CAR_Public/190829.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, August 29, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 173

                            Headlines

25TH STREET SHOWPLACE: Delacruz Alleges Violation under ADA
ABLE FINE ART: Picon Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
ACUANT, INC: Kloss Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
ADT INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suits Pending
ADT INC: Fitzhenry TCPA Class Action vs. Unit Underway

ADT INC: Settlement in Wireless Encryption Case Wins Final OK
ADT INC: Unit Continues to Defend Villegas Suit in California
ADT INC: Unit Faces Shuheiber Independent Contractor Class Suit
ALASKA AIR: Appeal in Flight Attendants Class Suit Pending
ALPHA RECOVERY: Nunez Files Class Suit under FDCPA in New York

AMERICANPEARL.COM: Lee Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
ANCHOR GENERAL: Vergara Suit Asserts Wage Abuse
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Wong Amended Complaint Pending
ATLANTIC CREDIT: Ortiz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
AUSTIN STATE HOSPITAL: Ituah Seeks to Certify Rape Victims Class

AXOGEN INC: Einhorn Case Management Report Due Sept. 2
BE AMAZED: Has Until Aug. 30 to Reply to Complaint in Lynch Suit
BERNARDUCCI GALLERY: Picon Alleges Violation under ADA
BLUE APRON: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit in EDNY Still Pending
BLUE APRON: Mediation in Cal. Class Suit Set for November 2019

BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Court Stays Wijesinha Class Suit
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Deal Reached in Hernandez Class Suit
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Landon Class Suit Ongoing
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Paxton-Reeser Accord Okayed, Case Dismissed
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Still Defends Potje Class Suit

C.A.R.E. INC: Rainey Labor Suit Seeks Proper Wages
CAPTAIN LAWRENCE: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Shin Asserts Breach of FDCPA
CLEAR CHANNEL: GAMCO & Norfolk Suits Concluded
COLOURPOP COSMETICS: Conner Files Class Suit under ADA

CONSOL ENERGY: Still Defends Casey Suit in West Virginia
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Dillard Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CORE-MARK INT'L: Cunha Files Class Suit in California
CVS HEALTH: Anarkat et al Suit Moved to District of Rhode Island
CVS HEALTH: Waterford Township Sues over Share Price Drop

DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Court Dismisses D. Morgan's Suit
DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Court Dismisses T. Lynn's Suit
DEILY & GLASTETTER: Ortiz Alleges Violation under FDCPA
DOLLAR GENERAL: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Weller Suit
DRAPER AND KRAMER: Kanacevic Suit Asserts BIPA Violation

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Goldman Files Class Suit in New York
FACEBOOK, INC: Skipper et al Sue over Marketing of Ad Platform
FCA US: Van Ness Sues over Defective Airbag Control Unit
FENIX PARTS: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class as Moot
FIAT CHRYSLER: Hightman Suit Transferred to S.D. New York

FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Marshall Alleges Violation under FDCPA
FORD MOTOR: Fails to Truly Show Fuel Economy Ratings, Drake Says
FORSTER & GARBUS: Summary Judgment in Mandelos FDCPA Suit Granted
FORTERRA INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Class Suit Still Pending
GLAMSQUAD INC: Slade Alleges Website not Blind-accessible

GLOBAL CREDIT: Lugo Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit Underway
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss US Treasury Securities Suit Underway
GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend NY Securities Lending Suit
HOME DEPOT: Violates Calif. Labor Code, Barragan Suit Asserts

J. DIAMOND: Watson Seeks Overtime Wages for Field Supervisors
JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Faces Suits over Precious Metals Futures
JSTC, LLC: Thomas Seeks OT Pay for Delivery Associates
KCI USA: Palmer Sues Over Illegal Automatically Dialed Calls
KIDBOX LLC: Nisbett Files Class Suit in New York

KITTLE HOUSE: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KROGER COMPANY:Vancour Seeks Overtime Pay for Employees
LANGUAGE INTEGRATED: Velez-Cortes Seeks Overtime Wages for Workers
LION OIL TRADING: Class Certification Sought in Fuller Suit
M.L. ZAGER PC: Werzberger Asserts Breach of FDCPA

MARK OF EXCELLENCE: Strong Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Drivers
MARTIN'S FAMOUS: Smelser Suit Settlement Denied Without Prejudice
MDL 2820: Claims in TAC Dicamba Herbicides Suit Narrowed
MDL 2903: Hanson Suit over Rock 'N Play Sleeper Consolidated
MDL 2904: Webb Suit v. Quest, et al over Data Breach Consolidated

MDL INNOVATIVE: Zwiefel Seeks OT Pay for Welding Inspectors
MEDICAL DATA SYSTEMS: Holmes Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Taylor Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
MICHIGAN: Kensu Moves to Certify Class and Subclass of Inmates
MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed

MIDLAND CREDIT: Weinberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
MIDLAND FUNDING: Zirpoli Sues over Debt Collection Practices
MIDWEST RECEIVABLE: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
NATERA INC: Appeal from IPO Case Decision in Calif. Still Ongoing
NATIONAL VISION: Amended Complaint Filed in Cal. Wage & Hour Suit

NATIONAL VISION: Awaits Final Approval of 1-800 Contacts Accord
NATIONAL VISION: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit vs. FirstSight Pending
NORTHEAST SERVICE: Tenelema et al Seek OT Premiums for Laborers
PG&E CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit Stayed Amid Bankruptcy
PG&E CORP: Lawsuits over 2018 Camp Fire Stayed under Chapter 11

PG&E CORP: Suits on 2017 Northern California Wildfires Still Stayed
PITNEY BOWES: Still Defends Suit by City of Livonia Retiree Plan
PORTABLE MUD: Walters Seeks Overtime Wages for Mechanics
PRIDE HYUNDAI: White Files Suit in Mass. Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
QUANTUM CORP: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 14

RESTAURANT LEADERSHIP: Licea Suit Asserts ADA  Breach
SERVIS ONE INC: Padula Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
SLEEP NUMBER: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Fresno
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Requests for Rehearing in Smith Appeal Denied
ST VINCENT COMMUNITY: Dorado Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas

SYNERGY ONE: Raub Suit Moved to Southern District of California
TEGNA INC: Clay, Massey & Associates, P.C. Class Suit Ongoing
TRANSGENOMIC INC: Settlement in Campbell Suit Has Prelim Approval
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Class Certification Sought in Norton Suit
ULTA BEAUTY: Fernando Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.

UNIT CORP: Chieftain Royalty Class Suit Ongoing in Oklahoma
UNIT CORP: Class Certification Bid in Panola ISD Class Suit Denied
UNIT CORP: Cockerell Oil Properties Class Suit Ongoing
VENATOR MATERIALS: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit Pending
VERSUM MATERIALS: Ventura Class Suit Remains Pending

VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust's COI Class Suit Pending
VOYA FINANCIAL: Bid to Nix Goetz Suit Still Pending at June 30
VOYA FINANCIAL: Still Faces Barnes COI Litigation
WASTE PRO: Wright Seeks OT Pay for Waste Disposal Drivers
WATERWORKS OPERATING: Delacruz Alleges Violation under ADA

WAYPOINT RESOURCE: Dillard Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
WELLS FARGO: Hernandez Suit over Mortgage Loan Plans Dismissed
YELP INC: Davis Seeks Certification of Shareholders Class
ZIRTUAL STARTUPS: Macaluso Hits Misclassification, Unpaid Overtime

                            *********

25TH STREET SHOWPLACE: Delacruz Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------
25th Street Showplace Antique Center, Inc. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 25th Street
Showplace Antique Center, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07807
(S.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019).

25th Street Showplace Antique Center, Inc. is an Antique store in
New York City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ABLE FINE ART: Picon Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------
Able Fine Art NY, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Yelitza Picon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Able Fine Art NY, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07813 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019).

Able Fine Art NY, Inc. is an Art museum in New York City, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACUANT, INC: Kloss Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------
SHANICE KLOSS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. ACUANT, INC., a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH09538 (Ill. Cir., Aug.
16, 2019), seeks to stop Defendant's capture, collection, use, and
storage of individuals' biometric identifiers and/or biometric
information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant uses various identity
verification technologies, such as the Acuant FaceTM technology, to
extract the biometric facial geometry templates of these
individuals and compare such biometric information to their photo
ID. This requires the individuals to upload a driver's license,
photo ID, or passport and then a photo of themselves or otherwise
undergo a scan of their facial geometry, often taken through a
webcam. Acuant Face (TM) is sometimes combined with other systems
including Idscan (TM), AssureID (TM), Review (TM), Ozone (TM),
which all rely on extraction of biometric information. All of this
allows for both identity verification and age verification of
individuals by Defendant's customers via Defendant's technology.

Using its Acuant Verification System Software, Defendant captures,
stores and uses individuals' facial geometry and related biometric
information without complying with BIPA's requirements.

Unlike ID badges or time-cards -- which can be changed or replaced
if stolen or compromised -- facial geometry is a unique and
permanent biometric identifier associated with each individual.
This exposes individuals to serious and irreversible privacy risks.
If for example, a database containing scans of face geometry or
other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed -- like in ongoing and continuous data breaches
-- consumers have no means by which to prevent identity theft,
unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or improper use of this
highly personal and private information.

BIPA defines a "biometric identifier" as any personal feature that
is unique to an individual, including fingerprints, palm scans and
facial geometry. "Biometric information" is any information based
on a biometric identifier, regardless of how it is converted or
stored.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:

          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P .C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893- 7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
          E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com
                  jsheikali@mcgpc.com

ADT INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suits Pending
-------------------------------------------------
ADT 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 motions to dismiss the class action
suits entitled, In re ADT Inc. Shareholder Litigation and Perdomo v
ADT Inc., are pending.

Five substantially similar shareholder class action lawsuits
related to the January 2018 initial public offering (IPO) of ADT
Inc. common stock were filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida in March,
April, and May 2018 and have been consolidated for discovery and
trial and entitled In re ADT Inc. Shareholder Litigation.

The lead plaintiffs seek to represent a class of similarly situated
shareholders and assert claims for alleged violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended ("Securities Act").

The plaintiffs allege that the Company defendants violated the
Securities Act because the registration statement and prospectus
used to effectuate the IPO were false and misleading in that they
allegedly misled investors with respect to litigation involving the
Company, the Company's efforts to protect its intellectual
property, and the competitive pressures faced by the Company.

The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint in
October 2018.

In July 2019 the Florida state court denied the Company's motions
to dismiss the complaint, but reserved its ruling on the motion to
dismiss by the Company's outside directors and requested further
briefing.

A similar shareholder class action lawsuit entitled Perdomo v ADT
Inc., also related to the January 2018 IPO, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida in May 2018,
for which the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in January 2019
as directed by the Court. The defendants moved to dismiss the
Amended Complaint in March 2019.

The motions are fully briefed and remain pending before the federal
court.

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.


ADT INC: Fitzhenry TCPA Class Action vs. Unit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
ADT 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 ADT LLC is defending against a class
action suit initiated by Mark Fitzhenry.

On May 13, 2019, ADT was served in a putative Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") class action lawsuit captioned, Mark
Fitzhenry v. ADT LLC and Safe Streets USA LLC, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Plaintiff seeks to recover statutory damages allowed under the TCPA
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated based on his
receipt of a single telemarketing call allegedly made by or on
behalf of a third-party ADT authorized dealer. ADT is being
defended and indemnified by the authorized dealer.

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.


ADT INC: Settlement in Wireless Encryption Case Wins Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that a trial court has entered an order
granting final approval of the settlement in  the Wireless
Encryption Litigation.

The Company is subject to five class action claims regarding
wireless encryption in certain ADT security systems.
Jurisdictionally, three of the five cases are in Federal Court (in
districts within Illinois, Arizona, and California), and both of
the remaining two cases are in Florida State Court (both in Palm
Beach County Circuit Court).

Each of the five plaintiffs brought a claim under the respective
state's consumer fraud statute alleging that The ADT Corporation
and each of its consolidated subsidiaries prior to the consummation
of the ADT Acquisition made misrepresentations and material
omissions in its advertising regarding the unencrypted wireless
signal pathways in certain security systems monitored by The ADT
Corporation.

The complaints in all five cases further allege that certain
security systems monitored by The ADT Corporation are not secure
because the wireless signal pathways are unencrypted and can be
easily hacked.

In January 2017, the parties agreed to settle all five class action
lawsuits. In October 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California entered an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement.

Notice to class members was issued in November 2017, and the claim
submittal process has been completed.

A fairness hearing regarding the settlement was conducted in
February 2018, after which trial court stayed the settlement
proceedings pending an appellate ruling on a related legal issue.

The appellate court issued a ruling in early June 2019, and in July
2019 the trial court entered an order granting final approval of
the settlement.

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.


ADT INC: Unit Continues to Defend Villegas Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADT 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's subsidiary continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Villegas v. ADT.

In June 2013, an ADT subsidiary was served with a class action
complaint in California State Court entitled Villegas v. ADT.

In this complaint, the plaintiff asserted that the ADT subsidiary
violated certain provisions of the California Alarm Act and the Los
Angeles Municipal Alarm Ordinance for its alleged failures to
obtain alarm permits for its Los Angeles customers and disclose the
alarm permit fee in its customer contracts.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for putative class members
who were required to pay enhanced false alarm fines as a result of
the ADT subsidiary not obtaining a valid alarm permit at the time
of alarm system installation.

The case was initially dismissed by the trial court and judgment
was entered in the ADT subsidiary's favor in October 2014, which
the plaintiff appealed. In September 2016, the California Appellate
Court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court.

In November 2018, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion
for class certification and certified four subclasses of customers
who received fines from the City of Los Angeles on or after May 31,
2010 for a false alarm and for not having an alarm system permit: a
pre-March 2009 class of customers installed by the ADT subsidiary;
a pre-March 2009 class of customers installed by ADT Authorized
Dealers; a post-March 2009 class of customers installed by the ADT
subsidiary; and a post-March 2009 class of customers installed by
ADT Authorized Dealers.

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

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.


ADT INC: Unit Faces Shuheiber Independent Contractor Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADT 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 unit ADT LLC continues to defend a class
action suit entitled, Jabra Shuheiber v. ADT, LLC.

In August 2017, Jabra Shuheiber filed civil litigation in Marin
County Superior Court on behalf of himself and two other
individuals asserting wage and hour violations against the Company.


The action is entitled Jabra Shuheiber v. ADT, LLC (Case Number CV
1702912, Superior Court, Marin County). Mr. Shuheiber was the
owner/operator of a sub-contractor, Maximum Protection, Inc.
("MPI"), who employed the other two plaintiffs in the litigation.

In August 2018, in response to the California Supreme Court's
decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, counsel for Mr. Shuheiber provided the Company with
a proposed amended complaint that modified the wage and hour claims
such that they were brought on a class basis.

The proposed class is not clearly defined but appears to be
composed of two groups of individuals: 1) individual owners of
sub-contractors who performed services for the sub-contractor; and
2) individuals with no ownership interest in a sub-contractor who
were employed by the sub-contractor and provided services pursuant
to a contract between the sub-contractor and the Company.

In October 2018, the Company answered Plaintiffs First Amended
Complaint and filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff's
sub-contracting company for indemnification pursuant to the term of
ADT's sub-contract.

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.


ALASKA AIR: Appeal in Flight Attendants Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Air Group, 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 Flight
Attendants class action suit remains pending.

In 2015, three flight attendants filed a class action lawsuit
seeking to represent all Virgin America flight attendants for
damages based on alleged violations of California and City of San
Francisco wage and hour laws. The court certified a class of
approximately 1,800 flight attendants in November 2016. The Company
believes the claims in this case are without factual and legal
merit.

In July 2018, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment, finding Virgin America, and Alaska Airlines, as a
successor-in-interest to Virgin America, responsible for various
damages and penalties sought by the class members.

On February 4, 2019, the Court entered final judgment against
Virgin America and Alaska Airlines in the amount of approximately
$78 million. It did not award injunctive relief against Alaska
Airlines.

The Company is seeking an appellate court ruling that the
California laws on which the judgment is based are invalid as
applied to national airlines pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and
federal law and for other employment law and improper class
certification reasons.

The Company remains confident that a higher court will respect the
federal preemption principles that were enacted to shield
inter-state common carriers from a patchwork of state and local
wage and hour regulations such as those at issue in this case and
agree with the Company's other bases for appeal.

For these reasons, no loss has been accrued.

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

Alaska Air Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
passenger and cargo air transportation services. The company
operates through three segments: Mainline, Regional, and Horizon.
The company was founded in 1932 and is based in Seattle,
Washington.


ALPHA RECOVERY: Nunez Files Class Suit under FDCPA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpha Recovery Corp.
The case is styled as Aisha Nunez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alpha Recovery Corp,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04781 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019).

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

Alpha Recovery Corp is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David M. Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com

     - and -

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


AMERICANPEARL.COM: Lee Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
C.K. LEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. AMERICANPEARL.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07622 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 14, 2019) is an action brought by
Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all consumers in the United
States who have received unsolicited and unconsented-to commercial
text messages to their mobile phones from Defendant in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff has purchased products from American Pearl in the past
but has not done so in over ten years. Plaintiff never consented to
receiving promotional and marketing text messages on his mobile
phone. In November of 2018, years after he purchased products,
Plaintiff received the text promoting Defendant's Black Friday
sales. The impersonal nature of the message sent to Plaintiff from
a short code number shows that AMERICAN PEARL uses an auto
dialer/texter to send its messages. Short code numbers are widely
used in automated services. The Defendant does not send messages to
its customers on an individual basis that requires human
intervention for each message sent. Defendant's unsolicited
messages and the process is automated. Other members of the class
received the exact same messages at around the same time. The text
message sent to Plaintiff was unwanted, annoying, and a nuisance,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of New York and a resident of
New York County.

AMERICANPEARL.COM, INC., is an online/department store with a
principle executive office and address for service of process
located at 576 5th Ave, STE 1102, New York, NY 10036.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Brown, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10011
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


ANCHOR GENERAL: Vergara Suit Asserts Wage Abuse
-----------------------------------------------
IRMA VERGARA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ANCHOR GENERAL
INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2019-00042566-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Aug.
14, 2019) is a class action brought pursuant to  Section 382 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice
of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees
within the State of California. This pattern and practice involved,
failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages earned
and for missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of
California law. Plaintiff and the other class members were required
to work more than 8 hours per day and/or 40 hours per week without
overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee, from approximately July 2015 to approximately
January 2018.

