---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, August 27, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 171

                            Headlines

ADDUS HEALTHCARE: Court OKs Telephonic Mngt Conference in Moore
ADVANCED LOAN: Silvera Sues over Unsolicited Calls & Text Messages
ALABAMA PSYCHIATRIC: Stinson LLP Discusses Court Ruling
ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: $28MM Accord Wins Final Court Approval
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Dismissal of Property Assessment Suit Upheld

AMOREPACIFIC US: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Tatum-Rios Says
AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Shi Class Action in California
ANGI HOMESERVICES: Consolidated Suit vs. HomeAdvisor Still Pending
ANGLO AMERICAN: Tshiamiso Trust Set to Pay Out Silicosis Claims
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Lawyer Comments on Mining Class Action Victory

ANTARES PHARMA: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Smith Suit
ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Drop Huang Class Suit Still Pending
AUTOMATIC DATA: Class Suits over Biometric Data Use in Early Stage
AXA EQUITABLE: Still Faces Lawsuit over COI Rate Increase
AXA EQUITABLE: Still Faces O'Donnell Class Action Suit

AXON ENTERPRISE: Bid to Dismiss Richey Consumer Class Suit Pending
B RILEY FINANCIAL: Securities Class Suit v. MLV & Co. Still Pending
B RILEY FINANCIAL: Still Defends Freedman Class Lawsuit
BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Still Faces Securities Suit in California
BECTON DICKINSON: Defends 8,795 Hernia Product Claims

BECTON DICKINSON: Defends 985 Women's Health Product Claims
BECTON DICKINSON: MDL Court Stops Taking Filter Product Cases
BELL CANADA: Poor Punctuation Underpins $150MM Pension Class Action
BERKSHIRE HILLS: Expects Settlement Completion by 1Q 2020
BERKSHIRE HILLS: Seeks to Dismiss SI Financial Shareholder Suit

BETTER PRODUCE: Class Obtains Conditional Certification
BOK FINANCIAL: BOKF Defends Municipal Securities Suit in Oklahoma
BOK FINANCIAL: Unit Still Faces New Jersey Securities Fraud Suit
BP AMERICA: Court Dismisses De la Cruz Deepwater Horizon Suit
CAL WEST: Court Grants Final Approval of Mora Class Settlement

CAMPING WORLD: Bid to Dismiss IUOE Suit Underway
CAMPING WORLD: Bid to Nix Ronge & Strougo Class Suit Still Pending
CAPITAL ONE: Barnes et al. Sue over Cardholder Data Theft
CAPITAL ONE: Charney Lawyers Launches Data Breach Class Action
CBL & ASSOCIATES: Accrues $88.1MM Liability for Wave Lengths Accord

CBL & ASSOCIATES: Tennessee Court Reconsolidates Securities Suits
CENIKOR FOUNDATION: Potter Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
CENIKOR FOUNDATION: Sorey Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
CLECO CORP: Class Status Hearing Today in Merger-Related Suit Set
COLUMBIA GAS: Trahan Comments on Merrimack Valley Settlement

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Amend Zwick Partners' Suit Denied
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bowden Suit over Hospital Liens Underway
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Class Certification Bid in Tenn. Suit Granted
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Cyber Attack Claims Bar Date Expired August 1
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Louisiana High Court Won't Hear Appeal

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Padilla Class Action Underway in Tennessee
COOK COUNTY, IL: Bid to Certify Class in Work Bias Suit Partly OK'd
COOK COUNTY, IL: Court OKs Class Certification in Howard Suit
CORECIVIC INC: Appeal in Grae Class Action Pending
COX COMMUNICATIONS: 9th Cir. Reverses Remand of Ehrman

CRISP MARKETING: Slingerland Sues over Prerecorded Messages
CVS HEALTH: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Lawsuit
DEXCOM INC: Pecayo Seeks Minimum and OT Pay
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: $14MM Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Putative Class Suits Combined in N.D. Illinois

DISNEY INTERACTIVE: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Renewals
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in Virginia Pending
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Court Awards $18.75MM Damages to Strauch Plaintiffs
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Settlement Talks Ongoing over Age Bias Complaints
EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Olenik Class Action Suit Ongoing

ELECTRICITY MAINE: Class Action on Hiatus Amid Settlement Talks
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Pelletier Suit Still Pending
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Makris Class Suit in Canada
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Seroquel XR(R) Related Class Suit
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Miss. PERS Final Settlement Hearing in Oct.

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Settlement in Principle Reached in Bier Suit
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Unit Inks Settlement in Zetia(R) Related Suit
ENDOLOGIX INC: Appeal from C.D. Cal. Ruling Still Pending
ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE: Data Breach Class Action Mulled
EXONOVIA, INC: Zhao Seeks Unpaid Wages for Software Engineers

FIAT CHRYSLER: Ram, Jeep Owners Complain Over Acceleration Delays
FIRST BANCORP: Injunction Hearing in Torres Set for September 2019
FISHER-PRICE: Fieker Suit Transferred to Western Dist. of New York
FISHER-PRICE: Flores Suit Transferred to Western Dist. of New York
FISHER-PRICE: Pasternacki Sues over Baby Crib Injury Risk

FIVE POINT: Still Defends Bayview Hunters Point Class Litigation
FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Court Grants Class Status in Georgia Suit
FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Schultz Suit v. Unit Dismissed
FORD MOTOR: Sartip, et al. Allege False Fuel-Economy Ratings
FOUR SEASONS: Court Narrows Claims in Zyda's Damage Suit

GLOBAL DIGITAL: N.J. Court Approves Class Action Settlement
GOLAM MOWLA: Singh et al. Seek Overtime Wages for Workers
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in Transient Tax-Related Suit Pending
GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Court Okays $1.1MM Settlement of Nevada Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Adeptus IPO-Related Suit Underway

GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Sea Limited IPO Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend FX Class Suits in Israel
GOLDMAN SACHS: Valeant Securities Suit in Canada Ongoing
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Oct. 15 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit

HARRIS & HARRIS: Ex-Employee Sues Over Fingerprint Scans
HARRIS & HARRIS: Siegal Sues over Debt Collection Practices
HEADWAY TECH: Walnum Claims HDD Suspension Assemblies Price-Fixing
HENRY SCHEIN: Appeal in Dental Supplies Antitrust Suit Pending
HENRY SCHEIN: Appeal in Marion Diagnostic Class Suit Still Pending

HENRY SCHEIN: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY
HENRY SCHEIN: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Kramer Class Suit
HENRY SCHEIN: Hatchett Class Action Suit Ongoing
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Court-Approved Accord Taken to Appeals Court
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Discovery Ongoing in Candelore v. Tinder

ICU MEDICAL: Bid to Drop Saline Solution Class Suit Still Pending
INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Combined Shareholder Class Lawsuit Underway
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: RM LAW Files Class Action Lawsuit
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
IOWA: Rowe, et al Seek Ovetime Wages for Nurses

J2 GLOBAL: Davis Neurology Class Suit Removed to Federal Court
JACKSON PARK: Williams Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
JENNINGS GATE: Court OKs $425K Class Settlement in Bueso Suit
JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Anderson Class Action
JONES FINANCIAL: Watson et al. Labor Suit in Calif. Ongoing

JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Forex-Rigging Class Action in UK
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix Shareholder Suits
KB HOME: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Aiiram's UCL Suit
KINGSTONE COMPANIES: Woolgar Securities Class Action Underway
KISTLER FORD: Court Partly Junks Payne's Exhaust Odor Suit

LOVESAC LLC: Dennis Sues over Limited Web Accessibility
MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Still Faces New Jersey Securities Class Action
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action Suit
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Sept. 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
MARLY BOUTIQUE USA: Dennis Sues over ADA Violations

MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Multiple Class Suits over 2018 Data Theft
MASSACHUSETTS: Gov. Appeals Ruling in Rosie D. Suit to 1st Cir.
MBT FINANCIAL: Faces Amended Complaint in Consolidated Viky Suit
MDL 2492: Court OKs 2nd Amended Class Settlement in Concussion Suit
MDL 2804: Judge Likely to Approve Nationwide Opioid Class

MDL 2904: Finch Data Breach Suit v. LABCORP Consolidated
MDL 2904: Laughlin Data Breach Suit v. Quest Consolidated
MDL 2904: Mohamad Data Breach Suit v. LABCORP Consolidated
MDL 2904: Shulman Data Breach Suit v. LABCORP Consolidated
MDL 2904: Smith v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated

METLIFE INC: Appeal in Martin Class Action Still Pending
METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Newman Class Action
METLIFE INC: Julian & McKinney Class Action Underway
METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Suits vs. Sun Life Still Ongoing
METLIFE INC: Settlement in Owens Suit Preliminarily Approved

METLIFE INC: Westland Police & Fire Retirement Suit Still Ongoing
MICHAEL SHEPARD: Court Refuses to Compel Discovery in Pentel
MIT: Court Denies D. Tracey's Leave to File TAC
NAT'L AUSTRALIA BANK: Braces for Possible 400K Strong Class Action
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in Calif.

NEP ELECTRONICS: De Leon Sues over Collection of Biometrics
NEPTUNE CONSTRUCTION: Underpays General Laborers, Barrios Alleges
NETAPP INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
NETAPP INC: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
NETAPP, INC: Smith Says Financial Statements Misleading

NETFLIX INC: Investors Mull Class Action Over Subscriber Drop
NEW BALANCE: Judge OKs "Made in USA" Class Action Settlement
NII HOLDINGS: Nayman Class Action Suit Ongoing
NOVATIME TECHNOLOGY: Thome Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
ONONDAGA COUNTY, NY: Class in Assistance of Counsel Suit Certified

ORLANDO UTILITIES: Court Narrows Claims in Irizarry Suit
OXNARD SCHOOL: Faces Class Suit Over Special Education Access
PERSONAL INSURANCE: Class Action Settled for $2.2MM
PETERS PROFESSIONAL: Naelitz Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
PHILLIPS 66: Court Consolidates 2 Wage & Hour Suits

PLOMO, LLC: Portillo Seeks Overtime Wages for Servers
PLURALSIGHT INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action
REALNETWORKS INC: Claims Period in Napster Case Ends Dec. 31
RETAIL FOOD: Franchisees' Proposed Class Action Gains Momentum
RIVIANA FOODS: Clevenger Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California

SACRAMENTO, CA: Magistrate Recommends Approval of Consent Decree
STANLEY STEEMER: Underpays Carpet Cleaners, Adams et al. Claim
STITCH INDUSTRIES: Dennis Sues over ADA Violations
TESLA INC: Class Action Over Slashed Range by Software Update
TEXAS: Court Denies Inmate's Bid to Proceed as Class Action

TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Pork Purchasers' Suit Still Pending
TYSON FOODS: Bid to Drop Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Still Pending
U.S. BANK: Court OKs $1.624MM Class Settlement in Guiette Suit
UCLA: Sued Over Failure to Report James Heaps Title IX Complaints
UGL LIMITED: Ichthys Gas Project Class Action Reaches Settlement

UNITED INDUSTRIES: Poppiti Sues over Fraud Allegations
VANTAGE ADVERTISING: Underpays Models, Lustig Suit Alleges
VERO BEACH: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Massage Parlor Video Suit
VIGILANT PRIVATE SECURITY: Aviles Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
VISA INC: Settlement Talks with Injunctive Relief Class Underway

WASHINGTON: Troopers Sue Over Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
WAWA INC: Ordered to Pay $1.4MM to Settle OT Pay Class Action
WESTPAC BANKING: Maurice Blackburn Reviewing Class Action
WURKWEL VENTURES: Faces Class Action Over Biometrics Law Violation
XEROX CORP: Dismissal Order in Firefighters Fund Suit Upheld

XEROX CORP: Ribbe Suit over Fuji Transaction Ongoing
XEROX CORP: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 6
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: 9th Circuit Revives Evans Suit
[*] Globalstar Expects to Receive $3.7MM from Accord in Jan. 2020
[*] More Than 2,000 Opioid Suits Consolidated Under Ohio Case

[*] Securities Class Action Filings Impact D&O Insurance Costs

                            *********

ADDUS HEALTHCARE: Court OKs Telephonic Mngt Conference in Moore
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland Division, issued an Order granting Defendants'
Request to Appear by Telephone at Initial Case Management
Conference in the case captioned MARY MOORE, ALEXANDRIA ENCINIAS
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. ADDUS HEALTHCARE, INC., an
unknown business entity; ADDUS HOMECARE, INC., an unknown business
entity; and DOES 2 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.
4:19-CV-01519-HSG. (N.D. Cal.).

Counsel for defendants Addus Healthcare, Inc. and Addus HomeCare
Corporation (Gary McLaughlin) respectfully requests permission to
appear by telephone at the initial case management conference.

Mr. McLaughlin had planned to appear in person at the combined
hearing on plaintiff's motion to remand and the initial case
management conference. However, in light of the Court's ruling this
morning denying plaintiffs' motion for remand without oral
argument, it would be more efficient to attend the case management
conference telephonically.

Counsel for defendants Addus Healthcare, Inc. and Addus HomeCare
Corporation (Gary McLaughlin) may appear by telephone at the
initial case management conference scheduled for August 8, 2019, at
2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2. Counsel shall contact CourtCall at (866)
582-6878 to make arrangements for the telephonic appearance.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5hrb54k from Leagle.com.

Mary Moore, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated & Alexandria Encinias,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Edwin Aiwazian --
edwin@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC, Stanley Donald Saltzman
-ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com -- Marlin & Saltzman, Tara Zabehi --
tara@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC & Tatiana G. Avakian --
tavakian@marlinsaltzman.com -- Marlin Saltzman, LLP.

Addus Healthcare, Inc., an unknown business entity & Addus HomeCare
Corporation, an unknown business entity, Defendants, represented by
Gary Matthew McLaughlin -- gmclaughlin@akingump.com -- Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, Gregory William Knopp --
gknopp@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP & Victor
A. Salcedo -- vsalcedo@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld
LLP.


ADVANCED LOAN: Silvera Sues over Unsolicited Calls & Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH SILVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ADVANCED LOAN SYSTEMS, LLC d/b/a
ONELOANPLACE.COM, A Florida Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00384-MW-CAS (N.D. Fla., Aug. 14, 2019), contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by placing
unsolicited phone calls and sending text messages to wireless phone
users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant operates a company that in part connects potential
borrowers with lenders. Part of its strategy for increasing sales
involves the use of bulk advertising through short message
services.

Unfortunately for consumers, Defendant utilizes a sophisticated
telephone dialing system to text consumers en masse promoting its
services. However, Defendant fails to get the requisite prior
consent prior to sending these text messages.

Defendant in part makes money by providing marketing campaigns,
which include inundating consumers with unwanted solicitation calls
and text messages, to third party lenders.

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.  Defendant also fails to follow
procedures to ensure they cease calling or texting consumers who
request that the calls stop.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com

ALABAMA PSYCHIATRIC: Stinson LLP Discusses Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Henry Allen Blair, Esq. -- allen.blair@stinson.com -- of Stinson
LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that in Alabama
Psychiatric Servs. P.C. v. Lazenby, 2019 WL 2560096 (Ala. June 21,
2019), the Alabama Supreme Court essentially sided with the Second,
Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, concluding that a traditional
delegation suffices to commit questions of class arbitrability to
an arbitrator. That said, the court only generically references the
circuit split.

The underlying facts of Lazenby are straight forward. A group of
employees filed a putative class action against their employer in
state court. The employer brought a motion to compel arbitration
and, at the same time, asked the court to determine whether class
arbitration was available. The arbitration agreement was silent on
the question. The state court compelled arbitration but declined to
determine the class arbitrability issue, instead sending it to the
arbitrator.

The arbitrator, in turn, decided that class arbitration was
authorized. He did so, though, on pretty sketchy legal bases.
Essentially, he says that the agreement was written by the
employer, so ambiguities should be read against the drafter. (Of
course, you'll remember that SCOTUS rejected a similar argument
earlier this year in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 139 S. Ct. 1407,
203 L.Ed.2d 636 (2019).) He then adds that the arbitration
agreement promised employees that it was not altering their
substantive rights, but that doing away will class proceedings
would alter their substantive rights. (This, of course, runs afoul
of just about everything SCOTUS has said about class waivers,
including in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors, 570 U.S. 228
(2013).)

The employer sought to vacate the arbitration clause construction
award. The lower court upheld it.

On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court assumed without deciding that
the "availability of class arbitration is a question of
arbitrability," by which it meant a question that should be
resolved by a court absent a delegation provision. The court then
found that the parties included such a delegation. (Technically,
this issue is a little procedurally wonky, as the original court
compelling arbitration reached this conclusion on dubious grounds
but the employer failed to properly appeal, so the Supreme Court
punts.)

The interesting thing about this decision is that Alabama Supreme
Court concluded that once the parties delegated the question of
class arbitrability to the arbitrator, they were stuck with the
arbitrator's conclusions so long as he arguably applied the law,
even if he got it wrong. In other words, the court determined that
there was nothing special about class arbitrability.

As the previous post on this blog indicates, that's turning into a
hotly debated conclusion. In fact, this Alabama case comes very
close to being diametrically opposed to what the Fifth Circuit
concluded in 20/20 Communications, Incorporated v. Crawford, 2019
WL 3281412 (5th Cir. July 22, 2019).

It doesn't take a crystal ball to guess that this "who decides
class arbitrability" issue will be at the heart of the next chapter
in SCOTUS's ongoing fascination with class arbitration. The
trouble, though, is that there aren't many great cases yet that tee
the issue up cleanly. [GN]


ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: $28MM Accord Wins Final Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit entitled Abante
Rooter and Plumbing, Inc. et al. v. Alarm.com Incorporated et al.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-06314, pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, has obtained final court approval
following a hearing on August 13, 2019.

U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is in charge of
this class action.

Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that on December 30, 2015, a putative class
action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, or the Court,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or
TCPA.  The complaint does not allege that Alarm.com itself violated
the TCPA, but instead seeks to hold the Company responsible for the
marketing activities of one of our service providers as well as
calls made by one of this service provider's sub-dealer agents
under principles of agency and vicarious liability.

On August 30, 2018, the Company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the case for total cash consideration of US$28.0 million.
On October 25, 2018, the Company entered into a definitive
settlement agreement, or Settlement Agreement, and submitted it to
the Court for approval.  In entering into the definitive settlement
agreement, the Company is making no admission of liability.  

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, among other things, (1) the
Company agreed to pay total cash consideration of US$28.0 million
into a settlement fund, (2) the Company agreed to implement certain
business practice changes to increase awareness of TCPA compliance,
(3) each party to the Settlement Agreement agreed to a mutual
release of claims relating to any claim or potential claim relating
to the marketing activities described in the complaint, and (4)
each party covenanted not to sue the other with regard to the
released claims.  In addition, the Company has agreed to no longer
allow the service provider identified in the litigation as
purportedly violating the TCPA to continue activating new accounts
for Alarm.com products and services after preliminary Court
approval of the Settlement Agreement.

On December 19, 2018, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement and certified the
class for settlement purposes.  Pursuant to the Preliminary
Approval Order, the administrator provided notice of the settlement
to class members, and class members had to file claims, opt out of
the settlement or object to the settlement by April 16, 2019.  The
Final Approval Hearing is currently scheduled for August 13, 2019.

The Company made an initial payment of US$5.0 million to the
settlement administrator on January 2, 2019, and the remaining
payment will take place ten business days after the effective date
of the Settlement Agreement, which is five business days following
the later of the following events: (1) the date upon which the time
expires for filing a notice of appeal of the Court's Final Approval
Order and Judgment; or (2) if there is an appeal or appeals of the
Final Approval Order and Judgment, and the appellate court enters
an order either dismissing the appeal(s) or affirming the Final
Approval Order and Judgment without material modification, the date
upon which the time expires for seeking review of that order.  The
release of claims includes all alleged damages incurred related to
the lawsuit.  Any attorneys' fees awarded by the Court and all
costs of notice and claims administration will be paid from the
settlement fund.

The US$28.0 million settlement was reflected in general and
administrative expenses within the Company's condensed consolidated
statements of operations for the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2018.  The unpaid amount of the settlement is
reflected as an accrued expense in accounts payable, accrued
expenses and other current liabilities within the Company's
condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2019.

Additional information is available at
http://alarmtcpaclassaction.com/

Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based software platform
solutions for smart residential and commercial properties in the
United States and internationally. The company provides interactive
security solutions to control and monitor their security systems,
as well as connected security devices, including door locks, motion
sensors, thermostats, garage doors, and video cameras; and high
definition video monitoring solutions, such as live streaming,
smart clip capture, secure cloud storage, video alerts, continuous
HD recording, and commercial video surveillance solutions.
Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered
in Tysons, Virginia.


ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Dismissal of Property Assessment Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligence, reports that
an appeals court has upheld the dismissal of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania property owners' challenge to the municipality's
ability to adjust property taxes based on current market values,
but said the property owners still have another recourse.

On Aug. 14, 2019, the Commonwealth Court affirmed an Allegheny
County trial court's dismissal of a putative class action filed by
Joseph Nissim Martel and Ester Martel seeking relief from property
reassessments ordered by the Allegheny County Board of Assessment
Appeals and Review. But whereas the trial court tossed the case for
lack of legal sufficiency, the appeals court dismissed the
complaint because the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their statutory
remedies before bringing the matter to the courts. Instead, the
appeals panel said, the Second Class County Assessment Law requires
the plaintiffs to first challenge the reassessments before the
board.

According to Commonwealth Court Judge Christine Fizzano Cannon's
precedential opinion, the board ordered the reassessments based on
appeals brought by the Pittsburgh public school district, Allegheny
County and the city of Pittsburgh. The board introduced evidence of
current market values to support their request for increased
assessments.

After reassessment, the Martels' property value rose from $464,700
to $690,000. They subsequently filed a class action, alleging the
taxing authorities "have initiated assessment appeals similar to
the Martels' appeal on 'approximately 200 or more' properties
recently sold in Allegheny County, and have accepted 'the increased
tax revenues associated with the same,'" Cannon said. The Martels
contested the taxing authorities' power to bring the appeals and to
rely on current market values. They argued that doing so violated
the Allegheny County Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law, and
the uniformity clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution, according
to Cannon.

The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint by sustaining
the board and school district's objection that the Allegheny
Administrative Code and Board Rule the Martels relied upon violate
state law, making their complaint "legally insufficient," Cannon
said.

The parties then appealed.

"Before this court, the parties present several arguments
addressing the trial court's analysis, including the validity of
the Administrative Code and Board Rule. However, we do not reach
those arguments," Cannon said. "Though we conclude that the trial
court correctly dismissed property owners' complaint, the trial
court did not have the authority to address the legal issues raised
therein because the appeals process provided in the Assessment Law
enables property owners to obtain the relief they seek."

"Property owners had to exhaust the appeals process provided by the
Assessment Law before bringing their complaint to the trial court
as reflected in basic legal principles," Cannon said. "If a party
fails to pursue a statutory remedy, the court is without power to
act until the statutory remedies have been exhausted, even in cases
where a constitutional question is presented."

The Martels are represented by Edward Friedman, Esq. --
efriedman@fklaw.com -- of Friedman & Friedman in Pittsburgh.
Friedman said that he has filed a petition for allowance of appeal
to the state Supreme Court.

Ira Weiss, Esq. -- iweiss@wbklegal.com -- of Weiss Burkardt Kramer
in Pittsburgh represents the taxing authorities and did not respond
to a request for comment. [GN]


AMOREPACIFIC US: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Tatum-Rios Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LYNETTE TATUM-RIOS, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMOREPACIFIC US, INC., D/B/A ETUDE
HOUSE, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07360-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 6,
2019) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.etudehouse.com to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people.

Amorepacific Us, Inc. was founded in 1978. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of prescription drugs,
proprietary drugs, and toiletries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170-1830
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com
                  doug@lipskylowe.com


AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Shi Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is still facing a putative class action
suit entitled, Shi v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

On August 25, 2018, a purported shareholder of the Company
commenced a putative class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, captioned
Shi v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-07476
(the “Securities Class Action”). A second, similar class action
was filed on August 31, 2018, but has since been voluntarily
dismissed. Plaintiff in the Securities Class Action alleges that
the Company and certain of its current and former officers violated
the federal securities laws by misrepresenting and/or omitting
material information regarding the AP-003 Phase III clinical trial
of Ampion. The plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
“Exchange Act”), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the
Company’s common stock from December 14, 2017 through August 7,
2018. Plaintiff in the Securities Class Action seeks unspecified
damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’
fees and costs.   

Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development of therapies for the treatment of prevalent
inflammatory conditions in the United States. The company is
developing compounds that decrease inflammation by inhibiting
specific pro-inflammatory compounds. Its product pipeline includes
Ampion, an intra-articular injection for the treatment of
osteoarthritis of the knee. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is
headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.


ANGI HOMESERVICES: Consolidated Suit vs. HomeAdvisor Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANGI Homeservices Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that "there have been no material or otherwise
noteworthy developments" in the consolidated action styled In re
HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation since the filing of the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March
31, 2019.

The cases Airquip, Inc. et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No.
l:16-cv-1849 and Costello et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No.
1:18-cv-1802, were both filed in U.S. District Court in Colorado
and consolidated under the caption In re HomeAdvisor, Inc.
Litigation.

This lawsuit alleges that the Company's HomeAdvisor business
engages in certain deceptive practices affecting the service
professionals who join its network, including charging them for
substandard customer leads or failing to disclose certain charges.


There have been no material or otherwise noteworthy developments in
this case since the filing of the Company's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2019.

The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are
without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them.

ANGI Homeservices Inc. operates a digital marketplace for home
services, connecting millions of homeowners with home service
professionals in North America and Europe. The company was formerly
known as Halo TopCo, Inc. and changed its name to ANGI Homeservices
Inc. in May 2017. ANGI Homeservices Inc. was incorporated in 2017
and is headquartered in Golden, Colorado. ANGI Homeservices Inc. is
a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp.


ANGLO AMERICAN: Tshiamiso Trust Set to Pay Out Silicosis Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lesetja Malope, writing for City Press, reports that light at the
end of the tunnel for thousands of former mine workers, who
contracted lung-related diseases, as class action gets the
go-ahead

Tshiamiso is a Setswana word meaning "to make good" or "to
correct".

And this is what thousands of former mine workers, who contracted
lung-related diseases underground, hope they will get from a
settlement with the country's mining giants.

It was almost seven years ago when a class action was instituted
against 32 mining companies that once formed the backbone of the
country's economy.

But, in the end, six of the major companies agreed to pump R5
billion into paying the workers who contracted silicosis and
tuberculosis from working in the mines.

After several years of negotiating -- and many more years for the
sufferers of the diseases and their dependants -- there is now at
least some light at the end of the tunnel.

The Tshiamiso Trust is expected to make good on thousands of claims
from former mine workers from across the southern African region.

Late last month the Johannesburg High Court finally gave the thumbs
up to the long-awaited 300-page negotiated class action settlement
agreement, the first of its type in the country.

The six companies have -- as part of the deal -- agreed not to put
the money upfront but rather as bank guarantees worth the R5
billion to be used when it is needed.

There are 10 classes of claimants.

The trust will pay out amounts ranging from R10 000 for
less-serious TB sufferers -- or a deceased sufferer's dependants --
to R500 000 for the most serious silicosis sufferers -- or the
deceased sufferer's dependants.

The level of liabilities among the companies differs.

According to the trust, Sibanye-Stillwater bears more than a
quarter of the liability at 27.44%, Harmony will contribute 21.66%,
Anglo American's South African business' liability is 20.72%,
AngloGold Ashanti's is 16.95%, Goldfields' is 7.15% and African
Rainbow Minerals' liability is 6.08%.

The companies are expected to contribute R1.4 billion for the first
two years of benefit payments and after that annually when the
trust notifies them.

The four law firms involved -- Richard Spoor, Abrahams Kiewitz,
Motley Rice and Hausfeld -- will be paid R355 million for legal
fees; the Legal Resources Centre will be paid a once-off amount of
R15 millionfor its costs.

Michael Murray, the trustee of Tshiamiso, said the R5 billion was
not the maximum amount because there might be further claims
against the companies.

"Beyond the R5 billion guaranteed, the companies might still remain
liable," Murray said.

He said there was a formula of proportionality that would be used
to calculate a mine's liability.

This would be used to determine costs in instances when there were
more claims against one company than another.

"It is not based on the size of the company but on its historic
association with employees who would have worked in the mines for
which they had accepted responsibility," he said.

Murray pointed out that although 32 companies were involved, they
fell broadly into nine groups of companies and six of those were
signatories to the settlement.

The other four are DRDGold, RandGold & Exploration, Pan African
Resources and East Rand Proprietary Mines.

They have opted out of the agreement and are appealing certain
sections, including that TB should be excluded because it is
airborne and the causal link to the occupation might not be clear.

But not everyone is happy with the settlement.

The National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) which, as the oldest mining
union, was said to be very helpful in sourcing former mine workers,
said that although it welcomed the settlement it was concerned
about those companies that had opted out of the deal.

NUM compensation officer Adam Letshele said: "We still contest that
not being involved in the board poses a huge risk in the management
of the trust because we would not be involved in high-level
decision-making.

Letshele said that the benefits were unfair because a sufferer
could claim only once, meaning that a TB sufferer could not claim
again even if the TB deteriorated.

He said because of possible fraud issues the Tshiamiso Trust had
determined that sufferers would have to undergo new medical
examinations.

But the union doubted the trust had enough capacity to reach local
sufferers and especially those in neighbouring countries who had
worked in the mines.

When the High Court rubber-stamped the agreement a fortnight ago,
several former mine workers from the platinum sector protested that
the settlement did not include them.

However, Murray said the action was for silicosis, which was caused
by silica dust, a by-product of gold mining, and did not include
any other sector. [GN]


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: Lawyer Comments on Mining Class Action Victory
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lesetja Malope, writing for City Press, reports that public
interest lawyer Charles Abrahams was there from the beginning and
this week he was there to witness the victory of the class action
against the mining giants.

On Aug. 1, he told City Press: "The mines historically thought they
were immune to civil lawsuits because such would fall under the
compensation fund but we held a different view. That is why there
had to be a test case in 2006 against some of them which Richard
[Spoor] and I set in motion on behalf of a single gold miner who
had worked for AngloGold Ashanti. We lost that case . . . and had
to take it to the Constitutional Court which unanimously agreed
with us in 2011 and said there was no reason why the employee could
not sue the company in addition of the statutory compensation."

Abrahams said that judgment opened the doors for other affected
former mine workers who have contracted illness.

However, even before this case, Abrahams' firm litigated on the
first class action in the country when it took on the bread
price-fixing cartel on behalf of consumers.

They lost the case on the first attempt at the Cape High Court. It
was only at the Supreme Court of Appeal in 2011 that a new criteria
of how class actions should be brought was decided.

"The two classes are silicosis and TB and for both living and the
deceased. The initial applicants were 69 but some passed away and
only 48 were left," he said, adding that almost all mining
respondents had appealed that certification judgment for various
reasons.

"We only claim against those companies currently in operation,
whether they are historic owners or current owners of the
qualifying mines. It is immaterial whether they operate in the gold
sector or not anymore." [GN]


ANTARES PHARMA: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Smith Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Antares Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the plaintiff in the
class action action suit initiated by Randy Smith has filed a
Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

On October 23, 2017, Randy Smith filed a complaint in the District
of New Jersey, captioned Randy Smith, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Antares Pharma, Inc., Robert F.
Apple and Fred M. Powell ("Smith"), Case No. 3:17-cv-08945-MAS-DEA,
on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Antares securities between December 21, 2016 and October
12, 2017, inclusive, asserting claims for purported violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, against Antares, Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell.  

The Smith complaint contends that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Antares
had provided insufficient data to the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) in connection with the New Drug Application (NDA) for
XYOSTED(R); and (ii) accordingly, Antares had overstated the
approval prospects for XYOSTED(R).  

On July 27, 2018, the court entered an order appointing Serghei
Lungu as lead plaintiff, Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel, and Lite
DePalma Greenberg, LLC as liaison counsel for plaintiff.  

On August 3, 2018, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed
order, setting forth an agreed-upon schedule for responding to the
complaint, which the court granted.

Pursuant to that order, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint on October 9, 2018. On November 26, 2018,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on January 10, 2019 and
defendants filed a reply in support of their motion on February 25,
2019.

On July 2, 2019, the court dismissed the complaint in its entirety
without prejudice.

On July 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Second Amended
Class Action Complaint against the same parties alleging
substantially similar claims.

The Company believes that the claims in the Smith action lack merit
and intends to defend them vigorously.

Antares Pharma, Inc. focuses on developing and commercializing
self-administered parenteral pharmaceutical products and
technologies worldwide. The company was founded in 1978 and is
headquartered in Ewing, New Jersey.


ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Drop Huang Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the case styled
in Huang v. Depomed et al., remains pending, according to Assertio
Therapeutics, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.
The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on August 1,
2019.

On August 23, 2017, the Company, its current chief executive
officer and president, its former chief executive officer and
president, and its former chief financial officer were named as
defendants in a purported federal securities law class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (the District Court).

The action (Huang v. Depomed et al., No. 3:17-cv-4830-JST, N.D.
Cal.) alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
relating to certain prior disclosures of the Company about its
business, compliance, and operational policies and practices
concerning the sales and marketing of its opioid products and
contends that the conduct supporting the alleged violations
affected the value of Company common stock and is seeking damages
and other relief.

In an amended complaint filed on February 6, 2018, the lead
plaintiff (referred to in its pleadings as the Depomed Investor
Group), which seeks to represent a class consisting of all
purchasers of Company common stock between July 29, 2015 and August
6, 2017, asserted the same claims arising out of the same and
similar disclosures against the Company and the same individuals as
were involved in the original complaint.

The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on April 9, 2018.  The lead plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion on June 8, 2018.  The Company and the
individuals filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss on
July 23, 2018.  Oral arguments took place on December 13, 2018.

On March 18, 2019, the District Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint.  The dismissal was
without prejudice, and the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on May 2, 2019. The second amended complaint asserted the
same claims arising out of the same and similar disclosures against
the Company and the same individuals as were involved in the
original complaint.

The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint on June 17, 2019.  The lead plaintiff
filed an opposition to the motion on August 1, 2019.

The Company believes that the action is without merit and intends
to contest it vigorously.

Assertio Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
provides medicines in neurology, orphan, and specialty areas in the
United States. The company was formerly known as Depomed Inc. and
changed its name to Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. in August 2018.
Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois.


AUTOMATIC DATA: Class Suits over Biometric Data Use in Early Stage
------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2019, that all the claims in a potential class
action complaint related to alleged violations of the Illinois
Biometric Privacy Act are still in their earliest stages.

In June 2018, a potential class action complaint was filed against
the Company in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  The
complaint asserts that the Company violated the Illinois Biometric
Privacy Act, was negligent and unjustly enriched itself in
connection with its collection, use and storage of biometric data
of employees of its clients who are residents of Illinois in
connection with certain services provided by the Company to clients
in Illinois.

The complaint seeks statutory and other unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.

In addition, similar potential class action complaints have been
filed in Illinois state courts against the Company and/or certain
of its clients with respect to the collection, use and storage of
biometric data of the employees of these clients.  All of these
claims are still in their earliest stages and the Company is unable
to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or range of loss, with
respect to these matters.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
against these lawsuits.

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. provides business process
outsourcing services worldwide. It operates through two segments,
Employer Services and Professional Employer Organization (PEO)
Services. The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in
Roseland, New Jersey.


AXA EQUITABLE: Still Faces Lawsuit over COI Rate Increase
---------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company continues to defend itself
against a consolidated lawsuit with Brach Family Foundation, Inc.
as lead plaintiff related to the Company's COI rate increase,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

In February 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Brach Family
Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company.  This
lawsuit is a putative class action brought on behalf of all owners
of universal life ("UL") policies subject to AXA Equitable's COI
rate increase.  In early 2016, AXA Equitable raised COI rates for
certain UL policies issued between 2004 and 2007, which had both
issue ages 70 and above and a current face value amount of US$1
million and above.  A second putative class action was filed in
Arizona in 2017 and consolidated with the Brach matter.

The current consolidated amended class action complaint alleges the
following claims: breach of contract; misrepresentations by AXA
Equitable in violation of Section 4226 of the New York Insurance
Law; violations of New York General Business Law Section 349; and
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, and the
California Elder Abuse Statute.  Plaintiffs seek; (a) compensatory
damages, costs, and, pre- and post-judgment interest; (b) with
respect to their claim concerning Section 4226, a penalty in the
amount of premiums paid by the plaintiffs and the putative class;
and (c) injunctive relief and attorneys' fees in connection with
their statutory claims.

Five other federal actions challenging the COI rate increase are
also pending against AXA Equitable and have been coordinated with
the Brach action for the purposes of pre-trial activities.  They
contain allegations similar to those in the Brach action as well as
additional allegations for violations of various states' consumer
protection statutes and common law fraud.

Two actions are also pending against AXA Equitable in New York
state court.

AXA Equitable said it is vigorously defending each of these
matters.

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, financial advisory, and
investment management products and services in the United States
and internationally. The company was founded in 1859 and is
headquartered in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Life Insurance
Company operates as a subsidiary of AXA Equitable Financial
Services, LLC.


AXA EQUITABLE: Still Faces O'Donnell Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company continues to defend itself
against Richard T. O'Donnell's putative class action currently
pending in Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of
Stamford, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

In August 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Connecticut Superior Court,
Judicial Division of New Haven entitled Richard T.  O'Donnell, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA
Equitable Life Insurance Company.  This lawsuit is a putative class
action on behalf of all persons who purchased variable annuities
from AXA Equitable, which were subsequently subjected to the
volatility management strategy and who suffered injury as a result
thereof.  Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract alleging
that AXA Equitable implemented the volatility management strategy
in violation of applicable law.

In November 2015, the Connecticut Federal District Court
transferred this action to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  In March 2017, the Southern
District of New York granted AXA Equitable's motion to dismiss the
complaint.  In April 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

In April 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit reversed the trial court's decision with instructions to
remand the case to Connecticut state court.  In September 2018, the
Second Circuit issued its mandate, following AXA Equitable's
notification to the court that it would not file a petition for
writ of certiorari.

The case was transferred in December 2018 and is pending in
Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford. The
Company said it is "vigorously defending" this matter.

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, financial advisory, and
investment management products and services in the United States
and internationally. The company was founded in 1859 and is
headquartered in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Life Insurance
Company operates as a subsidiary of AXA Equitable Financial
Services, LLC.


AXON ENTERPRISE: Bid to Dismiss Richey Consumer Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Axon Enterprise, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the Douglas Richey's
consumer class suit currently in Nevada is still pending, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company is a defendant in a consumer class action lawsuit
previously filed and dismissed in California in 2018 and now
refiled in the District of Nevada on April 9, 2019 (Case No.
3:1-cv-00192) by consumer weapon purchaser Douglas Richey
("Richey").  The case alleges the TASER Pulse, X2 and X26P CEWs
have a faulty safety switch based on Richey's Pulse allegedly
discharging inside its neoprene case in a jacket pocket without
injury.  Any such discharge was likely due to static electricity,
as disclosed in the Company's consumer warnings.

The Company will vigorously defend this claim and the propriety of
any class certification.  The Company's motion to dismiss is
pending.

Axon Enterprise, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells conducted
electrical weapons (CEWs) worldwide. The company operates through
two segments, TASER Weapons, and Software and Sensors. Axon
Enterprise, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in
Scottsdale, Arizona.


B RILEY FINANCIAL: Securities Class Suit v. MLV & Co. Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Riley Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the consolidated suit styled Gaynor v.
Miller et al., remains pending in the Eastern District of
Tennessee.

A Court-ordered mediation before a federal magistrate was scheduled
for August 6, 2019.

KPMG, LLP, one of the defendants, is fending off objections to its
request to exclude the reports and testimony of Chad Coffman.  The
Motion to Exclude remains pending.

On January 5, 2017, complaints filed in November 2015 and May 2016
naming MLV & Co. ("MLV"), a broker-dealer subsidiary of FBR, as a
defendant in putative class action lawsuits alleging claims under
the Securities Act, in connection with the offerings of Miller
Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller") have been consolidated.  The
Master Consolidated Complaint, styled Gaynor v. Miller et al., is
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, and, like its predecessor complaints,
continues to allege claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act against nine underwriters for alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and
prospectuses issued in connection with six offerings (February 13,
2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013; September 26, 2013; October 17,
2013 (as to MLV only) and August 21, 2014) with an alleged
aggregate offering price of approximately US$151,000,000.

B. Riley Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
collaborative financial services and solutions in North America,
Australia, and Europe. The company operates in four segments:
Capital Markets, Auction and Liquidation, Valuation and Appraisal,
and Principal Investments - United Online and magicJack. The
company was formerly known as Great American Group, Inc. and
changed its name to B. Riley Financial, Inc. in November 2014. B.
Riley Financial, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in
Woodland Hills, California.


B RILEY FINANCIAL: Still Defends Freedman Class Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
B. Riley Financial, Inc. continues to defend itself in a putative
class action lawsuit titled Freedman v. magicJack VocalTec Ltd. et
al., Case 9-17-cv-80940, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

On August 11, 2017, the lawsuit was filed against magicJack and its
Board of Directors in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Case No: 9:17-cv-80940-RLR).  The
Company's brief in opposition was filed on April 19, 2019, and a
mandatory mediation subsequently took place with no resolution.  A
decision is expected at the end of 2019.  The Company cannot
estimate the amount of potential liability, if any, that could
arise from this matter.

B. Riley Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
collaborative financial services and solutions in North America,
Australia, and Europe. The company operates in four segments:
Capital Markets, Auction and Liquidation, Valuation and Appraisal,
and Principal Investments - United Online and magicJack. The
company was formerly known as Great American Group, Inc. and
changed its name to B. Riley Financial, Inc. in November 2014. B.
Riley Financial, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in
Woodland Hills, California.


BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Still Faces Securities Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Banc of California, Inc. continues to face a consolidated class
action suit in California, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, trial is
currently set for February 18, 2020.

On January 23, 2017, the first of three putative class action
lawsuits, Garcia v. Banc of California, Inc. et al., Case No.
8:17-cv-00118, was filed against Banc of California, James J.
McKinney, Ronald J. Nicolas, Jr., and Steven A. Sugarman in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  Thereafter, two related putative class action lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California: (1) Malak v. Banc of California, Inc. et
al., Case No. 8:17-cv-00138 (January 26, 2017), asserting claims
against Banc of California, Inc., James J. McKinney, and Steven A.
Sugarman, and (2) Cardona v. Banc of California, Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:17-cv-00621 (January 26, 2017), asserting claims against Banc
of California, Inc., James J. McKinney, Ronald J. Nicolas, Jr., and
Steven A. Sugarman.

Those actions were consolidated, a lead plaintiff was appointed,
and the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint
against Banc of California, Inc., Steve A. Sugarman and James J.
McKinney on May 31, 2017 alleging that the defendants violated
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In general, the Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the
purported concealment of the defendants' alleged relationship with
Jason Galanis caused various statements made by the defendants to
be false and misleading.  The defendants moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  The plaintiff thereafter dismissed
Mr. McKinney, leaving the Company and Mr. Sugarman as the remaining
defendants.

On September 18, 2017, the district court granted in part and
denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss.  Specifically,
the court denied the defendants' motions as to the Company's April
15, 2016 Proxy Statement which listed Mr. Sugarman's positions with
COR Securities Holdings Inc., COR Clearing LLC, and COR Capital LLC
while omitting their alleged connections with Jason Galanis.

The action purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who
purchased stock in the Company between varying dates, inclusive of
August 7, 2015 through January 23, 2017.  Plaintiff seeks an award
of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other
further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

On May 31, 2018, the court certified a class of shareholders who
purchased Company stock between April 15, 2016 and January 20,
2017.  Trial is currently set for February 18, 2020.

The Company believes that the consolidated action is without merit
and intends to vigorously contest it.

Banc of California, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for
Banc of California, National Association that provides banking
products and services in the United States. The company offers
deposit products, including checking, savings, money market,
retirement, and interest and noninterest-bearing demand accounts,
as well as certificates of deposit. The company was formerly known
as First PacTrust Bancorp, Inc. and changed its name to Banc of
California, Inc. in July 2013. Banc of California, Inc. was founded
in 1941 and is headquartered in Santa Ana, California.


BECTON DICKINSON: Defends 8,795 Hernia Product Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Company is
defending approximately 8,795 product liability claims involving
the Company's line of hernia repair devices (collectively, the
"Hernia Product Claims") as of June 30, 2019.

The majority of those claims are currently pending in a coordinated
proceeding in Rhode Island State Court, but claims are also pending
in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions.

In addition, those claims include multiple putative class actions
in Canada. Generally, the Hernia Product Claims seek damages for
personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. From
time to time, the Company engages in resolution discussions with
plaintiffs' law firms regarding certain of the Hernia Product
Claims, but the Company also intends to vigorously defend Hernia
Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation.

Trials are scheduled throughout 2020 in various state and/or
federal courts. The Company expects additional trials of Hernia
Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months.

In August 2018, a new hernia multi-district litigation ("MDL") was
ordered to be established in the Southern District of Ohio.

The Company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the
Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and
unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuits, will not
have a material adverse effect

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BECTON DICKINSON: Defends 985 Women's Health Product Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Company is
defending approximately 985 product liability claims involving the
Company's line of pelvic mesh devices, as of June 30, 2019.

The majority of those claims are currently pending in either the
federal MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, or a coordinated proceeding in New
Jersey State Court, but claims are also pending in other state
and/or federal court jurisdictions.

In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in
the United States. Not included in the figures above are
approximately 1,010 filed and unfiled claims that have been
asserted or threatened against the Company but lack sufficient
information to determine whether a pelvic mesh device of the
Company is actually at issue.

The claims identified above also include products manufactured by
both the Company and two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as
successor in interest to Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a
supplier of the Company.

Medtronic has an obligation to defend and indemnify the Company
with respect to any product defect liability relating to products
its subsidiaries had manufactured.

As described below, in July 2015 the Company reached an agreement
with Medtronic (which was amended in June 2017) regarding certain
aspects of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. The foregoing
lawsuits, unfiled claims, putative class actions, and other claims,
together with claims that have settled or are the subject of
agreements or agreements in principle to settle, are referred to
collectively as the "Women's Health Product Claims."

The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for
personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products.

As of June 30, 2019, the Company has reached agreements or
agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to
settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately
15,160 of the Women’s Health Product Claims.

The Company believes that these Women's Health Product Claims are
not the subject of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. These
settlement agreements and agreements in principle include unfiled
and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs' law
firms, which are not included in the approximate number of lawsuits
set forth in the first paragraph of this section.

Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including
requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a
certain minimum number of plaintiffs. The Company continues to
engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding
potential resolution of unsettled Women's Health Product Claims,
which may include additional inventory settlements.

Starting in 2014 in the MDL, the court entered certain pre-trial
orders requiring trial work up and remand of a significant number
of Women's Health Product Claims, including an order entered in the
MDL on January 30, 2018, that requires the work up and remand of
all remaining unsettled cases (the "WHP Pre-Trial Orders").

The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional costs or
trial verdicts in future periods in defending Women’s Health
Product Claims. Trials are anticipated throughout 2019 in state
courts.

A trial in the New Jersey coordinated proceeding began in March
2018, and in April 2018 a jury entered a verdict against the
Company in the total amount of $68 million ($33 million
compensatory; $35 million punitive).

The Company is in the process of appealing that verdict. A
consolidated trial involving two plaintiffs is scheduled to begin
in September 2019 in the New Jersey coordinated proceeding.

The Company expects additional trials of Women's Health Product
Claims to take place over the next 12 months, which may potentially
include consolidated trials.

In July 2015, as part of the agreement with Medtronic noted above,
Medtronic agreed to take responsibility for pursuing settlement of
certain of the Women's Health Product Claims that relate to
products distributed by the Company under supply agreements with
Medtronic, and the Company has paid Medtronic $121 million towards
these potential settlements.

In June 2017, the Company amended the agreement with Medtronic to
transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women's Health
Product Claims to Medtronic on terms similar to the July 2015
agreement, including with respect to the obligation to make
payments to Medtronic towards these potential settlements.

The Company also may, in its sole discretion, transfer
responsibility for settlement of additional Women's Health Product
Claims to Medtronic on similar terms. The agreements do not resolve
the dispute between the Company and Medtronic with respect to
Women's Health Product Claims that do not settle, if any.

During the course of engaging in settlement discussions with
plaintiffs' law firms, the Company has learned, and may in future
periods learn, additional information regarding these and other
unfiled claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact
the Company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against
the Company.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BECTON DICKINSON: MDL Court Stops Taking Filter Product Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a court has ceased
accepting direct filings or transfers into the Filter Product
Claims multi-district litigation and remands for non-settled cases
are expected to begin within the next three to six months.

