the argument
for certification. For those reasons, plaintiffs' motion to certify
will be granted as to the Uniform Class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Memorandum
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxsxqune from
Leagle.com.

Jose Pineda, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Jose Montenegro, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Marco Lopez, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated & Jose Hernandez, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Nicole Horberg Decter -- ndecter@segalroitman.com -- Segal Roitman,
LLP, Carey D. Shockey -- cshockey@segalroitman.com -- Segal Roitman
LLP, Jasper J. Groner -- jgroner@segalroitman.com -- Segal Roitman,
LLP, Nathan P. Goldstein -- ngoldstein@segalroitman.com -- Segal
Roitman, LLP & Paige W. McKissock -- pmckissock@segalroitman.com --
Segal Roitman, LLP.

Skinner Services, Inc., doing business as Skinner Demolition,
Thomas Skinner, David Skinner, Elber Diniz & Sandro Santos,
Defendants, represented by Gregory J. Aceto, Aceto, Bonner &
Prager, PC, Ian P. Gillespie, Aceto, Bonner & Prager, PC & Michael
B. Cole, Aceto, Bonner & Prager, PC, One Liberty Square, Suite 410,
Boston, MA 02109


SMOKERS GOODS: Ruos et al. Seek Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------
IAN RUOS and FABIAN RUIZ, and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. §216(b), the Plaintiff, vs. SMOKERS GOODS TOBACCO SHOP,
LLC, d/b/a SMOKERS GOODS, SMOKERS GOODS TOBACCO SHOP No. 2, LLC,
d/b/a SMOKERS GOODS, ARTURO POSADA JR., individually, and MARIA A.
POSADA, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-23332-UU
(S.D. Fla., Aug. 9, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs customarily and
regularly worked over 40 hours a week throughout his employment
period with Smokers which did not pay any employee an overtime
premium for any overtime hours worked during the relevant period,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          J. Freddy Perera, Esq.
          Valerie Barnhart, Esq.
          Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
          PERERA BARNHART, P.A.
          12555 Orange Drive, Suite 268
          Davie, FL 33330
          Telephone 786 485 5232
          E-mail: freddy@pererabarnhart.com
                  valerie@pererabarnhart.com
                  brody@pererabarnhart.com

STAND UP: Court OKs Arbitration in Townsend FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs'
Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Motion to Compel
Arbitration in the case captioned  in the case captioned JAMES
TOWNSEND, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. STAND UP MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants. Case No. 1:18CV2884. (N.D. Ohio).

This matter is before the Court on Defendants DePere Concepts,
Inc., Stand Up Management, Inc., Cole Heeg and Brian Tidwell to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Stay all Proceedings.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants to go door-to-door to
market the Defendants energy services to potential customers. The
Plaintiffs were managed and supervised by Defendants DePere, Stand
Up, Heeg and Tidwell. The Plaintiffs did not make sales as part of
their duties. Plaintiffs were required to work more than 40 hours
per week but were not paid at the statutory rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per week.

According to the Defendants, the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims because each Plaintiff
executed a valid agreement with Defendants to resolve disputes
through final and binding arbitration. These agreements further
waived any rights Plaintiffs had to assert their claims on a class
or collective basis.

The Plaintiffs oppose the Motion, contending that the arbitration
agreements only apply between one discrete Plaintiff and one
Defendant. For instance, Plaintiffs Townsend and Pippen worked for
Stand Up and Plaintiff Christian worked for DePere. Thus, even if
the arbitration agreements are enforceable, they would only be
enforceable as to the claims between the contracting parties.

The Defendants move the Court to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)1) or 12(b)(6) or alternatively to compel arbitration. The FAA
provides that an arbitration clause in a transaction involving
commerce shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon
such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any
contract.

In determining whether to grant motions to dismiss or stay
proceedings and compel arbitration, courts must apply a
four-pronged test: (1) whether the parties agreed to arbitrate (2)
the scope of that agreement (3) if federal statutory claims are
asserted, whether Congress intended those claims to be arbitrated
and (4) whether to stay the remainder of the proceedings pending
arbitration.

Agreed to Arbitrate

Before compelling an unwilling party to arbitrate, the court must
engage in a limited review to determine whether the dispute is
arbitrable; meaning that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists
between the parties and that the specific dispute falls within the
substantive scope of that agreement.  

In this case, the Court notes Defendants' Motion would more
properly have been brought under Rule 12(b)(6), because the
existence of a valid arbitration clause does not technically
deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs do not contest that Heeg and Tidwell, as officers of
DePere and Tidwell, are covered by the terms of the arbitration
agreements and can compel arbitration on any claims arising out of
Plaintiffs' employment with these companies. However, Plaintiffs
contend that all the claims arising out of their employment
relationship are not subject to arbitration because each Plaintiff
was not a signatory to arbitration agreements with each Defendant.
So, for example, while Plaintiff Pippen signed an arbitration
agreement with Defendant DePere, Plaintiffs offer Pippen's paystubs
showing he was paid by Stand Up. Therefore, because Defendants were
joint employers of Plaintiffs, the existence of an arbitration
agreement between one plaintiff and one defendant does not mean the
Court can compel arbitration of that plaintiff's claims against a
co-defendant with whom he did not sign an arbitration agreement.

The Defendants respond that Plaintiffs must be compelled to
arbitrate all their claims against all the movants because
Plaintiffs allege they were employees of all Defendants as joint
employers. Therefore, they are estopped from litigating in court
their claims against Defendants with whom they have no arbitration
agreement because they seek to hold all Defendants liable under a
joint employer theory.

The Plaintiffs further allege that even if the arbitration
agreements are enforceable, the Court cannot compel Plaintiff
Townsend to arbitrate his claims because his arbitration agreement
fails to identify his employer. Townsend signed the arbitration
agreement but the employer's name is left blank. Thus, according to
Townsend, it presents an ambiguity which must be construed against
the drafter. Defendants, and he must be permitted to proceed with
his claims in the district court.

Upon consideration of the motions, oppositions, briefs and evidence
for the limited purpose of establishing arbitrability, the Court
holds that the arbitration agreements are valid and enforceable.

When considering whether the arbitration agreements are
enforceable, the Court begins its analysis by noting that
Plaintiffs do not challenge any of the agreements as
unconscionable, were obtained by fraud, nor do they allege they
were required to sign the agreements under duress. In fact, with
the exception of Townsend, none challenge the fact that they signed
arbitration agreements with at least one Defendant. Thus, none of
the Plaintiffs, including the opt-in Plaintiffs, have alleged or
asserted any plausible challenge to the enforceability of the
arbitration agreements, at least with respect to the particular
Defendant employer with whom they agreed to arbitrate their
disputes.

Here, Townsend's signed arbitration agreement does not identify his
employer. The Court would ordinarily allow discovery to determine
the employer's identity but because there is no dispute that the
employer was Stand Up, no discovery is needed. Plaintiff Townsend
specifically alleges in his Complaint that he was employed by Stand
Up from October 2017 to September 2018.
   
Defendants agree and further submit an affidavit and Townsend's
signed receipt of his new hire paperwork with Stand Up
demonstrating that Townsend was employed by Stand Up and that Stand
Up was the employer with whom Townsend agreed to arbitrate. The
arbitration agreement signed by Townsend is dated November 6, 2017.
Thus, the identity of the missing employer name in Townsend's
arbitration agreement is not a disputed material fact but is
acknowledged by all parties to be Stand Up.

Moving next to whether the arbitration agreements are enforceable,
Plaintiffs make no such arguments in their opposition brief to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. However, after briefing was closed
on Defendants' Motion, Plaintiffs subsequently moved the Court for
an evidentiary hearing or trial on the issue of enforceability.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to produce arbitration
agreements for the opt-in Plaintiffs and failed to produce
arbitration agreements between all Plaintiffs and all Defendants.

Plaintiffs have also failed to dispute that the arbitration
agreements are valid and enforceable based on ordinary contract
theories such as fraud, unconscionability or duress. All
Plaintiffs, including those who filed consents, signed arbitration
agreements that are enforceable and contain the arbitration clause
as cited above. The party resisting arbitration bears the burden of
proving that the claims at issue are unsuitable for arbitration.

Here, it is undisputed that each Plaintiff signed an arbitration
agreement with at least one Defendant and that they were signed as
a condition of employment. The agreements require both Plaintiffs
and Defendant employers to arbitrate all their disputes. In the
absence of any argument or evidence that the agreements are invalid
or unenforceable between the signatories the Court finds them valid
and enforceable on their face. Therefore, the Court must consider
whether all Plaintiffs must be compelled to arbitrate their claims
against all the Defendants.

The arbitration agreements at issue all contain the same broadly
worded arbitration clauses requiring all claims, disputes,
controversies or disagreements of any kid whatsoever, arising out
of Employee's employment with Employer shall be submitted to
binding arbitration. This clause applies equally to any claims the
Employee has against Employer's employees, officers, directors,
agents suppliers and service providers.

Here, the parties expressly agreed to waive any rights to bring
claims arising out of employment disputes collectively. Because
parties are free to waive such rights, the Court holds that
Plaintiffs' have waived any rights to assert their FLSA and Ohio
state law claims on behalf of a class or as a collective action
against movants.

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that all Defendants are joint
employers of all the Plaintiffs under the FLSA and Ohio law.
According to the Complaint, Defendants: operate out of the same
office, have the same address and support staff and processes.
Defendants share: operational control over the day-to-day functions
of Plaintiffs, authority to set rates and methods of compensation,
authority to control work schedules and employment conditions of
Plaintiffs, authority and control over employment records and
services of Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs further allege Defendants acted directly or indirectly
in the interest of each other.