ANCHOR GENERAL INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. is a California corporation
and an employer whose employees are engaged throughout the State of
California, including the County of San Diego.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Wong Amended Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arlo 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 motion to dismiss
the amended complaint in Wong v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., is
pending.

Beginning on December 11, 2018, purported stockholders of Arlo
Technologies, Inc. filed six putative securities class action
complaints in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, and one complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and certain of
its executives and directors.

Some of these actions also name as defendants the underwriters in
the Company's initial public offering (IPO) and NETGEAR, Inc.

The actions pending in state court are Aversa v. Arlo Technologies,
Inc., et al., No. 18CV339231, filed Dec. 11, 2018; Pham v. Arlo
Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 19CV340741, filed January 9, 2019;
Patel v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No. 19CV340758, filed January 10,
2019; Perros v. NetGear, Inc., No. 19CV342071, filed February 1,
2019; Vardanian v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No. 19CV342318, filed
February 8, 2019; and Hill v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., No.
19CV343033, filed February 22, 2019.

The action pending in federal court is Wong v. Arlo Technologies,
Inc. et al., No. 19-CV-00372, filed January 22, 2019 (the "Federal
Action").

The complaints generally allege that the Company failed to
adequately disclose quality control problems and adverse sales
trends ahead of its IPO, violating the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief on behalf of investors who purchased Arlo common stock
issued pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO offering documents.

In the six state court actions, the court initially issued an order
deeming the cases complex and temporarily stayed discovery. The six
state actions were then consolidated by the court (as consolidated,
the "State Action"), and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint on May 1, 2019.

On June 21, 2019, the court stayed the State Action pending
resolution of the Federal Action, given the substantial overlap
between the claims. The court set a case management conference for
January 17, 2020 so the parties can provide an update regarding the
status of the Federal Action.

In the Federal Action, four investors filed motions to be appointed
lead plaintiff. On May 6, 2019, the court appointed a shareholder
named Matis Nayman to serve as lead plaintiff and the law firm of
Keller Lenkner LLC as lead counsel.

On June 7, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by
failing to adequately disclose quality control problems and adverse
sales trends surrounding the Company's IPO.

The amended complaint also names as defendants the underwriters in
the IPO and NETGEAR, Inc. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on August 6, 2019.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA),
discovery is stayed until the court rules on the motion to
dismiss.

Arlo Technologies, Inc. provides smart connected devices to monitor
the environments in real-time with a Wi-Fi or a cellular network
Internet connection in the Americas, Europe, the Middle-East and
Africa, and the Asia Pacific regions. Arlo Technologies, Inc. was
incorporated in 2018 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.


ATLANTIC CREDIT: Ortiz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Credit &
Finance Inc. The case is styled as Jason Ortiz individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Atlantic
Credit & Finance Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04751 (E.D.
N.Y., Aug. 19, 2019).

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

Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc. provides financial services. The
Company offers unsecured and consumer distressed assets, as well as
collection and 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
     Fax: (516) 281-7601
     Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


AUSTIN STATE HOSPITAL: Ituah Seeks to Certify Rape Victims Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANISHA H. ITUAH by her
Guardian, Angela McKay, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AUSTIN STATE HOSPITAL, ALAN R.
ISAACSON, CATHERINE NOTTEBART, and JOHN DOES No. 1-5, EMPLOYEES OF
AUSTIN STATE HOSPITAL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00011-RP
(W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "all patients who have been subjected to sexual assault at
   Austin State Hospital within the relevant statute of
   limitations".

According to the Plaintiff, the proposed class may be divided into
two subclasses:

   a. "Female Victim Subclass"

      "all women who were sexually assaulted in Austin State
      Hospital"; and

   b. "Inadequate Investigation Subclass"

      "all patients who reported a sexual assault at Austin State
      Hospital but whose allegation was not adequately
      investigated by ASH because of ASH's negligent and
      discriminatory policies."

Ms. Ituah seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

These ASH policies fail to properly investigate reports of assault,
fail to hold perpetrators of assault at ASH accountable, and
ultimately fail to protect current and future patients from being
assaulted. In a vicious cycle, ASH's failure to investigate sexual
assaults adequately prevents ASH from taking reasonable measures to
prevent sexual assaults, which in turn leads to more sexual
assaults that are not properly investigated, beginning the cycle
again. Class representative Anisha Ituah was one victim of this
cycle of sexual assault at ASH.

On average once a week a patient at ASH facility reports being
sexually assaulted. The overwhelming majority of ASH's
investigations into these reports result in inconclusive
determinations such as "unconfirmed." ASH's corporate
representative testified that she was not aware of a single case in
which basic investigative steps had been taken to preserve evidence
essential to determining whether the alleged assault occurred.
Specifically, ASH's corporate representative is unaware of ASH
ever.

The Plaintiff is a mentally disabled 32-year old woman with the
approximate mental capacity of a 12-year-old girl. On the night of
January 7, 2016, while she was involuntarily committed at ASH,
another patient came into her room and raped her, the lawsuit
says.

As with other victims of sexual assault at ASH, her assault was the
result of inadequate patient safety and sexual assault
investigation policies, practices, and customs that discriminate
against Ms. Ituah and other female victims of sexual assault at ASH
on the basis of disability and sex.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Holt M. Lackey, Esq.
          Jay D. Ellwanger
          ELLWANGER LAW LLLP
          8310-1 N. Capital of Texas Hwy., Suite 190
          Austin, TX 78731
          Telephone: (737) 808-2260
          Facsimile: (737) 808-2238
          E-mail: jellwanger@equalrights.law
          hlackey@equalrights.law


AXOGEN INC: Einhorn Case Management Report Due Sept. 2
------------------------------------------------------
AxoGen, 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 Case Management Report in the class
action suit initiated by Neil Einhorn, is due September 2, 2019.  

On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff Neil Einhorn, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint in the United Stated District Court for the Middle
District of Florida alleging violations of the federal securities
laws against Axogen, Inc., certain of its directors and officers
("Individual Defendants"), and Axogen's 2017 Offering Underwriters
and 2018 Offering Underwriters (collectively, with the Individual
Defendants, the "Defendants"), captioned Einhorn v. Axogen, Inc.,
et al., No. 8:19-cv-00069 (M.D. Fla.).  

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants made false or misleading
statements in connection with the Company's November 2017
registration statement issued regarding its secondary public
offering in November 2017 and May 2018 registration statement
issued regarding its secondary public offering in May 2018, and
during a class period of August 7, 2017 to December 18, 2018.   

In particular, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants issued false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company aggressively increased prices to mask lower sales; (2)
that the Company's pricing alienated customers and threatened the
Company's future growth; (3) that ambulatory surgery centers form a
significant part of the market for the Company's products; (4) that
such centers were especially sensitive to price increases; (5) that
the Company was dependent on a small number of surgeons whom the
Company paid to generate sales; (6) that the Company's consignment
model for inventory was reasonably likely to lead to channel
stuffing; (7) that the Company offered purchase incentives to sales
representatives to encourage channel stuffing; (8) that the
Company's sales representatives were encouraged to backdate revenue
to artificially inflate metrics; (9) that the Company lacked
adequate internal controls to prevent such channel stuffing and
backdating of revenue; (10) that the Company's key operating
metrics, such as number of active accounts, were overstated; and
(11) 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.  

Axogen was served on January 15, 2019. On February 4, 2019, the
court granted the parties' stipulated motion which provided that
Axogen is not required to file a response to the complaint until
thirty days after Plaintiff files a consolidated amended complaint.
On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint, and on July 22, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss.  

Plaintiff's opposing papers were due by August 12, 2019.  

The parties were required to meet and confer by August 19, 2019,
for the purposes of filing a Case Management Report by September 2,
2019.  

On or before 30 days after the Court's ruling on a motion to
dismiss, Plaintiff must file a motion for class certification and
Defendants must file an opposition 30 days later.  

Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, reimbursement of
expenses and costs, including counsel and expert fees and such
other relief as the court deems just and proper.    

AxoGen said, "The Company and Individual Defendants dispute the
allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the
complaint."

AxoGen, Inc. provides surgical solutions for physical damage or
transection to peripheral nerves. The company provides its products
to hospitals, surgery centers, and military hospitals in the United
States, Canada, the United Kingdom and other European countries,
and internationally. AxoGen, Inc. is headquartered in Alachua,
Florida.


BE AMAZED: Has Until Aug. 30 to Reply to Complaint in Lynch Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DALLAS LYNCH, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. BE AMAZED SANDWICH CO., INC.
d/b/a AND a/k/a CAPRIOTTI'S SANDWICH SHOP; MICHAEL SOLOMON, an
individual; DOES 1 through 50; inclusive, Defendant(s), Case No.
2:18-cv-2425-APG-GWF (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr.
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada extended the
Defendants' time up to and including Aug. 30, 2019 to answer or
otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint.

The Complaint sets forth a purported wage and hour class action.
The parties have exchanged two new settlement proposals since the
last extension, and the Defendant will be making another offer that
week.  The parties believe time is better spent on settlement
negotiations than expending their and the Court's resources on
litigation.

Therefore, the parties' stipulated, and Magistrate Judge Foley
granted, that the Defendants will have an extension of time up to
and including Aug. 30, 2019 to answer or otherwise respond to the
Plaintiff's Complaint.  It's the seventh request for an extension
of the deadline.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/7DNu8C from Leagle.com.

Dallas Lynch, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices & Kaine M. Messer -- kmesser@gabroy.com --
Gabroy Law Offices.

Be Amazed Sandwich Co., Inc., also known as Capriotti's Sandwich
Shop, Capriotti's Sandwich Shop & Michael Solomon, Defendants,
represented by Scott M. Mahoney -- smahoney@fisherphillips.com --
Fisher & Phillips, LLP.


BERNARDUCCI GALLERY: Picon Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------------
Bernarducci Gallery, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Yelitza Picon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bernarducci Gallery, Inc. and
Bernarducci.Meisel Gallery LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07828
(S.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019).

Bernarducci Gallery, Inc. is art gallery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



BLUE APRON: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit in EDNY Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Apron 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 motion to dismiss a
consolidated class action suit filed before the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York remains pending before the
Court.

The Company is subject to a consolidated putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York alleging federal securities law violations in connection with
the Company's June 2017 initial public offering, or the IPO.  

The amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain current
and former officers and directors made material misstatements or
omissions in the Company's registration statement and prospectus
that caused the stock price to drop.

Pursuant to a stipulated schedule entered by the parties,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May
21, 2018.  

Plaintiffs filed a response on July 12, 2018 and defendants filed a
reply on August 13, 2018. The motion to dismiss remains pending
before the Court.

The Company is also subject to two putative class action lawsuits
filed in New York Supreme Court alleging federal securities law
violations in connection with the IPO, which are substantially
similar to the above-referenced federal court action.

The parties have entered into stipulations staying the state court
actions pending resolution of the motion to dismiss filed in the
federal court action.

The Company is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate
outcome of any of these lawsuits or that an adverse resolution of
any of these lawsuits would not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations.

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

Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates direct-to-consumer platform that
delivers original recipes, and fresh and seasonal ingredients. It
also operates Blue Apron Market, an e-commerce marketplace that
provides cooking tools, utensils, and pantry items. Blue Apron
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


BLUE APRON: Mediation in Cal. Class Suit Set for November 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Apron 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 parties in two class
action suits pending before the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, are preparing for mediation
scheduled for November 2019.

The Company is subject to a lawsuit filed in California Superior
Court under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") on behalf of
certain non-exempt employees in the Company's Richmond, California
fulfillment center.  

The complaint was filed on October 16, 2017, and alleges that the
Company failed to pay wages and overtime, provide required meal and
rest breaks, provide suitable resting facilities and provide
accurate wage statements, to non-exempt employees in violation of
California law.

Plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate class action lawsuit alleging
largely the same claims, but covering a longer period, which is now
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The Company believes that it is likely that the two cases will be
consolidated, and the parties are preparing for mediation scheduled
for November 2019 in an attempt to resolve both cases.

The Company is currently unable to provide any assurances as to the
ultimate outcome of these lawsuits or that adverse resolution of
these lawsuits would not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations.

Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates direct-to-consumer platform that
delivers original recipes, and fresh and seasonal ingredients. It
also operates Blue Apron Market, an e-commerce marketplace that
provides cooking tools, utensils, and pantry items. Blue Apron
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Court Stays Wijesinha Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a court has stayed
the class action suit initiated by Shehan Wijesinha.

On January 7, 2019, Shehan Wijesinha filed a purported class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (the "TCPA").

It is alleged that Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU) called
plaintiff's cell phone for telemarketing purposes using an
automated dialing system, and that plaintiff did not give BVU his
express written consent to do so.

Plaintiffs seek certification of a class comprised of other persons
in the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing
of the complaint, received similar calls from or on behalf of BVU
without the person’s consent.  

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.

The company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the action.

On July 15, 2019, the court entered an order staying this case
pending a ruling from the Federal Communications Commission
clarifying the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system
under the TCPA and the decision of the Eleventh Circuit in a
separate action brought against a vacation ownership interests
(VOI) company by a plaintiff alleging violations of the TCPA.

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Deal Reached in Hernandez Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the parties in the
class action suit initiated by Oscar Hernandez and Estella Michael
have mediated and agreed to settle the matter for an immaterial
amount.

On February 28, 2018, Oscar Hernandez and Estella Michael filed a
purported class action litigation in San Bernardino Superior Court
against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU).  

The central claims in the complaint, as amended during June 2018,
include alleged failures to pay overtime and wages at termination
and to provide meal and rest periods, as well as claims relating to
non-compliant wage statements and unreimbursed business expenses;
and a claim under the Private Attorney's General Act.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of approximately 660 hourly,
non-exempt employees who worked in the state of California since
March 1, 2014.  

An initial case management conference was held and discovery was
stayed pending completion of mediation.  

In April 2019, the parties mediated and agreed to settle the matter
for an immaterial amount. It is expected that the court will
approve the settlement and the dismissal of the lawsuit after the
settlement documents are executed.  

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Landon Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Melissa S.
Landon, Edward P. Landon, Shane Auxier and Mu Hpare.

On June 28, 2018, Melissa S. Landon, Edward P. Landon, Shane Auxier
and Mu Hpare, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against the
Company and Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited (BVU) asserting claims
for alleged violations of the Wisconsin Timeshare Act, Wisconsin
law prohibiting illegal referral selling, and Wisconsin law
prohibiting illegal attorney's fee provisions.

Plaintiffs allegations include that the company failed to disclose
the identity of the seller of real property at the beginning of its
initial contact with the purchaser; that the company misrepresented
who the seller of the real property was; that the company
misrepresented the buyer's right to cancel; that the company
included an illegal attorney's fee provision in the sales
document(s); that the company offered an illegal "today only"
incentive to purchase; and that the company utilize an illegal
referral selling program to induce the sale of vacation ownership
interests (VOIs).

Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting of all persons
who, in Wisconsin, purchased from the company one or more VOIs
within six years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Plaintiffs
seek statutory damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

Bluegreen Vacations We believe the lawsuit is without merit and
intend to vigorously defend the action.

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

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Paxton-Reeser Accord Okayed, Case Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a court has approved
the settlement in and dismissed the class action suit initiated by
Whitney Paxton and Jeff Reeser.

On August 24, 2016, Whitney Paxton and Jeff Reeser filed a lawsuit
against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. ("BVU") and certain of
its employees (collectively, the "Defendants"), seeking to
establish a class action of former and current employees of BVU and
alleging violations of plaintiffs' rights under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (the “FLSA”) and breach of contract.

The lawsuit also sought damages in the amount of the unpaid
compensation owed to the plaintiffs.

The court granted preliminary approval of class action in September
2017 to conditionally certify collective action and facilitate
notice to potential class members be granted with respect to
certain employees and denied as to others.

In February 2019, the parties agreed to settle the matter for an
immaterial amount.

The court approved the settlement and dismissed the case with
prejudice on May 9, 2019.

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Still Defends Potje Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Bluegreen Vacations Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend against the class action suit initiated by
Stephen Potje.

On September 22, 2017, Stephen Potje, Tamela Potje, Sharon Davis,
Beafus Davis, Matthew Baldwin, Tammy Baldwin, Arnor Lee, Angela
Lee, Gretchen Brown, Paul Brown, Jeremy Estrada, Emily Estrada,
Michael Oliver, Carrie Oliver, Russell Walters, Elaine Walters, and
Mike Ericson, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against the
company which asserts claims for alleged violations of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Florida False
Advertising Law.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged the making of false
representations in connection with the company's sales of vacation
ownership interests (VOIs), including representations regarding the
ability to use points for stays or other experiences with other
vacation providers, the ability to cancel VOI purchases and receive
a refund of the purchase price and the ability to roll over unused
points, and that annual maintenance fees would not increase.

The purported class action lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice
after mediation.  

However, on or about April 24, 2018, plaintiffs re-filed their
individual claims in Palm Beach County Circuit Court.

Bluegreen Vacations said, "We intend to vigorously defend the
action."

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

Bluegreen Vacations Corporation operates as a vacation ownership
company in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Sales of VOIs and Financing; and Resort Operations and Club
Management. Bluegreen Vacations Corporation was founded in 1966 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Bluegreen Vacations
Corporation is a subsidiary of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC.


C.A.R.E. INC: Rainey Labor Suit Seeks Proper Wages
--------------------------------------------------
LEOTHA RAINEY, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. C.A.R.E., INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-12227 (E.D. La., Aug. 19, 2019) seeks recognition as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards.