As of June 30, 2019, the Company is defending approximately 4,525
product liability claims involving the Company's line of inferior
vena cava filters (collectively, the "Filter Product Claims").

The majority of those claims are currently pending in an MDL in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona, but
claims are also pending in other state and/or federal court
jurisdictions, including a coordinated proceeding in Arizona State
Court.

In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in
the United States and Canada.

The Filter Product Claims generally seek damages for personal
injury allegedly resulting from use of the products.

The Company has limited information regarding the nature and
quantity of certain of the Filter Product Claims. The Company
continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in future periods
learn additional information regarding other unfiled or unknown
claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the
Company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the
Company.

On May 31, 2019, the MDL Court ceased accepting direct filings or
transfers into the Filter Product Claims MDL and remands for
non-settled cases are expected to begin within the next three to
six months.

The MDL trials are scheduled throughout 2019 and 2020 in certain
state and federal courts.

As of June 30, 2019, the Company entered into settlement agreements
and/or settlement agreements in principle for approximately 4,200
cases.

On March 30, 2018, a jury in the first MDL trial found the Company
liable for negligent failure to warn and entered a verdict in favor
of plaintiffs.

The jury found the Company was not liable for (a) strict liability
design defect; (b) strict liability failure to warn; and (c)
negligent design. The Company has appealed that verdict. On June 1,
2018, a jury in the second MDL trial unanimously found in favor of
the Company on all claims.

On August 17, 2018, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of
the Company on all claims in the third MDL trial. On October 5,
2018, a jury in the fourth MDL trial unanimously found in favor of
the Company on all claims.

The Company expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims may
take place over the next 12 months.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BELL CANADA: Poor Punctuation Underpins $150MM Pension Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
James Langton, writing for Investment Executive, reports that in a
case that turned on a dispute over number rounding and comma
placement, an Ontario court has dismissed a class action brought
against Bell Canada by the company's retired employees.

On Aug. 12, Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a proposed
class action brought on behalf of 35,000 retired Bell employees
that claimed the company had miscalculated their pension cost of
living increases.  The suit sought $150 million in damages.

In the same judgment, the court ultimately ruled in favour of the
company, saying, "For those who loved law school, it does not get
any better than this."

The claim concerned how the pensioners' indexing increase was to be
calculated. In 2017, the company calculated a 1% increase, whereas
the plaintiff group argued it should have been 2%.

While the two sides agreed on the mechanics of the calculation,
they disagreed about how to round off numbers.

For 2017, both sides agreed that the percentage increase over the
previous year was 1.49371%.

The plaintiffs said that figure should have been rounded to one
decimal place, or 1.5%; the company said it should have been two
places, or 1.49%. The rounding mattered because the figure was then
rounded to the nearest whole number, which would have been 1% using
the company's approach, but 2% using the pensioners'.

"That 1% difference is, of course, crucial to the 2017 payment
calculation for retirees.  But it will also reverberate through
time, since each year's calculation is premised on an increase from
the previous year," the court said.

In deciding which approach was correct, the court noted that the
issue rested on the interpretation of a pension provision stating
that the increase is to be determined by "the Consumer Price Index,
as determined by Statistics Canada."

The question was whether Bell, as manager of the pension plan, was
to determine the increase, or whether it should have applied the
cost of living increase calculated as Statistics Canada does -- by
rounding to one decimal place.

"As both sets of counsel point out, the proper interpretation of
this provision depends on the importance one ascribes to the comma
after the words 'Consumer Price Index,'" the court noted, adding
that interpreting the provision "raises a classic comma question."

Ultimately, the court concluded the offending comma was placed
needlessly and did not imply that StatsCan's approach to rounding
must be used.

"I do not know why [the provision] is phrased in the awkward way
that it is. I certainly do not know why a comma had to be
inserted," the court said. "It was likely punctuated that way
unconsciously; I do not believe it was a legally induced comma."

As a result, the court found that the company was correct in using
its own approach to rounding, and that it did not breach its duties
to its pensioners.  The court dismissed the class action. [GN]


BERKSHIRE HILLS: Expects Settlement Completion by 1Q 2020
---------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. anticipates the completion of the
settlement of a class action suit pending in Massachusetts
"sometime during" the first quarter of 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

On April 28, 2016, the Company and the Bank were served with a
complaint filed in the United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts, Springfield Division.

The complaint was filed by an individual Berkshire Bank depositor,
who claims to have filed the complaint on behalf of a purported
class of Berkshire Bank depositors, and alleges violations of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act and certain regulations thereunder,
among other matters.

On July 15, 2016, the complaint was amended to add purported claims
under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.

On January 4, 2019, the Parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the matter on a class-wide basis.  Among other terms, the
agreement in principle provides that the Defendants will pay a
total of Three Million Dollars (US$3.0 million) in exchange for the
dismissal with prejudice and release of all claims that have been
or could have been asserted in the lawsuit on behalf of the
Plaintiff and the Settlement Class Members.

On April 11, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the Parties' fully-executed
Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Settlement") with the Court
together with her unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement.

On July 24, 2019, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement, and issued an Order that notice of the Settlement be
given to all Settlement Class Members.

The Company accrued US$3 million as of June 30, 2019, in
anticipation of the completion of the Settlement sometime during
the first quarter of 2020.

Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. operates as a bank holding company
for Berkshire Bank that provides various banking products and
services. It offers various deposit accounts, including demand
deposit, NOW, regular savings, money market savings, time
certificates of deposit, and retirement deposit accounts; and
loans, such as commercial real estate, commercial and industrial,
consumer, and residential mortgage loans. Berkshire Hills Bancorp,
Inc. was founded in 1846 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


BERKSHIRE HILLS: Seeks to Dismiss SI Financial Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc., together with other defendants, has
filed a joint motion to dismiss all claims in a class action suit
initiated by a purported SI Financial shareholder, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

On February 9, 2019, the Company received notice of a lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
by a purported SI Financial Group, Inc. ("SI Financial")
shareholder.

On June 26, 2019, the Company received notice of a verified
consolidated amended complaint in this action, which was filed
after consolidation and elimination of two additional suits filed
in the same Court by other former shareholders of SI Financial.
The lawsuit purports to be filed as a putative class action lawsuit
against SI Financial, the individual former members of the SI
Financial board of directors, and the Company, in connection with
the Company's announced intention to acquire and merge with SI
Financial.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly-situated SI
Financial shareholders, generally alleges that the registration
statement filed with the SEC on February 4, 2019 contains
materially misleading omissions or misrepresentations in violation
of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and that the individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duty to SI Financial shareholders and were
unjustly enriched by the subject merger transaction.  The Plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief, unspecified damages, and an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses.  Of note, SI Financial merged with
and into the Company on May 17, 2019, and ceased to have any
further independent legal existence at that time.

The Company and the individual Defendants deny the allegations
contained in the verified consolidated amended complaint and intend
to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

On July 26, 2019, the Company and the individual Defendants jointly
filed a motion to dismiss all claims in this litigation.  There are
no other active cases proceeding against the Company or the
individual Defendants in regard to the SI Financial merger on May
17, 2019.

Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. operates as a bank holding company
for Berkshire Bank that provides various banking products and
services. It offers various deposit accounts, including demand
deposit, NOW, regular savings, money market savings, time
certificates of deposit, and retirement deposit accounts; and
loans, such as commercial real estate, commercial and industrial,
consumer, and residential mortgage loans. Berkshire Hills Bancorp,
Inc. was founded in 1846 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


BETTER PRODUCE: Class Obtains Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in California
conditionally certified a class of agricultural workers recruited
from Mexico to work in a produce company's strawberry fields. The
workers claim they were denied meal and rest breaks, required to
pay a supervisor a fee and were not reimbursed for travel expenses.


The class is conditionally certified "for the purposes of sending
notice to potential class members."

A copy of the Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Certify FLSA
Collective Action is available at:

                     https://is.gd/HR9Wuj


BOK FINANCIAL: BOKF Defends Municipal Securities Suit in Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation's wholly owned subsidiary bank, BOKF, NA,
is still facing a putative class action in Oklahoma initiated by
bondholders representing a set of municipal securities, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

On March 14, 2017, BOKF, NA was sued in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma by bondholders in a
putative class action representing a set of municipal securities.
The bondholders in this action allege two individuals purchased
facilities from the principals who are the subject of the SEC New
Jersey proceedings by means of the fraudulent sale of US$60 million
of municipal securities for which BOKF, NA also served as indenture
trustee.  The bondholders allege BOKF, NA failed to disclose that
the seller of the purchased facilities had engaged in the conduct
complained of in the New Jersey action.

The Company said, "BOKF, NA properly performed all duties as
indenture trustee of this set of municipal securities, timely
commenced proceedings against the issuer of the securities when
default occurred, is cooperating with the SEC in actions against
the two principals, is not a target of the SEC proceedings, and has
been advised by counsel that BOKF, NA has valid defenses to the
claims of these bondholders.  Management is advised by counsel that
a loss is not probable and that the loss, if any, cannot be
reasonably estimated."

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.


BOK FINANCIAL: Unit Still Faces New Jersey Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation's wholly owned subsidiary bank, BOKF, NA,
continues to face a securities fraud class action initiated by two
bondholders, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019.

On June 24, 2015, BOKF, NA received a complaint alleging that an
employee had colluded with a bond issuer and an individual in
misusing revenues pledged to municipal bonds for which BOKF, NA
served as trustee under the bond indenture.  The Company conducted
an investigation and concluded that employees in one of its
Corporate Trust offices had, with respect to a single group of
affiliated bond issuances, violated Company policies and procedures
by waiving financial covenants, granting forbearances and accepting
without disclosure to the bondholders, debt service payments from
sources other than pledged revenues.  The relationship manager was
terminated.  The Company reported the circumstances to, and
cooperated with an investigation by, the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC").

On December 28, 2015, in an action brought by the SEC, the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey entered a
judgment against the principals involved in issuing the bonds,
precluding the principals from denying the alleged violations of
the federal securities laws and requiring the principals to pay all
outstanding principal, accrued interest, and other amounts required
under the bond documents, less the value of the facilities securing
repayment of the bonds), subject to oversight by a court appointed
monitor.

On September 7, 2016, BOKF, NA agreed, and the SEC entered, a
consent order finding that BOKF, NA had violated Section 17(a) of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and requiring BOKF, NA to disgorge US$1,067,721 of
fees and pay a civil penalty of US$600,000.  BOKF, NA disgorged the
fees and paid the penalty.  

On August 26, 2016, BOKF, NA was sued in the United States District
Court for New Jersey by two bondholders in a putative class action
on behalf of all holders of the bonds alleging BOKF, NA
participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the
principals.  On September 14, 2016, BOKF, NA was sued in the
District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma by 19 bondholders alleging
BOKF, NA participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the
principals.  The New Jersey Federal District Action and the Tulsa
County District Court Action have been stayed by the respective
courts while the principals liquidate the facilities pledged to
secure payment of the bonds.

Four separate small groups of bondholders filed arbitration
complaints with the Financial Institutions Regulatory Association
respecting the bonds and other bonds for which BOKF, NA served as
indenture trustee.  BOKF, NA challenged the FINRA proceedings in
the United States District Court of Nevada.  On appeal, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held BOKF, NA was not
subject to FINRA jurisdiction.  The four FINRA complaints were then
dismissed.

On July 9, 2019, the New Jersey Federal District Court, upon motion
of the SEC, entered an order terminating the plan for repayment of
the bonds by the principals on July 31, 2019 unless the SEC and the
principals consent to otherwise extend the plan before July 29,
2019.  The SEC announced its intention to seek judgment against the
principal individual and his wife for the amount remaining on the
bonds.

The Company said, "As a result of these actions, management is no
longer able to conclude that the repayment plan will be successful
in full.  Management has been advised by counsel that BOKF, NA has
valid defenses to claims of bondholders and that no loss to the
company is probable.  No provision for losses has been made at this
time.  BOKF, NA estimates that upon sale of all facilities securing
payment of the bonds, including those currently under contract and
those not currently under contract, approximately US$20 million
will remain outstanding.  BOKF, NA is unable at this time to assess
whether the individual principal and his wife will have the
financial capacity to pay in full the balance due on the bonds.  If
the individual principal and his wife do not have the financial
ability to pay the bonds in full, a bondholder loss could become
probable.  Under all circumstances, the obligation of the
principals to repay the bonds continues as an obligation not
dischargeable in bankruptcy.  A reasonable estimate cannot be made
of the amount of any bondholder loss, though the amount of
bondholder loss could be material to the company in the event a
loss to the company becomes probable."

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.


BP AMERICA: Court Dismisses De la Cruz Deepwater Horizon Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Alabama, Southern Division, issued an Order dismissing the Action
in the case captioned EUGENIO DE LA CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. BP AMERICA
PRODUCTION COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No.
1:18-cv-472-TFM-N. (S.D. Ala.).

The Rules of Civil Procedure permit a plaintiff to voluntarily
dismiss the action without an order of the court by filing a notice
of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a
motion for summary judgment or a stipulation signed by all parties
who have appeared. The joint stipulation is signed by both sides
and Plaintiff reserves his remaining rights that he may have under
the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement.

Consequently, by operation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, this action has
been dismissed in accordance with the joint notice. Therefore, the
claims in this case are dismissed with prejudice with each party to
bear their own attorneys' fees and costs.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6j6k6bl from Leagle.com.

Eugenio De La Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by Michael D. Dunlavy,
The Downs Law Group &Nathan Nelson, Downs Law Group, 3250 Mary
Street, Suite 307, Coconut Grove, FL 33133, pro hac vice.

BP America Production Company & BP Exploration & Production Inc,
Defendants, represented by Harlan I. Prater, IV --
hprater@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot, Franklin & White, Jonathan
Randall Little -- jlittle@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot, Franklin &
White & William H. Morrow -- wmorrow@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot,
Franklin & White.


CAL WEST: Court Grants Final Approval of Mora Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned CARMELA
MORA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CAL WEST AG SERVICES, INC., JON MARTHEDAL, and ERIC
MARTHEDAL, Defendants. Case No. 1:15-cv-01490-LJO-EPG. (E.D.
Cal.).

The Plaintiff filed this case, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, against defendants Cal West Ag Services,
Inc., Jon Marthedal, and Eric Marthedal, alleging wage and hour
claims, including violations of the Agricultural Worker Protection
Act (AWPA), Failure to Pay Minimum Wages, California Industrial
Welfare Commission (IWC), Failure to Provide Timely Paid Rest
Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof.

The magistrate judge held a final fairness hearing on the proposed
class action settlement of this case.

The court finds the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23 have been satisfied and grants final approval to the following
class for purposes of the settlement: All Cal West AG Service
Inc.'s non-exempt workers who were employed by and/or performed
work for Defendants Jon and Eric Marthedal as agricultural workers
at Marthedal Farms in California between September 30, 2011 and
August 22, 2018.

The Court finds that class members were given a full and fair
opportunity to participate in the final approval hearing; all class
members and other persons wishing to be heard have been heard; and
all class members who did not timely and properly opt out are bound
by the Settlement and this order.

The Court finds all relevant factors for determining the fairness
of the Settlement have been considered and all such factors weigh
in favor of granting final approval. In particular, the Settlement
was reached following meaningful discovery, investigation, and
analysis conducted by Plaintiffs' counsel; the Settlement is the
result of serious, informed, adversarial, and arm's length
negotiations between the parties; and the terms of the Settlement
are in all respects fair, adequate, and reasonable, with the
following modifications: litigation costs in the amount of $9,613;
and a Plaintiff service award in the amount of $4,000.

The court finds the $5,000 payment to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency to be fair and reasonable, grants
final approval for that payment, and orders that amount be paid out
of the total settlement amount in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement, as modified herein.

The court finds that the fees and expenses in administering the
Settlement, in the amount of $10,000 is fair and reasonable, grants
final approval for those fees and expenses, and orders that amount
be paid out of the total settlement amount in accordance with the
terms of the Settlement, as modified herein.

The Court finds that a Plaintiff service award in the amount of
$4,000 is fair and reasonable, grants final approval for a $4,000
service award, and orders that amount be paid out of the total
settlement amount in accordance with the terms of the Settlement,
as modified herein.

The Court finds that litigation costs in the amount of $9,612.49
and attorneys' fees in the amount of $61,661.00 are fair and
reasonable, and grants final approval for and orders that these
amounts be paid out of the total settlement amount in accordance
with the Settlement Agreement, as modified herein.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4qqwszj from Leagle.com.

Carmela Mora, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Martinez --
mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch, APLC A
Law Corporation, Hector Rodriguez Martinez --
hectorm@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez & Stanley Mallison
-- stanm@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez.

Cal West Ag Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony Peter
Raimondo -- apr@raimondoassociates.com -- Raimondo & Associates,
Gerardo Hernandez, Jr. --  gvh@raimondoassociates.com -- Raimondo &
Associates & Thomas Elmer Campagne  -- cc@campagnelaw.com --
Campagne & Campagne, A Prof. Corp.

Jon Marthedal & Eric Marthedal, Defendants, represented by Thomas
Elmer Campagne, Campagne & Campagne, A Prof. Corp. & Justin Thomas
Campagne, Campagne & Campagne, A Prof. Corp.
Jon Marthedal, Counter Claimant, represented by Justin Thomas
Campagne, Campagne & Campagne, A Prof. Corp.

Cal West Ag Services, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by
Gerardo Hernandez, Jr., Raimondo & Associates.

Cal West Ag Services, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by
Anthony Peter Raimondo, Raimondo & Associates & Gerardo Hernandez,
Jr., Raimondo & Associates.

Jon Marthedal, Counter Defendant, represented by Justin Thomas
Campagne, Campagne & Campagne, A Prof. Corp..


CAMPING WORLD: Bid to Dismiss IUOE Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------
Camping World Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019, that the parties in the class action
styled International Union of Operating Engineers Benefit Funds of
Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware v. Camping World Holdings Inc.,
et al. were scheduled to argue the merits of the defendants' motion
to dismiss before the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Commercial Division, on August 22, 2019.

On December 12, 2018, the putative class action complaint was filed
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, on
behalf of all purchasers of Camping World Class A common stock
issued pursuant and/or traceable to a secondary offering of such
securities in October 2017 ("IUOE Complaint").

The IUOE Complaint names as defendants the Company, and certain of
its officers and directors, among others, and alleges violations of
Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on
allegedly materially misleading statements or omissions of material
facts necessary to make certain statements not misleading and seeks
compensatory damages, including prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and any equitable or
injunctive relief the court deems just and proper, including
rescission.

On February 28, 2019, the Company, along with the other defendants,
moved to dismiss this action.

The Company said it believes it has meritorious defenses to the
claims of the plaintiffs and members of the putative class, and any
liability for the alleged claims is not currently probable or
reasonably estimable.

Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three
segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois.


CAMPING WORLD: Bid to Nix Ronge & Strougo Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated class action suit
in the Northern District of Illinois remains pending, according to
Camping World Holdings, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

On October 19, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit, captioned Ronge v. Camping World
Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and Crestview Partners II GP, L.P. and
Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. (the "Ronge Complaint").

On October 25, 2018, a different purported stockholder of the
Company filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Strougo v.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. et al., in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company,
certain of its officers and directors, and Crestview Partners II
GP, L.P. and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. (the "Strougo Complaint").

The Ronge and Strougo Complaints were consolidated and lead
plaintiffs appointed by the court.  On February 27, 2019, lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the Company,
certain of its officers, directors, Crestview Partners II GP, L.P.
and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C., and the underwriters of the May and
October 2017 secondary offerings of the Company's Class A common
stock.

The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and rule 10b-5
thereunder, based on allegedly materially misleading statements or
omissions of material facts necessary to make certain statements
not misleading related to the business, operations, and management
of the Company.  Additionally, it alleges that certain of the
Company's officers and directors, Crestview Partners II GP, L.P.,
and Crestview Advisors, L.L.C. violated Section 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, by allegedly acting as controlling persons
of the Company.  The lawsuit brings claims on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of the Company's Class A common stock between
March 8, 2017 and August 7, 2018, and seeks compensatory damages,
rescission, attorneys' fees and costs, and any equitable or
injunctive relief the court deems just and proper.

On May 17, 2019, the Company, along with the other defendants,
moved to dismiss the complaint.

The Company said it believes it has meritorious defenses to the
claims of the plaintiffs and members of the putative class, and any
liability for the alleged claims is not currently probable or
reasonably estimable.

Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three
segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois.


CAPITAL ONE: Barnes et al. Sue over Cardholder Data Theft
---------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY BARNES; DEVON REID; AMANDA COMONOTE; MICHAEL LEWIS;
CRYSTAL BIGGS; BRET GLIDEWELL; JOSEPH COOK, and DAVID CURTO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; CAPITAL ONE, N.A.,
and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA); N.A. Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01021
(E.D. Va., Aug. 6, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to protect their customers' private, personal, financial,
and confidential information, including but not limited to, the
Plaintiffs' bank account numbers, transaction histories,
self-reported incomes, credit scores, Social Security Numbers,
names, addresses, phone numbers, emails, dates of birth, and other
personally identifying information.

According to the complaint, a certain Paige Thompson, 33, a
resident of the State of Washington and former Amazon employee,
hacked the accounts of approximately 106 million Capital One
cardholders, including the Plaintiffs, and illegally obtained the
Plaintiffs' and the Class and Subclass Members' Sensitive
Information directly and proximately because the Defendants failed
to protect the information against breach and unauthorized access
thereto.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott A. Powell, Esq.
          HARE WYNN N EWELL & NEWTON, LLP
          2025 Third Avenue North, 8th Floor
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 328-5330
          Facsimile: (205) 324-2165
          E-mail: scott@hwnn.com


CAPITAL ONE: Charney Lawyers Launches Data Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Press reports that a Vancouver law firm says a class
action lawsuit has been launched on behalf of six million Canadians
whose personal information was compromised by a data breach at
Capital One Financial Corp.

Ted Charney, lead counsel of Charney Lawyers, says the breach may
turn out to be "extremely serious."

In addition to credit card application data such as phone numbers,
email addresses, dates of birth and self-reported income, the
hacker was also able to access credit scores, credit limits and
balances, as well as fragments of transaction information from a
total of 23 days in 2016, 2017 and 2018.

Charney says the account information is highly sensitive and in the
wrong hands could be used to commit identity fraud or to cause
damage to credit reputations.

The hacker is alleged to have been in possession of the data since
March, but it remains unclear to what extent the hacker sold or
distributed the data online.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada says it is
investigating the hack, which included one million social insurance
numbers that had been accessed without authorization. [GN]


CBL & ASSOCIATES: Accrues $88.1MM Liability for Wave Lengths Accord
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019, that it recorded an accrued liability
and corresponding litigation settlement expense of US$88,150,000 in
the three months ended March 31, 2019 related to the settlement of
the class action lawsuit initiated by Wave Lengths Hair Salons of
Florida, Inc. d/b/a Salon Adrian.

In April 2019, the Company entered into a settlement agreement and
release with respect to the class action lawsuit filed on March 16,
2016 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida by Wave Lengths Hair Salons of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Salon
Adrian.  The settlement agreement states that the Company is to set
aside a common fund with a monetary and non-monetary value of
US$90,000,000 to be disbursed to class members in accordance with
an agreed-upon formula that is based upon aggregate damages of
US$60,000,000.

Class members will be comprised of past and current tenants at
certain of the Company's shopping centers that it owns or formerly
owned during the class period, which will extend from January 1,
2011 through the date of court preliminary approval.  Class members
who are past tenants and make a claim will receive payment of their
claims in cash.  Class members who are current tenants will receive
monthly credits against rents and future charges, beginning no
earlier than January 1, 2020 and continuing for the following five
years.

Any amounts under the settlement allocated to tenants with
outstanding amounts payable to the Company, including tenants which
have declared bankruptcy or declare bankruptcy over the relevant
period, will first be deducted from the amounts owed to the
Company.  All attorney's fees and associated costs to be paid to
class counsel (up to a maximum of US$28,000,000), any incentive
award to the class representative (up to a maximum of US$50,000),
and class administration costs (which are expected to not exceed
US$100,000), will be funded by the common fund, but must be
approved by the court.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company will not
pay any dividends to holders of its common shares payable in the
third and fourth quarters of 2019.  The settlement agreement does
not restrict the Company's ability to declare dividends payable in
2020 or in subsequent years.

CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. is a self managed and self
administered real estate investment trust. The Company owns
regional shopping malls and community shopping centers in the
United States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


CBL & ASSOCIATES: Tennessee Court Reconsolidates Securities Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
After the plaintiff in one of the putative securities class action
lawsuits voluntarily dismissed his case in July 2019, a Tennessee
court re-consolidated the two remaining cases under the caption In
re CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. Securities Litigation,
1:19-cv-00181-JRG-CHS, on August 2, 2019.  

In its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, CBL &
Associates Properties, Inc. said that the Company and certain of
its officers and directors have been named as defendants in three
putative securities class action lawsuits (collectively, the
"Securities Class Action Litigation"), each filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities during a specified period of time.

The first such lawsuit, captioned Paskowitz v. CBL & Associates
Properties, Inc., et al., 1:19-cv-00149-JRG-CHS, was filed on May
17, 2019, and asserts claims on behalf of persons or entities that
purchased CBL securities between November 8, 2017 and March 26,
2019, inclusive.  The second such lawsuit, captioned Williams v.
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., et al., 1:19-cv-00181, was filed
on June 21, 2019, and asserts claims on behalf of persons or
entities that purchased CBL securities between April 29, 2016 and
March 26, 2019, inclusive.  The third such lawsuit, captioned
Merelles v. CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., et al.,
1:19-CV-00193, was filed on July 2, 2019, and asserts claims on
behalf of persons or entities that purchased CBL securities between
July 29, 2014 and March 26, 2019.

The Court consolidated these cases on July 17, 2019, under the
caption In re CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. Securities
Litigation, 1:19-cv-00149-JRG-CHS.  After plaintiff Laurence
Paskowitz voluntarily dismissed his case on July 25, 2019, the
Court re-consolidated the two remaining cases under the caption In
re CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. Securities Litigation,
1:19-cv-00181-JRG-CHS, on August 2, 2019.  

The complaints filed in the Securities Class Action Litigation
allege violations of the securities laws, including, among other
things, that the defendants made certain materially false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
contingent liabilities, business, operations, and prospects during
the periods of time specified above.  The plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs, among other
relief, but have not specified the amount of damages sought.

The Company said that the outcome of these legal proceedings cannot
be predicted with certainty.

CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. is a self managed and self
administered real estate investment trust. The Company owns
regional shopping malls and community shopping centers in the
United States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


CENIKOR FOUNDATION: Potter Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, John Potter, Jamie Circello, Chloe Fisher, James Dyer,
Alexa Berger, Infirmary-Med Dept Shelby Williams, Brian Cloyd,
Hershal Dale Cofer, III, Brandon Sullivan, Christopher B. Koon,
Andrew J Eskine, Corey Dunn, Jared Mouret, Brennan Cabrera, John
Brousseau, and Michael Mashburn, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Cenikor Foundation
and Bill Bailey, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00294 (Filed May
9, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas (Houston) on Aug. 14, 2019. The Southern
District of Texas  Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-03031 to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gray H
Miller.

Defendants required Potter and the putative members of the
collective action to work far in excess of 40 hours per week.
However, Defendants never paid them for the work performed.
Accordingly, the Defendants violated the federal minimum wage and
overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cenikor is an inpatient facility that provides rehabilitation
counseling to its patients. As a part of the its program, Cenikor
assigned Plaintiff Potter and the putative members of the
collective action to third-party companies for work.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          James R. Bullman, Esq.
          ESTES DAVIS LAW LLC
          850 N Blvd
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 336-3394
          E-mail: james@estesdavislaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Christopher K Jones, Esq.
          Vonceil Patrice Haley, Esq.
          KEOGH, COX & WILSON, LTD.
          701 Main Street
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 383-3796
          E-mail: cjones@kcwlaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Bradley Clay Knapp, Esq.
          Andrew Wilson Reed, Esq.
          Christopher Benjamin Dove, Esq.
          David Mitchell Gregory, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          2200 Ross Ave, Ste 2200
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 740-8586
          Facsimile: (214) 740-8800
          E-mail: bknapp@lockelord.com
                  andrew.reed@lockelord.com
                  cdove@lockelord.com
                  dgregory@lockelord.com

               - and -

          Frank Sommerville, Esq.
          WEYCER KAPLAN PULASKI ZUMBER PC
          3030 Matlock Rd., Ste 201
          Arlington, TX 76015
          Telephone: (817) 795-5046
          E-mail: fsommerville@wkpz.com

               - and -

          Joel P Babineaux, Esq.
          Karen T Bordelon, Esq.
          BABINEAUX POCHE ET AL
          1201 Camellia Blvd., Third Floor
          Lafayette, LA 70508
          Telephone: (337) 984-2505
          Facsimile: (337) 984-2503
          E-mail: jbabineaux@bpasfirm.com
                  kbordelon@bpasfirm.com

CENIKOR FOUNDATION: Sorey Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, Gregory Sorey, Katrina White, Ashley Rogers, Adam Ross
Johnson, Stuart Baye, Marlon Woods, Alester Williams, Jeremiah J.
Harrison, Charles Evan, Ginamarie Samudio-Penick, Suzanne Babin,
David Dupuis, Chris Mendow, John London, Dustin Carroll, Esteban
Collins, Beau Lirette, Jay Arthur Prejean, Austen Brown, Samuel
Wayne Cutrer, Ronnie Williams, Mattie Daniels ,and Lecretia Fraser,
on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated,
known and unknown the Plaintiffs, vs. Cenikor Foundation, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00267 (Filed May 1, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana, to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas (Houston) on Aug 14, 2019. The Southern District of Texas
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-03033 to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Keith P. Ellison.

The Plaintiff alleges that Cenikor violated the minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is a non-profit organization that holds itself out as
providing rehabilitation services for victims of substance
addiction.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Zachary Flowerree, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          3121 22nd Street
          Lubbock, TX 79410
          Telephone: (312) 520-3136
          Facsimile: (312) 419-1025

               - and -

          Andrew David Bizer, Esq.
          Emily Anne Westermeier, Esq.
          Garret Scott DeReus, Esq.
          BIZER & DEREUS
          3319 St. Claude Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70117
          Telephone: (504) 619-9999
          Facsimile: (504) 948-9996
          E-mail: ewest@bizerlaw.com

               - and -

          Douglas M Werman, Esq.
          WERMAN LAW OFFICE PC
          77 W Washington Street, Ste 1402
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com

Attorneys for Cenikor Foundation are:

          David Mitchell Gregory, Esq.
          Andrew Wilson Reed, Esq.
          Bradley Clay Knapp, Esq.
          Christopher Benjamin Dove, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD ET AL
          600 Travis, Ste 2800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 226-1344
          Facsimile: (713) 229-2630
          E-mail: dgregory@lockelord.com
                  andrew.reed@lockelord.com
                  bknapp@lockelord.com
                  cdove@lockelord.com

               - and -

          Frank Sommerville, Esq.
          WEYCER KAPLAN PULASKI ZUMBER PC
          3030 Matlock Rd., Ste 201
          Arlington, TX 76015
          Telephone: (817) 795-5046
          E-mail: fsommerville@wkpz.com

               - and -

          Joel P Babineaux, Esq.
          Karen T Bordelon, Esq.
          BABINEAUX POCHE ET AL
          1201 Camellia Blvd., Third Floor
          Lafayette, LA 70508
          Telephone: (337) 984-2505
          Facsimile: (337) 984-2503
          E-mail: jbabineaux@bpasfirm.com
                  kbordelon@bpasfirm.com

CLECO CORP: Class Status Hearing Today in Merger-Related Suit Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the plaintiffs' request for certification of a class
in a merger-related lawsuit is scheduled for August 26, 2019,
according to Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019.

In connection with a 2016 merger transaction, four actions were
filed in the 9th Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish,
Louisiana and three actions were filed in the Civil District Court
for Orleans Parish, Louisiana.  The petitions in each action
generally alleged, among other things, that the members of Cleco
Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties
by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale
process, agreeing to the 2016 Merger at a price that allegedly
undervalued Cleco, and failing to disclose material information
about the 2016 Merger.  The petitions also alleged that Cleco
Partners, Cleco Corporation, Merger Sub, and in some cases, certain
of the investors in Cleco Partners, either aided and abetted or
entered into a civil conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches
of duty.  The petitions seek various remedies, including monetary
damages, which includes attorneys' fees and expenses.

The four actions filed in the 9th Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish are captioned as follows:

   * Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October
27, 2014),

   * Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,417C (filed October 30, 2014),

   * Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014),
and

   * L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).

In November 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for
a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was
granted in November 2014.  In December 2014, the Court consolidated
the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-lead counsel.
Also, in December 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action
Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (the
Consolidated Amended Petition).  The consolidated action named
Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, and Merger Sub as
defendants.  The Consolidated Amended Petition alleged, among other
things, that Cleco Corporation's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Cleco's shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by
approving the 2016 Merger Agreement because it allegedly did not
value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through
which shareholder value would be maximized, engaging in
self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest, and failing to
disclose material information about the 2016 Merger.  The
Consolidated Amended Petition further alleged that all defendants
conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty.  Cleco believes
that the allegations of the Consolidated Amended Petition are
without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to
the claims set forth in the Consolidated Amended Petition.

The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish are captioned as follows:

   * Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7,
2014),

   * Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No.
2014-11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and

   * Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November
21, 2014).  

Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, BCI, and John Hancock
Financial as defendants.  The Creative Life Services action names
Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA,
and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants.  In
December 2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an Amended
Class Action Petition for Damages.  Each petition alleged, among
other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders
by approving the Merger Agreement because it allegedly did not
value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through
which shareholder value would be maximized and engaging in
self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest.  The Butler and
Creative Life Services petitions also allege that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material
information about the 2016 Merger.  Each petition further alleged
that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the
investors in Cleco Partners aided and abetted the directors'
breaches of fiduciary duty.  In December 2014, the directors and
Cleco filed declinatory exceptions in each action on the basis that
each action was improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should
either be transferred to the 9th Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish or dismissed.  Also, in December 2014, the
plaintiffs in each action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the
three actions pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim
co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.  In January 2015, the Court
in the Creative Life Services case sustained the defendants'
declinatory exceptions and dismissed the case so that it could be
transferred to the 9th Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish.
In February 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also
consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish so
they could be transferred to the 9th Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish.

In February 2015, the 9th Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed
by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan seeking to enjoin the
shareholder vote for approval of the Merger Agreement.  Following
the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion.  In June
2015, three of the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated
Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition.  This will
be considered according to a schedule established by the 9th
Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish.  Cleco filed exceptions
seeking dismissal of the amended petition in July 2015.

In March 2016 and May 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third
Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and
Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and their Fourth Verified
Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition, respectively.  The
fourth petition eliminated the request for preliminary and
permanent injunction and also named an additional executive officer
as a defendant.  Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the
amended Petition.  A hearing was held in September 2016, and the
District Court granted the exceptions filed by Cleco and dismissed
all claims asserted by the former shareholders.  The plaintiffs
appealed the District Court's ruling to the Louisiana Third Circuit
Court of Appeal.  The Third Circuit Court of Appeal heard oral
arguments in the case in September 2017.  In December 2017, the
Third Circuit Court of Appeal issued an order reversing and
remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

In January 2018, Cleco filed a writ with the Louisiana Supreme
Court seeking review of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's
decision.  The writ was denied in March 2018 and the parties are
engaged in discovery in the District Court.  In November 2018,
Cleco filed exceptions of no cause of action and res judicata,
seeking to dismiss all claims.  The District Court denied the
exceptions on January 14, 2019.  A hearing on the plaintiffs'
request for certification of a class is scheduled for August 26,
2019.  Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each
action are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious
defenses to the claims set forth in each of the petitions.

Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC operates as a public utility holding
company primarily in Louisiana. The company, through its
subsidiary, operates as a regulated electric utility, which owns
nine generating units with a total capacity of 3,310 megawatts and
serves approximately 291,000 customers in Louisiana through its
retail business; and supplies wholesale power in Louisiana and
Mississippi. The company was formerly known as Cleco Corporation
and changed its name to Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC in April 2016.
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC was founded in 1934 and is based in
Pineville, Louisiana.


COLUMBIA GAS: Trahan Comments on Merrimack Valley Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Keller, writing for CBS, reports that Democratic Rep. Lori
Trahan joined WBZ-TV political analyst Jon Keller to discuss the
settlement recently reached by Columbia Gas with victims of the
Merrimack Valley explosions. Trahan also discussed national
politics, including why she supports the impeachment of President
Trump.

Columbia Gas announced it reached a $143 million settlement,
resolving all class action lawsuits filed by residents and
businesses impacted by last fall's Merrimack Valley explosions.

Lawrence Mayor Dan Rivera said after the settlement was announced
the question is "after the attorneys take their cut, how much are
residents and businesses really left with?"

Trahan was asked if she agreed with Rivera's skepticism.

"We're going to monitor that. It's too early to make a statement
around if that settlement is adequate. We're going to be monitoring
how those claims are awarded," Trahan said.

"The reality is we've been working on the ground with so many of
the businesses that have outstanding claims, and we're going to
continue that work. We're going to continue. The pressure is still
on making sure every family and business is made whole." [GN]


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Amend Zwick Partners' Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the district court
has denied plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint in the case,
Zwick Partners, LP and Aparna Rao, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Quorum Health Corporation,
Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash,
Thomas D. Miller, and Michael J. Culotta.

This purported class action lawsuit previously filed in the United
States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee was amended on
April 17, 2017 to include Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T.
Smith and W. Larry Cash as additional defendants.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of Quorum Health
Corporation (QHC) shareholders and allege that the failure to
record a goodwill and long-lived asset impairment charge against
QHC at the time of the spin-off of QHC violated federal securities
laws.

The District Court denied all defendants' motions to dismiss on
April 20, 2018. The plaintiffs moved for class certification.
Plaintiffs also amended their complaint on September 14, 2018.

The company moved to dismiss the additional claims in the
plaintiffs' September 14, 2018 amended complaint and responded to
plaintiffs' class certification motion.

On March 29, 2019, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the additional claims. The court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification on that same date.

On April 12, 2019, the company filed a petition for permission to
appeal the court's order granting class certification with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which was
denied on July 31, 2019.

On May 17, 2019, the plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint for
a third time to add additional claims, which the District Court
denied on August 2, 2019.

Community Health said, "We believe the claims are without merit and
will vigorously defend the case."

Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly
traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading
operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare
services through the hospitals that the company owns and operate
and affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets
throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin,
Tennessee.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bowden Suit over Hospital Liens Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. continues to defend itself against
the case, Bowden, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ruston Louisiana Hospital Company, LLC d/b/a
Northern Louisiana Medical Center, was set for August 22, 2019, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019.

This case is a purported class action lawsuit filed in the 3rd
Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and served on
September 7, 2016, claiming the company's affiliated Ruston,
Louisiana hospital violated payor contracts by allegedly improperly
asserting hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors and
seeking class certifications for any similarly situated plaintiffs.


The company's motion for summary judgment is pending, as is
plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Both motions were set for hearing on August 22, 2019.

Community Health said, "We believe these claims are without merit
and will vigorously defend the case."

Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly
traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading
operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare
services through the hospitals that the company owns and operate
and affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets
throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin,
Tennessee.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Class Certification Bid in Tenn. Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that plaintiff's motion
for class certification in the consolidated class action suit in
Tennessee has been granted.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; namely,
Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems,
Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis Firefighters
Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed
June 21, 2011.

All three seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock between July 27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and
allege that misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated
prices for our common stock.

In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes
and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead
plaintiffs' counsel.

In lieu of ruling on the company's motion to dismiss, the court
permitted the plaintiffs to file a first amended consolidated class
action complaint which was filed on October 5, 2015.

The company's motion to dismiss was filed on November 4, 2015 and
oral argument took place on April 11, 2016. The company's motion to
dismiss was granted on June 16, 2016 and on June 27, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

The matter was heard on May 3, 2017. On December 13, 2017, the
Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court's dismissal of the case and
remanded it to the District Court.

The company filed a renewed partial motion to dismiss on February
9, 2018, which was denied by the District Court on September 24,
2018.

The company also filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court on April 18, 2018 seeking review of the
Sixth Circuit's decision.

The United States Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of
certiorari on October 1, 2018. The District Court granted the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification on July 26, 2019.

Community Health said, "We believe this consolidated matter is
without merit and will vigorously defend this case."

Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly
traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading
operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare
services through the hospitals that the company owns and operate
and affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets
throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin,
Tennessee.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Cyber Attack Claims Bar Date Expired August 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, the deadline for
purported class members in the litigation related to a 2014 data
theft to submit claims expired August 1, 2019.

On August 18, 2014, the company's computer network was the target
of an external, criminal cyber-attack that the company believes
occurred between April and June, 2014.

The company and Mandiant (a FireEye Company), the forensic expert
engaged by the company in connection with this matter, believe the
attacker was a foreign "Advanced Persistent Threat" group who used
highly sophisticated malware and technology to attack our systems.


The attacker was able to bypass the company's security measures and
successfully copy and transfer outside the Company certain
non-medical patient identification data (such as patient names,
addresses, birthdates, telephone numbers and social security
numbers), but not including patient credit card, medical or
clinical information.

The company worked closely with federal law enforcement authorities
in connection with their investigation and prosecution of those
determined to be responsible for this attack.

Mandiant has conducted a thorough investigation of this incident
and continues to advise the company regarding security and
monitoring efforts. The company has provided appropriate
notification to affected patients and regulatory agencies as
required by federal and state law. The company has offered identity
theft protection services to individuals affected by this attack.

The company has incurred certain expenses to remediate and
investigate this matter. In addition, multiple purported class
action lawsuits have been filed against us and certain
subsidiaries. These lawsuits allege that sensitive information was
unprotected and inadequately encrypted by the company.

The plaintiffs claim breach of contract and other theories of
recovery, and are seeking damages, as well as restitution for any
identity theft.

On February 4, 2015, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the transfer of the purported
class actions pending outside of the District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama to the District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

A consolidated complaint was filed and the company filed a motion
to dismiss on September 21, 2015, which was partially argued on
February 10, 2016. In an oral ruling from the bench, the court
greatly limited the potential class by ruling only plaintiffs with
specific injury resulting from the breach had standing to sue.

Further, on jurisdictional grounds, the court dismissed Community
Health Systems, Inc. from all non-Tennessee based cases.

Finally, the court set April 15, 2016 for further argument on
whether the remaining plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a cause
of action to continue their cases.

On April 15, 2016 in an oral ruling from the bench, the court
dismissed additional claims and following this oral ruling only
eight of the forty plaintiffs remained, with significant
limitations imposed on their ability to assert claims for damages.
These oral rulings were confirmed in a written order filed on
September 12, 2016.

On October 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for
interlocutory appeal from the motion to dismiss ruling and on
February 15, 2017 this motion was denied.

Plaintiffs refiled their motion for permission to seek
interlocutory appeal on March 15, 2017, and that motion was also
denied. The company has settled these class action lawsuits, and
the settlement has been approved by the District Court.

Notices of the settlement and claim forms have been mailed to
purported class members. The deadline for purported class members
to opt out of or object to the settlement was May 18, 2019, with no
purported class members objecting or opting out.

The deadline for purported class members to submit claims was
August 1, 2019.

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

Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly
traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading
operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare
services through the hospitals that the company owns and operate
and affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets
throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin,
Tennessee.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Louisiana High Court Won't Hear Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the application for
writ of certiorari to the Louisiana Supreme Court in the clas
action suit entitled, Gibson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Healthcare of Leesville, Inc.
d/b/a Byrd Regional Medical Center, has been denied.

This case is a purported class action lawsuit filed in the 30th
Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and served on
August 3, 2016, claiming the company's formerly affiliated
Leesville, Louisiana hospital violated payor contracts by allegedly
improperly asserting hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors
and seeking class certifications for any similarly situated
plaintiffs.

The court has certified a class and denied the company's motion for
summary judgment.

The company appealed both rulings to the Louisiana Third Circuit
Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decisions on
March 7, 2019.

The company filed an application for writ of certiorari to the
Louisiana Supreme Court, which was denied on May 29, 2019.

Community Health said, "We believe these claims are without merit
and will vigorously defend the case."

Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly
traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading
operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare
services through the hospitals that the company owns and operate
and affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets
throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin,
Tennessee.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Padilla Class Action Underway in Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Caleb Padilla,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v
Community Health Systems, Inc. Wayne T. Smith, Larry Cash, and
Thomas J Aaron.

This purported federal securities class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
on May 30, 2019.

It seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common
stock between February 20, 2017 and February 27, 2018 and alleges
misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for
the company's common stock.

No responsive pleading is due to the complaint at this time,
pending the District Court's appointment of a Lead Plaintiff in the
action.

Community Health said, "We believe this matter is without merit and
will vigorously defend this case."

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

Community Health Systems, Inc. is one of the largest publicly
traded hospital companies in the United States and a leading
operator of general acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
in communities across the country. The company provide healthcare
services through the hospitals that the company owns and operate
and affiliated businesses in non-urban and selected urban markets
throughout the United States. The company is based in Franklin,
Tennessee.


COOK COUNTY, IL: Bid to Certify Class in Work Bias Suit Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case
captioned CRYSTAL BROWN, SARAN CRAYTON, SAMANTHAN SLONIM, CELESTE
ADDYMAN, ERIKA KNIERIM, and JULIE HULL, on behalf of themselves and
a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. COOK COUNTY,
AMY CAMPANELLI, in her official and individual capacity as Public
Defender of Cook County, and THOMAS DART, in his official and
individual capacity as Sheriff of CookCounty, Defendants. Case No.
17 C 8085. (N.D. Ill.).

The plaintiffs in this putative class action have sued Cook County,
Cook County Public Defender Amy Campanelli, and Cook County Sheriff
Thomas Dart alleging employment discrimination under Title VII, the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and parallel
provisions of state law. The named plaintiffs are women who serve
or have served as assistant public defenders for the county and who
contend that the defendants created a hostile work environment for
women they employed. They also allege that one of the defendants,
Campanelli, retaliated when the plaintiffs sought redress.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 sets out the requirements for
class certification. First, under Rule 23(a) a putative class must
satisfy the requirements of numerosity, typicality, commonality,
and adequacy.Next, Rule 23(b)(3) permits class certification only
if questions of law or fact common to class members predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members and  a class
action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

Hostile work environment class

The plaintiffs' hostile work environmental claims arise under Title
VII and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
(via 42 U.S.C. Section 1983). To prevail on their Title VII claims,
the plaintiffs must show that (1) they were subject to unwelcome
harassment (2) the harassment was based on their sex (3) the
harassment was so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of
employment and create a hostile or abusive working environment and
(4) there is a basis for employer liability.

Where a hostile work environment is created by a third party such
as a person detained at a jail or prison an employer may be liable
under Title VII's negligence standard if it failed to discover and
prevent sexual harassment of an employee giving rise to a hostile
work environment.

The defendants challenge the plaintiffs' showings under Rules 23(a)
and 23(b). First, although they concede numerosity, the defendants
contend that the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate commonality,
typicality, and adequacy for their hostile work environment claims.
Likewise, they argue that the plaintiffs' claims do not satisfy
Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements of predominance and superiority.

Ascertainability, due process, and standing

The defendants argue that the hostile work environmental class is
not ascertainable for two reasons. First, they argue that the
class's purported inclusion of law clerks required to visit the
jail and/or lockup in connection with their employment is not
ascertainable because law clerks are not and were never required to
visit either location. This argument lacks merit.

That law clerks were purportedly never required to enter lockup
does not present a problem of ascertainability because, whether or
not that was the case, it is still an objective, readily
discernible criterion. That is, the inclusion of that language does
not cause a portion of the class to be unidentifiable. Rather,
assuming the defendants are correct, that portion of the class
definition is objectively ascertained to include zero putative
plaintiffs. For that reason, this argument is best understood as a
swipe at the merits of those class members' hostile work
environment claims.

The Court therefore overrules defendants' argument.  

Second, the defendants argue that the class is not ascertainable
because it purportedly includes assistant public defenders who have
not yet but may at some point in the future be required to enter
the jail or lockup.  

The defendants' citation is inapposite. The fact that the class
defines its membership to include all those who meet certain clear
criteria from November 1, 2015 through the present undoubtedly
satisfies the Seventh Circuit's ascertainability requirement that a
class definition must identify a particular time frame,
notwithstanding the defendants' citation to Third Circuit authority
to the contrary.  

The defendants are correct, however, to the extent that they argue
that the proposed hostile work environment class presents notice
problems. But they are incorrect to describe these notice problems
in terms of ascertainability.  