Plaintiffs allege they were not paid the statutory rate for hours
worked in a given week over forty hours and were sometimes paid
less than minimum wage in certain weeks. Plaintiffs allege that
with respect to the failures to pay overtime wages and minimum
wages in violation of the FLSA and Ohio law, Defendants knowingly
and willfully engaged in the above-mentioned violations of the FLSA
and Ohio Wage Laws. Plaintiffs do not distinguish between the
Defendants, but allege all Defendants engaged in the above acts and
violated the FLSA and Ohio wage laws by knowingly, willfully and/or
recklessly failing to pay overtime and minimum wages to Plaintiffs.
Thus, Plaintiffs clearly contend Defendants acted in concert with
the intent to deny Plaintiffs their statutory rights to overtime.

Based on Plaintiffs' numerous allegations of joint misconduct by
all named Defendants, the Court holds that Plaintiffs are equitably
estopped from avoiding arbitration when they have asserted
Defendants engaged in substantially interconnected and concerted
misconduct. Each Plaintiff is a signatory to an arbitration
agreement with at least one Defendant. Because Plaintiffs contend
Defendants acted in concert to deny Plaintiffs their rights to
statutorily determined compensation, the Court holds they must
arbitrate their claims against the movants via arbitration as set
forth in the Mandatory Arbitration of All Claims Policy. Plaintiffs
assert that Defendants dispute they are joint employers but for
estoppel purposes, Plaintiffs cannot assert their claims under the
FLSA and Ohio law based on a joint employer theory in their
Complaint but then challenge their joint employer allegations in
order to defeat arbitration.

The Court does not agree with Plaintiffs that a better course would
be to grant conditional certification, send notice and then compel
arbitration of those claimants who have arbitration agreements.
Plaintiffs rely on Taylor v. Pilot Corp. 697 F. Appx. 854 (6th Cir.
June 19, 2017) wherein the Sixth Circuit held it lacked
jurisdiction to review a conditional certification order in
Plaintiff's FLSA action under the FAA which allows for immediate
appeals of denial of stays.

Unlike the case before the Court, the Sixth Circuit in Taylor found
that no plaintiff had signed an arbitration agreement and
therefore, the Sixth Circuit lacked jurisdiction under the FAA to
entertain an interlocutory appeal. Because each Plaintiff in this
case did sign an arbitration agreement with at least one Defendant,
Taylor has no precedential nor persuasive authority because its
facts are distinct from those before the Court.

The Court, having determined that Plaintiffs' must submit their
claims against movants to binding arbitration, must now determine
whether to stay or dismiss the action. Defendant Constellation has
not moved to compel arbitration. Once a court determines a suit is
referable to arbitration under the terms of a written agreement,
the matter shall be stayed until such arbitration has been had in
accordance with the terms of the agreement. Consistent with this
command from Congress, the Court will stay the present proceeding
until arbitration is complete.

Therefore, for these reasons, the Court grants Defendants' Motion
to Compel Arbitration and orders Plaintiffs to arbitrate their
claims with movants. Because Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for
Evidentiary Hearing or Trial is untimely, it is denied.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Opinion
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yx8lt99d from
Leagle.com.

James Townsend, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Florzell Pippen, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated & Dione Christian, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Shannon
M. Draher, Nilges Draher,Hans A. Nilges , Nilges Draher & Robi J.
Baishnab, Nilges Draher, 4580 Stephen Circle, NW. Canton, Ohio
44718.

Stand Up Management, Inc., DePere Concepts, Inc., Brian Tidwell &
Cole Heeg, Defendants, represented by Ryan J. Morley --
rmorley@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Shannon M. Byrne --
sbyrne@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, doing business as Constellation
Energy, Defendant, represented by Doriyon C. Glass --
Doriyon.Glass@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, Michael J. Kozimor
-- Michael.Kozimor@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis & Robert J.
Bowes -- Robert.Bowes@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis.


SUNRISE SENIOR: Tunstall Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. removed the case styled as
ANTHONY TUNSTALL, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING
MANAGEMENT, INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01077618-CU-OE-CJC
(Filed June 18, 2019), from the Superior Court of California for
the County of Orange, to United States District Court for the
Central District of California on Aug. 8, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-06956
to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that Sunrise violated the
California Labor Code.

Sunrise Senior Living communities provide senior care services
including assisted living, independent living, and memory care in
the US, Canada, and the UK.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Michele L. Maryott, Esq.
          Ashley Allyn, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Telephone: 949.451.3800
          Facsimile: 949.451.4220
          E-mailk: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com
                   aallyn@gibsondunn.com

TAIYAKI NYC: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------
Taiyaki NYC Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian
Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Taiyaki NYC Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07576 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 13, 2019).

Taiyaki NYC is a Japanese ice cream joint with origins in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
   New York, NY 10170
   Tel: (212) 764-7171
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


TATCHA LLC: Dawson Files ADA Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
Tatcha, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Leshawn
Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Tatcha, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07613 (S.D.
N.Y., Aug. 14, 2019).

The Tatcha collection is inspired by Japanese beauty secrets passed
down by generations that takes a different approach to
skincare.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


TENET HEALTHCARE: Maderazo Class Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a Texas district
court has ordered the plaintiffs in Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San
Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et al., to
advise the court if they will be dismissing the action or
proceeding with the individually named plaintiffs.

In Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist
Health Systems, et al., filed in June 2006 in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas, a purported class of
registered nurses employed by three unaffiliated San Antonio-area
hospital systems alleged those hospital systems, including our
Baptist Health System, and other unidentified San Antonio regional
hospitals violated Section Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act by
conspiring to depress nurses' compensation and exchanging
compensation-related information among themselves in a manner that
reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to such nurses.

The suit sought unspecified damages (subject to trebling under
federal law), interest, costs and attorneys' fees. In January 2019,
the district court issued an opinion denying the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

The plaintiffs' subsequent appeal of the district court's decision
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was denied on
March 26, 2019.

On April 30, 2019, the appellate court denied the plaintiffs'
request for further review of the district court's ruling. The
district court has ordered the plaintiffs to advise the court by
August 6, 2019 if they will be dismissing the action or proceeding
with the individually named plaintiffs.

Tenet Healthcare said, "If necessary, we will continue to
vigorously defend against the plaintiffs’ allegations."

Tenet Healthcare Corporation operates as a diversified healthcare
services company. The company operates in three segments: Hospital
Operations and Other, Ambulatory Care, and Conifer. Tenet
Healthcare Corporation was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in
Dallas, Texas.


TRACE STAFFING: Harake Seeks Certification of Class Under FCRA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff seeks to certify his Fair Credit Reporting Act case
titled MOHAMMAD HARAKE, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TRACE STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case
No. 8:19-cv-00243-CEH-CPT (M.D. Fla.), as a class action for a
national class of consumers.

The class of consumers is defined as:

   * Background Check Class:

     All natural persons in the United States who: (1) were the
     subject of a consumer report that was procured by Trace
     Staffing (or caused to be procured by Trace Staffing) from
     Employment Screening Service for an employment purpose; (2)
     to whom Trace Staffing presented the disclosure form
     attached to Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint
     before procuring that report; (3) within two years of the
     filing of this lawsuit through the date the Class List is
     prepared.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com


TRACTOR SUPPLY: Hornbeck Moves for Prelim. Approval of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Hornbeck, Monte Burgess, Dan Chevalier and Russ Mapes,
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled SHAWN HORNBECK, et al. each on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. TRACTOR SUPPLY
COMPANY, and SMITTY'S SUPPLY, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-00523-NKL
(W.D. Mo.), move the Court for an order preliminary approving the
Parties' Settlement Agreement and Release.

On or about July 29, 2019, the Parties entered into the Settlement
Agreement and Release in this matter (the "Settlement Agreement").
The Settlement Agreement provides substantial relief to an
estimated 10,000 Members of the proposed Settlement Class comprised
of persons who have purchased Super S SuperTrac 303 Tractor
Hydraulic Fluid ("SuperTrac 303") in the state of Missouri between
May 25, 2013, and the present.

The Plaintiffs also seek an order conditionally certifying, for
settlement purposes only, the settlement class:

    "All persons and other entities who purchased Super S
     SuperTrac 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid in Missouri at any
     point in time from May 25, 2013 to present, excluding those
     who purchased for resale.  Also excluded from the Settlement
     Class are Defendants, including any parent, subsidiary,
     affiliate or controlled person of Defendants; Defendants'
     officers, directors, agents, employees and their immediate
     family members, as well as the judicial officers assigned to
     this litigation and members of their staffs and immediate
     families" (the "Settlement Class").

