CAR_Public/190828.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, August 28, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 172

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Faces Patrick Suit Over Faulty Earplugs Sold to Army
58 WEST LLC: Alvarado Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages
ABLE CONTRACTING: Class Action Filed Against Landfill Owner
ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS: Faces O'Brien Class Suit in Delaware
ACER THERAPEUTICS: Zhang Investor Files Class Action Lawsuit

ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Sept. 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ADMIN RECOVERY: Rosenberg Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
AFFILION, LLC: Armijo et al Suit Moved to District of New Mexico
ALLERGAN PLC: Class Suit After Rare Cancer Linked to Implants

ALLIED NEVADA: Court Rules on Doc Requests in Securities Suit
ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Leavitt Class Suit Pending
AVANOS MEDICAL: Appeal in Jackson Class Suit Pending
BOK FINANCIAL: BOKF Still Faces Suit in Oklahoma on Overdraft Fees
BOK FINANCIAL: BOKF Still Faces Suit in Texas over Extended Fee

CAMPING WORLD: Bid to Dismiss Geis Suit Underway
CAPITAL ONE: Materna Sues Over Data Breach
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Weaver Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
CHARLESTON PLACE: Hooker Files FLSA Suit in South Carolina
CITY GATES: Guillen Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL

COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Still Defends Class Suit in New Jersey
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Seeks 6th Cir. Review of Ruling in Norfolk Suit
COOK COUNTY, IL: Brown's Bid to Certify Class of APDs Granted
COOK COUNTY, IL: Class of Female Workers Certified in Howard Suit
COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Tabizon Class Suit Moved to E.D. Tenn.

CRC PROPERTY: Denied Workers Proper Wages, Jimenez Suit Says
DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Court Dismisses D. Bingman's Suit
DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Court Dismisses R. Waller's Suit
DIVERSIFIED I: Puerta Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
ECHOHILL: Payne Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

ESSA BANCORP: Bank Unit Still Faces Suit over RESPA Violations
EVERI HOLDINGS: Faces Donahue Class Suit
EVERI HOLDINGS: Faces Rehman Putative Class Suit
EVERI HOLDINGS: Jessop Class Action Underway
EVOLENT HEALTH: Faces Putative Class Action Complaint in Virginia

EVOQUA WATER: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in New York Pending
EXTENDED STAY: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suits in California
FARMER'S DOG: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FARMERS GROUP: Court Narrows Production of Documents in Grigson
FCA US: W. Hightman's Action Transferred to S.D.N.Y

FEDEX CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
FIAT-CHRYSLER: Fix for Jeep 'Death Wobble' Following Class Action
FIDELITY NATIONAL: 401(k) Plan Related Suit v. Reliance Ongoing
FIFTH THIRD: Court Grants Bid to Conditionally Certify Class
FRONT PORCH: Raines Suit Removed to S.D. California

FUNCTION INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Gutierrez Suit Over Defective Transmissions
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid for Class Cert. in Interest Rate Suit Underway
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Altice USA IPO-Related Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss VRDO-Related Suit Pending

GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in SunEdison Suit Receives Initial OK
GREAT TENNESSEE PIZZA: Drivers Seek Proper Expense Reimbursements
HV OCCUPATIONAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Hayes Alleges
IDEAL CONCRETE: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA/NYLL, Mejia Says
IRVING HOLDINGS: Kalenga Hits Misclassification, Unpaid Overtime

JIM'S FORMAL WEAR: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JUUL LABS: Murphy Files Suit Over Injuries Caused by E-cigarettes
KEEFE COMMISSARY: Rapid Appeals Ruling in Reichert to 9th Cir.
KEEFE COMMISSARY: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Reichert Suit
KORNIT DIGITAL: Rosen Probe of Securities Claims Ongoing

KROGER CO: Court Dismisses D. Brooks TCPA Suit
LYONS DOUGHTY: 3d Cir. Flips Dismissal of FDCPA Suit
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Solomon Suit Still Stayed
MATTEL, INC.: Black Suit Moved to Western District of New York
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Suits in US & Canada

MDL 2807: $4.325MM Class Settlement Has Final Approval
MDL 2904: Chuha Suit v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2904: Ocasio Suit v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2904: Raben Suit v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated
MEALS ON WHEELS: Marcos Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION: Harris Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers
MERCHCO SERVICES: Bresko Moves to Certify Retail Employees Class
MEXICAN HOSPITALITY: Perez Sues Over Improper Wages Under FLSA
MIRA SUSHI INC: Xi Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
MOBILITY MEDICAL: Vilanova Seeks to Certify Class

MOSAIC COMPANY: Examination in Uberaba EHS Class Action Pending
MRS BPO: 3rd Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in DiNaples Suit
NCAA: 9th Cir. Affirms Dawson's FLSA Suit Dismissal
NY TEX CARE: Filed Fraudulent Tax Info, Francisco Suit Says
ONONDAGA COUNTY, NY: Young Offenders Class Certified in J.B. Suit

OUTREACH STRATEGISTS: Canvassers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
PABST BREWING: Court OKs Telephonic Appearance in Peacock Suit
PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Allen Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
PLAZA FOUR-TEN: Accused by Metcalf of Not Paying Exotic Dancers
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Neff Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach

POSTURE WORKS: Class Suit Initiated by Morton Grove Terminated
PRINTFUL INC: Aparicio Sues over Wrongful Termination
QED INT'L.: Bid to Conditionally Certify Class in Felder Denied
RECOVERY CONNECTIONS: Court OKs Class Notice in Presson Wage Suit
RED PAYMENTS: B. Roller Action Transferred to E.D.N.Y.

RICK CASE: Turizo Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
ROADRUNNER TRANS: Gomez Class Suit in California Ongoing
SABER HEALTHCARE: 4th Cir. Vacates Remand of Pfohl Suit
SCHELL & KAMPETER: Court Extends Time to Answer TAC in Classick
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Naiman Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing

SHAMROCK TOWING: Class Action Filed Over Illegal Towing
SHANGHAI ORIGINAL: Court Decertifies Class in Jin NYLL Suit
SLEEPY'S LLC: Hargrove Appeals D.N.J. Decision to Third Circuit
STEWART BUILDERS: Conditional Certification Bid in Sheffield Denied
SYNCHRONOSS TECH: NJ Consolidated Class Suit Ongoing

SYNEOS HEALTH: Appointment of Lead Counsel and Plaintiff Pending
SYNEOS HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Vaitkuviene Class Suit Still Pending
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Approval of Settlement in Haskett Suit Affirmed
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Set to Approve Class Action Settlement
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Probing Potential Securities Suit

UNITED STATES: Hawaii Court Dismissal of A. Pauline's Suit
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Court Extends Management Deadlines in Samson
UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Lawrence Suit
VERDE ENERGY: Sued by Panzer for Deceiving Consumers in Penn.
VILLAGE FORD: Flores Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls

VIVINT INC: Rosenbloom Sues Over TCPA Violation
WAL-MART INC: Adolphus Sues Over Misleading Ads for Payment Service
WHEATFIELD, NY: Second Circuit Appeal Initiated in Andres Suit
WINGED FOOT: Clune Appeals Opinion and Order to Second Circuit
YOUNIQUE LLC: Schmitt Seeks Prelim. Nod of Class Settlement


                            *********

3M COMPANY: Faces Patrick Suit Over Faulty Earplugs Sold to Army
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY PATRICK, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. 3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO
INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO LLC, and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-02971-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla., Aug. 8, 2019), arising out of the
Plaintiff's use of the Defendants' dangerously designed and
defective Dual-ended Combat Arms earplugs (Version 2 CAEv.2).

Mr. Patrick, who served in the United States Army from
approximately 1996 - 2014, seeks to receive appropriate
audiological care and other declaratory relief they require as a
direct and proximate result of the negligent and wrongful conduct
of the Defendants in connection with its development, design,
promotion, and sale of 3M Dual-ended Combat Arms earplugs (Version
2 CAEv.2) ("3M Dual-ended Combat Arms earplugs" or "Dual-ended
Combat Arms earplugs").

3M Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in
St. Paul, Minnesota.  3M Occupational Safety LLC is a Delaware
limited liability company and is a citizen of Delaware and
Minnesota.  The other Defendants are subsidiaries of 3M Company.

Among other things, the Defendants are in the business of
designing, manufacturing, and selling worker safety products,
including hearing protectors.  The Defendants have dominant market
share in virtually every safety product market, including hearing
protection.

The Defendants designed, promoted, and sold 3M Dual-ended Combat
Arms earplugs to the United States Armed Forces ("USAF") that were
negligently and defectively designed and for which Defendant failed
to provide adequate information and warnings concerning their
safety, effectiveness, and the potential for failure to create and
maintain an acoustic seal leading to hearing loss and
tinnitus.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary S. Bower, Esq.
          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Mark M. Makhail, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 0706-1739
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: zbower@carellabyrne.com
                  jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  mmakhail@carellabyrne.com


58 WEST LLC: Alvarado Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
CARLOS RODRIGUEZ ALVARADO, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 58 WEST LLC d/b/a LOI
ESTIATORIO, ALEX ANTIMISIARIS, and MARIA LOI, jointly and
severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07694 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 16,
2019) is a complaint pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and the N.Y. Lab. Law, alleging that Defendants are
liable to the Plaintiff and Party Plaintiffs for unpaid or
underpaid (1) minimum wages, (2) overtime compensation, (3)
spread-of-hours wages, (4) other wages not timely paid, and such
other relief available by law.

The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
approximately between 69 and 70 hours per week yet the Defendants
willfully failed to pay the applicable minimum wage, overtime
compensation of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay,
and spread-of-hours compensation, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants at Loi Restaurant from
approximately August 2011 until it closed and then was re-hired to
work at Loi Estiarotio in 2015.

Defendants' business is a full-service restaurant doing business as
Loi Estiatorio and located at 132 West 58th St, New York, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
     277 Broadway, Suite 408
     New York, NY 10007-2036
     Phone: (212) 229-2249
     Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
     Email: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


ABLE CONTRACTING: Class Action Filed Against Landfill Owner
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wright Gazaway, writing for WTOC, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Able Contracting, the company
responsible for a trash pile that's been burning since June 2019.

It accuses the site owner of being negligent.  The lawsuit is filed
on behalf of a nearby construction company.  However, the class
action nature of it covers anyone who works or lives nearby.

The suit, filed Aug. 16, 2019, accuses Able Contracting of,
"creating a dangerous environment and damages to individuals, their
health, and their property interest." It says the nearby businesses
and property owners suffered "personal injury, lost revenue, and
decreased property value."

Lawyers accuse the landfill owner of not properly maintaining the
debris and of failing to prevent a fire. Furthermore, it says the
owner failed to use caution the way a, "reasonable and prudent
business would have used under the circumstances."

The suing party demanded a jury trial. Able Contracting has 30 days
to respond. WTOC has reached out to the affected parties in the
lawsuit, but have not heard back.

The 45-foot pile of debris continues to burn in the meantime. One
resident we spoke to has given up hope of ever being able to return
to her home.

"It's over, and the more they search and dig, the more they're
going to find, and there's no telling how far this contamination or
whatever; there's no telling how deep and wide it is, and I've just
prepared myself for the worst," Carina Cruiel said.

State Senator Tom Davis toured the site on August 16.

"The size of the problem was really stunning. Second to that, once
we get the thing under control, once we get the fire stopped and
make sure there's no contaminates into the water shed, once we get
the site, you know, the site cleaned up and the debris moved
elsewhere, we then need to go ahead and turn and hold the private
company responsible for this accountable," Sen. Davis said. [GN]


ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS: Faces O'Brien Class Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Acacia Communications, 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 has been
named as a defendant in a purported class action suit initiated by
Robert O'Brien.

On July 8, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Cisco Systems, Inc., a
California corporation (the "Parent"), and Amarone Acquisition
Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Parent (the "Merger Sub").

A purported class action lawsuit was filed by Robert O'Brien
against the Company and each of its directors on August 5, 2019 in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

The complaint makes similar allegations as the John Jiang action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, asserts that the individual defendants entered into the
proposed merger through a flawed and unfair process, failed to take
steps to maximize the value of the Company to its public
stockholders, and accepted an offer to sell the Company at a price
that fails to reflect the true value of the Company.

The plaintiff also asserts that the defendants disseminated a false
and misleading proxy statement in connection with the proposed
merger.

The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duties and for
alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, including
enjoining the proposed merger; directing the individual defendants
to exercise their fiduciary duties to commence a sale process that
is reasonably designed to obtain a transaction which is in the best
interests of the Company's stockholders; or, in the event the
merger is consummated, rescinding the merger or awarding damages to
the plaintiff and the class.

The complaint also seeks an award of costs, expert fees and
attorneys' fees.

Acacia Communications, Inc., incorporated on June 2, 2009, provides
high-speed coherent interconnect products. The company is based in
Maynard, Massachusetts.


ACER THERAPEUTICS: Zhang Investor Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Acer Therapeutics Inc. (ACER)
from September 25, 2017 through June 24, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Acer
investors under the federal securities laws.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 30, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff. If you wish to join the
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=acer-therapeutics-inc&id=1929
or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Sophie Zhang, Esq. or Spencer Lee toll-free at
800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com,
slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Acer lacked sufficient data to support filing EDSIVO's
New Drug Application ("NDA") with the FDA for the treatment of
vEDS; (ii) the Ong Trial, a 2004 study Acer heavily relied on its
submission of EDSIVO's NDA, was an inadequate and ill-controlled
clinical study by FDA standards, and was comprised of an
insufficiently small group size to support EDSIVO's NDA; (iii)
consequently, the FDA would likely reject EDSIVO's NDA; and (iv) as
a result, defendants' statements about Acer's business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class has not been certified. You may retain counsel of your
choice. You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff.

Contact:

         Zhang Investor Law P.C.
         99 Wall Street, Suite 232
         New York, New York 10005
         tel: (800) 991-3756
         Email: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com [GN]


ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: 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 Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. (ACRS) from May 8, 2018
through June 20, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Aclaris investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Aclaris class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1637.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) Aclaris's advertising materials minimized the risks and
overstated the efficacy of ESKATA to generate sales; (2) Aclaris
was reasonably likely to face regulatory scrutiny; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about
Aclaris's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
30, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1637.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com

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

Contact:

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


ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Sept. 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming September 30, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in the class action filed on behalf of Aclaris Therapeutics,
Inc. ("Aclaris" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ACRS) investors who
purchased securities between May 8, 2018 and June 20, 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 June 20, 2019, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration ("FDA")
stated that an advertisement for Aclaris's hydrogen peroxide
topical solution, Eskata, "makes false or misleading claims"
regarding the product's risk and efficacy. Specifically, "a
direct-to-consumer video of an interview featuring a paid Aclaris
spokesperson" was "especially concerning from a public health
perspective because it fails to include information regarding the
serious risks associated with Eskata, which bears warnings and
precautions related to the risks of serious eye disorders . . . in
the case of exposure to the eye and severe skin reactions including
scarring."

On this news, Aclaris's stock price fell $0.57, or over 11%, over
the next two trading sessions to close at $4.54 on June 21, 2019.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company's advertising materials minimized
the risks and overstated the efficacy of ESKATA to generate sales;
(2) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to face
regulatory scrutiny; and (3) 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 or otherwise acquired Aclaris securities during
the Class Period you may move the Court no later than September 30,
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.

Contacts:

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
Los Angeles
Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
310-201-9150
888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]


ADMIN RECOVERY: Rosenberg Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ADMIN RECOVERY, LLC.
The case is styled as Shaul Rosenberg individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADMIN RECOVERY, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-16712 (D. N.J., Aug. 15, 2019).

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

Admin Recovery is a national, full service provider of receivable
management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AFFILION, LLC: Armijo et al Suit Moved to District of New Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Benjamin Armijo and Ofelia Ronquillo, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
Affilion, LLC, Emcare, Inc., Emcare Holdings, Inc., Envision
Healthcare Corporation, and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc., the
Defendants, Case 19cv01804 (Filed ) was removed from the First
Judicial District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico (Las Cruces) on Aug. 15, 2019. The District
of New Mexico Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00750-KRS-GJF
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kevin R.
Sweazea.

Affilion LLC is a Medical Group that has only one practice medical
office located in Las Cruces NM. There are 2 health care providers,
specializing in Emergency Medicine, Family Practice, Internal
Medicine, Physician Assistant, being reported as members of the
medical group.[BN]

Attorneys for Benjamin Armijo are:

          Benjamin Landgraf, Esq.
          Jack E. McGehee, Esq.
          MCGEHEE CHANG BARNES LANDGRAF
          10370 Richmond Avenue, Suite 1300
          Houston, TX 77042
          Telephone: (713) 864-4000
          Facsimile: (713) 868-9393
          E-mail: blandgraf@lawtx.com
                  jmcgehee@lawtx.com

Ms. Ofelia Ronquillo appears pro se.

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Stefan R. Chacon, Esq.
          SUTIN, THAYER & BROWNE
          Post Office Box 1945
          Albuquerque, NM 87103
          Telephone: (505) 883-2500
          Facsimile: (505) 888-6565
          E-mail: SRC@sutinfirm.com

ALLERGAN PLC: Class Suit After Rare Cancer Linked to Implants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Naftulin, writing for Insider, reports that less than a month
after major breast implant manufacturer Allergan voluntarily
recalled its Biocell breast implants, two women have filed a class
action lawsuit against the company.

The women said in the lawsuit that it cost tens of thousands of
dollars to get the implants in the first place, and then, in one
case, get them removed out of fear of developing BIA-ALCL, a type
of rare cancer linked to this specific type of implant.

One of the women hasn't had her implants surgically removed, but
said that she wouldn't have gotten them in the first place if she
knew of the BIA-ALCL risk. Neither of the women have developed
BIA-ALCL.

Allergan recently recalled its Biocell breast implants
On July 24, Allergan announced it was voluntarily recalling its
Biocell textured breast implants after the FDA logged hundreds of
cases where women who had the implants developed BIA-ALCL.

As of September 2018, the FDA had received 457 unique reports of
BIA-ALCL, including nine deaths "which may be attributable" to the
cancer, according to a letter the FDA wrote to healthcare
providers.

The women involved in the lawsuit are seeking monetary damages for
themselves and other women with the implants because they "will be
forced to expend substantial sums for the removal of the recalled
implants, surgical and diagnostic fees, and/or medical monitoring
and invasive diagnostic procedures required as a result of their
exposure to the risk of contracting BIA-ALCL," they said in lawsuit
documents obtained by INSIDER.

On July 30, Allergan announced it would cover the costs of new
implants for people with Biocell implants who want to replace them.
Allergan won't pay for surgery costs, however. The program runs
until July 24, 2021.

"Our national class action lawsuit seeks to cover the costs
associated with explanting the recalled breast implants and
replacing them with non-recalled breast implants. Our clients and
the many women who have contacted us should not have to deal with
the anxiety of living with a recalled breast implant. We look
forward to fighting on their behalf in seeking a resolution that
provides them peace of mind," said plaintiff's attorneys Joe
Sauder, Esq. -- jgs@sstriallawyers.com -- and Matt Schelkopf, Esq.
-- mds@sstriallawyers.com -- of Sauder Schelkopf. [GN]


ALLIED NEVADA: Court Rules on Doc Requests in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE ALLIED NEVADA GOLD CORP., SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00175-LRH-WGC (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge William
G. Cobb of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has
entered a stipulated order regarding the Defendants' document
requests and/or interrogatory.

Tge Defendants have requested certain information related to 15
former employees referenced in the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint filed in the action through the Defendants' First Set of
Requests for Production to Lead Plaintiff Andrey Slomnitsky, dated
April 29, 2019, and the Defendants' First Interrogatory to Lead
Plaintiff Andrey Slomnitsky, dated June 7, 2019.

The Plaintiff has asserted various objections to providing the
information requested by the Defendants' Document Requests and the
Defendants' Interrogatory relating to the Former Employees,
including but not limited to the name, last known address, last
known telephone number and last known email address of each of the
Former Employees, based upon, but not limited to, the Plaintiff's
counsel's attorneys' work product protections.

The parties are desirous of avoiding motion practice and further
delay.  Therefore, they stipulated and agreed, that:

     1. The Plaintiff will provide the name, last known address,
last known telephone number and last known email address of each of
the Former Employees in response to the Defendants' Document
Requests and the Defendants' Interrogatory, and the Defendants
agreed that the act of providing the Identity and Contact
Information will not be deemed, constitute or argued by them to be
a waiver of the Plaintiff's counsel's attorneys' work product
protections with respect to the Identity and Contact Information,
if and to the extent such privilege exists with respect to the
Identity and Contact Information prior to its disclosure thereof
pursuant to the Stipulation and/or of any other objections(s) the
Plaintiff may have or assert to providing the Identity and Contact
Information pursuant to the Defendants' Document Requests and/or
the Defendants' Interrogatory;

     2. To the extent the Plaintiff or his counsel contend
documents responsive to any of the Defendants' Document Requests
and/or the Defendants' Interrogatory are subject to work product
protection or other privilege or objections and withhold such
documents based thereon, the Plaintiff will provide a privilege log
identifying the Withheld Documents; and

     3. The Plaintiff agrees that by entering into the Stipulation,
the Defendants reserve all of their rights with respect to seeking
further responses to the Defendants' Document Requests and the
Defendants' Interrogatory, including challenging any assertions by
the Plaintiff's and/or the Plaintiff's counsel of privilege or work
product protection, other than as set forth.

Magistrate Judge Cobb approved the parties' stipulation and so
ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/EtusA3 from Leagle.com.

Andrey Slomnitsky, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Charles J.
Piven -- piven@browerpriven.com -- Brower Piven, pro hac vice,
David A.P. Brower -- brower@browerpiven.com -- Brower Piven &
Martin A. Muckleroy -- info@muckleroylunt.com -- Muckleroy Lunt.

Movses Marjanian, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Alba, Jr. --
malba@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Martin A. Muckleroy, Muckleroy Lunt, Samuel H. Rudman --
srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice & David C. OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C..

Jose Parraga, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew L. Sharp, Matthew
L. Sharp, Ltd..

Jeanette Parraga, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew L. Sharp,
Matthew L. Sharp, Ltd..

Janet Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew R. Muehlbauer --
andrew@mlolegal.com -- Muehlbauer Law Office, Ltd., pro hac vice,
Griffith H. Hayes -- ghayes@cookseylaw.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP
& Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP, pro hac vice.

Jeff Croucier, Movant, represented by Erik D. Buzzard --
ebuzzard@palumbolawyers.com -- Palumbo Bergstrom LLP & Sean P.
Connell -- sconnell@palumbolawyers.com -- Palumbo Bergstrom LLP.

LBP Holdings Ltd., Movant, represented by Griffith H. Hayes,
Litchfield Cavo LLP, Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP & Andrew R. Muehlbauer,
Muehlbauer Law Office, Ltd., pro hac vice.

Richard Heil, Movant, represented by Naumon A. Amjed --
namjed@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Ryan Thomas
Degnan -- rdegnan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP &
Kirk B. Lenhard -- klenhard@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck, LLP.

State-Boston Retirement System, Movant, represented by Christopher
Joseph Keller -- ckeller@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP,
Michael W. stocker -- mstocker@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP
& Kirk B. Lenhard -- klenhard@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck, LLP.

United Teamster Pension Fund-A, Movant, represented by Brian O.
O'Mara -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Sherman Olson, Movant, represented by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Susan Olson, Movant, represented by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Thomas Frost, Movant, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Michael M.
Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC, pro hac vice & Patrick R. Leverty --
pat@levertylaw.com -- Leverty & Associates Chtd.

Beth Frost, Movant, represented by Patrick R. Leverty, Leverty &
Associates Chtd.

Beth Thomas, Movant, represented by Patrick R. Leverty, Leverty &
Associates Chtd.

Allied Nevada Gold Corp., Defendant, represented by Brendan Peter
Cullen -- cullenb@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac
vice, Laura K. Oswell -- welll@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Lyon Green --
nn@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice & Robert
A. Sacks -- sacksr@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP., pro
hac vice.

Scott A Caldwell, Defendant, represented by Anjali D. Webster --
AWebster@dickinson-wright.com -- Gordon Silver, Brendan Peter
Cullen, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Brian R. Irvine --
BIrvine@dickinson-wright.com -- Dickinson Wright, Laura K. Oswell,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Lyon Green,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Robert A. Sacks, Sullivan
& Cromwell LLP., pro hac vice & John Patrick Desmond --
jdesmond@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC.

Robert M Buchan, Defendant, represented by Anjali D. Webster,
Gordon Silver, Brendan Peter Cullen, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro
hac vice, Brian R. Irvine, Dickinson Wright, Laura K. Oswell,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Lyon Green,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Robert A. Sacks, Sullivan
& Cromwell LLP., pro hac vice & John Patrick Desmond, Dickinson
Wright PLLC.

Randy E Buffington, Defendant, represented by Anjali D. Webster,
Gordon Silver, Brendan Peter Cullen, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro
hac vice, Brian R. Irvine, Dickinson Wright, Laura K. Oswell,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Lyon Green,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Robert A. Sacks, Sullivan
& Cromwell LLP., pro hac vice & John Patrick Desmond, Dickinson
Wright PLLC.

Stephen M Jones, Defendant, represented by Anjali D. Webster,
Gordon Silver, Brendan Peter Cullen, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro
hac vice, Brian R. Irvine, Dickinson Wright, Laura K. Oswell,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Nathaniel Lyon Green,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, pro hac vice, Robert A. Sacks, Sullivan
& Cromwell LLP., pro hac vice & John Patrick Desmond, Dickinson
Wright PLLC.

Jeff Croucier, Defendant, represented by Erik D. Buzzard, Palumbo
Bergstrom LLP & Sean P. Connell, Palumbo Bergstrom LLP.


ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Leavitt Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, 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 motion to
dismiss filed in the class action suit initiated by Caryl Hull
Leavitt remains pending.

On September 26, 2018, Caryl Hull Leavitt, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint for violation of federal securities laws against the
company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

By stipulation of the parties and Order of the Court dated November
20, 2018, the action was transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On May 8, 2019, the Court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff, and on July 3, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
class action complaint, or the Complaint.

In addition to the originally named defendants, the Complaint also
names as defendants certain of the company's other executive
officers, and purports to be brought on behalf of a class of
persons who acquired the company's securities between September 20,
2017 and September 12, 2018 and seeks to recover damages caused by
defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements related to the efficacy
and safety of the company's product, ONPATTRO.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation of this
action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, interest, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and
expert fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate.

All defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its
entirety on July 31, 2019.

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals said, "We believe that the allegations
contained in the Complaint are without merit and intend to defend
the case vigorously. We cannot predict at this point the length of
time that this action will be ongoing or the liability, if any,
which may arise therefrom."

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on discovering, developing, and commercializing RNA interference
(RNAi) therapeutics. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


AVANOS MEDICAL: Appeal in Jackson Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Avanos Medical, 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 class
action suit entitled, Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E.
Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., is pending.

The company was served with a complaint in a matter styled Jackson
v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et
al., No. 1:16-cv-05093-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), filed on June 28, 2016. In
that case, the plaintiff brings a putative class action against the
Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief
Financial Officer and other defendants, asserting claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act, Sections 10(b) and
20(a).

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations
and failed to disclose certain information about the safety and
effectiveness of our MicroCool gowns and thereby artificially
inflated the Company's stock prices during the respective class
periods.

The alleged class period for purchasers of Kimberly-Clark
securities who subsequently received Avanos securities is February
25, 2013 to October 21, 2014, and the alleged class period for
purchasers of Avanos securities is October 21, 2014 to April 29,
2016.

On February 16, 2017, the company moved to dismiss the case. On
March 30, 2018, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
and entered judgment in its favor. On April 27, 2018, the plaintiff
filed a Motion for Relief from the Judgment and for Leave to Amend.
On April 1, 2019, the court denied the plaintiff's motion.

On May 1, 2019, Jackson appealed the dismissal of the action to the
2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Avanos Medical said, "We intend to continue our vigorous defense of
this matter."

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

Avanos Medical, Inc. operates as a medical technology company that
focuses on delivering medical device solutions to improve patients'
quality of life worldwide. Avanos Medical, Inc. was incorporated in
2014 and is headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia.


BOK FINANCIAL: BOKF Still Faces Suit in Oklahoma on Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation's wholly owned subsidiary bank, BOKF, NA,
remains a defendant in a putative class action in Oklahoma related
to overdraft fees, which causes a breach on the Bank's Demand
Deposit Agreements.

In its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, the
Company said that on July 6, 2018, a plaintiff served a petition in
a putative class action in the Oklahoma District Court for Tulsa
County Oklahoma alleging BOKF NA breached its Demand Deposit
Agreements by charging overdraft and not sufficient funds fees to
deposit accounts on the day of the transaction triggering the fee
and by the bank's debit hold process causing overdraft fees.

The Company further stated, "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: BOKF Still Faces Suit in Texas over Extended Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation's wholly owned subsidiary bank, BOKF, NA,
continues to defend itself against a putative class action in Texas
related to the Bank's extended overdraft fee, 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 7, 2017, a plaintiff filed a putative class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
alleging an extended overdraft fee charged by BOKF, NA is interest
and exceeds permitted rates.  This action makes the same
allegations as a putative class action that was dismissed by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
on October 19, 2015.