The Court concludes that certifying the hostile work environment
class proposed by the plaintiffs would potentially violate the due
process rights of future putative class members and that the
definition sweeps somewhat too broadly for certification under Rule
23(b)(3). The Court reaches this conclusion because reasonable
notice cannot be provided to the putative class members who will be
required to visit the jail and/or the lockup as part of their work
due to the fact that they are necessarily unidentifiable at this
point.  

In consideration of due process and standing, but not as a result
of the defendants' ascertainability arguments, the Court will
modify the hostile work environment class definition to exclude the
phrase or will be required to visit.

Rule 23(a)

As previously noted, Rule 23(a) requires a plaintiff class to
satisfy the requirements of numerosity, typicality, commonality,
and adequacy. Numerosity is undisputed here, presumably because the
putative class includes more than 260 assistant public defenders
and seventy law clerks. But the defendants challenge plaintiffs'
ability to meet each of the other requirements.

Commonality

Rule 23(a)(2) requires a plaintiff seeking class certification to
show that there are questions of law or fact common to the
class.The Supreme Court has clarified that commonality requires not
the raising of common questions'even in droves but, rather the
capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt
to drive the resolution of the litigation. For the purposes of this
requirement, even a single common question will do.

The Court concludes that there are several questions subject to
common resolution that satisfy this requirement. The defendants
argue, citing Bolden v. Walsh Construction Co., 688 F.3d 893(7th
Cir. 2012), that the fact that members of the putative class worked
in different divisions of the Public Defender's office renders
their claims unsatisfactory under the commonality requirement. But
that citation is unavailing. Bolden concerned allegations of
discrimination from a class of construction workers who worked on
more than 260 different worksites around Chicago.  

Each worksite was led by a superintendent, and each superintendent
exercised his discretion differently, though the plaintiffs
contended many practiced or permitted racial discrimination. The
Seventh Circuit concluded that because the discrimination was
effected by myriad different independent actors without any
apparent common cause, there were no sufficiently important common
questions subject to collective resolution. The defendants contend
the same rationale applies here to the sixteen different divisions
of the Public Defender program and the various different working
situations assistant public defenders experience across the Cook
County Jail system.

Since Bolden was decided, however, the Seventh Circuit has
explained that working in different locations and for different
supervisors does not automatically defeat commonality for a
putative employment discrimination class. In Chicago Teachers
Union, the court held that where there is a common policy that
applies across worksites and channels individual supervisors'
discretion in discriminatory ways, that common policy may serve as
the glue that binds the claims together for purposes of class
certification. Chi. Teachers Union, 797 F.3d at 436.

The plaintiffs here point to evidence, discussed previously, that
they contend shows common questions regarding several of the
defendants' policies and their effects on the plaintiffs' work
environment. These common questions include whether the attacks by
inmates were so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of
employment and create a hostile or abusive working environment;
whether the defendants' policies led to the rapid proliferation of
masturbation attacks against public defenders and law clerks across
the Cook County Jail system; whether the defendants discouraged the
plaintiffs from reporting when they were attacked; and whether the
defendants' delay in making effective changes to reduce the rate of
violence constituted an unreasonable delay in discovering and
remedying the situation. Any one of these or several other common
questions presented by the plaintiffs will resolve an issue that is
central to the validity of each claim, thus satisfying the
commonality requirement.

Typicality

The defendants next argue that the plaintiffs' claims are
insufficiently typical for class certification. A class
representative's claims are typical of the proposed class if they
arise from the same event or practice or course of conduct that
gives rise to claims of the other class members and [are] based on
the same legal theory. The defendants' typicality arguments are
closely related to those they made regarding commonality. That is
perhaps unsurprising given that commonality and typicality tend to
merge.

Specifically, the defendants point to the plaintiffs' masturbation
attack report data, which suggest that most of the attacks occurred
in divisions 9 and 10 and the Leighton Courthouse lockups. They
take issue with the plaintiffs' proposal to certify a class that
includes women who worked as assistant public defenders and law
clerks in outlying courthouses and for divisions of the office that
have no regular contact with detained people, such as those who
work with juvenile offenders.

The defendants argue that because all but one of the named
plaintiffs worked in the Felony Trial Division at the Leighton
Courthouse, the exception being Willis, who worked at the Markham
Courthouse, their claims are atypical of the plaintiff class.
Relying primarily on case law from the Sixth Circuit, the
defendants argue that even if the class representatives are able to
prove their own claims, they will not be able to prove those of
other class members.

But typicality does not require perfect identity of claims. Here,
the plaintiffs' claims all share the same essential
characteristics: they each allege that they were subject to a
hostile work environment as a result of the defendants' policies,
which they say exacerbated or at least failed to address
masturbation attacks by detainees against female assistant public
defenders and law clerks. They also all contend that the defendants
were aware of the problem, acknowledged that it was widespread
across the Cook County Jail system, and failed to enact reasonable
and effective changes to resolve it.  

The Court is satisfied that the named plaintiffs' claims are
sufficiently typical to support certification. In sum, the Court
finds that the putative class's claims satisfy the typicality
requirement of Rule 23(a)(3).

Adequacy

To satisfy the adequacy requirement, the plaintiffs must
demonstrate both that the named plaintiffs are satisfactory
representatives for the class and that their counsel are up to the
task of prosecuting the action. The defendants do not contest
adequacy of counsel. Although adequacy overlaps somewhat with
commonality and typicality, it also requires analysis of whether
there are conflicts of interest between the class representatives
and potential members of the class Because the Court already
addressed the portions of the defendants' argument that overlap
with commonality and typicality, the Court focuses here on the
latter point.

The defendants make two primary arguments to support their
contention that the named plaintiffs are inadequate representatives
of the class. First, they say that because some of the law clerk
class members accompanied male assistant public defenders into
lockups, they did not suffer injuries and are thus not adequately
represented by the named plaintiffs, each of whom alleges
significant harm. That is, the defendants appear to suggest that
the presence of a male public defender in lockup inoculated law
clerks from attack by detainees, rendering those women immune from
harm. This contention is contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Specifically, there is significant evidence that the detainees who
perpetrated these attacks had no reservations about exposing
themselves in front of other men; indeed, there is substantial
testimony suggesting that some of the attackers participated in
group attacks in concert with other male detainees. And the
plaintiffs to evidence of at least one attack on a female law clerk
who was assigned to accompany a male public defender.

The Court is therefore unpersuaded that the fact that some law
clerks were assigned to work with male public defenders
automatically protected them from attack, rendering their claims so
different from those of the proposed representatives that it
defeats adequacy of representation.

Although this is a close question, the Court concludes that the
named plaintiffs are adequate representatives for the law clerks'
claims. Specifically, the Court concludes that the potential
conflicts insinuated and not even fully argued by the defendants
are too speculative to defeat adequacy. As with any finding at
class certification, however, the Court reserves the right to
revisit this issue if necessary later in the litigation.  

In sum, the Court finds the proposed representatives to be adequate
under Rule 23(a)(4).
Rule 23(b)(3)

Rule 23(b)(3) allows a class action for damages or other relief to
be maintained only if questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members, and  a class action is superior to other available methods
for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

Predominance

The defendants argue that the proposed class cannot satisfy the
predominance requirement.
The defendants contend that individualized questions predominate
over those common to the plaintiffs' claims. In support of this
position, they lean heavily on two cases from district courts
outside the Seventh Circuit that involved putative hostile work
environment classes of female prison employees. Berndt v. Cal.
Dep't of Corr., No. C 03-3175 PJH, 2012 WL 950625 (N.D. Cal. Mar.
20, 2012); Rudolph v. Dep't of Corr., No. 5:06cv56-RS (N.D. Fla.
Nov. 9, 2006). In both cases, district courts found putative
classes that included large numbers of employees spread across
entire states' correctional systems to be overbroad and to lack
predominance.

And no wonder; each sought to certify classes of women who worked
in various prisons across an entire state's correctional system,
California for Berndt and Florida for Rudolph. The judges
emphasized the literal and metaphorical distance among the
plaintiff class members' claims and concluded that, given the
overbreadth of the class definitions, certification under Rule
23(b)(3) was impossible. And, in Berndt, the district court also
emphasized that the plaintiff class sought certification of a class
with a definition spanning all the way back to 1989, raising the
obvious question whether certain of the putative class members'
claims are time-barred.

Berndt and Rudolph are readily distinguishable. Both cases
concerned putative classes far broader than the one proposed here
in terms of time, physical scope, and size. Moreover, both cases
involved the sort of concerns addressed by the Seventh Circuit in
Bolden, 688 F.3d at 898, wherein individual decision-makers in
Bolden, worksite superintendents, and in Rudolph and Berndt, prison
wardens exercised largely unfettered discretion to regulate the
various wok environments experienced by the many different putative
class members. Here, on the other hand, the plaintiffs have
persuasively demonstrated that a common policy or set of policies
adopted by the defendants created or permitted an allegedly hostile
work environment.  

The Court concludes that the plaintiffs have established that
significant common questions predominate. Turning to the elements
of the underlying cause of action, Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v.
Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. 804, 809 (2011), the Court notes that
nearly all are subject to common resolution. To establish liability
on their Title VII claims, the plaintiffs must show that (1) they
were subject to unwelcome harassment (2) the harassment was based
on their sex (3) the harassment was so severe or pervasive as to
alter the conditions of employment and create a hostile or abusive
working environment and (4) there is a basis for employer
liability. And for the constitutional claims, the plaintiffs must
additionally demonstrate that the defendants acted or failed to act
under color of law.  

All but one of these elements is readily susceptible to collective
resolution. First, the plaintiffs allege that detainees formed a
prison gang called Savage Life with the primary aim of organizing
masturbation attacks on women who worked in the prison. Proof of
this allegation will easily satisfy the second element. Likewise,
the objective severity of the harassment underlying the hostile
work environment allegations is subject to resolution in a single
proceeding. The same is true of employer liability; the record
before the Court confirms that the plaintiffs' claims that the
defendants' efforts to address the masturbation attacks were
delayed and ineffective to the point of negligence (or worse) will
rise or fall as one.

The additional element that the plaintiffs must prove to succeed on
their section 1983 claims against Dart and Campanelli in their
official capacities that the defendants were acting under color of
law when they devised and enacted (or failed to enact) policies
with respect to the widespread sexual harassment will surely also
be susceptible to collective resolution. And the Court is satisfied
that the subjective element of the hostile work environment claim
will neither predominate nor be particularly complicated for each
individual plaintiff to prove.

The Court finds that the hostile work environment class satisfies
the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).

Superiority

Rule 23(b)(3)'s second requirement asks whether a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy. This requirement is comparative: the
court must assess efficiency with an eye toward other available
methods. The rule identifies four factors that may be relevant to
the superiority analysis:

(A) the class members' interests in individually controlling the
prosecution or defense of separate actions (B) the extent and
nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun
by or against class members (C) the desirability or undesirability
of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular
forum and (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.

Here, the defendants' arguments largely fold into those already
discussed and rejected. They assert without much analysis that the
putative class's claims would be unmanageable because they would
require mini-trials to determine whether each member of the
putative class was actually injured by what one of the defendants
has described as an epidemic of masturbation attacks across the
Cook County Jail system. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, remind
the Court that the attacks were allegedly permitted and even
exacerbated by the defendants' policies and that it was not until
this Court entered its preliminary injunction that the defendants
began to get a handle on the situation.

Ultimately, the Court concludes that a class action is far superior
to sending the hundreds of members of this putative class to file
individual lawsuits against the defendants.  

Retaliation subclass

The plaintiffs also seek certification of a subclass for their
retaliation claims against Campanelli. Specifically, they allege
that Campanelli adopted the October 2017 lockup ban in retaliation
against members of the plaintiff class filing an EEOC charge and
making other complaints.

To prevail on a retaliation claim, the plaintiffs must present
evidence of (1) a statutorily protected activity (2) a materially
adverse action taken by the employer and (3) a causal connection
between the two.

Except for a perfunctory assertion that this subclass shares the
same problems as the hostile work environment class, the defendants
do not contest that it satisfies Rule 23(b)(3). Indeed,
Campanelli's objections to the subclass definition are refreshingly
focused. First, she argues that the plaintiffs' amended complaint
alleges retaliation only in the form of the lockup ban. Therefore,
she contends, the proposed subclass definition should be limited to
assistant public defenders who worked at the Leighton Courthouse
during the twenty-three days in October 2017 during which the ban
was in effect.

Second, Campanelli argues that the amended complaint identifies
only the EEOC charge as relevant protected behavior and not other
forms of complaints or charges. She contends that because only
seventeen of the plaintiffs jointly filed the EEOC charge, the
subclass should be limited to those seventeen plaintiffs. After
adjusting the class definition to reflect the appropriate number of
putative subclass members, Campanelli argues, the retaliation
subclass is insufficiently numerous to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1).

The plaintiffs disagree with Campanelli's reading. They argue that
they properly alleged a broader theory of retaliation in their
first amended complaint and that the subclass should therefore be
permitted to pursue claims on behalf of all female assistant public
defenders who, during the class period, filed charges or reported
or made complaints about detainee masturbation or indecent exposure
incidents, including but not limited to the EEOC charge.

Although the Court concludes that certification of the subclass may
be appropriate, it declines to grant certification at this time.
The record contains insufficient information from which to assess
whether the subclass satisfies Rule 23(a)'s numerosity requirement
after these necessary adjustments are made. Rule 23(a)(1) permits
certification only where the class is so numerous that joinder is
impracticable. As previously noted, that rule is commonly presumed
to be satisfied where the proposed class includes more than forty
members. Before the adjustments made here, there were purportedly
forty-seven putative subclass members. But there is no basis in the
record by which the Court can assess whether the narrower
retaliation class definition approved by the Court will reduce the
size of the subclass to an extent that numerosity under Rule
23(a)(1) is lacking.

The Court therefore declines to certify the proposed subclass
unless and until such evidence is provided.

The Court grants the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
part and denies it in part.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 12, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3k5k3as from
Leagle.com.

Crystal Brown, Saran Crayton, Samantha Slonim, Celeste Addyman,
Erika Knierim & Julie Hull, on Behalf of Themselves and a Class of
Similarly Situated persons, Plaintiffs, represented by Maria De Las
Nieves Bolanos, Potter Bolanos LLC, Robin B. Potter, Potter Bolanos
LLC & Alenna Kathryn Bolin, Potter Bolanos LLC, 111 East Wacker
Road, Suite 2600, Chicago, IL 60601

Cook County, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth A. Ekl --
eekl@reiterburns.com -- Reiter Burns LLP, Kathleen Cunniff Ori,
Cook County State's Attorney's Office Civil Actions Bureau,
Terrence Michael Burns -- tburns@reiterburns.com -- Reiter Burns
LLP, Colleen Marie Harvey, Cook County State's Attorneys Office,
Daniel Matthew Noland -- dnoland@reiterburns.com -- Reiter Burns
LLP, James Chandler, Cook County State's Attorney's Office,
Katherine Carole Morrison -- kmorrison@reiterburns.com -- Reiter
Burns LLP & Paul A. Michalik -- pmichalik@reiterburns.com -- Reiter
Burns LLP.

Thomas Dart, in his official and individual capacity as Sheriff of
Cook County, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Egan --
cegan@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP, David D. Leishman
-dleishman@mcguirewoods.com -- Mcguirewoods, Katharine P. Lennox
-klennox@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Melissa Marie Weiss
-- mweiss@mcguirewoods.com -- Mcguirewoods Llp, Michael Ross
Phillips -- mphillips@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP & Peter
A. Milianti -- pmilianti@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP.


COOK COUNTY, IL: Court OKs Class Certification in Howard Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case
captioned DAHRIE HOWARD, ELLENOR ALTMAN, DENISE HOBBS, TAVI
BURROUGHS, BALVINA RANNEY, TAWANDA WILSON, SUSANA PLASENCIA, ESTHER
JONES, KIMBERLY CRAWFORD-ALEXANDER, and DOMINIQUE FREEMAN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE and COUNTY OF COOK, Defendants.
Case No. 17 C 8146. (N.D. Ill.).

The plaintiffs are women employed as correctional officers,
rehabilitation workers, medical professionals, and deputy sheriffs
at the Cook County Jail and the adjoining criminal courthouse. They
have sued Cook County and the Sheriff's Office, which operates the
jail, alleging that the defendants failed to curtail sexual
harassment by male detainees including sexual epithets, threats of
sexual violence, and masturbation in violation of Title VII, the
Illinois Civil Rights Act, and the Equal Protection Clause of the
U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment.

The plaintiffs have moved to certify the following class:

     All women who have been employed by the CCSO at the Jail, or
as Court Services deputies at the Leighton Courthouse, or by the
County in positions with Cermak Health Services, at any time since
April 23, 2015, except women who, during that period, have held the
positions identified in Exhibit A to Complaint.

A party moving for class certification must show that the proposed
class meets the requirements of Federal Rule Civil Procedure 23(a):
numerosity, typicality, commonality, and adequacy of
representation. Because the plaintiffs seek certification under
Rule 23(b)(3), they must also show that questions of law or fact
common to the class members predominate over individualized issues
and that a class action is the superior method of adjudicating the
case.

Ascertainability

At the threshold, the members of a proposed class must be
ascertainable, meaning that the class must be defined clearly and
based on objective criteria. The proposed class in this case is
clearly defined and does not incorporate impermissible criteria,
such as subjective mental states or entitlement to relief on the
merits. It therefore satisfies the ascertainability requirement.

Numerosity

The plaintiffs contend that the class contains nearly 2,000
members, which is more than enough to satisfy the numerosity
requirement. The defendants do not dispute that the proposed class
is sufficiently numerous, and the Court finds that this requirement
is satisfied.

Commonality

In order to satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a), the
plaintiffs must identify at least one question common to all the
class members whose answer is apt to drive the resolution of the
litigation. The plaintiffs point to four questions they contend
meet this requirement, though for the purposes of commonality the
Court needs to consider only the first one: whether the work
environment at the jail and the courthouse is objectively
offensive.

The defendants argue that the question of objective offensiveness
cannot be resolved for the class as a whole. A plaintiff alleging
that the defendant has created a hostile work environment in
violation of Title VII must show that the harassment was severe or
pervasive to a degree that altered the conditions of employment and
created a hostile or abusive work environment.

The defendants contend that differences among the class members'
work environments make it impossible to resolve the question of
whether the harassment was objectively hostile on a classwide
basis. They point to evidence that an outsize proportion of the
incidents of sexual misconduct by detainees occurred in three
maximum security residential divisions and that some of the
putative class members (for example, those that work in the records
department or in all-female divisions of the jail) had considerably
less contact with detainees.

The defendants rely on Bolden v. Walsh Construction Co., 688 F.3d
893 (7th Cir. 2012), in which the Seventh Circuit held that
employees of a construction company alleging a racially hostile
work environment could not satisfy the commonality requirement
because different worksites within the company had materially
different working conditions. The court relied on the Supreme
Court's decision in Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart, 564 U.S. at 359, in which
the Court held that a policy of leaving hiring decisions up to the
discretion of store managers did not constitute convincing proof of
a company-wide discriminatory pay and promotion policy.

The final aspect of this case that distinguishes Bolden is the
plaintiffs' evidence concerning ambient harassment, which Dr.
Fitzgerald defines as harassment that reaches beyond the focal
individual to affect the entire workgroup. She further explains
that ambient harassment refers to the experience of working in an
environment highly permeated with sexually offensive and degrading
behavior, that is, a highly sexualized atmosphere in which crude
and offensive sexual behavior is common and employees see that it
is normative, whether specifically directed at them or not. The
evidence of widespread sexual harassment by detainees shows that
there is at least one common question whether the ambient
harassment experienced by female employees at the jail and the
courthouse is sufficiently severe and pervasive to support a Title
VII hostile work environment claim whose answer will drive the
resolution of the litigation.

The defendants argue that ambient harassment cannot support a
finding of commonality because the plaintiffs are unlikely to
prevail on that theory. Even if that assessment were correct which
is far from clear the defendants' arguments concerning the
viability a Title VII claim based on ambient harassment implicate
only the putative class's entitlement to relief, not the
appropriateness of class certification based on common questions.
At this early stage in the litigation, the merits are not on the
table.

Typicality

Rule 23(a)(3) requires the claims of the named plaintiffs to be
typical of the claims of the class. The Seventh Circuit has
explained that a named plaintiff's claims are typical if they arise
from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives
rise to the claims of other class members and are based on the same
legal theory. The defendants argue that the plaintiffs cannot
satisfy typicality in light of the variation between putative class
members' job duties and work environments.

The Court concludes that the named plaintiffs' claims share the
same essential characteristics as those of the class as a whole.
Although the Seventh Circuit has recognized that direct harassment
differs from ambient or secondhand harassment, that difference is a
matter of degree rather than of kind. The putative class members
who did not experience direct harassment thus do not rely on a
different legal theory than the named plaintiffs; the underlying
claim of harassment and the role of the defendants' policies in
allegedly permitting that harassment are the same. The plaintiffs
have therefore met their burden to show that their claims are
typical of the class as a whole.

Adequacy of representation

Rule 23(a)(4) requires the named plaintiffs to be fair and adequate
representatives of the class. The adequacy inquiry under Rule
23(a)(4) serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named
parties and the class they seek to represent. The defendants argue
that the named plaintiffs are not adequate representatives because
the proposed class includes women who were employed in a
supervisory capacity.

They point out that the plaintiffs have alleged that supervisors
failed to respond appropriately to complaints of sexual misconduct
by detainees, including by ignoring other putative class members'
complaints and deterring them from filing incident reports. The
defendants cite evidence that at least some of the supervisors who
allegedly failed to respond appropriately were women. Notably,
however, none of the named plaintiffs is a supervisor.

The plaintiffs first contend that there is no conflict between the
interests of the named plaintiffs and those of the putative class
members who worked as supervisors because all the members of the
proposed class were subject to the same policies. The plaintiffs
also note that despite whatever discretion they exercised, the
supervisors in the putative class were not responsible for crafting
those policies. But although the defendants' policies affected
supervisory and non-supervisory employees alike, the plaintiffs
also point to alleged misconduct by supervisors as a factor that
contributed to the hostile work environment.

Under these circumstances, there is a significant risk that
successfully prosecuting their claims will require the plaintiffs
to introduce evidence of wrongdoing by some of the class members.
This evidence may undermine the ability of those class members, or
perhaps even the class as a whole, to obtain relief.

In light of these concerns, the Court concludes that it is
appropriate to modify the proposed class definition to exclude
women who worked in supervisory roles.

Predominance

A plaintiff seeking certification under Rule 23(b)(3) must show
that common issues predominate in the litigation. Rule 23(b)(3)'s
predominance requirement is satisfied when common questions
represent a significant aspect of a case and can be resolved for
all members of a class in a single adjudication.

The plaintiffs have identified several questions common to the
class as a whole. The first, as the Court previously discussed, is
whether all of the putative class members experienced an
objectively hostile work environment based on the ambient
harassment at the jail and courthouse.

Other common questions include whether the detainees' harassment
occurred because of sex and whether there is a basis for employer
liability based on the defendants' failure to adopt reasonable
policies to combat the harassment. Although the question of whether
the harassment was because of the plaintiffs' sex is unlikely to be
a significant point of dispute in the litigation, the other
questions constitute substantial areas of legal and factual
disagreement.

The defendants argue that individual issues overwhelm any common
questions in the litigation. The first such issue has already been
discussed with respect to commonality under Rule 23(a): the
defendants contend that the putative class members are too
differently situated to permit classwide resolution of the
objective element of the hostile work environment claim.  

The defendants also rely on two district court opinions denying
class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) in cases concerning sexual
harassment by prisoners, but neither case suggests that the
plaintiffs in this case have failed to satisfy predominance.  

The remaining individual issues do not represent a significant
aspect of the litigation and may be appropriately resolved through
individual proceedings after the class phase. First, the question
of whether the harassment was subjectively offensive that is,
whether the putative class members subjectively experienced the
detainees' harassment as hostile will require individual proof, but
it does not appear to constitute a substantial dispute in this
case. The defendants do not point to evidence suggesting, for
example, that jail employees welcomed or consented to the
detainees' behavior.  

The defendants next argue that certain affirmative defenses will
require individual proof. Some of these defenses are simple to
resolve on a piecemeal basis. The others are too underexplained and
devoid of supporting evidence to permit the Court to conclude that
they will ultimately prove significant to the disposition of the
case.

Finally, the defendants argue that determining the amount of
damages to which each putative class member is entitled will
require individual proceedings. It is well-established, however,
that the need for individualized damages calculations is not a
basis for denying class certification.  
Considering both the individual and common issues in the case and
their relative importance, the Court that the proposed class
satisfies the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).

Superiority

Rule 23(b)(3) next requires the plaintiffs to show that a class
action is superior to other methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating this dispute. The number and significance of the
common issues that will predominate in the litigation suggests that
the proposed class meets this requirement. The defendants argue
that the superiority requirement is not satisfied because the
proposed class is not manageable and a class action is not required
to afford the putative class members the opportunity to vindicate
their rights. Neither argument is persuasive.

First, the Court does not view the individual issues at play in
this case as sufficiently complex to make a class action
unmanageable, and in any case courts should not refuse to certify a
class merely on the basis of manageability concerns.

Second, a class action represents the best method for vindicating
the rights of putative class members whose potential damages may be
too insignificant to provide them with an incentive to pursue their
claims. The defendants point out that one putative class member has
filed an individual suit. But given that that proposed class
comprises many hundreds of members, a single lawsuit is slim
evidence that individual litigation is a viable alternative for the
class in general. For these reasons, the Court concludes that a
class action is superior to individual litigation under Rule
23(b)(3).

The Court grants the plaintiffs' motion for class certification but
modifies the proposed class definition. The Court certifies the
following class under Rule 23(b)(3): All women who have been
employed by the Cook County Sheriff's Office at the Jail, or as
Court Services deputies at the Leighton Courthouse, or by the
County in positions with Cermak Health Services, at any time since
April 23, 2015, except women who, during that period, have held the
positions identified in Exhibit A to the complaint or who were
employed in supervisory roles.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 12, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxn9tldq from
Leagle.com.

Sdahrie Howard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Noelle Christine Brennan,
Noelle Brennan & Associates, Ltd., 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1530,
Chicago, IL 60603, Shelly Byron Kulwin, Kulwin, Masciopinto &
Kulwin, LLP, 161 N Clark St Ste 2500, Chicago, IL, 60601-3272,
Caitlin Karen Cervenka, Willenson Law, Llc, 542 S Dearborn St #610,
Chicago, IL 60605, Caryn Cecelia Lederer -- clederer@hsplegal.com
-- Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd., Cyrus Mehri, Mehri &
Skalet PLLC, Ellen Eardley, Mehri & Skalet, Pllc, 1250 Connecticut
Ave., NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036, pro hac vice, Emily Rees
Brown -- ebrown@hsplegal.com -- Hughes Socol Piers Resnick Dym,
Heather Kathreen Afra, Kulwin, Masciopinto & Kulwin, L.L.P., 161 N
Clark St Ste 2500, Chicago, IL, 60601-3272

Cook County Sheriff's Office, Defendant, represented by Christina
M. Egan -- cegan@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP, David D.
Leishman -- dleishman@mcguirewoods.com -- Mcguirewoods, Katharine
P. Lennox -- klennox@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Melissa
Marie Weiss -mweiss@mcguirewoods.com -- Mcguirewoods Llp, Michael
Ross Phillips -- mphillips@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP &
Peter A. Milianti  -- McGuireWoods LLP.

County Of Cook, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth A. Ekl, Reiter
Burns LLP, 311 S Wacker Drive Suite 5200 Chicago IL 60606, Kathleen
Cunniff Ori, Cook County State's Attorney's Office, Megan Marie
Honingford, Cook County State's Attorney's Office, Natalie Nicole
Ellis, Cook County State's Attorney Office, Terrence Michael Burns,
Reiter Burns LLP, Colleen Marie Harvey, Cook County State's
Attorneys Office, Daniel Matthew Noland, Reiter Burns LLP, 311 S
Wacker Drive Suite 5200 Chicago IL 60606, David D. Leishman,
Mcguirewoods, James Chandler, Cook County State's Attorney's
Office, Jay Rahman, Cook County State's Attorney's Office,
Katherine Carole Morrison, Reiter Burns LLP & Paul A. Michalik,
Reiter Burns LLP, 311 S Wacker Drive Suite 5200 Chicago IL 60606


CORECIVIC INC: Appeal in Grae Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------
CoreCivic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company timely
petitioned the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to
appeal the District Court's certification of the class in the case,
Grae v. Corrections Corporation of America et al., and that
petition is pending.

In a memorandum to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) dated August
18, 2016, the Department of Justice (DOJ) directed that, as each
contract with privately operated prisons reaches the end of its
term, the BOP should either decline to renew that contract or
substantially reduce its scope in a manner consistent with law and
the overall decline of the BOP's inmate population.  

In addition to the decline in the BOP's inmate population, the DOJ
memorandum cites purported operational, programming, and cost
efficiency factors as reasons for the DOJ directive.  

On February 21, 2017, the newly appointed U.S. Attorney General
issued a memorandum rescinding the DOJ's prior directive stating
the memorandum changed long-standing policy and practice and
impaired the BOP's ability to meet the future needs of the federal
correctional system.

Following the release of the August 18, 2016 DOJ memorandum, a
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
or the District Court, captioned Grae v. Corrections Corporation of
America et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02267.  

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased or acquired our securities between
February 27, 2012 and August 17, 2016.  

In general, the lawsuit alleges that, during this timeframe, the
company's public statements were false and/or misleading regarding
the purported operational, programming, and cost efficiency factors
cited in the DOJ memorandum and, as a result, the company's stock
price was artificially inflated.  

The lawsuit alleges that the publication of the DOJ memorandum on
August 18, 2016 revealed the alleged fraud, causing the per share
price of our stock to decline, thereby causing harm to the putative
class of shareholders.  

On December 18, 2017, the District Court denied the company's
motion to dismiss. On January 18, 2019, the District Court denied
plaintiffs' motion to certify the matter as a class action.
Plaintiffs timely moved the court to reconsider that ruling,
simultaneously initiating the process to seek permission to appeal
to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals should the court deny their
motion.  

On March 26, 2019, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
reconsideration motion and certified a class proposed by the
plaintiff. On April 9, 2019, the company timely petitioned the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the
District Court's certification of the class, and that petition is
pending.

"We believe the lawsuit is entirely without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against it. In addition, we maintain insurance,
with certain self-insured retention amounts, to cover the alleged
claims which may mitigate the risk that such litigation would have
a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows," the Company said.

CoreCivic, Inc. is a diversified government solutions company with
the scale and experience needed to solve tough government
challenges in flexible, cost-effective ways. The company is based
in Nashville, Tennessee.


COX COMMUNICATIONS: 9th Cir. Reverses Remand of Ehrman
------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an
Opinion reversing the District Court's Order granting Plaintiffs’
Motion to Remand in the case captioned DAVID EHRMAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; COXCOM, LLC; COX COMMUNICATIONS
CALIFORNIA, LLC, and DOES, 1 through 25, inclusive,
Defendants-Appellants. No. 19-55658. (9th Cir.).

Ehrman filed a class action complaint against Cox in Orange County
Superior Court, alleging that Cox had engaged in unlawful business
practices related to the advertisement and sale of residential
internet services. Ehrman brought the case on behalf of himself and
all consumers in California who paid for Cox's residential Internet
services within four years from the date this action was filed.

Cox removed the case to the district court pursuant to CAFA. Cox
alleged in its notice of removal that Ehrman's suit met CAFA's
removal requirements because it was a putative class action with
more than 100 class members, that there was minimal diversity
between the parties, and that the amount in controversy exceeded
$5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Cox, a purported
citizen of Delaware and Georgia, asserted based on information and
belief that Ehrman and all class members are citizens of
California.

Ehrman then moved to remand the case to state court. Asserting a
facial challenge to Cox's notice of removal, Ehrman argued that Cox
had failed to adequately plead the existence of minimal diversity.
He claimed that Cox's allegations of citizenship were insufficient
because they relied purely on an allegation of residency and on
information and belief.

The district court granted Ehrman's motion to remand. It reasoned:
In the absence of instruction from the Ninth Circuit, this Court
declines to find that the complaint alone created a rebuttable
residency-domicile presumption of removability. The Court finds
that Cox's reliance on the residency allegation in the complaint
amounted to mere sensible guesswork such that it is insufficient
for establishing minimal diversity.

The Court reviews de novo a district court's decision to remand a
removed case and its determination that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction.

Congress enacted CAFA with the intent to strongly favor the
exercise of federal diversity jurisdiction over class actions with
interstate ramifications. To this end, CAFA confers jurisdiction on
federal district courts over class actions when, among other
things, any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State
different from any defendant. Unlike the complete diversity of
citizenship generally required by Section 1332(a), therefore, CAFA
requires only minimal diversity.

Simply because a class action satisfies the requirements of CAFA,
however, does not mean that it must be filed in federal court. Such
cases may also be filed in state courts, which enjoy concurrent
jurisdiction over such actions. A defendant in state court who
wishes to litigate in federal court may therefore remove a class
action that satisfies CAFA's requirements. At issue here is what
that removing defendant must plead in its notice of removal.

Here, however, Cox did not merely allege residency. It alleged that
Ehrman and all putative class members were citizens of California.
That Cox's notice of removal mentioned Ehrman's residency is
immaterial to our analysis. Cox did not have to explain why it
believed Ehrman or the putative class members were citizens of
California. As the Court explained above, a defendant's allegations
of citizenship may be based solely on information and belief.
Because Cox provided a short and plain statement alleging that
Ehrman and the putative class members were citizens of California,
its jurisdictional allegations were sufficient at least in the
absence of a factual or as-applied challenge.

The district court also erred by placing on Cox a burden to prove
its jurisdictional allegations in response to Ehrman's facial
challenge. At the pleading stage, allegations of jurisdictional
fact need not be proven unless challenged. Because no antiremoval
presumption attends cases invoking CAFA, courts should be
especially reluctant to sua sponte challenge a defendant's
allegations of citizenship.

Ehrman did not factually challenge Cox's jurisdictional
allegations. Instead, his motion to remand asserted a facial
challenge to the legal adequacy of Cox's notice of removal. Such a
challenge accepts the truth of the removing party's allegations but
asserts that they are insufficient on their face to invoke federal
jurisdiction. Nor did the district court independently question
Cox's allegations. For these reasons, Cox should not have been
required to present evidence in support of its allegation of
minimal diversity. Accepting the truth of Cox's allegations, Ehrman
is a citizen of California and all purported class members are
citizens of California.

In short, Cox alleged the parties' citizenships based on
information and belief in its notice of removal. And, because
Ehrman asserted a facial, rather than a factual or as-applied,
challenge to the notice of removal, those allegations were
sufficient. No evidence was required.

By holding that Cox's jurisdictional allegations fell short, and by
requiring Cox to support those allegations with evidence in
response to only a facial not a factual or as applied challenge,
the district court misconstrued CAFA's pleading requirements. The
Court therefore reverses the district court's grant of Ehrman's
motion to remand.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's August 8, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y65ngnmq from Leagle.com.

Katherine Tracy Van Dusen -- kvandusen@coblentzlaw.com -- (argued),
Richard R. Patch -
rrp@coblentzlaw.com -- Scott C. Hall -- shall@coblentzlaw.com --
and Philip D.W. Miller -
shall@coblentzlaw.com -- Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP, San
Francisco, California, for Defendants-Appellants.

Jamin S. Soderstrom -- jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com -- (argued),
Soderstrom Law PC, Irvine, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee.


CRISP MARKETING: Slingerland Sues over Prerecorded Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA SLINGERLAND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CRISP MARKETING, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-62033-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 14, 2019),
alleges that Defendant caused thousands of prerecorded messages to
be sent to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members,
causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of
herself and Class Members, as defined below, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal
actions of Defendants under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with her
express written consent to be contacted using a pre-recorded
message, the lawsuit says.

Defendant is a marketing company that markets health insurance
plans for its clients, including through its website
www.medicarepluscard.com. As part of its marketing strategy,
Defendant calls unsuspecting parties on their cellular telephones
with pre-recorded messages.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

CVS HEALTH: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/cvshealth/)announced that a class
action has been commenced by an institutional investor on behalf of
all former Aetna Inc. shareholders who acquired CVS Health
Corporation (NYSE:CVS) shares in exchange for their Aetna shares in
connection with CVS's acquisition of Aetna on November 28, 2018.
This action was filed in the District of Rhode Island and is
captioned Waterford Township Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. CVS Health
Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-00434.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
former Aetna shareholders who acquired CVS shares in exchange for
their Aetna shares in connection with CVS's acquisition of Aetna to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf
of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from
today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of
Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
djr@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/cvshealth/

The complaint charges CVS and certain of CVS's and Aetna's officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. CVS
provides retail pharmacy and pharmacy benefit manager services
nationwide. On May 20, 2015, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of CVS, entered into a merger agreement to acquire
Omnicare, Inc., a provider of pharmaceuticals and related pharmacy
services to long-term care ("LTC") facilities (e.g., assisted
living, skilled nursing, and senior centers) and a provider of
specialty pharmacy and commercialization services for the
bio-pharmaceutical industry.

In connection with the acquisition of Aetna (the "Acquisition"),
defendants filed with the SEC a Registration Statement on Form S-4,
which was declared effective on February 9, 2018, and a joint proxy
statement/prospectus on Form 424B3 (collectively the "Offering
Documents"). The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents
contained materially false and/or misleading statements about CVS's
compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").
In particular, CVS falsely represented in the Offering Documents
that it had properly accounted for its $6+ billion goodwill asset,
as reported in the "LTC unit," associated with CVS's 2015
acquisition of LTC pharmacies of Omnicare.

In March 2018, CVS raised $40 billion in debt securities to help
fund the cash component to be paid to Aetna shareholders. The
balance of consideration due to Aetna shareholders would be paid in
shares of CVS stock. On March 13, 2018, Aetna shareholders approved
the Acquisition (including the provisions whereby Aetna
shareholders would exchange their Aetna shares for CVS shares). The
complaint alleges Aetna shareholders approved the Acquisition not
knowing that CVS's reporting of its goodwill asset was not
GAAP-compliant, that the Omnicare-related goodwill was materially
impaired, and that the price of CVS shares was materially
inflated.

After the Aetna shareholders had approved the Acquisition, in
August 2018, CVS disclosed it was "clearly disappointed with [the]
performance in the Omnicare business" and that, since the third
quarter of 2017, CVS had been "closely monitoring the performance
of the [Omnicare] business for potential indicators of impairment."
As a result of that "disappointment" and "close monitoring" since
2017 that triggered belated "updated" forecasts, CVS announced a
goodwill impairment charge of $3.9 billion to be recognized in the
second quarter of 2018.

On November 28, 2018, the defendants announced that the Acquisition
was formally closed, with Aetna shareholders receiving CVS stock
valued at $80 per share.

In late February 2019, CVS announced a second multi-billion-dollar
impairment charge to its Omnicare-related goodwill, this time a
$2.2 billion impairment to be recognized in the fourth quarter of
2018. CVS cited "operational challenges" as a basis for this second
massive charge. On this news, the price of CVS shares fell to the
mid-$50 range. Currently CVS stock is trading below $59 per share,
representing a more than 27% decline from the approximately $80 per
share the stock was trading at when exchanged for Aetna shares in
the Acquisition.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of any former Aetna
shareholders who acquired CVS shares in exchange for their Aetna
shares in connection with the Acquisition (the "Class"). The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

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

Contact:

         Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
         David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Tel.: 800-449-4900
         Email: djr@rgrdlaw.com
                srudman@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


DEXCOM INC: Pecayo Seeks Minimum and OT Pay
-------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Dexcom, Inc. for
alleged violations of the California Business and Professions Code,
the California Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order. The case is captioned MARLON PECAYO,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. DEXCOM, INC., an unknown
business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 37-2019-00036930-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty.,
July 17, 2019). Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay
minimum wages and overtime wages, meal and rest period premiums.

Headquartered in San Diego, California, Dexcom is a medical device
company focused on the design and development of continuous glucose
monitoring systems for people with diabetes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
     LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
     410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Telephone: (818)265-1020
     Facsimile: (818) 265-1021

DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: $14MM Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, the agreement-in-principle to resolve the
Michigan class action suit involves a payment of US$14,100,000,
which is fully covered by the Company's insurance policies.

A final settlement approval hearing was scheduled for August 20,
2019.  Following the hearing, District Judge Aern Cohn approved the
deal and entered an order awarding attorneys fees, litigation costs
and expenses, and awards to the lead plaintiff, and a separate
order approving the Plan of Allocation with respect to the
settlement.

On November 10, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
against Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. and certain former officers of the
Company.  Following the appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel, an amended complaint was filed on April 11, 2017.  The
amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with public
filings made between February 29, 2016 and November 3, 2016 (the
"potential class period").

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased stock in the potential class period.  The complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May
26, 2017.  The court issued orders denying the Company's motion to
dismiss on January 19, 2018 and the Company's motion for
reconsideration of its motion to dismiss on August 9, 2018.

The parties reached an agreement-in-principle on April 22, 2019 to
resolve the litigation for a payment of US$14,100,000 which is
fully covered by the Company's insurance policies.  The court
preliminarily approved the settlement on May 7, 2019, and a final
settlement approval hearing is scheduled for August 20, 2019.

If approved by the court, the settlement, given it is covered by
the Company's insurance policies, would not have a material impact
on the Company's results of operations, financial condition or cash
flows.  The Company has recorded the gross up (US$14,100,000
insurance receivable in "Prepaid insurance and other current
assets" and a US$14,100,000 accrued liability included in "Accrued
expenses – other") of this settlement in the condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2019.

Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. operates as an independent specialty
pharmacy in the United States. The company operates through
Specialty and PBM (pharmacy benefit management) segment. The
company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Flint,
Michigan.


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Putative Class Suits Combined in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that putative class actions complaints  in
California and Illinois have been consolidated into a single
proceeding in the Northern District of Illinois.  The lead
plaintiff has sought leave until September 17, 2019 to file an
amended complaint.

On February 24, 2019 and March 6, 2019, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California and on March 12, 2019 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, putative
class actions complaints were filed against Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc.
and certain current and former officers of the Company.  The
complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with public filings
made between February 26, 2018 and February 21, 2019 (the
"potential class period").

The plaintiffs each sought to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased stock in the potential class period.  The complaints
sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

The cases were subsequently transferred and consolidated into a
single proceeding in the Northern District of Illinois.  The court
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel on July 19, 2019, and
the lead plaintiff has sought leave until September 17, 2019 to
file an amended complaint.  

The Company said it believes the complaints and allegations to be
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the
action.  The Company also stated that it is unable at this time to
determine whether the outcome of the litigation would have a
material impact on its results of operations, financial condition
or cash flows.

Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. operates as an independent specialty
pharmacy in the United States. The company operates through
Specialty and PBM (pharmacy benefit management) segment. The
company was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Flint,
Michigan.


DISNEY INTERACTIVE: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Renewals
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims Disney
Interactive Studios illegally enrolls consumer in automatic
renewals of subscriptions to its Disney Movie Club, and charges
their credit cards without consent, in San Diego Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

                    https://is.gd/gfKS2R


DXC TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in Virginia Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019 that the parties in the action styled, In re DXC
Technology Company Securities Litigation, are awaiting the Court's
decision on the Company's motion to dismiss.

On December 27, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia against the Company and two of its current officers.  The
lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised on
allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged
non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's business,
operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class
period of February 8, 2018 to November 6, 2018.

The Company has moved to dismiss the claims in their entirety.  On
July 26, 2019, the court heard oral argument on the Company's
motion to dismiss, and a decision is now pending.

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). The company
was formerly known as Computer Sciences Corporation and changed its
name to DXC Technology Company in April 2017 as a result of its
merger with the Enterprise Services business of Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Company. DXC Technology Company was founded in 1959 and
is headquartered in Tysons, Virginia.


DXC TECHNOLOGY: Court Awards $18.75MM Damages to Strauch Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that in the Strauch Fair Labor Standards Act
Collective Action, the Court issued an order on August 6, 2019,
awarding plaintiffs US$18.75 million in damages.  The Company
disagrees with the jury verdict and the damages award and intends
to appeal the judgment of the Court.

On July 1, 2014, several plaintiffs filed an action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of
themselves and a putative nationwide collective of Computer
Sciences Corporation ("CSC") system administrators, alleging CSC's
failure to properly classify these employees as non-exempt under
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  Plaintiffs alleged
similar state-law Rule 23 class claims pursuant to Connecticut and
California statutes.  Plaintiffs claimed double overtime damages,
liquidated damages, and other amounts and remedies.

In 2015, the Court entered an order granting conditional
certification under the FLSA of the collective of over 4,000 system
administrators.  Approximately 1,000 system administrators filed
consents with the Court to participate in the FLSA collective.  The
class/collective action is currently made up of approximately 800
individuals who held the title of associate professional or
professional system administrator.

In June 2017, the Court granted Rule 23 certification of a
Connecticut state-law class and a California state-law class
consisting of professional system administrators and associate
professional system administrators.  Senior professional system
administrators were found not to qualify for Rule 23 certification
under the state-law claims.  CSC sought permission to appeal the
Rule 23 decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which was
denied.

In December 2017, a jury trial was held and a verdict was returned
in favor of plaintiffs.

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). The company
was formerly known as Computer Sciences Corporation and changed its
name to DXC Technology Company in April 2017 as a result of its
merger with the Enterprise Services business of Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Company. DXC Technology Company was founded in 1959 and
is headquartered in Tysons, Virginia.


DXC TECHNOLOGY: Settlement Talks Ongoing over Age Bias Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that settlement negotiations are ongoing in
relation to the age discrimination suit styled Forsyth, et al. v.
HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, with 145 plaintiffs opting
in.

On August 18, 2016, this purported class and collective action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, against HP and HPE alleging violations of the Federal
Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the
California Business and Professions Code.

The Company said that former business units of HPE now owned by the
Company may be proportionately liable for any recovery by
plaintiffs in this matter.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class action under the ADEA
comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had
their employment terminated pursuant to a work force reduction
("WFR") plan and who were 40 years of age or older at the time of
termination.  The class seeks to cover those impacted by WFRs on or
after December 2014.  Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23
class under California law comprised of all persons 40 years of age
or older employed by defendants in the state of California and
terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012.

In January 2017, defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss and a
motion to compel arbitration of claims by certain named and opt-in
plaintiffs who had signed release agreements as part of their WFR
packages.  In September 2017, the Court denied the partial motion
to dismiss without prejudice, but granted defendants' motions to
compel arbitration for those named and opt-in plaintiffs.  The
Court has stayed the entire action pending arbitration for these
individuals, and administratively closed the case.

Mediation was held in October 2018 with the 16 named and opt-in
plaintiffs who were involved in the case at that time.  A
settlement was reached, which included seven plaintiffs who were
employed by former business units of HPE that are now owned by the
Company.

In June 2019, a second mediation was held with 145 additional
opt-in plaintiffs who were compelled to arbitration pursuant to
their release agreements.  No agreement was reached, but settlement
negotiations are ongoing.

The Company said that former business units of the Company now
owned by Perspecta may be proportionately liable for any recovery
by plaintiffs in this matter.

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). The company
was formerly known as Computer Sciences Corporation and changed its
name to DXC Technology Company in April 2017 as a result of its
merger with the Enterprise Services business of Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Company. DXC Technology Company was founded in 1959 and
is headquartered in Tysons, Virginia.


EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Olenik Class Action Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Earthstone Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Olenik v. Lodzinksi et al.  

On June 2, 2017, Nicholas Olenik filed a purported shareholder
class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against Earthstone's Chief Executive Officer, along with other
members of the Board, EnCap Investments L.P. ("EnCap"), Bold, Bold
Energy Holdings, LLC ("Bold Holdings") and Oak Valley Resources.

The complaint alleges that Earthstone's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the contribution dated as of
November 7, 2016 and as amended on March 21, 2017 (the "Bold
Contribution Agreement"), by and among Earthstone, EEH, Lynden US,
Lynden USA Operating, LLC, Bold Holdings and Bold. The Plaintiff
asserts that the directors negotiated the Bold Transaction to
benefit EnCap and its affiliates, failed to obtain adequate
consideration for the Earthstone shareholders who were not
affiliated with EnCap or Earthstone management, did not follow an
adequate process in negotiating and approving the Bold Transaction
and made materially misleading or incomplete proxy disclosures in
connection with the Bold Transaction.

The suit seeks unspecified damages and purports to assert claims
derivatively on behalf of Earthstone and as a class action on
behalf of all persons who held Common Stock up to March 13, 2017,
excluding defendants and their affiliates.

On July 20, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing the
action in its entirety with prejudice.