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to:

   (a) appoint Tom Bender, Esq., and Dirk Hubbard, Esq., from the
       law firm Horn Aylward & Bandy, LLC; Gene Graham, Esq.,,
       William Carr, Esq., and Bryan White, Esq., from the law
       firm of White, Graham, Buckley & Carr, LLC; and Clayton
       Jones, Esq., of the Clayton Jones Law Firm as counsel for
       the Settlement Class ("Class Counsel");

   (b) designate named Plaintiffs Shawn Hornbeck, Monte Burgess,
       Dan Chevalier and Russ Mapes as representatives of the
       Settlement Class;

   (c) appoint RG/2 Claims Administration LLC to serve as the
       Settlement Administrator;

   (d) set a Final Fairness Hearing to be held before this Court
       to determine whether the terms and conditions forth in the
       Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate
       and should receive final approval;

   (e) stay, pending the Final Fairness Hearing, all proceedings
       in this action, other than proceedings necessary to carry
       out or enforce the terms and conditions of the Settlement
       Agreement;

   (f) approve the Long Form Class Notice, Summary Class Notice,
       Claim Form and Instructions, Repair/Parts/Specific
       Equipment Damage Claims Review Process, and the notice and
       settlement administration process set forth in Settlement
       Agreement;

   (g) approve the timetable and process for exclusion from the
       Settlement Class or objection to the Settlement by any
       Settlement Class Member; and

   (h) approve the timetable and process for Class Counsel to
       file their application for expenses and attorneys'
       fees.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
          Dirk Hubbard, Esq.
          HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
          2600 Grand, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 421-0700
          Facsimile: (816) 421-0899
          E-mail: tbender@hab-law.com
                  dhubbard@hab-law.com

               - and -

          Gene P. Graham, Jr., Esq.
          William Carr, Esq.
          Bryan T. White, Esq.
          WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY, & CARR, L.L.C
          19049 East Valley View Parkway
          Independence, MO 64055
          Telephone: (816) 373-9080
          Facsimile: (816) 373-9319
          E-mail: ggraham@wagblaw.com
                  bcarr@wagblaw.com
                  bwhite@wagblaw.com

               - and -

          Clayton Jones, Esq.
          CLAYTON JONES, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          405 Foxwood Dr.
          Raymore, MO 64083
          Telephone: (816) 318-4266
          Facsimile: (816) 318-4267
          E-mail: clayton@claytonjones.com


TRAVELCENTERS: Bid to Dismiss Ohio Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
TravelCenters of America Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company is
seeking to dismiss a class action suit pending before the Ohio
state court.

On April 5, 2019, two plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
against the company in Ohio state court alleging that certain
credit and debit card receipts printed by the company included more
information than permitted by the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act.

The complaint does not seek any actual damages, but plaintiffs seek
statutory damages for the individual plaintiffs and members of the
class, as well as declaratory relief, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs. In June 2019, the company filed a motion to
dismiss.

On July 5, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added
a request for injunctive relief and on August 2, 2019, the company
filed a renewed motion to dismiss.

TravelCenters said, "We intend to vigorously defend against these
claims. However, the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain
and we are not able to assess our exposure at this time."

TravelCenters of America Inc. (TravelCenters), incorporated on
October 10, 2006, operates or franchises travel centers, standalone
truck service facilities and standalone restaurants. The Company
also collects rents, royalties and other fees from its tenants and
franchisees. The Company offers a range of products and services,
including diesel fuel and gasoline, as well as nonfuel products and
services, such as truck repair and maintenance services, full
service restaurants, quick service restaurants (QSRs), and various
customer amenities. The company is based in Westlake, Ohio.


TRIHEALTH INC: Forman 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


TYSON FOODS: Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation.

On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc., acting on its own
behalf and a putative class of direct purchasers of poultry
products, filed a class action complaint against the company and
certain of its poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other
poultry processing companies, in the Northern District of Illinois.


Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into
actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct
purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and
commercial/institutional indirect purchasers.

The consolidated actions are styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust
Litigation.

Since the original filing, certain putative class members have
opted out of the matter and are proceeding with individual direct
actions making similar claims, and others may do so in the future.


All opt out complaints have been filed in, or transferred to, the
Northern District of Illinois and are proceeding on a coordinated
pre-trial basis with the consolidated actions.

The operative complaints, which have been amended throughout the
litigation, allege, among other things, that beginning in January
2008 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain,
and stabilize the price of broiler chickens in violation of United
States antitrust laws.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair
competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment
common laws.

The plaintiffs also allege that defendants "manipulated and
artificially inflated a widely used Broiler price index, the
Georgia Dock." The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants
concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the
putative classes.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the
putative classes. Decisions on class certification and summary
judgment motions likely to be filed by defendants are currently
expected in late calendar year 2020 and early 2021.

If necessary, trial will occur after rulings on class certification
and any summary judgment motions.

On April 26, 2019, the plaintiffs notified the company that the
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division issued a grand
jury subpoena to them requesting discovery produced by all parties
in the civil case.

On June 21, 2019, the DOJ filed a motion to intervene and sought a
limited stay of discovery in the civil action, which the court
granted in part. Subsequently, the company received a grand jury
subpoena from the DOJ seeking additional documents and information
related to the chicken industry. The company is fully cooperating
with the DOJ's request.

Tyson Foods said, "The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, on behalf of
its citizens, has also initiated a civil lawsuit against us,
certain of our subsidiaries, and several other poultry processing
companies alleging activities in violation of the Puerto Rican
antitrust laws. This lawsuit has been transferred to the Northern
District of Illinois for coordinated pre-trial proceedings."

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Fed Cattle Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In Re Cattle
Antitrust Litigation.

On April 23, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and
entities who directly sold to the named defendants any fed cattle
for slaughter and all persons who transacted in live cattle futures
and/or options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or another
U.S. exchange, filed a class action complaint against the company
and its beef and pork subsidiary, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., as well
as other beef packer defendants, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy
from January 2015 to the present to reduce fed cattle prices in
violation of federal antitrust laws, the Grain Inspection, Packers
and Stockyards Act of 1921, and the Commodities Exchange Act by
periodically reducing their slaughter volumes so as to reduce
demand for fed cattle, curtailing their purchases and slaughters of
cash-purchased cattle during those same periods, coordinating their
procurement practices for fed cattle settled on a cash basis,
importing foreign cattle at a loss so as to reduce domestic demand,
and closing and idling plants.

In addition, the plaintiffs also allege the defendants colluded to
manipulate live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages,
punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest,
as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

This complaint was subsequently voluntarily dismissed and re-filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.


Other similar lawsuits were filed by ranchers in other district
courts.

All actions seeking relief by ranchers and futures traders have now
been transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota action and are consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings as In Re Cattle Antitrust Litigation.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSOON FOODS: Peterson Suit over Inflated Beef Price Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company faces an
indirect consumer purchaser litigation styled as Peterson v. JBS
USA Food Company Holdings, et al.

On April 26, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers
of beef for personal use filed a class action complaint against the
company, other beef packers, and Agri Stats, Inc., an information
services provider, in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota. Agri-Stats was subsequently dismissed from
the suit.

The plaintiffs allege that the packer defendants conspired to
reduce slaughter capacity by closing or idling plants, limiting
their purchases of cash cattle, coordinating their procurement of
cash cattle, and reducing their slaughter numbers so as to reduce
beef output, all in order to artificially raise prices of beef.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages under state
antitrust and consumer protection statutes and the common law of
approximately 30 states, as well as injunctive relief.

The indirect consumer purchaser litigation is styled as Peterson v.
JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


U.S. IMMIGRATION: Nightingale Seeks to Certify Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Zachary NIGHTINGALE; Courtney
McDERMED; Cheryl DAVID; Pao LOPA; Maribel CARANDANG, the
Plaintiffs, v. U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; U.S.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, Case No. 3:19-cv-03512-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
will move the Court on October 2, 2019:

   1. certifying classes:

      USCIS Class:

      "all individuals who filed, or will file, A-File FOIA
      requests with USCIS which have been pending, or will be
      pending, with USCIS for more than 30 business days without a

      determination";

      ICE Referral Class:

      "all individuals who filed, or will file, A-File FOIA
      requests with USCIS that USCIS has referred, or will refer,
      to ICE and which have been pending, or will be pending, for
      more than 30 business days from the date of the initial
      filing with USCIS without a determination."

   2. designating Zachary Nightingale, Courtney McDermed, Cheryl
      David, and Pao Lopa to represent the USCIS Class;

   3. designating Nightingale, McDermed, David, and Maribel
      Carandang to represent the ICE Referral Class; and

   4. appoint Plaintiffs' counsel to represent both classes.

The Plaintiffs are challenging routine and systemic violations of
their right to obtain timely access to immigration case files by
two component agencies of Defendant Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), namely Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) and Defendant U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE).

These immigration files, commonly known as A-Files, provide
information that is essential to Plaintiffs’ and putative class
members’ immigration cases, including their eligibility to apply
for immigration benefits, to change their existing immigration
status, to defend against removal, to work, and to travel
freely.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          Trina Realmuto, Esq.
          AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
          1318 Beacon Street, Suite 18
          Brookline, MA 02446
          Telephone: (857) 305-3600
          Facsimile: (202) 742-5619
          E-mail: trealmuto@immcouncil.org

               - and -

          Stacy Tolchin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STACY TOLCHIN
          634 S. Spring St., Suite 500A
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 622-7450
          Facsimile: (213) 622-7233
          E-mail: Stacy@Tolchinimmigration.com

               - and -

          Matt Adams, Esq.
          Leila Kang, Esq.
          NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
          615 Second Avenue, Suite 400
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 957-8611
          Facsimile: (206) 587-4025
          E-mail: matt@nwirp.org
                  leila@nwirp.org

               - and -

          Mary Kenney, Esq.
          Claudia Valenzuela, Esq.
          Emily Creighton, Esq.
          AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
          1331 G Street NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 507-7512
          Facsimile: (202) 742-5619
          E-mail: mkenney@immcouncil.org
                  cvalenzuela@immcouncil.org
                  ecreighton@immcouncil.org

UNITED STATES: Removes Zhuravleva Suit to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Polo Association removed the case styled IRINA
ZHURAVLEVA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES POLO ASSOCIATION, and DOES 1-100
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00036327-CU-BT-CTL,
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on Aug. 9, 2019. The Southern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01497-JM-LL to the
proceeding.

U.S. Polo Assn. is the national governing body for the sport of
polo in the United States. Since its establishment in 1890, U.S.
Polo Assn. promotes, coordinates, and markets the sport of polo,
including the use of its "U.S."