On August 22, 2018, a plaintiff filed a second putative class
action in the United States District Court for New Mexico making
the same allegations as the Texas action.  On September 18, 2018,
the District Court dismissed the Texas action.

The Company said, "Management is advised by counsel that a loss is
not probable in the New Mexico action or the Texas action 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.


CAMPING WORLD: Bid to Dismiss Geis Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action suit entitled, Daniel Geis v.
Camping World Holdings, Inc., et al., were scheduled to argue the
merits of the defendants' motion to dismiss the case before the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, on
August 20, 2019, 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 February 22, 2019, a putative class action complaint styled
Daniel Geis v. Camping World Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, on
behalf of all purchasers of Camping World Class A common stock in
and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering on
October 6, 2016 ("Geis Complaint").

The Geis Complaint names as defendants the Company, certain of the
Company's officers and directors, and the underwriters of the
offering, and alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), 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.  The Geis Complaint seeks
compensatory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, and any other and further relief the
court deems just and proper.

On April 19, 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 plaintiff 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: Materna Sues Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------
RICHARD MATERNA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CAPITAL
ONE, N.A, CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., AMAZON.COM, INC., and
AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.  (AWS), Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00581-HEH (E.D. Va., Aug. 13, 2019) is an action arising
out of the data breach announced by Capital One on July 29, 2019,
wherein Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") of more than
100 million consumers was illegally obtained by a hacker after
gaining unauthorized access to Capital One data being stored on
AWS' cloud servers (the "Capital One Data Breach").

On July 19, 2019, Capital One "determined there was unauthorized
access by an outside individual who obtained certain types of
personal information relating to people who had applied for its
credit card products and to Capital One credit card customers."

Capital One's inadequate and unreasonable data security procedures
and improperly configured firewall, coupled with AWS' inaction on
remediating a known cloud platform vulnerability, resulted in
Plaintiff and the Class suffering harm as alleged in this
Complaint. Despite well-known risks that a data breach could result
in widespread harm to consumers, Capital One and the Amazon
Defendants failed to act in a reasonable manner to protect
consumers' PII. The Capital One and Amazon Defendants also misled
consumers about having adequate data security measures, safeguards,
infrastructure, and practices to protect consumers' PII in its
Notice of Privacy Practices and elsewhere, and failed to safeguard
and protect Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII in accordance
with federal, state and local laws, and industry standards. Had
Capital One informed Plaintiff and Class members that it would not
follow federal, state and local laws in protecting their PII,
Plaintiff and the Class members would not have provided their PII
to Capital One, says the complaint.

Plaintiff applied for Visa and MasterCard credit cards offered by
Capital One through Capital One's website, in approximately 2013.

Capital One is one of the largest banks in the United States and
the fifth-largest U.S. credit card issuer, with $373.6 billion in
total assets as of 2019.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter C. Grenier, Esq.
     GRENIER LAW GROUP PLLC
     1920 L Street, N.W. Suite 750
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 768-9600
     Facsimile: (202) 768-9604
     Email: pgrenier@grenierlawgroup.com

          - and -

     Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
     Bryce D. Riddle, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
     1100 IDS Center
     80 South 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 341-0400
     Facsimile: (612) 641-0844
     Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
            bryce.riddle@zimmreed.com

          - and -

     Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
     CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
     17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Phone: (612) 339-7300
     Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
     Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com



CHAMPION PETFOODS: Weaver Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as SCOTT WEAVER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the PLAINTIFF, v.
CHAMPION PETFOODS USA, INC. and CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, the
DEFENDANTS, Case No. 2:18-cv-01996-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(a),
      Rule 23(b)(2), and Rule 23(b)(3):

      "all persons residing in the State of Wisconsin who
      purchased Dog Food between July 1, 2014 and the present;

   2. certifying subclass pursuant to Rule 23(a), Rule 23(b)(2),
      and Rule 23(b)(3):

      "all persons residing in the State of Wisconsin who
      purchased JBS Dog Foods between January 2016 and December
      2018";

   3. appointing himself as Class Representative; and

   4. appointng Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.; Gustafson Gluek,

      PLLC; Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP; Robbins Arroyo LLP; and
      Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC as Co-Lead Class Counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Charles N. Nauen, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: cnnauen@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, esq.
          Karla M. Gluek, esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
                  rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Kevin A. Seely, Esq
          Steven M. Mckany, Esq
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          5040 Shoreham Place
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
                  smckany@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Charles Laduca, Esq.
          Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: 202-789-3960
          Facsimile: 202-789-1813
          E-mail: kvandyck@cuneolaw.com
                  charles@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Depalma, Esq.
          Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
          DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                  scruzhodge@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Peterson, Esq.
          PETERSON LAW and MEDIATION, LLC
          1433 N. Water Street, Suite 400
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 877-7312
          E-mail: mark@markpetersonlaw.com

CHARLESTON PLACE: Hooker Files FLSA Suit in South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charleston Place LLC.
The case is styled as Jordan Hooker On Behalf of Himself and Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Charleston Place LLC doing
business as: Charleston Grill, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-02307-RMG (D. S.C., Aug. 15, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Charleston Grill offers Contemporary Lowcountry cuisine featuring
fresh local produce, seafood & game, prepared with a French
accent.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marybeth E Mullaney, Esq.
     Mullaney Law LLC
     1037-D Chuck Dawley Boulevard, Suite 104
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
     Phone: (843) 588-5587
     Fax: (800) 385-8160
     Email: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


CITY GATES: Guillen Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE GUILLEN and JESUS JIMENEZ, on behalf of themselves,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v.
CITY GATES USA CORP. and VINCENT GRECO, individually, Case No.
1:19-cv-04596 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2019), seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid overtime and liquidated damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

City Gates is a New York corporation with its principal place of
business located in College Point, New York.  Vincent Greco was the
president of City Gates.

City Gates is a Queens-based designer and manufacturer of
specialized rolling steel security doors and gates.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 679-5000
          E-mail: jrm@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
                  mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Still Defends Class Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
Cocrystal Pharma, Inc. continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit, as amended, in 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.

On September 20, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed with the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey a
complaint against the Company, certain current and former executive
officers and directors of the Company and the other defendants
named therein for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Additionally, the complaint
alleges that certain current and former executive officers of the
Company violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The class consists of the persons and entities who purchased the
Company's common stock during the period from September 23, 2013
through September 7, 2018.  The plaintiff seeks damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees, expert fees and other costs.

On June 25, 2019, the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit filed
an amended class action complaint.

Cocrystal Pharma, Inc., a clinical stage biotechnology company,
engages in discovering and developing various novel antiviral
therapeutics that target the replication machinery of hepatitis
viruses, influenza viruses, and noroviruses. Cocrystal Pharma, Inc.
was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Tucker, Georgia.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Seeks 6th Cir. Review of Ruling in Norfolk Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants W. Larry Cash, Community Health Systems, Inc. and Wayne
T. Smith filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled
NORFOLK COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., WAYNE
T. SMITH, and LARRY CASH, the Defendants, Case No. 3:11-cv-00433,
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at
Nashville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 9,
2019, the Hon. Judge Eli Richardson entered an order on July 26,
2019:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons who and entities who purchased the publicly
      traded common stock of CHS from July 27, 2006 through
      April 8, 2011, inclusive, or who were damaged thereby.
      Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers and
      directors of the company, at all relevant times, members
      of their immediate families and their legal
      representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any
      entry in which Defendants have or had a controlling
      interest."; and

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiff (NYC Funds) as class
      representative, and Lowey Dannenberg as Class Counsel.[CC]

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Community Health Systems,
Inc., et al., Case No. 19-509, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Respondents NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, NEW YORK
CITY TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, NEW YORK CITY TEACHERS'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM VARIABLE ANNUITY PROGRAM, NEW YORK CITY FIRE
DEPARTMENT PENSION FUND and NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT PENSION
FUND are represented by:

          Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: bhart@lowey.com

Defendants-Petitioners In re: COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., WAYNE
T. SMITH and W. LARRY CASH are represented by:

          Gary Orseck, Esq.
          ROBBINS RUSSELL ENGLERT ORSECK UNTEREINER & SAUBER LLP
          2000 K Street, N.W., Fourth Floor
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 775-4500
          E-mail: gorseck@robbinsrussell.com


COOK COUNTY, IL: Brown's Bid to Certify Class of APDs Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly issued a memorandum opinion and order
in the lawsuit entitled CRYSTAL BROWN, SARAN CRAYTON, SAMANTHAN
SLONIM, CELESTE ADDYMAN, ERIKA KNIERIM, and JULIE HULL, on behalf
of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons 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 Cook County, Case No.
1:17-cv-08085 (N.D. Ill.), granting the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in part and denying it in part.

The Court certifies this hostile work environment class:

     All female assistant public defenders (not including
     supervisors) and law clerks who have worked for the
     defendants from November 1, 2015 through the present and who
     have visited the jail and/or lockup in connection with their
     employment.

Judge Kennelly appoints Robin Potter, Esq., and M. Nieves Bolanos,
Esq., as class counsel.

The Court declines, however, to certify the retaliation subclass
unless the Plaintiffs demonstrate that it is sufficiently numerous
to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
after the modifications to the subclass definition.  The Court
finds that the retaliation subclass may be certifiable, but with
(1) a far narrower time limitation and (2) clarification, and
perhaps modification, of the requirement that putative members made
some sort of complaint to which retaliation may have been causally
connected.

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 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.[CC]


COOK COUNTY, IL: Class of Female Workers Certified in Howard Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification but modifies the proposed class definition in
the lawsuit styled SDAHRIE 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 v. COOK
COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE and COUNTY OF COOK, Case No. 1:17-cv-08146
(N.D. Ill.).

Judge Kennelly certifies this class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

     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.

The Court also appoints these attorneys as class counsel: Noelle C.
Brennan, Esq.; Shelly B. Kulwin, Esq.; Heather K. Afra, Esq.; Emily
R. Brown, Esq.; Kristin H. Carter, Esq.; Caitlin K. Cervenka, Esq.;
Ellen Eardley, Esq.; Naomi B. Frisch, Esq.; Rachel A. Katz, Esq.;
Jeffrey R. Kulwin, Esq.; Caryn C. Lederer, Esq.; Michael D. Lieder,
Esq.; Cyrus Mehri, Esq.; Kate E. Schwartz, Esq.; and Marni J.
Willenson, Esq.

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.[CC]


COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Tabizon Class Suit Moved to E.D. Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Transportation Group, 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 class action suit
initiated by Richard Tabizon is now pending in the U.S. District
Court in the Eastern District of Tennessee.

The Company's subsidiary Covenant Transport, Inc. ("Covenant
Transport") is a defendant in a lawsuit filed on November 9, 2018,
in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California.  The
lawsuit was filed on behalf of Richard Tabizon (a California
resident and former driver) who is seeking to have the lawsuit
certified as a class action.

The complaint asserts that the time period covered by the lawsuit
is from October 31, 2014 to the present and alleges claims for
failure to properly pay for rest breaks, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements and/or reimbursement of business
related expenses, unlawful deduction of wages, failure to pay
proper minimum wage and overtime wages, failure to provide all
wages due at termination, and other related wage and hour claims
under the California Labor Code.

Since the original filing date, the case has been removed from the
Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court in the
Central District of California and subsequently the case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of
Tennessee where the case is now pending.

The Company said it does not currently have enough information to
make a reasonable estimate as to the likelihood, or amount of a
loss, or a range of reasonably possible losses as a result of this
claim, as such there have been no related accruals recorded as of
June 30, 2019.

Covenant Transportation Group, Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides truckload transportation and brokerage
services primarily in the continental United States. Covenant
Transportation Group, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered
in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


CRC PROPERTY: Denied Workers Proper Wages, Jimenez Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS JIMENEZ, in a Representative capacity only, on behalf of all
aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, v. CRC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT WEST
INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01547-JM-MSB (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Diego Cty., Aug. 16, 2019) is an action on the grounds that
Plaintiff and other current and former employees of Defendant were
and are improperly denied mandated wages and reimbursements.

According to the complaint, throughout the operative limitations
period, Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees were denied the
protections and benefits of the Labor Code Industrial Welfare
Commission ("IWC") Wage Order(s) due to Defendant's standard
practices. Throughout their employment, Plaintiff and all other
aggrieved employees were and are denied full and accurate
compensation, including overtime compensation; meal and rest
periods and meal and rest period payments; accurate itemized wage
statements; and necessary business expenditures, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff JIMENEZ has been employed by Defendant as a non-exempt
employee from May 18, 2015.

CRC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT WEST INC. is a California Corporation and
has its principal place of business in the State of California, and
County of San Diego.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William B. Sullivan, Esq.
     Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
     Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq.
     Andrea J. Torres Figueroa, Esq.
     SULLIVAN LAW GROUP, APC
     2330 Third Avenue
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 702-6760
     Fax: (619) 702-6761
     Email: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
            yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
            ryan@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
            atorres@sullivanlawgroupapc.com


DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Court Dismisses D. Bingman's Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, issued an Order dismissing Pro Se Civil
Rights Case in the case captioned DOMINIQUE BINGMAN, Plaintiff, v.
DALLAS COUNTY JAIL FACILITY, Defendant. No. 3:19-cv-01508-C (BT).
(N.D. Tex.).

Plaintiff, an inmate in the Dallas County jail, and others filed a
putative class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging
the Dallas County jail is violating their rights by segregating
inmates into housing units based on race.  

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court
to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for
failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order.  

Here, the Court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to pay the
filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. However,
Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a current address,
so the Court is unable to communicate with him and advise him of
the requirement to pay the fee or file an appropriate motion. This
litigation cannot proceed until Plaintiff provides the Court with
his current address. Accordingly, the complaint should be dismissed
for want of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for
want of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 12, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5alxd8w from Leagle.com.

Dominique Bingman, Plaintiff, pro se.


DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Court Dismisses R. Waller's Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, issued an Order dismissing Pro Se Civil
Rights Complaint in the case captioned RABION WALLER, Plaintiff, v.
DALLAS COUNTY JAIL FACILITY, Defendant. No. 3:19-cv-01519-C (BT).
(N.D. Tex.).

Plaintiff, an inmate in the Dallas County jail, and others filed a
putative class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging
the Dallas County jail is violating their rights by segregating
inmates into housing units based on race.

The Court determined Plaintiff and the other inmates should not be
allowed to proceed as a class and ordered that the case be severed
into individual actions to allow each inmate to represent himself.
The Court further ordered each individual plaintiff to pay a filing
fee of $400.00 or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee; nor did he file a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis.  The Court sent Plaintiff a notice of
deficiency reminding him to pay the filing fee or a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. The deficiency notice was returned to
the Court because Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated in the Dallas
County jail. Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any
forwarding or alternate address.

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court
to dismiss an action sua spontefor failure to prosecute or for
failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order.   

Here, the Court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to pay the
filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. However,
Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a current address,
so the Court is unable to communicate with him and advise him of
the requirement to pay the fee or file an appropriate motion. This
litigation cannot proceed until Plaintiff provides the Court with
his current address.  

The complaint should be dismissed for want of prosecution under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for
want of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 12, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3a4q3ud from Leagle.com.

Rabion Waller, Plaintiff, pro se.


DIVERSIFIED I: Puerta Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MARIA PUERTA, on her own
behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. DIVERSIFIED I, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, and LAILA
SABRY, individually, the Defendants, Case 6:18-cv-02091-CEM-GJK
(M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "current and former employees who worked for Defendants
      between December 5, 2015, and the present;

   2. directing Defendants to produce, in an electronic readable
      format, to undersigned counsel within 14 days of the Order
      granting this Motion a list containing the names, the last
      known addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of
      putative class members who worked for Defendants between
      December 5, 2015, and the present;

   3. authorizing undersigned counsel to send notice, to all
      individuals whose names appear on the list produced by
      Defendants’ counsel by first-class mail and e-mail; and

   4. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list
      produced by Defendants' counsel with 45 days from the date
      the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to Become

      Opt-In Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserts claims of unpaid wages and overtime under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Diversified offers logistical and vehicle transportation services
to the general public.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs are:

          Bobby A. Lean, Jr., Esq.
          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          1950 Lee Road, Suite 213
          Orlando, FL 32789
          Telephone: (407) 543-6976
          Facsimile: (833) 423-5864
          E-mail: blean@theleachfirm.com
                  yhernandez@theleachfirm.com

ECHOHILL: Payne Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
SELINA PAYNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ECHOHILL ENTERPRISES, INC., PETER LAWRENCE,
RIGHT AT HOME, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00059-MFU (W.D.
Va., Aug. 16, 2019) asserts a claim for unpaid overtime
compensation and minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 ("FLSA").

The complaint alleges that even though Payne and the other
Caregivers regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week,
Defendants routinely did not pay them overtime compensation.
Instead, Defendants paid only straight time for hours worked in
excess of 40 per week. Defendants' Caregivers including Payne are
entitled to overtime compensation equal to one and a half times
their regular rate of pay for all time worked in excess of 40 hours
per week, says the complaint.

Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all similarly
situated employees, seeks unpaid overtime and minimum wages,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs arising out of
the Defendants' FLSA violations.

Payne is a resident of Virginia who was employed by Defendants as a
Caregiver, also referred to as a home health aide.

Defendants are in the business of providing in-home assistance to
elderly and disabled individuals using Caregivers like
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Timothy Coffield, Esq.
     COFFIELD PLC
     106-F Melbourne Park Circle
     Charlottesville, VA 22901
     Phone: (434) 218-3133
     Fax: (434) 321-1636
     Email: tc@coffieldlaw.com

          - and -

     Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
     CURWOOD LAW FIRM
     530 E. Main Street, Suite 710
     Richmond, VA 23219
     Phone: (804) 788-0808
     Fax: (804) 767-6777
     Email:ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com

ESSA BANCORP: Bank Unit Still Faces Suit over RESPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, ESSA Bank & Trust
(the "Bank") continues to defend itself against a class action over
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA),
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 case was previously dismissed in January 2018 but the district
court ruling was reversed by the appellate court in April 2019.

The Bank was named as a defendant in an action commenced on
December 8, 2016 by one plaintiff who will also seek to pursue this
action as a class action on behalf of the entire class of people
similarly situated.  The plaintiff alleges that a bank previously
acquired by ESSA Bancorp received unearned fees and kickbacks in
the process of making loans, in violation of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act.  In an order dated January 29, 2018, the
district court granted the Bank's motion to dismiss the case.  The
plaintiff appealed the court's ruling.  In an opinion and order
dated April 26, 2019, the appellate court reversed the district
court's order dismissing the plaintiff's case against the Bank, and
remanded the case back to the district court in order to continue
the litigation.  The litigation is now proceeding before the
district court.  The Bank will continue to vigorously defend
against such allegations.  To the extent that pending or threatened
litigation could result in exposure to the Bank, the amount of such
exposure is not currently estimable.

ESSA Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for ESSA Bank &
Trust that provides a range of financial services to individuals,
families, and businesses in Pennsylvania. ESSA Bancorp, Inc. was
founded in 1916 and is based in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.


EVERI HOLDINGS: Faces Donahue Class Suit
----------------------------------------
Everi 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 remains a
defendant in a class action suit initiated by Geraldine Donahue.

Geraldine Donahue, et. al. v. Everi Payments Inc., et. al., is a
putative class action matter filed on December 12, 2018, in Cook
County, Illinois.

The original defendant was dismissed and the Company was
substituted as defendant on April 22, 2019.

The matter was subsequently removed on May 31, 2019 to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
alleges that Everi Payments and the Company have violated certain
provisions of FACTA.

Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages, attorney's fees, and
costs.  

Everi Holdings Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2004, is a holding
company. The Company operates through subsidiaries, including Everi
Games Holding Inc. (Everi Games Holding) and Everi Payments Inc.
(Everi Payments or Payments). The Company operates through two
segments: Games and FinTech. The Company provides video and
mechanical reel gaming content and technology solutions, integrated
gaming payments solutions, and compliance and efficiency software.
The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


EVERI HOLDINGS: Faces Rehman Putative Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
Everi 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 putative class action suit initiated by Oneeb
Rehman.

Oneeb Rehman, et. al. v. Everi Payments Inc. and Everi Holdings
Inc., is a putative class action matter pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Ft. Lauderdale
Division filed on October 16, 2018.

The original defendant was dismissed and the Company was
substituted as defendant on April 22, 2019.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
alleges that Everi Payments Inc. ("Everi Payments") and the Company
have violated certain provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act (FACTA).

Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages, attorney's fees, and
costs.

Everi Holdings Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2004, is a holding
company. The Company operates through subsidiaries, including Everi
Games Holding Inc. (Everi Games Holding) and Everi Payments Inc.
(Everi Payments or Payments). The Company operates through two
segments: Games and FinTech. The Company provides video and
mechanical reel gaming content and technology solutions, integrated
gaming payments solutions, and compliance and efficiency software.
The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


EVERI HOLDINGS: Jessop Class Action Underway
--------------------------------------------
Everi 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 a class action suit initiated by Mat Jessop.

Mat Jessop, et. al. v. Penn National Gaming, Inc., is a putative
class action matter filed on October 15, 2018, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando
Division.

Everi Payments was added as a defendant on December 21, 2018.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
alleges that Penn National Gaming, Inc. ("Penn National"), has
violated certain provisions of Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act (FACTA), and that Everi Payments has been unjustly
enriched through the charging of service fees for transactions
conducted at Penn National facilities.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against both parties, and an
award of statutory damages, attorney's fees, and costs.  

Everi Holdings Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2004, is a holding
company. The Company operates through subsidiaries, including Everi
Games Holding Inc. (Everi Games Holding) and Everi Payments Inc.
(Everi Payments or Payments). The Company operates through two
segments: Games and FinTech. The Company provides video and
mechanical reel gaming content and technology solutions, integrated
gaming payments solutions, and compliance and efficiency software.
The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


EVOLENT HEALTH: Faces Putative Class Action Complaint in Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evolent Health, 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 has not been formally served with the
putative class action complaint in Virginia filed by a purported
shareholder of the Company.

On August 8, 2019, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint against the Company, Frank Williams
and Nicholas McGrane.  The case, captioned Plymouth County
Retirement System v. Evolent Health, Inc., Frank Williams, and
Nicholas McGrane, was filed in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division.  The complaint
seeks unspecified remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  As of the date of this filing, the complaint has not been
formally served on the Company, Mr. Williams or Mr. McGrane.

Based on the Company's brief preliminary review, the Company
believes the case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against these claims.  The outcome of any litigation is uncertain,
and at this early stage, the Company is currently unable to assess
the probability of loss or estimate a range of potential loss, if
any, associated with this lawsuit.

Evolent Health, Inc., through its subsidiary, Evolent Health LLC,
provides health care delivery and payment solutions in the United
States.  The company operates through two segments, Services and
True Health.  Evolent Health, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is
headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.


EVOQUA WATER: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in New York Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. 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 parties in the
class action suit entitled, In re Evoqua Water Technologies Corp.
Securities Litigation," Master File No. 1:18-CV-10320, are awaiting
a court ruling on a motion to dismiss the case.

On or around November 6, 2018, a purported shareholder of the
Company filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, captioned McWilliams v. Evoqua
Water Technologies Corp., et al., Case No. 1:18-CV-10320, alleging
that the Company and senior management violated federal securities
laws.  

On January 31, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel in connection with the action and captioned the action "In
re Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation," Master
File No. 1:18-CV-10320.

On March 28, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which asserts claims pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, members of
the Company's Board of Directors, senior management, other
executives and/or employees, AEA Investors LP and a number of its
affiliated entities, and the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering and secondary public offering.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing false, misleading, and/or omissive
disclosures concerning the Company's integration of acquired
companies, the Company's reduction-in-force, and the Company's
accounting practices.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount to
be proved at trial, an award of reasonable costs and expenses to
the plaintiff and class counsel, and such other relief as the court
may deem just and proper.  

On June 26, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint. Briefing in connection with the motions to
dismiss is not yet complete.

Evoqua Water said, "The Company believes that this lawsuit is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations."

Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. provides a range of water and
wastewater treatment systems and technologies, and mobile and
emergency water supply solutions and services. It operates in three
segments: Industrial, Municipal, and Products. The company has
operations in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the
Netherlands, Germany, Australia, China, and Singapore. Evoqua Water
Technologies Corp. was incorporated in 2013 and is headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


EXTENDED STAY: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suits in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Extended Stay America, 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 six purported class action lawsuits in California.

As of June 30, 2019, six purported class action lawsuits in
California have been filed against the Company.  

The complaints allege, among other things, failure to provide meal
and rest periods, wage and hour violations and violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.  

The complaints seek, among other relief, collective and class
certification of the lawsuits, unspecified damages, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the
Court might find just and proper.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and is prepared to
vigorously defend the lawsuits.

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

Extended Stay America, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns,
operates, and manages hotels in the United States. The company also
relicenses Extended Stay America brand to third party franchisees.
Extended Stay America, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.


FARMER'S DOG: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Farmer's Dog,
Inc. The case is styled as Marion Kiler Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. The Farmer's Dog, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04712 (E.D.
N.Y., Aug. 15, 2019).

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

The Farmer's Dog is a fresh pet food delivery service that aims to
cure American dogs of obesity, lethargy, poor odor, and a host of
other health concerns.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11217
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


FARMERS GROUP: Court Narrows Production of Documents in Grigson
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,
Austin Division, issued an Order granting in part and denying in
part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery in the case captioned
CHARLES GRIGSON, et al., v. FARMERS GROUP, INC. No.
1:17-CV-00088-LY. (W.D. Tex.).

Third Motion to Compel  

The case at hand is a putative class action in which Plaintiffs and
other putative class members challenge the insurance premium rate
setting practices of Farmers Group, Inc. (FGI) At issue is the
alleged discrepancy between premiums charged under the Farmers Auto
2.0 and 2.5 policy regimes and the recently adopted Farmers Smart
Plan Auto (FSPA) regime. Plaintiffs allege that coverage under FA2
and FSPA is identical or virtually identical and that, despite
this, premiums under FSPA are significantly lower. Plaintiffs
allege this is a discriminatory practice and illegal under Texas
law.

In discovery, Plaintiffs have sought production of a number of rate
change models FGI has produced internally. These tools, known as
Auto Off Balance tools (AOBs), are models that take into
consideration a wide range of variables to help insurers set an
adequate premium rate.

FGI initially objected to producing certain AOB tools on the ground
that they were created in anticipation of litigation and were
covered by the work product doctrine. Plaintiffs challenged this
assertion. Eventually, Plaintiff and FGI agreed that FGI would
provide access to some of these AOBs.  

Plaintiffs contend that by disclosing the produced AOBs, FGI waived
its ability to assert work-product protection as to the unproduced
AOBs, as all five AOBs relate to the same subject matter.
Plaintiffs further argue that FGI's disclosure of the produced AOB
tools also waived its attorney-client privilege as to any
communications between defense counsel and FGI concerning the AOBs.


Plaintiffs contend that FGI is attempting to use its privilege as
both a sword and a shield, which itself is a ground to assert
waiver. FGI, on the other hand, contends that Plaintiffs' argument
conflates the attorney-client privilege and the work-product
doctrine.  

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) permits discovery regarding
any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or
defense. Discoverable information is not limited to admissible
evidence, but includes anything reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence.

There is no question that FGI waived its right to assert work
product protection as to the three AOBs produced prior to the
corporate representative deposition. The issue is whether by its
purposeful disclosure of these AOBs produced for litigation
purposes, FGI also waived work product or attorney-client
protection as to other matters that are related to the produced
AOBs. Unlike the attorney client privilege, the work product
doctrine is governed, even in diversity cases, by the uniform
federal standard embodied in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b)(3). The attorney-client privilege promotes full and frank
discussion between counsel and client.

Waiver in the work product context typically only applies to the
document actually disclosed. A more general subject matter waiver
is usually reserved for instances in which the quality or substance
of the attorney's work product has been directly placed at issue in
the litigation. In order to constitute subject matter waiver, work
product must directly place at issue in litigation the quality or
substance of an attorney's work.  

Here, FGI has used the three produced AOBs to suggest that certain
percentages of the proposed Class are undamaged. By doing so, FGI
has waived the work product protection as to the subject matter of
the Litigation AOBs as a whole. FGI has directly placed at issue in
this current suit the quality and substance of the Litigation AOBs.
By only producing some of the AOBs it has created in connection
with this litigation, it appears to that FGI has cherry picked its
claim of privilege as to the remaining AOBs, something courts do
not permit.  

Plaintiffs also seek to compel FGI to produce instructions from
counsel and internal correspondence regarding all five of the
Litigation AOBs. Plaintiffs argue in part that they have not been
able to learn the assumptions and/or directions that came from
FGI's outside counsel relating to the Litigation AOBs that have
already been produced and that they have no idea what assumptions
are in the two unproduced Litigation AOBs.

In addition, they argue that they are entitled to understand the
instructions that FGI received from its outside counsel in building
these tools, because they are critical to understanding the tools
themselves and to analyzing and comparing the different tools. FGI,
on the other hand, argues Plaintiffs are not entitled to
attorney-client communications regarding the Litigation AOBs.