The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court. On
February 6, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court heard oral arguments
from the Plaintiff and Defendants' counsel.

On April 5, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Delaware
Court of Chancery's dismissal of the proxy disclosure claims but
reversed the Delaware Court of Chancery's dismissal of the other
claims, holding that the allegations with respect to those claims
were sufficient for pleading purposes.

Earthstone and each of the other defendants believe the claims are
entirely without merit and intend to mount a vigorous defense.

Earthstone said, "The ultimate outcome of this suit is uncertain,
and while Earthstone is confident in its position, any potential
monetary recovery or loss to Earthstone cannot be estimated at this
time."

Earthstone Energy, Inc., an independent energy company, engages in
the development and operation of oil and gas properties in the
United States. Earthstone Energy, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is
headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Larry Schiffer -- larry.schiffer@squirepb.com -- an attorney with
Squire Patton Boggs in New York who specializes in insurance, said
the ruling will not affect ratepayers.

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


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Pelletier Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 motion to dismiss
the case, Pelletier v. Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka
Liyanaarchchie De Silva, Suketu P. Upadhyay and Paul V. Campanelli,
is still pending.

In November 2017, a putative class action entitled Pelletier v.
Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva,
Suketu P. Upadhyay and Paul V. Campanelli was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by an
individual shareholder on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated shareholders.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act relating to the pricing of various generic
pharmaceutical products.

In June 2018, the court appointed Park Employees' Annuity and
Benefit Fund of Chicago lead plaintiff in the action. In August
2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

In September 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.

That motion remains pending.

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

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: Continues to Defend Makris Class Suit in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Phaedra A. Makris v.
Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie de Silva and
Suketu P. Upadhyay.

In April 2017, a putative class action entitled Phaedra A. Makris
v. Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie de Silva
and Suketu P. Upadhyay was filed in the Superior Court of Justice
in Ontario, Canada by an individual shareholder on behalf of
herself and similarly-situated Canadian-based investors who
purchased Endo's securities between January 11 and May 5, 2016.

The original statement of claim generally sought class
certification, declaratory relief, damages, interest and costs
based on alleged violations of the Ontario Securities Act.

The original statement of claim alleged negligent
misrepresentations concerning the Company's revenues, profit
margins and earnings per share; its receipt of a subpoena from the
state of Connecticut regarding doxycycline hyclate, amitriptyline
hydrochloride, doxazosin mesylate, methotrexate sodium and
oxybutynin chloride; and the erosion of the Company's U.S. generic
pharmaceuticals business.

In January 2019, plaintiff amended her statement of claim to add a
claim on behalf of herself and similarly-situated Canadian
investors who purchased Endo's securities between January 11, 2016
and June 8, 2017.

This new claim is based on the Company's decision to remove
reformulated OPANA(R) ER from the market.

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: Faces Seroquel XR(R) Related Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.
(PPI), a company subsidiary, has been named as a defendant in a
proposed class action suit involving the drug Seroquel XR(R).

In August 2019, an alleged direct purchaser filed a proposed class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against PPI and others alleging a conspiracy to delay generic
competition and monopolize a market for Seroquel XR(R) (extended
release quetiapine fumarate) and its generic equivalents.

The claims against PPI are based on allegations that PPI entered
into an exclusive acquisition and license agreement with Handa
Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Handa) in 2012 pursuant to which Handa
assigned to PPI certain rights under a prior settlement agreement
between Handa and AstraZeneca resolving certain patent litigation.


The complaint generally asserts claims under Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act and seeks declaratory relief, damages, treble
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

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: Miss. PERS Final Settlement Hearing in Oct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 a final approval hearing
of the settlement in Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi v. Endo International plc, has been set for October
2019.

In February 2017, a putative class action entitled Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Endo International
plc was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,
Pennsylvania by an institutional purchaser of shares in the
company's June 2, 2015 public offering, on behalf of itself and all
similarly situated purchasers.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 against Endo, certain of its current and
former directors and officers, and the underwriters who
participated in the offering, based on certain disclosures about
Endo's generics business.

In March 2017, defendants removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In August 2017, the
court remanded the case back to the Chester County Court of Common
Pleas. In October 2017, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

In December 2017, defendants filed preliminary objections to the
amended complaint. The court denied those preliminary objections in
April 2018. Plaintiff filed its motion for class certification in
July 2018.

In June 2019, the parties entered into a settlement, subject to
court approval, which provides for a $50 million payment to the
investor class in exchange for a release of their claims.

The court preliminarily approved the settlement in July 2019 and
scheduled a final approval hearing for October 2019.

As a result of the settlement, during the first quarter of 2019,
the Company recorded an increase of approximately $50 million to
its accrual for loss contingencies. As the Company's insurers have
agreed to fund the foregoing settlement, the Company also recorded
a corresponding insurance receivable of approximately $50 million
during the first quarter of 2019, which is included in Prepaid
expenses and other current assets in the Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets.

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: Settlement in Principle Reached in Bier Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 a settlement in
principle has been reached by the parties in Bier v. Endo
International plc, et al.

In August 2017, a putative class action entitled Bier v. Endo
International plc, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by an individual shareholder
on behalf of himself and all similarly situated shareholders.

The original complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act against Endo and four current and former
directors and officers, based on the Company's decision to remove
reformulated OPANA(R) ER from the market.

In December 2017, the court appointed SEB Investment Management AB
lead plaintiff in the action. In February 2018, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, which added claims alleging violations
of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act in connection with the
June 2015 offering.

The amended complaint named the Company, Endo Health Solutions Inc.
(EHSI) and 20 current and former directors, officers and employees
of Endo as defendants. In April 2018, the defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint.

In December 2018, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims
against four individual defendants, but otherwise denied the motion
to dismiss.

In May 2019, the lead plaintiff moved for class certification; the
motion remains pending.

In July 2019, the parties informed the court that they had reached
a settlement in principle.

The settlement in principle would provide the investor class $82.5
million in exchange for a release of their claims.

Endo said, "As a result of the settlement in principle, during the
second quarter of 2019, the Company recorded an increase of
approximately $82.5 million to its accrual for loss contingencies.
As the Company's insurers have agreed to fund the foregoing
settlement, the Company also recorded a corresponding insurance
receivable of approximately $82.5 million during the second quarter
of 2019, which is included in Prepaid expenses and other current
assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets."

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: Unit Inks Settlement in Zetia(R) Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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's subsidiary
Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. has entered into settlement agreements
with both the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the retailer
plaintiffs in consolidated class action related to Zetia(R).

Beginning in February 2018, several alleged indirect purchasers
filed proposed class actions against the company's subsidiary Par
Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI) and others alleging a conspiracy to
delay generic competition and monopolize the market for Zetia(R)
(ezetimibe) and its generic equivalents.

The complaints generally asserted claims under Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act, various state antitrust and consumer protection
statutes and state common law and seek injunctive relief, damages,
treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

In June 2018, these and other cases, including proposed direct
purchaser class actions in which PPI was not named as a defendant,
were consolidated and/or coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a
federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia (MDL No. 2836).

In September 2018, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs dismissed
their claims against PPI without prejudice.

In May 2019, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
leave of court to file an amended consolidated class complaint
adding PPI as a defendant in the direct purchaser actions, which
leave was granted in June 2019; certain retailer plaintiffs filed a
similar motion, which was granted in July 2019.

In July 2019, PPI entered into settlement agreements with both the
direct purchaser plaintiffs and the retailer plaintiffs. The direct
purchaser settlement is subject to court approval.

Endo said, "The settlement agreements involve no admission of
liability and no monetary payment."

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.


ENDOLOGIX INC: Appeal from C.D. Cal. Ruling Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Endologix, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that an appeal from a securities class action ruling
is still pending.

On January 3, 2017 and January 9, 2017, two stockholders purporting
to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's
securities between August 2, 2016 and November 16, 2016, filed
lawsuits against the Company and certain of its officers in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
(the "District Court").  The lawsuits allege that the Company made
materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about its business, operational and
financial performance, in violation of federal securities laws,
relating to United States Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA")
pre-market approval for the Company's Nellix EVAS System.

On May 26, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
extending the class period to include persons who purchased the
Company's securities between May 5, 2016 and May 18, 2017 and
adding certain factual assertions and allegations regarding the
Nellix EVAS System.  The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary
damages on behalf of the alleged class, interest, and attorney's
fees and costs of litigation.

The first lawsuit, Nguyen v. Endologix, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-0017 AB (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.), was consolidated with the
second lawsuit, Ahmed v. Endologix, Inc. et al, Case No.
8:17-cv-00061 AB (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.), and lead Nguyen plaintiff
filed a consolidated First Amended Complaint.

On December 5, 2017, the District Court granted Endologix's motion
to dismiss lead plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, with leave to
amend.  On January 9, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint and on March 12, 2018, the Company filed its Motion to
Dismiss lead plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.
On September 6, 2018, the District Court dismissed the Second
Amended Complaint with prejudice.

On October 5, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and on
March 15, 2019, lead plaintiff filed its opening brief with the
appellate court.

In April 2019, the Company filed its response brief to plaintiff's
appeal.

Endologix said, "The Company anticipates that the Appellate Court's
hearing on this matter will occur in the fourth quarter of 2019 or
early part of 2020.  The Company believes these lawsuits are
without merit and continues to defend itself vigorously."

Endologix, Inc. develops, manufactures, markets, and sells medical
devices for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the
United States and internationally.  Endologix, Inc. was founded in
1992 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE: Data Breach Class Action Mulled
-------------------------------------------------------
Andy Robinson, writing for Video Games Chronicle, reports that E3
organiser The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has
apologised to journalists and influencers affected by a major leak
of personal data, ahead of potential legal action.

Up until the evening of Friday, August 2 anyone with the correct
URL could access a list of personal details belonging to over 2,000
members of the media who attended E3 2019 in June, including their
home addresses and phone numbers.

The link has since been taken offline and the ESA has sent an email
to those affected by the leak, apologising for what it called "a
website vulnerability".

"The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) was made aware of a
website vulnerability on the exhibitor portal section of the E3
website," the statement reads. "Unfortunately, a vulnerability was
exploited and that list became public. We regret this happened and
are sorry."

The message goes on to explain that the details on the leaked list
are intended to be used by ESA members and exhibitors, so they can
invite media to their events and arrange interviews.

"For more than 20 years there has never been an issue," it adds.
"When we found out, we took down the E3 exhibitor portal and
ensured the media list was no longer available on the E3 website.
Again, we apologize for the inconvenience and have already taken
steps to ensure this will not happen again."

As a result of the leak, the ESA could find itself the subject of
civil lawsuits or worse.

Attorney Stephen McArthur, founder of The McArthur Law Firm, told
GameDaily that although the ESA does not use the word "breach" in
its public statement, the law will likely view this issue as such.

"The difference between a vulnerability and a breach is that a
vulnerability is just the potential for a breach," he explained.

"They are basically saying, 'There existed the opportunity for
someone to . . .  access the data, but there is no evidence anyone
did that'. So, they would be saying there is no evidence anyone
that was unauthorized ever actually visited the leak and viewed the
data."

Shaq Kalaka, a privacy lawyer at Morrison Rothman, suggested that a
class action lawsuit might be considered, due to the harassment
that will likely result from the leaked personal information.

"The E3 data breach is one of the strongest cases I've seen for a
class action involving location data," he wrote. "Data breach class
actions are usually hard to bring, but this involves some unique
circumstances.

"Most breach cases get dismissed because it's hard to show concrete
harm. But with E3, the failure to safeguard home addresses
predictably resulted in journalists getting death threats and
having to take efforts to protect their physical safety.

"It highlights the sensitive nature of location data and the fact
that they are journalists greatly exasperates the dangers. I've
always advocated for strong protections of location, especially
home addresses, as this data tangibly puts lives and sometimes
national security at risk. Would be a case to plant important
precedent.

"That said, it's still very hard to bring these cases for a number
of procedural reasons, harder to win. And with only 2k affected, it
would essentially be pro bono for a firm to take it on, especially
if it didn't settle early. We'll see what happens."

Since the leaked list contains the information of journalists from
Europe, the ESA could also be subject to a fine for breaching the
EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules.

GDPR breaches carry a maximum fine of EUR20 million or 4% of net
revenue, whichever is greater. However, given that the ESA does not
have an EU presence, enforcement of GDPR penalties may be
difficult.

"If . . . reports are correct that E3 attendee data was simply
being stored in an open spreadsheet which anyone with a link could
access, this would not look good for the ESA," Peter Lewin of UK
law firm Purewal and Partners told GameDaily.

"The number of individuals affected, the type of information leaked
and the appropriateness of the security measures in place at the
time of a breach are some of the factors that would be taken into
account.

"All of this said, it's still unclear how -- if at all -- the GDPR
would practically be enforced against an entity without an
EU-headquarters like the ESA. This represents one of the
significant limitations of GDPR." [GN]


EXONOVIA, INC: Zhao Seeks Unpaid Wages for Software Engineers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Xing Zhao a/k/a Dennis Zhao, on his own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Exonovia, Inc.,
Antonio Blazevige; JOHN DOES 1-10 and JANE DOES 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07555 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid wages and compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern
and practice of failing to pay their employees, including
Plaintiff, wages and compensation for all hours worked each
workweek.

From May 2018 to March 2019, Xing Zhao was hired by Defendants as a
Software Engineer located at 1345 6th Avenue, 33rd Floor, New York,
NY 10105.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Yaoyu Liu, Esq.
          Hui Chen and Associates, P.L.L.C.
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 9E
          Flushing, NY
          Telephone: (718) 463-2666
          E-mail: yaoyuliu.esq@gmail.com

FIAT CHRYSLER: Ram, Jeep Owners Complain Over Acceleration Delays
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Smirnov, writing for TFLTruck, reports that many owners of
older 2014-2016 Ram and Jeep EcoDiesel vehicles are reporting very
significant acceleration delays  after the emissions recall work
was performed. We got two first-hand reports of excessive "turbo
lag" or perceived accelerator delay. Some owners are reporting a
power lag of up to four seconds during full-throttle applications.

We also have a first-hand report that a Ram 1500 EcoDiesel recall
fix did not change the acceleration behavior or fuel economy, and
the truck behaves normally.

Ram 1500 EcoDiesel
FCA and the US regulators have been working together to resolve the
2014-2016 emissions scandal. The class-action lawsuit ruling took
affect in February 2019, and existing owners have been taking their
Ram 1500 or Jeep Grand Cherokees to the dealer to perform the
emissions-approved recall. This recall is also referred to as AEM
(Approved Emissions Modification). The recall is one of the
prerequisites for current or previous owners of the affected
EcoDiesel vehicles to receive lawsuit settlement payouts.

The original emission inquiry that was raised in January 2017
affected over 100,000 vehicles. These are the 2014-2016 Ram 1500
pickup trucks and 2014-2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee SUVs that are
equipped with a 3.0-liter EcoDiesel V6 engines. The original power
specification on this (2nd generation) of the engine was 240 hp and
420 lb-ft of torque.  It's not clear how peak power is affected by
the AEM action if at all.

Here are the two accounts that report acceleration lag.

   -- Scott Older: 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel (Original
owner.)

"This is my wife's daily, so I rarely drive it. I haven't driven it
since the software was updated. I picked up the Jeep from the
dealer today, now that the particulate matter sensor was replaced.
I went to pull out of the dealer lot, and there is a very
noticeable lag from the time the throttle is applied and the
vehicle responds. It makes pulling into traffic unnerving. The Jeep
used to respond instantly with tons of torque. Now it falls on its
face."

   -- James DeBerry. 2015 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel.

"This recall/update is called the approved emissions modification
(AEM).  Post-AEM there have been a large number of Ecodiesel owners
that have experienced extreme throttle lag from a stop.  This
throttle lag is on the order of 3-4 seconds, and is most pronounced
when the engine is cold.  When I picked up my truck after the AEM
was installed, I wasn't aware of this performance issue, and I
personally almost got hit several times while pulling out into
traffic."

Here is an account that reports no negative driving characteristic
change.

   -- Matthew Cresci: 2016 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel HFE owner

" I just had the emissions recall (AEM) done two weeks ago, and
this weekend I will be doing my first towing trip with the new
software. So far I haven't noticed any differences in driveability
or fuel economy. This will be a good test because I have past
towing data to compare it to."

The emissions Ecodiesel settlement hwebsite outlines the steps for
current and previous owners of the affected vehicles should take in
order to bring the trucks and SUVs into compliance, and receive a
settlement payout that can be as high as $3,075. The process
requires the emission AEM recall to be performed.  Next, the
paperwork and the settlement claim need to be filed. Owners started
to file their settlement claims in May 2019.

FCA representative stated that qualified owners should get full
claim payment within eight weeks of filing a claim. However, some
qualified owners have been waiting 10 weeks or more to receive
payment.

FCA (Jeep/Ram) representative:

"Eligible owners must have the AEM software installed on their
truck to receive the cash compensation and extended warranty.  
Payment for eligible claims may take up to 6-8 weeks from claim
finalization and confirmation of the AEM (software modification)
being performed."

If you are one of the affected owners, please let us know your
experience: good or bad. You can add your feedback in the comments
section below, or by sending an email to ask@tfltruck.com [GN]


FIRST BANCORP: Injunction Hearing in Torres Set for September 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------
First BanCorp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that a preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled
for September 2019 in the case styled Ramirez Torres, et al. v.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al.

FirstBank Puerto Rico has been named a defendant in a punitive
class action complaint, filed in February 2017 at the Court of
First Instance in San Juan, Puerto Rico.  The Complaint seeks
damages and preliminary injunctive relief on behalf of the
purported class ("Plaintiffs") against Banco Popular de Puerto Rico
and other financial institutions with insurance agency subsidiaries
in Puerto Rico ("Defendants").  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
have been unjustly enriched by failing to reimburse them for "good
experience" commissions allegedly paid by Antilles Insurance
Company and Puerto Rico Home Insurance Company.

In March 2017, FirstBank Puerto Rico filed a Motion to Dismiss and
a Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Third-Party Complaint against
Antilles Insurance Company and the Insurance Commissioner's Office.
All other co-defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint and
opposed the request for preliminary injunctive relief.  Antilles
Insurance Company filed a Motion against the Third-Party Complaint
filed by FirstBank Puerto Rico, which FirstBank Puerto Rico
opposed.  The Insurance Commissioner's Office filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment.

In July 2017, the Court issued a Judgment granting the Motions to
Dismiss filed by Defendants, dismissing the Complaint with
prejudice, except the Third-Party Complaint filed by FirstBank
Puerto Rico which was dismissed without prejudice.

In August 2017, Plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Puerto Rico
Court of Appeals and FirstBank Puerto Rico and other co-defendants
filed their Oppositions to Plaintiffs' appeal.

In March 2018, the Court of Appeals entered a Judgment revoking the
lower court's Judgment.  One co-defendant filed for
reconsideration, which was denied, and all other co-defendants
filed their respective Petitions of Certiorari before the Puerto
Rico Supreme Court, which also denied review.

Co-defendants have filed for reconsideration.  All Motions for
Reconsideration were denied, and the case was remanded to the Court
of First Instance for the continuation of proceedings.  A Class
certification hearing scheduled for May 2, 2019 was changed to a
status hearing.  Parties discussed their respective positions,
specifically that prior to celebrating any other hearing, it is
imperative that the Court enters to resolve FirstBank's suit
seeking Declaratory Judgment.  Memorandums of law regarding the
validity of the Antilles Insurance policy endorsement were filed on
June 3, 2019 in compliance with a court order.  A preliminary
injunction hearing is scheduled for September 2019.

First BanCorp. is a diversified financial holding company
headquartered in San Juan, Puerto Rico offering a full range of
financial products to consumers and commercial customers through
various subsidiaries. First BanCorp. is the holding company of
FirstBank Puerto Rico ("FirstBank" or the "Bank") and FirstBank
Insurance Agency. The company is based in Santurce, Puerto Rico.


FISHER-PRICE: Fieker Suit Transferred to Western Dist. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Megan Fieker, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Fisher-Price, Inc. and
Mattel, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 4:1s9-cv-00295 (Filed May 30,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York (Buffalo) on Aug 14, 2019. The Western
District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01075-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 Megan Fieker individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are:

          Daniel E. Smolen, Esq.
          Lauren Grace Lambright, Esq.
          SMOLEN AND ROYTMAN
          701 S Cincinnati Ave.
          Tulsa, OK 74119
          Telephone: (918) 585-2667
          Facsimile: (918) 585-2669

               - and -

          Dennis Albert Caruso, Esq.
          Mark Allen Smith, Esq.
          CARUSO LAW FIRM PC
          1325 E 15th St Ste 201
          Tulsa, OK 74120-5833
          Telephone: (918) 583-5900
          Facsimile: (918) 583-5902

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Jennifer Lea Struble, Esq.
          SECREST HILL BUTLER & SECREST
          7134 S Yale Ave Ste 900
          Tulsa, OK 74136
          Telephone: (918) 494-5905
          Facsimile: (918) 494-2847

FISHER-PRICE: Flores Suit Transferred to Western Dist. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Karen Flores, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Fisher-Price, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, the Defendant, and Emily Barton, Cassandra
Mulvey, Katherine Shaffer, Mark Nabong, Candace Kimmel, Samantha
Drover-Mundy, Zachary Mundy, and Rebecca Drover, the Intervenors,
Case No. 8:19-cv-01073 (May 31, 2019), was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (Buffalo)
on Aug. 14, 2019. The Western District of New York Court Clerk
assigned Case 1:19-cv-01076-GWC to the proceeding. The suit demand:
$5 million worth of damages. 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 Karen Flores, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated are:

          Adam T. Hoover, Esq.
          Marc G. Reich, Esq.
          REICH RADCLIFFE AND HOOVER LLP
          4675 MacArthur Court Suite 550
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 975-0512
          Facsimile: (949) 208-2839

               - and -

          Alison S. Gokal, Esq.
          GOKAL LAW
          26080 Towne Centre Drive
          Foothill Ranch, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 753-9100
          Facsimile: (866) 610-9381

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Adrianne E. Marshack, Esq.
          MANATT PHELPS AND PHILLIPS LLP
          695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 371-2709
          Facsimile: (714) 371-2550
          E-mail: amarshack@manatt.com

Attorneys for the Intervenors are:

          Andrew J. Lorin, Esq.
          Jonathan A. Sorkowitz, Esq.
          Kristin Darr, Esq.
          Melody Lynn McGowin, Esq.
          PIERCE BAINBRIDGE BECK
             PRICE & HECHT, LLP
          20 W. 23rd Street, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 484-9866
          Facsimile: (646) 968-4125
          E-mail: alorin@piercebainbridge.com
                  jsorkowitz@piercebainbridge.com
                  kdarr@piercebainbridge.com
                  mmcgowin@piercebainbridge.com

               - and -

          Brittany DeJong, Esq.
          Kate M. McGuire, Esq.
          Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
             FREEMAN AND HERZ LLP
          750 B Street Suite 1820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: mcguire@whafh.com

               - and -

          Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
          DeNittis Osefchen Prince, P.C.
          5 Greentree Centre
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951
          Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
          E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com

FISHER-PRICE: Pasternacki Sues over Baby Crib Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Fisher-Price, Inc.
and its corporate parent Mattel, Inc. for alleged violations of the
Colorado Consumer Protection Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, and for unjust enrichment in connection with the false and
misleading marketing of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper. The
case is captioned DANIEL PASTERNACKI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FISHER PRICE, INC. and
MATTEL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00941-GWC (W.D.N.Y.,
July 17, 2019).

Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants falsely
marketed that Rock 'n Play Sleeper as suitable for all night or
prolonged sleep. The Rock 'n Play Sleeper is inherently unsafe as a
sleeper and unfit for its intended use. Its use poses a number of
serious safety risks that have led to many documented instances of
infant deaths and injuries.

Fisher-Price is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant Mattel, Inc.
The website on which Defendants advertised their Rock 'n Play
Sleepers includes Mattel's name: https://fisher-price.mattel.com.
Mattel, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in El Segundo, California. Defendant Mattel is the world's
second largest toy maker. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Terrence M. Connors, Esq.
     Caitlin M. Higgins, Esq.
     Katherine G. Howard, Esq.
     CONNORS LLP
     1000 Liberty Building
     Buffalo, NY 14202
     Telephone: (716) 852-5533
     E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
             cmh@connorsllp.com
             kgh@connorsllp.com

             - and -

     Wolf Haldenstein Adler, Esq.
     Demet Basar, Esq.
     Daniel Tepper, Esq.
     Kate Mcguire, Esq.
     FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 545-4600
     E-mail: basar@whafh.com
             tepper@whafh.com
             mcguire@whafh.com


FIVE POINT: Still Defends Bayview Hunters Point Class Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Five Point Holdings, LLC remains a defendant in a putative class
action suit filed by the residents of the Bayview Hunters Point
neighborhood, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019.

In May 2018, residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood in
San Francisco filed a putative class action in San Francisco
Superior Court naming Tetra Tech, Inc., an independent contractor
hired by the U.S. Navy to conduct testing and remediation of toxic
radiological waste at The San Francisco Shipyard ("Tetra Tech"),
Lennar and the Company as defendants.

The plaintiffs allege that, among other things, Tetra Tech
fraudulently misrepresented its test results and remediation
efforts.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages against Tetra Tech and
have requested an injunction to prevent the Company and Lennar from
undertaking any development activities at The San Francisco
Shipyard.

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

Five Point Holdings, LLC, through its subsidiary, Five Point
Operating Company, LP, plans, develops, and owns mixed-use
communities in California, the United States. The company operates
through four segments: Newhall, San Francisco, Great Park, and
Commercial. The company was formerly known as Newhall Holding
Company, LLC and changed its name to Five Point Holdings, LLC in
May 2016. Five Point Holdings, LLC was founded in 2009 and is
headquartered in Irvine, California.


FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Court Grants Class Status in Georgia Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
FleetCor Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019, that the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia has granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification in a suit against the Company and certain of
its executives.

On June 14, 2017, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's stock between February 5, 2016 and May 2, 2017.

On October 13, 2017, the shareholder filed an amended complaint
asserting claims on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February
4, 2016 and May 3, 2017.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
made false or misleading statements regarding fee charges and the
reasons for its earnings and growth in certain press releases and
other public statements in violation of the federal securities
laws.

On July 17, 2019, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages,
costs, and attorneys' fees.  The Company disputes the allegations
in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend against the
claims.

FleetCor Technologies, Inc. provides commercial payment solutions
in North America, Latin America, Europe, and Australasia. The
company offers fuel payment solutions to businesses and government
entities that operate vehicle fleets, as well as to oil and leasing
companies, and fuel marketers. FleetCor Technologies, Inc. was
founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Peachtree Corners,
Georgia.


FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Schultz Suit v. Unit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
FleetCor Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019, that the potential class action suit
against its subsidiary has been dismissed by the Court without
prejudice.

On February 1, 2019, Schultz Transfer Systems, Inc. filed a
complaint against Fleetcor Technologies Operating Company, LLC
("Fleetcor LLC") in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.  The complaint alleges that it is a
Fleetcor LLC customer and member of the Fuelman program, and that
Fleetcor LLC overcharged the plaintiff for fees and fuel through
the Fuelman program.  Based on these allegations, the complaint
asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, fraud, fraudulent concealment, money
had and received, and unjust enrichment.

The complaint seeks to represent a class defined as all persons,
including corporate entities, who were enrolled in the Fuelman
program between June 2016 and the present.

On April 1, 2019, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration
and to dismiss the case, which was granted without prejudice on
July 8, 2019.

FleetCor Technologies, Inc. provides commercial payment solutions
in North America, Latin America, Europe, and Australasia. The
company offers fuel payment solutions to businesses and government
entities that operate vehicle fleets, as well as to oil and leasing
companies, and fuel marketers. FleetCor Technologies, Inc. was
founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Peachtree Corners,
Georgia.


FORD MOTOR: Sartip, et al. Allege False Fuel-Economy Ratings
------------------------------------------------------------
RAMIN SARTIP, DARREN HONEYCUTT, AND AHMED ABDI, ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-12373-SFC (C.D.
Cal., Aug. 14, 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:

          Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1129 State Street, Suite 8
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456-14s96
          Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
          E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com
                  lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  rmcdevitt@kellerrorhback.com

               - and -

          Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
          Anne K. Davis, Esq.
          Joshua Samra, Esq.
          BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
          555 12th Street, Suite 1600
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (415) 445-4003
          E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
                  adavis@bfalaw.com
                  jsamra@bfalaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
          Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
          PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 692-0772
          Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
          E-mail: jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
                  ecp@pritzkerlevine.com

FOUR SEASONS: Court Narrows Claims in Zyda's Damage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii issued
an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned CHRISTOPHER ZYDA, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. FOUR
SEASONS HOTELS AND RESORTS, FOUR SEASONS HOLDINGS, INC., FOUR
SEASONS HUALALAI RESORT, HUALALAI RESIDENTIAL, LLC, (DBA HUALALAI
REALTY); HUALALAI INVESTORS, LLC, KAUPULEHU MAKAI VENTURE, HUALALAI
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, HUALALAI VILLAS & HOMES, HUALALAI INVESTORS,
LLC, HUALALAI RENTAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, DOES 1-100, Defendants. CIV.
No. 16-00591 LEK-RT. (D. Haw.).

In the instant Motion, Defendants seek the dismissal of: (1) the
Class's prayer for disgorgement, punitive damages, and rescission
and (2) Zyda's UDAP claim.

Defendants argue good cause exists, in light of the filing of the
Third Amended Complaint and the 6/24/19 Order after the dispositive
motions deadline. However, Defendants stipulated to allow the
filing of the Third Amended Complaint, and they stipulated that
there was no material difference between the Second Amended
Complaint and the Third Amended Complaint, for purposes of the
Summary Judgment Motion.  

The argument that the Class is not entitled to the remedies of
disgorgement, punitive damages, and rescission could have been
raised in the Summary Judgment Motion. The instant Motion asserts
those remedies are no longer available because only Chapter 480
claims remain. In the Summary Judgment Motion, Defendants sought
summary judgment as to all claims, except for the UMOC claim.

Thus, if the Summary Judgment Motion had been granted in its
entirety, only a Chapter 480 claim would have remained. Defendants
could have argued in the Summary Judgment Motion that they were
entitled to summary judgment as to the requests for disgorgement,
punitive damages, and rescission. Defendants have therefore failed
to establish good cause to raise the first argument in the instant
Motion after the dispositive motions deadline.

This Court also rejects the Motion's good cause argument as to the
requested dismissal of Zyda's UDAP claim. Although Kaupulehu Makai
Venture (KMV), the entity that Zyda purchased his lot from, was
removed as a defendant in the Third Amended Complaint, Zyda's UDAP
claim is not based only upon conduct associated with the purchase
of his lot.   Further, the Third Amended Complaint alleges
Defendants are liable both as the current owners and developers of
the Hualalai Resort (Resort) and as the successors in interest to
prior owners and developers.  Thus, the filing of the Third Amended
Complaint does not constitute good cause to seek the dismissal of
Zyda's UDAP claim.  

Because Defendants have failed to establish good cause to amend the
operative scheduling order, this Court declines to address the
merits of the Motion. However, in light of Zyda's concession that
punitive damages are not available as to the remaining claims, the
Motion is granted as to the request for punitive damages.  

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint, for Damages
and Declaratory Relief, is granted in part and denied in part.  The
Motion is granted insofar as the Third Amended Complaint's request
for punitive damages is dismissed, and the Motion is denied in all
other respects.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yy9xlocm from Leagle.com.

Christopher Zyda, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated & Carol Meyer, (Class Plaintiffs) On Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Patrick Kyle Smith, Law Offices of Ian Mattoch, Pali Palms 970 N.
Kalaheo Ste A301 Kailua, HI 96734 & Terrance M. Revere --
terry@revereandassociates.com -- Revere & Associates, LLLC.

Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, Four Seasons Hualalai Resort &
Hualalai Development Company, Defendants, represented by William
Meheula, Sullivan Meheula Lee LLLP, Pacific Guardian Center, 733
Bishop Street, Suite 2900, Honolulu, HI, 96813

Four Seasons Holdings, Inc., Hualalai Residential, LLC, doing
business as Hualalai Realty, Hualalai Investors, LLC, Hualalai
Rental Management, LLC & Four Seasons Hotels Limited, Defendants,
represented by Barry A. Sullivan, Sullivan Meheula Lee LLLP,
Pacific Guardian Center, 733 Bishop Street, Suite 2900, Honolulu,
HI, 96813, Brett R. Tobin -- btobin@goodsill.com -- Goodsill
Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP, Donald M. Falk --
dfalk@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice, Natasha L.N.
Baldauf, Sullivan Meheula Lee LLLP & William Meheula, Sullivan
Meheula Lee LLLP, Pacific Guardian Center, 733 Bishop Street, Suite
2900, Honolulu, HI, 96813

James R. Mahoney, Ann Marie Mahoney, Judith Runstad, H. Jon
Runstad, Jonathan Seybold, Patricia Seybold, David Keyes, Doreen
Keyes, Julie Wrigley, Kevin Reedy, Bradley Chipps, J. Orin Edson &
Lynn Reedy, Intervenors, represented by Nickolas A. Kacprowski --
nick.kacprowski@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP.


GLOBAL DIGITAL: N.J. Court Approves Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., disclosed that the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey has approved the following
announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would
benefit purchasers of Global Digital Solutions, Inc. securities.
(OTCMKTS:GDSI):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED PUBLICLY TRADED GLOBAL DIGITAL
SOLUTIONS, INC. SECURITIES FROM October 8, 2013 through August 11,
2016, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, that a hearing will
be held on November 6, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable
Freda L. Wolfson, United States District Judge of the District of
New Jersey, 402 East State Street, Courtroom 5E, Trenton, New
Jersey 08608 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the
proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action and
release of related derivative and direct claims in the Lopez
Actions1 for consideration including the sum of $595,000 should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead
Counsel of up to one-third of the Settlement Amount plus interest
for an award of Lead Counsel's and Lopez's Counsel's attorneys'
fees, and reimbursement of their expenses of not more than $37,500
and incentive payments of no more than $5,000 to Lead Plaintiff and
$1,000 to Lopez, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action
should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement, dated June 12, 2019 (the "Settlement
Stipulation").

If you purchased publicly traded Global Digital Solutions, Inc.
("GDSI") securities during the period from October 8, 2013 through
August 11, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class
Period"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including
the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating
to your ownership interest in GDSI securities. You may obtain
copies of the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement
of Class Action ("Notice") and the Proof of Claim and Release Form
by writing to or calling the Claims Administrator: Global Digital
Solutions, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims
Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA
19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985;
info@strategicclaims.net. You can also download copies of the
Notice and submit your Proof of Claim and Release Form online at
www.strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form
electronically or postmarked no later than October 7, 2019 to the
Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will
be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you
make a claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that
it is received no later than October 16, 2019, in the manner and
form explained in the detailed Notice. All members of the
Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the
Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the
Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award to Lead Counsel and Lopez's Counsel
of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and Awards to Lead
Plaintiff and Lopez must be in the manner and form explained in the
detailed Notice and received no later than October 16, 2019, by
each of the following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
District of New Jersey
402 East State Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08608

LEAD COUNSEL:
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Laurence M. Rosen
609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
South Orange, New Jersey 07079

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS GLOBAL
DIGITAL SOLUTIONS, INC. AND
WILLIAM J. DELGADO:

Brinen & Associates, LLC
Joshua D. Brinen
90 Broad Street, Second Floor
New York, New York 10004

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
DAVID A. LOPPERT:

Hellring Lindeman Goldstein & Siegal, LLP
Jonathan L. Goldstein
Corinne B. Maloney
One Gateway Center
Newark, New Jersey 07102-5323

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel:

THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Laurence M. Rosen
609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
South Orange, New Jersey 07079
Tel: 973-313-1887
Fax: 973-833-0399

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated: July 15, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
NEW JERSEY

1 The "Lopez Actions" refer to Adrian Lopez v. William J. Delgado,
et al., Docket No. C-70-16, which was brought derivatively by
Adrian Lopez ("Lopez") on behalf of GDSI, and Adrian Lopez v.
Global Digital Solutions, Inc., et al., Docket No. L-002126-17,
brought directly by Lopez against GDSI, both filed in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, and later administratively
closed.


GOLAM MOWLA: Singh et al. Seek Overtime Wages for Workers
---------------------------------------------------------
HARDEEP SINGH, and BALDEV SINGH, on their own behalf and on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. GOLAM MOWLA
CONSTRUCTION CORP. d/b/a G Mowla Master Craftsmen, d/b/a G Mowla
Home Improvement, d/b/a G Mowla General Contractor; and MOWLA
CONSTRUCTION CORP. d/b/a G Mowla Master Craftsmen, d/b/a G Mowla
Home Improvement, d/b/a G Mowla General Contractor; GOLAM MOWLA,
and MOZAMMEL HOQUE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07594
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2019), contends that the Defendants have
willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the
New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act by engaging in
pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including
Plaintiffs, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to work as a
construction worker at 93-26 197th Street, Jamaica, New York 11423
and 84-55 159th Street, Jamaica, New York 11432.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs, proposed FLSA Collective and potential
Rule 23 Class are:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324

GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in Transient Tax-Related Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from the District Court decision granting
the defendants joint motion to dismiss the Transient Lodging
Tax-related suit remains pending, according to Golden
Entertainment, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

On August 31, 2018, prior guests of The Strat filed a purported
class action complaint against the Company in the District Court,
Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of similarly situated individuals
and entities that paid the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging
Tax ("Tax") on the portion of a resort fee that constitutes charges
for Internet access, during the period of February 6, 2014 through
the date the alleged conduct ceases.

The lawsuit alleged that the Tax was charged in violation of the
federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, which imposed a national
moratorium on the taxation of Internet access by states and their
political subdivisions, and sought, on behalf of the plaintiff and
the putative class, damages equal to the amount of the Tax
collected on the Internet access component of the resort fee,
injunctive relief, disgorgement, interest, fees and costs.

All defendants to this matter, including Golden Entertainment,
Inc., filed a joint motion to dismiss this matter for lack of
merit.  The District Court granted this joint motion to dismiss on
February 21, 2019.

The plaintiffs appealed the District Court decision on April 10,
2019 to the Supreme Court of Nevada.

Golden Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, focuses
on distributed gaming, and resort casino operations in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Lakes Entertainment, Inc.
and changed its name to Golden Entertainment, Inc. in July 2015.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Court Okays $1.1MM Settlement of Nevada Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The court has approved a US$1.1 million settlement for a class
action lawsuit in Nevada, according to Golden Entertainment, Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

In February and April 2017, several former employees filed two
separate purported class action lawsuits against the Company in the
District Court of Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of similarly
situated individuals employed by the Company in the State of
Nevada.

The lawsuits allege that the Company violated certain Nevada labor
laws including payment of an hourly wage below the statutory
minimum wage without providing a qualified health insurance plan
and an associated failure to pay proper overtime compensation.  The
complaints seek, on behalf of the plaintiffs and members of the
putative class, an unspecified amount of damages (including
punitive damages), injunctive and equitable relief, and an award of
attorneys' fees, interest and costs.

The Company agreed to settle the first of these cases in the fourth
quarter of 2017 and the second of these cases in the third quarter
of 2018.  In February 2019, the court approved the settlement for
the first case for US$0.5 million.  In July 2019, the court
approved the settlement for the second case for US$1.1 million,
which is included in the Company's recorded reserves at June 30,
2019.

Golden Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, focuses
on distributed gaming, and resort casino operations in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Lakes Entertainment, Inc.
and changed its name to Golden Entertainment, Inc. in July 2015.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Adeptus IPO-Related Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 defendants in
the class action suit related to Adeptus Health Inc.'s initial
public offering (IPO) have sought dismissal of the newly asserted
additional misstatement and omission claims in the second amended
consolidated complaint.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed
beginning in October 2016 and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include certain
former directors and officers of Adeptus Health Inc. (Adeptus), as
well as Adeptus' sponsor.

As to the underwriters, the consolidated complaint, filed on
November 21, 2017, relates to the $124 million June 2014 initial
public offering, the $154 million May 2015 secondary equity
offering, the $411 million July 2015 secondary equity offering, and
the $175 million June 2016 secondary equity offering.

GS&Co. underwrote 1.69 million shares of common stock in the June
2014 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $37 million, 962,378 shares of common stock
in the May 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price
of approximately $61 million, 1.76 million shares of common stock
in the July 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price
of approximately $185 million, and all the shares of common stock
in the June 2016 offering representing an aggregate offering price
of approximately $175 million.

On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

On September 12, 2018, the defendants' motions to dismiss were
granted as to the June 2014 and May 2015 offerings, but denied as
to the July 2015 and June 2016 offerings. On December 7, 2018,
plaintiffs moved for class certification.

On February 16, 2019, plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated complaint.

On March 4, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the newly
asserted additional misstatement and omission claims in the second
amended consolidated complaint.

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: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Sea Limited IPO 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 defendants'
motion to dismiss the class action suit related to Sea Limited's
$989 million October 2017 initial public offering, is pending.

Goldman Sachs Asia (GS Asia) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed on November
1, 2018 in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York,
relating to Sea Limited's $989 million October 2017 initial public
offering of American depositary shares.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Sea Limited
and certain of its officers and directors.

GS Asia underwrote 28,026,721 American depositary shares
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $420
million.

On January 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
Defendants moved to dismiss on March 26, 2019.

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: Continues to Defend FX Class Suits in Israel
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 itself against two putative class action suit
in the district court of the Central District in Israel.

GS&Co. and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in two
putative class actions filed in the district court of the Central
District in Israel on behalf of direct purchasers of foreign
exchange instruments. The complaints, filed on September 11, 2018
and September 29, 2018, respectively, generally allege a conspiracy
to manipulate prices of foreign exchange instruments.

The second putative class action also asserts claims based on
misuse of the “last look” features of foreign exchange trading
systems.

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: Valeant Securities Suit in Canada 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 Goldman Sachs &
Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc., together with
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., continues to defend a
putative class action lawsuit in Canada.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. (GS
Canada) are among the underwriters and initial purchasers named as
defendants in a putative class action filed on March 2, 2016 in the
Superior Court of Quebec, Canada.

In addition to the underwriters and initial purchasers, the
defendants include Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
(Valeant), certain directors and officers of Valeant and Valeant's
auditor.

As to GS&Co. and GS Canada, the complaint relates to the June 2013
public offering of $2.3 billion of common stock, the June 2013 Rule
144A offering of $3.2 billion principal amount of senior notes, and
the November 2013 Rule 144A offering of $900 million principal
amount of senior notes.

The complaint asserts claims under the Quebec Securities Act and
the Civil Code of Quebec. On August 29, 2017, the court certified a
class that includes only non-U.S. purchasers in the offerings.
Defendants' motion for leave to appeal the certification was denied
on November 30, 2017.

GS&Co. and GS Canada, as sole underwriters, sold 5,334,897 shares
of common stock in the June 2013 offering to non-U.S. purchasers
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $453
million and, as initial purchasers, had a proportional share of
sales to non-U.S. purchasers of approximately CAD14.2 million in
principal amount of senior notes in the June 2013 and November 2013
Rule 144A offerings.

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.


GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Oct. 15 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a motion for lead
plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders that purchased or acquired shares of Granite
Construction Incorporated. ("Granite Construction" or the
"Company") (GVA) between October 26, 2018, and August 1, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California seeks
to recover damages for Granite Construction investors under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 15, 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.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that
the Company had assumed certain risks in connection with its heavy
civil joint venture projects bid between 2012 and 2014; (2) that
there was an "untenable" imbalance of risk sharing between the
Company and the joint venture project owners; (3) that, as a
result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur additional
project costs for its joint venture projects; (4) the Company was
reasonably likely to incur additional costs in connection with
certain project disputes; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On July 29, 2019, after the market closed, the Company disclosed
that second quarter 2019 financial results were negatively impacted
by non-cash charges related to four legacy, unconsolidated heavy
civil joint venture projects. On this news, the company's stock
price fell $7.98 per share, or nearly 18%, to close at $36.49 per
share on July 30, 2019.

Then, on August 2, 2019, before the market opened, the Company
announced its second quarter 2019 financial results, reporting
revenue of $789.5 million including $114.2 million in revenue
reductions due to the charges disclosed earlier that week. On this
news, the Company's stock price fell $2.78 per share, or over 8% to
close at $31.22 per share.

If you purchased Granite Construction Inc. securities, and/or would
like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://tinyurl.com/y6en4l2v 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:

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


GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of GTT Communications, Inc. (NYSE: GTT) from February
26, 2018 through July 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for GTT investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the GTT class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1636.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) there were delays in migrating Interoute Communications
Holdings S.A.'s ("Interoute") legacy systems and processes into
GTT's client management database system; (2) Interoute had made a
strategic priority shift to sell cloud services that was a higher
percentage of Interoute's sales in the two years leading up to the
acquisition; (3) a material percentage of the Interoute sales
representatives were not productive at selling GTT's core cloud
networking services; (4) GTT was unable to yield as many Interoute
salespeople because Interoute had hired many sales people focused
on cloud services and allowed underperforming sales representatives
to remain at Interoute; and (5) as a result, GTT's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
30, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1636.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact:

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


HARRIS & HARRIS: Ex-Employee Sues Over Fingerprint Scans
--------------------------------------------------------
Marian Johns, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a Cook
County, Illinois woman who worked for the Harris & Harris debt
collection agency is suing her former employer over its use of a
biometric time clock system that required fingerprint scans.

According to the Aug. 7 Cook County Circuit Court filing, Erica
Flowers filed the class action suit against Harris & Harris LTD,
alleging violation of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act.


Flowers said in the lawsuit that Harris & Harris' requirement for
employees to use a biometric time clock that scanned fingerprints,
which she alleged were collected, stored and shared with Harris &
Harris' time-keeping vendor, was instituted without the company
providing written information on the use and dissemination of their
fingerprints or ask for their consent to capture their
fingerprints.

The suit seeks damages of $1,000-$5,000 per violation, and an
injuncrtion against Harris & Harris, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.

Attorneys for the plaintiff and class are Douglas Werman, Esq. --
dwerman@flsalaw.com --  Maureen Salas, Esq. -- msalas@flsalaw.com
-- Zachary Flowerree, Esq. -- zflowerree@flsalaw.com -- and Sarah
Arendt, Esq. -- sarendt@flsalaw.com -- with Werman Salas P.C., of
Chicago. [GN]


HARRIS & HARRIS: Siegal Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laurence Siegal, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Harris & Harris, Ltd., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-05489 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 14, 2019), seeks to recover
damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Through its telephone calls to him, the Defendant alleged that
Plaintiff was obligated to pay a debt owed or due a creditor other
than Defendant. The Plaintiff's alleged obligation arises from a
transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services
that are the subject of the transaction were incurred primarily for
personal, family, or household purposes.

The Plaintiff did not give Defendant prior express consent to place
calls to his cellular telephone number by using an automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice.

The Plaintiff suffered actual harm as a result of Defendant's calls
at issue in that he suffered an invasion of privacy, an intrusion
into his life, and a private nuisance. As well, Defendant's calls
unnecessarily tied up Plaintiff's cellular telephone line and his
landline.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the proposed classes:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
          Chicago, Illinois 60630
          Telephone: 312.283.3814
          Facsimile: 773.496.8617
          E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

               - and -

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: 512.803.1578
          Facsimile: 561.961.5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

HEADWAY TECH: Walnum Claims HDD Suspension Assemblies Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES WALNUM, 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., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.)
LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-04738
(N.D. Cal., Aug. 13, 2019), seeks damages and injunctive relief
under state and federal antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer
protection laws against.

The Plaintiff brings this antitrust class action on behalf of
individuals and entities that  indirectly purchased hard disk drive
("HDD") suspension assemblies in the United States from Defendants,
their predecessors, any subsidiaries or affiliates thereof, or any
of their named and unnamed co-conspirators, during the period
beginning at least as early as May 2008 until such time as the
anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct on United States
consumers of such products ceased.

From at least May 2008 through at least April 2016, Defendants
entered into agreements with each other to refrain from price
competition and allocate their respective market shares for
suspension assemblies used in HDDs.

Pursuant to their agreements not to compete, Defendants exchanged
pricing information including anticipated pricing quotes, which
they used to inform their negotiations with U.S. and foreign
customers that purchased suspension assemblies and produced HDDs
for sale in, or delivery to, the U.S. and elsewhere.

As a proximate result of these agreements, Defendants charged
artificially high prices for HDD Suspension Assemblies.