According to the complaint, the Defendants pursued a policy and/or
practice of not paying Plaintiff and those similarly situated
proper overtime amounts for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
week. This policy and/or practice included not calculating the
proper rate of pay for overtime hours, and/or not paying time and a
half for all overtime hours based on an employee's regular rate of
pay. Plaintiff and those similarly situated individuals were, on a
regular and routine basis, instructed by Defendants to work in
excess of 40 hours per week but were not always paid the correct
rate of pay for both regular time and/or for overtime, for such
work, but were instead: 1) sometimes not paid any overtime at all;
2) sometimes paid straight time for all hours of work; 3) sometimes
were paid a lower rate of pay for regular hours; and 4) sometimes
were paid an incorrect (lower) rate of pay for overtime hours which
was erroneously calculated on an incorrect (lower) rate of
"regular-hour" pay, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is an employee of Defendant, CARE.

CARE, INC. (Consulting and Advice for the Retired and Elderly) is a
domestic corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John O. Pieksen, Jr., Esq.
     John Pieksen & Associates, LLC
     829 Baronne Street, NO, LA 70113
     Office: (504) 581-9322
     Fax: (504) 581-7652
     Email: jpieksen@cox.net


CAPTAIN LAWRENCE: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Captain Lawrence
Brewing, LLC. The case is styled as James Murphy and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Captain Lawrence
Brewing, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07742 (S.D. N.Y., Aug.
19, 2019).

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

Captain Lawrence Brewing Company is a craft brewery located in
Elmsford, New York. The brewery is owned and run by head brewer
Scott Vaccaro.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zare Khorozian, Esq.
     Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
     1047 Anderson Avenue
     Fort Lee, NJ 07024
     Phone: (201) 957-7269
     Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Shin Asserts Breach of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio
Services LLC. The case is styled as Ho Y Shin, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cavalry
Portfolio Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01309 (W.D.
Wash., Aug. 20, 2019).

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

Cavalry Portfolio Services LLC is a debt collection agency located
in Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CLEAR CHANNEL: GAMCO & Norfolk Suits Concluded
----------------------------------------------
Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1,
2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the
Debtors' plan of reorganization went effective, and the Norfolk
Lawsuit and GAMCO II Lawsuit were each subsequently dismissed with
prejudice.

On August 27, 2018, a stockholder of the Company that had filed a
derivative lawsuit against iHeartMedia and others in 2016 (GAMCO
Asset Management Inc.) filed a putative class action lawsuit (the
"GAMCO II Lawsuit") in the Delaware Chancery Court, captioned GAMCO
Asset Management, Inc. v. Hendrix, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0633-JRS.


The complaint names as defendants the Former Sponsor Defendants and
the members of the Company's board of directors.

The complaint alleges that minority shareholders in the Company
during the period November 8, 2017 to March 14, 2018 were harmed by
decisions of the Company's board of directors and the intercompany
note committee of the board of directors relating to the
intercompany note.

The plaintiff sought, among other things, a ruling that the
Company's board of directors, the intercompany note committee, and
the Sponsor Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and that the
Sponsor Defendants aided and abetted the Board's breach of
fiduciary duty; and an award of damages, together with pre- and
post-judgment interests, to the putative class of minority
shareholders.

On December 16, 2018, the Debtors, the Company, GAMCO Asset
Management, Inc., and Norfolk County Retirement System entered into
a settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement"), which resolves
all claims, objections, and other causes of action that have been
or could be asserted by or on behalf of the Company, GAMCO Asset
Management, Inc., and/or Norfolk County Retirement System by and
among the Debtors, the Company, GAMCO Asset Management, Inc.,
certain individual defendants in the GAMCO Asset Management, Inc.
action and/or the Norfolk County Retirement System action, and the
private equity sponsor defendants in such actions.

The Settlement Agreement provides for the consensual separation of
the Debtors and the Company, including approximately $149.0 million
of recovery to CCOH on account of its claim against
iHeartCommunications in the Chapter 11 cases, an unsecured
revolving line of credit in an aggregate amount not to exceed $200
million from iHeartCommunications (the "iHeart Line of Credit"),
the transfer of certain of the Debtors' intellectual property to
the Company, the waiver by the Debtors of the setoff for the value
of the transferred intellectual property, mutual releases, the
termination of the cash sweep under the existing Corporate Services
Agreement, the termination of any agreements or licenses requiring
royalty payments from the Company to the Debtors for trademarks or
other intellectual property, the waiver of any post-petition
amounts owed by the Company relating to such trademarks or other
intellectual property, and the execution of a new transition
services agreement and other separation documents.

The Settlement Agreement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court and
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
in connection with the confirmation of the iHeartMedia Chapter 11
Cases on January 22, 2019. On May 1, 2019, the Debtors' plan of
reorganization went effective, and the Norfolk Lawsuit and GAMCO II
Lawsuit were each subsequently dismissed with prejudice.

Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc., an outdoor advertising
company, owns and operates advertising display faces in the United
States and internationally. It operates through two segments,
Americas Outdoor Advertising and International Outdoor Advertising.
The company was incorporated in 1995 and is headquartered in San
Antonio, Texas. Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. is a
subsidiary of iHeartCommunications, Inc.


COLOURPOP COSMETICS: Conner Files Class Suit under ADA
------------------------------------------------------
Colourpop Cosmetics, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Colourpop Cosmetics,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04787 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019).

ColourPop Cosmetics, also known as ColourPop, is a cosmetics brand
based in Los Angeles, California. The company was founded in 2014
by siblings Laura and John Nelson. ColourPop products are available
online through their website or at Ulta Beauty.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




CONSOL ENERGY: Still Defends Casey Suit in West Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend against the consolidated Casey class action suit in West
Virginia federal court.

Three nonunion retired coal miners have sued Fola Coal Company LLC,
Consolidation Coal Company ("CCC") and CONSOL of Kentucky Inc.
("COK") (as well as the Company's former parent) in West Virginia
Federal Court alleging ERISA violations in the termination of
retiree health care benefits. The Plaintiffs contend they relied to
their detriment on oral statements and promises of "lifetime health
benefits" allegedly made by various members of management during
Plaintiffs' employment and that they were allegedly denied access
to Summary Plan Documents that clearly reserved the right to modify
or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan subject to
Plaintiffs' claims.

Pursuant to Plaintiffs' amended complaint filed on April 24, 2017,
Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated and
seek to represent a class of all nonunion retirees who were
associated with AMVEST and COK areas of operation. The Company
believes it has a meritorious defense and intends to vigorously
defend this suit.

A class action lawsuit was filed on August 23, 2017 on behalf of
two nonunion retired coal miners against Consolidation Coal Company
(CCC), CONSOL of Kentucky Inc. (COK), CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co.,
LLC and Kurt Salvatori in West Virginia Federal Court alleging
ERISA violations in the termination of retiree health care
benefits.

Filed by the same lawyers who filed the Fitzwater litigation, and
raising nearly identical claims, the Plaintiffs contend they relied
to their detriment on oral promises of "lifetime health benefits"
allegedly made by various members of management during
Plaintiffs’ employment and that they were not provided with
copies of Summary Plan Documents clearly reserving to the Company
the right to modify or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare
Plan.

Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated for
them and their dependents and seek to represent a class of all
nonunion retirees of any subsidiary of the Company's former parent
that operated or employed individuals in McDowell or Mercer
Counties, West Virginia, or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties, Virginia
whose retiree welfare benefits were terminated.

On December 1, 2017, the trial court judge in Fitzwater signed an
order to consolidate Fitzwater with Casey. The Casey complaint was
amended on March 1, 2018 to add new plaintiffs, add defendant
CONSOL Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC and eliminate defendant
CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC in an attempt to expand the class
of retirees.

The Company believes it has a meritorious defense and intends to
vigorously defend this suit.

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

CONSOL Energy Inc. produces and exports bituminous coal. It owns
and operates its mining operations in the Northern Appalachian
Basin. The company owns and operates the Pennsylvania Mining
Complex (PAMC), which comprises three underground mines, including
Bailey, Enlow Fork, and Harvey; and CONSOL Marine Terminal located
in the port of Baltimore. CONSOL Energy Inc. was founded in 1864
and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Dillard Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Yvonne Dillard individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04768
(E.D. N.Y., Aug. 19, 2019).

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

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CORE-MARK INT'L: Cunha Files Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Core-Mark
International, Inc. The case is styled as James E. Cunha, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Core-Mark
International, Inc., a Delaware Corporation and Does 1 through 50
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC19578535 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco County, Aug. 20, 2019).

The case type is stated as other non exempt complaints.

Core-Mark Holding Company distributes fresh, chilled and frozen
merchandise mainly to convenience stores in the United States. It
also provides associated business services such as category
management and management of promotions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



CVS HEALTH: Anarkat et al Suit Moved to District of Rhode Island
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Janak Anarkat, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; International Union of Operating Engineers
Pension Fund of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware; and City of
Miami Fire Fighters and Police Officers Retirement Trust, the
Plaintiffs, vs. CVS Health Corporation, Larry J. Merlo, David M.
Denton, Jonathan C. Roberts, Robert O. "Rocky" Kraft, and Eva C.
Boratto, the Defendants, and Levon Kasparian, Deborah McMahon, and
Gary Harris, the Movants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01725 (Filed Feb. 25,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to U.S. District Court for the
District of Rhode Island (Providence) on Aug 16, 2019. The District
of Rhode Island Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00437-JJM-PAS
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge
John J. McConnell. Jr.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired CVS Health securities between May 21, 2015 and
February 20, 2019, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the Defendants.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq.
          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          Brian Peter Calandra, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100

               - and -

          Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq.
          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN
          MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1625 N. Commerce Parkway
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
          Telephone: (866) 849-7545
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367

Attorneys for the Defendants are

          George Anthony Borden, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5563
          Facsimile: (202) 434-5029

               - and -

          Steven M. Farina, Esq.
          Amanda M. MacDonald, Esq.
          Elizabeth Wilson, Esq.
          Michael Mestitz, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 12TH Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5526
          Email: sfarina@wc.com

Attorneys for Levon Kasparian are:

          Phillip C. Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827

Attorneys for Deborah McMahon are:

          Lesley Frank Portnoy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

Attorneys for the Gary Harris are:

          Shannon Lee Hopkins, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
          Stamford, CT 06905
          Telephone: (203) 992-4523

CVS HEALTH: Waterford Township Sues over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
WATERFORD TOWNSHIP POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually
and on behalf of All others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs.

CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, LARRY J. MERLO, DAVID M. DENTON, EVA C.
BORATTO, RICHARD M. BRACKEN, C. DAVID BROWN II, ALECIA A.
DeCOUDREAUX, NANCY -ANN M. DePARLEM DAVID W. DORMAN, ANNE M.
FINUCANE, JEAN PIERRE-MELLON, MARY L. SCHAPIRO, RICHARD J. SWIFT,
WILLIAM C. WELDON, TONY L. WHITE, MARK T. BERTOLINI, FERNANDO
AGUIRRE, FRANK M. CLARK, MOLLY J. COYE, ROGER N. FARAH, JEFFREY E.
GARTEN, ELLEN M. HANCOCK, RICHARD J. HARRINGTON, EDWARD J. LUDWIG
and OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00434
(D.R.I., Aug. 15, 2019), is a securities class action on behalf of
all former Aetna shareholders who acquired CVS shares in exchange
for their Aetna shares in connection with the CVS's acquisition of
Aetna on November 28, 2018.

To acquire Aetna, CVS would need to:

     (i) convince credit rating agencies that a $40 billion debt
offering -- to fund the Acquisition's cash consideration -- would
not overly burden CVS and jeopardize CVS's investment grade
ratings, and

    (ii) convince Aetna's shareholders that the CVS stock
consideration they would be receiving in the Acquisition was fairly
and accurately priced.

To execute the CVS stock component of the Acquisition, the
Defendants prepared and filed a Registration Statement on Form S-4
with the SEC that was declared effective on February 9, 2018.

The Offering Documents contained materially and/or misleading
statements about CVS's compliance with Generally Accepted
Principles, In particular, CVS falsely represented in the Offering
Documents provided to investors that it had properly accounted for
its $6+ billion goodwill asset, as reported in the "LTC unit"
associated with CVS's 2015 acquisition of long-term care (LTC)
pharmacies of Omnicare, Inc.

Since November 28, 2018, Aetna has been a subsidiary of CVS. The
acquisition was indicative of CVS's bold response to the expected
entry by Amazon, Inc., into the pharmacy and healthcare space. In
sum, Aetna as a "must have" for CVS. The Defendants announced that
the acquisition was formally closed with Aetna shareholders
receiving CVS stock valued at $80 per share.

However, the full extent of CVS's Omnicare woes had not been fully
disclosed to the market. In late February 2019, CVS announced a
second multi-billion-dollar impairment charge to its
Omnicare-related goodwill, this time a 2.2 billion impairment to be
recognized in the fourth quarter of 2018. CVS cited "operational
challenges" as a basis for this second massive charge.

As a shocked ans dismayed market digested the second round of
Omnicare-related bad news, the price of CVS shares slid the
mid-$50s, where the stock has traded continuously for the last five
months, substantially lower than its peers. For example, since
February 20, 2019 CVS's share value has declined over 13% relative
to healthcare-related funds -- Health Care Select Sector SPDR Fund
and Vanguard Healthcare ETF -- the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Barry J. Kusinitz, Esq.
          BDG LAWYERS
          155 South Main Street, Suite 405
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: 401 831 4200
          Facsimile: 401 831 7053
          E-mail: bksinitz@bdglawyers.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN &
          DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367 7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367 1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgdlaw.com
                 mblasy@rgdlaw.com

DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Court Dismisses D. Morgan's Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, issued an Order dismissing the Pro Se Civil
Rights Complaint in the case captioned DAVION MORGAN, Plaintiff, v.
DALLAS COUNTY JAIL FACILITY, Defendant. No. 3:19-cv-01513-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 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.  

The complaint should be dismissed 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/yyu52ptt from Leagle.com.

Davion Morgan, Plaintiff, pro se.


DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Court Dismisses T. Lynn'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 TITUS LYNN, Plaintiff, v.
DALLAS COUNTY JAIL FACILITY, Defendant. No. 3:19-cv-01502-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).

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 12, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4dlt4pp from Leagle.com.

Titus Lynn, Plaintiff, pro se.


DEILY & GLASTETTER: Ortiz Alleges Violation under FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deily & Glastetter,
LLP. The case is styled as Edwin Ortiz, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Deily & Glastetter,
LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04784 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019).

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

Deily & Glastetter, LLP is an Albany, New York-based law firm with
a national client base and reputation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
   775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
   Huntington, NY 11743
   Tel: (631) 335-1107
   Email: mpash@verizon.net



DOLLAR GENERAL: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Weller Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jeffrey L. Schmehl denied the Plaintiff's Motion to
Certify Class in the lawsuit styled CHRISTOPHER WELLER v. DOLLAR
GENERAL CORPORATION, Case No. 5:17-cv-02292-JLS (E.D. Pa.).

The Plaintiff's Motions to Seal Documents and to Certify Class are
denied with leave to renew after Magistrate Rice issues a decision
following his evidentiary hearing pursuant to Gulf Oil v. Bernard,
452 U.S. 89 (1981), according to the Order.[CC]


DRAPER AND KRAMER: Kanacevic Suit Asserts BIPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Camil Kanacevic, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DRAPER AND KRAMER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-05509 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., Aug. 14, 2019) is a
class action complaint against Defendant to stop the Defendant's
capture, collection, use and storage of individuals' biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information pursuant to the Illinois
Biometric Privacy Act ("BIPA").

This case concerns Defendant's conduct of capturing, collecting,
storing, and using Plaintiff's and other workers' biometric
information without regard to BIPA and the concrete privacy right
and pecuniary interests Illinois' BIPA protects. The Defendant does
this in the form of finger scans, which capture a person's
fingerprint, and then Defendant uses that fingerprint to identity
that same person in the future. In direct violation of the
foregoing provisions, Defendant actively captures, collects,
stores, and uses without obtaining informed written consent or
publishing its data and retention and deletion policies, the
biometrics of hundreds of its workers throughout the State of
Illinois whose fingerprints are captured and stored for timekeeping
purposes, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Building Engineer from
January 2011 to July 2016.

Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Frank Castiglione, Esq.
     Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
     The Khowaja Law Firm, LLC
     8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 356-3200
     Fax: (312) 386-5800
     Email: keith@khowajalaw.com
            mhilicki@khowajalaw.com

          - and -

     James X. Bormes, Esq.
     Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
     Law Office of James X. Bormes, P.C.
     8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 201-0575
     Fax: (312) 332-0600
     Email: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
            cpsons@bormeslaw.com



EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Goldman Files Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services LLC. The case is styled as Yochonon Goldman, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Equifax Information Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04793
(E.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer
Credit.

Equifax Information Services LLC provides data solutions. The
Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and
analytical solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


FACEBOOK, INC: Skipper et al Sue over Marketing of Ad Platform
--------------------------------------------------------------
KISHA SKIPPER, JAZMINE SPENCER, DEILLO RICHARDS, on behalf of
themselves individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FACEBOOK, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-5081 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 16, 2019), contends that Facebook
has created, implemented and/or maintained a pre-populated list of
demographics, behaviors and interests that makes it possible for
real estate brokers and landlords to exclude certain buyers or
renters from ever seeing their ads. This action called "redlining"
and Facebook's practice of redlining is illegal and prohibited
under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), a statute promulgated to prohibit
discrimination in housing markets in the United States.

Facebook, under the auspices of being a social-networking site,
mines, collects, purchases, and assembles into individual profiles
countless terabytes of data in multitudes of categories
(demographics data), about Facebook's approximately two billion
active monthly users worldwide.  Facebook uses its demographics
data to permit real estate brokers and landlords to create, publish
and send ads to certain groups of Facebook users. More importantly,
Facebook also uses its demographics data to permit Facebook and its
advertisers to avoid publishing, providing, or sending ads to
Facebook users in certain protected classes.

Facebook's Ad Platform allowed and/or facilitated omission of
certain Facebook users based on their real or perceived personal
characteristics, by purposefully and intentionally creating,
developing, and/or using the "Exclude People" feature.  The Ad
Platform also permits advertisers to include only certain users
with perceived "favored" personal characteristics, thereby
excluding users who lack the favored personal characteristics.