The complaint alleges that U.S. Polo Assn. violated the
California's Unfair Competition Law, violated California's
Advertising Law, and violated California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Mark S. Posard, Esq.
          Nicholas M. Krebs, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          101 W. Broadway, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 696-6700
          Facsimile: (619) 696-7124
          E-mail: mposard@grsm.com
                  nkrebs@grsm.com
                  nkrebs@p-sm.com

US CONFERENCE: Franchell Files Class Suit in NY for Personal Injury
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops. The case is styled as Lincoln
Franchell and John Doe 1, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-01006-DNH-TWD (N.D.
N.Y., Aug. 14, 2019).

The case type is stated as Diversity-Personal Injury.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is the episcopal
conference of the Catholic Church in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Larkin E. Walsh, Esq.
   Rex A. Sharp, P.A.
   5301 west 75th Street
   Prairie Village, KS 66208
   Tel: (913) 901-0505
   Fax: (913) 901-0419
   Email: bemmott@midwest-law.com

     - and -

   Rex A Sharp, Esq.
   Rex A. Sharp, P.A.
   5301 west 75th Street
   Prairie Village, KS 66208
   Tel: (913) 901-0505
   Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com

     - and -

   Ryan Hudson, Esq.
   5301 W. 75th St.
   Prairie Village, KS 66208
   Tel: (913) 901-0505
   Fax: (913) 901-0419
   Email: bemmott@midwest-law.com

     - and -

   Sarah Bradshaw, Esq.
   Rex A. Sharp, P.A.
   5301 west 75th Street
   Prairie Village, KS 66208
   Tel: (913) 901-0505
   Fax: (913) 901-0419
   Email: bemmott@midwest-law.com


USA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit by Puerto Rico Retirement Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually And On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. USA
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STEPHEN P. HERBERT, PRIYANKA SINGH, STEVEN D.
BARNHART, JOEL BROOKS, ROBERT L. METZGER, ALBIN F. MOSCHNER,
WILLIAM J. REILLY, JR., WILLIAM J. SCHOCH, WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY,
L.L.C., CRAIG-HALLUM CAPITAL GROUP LLC, NORTHLAND SECURITIES, INC.,
and BARRINGTON RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC., the Defendants, Case
2:19-cv-16597 (D.N.J., Aug. 12, 2019), is a federal securities
class action on behalf of all persons or entities, other than
Defendants and their affiliates who purchased USAT common stock
pursuant to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's May 23, 2018 secondary
public offering.

USAT's accounting issues during fiscal years 2017 and 2018 --
issues serious enough to require a restatement of the Company's
previous financial statements -- were ongoing at the time of the
Company's May 23, 2018 SPO, but the truth about the Company's
ineffective internal controls over financial reporting and failure
to recognize revenue in accordance with GAAP and their own policy
would not come to light until several months later.

The market price for USAT common stock was artificially inflated in
the SPO, and Plaintiff and members of the Class suffered damages in
connection with the purchase of USAT common stock in the SPO.

USAT focuses on electronic payment technology. The Company is best
known for its ePort cashless payment technology, which is designed
to address the needs of the self-serve retail market. ePort
technology can be found in food and beverage vending machines,
commercial or multi-housing laundry operations, amusement and
arcade machines, and various other self-service kiosks or
point-of-sale terminals. USAT's ePort products and services
facilitate cashless payments by customers via credit, debit, or
mobile payment or digital wallet services.[BN]

Attorneys for the University of Puerto Rico Retirement System are:

          Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Esq.
          Audra DePaolo, Esq.
          COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN
             HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
          Park 80 Plaza West-One
          Saddle Brook, New Jersey 07663
          Telephone: (201) 845-9600

               - and -

          Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
          Elissa H. Hachmeister, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600

USHEALTH ADVISORS: Odom Sues over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB ODOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. USHEALTH ADVISORS, LLC and USHEALTH
GROUP, INC., the Defendants, Case 4:19-cv-00631-P (N.D. Tex., Aug.
9, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by illegal telemarketing call to wireless
phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Defendants made their unauthorized calls without the
recipients' consent and despite their inclusion on either the
national or internal do-not-call lists of US Health Advisors. The
calls were for the purpose of telemarketing and soliciting business
from Plaintiff and members of the Classes.

USHealth Group, Inc. is an insurance holding company that purports
to focus on providing innovative health coverage for self-employed
individuals and small business owners. Through its wholly owned
subsidiary USHealth Advisors, LLC, it sells insurance underwritten
by its wholly owned subsidiaries, Freedom Life Insurance Company of
America and National Foundation Life Insurance Company.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Classes are:

          Jamshyd (Jim) M. Zadeh, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JIM ZADEH, P.C.
          1555 Rio Grande Avenue
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 335-5100
          Facsimile: (817) 335-3974
          E-mail: jim@zadehfirm.com

VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Wolther Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Veeco Instruments Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend against a purported class action suit entitled, Wolther v.
Maheshwari et al.

On June 8, 2018, an Ultratech shareholder who received Veeco stock
as part of the consideration for the Ultratech acquisition filed a
purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Wolther v.
Maheshwari et al., Case No. 18CV329690, on behalf of himself and
others who purchased or acquired shares of Veeco pursuant to the
registration statement and prospectus which Veeco filed with the
SEC in connection with the Ultratech acquisition (the "Wolther
Action").

On August 2 and August 8, 2018, two purported class action
complaints substantially similar to the Wolther Action were filed
on behalf of different plaintiffs in the same court as the Wolther
Action.

These cases have been consolidated with the Wolther Action, and a
consolidated complaint was filed on December 11, 2018. The
consolidated complaint seeks to recover damages and fees under
Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for, among
other things, alleged false/misleading statements in the
registration statement and prospectus relating to the Ultratech
acquisition, relating primarily to the alleged failure to disclose
delays in the advanced packaging business, increased MOCVD
competition in China, and an intellectual property dispute.

Veeco is defending this matter vigorously.

Veeco Instruments Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, sells, and supports semiconductor and thin film
process equipment primarily to make electronic devices worldwide.
Veeco Instruments Inc. was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Plainview, New York.


VIRGINIA COMMUNITY: Moore Sues over Employee Stock Ownership Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JANICE A. MOORE, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND A CLASS OF ALL SIMILARLY
SITUATED PARTICIPANTS IN THE VIRGINIA COMMUNITY BANKSHARES, INC.
EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, the Plaintiff, v. VIRGINIA COMMUNITY
BANKSHARES, INC., and VIRGINIA COMMUNITY BANK, INC., A. PIERCE
STONE, H.B. SEDWICK, III, and RONALD S. SPICER, Case No.
3:19-cv-00045-GEC (W.D. Va., Aug. 12, 2019), seeks to recoup losses
to the Virginia Community Bankshares, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership
Plan, disgorge any profits through the use of Plan assets, and
obtain other remedial and appropriate equitable relief to redress
violations and enforce the provisions of Title I of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Ms. Janice A. Moore brings this class action against Defendants
under ERISA, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated
participants in, and beneficiaries of the ESOP.

The ESOP was sponsored by Virginia Community Bankshares, Inc. for
the benefit of the Holding Company's employees and employees of
Virginia Community Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Holding
Company.

These claims arise out of transactions in which Defendants
knowingly and intentionally engaged in ESOP transactions of Holding
Company stock at prices that exceeded the fair market value of the
Stock for their personal gain to the detriment of the Plan and its
other participants, and additional breaches of Defendants'
fiduciary duties to the Plan participants under ERISA.

Between 2006 and 2008, the Defendants: (a) fraudulently established
an inflated value for the Stock to be used for ESOP transactions;
(b) violated ERISA by causing the ESOP to repurchase Stock from the
accounts of former ESOP participants at the inflated value; (c)
leveraged the ESOP's assets to finance such repurchases with one or
more non-exempt loans payable to VCB; and (d) saddled the ESOP
participants with annual debt payment obligations and associated
releases of high-priced shares of Stock in violation of ERISA for
the remaining life of the ESOP until the final loan payment was
made in 2016, the lawsuit says.

The majority of the remaining, substantial losses in Plan asset
value, together with losses attributable to the release and
allocation of fraudulently high priced shares of Stock under
the illegal loan, and lost earnings and interest, in an aggregate
amount to be specifically determined at trial and anticipated to
approach or exceed $12 million, were the direct result of
Defendants' numerous and egregious prohibited transactions and
failures to honor their fiduciary duties to the ESOP participants.
be commenced not later than "(1) six years after (A) the date of
the last action which constituted a part of the breach or
violation."[BN]

Counsel for Janice A. Moore on Behalf of Herself and a Class of All
Similarly Situated vParticipants in the Virginia Community
Bankshares, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan are:

          Harris D. Butler, Esq.
          Zev H. Antell, , Esq.
          BUTLER ROYALS , PLC
          140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 648-4848
          Facsimile: (804) 648-6814
          E-mail: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com
                  zev.antell@butlerroyals.com

               - and -

          Mark J. Krudys, Esq.
          THE KRUDYS LAW FIRM, PLC
          919 East Main Street, Suite 2020
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 774-7950
          Facsimile: (804) 381-4458
          E-mail: mkrudys@krudys.com

               - and -

          Marie D. Carter, Esq.
          MARIE CARTER, PLC
          122 Granite Avenue
          Richmond, VA 23226
          Telephone: (804) 402-4003
          E-mail: mdcarter@benefits-law.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey a. sanborn, Esq.
          835 Summit View Lane
          Charlottesville, VA 22903
          Telephone: (434) 825-7205
          E-mail: jsanborn@sanborn-law.com

VIVINT: Perrong Files Class FDCPA Suit in Utah
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vivint. The case is
styled as Andrew Perrong, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Vivint and DSI Distributing doing business
as: DSI Systems, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00568-CW (D. Utah,
Aug. 14, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Vivint, Inc. is an American private smart home services provider in
the United States and Canada. It was founded by Keith Nellesen and
Todd Pedersen in 1999. In 2012, The Blackstone Group acquired
Vivint for more than $2 billion. As of March 2019, Vivint had over
1.4 million customers in the U.S. and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jared B. Pearson, Esq.
   PEARSON LAW FIRM
   9192 S 300 W STE 35
   SANDY, UT 84070
   Tel: (801) 888-0991
   Email: jared@pearsonlawfirm.org


VM TRUCKING: Court Partly Affirms Summary Judgment in Morales Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CELSO MORALES and CARLOS HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. V.M. TRUCKING, LLC, and GABRIEL MELTSER
c/o V.M. TRUCKING, LLC, Defendants-Respondents, and TRUCKING
SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC, and ROBERT LEFEBVRE c/o TRUCKING SUPPORT
SERVICES, LLC, and CONTRACTOR RESOURCE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. A-2898-16T4 (N.J. Super. App. Div.), the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed in part and reversed in
part the Feb. 3, 2017 orders denying the Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment and granting summary judgment to Defendants V.M.
Trucking and Gabriel Meltser, dismissing the Plaintiffs' putative
class action.