HDD Suspension Assemblies are a crucial component of HDDs.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Indirect-Purchaser Classes
are:

          Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
          Judith A. Zahid, Esq.
          Qianwei Fu, Esq.
          James R. Martin, Esq.
          Jennifer Duncan Hackett, Esq.
          Miriam R. Vishio, Esq.
          ZELLE LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 693-0700
          Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
          E-mail: cmicheletti@zelle.com
                  jzahid@zelle.com
                  qfu@zelle.com
                  jmartin@zelle.com
                  jhackett@zelle.com
                  mvishio@zelle.com

HENRY SCHEIN: Appeal in Dental Supplies Antitrust Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that the appeal made by Dr.
William Roe an unnamed class member that had objected to the
settlement in the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re
Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB, is pending.

Dr. William Roe, an unnamed class member that had objected to the
settlement, filed a notice of appeal appealing the district court's
Final Judgment and Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of
Class

Beginning in January 2016, purported class action complaints were
filed against Patterson Companies, Inc. ("Patterson"), Benco Dental
Supply Co. ("Benco") and Henry Schein, Inc.

Although there were factual and legal variations among these
complaints, each of these complaints alleges, among other things,
that defendants conspired to fix prices, allocate customers and
foreclose competitors by boycotting manufacturers, state dental
associations and others that deal with defendants' competitors.

On February 9, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York ordered all of these actions, and all other
actions filed thereafter asserting substantially similar claims
against defendants, consolidated for pre-trial purposes.

On February 26, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was
filed by Arnell Prato, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., d/b/a Down to Earth
Dental, Evolution Dental Sciences, LLC, Howard M. May, DDS, P.C.,
Casey Nelson, D.D.S., Jim Peck, D.D.S., Bernard W. Kurek, D.M.D.,
Larchmont Dental Associates, P.C., and Keith Schwartz, D.M.D., P.A.
(collectively, "putative class representatives") in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled In re
Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB.

In the consolidated class action complaint, putative class
representatives allege a nationwide agreement among Henry Schein,
Benco, Patterson and non-party Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc.
("Burkhart") not to compete on price.

The consolidated class action complaint asserts a single count
under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeks equitable relief,
compensatory and treble damages, jointly and severally, and
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert
fees.

On September 28, 2018, the parties executed a settlement agreement
that proposes, subject to court approval, a full and final
settlement of the lawsuit on a classwide basis.

Subject to certain exceptions, the settlement class consists of all
persons or entities that purchased dental products directly from
Henry Schein, Patterson, Benco, Burkhart, or any combination
thereof, during the period August 31, 2008 through and including
March 31, 2016.

As a result, in the company's third quarter of fiscal 2018, the
company recorded a charge of $38.5 million, which was paid into a
settlement fund in January 2019.

On June 25, 2019, the district court granted final approval to the
settlement, and entered final judgment dismissing the case.

On July 16, 2019, Dr. William Roe, an unnamed class member that had
objected to the settlement, filed a notice of appeal appealing the
district court's Final Judgment and Order Granting Motion for Final
Approval of Class Settlement.

The appeal is currently pending.

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices,
government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate
care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health
Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The
company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New
York.


HENRY SCHEIN: Appeal in Marion Diagnostic Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that the appeal taken by
plaintiffs in the class action suit entitled, Marion Diagnostic
Center, LLC, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co., et al., is still
pending.

On May 3, 2018, a purported class action complaint, Marion
Diagnostic Center, LLC, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co., et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-010509, was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois against Becton, Dickinson,
and Co. ("Becton"); Premier, Inc. ("Premier"), Vizient, Inc.
("Vizient"), Cardinal Health, Inc. ("Cardinal"), Owens & Minor Inc.
("O&M"), Henry Schein, Inc., and Unnamed Becton Distributor
Co-Conspirators.

The complaint alleges that the defendants entered into a vertical
conspiracy to force health care providers into long-term
exclusionary contracts that restrain trade in the nationwide
markets for conventional and safety syringes and safety IV
catheters and inflate the prices of certain Becton products to
above-competitive levels.

The named plaintiffs seek to represent three separate classes
consisting of all health care providers that purchased (i) Becton's
conventional syringes, (ii) Becton's safety syringes, or (iii)
Becton's safety catheters directly from Becton, Premier, Vizient,
Cardinal, O&M or Henry Schein on or after May 3, 2014.

The complaint asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, and seeks equitable relief, treble damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and expenses, and pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.

On June 15, 2018, an amended complaint was filed asserting the same
allegations against the same parties and adding McKesson
Medical-Surgical, Inc. as a defendant.

On November 30, 2018, the District Court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss and entered a final judgment, dismissing plaintiffs'
complaint with prejudice.

On December 27, 2018, plaintiffs appealed the District Court's
decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action.

Henry Schein said, "No further updates were provided in the
Company's SEC report."

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices,
government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate
care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health
Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The
company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New
York.


HENRY SCHEIN: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, In re Henry Schein, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

On March 7, 2018, Joseph Salkowitz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint for violation of the federal securities laws against
Henry Schein, Inc., Stanley M. Bergman and Steven Paladino in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No.
1:18-cv-01428.

The complaint sought to certify a class consisting of all persons
and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased Henry
Schein securities from March 7, 2013 through February 12, 2018 (the
"Class Period").

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants had
made materially false and misleading statements about Henry
Schein's business, operations and prospects during the Class
Period, including matters relating to the issues in the antitrust
class action and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) action, thereby
causing the plaintiff and members of the purported class to pay
artificially inflated prices for Henry Schein securities.

The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), the court appointed lead
plaintiff and lead counsel on June 22, 2018 and recaptioned the
putative class action as In re Henry Schein, Inc. Securities
Litigation, under the same case number.

Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on
September 14, 2018. The consolidated class action complaint asserts
similar claims against the same defendants (plus Timothy Sullivan)
on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers during the Class
Period.

It alleges that Henry Schein's stock price was inflated during that
period because Henry Schein had misleadingly portrayed its
dental-distribution business "as successfully producing excellent
profits while operating in a highly competitive environment" even
though, "in reality, (Henry Schein) had engaged for years in
collusive and anticompetitive practices in order to maintain
Schein's margins, profits, and market share."

The complaint alleges that the stock price started to fall from
August 8, 2017, when the company announced below-expected financial
performance that allegedly "revealed that Schein's poor results
were a product of abandoning prior attempts to inflate sales volume
and margins through anticompetitive collusion," through February
13, 2018, after the FTC filed a complaint against Benco, Henry
Schein and Patterson alleging that they violated U.S. antitrust
laws.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Henry Schein said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously
against this action. Henry Schein has also received a request under
8 Del. C. Section 220 to inspect corporate books and records
relating to the issues raised in the securities class action and
the antitrust matters.

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

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices,
government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate
care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health
Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The
company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New
York.


HENRY SCHEIN: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Kramer Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc.said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that the court granted
defendants' motions to dismiss the class action suit entitled,
Kramer v. Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson Co., Inc., Benco Dental
Supply Co., and Unnamed Co-Conspirators.

On October 9, 2018, a purported class action complaint entitled
Kramer v. Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson Co., Inc., Benco Dental
Supply Co., and Unnamed Co-Conspirators, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint alleges that members of the proposed class, comprised
of purchasers of dental services from dental practices in
California, suffered antitrust injury due to an unlawful boycott,
price-fixing or otherwise anticompetitive conspiracy among Henry
Schein, Patterson and Benco.

The complaint alleges that the alleged conspiracy overcharged
California dental practices, orthodontic practices and dental
laboratories on their purchase of dental supplies, which in turn
passed on some or all of such overcharges to members of the
California class purchasing dental services.

Subject to certain exclusions, the complaint defines the class as
"all persons residing in California purchasing and/or reimbursing
for dental services from California dental practices on or after
August 31, 2012."

The complaint alleges violations of California antitrust laws,
including the Cartwright Act (Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code Section
16720) and the Unfair Competition Act (Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code
Section 17200), and seeks a permanent injunction, actual damages to
be determined at trial, trebled, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

On December 7, 2018, an amended complaint was filed asserting the
same claims against the same parties.

On June 28, 2019, the court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss
with leave to amend.

Henry Schein said, "The parties have stipulated to dismissal of the
action with prejudice, pursuant to a settlement in which Henry
Schein has agreed to pay the plaintiff a de minimis amount."

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices,
government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate
care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health
Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The
company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New
York.


HENRY SCHEIN: Hatchett Class Action Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc.said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a purported class action suit initiated by R. Lawrence
Hatchett, M.D.

On January 29, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed
by R. Lawrence Hatchett, M.D. against
Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson Co., Inc., Benco Dental Supply Co.,
and unnamed co-conspirators in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges that members of the proposed class suffered
antitrust injury due to an unlawful boycott, price-fixing or
otherwise anticompetitive conspiracy among Henry Schein, Patterson
and Benco.

The complaint alleges that the alleged conspiracy overcharged
Illinois dental practices, orthodontic practices and dental
laboratories on their purchase of dental supplies, which in turn
passed on some or all of such overcharges to members of the class.

Subject to certain exclusions, the complaint defines the class as
"all persons residing in Illinois purchasing and/or reimbursing for
dental care provided by independent Illinois dental practices
purchasing dental supplies from the defendants, or purchasing from
buying groups purchasing these supplies from the defendants, on or
after January 29, 2015."

The complaint alleges violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act, 740
Ill. Comp. Stat. Sections 10/3(2), 10/7(2), and seeks a permanent
injunction, actual damages to be determined at trial, trebled,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment
interest.

Henry Schein said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously
against this action."

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

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices,
government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate
care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health
Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The
company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New
York.


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Court-Approved Accord Taken to Appeals Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court-approved class-wide settlement in the action styled Lisa
Kim v. Tinder, Inc., No. 18-cv-3093 (U.S. District Court, Central
District of California), has been taken to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by two objectors, according to
IAC/InterActiveCorp's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

On June 19, 2019, in the putative class action asserting
substantive claims and pending in federal district court in
California, the court issued an order granting final approval to a
class-wide settlement, the terms of which are not material to Match
Group.

On June 21, 2019, the Kim court entered judgment in accordance with
its prior order.  Because the approved settlement class in Kim
subsumes the proposed settlement class in the action styled Allan
Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., the judgment in Kim would effectively
render Candelore a single-plaintiff lawsuit.  Accordingly, on July
11, 2019, two objectors to the Kim settlement, represented by the
plaintiff's counsel in Candelore, filed a notice of appeal from the
Kim judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company said, "We and Match Group believe that the allegations
in the Candelore lawsuit are without merit and will continue to
defend vigorously against it."

IAC/InterActiveCorp, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
media and Internet company in the United States and
internationally. It operates through Match Group, ANGI
Homeservices, Video, Applications, and Publishing segments.
IAC/InterActiveCorp was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.



IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Discovery Ongoing in Candelore v. Tinder
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., No.
BC583162 (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles) is
currently in discovery, according to IAC/InterActiveCorp's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

On May 28, 2015, the putative state-wide class action was filed
against Tinder in state court in California.

The complaint principally alleged that Tinder violated California's
Unruh Civil Rights Act (the "Unruh Act") by offering and charging
users age 30 and over a higher price than younger users for
subscriptions to its premium Tinder Plus service.  The complaint
sought certification of a class of California Tinder Plus
subscribers age 30 and over and damages in an unspecified amount.

On September 21, 2015, Tinder filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of
the complaint.  On October 26, 2015, the court issued an opinion
sustaining Tinder's demurrer to the complaint without leave to
amend, ruling that the age-based pricing differential for Tinder
Plus subscriptions did not violate California law in essence
because offering a discount to users under age 30 was neither
invidious nor unreasonable in light of that age group's generally
more limited financial means.  On December 29, 2015, in accordance
with its ruling, the court entered judgment dismissing the action.

On February 1, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from
the judgment, and the parties thereafter briefed the appeal.  On
January 29, 2018, the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate
District, Division Three) issued an opinion reversing the judgment
of dismissal, ruling that the lower court had erred in sustaining
Tinder's demurrer because the complaint, as pleaded, stated a
cognizable claim for violation of the Unruh Act.

The Company said, "Because we believe that the appellate court's
reasoning was flawed as a matter of law and runs afoul of binding
California precedent, on March 12, 2018, Tinder filed a petition
with the California Supreme Court seeking interlocutory review of
the Court of Appeal's decision."

On May 9, 2018, the California Supreme Court denied the petition.
The case was then returned to the trial court for further
proceedings and is currently in discovery.

IAC/InterActiveCorp, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
media and Internet company in the United States and
internationally. It operates through Match Group, ANGI
Homeservices, Video, Applications, and Publishing segments.
IAC/InterActiveCorp was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


ICU MEDICAL: Bid to Drop Saline Solution Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ICU Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that it is awaiting a court order on the defendants'
motion for dismissal of the second amended complaint in the
intravenous saline solutions class action suit.

Beginning in November 2016, purported class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Pfizer, Inc. subsidiaries, Hospira, Inc., Hospira
Worldwide, Inc. and certain other defendants relating to the
intravenous saline solutions part of the HIS business.  Plaintiffs
seek to represent classes consisting of all persons and entities in
the U.S. who directly purchased intravenous saline solution sold by
any of the defendants from January 1, 2013 until the time the
defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceases.

Plaintiffs allege that U.S. manufacturer defendants conspired
together to restrict output and artificially fix, raise, maintain
and/or stabilize the prices of intravenous saline solution sold
throughout the U.S. in violation of federal antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs seek treble damages (for themselves and on behalf of the
putative classes) and an injunction against defendants for alleged
price overcharges for intravenous saline solution in the U.S. since
January 1, 2013.

On July 5, 2018, the District Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the operative complaint for failing to state a valid
antitrust claim, but allowed the plaintiffs to file a second
amended complaint.

On September 6, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
adding new allegations in support of their conspiracy claims and
adding ICU as a defendant.

All defendants have filed a motion to dismiss this second amended
complaint.  Briefing is complete and the Company is awaiting the
Court's ruling.

The Company said, "On February 3, 2017, we completed the
acquisition of the HIS business from Pfizer. This litigation is the
subject of a claim for indemnification against us by Pfizer and a
cross-claim for indemnification against Pfizer by us under the HIS
stock and asset purchase agreement."

ICU Medical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells medical devices
used in vascular therapy, critical care, and oncology applications
worldwide.  ICU Medical, Inc. was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in San Clemente, California.


INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Combined Shareholder Class Lawsuit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
India Globalization Capital, Inc. continues to defend itself
against a consolidated shareholder class action litigation with the
Tchatchou class action as the lead case, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

On November 2, 2018, IGC shareholder Alde-Binet Tchatchou
instituted a shareholder class action complaint on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.  IGC, Ram Mukunda,
Richard Prins, and Sudhakar Shenoy were named as defendants.  The
case is styled Tchatchou v. India Globalization Capital, Inc., et
al., 8:18-cv-03396 (U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland).

On February 28, 2019, all pending shareholder class actions were
consolidated, and the Tchatchou litigation was designated as the
lead case.  The consolidated case includes the action styled
Harris-Carr v. India Globalization Capital, Inc., et al.,
8:18-cv-03408 (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland).

On May 13, 2019, the plaintiff in the Tchatchou litigation filed an
amended complaint against IGC, Mukunda, and Claudia Grimaldi,
thereby removing Prins and Shenoy as defendants.  The plaintiff in
Tchatchou alleges that IGC, Mukunda, and Grimaldi violated Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and made false and misleading statements to the public
by issuing a September 25, 2018 press release entitled "IGC to
Enter the Hemp/CBD-Infused Energy Drink Space," in which IGC
announced it had "executed a distribution and partnership
agreement" for the sugar-free energy drink named Nitro G, as well
as through related public statements.  The plaintiff in Tchatchou
has not publicly disclosed the amount of damages they seek.

India Globalization Capital, Inc. engages in the development and
commercialization of cannabis-based therapies to treat Alzheimer's,
pain, nausea, eating disorders, several end points of Parkinson's,
and epilepsy in humans, dogs, and cats. The company operates
through two segments, Legacy Infrastructure and Medical Cannabis
Based Alternative Therapies. The company was founded in 2005 and is
based in Bethesda, Maryland.


INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: RM LAW Files 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 International
Flavors & Fragrances Inc. (IFF) securities between May 7, 2018 and
August 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

IFF shareholders may, no later than Oct. 11, 2019, move the Court
for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you purchased
shares of IFF 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

The Company acquired Frutarom Industries Ltd. ("Frutarom") in
October 2018 for $7.1 billion.

On August 5, 2019, after the market closed, the Company disclosed
that Frutarom had "made improper payments to representatives of a
number of customers" in Russia and Ukraine and that "key members of
Frutarom's senior management at the time were aware of such
payments." The Company also reduced its 2019 financial guidance for
sales to a range of $5.15 billion to $5.25 billion, from a range of
$5.2 billion to $5.3 billion, and for adjusted earnings per share
to a range of $4.85 to $5.05, from $4.90 to $5.10.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $22.56 per share, or
nearly 16%, to close at $118.91 per share on August 6, 2019, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

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

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than October
11, 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 or click here.   For more information
about class action cases in general or to learn more about RM LAW,
P.C. please visit our website by clicking here.

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. [GN]


INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. (NYSE: IFF)
from May 7, 2018 through August 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for International
Flavors investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the International Flavors class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1649.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Frutarom Industries Ltd. ("Frutarom"), which
International Flavors acquired in October 2018, had bribed
customers in Russia and Ukraine; (2) senior management at Frutarom
were aware of such improper payments; (3) as a result, Frutarom's
financial results were materially overstated; (4) as a result of
the improper payments, the Company was reasonably likely to face
regulatory scrutiny; (5) the Company had not completed adequate due
diligence before acquiring Frutarom; (6) the Company was unlikely
to achieve purported synergies from the acquisition; and (7) as a
result, International Flavors' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
11, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1649.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com

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

Contact:

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


IOWA: Rowe, et al Seek Ovetime Wages for Nurses
-----------------------------------------------
SUSAN L. ROWE, CHRISTINE M. KLEIBER, TAMMY D. BURDEN, JULIE A.
SCHROPP, STACEY L. GOOD, individually and on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. KIMBERLY KAY
REYNOLDS, in her official capacity as Governor State of Iowa, JAMES
M. KURTENBACH, in his official capacity with Iowa Department of
Administrative Services; and the STATE OF IOWA, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00256-JAJ-SBJ (Iowa Dist. Ct., Aug. 14, 2019),
seeks injunctive relief and to recover overtime compensation and
interest from the State of Iowa, liquated damages, attorney fees
and costs under the provisions of The Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and Iowa Wage Payment Collection.

The Plaintiffs are current or former employees of the State of
Iowa, and have been improperly classified, since July 1, 2017
through and including the present, by Defendants as employees that
are exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA.

Pursuant to the FLSA and the IWPCL employee Registered Nurses paid
on an hourly basis are required to be paid overtime for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Despite the Plaintiffs, and
Plaintiff Registered Nurse class, constituting non-exempt hourly
employees, the Defendants have failed and refused to pay, and
continue to fail and refuse to pay, to the Plaintiffs and the class
proper overtime wage payments.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Bruce H. Stoltze, Esq.
          STOLTZE & STOLTZE, PLC
          300 Walnut Street, Suite 260
          Des Moines, Iowa 50309
          Telephone: 515 244-1473
          Facsimile: 515 244-3930
          E-mail: bruce.stoltze@stoltzelaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Kragnes. Sr., Esq.
          KRAGNES & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          418 6 th Ave., Suite 200
          Des Moines, Iowa 50309
          Telephone: 515-282-9200
          Facsimile: 515-282-9205
          E-mail: chris@ktkpc.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Thomas J. Miller, Esq.
          Molly M. Weber, Esq.
          Iowa Department of Justice
          Hoover State Office Building
          1305 E. Walnut Street
          Des Moines, IA 50319
          Telephone: (515) 281-5309
          Facsimile: (515) 281-4902
          E-mail: molly.weber@ag.iowa.gov

J2 GLOBAL: Davis Neurology Class Suit Removed to Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that its affiliates have removed the class action
suit initiated by Davis Neurology, P.A., to federal court pursuant
to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.  The plaintiff has moved
to remand.

On January 21, 2016, Davis Neurology, P.A. filed a putative class
action against two J2 Global affiliates in the Circuit Court for
the County of Pope, State of Arkansas (58-cv-2016-40), alleging
violations of the TCPA.  The case was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (No.  4:16-cv-00682).

On March 20, 2017, the District Court granted a motion for judgment
on the pleadings filed by the J2 Global affiliates and dismissed
all claims against the J2 Global affiliates.

On July 23, 2018, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the
judgment and remanded to district court with instructions to return
the case to state court.  On January 29, 2019, after further
appeals were exhausted, the case was remanded to the Arkansas state
court.

On April 1, 2019, the state court granted a motion for class
certification filed by the plaintiff in 2016.  Because the prior
removal to federal court had deprived the state court of
jurisdiction, the J2 Global affiliates had not yet filed an
opposition brief to the 2016 motion when the state court granted
the motion.  The J2 Global affiliates appealed the order.

On July 15, 2019, the J2 Global affiliates removed the case to
federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
The plaintiff has moved to remand.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides Internet
services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fax and
Email Marketing; Voice, Backup, and Security; and Digital Media.
The company was formerly known as j2 Global Communications, Inc.
and changed its name to j2 Global, Inc. in December 2011. j2
Global, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Los
Angeles, California.


JACKSON PARK: Williams Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JACKSON PARK SUPPORTIVE
LIVING FACILITY, LLC, the Case No. 2019CH09286 (Ill. Cir, Aug. 12,
2019), seeks to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful
collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs sensitive
and proprietary biometric data.

When Jackson Park hires an employee, including Plaintiff, he or she
is enrolled in its employee database(s) using a scan of his or her
hand print. Jackson Park uses the employee database(s) to monitor
the time worked by its hourly employees.

While many employers use conventional methods for tracking time
worked (such as ID badges or punch clocks), Jackson Park's
employees are required, as a condition of employment, to have their
hand prints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device.

Biometrics are not relegated to esoteric corners of commerce. Many
businesses - such as Jackson Park - and financial institutions have
incorporated biometric applications into their workplace in the
form of biometric timeclocks or authenticators, and into consumer
products, including such ubiquitous consumer products as checking
accounts and cell phones.

Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced
if stolen or compromised -- handprints are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes
Jackson Park's employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks.
For example, if a database containing hand prints or other
sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed -- like in the recent Yahoo, eBay, Equifax, Uber,
Home Depot, MyFitnessPal, Panera, Whole Foods, Chipotle, Omni
Hotels & Resorts, Trump Hotels, and Facebook/Cambridge Analytica
data breaches or misuses - employees have no means by which to
prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or
improper use of this highly personal and private information, the
lawsuit says.

Jackson Park is in the business of rehabilitation and supportive
living to adults with physical disabilities.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312 233 1560
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  cmitchell@stephanzouras.com

JENNINGS GATE: Court OKs $425K Class Settlement in Bueso Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued an Order granting Preliminary Approval on Proposed
Class Action Settlement in the case captioned DANIA BUESO AND FREDY
BUESO, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff(s), v. JENNINGS GATE RESTAURANT INC., D/B/A
STORYVILLE AMERICAN TABLE SANDRA FINELY AND SHANNON FINLEY, In
their individual capacities Defendant(s). No. 2:18-cv-380 (ENV)
(RLM). (E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Dania Bueso and Freddy Bueso commenced this action
against defendants Jennings Gate Restaurant Inc., Sandra Finley and
Shannon Finley alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) on behalf of themselves and all currently situated current
and former employees who opt into the action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b), as well as under the New York Labor Law and the
supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations, 12
N.Y.C.R.R. Part 142 (New York Labor Law).  

The parties accepted the Court settlement proposal and
subsequently, the Court referred the motion to supplement the
complaint The R&R recommends that revised Order Preliminarily
Approving Proposed Class Action Settlement be granted and the
revised Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement be approved.

Judge Mann concluded that the proposed settlement is a free and
reasonable resolution of the action and the proposed class
settlement warrants preliminary approval pursuant to Cheeks v.
Freeport Pancake House, Inc. 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). Judge
Mann further concluded that under the relevant factors under Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the class certification
and terms of the proposed class settlement are appropriate.  

Having carefully reviewed the R&R in accordance with this standard,
the Court finds it to be correct, well-reasoned and free of any
clear error. The Court, therefore, adopts the R&R, in its entirety,
as the opinion of the Court.

The Court preliminarily approves the Class Action Settlement and
approves the revised Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5t5yy79 from Leagle.com.

Patrick M. McKenna, Mediator, pro se.

Dania Bueso & Freddy Bueso, On behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Delvis Melendez, 90
Bradley Street, Brentwood, NY 11717.

Jennings Gate Restaurant Inc., doing business as Storyville
American Table, Sandra Finley & Shannon Finley, In their individual
capacity, Defendants, represented by Adam Granek Guttell --
Adam.Guttell@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Ashley
Christine Zangara -- Ashley.Zangara@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis P.C..


JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Anderson Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
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 a class action suit entitled, Anderson,
et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.

On March 30, 2018, Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and
individuals were named as defendants in a putative class action
(Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
The lawsuit was brought under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act, as well as
Missouri and California law and alleges that the defendants
inappropriately transitioned client assets from commission-based
accounts to fee-based programs.  

The plaintiffs requested declaratory, equitable, and exemplary
relief, and compensatory damages.  

On July 9, 2019, the district court entered an order dismissing the
lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice.

On July 29, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which eliminated certain affiliated entities and individuals as
defendants, withdrew the claims under the Securities Act, added
claims under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, and
certain additional state law claims, and reasserted the remaining
claims with modified allegations.  

Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals deny the
allegations and intend to continue to vigorously defend this
lawsuit.

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: Watson et al. Labor Suit in Calif. Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 a class action suit entitled, Watson,
et al. v. The Jones Financial Companies L.L.L.P., et al.

On April 25, 2019, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in
a putative class action (Watson, et al. v. The Jones Financial
Companies L.L.L.P., et al.) filed by two former financial advisors
in the Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento
County.  

Plaintiffs allege that defendants did not reimburse financial
advisors and financial advisor trainees in California for certain
categories of business expenses, which plaintiffs allege violates
the California Labor Code and California Unfair Competition Law.  

The lawsuit seeks damages and restitution as well as attorneys'
fees and costs and equitable and injunctive relief.  

Defendants will respond to the complaint in due course 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.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Forex-Rigging Class Action in UK
------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Echo reports that five major banks, including JPMorgan
Chase & Co and UBS Group AG, are facing criminal allegations of
foreign exchange rigging in a new class action lawsuit worth more
than one billion pounds.  That is the equivalent of $1.2 billion
USD.

The other other banks named in the suit are Barclays Plc, Citigroup
Inc, and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc.

According to the allegations, the UK-based suit will go towards
paying pension funds, asset managers, hedge funds, and corporations
that lost out because these banks participated in a market
manipulation scheme that took place between 2007 and 2013.  Thus,
the suit says, these parties should be compensated.

More specifically, the lawsuit focuses on suspicious on collusion
regarding foreign-exchange trading strategies.  The European
Commission has already fined Barclays, Citigroup, JPMorgan,
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, and Royal Bank of Scotland 1.07
billion total Euros, in May. UBS managed to escape this fine as it
was the first known to tell regulators about the collusion.  At the
same time, Mitsubishi UFJ has not be listed in the civil case.

Essentially, the foreign-exchange traders ran what equates to two
cartels through online chatrooms. European regulators said that
many of those who participated in the chatroom discussions knew
eachother; in fact on chatroom had been referred to as "Essex
Express n' the Jimmy" because almost every trader had met on a
commuter train between Essex and London.  The other three chat
rooms carried the names "Three Way Banana Split" and "Semi Grumpy
Old Men."

What is perhaps more alarming, this case is just the latest
development in a case that has already set in motion regulatory
probes around the world. In turn, this already resulted in several
billion dollars worth of fines, and also $2.3 billion in US
settlements, last year.

The case was filed on Aug. 5 in the Competition Appeal Tribunal, in
London, by Scott+Scott Europe.  The firms US arm -- Scott+Scott
Attorneys at Law LLP -- led the class action suit that generated
the original $2.3 billion in settlements. [GN]


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix Shareholder Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the remaining
class action suits in New York is still pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

Beginning in March 2017, putative shareholder class actions were
filed against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California and the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The complaints generally alleged violations of the federal
securities laws based on the Company's disclosure in March 2017
that its financial statements for the years 2014, 2015 and the
first three quarters of 2016 would need to be restated, and seek
damages on behalf of putative classes of shareholders who purchased
or acquired Kandi's securities prior to March 13, 2017.

All the remaining cases are in the New York federal court, and lead
plaintiff and lead counsel have been appointed.

Kandi has moved to dismiss the remaining cases and that motion
remains pending.

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

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. manufactures small vehicles
including all terrain vehicles (ATVs), golf carts, motor cycles,
motor scooters and go-karts. The Company also is focused on the
development of energy saving mini-cars. The company is based in
People's Republic of China.


KB HOME: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Aiiram's UCL Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned AIIRAM LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. KB HOME, Defendant. Case No. 19-CV-00269-LHK. (N.D.
Cal.).

The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint against
Defendant in California Superior Court for the County of Santa
Clara. Plaintiffs' class action complaint raised the same five
claims as Plaintiffs' complaint in the Individual State Action: (1)
breach of contract (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing (3) intentional interference of economic advantage
(4) negligence  interference with economic advantage and (5) bad
faith denial of contract.

The Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' second through eighth
claims as duplicative of Plaintiffs' first claim, which is for
breach of contract. Defendant also moves to dismiss Plaintiffs'
prayer for punitive damages. The Court addresses Defendant's
arguments in turn.

Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Plaintiffs' second claim is for breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant
violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
because Defendant refused to allow Plaintiffs and California
subclass members to close escrow for the purchase of the real
properties within 3 business days of the delivery of the 3-day
default letters, as required by the Contracts. Defendant contends
that the Court must dismiss Plaintiffs' implied covenant claim as
duplicative of Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim.

The Court agrees.

Where the claim of breach of the implied covenant relies on the
same acts, and seeks the same damages, as[the plaintiff's claim for
breach of contract, a court can dismiss the claim for breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as duplicative.  

Although Plaintiffs argue that their implied covenant claim sounds
in tort and is not duplicative, the claim clearly relies on the
same factual allegations as Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim.
In their breach of contract claim, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant
breached the contracts by refusing to allow Plaintiffs and
Nationwide class members to close escrow on the purchase of the
real properties within 3 business days of delivery of Defendant's
3-day default letters.

Plaintiffs' claim for breach of the implied covenant is almost
word-for-word identical, as Plaintiffs allege that Defendant
breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by
refusing to allow Plaintiffs and California subclass members to
close escrow for the purchase of the real properties within 3
business days of the delivery of the 3-day default letters, as
required by the Contracts. Thus, Plaintiffs' implied covenant claim
depends on precisely the same facts, Defendant's alleged breach of
the 3-day default provision as Plaintiffs' breach of contract
claim. Under Alvarez, dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim for breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is warranted.


Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' second claim for breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing. Because granting Plaintiffs an additional
opportunity to amend the complaint would not be futile, cause undue
delay, or unduly prejudice Defendant, and Plaintiffs have not acted
in bad faith, the Court grants leave to amend.  

Negligent and Intentional Interference with Economic Advantage

Plaintiffs' third claim is for intentional interference with
economic advantage and Plaintiffs' fourth claim is for negligent
interference with economic advantage. In both claims, Plaintiffs
allege that Plaintiffs had economic interests in the real
properties that they were in contract to purchase and that those
interests had the probability of future economic benefit to
Plaintiffs and Nationwide class members.

To state a claim for intentional interference with economic
advantage, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the existence, between the
plaintiff and some third party, of an economic relationship that
contains the probability of future economic benefit to the
plaintiff (2) the defendant's knowledge of the relationship (3)
intentionally wrongful acts designed to disrupt the relationship
(4) actual disruption of the relationship and (5) economic harm
proximately caused by the defendant's action.

To state a claim for negligent interference with economic
advantage, the elements are identical, save that a plaintiff must
allege that the defendant failed to act with reasonable care rather
than with intent to disrupt the economic relationship.  

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs cannot state claims for
interference with economic advantage because Plaintiffs fail to
allege an economic relationship with a third party. Rather,
Plaintiffs allege only that Plaintiffs had an economic relationship
with Defendant. Indeed, the California Supreme Court has held that
the tort cause of action for interference with contract does not
lie against a party to the contract.

In the instant case, Plaintiffs' pleading identifies no contractual
relationship between Plaintiffs and a third party. Plaintiffs only
generally allege that Plaintiffs' economic interests had the
probability of future economic benefit to Plaintiffs. Although
Plaintiffs argue in their opposition that Defendant interfered with
Plaintiffs' sale of the homes to third parties, the complaint
includes no allegation that Plaintiffs entered into any sale
agreements with third parties nor even an allegation that
Plaintiffs planned to enter any such agreements. Therefore, without
allegations of an economic relationship between Plaintiffs and a
specific third party, Plaintiffs' complaint fails to state claims
for intentional or negligent interference with economic advantage.
Plaintiffs' conclusory allegations that Plaintiffs expected future
economic benefit, without identification of any third party or any
economic relationship with such third party, are insufficient.

The Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' third
and fourth claims for intentional and negligent interference with
economic advantage. Because granting Plaintiffs an additional
opportunity to amend the complaint would not be futile, cause undue
delay, or unduly prejudice Defendant, and Plaintiffs have not acted
in bad faith, the Court grants leave to amend.  

Bad Faith Denial of Contract

Plaintiffs' fifth claim is for bad faith denial of contract.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant refused to allow Plaintiffs and
California subclass members to close escrow on the real properties
and represented that they had no contractual obligation to allow
Plaintiffs and California subclass members to purchase the real
properties and that Defendant thus denied the existence of their
Contracts with Plaintiffs and California subclass members in bad
faith and without probable cause.

However, California does not recognize a cause of action for bad
faith denial of contract. To recover in tort for a breach of
contract, Plaintiffs must allege that Defendant violated an
independent tort duty other than the bad faith denial of the
existence of, or liability under, the breached contract.

In the instant case, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant represented
that they had no contractual obligation and that Defendant denied
the existence of their Contracts with Plaintiffs and California
subclass members in bad faith and without probable cause. Thus,
Plaintiffs allege only that Defendant denied the existence of the
purchase contracts in bad faith, not that Defendant owed or
violated any other independent tort duty.

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' fifth claim for bad faith denial of contract. Because
the California Supreme Court has held that as a matter of law,
California does not recognize a cause of action for bad faith
denial of the contract, the Court finds that granting Plaintiff an
additional opportunity to amend the complaint would be futile and
denies leave to amend.  

Claims for Violation of California's UCL

Plaintiffs' sixth, seventh, and eight claims are for violations of
California's UCL. The UCL permits recovery under three separate
prongs, each of which is a separate and distinct theory of
liability. Plaintiffs bring claims under all three prongs: the
fraudulent prong, unfair prong, and unlawful prong.

Defendant contends that all three of Plaintiffs' UCL claims fail as
duplicative of Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim. The Ninth
Circuit has held that factual allegations that a defendant breached
a contract support a claim under any prong of the UCL only if the
breaches of contract are independently unlawful, unfair, or
fraudulent. A plaintiff's allegation that a defendant merely
breached the contract between plaintiff and defendant is
insufficient to state a UCL claim under any prong.   Although
Plaintiffs contend that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged
independently unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent conduct, the Court
disagrees.

In their unfair prong claim, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has
violated the unfair prong of the UCL through its acts and omissions
detailed herein, including the early termination or threat of early
termination of purchase contracts.   However, Plaintiffs' unfair
prong claim is predicated only on Defendant's alleged breach of the
3-day default provision via Defendant's early termination of the
purchase agreements. Plaintiffs' FAC includes no allegations of
conduct that is independently unfair. Thus, Plaintiffs' FAC fails
to state a claim for violation of the UCL's unfair prong.

Next, in their fraudulent prong claim, Plaintiffs allege that
Defendant deceived consumers into believing that their 3-day right
to cure period would expire, and/or had expired, earlier than it
actually did. To state a claim under the fraudulent prong of the
UCL, Plaintiffs must allege actual reliance on the allegedly
deceptive or misleading statements and that the misrepresentation
was an immediate cause of the injury-producing conduct.

In the instant case, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's allegedly
misleading statement was Defendant's statement that Plaintiffs'
3-day right-to-cure period expired on November 30, 2017. However,
to the extent that Plaintiffs allege Defendant's statement was
false, that allegation is coextensive with Plaintiffs' allegation
that Defendant's November 30, 2017 cancellation of the purchase
contracts breached the 3-day default provision. Plaintiffs do not
allege that Defendant committed any fraudulent conduct other than
allegedly breaching the contract by terminating the purchase
agreements early. Moreover, Plaintiffs do not allege that
Plaintiffs at all relied on Defendant's statement that the 3-day
right-to-cure period expired on November 30, 2017. In fact,
Plaintiffs disputed the truth of Defendant's statement and sued
Defendant for breach of contract.

Thus, Plaintiffs' FAC fails to state a claim for violation of the
UCL's fraudulent prong.

Finally, Plaintiffs' unlawful prong claim relies on an alleged
violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). The
UCL's unlawful prong allows a plaintiff to recover for predicate
violations of other laws. However, the CLRA is inapplicable to
transactions resulting in the sale of real property. Thus,
Plaintiffs' FAC fails to state a claim for violation of the UCL's
unlawful prong.

The Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' sixth,
seventh, and eighth claims for violation of the UCL. Because
granting Plaintiffs an additional opportunity to amend the
complaint would not be futile, cause undue delay, or unduly
prejudice Defendant, and Plaintiffs have not acted in bad faith,
the Court grants leave to amend.  

Prayer for Punitive Damages

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' prayer for punitive damages.
Defendant contends that punitive damages are unavailable for
Plaintiffs' only remaining claim, breach of contract. Indeed, the
California courts have stated that it is well settled in this state
that punitive damages may not be awarded in an action based on
breach of contract, even though the defendant's breach was willful
or fraudulent. Thus, because the Court has dismissed all of
Plaintiffs' claims except for the claim for breach of contract,
Plaintiffs cannot recover punitive damages.

The Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' prayer
for punitive damages. Because granting Plaintiffs an additional
opportunity to amend the complaint would not be futile, cause undue
delay, or unduly prejudice Defendant, and Plaintiffs have not acted
in bad faith, the Court grants leave to amend.  

Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
following claims with leave to amend: breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent interference
with economic advantage, intentional interference with economic
advantage, and violation of California's UCL. The Court also grants
Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's bad faith denial of
contract claim without leave to amend. The Court further grants
Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's prayer for punitive
damages with leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 12, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yy3hgodf from Leagle.com.

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

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


KINGSTONE COMPANIES: Woolgar Securities Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kingstone Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that it believes the putative class action
captioned Woolgar v. Kingstone Companies et al., 19 cv 05500
(S.D.N.Y.) to be without merit.

On June 12, 2019, Phillip Woolgar filed a suit naming the Company
and certain present or former officers and directors as defendants
in the putative class action, asserting claims under Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons or entities that
purchased Kingstone securities between March 14, 2018, and April
29, 2019, and alleges violations of the federal securities law in
connection with the Company's April 29, 2019 announcement regarding
losses related to winter catastrophe events.  The lawsuit alleges
that the Company failed to disclose that it did not adequately
follow industry best practices related to claims handling and thus
did not record sufficient claim reserves, and that as a result,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations and prospects misled investors.

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an undetermined amount of
money damages.

Kingstone Companies, Inc., through its subsidiary, Kingstone
Insurance Company, underwrites property and casualty insurance
products to small businesses and individuals in New York. The
company was formerly known as DCAP Group, Inc. and changed its name
to Kingstone Companies, Inc. in July 2009. Kingstone Companies,
Inc. was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in Kingston, New
York.


KISTLER FORD: Court Partly Junks Payne's Exhaust Odor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
Western Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting
Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned Kellie
Payne, Plaintiff, v. Kistler Ford, et al., Defendants. Case No.
3:18-cv-02451. (N.D. Ohio).

Payne purchased a used 2013 Ford Explorer from Kistler Ford. Payne
learned Explorers reportedly had an issue with carbon monoxide
entering the passenger cabin of the vehicle. The following day, she
told Kistler Ford she was experiencing the physical and mental
symptoms from the carbon monoxide exposure she had been suffering
for several months. Payne seeks recovery of economic damages both
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons similarly
situation.

The Defendants seek to dismiss all of Payne's claims except Count
VIII, which sets forth a cause of action for personal injuries she
allegedly suffered as a result of the presence of exhaust odor in
the passenger compartment of her Explorer.  

CLAIM PRECLUSION

The Defendants argue Payne's claims, other than her cause of action
for alleged personal injuries she sustained due to the presence of
exhaust odor in the passenger compartment of her vehicle, are
barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, because of the final
class action settlement order entered in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, in Sanchez-Knutson v.
Ford Motor Co., Case No. 14-cv-61344.

In that case, Angela Sanchez-Knutson, on behalf of a
subsequently-certified class of all entities and natural persons in
the United States who were current or former owners of a model year
2011-2015 Ford Explorer, asserted claims for: (1) violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (2) violation of state consumer
protection laws (3) breach of express warranties and (4) breach of
implied warranties.  

The entry of judgment in a class action is binding on class members
in any subsequent litigation. A plaintiff's claim is barred if the
defendant can establish these elements: (1) a final decision on the
merits by a court of competent jurisdiction (2) a subsequent action
between the same parties or their privies (3) an issue in the
subsequent action which was litigated or which should have been
litigated in the prior action and (4) an identity of the causes of
action.

The Sanchez-Knutson settlement order expressly held that, by entry
of that order, any member of the settlement class released and
waived any claim for violations of federal, state, or other law
against Ford or its authorized dealers, based upon Exhaust Odor in
the Class Vehicles. The settlement order excluded only claims for
personal injuries or made pursuant to a claim procedure through the
Better Business Bureau Auto Line.  

Payne was on notice of the pending class action litigation in
Florida, and she offers no evidence that she opted out of that
class. Further, she did not object to the class action settlement,
though the class action notice informed her of her right to do so.


Payne's counter-arguments focus mainly on the sufficiency of the
class-action notice. It is true that a plaintiff, even one who did
not object during the pendency of a prior class-action lawsuit, may
mount a collateral challenge to the preclusive effect of that prior
judgment.

Due process, however, does not require the notice to set forth
every ground on which class members might object to the settlement.
A settlement notice is sufficient if it informs the class members
of the nature of the pending action, the general terms of the
settlement, that complete and detailed information is available
from the court files, that any class member may appear and be heard
at the hearing and information about the class members' right to
exclude themselves and the results of failure to do so.

Payne received appropriate notice of the Sanchez-Knutson class
action and the subject matter and scope of that litigation. A class
action settlement may bar later claims when the later claims share
a factual predicate with the claims resolved in the earlier class
action.  The Court concludes Payne's claims, other than her claim
for her alleged personal injuries, are barred by the
Sanchez-Knutson settlement order because they share the same
factual predicate as the earlier class action claims.

The Defendants' partial motions to dismiss are granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2rw5gbs from
Leagle.com.

Kellie Payne, individually and on behalf of those individuals
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael D. Portnoy --
hawkport@aol.com

Kistler Ford & Ford Motor Company, Defendants, represented by
Brianna W. Stuart --Brianna.Stuart@ThompsonHine.com -- Thompson
Hine, Conor A. McLaughlin -- Conor.McLaughlin@ThompsonHine.com --
Thompson Hine & Elizabeth B. Wright --
Elizabeth.Wright@ThompsonHine.com -- Thompson Hine.


LOVESAC LLC: Dennis Sues over Limited Web Accessibility
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Lovesac, LLC for
its systemic civil rights violations under Title III of the
Americans with Disability Act. The case is captioned DERRICK U
DENNIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. LOVESAC, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06683-JMF
(S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2019). Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated blind or visually-impaired persons.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will thus become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired persons.

Lovesac, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company doing business
in New York. The company operates multiple stores and a website,
www.lovesac.com, offering features which should allow all consumers
to access the goods and services. It primarily offers modular
sectional sofas and loveseats. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     SHALOM LAW, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11415
     Telephone: (718) 971-9474
     Facsimile: (718) 865-0943
     E-mail: Jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com

MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Still Faces New Jersey Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maiden Holdings, Ltd. continues to defend against a putative class
suits in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

A putative class action complaint was filed against Maiden
Holdings, Arturo M. Raschbaum, Karen L. Schmitt, and John M.
Marshaleck in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on February 11, 2019, alleging that Defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (and Section 20(a)
for control person liability) by making misrepresentations about
the Company and its business, including the Company's risk
management and underwriting policies and practices.

Plaintiffs further claim that these misrepresentations inflated the
price of Maiden Holdings' common stock, and that when the truth
about the misrepresentations was revealed, the Company's stock
price fell, causing Plaintiffs to incur losses.

Maiden has not yet been served with the complaint, but believe the
claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.

Maiden Holdings said, "There exist and the Company expects
additional lawsuits to be filed against the Company, its
subsidiaries and its respective officers due to the diminution in
value of our securities as a result of our operating results and
financial condition.  It is currently uncertain as to the effect of
such litigation on our business, operating results and financial
conditions."

Maiden Holdings, Ltd. is a Bermuda-based holding company,
previously focused on serving the needs of regional and specialty
insurers in the United States ("U.S."), Europe and select other
global markets. The company operates internationally providing
branded auto and credit life insurance products through insurer
partners to retail clients in the EU and other global markets
through Maiden Global Holdings, Ltd. ("Maiden Global") and its
subsidiaries. The company is based in Pembroke, Bermuda.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Mallinckrodt plc (NYSE: MNK)
and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt securities between
February 28, 2018 and July 16, 2019, both dates inclusive. Such
investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: www.bgandg.com/mnk

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

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Acthar posed significant safety concerns that rendered it
a non-viable treatment for ALS; (2) accordingly, Mallinckrodt
overstated the viability of Acthar as an ALS treatment; and (3) as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On July 16, 2019, post-market, Mallinckrodt announced that the
Company "is permanently discontinuing its Phase 2B study designed
to assess the efficacy and safety of Acthar® Gel (repository
corticotropin injection) as an investigational treatment for
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)."  Mallinckrodt stated that it
decided "to halt the trial after careful consideration of a recent
recommendation by the study's independent Data and Safety
Monitoring Board (DSMB)" which "was based on the specific concern
for pneumonia, which occurred at a higher rate in the ALS patients
receiving Acthar Gel compared to those on placebo" and that "the
board also mentioned other adverse events specific to this patient
population."  Following this news, Mallinckrodt stock dropped $0.64
per share, or 7.8%, to close at $7.56 on July 17, 2019.       

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/mnk or you may contact Peretz
Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in Mallinckrodt you have until September 24, 2019 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff
acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the
litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

         Contact:
         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Tel.: 212-697-6484
         E-mail: info@bgandg.com
                 peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Sept. 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming September 24, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in the class action filed on behalf of Mallinckrodt plc
("Mallinckrodt" or the "Company") (NYSE: MNK) investors who
purchased securities between February 28, 2018 and July 16, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com

On July 16, 2019, post-market, Mallinckrodt revealed that the
Company "is permanently discontinuing its Phase 2B study designed
to assess the efficacy and safety of Acthar® Gel (repository
corticotropin injection) as an investigational treatment for
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)." Mallinckrodt stated that it
decided "to halt the trial after careful consideration of a recent
recommendation by the study's independent Data and Safety
Monitoring Board (DSMB)." This "was based on the specific concern
for pneumonia, which occurred at a higher rate in the ALS patients
receiving Acthar Gel compared to those on placebo," and "other
adverse events specific to this patient population."

On this news, Mallinckrodt's stock price fell $0.64 per share, or
nearly 8%, to close at $7.56 per share on July 17, 2019, thereby
injuring investors.

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 Acthar posed significant safety concerns that
rendered it a non-viable treatment for ALS; (2) that, accordingly,
Mallinckrodt overstated the viability of Acthar as an ALS
treatment; and (3) that, as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt securities
during the Class Period you may move the Court no later than
September 24, 2019 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
[GN]


MARLY BOUTIQUE USA: Dennis Sues over ADA Violations
---------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Marly Boutique USA
for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities of 1990
(ADA). The case is captioned Derrick U. Dennis, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marly
Boutique USA, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06679-JGK (S.D.N.Y., July
17, 2019). This civil rights-related lawsuit is assigned to Hon.
Judge John G. Koeltl.

Marly Boutique USA is a luxury perfume store located at 805
Washington Street New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     SHALOM LAW, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Telephone: (516) 807-1748
     E-mail: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Multiple Class Suits over 2018 Data Theft
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company is
defending against multiple lawsuits primarily putative class
actions, brought by consumers and others in the U.S. and Canada,
related to a data security incident.

On November 30, 2018, the company announced a data security
incident involving unauthorized access to the Starwood reservations
database (the "Data Security Incident").