Facebook thus created and developed its Ad Platform with its
anti-diversity Multicultural Affinity tool that Facebook and its
advertisers have used to avoid publishing, providing or sending
information or content to users in protected classes, while
defendant published, provided, and/or sent the same information and
content to other Facebook users who are not in protected classes,
the lawsuit says.

The FHA prohibits both publishers and advertisers from publishing
tailored advertisements based on sex, familial status, disability,
national origin, race and other protected classes.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members are:

          Michael D. Seplow, Esq.
          Aidan C. McGlaze, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN SEPLOW
          HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP
          11543 W. Olympic Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: 310-396-0731
          Facsimile: 310-399-7040
          E-mail: mseplow@sshhlaw.com
                  amcglaze@sshhlaw.com

               - and -

          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
          David Honigman, Esq.
          Kathryn Eisenstein, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: 248-457-9200
          Facsimile: (248)-457-9201
          E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
                  dhonigman@manteselaw.com
                  keisenstein@manteselaw.com

               - and -

          Wilmer Harris, Esq.
          Schonbrun Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP
          715 Fremont Ave., Suite A,
          South Pasadena, CA 91030
          Telephone: 626-441-4129
          Facsimile: 626-283-5770
          E-mail: wharris@sshhlaw.com

               - and -

          Patricia A. Stamler, Esq.
          Elizabeth Thomson, Esq.
          Matthew Turchyn, Esq.
          HERTZ SCHRAM PC
          1760 South Telegraph Road, Ste 300
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Telephone: 248-335-5000
          Facsimile: 248-335-3346
          E-mail: pstamler@hertzschram.com
                  lthomson@hertzschram.com
                  mturchyn@hertzschram.com

FCA US: Van Ness Sues over Defective Airbag Control Unit
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Van Ness, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FCA US LLC, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, MITSUBISHI MOTORS NORTH
AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., ZF-TRW AUTOMOTIVE
HOLDINGS CORP., and TRW AUTOMOTIVE U.S. LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-07153 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 15, 2019), alleges that an
airbag manufacturer and automakers concealed a deadly airbag
performance defect.

The complaint contends that knowledge and information regarding the
ACU Defect and the associated safety risk was in the exclusive and
superior possession of Defendants, and was not disclosed to
Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes, who could not
reasonably discover the defect through due diligence. Through
pre-production testing, design failure mode analysis, wrongful
death and personal injury lawsuits, post-collision inspections,
vehicle owner questionnaires, and NHTSA investigations, inter alia,
the Defendants were aware of the ACU Defect and fraudulently
concealed the defect from Plaintiffs and the other members of the
Classes.[BN]

Attorneys for Michael Van Ness are:

          Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
          Anne K. Davis, Esq.
          Joshua Samra, Esq.
          BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
          555 12th Street, Suite 1600
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (415) 445-4003
          Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
          E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
                  adavis@bfalaw.com
                  jsamra@bfalaw.com

               - and -

          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          Elizabeth S. Metcalf, Esq.
          SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
          350 Fifth Avenue, 59 th Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 201-2855
          Facsimile: (212) 201-2858
          E-mail: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com
          emetcalf@safirsteinmetcalf.com
          
               - and -

          Ex Kano S. Sams II, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: sams@glancylaw.com

FENIX PARTS: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class as Moot
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as AMANDA BEEZLEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. FENIX PARTS,
INC. et al., the Defendants, Case No. l7-cv-7896 (N.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge Charles R. Norgle entered an order on Aug. 19, 2019,
denying as moot Bernard, Weeks, and White's motion certify class
and for appointment of class representatives, in light of the
parties' representation to Magistrate Judge Cole on June 3, 2019,
that this case has settled.

Fenix Parts is an insurance quality automotive parts recycler with
operations throughout the Eastern U.S.[CC]

FIAT CHRYSLER: Hightman Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, Wendy Hightman on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Fiat Chrysler US LLC; Does 1
Through 10; and FCA US LLC , Case No. 3:18-cv-02205 (Filed, Sept
24, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of California, to the Southern District of New
York (Foley Square) on Aug. 16, 2019. The Southern District of New
York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-07681-VSB to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Vernon S.
Broderick.

The case is a civil action challenging Chrysler Automobiles US
LLC's breach of its Lifetime Limited Powertrain Warranties for
2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep vehicles sold
and delivered on or after July 26, 2007, with a Lifetime Powertrain
Warranty.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          David Christopher Wright, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: E-madcw@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Douglas Carl Sohn, Esq.
          SOHN AND ASSOCIATES
          16870 W. Bernardo Dr., Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92127
          Telephone: (619) 237-7646
          Facsimile: (858) 759-4299
          E-mail: dsohn@sohnlaw.com

Attorneys for FCA US LLC are:

          Edwin Mendelson Boniske, Esq.
          HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK, LLP
          401 West A Street, Suite 2600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 236-1551
          Facsimile: (619) 696-1410
          E-mail: boniske@higgslaw.com

               - and -

          Kathleen Ann Wisniewski, Esq.
          Stephen Anthony D'Aunoy, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          One US Bank Plaza
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552-6337
          Facsimile: (314) 552-7000
          E-mail: kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com
                  sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com

FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Marshall Alleges Violation under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Robin R. Marshall,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-04788 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019).

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

Financial Recovery Services (FRS) is a debt collection agency
located in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David M. Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com

     - and -

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




FORD MOTOR: Fails to Truly Show Fuel Economy Ratings, Drake Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DILLON DRAKE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:19-cv-12375-SFC (S.D. Fla., Aug. 12, 2019), is brought against
Ford on behalf of all purchasers and lessees of Ford F-150 vehicles
for its failure to accurately represent Environmental Protection
Agency fuel economy ratings.

Ford Motor Company is a Delaware company with its principal place
of business in Dearborn Michigan.  Ford conducts business in all 50
states, including Florida.

Ford manufactures, sells, and warrants the Plaintiff's vehicle and
those sold to members of the classes the Plaintiff seeks to
represent.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Mike Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          20 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          E-mail: MMorgan@forthepeople.com


FORSTER & GARBUS: Summary Judgment in Mandelos FDCPA Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELISA J. MANDELOS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FORSTER & GARBUS, LLP and
THE FORSTER GROUP, INC. Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-3821
(SJF)(GRB)(E.D. N.Y.), Judge Susan J. Feuerstein of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On July 2, 2018, Mandelos commenced the putative class action
against Defendants Forster & Garbus, LLP ("F&G") and The Forster
Group, Inc. ("TFG"), alleging violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  The Plaintiff originally
incurred the subject debt to Citibank (South Dakota) N.A.
("Citibank"), and fell behind on the payments owed at some
unidentified time thereafter.  The Debt was subsequently assigned
or otherwise transferred to TFG for collection.

On Dec. 28, 2011, a judgment was entered against the Plaintiff in
the District Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, in a
consumer credit action, The Forster Group, Inc. APO Citibank v.
Mandelos, No. CV-036370-11/NA.  Joel D. Leiderman, Esq., a senior
associate attorney with F&G, avers, based upon his personal review
of F&G's account collection notes concerning the Plaintiff
maintained in the ordinary course of business, that the judgment:
(i) was entered against the Plaintiff in the amount of $4,788.58;
(ii) has been accruing interest at the rate of 9% per annum; and
(iii) was in the total amount of $7,763.38 as of Oct. 8, 2018.
Dorster makes similar factual averments.

In an effort to collect the Debt, the Defendants contacted the
Plaintiff by letter dated July 6, 2017.  The Letter, inter alia,
sets forth a "Balance Due as of July 6, 2017," in the amount of
$7,221.76; "provides a settlement offer;" and states, "If the above
settlement offer is not accepted by you and if interest or other
charges or fees accrue on this account, after the date of this
letter, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater."

The complaint alleges, inter alia, (i) that the Defendants had no
authority to add interest to the debt, to add 'other charges' to
the debt, or to add 'fees' to the debt; (ii) that the Letter would
lead the least sophisticated consumer to believe that the
Defendants had authority to add interest to the debt, to add 'other
charges' to the debt, and to add "fees" to the debt; and (iii) that
the Defendants, thus, violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e.

Leiderman and Forster aver that in conjunction with the directives
of TFG, F&G (i) is authorized to accept a sum less than the amount
set forth in the Letter; and (ii) was authorized to collect
post-judgment interest, costs and fees if the Plaintiff did not
agree to enter into a lesser amount settlement.

The Defendants now move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Initially, Judge Feuerstein finds that there is no genuine dispute
that the Letter "provides a settlement offer."  What the complaint
challenges as false or misleading about the Letter is only the
statement leading the least sophisticated consumer to believe that
defendants had authority to add interest, "other charges" and
"fees" to the Debt if the settlement offer was not accepted by the
recipient.

The Defendants demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a
matter of law by submitting affidavits of their members and/or
employees clearly indicating that they were, in fact, authorized to
collect post-judgment interest, costs and fees if the Plaintiff did
not agree to enter into a lesser amount settlement.  Accordingly,
the Letter was not inaccurate in leading the least sophisticated
consumer to believe that the Defendants had authority to recover
post-judgment interest, fees and "other charges," and, thus, does
not violate Section 1692e.  

Since the Letter accurately conveyed to the Plaintiff that
post-judgment interest, fees and "other charges" were possible,
i.e., that the amount of the debt stated therein might increase
over time, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is granted and the
Plaintiff's FDCPA claims are dismissed in their entirety with
prejudice.  

The Clerk of the Court will enter judgment in favor of defendants
and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/7XIgtE from Leagle.com.

Elisa J. Mandelos, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Craig B. Sanders --
csanders@sanderslawpllc.com -- Barshay Sanders, PLLC, David M.
Barshay, Barshay Sanders, PLLC, Erica Carvajal, Sanders Law LLC &
Jonathan Mark Cader, Barshay Sanders, PLLC.

Forster & Garbus, LLP & The Forster Group, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Robert L. Arleo -- RArleoESq@gmail.com -- Robert L.
Arleo, Esq..


FORTERRA INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2019, that the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York has not yet ruled on the
motion to dismiss by defendants in the IPO-related class action
suit.

Beginning on August 14, 2017, four plaintiffs filed putative class
action complaints in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against various defendants.

On July 27, 2018, an order was entered consolidating the lawsuits
into a single action (the "Securities Action"), and transferring
the venue of the case from the Eastern District of New York to the
Northern District of Texas.

On September 17, 2018, an order was entered appointing Wladislaw
Maciuga as lead plaintiff and approving his counsel as lead
counsel. Pursuant to an agreed scheduling order, plaintiffs in the
Securities Action filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint on
November 30, 2018.

The Securities Action is brought by two plaintiffs individually and
on behalf of all persons that purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock issued pursuant to and/or traceable to the
initial public offering (IPO) and is brought against the Company,
certain of its current and former officers and directors, Lone Star
and certain of its affiliates, and certain banks that acted as
underwriters of the IPO (collectively, the "Securities
Defendants").

The Securities Action generally alleges that the Company's
registration statement on Form S-1 filed in connection with the IPO
(the "Registration Statement") contained false or misleading
statements and/or omissions of material facts.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege the Registration Statement (1) made
false and/or misleading statements about the Company's ability to
generate organic growth through cross-selling initiatives amongst
the Company's various businesses while failing to disclose that the
Company had not adequately integrated acquisitions, had not begun
rolling out its cross-selling initiative, and that its businesses
were submitting competing bids against one another, and (2) made
false or misleading statements regarding the existence of certain
accounting practices and alleged material weaknesses in the
Company's internal controls over financial reporting, including the
existence of and accounting for bill and hold transactions, the
lack of sufficient accounting personnel, the lack of effective
internal controls to ensure costs were properly and accurately
accrued, resulting in misstated costs and profits in the Company's
2016 financial statements, and the making of inventory accounting
entries without adequate substantiation or documentation.

The Securities Action asserts claims under Section 11 and Section
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities
Act") and seeks (1) class certification under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, (2) damages suffered by plaintiffs and other class
members, (3) prejudgment and post-judgment interest, (4) reasonable
counsel fees and expert fees, and other costs and expenses
reasonably incurred, and (5) other relief the court deems
appropriate.

On February 15, 2019, the Securities Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss all claims in the case based on plaintiffs' failure to
state a claim.

Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on May 1, 2019, and
the court has not yet ruled on the motion.

Forterra said, "The parties have agreed to mediate the Securities
Action, and the mediation is scheduled to occur in the third
quarter 2019."

Forterra, Inc. manufactures and sells pipe and precast products the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. It operates through Drainage
Pipe & Products; and Water Pipe & Products segments. Forterra, Inc.
was founded in 2016 and is headquartered in Irving, Texas.


GLAMSQUAD INC: Slade Alleges Website not Blind-accessible
---------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SLADE, Individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. GLAMSQUAD, INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-07506 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2019), arises from Glamsquad's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired persons.

Glamsquad, Inc., is a Delaware Foreign Business Corporation doing
business in New York with its principal place of business located
in New York City.

Glamsquad.com is a commercial website that offers products and
services for online sale.  The online store allows the user to
browse the various hair, makeup and nail services on demand that
are available, make bookings for a specific day and time, select
upgrades, make purchases of hair and makeup products, and perform a
variety of other functions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Telephone: (917) 373-9128
          E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com


GLOBAL CREDIT: Lugo Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Credit &
Collection Corp. The case is styled as Miguel Lugo, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Global
Credit & Collection Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04786 (E.D.
N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019).

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

Global Credit & Collection Corp is one of the companies that
engages in collection activities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David M. Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com

     - and -

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




GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the defendants in
the class action suit related to GSE Bond Antitrust Suit remains
pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the dealers named as
defendants in numerous putative antitrust class actions relating to
debt securities issued by Federal National Mortgage Association,
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Federal Farm Credit Banks
Funding Corporation and Federal Home Loan Banks (collectively, the
GSEs), filed beginning in February 2019 and consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 23, 2019, asserts
claims under federal antitrust law in connection with an alleged
conspiracy among the defendants to manipulate the secondary market
for debt securities issued by the GSEs.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
treble damages in unspecified amounts. Defendants moved to dismiss
on June 13, 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 US Treasury Securities 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 company's motion
to dismiss litigation related to the sale of U.S. Treasury
securities is still pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the primary dealers named
as defendants in several putative class actions relating to the
market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July 2015
and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

GS&Co. is also among the primary dealers named as defendants in a
similar individual action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on August 25, 2017.

The consolidated class action complaint, filed on December 29,
2017, generally alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws
in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the
when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury securities and
that certain defendants, including GS&Co., colluded to preclude
trading of U.S. Treasury securities on electronic trading platforms
in order to impede competition in the bidding process.

The individual action alleges a similar conspiracy regarding
manipulation of the when-issued market and auctions, as well as
related futures and options in violation of the Commodity Exchange
Act. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble
damages in an unspecified amount and restitution.

Defendants moved to dismiss on February 23, 2018.

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

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend NY Securities Lending Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company (Group
Inc.) and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.), continues to defend
itself from an antitrust suit involving securities lending
practices.

The Company ("Group Inc."), Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") are
among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action and
three individual actions relating to securities lending practices
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York beginning in August 2017.

The complaints generally assert claims under federal and state
antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged
conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the development of
electronic platforms for securities lending transactions.

The individual complaints also assert claims for tortious
interference with business relations and under state trade
practices law and, in the second and third individual actions,
unjust enrichment under state common law.

The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble, punitive and other
damages. Group Inc. was voluntarily dismissed from the putative
class action on January 26, 2018.

Defendants moved to dismiss the first individual action on June 1,
2018 and moved to dismiss the second individual action on December
21, 2018. Defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint
was denied on September 27, 2018.

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

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


HOME DEPOT: Violates Calif. Labor Code, Barragan Suit Asserts
-------------------------------------------------------------
DONNIE SANCHEZ BARRAGAN and ARACELI BARRAGAN, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 - 100, inclusive, Case No.
37-2019-00042161-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Aug. 12,
2019), accuses the Defendants of violating the California Labor
Code by failing to provide the Plaintiffs and Class Members with
accurate itemized wage statements at the end of each pay period.

Home Depot is an active corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware.  The Plaintiffs
do not know the true names and/or capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

Home Depot is one of the largest home improvement companies in the
United States.  Home Depot owns and/or operates hundreds of retail
stores throughout California, selling tools, construction products
and services to California customers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Shaun Markley, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  smarkley@nicholaslaw.org


J. DIAMOND: Watson Seeks Overtime Wages for Field Supervisors
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER WATSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE J. DIAMOND GROUP, INC.,
and WILFRED D BLOOD, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00646-O (N.D. Tex., Aug. 16, 2019), alleges that Defendants
failed to pay overtime wages in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Specifically, Plaintiff was not paid time-and-one-half of his
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. Rather, Defendants misclassified Plaintiff as exempt from
the requirements of the FLSA and paid him primarily on a salaried
basis and without regard to the number of hours Plaintiff actually
worked.

The Plaintiff Watson was employed by Defendants from approximately
December 1, 2015 to December 30, 2018. While employed in this
capacity, Plaintiff was employed as a "Field Supervisor" or
"Sergeant" for Defendant TDG at a Fort Worth central location that
supplies guards to other "post locations" in North Texas.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jay Forester, Esq.
          D. Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909

JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Faces Suits over Precious Metals Futures
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 itself in lawsuits related to alleged manipulation of
precious metals futures

Various authorities, including the Department of Justice's Criminal
Division, are conducting investigations relating to trading
practices in the metals markets and related conduct. The Firm is
responding to and cooperating with these investigations.

Several putative class action complaints have been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Firm and certain current and former employees, alleging
a precious metals futures and options price manipulation scheme in
violation of the Commodity Exchange Act.

Some of the complaints also allege unjust enrichment and deceptive
acts or practices under the General Business Law of the State of
New York. The Court consolidated these putative class actions in
February 2019.

The Firm is also a defendant in a consolidated action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging monopolization of silver futures in violation of the
Sherman Act.

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

JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community
Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial
Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase &
Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


JSTC, LLC: Thomas Seeks OT Pay for Delivery Associates
------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA THOMAS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
v. Plaintiff, vs. JSTC, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-01528
(M.D. Fla., Aug. 16, 2019), alleges that JSTC failed to comply with
applicable wage laws and to pay its non-exempt Delivery Associates
for all the time they worked -- including overtime -- as was
required to deliver hundreds of Amazon packages each day and meet
Amazon's delivery needs, and seeks all available remedies under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff and Collective Members are entitled to be paid overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek pursuant to
the FLSA.