Plaintiffs Morales and Hernandez appeal from the Feb. 3, 2017
orders denying their motion for summary judgment and granting
summary judgment to Defendants VMT and Meltser, dismissing their
putative class action, which alleged violations of the New Jersey
Wage Payment Law ("WPL").  

The issues in the matter arise out of the Plaintiffs' association
with VMT as truck drivers providing transportation services to
VMT's customers and turns on whether the Pplaintiffs were employees
subject to the requirements and protections of the WPL or
independent contractors to whom the parties agree the WPL does not
apply.  

In July 2015, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed a complaint alleging the Defendants and
their co-defendants, Trucking Support Services, LLC ("TSS"),
Contractor Resource Solutions, LLC ("CRS"), and Robert Lefebvre,
violated the WPL by misclassifying the Plaintiffs as independent
contractors during their respective associations with VMT and
deducting money from their paychecks each pay period ostensibly for
payment for truck leases and associated fees.  The Plaintiffs also
asserted a cause of action alleging the Defendants and their
co-Defendants were unjustly enriched by their retention of monies
wrongfully deducted in violation of the WPL.  The Defendants filed
an answer, which included a counterclaim against the co-defendants
for contribution and indemnification.  

The Defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment, arguing the
WPL was inapplicable to the Plaintiffs as a matter of law because
the Plaintiffs were associated with VMT as independent contractors
and not employees.  Two weeks later, the Plaintiffs moved for
summary judgment and for class certification, asserting the
undisputed facts established they were VMT's employees under the
WPL and defendants violated the WPL by deducting various sums from
their compensation and the compensation of others similarly
situated.

When a motion court is presented with cross-motions for summary
judgment, it is required to consider each motion independently
because a party does not relinquish the right to dispute the facts
upon which an opposing party's motion is based merely by filing a
cross-motion.  The cross-motions in the case were centered solely
on whether the undisputed facts established as a matter of law that
the Plaintiffs were employees under the WPL and, if so, whether the
Defendants improperly made deductions from the Plaintiffs' wages in
violation of the WPL.  Thus, although the parties submitted
separate statements of material fact supporting their respective
motions in accordance with Rule 4:46-2(a) and opposition and
counter statements of fact in accordance with Rule 4:46-2(b), the
parties' submissions as to each motion were essentially identical.


Following oral argument on the motions, the court issued a written
decision and separate orders granting the Defendants' summary
judgment motion and dismissing the complaint, and denying the
Plaintiffs' cross-motion.  The court determined that the Plaintiffs
were employees under the WPL because the Defendants failed to
demonstrate that the Plaintiffs were not under their control in the
performance of their work, that the Plaintiffs performed work
outside of the usual course of the Defendants' business or
performed work outside of the Defendants' places of business, and
that the Plaintiffs had enterprises that existed independently of
their relationship with the Defendants.

The court further concluded, however, that the Defendants did not
violate the WPL by making deductions from the Plaintiffs'
compensation.  More particularly, it found the Plaintiffs properly
authorized the deductions for insurance, lease payments and UTICA
dues under N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.4, which allows employers to withhold
or divert portions of employee wages under certain defined
circumstances.

The court therefore entered orders granting the Defendants summary
judgment and denying the Plaintiffs' motion.  The Plaintiffs
appealed from the court's orders.  They do not challenge on appeal
the court's determination that they are employees under the WPL.
Instead, they appeal only from the court's findings that the
deductions from their compensation are authorized by N.J.S.A.
34:11-4.4 and, therefore, the Defendants did not violate the WPL.
Thus, the Plaintiffs argue the court erred by denying their summary
judgment motion, and granting the Defendants' summary judgment
motion.

The Court holds that undisputed facts gleaned from the parties'
submissions pursuant to Rule 4:46-2 do not permit a dispositive
analysis of the Plaintiffs' status following the termination of
their associations with defendants.  For example, the record is
devoid of any undisputed statements of material fact submitted in
accordance with Rule 4:46-2 establishing the Plaintiffs joined the
ranks of the unemployed following the termination of their
associations with defendants.  In addition, the Plaintiffs' tax
returns permit a fact-finder to draw the reasonable inference that
that they operated truck transportation operations independent of
their associations with VMT.  In any event, in our view, there are
fact issues concerning the Plaintiffs' status following the
termination of their relationships with defendants that preclude an
award of summary judgment on the issue of whether the Defendant
satisfied its burden under the third prong of the ABC standard.
Hence, the motion court erred by finding otherwise.

The Court is satisfied the motion court correctly determined the
Plaintiffs were employees under the WPL.  It finds that the
Defendants' failures to sustain their burden under the first and
second prongs of the ABC test provide separate but equally
dispositive reasons supporting the court's determination.

Next, the Plaintiffs challenge the motion court's determination
that the undisputed facts established the Defendants did not
violate the WPL by requiring deductions from their wages for
insurance, lease payments and UTICA membership dues.  They argue
the WPL authorizes only certain limited deductions from employee
wages, and the insurance, lease payments and UTICA membership dues
deductions are not within the limited deductions permitted under
the WPL.  The Defendants argue that even if the Plaintiffs may be
properly considered employees under the WPL, the undisputed facts
establish that the deductions are authorized by the WPL as a matter
of law.

The Court finds that there is an insufficient base of undisputed
material facts permitting a conclusion that the wage deductions for
insurance were either lawful or unlawful under N.J.S.A.
34:11-4.4(b).  It therefore vacates the court's orders granting the
Defendants summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' claim that the
deductions for insurance violated N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.4 and denying
the Plaintiffs' summary judgment on their claim that the insurance
deductions violated N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.4, and remands for further
proceedings.  The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs' argument that
the motion court erred by concluding the Defendants were entitled
to summary judgment on their claim that the deductions for UTICA
membership dues are lawful under N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.4(b)(7).

It therefore reverses the motion court's order finding defendants
are entitled to summary judgment on their claim that the deductions
of UTICA membership dues are lawful under the WPL, and reverses the
court's order denying the Plaintiffs summary judgment on their
claim that the UTICA membership dues deductions are unlawful under
the WPL.

The Court is also convinced the motion court erred by finding that
the truck lease payment deductions are lawful under subsection
(b)(4) of N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.4.  It holds that N.J.S.A.
34:11-4.4(b)(4) does not authorize or permit the deduction for the
truck lease payments.  The Court reverse the motion court's orders
granting defendants summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' claim the
lease deductions violated the WPL and denying the Plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment on their claim the lease deductions
were unlawful under the WPL.

Based on the foregoing, the Court affirmed the motion court's
orders finding the Plaintiffs are employees under the WPL.  It
vacated the court's orders granting the Defendants summary judgment
on their claim that the insurance deduction does not violate the
WPL and denying the Plaintiffs' claim the insurance deduction
violates the WPL and remand for further proceedings on that issue.
It reversed the court's orders granting the Defendants summary
judgment on their claims that the UTICA membership dues and lease
payment deductions are lawful under the WPL and denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their claim that the
UTICA membership dues deduction and lease payment deductions
violate the WPL.  The Court remanded those claims for further
proceedings on the issue of damages.  On remand, the motion court
will also consider and decide the Plaintiffs' request for class
certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 9, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/UNZ61z from Leagle.com.

Matthew Dennis Miller -- mmiller@swartz-legal.com -- argued the
cause for appellants (Swartz Swidler, LLC, attorneys; Matthew
Dennis Miller, on the briefs).

Frederick Conrad Biehl, III, argued the cause for respondents
(Soriano Henkel Biehl & Matthews, attorneys; Frederick Conrad
Biehl, III, on the brief).


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in DSG Transmission Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned MIKE MADANI, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant.
Case No. 17-cv-07287-HSG. (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Mike Madani, Eric Walley, Richard DeVico, and Romsin
Oushana1 brought this putative class action against Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc. (VWGoA), Volkswagen AG, and Audi AG for,
among other things, purported breaches of express and implied
warranties, and violations of various consumer protection laws
based on allegedly defective direct-shift gearbox (DSG)
transmissions in 2010-2014 Audi S4, S5, S6, S7, and RS5 vehicles.

The Plaintiffs' second amended complaint realleges nine causes of
action: (1) Breach of Express Warranty (2) Breach of Implied
Warranty of Merchantability (3) Violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act (MMWA) (4) Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act) (5) Violation of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (6) Violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law (UCL) California Business and Professions
Code (7) Violation of the Declaratory Judgment Act (8) Unjust
Enrichment; and (9) Equitable Injunctive and Declaratory Relief.  

The Defendant move to dismiss all causes of action.

Breach of Express Warranty (Claim 1)

As in the first amended complaint, Plaintiffs again contend that
Defendant breached express written warranties issued with the sale
of Class Vehicles, as well as a purported express warranty relating
to Defendant's marketing of Class Vehicles as safe and reliable.