The Court agrees with FGI.

Generally, a party waives attorney-client privilege when it
voluntarily discloses privileged communications to a third party,
including an adversary in litigation.  

Here, there is no evidence to suggest that FGI waived the
attorney-client privilege. While it is certainly true that FGI
allowed its employee to be deposed about the nature of the AOB
tool, there is nothing in the parties' briefs to suggest that FGI
did not assert its privilege.   

FGI's counsel preserved the confidentiality surrounding the
communications between counsel and employees at FGI, and hence, the
attorney-client privilege has not been waived by FGI as to any
communications related to the Litigation AOBs. Despite Plaintiffs'
contention, they are not "entitled" to have access to any
instructions FGI received from outside counsel. Nevertheless, while
Plaintiffs may not have access to instructions FGI received from
outside counsel regarding the AOB tools, there is nothing
inhibiting Plaintiffs from accessing purely internal, non-counsel
related communications related to all the Litigation AOBs.
Plaintiffs argue that the universe of purely internal
communications related to the Litigation AOBs should be relatively
small and there is nothing in the briefs to suggest otherwise.

The Court will therefore GRANT the Plaintiffs' Third Motion to
Compel as to internal, non-counsel related communications
concerning all of the Litigation AOBs, but DENY the motion as to
any attorney-client communications.

Fourth Motion to Compel  

In this motion, filed after Judge Yeakel instructwed the parties to
limit discovery to that which is necessary to provide meaningful
argument and briefing as to class certification, Plaintiffs
challenge FGI's objection to producing information related the
coverage differences FGI claims exist between FA2 and FSPA
policies.

In their Sixth Request for Production of Documents, Fourth Set of
Interrogatories, and Fourth Request for Admission, Plaintiffs
request information and documents regarding these claimed coverage
differences, arguing that FGI has put these facts in issue in its
Response in Opposition to Class Certification.  

Plaintiffs maintain that the requests are therefore relevant and
proper discovery requests notwithstanding Judge Yeakel's limit on
permissible pre-certification discovery. FGI has objected to
production on the grounds that the requests are overly broad and
unduly burdensome, contending that they go beyond what is necessary
to meaningfully argue class certification. Furthermore, FGI argues
that its certification briefing only mentions three coverage
differences: Auto Rewards, Mexico coverage, and rental car
coverage. It contends that it has and is continuing to produce
records responsive to those differences, which are the only ones
necessary to meaningfully argue class certification.

The scope of discovery is limited, in pertinent part, to that which
is relevant considering the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Discovery is a
powerful and wide-ranging tool, but the court retains discretion to
narrow its scope.  

Responding to such requests will likely require an extensive review
of numerous personnel and agent files. As FGI has been responsive
with regard to the three briefed coverage differences and claims to
have spent over $1 million on discovery already, the Court
concludes that the additional requests are overly broad and unduly
burdensome given the current, pre-certification needs of the case.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court has found particularly
instructive Plaintiffs' statement that it has already gathered
substantial evidence strongly supporting that the coverages are the
same or materially the same. As such, the Court, at this point,
does not see a reason to prolong discovery in the way Plaintiffs
ask here. Because FGI has been and is continuing to be responsive
to requests pertaining to the three coverage differences still at
issue, compelling discovery as to the 140 issues no longer at issue
would have no substantial effect on the arguments to be presented
on class certification and is outside the scope of discovery as it
stands now.

Plaintiffs may continue to seek discovery as to the three coverage
differences at issue, but because FGI has been responsive on these
issues, there is no need for the Court to compel it to do so. Thus,
Plaintiffs' Fourth Motion to Compel is denied.

Plaintiffs' Third Motion to Compel Requests for Production is
granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiffs' Fourth Motion
to Compel is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 12, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y28dcr4n from Leagle.com.

Charles Grigson, Indivdually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Lisa Hoing, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & David Kelly, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joe K.
Longley -- joe@joelongley.com -- Law Offices of Joe K. Longley,
Jonathan D. Selbin -- jselbin@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, Michael L. Slack, Slack & Davis, LLP,2705 Bee Cave
Road, Austin, TX 78746, Michelle A. Lamy, Leif Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, Roger N. Heller, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
LLP, 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94117-3339 &
John R. Davis, Slack Davis Sanger, LLP, 2705 Bee Cave Road, Austin,
TX 78746,

Farmers Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam Troy Schramek
-- adam.schramek@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright
US LLP, Cristina C. Longoria --
critina.longoria@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright
US, LLP, James Ivan Hughes -- james.hughes@nortonrosefulbright.com
-- Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, M. Scott Incerto --
scottincerto@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP & Peter H. Mason -- peter.mason@nortonrosefulbright.com --
Norton Rose Fulbright US, LLP.


FCA US: W. Hightman's Action Transferred to S.D.N.Y
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Transfer
in the case captioned WENDY HIGHTMAN, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC,
Defendant. Case No. 3:18-cv-02205-BEN-KSC. (S.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff's claims relate to a new 2007 Jeep Patriot she
purchased from a Chrysler dealership in Guam. Plaintiff was
informed by a Chrysler dealership employee that the vehicle was
covered by Chrysler's Lifetime Powertrain Warranty, but she was not
provided the terms and conditions of the warranty until after she
had completed the purchase of her class vehicle. None of FCA's
advertisements or warranty booklets stated that the Lifetime
Warranty was subject to complete cancellation. Plaintiff filed a
First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action for, inter
alia: (1) Violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act  (2) Breach of
Contract/Common Law Warranty (Based on California Law)

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS

Chrysler, LLC (subsequently known as Old Carco LLC) and several of
its subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy protection in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Old
Carco LLC and Defendant entered into a Master Transaction Agreement
(MTA) under which Defendant purchased substantially all of Old
Carco LLCs' assets and assumed certain liabilities.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New
York entered an order approving an asset sale to Defendant  under
the terms of the MTA.

Defendant seeks to transfer this case to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, for referral to the
Bankruptcy Court. Defendant believes the Bankruptcy Court sits in
the best position to interpret and enforce the meaning of the Sale
Order. Defendant further contends that it would serve the interest
of justice to allow the bankruptcy court to interpret its own
order.

Plaintiff opposes the Motion arguing transfer will simply result in
a lengthy delay, only to have a New York judge who is a stranger to
the original bankruptcy proceeding interpret the previous judge's
order and interpret California law.

Section 1412 permits a district court to transfer a case or
proceeding under title 11 to a district court for another district
in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties.

In this case, the interests of justice strongly favor transferring
the case to the district where the bankruptcy proceedings continue.
Factors to be considered include whether transferring venue would
promote the efficient administration of the bankruptcy estate,
judicial economy, timeliness, and fairness.

In particular, courts have considered: (1) whether transfer would
promote the economic and efficient administration of the bankruptcy
estate (2) whether the interests of judicial economy would be
served by the transfer (3) whether the parties would receive a fair
trial (4) the willingness and ability of the parties to participate
in the case (5) the plaintiff's choice of forum (6) the effect of a
transfer on the enforceability of a judgment and (7) whether either
forum has an interest in having the controversies resolved within
its borders.  

On balance, these factors support the conclusion that a transfer
would be in the interests of justice. As a threshold matter, the
bankruptcy court expressly retained jurisdiction over all matters
relating to the implementation, enforcement, and interpretation of
its sale order. Failing to transfer this case to the bankruptcy
court that approved that order would run the risk of inconsistent
interpretations that could unravel the order's free and clear
transfer of assets to Defendant FCA. Transfer of an action
requiring the interpretation of the sale order, even after the
final decree is entered, as many courts have found, will permit the
bankruptcy court to resolve issues pertaining to the interpretation
and enforcement of its sale order, including the validity of claims
alleged by Plaintiff.  

As for the remaining factors, the Court finds that, on balance,
they do not weigh against a transfer. Because the bankruptcy court
is in the best position to interpret and enforce the sale order,
judicial economy weighs in favor of transfer. Moreover, there is no
reason to believe that either party will be prejudiced by the
transfer because in the event the Bankruptcy Court finds Defendant
assumed any liabilities associated with any claim made by
Plaintiff, such claims may be transferred back to this Court.
Finally, although California has an interest in having this case
decided here, such concern may be later addressed should any viable
claims be transferred back to this Court for adjudication.

The bankruptcy court that oversees the Chrysler bankruptcy
proceeding has expressly retained jurisdiction over the sale order
in the sale order itself and in its final decree and continues to
exercise that jurisdiction.  

A court has special expertise regarding the meaning of its own
order, and therefore its interpretation is entitled to deference.


Although the Court recognizes that a decision to transfer a case is
not to be taken lightly, the threshold question in this matter is
one best left to the bankruptcy court that issued the sale order.
This is especially apparent considering the parties provided no
compelling reason as to why this Court is in a better position to
interpret and enforce the sale order than the bankruptcy court that
issued it.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the Court, therefore,
GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Transfer. The Clerk shall transfer
this matter to the Southern District of New York.

Defendants Motion to Transfer is granted, this case is ordered
transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1412 to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York for referral
to the Bankruptcy Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 12, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyl9brck from Leagle.com.

Wendy Hightman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Christopher Wright --
dcw@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo LLP & Douglas Carl
Sohn -- dsohn@sohnlaw.com -- Sohn and Associates.

FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Edwin Mendelson Boniske  --
boniske@higgslaw.com -- Higgs Fletcher & Mack, LLP, Kathleen Ann
Wisniewski -- kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn
LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen Anthony D'Aunoy --
sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac vice.


FEDEX CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against FedEx Corporation (FDX) and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
Southern District of New York, and indexed under 19-cv-06183, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased, or otherwise acquired, FedEx securities
during the period from September 19, 2017 through December 18,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), who were damaged thereby (the
"Class"), seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased FedEx securities during the
class period, you have until August 26, 2019, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

FedEx is a global logistics company that ships goods to commercial
and residential customers throughout the world.  

In July 2016, FedEx significantly expanded its international
operations through its $4.8 billion acquisition of TNT Express N.V.
("TNT"), a Netherlands-based logistics company with operations
concentrated in Europe. To date, this has been the largest
acquisition in FedEx history. This acquisition instantly added
billions of dollars of European revenues to FedEx's top line and
increased the Company's international revenue mix from 24% in
fiscal year 2016 to 33% in fiscal year 2017.

After the acquisition closed, FedEx embarked on an aggressive
strategy to integrate its legacy European operations with TNT. On
March 31, 2017, nine months after completing the acquisition, FedEx
issued a three-year operating income improvement target for
investors to gauge and track the purported benefits of the TNT
acquisition and FedEx's integration efforts. Specifically, the
Company stated that, in fiscal year 2020, its integration with TNT
would result in a $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion operating income
improvement above its fiscal year 2017 reported operating income
(the "TNT Income Improvement Target").
             
On June 27, 2017, however, TNT's operations were crippled by a
cyber attack known as NotPetya, which involved the spread of a
malware virus throughout TNT's systems (the "Cyberattack").
NotPetya is considered one of the largest cyber attacks in history,
having affected a multitude of companies on a global scale. The
timing of the attack was particularly problematic for FedEx, as
TNT's systems were paralyzed during the critical period involving
the integration of TNT with the Company's legacy European
operations.
             
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
continually assured investors about its recovery from the
Cyberattack and that any negative impact from the attack was
minimal. For example, Defendants told investors that TNT customer
volumes were being restored to pre-attack levels and that "despite
the cyber attack, the customers stuck with us." Defendants also
stated that TNT integration efforts were successfully progressing
and continuously stated that FedEx was "on track" to achieve the
TNT Income Improvement Target.

Notwithstanding these positive representations to the market,
Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) TNT's overall package volume growth was slowing
as TNT's large customers permanently took their business to
competitors after the Cyberattack; (ii) as a result of the customer
attrition, TNT was experiencing an increased shift in product mix
from higher-margin parcel services to lower-margin freight
services; (iii) the anticipated costs and timeframe to integrate
and restore the TNT network were significantly larger and longer
than disclosed; (iv) FedEx was not on track to achieve the TNT
Income Improvement Target; and (v) as a result of these undisclosed
negative trends and cost issues, FedEx's positive statements about
TNT's recovery from the Cyberattack, integration into FedEx's
legacy operations, customer mix, customer service levels,
profitability, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

The Class Period starts on September 19, 2017, when FedEx reported
that the Cyberattack had negatively impacted its first quarter 2018
results (ended August 30, 2017). During the related earnings call,
however, Defendants assured investors that all critical TNT systems
were fully restored and fixes to its customer-specific systems were
expected to be finalized by the end of September 2017. Company
executives also reaffirmed the TNT Income Improvement Target.
Analysts maintained their ratings and price targets on FedEx stock
due to the Company's assurances about its recovery from the
Cyberattack. On this news, FedEx stock increased $4.50 per share,
or roughly 2.1%, to close at $220.50 per share on September 20,
2017.

The truth about TNT's deteriorating business was revealed through a
series of disclosures. While making these disclosures, however,
Defendants continued to assure investors that FedEx would still
meet the TNT Income Improvement Target and that TNT had
successfully recovered in the wake of the Cyberattack.

On June 19, 2018, FedEx provided a disappointing capital
expenditure outlook for its FedEx Express segment, the reporting
segment that includes TNT's results, and reported
higher-than-expected TNT integration expenses. On this news, FedEx
shares dropped $6.96 per share, or 2.69%, to close at $251.43 per
share on June 20, 2018. Despite these issues, Defendants assured
investors that the Company was "on track" to meet the TNT Income
Improvement Target and that TNT's year-over-year growth had
resumed.

On September 17, 2018, FedEx reported lower-than-expected earnings
for its first quarter ended August 30, 2018. The Company partially
attributed these results to higher-than-expected TNT integration
costs. On this news, FedEx stock dropped $14.15 per share, or 5.5%,
to close at $241.58 per share on September 18, 2018. Defendants,
however, again assured investors that the Company was on track to
meet the TNT Income Improvement Target, and touted that the
Company's "strong international volume growth reflect[ed] [FedEx's]
recovery from the TNT cyberattack."

On December 7, 2018, FedEx announced that David L. Cunningham would
retire as FedEx Express' President and Chief Executive Officer
("CEO") on December 31, 2018. Analysts immediately suggested that
Cunningham's "retirement" was a result of performance issues within
the Company's FedEx Express segment. On this news, FedEx stock
dropped $13.67 per share, or roughly 6.4%, to close at $201.39 per
share on December 7, 2018.

The full extent of TNT's deteriorating business was revealed to
investors on December 18, 2018, after the close of trading. On that
date, FedEx reported a large profit miss for its second fiscal
quarter ended November 30, 2018. Defendants attributed the
disappointing results to lower package volumes in Europe and a
negative shift in TNT's product mix to lower margin freight
business following the Cyberattack, which had occurred well over a
year ago. The Company also lowered its fiscal 2019 earnings
guidance and announced that the TNT Income Improvement Target would
no longer be achievable by fiscal year 2020. On this news, FedEx
stock dropped $22.50 per share, or roughly 12.2%, to close at
$162.51 per share on December 19, 2018.

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

CONTACT:

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


FIAT-CHRYSLER: Fix for Jeep 'Death Wobble' Following Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Chin, writing for The Drive, reports that Jeep claims to have
a fix in the works for the infamous "death wobble" front end issue
commonly associated with the Wrangler off-roader. The automaker was
put in the spotlight after a slew of Jeep Wrangler owners teamed up
to file a federal lawsuit against Fiat-Chrysler Automobiles, citing
the "death wobble" as a serious safety issue.

Those with Jeeps are no stranger to the phenomenon but if you've
never heard of it before, the "death wobble" describes an
unexpected, sudden, and often dramatic steering wobble in the front
axle that causes a complete loss of steering control.

Basically, any significant road imperfection could trigger the
problem at any given time while driving. For years, however, it's
been a known characteristic for Jeep Wranglers, mainly if front
suspension and steering components are worn from age and wear, or
if the front-end alignment is off. The risk of the "death wobble"
is even greater because many Jeep Wranglers are often pushed to
their limits off-road, accelerating the wear of those items.

To try and quell the problem from the get-go, FCA is pitching that
it'll begin installing a new steering damper, or a stabilizer to
address the steering vibration issues.

Despite the lawsuit, FCA maintains that it's not a safety problem.
FCA also says they don't know of any fatalities or injuries from
the issue. But many owners are saying the complete opposite, that
the "death wobble" is indeed a massive safety issue and the
stabilizer is just a "Band-Aid on a broken leg" fix for what they
believe is a defective design.

"No, I would not blame it on manufacturing," Mark Chernoby, FCA's
chief technical compliance officer, told The Detroit Free Press.
"It was a combination of design and manufacturing process."

But even though the focus of the "death wobble" is on the Jeep
Wrangler, it's not exclusive to FCA's halo model. The phenomenon is
possible in any vehicle with a solid front live-axle. That's due to
the simplistic design of both the axle and its steering system.

"If you bang it with that frequency it'll just sit there and keep
going forever. It won't slow down, it won't dissipate, and that's
essentially what we're talking about here with the vibration in the
new Wrangler," Chernoby continued. "When you hit a bump in the
road, if everything is just right, this suspension can set off that
resonance and what we started seeing is as soon as it got cold this
past fall, early winter, we started seeing complaints."

Of the complaints filed against FCA for the issue, the owners
represent only 2 percent of the 370,000 new Wranglers manufactured
as of June.

Customers will receive a letter in the mail for the campaign and
will receive the new steering damper free of charge as if it were a
service bulletin, rather than a safety recall. [GN]


FIDELITY NATIONAL: 401(k) Plan Related Suit v. Reliance Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, 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
Reliance Trust Company ("Reliance"), the company's subsidiary,
continues to defend a class action suit related to a 401(k) Plan.

Reliance Trust Company ("Reliance"), the Company's subsidiary, is
named as a defendant in a class action arising out of its provision
of services as the discretionary trustee for a 401(k) Plan (the
"Plan") for one of its customers.

Plaintiffs in the action seek damages and attorneys' fees, as well
as equitable relief, on behalf of Plan participants for alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 against Reliance and the Plan's sponsor and
record-keeper.

Reliance is vigorously defending the action and believes that it
has meritorious defenses. Pre-trial discovery has now been
completed.

Reliance contends that no breaches of fiduciary duty or prohibited
transactions occurred and that the Plan suffered no damages.
Plaintiffs allege damages of approximately $115 million against all
defendants.

Fidelity National said, "While we are unable at this time to
estimate more precisely the potential loss or range of loss because
of unresolved questions of fact and law, we believe that the
ultimate resolution of the matter will not have a material impact
on our financial condition. We do not believe a liability for this
action is probable and, therefore, have not recorded a liability
for this action."

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. operates as a
financial services technology company in the United States and
internationally. It operates through Integrated Financial Solutions
and Global Financial Solutions segments. The company was founded in
1968 and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.


FIFTH THIRD: Court Grants Bid to Conditionally Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JENNIFER SELDOMRIDGE, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
FIFTH THIRD BANK, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00553-SJD-SKB
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Stephanie K. Bowman entered an order on
Aug. 15, 2019:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify class;

   2. directing parties to meet and confer to develop a mutually
      agreeable class definition;

   3. directing parties to meet and confer to develop a mutually-
      agreeable notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs and a
      consent form; and

   4. directing parties to submit a joint proposed class
      definition, proposed notice and opt-in form within 14
      days from the date of this Order.

The Plaintiff proposes the following class definition:

   "all former and current Service to Solutions employees, and
   those working in other call center positions, employed by
   Defendant at any time in the period measured from three years
   prior to the filing of this Complaint to the present".

The Court said, "Defendant argues that Plaintiff's class definition
is overly broad and should be narrowed. Specifically, Defendant
asserts that the proposed class should be limited only to the
Service to Solutions position and not all call center employees. As
such, the parties should make a good faith effort to negotiate the
language of the notice. The Defendant further asserts that the
notice period should be two years, not three years as proposed by
Plaintiff, because there is no evidence of a willful violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.  At this early stage in the
litigation, without the benefit of discovery, the Court will impose
a three-year statute of limitations for purposes of conditional
certification."[CC]

FRONT PORCH: Raines Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned KRISTINA RAINES, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated Plaintiff, v. FRONT PORCH COMMUNITIES
AND SERVICES, a corporation; U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP, a
corporation; SELECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION, a corporation;
CONCENTRA GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, a corporation; and DOES 3 through
10, inclusive Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00053708-CU-CR-CTL was
removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San
Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California on Aug. 15, 2019, and assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01539-DMS-MSB.

In early March 2018, Front Porch Communities and Services offered
Plaintiff employment so long as she satisfactorily completed a
pre-employment medical examination. Before attending any
pre-employment medical examination, she executed consent and
release forms. Plaintiff then went to a U.S. HealthWorks Medical
Group, Prof. Corp. ("USHW") clinic for the pre-employment medical
examination. While there, she refused to respond to basic medical
questions, became belligerent and hostile, and left the examination
all together. USHW then contacted Front Porch and reported
Plaintiff's refusal to complete the medical examination. USHW
shared no medical information with Front Porch. After learning that
Plaintiff refused to complete the medical examination, Front Porch
revoked the job offer because it could not allow her to commence
work.

The Plaintiff alleges all causes of action against USHW: age
discrimination, gender discrimination, retaliation, wrongful
refusal to hire, violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, violation
of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and intrusion
into private affairs.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Jennifer L. Santa Maria, Esq.
     Cameron O. Flynn, Esq.
     OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
     4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
     San Diego, CA 92122
     Phone: 858-652-3100
     Facsimile: 858-652-3101
     Email: jennifer.santamaria@ogletree.com
            cameron.flynn@ogletree.com


FUNCTION INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Function Inc. The
case is styled as Linda Slade individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Function Inc. doing business as: functionofbeauty.com,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07686 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 16, 2019).

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

Function Inc provides personal care products. The Company offers
hair care products such as shampoo and conditioner. Function serves
customers in the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Gutierrez Suit Over Defective Transmissions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisella Gutierrez, Jimmy Harman, Mark Kidd, and James Norvell, on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Motors, LLC,
Case No. 2:19-cv-12371-GCS-SDD (E.D. Mich., Aug. 9, 2019), is
brought on behalf of those who purchased or leased vehicles
manufactured by GM equipped with dangerously defective
transmissions.

These defective transmissions--GM's Hydra-Matic 8L90 or
8L45--create safety hazards that are unacceptable and unreasonably
dangerous to the Plaintiffs, Class members, as well as their
families, friends, and the other drivers and passengers with whom
they share the roads, the Plaintiffs allege.  The Plaintiffs
contend that GM's 8L90 and 8L45 transmissions are defective because
they cause Class Vehicles to shudder, jerk, suddenly accelerate,
fail to accelerate, fail to downshift, and delay stopping despite
the application of brakes.

General Motors, LLC, has its principal place of business in
Detroit, Michigan.  The sole member and owner of General Motors,
LLC, is General Motors Holdings LLC.  General Motors Holdings LLC's
only member is General Motors Company, which has a 100% ownership
interest in General Motors Holdings LLC.

GM designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, and leases
passenger vehicles, including the Class Vehicles, in all fifty
states and the District of Columbia.  GM is the warrantor and
distributor of the Class Vehicles in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Tana Lin, Esq.
          Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
          Max Goins, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  tlin@kellerrohrback.com
                  rmcdevitt@kellerrorhback.com
                  mgoins@kellerrohrback.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid for Class Cert. in Interest Rate 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 plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the putative class action related
to the Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation remains pending.

The Company ("Group Inc."), Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co."),
Goldman Sachs International (GSI), GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs
Financial Markets, L.P. (GSFM) are among the defendants named in a
putative antitrust class action relating to the trading of interest
rate swaps, filed in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The same Goldman Sachs entities also are among the defendants named
in two antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate
swaps, commenced in April 2016 and June 2018, respectively, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their
affiliates. These actions have been consolidated for pretrial
proceedings.

The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law
and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among
the defendants to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps.
The complaints in the individual actions also assert claims under
state antitrust law.

The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
treble damages in an unspecified amount.

Defendants moved to dismiss the class and the first individual
action and the district court dismissed the state common law claims
asserted by the plaintiffs in the first individual action and
otherwise limited the state common law claim in the putative class
action and the antitrust claims in both actions to the period from
2013 to 2016.

On November 20, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the second individual action,
dismissing the state common law claims for unjust enrichment and
tortious interference, but denying dismissal of the federal and
state antitrust claims.

On March 13, 2019, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion in the
putative class action to amend their complaint to add allegations
related to 2008-2012 conduct, but granted the motion to add limited
allegations from 2013-2016, which the plaintiffs added in a fourth
consolidated amended complaint filed on March 22, 2019. The
plaintiffs in the putative class action moved for class
certification on March 7, 2019.

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Altice USA IPO-Related Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss in the class action suit related to Altice USA,
Inc.'s (Altice) $2.15 billion June 2017 initial public offering, is
pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in putative securities class actions pending in New York
Supreme Court, Queens County and the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York beginning in June 2018, relating to
Altice USA, Inc.'s (Altice) $2.15 billion June 2017 initial public
offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include
Altice and certain of its officers and directors.

GS&Co. underwrote 12,280,042 shares of common stock representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $368 million.

On May 10, 2019, plaintiffs in the district court filed an amended
complaint, and on June 27, 2019, plaintiffs in the state court
action filed a consolidated amended complaint.

On July 23, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint
in the state court action.

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 VRDO-Related Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the defendants
motion to dismiss the class action suit related to variable rate
demand obligations (VRDOs) remains pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the defendants named in a
putative class action relating to variable rate demand obligations
(VRDOs), filed beginning in February 2019 under separate complaints
and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 31, 2019,
generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and state
common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the
defendants to manipulate the market for VRDOs.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble and other damages.

Defendants moved to dismiss on July 30, 2019.

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in SunEdison Suit Receives Initial OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 settlement in
the class action suit related to SunEdison, Inc.'s convertible
preferred stock has received preliminary court approval.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative class actions and individual actions
filed beginning in March 2016 relating to the August 2015 public
offering of $650 million of SunEdison, Inc. (SunEdison) convertible
preferred stock.

The defendants also include certain of SunEdison's directors and
officers.

On April 21, 2016, SunEdison filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The pending cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York and on March 17, 2017, plaintiffs
in the putative class action filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

GS&Co., as underwriter, sold 138,890 shares of SunEdison
convertible preferred stock in the offering, representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $139 million. On March 6,
2018, the defendants' motion to dismiss in the class action was
granted in part and denied in part.

On February 11, 2019, the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the class action was granted. On April 10, 2018
and April 17, 2018, certain plaintiffs in the individual actions
filed amended complaints.

The defendants have reached a settlement with certain plaintiffs in
the individual actions and a settlement of the class action, which
received preliminary court approval on July 16, 2019.

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


GREAT TENNESSEE PIZZA: Drivers Seek Proper Expense Reimbursements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR "STAR" PILLE, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. THE GREAT TENNESSEE PIZZA COMPANY,
INC. d/b/a DOMINO'S, ROANOKE VALLEY PIZZA, INC. d/b/a DOMINO's, and
PETER D'ANDREA, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00317 (E.D. Tenn.,
Aug. 16, 2019) is a lawsuit brought as a collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, to recover unpaid wages owed to
Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by
Defendants at their Domino's stores.

The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks, asserts the complaint.

The Defendants' reimbursement policy does not reimburse delivery
drivers for even their ongoing out-of-pocket expenses, much less
other costs they incur to own and operate their vehicle, and thus
Defendants uniformly fail to reimburse its delivery drivers at any
reasonable approximation of the cost of owning and operating their
vehicles for Defendants' benefit, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants until 2019 as a delivery
driver.

Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Forester, Esq.
     FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
     400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 210-2100
     Fax: (214) 346-5909


HV OCCUPATIONAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Hayes Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL HAYES INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. HV OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ADVISORS OF AMERICA, LLC, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00269 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 9, 2019), accuses the Defendant
of not paying the Plaintiff and other employees overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

HV Occupational Health Advisors of America, LLC is a Texas
corporation doing business in the Southern District of Texas with
its principal place of business located in Friendswood, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
          HOMMEL LAW FIRM
          5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone: (903) 596-7100
          Facsimile: (469) 533-1618
          E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


IDEAL CONCRETE: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA/NYLL, Mejia Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARVIN MEJIA, JORGE TRIGUEROS, MIGUEL ZAVALA and WILLIAM RAMOS, on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v.
IDEAL CONCRETE CONTRACTING, INC. and CHRISTOPHER A. DREES, Case No.
2:19-cv-04573 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2019), accuses the Defendants of
failing to pay the Plaintiffs and others premium overtime wages for
hours worked in excess of forty hours per week in violation of both
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Ideal Concrete Contracting, Inc. is a domestic business corporation
organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New
York.  Christopher A. Drees owns and/or operates Ideal.