Working with leading security experts, the company determines that
there was unauthorized access to the Starwood network since 2014
and that an unauthorized party had copied information from the
Starwood reservations database and taken steps towards removing it.
While the company's forensic review of the incident is now
complete, certain data analytics work continues. The Starwood
reservations database is no longer used for business operations.

As a result of the Data Security Incident, the company is a party
to numerous lawsuits, primarily putative class actions, brought by
consumers and others in the U.S. and Canada, one securities class
action lawsuit in the U.S., and two shareholder derivative lawsuits
in the U.S.

The company may be named as a party in additional lawsuits and
other claims may be asserted by or on behalf of guests, customers,
hotel owners, shareholders or others seeking monetary damages or
other relief.

A number of federal, state and foreign governmental authorities
have also made inquiries, opened investigations, or requested
information and/or documents related to the Data Security Incident,
including under various data protection and privacy regulations,
such as the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation.

Responding to and resolving these lawsuits, claims and
investigations could result in material remedial and other expenses
which may not be covered by insurance, including fines. For
example, the Information Commissioner’s Office in the United
Kingdom ("ICO") recently communicated its intent to issue a fine in
the amount of £99 million against the Company in relation to the
Data Security Incident.

Although the company has the right to respond to the ICO before the
amount of the fine is finally determined and the fine can be issued
by the ICO, and the company intends to respond and vigorously
defend its position, the company is unable to predict the amount of
any fine the ICO may ultimately determine to issue.

Governmental authorities investigating the Data Security Incident
also may seek to impose undertakings, injunctive relief, consent
decrees, or other civil or criminal penalties, which could, among
other things, materially increase our data security costs or
otherwise require us to alter how we operate our business.

Card issuers or payment card networks may seek to attribute losses
or other expenses to the Data Security Incident, and we cannot
currently determine to what extent those losses and expenses may be
the company's legal responsibility.

Significant management time and Company resources have been, and
may continue to be, devoted to the Data Security Incident. The Data
Security Incident and publicity related to it could have a range of
other adverse effects on the company's business or prospects,
including causing or contributing to loss of consumer confidence,
reduced consumer demand, reduced enrollment and/or participation in
its Loyalty Program, loss of development opportunities, and
associate retention and recruiting difficulties.

These expenses and other adverse effects could have a material
effect on the company's market share, reputation, business,
financial condition, or results of operations.

Although the company's insurance program includes coverage designed
to limit its exposure to losses such as those related to the Data
Security Incident, that insurance may not be sufficient or
available to cover all of its expenses or other losses (including
the final amount of the Proposed ICO Fine and any other fines)
related to the Data Security Incident.

Further, as a result market forces beyond the company's control and
experiences such as the Data Security Incident, relevant insurance
coverage may not be available in the future on commercially
reasonable terms or at all.

Marriott International, Inc. (Marriott International), incorporated
on September 19, 1997, is a lodging company. As of December 31,
2017, the Company operated, franchised, or licensed 6,520
properties across the world, with 1,257,666 rooms. Marriott
International operates in three business segments: North American
Full-Service, North American Limited-Service and International. The
company is based in Bethesda, Maryland.


MASSACHUSETTS: Gov. Appeals Ruling in Rosie D. Suit to 1st Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Charles D. Baker, Michael Heffernan, Marylou Sudders and
Daniel Tsai filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit
titled Rosie D., et al. v. Baker, et al., Case No.
3:01-cv-30199-RGS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Springfield.

The appellate case is captioned as Rosie D., et al. v. Baker, et
al., Case No. 19-1767, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.

Charles D. Baker is the Governor of Massachusetts.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Governor
and other Defendants appealed a ruling in the lawsuit.  That
appellate case is entitled Rosie D., et al v. Baker, et al., Case
No. 19-1262.

Plaintiff Rosie D. is seeking home-care option for thousands of
children with extreme functional disabilities who participate in
Medicaid.  The group said that most of the roughly 15,000 children
under Medicaid receive adequate services only when placed in
psychiatric hospitals, but they often become just "stuck kids"
there.  Thus, it is asking for homecare option.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Docketing
Statement, Transcript Report/Order form and Appearance form are due
August 22, 2019.

Interested Party ROBERT H. WEBER of Newton, Massachusetts, appears
pro se.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees ROSIE D., by her parents John and Debra D., et
al., are represented by:

          Cathy E. Costanzo, Esq.
          CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
          22 Green St.
          Northampton, MA 01060-0000
          Telephone: (413) 586-6024
          E-mail: ccostanzo@cpr-ma.org

               - and -

          Kathryn Lesley Rucker, Esq.
          CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
          246 Walnut St.
          Newton, MA 02460
          Telephone: (617) 965-0776
          E-mail: krucker@cpr-ma.org

               - and -

          Steven J. Schwartz, Esq.
          CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
          22 Green St.
          Northampton, MA 01060-0000
          Telephone: (413) 586-6024
          E-mail: sschwartz@cpr-ma.org

               - and -

          Daniel William Halston, Esq.
          WILMERHALE LLP
          60 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109-0000
          Telephone: (617) 526-6654
          E-mail: daniel.halston@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Frank J. Laski, Esq.
          154 Oliver Rd.
          Waban, MA 02468
          Telephone: (617) 630-0922

               - and -

Defendants-Appellants CHARLES D. BAKER, Governor of Massachusetts,
et al., and Interested Party MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF MEDICAL
ASSISTANCE are represented by:

          Matthew Quinnan Berge, Esq.
          Daniel John Hammond, Esq.
          Ronald F. Kehoe, Esq.
          MA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          1 Ashburton Pl
          Boston, MA 02108-0000
          Telephone: (617) 727-2200
          E-mail: Matthew.Berge@state.ma.us
                  dan.hammond@ago.state.ma.us
                  ronald.kehoe@state.ma.us


MBT FINANCIAL: Faces Amended Complaint in Consolidated Viky Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the Viky action has filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint alleging class action and derivative claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, as well as a derivative claim for unjust
enrichment, according to MBT Financial Corp.'s Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019.

On December 20, 2018, plaintiff Gaylord Viky sued the Company and
its individual directors for breach of fiduciary duty in the
Circuit Court for the County of Monroe, captioned Viky v. MBT
Financial Corporation, et al., 18-141600-CB.

On May 29, 2019 the Viky action was consolidated with two other
similar suits: Zimmer v. First Merchants Corporation, et al.; and
Hollingsworth v. MBT Financial Corporation, et al.

In addition, on May 2, 2019 and March 11, 2019, respectively, two
additional similar suits filed in Monroe County (Gary Nowitzke v.
MBT Financial Corporation, et al. and Paul Parshall v. MBT
Financial Corporation, et al.) were voluntarily dismissed.

On June 24, 2019, the Plaintiffs in the consolidated Viky action
filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint alleging class action and
derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty, as well as a
derivative claim for unjust enrichment (Plaintiffs have since
agreed to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim).  The complaint
alleges that the Company's directors have breached their fiduciary
duties by omitting certain material information from First
Merchants' Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC,
which includes First Merchants' prospectus with respect to the
shares of First Merchants' common stock to be issued in the Merger
and the Company's proxy statement for its special stockholders'
meeting that was held on February 14, 2019; by agreeing to
unreasonable deal terms with respect to the First Merchants merger;
and by ignoring conflicts of interest and engaging in self-dealing
with respect to the First Merchants merger.

The complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunction from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the proposed merger,
rescission and rescissory damages if the proposed merger is
completed, and damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

MBT Financial Corp. operates as the bank holding company for the
Monroe Bank & Trust that provides retail and commercial banking,
and trust services to small and middle-market businesses and
middle-income individuals. The company was founded in 1858 and is
headquartered in Monroe, Michigan.


MDL 2492: Court OKs 2nd Amended Class Settlement in Concussion Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Plaintiffs' Final Approval of the Second Amended Class
Action Settlement Agreement.IN RE: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. This
Document Relates to All Cases. MDL No. 2492, Master Docket No. 13 C
9116. (N.D. Ill.).

Adrian Arrington, who played football for Eastern Illinois
University, brought a putative class action against the NCAA for
breach of contract, negligence, fraudulent concealment, unjust
enrichment, and medical monitoring based on the way the NCAA
handled student-athlete concussions and concussion-related risks.

Numerosity

Numerosity is satisfied where it's reasonable to believe [the class
is] large enough to make joinder impracticable and thus justify a
class action suit. Generally speaking, classes of forty or more
members are sufficiently numerous to warrant certification.  

The Court finds the Settlement Class and Subclasses satisfy the
numerosity requirement under Rule 23(a). The approximately four
million members of the Settlement Class and Subclasses are
sufficiently numerous such that joinder would be impracticable.

Commonality

Commonality requires questions of law or fact common to the class.
A question is common to the class if it generates a common answer,
such that determination of the question will resolve an issue that
is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.
The common questions need not address every aspect of the
plaintiffs' claims, but they must
drive the resolution of the litigation.'

The Settlement Class and Subclasses meet the commonality
requirement. Whether the NCAA had a duty to protect
student-athletes from concussion-related risks, breached that duty,
and fraudulently concealed the risks are issues central to the
litigation and raise questions of law and fact common to members
within the Settlement Class and the Settlement Subclasses.

Typicality

Typicality under Rule 23(a) requires that the named plaintiffs'
claims arise from the same event or practice or course of conduct
that gives rise to the claims of other class members and are based
on the same legal theory. The typicality requirement is thus
satisfied when the named representatives' claims have the same
essential characteristics as the claims of the class at large.

Lacrosse players Samantha Greiber, Lacey Donlon, and Marissa
Spinazzola (Lacrosse Objectors) contest typicality, arguing that
the claims of the Contact Sports Settlement Subclass
Representatives are not typical of those of female lacrosse
players. In support, the Lacrosse Objectors cite McDaniel v. Board
of Education of the City of Chicago, No. 13 C 3624, 2013 WL
4047989, at *17 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2013).

In McDaniel, the plaintiffs brought suit on behalf of a putative
class of African-American students, alleging that the closures of
certain public schools would disproportionately harm them by
decreasing educational benefits and increasing risks to their
safety. Because the child of one class representative did not
attend a school affected by the closures, the Court held that she
failed the typicality requirement. Similarly, the Court concluded
that another class representative failed the typicality requirement
because the child's mother admitted that the student would not be
harmed by the closures.  

By contrast, the Contact Sports Settlement Subclass Representatives
and the Lacrosse Objectors face substantially similar risks of
developing symptoms related to concussions and/or successive
subconcussive hits. This is enough to establish typicality.
Furthermore, the settlement affords all student-athletes,
regardless of sport or gender, the same core benefit of access to
the Monitoring Program.

Thus, the Court finds the claims of the Settlement Class and
Settlement Subclass Representatives are typical of the claims of
female lacrosse players as they pertain to the settlement.

Adequacy of Representation

Rule 23(a) requires that the representative parties fairly and
adequately represent the class.  A class is not fairly and
adequately represented if class members have antagonistic or
conflicting claims.

The Court has previously found as a preliminary matter that the
proposed Settlement Class Representative and Subclass
Representatives adequately represent the interests of the putative
Settlement Class.The Lacrosse Objectors, however, contend that
their interests have not been fairly and adequately protected
during this litigation. Their objection is based on a mistaken
belief that the Settlement Agreement prohibits them from filing a
claim against the NCAA to require women lacrosse players to wear
hard helmets.

To the contrary, under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, any
female lacrosse player remains free to bring a personal-injury
claim against the NCAA on her own behalf or on behalf of a class of
female lacrosse players at her school to change the rule. What is
more, that the Class and Subclass Representatives have negotiated
terms to preserve the right of class members, such as the Lacrosse
Objectors, to seek rule changes in their respective sport only
bolsters the Court's conclusion that the interests of absent class
members have been fairly and adequately represented in these
proceedings.
  
Next, Adela Aprodu, who played tennis for Drake University, objects
to the settlement, contending that it creates a conflict of
interest between former, current, and future NCAA student-athletes.
Specifically, she notes that, while current student-athletes will
benefit from the amendments to the concussion-related protocols and
the Monitoring Program, former student-athletes will receive only
the benefits of the Program. However, the fact that current student
athletes will benefit from rule amendments simply recognizes that
the injuries suffered by the class as a whole caused by the
purported failure of the NCAA to implement adequate
concussion-related procedures continues over time.

Aprodu also argues that former student-athletes receive no
compensation under the Settlement Agreement, suggesting that
current student athletes may. But neither current nor former
student-athletes receive monetary compensation under this
settlement. And to the extent that they want to seek monetary
compensation, any current or former student-athlete may bring
individual or single-sport/single-school class claims for personal
injury against the NCAA or any member institution.

For these reasons, the Court finds that the above objections to the
Settlement Class's and Settlement Subclasses's ability to satisfy
Rule 23(a)'s requirements are without merit, and Rule 23(a) is
satisfied.

Rule 23(b)(2)

Turning to Rule 23(b)(2), a court may grant class certification
under Rule 23(b)(2) so long as the Rule 23(a) factors have been met
and the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on
grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive
relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.
Colloquially, 23(b)(2) is the appropriate rule to enlist when the
plaintiffs' primary goal is not monetary relief, but rather to
require the defendant to do or not do something that would benefit
the whole class.

Plaintiffs assert that the NCAA had a duty to protect the health
and safety of student-athletes that played NCAA-sanctioned sports.
Plaintiffs further claim that the NCAA was aware of the health
risks associated with concussive and sub-concussive injuries, but
failed to promulgate and implement the rules and regulations
necessary to safeguard student-athletes from sustaining them.

To remedy this failure, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief requiring
the NCAA to adopt corrective measures, including system-wide
stepwise return to play' guidelines, protective treatment and
eligibility requirements for injured student-athletes, and
management and oversight by appropriate medical personnel.
Plaintiffs also request the establishment of a medical monitoring
program that enables each class member to monitor any long-term
effects or neurodegenerative conditions related to concussions or
subconcussive hits.

The Lacrosse Objectors contend that the NCAA's conduct in failing
to adopt a helmet rule for women's lacrosse differs from its
conduct with regard to any other Contact Sport. Similarly, Steve
Wineberg, a former wrestler at Oberlin College, argues that
student-athletes in each Contact Sport generally face widely
varying concussion risks and consequently require different
measures to reduce those risks.  

Notably, the Lacrosse Objectors and Wineberg do not disagree that
the NCAA's alleged failures affected the entire class. Nor do they
argue that the Monitoring Program fails to benefit all NCAA
student-athletes. Rather, the gist of their objections is their
belief that the NCAA exhibited a greater degree of negligence when
it came to their particular sport. But this argument falls short of
showing that the NCAA's conduct, as set forth in the complaint, did
not apply generally to the class as a whole.  

Because the NCAA is alleged to have failed to act on grounds that
apply generally to the class, the Court finds that certification of
the Settlement Class and Settlement Subclasses under Rule 23(b)(2)
is appropriate.

After notice and a public hearing, a court may approve a settlement
if it determines the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.


In making this determination, the Court must consider a variety of
factors, including: (1) the strength of the case for plaintiffs on
the merits, balanced against the extent of settlement offer (2) the
complexity, length, and expense of further litigation (3) the
amount of opposition to the settlement (4) the reaction of members
of the class to the settlement (5) the opinion of competent counsel
and (6) stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery
completed.

Strength of the Case Balanced Against Amount Offered in the
Settlement

The most important factor relevant to the fairness of a class
action settlement is the strength of plaintiff's case on the merits
balanced against the amount offered in the settlement. In
considering this factor, a judge should try to estimate the likely
outcome of a trial in order to evaluate the adequacy of the
settlement.

The proposed settlement creates a $70 million dollar Monitoring
Program that entitles all class members to be screened multiple
times for symptoms of neurodegenerative diseases during a
fifty-year period. Medical experts with specialized knowledge in
the diagnosis, care, and management of sports concussions, as well
as mid- to late-life neurodegenerative diseases, have created a
Screening Questionnaire that is specifically designed to determine
whether a class member is experiencing neurological symptoms caused
by concussions. The experts also have developed a standardized
scoring protocol to determine whether additional evaluation is
necessary in individual cases.  

Where additional evaluation is warranted, the class member will
undergo a comprehensive suite of neurologic, neurophysiological,
mood, and behavioral tests. The information gathered from the
Medical Evaluation will be analyzed by a physician skilled in the
diagnosis, treatment, and management of concussions, and the
results will be communicated to the class member.

Moreover, the Monitoring Program is required to incorporate
ever-improving methods for detecting neurodegenerative diseases
made possible by advancements in scientific research and technology
over the fifty-year period. Thus, the Monitoring Program provides
each class member with an opportunity to monitor his or her own
health at various times during the Medical Monitoring Period in
order to assess the effects of the concussive or subconcussive
impacts experienced as a student-athlete. In this way, even class
members who already have been diagnosed with concussion-related
conditions will benefit from the Program, because they will be able
to monitor their health over time. The Court would retain the
ability to ensure that the Monitoring Program is effectively
implemented and managed as proposed.  

Furthermore, the NCAA has agreed to amend its return-to-play
protocols and effectuate steps to provide additional safeguards for
student-athletes. And NCAA member institutions must certify that
they have complied with these new requirements in order to receive
the benefits of the settlement.

The Court finds that the Monitoring Program and additional
commitments made by the NCAA provide substantial benefits to the
class in an effective and equitable manner.  

On the other side of the ledger, the strength of the Settlement
Class's claims for medical monitoring depends upon myriad factors,
including: whether the state in which the class member resides
recognizes medical monitoring claims as an independent cause of
action; whether the state recognizes medical monitoring as a form
of injunctive relief at all; and whether the state allows medical
monitoring as a form of relief in the absence of actual, present
physical injury.   

Plaintiffs also must overcome a number of affirmative defenses,
including statute-of-limitations and assumption-of-risk arguments.
Given this, it is highly unlikely that every student-athlete within
the Settlement Class would be able to obtain medical monitoring
relief, even after years of litigation.

The Court finds that the benefits of the settlement to the class
substantially outweigh the value of the released claims.

Stage of the Proceedings and Amount of Discovery Completed, as well
as Complexity, Length, and Expense of Further Litigation

The parties have conducted extensive discovery, including taking
depositions, reviewing hundreds of thousands of documents, and
consulting with leading medical experts in sports-related
concussions. If this case were to continue, litigation likely would
take several more years to complete.

During that time, Plaintiffs would be required to contest a number
of complex legal and factual issues. In addition to the numerous
hurdles noted above, Plaintiffs would have to establish that they
lack an adequate remedy at law and that the applicable statutes of
limitations do not bar their claims. Plaintiffs also would need to
prove, among other things, that they did not assume the risk of
injury by playing a particular sport; the information that the NCAA
allegedly concealed was not publicly available; they were misled or
deceived by any statements or omissions on the part of the NCAA;
and their reliance on the alleged statements or omissions caused
their injury. Due to these contested issues, Plaintiffs would
likely spend millions in additional attorneys' fees and costs over
the course of many months to pursue this litigation through trial
and possible appeal.

By agreeing to the settlement, the settlement class eliminates the
risks and expense associated with years of contentious litigation.


Opposition to the Settlement

Of the over four million class members who received direct and/or
indirect notice, only twenty-two individuals have filed objections.
Having already addressed a number of the objections above, the
Court now will turn to the remainder.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Alicia Ahern is not a
member of the class, and Reuben David Patino and Mark Young have
opted out of the class. All three, therefore, lack standing to
object.  

Sixteen other objectors oppose the settlement, arguing that it
provides insufficient relief. Eleven of them complain that the
Settlement Agreement does not compensate class members for
injuries, medical costs, and other damages. Others propose that the
Settlement Agreement include additional forms of injunctive relief,
such as protocols requiring helmets for female lacrosse players and
athletic scholarships that are guaranteed regardless of injury. As
discussed above, however, the Settlement Agreement allows class
members to bring personal-injury lawsuits on an individual or
single-sport, single-school class basis to seek compensatory or
additional types of injunctive relief.  Furthermore, the Settlement
Agreement provides for the tolling of the statutes of limitations
from September 12, 2011, to the date of its final approval.   

Accordingly, the Court finds that these objections do not warrant
rejection of the Settlement Agreement.

Reaction to the Settlement by Class Members and Competent Counsel

Four class members, Margaret Carper, Kelly Roderick, Marc Elliott,
and Letice Jolley have submitted letters in support of the
Settlement Agreement.

Margaret Carper, a former student-athlete at University of Arizona,
graduated in 1981 and suffers symptoms caused by concussions she
experienced there. Carper Letter, She states that this litigation
has given her a voice and that she is thankful for Co-Lead
Counsel's dedication to securing for her the opportunity to
participate in the post-concussion screening process.

Kelly Roderick, who played field hockey at Michigan State
University, was concussed while playing in 2008 and still
experiences symptoms of post-concussion syndrome. With ongoing
treatment, hard work, and a supportive network of family and
doctors, she has successfully managed her symptoms. She now
dedicates her life to the field of sports training, working with
collegiate and professional teams. Roderick believes this
litigation is "incredibly important for college athletes.

Marc Elliott also supports the settlement. Elliott Letter. In
particular, he supports the amendment of the NCAA's
concussion-related rules and procedures. Elliott believes that if
the NCAA had had proper protocols when he was playing lacrosse at
Coker College, his concussion would have been properly diagnosed.


Finally, Letice Jolley states that a concussion ended her softball
career at the University of Utah in 2000.  She lost her memory for
a period of time and never received proper treatment for a full
recovery. Jolley supports the settlement because she does not want
anyone else to face the challenges she experienced after her
concussion.  

For the reasons provided, the Court certifies the Settlement Class
and Subclasses, grants the motion for final approval of the Second
Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement, and grants in part and
denies in part the petitions for fees and service awards.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 12, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxkyf588 from Leagle.com.

National Collegiate Athletic Association Student-Athlete Concussion
Injury Litigation, In Re, represented by Mark Steven Mester --
mark.mester@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP.
Chris Walker, Plaintiff, represented by Katrina Carroll, Carlson
Lynch, LLP, 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240,Chicago, IL 60602

Paul Morgan, Plaintiff, represented by Ruth Andom Gebreab --
ruty@jselmerlaw.com -- J. Selmer Law, P.A., Todd Lawrence McLawhorn
-- tmclawhorn@siprut.com -- Siprut PC & William Gustin Vandiford,
J. Selmer Law, 500 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2010,
Minneapolis, MN 55415

Sharron D. Washington, Dan Ahern, Jeff Caldwell & John Durocher,
Plaintiffs, represented byTodd Lawrence McLawhorn, Siprut PC.

National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, represented by
Caitlin E. Dahl -- caitlin.dahl@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP,
Kathleen Patricia Lally -- kathleen.lally@lw.com -- Latham &
Watkins LLP & Mark Steven Mester, Latham & Watkins LLP.

Pac-12 Conference, Defendant, represented by Jared Fletcher Bartie,
Herrick, Feinstein LLP, pro hac vice, Leah Kelman, Herrick,
Feinstein LLP, pro hac vice & Ronald J. Levine, Herrick, Feinstein
LLP, 2 Park Ave, New York, NY 10016, pro hac vice.


MDL 2804: Judge Likely to Approve Nationwide Opioid Class
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman and Brian Grosh, writing for Courthouse News
Service, reported that the federal judge overseeing thousands of
lawsuits filed by local governments against opioid manufacturers
and distributors appeared likely on Aug. 6 to approve a nationwide
class to negotiate a settlement for the companies' role in the
opioid crisis.

Attorneys flew in from around the country to argue before U.S.
District Judge Dan Polster in Cleveland on the government
plaintiffs' motion to form a special negotiating class.

With lawsuits from more than 2,000 cities and counties funneling
into his courtroom, Polster said the multi-district litigation
would be based on a small number of federal claims from Summit
County, Ohio, which includes nearby Akron.

A group of 39 cities and counties proposed the idea to give every
governmental subdivision in the United States a vote on a potential
settlement. Cities and counties could also opt out of the
negotiating class if Polster approves it.

More than 75% of the voting class members would have to approve a
settlement. This supermajority would have to be achieved in each of
several categories, including the total number of cities and
counties that have sued and their populations, with each government
entity's vote being weighted by population.

The proposal also includes a settlement allocation map and
calculator that would allow political subdivisions to compute their
share of a potential payment.

The share is based on three factors: overdose deaths, opioid-use
disorder cases, and drug distribution.

Attorney Christopher Seeger of Seeger Weiss argued on the
plaintiffs' behalf in a hearing on Aug. 6, stating that the
defendants' objections to the qualifications for a class action
"border on the frivolous."

"You could substitute any two plaintiffs for [Cuyahoga and Summit
counties] and you would be looking at the same case with the same
evidence," he said.

The negotiation class would be "a tool to assist in the global
resolution of some, most or all claims," Seeger added.

Samuel Issacharoff, a law professor at New York University, helped
to create the proposed negotiation class.

"We have received almost no objections to this proposal from the
class," he said. "That is almost unheard of."

One objection came from attorney Jim Ferraro, who represents seven
Cleveland suburbs.

"This should be an opt-in class," he argued. "A city could vote
against the 75% but be bound by the settlement if it passes."

Judge Polster told Ferraro than nearly 2,000 governments did not
object to the idea, and the other 30,000 political entities would
be notified within 60 days if he certifies the class.

On behalf of the drug manufacturers, attorney Sonya Winner of
Covington & Burling called the idea of a negotiation class "a
mirage."

"The defendants need the comfort that a settlement would survive
objections and appeals," she said. "This doesn't assure a valid,
viable settlement."

"This proposal would sow considerable confusion among the proposed
class," Winner added. "The plaintiffs are asking you to shut your
eyes and make findings now based on expediency."

She also disagreed with the argument about the hypothetical
substitution of plaintiffs.

"You can't substitute Phoenix, Arizona, or Cumberland County,
Maine, because their situation has nothing to do with a shipment
that comes to Summit County," Winner said.

Paul Singer of the Texas Attorney General's office spoke on behalf
of 37 of his counterparts who expressed their opposition to the
negotiation class.

"We review class action settlements on our citizens' behalf," he
said. "This idea would infringe on state sovereignty."

But Polster disagreed.

"A settlement would be a product of negotiations between the states
and the cities and counties," the judge said. "It would get money
to where the harm is, even if the subdivision hasn't filed a
lawsuit."

Polster said he would not like to see settlement money land in
states' general funds.

"In the tobacco legislation, $200 billion went into states' general
funds," he said, "and 90% of that money did not go toward anything
related to tobacco smoking or lung cancer."

Jon Blanton of the Ohio Attorney General's office countered the
judge's assertion.

"Attorneys general are best situated to work with legislators to
get the help to where the harm really is," he said.

Attorney Jenny Lee Anderson she represented Fargo, N.D., which
qualifies as a non-litigating city because it filed suit after the
cutoff date.

"We would like to explore the possibility of representing the
non-litigating class members," she said.

Polster said he would decide whether to certify the negotiation
class in the "near future."

"There needs to be some vehicle to provide resolution to these
cases," he said. "I would encourage all settlement discussions and
all ideas. This is just one."

In a joint statement after the hearing, the plaintiffs' attorneys
expressed confidence that the judge would approve the class.

"We are encouraged by Judge Polster's response to our motion and
remain hopeful for a positive outcome in the near future. Judge
Polster was right when he said we need a novel solution to a novel
problem. That's exactly what we have proposed with the
‘negotiation class,'" they said.

The case is In Re: National Prescription Opiates Litigation MDL No.
2804 (N.D. Ohio)


MDL 2904: Finch Data Breach Suit v. LABCORP Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, David Finch, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION
AGENCY INC. and LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, doing business
as LABCORP., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02307 (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-16574 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:

          Ryan M. Callahan, Esq.
          CALLAHAN LAW FIRM, LLC
          222 W. Gregory Blvd. Suite 210
          Kansas City, MO 64114
          Telephone: (816) 822-4041
          Facsimile: (913) 273-1799

               - and -

          Todd C. Werts, Esq.
          LEAR WERTS, LLP
          2003 W. Broadway, Suite 107
          Columbia, MO 65203-1111
          Telephone: (573) 875-1991
          Facsimile: (573) 875-1985

MDL 2904: Laughlin Data Breach Suit v. Quest Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, Brandon Laughlin and Calib Dririm, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
OPTUM360 LLC, LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, and QUEST
DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-01661
(Filed June 25, 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-16568
to the proceeding.

The Laughlin 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 Plaintiffs are:

          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com

Attorneys for the OPTUM360 LLC, are:

          Kadee Jo Anderson, Esq.
          STINSON LLP
          50 South Sixth Street
          Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 335-1728

Attorneys for the Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings are:

          Alicia Paller, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          555 Thirteenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-6404

Attorneys for Quest Diagnostics Incorporated are:

          Andy Kabat, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 Lasalle Avenue , Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349-8794
          Facsimile: (612) 339-4181

MDL 2904: Mohamad Data Breach Suit v. LABCORP Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, MOHAMAD MOHAMAD, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LABORATORY
CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00702 (Filed July 16, 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-16576 to the proceeding.

The Mohamad 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:

          William Marc Graham, Esq.
          WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A.
          525 N. Main St.
          Salisbury, NC 28144
          Telephone: (704) 633-5244
          Facsimile: (704) 633-9434

MDL 2904: Shulman Data Breach Suit v. LABCORP Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, TATYANA SHULMAN, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LABORATORY
CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00616 (Filed June 19, 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-16575 to the proceeding.

The Shulman 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:

          David Matthew Wilkerson, Esq.
          VAN WINKLE BUCK WALL STARNES & DAVIS, P.A.
          Asheville, NC 28802
          Telephone: (828) 258-2991
          Facsimile: (828) 257-2767

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Catherine R.L. Lawson, Esq.
          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: Smith v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------
The case, Peter D. Smith and Emily Smith, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Optum
360 LLC, QUEST DIAGNOSTIC INCORPORATED, LABORATORY CORPORATION OF
AMERICA HOLDINGS, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-01903 (Filed July
19, 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-16571 to the
proceeding.

The Smith 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 Plaintiffs are:

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          Karl L Cambronne, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-7300
          Facsimile: (612) 336-2940

               - and -

          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Ave S Ste 2200
          Mpls, MN 55401-2179
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981

METLIFE INC: Appeal in Martin Class Action Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the appeal in the case,
Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, (Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Contra Costa, filed December 17,
2015), is still pending.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all California persons who have been charged
compound interest by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) in
life insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last
four years.

Plaintiffs allege that MLIC has engaged in a pattern and practice
of charging compound interest on life insurance policy and premium
loans without the borrower authorizing such compounding, and that
this constitutes an unlawful business practice under California
law.

Plaintiffs assert causes of action for declaratory relief,
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and
unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution of
interest, and damages in an unspecified amount.

On April 12, 2016, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Newman Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Newman v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (N.D. Ill., filed March 23, 2016).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of
action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, on
behalf of herself and all persons over age 65 who selected a
Reduced Pay at Age 65 payment feature on their long-term care
insurance policies and whose premium rates were increased after age
65.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages, as well as recessionary and injunctive relief.

On April 12, 2017, the court granted Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's (MLIC's) motion to dismiss the action.

Plaintiff appealed this ruling and the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case to
the district court for further proceedings.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: Julian & McKinney Class Action Underway
----------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action lawsuit entitled, Julian & McKinney v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., filed February 9,
2017).

Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on
behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term
disability ("LTD") claims specialists between February 2011 and the
present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum
Wage Act.

The suit alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC)
improperly reclassified the plaintiffs and similarly situated LTD
claims specialists from non-exempt to exempt from overtime pay in
November 2013.

As a result, they and members of the putative class were no longer
eligible for overtime pay even though they allege they continued to
work more than 40 hours per week.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as
well as other relief. On March 22, 2018, the Court conditionally
certified the case as a collective action, requiring that notice be
mailed to LTD claims specialists who worked for the Company from
February 8, 2014 to the present. The Company intends to defend this
action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Suits vs. Sun Life Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that that Sun Life Assurance
Company of Canada continues to face sales practices lawsuits.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
(MLIC's) Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a
declaration that MLIC remains liable for "market conduct claims"
related to certain individual life insurance policies sold by MLIC
that were subsequently transferred to Sun Life.

In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely
notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that
Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted MLIC's
motion for summary judgment.

In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto alleging sales
practices claims regarding the policies sold by MLIC and
transferred to Sun Life (the "Ontario Litigation").

On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that another purported
class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, BC
alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the same
policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life.

Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for
some or all of the claims in these lawsuits. In September 2018, the
Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed the lower court's decision to
not certify the sales practices claims in the Ontario Litigation.

MetLife said, "These sales practices cases against Sun Life are
ongoing, and the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation."

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: Settlement in Owens Suit Preliminarily Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a court has
preliminarily approved the proposed settlement in Owens v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17,
2014).

Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of persons for
whom Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) established a Total
Control Account ("TCA") to pay death benefits under an Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") plan.

The action alleges that MLIC's use of the TCA as the settlement
option for life insurance benefits under some group life insurance
policies violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under ERISA.

As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC
realized on accounts owned by members of the class.

In addition, plaintiff, on behalf of a subgroup of the class, seeks
interest under Georgia's delayed settlement interest statute,
alleging that the use of the TCA as the settlement option did not
constitute payment.

On September 27, 2016, the court denied MLIC's summary judgment
motion in full and granted plaintiff’s partial summary judgment
motion. On September 29, 2017, the court certified a nationwide
class. The court also certified a Georgia subclass.

On July 29, 2019, the court preliminarily approved a proposed
settlement in which MLIC has agreed to pay $80 million to resolve
the claims of all class members.

The settlement does not include or constitute an admission,
concession, or finding of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing by
MLIC.

The Company accrued the full amount of the settlement payment in
prior periods.

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five
segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and
Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York.


METLIFE INC: Westland Police & Fire Retirement Suit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, City of Westland Police and
Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed
January 12, 2012).

Plaintiff filed this class action on behalf of a class of persons
who either purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February
9, 2011, and October 6, 2011, or purchased or acquired MetLife,
Inc. common stock in the Company's August 3, 2010 offering or the
Company's March 4, 2011 offering.

Plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former
directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the
Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning
MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in
insurance benefits that should have purportedly been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.
The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.

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

MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee
mbenefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through
five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East
and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New
York.


MICHAEL SHEPARD: Court Refuses to Compel Discovery in Pentel
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery in
the case captioned Randolph Pentel, Kim Povolny, Michelle Povolny,
and Michael Povolny, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Michael Shepard, in his
individual capacity as an employee of the City of Mendota Heights,
and City of Mendota Heights, Defendants. Case No. 18-cv-1447
(NEB/TNL). (D. Minn.).

This is a putative class action for alleged violations of the
Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) and the Minnesota Government
Data Practices Act (MGDPA),  based on improper accesses of private,
personal and confidential drivers' license information by Shepard,
a police officer formerly employed by the City.

Law Enforcement Message Switch (LEMS) Database

In the performance of their duties, law enforcement officers have
access to a number of different databases containing license plate
information and other private drivers' license information
regarding Minnesota drivers, such as names, dates of birth,
driver's license numbers, addresses, driver's license photos,
weights, heights, and various health and disability information.
These databases may be accessed and queried by different means,
including entering a person's name, license plate number, or
driver's license number.

The Plaintiffs seek to compel non-party DPS to provide the LEMS
audit returns for an approximately three-and-a-half-year period to
the City, to have the City then determine which accesses were made
by Shepard, and then for the City to identify to Plaintiffs those
accesses made by Shepard and the identity of the individuals
accessed. Plaintiffs also request that the Court order the City to
notify individuals who were the subjects of accesses included in a
2017 disciplinary action against Shepard under Minn. Stat. Section
13.055, subd. 2(a).8

Legal Standard

In general, parties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or
defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The parties and
the court have a collective responsibility to consider the
proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving
discovery disputes.

LEMS Audit Returns

At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the party serving a
subpoena may move the court for the district where compliance is
required for an order compelling production or inspection.
Subpoenas are subject to the same constraints that apply to all of
the other methods of formal discovery.

Rule 45 expressly requires a party to take reasonable steps to
avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the
subpoena. As such, even relevant discovery is not permitted where
no need is shown, or compliance would be unduly burdensome, or
where harm to the person from whom discovery is sought outweighs
the need of the person seeking discovery of the information.

Here, the LEMS audit returns Plaintiffs seek to compel would
require an enormous amount resources to produce, creating a
tremendous burden on both non-party DPS and the City. For DPS,
there are questions of technical feasibility related to assembly
and production as well as the substantial amount of time needed not
only to amass the information but then physically to review and
redact hundreds of thousands of pages of audit returns for more
than three years. Then, for each of the thousands of accesses
predicted, the City would need to perform a costly, time-consuming
multistep process to determine whether the access was in fact made
by Shepard.

Balanced against these heavy burdens is the highly speculative
usefulness of this information to Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs
claim that the LEMS audit returns are essential to a determination
if Shepard obtained the driver's license data of enough individuals
for an impermissible reason to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1)'s numerosity
requirement. But, even if the City and DPS perform all of the work
requested, the end result would simply be raw access information.
Plaintiffs would merely know that Shepard accessed an individual's
information in the LEMS database at a particular point.

The LEMS audit returns will not speak to the purpose for Shepard's
access, permissible or otherwise.

As DPS points out, Plaintiffs must show more than just driver's
license searches by Shepard to sustain a claim under the DPPA.
Plaintiffs must show that these searches were conducted without a
lawful purpose. Thus, even if the Court were to grant Plaintiffs'
motion, the LEMS audit returns requested will shed little light on
the question of how many people had their data wrongfully accessed
by Shepard because Plaintiffs will have difficulty differentiating
wrongful accesses from lawful accesses.  

The Plaintiffs also assert that without the identities of these
individuals, the federal rights of the class members would be lost.
Plaintiffs do not explain this blanket assertion, but later state
that the City is running out the clock on those individuals.
Plaintiffs cannot use personal information from state motor vehicle
records to solicit participation in this lawsuit. Individuals may
request audits of accesses to their driver's license information if
they themselves suspect or are concerned that their information may
have been accessed for an impermissible purpose.

Based on this, the Court concludes that the LEMS audit returns
requested by Plaintiffs are not proportional to the needs of this
case when taking into account the massive burden to non-party DPS
and the City, the speculative probative value of the data in
resolving the issues in this litigation, and the increased delay
and expense that would result. These are the very types of
considerations mandated by Rule 26(b)(1). Therefore, Plaintiffs'
motion is denied with respect to the LEMS audit returns.

Notification Under Minn. Stat. Section 13.055, Subd. 2(a)

Lastly, pursuant to the Court's inherent authority, Plaintiffs
request that the Court order the City to notify individuals who
were the subjects of accesses included in a disciplinary action
against Shepard under Minn. Stat. Section 13.055, subd. 2(a). The
City opposes Plaintiffs' request on grounds that Section 13.055's
notification requirement has not been triggered.

The Plaintiffs have brought one such civil action. As part of Count
II, Plaintiffs allege that the City was responsible for Shepard's
impermissible accesses and violated the MGDPA when it failed to
notify those individuals Shepard impermissibly accessed in
accordance with Minn. Stat. Section 13.055. In their prayer for
relief, Plaintiffs specifically request that the City be directed
to comply with the MGDPA's notice provisions, citing Minn. Stat.
Section 13.08, subd. 4.

The Plaintiffs are essentially asking the undersigned to render a
dispositive ruling. The Plaintiffs are using a motion to compel to
obtain the very relief prayed for in Count II. A motion to compel
is a non-dispositive motion most often heard by a magistrate judge.
Dispositive motions, motions that dispose of claims in a lawsuit,
including motions for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings
are most often heard by the presiding district judge.  Other than
an ambiguous and conclusory reference to the Court's inherent
authority, Plaintiffs put forth no legal authority to support the
availability of such relief in connection with a motion to compel.
This will not do.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs' request that the undersigned order
notification under Minn. Stat. Swection 13.055, subd. 2(a), is
denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4wcaaky from Leagle.com.

Randolph Pentel, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated, Kim Povolny, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, Michelle Povolny, On Behalf of Themselves and
All Others Similarly Situated & Michael Povolny, On Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Charles V. Firth, Engelmeier & Umanah, PA, 706 2nd
Ave S Ste 1100, Minneapolis, MN, 55402-3014, Jonathan A. Strauss,
Sapientia Law Group PLLC, Lorenz F. Fett, Jr., Sapientia Law
Group,Robin M. Wolpert, Sapientia Law Group PLLC & Sonia L.
Miller-Van Oort, Sapientia Law Group, 120 South 6th Street, Suite
100, MInneapolis, MN 55402

Michael Shepard, in his individual capacity as an employee of the
City of Mendota Heights, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Peppin
Ridley -- eridley@heleyduncan.com -- Heley, Duncan & Melander, PLLP
& Mark P. Hodkinson -mhodkinson@heleyduncan.com -- Heley, Duncan &
Melander, PLLP.

City of Mendota Heights, Defendant, represented by Jon K. Iverson
-- jon@irc-law.com -- Iverson Reuvers Condon, Stephanie A. Angolkar
-- stephanie@irc-law.com -- Iverson Reuvers Condon & Susan M.
Tindal -- susan@irc-law.com -- Iverson Reuvers Condon.

Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Respondent, represented by
Oliver J. Larson, Minnesota Attorney General's Office.


MIT: Court Denies D. Tracey's Leave to File TAC
-----------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for District of Massachusetts
issued a Memorandum & Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to
File a Third Amended Complaint in the case captioned DAVID TRACEY,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, et
al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 16-11620-NMG. (D. Mass.).

This class action involves an alleged breach of fiduciary duty by
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and related parties (MIT)
with respect to the supervision of MIT's employee-sponsored defined
contribution plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA). The underlying claims, brought by the four named
plaintiffs individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, are for alleged excessive recordkeeping fees
and imprudent investment lineups.

The good cause standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) applies to motions
to amend that are filed after scheduling order deadlines. The
standard under Rule 16(b) has been described as more stringent than
the more liberal freely given standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a ).
The longer a plaintiff delays, the more likely the motion to amend
will be denied, as protracted delay, with its attendant burdens on
the opponent and the court, is itself a sufficient reason for the
court to withhold permission to amend.

Plaintiffs were apparently in possession of most of the documents
and deposition testimony needed for their duty of loyalty claim
before the end of November, 2018. Nevertheless, plaintiffs waited
several more months before filing their motion to amend. Although
plaintiffs did not take the deposition of Michael Howard until
March, 2019, they were aware of enough colorable evidence to assert
their purported claim for breach of the duty of loyalty before that
time. Plaintiffs have not, therefore, demonstrated good cause for
their failure to seek diligently an amendment to their complaint
once they were in possession of the relevant evidence.

Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint will be denied.
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint is
DENIED.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyd4ylb6 from
Leagle.com.

David Tracey, individually and as representatives of a class of
participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the MIT Supplemental
401(k) Plan, Maria Nicholson, individually and as representatives
of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the MIT
Supplemental 401(k) Plan & Corrinne Fogg, individually and as
representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on
behalf of the MIT Supplemental 401(k) Plan, Plaintiffs, represented
by Alexander L. Braitberg, Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP, 100 S
4Th St. Ste. 1200, St. Louis, Missouri, pro hac vice, Elena N.
Liveris -- eliveris@mmulderlaw.com -- Law Offices of Michael M.
Mulder, pro hac vice, Joel Rohlf, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP,
100 S 4Th St. Ste. 1200, St. Louis, Missouri, pro hac vice, Michael
M. Mulder, Law Offices of Michael M. Mulder, 1603 OrringtonSuite
600Evanston, IL 60201, pro hac vice, Scott T. Apking, Schlichter,
Bogard & Denton, LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A. Bumb, Schlichter
Bogard & Denton, LLP, pro hac vice, Sean E. Soyars, Schlichter
Bogard & Denton, LLP, 100 S 4Th St. Ste. 1200, St. Louis, Missouri,
pro hac vice, Stephen S. Churchill, Fair Work, P.C.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Defendant, represented by
Alison V. Douglass, Goodwin Procter, LLP, 100 Northern
AvenueBoston, MA 02210, Brian D. Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com --
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, pro hac vice, Catalina J. Vergara --
cvergara@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice, Deanna M.
Rice -- derice@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice,
Gregory F. Jacob -- gjacob@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro
hac vice, Jeffrey A.N. Kopczynski  -- jkopczynski@omm.com --
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice, Meaghan VerGow --
mvergow@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice, Natasha S.
Fedder -- nfedder@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.


NAT'L AUSTRALIA BANK: Braces for Possible 400K Strong Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Zuchetti, writing for My Business Australia, reports that
Slater and Gordon Lawyers issued a statement Aug. 9, 2019, stating
that the Federal Court had ruled almost half a million of National
Australia Bank's customers would be eligible to participate in the
class action.

The law firm is representing NAB customers, who it claims were
"sold junk credit card and personal loan insurance that was of
little or no value, and that many customers would never have been
eligible to claim against".

It comes on the back of the banking royal commissions and
allegations that NAB had engaged in misleading, deceptive and even
unconscionable conduct.

According to Slater and Gordon's practice group leader, Andrew
Paull, Esq. this is one of the largest notices ever issued by an
Australian court.

"NAB will have to contact over 400,000 of the customers on their
databases today, informing them that this class action exists, that
the bank is accused of contravening the law and telling them what
they have to do to be involved," he said.

"If you are — or have been — a NAB customer in the past, keep
an eye out for this letter which will advise you of how to register
your interest in participating in the class action."

Mr Paull said that despite knowing that aggressive sales tactics
and "pressuring vulnerable customers into buying worthless
insurance" was wrong, the bank "did it anyway".

"And [it] collected millions of dollars in unwarranted premiums in
the process."

According to Mr Paull, NAB customers will be given the ability to
opt out of the class action, which he said is being operated on a
no-win, no-fee basis.

A NAB spokesperson subsequently issued the following statement on
the matter to My Business sister publication Mortgage Business,
noting that the bank did not want to go into details while the
matter is before the court:

"Notices relating to the class action proceedings commenced by
Slater & Gordon against National Australia Bank (NAB) and MLC Ltd
(MLCL) have been distributed to potential class members as part of
the court process," the statement said.

"The notices provide those potential class members with information
about the class action and their options.

"We are here for our customers and encourage them to contact NAB
directly if they have any questions in relation to their CCI
policies on 1300 168 909

"As the matter is now before the Court, we are unable to comment
further on the class action." [GN]


NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nektar Therapeutics is still facing a putative securities class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company said, "On October 30, 2018, we and certain of our
executives were named in a putative securities class action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, which complaint was subsequently amended on
May 15, 2019.  Also, on February 13, 2019, and February 18, 2019,
shareholder derivative complaints were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware naming the CEO, CFO and certain
members of Nektar's board.  Both the class action and shareholder
derivative actions assert, among other things, that for a period
beginning at least from November 11, 2017 through October 2, 2018,
our stock was inflated due to alleged misrepresentations about the
efficacy and safety of NKTR-214.  These cases are in the early
stages.  Accordingly, we cannot reasonably estimate any range of
potential future charges, and we have not recorded any accrual for
a contingent liability associated with these legal proceedings.
However, an unfavorable resolution could potentially have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and
results of operations or prospects, and potentially result in
paying monetary damages."

Nektar Therapeutics develops drug candidates for cancer,
auto-immune disease, and chronic pain in the United States.  The
Company was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.


NEP ELECTRONICS: De Leon Sues over Collection of Biometrics
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS QUINONEZ DE LEON, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs.NEP ELECTRONICS, INC. an
Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH09362 (Ill.
Cir., Aug. 14, 2019), seeks redress for persons injured resulting
from Defendant's violations of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

The case concerns the misuse of individuals' biometrics by
Defendant. The Defendant is capturing, collecting, disseminating,
or otherwise using the biometrics of Plaintiff and other Class
members, without their informed written consent

The Defendant is a component manufacturer and distributor that
specializes in electromechanical components.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:

          William P.N. Kingston, Esq.
          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893- 7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
          E-mail: wkingston@mcgpc.com
                  jsheikali@mcgpc.com

NEPTUNE CONSTRUCTION: Underpays General Laborers, Barrios Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE BARRIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEPTUNE CONSTRUCTION CORP.; and GEORGE
GEROULIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04523-CBA-CLP (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 6, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Barrios was employed by the Defendants as general
laborer.

Neptune Construction Corp. offers both residential and commercial
roofing services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598


NETAPP INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, captioned Smith v. NetApp, Inc. et
al., (Case No. 3:19-cv-04801), on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired NetApp, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTAP)
("NetApp" or the "Company") securities between May 22, 2019 and
August 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

On August 1, 2019, after the market closed, the Company reported
preliminary first quarter 2019 adjusted earnings per share of $0.55
to $0.60, below the average estimate of $0.83, and net revenue of
$1.22 billion to $1.23 billion, below the average estimate of $1.39
billion. Additionally, the Company lowered its 2020 outlook and
expected net revenue to decline between 5% and 10% year-over-year.