Express Written Warranty

As to the express written warranty, Plaintiffs reallege that every
Class Vehicle is backed by a New Vehicle Limited Warranty (NVLW),
which covers any repairs needed to correct defects in materials or
workmanship. The NVLW lasts for 48 months or 50,000 miles,
whichever comes first. Defendant also offer a Certified Pre-Owned
Vehicle Warranty, which extends warranty coverage through 6 years
or 100,000 miles. Plaintiffs contend that the alleged transmission
defect violated Defendant's warranties.  

Defendant moves for dismissal on two bases. First, Defendant argues
that the Court should again find the express written warranty
claims of Plaintiffs Madani, Walley, and DeVico fail because the
operative complaint does not allege that these Plaintiffs
experienced transmission problems within the express warranty
period. Second, Defendant argues that Plaintiff Warchut's express
warranty claim is time-barred.

Plaintiffs Madani, Walley, and DeVico

The Court previously dismissed the express written warranty claims
of Plaintiffs Madani, Walley, and DeVico because these Plaintiffs
admittedly never experienced transmission problems within their
express warranty periods" and well-established Ninth Circuit and
California case law forecloses any argument that they may
nonetheless advance a claim for breach of the express written
warranty on account of Defendants' alleged fraudulent concealment
of the defects.

Plaintiffs admit that the operative complaint in no way cures these
defects as it relates to Plaintiffs Madani and Walley Plaintiff
DeVico, however, contends that he has adequately stated a claim
when viewing all alleged facts in the operative complaint in the
light most favorable to him.  Specifically, Plaintiff DeVico
asserts that because his vehicle was a 2010 model, it is reasonable
to infer that the NVLW lasted until 2014 (given that the NVLW was
good up to 50,000 miles or 4 years and when Plaintiff DeVico
purchased the 2010 car in 2016, it only had 44,000 miles on it.

Setting aside whether Plaintiff DeVico might be entitled to
"tolling and/or extending theories" under his theory of reasonable
inferences to be drawn from facts as alleged in the operative
complaint, Defendant highlights in its reply brief that judicially
noticeable material preclude the core fact from which one could
make any such inferences.  

Given that judicially noticeable facts demonstrate that the 2014
transmission replacement did not occur during the warranty period,
there is no reasonable factual basis to support Plaintiff DeVico's
theories, which all derive from that core factual starting point.

Plaintiff Warchut

Defendant contends that Plaintiff Warchut's express warranty claim
is time-barred by the applicable four-year statute of limitations.
In response, Plaintiff Warchut only contends that allegations as to
when he discovered the defect and that the discovery occurred less
than four years before his claim was made are factual issues not
ripe on a motion to dismiss.

The Court rejects Plaintiff Warchut's effort to avoid the statute
of limitations by manufacturing a factual issue, because when
Warchut discovered the purported defect is undisputed based on
allegations contained in the complaint. The operative complaint
provides: Within a month of purchase, Plaintiff Warchut noticed his
Class Vehicle would surge at low speeds and buck and lurch forward
when parked. There is thus no reasonable factual basis to dispute
that Plaintiff Warchut had actual knowledge of the alleged defect
in his vehicle more than four years before the commencement of this
action. Plaintiff Warchut's express warranty claim is thus
time-barred.

Express Marketing Warranty

The second amended complaint realleges a breach of express warranty
claim based on Defendant warranting that the Class Vehicles are
safe and reliable while failing to disclose to Plaintiffs and Class
Members any hint of the risks posed by the transmission defect,
which renders the Class Vehicles dangerous and unreliable. The
Court previously dismissed this exact theory of express warranty
liability and Defendant contends that dismissal is equally
warranted here.

The operative complaint adds no new factual allegations from which
the Court might reach a different conclusion on this theory of
express warranty liability. Nor do Plaintiffs defend or otherwise
respond to Defendant's argument in support of dismissal. Presented
with no new argument or evidence, the Court finds that dismissal is
warranted again.

For these reasons the Court DISMISSES all express warranty claims
except those brought by Plaintiffs Oushana and Chess, but only
based on an alleged breach of the express written warranty.  

Implied Warranty (Claim 2)

As in the first amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant
breached an implied warranty that the Class Vehicles, which it
designed, manufactured, and sold or leased to Plaintiffs and the
Class or members of the California Subclass, were merchantable, fit
and safe for their ordinary use, not otherwise injurious to
consumers, and equipped with adequate safety warnings.

The Court previously dismissed all then-named Plaintiffs' implied
warranty claims because: (1) to the extent California law applies
to any Plaintiff, they could not meet California's stringent
privity requirement to support a claim because neither VWGoA nor
any other then-named Defendant are an adjoining link with a
Plaintiff in the relevant distribution chain and (2) to the extent
New York or Texas law applies to certain Plaintiffs, those parties'
claims were barred because New York and Texas permit clearly and
conspicuously limiting implied warranties to the duration of
express warranties, the NVLWs applicable to the relevant
Plaintiffs' vehicles limited the implied warranties in this manner,
and the relevant Plaintiffs only alleged to have experienced
problems related to the purported transmission defect after the
expiration of the NVLW.

The Court again finds that dismissal is warranted regardless of
which law applies.

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Claim 3)

All parties again agree that Plaintiffs' MMWA claim rises and falls
with the express and implied warranty claims. Thus, those
Plaintiffs who have failed to state a claim for breach of express
or implied warranties also fail to state a claim under the MMWA.
The Court DISMISSES all MMWA claims except as to Plaintiffs Oushana
and Chess.

Song-Beverly Act (Claim 4)

After Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Song-Beverly Act claim
as presented in the first amended complaint, Plaintiffs conceded
that their claim as then pleaded was defective. The Court accepted
Plaintiffs' concession and dismissed the claim with leave to amend.


Plaintiffs Walley, DeVico, and Oushana

Despite the opportunity to amend, the operative complaint presents
identical factual allegations relevant to the Song-Beverly Act
claims of Plaintiffs Walley, DeVico, and Oushana. But as Defendant
highlights in its briefs, the Song-Beverly Act only applies to
purchases made in California, meaning its protection is not
available to Plaintiffs Walley and DeVico, who purchased their
vehicles in Texas and New York.  Given these threshold defects to
which Plaintiffs do not respond dismissal of these Plaintiffs'
Song-Beverly Act claims is warranted.

Plaintiffs Madani, Warchut, and Chess

Although Plaintiffs Madani, Warchut, and Chess each purchased their
vehicles new and in California, Defendant contends that dismissal
is warranted nonetheless because these Plaintiffs' claims are
time-barred. Specifically, each purchased their vehicle no later
than April 2013 and the relevant statute of limitations is four
years. In response, Plaintiffs argue that (1) Madani's claim only
accrued in 2017, when he first experienced the defect, and (2)
although Chess and Warchut noticed the defect earlier, their claims
were tolled by Defendant's active concealment of the defect.
  
The Court first finds that Madani's claim is not time-barred. Under
the Song-Beverly Act, a claim accrues when the breach is or should
have been discovered.  And as alleged in the operative complaint,
Madani only first experienced issues with his vehicle associated
with the alleged defect in 2017.  

Turning next to Plaintiffs Chess and Warchut, the question is
whether Plaintiffs adequately pleaded facts to invoke equitable
tolling on the basis of fraudulent concealment.

Fraudulent Concealment Doctrine

All told, a plaintiff alleging fraudulent concealment under
California law must plead:
(1) concealment or suppression of a material fact (2) by a
defendant with a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff (3) the
defendant intended to defraud the plaintiff by intentionally
concealing or suppressing the fact (4) the plaintiff was unaware of
the fact and would not have acted as he or she did if he or she had
known of the concealed or suppressed fact and (5) plaintiff
sustained damage as a result of the concealment or suppression of
the fact.

In other words, plaintiffs pleading fraudulent concealment must
allegewhen the fraud was discovered, the circumstances under which
it was discovered, the circumstances indicating that they were not
at fault for failing to discover it earlier, and the fact that they
had no actual or constructive knowledge of facts sufficient to put
[them] on inquiry. Plaintiffs also must plead why, in the exercise
of reasonable diligence, they could not have discovered the defect
earlier.

Plaintiffs Warchut and Chess

The Court finds that the operative complaint does not allege facts
to support a finding of fraudulent concealment as to Plaintiffs
Chess and Warchut. And the fatal defect concerns Plaintiffs Chess
and Warchut pleading too much, rather than too little, as these
Plaintiffs affirmatively allege facts showing they had actual or
constructive knowledge of facts sufficient to put them on notice of
the alleged DSG defect in their Class Vehicles in 2011.  Plaintiff
Warchut, for example, alleges that he experienced the very defects
at issue in this case in 2011, knew the problems derived from the
vehicle's transmission and refused to believe otherwise when his
Audi dealer stated that his Class Vehicle's transmission issues
were an artifact of the design of the vehicle.

In other words, Warchut does not allege that, based on his Audi
dealer's statements, he was misled to believe his vehicle was in
working order, such that he had no reasonable knowledge of facts to
at least put him on inquiry notice that a defect existed. Warchut
instead alleges that he knew his Audi dealer's statements were
inadequate at the time, and thus nothing said by his Audi dealer
concealed material facts that would have otherwise put Warchut on
constructive notice that a defect was present.  

Plaintiff Chess fares no better. Chess similarly alleges that he
experienced the DSG defects in 2011, and knew the transmission was
not working properly, but was told by his Audi dealer that there
was nothing wrong with his vehicle. To the extent Plaintiff Chess
knew his transmission was defective, he knew his dealer's
statements were untrue. Put differently, the dealer's statement
does not render meaningless Chess's knowledge of his vehicle's
manifestations of the alleged defect, and his knowledge that the
transmission was not working properly, at that time. And Chess
provides no explanation for why that knowledge did not at least
constitute constructive knowledge of relevant facts sufficient to
put him on inquiry notice of the alleged defect.