The Defendants are engaged in the concrete contracting
business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          825 Veterans Highway, Suite B
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com


IRVING HOLDINGS: Kalenga Hits Misclassification, Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
DIDYME KALENGA and ARNOLD BANKETE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. IRVING HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01969-S (N.D. Tex., Aug. 16, 2019) is a
Collective Action Complaint against Defendant, seeking all
available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiffs allege that though Defendant classified them and other
similarly situated transportation drivers as independent
contractors, they were in fact Defendant's employees under the
FLSA. Due to Defendant's unlawful misclassification of Plaintiffs
and putative collective members as independent contractors,
Defendant has violated the FLSA by failing to pay them the
statutory minimum wage and overtime as required by Sections 6 and 7
of the FLSA. As a result, Plaintiffs and the putative collective
members are not paid an overtime premium for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per week, despite routinely working more than 40 hours
per week, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs have provided services as transportation drivers for the
Defendant.

Irving Holdings, Inc. is a transportation company that provides
both taxicab, paratransit, and other non-fixed route transportation
services in the Greater Dallas-Fort Worth Area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
     Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
     HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
     801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
     Fort Worth, TX 76102
     Phone: 817-479-9229
     Fax: 817-887-1878
     Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com
            pamela@herrmannlaw.com

          - and -

     Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
     Zachary L. Rubin, Esq.
     LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Phone: (617) 994-5800
     Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
            zrubin@llrlaw.com


JIM'S FORMAL WEAR: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jim's Formal Wear
LLC. The case is styled as Valentin Reid on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jim's Formal Wear LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07646-AJN (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 15, 2019).

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

Jim's Formal Wear LLC is one of the nation's largest provider of
men's tuxedo rental and suit rental services with more than 5000
retailers in all 50 states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Paul Force, Esq.
     Stein Saks, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


JUUL LABS: Murphy Files Suit Over Injuries Caused by E-cigarettes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW MURPHY, CADE BEAUPARLANT, and M., a minor, by his mother
and natural guardian MARIANNE SAVAGE on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JUUL LABS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11755-NMG (D. Mass., Aug. 15, 2019) is
an action for injunctive relief arising out of their injuries
caused by Defendant's wrongful conduct. The Defendant's unfair and
deceptive trade practices misled Class Members into use of its
highly addictive e-cigarette products.

During the time Plaintiffs used Juul e-cigarettes, they were
designed, tested, manufactured, marketed, promoted, distributed,
and sold by Defendant. However, Juul e-cigarettes were defective
and unreasonably dangerous and should not have been sold to
Plaintiffs at any time, says the complaint.

Juul Labs committed unfair and deceptive acts and practices,
including, but not limited to: (1) breach of the implied warranty
of merchantability by manufacturing, selling, and/or distributing
Juul e-cigarettes in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous
to minors and (2) unfairly designing and marketing its e-cigarettes
for use by minors. Juul Labs acted willfully or negligently by
designing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, and promoting its
products in such a way that was defective compared to available
safer alternative designs, and in a manner that was designed and
marketed to appeal to minors, including the Plaintiffs, the
complaint asserts.

Plaintiffs purchased and became daily users of Juul e-cigarettes
that were designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, and sold
by Defendant.

Juul Labs (and its predecessor corporations PAX Labs, Inc. and
Ploom, Inc.) designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells
e-cigarettes throughout the United States, including in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andrew A. Rainer, Esq.
     Meredith K. Lever, Esq.
     Juliana Shulman-Laniel, Esq.
     Mark A. Gottlieb, Esq.
     Public Health Advocacy Institute
     360 Huntington Avenue, #117CU
     Boston, MA 02115
     Phone: (617) 373-8066
     Email: arainer@phaionline.org
            meredith@phaionline.org
            juliana@phaionline.org
            mark@phaionline.org


KEEFE COMMISSARY: Rapid Appeals Ruling in Reichert to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Rapid Investments, Inc., and Cache Valley Bank Company
filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Jeffrey
Reichert v. Keefe Commissary Network, LLC, et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-05848-RBL, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Tacoma.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 19,
2019, Judge Ronald B. Leighton (i) granted the Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification with respect to the Washington subclass on
the condition that Reichert add another named Plaintiff who
received a cardholder agreement with their release card; and (ii)
reserved certification of the national class and necessary joinder
under Rule 19.

The class action lawsuit challenges the use of prepaid "release
cards" for reimbursing confiscated cash to inmates as they are
released from incarceration.  Many government facilities have opted
to use these cards instead of redistributing funds via cash or a
check.  However, unlike those other methods, release cards carry
hefty fees that start depleting inmates' funds within hours of
release.  The contracts with government agencies to provide release
cards are managed by Defendant Rapid Investments, Inc., and issued
by Cache Valley Bank.

Reichert moves to certify both a national class, asserting claims
under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"), and a Washington
subclass, asserting claims under EFTA, the Takings Clause, and the
Washington Consumer Protection Act ("WCPA"), as well as for
conversion and unjust enrichment.

The national class definition is defined as all persons in the
United States who, at any time since Oct. 20, 2016, were: (1) taken
into custody at a jail, correctional facility, detainment center,
or any other law enforcement facility, (2) entitled to the return
of money either confiscated from them or remaining in their inmate
accounts when they were released from the facility, (3) issued a
prepaid debit card from Keefe Commissary Network, LLC, Rapid
Investments, Inc., and/or Cache Valley Bank that was subject to
fees, charges, and restrictions and (4) not offered an alternative
method for the return of their money.

The appellate case is captioned as Jeffrey Reichert v. Rapid
Investments, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-80105, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent JEFFREY REICHERT, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
          Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
          Chris R. Youtz, Esq.
          SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
          3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
          Seattle, WA 98121
          Telephone: (206) 223-0303
          E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com
                  rspoonemore@sylaw.com
                  chris@sylaw.com

               - and -

          Masimba Mutamba, Esq.
          Sabarish Neelakanta, Esq.
          HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER
          P.O. Box 1151
          Lake Worth, FL 33460
          Telephone: (561) 360-2523
          E-mail: mmutamba@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
                  sneelakanta@hrdc-law.org

Defendants-Petitioners RAPID INVESTMENTS, INC., DBA Access Freedom,
DBA Rapid Financial Solutions, and CACHE VALLEY BANK are
represented by:

          Emily J. Harris, Esq.
          Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner Fogg & Moore LLP
          1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3900
          Seattle, WA 98154-1051
          Telephone: (206) 625-8600
          E-mail: eharris@corrcronin.com


KEEFE COMMISSARY: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in Reichert Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Keefe Commissary Network, LLC, filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Reichert v. Keefe
Commissary Network, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-RBL, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Tacoma.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 19,
2019, Judge Ronald B. Leighton (i) granted the Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification with respect to the Washington subclass on
the condition that Reichert add another named Plaintiff who
received a cardholder agreement with their release card; and (ii)
reserved certification of the national class and necessary joinder
under Rule 19.

The class action lawsuit challenges the use of prepaid "release
cards" for reimbursing confiscated cash to inmates as they are
released from incarceration.  Many government facilities have opted
to use these cards instead of redistributing funds via cash or a
check.  However, unlike those other methods, release cards carry
hefty fees that start depleting inmates' funds within hours of
release.  The contracts with government agencies to provide release
cards are managed by Defendant Rapid Investments, Inc., and issued
by Cache Valley Bank.

Reichert moves to certify both a national class, asserting claims
under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"), and a Washington
subclass, asserting claims under EFTA, the Takings Clause, and the
Washington Consumer Protection Act ("WCPA"), as well as for
conversion and unjust enrichment.

The national class definition is defined as all persons in the
United States who, at any time since Oct. 20, 2016, were: (1) taken
into custody at a jail, correctional facility, detainment center,
or any other law enforcement facility, (2) entitled to the return
of money either confiscated from them or remaining in their inmate
accounts when they were released from the facility, (3) issued a
prepaid debit card from Keefe Commissary Network, LLC, Rapid
Investments, Inc., and/or Cache Valley Bank that was subject to
fees, charges, and restrictions and (4) not offered an alternative
method for the return of their money.

The appellate case is captioned as Jeffrey Reichert v. Keefe
Commissary Network, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-80104, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent JEFFREY REICHERT, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
          Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
          Chris R. Youtz, Esq.
          SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
          3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
          Seattle, WA 98121
          Telephone: (206) 223-0303
          E-mail: rspoonemore@sylaw.com
                  ehamburger@sylaw.com
                  chris@sylaw.com

               - and -

          Masimba Mutamba, Esq.
          Sabarish Neelakanta, Esq.
          HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER
          P.O. Box 1151
          Lake Worth, FL 33460
          Telephone: (561) 360-2523
          E-mail: mmutamba@humanrightsdefensecenter.org
                  sneelakanta@hrdc-law.org

Defendant-Petitioner KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, LLC, DBA Access
Corrections is represented by:

          Sylvia Karen Bamberger, Esq.
          BETTS, PATTERSON & MINES, P.S.
          701 Pike Street, Suite 1400
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 268-8634
          E-mail: kbamberger@bpmlaw.com

               - and -

          Russ Ponessa, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          333 South 7th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-3434
          E-mail: rponessa@hinshawlaw.com


KORNIT DIGITAL: Rosen Probe of Securities Claims Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues its
investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Kornit Digital Ltd. (NASDAQ: KRNT) resulting from
allegations that Kornit may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

On May 7, 2019, Spruce Point Capital Management published a report
regarding Kornit, entitled "Teed Up And Printing Rebates". The
Spruce Point report alleged, among other things, that Kornit was
"not adequately disclosing" the terms of Amazon price rebates; that
there was "a discrepancy between reported Amazon revenues in
Kornit's filings"; and Kornit had engaged in "aggressive tactic[s]"
with respect to reporting the cost of warrants granted to Amazon,
"which the SEC questioned, and made [Kornit] restate results." On
this news, Kornit's stock price fell $2.63 per share, or 9.35%, to
close at $25.51 per share on May 7, 2019.

Then, on August 6, 2019, after the market closed, Kornit announced
its financial results for the second quarter of 2019, disclosing a
significant decline in gross margin, "primarily driven by impact of
warrants, product mix and new product introduction."  On this news,
Kornit's stock price fell $2.58 per share, or over 8.6%, to close
at $27.29 per share on August 7, 2019.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Kornit investors. If you purchased shares of
Kornit please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1571.htmlto join the
class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com

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

Contact:

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


KROGER CO: Court Dismisses D. Brooks TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
in the case captioned Derrick Brooks, Plaintiff, v. The Kroger Co.,
Defendant. Case No. 3:19-cv-00106-AJB-MDD. (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff brings this class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) against The Kroger Co. for alleged
unauthorized marketing calls made using an automated telephone
dialing system (ATDS). Plaintiff alleged Kroger called him and
other putative class members at least once, from telephone number
(800) 727-2333.

Kroger argues the call it made to Plaintiff and other putative
class members falls under the emergency exception of the TCPA
because the phone call warned consumers about salmonella-tainted
beef and was related to consumers' injury or death. Kroger asserts
Plaintiff's complaint thus fails to state that the calls were done
for marketing purposes, a necessary fact under the statute.

The TCPA forbids making any call to a cellular or landline
telephone using an ATDS. The FCC defines advertisement to mean any
material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any
property, goods, or services. Similarly, the FCC defines telephone
solicitation to mean the initiation of a telephone call or message
for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or
investment in, property, goods, or services. The TCPA, however,
makes an exception for calls made for emergency purposes.  

First, the Court is troubled by Plaintiff's misrepresentations in
the complaint. Plaintiff purposely omitted details from customer
complaint information it found online to make Kroger's calls seem
nefarious. Because the complaint refers to external information
found online, Kroger argues it can incorporate by reference the
full quotations found there.  

Kroger argues the Court can consider these quotes as evidence that
it indeed called Plaintiff under the emergency exception without
converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary
judgement because it is incorporated by reference in Plaintiff's
complaint. Kroger argues the complaint should be dismissed for
failure to comply with Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 8, as the complaint
only includes conclusory allegations and fails to plead a necessary
element.

The Court agrees. The complaint makes only conclusory allegations
that the calls were done for marketing purposes, and even goes so
far as to misrepresent information to the Court in doing so. As
such, the complaint fails to state that the calls were done for
marketing purposes.  

The Court grants the motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 12, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6rg5vdn from Leagle.com.

Derrick Brooks, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Timothy Fisher --
ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, PA & Blair Reed --
breed@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher PA.

The Kroger Co., Defendant, represented by Frederick William Kosmo,
Jr. -- fkosmo@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP &
Jennifer C. Arnold -- JArnold@WilsonTurnerKosmo.com -- Wilson
Turner Kosmo, LLP.


LYONS DOUGHTY: 3d Cir. Flips Dismissal of FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, GLENN D. GROSS, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Appellant, v. LYONS DOUGHTY & VELDHUIS, P.C.,
Case No. 19-1031 (3d Cir.), Judge Patty Schwartz of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's
order dismissing Gross' complaint.

Gross sued debt collector Lyons Doughty & Veldhuis, P.C. ("LDV")
for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"),
alleging that its debt collection letter failed to identify the
creditor, as required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(2).

LDV sent a letter to Gross seeking to collect on a credit card
debt.  The letter stated that LDV "represents Capital One Bank
(USA), N.A., assignee of HSBC Bank of Nevada N.A. RCS Direct
Marketing/Orchard Bank in connection with Gross' account, and that
LDV was a debt collector.  The letter added that Gross' account was
in default and that he could contact LDV's office to pay the
outstanding balance.

Gross filed a putative class action complaint against LDV, alleging
that its letter failed to identify the name of the creditor to whom
the debt is owed.  Gross averred that "at least four" entities were
"connected in some way" with the debt -- Capital One Bank, HSBC
Bank, RCS Direct Marketing, and Orchard Bank -- but the letter did
not explicitly identify the creditor to whom the debt was owed.

The District Court dismissed Gross's complaint under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), holding that LDV's letter sufficiently
identified Capital One Bank as the creditor and thus complied with
Section 1692g(a)(2).  Gross appeals.

Viewing the allegations in Gross' favor, Judge Schwartz finds that
LDV's letter fails to apprise the least sophisticated debtor of the
creditor's identity for three related reasons.  First, LDV's letter
did not explicitly state that Capital One Bank was Gross' creditor
or that it owned his debt.  Second, identifying Capital One Bank as
the "assignee of" three other entities, do not disclose the
identity of the creditor.  Third, while the least sophisticated
debtor must "read collection notices in their entirety," LDV's
letter as a whole does not effectively disclose the creditor's
identity.

For these reasons, the Judge reversed the order of the District
Court dismissing Gross' complaint, and remanded for further
proceedings consistent with her Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/rkn6eU from Leagle.com.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Solomon Suit Still Stayed
-------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2019, that the case, Solomon v.
Mallinckrodt plc, et al., remains stayed pending resolution of the
Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al.

On July 20, 2017, a purported purchaser of Mallinckrodt stock
through Mallinckrodt's Employee Stock Purchase Plan ("ESPP"), filed
a derivative lawsuit in the Federal District Court in the Eastern
District of Missouri, captioned Solomon v. Mallinckrodt plc, et
al., against the Company, its CEO Mark C. Trudeau, its former CFO
Matthew K. Harbaugh, its Controller Kathleen A. Schaefer, and
current and former directors of the Company.

On September 6, 2017, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint
in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
and refiled virtually the same complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt stock between November
25, 2014, and January 18, 2017, through the ESPPs.

In the alternative, the plaintiff alleges a class action for those
same purchasers/acquirers of stock in the ESPPs during the same
period.

The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 of the Securities
Act, and for breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation,
non-disclosure, mismanagement of the ESPPs' assets and breach of
contract arising from substantially similar allegations as those
contained in the putative class action securities litigation
described in the following paragraph. Stipulated co-lead plaintiffs
were approved by the court on March 1, 2018.

Co-lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 4, 2018
having a class period of July 14, 2014 to November 6, 2017.

On July 6, 2018, this matter was stayed by agreement of the
parties.

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

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MATTEL, INC.: Black Suit Moved to Western District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Black, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc.,
the Defendant, Emily Barton, Cassandra Mulvey, Katherine Shaffer,
Mark Nabong, Candace Kimmel, Samantha Drover-Mundy, Zachary Mundy,
and Rebecca Drover, the Intervenors, Case No. 2:19-cv-03209 (April
23, 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. 15, 2019. The
Western District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01083-GWC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Geoffrey Crawford.

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for children and infants, headquartered in East Aurora, New
York.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Scott A Bursor, Esq.
          Blair Elizabeth Reed, Esq.
          BURSOR AND FISHER PA
          1990 North California Boulevard Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Craig J de Recat, Esq.
          Matthew Paul Kanny, Esq.
          Adrianne E. Marshack, Esq.
          MANATT PHELPS AND PHILLIPS LLP
          11355 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614
          Telephone: (310) 312-4000
          Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
          E-mail: mkanny@manatt.com
          E-mail: amarshack@manatt.com

Attorneys for the Intervenors are:

          Brittany DeJong, 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

MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Suits in US & Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maxar Technologies 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 two class action suits in Colorado and one in
Canada, in violation of the federal securities laws.

In January 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit captioned Durant v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No.
1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC in the District Court of Colorado, naming
Maxar and members of management as defendants alleging, among other
things, that the Company's public disclosures from March 29, 2018
through January 7, 2019 were deficient in violation of the federal
securities laws and seeking monetary damages.

In March 2019, another stockholder filed a virtually identical
putative class action in the District of Colorado captioned
Schwartz v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00758-NRN,
alleging violation of the same securities laws as alleged in the
Durant case based upon nearly identical underlying facts.

Once the court consolidates these two actions and appoints a lead
plaintiff, that plaintiff will have sixty days to file a
consolidated amended complaint and the Company will have sixty days
to file a response.

Also in January 2019, a Maxar stockholder resident in Canada issued
a putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles O’Brien vs.
Maxar Technologies Inc., No. CV-19-00613564-00CP in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice against Maxar and members of management
claiming misrepresentations in Maxar's public disclosures and
seeking monetary damages.

The Company believes that these cases are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against them.

Maxar Technologies Inc. provides space technology solutions for
commercial and government customers worldwide. The company operates
through three segments: Space Systems, Imagery, and Services. The
company was founded in 1969 and is based in Westminster, Colorado.


MDL 2807: $4.325MM Class Settlement Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
issued an Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval in the case captioned IN RE: SONIC CORP. CUSTOMER DATA
SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. Case No. 1:17-MD-2807, MDL No. 2807.
(N.D. Ohio).

In 2017, not yet identified third parties stole Sonic1 customer
payment card data from more than three-hundred Sonic Drive-Ins.
Consumer Plaintiffs sued Sonic, alleging that Sonic's inadequate
security practices allowed the breach.

Standing

Article III standing requires: (1) an injury in fact (2) a causal
connection between the injury and the conduct complained of and (3)
that it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the
injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

Here, some class representatives allege that they experienced
unauthorized charges on their payment cards although each received
complete reimbursement from their banks. Other representatives did
not experience unauthorized charges but their banks preemptively
cancelled their cards.

Accepting the class representatives' allegations as true and
construing them in their favor, the representatives suffered
concrete and particularized injuries caused by Sonic.

Certifying the Settlement Class

Plaintiffs must show that: (i) the class is too numerous for
joinder (ii) there are legal or factual questions common to the
entire class (iii) the class representatives' claims are typical of
the class and (iv) they will adequately represent the class'
interests. Further, because Plaintiffs seek Rule 23(b)(3)
certification, they must show that common questions predominate
over individualized ones and proceeding as a class is superior to
other methods.

Numerosity: Sonic estimates that there are 1.5 million Settlement
Class members. The numerosity requirement is satisfied.

Commonality & Predominance: Class claims satisfy commonality if
they depend upon a common contention that is capable of class-wide
resolution which means that determination of its truth or falsity
will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one
of the claims in one stroke.

The class members' claims arise from the same event the Sonic data
breach. And they concern the same general legal questions,
including: whether Sonic was legally required to protect
Plaintiffs' data, whether Sonic failed to adequately safeguard
Plaintiffs' data, and whether Sonic failed to promptly notify
Plaintiffs.

Typicality: Here, the class representatives' claims and those of
the other class members both arise from the same data breach at the
same 325 Sonic Drive-Ins. Further, they both involve the same
general legal theories relating to Sonic's failure to adequately
protect payment card data.

As Settlement Class representatives advance their own interests,
they also advance the interests of Settlement Class members.

Adequacy of Representation: Class representatives are adequate when
they have vigorously prosecuted the interests of the class through
qualified counsel. Adequacy of representation turns in part on the
competency of class counsel and in part on the absence of conflicts
of interest."

The Court finds that the class representatives fairly and
adequately protected the class interests.

Predominance: The predominance inquiry tests whether proposed
classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by
representation. The numerous common questions of fact and law that
arise from Sonic's conduct predominate over any individualized
issues.

Superiority: The class members' claims are too small to pursue
individually. The class vehicle allows Plaintiffs to pool their
claims and allows the Court to conserve resources.

The Court finally certifies the class for settlement purposes.

Notice Program

In this case, because Sonic did not possess contact information for
class members, direct notice was impossible. Instead, the notice
program lasted ninety days and included: (1) in-store notice at the
325 Sonic Drive-Ins (2) geographically targeted Facebook and Google
internet ads (3) notice in publications (4) banner notice on
Sonic's website and Facebook page and (5) long-form notice on the
Sonic website. The claim submission process was simple and required
no supporting documentation, only a signature attesting that the
information provided was true.

Although the claims rate was somewhat low, 59,953 timely claims out
of an estimated 1.5 million class members, the Court finds that the
notice methods and claims rate were reasonable under the
circumstances. Especially considering the challenges of eliciting
class member response where notice is not individually addressed,
where the recovery amount is limited, and where class members may
not recall a life event as insignificant as eating at Sonic.

Although the risk of fraud is likely higher than usual, the Court
notes that the Settlement Agreement does require the Settlement
Claims Administrator to perform basic verification and fraud
detection measures. Based on the unique features of this case, this
is enough.

The Settlement Is Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate

Following a December 1, 2018 amendment, Rule 23(e)(2) now instructs
courts to consider certain factors when deciding whether the
settlement meets this standard: (A) the class representatives and
class counsel have adequately represented the class (B) the
proposal was negotiated at arm's length (C) the relief provided for
the class is adequate, taking into account (i) the costs, risks,
and delay of trial and appeal (ii) the effectiveness of any
proposed method of distributing relief to the class, including the
method of processing class member claims;(iii) the terms of any
proposed award of attorney's fees, including timing of payment
and(iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3)
and(D) the proposal treats class members equitably relative to
each other.

Class Representatives' and Class Counsels' Adequate Representation

The Court finds that class representatives and class counsel
adequately represented the class during the litigation and in
settlement negotiations. The negotiations were contentious and hard
fought. And class counsel secured substantial benefits for the
class. The Court finds no evidence of fraud or collusion. In fact,
the parties obtained the settlement with the help of a magistrate
judge, which supports an absence of fraud.

None of the thirteen non-class named Plaintiffs excluded in the
settlement have raised an objection. In any event, the Settlement
Agreement does not bar excluded individuals from bringing suit
later. The Court is satisfied that absentees are not harmed by an
unwarranted class definition.

This further signals that the class representatives and class
counsel have adequately represented absent class members.

The Settlement Was Negotiated at Arm's Length

The parties engaged in substantial negotiations when seeking to
settle the litigation. This included two formal, full-day mediation
sessions with a Northern District of Ohio magistrate judge, after
this Court's referral. They returned to mediation when there was an
impasse. These were arm's length settlement negotiations.

Considering Various Factors, the Settlement Provides Adequate
Relief

To assess the fairness of a proposed settlement, the Court weighs
the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits against the
amount and form of the relief offered in the settlement. Here, the
Settlement Agreement provides monetary and injunctive relief to
Settlement Class members that appears structured to remedy all
damages suffered, both actual and future. No unclaimed funds revert
to Sonic.

The Court cannot judge the fairness of a proposed compromise
without weighing the plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the
merits against the amount and form of the relief offered in the
settlement. However, our task is not to decide whether one side is
right or even whether one side has the better of the arguments. The
question rather is whether the parties are using settlement to
resolve a legitimate legal and factual disagreement. The realm of
data breach litigation is complex and largely undeveloped. It would
present the parties and the Court with novel questions of law.

The Court does not doubt that the settlement serves to resolve the
legitimate dispute between the parties and therefore this
requirement is satisfied.

Considering the injuries alleged, the settlement gives substantial
benefits to Settlement Class members.

The costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal. The costs, risks,
and delay of trial and appeal further support accepting this
settlement. Data breach litigation is complex and risky. This
unsettled area of law often presents novel questions for courts.
And of course, juries are always unpredictable.

This settlement, by contrast, gives immediate compensation to
Settlement Class members. Class interests are better served by
settlement than continued litigation.

The effectiveness of the proposed method for distributing relief.
The proposed claims procedure is the most effective method for
distributing the benefits obtained from this settlement. As noted,
Plaintiffs' estimated typical damages were small. Because locating
records from a two-year-old Sonic purchase is no simple task,
requiring documentary support for each claim would significantly
reduce the number of claims filed.

The Settlement Agreement contains a clear-sailing provision- a
Sonic promise not to object to a request for attorneys' fees up to
one-third of the $4,325,000 aggregate fund, or reasonable costs and
expenses.

Upon close inspection, the Court finds no reason to reject the
settlement due to this clear sailing clause. The parties did not
negotiate attorneys' fees terms until reaching an agreement on the
class member benefits. Absent evidence of improper incentives, a
clear-sailing provision alone does not doom the settlement.

Rule 23(e)(3) agreements. Parties seeking approval must file a
statement identifying any agreement made in connection with the
settlement. Here, the parties represented that there was no such
agreement.

The Settlement Agreement's Equitable Treatment of Class Members
Relative to One Another
In assessing whether the Settlement Agreement treats Settlement
Class members fairly vis-a-vis one another, the Court considers
whether the apportionment of relief among class members takes
appropriate account of differences among their claims.

The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement does. The Settlement
Agreement creates two categories for the recovery amounts. These
two categories seem to directly track the estimated damages for a
typical data breach victim, for those whose information has been
compromised and those who additionally suffered fraudulent
charges.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 12, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2h6jlae from
Leagle.com.

Cornelius Bogard, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian D. Flick, Dann
Law Firm, 810 Sycamore St, Third Floor, Cincinnati, OH, 45202,
Carin L. Marcussen -- Federman & Sherwood, Marc E. Dann, Dann Law
Firm, 810 Sycamore St, Third Floor, Cincinnati, OH, 45202, Thomas
A. Zimmerman, Jr., Zimmerman Law Office, 77 West Washington Street,
Suite 1220, Chicago, IL 60602 & William B. Federman -- Federman &
Sherwood.

Sonic Corp., Defendant, represented by Kari M. Rollins --
krollins@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton,
Amy J. Pierce -- apierce@hbplawok.com -- Corbyn Hampton Barghols
Pierce, David M. Poell -- dpoell@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard,
Mullin, Richter & Hampton, David A. Riepenhoff --
driepenhoff@fisheldowney.com -- Fishel Downey Albrecht &
Riepenhoff, Joe M. Hampton -- jhampton@corbynhampton.com -- Corbyn
Hampton Barghols Pierce, Liisa M. Thomas --
lmthomas@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton,
Melanie J. Williamson -- mwilliamson@fisheldowney.com -- Fishel
Downey Albrecht & Riepenhoff & P. Craig Cardon --
ccardon@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton.


Sonic Franchising LLC, Sonic Industries Services Incorporated,
Sonic Industries LLC & Sonic Restaurants, Inc., Defendants,
represented by David M. Poell, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
& Kari M. Rollins, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton.  


MDL 2904: Chuha Suit v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHERYL CHUHA, 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. 2:19-cv-00742 (Filed July 21,
2019), was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (Newark) on Aug. 13, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-16601
to the proceeding.

The Chuha 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:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          36 N. Jefferson Street
          P.O. BOX 7635
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Telephone: (724) 656-1555
          Facsimile: (724) 656-1556
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

Attorneys for Optum 360 LLC are:

          Stephen S. Stallings, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN S. STALLINGS
          310 Grant Street, Suite 3600
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 322-7777
          Facsimile: (412) 322-7773

Attorneys for Quest Diagnostic Incorporated are:

          Constantine J. Passodelis, Esq.
          Jason A. Rosenberger, Esq.
          JONESPASSODELIS PLLC
          Gulf Tower, Suite 3410
          707 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 315-7272
          Facsimile: (412) 315-7273

               - and -

          David S. Petron, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1501 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 736-8093
          Facsimile: (202) 736-8711

Attorneys for Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings are:

          Stephen A. Loney, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          1735 Market Street, 23rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: c(267) 675-4677
          Facsimile: (267) 675-4601

MDL 2904: Ocasio Suit v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ERICKSON J. OCASIO, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. LABORATORY
CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-04989 (Filed July 24, 2019), was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Aug. 13,
2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:19-cv-16604 to the proceeding.

The Ocasio 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 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:

          Rusty A. Payton, Esq.
          20 North Clark Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (773) 682-5210
          E-mail: info@payton.legal

               s- and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112

MDL 2904: Raben Suit v. Quest over Data Breach Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, Jennifer Raben, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTIC
INCORPORATED, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01889 (Filed June 28,
2019), was removed from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Newark) on Aug. 13, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-16603 to the proceeding.