The Defendant knowingly failed to compensate Plaintiff and
Collective Members for all hours worked when they worked in excess
of 40 hours per week and failed to pay proper overtime premiums at
a rate of one and one-half times their regular hourly wage, the
lawsuit says.

JSTC is a Delivery Service Provider of Amazon.com LLC and Amazon
Logistics, Inc. that employs individuals, such as Plaintiff and
members of the proposed Collective, to deliver packages to Amazon
customers (Delivery Associates). Amazon is one of the largest
businesses engaged in the interstate shipment of goods in the
United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed FLSA Collective are:

          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK P.A.
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
          E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                  kstroly@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Michaela L. Wallin, Esq.
          Krysten Connon, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4620
          E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  mwallin@bm.net
                  kconnon@bm.net

               - and -

          Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
          WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
          1845 Walnut Street, 24 th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 656-3600
          Facsimile: (215) 567-2310
          E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com

KCI USA: Palmer Sues Over Illegal Automatically Dialed Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE PALMER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. KCI USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-03084 (D. Neb., Aug. 19, 2019) is a case involving
activities conducted by Defendant in contacting individuals
believed to be its debtors through use of automated calls and
prerecorded messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, and the Federal Communications Commission.

The Defendant violated the TCPA by making calls to Plaintiff and
Class members using an "automatic telephone dialing system" and/or
an "artificial or prerecorded voice" as described in the TCPA,
without Plaintiff's and Class members' prior express consent within
the meaning of the TCPA. Plaintiff, therefore, brings this action
for injunctive relief and statutory damages to hold Defendant
accountable for its illegal activities in utilizing automatically
dialed calls to solicit payment from individuals it presumably (but
wrongfully) believed to be debtors, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Catherine Palmer is an individual citizen of the State of
Nebraska residing in the City of Ewing.

KCI touts that it is a leader in negative pressure wound therapy,
providing solutions for both wound healing and surgical
management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
     GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
     401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
     Austin, TX 78701
     Phone: (512) 803-1578
     Fax: (561) 961-5684
     Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

          - and -

     Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
     KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
     4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
     Chicago, IL 60630
     Phone: 312.283.3814
     Fax: 773.496.8617
     Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com


KIDBOX LLC: Nisbett Files Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------
Kidbox LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Kareem
Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Kidbox LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07775 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019).

KIDBOX is a children's clothing retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KITTLE HOUSE: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kittle House on the
Hudson, LP. The case is styled as James Murphy and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kittle House on the
Hudson, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07751 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 19,
2019).

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

Kittle House on the Hudson, LP is a farm-to-table restaurant, that
offers award winning wine cellar, and bed & breakfast at Lawrence
Farms, Chappaqua NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zare Khorozian, Esq.
     Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
     1047 Anderson Avenue
     Fort Lee, NJ 07024
     Phone: (201) 957-7269
     Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com


KROGER COMPANY:Vancour Seeks Overtime Pay for Employees
-------------------------------------------------------
CHAD VANCOUR, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated current and former employees, the Plaintiffs, vs. KROGER
COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, and PEYTON'S SOUTHEASTERN, INC. d/b/a
Peyton's Mid-South, a Tennessee Corporation, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00713 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 15, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid wages for Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours during workweeks between August 7,
2016 and the present. Because Defendants did not properly calculate
Plaintiff's regular rate of pay, Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals were paid overtime at a rate lower than permissible
under the FLSA, the lawsuit says.

Mr. Chad Vancour was an employee of Peyton's Mid-South at all times
relevant to the complaint.

Kroger Company is a publicly traded company that owns grocery
stores parts of their grocery supply-chain including Peyton's
Southeast, Inc. Peyton's Southeast, Inc. is a subsidiary of Kroger
and does business as Peyton's Mid-South. Peyton's Mid-South is a
warehousing facility and distribution facility that distributes
inventory to Kroger-owned grocery stores.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and similarly situated current and former
employees are:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com

               - and -

          Nina Parsley, Esq.
          PONCE LAW
          400 Professional Park Drive
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com

LANGUAGE INTEGRATED: Velez-Cortes Seeks Overtime Wages for Workers
------------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO ERNESTO VELEZ-CORTES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LANGUAGE INTEGRATED
SERVICES, CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-23426-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., Aug. 15, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages under the the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Puerto Rico Wage Payment Statute.

Velez-Cortes and those similarly situated regularly worked for
Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week. But, the Defendant
failed to properly compensate overtime wages for the workers.
Instead, during the relevant time period, the Defendant paid
workers the same hourly rate for all hours worked up to 40 hours,
and no additional pay after those hours over 40 in a workweek.

The Defendant provides quality document translations to
international companies and interpretation services for
conferences, meeting and trainings to a large multicultural network
of clients, which includes private companies, government entities,
NGOs, professional associations, meeting planners, production
companies, and many more. To implement this work, the Defendant
hired workers such as Velez-Cortes to perform skilled and manual
labor to restore power lines in Puerto Rico.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: 954-WORKERS
          Facsimile: 954-327-3013
          E-mail: AFrisch@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

LION OIL TRADING: Class Certification Sought in Fuller Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled CLARA FULLER, et al. v. LION
OIL TRADING & TRANSPORTATION, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01020-SOH-BAB
(W.D. Ark.), moves for class action certification.

Clara Fuller, of Kansas City, Kansas, appears pro se.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          G. Alan Perkins, Esq.
          PPGMR LAW PLLC
          101 River Bluff Drive, Suite A
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 603-9000
          E-mail: alan@ppgmrlaw.com


M.L. ZAGER PC: Werzberger Asserts Breach of FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M.L. Zager, P.C. The
case is styled as Sarah Werzberger, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M.L. Zager, P.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-07805 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019).

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

The Law Office of Michael L. Zager, P.C., is a full-service, debt
collection law firm with 38 years of experience.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David M. Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com

     - and -

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



MARK OF EXCELLENCE: Strong Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
ZAK STRONG, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, vs. MARK OF EXCELLENCE PIZZA COMPANY d/b/a
DOMINO’S; and DENNIS MAYHALL, the Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-01967-G (N.D. Tex., Aug. 16, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly
situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its Domino's
stores.

According to the complaint, 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, the 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.

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          www.foresterhaynie.com
          400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909

MARTIN'S FAMOUS: Smelser Suit Settlement Denied Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID SMELSER, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. MARTIN'S FAMOUS
PASTRY SHOPPE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01813 (MPS) (D.
Conn.), Judge Michael P. Shea of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut denied without prejudice the parties' (i)
amended motion for approval of their settlement agreement and
supporting materials, and (ii) amended motion for the Court to
retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

Plaintiff Smelser brought the action against Martin's on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated individuals.  He alleged that
Martin's (1) failed to pay its distributors overtime wages as
required under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and
Connecticut's wage laws; (2) made unauthorized deductions from its
distributors' wages in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-71
et seq.; and (3) misclassified distributors as independent
contractors under Connecticut law, thereby shifting its business
costs onto its distributors and unjustly enriching itself.  The
Plaintiff brought his state claims as a putative class action under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and his federal claim as a putative collective
action under FLSA.

On August 24, 2018, the parties reported that the case had settled.
They filed a motion for approval of their settlement agreement and
supporting materials.  Judge Shea held a telephonic status
conference on Oct. 31, 2018, during which he identified several
potential problems that might prevent him from approving the
proposed settlement.

The parties requested leave to file an amended settlement agreement
and motion for approval.  On Nov. 26, 2018, the parties filed their
amended motion for approval and motion for the Court to retain
jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

Under the Agreement, Martin's would pay $155,000 into a settlement
fund to be disbursed to collective group members who complete a
release form to join the lawsuit.  The Agreement specifies that the
fund would be allocated as follows: First, named-Plaintiff David
Smelser would receive a $2,500 service award.  Second, collective
group members who opt in would receive "straight damages."  The
amount that each collective group member would receive in the first
disbursement is "listed on Confidential Exhibit 7," which the
parties sought leave to file under seal.  If fewer than all
eligible collective group members opted in, any money remaining in
the settlement fund would be reallocated to those individuals who
did opt in, increasing their payments up to 20% beyond the initial
disbursement.

The Agreement provides that collective group members who opt in
will covenant not to sue Martin's with respect to any Released
Claims, and will be permanently and forever barred from suing or
otherwise asserting any Released Claim against any of the
Releasees.  The Agreement defines "Released Claims" to include any
and all wage and hour claims under federal, state, or local laws,
including FLSA claims and claims for improper deductions, as well
as any other claim allegedly arising from the Settlement Collective
Members' alleged misclassification as independent contractors.  The
parties' proposed release form, however, suggests that collective
group members who opt in would waive only FLSA claims related to
unpaid overtime.  The proposed form also suggests the release is
limited to claims arising between May 2016 and May 2018, while the
Agreement contains no such time limitation.

Finally, the parties have not indicated whether they anticipate
having collective group members file consent documents on the
docket.  Further, the Agreement suggests that the parties would not
send notice of the lawsuit to collective group members until after
the Court approves the settlement.

Judge Shea finds that the proposed settlement agreement and
supporting documents do not provide enough information to determine
whether the settlement is fair and reasonable.  First, the
agreement and proposed notice to collective group members are
unclear as to how much money each collective group member would
receive and how that amount would be calculated.  Second, the
release-of-claims provision in the settlement agreement is
contradicts the release that the parties propose to obtain from
collective group members.  Third, the procedures the parties
propose to effectuate the settlement appear to be incompatible with
the FLSA and the Court's obligation under Cheeks.

The Judge cannot approve the proposed settlement.  He notes two
additional concerns to provide the parties with guidance should
they choose to amend their proposal.  First, the parties request
that the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement
agreement.  As he has noted, if the parties wish that the Court
retains jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, the parties must
place the terms of their settlement agreement on the public record
and must provide the reasons for the Court's retention of
jurisdiction.  The Settlement Agreement notes that collective group
members will receive "straight damages," but does not describe how
damages will be calculated.  It explains that "Individual FLSA
Damages for each Settlement Collective Member are listed on
Confidential Exhibit 7, but the parties sought leave to file that
document under seal.  As a result, the parties have not publicly
disclosed the basis for, or the result of, their damages
calculations, except, as noted, in the general and potentially
misleading terms set forth in the proposed notice.  It is unlikely
that the Court would retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement
agreement that kept material information confidential in this
manner.

Second, the parties ask the Court to approve attorneys' fees for
the Plaintiff's counsel totaling $175,000.  The Judge finds that
the Plaintiff's counsel has filed a declaration in support of the
request for attorneys' fees listing the hours each attorney worked
and that attorney's base hourly rate.  The number of hours the
declaration lists is substantially different -- and irreconcilable
-- with the version of the declaration filed in support of the
parties' original motion for settlement approval.  In light of this
discrepancy, and the requirements for attorneys' fees in the Second
Circuit, any amended application for attorneys' fees will be denied
unless it includes contemporaneous billing records.

For the reasons stated, Judge Shea denied without prejudice (i) the
motion for settlement approval, and (ii) the motion to enforce
judgment.  The parties may file amended motions that address the
foregoing defects, including any further rationale for sealing
"Confidential Exhibit 7," within 21 days.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2019 Ruling is available
at https://is.gd/KZrR1q from Leagle.com.

David Smelser, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Eugene Hayber --
rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com -- The Hayber Law Firm, LLC, Dustin W.
Massie -- dmassie@baillonthome.com -- Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta
LLP, pro hac vice & Shawn J. Wanta -- sjwanta@baillonthome.com --
Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP, pro hac vice.

Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Andrew L. Levy -- alevy@mcneeslaw.com -- McNees Wallace & Nurick
LLC, Carol Steinour Young -- csteinour@mcneeslaw.com -- McNees
Wallace and Nurick LLC, pro hac vice, Devin J. Chwastyk --
dchwastyk@mcneeslaw.com -- McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, pro hac
vice & Joseph G. Fortner, Jr. -- fortner@halloransage.com --
Halloran & Sage LLP.


MDL 2820: Claims in TAC Dicamba Herbicides Suit Narrowed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BADER FARMS, INC. and BILL BADER Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO CO. and BASF CORP., Defendants, MDL No. 1:18md2820-SNLJ,
Case No. 1:16cv299-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen M. Limbaugh, Jr.
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Southeastern Division, granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Third Amended
Complaint ("TAC").

The Bader Plaintiffs claim their peach orchard was destroyed
beginning in 2015 after Defendants Monsanto (a company that sells
crop seed and herbicide) and BASF (a company that sells herbicide)
conspired to develop and market dicamba-tolerant seeds and
dicamba-based herbicides.  They claim both the Defendants conspired
to create an "ecological disaster," where Monsanto released its
dicamba-tolerant seed in 2015 and 2016 with no corresponding
dicamba herbicide.  As a result, farmers illegally sprayed an old
formulation of dicamba herbicide that was unapproved for in-crop,
over-the-top, use and was "volatile," or prone to drift.  Drifting
dicamba would cause damage to neighboring, non-tolerant crops,
forcing neighboring farmers to plant Monsanto's dicamba-tolerant
seed defensively, and that increased demand for both defendants'
new dicamba herbicide during the 2017 growing season.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed against the Defendants based on
these circumstances, and the cases filed in federal court have been
consolidated into the In re Dicamba Herbicides Multi-District
Litigation,1:18-MD-2820-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.) ("MDL").  The present case
was filed on Nov. 23, 2016.  The Plaintiffs have amended their
complaint three times now, most recently after the Court's ruling
on the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Master Crop Damage
Complaint filed in the MDL.  That Master Crop Damage complaint
focuses on soybean growers in several states.  The Bader
Plaintiffs, although part of the MDL, did not join in the Master
Crop Damage Complaint; the Bader case is following its own Case
Management Order and is set for trial in January 2020.

The TAC (1) added allegations that their peach orchard suffered
further dicamba damage in 2018, rendering their peach operation no
longer biologically or financially sustainable; (2) removed the
claims for trespass and fraudulent concealment and added claims
under Missouri Crop Protection Statutes; (3) added allegations
pertaining to defendants' joint venture and pleaded joint venture
liability as to each claim; and (4) added allegations to clarify
that the Plaintiffs pursue their conspiracy claims under the
Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 876(a) and (b).

Defendant Monsanto moves to dismiss claims for failure to warn
(Counts II and IV), negligent training (Count V), violation of the
Missouri Crop Protection Act (Counts VI and VII), civil conspiracy
(Counts VIII and IX), and joint liability for punitive damages (as
reflected in Counts X and XI).  Defendant BASF moves to dismiss
those same counts except the claims for failure to warn.

Judge Limbaugh granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motions to dismiss the TAC.  He dismissed the Counts VI, VII, and
IX.  

Both the Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under
the Missouri Crop Protection Statutes, Sections 569.132.2 and
537.353 RSMo.  The Judge finds that although Section 569.132 refers
to the "loss of any crop," and that "any person who has been
damaged by a violation of this section will have a civil cause of
action under section 537.353," that latter section does not provide
for a cause of action except for damage to "field crops."  Although
the statutes read together are ambiguous, the term "field crop" is
not, and it appears the general assembly limited statutory recovery
to "field crops" as opposed to a "any crop."  Therefore, Counts VI
and VII must be dismissed.

As for the aiding and abetting count, described by the Restatement
(Second) of Torts Section 876(b), the Defendants insist that such a
claim is not recognized in Missouri.  The Judge finds that it
appears that no Missouri Supreme Court case and just one Missouri
court of appeals case affirmatively approves of the Section 876(b)
cause of action.  In Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. White, the court
addressed the aiding-and-abetting claim in the context of
encouraging an intoxicated driver to drive dangerously.  The Court
is uncertain whether or not the Missouri Supreme Court would adopt
a Section 876(b) aiding-and-abetting cause of action under other
circumstances or under the circumstances of the case in particular.
As the Court indicated in its Memorandum and Order in the MDL on
the Crop Damage Master Complaint motions to dismiss, the Judge is
reluctant to extend state law beyond its traditional purview.
Hence, the motions to dismiss Count IX is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/dLrc3U from Leagle.com.

John S. Hahn, Special Master, pro se.

Bader Farms, Inc. & Bill Bader, Plaintiffs, represented by Angela
Marie Splittgerber -- angie@randleslaw.com -- RANDLES AND
SPLITTGERBER, LLP, Beverly Turina Randles -- bev@randleslaw.com --
RANDLES AND SPLITTGERBER, LLP, Billy R. Randles --
bill@randleslaw.com -- RANDLES AND SPLITTGERBER, LLP & Don M.
Downing, GRAY AND RITTER, P.C.

Monsanto Company, Defendant, represented by Ann E.
Sternhell-Blackwell, BRYAN CAVE LLP, Christopher M. Hohn, THOMPSON
COBURN, LLP, Daniel C. Cox, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Jan P. Miller,
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Jan P. Miller, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Pro Hac
Vice, Jeffrey A. Masson, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, John R. Musgrave,
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, John J. Rosenthal, WINSTON AND STRAWN, LLP,
Booker T. Shaw, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP & Kimberly M. Bousque,
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP.

BASF Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alan L. Rupe --
Alan.Rupe@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS, LLP, Charles N.
Insler -- cinsler@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, E. B. Chiles,
IV
-- cchiles@qgtlaw.com -- Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC, Jason D.
Stitt -- Jason.Stitt@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
&
Smith, LLP, John P. Mandler -- john.mandler@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE
AND BAKER LLP, John E. Tull, III -- jtull@qgtlaw.com --
Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC, Ross W. Johnson --
ross.johnson@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP, Tarifa Belle
Laddon -- tarifa.laddon@FaegreBD.com --, FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP,
Thomas J. Magee -- tmagee@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, Troy A.
Bozarth -- tbozarth@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, Carolyn A.
Gunkel -- carolyn.gunkel@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP &
Shane Alan Anderson -- shane.anderson@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE AND
BAKER LLP.