The Court DISMISSES all Song-Beverly Act claims except as to
Plaintiff Madani.

CLRA and UCL (Claims 5-6)

The Court previously dismissed without leave to amend CLRA and UCL
claims brought by Plaintiffs Walley, DeVico, and Oushana. With
respect to Plaintiff Oushana in particular, the Court dismissed his
CLRA and UCL claims because he stated a viable claim for breach of
an express warranty and thus had an adequate remedy at law, barring
claims for equitable relief, including claims for violations of
California consumer protection statutes.

The court in Luong, Luong v. Subaru v. American, Inc., No.
17-cv-03160-YGR, 2018 WL 2047646, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2018).
acknowledged that California district courts have split on whether
to bar CLRA and UCL claims for equitable relief when plaintiffs
have alleged a claim that would provide an adequate remedy at law.
It was ultimately persuaded that, at the pleading stage, dismissal
is not warranted when considering "the broad remedial purposes of
the California consumer protection statutes.

Luong's reasoning is persuasive and supported by the California
Supreme Court's most-recent decision to address the outer limits of
CLRA and UCL's protection. In Loeffler v. Target Corp.,California's
highest court explained that the CLRA and UCL's remedies are not
exclusive, but are in addition to any other procedures or remedies
for any violation or conduct provided for in any other law. 324
P.3d 50, 76 (Cal. 2014)   

In keeping with Loeffler's reasoning, the Court is persuaded that,
at the pleading stage, theories of equitable remedies are not
barred by a plaintiff adequately pleading theories supporting
monetary relief. The Court accordingly denies Defendant's request
to dismiss any Plaintiff's CLRA and UCL claims on this ground, and
focuses instead on whether individual Plaintiffs otherwise
adequately plead such claims.

Plaintiffs Warchut and Chess

The Court turns first to whether Plaintiffs Warchut and Chess have
stated viable CLRA and UCL claims. And Defendant principally moves
to dismiss their claims as time-barred.  CLRA and UCL claims are
governed by three- and four-year statues of limitations,
respectively.  And as also discussed above, Plaintiff Chess's
claims are similarly time-barred due to his failure, for one, to
plead why, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, he could not
have discovered the defect at least in 2011.  

Plaintiffs Madani and Oushana

Although the Court previously dismissed Plaintiff Oushana's CLRA
and UCL claims without leave to amend due to the availability of an
adequate remedy at law, the Court finds dismissal is no longer
warranted on this ground, for the reasons discussed above. The
Court thus reconsiders here whether Oushana's claims otherwise
survive dismissal. And as to Plaintiff Madani, the Court previously
dismissed his CLRA and UCL claims for failure to plead that
Defendant had knowledge of the purported transmission defect before
Madani's purchase.  

Knowledge

Defendant again contends that Plaintiffs have failed to plead
pre-sale knowledge to support CLRA and UCL claims. The operative
complaint, however, includes new allegations that preclude
dismissal on this ground. Specifically, the SAC alleges that in
August 2009, prior to the sale of any Class Vehicle, including
Plaintiffs Madani and Oushana's, Defendant recalled several of its
vehicles with the same type of DSG transmission as is in the Class
Vehicles, due to those vehicles experiencing similar transmission
issues.  

Defendant counters that the 2009 recall does not establish pre-sale
knowledge because it did not apply to Class Vehicles. But
Plaintiffs allege that vehicles subject to the 2009 transmission
recall had the same type of DSG transmission as Class Vehicles and
suffered similar transmission malfunctions. Accepting these alleged
facts as true, as the Court must do at this stage, it is at least
plausible that Defendant had pre-sale knowledge of transmission
defects in the Class Vehicles.

Reliance

Defendant further contends that dismissal is warranted because
Plaintiffs fail to plead reliance.  

To prove reliance on an omission with respect to CLRA and UCL
claims, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's nondisclosure
was an immediate cause of the plaintiff's injury-producing conduct.
A plaintiff may do so by simply proving that, had the omitted
information been disclosed, one would have been aware of it and
behaved differently.  

The standard for pleading reliance on account of an omission is
low, and there are, of course, various ways in which a plaintiff
can demonstrate that she would have been aware of a defect, had
disclosure been made. But Plaintiffs Madani and Oushana plead no
facts whatsoever to establish that they would have been aware of
the safety defect, if it were disclosed. Despite this failure,
Plaintiffs Madani and Oushana may readily cure this defect, such as
by presenting evidence that they interacted with and received
information from sales representatives at authorized [Audi]
dealerships prior to purchasing their Class Vehicles, which the
Ninth Circuit has held is sufficient to sustain a factual finding
that Plaintiffs would have been aware of the disclosure if it had
been made through the authorized dealerships.

Because the Court finds Plaintiffs Madani and Oushana have failed
to plead reliance to support their CLRA and UCL claims, dismissal
is warranted. Because this defect is readily curable, and the Court
has not previously dismissed any Plaintiff's CLRA and UCL claims on
this ground, it finds that leave to amend as to these Plaintiffs is
warranted.

The Court accordingly DISMISSES all Plaintiffs' CLRA and UCL
claims. Only Plaintiffs Madani and Oushana's claims are with leave
to amend.

Unjust Enrichment (Claim 8)

The Court previously dismissed without leave to amend Plaintiffs
DeVico and Walley's unjust enrichment claims because they conferred
no benefit upon Defendants because they purchased their cars from
third parties. And the Court dismissed Plaintiffs Madani and
Oushana's claims because actions in quasi-contract cannot lie when
an express contract between the same parties governs the subject
matter in question. Despite the Court's prior holdings, Plaintiffs
present no new argument in opposition to the pending dismissal
motion that the Court did not previously reject. And because newly
named Plaintiffs Chess and Warchut had materially similar express
contracts with Defendant as Plaintiffs Madani and Oushana,
dismissal of their unjust enrichment claims is warranted under the
same logic.  

The Court thus dismisses all Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims.

The Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint. And the Court finds that
leave to amend is largely unwarranted, as Plaintiffs have
previously had the opportunity to amend the complaint to add the
requisite particularity but failed to cure defects identified by
the Court in the prior dismissal order. The only claims dismissed
with leave to amend are Plaintiffs Madani and Oushana's CLRA and
UCL claims, for the limited purpose of pleading reliance.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5ho7bg9 from Leagle.com.

Mike Mandani & Eric Walley, Plaintiffs, represented by Gregory F.
Coleman , Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice, Adam A. Edwards, Greg
Coleman Law PC, 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100, Knoxville, TN 37929,
pro hac vice, Crystal Gayle Foley -- cfoley@simmonsfirm.com --
Simmons Hanly Conroy, Daniel Kent Bryson -dan@wbmllp.com --
Whitfield Bryson Mason LLP, Deborah R. Rosenthal --
drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, John Hunter
Bryson -- hunter@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Lisa
A. White -- lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac
vice, Mark E. Silvey -- mark@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law
PC, pro hac vice & Mitchell M. Breit -- mbreit@simmonsfirm.com --
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig
Lee Winterman -- cwinterman@hrllp-law.com- Herzfeld & Rubin LLP,
Jeffrey Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com -- pro hac vice, Michael
B. Gallub, Esq. -- MGallub@herzfeld-rubin.com -- Herzfeld and
Rubin, pro hac vice & Homer B. Ramsey -- HRamsey@herzfeld-rubin.com
-- Herzfeld Rubin.


WELLS FARGO: Oct. 9 Final Settlement Approval Hearing in Sales 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 a state court overseeing
a class action litigation has scheduled a final settlement approval
hearing for October 9, 2019.

Federal, state, and local government agencies, including the
Department of Justice, the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), and the United States Department of Labor; state
attorneys general, including the New York Attorney General; and
prosecutors' offices, as well as Congressional committees, have
undertaken formal or informal inquiries, investigations or
examinations arising out of certain retail sales practices of the
Company that were the subject of settlements with the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of the Los Angeles City
Attorney announced by the Company on September 8, 2016.

These matters are at varying stages. The Company has responded, and
continues to respond, to requests from a number of the foregoing.

In October 2018, the Company entered into an agreement to resolve
the New York Attorney General's investigation pursuant to which the
Company paid $65 million to the State of New York.

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.

The Company has also engaged in preliminary and/or exploratory
resolution discussions with the Department of Justice and the SEC,
although there can be no assurance as to the outcome of these
discussions.

In addition, a number of lawsuits have also been filed by
non-governmental parties seeking damages or other remedies related
to these retail sales practices.

First, various class plaintiffs purporting to represent consumers
who allege that they received products or services without their
authorization or consent have brought separate putative class
actions against the Company in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California and various other
jurisdictions.

In April 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement in
the first-filed action, Jabbari v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to
resolve claims regarding certain products or services provided
without authorization or consent for the time period May 1, 2002 to
April 20, 2017.

Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay $142 million for
remediation, attorneys' fees, and settlement fund claims
administration.

In the unlikely event that the $142 million settlement total is not
enough to provide remediation, pay attorneys' fees, pay settlement
fund claims administration costs, and have at least $25 million
left over to distribute to all class members, the Company will
contribute additional funds to the settlement.

In addition, in the unlikely event that the number of unauthorized
accounts identified by settlement class members in the claims
process and not disputed by the claims administrator exceeds
plaintiffs' 3.5 million account estimate, the Company will
proportionately increase the $25 million reserve so that the ratio
of reserve to unauthorized accounts is no less than what was
implied by plaintiffs' estimate at the time of the district court's
preliminary approval of the settlement in July 2017.