The Raben 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 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:

          Ivy Tran Ngo, Esq.
          Alexander F. Beale, Esq.
          FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES PC-AURORA
          14426 East Evans Avenue
          Aurora, CO 80014-1474
          Telephone: (303) 573-3000
          Facsimile: (303) 759-5203

Attorneys for Quest Diagnostic Incorporated are:

          Eric Lindsay Robertson, Esq.
          Galen Driscoll Bellamy, Esq.
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
          370 17th Street, Suite 4500
          Denver, CO 80202-5647
          Telephone: (303) 244-1842
          Facsimile: (303) 244-1879


MEALS ON WHEELS: Marcos Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MEALS ON WHEELS OF
SAN FRANCISCO, INC. et al. The case is styled as NOEL MARCOS, ON
BEHLAF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff v. MEALS ON WHEELS OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC., A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION, DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No.
CGC19578451 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Aug. 16, 2019).

The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS".

Meals on Wheels provide isolated homebound seniors in San Francisco
with nutritious meals, daily friendly visitors, and supportive
services to prevent their premature institutionalization.[BN]


MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION: Harris Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Harris, Darnell Frye, Leo Franklin, Plaintiffs in the lawsuit
captioned ISAAC HARRIS, et al. v. MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION
MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-01371-APM (D.D.C.), seek
certification of this class:

     Drivers who have provided transportation service to MTM
     clients in the District of Columbia under any contract with
     the District of Columbia at any time from three years prior
     to the filing of this action through the date on which
     notice is issued affording the right to opt out of any class
     certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).

The Plaintiffs also asks the Court to appoint them as class
representatives; and appoint Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and
Public Citizen Litigation Group as class counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
          Stacy N. Cammarano, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue NW, Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: jsellers@cohenmilstein.com
                  scammarano@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Patrick D. Llewellyn, Esq.
          Michael T. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP
          1600 20th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone (202) 588-1000
          E-mail: pllewellyn@citizen.org
                  mkirkpatrick@citizen.org


MERCHCO SERVICES: Bresko Moves to Certify Retail Employees Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled DANIEL BRESKO, Individually
and for Others Similarly Situated v. MERCHCO SERVICES, INC., Case
No. 5:19-cv-00427-XR (W.D. Tex.), moves for conditional class
certification.

Mr. Bresko asserts that Merchco failed to pay its retail
installation employees overtime, and instead, it paid these
employees a day rate without overtime.  He contends that he is one
of the employees impacted by Merchco's unlawful day rate policy.
He seeks permission to notify his coworkers -- other retail
installation employees paid a day rate -- of this collective
action.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MEXICAN HOSPITALITY: Perez Sues Over Improper Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN PEREZ, ANA DORANTES, DANIELE FLUMIANI, ADRIAN HERNANDEZ, JESUS
NAVA, FABIO REYES, and ANGEL TEPOLE, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. MEXICAN HOSPITALITY OPERATOR LLC
d/b/a COSME, COSME NY LLC d/b/a COSME, ENRIQUE OLVERA, and DANIELA
SOTO-INNES, Case No. 1:19-cv-07403 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants paid the Plaintiffs and the rest of the
waitstaff at the "tipped" minimum wage without satisfying the
strict tip credit requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

Mexican Hospitality Operator LLC and Cosme NY LLC are New York
limited liability companies that own, operate, and do business as
Cosme, a Mexican restaurant located at 35 East 21st Street, in New
York City.  Beginning in September 2018, Cosme began doing business
under the business entity name of Cosme NY LLC.

Cosme is a Modern Mexican restaurant located in the Flatiron
District of Manhattan.  Enrique Olvera and Daniela Soto-Innes are
the owners of both Mexican Hospitality Operator LLC and Cosme NY
LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq.
          Gregory S. Slotnick, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue - 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9500
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                  cuadra@pechmanlaw.com
                  slotnick@pechmanlaw.com


MIRA SUSHI INC: Xi Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mira Sushi Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Hua Xi on his own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mira Sushi Inc., Stellar
153 Inc., Andy Lee, Patricia Ng, Xiao Yun Mei, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-07710 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 17, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mira Sushi Inc. is a sushi restaurant catering towards the desires
of the neighborhood, which is sushi rolls, sushipizza, cooked
Japanese plates, and ramen burgers.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MOBILITY MEDICAL: Vilanova Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MICHEL VILANOVA,
Individually, and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Who
consent to Their Inclusion in a Collective Action, the Plaintiff,
vs. MOBILITY MEDICAL TRANSPORT, INC., a Florida Corporation, and
MARIA COLLAZON EXPOSITO and YANKO VALDEZ, individually, the
Defendants, Case 1:19-cv-22391 (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all drivers or employees performing similar work regardless
      of their job title, who are employed by the Defendants,
      within the past three years preceeding the filing of this
      lawsuit, and who elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to
      Fair Labor Standards Act"; and

   2. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel.

The Plaintiff and other similary situated to work 12 hours days,
Monday through Saturday. As a result, they worked in excess of 4
hours per week, yet they were not paid at the rate of
time-and-one-half their regularly hourly rate. The Plaintiff
challenges the Defendants' unlawful practice of failing to pay its
drivers and other similarly situated an overtime premium for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of the
FLSA.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Elvis J. Adah, Esq.
          GALLARDO LAW OFFICES, P.A.
          8492 SW 8th Street
          Miami, FL, 33144
          Telephone: (305) 261 7000
          Facsimile: (786) 261 0088
          E-mail: elvis.adan@gallardolawfirm.com

MOSAIC COMPANY: Examination in Uberaba EHS Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic 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 examination in the
Uberaba EHS Class Action remains pending.

In 2013, the State of Minas Gerais public prosecutor filed a class
action claiming that the company's predecessor company in Brazil
did not comply with labor safety rules and working hour laws.

This claim was based on an inspection conducted by the Labor and
Employment Ministry in 2010, following which the company was fined
for not complying with several labor regulations.

The company filed its defense, claiming that it complied with these
labor regulations and that the assessment carried out by the
inspectors in 2010 was abusive.

Following the initial hearing, the court ordered an examination to
determine whether there has been any non-compliance with labor
regulations.

The examination is currently pending. The amount involved in the
proceeding is $35.5 million.

The Mosaic Company, through its subsidiaries, produces and markets
concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients worldwide. The
company operates through three segments: Phosphates, Potash, and
International Distribution. The Mosaic Company was founded in 2004
and is headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota.


MRS BPO: 3rd Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in DiNaples Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming District Court's judgment granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned DONNA DINAPLES,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MRS BPO,
LLC; JOHN DOES 1-25 MRS BPO, LLC, Appellant. No. 18-2972. (3rd
Cir.).

DiNaples filed a class action lawsuit against MRS, alleging that
the collection agency, by printing the QR code on the envelope, had
violated the FDCPA, which prohibits debt collectors from using any
language or symbol, other than the debt collector's address, on any
envelope when communicating with a consumer by use of the mails.

The District Court granted DiNaples's motion on liability,
concluding that MRS violated the FDCPA.

The District Court explained that this conclusion was required by
our decision in Douglass, in which we held that a debt collector
violates Section 1692f(8) by placing on an envelope the consumer's
account number with the debt collector. For the District Court,
there was no meaningful difference between displaying the account
number itself and displaying a QR code scannable by any teenager
with a smartphone app with the number embedded.The District Court
further rejected MRS's contention that DiNaples had not suffered a
concrete injury, explaining that DiNaples was injured by the
disclosure of confidential information.

The Court considers first a jurisdictional issue, DiNaples's
standing to sue.  Standing has three elements: the plaintiff must
have (1) suffered an injury in fact (2) that is fairly traceable to
the challenged conduct of the defendant and (3) that is likely to
be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.

The question here is whether DiNaples suffered a concrete injury
when her debt collector sent her a letter in an envelope displaying
a QR code that, when scanned, revealed her account number with the
debt collection agency. The Court concludes that she did.

Because DiNaples's injury was intangible, the Court begins our
analysis with the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo. There, the
Court reaffirmed that, while tangible injuries are typically easier
to identify, intangible injuries can nevertheless be concrete. 136
S. Ct. at 1549.  

Disclosure of the debtor's account number through a QR code, which
anyone could easily scan and read, still implicates core privacy
concerns. The debt collector has displayed core information
relating to the debt collection that is susceptible to privacy
intrusions. Whether disclosed directly on the envelope or less
directly through a QR code, the protected information has been made
accessible to the public. And as we concluded in St. Pierre, such
an invasion of privacy is closely related to harm that has
traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit in
English and American courts. It thus follows from our Douglass and
St. Pierre decisions that DiNaples has suffered a sufficiently
concrete harm.

MRS is incorrect to suggest that to establish Article III standing,
DiNaples would have to show that someone actually intercepted her
mail, scanned the barcode, read the unlabeled string of numbers and
determined the contents related to debt collection or it was
imminent someone might do so. The teaching of Douglass and St.
Pierreis that the disclosure of an account number is itself the
harm  it implicates core privacy concerns and therefore is
sufficiently concrete under Spokeo to establish an injury-in-fact.
In other words, because the disclosure is the concrete harm here,
DiNaples need not allege any additional harm beyond the one
Congress has identified. Her evidence that she received an envelope
with a QR code containing private information was enough to
establish a concrete injury.

The Court holds that DiNaples has standing to sue.

The FDCPA, specifically 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f(8), prohibits debt
collectors from:
using any language or symbol, other than the debt collector's
address, on any envelope when communicating with a consumer by use
of the mails or by telegram, except that a debt collector may use
his business name if such name does not indicate that he is in the
debt collection business.
There is no dispute that that provision plainly prohibits the QR
code. Still, as other courts have observed, Section 1692f(8) is
rather expansive when read literally. It would seemingly prohibit
including a debtor's address and an envelope's pre-printed postage,
as well as any innocuous mark related to the post, such as
overnight mail and `forwarding and address correction requested.  

As with standing, the question is whether the analysis changes when
the account number is not on the face of the envelope but is
embedded in a QR code. The panel in Douglass explicitly left that
question open. But, keeping in mind that the FDCPA must be broadly
construed in order to give full effect to its remedial purposes,
the Court agrees with the District Court that the reasoning of
Douglass applies fully to an account number embedded in a QR code.
As explained above with respect to standing, the harm here is still
the same the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information.
And if such disclosure was not benign, disclosure via an easily
readable QR code is not either. Protected information has still
been compromised.

The Court therefore holds that a debt collector violates Section
1692f(8) when it sends to a debtor an envelope displaying an
unencrypted QR code that, when scanned, reveals the debtor's
account number. The Court thus agree with the District Court that
MRS, in doing so here, violated the FDCPA.

MRS argues that, even if its conduct violated the FDCPA, it is
subject to the bona fide error defense.

The Court disagrees.

The FDCPA's bona fide error defense is found in 15 U.S.C. Section
1692k(c), which provides:
a debt collector may not be held liable in any action brought under
this subchapter if the debt collector shows by a preponderance of
evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a
bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures
reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.

In Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich L.P.A., 559
U.S. 573 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the bona fide error
defense in Section 1692k(c) does not apply to a violation of the
FDCPA resulting from a debt collector's incorrect interpretation of
the requirements of that statute.

MRS contends that it committed a mistake of fact. It argues that it
erred by using industry standards for processing return mail and
appreciating that no person has ever used a QR Code to determine a
letter concerned debt collection. MRS insists that it did
notmistakenly interpret the FDCPA. But that is precisely what it
did. While MRS tries to characterize its error as one of fact, MRS
ultimately just misunderstood its obligations under the FDCPA.
Indeed, MRS all but admits that point when it argues that it
mistakenly believed that its conduct could not conceivably violate
the FDCPA. That is not a mistake of fact; it is a mistake of law.

The bona fide error defense is therefore inapplicable here.

The Court will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's August 12, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3kondgm from Leagle.com.

Michael D. Alltmont [ARGUED], Bryan C. Shartle, Sessions Fishman
Nathan & Israel, 3850 North Causeway Boulevard, Lakeway Two, Suite
200, Metairie, LA 70002.

Andrew J. Blady, Sessions Fishman Nathan & Israel, 3682 Green Ridge
Road, Furlong, PA 18925.
Ross Enders, Law Offices of J. Scott Watson, 24 Regency Plaza, Glen
Mills, PA 19342, Counsel for Appellant MRS BPO, LLC.

Ari H. Marcus, Yitzchak Zelman [ARGUED], Marcus & Zelman, 701
Cookman Avenue, Suite 300, Asbury Park, NJ 07712.

Mark G. Moynihan, Suite 1-N, 112 Washington Place, Pittsburgh, PA
15219, Counsel for Appellee Donna DiNaples.


NCAA: 9th Cir. Affirms Dawson's FLSA Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court’s judgment granting
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned LAMAR DAWSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION;
PAC-12 CONFERENCE, Defendants-Appellees. No. 17-15973. (9th Cir.).

In his complaint, Dawson alleged that the NCAA and the PAC-12 acted
as an employer of the class members by prescribing the terms and
conditions under which student-athletes perform services. Dawson
claims that the NCAA and PAC-12, as joint employers, failed to pay
wages, including overtime pay, to Dawson and to class members in
violation of federal and state labor laws.

The NCAA and the PAC-12 moved to dismiss Dawson's complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The
district court granted the motion, and dismissed the complaint
without leave to amend. The district court concluded that Division
I FBS Football Players are not employees of the NCAA or PAC-12 as a
matter of federal law.

The FLSA provides that employers must pay their employees a minimum
wage and overtime pay for hours worked in excess of the statutory
workweek. The statute defines an employee as any individual
employed by an employer.   To employ means to suffer or permit to
work.

Ultimately, the test of employment under the FLSA is one of
economic reality. The Supreme Court has found a number of
circumstances relevant in evaluating economic reality, including:
(1) expectation of compensation  (2) the power to hire and fire (3)
and evidence that an arrangement was conceived or carried out to
evade the law.

The district court also correctly dismissed Dawson's California law
claims for failure to state a claim, relying on the California
Legislature's decision to except student-athletes from workers
compensation benefits and decisions of the California Courts of
Appeal that interpret the student-athlete exception. Dawson argues
that the district court erred in dismissing his state law claims
because the exception does not apply to the wage and hour
provisions at issue here.

The status of student-athletes under California labor law has a
storied history. In 1963, the California Court of Appeal determined
that the estate of a state college football player, killed with his
team in a plane crash while returning from a football game, was
entitled to death benefits from his college under the state's
Workmen's Compensation Act. Van Horn v. Indus. Acc. Comm'n, 219
Cal.App.2d 457, 465 (1963). The California Legislature responded in
1965 by amending the Workmen's Compensation Act to exclude
explicitly any person, other than a regular employee, participating
in sports or athletics who receives no compensation for such
participation other than the use of athletic equipment, uniforms,
transportation, travel, meals, lodgings, or other expenses
incidental thereto  

To be sure, the exclusion of student-athletes from the Workmen's
Compensation Act at Section 3352(k) of the Labor Code is informed
by Section 3350, which provides that unless context otherwise
requires, the definitions set forth in this article shall govern
the construction and meaning of the terms and phrases used in this
division.

In Townsend v. State of California, 191 Cal.App.3d 1530 (1987),
Division Two of California's Second District Court of Appeal held
that a student-athlete who committed a tort on another
student-athlete during a basketball game was not an employee of his
state university, barring the tort victim from recovering under a
theory of respondeat superior.

Fifteen years later, Division Five of the Second District Court of
Appeal determined that a former women's basketball player could not
state a claim against a private university and its women's
basketball coach for violation of the California Fair Employment
and Housing Act because she was not an employee of her university.
Shephard v. Loyola Marymount Univ., 102 Cal.App.4th 837, 842-44
(2002). The court re-stated and elaborated on Townsend's broad
characterization of the student-athlete exception, describing the
Legislature's clear intent to exclude a student-athlete from the
definition of employee.To hold that the student-athlete was an
employee under the FEHA, the court determined, would specifically
eschew the application of Labor Code section 3352, subdivision
(k).

Dawson argues that reliance on Townsend and Shephard is misplaced
because the cases concerned statutes not at issue here. However,
the Courts of Appeal in those cases determined that the Legislature
intended that the student-athlete exception extend beyond the
Workmen's Compensation Act. Even if the California Courts of Appeal
had not explicitly outlined the Legislature's intent and the broad
applicability of the student-athlete exception, the California
courts' willingness to apply the exception outside of the worker's
compensation context contradict Dawson's threshold argument that
the exception applies narrowly.

There is no authority that supports an inference that, even though
the student-athletes are not considered to be employees of their
schools under California law, the NCAA and the PAC-12 can
nevertheless be held to be joint employers with the students'
schools. Consequently, the Court must hold that student-athletes
are not employees of the NCAA/PAC-12 under the California Labor
Code.

The Court affirms the district court's dismissal of Dawson's FLSA
and California state law claims against the NCAA and PAC-12.  

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's August 12, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y56da977 from Leagle.com.

Mark C. Rifkin -- rifkin@whafh.com -- (argued) and Jeffrey G. Smith
-- smith@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Hertz LLP,
New York, New York; Betsy C. Manifold -- manifold@whafh.com -- Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Hertz LLP, San Diego, California; John
M. Kelson -- kelsonlaw@sbcglobal.net -- The Law Offices of John M.
Kelson, Oakland, California; Jerry K. Cimmet -- cimlaw@me.com --
San Mateo, California; for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Daniel S. Volchok -DANIEL.VOLCHOK@WILMERHALE.COM -- (argued) and
David M. Lehn -- DAVID.LEHN@WILMERHALE.COM -- Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C.; Kenneth D. Sulzer --
ksulzer@constangy.com -- Steven B. Katz -- skatz@constangy.com -,
and Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum -- skrollrosenbaum@constangy.com --
Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete LLP, Los Angeles, California; for
Defendant-Appellee National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Kiran A. Seldon (argued), Jeffrey A. Berman, and Diana
Tabacopoulos, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San
Francisco, CA 9410, for Defendant-Appellee PAC-12 Conference.


NY TEX CARE: Filed Fraudulent Tax Info, Francisco Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
HERLINDA FRANCISCO, on behalf of herself and class of similarly
situated individuals v. NY TEX CARE, INC. d/b/a GREEN & WHITE DRY
CLEANERS and INSUN YUN, Case No. 1:19-cv-04606 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 9,
2019), is brought for damages under the Internal Revenue Code
arising from the Defendants' filing of fraudulent tax information
forms with the Internal Revenue Service.

The Defendants failed to withhold any of the Plaintiff's wages for
tax purposes, according to the complaint.  The Defendants further
failed to provide the Plaintiff with an accurate W-2 tax statement
for each tax year during which she worked.

NY TEX CARE, INC. is a domestic business corporation organized
under the laws of the State of New York with an address for service
of process and principal place of business located in Long Island
City, New York.  Insun Yun is an owner of the Corporate Defendant.

The Defendants operate a commercial cleaning company offering dry
cleaning services under the tradename "Green & White Dry
Cleaners."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          William Brown, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com
                  will@leelitigation.com


ONONDAGA COUNTY, NY: Young Offenders Class Certified in J.B. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lawrence E. Kahn grants the Motion for Class Certification
in the lawsuit captioned J.B., et al. v. Onondaga County, et al.,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00137-LEK-TWD (N.D.N.Y.).

This 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.

Judge Kahn also grants the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Onondaga County and County Executive Ryan McMahon shall make a room
available for class members to meet privately with their attorneys
in the Syracuse Criminal Courthouse before appearances in the Youth
Part.  Sheriff Eugene Conway's deputies and staff, and all other
law enforcement officials acting in concert with them, including
the Syracuse Police Department, are enjoined from being present in
the room when class members are discussing their cases with their
attorneys before or after court appearances.

Judge Kahn further rules that the Defendants shall confer with the
Plaintiffs' counsel and the New York Attorney General and, by
August 26, 2019, report the steps they have taken to comply with
the Injunction Order.  The Plaintiffs shall, and the Attorney
General may, join in that report to state their position concerning
whether the Defendants are complying with that Order.[CC]


OUTREACH STRATEGISTS: Canvassers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS MASON, SAN JUANA CAUDILLO, and DANIELA MORENO, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OUTREACH
STRATEGISTS, LLC, and MUSTAFA TAMEEZ, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-03049 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 15, 2019) is a lawsuit on behalf of
Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated current or former
canvassers, to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs owed to them
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals.

The Defendants are violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by
forcing Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers, to work a
substantial amount of overtime without properly paying all
compensation due, thus depriving them of rightful compensation for
their work that Defendants are legally obligated to pay, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as canvassers.

Defendants own and operate a public affairs and communications firm
that provides services in and around the Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
     Katie R. McGregor, Esq.
     BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
     5555 San Felipe St., Suite 900
     Houston, TX 77056
     Phone: 713-425-7100
     Fax: 713-425-7101
     Email: rcowan@bchlaw.com
            kmcgregor@bchlaw.com


PABST BREWING: Court OKs Telephonic Appearance in Peacock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Request for
Telephonic Appearance in the case captioned BRENDAN PEACOCK, on
Behalf of Himself, and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
PABST BREWING COMPANY, LLC, Defendant. Case No.
2:18-cv-00568-TLN-CKD. (E.D. Cal.).

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 12, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxgt8z6c from Leagle.com.

Brendan Peacock, Plaintiff, represented by Cullin O'Brien --
cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com -- Cullin OBrien Law, P.A., pro hac vice
& Elizabeth Lee Beck -- elizabeth@beckandlee.com -- Beck & Lee
Trial Lawyers.

Pabst Brewing Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark T.
Cramer -- mcramer@buchalter.com -- Buchalter, APC & Oren Bitan --
obitan@buchalter.com -- Buchalter, APC.


PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Allen Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CANDACE MCDONALD ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PHOENIX FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01846 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 13, 2019) is a
class action on behalf of a class of Ohio consumers seeking redress
for Defendant's actions of using an unfair and unconscionable means
to collect a debt.

Some time prior to June 3, 2019, an obligation was allegedly
incurred to original creditor FAIRVIEW HOSPITAL. The FAIRVIEW
HOSPITAL obligation arose out of a transaction in which money,
property, insurance or services, which are the subject of the
transaction, are primarily for personal, family or household
purposes. Some time prior to June 3, 2019, the FAIRVIEW HOSPITAL
debt was assigned to or purchased by CP MEDICAL LLC. The Defendant
contends that the CP MEDICAL LLC debt is past due. On or about June
3, 2019, Defendant caused to be delivered to the Plaintiff a
collection letter in an attempt to collect the alleged CP MEDICAL
LLC debt.

The Defendant regularly sends collection letters with offers to
"resolve" on debts which the statute of limitations has expired.
Nothing in the collection letters disclose that the alleged debt
was barred by the statute of limitation, nor give any indication of
how old the debt is. Upon reading the Letter, the Plaintiff
believed, as would the unsophisticated debtor, that he had a legal
obligation to pay the CP MEDICAL LLC debt as Defendant was offering
to "resolve" the account. However, the Letter falsely implies that
the CP MEDICAL LLC debt is legally enforceable by making Plaintiff
an offer to resolve her account.

The Defendant's actions violated the United States Code, commonly
referred to as the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA")
which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive
and unfair practices, says the complaint'.

Plaintiff is a natural person and a resident of the city of Elyria,
County of Cuyahoga, State of Ohio.

Defendant is a collection agency with its registered office located
at 8902 Otis Avenue, Suite 103A, Indianapolis, Indiana 46216.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc E. Dann, Esq.
     Brian D. Flick, Esq.
     DannLaw
     P.O. Box. 6031040
     Cleveland, OH 44103
     Office: (216) 373-0539
     Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
     Email: notices@dannlaw.com

          - and -

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


PLAZA FOUR-TEN: Accused by Metcalf of Not Paying Exotic Dancers
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELLA METCALF, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. PLAZA FOUR-TEN LIQUORS, INC., D/B/A THE NORTHERN
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, LELAND A. SWANSON, KERRY FERNHOLZ, JUSTIN
HELGESON, Case No. 3:19-cv-00169-DLH-ARS (D.N.D., Aug. 8, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants required and/or permitted the Plaintiff
and others to work as exotic dancers at their adult entertainment
club but refused to compensate them at the applicable minimum wage
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaza Four-Ten Liquors, Inc., doing business as Northern
Gentlemen's Club, is a North Dakota corporation.  The Individual
Defendants are owners, managers or employees of the Company.

The Defendants operate an adult entertainment club in North Dakota,
under the name of "Northern Gentlemen's Club."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Leo F.J. Wilking, Esq.
          WILKING LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3003 324 Ave. South, Suite 240
          P.O. Box 3085
          Fargo, ND 58108-3085
          Telephone: (701) 356-6823
          Facsimile: (701) 478-7621
          E-mail: lwilking@wilkinglaw.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Neff Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
--------------------------------------------------
CHARLES M. NEFF, JR. and STACY MARIE ADAMS-NEFF, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01028-DSC (W.D. Pa., Aug. 16, 2019) is an action seeking
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs against Defendant for its
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

In January 2019, Defendant filed a proof of claim (the "POC") in a
Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding concerning Plaintiffs. The POC
claimed Defendant purchased a loan Plaintiffs were alleged to have
opened with OneMain Financial (the "Loan"). By filing the POC,
Defendant attempted to collect on the Loan.

Defendant's conduct constitutes an unlawful attempt to collect on
the Loan because Defendant was not lawfully permitted to purchase
the Loan and cannot lawfully collect on the Loan, says the
complaint. OneMain Financial is a consumer discount company
regulated by the Consumer Discount Company Act ("CDCA"). The CDCA
requires consumer discount companies to have a consumer discount
company license in order to make, buy, or sell a CDCA loan. The
CDCA specifically prohibits non-licensed, non-bank entities from
purchasing CDCA loans from non-bank entities licensed under the
CDCA.

Accordingly, Defendant cannot lawfully purchase CDCA loans from any
consumer discount company, and no consumer discount company can
lawfully sell Defendant a CDCA loan. To the extent Defendant
purchased any CDCA loans from any consumer discount company, those
purchases are void. Defendant cannot lawfully collect on any of the
CDCA loans it purchased from OneMain Financial, including the Loan,
or any other consumer discount company licensed under the CDCA. As
a result of Defendant's actions, the rights of Plaintiffs and those
similarly situated to Plaintiffs were violated, and Plaintiffs and
the members of the class suffered injury in fact, the complaint
asserts.

Plaintiffs are and were residents of Washington County,
Pennsylvania.

Defendant's sole business is the purchasing of consumer debt with
the purpose of collecting on that.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
     BCJ Law LLC
     186 42nd Street, P.O. Box 40127
     Pittsburgh, PA 15201
     Phone: (412) 223-5740
     Email: kevina@bcjlawyer.com

          - and –

     Mark G. Moynihan, Esq.
     Moynihan Law, P.C.
     2 Chatham Center, Suite 230
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Phone: (412) 889-8535
     Email: mark@moynihanlaw.net


POSTURE WORKS: Class Suit Initiated by Morton Grove Terminated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman terminated the lawsuit titled
Morton Grove Living & Rehab Center, LLC v. The Posture Works, LLC,
Case No. 1:19-cv-04184 (N.D Ill.).

On stipulation and pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the individual claims in the case are dismissed
with prejudice and without costs and the claims of the putative
class are dismissed without prejudice and without costs, according
to the Court's Notification of Docket Entry.

The Plaintiff's motion to certify class is denied as moot and the
status hearing set for September 12, 2019, is stricken.[CC]


PRINTFUL INC: Aparicio Sues over Wrongful Termination
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Printful, Inc. for
alleged violations of the California Labor Code, the California
Government Code, and the California Business and Professions Code.
The case is captioned ANA APARICIO, Plaintiff, v. PRINTFUL, INC.
dba Printful Custom Printing, a Delaware corporation; SANDRA
VARGAS; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV24898
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 17, 2019). Among other things,
Printful allegedly failed to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff's
needs based on her disability. The Defendant, in violation of the
Fair Employment and Housing Act, retaliated against Plaintiff for
requesting said accommodation and terminated Plaintiff's employment
shortly after Plaintiff reported her disability and need for
accommodation.

During Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff began to suffer from
physical disabilities, including but not limited to, severe back,
hip, and shoulder pain due to her repetitive job duties at
Defendant. Plaintiff reported her disability to Defendants and
filed a workers' compensation claim in connection with her
work-related disability. Shortly after Plaintiff reported her
disability and filed a workers' compensation claim, Plaintiff was
subjected to hostile work environment harassment on account of her
age and work-related disability.

Printful is an on-demand order fulfillment and warehousing service
that fulfills and ships products including clothing, accessories,
and home and living items for online businesses. Its principal
place of business is located at 19749 Dearborn Street, Chatsworth,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Donald A. Hilland, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DONALD A HILLAND
     209 N. Maclay Avenue
     San Fernando, CA 91340
     Telephone: (818) 838-3600

QED INT'L.: Bid to Conditionally Certify Class in Felder Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LARRY FELDER, Individually and on Behalf of Those
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. QED INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. H-18-4081 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Gary H.
Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Texas,
Houston Division, (i) denied Felder's motion for conditional
certification; (ii) denied his alternative request for additional
identity discovery; and (iii) granted his unopposed motion for
leave to file a supplemental reply.