MDL 2903: Hanson Suit over Rock 'N Play Sleeper Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, NANCY HANSON, the Plaintiff. vs. Fisher-Price, Inc., Case
No. 4:19-cv-00204 (Filed July 9, 2019) was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, to U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York (Buffalo) on
Aug. 16, 2019. The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01087-GWC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Geoffrey Crawford.

The Hanson case is being consolidated with MDL 2903 in re:
FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on August
1, 2019.  According to the JPML, the actions share factual
questions arising from allegations that FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play
Sleeper (RNPS) is unsafe because, among other reasons, its angled
design does not allow infants to sleep in a supine position, which
allegedly increases the risk that infants will suffer from
positional asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis. Plaintiffs
uniformly allege that defendants' advertising and marketing for the
RNPS was false and misleading, and that Fisher Price's April 2019
recall of the RNPS was deficient. In its  August 1, 2019 Order, the
MDL Panel found that the Western District of New York is an
appropriate transferee district for this litigation. This district
has a strong connection to these cases. Fisher-Price is
headquartered in East Aurora, New York, and the critical events and
decisions underlying plaintiffs' claims regarding the RNPS occurred
there. The Western District of New York thus presents a convenient
and relatively accessible forum for this litigation. Centralization
in the Western District of New York therefore allows the JPML to
assign this litigation to an able jurist who has not yet had the
opportunity to preside over an MDL. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford. The lead case is Case No.
1:19-md-02903-GWC.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Brian O. Marty, Esq.
          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          SHINDLER, ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE, PC
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Telephone: (515) 223-4567
          Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
          E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
                  marty@sagwlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 South Washington Ave., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave, NW
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: CharlesL@cuneolaw.com

MDL 2904: Webb Suit v. Quest, et al over Data Breach Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Matthew Webb, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
INCORPORATED, and OPTUM 360 LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-04157 (Filed June 20, 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. 14,
2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No.  2:19-cv-16670 to the proceeding.

The Webb 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:

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Carey Alexander, Esq.
          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT LLP
          405 Lexington Ave., 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com

Attorneys for Quest Diagnostic Incorporated are:

          David Henry Hoffman, Esq.
          Daniel Cochran Craig, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP (CHICAGO)
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-2174

Attorneys for OPTUM 360 are:

          Patricia Brown Holmes, Esq.
          Rodney Perry, Esq.
          RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP
          70 West Madison St., Suite 2900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 471-8745

MDL INNOVATIVE: Zwiefel Seeks OT Pay for Welding Inspectors
-----------------------------------------------------------
TROY ZWIEFEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MDL INNOVATIVE SERVICES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02335 (D. Colo., Aug. 15, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from MDL
Innovative Services, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act

According to the complaint, Zwiefel and the other employees like
him regularly worked for MDLI in excess of 40 hours each week but
MDLI never paid these employees overtime for the hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime
as required by the FLSA, MDLI paid these employees a day rate with
no overtime compensation.

Zwiefel worked for MDLI as a W-2 employee from approximately July
2017 until March 2018. Specifically, Zwiefel worked as a Welding
Inspector.

MDLI provides services to the oil & gas and construction
industries, "providing a full range of assistance including
engineering, construction, and project management."[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

MEDICAL DATA SYSTEMS: Holmes Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Data Systems,
Inc. The case is styled as Tara Holmes on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Medical Data Systems, Inc.
doing business as: Medical Revenue Service, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01022-FJS-CFH (N.D. N.Y., Aug. 19, 2019).

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

Medical Data Systems, Inc. revenue cycle management services,
offers accounting, bookkeeping, and related auditing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert L. Arleo, Esq.
     Office of Robert L. Arleo
     380 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor
     New York, NY 10168
     Phone: (212) 551-1115
     Fax: (518) 751-1801
     Email: robertarleo@gmail.com



MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Taylor Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercantile Adjustment
Bureau, LLC. The case is styled as Rozell Taylor individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mercantile
Adjustment Bureau, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04750 (E.D.
N.Y., Aug. 19, 2019).

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

Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC operates as an accounts
receivable management firm. The Company focuses on pre legal,
legal, and dismissed bankruptcy collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



MICHIGAN: Kensu Moves to Certify Class and Subclass of Inmates
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Temujin Kensu and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Michigan Department of Corrections, et al.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-10175-GAD-DRG (E.D. Mich.), moves for
certification of:

   -- a class of all incarcerated individuals under the direction
      of the MDOC who were provided a diet which was inadequate
      to maintain normal health; and

   -- a subclass of incarcerated individuals under the direct
      supervision of the MDOC who were not provided a diet
      commensurate with medically documented special needs.

Mr. Kensu contends that the Defendants' denials are violations of
the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith L. Altman, Esq.
          Solomon M. Radner, Esq.
          Albert J. Asciutto, Esq.
          EXCOLO LAW, PLLC
          26700 Lahser Rd., Suite 401
          Southfield, MI 48033
          Telephone: (866) 939-2656
          E-mail: kaltman@excololaw.com
                  sradner@excololaw.com

The MDOC Defendants are represented by:

          James T. Farrell, Esq.
          MI DEPT. OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 30736
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 373-6434
          E-mail: farrellj@michigan.gov

Defendant Trinity Services Group is represented by:

          Tabitha M. Bono, Esq.
          TKC HOLDINGS, INC.
          1260 Andes Blvd.
          St. Louis, MO 63132
          Telephone: (314) 216-2218
          E-mail: tbono@tkcholdings.com

               - and -

          Bradford Moyer, Esq.
          PLUNKET COONEY
          950 Trade Center Way, Suite 310
          Kalamazoo, MI 49002
          Telephone: (269) 382-5935
          E-mail: bmoyer@plunkettcooney.com

Defendant Aramark is represented by:

          Rhonda R. Stowers, Esq.
          PLUNKET COONEY
          Plaza One Financial Center
          111 E. Court Street - Suite 1B
          Flint, MI 48502
          E-mail: rstowers@plunkettcooney.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDI THOMAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and MIDLAND FUNDING,
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01190-LA (E.D Wisc.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying a class,
appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and
further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir.
2017).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com

MIDLAND CREDIT: Weinberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Alexander J. Weinberg
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-04749 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 19, 2019).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. was founded in 1953. The company's
line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises
for relatively short periods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MIDLAND FUNDING: Zirpoli Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN ZIRPOLI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC and
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01428-UN1 (M.D. Pa., Aug. 16, 2019), seeks damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs against Defendants for their violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, and the
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

According to the complaint, in March 2018, Defendants filed suit
against Plaintiff in a Franklin County Magisterial District Court
(the Lawsuit). The Defendants claimed Midland Funding purchased a
loan Plaintiff was alleged to have opened with OneMain Financial
(the Loan).

After being served with the Lawsuit, Plaintiff paid to retain an
attorney to defend the Lawsuit and entered a defense. Before the
hearing, Defendants dismissed the Lawsuit. Since dismissal,
Defendants continue to report the Loan to various consumer
reporting agencies, including TransUnion and Equifax, in an ongoing
attempt to collect the Loan from Plaintiff.

The Defendants most recently reported the Loan to various consumer
reporting agencies, including TransUnion and Equifax, in May of
2019.

Additionally, around April of 2019, Defendants obtained and used
Plaintiff's credit report from various consumer reporting agencies,
including TransUnion.

The Lawsuit and Defendants' credit reporting of the Loan constitute
as unlawful attempts to collect on the Loan, and Defendants'
procurement and use of Plaintiff's credit report
was impermissible, because Defendants' were not lawfully permitted
to purchase the Loan and cannot lawfully attempt to collect on the
Loan, the lawsuit says.

Midland Funding's sole business is the purchasing of defaulted
consumer debt with the purpose of collecting on that debt for
profit. Midland Credit's sole business is collecting debts that are
purchased and owned by Midland Funding, including calling consumers
and sending them letters.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Gary Lynch, Esq.
          Edwin Kilpela, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
                  Kevin Abramowicz

               - and -

          BCJ LAW LLC
          186 42nd Street
          PO Box 40127
          Pittsburgh, PA 15201
          Telephone: (412) 223-5740
          E-mail: kevina@bcjlawyer.com

               - and -

          John Keller, Esq.
          KELLER, KELLER BECK & ROSS LLC
          1035 Wayne Ave
          Chambersburg, PA 17201
          Telephone: (717) 762-3331
          E-mail: jebkeller@kkbrlaw.com

MIDWEST RECEIVABLE: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULA RODZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
MIDWEST RECEIVABLE SOLUTIONS LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01191-WED (E.D Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir.
2017).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com

NATERA INC: Appeal from IPO Case Decision in Calif. Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Natera, 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 plaintiffs' appeal from the court's order
granting the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings in a
California class action lawsuit over the Company's initial public
offering is still pending.

On each of February 17, 2016, March 10, 2016, March 28, 2016 and
April 4, 2016, purported class action lawsuits were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Mateo (the "San Mateo Superior Court"), against Natera, its
directors, certain of its officers and 5% stockholders and their
affiliates, and each of the underwriters of the Company's July 1,
2015 initial public offering (the "IPO").

The complaints assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  The complaints allege,
among other things, that the Registration Statement and Prospectus
for the Company's IPO contained materially false or misleading
statements, and/or omitted material information that was required
to be disclosed, about the Company's business and prospects.  Among
other relief, the complaints seek class certification, unspecified
compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Company removed these actions to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and the actions were
subsequently remanded back to the San Mateo Superior Court.  The
Company has appealed the remand and discovery has been stayed
pending the appeal.  The Company also filed a demurrer, or a
request for dismissal as a matter of law, in the San Mateo Superior
Court, which was granted on October 23, 2017.

The San Mateo Superior Court demurred the claims under Sections
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, without
leave to re-file, and granted the demurrer as to Section 11 of the
Act with leave to re-file.  Plaintiffs refiled an amended complaint
on November 22, 2017.

The Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under the
amended complaint on January 25, 2018, which the plaintiffs
opposed.  Hearings on the motion were held in May and July of
2018.

On August 7, 2018 the judge granted the Company's motion for
judgment on the pleadings, without leave to amend, and ordered that
judgment be entered in favor of the defendants.  Plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal on or about October 18, 2018 and their brief on or
about March 29, 2019.  Natera filed its brief in response on June
27, 2019.

Natera said, "The Company intends to continue to defend the matter
vigorously, but cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate
outcome or that an adverse resolution would not have a material
adverse effect on its financial condition and results of
operations.  The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome
and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range
of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome."

Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and
prenatal genetic testing services.  The company was formerly known
as Gene Security Network, Inc. and changed its name to Natera, Inc.
in 2012.  Natera, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in
San Carlos, California.


NATIONAL VISION: Amended Complaint Filed in Cal. Wage & Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
National Vision 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 29, 2019, that an amended complaint
has been filed in the California wage-and-hour related class action
suit.

In February 2019, the company was served with a lawsuit by a former
employee who alleges, on behalf of himself and a proposed class,
several violations of California wage and hour laws and seeks
unspecified alleged unpaid wages, monetary damages, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees.

On March 21, 2019, the company removed the lawsuit from state court
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court on April
18, 2019, and the Court denied this motion on July 8, 2019. On July
22, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

On July 26, 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation wherein the
Company denied all claims in the amended complaint but joined the
plaintiff in seeking a stay of further proceedings in the lawsuit
based on the parties' agreement to attend early mediation in an
effort to avoid further costs and expenses of protracted
litigation. Mediation has been scheduled in the first quarter of
2020.

National Vision said, "The Company continues to believe that the
plaintiff's amended complaint lacks merit and will vigorously
defend the litigation."

National Vision Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates
as an optical retailer primarily in the United States. The company
operates in two segments, Owned & Host and Legacy. National Vision
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Duluth,
Georgia.


NATIONAL VISION: Awaits Final Approval of 1-800 Contacts Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Vision 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 29, 2019, that the company awaits
final settlement hearing in the 1-800 Contacts Matter.

In May 2017, a complaint (the "1-800 Contacts Matter") was filed
against the Company and other defendants alleging, on behalf of a
proposed class of consumers who purchased contact lenses online,
that 1-800 Contacts, Inc. entered into a series of agreements with
the other defendants, including AC Lens, the Company's subsidiary,
to suppress certain online advertising and that each defendant
thereby engaged in anticompetitive conduct in violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.

The Company has settled the 1-800 Contacts Matter for $7.0 million,
without admitting liability. Accordingly, the Company recorded a
charge for this amount during the second quarter of fiscal year
2017.

On November 8, 2017, the court in the 1-800 Contacts Matter entered
an order preliminarily approving the settlement agreement, subject
to a settlement hearing.

Pursuant to this order, the Company deposited 50% of the settlement
amount, or $3.5 million, into an escrow account, to be distributed
subject to and in accordance with the terms of the settlement
agreement and any further order of the court.

National Vision Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates
as an optical retailer primarily in the United States. The company
operates in two segments, Owned & Host and Legacy. National Vision
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Duluth,
Georgia.


NATIONAL VISION: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit vs. FirstSight Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
National Vision 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 29, 2019, that FirstSight's motion
to dismiss the class action suit filed before the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California is still
pending.

The company's subsidiary, FirstSight is a defendant in a purported
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California that alleges that FirstSight participated in
arrangements that caused the illegal delivery of eye examinations
and that FirstSight thereby violated, among other laws, the
corporate practice of optometry and the unfair competition and
false advertising laws of California.

The lawsuit was filed in 2013 and FirstSight was added as a
defendant in 2016. In March 2017, the court granted the motion to
dismiss previously filed by FirstSight and dismissed the complaint
with prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit in April 2017. In July 2018, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated in part, and reversed in
part, the district court's dismissal and remanded for further
proceedings.

In October 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
with the district court seeking, among other claims, unspecified
damages and attorneys' fees, and in November 2018, FirstSight filed
a motion to dismiss.

National Vision said, "We believe that the claims alleged are
without merit and intend to continue to defend the litigation
vigorously."

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

National Vision Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates
as an optical retailer primarily in the United States. The company
operates in two segments, Owned & Host and Legacy. National Vision
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Duluth,
Georgia.


NORTHEAST SERVICE: Tenelema et al Seek OT Premiums for Laborers
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE TENELEMA, VICTOR TENELEMA, FABIAN NAULA, and FERNANDO VALDEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. NORTHEAST SERVICE INTERIORS, LLC, NORTHEAST
INTERIORS SPECIALISTS LLC, NORDEST SERVICES LLC, FRANCO CALIENDO,
and STEPHEN DEFLORIO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04729
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2019), seeks equitable and legal relief for
Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
the New York Labor Law.

Defendants employed Tenelema as a foreman from in or around 2003
until in or around July 2018. Throughout his employment, Tenelema
regularly worked Mondays through Thursdays from approximately 6:00
a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m.; and Fridays and Saturdays from
approximately 6:00 a.m. to approximately 3:30 p.m., with a daily 15
minute morning break and 30 minute lunch break, for approximately
60.50 hours worked per week.

The Defendants employed Naula as a demolition laborer from in or
around January 2014 until on or around December 4, 2018. As a
demolition laborer, his job duties included, inter alia, tearing
down structures and removing debris from the job sites; cutting
steel; removing floors; using a chipping hammer; and performing any
other duty assigned by the job site foreman.

Defendants employed Valdez as a demolition laborer from in or
around 2010 until on or around June 3, 2019.

While employed with Defendants, the Plaintiffs were non-exempt
employees pursuant to the FLSA and the NYLL, and were entitled to
receive overtime compensation of one and one-half times their
regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

Despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the
Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs with overtime premiums
for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

Instead, the Defendants compensated Plaintiffs at their respective
hourly rate of pay for all hours worked including all overtime
hours.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Katherine Morales, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
          New York, NY 0016
          Telephone: (212) 460-0047
          E-mail: kymorales@katzmelinger.com

PG&E CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit Stayed Amid Bankruptcy
--------------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that the consolidated case styled In re PG&E
Corporation Securities Litigation are automatically stayed pursuant
to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In June 2018, two purported securities class actions were filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, naming PG&E Corporation and certain of its current and
former officers as defendants, entitled David C. Weston v. PG&E
Corporation, et al. and Jon Paul Moretti v. PG&E Corporation, et
al., respectively.

The complaints alleged material misrepresentations and omissions
related to, among other things, vegetation management and
transmission line safety in various PG&E Corporation public
disclosures.  The complaints asserted claims under Section 10(b)
and Section 20(a) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and sought unspecified
monetary relief, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.  Both
complaints identified a proposed class period of April 29, 2015 to
June 8, 2018.

On September 10, 2018, the court consolidated both cases and the
litigation is now denominated In re PG&E Corporation Securities
Litigation.  The court also appointed the Public Employees
Retirement Association of New Mexico as lead plaintiff.

The plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on November 9,
2018.  After the plaintiff requested leave to amend their complaint
to add allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire, the plaintiff
filed a second amended consolidated complaint on December 14,
2018.

Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, PG&E Corporation
and the Utility filed a notice on February 1, 2019, reflecting that
the proceedings are automatically stayed pursuant to Section 362(a)
of the Bankruptcy Code.

On February 15, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a
complaint in Bankruptcy Court against the plaintiff seeking
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to extend the stay to
the claims alleged against the individual officer defendants.

On February 22, 2019, a purported securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, entitled York County on behalf of the York County
Retirement Fund, et al. v. Rambo, et al. (the "York County
Action").  The complaint names as defendants certain current and
former officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of four
public offerings of notes from 2016 to 2018.  Neither PG&E
Corporation nor the Utility is named as a defendant.  The complaint
alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in connection
with the note offerings related to, among other things, PG&E
Corporation's and the Utility's vegetation management and wildfire
safety measures.  The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 and
Section 15 of the federal Securities Act of 1933, and seeks
unspecified monetary relief, attorneys' fees and other costs, and
injunctive relief.  On May 7, 2019, the York County Action was
consolidated with In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation.

On May 28, 2019, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
actions filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint,
which includes the claims asserted in the previously-filed actions
and names as defendants PG&E Corporation, the Utility, certain
current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters.
The action remains stayed as to PG&E Corporation and the Utility,
and PG&E Corporation and the Utility are currently seeking an order
from the Bankruptcy Court to extend the stay to the officer,
director, and underwriter defendants.