The district court issued an order granting final approval of the
settlement on June 14, 2018. Several appeals of the district
court's order granting final approval of the settlement have been
filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

Second, Wells Fargo shareholders brought a consolidated securities
fraud class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging certain misstatements and
omissions in the Company's disclosures related to sales practices
matters.

The Company entered into a settlement agreement to resolve this
matter pursuant to which the Company paid $480 million.

The district court issued an order granting final approval of the
settlement on December 20, 2018.

Third, Wells Fargo shareholders have brought numerous shareholder
derivative lawsuits asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims,
among others, against current and former directors and officers for
their alleged involvement with and failure to detect and prevent
sales practices issues.

These actions are currently pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California and California state
court for coordinated proceedings.

An additional lawsuit asserting similar claims pending in Delaware
state court has been stayed. The parties have entered into
settlement agreements to resolve the shareholder derivative
lawsuits pursuant to which insurance carriers will pay the Company
approximately $240 million for alleged damage to the Company, and
the Company will pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

Preliminary approval of the settlements has been granted, and the
federal court held a final approval hearing on August 1, 2019, and
the state court scheduled a final approval hearing for October 9,
2019.

Fourth, multiple employment litigation matters have been brought
against Wells Fargo, including an Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) class action in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of 401(k) plan
participants that has been dismissed and is now on appeal; a class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of team members who allege that
they protested sales practice misconduct and/or were terminated for
not meeting sales goals that has now been dismissed, and the
company has entered into a framework with plaintiffs’ counsel to
address individual claims that have been asserted; various wage and
hour class actions brought in federal and state court in California
and Pennsylvania (which have been settled), and in New Jersey on
behalf of non-exempt branch based team members alleging that sales
pressure resulted in uncompensated overtime; and multiple single
plaintiff Sarbanes-Oxley Act complaints and state law whistleblower
actions filed with the United States Department of Labor or in
various state courts alleging adverse employment actions for
raising sales practice misconduct issues.

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: Settlement of Institutional Investors Suit Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 New York state court
approved a settlement agreement among the Institutional Investor
Plaintiffs and the Company pursuant to which, among other terms,
the Company paid $43 million to resolve a federal court complaint
and a state court action.

In November 2014, a group of institutional investors (Institutional
Investor Plaintiffs), including funds affiliated with BlackRock,
Inc., filed a putative class action in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., alleging claims against the Company in its capacity as
trustee for a number of residential mortgage-backed securities
(RMBS) trusts (Federal Court Complaint).

Similar complaints have been filed against other trustees in
various courts, including in the Southern District of New York, in
New York state court, and in other states, by RMBS investors.

The Federal Court Complaint alleged that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as
trustee, caused losses to investors and asserted causes of action
based upon, among other things, the trustee's alleged failure to
notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers
for purported breaches of representations and warranties, notify
investors of alleged events of default, and abide by appropriate
standards of care following alleged events of default.

Plaintiffs sought money damages in an unspecified amount,
reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief.

In December 2014 and December 2015, certain other investors filed
four complaints alleging similar claims against Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. in the Southern District of New York (Related Federal Cases).


In January 2016, the Southern District of New York entered an order
in connection with the Federal Court Complaint dismissing claims
related to certain of the trusts at issue (Dismissed Trusts).

The Company's subsequent motion to dismiss the Federal Court
Complaint and the complaints for the Related Federal Cases was
granted in part and denied in part in March 2017.

In May 2017, the Company filed third-party complaints against
certain investment advisors affiliated with the Institutional
Investor Plaintiffs seeking contribution with respect to claims
alleged in the Federal Court Complaint (Third-Party Claims).

In December 2016, the Institutional Investor Plaintiffs filed a new
putative class action complaint in New York state court in respect
of 261 RMBS trusts, including the Dismissed Trusts, for which Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. serves or served as trustee (State Court Action).
A complaint raising similar allegations to those in the Federal
Court Complaint was filed in May 2016 in New York state court by
IKB International and IKB Deutsche Industriebank (IKB Action).

In July 2017, certain of the plaintiffs from the State Court Action
filed a civil complaint relating to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s
setting aside reserves for legal fees and expenses in connection
with the liquidation of eleven RMBS trusts at issue in the State
Court Action (Declaratory Judgment Action).

The complaint sought, among other relief, declarations that the
Company is not entitled to indemnification, the advancement of
funds, or the taking of reserves from trust funds for legal fees
and expenses it incurs in defending the claims in the State Court
Action.

In May 2019, the New York state court approved a settlement
agreement among the Institutional Investor Plaintiffs and the
Company pursuant to which, among other terms, the Company paid $43
million to resolve the Federal Court Complaint and the State Court
Action.

The settlement also resolved the Third Party Claims and the
Declaratory Judgment Action. The settlement did not affect the
Related Federal Cases or the IKB Action, which remain pending.

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: Still Faces Suit over Debit Card Order of Posting
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 consolidated class action suit related to the Order of
Posting.

Plaintiffs filed a series of putative class actions against
Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many
other banks, challenging the "high to low" order in which the banks
post debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts.

Most of these actions were consolidated in multi-district
litigation proceedings (MDL proceedings) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The court in the MDL proceedings has certified a class of putative
plaintiffs, and Wells Fargo moved to compel arbitration of the
claims of unnamed class members.

The court denied the motions to compel arbitration in October 2016,
and Wells Fargo appealed this decision to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

In May 2018, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in Wells Fargo's favor and
found that Wells Fargo had not waived its arbitration rights and
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing to the Eleventh Circuit,
which was denied in August 2018. Plaintiffs petitioned for
certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, and that petition
was denied in January 2019. The case has 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.


WHITESTONE REIT: Co-Lead Plaintiffs Appointed in Clark Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Whitestone REIT said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court in Clark v.
Whitestone REIT, et al., has appointed co-lead plaintiffs.

On April 16, 2019, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas against the Company, James C.
Mastandrea, and David K. Holeman, entitled Clark v. Whitestone
REIT, et al., Case 4:19-cv-01379.  

A second class action lawsuit was filed but was consolidated into
the Clark case. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company and the individual defendants violated certain federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements in the Company's Forms 10-Q for the first three
quarterly periods of the year ended December 31, 2018 as a result
of the accounting errors that required the restatement of the
company's consolidated financial statements for the first three
quarterly periods of the year ended December 31, 2018.  

The purported class period runs from May 9, 2018 through February
27, 2019. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial, plus interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs.  

The Company and the individual defendants believe that the claims
asserted in the lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against these claims.

On July 25, 2019, the presiding judge in the case conducted a
conference hearing with plaintiffs' counsel and defendants'
counsel.

At the July 25, 2019 status conference, the presiding judge
appointed two claimants as co-lead plaintiffs and gave the
plaintiffs 21 days to submit an amended complaint.

On July 17, 2019, the Company received a demand letter from a
purported shareholder containing allegations similar to those
contained in the purported class action.

Whitestone said, "The Company's counsel is in communication with
the purported shareholder's counsel as to the date by which the
Company should respond."

Whitestone REIT is a fully-integrated real estate company that owns
and operates commercial properties in culturally diverse markets in
major metropolitan areas. Founded in 1998, the company is
internally managed with a portfolio of commercial properties in
Texas, Arizona and Illinois. The company is based in Houston,
Texas.


ZIMMER BIOMET: Shah Class Certification Bid Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Shah v. Zimmer
Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al.

On December 2, 2016, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Shah v. Zimmer Biomet
Holdings, Inc. et al.), naming the company, one of its officers and
two of its now former officers as defendants.  

On June 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a corrected amended
complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to those previously
named, current and former members of the company's Board of
Directors, one additional officer, and the underwriters in
connection with secondary offerings of the company's common stock
by certain selling stockholders in 2016.  

On October 6, 2017, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
underwriters without prejudice. On October 8, 2017, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint, naming as defendants, in addition
to those current and former officers and Board members previously
named, certain former stockholders of the company who sold shares
of the company common stock in secondary public offerings in 2016.


The company and its current and former officers and Board members
named as defendants are sometimes hereinafter referred to as the
"Zimmer Biomet Defendant group".  

The former stockholders of the company who sold shares of the
company's common stock in secondary public offerings in 2016 are
sometimes hereinafter referred to as the "Private Equity Fund
Defendant group".  

The second amended complaint relates to a putative class action on
behalf of persons who purchased the company's common stock between
June 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016.  

The second amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or omissions about the company's
compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
regulations and the company's ability to continue to accelerate its
organic revenue growth rate in the second half of 2016.  

The defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss on
December 20, 2017, plaintiffs filed their omnibus response to the
motions to dismiss on March 13, 2018 and the defendants filed their
respective reply briefs on May 18, 2018.  

On September 27, 2018, the court denied the Zimmer Biomet Defendant
group's motion to dismiss in its entirety. The court granted the
Private Equity Fund Defendant group's motion to dismiss, without
prejudice.  

On October 9, 2018, the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group filed a
motion (i) to amend the court's order on the motion to certify two
issues for interlocutory appeal, and (ii) to stay proceedings
pending appeal. On February 21, 2019, that motion was denied.  

On April 11, 2019, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. On
June 20, 2019, the Zimmer Biomet Defendant group filed its
response. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and other relief.  

Zimmer Biomet said, "We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and
we and the individual defendants are defending it vigorously."

Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and markets musculoskeletal healthcare
products and solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, and the Asia Pacific. It operates through four segments:
Spine, less Asia Pacific; Office Based Technologies;
Craniomaxillofacial and Thoracic; and Dental. The company was
formerly known as Zimmer Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. in June 2015. Zimmer Biomet Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Warsaw, Indiana.



                            *********

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 ***