The case is a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case.  Plaintiff
Felder worked for Defendant QEDI as a Commissioning Manager.  He
contends that he and other similarly situated employees of QEDI
regularly worked more the forty hours a week but were not
guaranteed a salary.  He asserts that he and these other employees
were misclassified as exempt.  

He seeks preliminary certification of a class consisting of all
hourly employees of QEDI who were at any point in the past 3 years
paid 'straight time for overtime.'  He requests to send
court-approved notice of the lawsuit to the putative class
members.

QEDI argues that Felder has not met his burden of showing that
there are other individuals who are eligible to join the action who
want to opt in.  It asserts that Felder provides no declarations
for other potential opt-in Plaintiffs and instead merely provides
his own declaration stating that he has spoken with former
co-workers who were also paid straight time for overtime and that
he knows there is a general interest from these employees in
recovering back wages.  QEDI additionally argues that Felder fails
to show that there is a factual nexus between himself and the
putative class members to show they are similarly situated.  It
contends that Felder's declaration provides no details about his
experiences, observations, and conversations that purportedly
establish that he and other class members are similarly situated.

While the motion for conditional certification was pending, Felder
advised the Court that the parties had a discovery dispute pursuant
to the Court's discovery dispute procedure.  The Court referred the
dispute to the Magistrate Judge, who set a hearing for May 3, 2019.
The dispute related to Felder's request that QEDI provide Felder
with contact information for its employees for the past three
years.  Felder sought this information so that he could find other
employees who wanted to opt into the lawsuit.  QEDI did not want to
provide information about employees who had not filed consents to
join Felder's lawsuit.

At the hearing, the Magistrate Judge ordered QEDI to turn over the
last known contact information for three individuals who Felder
identified at the hearing.  Felder contends that the Magistrate
Judge appeared to believe that additional class discovery was
unnecessary.  After the hearing, QEDI was only able to provide
contact information for two of the three people Felder identified
during the hearing, as there was no employee by the third name. See
id. The two employees did not opt in, and Felder argues that he has
been unable, through no fault but time and memory, to find
additional class members willing to join his action.  He requests
that the Court either not require a showing that there are other
similarly situated employees who want to opt in or require QEDI to
provide his requested discovery.

Pending before the Court are (1) Felder's motion for conditional
certification filed by plaintiff Larry Felder; and (2) his
unopposed motion for leave to file a supplemental reply.

The the main issue presented is whether there is sufficient
evidence that other similarly situated employees exist who want to
opt into the lawsuit -- the third prong of the conditional
certification test.  Judge Miller finds that the three-pronged
approach the Court has consistently applied takes into account the
competing interests the statute is designed to protect, and
therefore declines to apply the more lenient standard.  Because
Felder does not meet the third prong, the motion for conditional
certification is denied.

The Judge now turns to Felder's alternative request for additional
discovery.  Felder points out that the Court, in Yoakum v. PBK
Architects, Inc., allowed discovery regarding additional class
members before denying a motion to conditionally certify due to
failure to establish the third prong of the test.  The instant case
is different than Yoakum.  Unlike the Yoakum plaintiff, who had no
way of contacting other employees, Felder states that he spoke with
other employees. However,  Felder only notes that there was a
"general interest" in recovering back wages, and a belief that the
other employees would want to learn about their rights if given the
opportunity to join the suit.

Notwithstanding the possibility posited by Felder that the
Magistrate Judge has a different philosophy regarding the necessity
of the third prong of the conditional certification test than the
Court, the Judge finds that the Magistrate Judge appropriately
balanced the interests of Felder and QEDI when she required QEDI to
disclose contact information for the employees who Felder could
identify.  Accordingly, Felder's alternative request for additional
discovery is denied.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Miller (i) granted Felder's unopposed
motion for leave to file a supplemental reply; (ii) denied his
motion for conditional certification; and (iii) denied his
alternative request for additional identity discovery.

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

Larry Felder, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Wells Dunlap --
adunlap@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, Richard J.
Burch -- rburch@brucknerburch.com -- Bruckner Burch PLLC, William
Richard Liles, Josephson Dunlap & Michael A. Josephson --
mjosephson@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap Law Firm.

QED International, LLC, Defendant, represented by Samuel Zurik, III
-- sz@kullmanlaw.com -- Kullman Firm, Bryan Edward Bowdler --
beb@kullmanlaw.com -- The Kullman Firm, P.L.C. & S. Mark Klyza --
smk@kullmanlaw.com -- The Kullman Firm.


RECOVERY CONNECTIONS: Court OKs Class Notice in Presson Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREW PRESSON and KIMBERLY MYRIS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
RECOVERY CONNECTIONS COMMUNITY; JOURNEY TO RECOVERY, LLC; JENNIFER
A. WARREN; PHILLIP J. WARREN; 3M & N, INC. d/b/a ZAXBY'S; WESTERN
NORTH CAROLINA LIONS, INC. d/b/a MARJORIE McCUNE MEMORIAL CENTER;
INTEGRITY-HOMINY VALLEY, LLC d/b/a HOMINY VALLEY RETIREMENT.
CENTER; INTEGRITY-CANDLER 02 LLC d/b/a HOMINY VALLEY RETIREMENT
CENTER; INTEGRITY-CANDLER LIVING CENTER, LLC d/b/a CANDLER LIVING
CENTER; INTEGRITY-CANDLER 01 LLC d/b/a CANDLER LIVING CENTER;
INTEGRITY SENIOR PROPERTIES INVESTMENTS, LLC; CEDARBROOK
RESIDENTIAL CENTER, INC.; and THE AUTUMN GROUP, INC. d/b/a OAK HILL
LIVING CENTER, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-CV-466-BO (E.D. N.C.),
Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Western Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for a Court-authorized notice pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b).

The Plaintiffs instituted the action by filing a complaint on Sept.
27, 2018, alleging collective action claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act for unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages and
alternatively alleging class action claims for violations of the
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.  They further allege claims for
unjust enrichment, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and
conversion.

Defendant Recovery Connections Community ("RCC") is a residential
substance abuse recovery provider operated under the common control
of Defendants Jennifer and Phillip Warren.  There are five RCC
substance abuse rehabilitation homes which are located in
Asheville, Angier, Fairview, and Black Mountain, North Carolina.
Defendant Journey to Recovery is a limited liability corporation
which holds itself out as a substance abuse counseling provider and
whose president and chief executive officer is defendant Phillip
Warren.

RCC residents are individuals with substance abuse and addiction
disorders who live in RCC homes in order to receive substance abuse
education, addiction assessments by professionals, life skills,
vocational training, community support groups, and animal and
equine therapy. The standard enrollment period for RCC residents is
two years.  As a condition of residency, RCC program participants
are required to perform labor and work both for RCC and at local
offsite businesses.  These offsite businesses with whom RCC
contracts to provide resident labor include the remaining
defendants, which are a restaurant and several adult care homes.

The Plaintiffs allege that RCC fails to provide therapeutic
treatment and training to its residents, and instead requires them
to perform arduous labor for long hours without pay.  

The offsite business Defendants have, through counsel, answered the
complaint and filed memorandums in opposition to the instant
motion.  Defendants Jennifer and Phillip Warren have answered the
complaint pro se but have failed to file any memorandum in response
to the instant motion.  Clerk's default pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
55(a) was entered against Defendants RCC and Journey to Recovery on
June 25, 2019.

The cause comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' motion for a
Court-authorized notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).  Two
sets of the Defendants have filed oppositions to the motions, and
the Plaintiffs have replied.

Judge Boyle finds that insofar as the Court is required to
determine that there are sufficiently plausible allegations of
joint employment to support conditional certification, the
Plaintiffs' allegations and evidence proffered to date are
sufficient.  The Plaintiffs' declarations and evidence supports
that the offsite businesses indirectly supervised defendants RCC
residents' work, that they engaged in training of RCC residents,
that they exercised joint hiring and firing control with the RCC
Defendants, and that the relationship between RCC and the offsite
businesses lasted in some instances more than two years.

In addition, the Plaintiffs' evidence and allegations are further
sufficient at this stage to support their contention that the RCC
and offsite business Defendants engaged in a common or uniform
policy with regard to the putative collective action members.
There is no requirement that the Plaintiffs be able to show that
the offsite businesses engaged in an employment relationship with
the RCC Defendants in bad faith or with the intent to avoid FLSA
obligations.   The Plaintiffs have alleged and provided evidence of
a common policy as between the offsite business and the RCC
defendants in which the RCC Defendants supplied individuals who
would perform work for a wage at the offsite business.  This is
sufficient to conditionally certify the collective action.

Based on the foregoing, the Judge has determined that the notice
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) should issue.  Accordingly, he
granted the Plaintiffs' motion for a Court-authorized notice
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).  The collective action is
conditionally certified, and the notice is authorized to
individuals who participated in the Recovery Connections Community
at any time between Sept. 27, 2015, and the date of final judgment
in the action.

The Defendants are ordered to produce a computer readable list of
the names, last known mailing addresses, last known telephone
numbers, last known email addresses, dates of work, and work
locations for all current and former program participants who work
or have worked for RCC and any other Defendant since Sept. 27,
2015, and the last four digits of the social security numbers for
collective members whose notices are returned as undeliverable.
The Plaintiffs shall distribute their proposed notice, consent to
join form, and reminder in accordance with the notice plan
described in their memorandum in support of the motion for
Court-authorized notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

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

Andrew Presson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated & Kimberly Myris, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Carol L. Brooke --
carol@ncjustice.org -- North Carolina Justice Center, Clermont
Fraser Ripley -- clermont@ncjustice.org -- North Carolina Justice
Center, Jalise R. Burt -- jburt@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden
LLP, Melissa L. Stewart -- mstewart@outtengolden.com -- Outten &
Golden LLP & Narendra K. Ghosh, Patterson Harkavy LLP.

Jennifer A. Warren, Defendant, pro se.

Phillip J. Warren, Defendant, pro se.

3M & N, Inc., unknown, Defendant, represented by Brandon S. Neuman
-- bneuman@shanahanlawgroup.com -- Shanahan Law Group, PLLC, John
Ellison Branch, III -- JBranch@shanahanlawgroup.com -- Shanahan Law
Group, PLLC & Nathaniel J. Pencook -- npencook@shanahanlawgroup.com
-- Shanahan Law Group, PLLC.

Western North Carolina Lions, Inc., unknown, Defendant, represented
by D.J. O'Brien, III -- dobrien@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce
McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, LLP.

Integrity-Hominy Valley, LLC, unknown, Integrity-Candler 02, LLC,
unknown, Integrity-Candler Living Center, LLC, unknown,
Integrity-Candler 01, LLC, unknown, Integrity Senior Properties
Investments, LLC, Cedarbrook Residential Center, Inc. & The Autumn
Group, Inc., unknown, Defendants, represented by D.J. O'Brien, III,
Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, Jessica
Thaller-Moran, Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, LLP &
Patricia W. Goodson, Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard,
LLP.

3M & N, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Brandon S. Neuman,
Shanahan Law Group, PLLC, John Ellison Branch, III, Shanahan Law
Group, PLLC & Nathaniel J. Pencook, Shanahan Law Group, PLLC.


RED PAYMENTS: B. Roller Action Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant First
Data's Motion to Transfer the Case in the case captioned BRIAN
ROLLER d/b/a KALOS STREET L.L.C., Plaintiff, v. RED PAYMENTS L.L.C.
and FIRST DATA GLOBAL LEASING, Defendants. Civil Action No.
18-1834. (E.D. Pa.)

First Data has moved to transfer this case to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

This is a putative class action asserting claims for, among other
things, fraud and unjust enrichment against two companies that
provide credit and debit card processing equipment and services to
merchants. The named Plaintiff, Brian Roller, owns a business that
entered into an agreement with Defendants, Red Payments LLC and
First Data Global Leasing, to lease certain equipment. Thereafter,
according to Plaintiff, he received and was charged for additional
equipment that he did not agree to lease. Defendants allegedly
refused to refund Plaintiff for these charges, continued to demand
that Plaintiff pay for the unwanted equipment, and, when Plaintiff
refused, referred the matter to a debt collector.

In opposing First Data's motion to transfer, Plaintiff challenges
only the existence and applicability of the forum selection clause;
he does not offer any reason why, assuming the forum selection
clause is binding and applicable, the public-interest factors
counsel against enforcing it under Section 1404(a).

The Plaintiff offers four reasons why the forum selection clause is
inapplicable to this action: (1) this action is outside the scope
of the forum selection clause (2) the Booklet containing the forum
selection clause was not incorporated into the Gateway Merchant
Agreement, because the Booklet was never provided to him (3) First
Data lacks standing to enforce the forum selection clause because
it is not a party to the Booklet and (4) the Booklet never became
effective because it was not signed by an entity called BMO Harris
Bank, an entity that is not a party to this case.  

This Action Is Within the Scope of the Forum Selection Clause

The Plaintiff first argues that this action is outside the scope of
the forum selection clause contained in the Booklet. Plaintiff's
argument is two-fold. First, Plaintiff contends that the Vx520
Merchant Agreement is a forgery, and thus the terms of the Booklet,
including the forum selection clause contained in it cannot be
applied to Plaintiff's claims concerning the allegedly unwanted
Vx520s.

This argument is easily dispensed with, as First Data does not rely
on the allegedly forged V×520 Merchant Agreement in seeking
enforcement of the forum selection clause. Rather, First Data
contends that the Booklet was incorporated by reference into the
Gateway Merchant Agreement, which Plaintiff admits to signing and
which contains the same language incorporating the Booklet by
reference as the Vx520 Merchant Agreement.

Requiring closer consideration is Plaintiff's second argument: that
his claims are outside of the scope of the forum selection clause,
even when considering the Booklet as incorporated into the Gateway
Merchant Agreement. In other words, Plaintiff contends that because
his claims do not pertain to the equipment specified in the Gateway
Merchant Agreement, the USB Card Swiper and the Gateway Virtual
Terminal but rather concern the V×520s, the claims are not within
the scope of the forum selection clause. First Data responds that
the clause covers Plaintiff's claims because those claims are
related to the Gateway Merchant Agreement.

The Court agrees with First Data. Again, the language of the forum
selection clause is set out in a two-page Lease Agreement contained
in the Booklet, and reads:

The exclusive venue for any actions or claims arising under or
related to this Lease Agreement shall be in the appropriate state
or federal court located in Suffolk County, New York.

Thus, the clause covers not only any claim arising under the Lease
Agreement, but also any claim related to  the Lease Agreement.

Applying this plain, common-sense meaning, courts have consistently
concluded that similar forum selection clauses those that use
phrases such as claims relating to or claims arising in relation to
an agreement broadly cover those claims that concern the business
relationship surrounding that agreement.  

As in these cases, here, Plaintiff's claims are within the scope of
the forum selection clause. While they may not arise under the
Lease Agreement as incorporated into the Gateway Merchant
Agreement, they arise out of the business relationship established
by those agreements and thus are related to those agreements.
Indeed, the facts alleged in the Complaint confirm that these
allegations are related to indeed, revolve around the execution and
performance of those agreements: Plaintiff was approached by a Red
Payments sales representative; he decided to lease certain
equipment through Red Payments; he executed the Gateway Merchant
Agreement specifying that equipment; then, within the first week of
service, he received additional equipment that he did not agree to
lease in that agreement.

Because these agreements established the business relationship
forming the factual basis for Plaintiff's claims, those claims fall
within the scope of the forum selection clause.

Plaintiff is Bound by the Terms of the Booklet Regardless of
Whether He Actually Read or Received It.

Plaintiff next contends that the terms of the Booklet, including
the forum selection clause cannot be enforced because he never saw,
heard of, received, or signed it.  

First Data responds that whether Plaintiff, in fact, read or
received the Booklet is irrelevant because Plaintiff acknowledged
receiving the Booklet and accepted its terms when he signed the
Gateway Merchant Agreement.

Under both Pennsylvania and New York law, a party's failure to read
the terms of a contract does not make those terms any less binding.
Likewise, the fact that a party did not actually receive an
incorporated document does not make the document any less binding,
provided that the party acknowledged receiving the document when
signing the contract into which the document was incorporated.  

Thus, regardless of whether Plaintiff actually received and read
the Booklet, he is bound by its terms, including the forum
selection clause. In executing the Gateway Merchant Agreement,
Plaintiff acknowledged that he received the complete MA&A booklet
and further acknowledged reading and agreeing to all terms in the
MA&A booklet. Having acknowledged receipt of, and agreement to, the
terms of the Booklet, he cannot now avoid being bound by those
terms merely by declaring that he never received or read it.

In sum, Plaintiff is bound by the terms of the Booklet, including
the forum selection clause, regardless of whether he actually read
or received it, because he acknowledged receiving it and agreeing
to it when executing the Gateway Merchant Agreement. And First Data
has sufficiently established that the document it has provided in
support of its transfer motion is the version of the Booklet that
was incorporated into the Gateway Merchant Agreement.

First Data is a Party to the Lease Agreement Containing the Forum
Selection Clause and Thus Has Standing to Enforce It

Plaintiff next contends that First Data is not mentioned anywhere
in the Booklet, and thus is not a party or signatory to the Booklet
such that it has standing to enforce the Booklet's terms. But a
review of the Booklet belies Plaintiff's assertion.

The Booklet contains what appear to be two separate agreements. The
first of these agreements appears on the first eight pages of the
Booklet. That agreement does not have a title or other heading at
the top of the page, but begins as follows: "This Merchant
Application and Agreement also referred to as the Agreement, is
entered into between the business indicated on the Merchant
Application and Agreement (Merchant or you), Priority Payment
Systems (PPS or Processor, and BMO Harris Bank, N.A. (Bank). The
Processor and Bank may be collectively identified as we or us
within the body of this Agreement."

Plaintiff focuses only on this agreement, noting that it lists
neither First Data nor Red Payments as a party. But there is a
second agreement set out in the next four pages of the Booklet.
These four pages appear to contain two copies of the same Lease
Agreement. Importantly, as discussed above, it is this Lease
Agreement that contains the forum selection clause. The Lease
Agreement begins as follows: "This Equipment Lease Agreement (Lease
Agreement) is being entered into by and between ___________,
hereinafter referred to as Company, through its business unit First
Data Global Leasing and the Lessee identified on the signature
panel of this Merchant Application and Agreement (MA&A). In this
Lease Agreement, the words we, our and us refer to Company and its
successors and assigns and the words you and your refer to Lessee
and its permitted successors and assigns."

Because, contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, First Data is a party
to the Lease Agreement containing the forum selection clause, First
Data has standing to enforce that clause, as it seeks to do here.

The Booklet Is Effective Notwithstanding Any Failure by BMO Harris
Bank to Sign the Booklet or the Gateway Merchant Agreement.

Finally, Plaintiff contends that the Booklet, including its
forum-selection clause never took effect, because the Booklet
requires that BMO Harris Bank, an entity that is not a party to
this case, sign the Booklet, which the Bank did not do.  

The provision Plaintiff refers to is set out on the confirmation
page located at the end of the Booklet. As noted above, that
confirmation page appears to be substantially identical to the
final page of the Gateway Merchant Agreement, which Plaintiff
signed. Both contain an identical listing of Important Member Bank
Responsibilities and Important Merchant Responsibilities. These
lists are reproduced below, with the relevant item appearing second
(item b.) on the list of Important Member Bank Responsibilities:

Plaintiff argues that, because the Bank must be a principal signer
to the Gateway Merchant Agreement, and because the Bank did not
sign it, the Booklet and presumably the Gateway Merchant Agreement,
as it contains the same provision did not become effective.

First Data responds that the Bank is not required to sign the
Booklet for the forum selection clause to become effective. Again,
the Court agreea with First Data.

One party's failure to sign a contract does not, by itself,
preclude enforcement of the contract against another party that did
sign it. But where the parties to the contract clearly manifested
their intent that the contract not become effective until signed by
a certain party, a condition precedent is created, rendering the
contract ineffective until that party has signed.  

Here, it is far from clear that the parties intended that the
entirety of the Booklet and, again, the Gateway Merchant Agreement,
as it contains the same provision not take effect until the Bank
signs. Notably, the confirmation page contains only one signature
line, and that line indicates that it should be signed by the
client. If the parties intended both the Gateway Merchant Agreement
and the Booklet to be ineffective until signed by the Bank, it
would be unusual not to provide a place for the Bank's signature.

It would also be unusual for the parties to have placed a condition
precedent requiring a party's signature in the middle of a list of
other responsibilities that by their nature are highly unlikely to
be conditions precedent. For example, the list of Important Bank
Responsibilities also includes immediately after the language at
issue educating Merchants on pertinent Visa, MasterCard, Discover
and American Express rules with which Merchants must comply.

The Court concludes that the failure of the Bank to sign either the
Gateway Merchant Agreement or the Booklet does not render the forum
selection clause in the Booklet ineffective.

This Action Will Be Transferred in its Entirety, Including Claims
Against Red Payments
Having rejected each of Plaintiff's arguments against the
application of the forum selection clause, and having thus
concluded that First Data's transfer motion should be granted, it
remains only to determine whether this action should be transferred
in its entirety, or whether Plaintiff's claims against First Data
should be severed from those against Red Payments. Plaintiff
suggests the latter course (severance), noting that Red Payments
did not seek transfer and is not a party to the Lease Agreement
containing the forum selection clause. For its part, Red Payments
does not oppose transfer of the claims against it. The Court
concludes, for the reasons set out below, that the entire action
should be transferred.

Plaintiff is correct that Red Payments is not a party to the Lease
Agreement containing the forum selection clause. As discussed in
Part II.C., above, the Lease Agreement provides that it is between
First Data and the individual merchant (here, Plaintiff). The
question then is how to determine whether an entire action should
be transferred when some defendants are parties to the forum
selection clause and others are not.

The answer to that question is provided by a recent decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Howmedica
Osteonics Corp., 867 F.3d 390, 403-05 (3d Cir. 2017). That decision
establishes a four-step framework, though only the first two steps
need be considered here.  

First, as to the parties bound by the forum selection clause, here,
Plaintiff and First Data, the court conducts the analysis required
by the Supreme Court in Atlantic Marine: determining whether the
public interest factors so overwhelmingly disfavor transfer that
the forum selection clause should not be enforced at all.   

Second, the court considers the private and public interests of the
parties who have not signed a forum selection agreement. If steps
one and two point to the same forum, then the court should allow
the case to proceed in that forum, whether by transfer or by
retaining jurisdiction over the entire case, and the transfer
inquiry ends there.

That is exactly the case here. For the reasons set out at length
above, step one counsels transfer to the Eastern District of New
York. Plaintiff and First Data are bound by the forum selection
clause, which is valid and applicable to the claims in this case.
And Plaintiff who bears the burden of showing that the
public-interest factors overwhelmingly disfavor a transfe has made
no effort to do so.  

Step two also counsels transfer. The party that is not bound by the
forum selection clause, Red Payments does not oppose transfer, and
thus does not contend that the transfer of the claims against it
would be contrary to its private interests or to the public
interest.  

The Court  will grant First Data's motion, and transfer this action
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 12, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyx2b3zm from
Leagle.com.

BRIAN ROLLER, doing business as KALOS STREET, L.L.C., Plaintiff,
represented by DAVID J. STANOCH , GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. & KENNETH J.
GRUNFELD , GOLOMB & HONIK PC, 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
Philadelphia, PA 19103

RED PAYMENTS L.L.C., Defendant, represented by HUAOU YAN --
HYan@blankrome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP, JASON A. SNYDERMAN --
snyderman@blankrome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP & WILLIAM R. CRUSE --
cruse@blankrome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP.

FIRST DATA GLOBAL LEASING, Defendant, represented by JAIME A.
BIANCHI -- jbianchi@whitecase.com -- WHITE & CASE LLP, ANGELO A.
STIO, III -- stioa@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, JAN P.
LEVINE -- levinej@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON LLP & SAMUEL D.
HARRISON -- harrisons@pepperlaw.com -- PEPPER HAMILTON LLP.


RICK CASE: Turizo Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------
RYAN TURIZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RICK CASE ENTERPRISES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-62062-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 15, 2019),
contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise,
in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone
users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant owns and operates several new and used car dealerships
throughout the State of Florida. In efforts to drum-up business,
Defendant would routinely collect and otherwise compile (often
referred to as "scraping") the cellular phone numbers of any
individual that called Defendant, regardless of the purpose, and
thereafter, send marketing text messages to each of the cellular
phone numbers compiled without first obtaining express written
consent to send such marketing text messages as required to do so
under the TCPA.

The messages were sent using mass-automated technology through a
third-party company hired by Defendant to send marketing text
messages on Defendant's behalf en masse.

In sum, the Defendant knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA,
causing injuries to Plaintiff and members of the putative class,
including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of
himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

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

ROADRUNNER TRANS: Gomez Class Suit in California Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Roadrunner Transportation 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 initiated by
Fernando Gomez.

In December 2018, a class action lawsuit was brought against the
Company in the Superior Court of the State of California by
Fernando Gomez, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
persons, alleging violation of California labor laws.

The Company is currently determining the effects of this lawsuit
and intends to vigorously defend against such claims; however,
there can be no assurance that it will be able to prevail.

Roadrunner said, "In light of the relatively early stage of the
proceedings, the Company is unable to predict the potential costs
or range of costs at this time."

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

Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. provides asset-right
transportation and asset-light logistics services. The company
operates through three segments: Truckload & Express Services
(TES), Less-than-Truckload (LTL), and Ascent Global Logistics.
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. is headquartered in Downers
Grove, Illinois.


SABER HEALTHCARE: 4th Cir. Vacates Remand of Pfohl Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, issued an
Opinion vacating the District Court’s judgment granting
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand in the captioned JOSEPH J. PFOHL,
Executor of the Estate of Bernice C. Pfohl; EDWARD BARTELS,
Executor of the Estate of Jeanne E. Bartels, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
and JEANNE E. BARTELS, by and through William H. Bartels,
Attorney-in-Fact; CLAIRE M. MURPHY, by and through Michele Mullen,
Attorney-in-Fact, Plaintiffs, v. SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC; SABER
HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC; FRANKLIN OPERATIONS, LLC, d/b/a Franklin
Manor Assisted Living Center; SMITHFIELD EAST HEALTH HOLDINGS, LLC,
d/b/a Gabriel Manor Assisted Living Center; QUEEN CITY AL HOLDINGS,
LLC, d/b/a The Crossings at Steele Creek, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 18-2335. (4th Cir.).

The plaintiffs are elderly nursing home patients who allege
mistreatment in a class action lawsuit against Ohio company Saber
Healthcare Holdings, LLC and four of its wholly owned subsidiaries,
whom the plaintiffs refer to as Saber or the Saber defendants. The
plaintiffs allege that the defendants understaffed their facilities
and provided substandard care in order to profit at the expense of
their elderly residents.

The defendants removed the case to federal court under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). The plaintiffs moved to remand,
arguing that the defendants were bound by a forum-selection clause
in the Assisted Living Residency Agreement (Agreement) that they
signed with Franklin Manor.

The district court granted the motion to remand, concluding that
the forum-selection clause required the action to proceed in state
court. The district court rejected the defendants' argument that
only Franklin Manor was bound by the forum-selection clause, noting
that the plaintiffs had alleged that all of the Saber defendants
were alter egos and that Saber Holdings was the sole member in each
entity.

On appeal, the Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
The Court held that the plain language of Franklin Manor's
forum-selection clause operated to waive removal to federal court.
The Court remanded with instructions for the district court to make
factual findings regarding the enforceability of the
forum-selection clause against the non-signatory defendants.

The district court again granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand.
It found that the forum-selection clause in Franklin Manor's
Agreement was enforceable against all defendants. However, instead
of treating the enforceability of this clause like an affirmative
defense to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the
district court analogized the required inquiry to the standard for
challenging venue on a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(3).

Applying this standard, the district court required the plaintiffs
to make only a prima facie showing that venue is proper in state
court, and it viewed the facts in the light most favorable to the
plaintiffs. Based on the plaintiffs' prima facie showing, the
district court found that the defendants were alter egos of each
other under North Carolina law.  

In addition, the district court found that the defendants' conduct
was sufficiently closely related to bind them all to the Franklin
Manor forum-selection clause.

In this inquiry, the Court reviews the district court's factual
findings with respect to jurisdiction for clear error and the legal
conclusion that flows therefrom de novo.

Applying this standard of review, the Court vacates and remands
with instructions for the district court to make factual findings
using the correct legal standard preponderance of the evidence.
Further, the Court analogized the plaintiffs' burden of proof
regarding the forum-selection clause to proving an exception to
CAFA jurisdiction, which according to every circuit that has
considered the issue, requires a preponderance of the evidence.  