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States.  On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.



PG&E CORP: Lawsuits over 2018 Camp Fire Stayed under Chapter 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation 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 lawsuits, some of which sought to be
certified as class actions, regarding a November 2018 wildfire in
California is still stayed as a result of the commencement of the
Chapter 11 Cases.  According to the Company's 10-Q, PG&E
Corporation's and the Utility's obligations with respect to such
claims are expected to be determined through the Chapter 11
process.

On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility each filed
voluntary cases under Chapter 11.

On November 8, 2018, a wildfire began near the city of Paradise,
Butte County, California (the "2018 Camp fire"), which is located
in the Utility's service territory.  Cal Fire's Camp Fire Incident
Information Website as of July 9, 2019 (the "Cal Fire website")
indicated that the 2018 Camp fire consumed 153,336 acres.  On the
Cal Fire website, Cal Fire reported 85 fatalities and the
destruction of 13,972 residences, 528 commercial structures and
4,293 other buildings resulting from the 2018 Camp fire.

On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility each filed
voluntary cases under Chapter 11.

As of January 28, 2019, before the automatic stay arising as a
result of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases, PG&E Corporation and
the Utility were aware of approximately 100 complaints on behalf of
at least 4,200 plaintiffs related to the 2018 Camp fire, nine of
which sought to be certified as class actions.  The pending civil
litigation against PG&E Corporation and the Utility related to the
2018 Camp fire, which is currently stayed as a result of the
commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, included claims under
multiple theories of liability, including inverse condemnation,
trespass, private nuisance, public nuisance, negligence, negligence
per se, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage,
negligent infliction of emotional distress, premises liability,
violations of the Public Utilities Code, violations of the Health &
Safety Code, malice and false advertising in violation of the
California Business and Professions Code.

The plaintiffs principally asserted that PG&E Corporation's and the
Utility's alleged failure to maintain and repair their distribution
and transmission lines and failure to properly maintain the
vegetation surrounding such lines were the causes of the 2018 Camp
fire.  The plaintiffs sought damages and remedies that include
wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, evacuation costs,
medical expenses, establishment of a class action medical
monitoring fund, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
damages.

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States.  On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.


PG&E CORP: Suits on 2017 Northern California Wildfires Still Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that the consolidated lawsuits related to the
October 2017 multiple wildfires in Northern California is currently
stayed as a result of the commencement of the Chapter 11 cases.

Beginning on October 8, 2017, multiple wildfires spread through
Northern California, including Napa, Sonoma, Butte, Humboldt,
Mendocino, Lake, Nevada, and Yuba Counties, as well as in the area
surrounding Yuba City (the "2017 Northern California wildfires").
According to the Cal Fire California Statewide Fire Summary dated
October 30, 2017, at the peak of the 2017 Northern California
wildfires, there were 21 major fires that, in total, burned over
245,000 acres and destroyed an estimated 8,900 structures.  The
2017 Northern California wildfires resulted in 44 fatalities.

On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility each filed
voluntary cases under Chapter 11.

As of January 28, 2019, before the automatic stay arising as a
result of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases, PG&E Corporation and
the Utility were aware of approximately 750 complaints on behalf of
at least 3,800 plaintiffs related to the 2017 Northern California
wildfires, five of which sought to be certified as class actions.
These cases were coordinated in the San Francisco County Superior
Court.

As of the Petition Date, the coordinated litigation was in the
early stages of discovery.  A trial with respect to the Atlas fire
was scheduled to begin on September 23, 2019.

The pending civil litigation against PG&E Corporation and the
Utility related to the 2017 Northern California wildfires, included
claims under multiple theories of liability, including inverse
condemnation, trespass, private nuisance and negligence.  This
litigation, including the trial date with respect to the Atlas
fire, currently is stayed as a result of the commencement of the
Chapter 11 Cases.

The plaintiffs principally asserted that PG&E Corporation's and the
Utility's alleged failure to maintain and repair their distribution
and transmission lines and failure to properly maintain the
vegetation surrounding such lines were the causes of the 2017
Northern California wildfires.  The plaintiffs sought damages that
include wrongful death, personal injury, property damage,
evacuation costs, medical expenses, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and other damages.

The Company said, "PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's obligations
with respect to such claims are expected to be determined through
the Chapter 11 process.  However, the Official Committee of Tort
Claimants ("TCC") has submitted a motion to the Bankruptcy Court
seeking relief from the automatic stay to enable certain plaintiffs
to pursue their claims outside of the Chapter 11 process.  PG&E
Corporation and the Utility have opposed such motions."

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States.  On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.


PITNEY BOWES: Still Defends Suit by City of Livonia Retiree Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 6, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a putative class
action suit entitled, City of Livonia Retiree Health and Disability
Benefits Plan v. Pitney Bowes Inc. et al.

In August 2018, the Company, certain of its directors, officers and
several banks who served as underwriters, were named as defendants
in City of Livonia Retiree Health and Disability Benefits Plan v.
Pitney Bowes Inc. et al., a putative class action lawsuit filed in
Connecticut state court.

The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, on behalf of those who purchased notes issued by the
Company in connection with a September 13, 2017 offering, alleging,
among other things, that the Company failed to make certain
disclosures relating to components of its third quarter 2017
performance at the time of the notes offering.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages and other relief.

In addition, in December 2018 and then in February 2019, certain of
the Company's officers and directors were named as defendants in
two virtually identical derivative actions purportedly brought on
behalf of the Company, Clem v. Lautenbach et al. and Devolin v.
Lautenbach et al. These two actions, both filed by the same counsel
in Connecticut state court, allege, among other things, breaches of
fiduciary duty relating to these same disclosures, and seek
compensatory damages and other relief derivatively for the benefit
of the Company.

Pitney Bowes said, "Although litigation outcomes are inherently
unpredictable, we believe these matters are without merit and
intend to defend them vigorously. A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this
time."

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

Pitney Bowes Inc. offers customer information management, location
intelligence, and customer engagement products and solutions in the
United States and internationally. The company operates in three
segments: Commerce Services; Small & Medium Business Solutions; and
Software Solutions. The company was formerly known as Pitney Bowes
Postage Meter Company. Pitney Bowes Inc. was founded in 1920 and is
headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


PORTABLE MUD: Walters Seeks Overtime Wages for Mechanics
--------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY WALTERS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PORTABLE MUD SYSTEMS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00193 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 15, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

Portable Mud Systems violated the FLSA by employing Walters and
other similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer
than 40 hours but refusing to compensate them for their employment
in excess of 40 hours at a rate not less than one and one-half
times the regular rate at which they are or were employed."

Walters is employed by Portable Mud Systems employed as a mechanic
from approximately June 2012 to May 2019.

Portable Mud Systems is an oilfield services company specializing
in solids control for land-based oil and gas drilling
operations.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

PRIDE HYUNDAI: White Files Suit in Mass. Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC WHITE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. PRIDE HYUNDAI OF LYNN INC.; PRIDE CHEVROLET, INC.; (d/b/a PRIDE
MOTOR GROUP); and SUZANNE IOVANNA, Case No. 1977CV48B (Mass.
Super., Aug. 12, 2019), seeks damages based on the Defendants'
failure to pay wages, including overtime, under the Massachusetts
Wage Laws.

Pride Hyundai of Lynn Inc. is a Delaware company with its principal
place of business in Lynn, Massachusetts.  Pride Chevrolet, Inc. is
a Massachusetts company with its principal place of business in
Lynn, Massachusetts.  Suzanne Iovanna is the President of Treasurer
of Pride Hyundai of the Defendant Corporations.

The Defendants do business under the name "Pride Motor Group."  The
Defendants operate an automobile dealership.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Gardner, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq.
          GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C.
          One State Street, Fourth Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 390-7570
          E-mail: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com
                  nick@gardnerrosenberg.com


QUANTUM CORP: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quantum Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a hearing to consider
final approval of the settlement in the class action suit in
California has been scheduled for November 14, 2019.

In February 2018, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and two former executive officers
(the "Class Action").

The lawsuits were consolidated on May 16, 2018. The Class Action
plaintiffs sought unspecified damages for certain alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions made by the Company in connection
with its financial statements for its fiscal year 2017. On
September 25, 2018, the Court granted permission to plaintiffs in
the action to file an Amended Consolidated Complaint.

Before the plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint,
the parties met with a mediator to discuss a potential settlement
of the case. On February 20, 2019, the parties reached a settlement
in principal; under the terms of the settlement, the Company agreed
to pay $8.2 million to plaintiffs. The amount includes all of
plaintiffs’ attorneys' fees, and the full amount will be paid by
the Company’s directors and officers liability insurance
carriers.

The settlement liability has been included in other current
liabilities and the receivable from the insurance carriers has been
included in other current assets in the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2019. A Stipulation of
Settlement was signed by the Parties on June 28, 2019, and the
Court granted preliminary approval on July 26, 2019. A hearing on
final approval of the settlement has been scheduled for November
14, 2019.

Quantum Corporation provides scale-out storage, archive, and data
protection solutions for small businesses and multi-national
enterprises in the Americas, Europe, and the Asia Pacific. Quantum
Corporation was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


RESTAURANT LEADERSHIP: Licea Suit Asserts ADA  Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
SEAN LICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RESTAURANT LEADERSHIP GROUP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-01550 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 19, 2019) seeks:
(i) a declaration that Defendant's unlawful business practice of
not offering assistance with respect Defendant's inaccessible soda
fountain dispensers violate federal law; and (ii) an injunction
requiring Defendant to either (a) implement a policy of
affirmatively offering assistance to individuals with visual
disabilities or (b) update or replace its fountain soda machines so
that they are fully accessible by the blind or other
vision-impaired individuals.

Plaintiff regularly has occasion to dine at fast food restaurants.
Federal law and California law require that such restaurants be
fully accessible to sight-impaired individuals, including those
such as Plaintiff who are blind and/or have a visual disability
that requires the use of a white cane or guide dog for mobility.
Plaintiff was denied full access to Defendant's facilities due to
its use of inaccessible soda fountain dispensers and its failure to
affirmatively offer or provide assistance to Plaintiff with the
otherwise inaccessible soda fountain dispensers. As such, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"), and its implementing regulations (and consequently
California state law) as Plaintiff was denied the full and equal
access to and enjoyment of Defendant's goods, services, and
facilities, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a legally blind individual.

Defendant owns, operates, leases, and/or maintains 12 fast food
hamburger restaurants under the trade name Jack in the Box in
California including one restaurant located at 770 W. Ramona
Expressway, San Jacinto, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
     CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
     2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 275
     King of Prussia, PA 19406
     Phone: 610-822-3700
     Facsimile: 610-822-3800
     Email: gwells@cwg-law.com

          - and -

     Eric D. Zard, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
     1350 Columbia St., Suite 603
     San Diego, CA, 92101
     Phone: 619-762-1905
     Fax: 619-756-6991
     Email: ezard@carlsonlynch.com


SERVIS ONE INC: Padula Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Servis One, Inc. The
case is styled as James R. Padula, Kathleen V. Padula,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Servis One, Inc. doing business as: BSI Financial
Services, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05567 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 19,
2019).

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

Servis One, Inc., doing business as BSI Financial Services, Inc.,
provides financial services. The Company offers residential
mortgage servicing, subservicing, default solutions, loan quality
control, and business process outsourcing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph Scott Davidson
     Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
     2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 575-8181 x116
     Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com


SLEEP NUMBER: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Fresno
------------------------------------------------------
Sleep Number Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit pending before the Superior Court in
Fresno County, California.

On September 18, 2018, two former Home Delivery employees filed
suit, now venued in Superior Court in Fresno County, California,
alleging representative claims on a purported class action basis
under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act.

While the two representative plaintiffs were in the Home Delivery
workforce, the Complaint does not limit the purported plaintiff
class to that group. The plaintiffs allege that Sleep Number failed
or refused to adopt adequate practices, policies and procedures
relating to wage payments, record keeping, employment disclosures,
meal and rest breaks, among other claims, under California law.

The Complaint seeks damages in the form of civil penalties and
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and expressly disclaims the recovery
of any purported individual specific relief or underpaid wages.

Sleep Number said, "We intend to vigorously defend this matter."

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

Sleep Number Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets a line
of air bed mattresses. The Company provides a variety of beds,
bedding, pillows, mattress pads and layers, sheets, duvets, bed
skirts, bases, furniture, bed accessories, and kids blankets. Sleep
Number serves customers in the United States. The company is based
in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Requests for Rehearing in Smith Appeal Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Court of Appeals has
denied all requests for rehearing in the appeal from a ruling in
the case, Smith v. SEECO, Inc. et al.

The Company has been a defendant in three certified class actions
alleging that the Company underpaid lessors of lands in Arkansas by
deducting from royalty payments costs for gathering, transportation
and compression of natural gas in excess of what is permitted by
the relevant leases.  

Two of the these class actions were filed in Arkansas state courts
and the third in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas. The Company denied liability in all these
cases.

Under the agreement for the sale of the equity in the Company's
subsidiaries that operated in the Fayetteville Shale, the Company
retained responsibility for these class actions.

In June 2017, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company
on all counts in Smith v. SEECO, Inc. et al., the class action in
the federal court, whose plaintiff class comprises the vast
majority of the lessors in these cases.  

The plaintiff had asserted claims for, among other things, breach
of contract, fraud, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and
violation of certain Arkansas statutes. Following the verdict, the
court entered judgment in favor of the Company on all claims.  

The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial, and
the plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit. Independent of the plaintiff's appeal, several
different parties sought to intervene in the Smith case prior to or
shortly after trial, and have appealed the trial court's order
denying their request to intervene.  

Oral argument occurred in January 2019. On April 23, 2019, the
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order denying all
requests to intervene in the case, and, in a separate order,
affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the Company on all
claims. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied all requests for
rehearing.

In the second quarter of 2018, the Company entered into an
agreement to settle another of the class actions, which has been
pending in the Circuit Court of Conway County, Arkansas under the
caption Snow et al. v. SEECO, Inc., et al.  

The settlement received final approval by the court during the
third quarter of 2018, and the deadline to appeal the order
approving the settlement passed without any appeals filed. The
amount of the settlement is reflected in the Company's consolidated
statement of operations for the second quarter of 2018 and was paid
early in the fourth quarter of 2018. The third class action was
dismissed in the second quarter of 2018.

The Smith and the Snow cases cover all affected lessors, except a
small percentage who opted out.  Most of those have filed separate
actions. The Company does not expect those cases to have a material
adverse effect on the results of operations, financial position or
cash flows of the Company.  

Additionally, it is not possible at this time to estimate the
amount of any additional loss, or range of loss, that is reasonably
possible.

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

Southwestern Energy Company, an independent energy company, engages
in the exploration, development, and production of natural gas and
oil in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Exploration and Production, and Midstream. Southwestern Energy
Company was founded in 1929 and is headquartered in Spring, Texas.


ST VINCENT COMMUNITY: Dorado Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, Nicholas Dorado, Individually and on Behalf of all others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. St Vincent Community Health
Services Inc., St Vincent Infirmary Medical Center, Catholic Health
Initiatives Physician Services LLC, and First Initiatives Insurance
Ltd, the Defendants, Case No. 60CV-19-04891, was removed from the
Pulaski County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock) on Aug. 16, 2019. The
Eastern District of Arkansas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-00573-DPM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Callis L. Childs, Esq.
          CHILDS LAW FIRM
          243 Highway 64 East
          Conway, AR 72032
          Telephone: (501) 327-1700
          Facsimile: (501) 327-6066
          E-mail: cchilds@tcworks.net

               - and -

          Frank H. Bailey, Esq.
          Sach D. Oliver, Esq.
          Timothy Ryan Scott, Esq.
          BAILEY & OLIVER LAW FIRM
          3606 West Southern Hills Boulevard
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 202-5200
          E-mail: fbailey@baileyoliverlawfirm.com
                  soliver@baileyoliverlawfirm.com
                  rscott@baileyoliverlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey P. Leonard, Esq.
          W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC
          2224 First Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336
          E-mail: jleonard@hgdlawfirm.com
                  wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Gary D. Marts, Jr., Esq.
          Gordon S. Rather, Jr., Esq.
          William Eric Berger, Esq.
          WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS
          200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3699
          Telephone: (501) 212-1234
          Facsimile: (501) 376-9442
          E-mail: gmarts@wlj.com
                  grather@wlj.com
                  eberger@wlj.com

SYNERGY ONE: Raub Suit Moved to Southern District of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Michelle Raub individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. Synergy One Lending Inc., a Delaware corporation and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
37-02019-00032335-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the San Diego
Superior Court- County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Aug. 16, 2019.
The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01543-MMA-MDD to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Michael M. Anello.

Synergy One Lending is a San Diego based mortgage lender.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com

Attorneys for the Synergy One Lending Inc.:

          Spencer .C Skeen, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4370 La Jolla Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652-3100
          Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
          E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com

TEGNA INC: Clay, Massey & Associates, P.C. Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tegna 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
the class action suit entitled, Clay, Massey & Associates, P.C. v.
Gray Television, Inc. et. al.

In the third quarter of 2018, certain national media outlets
reported the existence of a confidential investigation by the
United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) into
the local television advertising sales practices of station owners.


On November 13 and December 13, 2018, DOJ and seven broadcasters
settled a DOJ complaint alleging the exchange of competitively
sensitive information in the broadcast television industry.

On June 17, 2019, the company and four other broadcasters entered
into a substantially identical agreement with DOJ. The settlement
contains no finding of wrongdoing or liability and carries no
penalty.

It prohibits the company and the other settling entities from
sharing certain confidential business information, or using such
information pertaining to other broadcasters, except under limited
circumstances.

The settlement also requires the settling parties to make certain
enhancements to their antitrust compliance programs; to continue to
cooperate with the DOJ's investigation and to permit DOJ to verify
compliance. The company do not expect the costs of compliance to be
material.
  
Since the national media reports, numerous putative class action
lawsuits were filed against owners of television stations (the
Advertising Cases) in different jurisdictions.

Plaintiffs are a class consisting of all persons and entities in
the United States who paid for all or a portion of advertisement
time on local TV provided by the defendants.