On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as $11.67, or
over 20%, to close at $46.04 per share on August 2, 2019, thereby
injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges 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 made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was unable to close
large deals within the quarter and that the deals were pushed out
to subsequent quarters or downsized; (2) that, as a result, the
Company's revenue would be materially impacted; (3) that, as a
result, the Company would lower its fiscal 2020 guidance; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased NetApp securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice
to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member
of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased. [GN]


NETAPP INC: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against NetApp, Inc.
(NASDAQ: NTAP) 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 May 22, 2019
and August 1, 2019, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before October 14, 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. NetApp was incapable of closing large
sales, finding deals pushed to later quarters or downsized. This
failure to close large deals materially impacted revenue, resulting
in the Company lowering its fiscal 2020 guidance. 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 NetApp, 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]


NETAPP, INC: Smith Says Financial Statements Misleading
-------------------------------------------------------
CHAD C. SMITH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NETAPP, INC., GEORGE KURIAN, RONALD J.
PASEK, JOEL D. REICH, and MATTHEW K. FAWCETT, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-04801 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2019), seeks to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a
class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired NetApp securities between May 22, 2019 and
August 1, 2019, inclusive.

On August 1, 2019, after the market closed, the Company reported
preliminary first quarter 2019 adjusted earnings per share of $0.55
to $0.60, below the average estimate of $0.83, and net revenue of
$1.22 billion to $1.23 billion, below the average estimate of $1.39
billion.

Additionally, the Company lowered its 2020 outlook and expected net
revenue to decline between 5% and 10% year-over-year.

On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as $11.67, or
over 20%, to close at $46.04 per share on August 2, 2019, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

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 that:

     (1) the Company was unable to close large deals within the
quarter and that the deals were pushed out to subsequent quarters
or downsized;

     (2) as a result, the Company's revenue would be 2 materially
impacted;

     (3) as a result, the Company would lower its fiscal 2020
guidance; and

     (4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

NetApp provides a range of hybrid cloud data services that simplify
management of applications and data across cloud and on-premises
environments to accelerate digital transformation.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, 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: info@glancylaw.com

NETFLIX INC: Investors Mull Class Action Over Subscriber Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
Margi Murphy, writing for The Telegraph, reports that investors are
suing Netflix, claiming the company lied about possible subscriber
numbers, and left them with "significant losses" after its share
price plunged in July.

Deepak Venkatachalapathy, an IT analyst for Royal Bank of Canada,
is seeking to launch a class-action lawsuit against the streaming
giant on behalf of fellow shareholders.

Mr Venkatachalapathy claims that shares which he bought on April 17
were "artificially inflated" by the company when it claimed,
earlier that day, that it expected more people to sign up for the
service, despite rising prices.

Netflix had predicted that it would add 5m subscribers in the
second quarter but only ended up bringing in 2.7m. [GN]


NEW BALANCE: Judge OKs "Made in USA" Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge approved a
$1.4 million settlement of claims that New Balance falsely
represented certain styles of its shoes as being "Made in USA,"
with up to $650,000 in attorneys' fees.

A copy of the Order Granting (1) Motion for Final Class Action
Settlement Approval; and (2) Motions for Attorneys' Fees, Costs,
Litigation Expenses, and Plaintiffs' Incentive Awards is available
at:

                     https://is.gd/pwMeUm


NII HOLDINGS: Nayman Class Action Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
NII Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend against a class action suit initiated by Matis Nayman.

On March 18, 2019, NII Holdings and NIIH, a wholly-owned subsidiary
of NII Holdings, entered into a purchase agreement with AMX and AI
Brazil Holdings, pursuant to which NII Holdings and AI Brazil
Holdings will sell their jointly-owned wireless operations in
Brazil.

On July 8, 2019, a purported stockholder class action was filed
against the Company and the Company's directors in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware by Matis Nayman. The lawsuit is
captioned Matis Nayman v. Kevin L. Beebe, James V. Continenza,
Howard S. Hoffmann, Ricardo Knoepfelmacher, Christopher T. Rogers,
Robert A. Schriesheim, Steven M. Shindler, and NII Holdings, Inc.,
C.A. No. 2019-0525-JTL.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and its
directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to take steps
to maximize the Company's value to its public stockholders and
failing to disclose certain information in the proxy statement
issued in connection with the Company's purchase agreement with AMX
and AI Brazil Holdings and the Company's planned liquidation and
dissolution.

The relief the plaintiff seeks includes enjoining the sale of
Nextel Brazil and the dissolution of NII Holdings, and the recovery
of unspecified damages.

The Company and the named individuals intend to vigorously defend
themselves in this matter.

NII Holdings, Inc., incorporated on October 18, 2000, is a holding
company. The Company operates through its subsidiary, Nextel
Telecomunicacoes Ltda. (Nextel Brazil). The Company provides
wireless communication services under the Nextel brand in Brazil
with its principal operations located in urban and suburban centers
with population densities and related transportation corridors of
that country, including Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo. The Company
operates in the Nextel Brazil segment. The company is based in
Reston, Virginia.


NOVATIME TECHNOLOGY: Thome Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY THOME, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NOVATIME TECHNOLOGY, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH09380 (Ill. Cir., Aug. 14, 2019), seeks
to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collection, use,
storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs sensitive and proprietary
biometric data.

NOVAtime Technology, Inc. is a provider of automated time and
attendance solutions which provides software and data collection
timeclocks to companies across an array of industries. NOVAtime
designs and manufactures the subject timeclocks. NOVAtime designs
and administers the software that operate the subject time clocks.
NOV Atime also provides the servers that host the biometric data
utilized by the subject timeclocks.

Chief among the products NOVAtime manufactures are biometric time
keeping devices including fingerprint readers and other similar
devices (Biometric Data Readers) which require scans of users'
biometric data in order for those users to clock in and out of
work.

NOVAtime requires users to scan their biometric identifiers, namely
their fingerprints or hand geometry, when using Biometric Data
Readers as an authorization method to track their time at work by
using a scan of that biometric information to clock in and out of
work shifts and/or meal breaks. Once a user has registered his or
her fingerprint or hand geometry with a Biometric Data Reader, that
information is retained in NOVAtime's database(s).

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
specifically to regulate companies that collect, store and use
Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints.

Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law,
NOVAtime disregards its Biometric Data Readers users' statutorily
protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores,
disseminates, and uses individuals' biometric data in violation of
BIPA, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312 233 1560!
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  aficzko@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Brandon M Wise, Esq.
          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: 314-833-4825
          Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com
                 plesko@pwcklegal.com

ONONDAGA COUNTY, NY: Class in Assistance of Counsel Suit Certified
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York issued a Memorandum Decision and Order granting Plaintiffs’
Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned J.B., et al.
Plaintiffs, v. Onondaga County, et al., Defendants. No.
5:19-CV-137(LEK/TWD). (N.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs are sixteen-year-olds charged in criminal cases
being handled in the Youth Part of the City of Syracuse criminal
courthouse. Before each court appearance, they have attempted to
consult with their attorneys in private, but an Onondaga County
Sheriff's deputy or Syracuse police officer has remained in the
room and refused to leave. The evidence reveals that Onondaga
County routinely sends other teenagers into criminal hearings,
including arraignments and bail hearings, without the chance to
have a candid conversation with their lawyers and, therefore,
without the meaningful assistance of counsel.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class:

     All adolescent and juvenile offenders, as the terms are
defined under New York State Law, who are now, or will be, in the
custody of law enforcement and appear before the designated
Onondaga County Youth Part.

Numerosity

First, the class is numerous enough because the difficulty and
inconvenience of joining all members of the class make use of the
class action appropriate. Plaintiffs need only show some evidence
of or reasonably estimate the number of class members and need not
show the exact number. At least 207 sixteen and seventeen-year-olds
were arrested on felony charges in Onondaga County in 2017, and 84
such arrests occurred in the first half of 2018.  

Class members' limited financial resources, and the difficulties
they would face prosecuting individual suits, confirm that joinder
is impractical. Teenagers in custody are precisely the sort of
revolving population that often makes joinder of individual members
impracticable. Because of the fluid composition' of the prison
population new detainees are arrested and arraigned, and others are
released, each day joining all current and future teenage detainees
in Onondaga verges on impossible. Being incarcerated, and fighting
criminal cases, also saps teenagers' financial resources and
affords them "little freedom in their daily lives," limiting their
time and ability to consult civil counsel.  

Commonality

To satisfy the second requirement, commonality, the class members'
claims must raise common questions that will generate common
answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation. Plaintiffs
may satisfy the commonality requirement with significant proof that
a general policy or practice caused the alleged violations of class
members' rights.  

Plaintiffs' claims challenge Defendants' admitted policy requiring
that law enforcement officers be in the room during class members'
attorney-client interviews in the Syracuse Courthouse. The class
members' claims under the Sixth Amendment all depend on whether
that policy unreasonably burdens their opportunity to consult with
their attorneys and to prepare a defense. As in Harder and Conway,
the common answer to this question will determine whether the
Sheriff's policy violates each class member's constitutional right
to counsel and whether defendants should therefore be enjoined from
engaging in that course of conduct.

Indeed, class members could each obtain an injunction without
showing that the lack of private consultation actually influenced
outcomes in court. They may be at different stages of their
criminal proceedings and some may be juvenile offenders while other
are adolescent offenders but those differences are not material to
their claims. Such minor factual differences in the claims of the
class do not preclude a finding of commonality.  

Typicality

Typicality requires that the claims of the class representatives be
typical of those of the class. It 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. J.M. challenges the same unconstitutional policy
affecting the class members, and his situation does not differ
except, perhaps, with respect to the post-arraignment stage of his
case.3 Some class members have not yet been arraigned. As with
commonality, however, when it is alleged that the same unlawful
conduct was directed at or affected both the named plaintiff and
the class sought to be represented the typicality requirement is
usually met irrespective of such minor variations in the fact
patterns underlying the individual claims.
  
Adequacy

J.M. is also an adequate class representative. Generally, adequacy
of representation entails inquiry as to whether (1) plaintiff's
interests are antagonistic to the interest of other members of the
class and (2) plaintiff's attorneys are qualified, experienced and
able to conduct the litigation. J.M. has no foreseeable conflicts
of interest with other class members and has expressed that he is
willing to serve as a class representative. Moreover, Plaintiff's
counsel, attorneys with the Legal Services of Central New York,
have extensive experience in class action litigation and have
previously represented classes of detainees seeking systemic reform
in federal court class action lawsuits.  

Rule 23(b)(2)

Finally, Plaintiffs seek a single injunction or declaratory
judgment that would provide relief to each member of the class,
making certification under Rule 23(b)(2) appropriate.

Accordingly, The Motion for Class Certification is granted.

The following class is certified: All adolescent and juvenile
offenders, as the terms are defined under New York State Law, who
are now, or will be, in the custody of law enforcement and appear
before the designated Onondaga County Youth Part. J.M. shall serve
as class representative. The Legal Aid Services of Central New York
shall serve as class counsel; and it is further

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 12, 2019 Memorandum
Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyol344x
from Leagle.com.

J.B., a minor, by and through her parent and natural guardian
Tereia Duff, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated & J.M., a minor, by and through his parent and natural
guardian Nicole Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua T. Cotter,
Legal Services of Central New York & Samuel C. Young , Legal
Services of Central New York, 221 South Warren Street, Fl 3,
Syracuse, NY 13202-1671

Onondaga County, Ryan McMahon, Onondaga County Executive, in his
official capacity & Eugene Conway, Onondaga County Sheriff, in hs
official capacity, Defendants, represented byJohn E. Heisler, Jr.,
Onondaga County Department of Law.


ORLANDO UTILITIES: Court Narrows Claims in Irizarry Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Middle District of Florida,
Orlando Division, issued an Order granting in part and denying in
part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned.MICHELLE
IRIZARRY; VALERIE WILLIAMS; JOANNE NIXON; JOANN ROBINSON; and
BRANDON LITT, Plaintiffs, v. ORLANDO UTILITIES COMMISSION; LENNAR
CORPORATION; U.S HOME CORPORATION; AVALON PARK GROUP MANAGEMENT,
INC.; BEAT KAHLI; LENNAR HOMES LLC; BORAL RESOURCES LLC; and
PREFERRED MATERIALS, INC., Defendants. Case No.
6:19-cv-268-Orl-37EJK. (M.D. Fla.).

This case is a putative class action brought by residents who live
near a power plant and claim its coal operations contaminate their
property. Plaintiffs seek to represent a Class Area where
contaminants from the Stanton Power Plant have been disseminated
and discharged through various ways, including in concrete and
other construction materials used to develop homes and communities
in the Class Area, transporting fly ash, and batching concrete
containing contaminated fly ash at a concrete manufacturing plant.

The Court first discusses Lennar's 12(b)(1) argument that
Plaintiffs lack standing. The Court then turns to both 12(b)(6)
MTDs, addressing overlapping arguments together.

12(b)(1) Article III Standing

Lennar challenges Plaintiffs' standing to sue them, specifically
that Plaintiffs' purported injuries are fairly traceable to
Lennar's conduct.2 Lennar argues that no individual Plaintiff has
alleged how Lennar's conduct injured them personally, and instead
Plaintiffs rely on generalized allegations that Lennar's conduct
resulted in contamination of the Class Area.  

To establish standing, a plaintiff must allege: (1) injury-in-fact;
(2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct
complained of and (3) that the injury will likely be redressed by a
favorable ruling.  

Here, the Amended Complaint alleges that Lennar, as a developer,
builder, or marketer of the Stoneybrook, Storey Park, and Moss Park
neighbourhoods where Plaintiffs reside engaged in activities that
constituted a discharge of pollution and resulted in conditions of
pollutions.

Plaintiffs allege damages because of the conditions of pollutions
on their land that cannot solely be attributed to the Stanton Power
Plant's operator, Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC), because
Lennar developed, built, and marketed homes despite the existence
of the contaminants and did not take adequate steps to prevent
homes from being exposed to the contaminants.

With these allegations, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have met
their burden of establishing standing at this stage.  

Lennar's 12(b)(1) motion is denied.

12(b)(6)

The Court now takes up the 12(b)(6) arguments, starting with
whether Plaintiffs can pursue their Section 376.313 claims against
Movants based on construction-related activities and their roles as
builders, developers, and marketers of homes.

Section 376.313 is part of Florida Statutes 376.030-376.319,
originally enacted as part of the Water Quality Assurance Act of
1983 (WQAA).   

To state a plausible claim under Fla. Stat. Section 376.313(3), a
plaintiff must allege: (1) a prohibited discharge or other
pollutive condition occurred and (2) damages. Here, Movants argue
that Plaintiffs haven't plausibly alleged a discharge.

The WQAA defines discharge broadly to include `any spilling,
leaking, seeping, pouring, misapplying, emitting, emptying,
releasing, or dumping of any pollutant or hazardous substance which
occurs and which affects lands and the surface and ground waters of
the state.. Plaintiffs claim Movants' activities excavating and
grading land, which releases, disperses, and disseminates
pollutants, constitutes a discharge, as does misapplying
contaminants by constructing homes using concrete made from
contaminated coal ash.

At this stage, the Court finds Plaintiffs' claims that Movants'
development and construction-related activities in the Class Area
come within the purview of prohibited discharge under the WQAA That
in mind, the Court finds that disseminating, spreading, grading,
excavating, and causing further spread of contamination, as
Plaintiffs allege, is actionable under Section 376.313, despite
Movants' status as second order actors. So this dismissal argument
is rejected.

Next up is Movants' argument they are not persons who can be held
liable under the WQAA because they did not discharge pollutants or
create a condition of pollution. This argument dovetails with
Movants' contention that their construction and development-related
activities are outside the scope of Section 376.313(3), which the
Court just rejected. Plaintiffs alleged that Movants' conduct
contributed and amplified the release of contaminants in the Class
Area, and the Court finds this enough to pass muster at the motion
to dismiss stage.

Moving on, Mr. Kahli contends that he cannot be held personally
liable as the CEO of Avalon Park Group because the corporate form
shields him from personal liability. Yet the Amended Complaint
propounds that Mr. Kahli's conduct marketing, developing, and
financing the Avalon Park community was on his behalf as well as on
behalf of Defendant Avalon Park Group. Taking this as true, as the
Court must at this stage, Plaintiffs have adequately stated a
Section 376.313(3) claim against Mr. Kahli, individually.

Last, Movants posit that Plaintiffs cannot seek equitable relief
for their Section 376.313(3) claims because that section only
provides for damages. In turn, Plaintiffs say limiting their
remedies to monetary damages runs contrary to the WQAA's purposes
and familiar principles of statutory construction. On this point,
the Court agrees with Movants.

Section 376.313(3) provides a cause of action for all damages
resulting from a discharge or other condition of pollution covered
by ss. 376.30-376.317. This cause of action springs from Sections
376.30-376.317 of the WQAA, sections that outline a comprehensive
administrative procedure for Florida's Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) to clean up contaminated sites.

So the private cause of action Section 376.313 creates provides an
additional type of remedy, damages, for individuals harmed and must
be read within this statutory context.  

Now, Section 376.313 is not a common law cause of action. This
means a plaintiff may also pursue common law causes of action to
obtain common law types of relief, i.e., injunctive relief. To get
there requires another cause of action which is what happened in
the case Plaintiffs cite. With that, the Court concludes that
Plaintiffs cannot pursue equitable relief based on their Section
376.313 claims.

In sum, Plaintiffs have stated plausible claims under Section
376.313 against Movants, but Plaintiffs' request for equitable
relief is improper. The Court grants in part and denies in part the
MTDs.

Defendants Avalon Park Group and Beat Kahli's Dispositive Motion to
Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum
of Law is GRANTED IN PART to the extent Plaintiffs' request for
equitable relief is dismissed. In all other respects, the Motion is
denied.

Defendants Lennar Corporation, Lennar Homes, LLC and U.S. Home
Corporation's Dispositive Motion to Dismiss and Incorporated
Memorandum of Law is GRANTED IN PART to the extent Plaintiffs'
request for equitable relief is dismissed. In all other respects,
the Motion is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2qbpsgd from Leagle.com.

Michelle Irizarry, Valerie Williams, Joanne Nixon, Joann Robinson &
Brandon Litt, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel Wilson –
dwilson@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey, LLP, pro hac vice,
Diana L. Martin -- dmartin@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen, Milstein,
Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Leslie M. Kroeger --
lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll,
PLLC, Michael B. Brightman -- mbrightman@susmangodfrey.com --
Susman Godfrey, LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen E. Morrissey --
emorrissey@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey, LLP, pro hac vice,
Theodore J. Leopold -- tleopold@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen,
Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC & Vineet Bhatia --
vbhatia@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey, LLP, pro hac vice.

Orlando Utilities Commission, Defendant, represented by Christopher
Torres -- torresch@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Kent A.
Mayo – kent.mayo@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts, LLP, pro hac
vice, Megan H. Berge – megan.berge@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts,
LLP, pro hac vice, Richard E. Mitchell --
rick.mitchell@gray-robinson.com -- GrayRobinson, PA, Ryan Thomas
Hopper -- hopperr@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Sterling A.
Marchand – sterling.marchand@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts, LLP,
pro hac vice & David Barnett Weinstein -- weinsteind@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, P.A.


OXNARD SCHOOL: Faces Class Suit Over Special Education Access
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Leung, writing for Ventura County Star, reports that a
federal judge has certified a class action lawsuit against the
Oxnard School District in California over special education
access.

The lawsuit alleges that the district has delayed and denied
students of special education evaluations and services, while using
a "wait and see" approach that is "both illegal and disastrous for
students."

Experiences of approximately 20 students are documented in the
lawsuit including three students who are considered named
plaintiffs in the class-action case.

In one instance, a Cesar Chavez School student, who had failed all
his subjects, received a screening with a neuropsychologist at the
arrangement of an attorney. According to the neuropsychologist, the
seventh grader, who is identified in court records by his initials
M.L. because he is a minor, performed at the kindergarten to
second-grade level.

While the district convened an initial review of M.L. with
administrators and teachers, there has not been any assessments
done on M.L. for special education eligibility, according to court
records.

'It's about fixing an entire system'
Stories of the other plaintiffs detailed in court records also
claim the district did not conduct special education assessments
despite evidence requiring them or requests from parents.

"The whole basis for our claim is there is a systemic problem in
Oxnard and it must be addressed systemically," said Patsy Van Dyke,
director of environmental justice in education project at the
Learning Rights Law Center. "It's about fixing an entire system,
not about an individual kid."

Disability Rights Advocates, the law office of Shawna L. Parks and
Learning Rights Law Center are representing the plaintiffs in the
lawsuit, which was first filed in June 2017.

On July 30, U.S. District Court Judge John A. Kronstadt certified a
class of Oxnard School District students in the case, allowing the
district's special education policy be challenged.

The class-action lawsuit is filed on behalf of all the district
students who have or may have a disability and are subject to the
district's special education policy. Attorneys for the plaintiffs
believe that of the more than 16,000 students in the K-8 district,
there could be 200 to 400 students in need of special education
services but aren't identified.

Van Dyke said there are hundreds of students left behind by the
system.

"We're talking about left behind in significant ways. These are
children who can not read," Van Dyke said. "If you cannot read when
you're 13 or 14, you're going to have some serious trouble
functioning as an adult."

District officials contend the special education policy meets the
obligations of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act and
there is no "wait and see" approach.

"What an analysis from the court will do is ask, 'Does the district
comply with the law?' We believe it absolutely complies with the
law, and we can prove that in court," said Nitasha Sawhney, general
counsel for the school district.

Sawhney said under the district's special education policy, when
problems arise in a student's performance, a team that could
include a counselor, teacher, reading specialist, principal and
other experts will convene to determine a plan. If there continues
to be no signs of progress, a special education assessment will be
conducted.

If a parent claims a student is dyslexic, for example, the district
will conduct an assessment within 15 days, Sawhney said.

In a statement, Superintendent Karling Aguilera-Fort wrote, "The
mission of the Oxnard School District is to serve every child. We
welcome all children regardless of disability and are committed to
serving them.

"The district policies and practices comply with special education
law. The Oxnard School District does not have a 'wait and see'
approach for any student, and we have a tremendous team of
professionals who are able to assist students as soon as a need is
identified."

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires school
districts across the country that receive federal funding, such as
the Oxnard district, to timely identify and assess students who may
have a disability. Under federal laws, special education students
are entitled to specially designed instruction at no cost.

According to the lawsuit, each of the student plaintiffs requires
special education services under disability rights laws. They are
students who have language disorders, attention deficit
hyperactivity disorders, speech and language impairments,
expressive language delay and other learning disabilities.

Court documents detail the experiences of one Driffill School
eighth grader who received a D in most of her subjects and
performed below standards in state testing. An assessment by a
neuropsychologist arranged by an attorney concluded that the
student, whose initials are D.C., has a learning disability and is
reading at a fourth-grade level despite being in the eighth grade.

The mother of D.C. received no response from the school district
after requesting a special education assessment, according to court
records.

"Part of the frustration has been a stubborn refusal by the
district to engage and fix this system," Van Dyke said. "They
believe this system doesn't need to be fixed contrary to the
evidence."

Van Dyke said she hopes this case will lead to true policy reform
so that students in need of a special education assessment get one
in a timely manner.

Across the district's 21 schools, about half of the student
population are English Language Learners. With so many students
learning English, it's important not to over identify students as
special education, Sawhney said. The district's obligation, she
said, is to determine whether a particular child needs special
education or some other services.

"There was a time in history when if you don't speak English,
you're automatically labeled as special ed," Sawhney said. "What we
want to figure out is which child has special ed needs and which
needs other education support. The district is absolutely committed
to this."

In a statement, Superintendent Aguilera-Fort said the district is
"confident" in its legal position.

"We also prefer to focus our resources on students and not
lawsuits," according to Aguilera-Fort. "We have consistently
strived to work with the opposing side to join us in focusing on
OSD students and settle this case." [GN]


PERSONAL INSURANCE: Class Action Settled for $2.2MM
---------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Finance reports that in February 2018, a proposed national
class action was commenced against The Personal Insurance Company.
The plaintiff, Mr. Haikola, asserted that The Personal had breached
certain terms of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic
Documents Act if credit scores were accessed as part of The
Personal's claims management process when its insureds made claims
under their automobile insurance policy.

The parties have negotiated a settlement of this action, in the
total amount of $2,200,000. The settlement will not be enforceable
until it is approved by the Court.  There will be a hearing to
obtain the Court's approval of the settlement on Monday, October 7,
2019 at the courthouse, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, ON at 10:00
am. At the hearing, Class Counsel will also seek approval for
payment of their legal fees from the settlement fund in the amount
of $500,000 plus disbursements and taxes, and for payment of a
stipend to Mr. Haikola for the efforts he undertook to pursue this
action for the benefit of the class.

A settlement is a compromise of disputed claims in order to achieve
an early full and final resolution of the action, without any
admission or findings of liability or wrongdoing against the
defendants.  The defendants deny any liability or wrongdoing, and
if the settlement is not approved, they will defend the action.

If approved, the settlement fund will be paid out on a pro rata
basis to all class members who submit valid claims. Any class
member who remains a policyholder will automatically receive
payment and will not have to submit a claim form. There are
approximately 8,525 class members, meaning that if every class
member receives a payment, then each would receive approximately
$150 .

Notice of this action will be sent directly to all identified class
members at their last known address. Anyone who does not receive a
notice and believes that they are a class member should contact
Class Counsel and provide them with their updated contact
information, so that notice of the settlement approval and a claim
form can be delivered to them directly.

If any class member objects to the settlement or the fees sought by
Class Counsel, then they may write to Class Counsel and explain
their reasons for objecting, and the objection will be brought to
the attention of the Court at the approval hearing on October 7,
2019.

Details of the settlement are available at
http://personalprivacyclassaction.ca

Waddell Phillips Professional Corporation are Class Counsel, and
can be reached at the address below for further information
regarding the class action or the settlement.

About Waddell Phillips PC

Waddell Phillips Professional Corporation is a boutique law firm,
specializing in plaintiff-side class actions.  The principals of
the firm have helped victims in a wide range of class actions,
including product liability, consumer protection, aboriginal
residential schools, franchise disputes, and securities
misrepresentations. [GN]


PETERS PROFESSIONAL: Naelitz Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALEX NAELITZ, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PETERS PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPING and
CHRISTOPHER M. PETERS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01850-PAB
(N.D. Ohio, Aug. 14, 2019), challenges policies and practices of
Defendants that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio
minimum wage and overtime compensation statutes and constitutional
provisions.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff frequently worked more
than 40 hours in a single workweek. For example, during the pay
period starting May 18, 2018, Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours
in a work week but Defendants did not pay overtime compensation to
Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate
for the hours he worked in excess of forty hours.

Peters Professional Landscaping provides landscaping, ground and
property maintenance, patio and deck design and installation
services, outdoor living space design and installation services,
snow removal and other services to customers at various locations
across Northeast Ohio.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
          SCOTT & W NTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Caxton Building
          812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 912-2221
          Facsimile: (216) 350-6313
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com

PHILLIPS 66: Court Consolidates 2 Wage & Hour Suits
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for
Consolidation of the cases captioned DEAN A. ROBBINS, Plaintiff, v.
PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, Defendant. TIMOTHY GREEN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, Defendant. Case Nos. 18-cv-00292-RS,
19-cv-01558-RS (N.D. Cal.).

Robbins filed the Robbins matter in San Francisco Superior Court as
a putative class of non-exempt hourly employees who worked for
Phillips 66 Company (Phillips 66) and alleged numerous labor code
violations, including failure to provide meal periods, to provide
rest periods, to pay hourly wages, to provide accurate written wage
statements, to timely pay all final wages, and for unfair
competition.

The Green action was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court as an
almost identical putative class of non-exempt hourly employees who
worked for Phillips 66, alleging the same claims for relief with
the exception of a claim for minimum wages, for failure to pay
overtime, and without a PAGA claim.

The core factual allegation in both cases is the same: plaintiffs
contend Phillips 66 violated California labor law regarding payment
of wages, providing meal and rest periods, providing accurate wage
statements, and engaging in unfair competition. Both cases are
putative class actions seeking certification of purportedly similar
classes. Moreover, because both cases target the same defendant,
Phillips 66's discovery obligation in each matter is sure at least
to overlap.

Consolidation would ensure coordinated discovery, and would appear
to save both time and costs for all concerned by avoiding
duplicative class certification proceedings, discovery matters, and
dispositive motions. Finally, consolidation would permit a
potential global resolution at the October 3rd mediation, should it
prove fruitful.

Robbins asserts in his Reply that consolidation is not one of the
recognized exceptions to the first-to-file rule and that holding
otherwise would be tantamount to barring application of the rule
whenever actions are in front of the same district court. Such
fears are overblown. As discussed above, Robbins's argument that
the first-to-file rule applies to matters before the same district
court is beside the point. Even if applied, it is not "a rigid or
inflexible rule to be mechanically applied, but rather is to be
applied with a view to the dictates of sound judicial
administration. The rule does nothing to deprive a district court
of its broad discretion to consolidate matters that are before it.
Furthermore, given the cooperation already in place between the
matters regarding discovery and mediation, a stay of the Green
matter makes little sense. Since all factors favor consolidation,
Green's motion is granted.

Accordingly, a single, consolidated complaint shall be lodged
within ten days of the date of this Order.

The Robbins and Green matters are consolidated.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/y5gcjwmf from Leagle.com.

Dean A. Robbins, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group, Farrah Grant, Setareh
Law Group, Ashley N. Batiste -- ashley.batiste@lewisbrisbois.com --
Setareh Law Group & Thomas Alistair Segal -- thomas@setarehlaw.com
-- Setareh Law Group.

Phillips 66 Company, Defendant, represented by Catherine A. Conway
-- cconway@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Cassidy
Alexandra Wallace -- cassidy.wallace@kyl.com -- Keesal, Young and
Logan, Daniel Mark Bruggebrew -- dbruggebrew@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP & Lisa M. Bertain --
lisa.bertain@kyl.com -- Keesal Young & Logan A Professional
Corporation.
Timothy Green, Interested Party, represented by Chaim Shaun
Setareh, Setareh Law Group & Gregory E. Mauro, GREGORY E. MAURO.


PLOMO, LLC: Portillo Seeks Overtime Wages for Servers
-----------------------------------------------------
LUIS PORTILLO, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PLOMO, LLC, a Florida limited
liability Company d/b/a Plomo Tequilla & Taco Bar and EFTHYMIOS
PALIOURAS, Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-23406-UU
(S.D. Fla., Aug. 14, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay
their servers, waiters, and waitresses employees all of their
overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants, employed as a
server/waiter from approximately March 2018 through August 11,
2019

According to the complaint, the Defendants had a common policy of
not paying Plaintiff and the other similarly situated servers at a
rate of one and one-half times of the proper rate of pay for
the overtime hours they worked as required by the FLSA.

In fact, at times the Employer eliminated or failed to account for
reported hours over 40 per workweek and when paid, the overtime it
was calculated at an improper rate. In calculating Plaintiff's and
other similarly situated servers' overtime pay,  the Defendants
paid them their regular hourly rate (i.e., straight time rate) or
none at all, rather than the legally required one and one-half
times their appropriate rate of pay, the lawsuit says.

Plomo, LLC., owns and operates the d/b/a Plomo Tequilla & Taco Bar
in Coral Gables, Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Sergio R. Casiano, Jr., Esq.
          MKRS LAW, PL
          201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 802
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 446-5228
          Facsimile: (305) 446-7110
          E-mail: sergioc@mkrs.com

PLURALSIGHT INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP notifies investors in Pluralsight,
Inc. (NASDAQ: PS) of the securities fraud class action, City of
Birmingham Firemen's and Policemen's Pension System v. Pluralsight,
Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-07563, pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

If you invested in Pluralsight between August 2, 2018 and July 31,
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 invested in Pluralsight during the Class Period and suffered
significant losses (in excess of $100,000) 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 case, you must
move the Court no later than October 15, 2019 (the "Lead Plaintiff
deadline").  Contact Hagens Berman immediately to learn more about
the case and being a lead plaintiff
https://www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/PS or contact Reed Kathrein,
who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling 510-725-3000 or
emailing PS@hbsslaw.com

According to the Complaint, Defendants misled investors about
Pluralsight's business outlook, particularly related to its
salesforce and ability to generate strong growth in billings.

More specifically, according to the Complaint, Pluralsight and
senior management concealed the Company's substantial delays in
hiring and properly training the salesforce necessary to meet its
lofty billing projections.

On June 17, 2019, Defendants reaffirmed both its Q2 2019 and FY
2019 guidance while concealing Pluralsight's salesforce problems.

The truth was revealed on July 31, 2019, when Defendants announced
(1) disappointing financial results for 2Q 2019, (2) blamed
Pluralsight's declining growth in billings on sales execution
problems with its salesforce, and (3) the departure of the
Company's Chief Revenue Officer.

Several analysts then lowered their price targets for Pluralsight
shares.  One reportedly wrote in a note to clients "[w]e are
surprised by the magnitude of the billings weakness and we expect
the stock to be a show-me story until investors gain confidence in
billings re-acceleration."

"We're focused on investors' losses, the extent to which management
may have misled investors about reasonable growth prospects,
internal controls, and reasons for the recently-announced auditor
change," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Pluralsight 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 PS@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

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


REALNETWORKS INC: Claims Period in Napster Case Ends Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
RealNetworks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the claims period in the
class action suit involving Napster ends December 31, 2019.

On January 18, 2019, RealNetworks acquired an additional 42%
interest in Rhapsody International, Inc. (doing business as
Napster) bringing its aggregate ownership to 84% of Napster's
outstanding equity, thus giving RealNetworks a majority voting
interest.

Napster's music streaming service provides users with broad access
to digital music, offering on-demand streaming and conditional
downloads through unlimited access to a catalog of millions of
music tracks.

Napster offers music services worldwide and generates revenue
primarily through subscriptions to its music services either
directly to consumers or through distribution partners.

In March 2016, Napster was notified of a putative consumer class
action lawsuit relating to an alleged failure to pay so-called
"mechanical royalties" on behalf of the plaintiffs and "other
similarly-situated holders of mechanical rights in copyrighted
musical works."

On April 7, 2017, the plaintiffs and Napster agreed to settlement
terms during a mediation session. The long form Settlement
Agreement was executed effective on January 16, 2019.

The damages payable under the Settlement Agreement will be
calculated on a claims made basis, subject to an overall maximum of
$10.0 million.

The company has not recorded an accrual related to this settlement
as of June 30, 2019 as the amount payable is not reasonably
estimable. In May 2019, public notice was posted about the
settlement informing purported class members that they can make
claims or object to the settlement.

The claims period ends on December 31, 2019, on which date (or
shortly thereafter), Napster expects to know the total amount of
damages payable in respect to validly made claims. Damages for
valid claims are expected to be paid in the second quarter of
2020.

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

RealNetworks, Inc. provides network-delivered digital media
applications and services to manage, play, and share digital media.
RealNetworks, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in
Seattle, Washington.


RETAIL FOOD: Franchisees' Proposed Class Action Gains Momentum
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Hall, writing for Inside Franchise Business, reports that an
impending class action lawsuit against troubled franchisor Retail
Food Group (RFG) is gathering steam, with lawyers set to take to
the streets in a series of information sessions.

The RFG class action proposal was floated earlier this year, when
law-firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth revealed it had spent months
investigating the business practices and franchisee conditions of
RFG café chain, Michel's Patisserie.

The law firm alleged that RFG had beached the Consumer Law Act, in
previous dealings with Michel's franchisees.

"We intend to argue that if RFG had behaved lawfully, franchisees
would not have purchased their franchises and that RFG's conduct
caused franchisees (and other persons closely associated with
franchisees) loss or damage," Corrs Chambers Westgarth said at the
time.

Class action roadshows
The firm ramped up the litigation process, unveiling plans to hold
franchisee information roadshows.

According to reports, Corrs Chambers Westgarth will be holding five
sessions across the country, finishing with a final forum in
September.

The roadshows allow Michel's Patisserie franchisees to come forward
and learn more about the class action process, which is being
funded by litigation specialist Augusta.

All former of current Michel's Patisserie franchisees have been
invited to attend, with Corrs Chambers Westgarth suggesting those
who have suffered loss or damage as a result of RFG's conduct, may
be eligible for compensation.

RFG ongoing complications
It's another blow for the embattled franchisor, which announced the
departure of its longest serving director, Jessica Buchanan.

Buchanan's resignation from the RFG board, while not severing ties
completely (she will stay on as a consultant) may see a fresh face
join the mix. However, the struggling company's hopes for a new
beginning may already be in jeopardy.

A July announcement that RFG had engaged in discussions with
Sydney-based firm Soliton Capital for a $160m restructuring project
was fraught with contention. The franchisor had just days earlier
told the ASX it was unaware of any price-sensitive information that
could have led to a near-two month share price high.

On Aug. 5, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald reported that RFG
had granted Soliton a three-month 'limited exclusivity' offer. The
offer would see Soliton with exclusivity until after RFG's October
31 debt deadline.

With the franchisor's debt sitting in excess of $260m, an impending
Michel's Patisserie class action lawsuit could be a monumental
blow. [GN]


RIVIANA FOODS: Clevenger Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Sherrie Clevenger and Theresa Reisfelt, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
Riviana Foods, Inc.; Guardian Ad Litem dba Ronzoni; and New World
Pasta Company, the Defendants, Case No. 30-02019-01082583, was
transferred from the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for Central District of California (Southern
Division - Santa Ana) on Aug 14, 2019. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-01572 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Ryan Matthew Salzman, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE AND REATH LLP
          1800 Century Park East Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1504
          Telephone: (310) 203-4000
          Facsimile: (310) 229-1285
          E-mail: ryan.salzman@dbr.com

SACRAMENTO, CA: Magistrate Recommends Approval of Consent Decree
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division,
issued a Findings and Recommendations granting Stipulated Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree and Notice to the Class
in the case captioned LORENZO MAYS, RICKY RICHARDSON, JENNIFER
BOTHUN, ARMANI LEE, LEERTESE BEIRGE, and CODY GARLAND, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY
OF SACRAMENTO, Defendant. Case No. 2:18-cv-02081 TLN KJN. (E.D.
Cal.).

The Plaintiffs and a class of all people who are now, or in the
future will be, incarcerated in the Sacramento County jails and a
subclass of all people who are now, or in the future will be,
incarcerated in the Sacramento County jails and who have a
disability as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 12102, 29
U.S.C. Section 705(9)(B), and California Government Code Section
12926(j) and (m), allege that conditions in the Jails violate the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution
and the Americans with Disabilities Act.  

A court should preliminarily approve a class action settlement if
it 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 within the range of possible approval.

The Court finds that this standard is met in this case, as the
proposed settlement is the product of arms-length, serious,
informed, and non-collusive negotiations between experienced and
knowledgeable counsel who have actively prosecuted and defended
this litigation.

The Court finds that the Consent Decree meets the requirements of
18 U.S.C. Section 3626(a)(1).

The Consent Decree attached hereto is granted preliminary approval
and incorporated by reference herein, subject to the right of class
members to challenge the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of
the Consent Decree.

The County is also directed to provide a copy of this Order and the
full Consent Decree and the Remedial Plan to people who complete an
inmate request form and request the documents. Defendant must file
and serve on Plaintiffs' counsel a declaration affirming that
notice was published as required in this order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Findings
and Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxpeo73g
from Leagle.com.

Lorenzo Mays, Ricky Lee Richardson, Jr., Jennifer Bothun, Armani
Lee, Leertese Beirge & Cody Garland, Plaintiffs, represented by
Donald Specter, Prison Law Office, Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria --
jsantamaria@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Addison Mills Litton --
alitton@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Anne Hadreas --
anne.hadreas@disabilityrightsca.org -- Disability Rights
California, Margot Knight Mendelson -- mmendelson@prisonlaw.com --
Prison Law Office, Mark Anthony Zambarda -- mzambarda@cooley.com --
Cooley LLP, Sophie Jedeikin Hart -- sophieh@prisonlaw.com -- Prison
Law Office, Tifanei Ressl-Moyer  --
tifanei.ressl-moyer@disabilityrightsca.org -- Disability Rights
California & Aaron Joseph Fischer  --
Aaron.Fischer@disabilityrightsca.org -- Disability Rights
California.

County of Sacramento, Defendant, represented by Todd Holton Master
-- tmaster@hrmrlaw.com -- Howard Rome Martin & Ridley LLP & Shawn
M. Ridley -- sridley@hrmrlaw.com -- Howard Rome Martin & Ridley.


STANLEY STEEMER: Underpays Carpet Cleaners, Adams et al. Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
CODY ADAMS; and WILLIE RICH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STANLEY STEEMER
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05306 (N.D. Ill.,
Aug. 6, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay
the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as carpet cleaners.

Stanley Steemer International, Inc. provides cleaning services. The
Company offers carpet, furniture, tile, hardwood floor, area rug,
and air duct cleaning services, as well as water damage restoration
and flooring installation. Stanley Steemer International serves
residential and commercial customers throughout the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450


STITCH INDUSTRIES: Dennis Sues over ADA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Stitch Industries
Inc. for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities of
1990 (ADA). The case is captioned Derrick U. Dennis, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Stitch
Industries Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06677-RA (S.D.N.Y.,
July 17, 2019). This civil rights-related lawsuit is assigned to
Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams.

Stitch Industries Inc. manufactures and sells household furniture
products throughout the United States. It also sells these products
online and maintains its Web site, http://www.springandstitch.com.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     SHALOM LAW, PLLC.
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Telephone: (516) 807-1748
     E-mail: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com

TESLA INC: Class Action Over Slashed Range by Software Update
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Lambert, writing for Electrek, reports that Tesla is now
facing a class-action lawsuit from an owner, who like several other
Tesla owners earlier this year, saw the range of his car slashed by
a software update.

Earlier this year, Electreck reported on several reports from Tesla
owners about seeing significant drops in range from 12 to 30 miles
over a short period of time.  Only Model S and Model X vehicles
with 85 kWh battery packs, which were discontinued in 2016, seem to
be affected at this point.  For most owners, the range drop
happened after updating to Tesla's 2019.16.1 and .2 software
updates.

Tesla owner David Rasmussen got one of the most severe drops we
have seen so far.

At the time, he told Electrek: "My 2014 Model S 85 was getting
Rated Range of 247 miles until May 13. Now after the next update,
it continued to drop to now 217 miles. This is an 11% drop in 5
weeks."

After the report, Tesla said that the goal of the update is to
"protect the battery and improve battery longevity" and it resulted
in a range loss for only "a small percentage of owners."

The automaker said that it was working on a solution, but nothing
has changed months later.

Now Rasmussen is leading a class-action lawsuit over the issue
filed in the Northern District of California.

The suit can be confusing because it brings up 3 issues that are
tightly intertwined.

Rasmussen explained in an email to Electrek:

"The obvious issue and the most direct effect is the reduced range
due to software updates. The method Tesla used was to limit our
(those few of us affected) range (ie. battery capacity) was by
reducing the maximum charge voltage of the battery pack. Then
Tesla's response to requests for a refurbished battery under
warranty was met with rejection and insulting assertions (such as
drive with the AC off and the windows up to increase our range)."

The Tesla owner also says that he is seeing slower charging since
the update.

Finally, he is also worried about the reason for the update in the
first place since Tesla only said that it was to "protect" the
battery pack.

He told Electrek:

"The timing seems that it was related to the unattended vehicle
fires (Shanghai, San Francisco and Hong Kong?? and later Germany).
I believe Tesla detected something in our batteries that warned
them of impending danger. But Tesla denies this. I am not only
annoyed at the software reduced range (NOT battery degradation) but
a bit fearful of parking my car in my garage."

Rasmussen also filed a complaint with NHTSA over the issue.

Tesla's response following the Electreck report: "Delivering the
best possible customer experience with the highest regard for
safety has always been our priority, and we do not disregard either
of these things as this complaint suggests. A very small percentage
of owners of older Model S and Model X vehicles may have noticed a
small reduction in range when charging to a maximum state of charge
following a software update designed to improve battery longevity.
As previously noted, we have been working to mitigate the impact on
range for these owners and have been rolling out over-the-air
updates to address this issue since last week." [GN]


TEXAS: Court Denies Inmate's Bid to Proceed as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Corpus Christi Division, issued an Order dismissing the
claims in the case captioned KEITH H. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v.
BRYAN COLLIER, et al., Defendants. Civil No. 2:18-CV-221. (S.D.
Tex.).

The Court is in receipt of the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and
Recommendation to Dismiss Case.

Plaintiff Keith H. Washington is a prisoner in the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Criminal Institutions Division. Plaintiff is
appearing pro se and in forma pauperis.   He filed this prisoner
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, asserting
claims under the Eighth Amendment, the American with Disabilities
Act (ADA),   and the Rehabilitation Act (RA). His claims stem from
allegations of deliberate indifference to his health based on
extreme heat conditions in both his cell and cell block.

The Court denies the Plaintiff's request to proceed as a class
action; dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against
Senior Warden Jeffrey Richardson, Senior Warden Michael Butcher,
Captain Norma Smith, Lieutenant D. Wallace, and Correctional
Officer Yakeen.

The Court also dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiff's claims
for money damages against all individual Defendants, to the extent
they are sued in their official capacities, as barred by the
Eleventh Amendment; and dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiff's
claims against the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), as
barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2bfymw6 from Leagle.com.

Keith H. Washington, Plaintiff, pro se.


TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Pork Purchasers' Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 motions to dismiss
in the class action suit entitled, In re Pork Antitrust Litigation,
remains pending.

On June 18, 2018, a group of plaintiffs acting on their own behalf
and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who
indirectly purchased pork, filed a class action complaint against
the company and certain of its pork subsidiaries, as well as
several other pork processing companies, in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Subsequent to the filing of the initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers were also filed in the same court.

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 Pork Antitrust Litigation.

Since the original filing, a putative class member is proceeding
with an individual direct action making similar claims, and others
may do so in the future.

The individual complaint has been filed in the District of
Minnesota and is proceeding on a coordinated pre-trial basis with
the consolidated actions.

The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in
January 2009 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of pork and pork products 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 seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the
putative classes.

On October 23, 2018, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaints. Those motions are pending.

Tyson Foods said, "Subsequently, 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 pork
processing companies alleging activities in violation of the Puerto
Rican antitrust laws."

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: Bid to Drop Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 motion to dismiss
the case entitled, In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, remains
pending.

On January 27, 2017, Haff Poultry, Inc., Craig Watts, Johnny
Upchurch, Jonathan Walters and Brad Carr, acting on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of broiler chicken farmers, filed a
class action complaint against the company and certain of its
poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other
vertically-integrated poultry processing companies, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On March 27, 2017, a second class action complaint making similar
claims on behalf of a similarly defined putative class was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma.

Plaintiffs in the two cases sought to have the matters
consolidated, and, on July 10, 2017, filed a consolidated amended
complaint styled In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
colluded not to compete for broiler raising services "with the
purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing
grower compensation below competitive levels." The plaintiffs also
allege that the defendants "agreed to share detailed data on
[g]rower compensation with one another, with the purpose and effect
of artificially depressing [g]rower compensation below competitive
levels."

The plaintiffs contend these alleged acts constitute violations of
the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The plaintiffs are seeking
treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative class.

The company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
September 8, 2017.

That motion is pending.

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

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. BANK: Court OKs $1.624MM Class Settlement in Guiette Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Class Settlement in the case captioned VIRGINIA
GUIETTE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. U.S. Bank National Association, Defendant. Case No.
1:18-cv-00174-TSB. (S.D. Ohio).

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action
and over the Parties, including all members of the following
Settlement Class certified for settlement purposes in this Court's
Preliminary Approval Order:

SETTLEMENT CLASS: All users or subscribers to a wireless or
cellular service within the United States who used or subscribed to
a phone number to which U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank)
made or initiated one or more Calls during the Class Period using
any automated dialing technology or artificial or prerecorded voice
technology, according to U.S. Bank's available records, and who are
within Subclass One and/or Two, which are defined as
follows:Subclass One consists of persons who used or subscribed to
a cellular phone number to which U.S. Bank made or initiated a Call
or Calls in connection with a Residential Mortgage Loan. Subclass
Two consists of persons who used or subscribed to a cellular phone
number to which U.S. Bank made or initiated a Call or Calls in
connection with a Home Equity Loan.

The Court finally approves the Settlement Agreement and the
Settlement contemplated thereby, and finds that the terms
constitute, in all respects, a fair, reasonable, and adequate
settlement as to all Settlement Class Members in accordance with
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and directs its
consummation pursuant to its terms and conditions. Each Settlement
Class Member is hereby bound by the Settlement Agreement.