The district court erred by holding the plaintiffs to a mere prima
facie standard. The prima facie standard, which our court has used
to resolve issues of venue and jurisdiction, does not involve
factual findings. It uses the same plausibility analysis that
governs Rule 12(b)(6) motions. That is, the district court examines
the plaintiff's allegations to determine whether they plausibly
make out the plaintiff's legal theory. Regardless, in applying the
prima facie standard, the district court necessarily did not make
findings of fact, but merely evaluated the issue before it as a
matter of law. This analysis was inconsistent with our mandate in
Bartels I, 880 F.3d at 681.

Additionally, the prima facie analysis is only ever appropriate at
a preliminary stage of the proceedings to evaluate whether the
party with the burden may proceed. Even where a prima facie case
exists, the court can later revisit the jurisdictional or venue
issue when a fuller record is presented because the plaintiff bears
the burden.

On remand, the district court must make findings of fact and
determine, based on a preponderance of the evidence, whether the
non-signatory defendants are bound by the Franklin Manor
Agreement's forum-selection clause. The district court must make
separate factual findings with respect to each non-signatory
defendant.

Finally, the defendants urge us to conclude that, as a matter of
law, the plaintiffs' evidence failed to meet the alter ego or
closely-related tests. The Court declines the invitation. Our usual
rule is that when a district court fails to make findings of fact
because of an erroneous view of the law, there should be a remand
for further proceedings to permit the trial court to make the
missing findings. The Court sees no reason to depart from that rule
here, especially given that the forum-selection clause issue
involves inherently factual questions best suited for the district
court to determine in the first instance.  

The Court vacates the judgment of district court and remand for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's August 12, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3p7uc93 from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Scott Elliott Bayzle -- scottbayzle@parkerpoe.com --
PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellants.

Stephen Jay Gugenheim, GUGENHEIM LAW OFFICES, PC, 118 St Marys St,
Raleigh, NC 27605, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Jeremy R. Williams -- jeremy@wbmllp.com -- Matthew E. Lee
-- matt@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP, Raleigh,
North Carolina; Andrew D. Hathaway, KROMPECHER LAW FIRM, 4010
Barrett Dr #203, Raleigh, NC 27609, for Appellees.


SCHELL & KAMPETER: Court Extends Time to Answer TAC in Classick
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order extending Time to File Answer to Third
Amended Complaint in the case captioned RICHARD DAVID CLASSICK, JR.
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. SCHELL & KAMPETER, INC. d/b/a DIAMOND PET FOODS, and
DIAMOND PET FOODS INC., Defendants. Case No. 2:18-cv-02344-JAM-AC.
(E.D. Cal.).

This Court issued an order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,
ruling that Plaintiff's claims for equitable relief, which he seeks
under the CLRA, FAL, UCL, and as a general demand in the prayer for
relief, are dismissed with prejudice.

Counsel for Parties conferred regarding Defendant's deadline to
file an answer to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. NOW,
THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree and STIPULATE that the deadline
for Defendant to file an answer to Plaintiff's Third Amended
Complaint is extended to August 30, 2019.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 12, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxmw69kx from Leagle.com.

Richard David Classick, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Rebecca A.
Peterson -- rapeterson@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen
P.L.L.P., Robert K. Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com --
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. & Steven M. McKany --
smckany@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP.

Schell & Kampeter, Inc., also known as Diamond Pet Foods & Diamond
Pet Foods Inc., Defendants, represented by Amir M. Nassihi --
anassihi@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Emily M.
Weissenberger, Shook Hardy & Bacon & Steven D. Soden, Shook, Hardy
and Bacon L.L.P, 111 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 4700, Chicago, IL 60606,
pro hac vice.


SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Naiman Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE SERVICES, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-04902 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 15, 2019) is a case arising
from Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

The complaint alleges that the telemarketing was conducted using an
automated telephone dialing system ("ATDS"), a tactic among those
that inspired Congress to enact the TCPA and that most infuriate
people to this day. The telemarketing targeted, among other phone
lines, cellular telephones and numbers listed on the National Do
Not Call Registry ("NDNCR"). SelectQuote's marketing strategies
involve an ATDS. SelectQuote calls numbers even though they are
listed on the NDNCR. Recipients of these calls, including
Plaintiff, had not consented to receive them, and SelectQuote's
calls were not necessitated by an emergency, says the complaint.

Mr. Naiman is a natural person who resides in Maricopa County,
Arizona.

SelectQuote sells insurance, including term life insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jon B. Fougner, Esq.
     600 California Street, 11th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Phone: (415) 577-5829
     Facsimile: (206) 338-0783
     Email: jon@fougnerlaw.com


SHAMROCK TOWING: Class Action Filed Over Illegal Towing
-------------------------------------------------------
10TV News reports that a towing company is being sued after it was
accused of illegally towing thousands of cars over the past four
years.

The class action lawsuit filed August 7, 2019, in the Franklin
County Common Pleas Court in Columbus, Ohio says Shamrock Towing,
Inc. relied on signs and contracts that do not follow Ohio law.

For example, the lawsuit says a sign cannot create a "private
tow-away zone" unless it provides a description of who is
authorized to park there, which Shamrock's signs allegedly failed
to do.

The plaintiffs want an injunction to stop the Westerville-based
company from towing vehicles in these circumstances.

10TV reached out to Shamrock for comment and has not heard back.

Shamrock has about a month to respond to the lawsuit. [GN]


SHANGHAI ORIGINAL: Court Decertifies Class in Jin NYLL Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Jianmin Jin and Chunyou Xie, on behalf of themselves
and other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Shanghai Original,
Inc.; East Brother Corp.; Always Good Brothers, Inc.; Shanghai City
Corp.; Shanghai Duplicate Corp.; Kiu Sang Si a/k/a Joseph Si; Mimi
Si; Yiu Fai Fong; Tun Yee Lam; and Solomon C Liou, Defendants, Case
No. 16-cv-5633 (ARR) (JO) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Allyne R. Ross of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
decertified the class of workers employed by Joe's Shanghai
restaurant in Flushing, Queens.

In her April 2, 2018 order, Judge Ross granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify a New York Labor Law ("NYLL") class of all
non-managerial employees at Joe's Shanghai restaurant in Flushing,
Queens.  The overarching class claim is that the Flushing
restaurant had a practice of paying its employees an illegally low
flat rate of pay that did not account for minimum wage, overtime,
or spread-of-hours requirements.  The Judge certified the class
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3).
Subsequently, Judge Orenstein directed the parties to file a joint
pretrial order ("JPTO").  After a number of unsuccessful attempts,
Judge Orenstein determined that the parties had submitted a JPTO
that "substantially complied" with my individual practice
requirements and issued an order closing discovery and deeming the
case ready for trial.

On Jan. 14, 2019, the Judge ordered the parties to supplement the
JPTO with proposed conclusions of law.  The parties submitted an
updated JPTO on Jan. 22, 2019.  At approximately the same time, the
Plaintiffs came forward with allegations that the Defendants had
inappropriately contacted the class members and interfered with the
formation of the class.

The Plaintiffs sought leave to file a sealed motion for sanctions
or to reopen discovery, which the Judge denied.  The Judge then set
a briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs' unsealed motion, which sge
respectfully referred to Judge Orenstein.

On March 1, 2019, Judge Orenstein held a conference, at which he
reopened discovery until May 10, 2019 so that the Plaintiffs'
counsel could conduct dozens of depositions relating to defendants'
alleged misconduct.   During the May 10, 2019 conference, it came
to light that over a month ago, after conducting just a few
depositions of the Defendants' managers (and apparently none of the
affected workers), and without notice to the Court, the Plaintiffs'
counsel decided not to complete the remaining depositions or to
prosecute their previously filed motion for sanctions and to annul
class opt-outs.  Judge Orenstein noted that there was no motion
before him as to whether, in these circumstances, the Plaintiffs'
counsel can properly advocate the interests of the class or whether
the Court should reconsider its decision to certify a class, which
necessarily rests on a finding, among others, that the class
representatives and their counsel are adequate.  Following the
conference, the Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions was withdraw, and
the case returned to Judge Ross for trial.

After carefully reviewing that parties' JPTO and proposed exhibits,
the Judge held a pretrial phone conference.  She scheduled the
trial for July 15, 20193 and requested additional information from
the parties, including an updated class list and revised witness
lists with details regarding each witness's anticipated testimony.
The Plaintiffs' revised list, which included 34 witnesses, did not
comply with her order in that it failed to provide adequate
details.  She thus directed them to file "a complete witness list
with detailed and specific descriptions of anticipated testimony
for all witnesses, who must be available for in-person testimony."


In response, the Plaintiffs submitted a second revised witness list
which reveals that the Plaintiffs' counsel plans to call four
witnesses, only two of whom are members of the class.  The two
witnesses who are not members of the class -- Hai Hua Zhai and
Baofu Yan -- were never even employed by the Flushing Restaurant.
In fact, Yan's anticipated testimony appears to undermine the
Plaintiffs' class claim, as it states that he was paid an hourly
wage -- not a flat wage -- in 2016.  While the Plaintiffs' witness
list includes 24 "adverse" witnesses, they provide no details as to
their anticipated testimony.  Finally, on July 3, 2019, the parties
jointly submitted a final class list, which includes 38 class
members and clarifies that two individuals were paid by check only,
two were paid by cash only, and the rest were paid by a combination
of cash and check.

Judge Ross finds that the class counsel is no longer providing
"zealous, competent representation."  While there have been
numerous red flags over the past few months, including the
counsel's failure to adequately respond to the Court's orders and
apparent attempts to delay trial, the "significant intervening
event" triggering decertification is the counsel's disclosure that
he plans to call only two class members as witnesses at trial.  As
discussed, substantial testimony by the Flushing restaurant's
non-managerial staff is crucial to the Plaintiffs' case, as the
crux of the class claim involves the restaurant's payment policy,
the restaurant's cash payment records prior to the filing of the
lawsuit are missing, and all the class members except two were paid
at least partially in cash.  Put simply, by calling only two
relevant witnesses, the counsel is failing to "fairly and
adequately represent the interests of the class."

While decertification late in the litigation process is generally
disfavored, the reason is that late decertification can "prejudice
class members, who may be unable to protect their own interests."
In the instant case, the prejudice from late-stage decertification
must be balanced against the prejudice class members face from
inadequate representation.  Because she conclude that the prejudice
from inadequate representation is greater, the Judge finds that
decertification is proper.

For the reasons stated in her Opinion, Judge Ross decertified the
class of Flushing restaurant employees due to inadequacy of
representation.  The Plaintiffs' counsel is ordered to provide
notice of decertification to all the class members.  The notice
should explain their rights to pursue their individual claims and
the fact that the statute of limitations is no longer tolled.

The Plaintiffs' counsel is directed to submit a proposed
decertification notice to the court by July 19, 2019.  The trial on
behalf of named Plaintiff Jianmin Jin is still scheduled for July
15, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 8C.  The parties are directed to
review the order and call Chambers at 10:30 a.m. on July 11, 2019
for a pre-trial phone conference.

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

Jianmin Jin, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
& Chunyou Xie, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron Schweitzer, Troy Law,
PLLC, Kibum Byun, Troy Law, PLLC & John Troy --
johntroy@troypllc.com -- Troy & Associates, PLLC.

Shanghai Original, Inc., doing business as Joe's Shanghai, East
Brother Corp, doing business as Joe's Shanghai, Shanghai City Corp,
doing business as Joe's Shanghai, Shanghai Duplicate Corp, doing
business as Joe's Shanghai, Kiu Sang Si, also known as Joseph Si,
Yiu Fai Fong & Tun Yee Lam, Defendants, represented by David B.
Horowitz, Fong & Wong, P.C., Fiona M. Dutta, Fong & Wong, P.C. &
Robert W. Wong , Fong & Wong, P.C..


SLEEPY'S LLC: Hargrove Appeals D.N.J. Decision to Third Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Marco Eusebio, Andre Hall and Sam Hargrove filed an
appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit titled Sam Hargrove, et
al. v. Sleepys LLC, Case No. 3-10-cv-01138, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

The appellate case is captioned as Sam Hargrove, et al. v. Sleepys
LLC, Case No. 19-2809, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 3,
2019, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their
lawsuit.  That appellate case is entitled Sam Hargrove, et al. v.
Sleepy's LLC, Case No. 19-8019.

The Plaintiffs previously sought certification of a class defined
as:

    "All individuals who performed deliveries for Sleepy's
     pursuant to independent contractor agreements in New Jersey
     at any time since March 4, 2004, who were single-route
     operators at all times that they worked for Sleepy's, or who
     did so for at least six months."[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants SAM HARGROVE, et al., are represented by:

          Anthony L. Marchetti, Jr., Esq.
          MARCHETTI LAW, P.C.
          900 North Kings Highway
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 414-1800
          E-mail: amarchetti@marchettilawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee SLEEPYS LLC is represented by:

          Marc Esterow, Esq.
          DREXEL UNIVERSITY
          3320 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Telephone: (215) 571-4807

               - and -

          Theo E.M. Gould, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          900 Third Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9600
          E-mail: tgould@littler.com

               - and -

          Paul C. Lantis, Esq.
          Jonathan L. Shaw, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          1601 Cherry Street
          Suite 1400, Three Parkway
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 402-3073
          E-mail: plantis@littler.com
                  jlshaw@littler.com


STEWART BUILDERS: Conditional Certification Bid in Sheffield Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOUIS SHEFFIELD, Individually and on behalf of all
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. STEWART BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. H-19-1030 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Gray H.
Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, (i) denied Sheffield's motion for
conditional certification of a collective action; and (2) denied as
moot his motion for approval and distribution of notice and for
disclosure of contact information.

In the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case, Stewart Builders is
a commercial concrete construction company, doing business in the
state of Texas under the under the d/b/a Keystone Concrete
Placement.  Sheffield, a former employee of Stewart Builders,
brought the lawsuit individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated employees who may wish to opt into the suit.  

Sheffield worked for Stewart Builders as a salaried pump operator
and subsequently as a salaried pump supervisor.  Sheffield alleges
that he and other similarly situated individuals regularly worked
over 40 hours per week, were misclassified as exempt from overtime
pay, and were paid salaries when they never agreed that their
salary would be sufficient to cover all hours worked.  He further
alleges that when he and other similarly situated employees started
working for Stewart Builders, they did not sign a contract relating
to pay.

In the instant motions, Sheffield seeks an order granting
conditional certification under the FLSA, requiring Stewart
Builders to disclose all contact information for all similarly
situated employees, and permitting distribution of notice of the
suit to all similarly situated employees by text, email, physical
mail, and posting notice at Stewart Builders' place of business.
He further requests that the Court not require a showing that there
are other similarly situated employees who want to opt in

The main issue before the Court is whether there is sufficient
evidence that other similarly situated employees exist who want to
opt into the lawsuit.

Judge Miller finds that Sheffield's motion for certification is
similar to both Shaffer v. M-I, LLC, and Morales v. Thang Hung
Corp., where a single consent and allegations that others would
wish to opt in was insufficient to satisfy the third element of the
conditional certification test.  Sheffield provides only conclusory
allegations that he believes others would want to join the
lawsuit.

The Judge also finds that in Yoakum v. PBK Architects, the Court
dismissed a motion for conditional certification without prejudice
so that a plaintiff could obtain discovery regarding others who
were similarly situated.  However, Yoakum presented a unique group
of attributes, where in many cases FLSA plaintiffs have worked
side-by-side with other potential plaintiffs.  Yoakum and the other
similarly situated employees did not work with each other; they
each worked at different construction sites.  Sheffield, in
contrast, has worked with similarly situated employees and has
several of their phone numbers, as evidenced by his declaration.

Because Sheffield failed to satisfy the third element of the
Lusardi test, Sheffield does not meet his conditional certification
burden.  Judge Miller denied Sheffield's motion for conditional
certification of a collective action, and denied as moot his motion
for approval and distribution of notice and for disclosure of
contact information.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/Tf24u9 from Leagle.com.

Louis Sheffield, Individually and on behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Jon Sanford --
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Sanford Law Firm, PLLC & Merideth Queen
McEntire, Sanford Law Firm PLLC.

Stewart Builders, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard Daniel
Alaniz -- ralaniz@alaniz-law.com -- Alaniz Law & Associates PLLC.


SYNCHRONOSS TECH: NJ Consolidated Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Synchronoss Technologies, 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 consolidated class action suit in New
Jersey.

On May 1, 2017, May 2, 2017, June 8, 2017 and June 14, 2017, four
putative class actions were filed against the Company and certain
of its current and former officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the
"Securities Law Action").

After these cases were consolidated, the court appointed as lead
plaintiff Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii,
which filed, on November 20, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between
February 3, 2016 and June 13, 2017.

On February 2, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, with prejudice.
Before that motion was decided, on August 24, 2018, lead plaintiff
filed a second consolidated amended complaint purportedly on behalf
of purchasers of our common stock between October 28, 2014 and June
13, 2017.

The second consolidated amended complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and it alleges, among other things, that the defendants
made false and misleading statements of material information
concerning our financial results, business operations, and
prospects.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs.


On June 28, 2019, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
the second consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, without
prejudice, allowing Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint.

Plaintiff's amended complaint currently is due to be filed by
August 14, 2019.

The Company believes that the asserted claims lack merit and
intends to defend against all of the claims vigorously.

Synchronoss said, "Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
the Company cannot predict the outcome of the actions at this time
and can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations."

Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. provides cloud, digital, messaging,
and Internet of Things (IoT) platforms, products, and solutions in
North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and
the Asia Pacific. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. was founded in
2000 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.


SYNEOS HEALTH: Appointment of Lead Counsel and Plaintiff Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Syneos Health, 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 motion for
appointment of lead plaintiff and counsel in the class action suit
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey is
pending.

On March 1, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a
putative class of shareholders who purchased the Company's common
stock during the period between May 10, 2017 and February 27, 2019.


The complaint names the Company and certain of its executive
officers as defendants and alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly false or
misleading statements about its business, operations, and
prospects.

The plaintiffs seek awards of compensatory damages, among other
relief, and their costs and attorneys' and experts' fees.

On March 28, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs in the Vaitkuviene v. Syneos
Health, Inc., et al, No. 18-0029 (E.D.N.C.) action filed a motion
to intervene, and the Company filed its response on April 22, 2019.


On April 30, 2019, a shareholder filed a motion seeking to be
appointed lead plaintiff and approving the selection of lead
counsel.

Both motions remain pending.

Syneos Health, Inc. operates as an integrated biopharmaceutical
solutions company in North America, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America. It operates through
two segments, Clinical Solutions and Commercial Solutions. The
company was formerly known as INC Research Holdings, Inc. and
changed its name to Syneos Health, Inc. in January 2018. Syneos
Health, Inc. was incorporated in 2010 and is headquartered in
Morrisville, North Carolina.


SYNEOS HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Vaitkuviene Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Syneos Health, 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 motion to dismiss
the class action suit entitled, Vaitkuviene v. Syneos Health, Inc.,
et al., is still pending.

On December 1, 2017, the first of two virtually identical actions
alleging federal securities law claims was filed against the
Company and certain of its officers on behalf of a putative class
of its shareholders.

The first action, captioned Bermudez v. INC Research, Inc., et al,
No. 17-09457 (S.D.N.Y.), names as defendants the Company, Michael
Bell, Alistair MacDonald, Michael Gilbertini, and Gregory S. Rush
(the "Bermudez action"), and the second action, Vaitkuviene v.
Syneos Health, Inc., et al, No. 18-0029 (E.D.N.C.), filed on
January 25, 2018 (the “Vaitkuviene action"), names as defendants
the Company, Alistair MacDonald, and Gregory S. Rush (the "Initial
Defendants").

Both complaints allege similar claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
May 10, 2017 and November 8, 2017 and November 9, 2017.

The complaints allege that the Company published inaccurate or
incomplete information regarding, among other things, the financial
performance and business outlook for inVentiv's business prior to
the Merger and with respect to the combined company following the
Merger.

On January 30, 2018, two alleged shareholders separately filed
motions seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff and approving the
selection of lead counsel.

On March 30, 2018, Plaintiff Bermudez filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the Bermudez action, without prejudice, and as to all
defendants.

On May 29, 2018, the Court in the Vaitkuviene action appointed the
San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund and El Paso Firemen &
Policemen's Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiffs and, on June 7, 2018,
the Court entered a schedule providing for, among other things,
Lead Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by July 23, 2018
(later extended to July 30, 2018).

Lead Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on July 30, 2018,
which also includes a claim against the Initial Defendants, as well
as each member of the board of directors at the time of the INC
Research - inVentiv Health merger vote in July 2017 (the
"Defendants"), contending that the inVentiv merger proxy was
misleading under Section 14(a) of the Act.

Lead Plaintiffs seek, among other things, orders (i) declaring that
the lawsuit is a proper class action and (ii) awarding compensatory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest
thereon, and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees, to Lead Plaintiffs and
other class members.

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
on September 20, 2018. Lead Plaintiffs filed a Response in
Opposition to such motion on November 21, 2018, and Defendants
filed a Reply to such response on December 5, 2018.

On May 23, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Filings in
Related Case regarding the New Jersey shareholder action filed on
March 1, 2019, and Defendants filed their response on May 31, 2019.


Syneos said, "The Company and the other defendants deny the
allegations in these complaints and intend to defend vigorously
against these claims. In the Company's opinion, the ultimate
outcome of this matter is not expected to have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations,
or cash flows."

Syneos Health, Inc. operates as an integrated biopharmaceutical
solutions company in North America, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America. It operates through
two segments, Clinical Solutions and Commercial Solutions. The
company was formerly known as INC Research Holdings, Inc. and
changed its name to Syneos Health, Inc. in January 2018. Syneos
Health, Inc. was incorporated in 2010 and is headquartered in
Morrisville, North Carolina.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Approval of Settlement in Haskett Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHILLIP DAVID HASKETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, and
MICHAEL HOOD; CYNTHIA INGRAM; BARRY D. GERARD; RICHARD GOLDSMITH;
HERMAN QUINTANA; KEITH HALE; NESTER CADENAS; BERNARD LEE
VANDERLEEST, JR.; PRINCE LEFTRIDGE, II; MARTHA BROCK-LEFTRIDGE;
KEITH HARRISON NEWMAN; JOHN MATSUKES; LETICIA ALCALA; GABRIEL
FANFAN; PHILLIP WAYNE RADFORD; MUSTAFA AJLOUNI; MARTIN DULBERG;
RICHARD W. BIRCH; CREACTIOSHA KING; IMRAN SANDOZI; TIMOTHY KYLE
DOOLEY; BEN MANDELL; ANTHONY VALENTINO; MICHAEL McMILLIN; EDWARD R.
GIGUERE; SCOTT LEE MANAUSA; TIMOTHY CRAVEN; KEVIN BRADSHAW; STEVEN
NIKKEL; WALLY LUCKEYDOO; TRACEY PERGER; CLINTON W. PRICE; ANDREW
ROMINE; HENRY SHEEN; RAEF LAWSON; DANIELLE BROOKS; MAILE
CAPERS-CRISTOBAL; RUDY LAWLEY; RICHARD TAYLOR; CHRISTOPHER SHEAHAN;
JOHN DELTUFO; OTO GOMES; DAN DEXTER REYES; DANIEL REYES; NICHOLAS
BRASHEAR; LAVELL RUSSELL; MICHAEL VASATY; VICTOR TEIXEIRA; YAMA
MENATI; FERRAN CONTELL I VAZQUEZ; ANTOINE SOWELL; ANDREW BAILEY;
DANIELLE DENNIS; PHILLIP YEE; MICHAEL LANDERS; THERON COLLINS; ANNE
ROTHFUSS; JABBAR SMITH; ALEXANDER MARK; ELSHAN MAMMADOV; ARMEN
MEGERDICH; BRIAN SAPITA; DJAMILA GONZALEZ; JOHN McCARTHY; RUSSELL
FISHER; EDUARDO SAAVEDRA-BALLESTEROS; KIN KONG; CONNIE FEDA;
LEIGHANN JOHNSON; SYLVIA HOGGE; NORMAN GILBERT; TJOAN TAN; MICHAEL
LITTLE; JOSHUA MAY; MICHAEL RAMER; BRIAN STEPHENS; ASHLEY MILLER;
JAMES ASHCRAFT; JEFFREY ROMANO; VIC BOWKER; BAHRAM SHAHROKH; PAUL
GROGAN; STEPHANIE BEWLEY; HAKOB ZAKARYAN; AIBEK AKMAT; JUSTIN
LAWSON; TAE KIM; FARID HAMEDANI; RYAN STANBURY; OMAR ONQUE; ROY
BLENKHORN; HILDA CARRILLO; ROGER DILL; STEPHANIE MANG; ZACK PHAM;
JESSE COHN; THOMAS WISE; JANINE MARTIN; JOHN THIBODEAUX; KALED
AHMED; CHARLES RODRIGUEZ; GERALD SPELLER; BIJAN HATEFI; TIFFANY
REYES; LEONARD FLOURNOY; HAMID KACEL; PHILLIP TOMPKINS; FRED
BLASEVICK, JR.; ALVIN BANDRIL; MARK HILL; KEVIN QUACH; TAREQ
QADOOM; ROBERT ROBBINS; CHANDLER MICHAEL HARRIS; THOMAS ROBERTS;
ILIR BITICI; JULIE MABE; LIZABETH ADAMS; ALLISON COLLINS; ARMANDO
RODRIGUEZ-RIVERA; CYNTHIA CRUDER; MATTHEW CRUDER; FRITZ CONLE;
EDUARD ARAMYAN; HICHAM NASSEH; EDISON VARGAS; MARK OVERHOLT; DEHMON
MARTINEZ; CHRISTOPHER McATEER; KENNETH STIFF; VICTOR MALLH; ABRAHAM
AVILA; DONALD GEORGE; ROBERT MULLALLY; BRIAN BAKER; MICHAEL
GOLDSTEIN; TYRONE PUGH; TERRY POWERS; KANE OGLETREE; EDWARD LIZER;
ROGER OGATA; CONNOR REGAN; ROCIO VAZQUEZ; JEFFRY LEVIN; AQEEL
ABBAS; JOAO DOS SANTOS; ROBERT MATHEWSON; LYSETTE MORALES; JOE
MEADORS; ANGEL HERROZ; TODARIO PARRIMON; NEAL WEISS; JARED SHIRK;
CATHY SHAW KALLOO; CHRIS NICOLAIDIS; DEBORAH ANDERSEN; JESSICA
MAYKOPET; CHRISTOPHER KUIVENHOVEN; JEFFREY MECKLER; FRANCIS SIDIGU;
BRIAN CEBUHAR; KHALID ELAMIN; SAPPHO FAIRES; ELSAYED SEWEID; ADAM
HAVILAND; MARCUS MOORE; DIEGO A. OSORIO; NIKA BLUE; SCOTT CABLE;
ROLAND ROSAS; JERIC MURPHY; STEVEN SAND; JASON HODGES; BRANDON
McDOUGALL; ELIZABETH CHILIMIDOS; DARRIN HARDY; RAYSHELL ROBINSON;
DEBORAH STUART; JOSE INTERIANO; MOHAMMAD MONZUR; REDDOCK DAVENPORT;
WILLIAM COCHRAN; HAVENS EDWIN; GUILLAM KELLOGG; JOSHUA PARKER;
SANCAK DAVARCI; MICHAEL GERARD; JEFFERY MANCE; FRANKIE GASCA;
ALFONSO PHILLIPPE; SHAUKAT ALI; NEBOJSA VISNJIC; MATTHEW THOM; JON
BOATMAN; ALECE ALEXANDER; MICHAEL MORRIS; DANIEL MORRISSETTE;
ANDREW HASKINS; HOLLY RUBINO; AMEATHA WRIGHT; SALMAN BADSHA;
LORRELL DAVIS, III; ROBERT ACCETTA; MIGUEL CRUZ; MICK HICKS; ROBERT
BONAPARTE; CHRISTOPHER HUGHES; ARON SEYMOUR, Plaintiffs, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; RASIER, LLC; JOHN DOES I-V,
Defendants-Appellees, MICHAEL HOOD, Intervenor-Appellee, Case No.
19-1116 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit affirmed the district court's order and judgment approving
the proposed settlement agreement prepared by the parties, a
collective of former and current Uber drivers, and Uber, and
Rasier, LLC.

The action concerned claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA").  Haskett opted into the lawsuit, agreeing to be bound
by any adjudication or ruling of the Court, whether favorable or
unfavorable.  On appeal, Haskett argues that he was denied notice
of the proposed settlement and challenges various aspects of the
settlement agreement.

The Court opines that Haskett's argument that the district court
erred by not notifying the members of the collective of the
proposed settlement agreement is without merit.  Haskett confuses
the collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) (2012), with a
class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  The action
only concerned claims under the FLSA. Unlike Rule 23, section
216(b) does not require a district court to notify potential
claimants about a proposed settlement.  Actions under Section 216
and Rule 23 are mutually exclusive and irreconcilable.

Haskett's remaining arguments concerning the course of litigation
and the settlement agreement are similarly unpersuasive.  The Court
finds that Haskett agreed to be bound by the final judgment whether
favorable or unfavorable.  Moreover, Haskett acknowledges that he
could have commenced his own lawsuit if he did not join the
collective.

Accordingly, it affirmed the district court's order and judgment.
It denied Haskett's motion for a transcript at Government expense.
The Court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before it and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 16, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/o7PQwG from Leagle.com.

Phillip David Haskett, Appellant Pro Se.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Set to Approve Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Wallace, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
appears ready to approve a settlement in Dulberg v. Uber
Technologies Inc. that will net nearly a quarter of the drivers
only $20. The class action lawsuit is notable for two reasons. It
was brought as a contract lawsuit, not under the provisions of
California labor employment law. Secondly, the payouts are very
small for many of those included in the class. Even Judge William
Alsup, who presided over the case, described the settlement as "a
low-end recovery for the class."

Uber driver class action lawsuitThis question hangs in the air: Was
the lawsuit worth it? Did the mountain labor and bring forth a
mouse, and if so, why?

$50,000 MORE THAN THE LAST SETTLEMENT OFFER

In the complaint, driver Martin Dulberg accused Uber of short
changing drivers in violation of the terms of their contracts. He
alleged that, while Uber charged passengers based on pre-ride
estimate of time and distance, the company compensated drivers
based on the actual distance they drove, which was sometimes less
than the estimate. Uber pocketed the margin.

For drivers who were underpaid, the difference was often very
small. But for Uber, which repeated this maneuver many times over,
the difference could be substantial. This is the typical situation
in which a class action lawsuit may benefit a large number of
workers.

The settlement amount of $345,000 proposed in May would have paid
many members of the class as little as a penny. For more than a
quarter of the class members, the check would have been less than
the cost of mailing it. Judge Alsup characterized it as
"dangerously inadequate", and sent parties back to the negotiating
table.

The revised proposed settlement amount guarantees a minimum payment
of $20, without increasing payouts to those who would have received
more than that amount under the initial settlement offer. The
alternative would have been to exclude those who would have
received miniscule payouts, thus permitting them to bring
independent lawsuits against Uber.

CONTRACT OR CALIFORNIA LABOR LAW?

The usual formulation advanced by labor and employment lawyers is
that workers often do better when they are classified as employees
rather than independent contractors. Employees have the protections
of wage and hour laws, anti-discrimination laws and health and
safety statutes, to name just a few. That is the background for
many worker misclassification lawsuits, including much litigation
against Uber.

It has also engaged the attention of the California State Assembly,
which in May passed a bill that would make it harder for companies
to label workers as independent contractors instead of employees.
If approved by the state Senate, hundreds of thousands of
independent contractors in California, including Uber and Amazon
drivers, would likely have become statutory employees.

Contractors, on the other hand, have only the protections of their
contracts. Where contracts are unique, individually negotiated, and
especially if they include mandatory arbitration clauses, class
action lawsuits become impossible. In Dulberg however, because a
large class of drivers was covered by the same contract, class
action litigation was plausible.

After two years of litigation, the result for many of the drivers
was underwhelming. Because the case is being settled, it also has
no precedential value for any similar class action contract
lawsuit. Was it a fatal flaw to proceed under a contract theory, or
was the lawsuit misconceived in some other way? Have Uber drivers
and other contract workers gained anything?

BASIC CONTRACT TAKEAWAYS

At the very least, gig workers now realize that they may have a
basis to proceed in a class action lawsuit when members of the
class have signed on to the same or very similar contracts and the
terms of that contract are violated.

It comes up with very large companies that make extensive use of
contract workers rather than hiring employees -- Uber, Amazon,
Google, Nissan, and whatever company hires the janitorial workers
who come in to clean offices at night. The practice is more
prevalent than many people realize. According to an NPR/Marist poll
conducted in 2018, contractors make up about 20 percent of the
labor market. Where there is a breach of contract, there is the
right to bring a lawsuit. Workers must police their contracts,
however.

MISCLASSIFICATION WARS CONTINUE

The second lesson is that the potential for recovery, at least in
California, may be better when the lawsuit is framed in terms of
misclassification.

Under the California Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Dynamex
Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, gig workers have a better
chance of winning misclassification lawsuits, at least with respect
to minimum wage and overtime pay issues.

Does Dulberg have lasting meaning for gig workers? Was it worth
pursuing the lawsuit as a contract action? Perhaps not, but only
time and further litigation will tell. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Probing Potential Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen, a global investor rights law firm, has announced its
intentions to investigate a potential securities claim on behalf of
shareholders of Uber Technologies, Inc.

According to the American law firm, they are investigating the
claims resulting from allegations that Uber may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.

Just three months after going public at $45 per share, Uber
reported a significant earnings miss, loosing $5.24 billion in one
quarter, and reporting revenue of $2.87 billion, against analyst
expectations of $3.05 billion.

The legal firm is now said to be preparing a class action lawsuit
to recover losses suffered by Uber investors.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.  

Investors who purchased shares of Uber are being urged to visit the
firm's website to join the class action. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Hawaii Court Dismissal of A. Pauline's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii issued
an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss in the case captioned ALDEN PAULINE, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v. DIRECTOR DOJ, ET AL., Defendants. CIV. No. 19-00167 LEK-KJM. (D.
Haw.).

The Complaint is plead as a class action based on the alleged
health and safety conditions at Halawa. Plaintiff alleges a litany
of issues regarding the prison facilities, including but not
limited to the following: a lack of fire sprinklers, mold on the
ceiling; backed up water in the showers and toilets; unsanitary
food handling practices, pest infestations in the prison units and
kitchens and mold on food trays. Plaintiff alleges he contracted
Hepatitis C as a result of the flooded showers and suffered food
poisoning from consuming improperly handled food. Plaintiff alleges
the DOJ Director and other defendants know of these issues that are
going on but do nothing to prevent it.

The United States's Motion seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's claims
based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (2), (5), and (6), because:
Plaintiff's claims are barred by sovereign immunity or he has
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, Plaintiff failed to
properly serve the DOJ Director and because the Complaint fails to
state a claim against the Director DOJ.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5)

When it is unclear whether defendants are sued in official or
individual capacities, the court must examine the course of
proceedings to determine the capacity in which each defendant is
sued. There are limited proceedings here to examine, and the
Complaint is brief in its factual allegations pertaining to the DOJ
Director. Because little clarity can be found one way or another,
the Court construes Plaintiff's Complaint as alleging both official
capacity and individual capacity claims, so as to do justice to
Plaintiff's Complaint.  

To serve a United States agency or corporation, or a United States
officer or employee sued only in an official capacity, a party must
serve the United States and also send a copy of the summons and of
the complaint by registered or certified mail to the agency,
corporation, officer, or employee.

Rule 4(i)(1). Plaintiff did attempt service upon the United States
when he mailed a copy of the Complaint to the United States
Attorney's Office for the District of Hawai`i (Hawai`i USAO) but
there is no evidence that Plaintiff sent a copy to the Attorney
General of the United States at Washington, D.C. or that he sent a
copy of the summons and of the complaint by registered or certified
mail to the agency, corporation, officer, or employee or the
Attorney General of the United States at Washington D.C (U.S.
Attorney General). Because there is no evidence that the DOJ
Director, the Department of Justice (DOJ), or the U.S. Attorney
General, were sent a copy of the Summons and Complaint by
registered or certified mail, Plaintiff has not properly served the
DOJ Director in its official capacity.

Although Plaintiff did not properly complete service, the Ninth
Circuit has instructed that Rule 4 is a flexible rule that should
be liberally construed so long as a party receives sufficient
notice of the complaint. The United States then removed the case to
this district court, filed an ex parte motion to extend the time in
which it must answer or respond to the Complaint and filed the
instant Motion, all on behalf of the DOJ Director. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the DOJ Director did not have sufficient notice
of the Complaint.

The United States's argument is therefore rejected regarding proper
service of the Complaint as to Plaintiff's official capacity
claims.

Official Capacity Claims

In sovereign immunity analysis, any lawsuit against an agency of
the United States or against an officer of the United States in his
or her official capacity is considered an action against the United
States. The Department of Justice is undisputably an agency of the
United States. Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature,' so
there is no subject matter jurisdiction unless sovereign immunity
has been waived.

As to Plaintiff's official capacity claim against the Director DOJ,
he has not plead facts that would allow this Court to conclude that
the Director DOJ has expressly waived sovereign immunity.  
The United States argues that, even if the Federal Tort Claims Act
(FTCA) provides a cause of action, this Court would lack subject
matter jurisdiction based on the doctrine of derivative
jurisdiction. When a case is removed from state court pursuant to
Section 1442, the federal court's jurisdiction is derivative of the
state court's jurisdiction.  Therefore, this Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims arising under the FTCA.


The Court agrees.

Notwithstanding the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction,
Plaintiff's FTCA claims still must be dismissed because he has
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to alleging an
FTCA claim. Administrative exhaustion is a prerequisite to this
Court having subject matter jurisdiction over the claim, and these
claims must be dismissed.  Thus, the Motion is granted as to
Plaintiff's official capacity claims against the DOJ Director,
based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Individual Capacity Claims

Although the United States does not construe Plaintiff's Complaint
as alleging individual capacity claims against the DOJ Director,
even if alleged, these claims must be dismissed. Under Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388 (1971), a plaintiff may seek damages against federal
actors in their individual capacity for violating a plaintiff's
constitutional rights. The Ninth Circuit has explained that Bivens
was the United States Supreme Court's remedy to fill a gap in cases
where sovereign immunity bars a damages action against the United
States.  

To the extent Plaintiff alleges a violation of his constitutional
rights against the DOJ Director in his individual capacity based on
the allegations in the Complaint, the claim would arise under
Bivens. Nevertheless, the claim would fail for three reasons.
First, a plaintiff asserting an individual capacity claim under
Bivens is required to substantially comply with personal service
under Rule 4. Because Plaintiff did not perfect personal service
upon the Director DOJ, there is no personal jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's Bivens claim against the DOJ Director.

Second, an individual capacity claim under Bivens must seek
monetary damage as a form of relief. Here, the Complaint fails to
identify any form of relief Plaintiff seeks, and the Court must not
guess what remedy Plaintiff might want.

Even if the DOJ Director had been properly served and the Complaint
sought monetary damages, Plaintiff's individual capacity claims
still fail because they do not appear to fit within any of the
three scenarios in which a plaintiff may assert a Bivens claim.
Therefore, Plaintiff's individual capacity claims must be dismissed
as to the DOJ Director.

There being no official capacity claims or individual capacity
claims remaining against the DOJ Director, the Court concludes the
Motion must be granted.

Rule 12(b)(6) and Mandatory Screening

Although there is no subject matter jurisdiction and personal
jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiff's claims against the DOJ
Director, the Complaint must still be screened because Plaintiff is
a prisoner seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity.

Allegations Against the Director DOJ

First, the Complaint fails to plead any facts regarding prison
conditions that are specific to the DOJ Director. The United States
argues Plaintiff's Complaint lists various health and safety issues
that are allegedly occurring at Halawa, but pleads no factual
allegations that would lead to the reasonable conclusion that the
DOJ Director had any knowledge of those issues.

This Court agrees.

Plaintiff's only assertion is that Senetor Sparrow Director Espinda
Warden Cegera COS Evens Health Department Director, DOJ Director
all know of these issues that are going on but do nothing to
prevent it as it is today. At no other point in the Complaint is
the DOJ Director mentioned, and no other factual allegations
support Plaintiff's conclusory statement that the DOJ Director had
notice of the alleged issues at Halawa. This Court has explained:
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must `contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.

Here, the single allegation that the DOJ Director was aware of the
issues at Halawa lacks the sufficient factual matter necessary to
show that Plaintiff's claims against the DOJ Director are plausible
on its face. See id. In order to have facial plausibility, the
Complaint must allege factual content that allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.

The Complaint falls far short of this. Instead, only naked
assertions are made that the DOJ Director was aware of the issues
at Halawa, without presenting any factual allegations that would
make his claim plausible and not merely possible. Even if subject
matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction existed to rule on the
claim against the DOJ Director, it would have to be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  

Allegations Against All Other Defendants

Plaintiff's claims against the sixteen other named defendants in
this matter would fail because there are no factual allegations
related to the defendants,9 or, the allegations are so bereft of
detail as to render the Complaint merely conclusory. For example,
Plaintiff alleges that CPT Strong, SGT Visitation, SGT Tucker, ACO
Santos, ACO Molina to over see investigators to manipulate other
gang members, the old, young, weak, lesbians, gay and bisexuals are
all being targeted from gang members and these defendants that the
Court named. Beyond being difficult to understand, these
allegations are devoid of any supporting factual content that would
push Plaintiff's allegations across the line from sheer possibility
to plausibility.   

Because the Complaint does not plead any non-conclusory allegations
as to the sixteen other defendants, it is dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The United States's Motion to Dismiss Complaint is granted in part
and denied in part.  The Motion is granted insofar as the Complaint
is dismissed.  The Motion is denied insofar as the dismissal is
without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 12, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y57toh7x from
Leagle.com.

Alden Pauline, Jr., Plaintiff, pro se.

Director DOJ, Defendant, represented by Sydney Spector, Office of
the United States Attorney & Rachel S. Moriyama, Office of the
United States Attorney.


UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Court Extends Management Deadlines in Samson
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington issued an Order extending Case Management Deadlines in
the case captioned FRANTZ SAMSON, a Washington resident,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant. No.
2:19-cv-00175-JLR. (W.D. Wash.).

the Plaintiff filed this proposed class action lawsuit in King
County Superior Court on January 9, 2019. Defendant denies
Plaintiff's allegations and has asserted various affirmative
defenses.

The Amended Scheduling Order set a deadline of September 9, 2019
for Plaintiff to disclose his experts and expert reports relating
to class certification. The parties proposed this deadline because
they believed Defendant could produce classwide calling data
sufficiently in advance of the deadline for Plaintiff's experts to
complete their work.

The parties are working diligently to complete discovery. Defendant
has indicated it will produce documents responsive to Plaintiff's
discovery requests this week and will produce a portion of the
calling data next week. The parties also have been working
cooperatively to schedule depositions to take place at the end of
this month.

The parties seek a short 30-day extension of the current deadlines
to provide Defendant time to produce calling data and for
Plaintiff's experts to analyze it and draft their reports. The
parties propose the following amended schedule.

Good cause exists to change the scheduling order dates. Due to the
volume of the class calling data and Defendant's limited resources,
the current schedule does not build in time for the parties to
complete ESI discovery and expert work relating to the claims and
defenses. The parties' proposed schedule provides time for the
parties to conduct fact and expert discovery related to class
certification before class certification is briefed. The proposed
extensions of time will not unduly delay the prosecution of the
case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 12, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxhhqcn6 from Leagle.com.

Frantz Samson, a Washington resident, individually, Plaintiff,
represented by Aarthi Manohar -amanohar@kohnswift.com -- KOHN SWIFT
& GRAF PC, pro hac vice, Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
David A. Searles -- dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS &
MAILMAN PC, pro hac vice, James A. Francis --
jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC, pro hac vice,
Jennifer Rust Murray -- jmurray@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, John Soumilas --
jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC, pro hac vice,
Jonathan Shub -- jshub@kohnswift.com -- KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC, pro
hac vice, Kevin Laukaitis -- klaukaitis@kohnswift.com -- KOHN SWIFT
& GRAF PC, pro hac vice & Adrienne McEntee -- amcentee@tmdwlaw.com
-- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

UnitedHealthCare Services Inc, Defendant, represented by Nipun
Patel -- Nipun.Patel@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, pro hac
vice, Paul Bond -- Paul.Bond@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, pro
hac vice, Zalika Pierre -- Zalika.Pierre@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND &
KNIGHT, pro hac vice, Kristin Mariko Asai -- Kristin.Asai@hklaw.com
-- HOLLAND & KNIGHT & Shannon Lea Armstrong --
Shannon.Armstrong@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND & KNIGHT


UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Lawrence Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, PETRICE
RICKS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, UNIVERSITY
HOSPITAL BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, CEO JIM DAVIS, DR. FARR, RNO
REYNEE GALLUP, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-12788
(11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the District Court's order dismissing the Plaintiffs' pro
se complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The complaint alleged state law claims of medical negligence, gross
negligence, and the wrongful death of Daphne Lawrence Ricks.  On
appeal, the Plaintiffs argue that the District Court erred in
finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the
parties were only minimally diverse.

The Court reviews de novo dismissals for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, Barbour v. Haley, 471 F.3d 1222, 1225 (11th Cir.
2006), and review for clear error a District Court's factual
findings concerning jurisdiction, Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368,
1377 (11th Cir. 2008).

District courts have subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions
between citizens of different states, or between citizens of a
state and citizens of a foreign country, where the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.  Diversity jurisdiction requires
complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and
defendants.  The party invoking jurisdiction must allege the
citizenship of the parties as of the time suit is filed in federal
court.  A natural person is a citizen of the state in which they
are domiciled, and a corporation is a citizen of its state of
incorporation and the state in which it has its principal place of
business.

The Circuit Court finds that the Plaintiffs appear to concede that
the parties in the case are not completely diverse.  They argue,
however, that complete diversity isn't required for several
reasons.  First, the Plaintiffs argue that their action should be
allowed to proceed under the federal interpleader statute, 28
U.S.C. Section 1335.  If this were correct, minimal diversity among
the parties would be sufficient to confer jurisdiction. But the
interpleader statute is inapplicable: there are not two or more
adverse claimants in the case who "are claiming or may claim to be
entitled to money or property" or other benefits of a financial
instrument.  So this argument is unavailing.

The Plaintiffs' second argument for minimal diversity appears to be
premised on the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), which requires
only minimal diversity for class actions that meet specified
criteria.  The Court agrees with the District Court that CAFA is
inapplicable as the case involves fewer than 100 plaintiffs and the
aggregated claims do not exceed $5 million.  So this argument is
also unavailing.

Because there is no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction
in the case, the Court affirmed the District Court's order
dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims.

A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's July 10, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/78EsxP from Leagle.com.

Joseph H. Huff -- jhuff@kilpatrickstockton.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.


VERDE ENERGY: Sued by Panzer for Deceiving Consumers in Penn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT PANZER, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. VERDE ENERGY USA, INC., and OASIS POWER, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-03598 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 8, 2019), arises from Defendants'
deceptive, bad-faith, and unfair pricing practices that have caused
thousands of consumers to pay considerably more for electricity
than they should have.

In order to lure customers into purchasing their electricity
supply, the Defendants promise to use their extensive industry
expertise to offer "competitive" variable rates that reflect
wholesale costs and market conditions, Mr. Panzer contends.  In
reality, he alleges, the Defendants' variable rates are not
competitive, are invariably substantially higher than those
otherwise available in the electricity market, and do not reflect
wholesale costs or market conditions.

Oasis Power, LLC, d/b/a Oasis Energy, ("Oasis"), is a Texas
corporation with its principal place of business located in
Houston, Texas.  Verde Energy USA, Inc. ("Verde"), is a Texas
corporation with its principal place of business in Texas.

The Defendants are participants in the retail electricity markets.
The Defendants purchase electricity supply from the wholesale
market and resell that electricity to retail consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 E. State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
                  nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Matt Schultz, Esq.
          William F. Cash III, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY
          & PROCTOR, P.A.
          316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7000
          E-mail: mschultz@levinlaw.com
                  bcash@levinlaw.com

               - and -

          Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          Chantal Khalil, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
          E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                  ckhalil@fbfglaw.com


VILLAGE FORD: Flores Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VILLAGE FORD, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:19-cv-12368-LVP-SDD (E.D. Mich., Aug. 9, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant knowingly and willfully violated of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by making unsolicited prerecorded
telemarketing calls in violation of consumers' privacy rights.

Village Ford is a Delaware profit corporation with its principal
place of business located in Dearborn, Michigan.

The Defendant is a Michigan automotive dealership.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Steven K. Mamat, Esq.
          ELIMITIX, PLLC
          24100 Southfield, #305
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 206-2161
          E-mail: smamat@elimitix.com


VIVINT INC: Rosenbloom Sues Over TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
BARBARA ROSENBLOOM, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VIVINT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-02359 filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County,
Missouri on Aug. 16, 2019, is an action on behalf of Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated for Defendant's violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Rosenbloom did not provide her cell
phone number to Vivint, had no prior business relationship with
Vivint, and did not grant Vivint prior express written consent to
be called on her cell phone. On July 5, 2019, Rosenbloom received
the text message from Vivint on her cellular phone in St. Louis
County, Missouri despite not expressing an interest to Vivint in
obtaining a home security system. On July 6, 2019, Rosenbloom
received another text message from Vivint on her cellular phone.
The text messages sent to Rosenbloom and the putative class members
by Vivint were made for the purpose of marketing Defendant's
products and services. Vivint's conduct injured Rosenbloom and the
putative class members because their privacy has been violated, and
they were subject to annoying and harassing text messages that
constituted a nuisance, says the complaint.

Vivint markets its products and services, in part, through sending
text messages to prospective customers' cell phones.

Vivint describes itself as "a leading smart home company in North
America." The products and services it provides, include, among
other items, home security systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David T. Butsch, Esq.
     Christopher E. Robert, Esq.
     BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
     231 S. Bemiston Ave., Suite 260
     Clayton, MO 63105
     Phone: (314) 863-5700
     Fax: (314) 863-5711
     Email: dbutsch@butschroberts.com
            croberts@butschroberts.com


WAL-MART INC: Adolphus Sues Over Misleading Ads for Payment Service
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMIAH ADOLPHUS, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART, INC.; and DOES 1-10
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV28638 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., Aug. 16, 2019) is a class action Complaint against
Defendant to stop Defendant's practice of falsely advertising its
payment service and to obtain redress for a California class of
consumers who changed position, within the applicable statute of
limitations period, as a result of Defendant's false and misleading
advertisements.

According to the complaint, the Defendant misrepresented and
falsely advertised to Plaintiff and others similarly situated
consumers their bill payment services. Specifically, the Defendant
represented that its payment service will provide consumer's payees
with payment and if payment is rejected, that consumers would at
least be notified. But  this is false. In Plaintiff s case,
Defendant failed to inform Plaintiff that his payments submitted,
through their services, was unsuccessful, only providing to
Plaintiff a receipt as proof of the transaction.

The Defendant's misrepresentations to Plaintiff and others
similarly situated caused them to purchase or attempt Defendant's
bill payment service, which they would not have purchased or
attempted to purchase absent these misrepresentations by Defendant
and its employees. In so doing, Defendant has violated California
consumer protection statutes, including the Unfair Competition Law,
False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff JEREMIAH ADOLPHUS is a citizen and resident of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles.

WAL-MART, INC. is a corporation with principal place of business in
Arkansas and state of incorporation in California and is engaged in
providing payment services, in addition to selling distributing
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
     Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (323) 306-4234
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com
            twheeler@toddflaw.com


WHEATFIELD, NY: Second Circuit Appeal Initiated in Andres Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Elizabeth Andres, et al., filed an appeal from a
District Court opinion and order issued on June 14, 2019, in their
lawsuit styled Andres, et al. v. Town of Wheatfield, et al., Case
No. 17-cv-377, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of New York (Buffalo).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 2,
2019, Judge Christina Reiss granted the Defendants' motions to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("SAC").

The Plaintiffs are current or previous owners or renters of
residential properties in North Tonawanda, New York, and the
surrounding area, who have lived in that area for at least one
year.  They seek to bring a class action suit against the
Defendants arising out of the Plaintiffs' alleged exposure to toxic
and hazardous substances emanating from the Town's Nash Road
landfill ("Site").

The Site is a closed, unlined, uncapped landfill on 25 acres of
real property located at 7415 Nash Road, Wheatfield, New York,
immediately north of the City of North Tonawanda and east of Nash
Road.  At all times relevant to this action, the Town owned the
Site, which was operated by the Niagara Sanitation Company between
1964 and 1968 for the disposal of municipal and industrial wastes.

The appellate case is captioned as Andres, et al. v. Town of
Wheatfield, et al., Case No. 19-2370, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Elizabeth Andres, et al., are represented
by:

          Lilia Factor, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          400 Broadhollow Road
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: lfactor@napolilaw.com

               - and -

          Ashley M. Liuzza, Esq.
          STAG LIUZZA, LLC
          365 Canal Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 593-9600
          E-mail: aliuzza@smithstag.com

Defendant-Appellee Town of Wheatfield, a municipality located in
Niagara County, New York, individually and as Successor in interest
to Niagara Sanitation Company, is represented by:

          Matthew E. Brooks, Esq.
          JONES HOGAN & BROOKS, LLP
          76 West Avenue
          Lockport, NY 14094
          Telephone: (716) 433-5907

               - and -

          Charles D. Grieco, Esq.
          JAECKLE FLEISCHMANN & MUGEL LLP
          200 Delaware Avenue, Avant Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 856-0600
          E-mail: cgrieco@bsk.com

Defendant-Appellee Occidental Chemical Corporation, individually
and as Successor in interest to Hooker Chemical and Plastics
Corporation, is represented by:

          Douglas E. Fleming, III
          DECHERT LLP
          3 Bryant Park
          1095 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 649-8703
          E-mail: douglas.fleming@dechert.com

               - and -

          Kevin M. Hogan, Esq.
          PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP
          1 Canalside
          125 Main Street
          Buffalo, NY 14203
          Telephone: (716) 847-8400
          E-mail: khogan@phillipslytle.com

Defendant-Appellee Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., individually and
as Successor in interest to Bell Aircraft Corporation is
represented by:

          Neil A. Goldberg, Esq.
          GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
          665 Main Street
          Buffalo, NY 14203
          Telephone: (716) 566-5475
          E-mail: ngoldberg@goldbergsegalla.com

Defendant-Appellee Crown Beverage Packaging, LLC, individually and
as Successor in interest to Continental Can is represented by:

          Laurie S. Bloom, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          40 Fountain Plaza
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 853-8102
          E-mail: lbloom@nixonpeabody.com

Defendant-Appellee Grief, Inc., individually and as Successor in
interest to Grief Bros. Cooperage Corporation is represented by:

          Richard T. Sullivan, Esq.
          HARRIS BEACH PLLC
          726 Exchange Street
          Buffalo, NY 14210
          Telephone: (716) 200-5050

Defendant-Appellee Republic Services, Inc., individualy and as
Successor in interest to Niagara Sanitation Company, Inc. is
represented by:

          Robert Rosenthal, Esq.
          43 West 43rd Street
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 353-3752

Defendant-Appellee Honeywell International Inc., individually and
as Successor in interest to Bell Aerospace is represented by:

          John Horn, Esq.
          HARTER SECREST & EMERY LLP
          50 Fountain Plaza
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 853-1616
          E-mail: jhorn@hselaw.com


WINGED FOOT: Clune Appeals Opinion and Order to Second Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kevin P. Clune and James E. Fisher filed an appeal from
a District Court opinion and order issued on July 26, 2019, in
their lawsuit entitled Clune, et al. v. Barry, Jr., et al., Case
No. 16-cv-4441, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (White Plains).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on June 13, 2016, and asserts a federal securities fraud
claim, New York common law fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and
seeks damages for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Plaintiff purchased Winged Foot Golf Club shares at
artificially inflated prices pursuant to materially false and
misleading statements.  Shares prices eventually dropped over
alleged misappropriation of shareholder equity.

The appellate case is captioned as Clune, et al. v. Barry, Jr., et
al., Case No. 19-2466, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Kevin P. Clune, As Executor of the Estate of
Barbara B. Clune, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and James E. Fisher, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          John Halebian, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          61 Broadway
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 500-5010
          E-mail: JHalebian@lshllp.com

Defendants-Respondents Desmond T. Barry, Jr.; George J. Gillepsie,
III; Winged Foot Golf Club, Inc.; John Does, Nos. 1-10; Daniel L.
Mosley, as executor of the estate of George J. Gillespie, III; Gail
G. Garcia, as executor of the estate of George J. Gillespie, III;
and John D. Gillespie, as executor of the estate of George J.
Gillespie, III, are represented by:

          Maeve O'Connor, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
          919 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 909-6000
          E-mail: mloconnor@debevoise.com


YOUNIQUE LLC: Schmitt Seeks Prelim. Nod of Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled MEGAN SCHMITT, DEANA REILLY,
CAROL ORLOWSKY, and STEPHANIE MILLER BRUN, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. YOUNIQUE,
LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-01397-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), ask the Court to
enter their proposed order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of their proposed class
      action settlement;

   2. approving the proposed Notice Program;

   3. appointing the Heffler Claims Group as Settlement
      Administrator and directing it to commence the Notice
      Program;

   4. conditionally certifying the proposed Class for the
      purposes of Settlement;

   5. appointing them and certain other class members as Class
      Representatives for the Settlement Class and their counsel
      as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; and

   6. setting a schedule for settlement procedures filings and
      scheduling a Final Approval Hearing.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan D. Miller, Esq.
          Alison M. Bernal, Esq.
          NYE STIRLING HALE & MILLER, LLP
          33 West Mission St., Suite 201
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 963-2345
          Facsimile: (805) 284-9590
          E-mail: jonathan@nshmlaw.com
                  alison@nshmlaw.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1900
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          280 Highway 35, Suite 304
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 741-4290
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Bonner Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH, LLC
          1561 Long Haul Road
          Grangeville, ID 83530
          Telephone: (541) 359-2827
          Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
          E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com



                            *********

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 ***