The Court finds that the Settlement Class Members have been
adequately represented by the Class Representative and Class
Counsel.

The Court adopts the percentage-of-the-fund approach as to
attorneys' fees to Class Counsel and Orders attorneys' fees in the
amount of 25% of the Settlement Fund, i.e. $667,584.00, to Class
Counsel.

The Court Orders reimbursement of Class Counsel's costs of
$11,074.20 to Class Counsel from the Settlement Fund.

The Court Orders a Service Award of $5,000.00 be paid to the named
Plaintiff, Virginia Guiette, from the Settlement Fund.

The Court Orders payment of $362,164.84 from the Settlement Fund to
Rust Consulting, Inc. for its claims administration of the
Settlement.

After deducting Class Counsel attorneys' fees, Class Counsel costs,
Plaintiff's service award, and Rust Consulting, Inc.'s claims
administration costs, the Court Orders that each Class Member
making a valid and timely claim is entitled to a pro rata share of
the remaining Settlement Fund of $1,624,512.96 or approximately
$84.15 for each of the 19,304 Class Members making a valid claim,
inclusive of 46 class members making a late, but otherwise valid
claim.

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

Virginia Guiette, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated., Plaintiff, represented by W Mark Jump --
wmjump@jumplegal.com -- Jump Legal Group, Abbas Kazerounian --
ak@kazlg.com -- pro hac vice, Anthony P. Chester --
tony@westcoastlitigation.com --  pro hac vice & Joshua Swigart --
josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- pro hac vice.

U.S. Bank National Association, Defendant, represented by Timothy
Craig Sullivan -- sullivan@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius &
Hollister, Virginia W. Barnhart -- virginia.barnhart@wbd-us.com --
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON US LLP, Artin Betpera --
artin.betpera@wbd-us.com -- WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON US LLP, pro hac
vice, Eric J. Troutman -- eric.troutman@squirepb.com -- Squire
Patton Boggs US LLP, pro hac vice, Ginny Wood Barnhart, WOMBLE BOND
DICKINSON US LLP, pro hac vice & Susan Nikdel --
susan.nikdel@wbd-us.com -- WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON US LLP, pro hac
vice.


UCLA: Sued Over Failure to Report James Heaps Title IX Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Bilbao, writing for Daily Bruin, reports that a new
class-action lawsuit alleged UCLA failed to protect patients of
former obstetrician-gynecologist James Heaps after receiving
complaints about his conduct since at least early 2014.

This class-action lawsuit and other civil cases claim UCLA did not
properly report early complaints to the Title IX office and suspend
or terminate Heaps' position in response.

Law firms Girard Sharp and Gibbs Law Group filed the first
class-action lawsuit against Heaps and the University of California
on July 30 on behalf of women who were patients of Heaps since
January 2014. At least 18 lawsuits have been filed against Heaps
since UCLA notified former patients of his criminal charges in
June, according to the lawsuit.

Aside from the civil cases, Heaps faces criminal charges for two
counts of sexual battery and one count of sexual exploitation by a
physician involving two former patients he treated in 2017 and
2018. Heaps' lawyer Tracy Green has said he denies all charges.

Filing a class-action lawsuit allows the two women who are listed
as plaintiffs to seek relief for any woman who may have similar
allegations against Heaps or the UC without requiring each to file
an individual civil case, said Elizabeth Kramer, a lead attorney on
the case.

"We know Heaps' misconduct is widespread and that many survivors
don't want to publicly reveal their experiences, let alone come
forward and wage a court battle," Kramer said.

Green said she thinks patients alleging sexual misconduct were
ignorant about standard medical practice. She also believes many of
these civil cases are primarily motivated by the financial gain of
the plaintiff attorneys because they have been actively soliciting
patients, she said.

The main goal of the class-action lawsuit is to hold UCLA
financially accountable and to reform how UCLA presents and handles
cases of sexual misconduct, Kramer said.

"We know that because there were complaints as early as 2014, the
school did not respond appropriately even according to its own
policies," Kramer said.

A Title IX investigation into a 2017 complaint uncovered a 2014
complaint to UCLA Health, which the Title IX office was previously
unaware of. This investigation also uncovered a separate 2015
complaint that was posted as a Yelp review for a 2008 incident,
according to an email statement from a UCLA Health spokesperson.

The 2014 complaint
The class action lawsuit alleges UCLA was on notice of Heaps'
conduct since at least early 2014 when UCLA received the 2014
complaint uncovered in the Title IX investigation.

That 2014 complaint involved a 41-year-old cancer patient who sent
a letter to UCLA Health and the medical board about a March 10
incident with Heaps. John Manly, a lawyer representing the cancer
patient in a separate civil case from the new class-action lawsuit,
said the alleged incident with his client was sexual assault.

The patient, who wishes to remain anonymous, said she received a
letter from UCLA on April 18, 2014, a response which she felt was
ambiguous and unsatisfactory.

"I didn't know what to make of the letter, because it really didn't
acknowledge what had happened and they didn't take any
responsibility," the patient said. "They didn't tell me what they
had done."

The letter, which was obtained by the Daily Bruin, stated the
patient's complaint was "thoroughly reviewed and investigated" by
the Executive Chair and Vice Chair of the Department of Obstetrics
and Gynecology. However, it did not share any findings because of
the confidential nature of the investigation.

Manly said he doubts the thoroughness of the investigation because
UCLA Health never interviewed his client after she sent her initial
complaint.

He said he thinks UCLA Health violated Title IX federal law because
it failed to properly report and investigate this incident. He also
thinks UCLA enabled Heaps to keep allegedly abusing women by
burying this complaint and allowing Heaps to continue to work,
Manly said.

"This should have been reported to the Office of (Equity, Diversity
and Inclusion) and … to the police," Manly said. "This was not an
investigation. It was a decision they made to deep-six this
complaint like they did so many others."

The patient said she trusted UCLA because of its reputation but
felt betrayed by Heaps' conduct. Her initial complaint in 2014 was
motivated by a desire to protect other women from Heaps, she said.

"A lot of people have ended up hurt and traumatized and they didn't
need to," the patient said. "I'm devastated because the whole point
of me being vulnerable and submitting all this information was so
that no one else would have to get hurt."

Green previously said it was her understanding that the medical
board and medical professionals reviewed the case. She said medical
professionals who reviewed the case about the 2014 complaint found
he didn't do anything wrong from a medical perspective.

In March, UCLA began a still-ongoing independent review of its
response to sexual misconduct in a clinical setting, according to
an email statement from a UCLA Health spokesman. UCLA Health did
not offer a reason as to why the 2014 complaint was not sent to the
Title IX office.

"An independent review is examining what occurred and whether our
policies and procedures are consistent with best practices and
reflect the high standard of patient care we demand of ourselves,"
the statement read.

Medical necessity
Green maintains that Heaps' conduct was always medically necessary.
UCLA interviewed witnesses such as medical staff and nurses who
said they never saw Heaps abuse the two patients involved in the
criminal case, Green said. However these witnesses were not
interviewed by the district attorney's office or the medical board
before filing charges, she added.

"They have confirmed that they never saw Dr. Heaps say or do
anything that was nonmedical or could ever be characterized as
sexual touching ever," Green said.

Patients alleging sexual assault may have been misinformed of how a
doctor may conduct pelvic and breast exams, Green said. She added
Heaps' thoroughness as a gynecologist has allowed him to detect a
lot of cancers in his patients.

"By its very nature, a gynecological exam is intimate," Green said.
"Boundary violations may occur, but just the fact these things are
occurring doesn't mean something sexual happened."

For example, one of the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit
alleged Heaps initially began a pap smear with his ungloved finger
before using a speculum, according to the lawsuit. During a pap
smear, a gynecologist uses a speculum and a swab or brush to
collect cells from the cervix to test for cancer, according to the
UCLA Health Library website.

Green previously said she thinks allegations that Heaps used an
ungloved hand are false because Heaps always used a glove for the
protection of the patient and himself.

Kramer said she disagreed with the notion that her clients in the
class-action lawsuit experienced a normal standard of care.

"We thoroughly investigate the cases that we bring and we are
confident that the experiences our clients had are outside the
scope of acceptable medical practice," she said.

UCLA did not renew Heaps' appointment in April 2018 and he
effectively retired in June of that year. A review of the 2017
investigation found he violated UC Policy on Sexual Violence and
Sexual Harassment when he retaliated against a person who
participated in the investigation.

The Title IX investigation into the 2017 incident did not complete
a peer medical review of Heaps' medical records, depriving Heaps of
a chance to better defend his actions, Green said.

That assessment was completed sometime after his appointment was
terminated, according to a UCLA Health spokesperson.

Heaps' next appearance in court for the criminal charges against
him is scheduled for Aug. 29. [GN]


UGL LIMITED: Ichthys Gas Project Class Action Reaches Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Johanson, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
engineering firm UGL has settled a long-running, multi-million
dollar class action with investors over cost blowouts on a power
plant contract at the giant Ichthys gas project off Australia's
north coast.

Litigation funder IMF Bentham and lead applicant in the shareholder
class action, Clime Capital, said they agreed an "in-principle"
settlement with UGL, but would not confirm the sum or scope of the
arrangement which still needs approval from the Federal Court.

"Clime Capital is pleased today to advise that an in-principle
settlement had been reached by the parties," the fund managers said
on August 9.

IMF said it would generate income of $8.3 million, including
reimbursement of project costs, from the settlement. The ASX-listed
litigation funder usually requires a minimum $30 million claim size
to go ahead with class actions.

The class action alleged UGL delayed informing investors about cost
blowouts on the power contract with INPEX's gas project in late
2014.

At the time, UGL was negotiating the sale of its DTZ property arm
to private equity group TPG for $1.2 billion. Some analysts
suggested that influenced the timing of its announcement.

Retail and institutional investors who bought shares in UGL between
August 8 and November 5 in 2014 were part of the claim which
alleged UGL knew as early as August that the power project was
facing blowouts.

A joint venture partner in the project, American based CH2M Hill,
had indicated in August it was likely to make a loss on the
project.

When UGL, now a subsidiary of construction giant CIMIC, revealed
the cost blowouts to the market on November 6, 2014 its shares
slumped dramatically wiping up to $300 million off the company's
value.

CIMIC said the class action related to the period prior to its
acquisition of UGL.

"The settlement will have no material impact on earnings or profit
forecasts," it said.

Law firm Slater & Gordon conducted initial legal work on the claim
before it was handed to lawyers Phi Finney Mcdonald, Esq. [GN]


UNITED INDUSTRIES: Poppiti Sues over Fraud Allegations
------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against United Industries
Corp. and Spectrum Brands, Inc. for alleged fraud. The case is
captioned Elba Poppiti, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United Industries Corp. et al,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02028-SNLJ (E.D. Mo., July 17, 2019).
This case is assigned to Hon. Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, United Industries Corp. is a
subsidiary of Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc., the leading
manufacturer of value-brand consumer products for the home, lawn
and garden insect and weed control markets in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
     BURSOR AND FISHER, P.A.
     888 Seventh Ave.
     New York, NY 10019
     Telephone: (646) 837-7150
     Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
     E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com

VANTAGE ADVERTISING: Underpays Models, Lustig Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
AMY LUSTIG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VANTAGE ADVERTISING, LLC, and DOES 1 THROUGH
100, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV27294 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Aug. 6, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Lustig was employed by the Defendants as model.

Vantage Advertising, LLC New York limited liability company engaged
in advertising and marketing business. The Company provides trade
show models to clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          Daniel J. Park, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 North Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259


VERO BEACH: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Massage Parlor Video Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in
the case captioned JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF VERO BEACH,
Defendant. Case No. 2:19-14212-ROSENBERG/MAYNARD. (S.D. Fla.).

In his class action complaint, Plaintiff "John Doe" claims that the
Defendant City violated his Fourth Amendment rights by installing
video equipment in a massage parlor and recording the activities
within that massage parlor "on a 24/7 basis for a period of
approximately 60 days."  The Plaintiff claims that he "had a
reasonable expectation of privacy while receiving massages from
licensed therapists in private rooms."  Presumably as a result of
the video recordings, Plaintiff was "actually charged with a crime
of solicitation of prostitution . . . [and] subject to public
humiliation."

In addition to seeking dismissal of the Complaint on Rule 12(b)(6)
grounds, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff should not be
permitted to proceed under a pseudonym and that the Plaintiff's
class allegations should be dismissed.

The Defendant argues that the Complaint does not properly connect
Plaintiff's general allegations against various law enforcement
agencies to the named Defendant, the City of Vero Beach. In
addition, the Defendant asserts that the Complaint does not satisfy
the requirements of a Monell claim. The Court agrees with both
arguments.

The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a Section 1983 action against a
municipality, also known as a Monell claim. See Monell v. Dept of
Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Pursuant to
Monell:

A local government may not be sued under Section 1983 for an injury
inflicted solely by its employees or agents. Instead, it is when
execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its
lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to
represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government
as an entity is responsible under Section 1983.

Here, Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled what custom or policy of
the City of Vero Beach was the moving force behind the alleged
violation of Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. Plaintiff has
generally alleged that various law enforcement agencies in the
Southern District applied for sneak and peak warrants, used
deceptive methods to install surveillance equipment, and recorded
Plaintiff and others in states of undress. Nonetheless, these
nonspecific allegations are insufficient to make Plaintiff's
Section 1983 claim plausible.

Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended
complaint, consistent with this Order. Any amended complaint must
allege with greater clarity the custom or policy that led to the
constitutional violation and the specific facts of Plaintiff's case
that would make plausible his claim that his rights have been
violated.

PROCEEDING UNDER A PSEUDONYM

Beyond Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) argument, Defendant also argues
that Plaintiff should not be permitted to proceed anonymously. In
his response, Plaintiff resists Defendant's arguments and
separately moves for leave to proceed anonymously.  

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) requires that every pleading
in federal court must name all the parties.  

The rule is not absolute, and a party may proceed anonymously, by
showing that he has a substantial privacy right which outweighs the
customary and constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in
judicial proceedings. The Eleventh Circuit has elucidated several
factors to be considered in this evaluation: (1) whether plaintiffs
seeking anonymity are challenging governmental activity (2) whether
they will be required to disclose information of the utmost
intimacy (3) whether plaintiffs will be compelled to admit their
intention to engage in illegal conduct and thus risk criminal
prosecution (4) whether the plaintiffs were minors (5) whether they
were threatened with violence or physical harm by proceeding in
their own names and (6) whether their anonymity posed a unique
threat of fundamental unfairness to the defendant. Frank, 951 F.2d
320, 323.

The factors receive considerable weight but are not exclusive; a
court should review all circumstances in a given case and then
decide whether the customary practice of disclosing the plaintiff's
identity should yield to the plaintiff's privacy concerns.

Turning to the Frank factors' application in this case, the third,
fourth, and sixth factors are not at issue here. Plaintiff is not a
minor. Plaintiff has already been charged with solicitation of
prostitution, so the third factor, risk of criminal prosecution, is
moot. And, Plaintiff has not argued that there is a unique threat
of fundamental unfairness to him in this case.

In relation to the first factor, Defendant concedes that this is a
case challenging governmental activity. However, the Eleventh
Circuit has indicated that this factor alone is not particularly
persuasive, let alone dispositive.  

As to the second factor, disclosure of information of the utmost
intimacy, Plaintiff alleges that he must proceed anonymously to
protect his ongoing right of privacy. He also alleges that
anonymity will also work to the benefit of the Defendants by
mitigating and minimizing the harmful and damaging potential
effects further disclosure would have. However, the Frank court
explicitly stated that some personal embarrassment, standing alone,
does not require the granting of his request to proceed under a
pseudonym.

As to the fifth factor, risk of physical harm, Plaintiff
conclusorily states in his Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously
which is embedded in his Response to the Motion to Dismiss, that
Plaintiff may be subjected to public condemnation and vigilantism
because of the public's generalized fear and vilification of
sexually related crimes. Although Plaintiff's Complaint alleges
defamation as part of his damages, he does not allege any threat or
risk to his physical safety.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 8, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6xectk8 from Leagle.com.

John Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Bradford L. Jefferson, Bradford
L Jefferson PA, 130 S Indian River Dr # 402, Fort Pierce, FL
34950.

City of Vero Beach, a Florida Municipality, Defendant, represented
by William Edward Lawton -- wlawton@drml-law.com -- Dean Ringers
Morgan & Lawton & Gail C. Bradford -- gbradford@drml-law.com --
Dean, Ringers, Morgan & Lawton, PA.


VIGILANT PRIVATE SECURITY: Aviles Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Vigilant Private
Security Inc. and its owner, Andrey Trybunalau, for alleged
violations of the California Labor Code, the California Business
and Professions Code, and the applicable Industrial Wage Orders.
The case is captioned JANICE AVILES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. VIGILANT PRIVATE
SECURITY INC., a California corporation; ANDREY TRYBUNALAU, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19CECG02630 (Cal. Super., July 17, 2019). Among other things,
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have violated the Labor Code
by failing to provide meal and rest periods; failing to furnish
accurate wage statements; and failing to maintain required
records.

Vigilant Private Security Inc. is engaged in the business of
providing private on-site security services throughout California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
     Gene Williams, Esq.
     Deborah P. Gutierrez, Esq.
     MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES, APLC
     11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
     Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
     Telephone: (310) 312-0299
     Facsimile: (310) 312-0296

VISA INC: Settlement Talks with Injunctive Relief Class Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that with respect to the Interchange
Multidistrict Litigation, settlement discussions with plaintiffs
purporting to act on behalf of the putative Injunctive Relief Class
are ongoing.

On January 16, 2019, the bank defendants moved to dismiss the
claims brought against them by the Injunctive Relief Class, on the
grounds that plaintiffs lack standing and fail to state a claim
against the bank defendants.

Meanwhile, on December 6, 2018, the district court held a hearing
on the Damages Class plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of
the Amended Settlement Agreement, and on January 24, 2019, the
district court granted preliminary approval of the deal.

On June 7, 2019, the Damages Class plaintiffs moved for final
approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement.

Certain merchants in the proposed settlement class have objected to
the settlement and/or submitted requests to opt out of the
settlement class.

Although the deadline to opt out of the settlement class was July
23, 2019, the class administrator had until August 7, 2019 to send
a final report indicating the number of merchants that chose to opt
out of the settlement class.

The district court is scheduled to hold a final settlement approval
hearing on November 7, 2019.

Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.


WASHINGTON: Troopers Sue Over Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
-------------------------------------------------------
Kiro 7 News reports that several Washington State Patrol troopers
are suing the Washington State Patrol as well as the Ford Motor
Company as part of a class-action lawsuit over carbon monoxide
poisoning.

The troopers claim they got sick while driving the patrol's Ford
Explorer police SUVs. One class action lawsuit filed against Ford
by six troopers August 7 said the SUVs have a defect that allows
exhaust fumes to get inside the passenger compartment.

Then overnight, five troopers filed another lawsuit against the
Washington State Patrol.

That lawsuit said the exhaust leak was not coming from aftermarket
changes made to the SUVs, but instead, from cracks in warped
exhaust pipes and other parts.

It also accuses WSP of knowing about the problem but not doing
anything about it and ordering troopers to keep driving the
vehicles.

It said in come cases, troopers were told to just "drive with your
windows down."

Some troopers say they've suffered permanent damage.

Randall Cashatt, one of the first troopers to come forward with
allegations in August 2017, said he remembered "thinking I was
going to die."

KIRO 7 spoke to Cashatt's wife in 2017 after the trooper got sick.
She said her husband was coming home from work after a shift, when
all of a sudden he was struggling ot stay conscious.

"He called me about 10:30 and was on his way home, not feeling
good. By the time I got to the ER, they had given him a drug to
calm him down because he was shaking so bad," said Robin Cashatt.

The lawsuit against WSP also says an Occupational Safety and Heath
Administration investigation showed troopers "relied on inadequate
home CO alarms to gauge their exposure," and didn't even know when
they were being exposed.

It says about 50 troopers in the state reported signs and symptoms
of exposure. [GN]


WAWA INC: Ordered to Pay $1.4MM to Settle OT Pay Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony G. Attrino, writing for NJ.com, reports that Wawa Inc. and
its owners were ordered to pay $1.4 million to settle a lawsuit
they intentionally short-changed more than 300 assistant general
managers on overtime and wages.

Anthony Gervasio, of Burlington County, and Michael Dinse, of Ocean
County, were part of a federal class action suit filed in January
2017 against the convenience store chain alleging they worked more
than 40 hours a week without receiving overtime as required by
federal law.

"As a retailer operating over 720 stores throughout the country,
(Wawa) knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that the (Fair Labor
Standards Act) required it to pay employees performing non-exempt
duties an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 per
week," attorneys stated in the lawsuit.

Gervasio, who worked for the chain from 2006 to 2016, brought the
suit on behalf of all assistant general managers who claimed they
were not compensated for all hours worked.

In court documents, Gervasio, of Riverside, claimed he worked an
average of 50 to 55 hours per week. Dinse, of Brick, who worked for
Wawa from 2009 to 2014, also claimed he worked up to 55 hours per
week, according to the suit.

The managers should not have been exempt from overtime laws because
their duties involved manual labor, customer service and other
non-exempt tasks, according to court documents.

New York attorneys from the firm Hepworth Gershbaum & Roth argued
Wawa knew the assistant general managers were not exempt from
federal overtime laws but tasked the managers with working overtime
anyway.

U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan, sitting in New Jersey, on July
31 approved a deal that requires Wawa and its parent company, Wild
Goose Holdings, to pay more than $1.4 million to 333 assistant
managers for improperly classifying them as overtime-exempt
employees.

Each of the workers in the suit from stores in New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Florida and Delaware will receive
an average of $86.74 for each week they worked, according to the
order.

A spokesperson for Wawa Inc. did not immediately respond to an
email seeking comment on Aug. 2. [GN]


WESTPAC BANKING: Maurice Blackburn Reviewing Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Tim Boyd, writing for Financial Review, reports that Maurice
Blackburn is reviewing its class action case against Australian
bank Westpac over alleged breaches of the bank's responsible
lending obligations, in light of the corporate regulator's similar
case against the bank being dismissed earlier.

"We have taken steps today to ensure the defendants don't incur
unnecessary costs as a result of our need to assess if the ASIC
decision will have any impact on how our case goes forward,"
Maurice Blackburn's class actions spokesman said on August 15
evening.

The deadline for Westpac to lodge its defence to the statement of
claim made in the case was August 15, but the bank did not lodge
that defence due to this assessment process being undertaken by the
law firm.

The parties will reconvene in court of September 5. The case is
being heard by Justice Nye Perram, the same judge who threw out the
Australian Securities and Investments Commission's case earlier
this week.

ASIC took Westpac to court over allegations it breached responsible
lending laws 261,987 times between 2011 and 2015. ASIC claimed
Westpac used a "frugal" benchmark -- the household expenditure
measure (HEM) -- to estimate potential borrowers' living expenses.

ASIC argued Westpac approved some loans using the HEM, when the
customers' actual declared expenses were higher than the
benchmark.

However, Justice Perram dismissed the case in the Federal Court. In
his scathing judgment, he said parts of ASIC's case were
irrelevant, easily dispatched and incoherent.

A key part of the judgment was Justice Perram dispatching the
argument that a consumer's declared living expenses should be key
to assessing whether they could meet their loan obligations.

"The problem for ASIC's argument is that the mere fact that there
are living expenses is not necessarily relevant to whether a
consumer will be unable to comply with their loan obligations
because it is always possible that some of the living expenses
might be forgone by the consumer in order to meet the repayments,"
Justice Perram said.

"The fact that the consumer spends $100 per month on caviar throws
no light on whether a given loan will put the consumer into
circumstances of substantial hardship."

The lead plaintiffs in the Maurice Blackburn class action are Ian
and Michelle Tate, who lost almost $430,000 after buying two
investment properties in Darwin and Mudgee and blamed Westpac for
failing to assess their home loan applications properly.

Maurice Blackburn is representing the Tates and others and the case
is being funded by Harbour Litigation Funding. The class action was
open to customers who took out a mortgage with Westpac or one of
its subsidiaries, St George, RAMS, Bank of Melbourne and BankSA
since 2011.

Westpac declined to comment on the class action case, the first to
be launched on the back of the financial services royal commission.
[GN]


WURKWEL VENTURES: Faces Class Action Over Biometrics Law Violation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reports that an office furniture seller and its
corporate parent has been hit with a class action lawsuit, accusing
it of violating an Illinois biometric privacy law by requiring
workers to scan their fingerprints when punching the time clock
each shift.

On July 22, Arturo N. Bedolla filed a class action complaint in
Cook County Circuit Court against his ex-employer, Office Furniture
LLC, as well as Wurkwel Ventures LLC.  The lawsuit accuses the
companies of violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act by making workers use a so-called biometric time clock to track
their work hours.

The complaint asserts Office Furniture and Wurkwel did not first
get written consent from the workers before establishing the
biometric time keeping system to authenticate workers' hours for
payroll.

The complaint said the defendants also did not disclose to workers
how the information was being stored and how it would be destroyed.


Bedolla's class action seeks a declaration that the defendants
violated BIPA and statutory damages of $1,000-$5,000 for each
violation, plus attorney fees and other relief.

Bedolla is represented by attorneys William P.N. Kingston, Esq. and
Jad Sheikali, Esq. of McGuire Law P.C., of Chicago. [GN]


XEROX CORP: Dismissal Order in Firefighters Fund Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit has entered a summary order
affirming the district court's judgment dismissing the case,
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Xerox
Corporation, Ursula M. Burns, Luca Maestri, Kathryn A. Mikells,
Lynn R. Blodgett, Robert K. Zapfel, David H. Bywater and Mary
Scanlon complaint.

On October 21, 2016, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System ("plaintiff") filed a purported securities class
action complaint against Xerox Corporation, Ursula Burns, Luca
Maestri, Kathryn Mikells, Lynn Blodgett and Robert Zapfel
(collectively, "defendants") in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of the plaintiff and
certain purchasers or acquirers of Xerox common stock.

The complaint alleged that defendants made false and misleading
statements, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, relating to the
operations and prospects of Xerox's Health Enterprise business.

Plaintiff sought, among other things, unspecified monetary damages
and attorneys' fees. Other, similar lawsuits may follow.

On December 28, 2016, the Court entered a stipulated order setting
out a schedule for amendment of the complaint and for defendants'
response to that complaint following the Court's appointment of
lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.


On February 28, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order
appointing the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System
("APERS") as lead plaintiff. On May 1, 2017, APERS filed an amended
complaint, alleging substantially similar claims and seeking
substantially similar relief, but adding David Bywater and Mary
Scanlon as defendants.

On June 30, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, and the motions were fully briefed on October 13, 2017.
On March 20, 2018, the Court entered an opinion and order granting
the motions, and on March 23, 2018, the Court entered a judgment of
dismissal and closed the case.

On April 20, 2018, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the appeal was fully
briefed as of November 28, 2018.

The Second Circuit heard oral argument on May 31, 2019. On June 6,
2019, the Second Circuit entered a summary order affirming the
district court's judgment dismissing the complaint.

Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management
systems and solutions worldwide. It offers intelligent workplace
services, including managed print services; digitization services;
and digital solutions, such as workflow automation, personalization
and communication software, and content management. Xerox
Corporation was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk,
Connecticut.


XEROX CORP: Ribbe Suit over Fuji Transaction Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a putative derivative and class action stockholder complaint
initiated by Carmen Ribbe.

On April 11, 2019, Carmen Ribbe filed a putative derivative and
class action stockholder complaint in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York for New York County, naming as defendants Xerox,
current Board members Gregory Q. Brown, Joseph J. Echevarria,
Cheryl Gordon Krongard, Sara Martinez Tucker, Keith Cozza, Giovanni
G. Visentin, Jonathan Christodoro, Nicholas Graziano, and A. Scott
Letier, and former Board members Jeffrey Jacobson, William Curt
Hunter, Robert J. Keegan, Charles Prince, Ann N. Reese, and Stephen
H. Rusckowski.

Plaintiff previously filed a putative shareholder derivative
lawsuit on May 24, 2018 against certain of these defendants, as
well as others, in the same court; that lawsuit was dismissed
without prejudice on December 6, 2018.

The new complaint includes putative derivative claims on behalf of
Xerox for breach of fiduciary duty against the members of the Xerox
Board who approved Xerox's entry into agreements to settle the
Deason and In re Xerox Corporation Consolidated Shareholder
Litigation ("XCCSL") actions. Plaintiff alleges that the
settlements ceded control of the Board and the Company to Darwin
Deason and Carl C. Icahn without a vote by, or compensation to,
other Xerox stockholders; improperly provided certain benefits and
releases to the resigning and continuing directors; and subjected
Xerox to potential breach of contract damages in an action by Fuji
relating to Xerox's termination of the proposed Fuji Transaction.

Plaintiff also alleges that the current Board members breached
their fiduciary duties by allegedly rejecting plaintiff's January
14, 2019 shareholder demand on the Board to remedy harms arising
from entry into the Deason and XCCSL settlements.

The new complaint further includes direct claims for breach of
fiduciary duty on behalf of a putative class of current Xerox
stockholders other than Mr. Deason, Mr. Icahn, and their affiliated
entities (the "Ribbe Class") against the defendants for causing
Xerox to enter into the Deason and XCCSL settlements, which
plaintiff alleges perpetuated control of Xerox by Mr. Icahn and Mr.
Deason and denied the voting franchise of Xerox shareholders.

Among other things, plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified
amount for the alleged fiduciary breaches in favor of Xerox against
defendants jointly and severally; rescission or reformation of the
Deason and XCCSL settlements; restitution of funds paid to the
resigning directors under the Deason settlement; an injunction
against defendants' engaging in the alleged wrongful practices and
equitable relief affording the putative Ribbe Class the ability to
determine the composition of the Board; costs and attorneys' fees;
and other further relief as the Court may deem proper.

Defendants accepted service of the complaint as of May 16, 2019. On
June 4, 2019, the Court entered an order setting a briefing
schedule for defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint.  

On July 12, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to preclude defendants
from referencing in their motions to dismiss the formation of, or
work by, the committee of the Board established to investigate
plaintiff’s shareholder demand.  

On July 18, 2019, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and adjourned
sine die the deadline by which defendants must file any motions to
dismiss the complaint. Xerox will vigorously defend against this
matter.

Xerox Corp said, "At this time, it is premature to make any
conclusion regarding the probability of incurring material losses
in this litigation. Should developments cause a change in our
determination as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final
adverse judgment or settlement, there could be a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, cash flows and financial
position in the period in which such change in determination,
judgment, or settlement occurs."

Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management
systems and solutions worldwide. It offers intelligent workplace
services, including managed print services; digitization services;
and digital solutions, such as workflow automation, personalization
and communication software, and content management. Xerox
Corporation was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk,
Connecticut.


XEROX CORP: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 6
-------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court has set
September 6, 2019 as the hearing date on putative class plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and settlement approval in the
merger-related class action suit.

In February 2018, five complaints (the "Fuji Transaction
Shareholder Lawsuits"), including four putative class actions
(which have been consolidated), were filed by Xerox shareholders in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the
"Court") in connection with the proposed transaction to combine
Xerox and Fuji Xerox (the "Fuji Transaction").

All of the complaints name as defendants Xerox, its directors, and
FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation ("Fujifilm').

The complaint in one of the actions also names as a defendant
Ursula M. Burns, the former Chief Executive Officer of Xerox.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Xerox's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating, approving, and
purportedly making false and misleading disclosures about the Fuji
Transaction, and that Fujifilm aided and abetted those breaches.

The complaint in one of the actions further alleges that Xerox and
the director defendants engaged in common law fraud by purportedly
failing to disclose information about the joint venture agreements
between Xerox and Fujifilm.

The Fuji Transaction Shareholder Lawsuits seek injunctive relief
preventing the previously proposed transactions, and/or additional
disclosures by Xerox's directors, unspecified damages from Xerox's
directors, costs and attorneys’ fees, as well as other relief.

One of the Fuji Transaction Shareholder Lawsuits was brought by
Darwin Deason, a Xerox shareholder ("Deason I").

Another complaint was filed by Mr. Deason against Xerox and its
directors in the same Court on March 2, 2018 ("Deason II") alleging
that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by refusing Mr.
Deason's request for a waiver of the deadline for nomination of a
new slate of Xerox directors.

In Deason II, Mr. Deason sought to enjoin Xerox and its directors
from enforcing Xerox's advance notice by-laws, thereby allowing Mr.
Deason to proceed with the nominations, as well as costs, fees, and
other relief.

On April 27, 2018, the Court issued decisions and orders granting
plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motions, which (i) enjoined
Xerox from "taking any further action to consummate the change of
control transaction between Xerox and Fuji that was announced on
January 31, 2018 pending a final determination of the claims
asserted in the underlying action;" (ii) enjoined Xerox from
enforcing its advance notice bylaw provision requiring shareholders
to nominate directors for election at the 2018 annual shareholder
meeting by December 11, 2017; and (iii) required Xerox to waive
such advance notice bylaw provision to permit the noticing of a
slate of director nominees for election at the 2018 annual
shareholder meeting, and denying defendants' motions to dismiss.

On May 1, 2018, Xerox entered into a Director Appointment,
Nomination and Settlement Agreement (the "Initial Settlement
Agreement") with Mr. Deason and Carl C. Icahn and certain of his
affiliates who were also Xerox shareholders (the "Icahn Group"),
among others, that would have resolved Deason I, Deason II and the
pending proxy contest in connection with Xerox’s 2018 Annual
Meeting of Shareholders.
The Initial Settlement Agreement expired by its terms on May 3,
2018 without becoming effective.

On May 7, 2018, defendants filed with the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department,
notices of appeal of, and motions to stay pending appeal, the lower
Court's decision and order.

Defendants also moved the appellate court for interim relief
ordering that the appeal be heard on an expedited basis. At a
hearing before the appellate court on May 7, 2018, the appellate
court ruled that the appeals would be heard on an expedited basis
and granted a partial interim stay allowing Xerox and Fujifilm to
take steps to seek regulatory approvals related to the Fuji
Transaction pending a ruling from the appellate court on
defendants' motions to stay pending appeal.

On May 13, 2018, a second Director Appointment, Nomination and
Settlement Agreement (the "Final Settlement Agreement") with
respect to Deason I, Deason II and the pending proxy contest in
connection with Xerox's 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders that
was initiated by the Icahn Group was signed on behalf of Mr.
Deason, the Icahn Group and all defendants except Fujifilm, and a
memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of the putative
class case was signed by all defendants except Fujifilm.

Pursuant to the settlements, the settling defendants withdrew their
appeal and motion to stay in Deason I and Deason II.

The settling defendants also withdrew their motion to stay in the
putative class case. The Court entered a stipulation of
discontinuance as to the settling parties in Deason II on May 14,
2018, and agreed on June 22, 2018 to do the same in Deason I.

On June 14, 2018, Fujifilm filed answers in Deason I and the
putative class case, along with cross-claims against the members of
the Xerox Board (as constituted before May 13, 2018) and a
third-party complaint against Xerox director Jonathan Christodoro,
seeking contribution for any potential award against Fujifilm for
aiding and abetting purported breaches of fiduciary duties.

On June 19, 2018, the putative class plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of a stipulation of settlement that would
resolve the claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the putative class
case against all defendants, other than Fujifilm. Carmen Ribbe, the
plaintiff in the below derivative action, and Fujifilm filed
oppositions to the motion on July 10, 2018.

On June 22, 2018, the Court entered an order denying a joint motion
by the putative class plaintiffs and the settling defendants to
dissolve the injunction in the putative class case as against the
settling defendants, and entered an order denying Fujifilm’s
motion to dissolve the injunctions in the putative class case and
Deason I in their entirety.

On July 16, 2018, the Court held a hearing concerning the putative
class plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
in the putative class case. The Court indicated that it was not
inclined to consider motions for approval of the settlement prior
to considering whether the putative class should be certified.

On August 2, 2018, the Appellate Division entered orders
recognizing the Xerox defendants' withdrawal of their appeal in the
Deason cases and denying all appellants' motions to stay pending
determination of appeals in the Deason and putative class cases.

On August 2, 2018, the Appellate Division entered orders (i) at
their request, deeming withdrawn the Xerox defendants' appeal and
motion to stay in the Deason cases; (ii) upon their request,
deeming withdrawn the Xerox defendants' motion to stay, pending
determination of appeal, the putative class case; and (iii) denying
Fujifilm's motion to stay pending determination of its appeals in
the Deason and putative case cases.

On September 21, 2018, putative class plaintiffs filed a motion for
certification of a settlement class and a motion to transmit notice
of the proposed settlement to the proposed class.

On October 17, 2018, derivative plaintiff Carmen Ribbe and Fujifilm
filed oppositions to the putative class plaintiffs’ motion to
transmit notice to the proposed class. The class has not yet been
certified, and preliminary approval has not been granted.

The Appellate Division heard oral argument on September 25, 2018 on
Fujifilm's appeal of the Court's decision. On October 16, 2018, the
Appellate Division entered a decision and order reversing the
Court's rulings, ordering that the claims brought against Fujifilm
in the cases by Mr. Deason and the purported class be dismissed,
and further ordering that the preliminary injunction of the
proposed Fuji Transaction be dissolved (the "Appellate Decision and
Order").

On November 15, 2018, the putative class plaintiffs filed with the
Appellate Division a motion seeking the opportunity to reargue
Fujifilm's appeal or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal the
Appellate Decision and Order to the New York State Court of
Appeals.

On December 6, 2018, pursuant to the Appellate Decision and Order,
the Court entered a judgment dismissing the complaints against
Fujifilm in Deason I and the putative class case. The Court further
issued orders denying the putative class plaintiffs’ motion for
class certification, without prejudice to renewing the motion after
the outcome of any appeals of the Appellate Decision and Order.

On January 8, 2019, the Court entered an order staying all further
proceedings in Deason I and the putative class case until thirty
days after exhaustion of appeals, including any appeals to the New
York State Court of Appeals, of the Appellate Decision and Order.

On January 9, 2019, the Court entered an order denying the putative
class plaintiffs' motion to transmit notice to the proposed class,
without prejudice to renewal of their motion at a later time.

On October 31, 2018 and January 3, 2019, respectively, Xerox and
the Xerox director defendants in the putative class case filed with
the Appellate Division a request and motion seeking an extension,
until after any decision regarding approval of settlement of the
putative class action, of the deadline by which to perfect their
appeal of the Court's April 27, 2018 decision and order. On May 16,
2019, the Appellate Division entered an order granting the motion
and extended the deadline until the October 2019 Term.

On February 21, 2019, the Appellate Division issued an order
denying the putative class plaintiffs' motion seeking to reargue
Fujifilm's appeal or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal the
Appellate Decision and Order to the New York State Court of
Appeals.

No further notice of appeal was filed, and the Appellate Decision
and Order became final and unappealable on March 26, 2019.

On May 3, 2019, putative class plaintiffs filed a renewed motion
for approval of the form of a notice to putative class members.  On
May 6, 2019, putative class plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for
class certification and notice of motion to approve class
settlement and proposed final approval order.   On May 24, 2019,
the Court entered an order approving the form notice and proposed
manner of its dissemination.

On June 6, 2019, the Court entered an order pursuant to which
plaintiffs submitted their motion to approve attorneys' fees and
expenses on July 19, 2019; requiring filing of any objections to or
opt-outs from the proposed putative class settlement by August 9,
2019; and setting September 6, 2019 for its hearing on putative
class plaintiffs' motion for class certification and settlement
approval.

Xerox will vigorously defend these lawsuits to the extent that the
proceedings continue as to Xerox.

Xerox Corp. said, "At this time, however, it is premature to make
any conclusion regarding the probability of incurring material
losses in these lawsuits. Should developments cause a change in our
determination as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final
adverse judgment or settlement, there could be a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, cash flows and financial
position in the period in which such change in determination,
judgment, or settlement occurs."

Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management
systems and solutions worldwide. It offers intelligent workplace
services, including managed print services; digitization services;
and digital solutions, such as workflow automation, personalization
and communication software, and content management. Xerox
Corporation was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk,
Connecticut.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: 9th Circuit Revives Evans Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation, National Association said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has reversed the trial
court's order of dismissal in Evans v. CB&T.

A civil class action lawsuit, Evans v. CB&T, brought against the
company in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California in May 2017.

This case was filed on behalf of a class of up to 50 investors in
International Manufacturing Group (IMG) and seeks to hold the
company liable for losses of class members arising from their
investments in IMG, alleging that the company conspired with and
knowingly assisted IMG and its principal in furtherance of an
alleged Ponzi scheme.

In December 2017, the District Court dismissed all claims against
the Bank. In January 2018, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The appeal was heard in early April 2019 with the Court of Appeals
reversing the trial court's dismissal. It is likely that trial will
not occur for a substantial period of time.

Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking
and related services primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was formerly known as ZB, National Association
and changed its name to Zions Bancorporation, National Association
in September 2018. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was
founded in 1873 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.


[*] Globalstar Expects to Receive $3.7MM from Accord in Jan. 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Globalstar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that it expects to receive in January 2020 the final
installment of $3.7 million related to a business economic loss
claim in which it was an absent member in a tort class action
lawsuit.

In May 2018, the Company concluded the settlement of a business
economic loss claim in which it was an absent member in a tort
class action lawsuit. The Company is due proceeds of $7.4 million,
net of legal fees, related to this settlement. The Company received
the first installment of $3.7 million in January 2019. The final
installment of $3.7 million is expected to be received in January
2020 and is recorded in prepaid expenses and other current assets
on the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheet at March 31,
2019.

During the second quarter of 2018, the Company recorded the present
value of the proceeds of $6.8 million and a discount of $0.6
million. The present value of the net proceeds of $6.8 million was
recorded in other income on the Company's condensed consolidated
statement of operations. The discount of $0.6 million was recorded
on the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheet and is being
accreted to interest income over the term of the receivable using
the effective interest method.

Globalstar, Inc., provides Mobile Satellite Services (MMS)
including voice and data communications services globally via
satellite.  The Company offers voice and data communication
services over its network of in-orbit satellites and active ground
stations (or gateways).


[*] More Than 2,000 Opioid Suits Consolidated Under Ohio Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Wagner, writing for The Polk County Standard Journal, reports
that Polk County is no stranger to the problems of opioid
addiction. Now real figures to how many pills came through the
county and those surrounding are available to the public thanks to
an Ohio class action lawsuit.

During a seven year period from 2006 to 2012, Polk County received
24,436,350 pills, enough for 84 pills per person each year.

That math is based on census figures from the 2010 count that put
the population at 41,475. Usually that would be enough for a
30-count prescription to be filled at least twice.

According to information from the case, the top three pharmacies
were Bradford Drug Store, at 4.5 million pills; CVS in Cedartown,
3.7 million; and Smith-Lockwood Drug Store, 2.8 million during that
seven year time frame.

The volume of shipments is one reason why area officials Rome City
and Floyd County commissioners decided in 2018 to join other
Northwest Georgia jurisdictions in a lawsuit contending the
companies used deceptive practices to fuel an epidemic of
addiction. Polk County also joined in that suit.

More than 2,000 lawsuits from around the nation have been
consolidated under the Ohio case.

Shipments of hydrocodone and oxycodone to nearby counties paint a
similarly bleak picture.

Others who received big orders during that period included Gordon
County with 16 million; Chattooga County logged 11.5 million;
Bartow County got 33 million; Catoosa County received 25.6 million;
and Walker County was supplied with 18.5 million hydrocodone and
oxycodone pills.

Local officials are seeking compensation for the cost to their
communities along with funds to abate the damage.

That's not just the cost of medical care for people who've
experienced opioid-related addictions, diseases, overdoses and
deaths, according to the suit being spearheaded by Rome attorneys
Andy Davis and Bob Finnell.

It also includes treatment, counseling and rehabilitation services
for the addicts; foster and other care for children whose parents
are disabled or incapacitated by addiction; and the additional
strain on law enforcement, public safety and the courts.

Davis said records of the pill shipments are in a U.S. Drug
Enforcement Agency database called ARCOS, which monitors the flow
of controlled substances from the manufacturer to the point of
sale. The data was under a court-ordered seal until last month, at
the request of the government and drug industry..

The Washington Post and HD Media won a year-long legal battle for
access to the data and made it public, along with a series of
reports putting the volume of shipments in context.

They're still fighting for DEA data for 2013 and 2014, which remain
under seal in the multi-district litigation case being heard by
U.S. District Court Judge Dan Polster of the Northern District of
Ohio.

The Post also analyzed the nearly 380 million transactions to
create a more manageable database and made it available to
researchers and other journalists. It doesn't include data on 10
other opioids that were shipped at lower levels than oxycodone and
hydrocodone.

In Georgia, more than 2.2 billion pills were shipped to retail
consumers from 2006 to 2012.

Here's a more detailed look at what happened in the northwest
region:

Floyd County's 50.5 million pills were enough for each man, woman
and child to have 75 pills a year. The top three pharmacies
receiving the shipments were Walgreen, at more than 4 million;
Winslette Pharmacy, 3.9 million; and McGowan-Jones Pharmacy in
Shannon, 3.7 million.

Gordon County received enough for 42 pills per person per year:
16,076,190 oxycodone and hydrocodone pills. The top three
pharmacies were Harbin's Prescription Shop, 4 million; CVS in
Calhoun, 2.3 million; and Kroger, 1.7 million.

Chattooga County consumers shared 11,569,850 pills, enough for each
person to have 63 a year. The top three pharmacies were CVS in
Summerville, 3.8 million; Trion Drugs, 3.2 million; and WalMart,
2.2 million.

Bartow County's shipments totaled 33,039,206 pills, enough for each
resident to have 48 a year. The top three receiving pharmacies were
Eckerd in Cartersville, 3.6 million; Holt's Pharmacy, 3.5 million;
and Adairsville Drug, 2.6 million.

Walker County received 18,574,876 pills, a supply of 39 pills per
person per year. The top three pharmacies were Rocky Top Pharmacy
in Rossville, 4.9 million; Ledfords Rx Express, 3.1 million; and
CVS in LaFayette, 2.6 million.

Catoosa County got 25,625,360 pills, equal to a yearly supply of 58
pills per person. The top three pharmacies were Walgreen in Fort
Oglethorpe, 6.1 million; WalMart in Fort Oglethorpe, 2.7 million;
and CVS in Ringgold, 2.6 million. [GN]


[*] Securities Class Action Filings Impact D&O Insurance Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Property Casualty 360, reports that
general counsel today are looking at a more than 5% chance that
their companies will be sued this year due to a drop in stock
price, according to a new report.

The Securities Class Action Filings -- 2019 Midyear Assessment,
released on Aug. 1 by Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law
School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse, shows that plaintiffs
filed 198 new federal securities class actions in the first half of
2019. The number of filings continued this year at a near record
level.

"The likelihood of a lawsuit of this type has increased
substantially over the last 10 years," said Sasha Aganin, vice
president of Cornerstone Research and co-author of the report. "If
you go back to 2010, the likelihood was slightly above 2%. Now it's
above 5%." And even higher for Standard & Poor's 500 firms at
6.4%.

Aganin said the increased number of filings carry a financial
impact beyond the mere cost of litigation and settlements.

"I'm sure the companies are feeling the pain in terms of higher
insurance premiums," he said, "particularly in cases related to
public offerings."

Insurance impact
Kevin LaCroix, an attorney and executive vice president of RT
ProExec, an insurance intermediary that focuses on management
liability issues, said, "It is definitely true that director and
officer insurance pricing has been going up over the past 12 to 18
months."

Both he and Aganin said the price increases were driven by the
sheer number of suits, plus the increased number of filings in
state courts following the U.S. Supreme Court's Cyan Inc. decision
last year.

The data show that state courts dismiss fewer of these claims than
do federal courts, making state courts more attractive for filing.

LaCroix said he would advise general counsel "to start working
early on your [insurance] renewal, and to be prepared for it not to
be so smooth and frictionless as it has in the past." He predicted
the life sciences and technology sectors, along with non-U.S.
companies that are listed in the U.S., will likely see the most
significant rate increases.

Brian Lutz, a litigation partner in the San Francisco and New York
offices of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and co-chair the firm's national
securities litigation practice, said several factors are driving
the high level of filings.

"First, in a period of significant market volatility, plaintiff's
lawyers are seizing on any movement in a company's stock price as
an opportunity to assert a claim for securities fraud," Lutz said.
"And second, plaintiff's lawyers are continuing to file lawsuits
challenging virtually every public company merger."

Lutz said if a company's stock price declines, even modestly, for
any reason, general counsel should "know that enterprising
plaintiff's lawyers are paying attention and searching for any
basis to assert a securities fraud lawsuit. It's important to have
a response plan in place in order to not be caught off-guard by
litigation." [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***