The Advertising Cases assert antitrust and other claims and seek
monetary damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest, as well as
injunctions against the allegedly wrongful conduct.

These cases have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
captioned Clay, Massey & Associates, P.C. v. Gray Television, Inc.
et. al., filed on July 30, 2018.

At the court's direction, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
April 3, 2019, that superseded the original complaints.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 5, 2019. In response,
plaintiffs have indicated their intention to ask the court for
permission to file another amended complaint, currently due on or
before August 7, 2019.

Tegna said, "Although we were named as a defendant in sixteen of
the original complaints, the amended complaint did not name TEGNA
as a defendant. We could still be named as a defendant, however, in
this or other related suits."

Tegna Inc., incorporated on February 23, 1972, is a media company.
The Company provides stories, investigations and marketing
services. It operates 47 television stations in 39 United States
markets and owns four network affiliates. It also provides services
to advertisers through solutions, including its over the top (OTT)
local advertising network, Premion.


TRANSGENOMIC INC: Settlement in Campbell Suit Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSE CAMPBELL, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRANSGENOMIC, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-CV-3021 (D. Neb.), Judge John M.
Gerrard of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska (i)
approved the parties' Joint Stipulation Regarding Settlement Order;
and (ii) granted the the Lead Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, Certification of the
Settlement Class, and Approval of the Notice to the Class.

Rule 23(a) states four threshold requirements applicable to all
class actions: (1) numerosity (a class so large that joinder of all
members is impracticable); (2) commonality (questions of law or
fact common to the class); (3) typicality (named parties' claims or
defenses are typical of the class); and (4) adequacy of
representation (representatives will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class).  Those requirements are met in the
case.

The notice given in the case meets those requirements; it informs
the class members of the action and their options, accurately
characterized all the pertinent terms of the settlement agreement
(including attorney fees and expenses), and affords the class
members a reasonable opportunity to object.  The notice will be
sent directly to shareholders who purchased, sold, or held shares
of Transgenomic stock during the relevant time period and notice by
publication will also be provided identifying a website where
further information can be obtained.  In short, the notice
satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 and due process.

Accordingly, Judge Gerrard (i) approved the parties' Joint
Stipulation, and (ii) granted the Lead Plaintiff's Unopposed
Motion.  For settlement purposes only, the action may be maintained
as a class action on behalf of all those who purchased, sold or
held Transgenomic common stock during the period from and including
April 12, 2017, the record date for Transgenomic's special
stockholder meeting regarding the merger between Transgenomic and
Precipio Diagnostics, LLC through and including June 30, 2017, the
date the merger closed.

If the settlement fails to become effective as defined in the
Stipulation of Settlement or is terminated, then, in any such
event, the Stipulation, including any amendment (except as
expressly provided in the Stipulation), and the Order will be null
and void, and without prejudice to any settling party, and may not
be introduced as evidence or used in any actions or proceedings by
any person or entity against the settling parties, who will be
deemed to have reverted to their respective litigation positions in
the litigation as of May 10, 2019.

The Judge designated Jesse Campbell as the class representative,
Monteverde & Associates PC as the settlement class counsel, and
RG/2 Claims Administration as the claims administrator.

He approved the form, substance, and requirements of the Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Proof of Claim
and Release, and Summary Notice.

The Claims Administrator will make reasonable efforts to identify
all persons who are members of the class and not later than July
31, 2019, the Claims Administrator will cause a copy of the Notice
and Proof of Claim and Release, substantially in the forms of
filing 60-1 and filing 60-2, to be mailed by first class mail to
all class members who can be identified with reasonable effort and
to be posted on its website at https://www.rg2claims.com/.

Not later than Aug. 21, 2019, the Claims Administrator will cause
the Summary Notice to be published once over the PR Newswire.

Not later than Oct. 28, 2019, the counsel for the Defendants and
the settlement class counsel will jointly file with the Court an
affidavit from a representative of the Claims Administrator
confirming that notice has been accomplished.

Nominees who held, purchased or acquired Transgenomic common stock
for the benefit of another person during the time period from and
including April 12, 2017 through and including June 30, 2017 will
be directed to send the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release to
the beneficial owners of Transgenomic common stock within 15
calendar days after receipt, or send a list of the names and
addresses of the beneficial owners to the Claims Administrator
within 15 calendar days of receipt, in which event the Claims
Administrator will promptly mail the Notice and Proof of Claim and
Release to the beneficial owners.

All fees, costs, and expenses incurred in notifying class members
will be paid from the Settlement Fund and in no event will any of
the Defendants or related parties bear any responsibility for such
fees, costs or expenses.  All reasonable expenses incurred in
identifying and notifying the class members as well as
administering the Settlement Fund will be paid as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement.  In the event the Court does not approve
the Settlement, or it otherwise fails to become effective, neither
the class representative nor any of his counsel will have any
obligation to repay any amounts actually and properly incurred or
disbursed pursuant to the Stipulation.

Any person falling within the definition of the class may, upon
request, be excluded or opt out from the class.  Any such person
must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion by
first class mail postmarked no later than Oct. 4, 2019, made in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

The settlement class counsel will cause to be provided to the
Defendants' counsel copies of all requests for exclusion and a list
of all the class members who have requested exclusion, and any
written revocation of requests for exclusion, as expeditiously as
possible but in any event no later than Oct. 28, 2019.

A Fairness Hearing will be held on Nov. 4, 2019, at 11:30 a.m.

On July 22, 2019, the parties will file a declaration with the
Court certifying that any notice required by the Class Action
Fairness Act has been sent by United States mail to the appropriate
governmental entities.  

No class member or any other person, will contest the approval of
the terms and conditions of the Stipulation of Settlement, or, if
approved, the order and final judgment approving it, or the order
approving the plan of allocation, or any fees and expenses to be
awarded to the counsel or the class representative, unless written
objections and copies of any papers and briefs are sent on or
before October 4, 2019, to: Monteverde & Associates PC 350 5th Ave,
Suite 4405 New York, NY 10018 and U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska Robert V. Denney Federal Building, Room 586
100 Centennial Mall North Lincoln, NE 68508.

All funds held by the escrow agent will be deemed and considered to
be in the custody of the Court, and will remain subject to the
jurisdiction of the Court, until such time as they are distributed
pursuant to the settlement or further orders of the Court.

The class members who wish to participate in the Settlement will
complete and submit the Proof of Claim and Release in accordance
with the instructions contained therein. Unless the Court orders
otherwise, all Proofs of Claim and Releases must be postmarked or
submitted electronically no later than Oct. 29, 2019.

All papers in support of the settlement, plan of allocation, and
any application by lead counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses
and payment of time and expenses to the Lead Plaintiff will be
filed and served no later than Sept. 30, 2019, and any response
will be filed and served no later than Oct. 28, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/BYY0KL from Leagle.com.

Jesse Campbell, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Rowe --
drowe@krbklaw.com -- KINSEY, ROWE LAW FIRM, Juan E. Monteverde --
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com -- MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES, pro hac
vice & Miles D. Schreiner -- mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com --
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES, pro hac vice.

Transgenomic, Inc., Defendant, represented by Deborah S. Birnbach
-- dbirnbach@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN, PROCTER LAW FIRM, pro hac
vice, Emily S. Unger -- eunger@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN, PROCTER
LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, James J. Frost -- jfrost@mcgrathnorth.com
-- MCGRATH, NORTH LAW FIRM, Massie P. Cooper --
massie.cooper@troutman.com -- TROUTMAN, SANDERS LAW FIRM, pro hac
vice, Tucker D. DeVoe -- tdevoe@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN, PROCTER
LAW FIRM, pro hac vice & William Evans, GOODWIN, PROCTER LAW FIRM.

Paul Kinnon, Defendant, represented by Deborah S. Birnbach,
GOODWIN, PROCTER LAW FIRM, Massie P. Cooper, TROUTMAN, SANDERS LAW
FIRM, pro hac vice, Tucker D. DeVoe, GOODWIN, PROCTER LAW FIRM, pro
hac vice & William Evans, GOODWIN, PROCTER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice.

Precipio, Inc., Defendant, represented by Deborah S. Birnbach,
GOODWIN, PROCTER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Emily S. Unger, GOODWIN,
PROCTER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, James J. Frost --
JKoehn@mcgrathnorth.com -- MCGRATH, NORTH LAW FIRM, Jay D. Koehn ,
MCGRATH, NORTH LAW FIRM, Mark F. Enenbach, MCGRATH, NORTH LAW FIRM,
Tucker D. DeVoe, GOODWIN, PROCTER LAW FIRM, pro hac vice & William
Evans, GOODWIN, PROCTER LAW FIRM.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Class Certification Sought in Norton Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Norton moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit titled TROY NORTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC,
Case No. 2:19-cv-01169-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the
Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the
Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting
automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting
material to be filed with the Motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


ULTA BEAUTY: Fernando Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------
Ulta Beauty, Inc., removed on August 12, 2019, the class action
lawsuit styled TARINI FERNANDO, an individual, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. ULTA BEAUTY, INC. a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
37-2019-00034485-CU-OE-CTL, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01503-JM-LL to
the proceeding.

On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff Tarini Fernando filed her original
Complaint for Damages in the Superior Court.  She brings claims for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]

Defendant ULTA BEAUTY, INC. is represented by:

          Lena K. Sims, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3577
          Telephone: (619) 232-0441
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
          E-mail: lsims@littler.com

               - and -

          Julie A. Stockton, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
          E-mail: jstockton@littler.com


UNIT CORP: Chieftain Royalty Class Suit Ongoing in Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------
Unit 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 company continues to defend a class
action suit entitled, Chieftain Royalty Company v. Unit Petroleum
Company, No. CJ-16-230, District Court of LeFlore County,
Oklahoma.

On November 3, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Unit Petroleum Company styled Chieftain Royalty Company v.
Unit Petroleum Company in LeFlore County, Oklahoma. Plaintiff
alleges that Unit Petroleum breached its duty to pay royalties on
natural gas used for fuel off the lease premises.

The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages, an accounting,
injunctive relief, and attorney's fees.

Plaintiff is seeking relief on behalf of Oklahoma citizens who are
or were royalty owners in our Oklahoma wells.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the claims
asserted by the Plaintiff and the putative class are barred because
they have already been asserted by the putative class in the Panola
lawsuit and are subject to its reversal of class certification.

The court denied the company's motion to dismiss and the company
asked the court to certify its order so that it can be immediately
appealed. That issue is still pending before the court.

Unit Corp. said, "If we do not ultimately prevail on our claim of
issue preclusion, we have several other defenses, including that
the case cannot be properly certified as a class action because of
the wide variety of circumstances that determine whether a royalty
payment was wrongfully withheld. At this point, the issue of class
certification has not been set before the court."

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

Unit Corp. engages in onshore contract drilling of oil and gas
wells (for its own account as well as for other companies),
exploration and production of oil and gas, and the gathering and
transportation of natural gas primarily in the U.S. Unit was
founded in 1963 and is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


UNIT CORP: Class Certification Bid in Panola ISD Class Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 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 trial court overseeing the case,
Panola Independent School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum
Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma,
has denied the Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification.


Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen
Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly,
Melody Culberson, and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs and
are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and spacing units for
which the company's exploration segment distributes royalty.

The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that the company's
exploration segment has underpaid royalty obligations by deducting
post-production costs or marketing related fees. Plaintiffs sought
to pursue the case as a class action on behalf of persons who
receive royalty from us for our Oklahoma production.

The company has asserted several defenses including that the
deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. The company had also
asserted that the case should not be tried as a class action due to
the materially different circumstances that determine what, if any,
deductions are taken for each lease. On December 16, 2009, the
trial court entered its order certifying the class. On May 11, 2012
the court of civil appeals reversed the trial court's order
certifying the class. The

Plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and on
October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied. On January
22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a second request to certify a class
of royalty owners slightly smaller than their first attempt.

Since then, the Plaintiffs have further amended their proposed
class to just include royalty owners entitled to royalties under
certain leases in Latimer, Le Flore, and Pittsburg Counties,
Oklahoma.

In July 2014, a second class certification hearing was held where,
besides the defenses described above, the company argued that the
amended class definition is still deficient under the court of
civil appeals opinion reversing the initial class certification.
Closing arguments were held on December 2, 2014.

On July 29, 2019, the trial court entered its order denying the
Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification. Once the trial
court's order is appealable, the Plaintiffs' will have 30 days to
appeal the decision.

Unit Corp. engages in onshore contract drilling of oil and gas
wells (for its own account as well as for other companies),
exploration and production of oil and gas, and the gathering and
transportation of natural gas primarily in the U.S. Unit was
founded in 1963 and is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


UNIT CORP: Cockerell Oil Properties Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Unit 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 company continues to defend a class
action suit entitled, Cockerell Oil Properties, Ltd., v. Unit
Petroleum Company, No. 16-cv-135-JHP, United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On March 11, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Unit Petroleum Company styled Cockerell Oil Properties,
Ltd., v. Unit Petroleum Company in LeFlore County, Oklahoma.

The company removed the case to federal court in the Eastern
District of Oklahoma.

The plaintiff alleges that Unit Petroleum wrongfully failed to pay
interest with respect to untimely royalty payments under Oklahoma's
Production Revenue Standards Act. The lawsuit seeks actual and
punitive damages, an accounting, disgorgement, injunctive relief,
and attorney's fees.

Plaintiff is seeking relief on behalf of royalty owners in our
Oklahoma wells.

Unit Corp. said, "We have asserted several defenses including that
the case cannot be properly certified as a class action because of
the wide variety of circumstances that determine whether a royalty
payment was timely made or has accrued interest under Oklahoma law.
At this point, the court has not taken any action on the issue of
class certification."

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

Unit Corp. engages in onshore contract drilling of oil and gas
wells (for its own account as well as for other companies),
exploration and production of oil and gas, and the gathering and
transportation of natural gas primarily in the U.S. Unit was
founded in 1963 and is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


VENATOR MATERIALS: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Venator Materials 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 30, 2019, that the defendants' motions
to dismiss litigation related to the company's initial and
secondary public offerings remain pending.

On February 8, 2019 the company, certain of its executive officers,
Huntsman and certain banks who acted as underwriters in connection
with its initial public offering (IPO) and secondary offering were
named as defendants in a proposed class action civil suit filed in
the District Court for the State of Texas, Dallas County (the
"Dallas District Court"), by an alleged purchaser of the company's
ordinary shares in connection with its IPO on August 3, 2017 and
the company's secondary offering on December 1, 2017.

The plaintiff, Macomb County Employees' Retirement System, alleges
that inaccurate and misleading statements were made regarding the
impact to the company's operations, and prospects for restoration
thereof, resulting from the fire that occurred at the company's
Pori, Finland manufacturing facility, among other allegations.

Additional complaints making substantially the same allegations
were filed in the Dallas District Court by the Firemen's Retirement
System of St. Louis on March 4, 2019 and by Oscar Gonzalez on March
13, 2019, with the third case naming two of the company's directors
as additional defendants.

A fourth case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York by the City of Miami General Employees' &
Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust on July 31, 2019, making
substantially the same allegations, adding claims under sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act, and naming all of the
company's directors as additional defendants.

The plaintiffs in these cases seek to determine that the
proceedings should be certified as class actions and to obtain
alleged compensatory damages, costs, rescission and equitable
relief. The cases filed in the Dallas District Court have been
consolidated into a single action.

On May 8, 2019, the company filed a "special appearance" in the
Dallas District Court action contesting the court's jurisdiction
over the Company and a motion to transfer venue to Montgomery
County, Texas and on June 7, 2019 the company and certain
defendants filed motions to dismiss.

On July 9, 2019, a hearing was held on the motions, but no ruling
has been made following the hearing.

Venator Materials PLC manufactures and markets chemical products
worldwide. It operates through two segments, Titanium Dioxide and
Performance Additives. The company was founded in 2017 and is
headquartered in Stockton-On-Tees, the United Kingdom.


VERSUM MATERIALS: Ventura Class Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Versum Materials, 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 purported class action suit in California entitled,
Inocencio Ventura v. Versum Materials, Inc.

On April 2, 2019, a purported California class action lawsuit
captioned Inocencio Ventura v. Versum Materials, Inc. was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, containing various class action allegations under
California state wage-and-hour laws, including failure to pay
overtime and minimum wages and failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, to persons employed in California as hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees since April 2015, and other derivative claims,
and seeking unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees.

On July 9, 2019, the Plaintiff amended his complaint to add a cause
of action under the Private Attorney General Act based on the
underlying allegations.

Versum Materials, Inc. develops, manufactures, transports, and
handles specialty materials for the semiconductor and display
industries in the United States, Taiwan, South Korea, China,
Europe, and rest of Asia. The company operates through two
segments, Materials, and Delivery Systems and Services (DS&S).
Versum Materials, Inc. was founded in 2015 and is headquartered in
Tempe, Arizona.


VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust's COI Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. is still defending itself in a cost of
insurance litigation styled Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services,
LTA v. Security Life of Denver, 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.

Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Security Life of
Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-01897) (filed July
26, 2018), is a putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges
that two specific types of universal life insurance policies only
permitted the Company to rely upon the policyholder's expected
future mortality experience to establish and increase the cost of
insurance, but the Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed
factors not only in the administration of the policies over time,
but also in the decision to increase insurance costs beginning in
approximately October 2015.

Plaintiff alleges a breach of contract and seeks class
certification.

The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

On August 28, 2018, the Company filed its answer to the complaint
with affirmative defenses.

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

Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.


VOYA FINANCIAL: Bid to Nix Goetz Suit Still Pending at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
the case styled Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement
Insurance and Annuity Company remains pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity
Company (USDC District of Delaware, No. 1:17-cv-1289) (filed
September 8, 2017), is a putative class action in which plaintiff,
a participant in a 401(k) plan, seeks to represent other
participants in the plan as well as a class of similarly situated
plans that "contract with [Voya] for recordkeeping and other
services." Plaintiff alleges that "Voya" breached its fiduciary
duty to the plan and other plan participants by charging
unreasonable and excessive recordkeeping fees, and that "Voya"
distributed materially false and misleading 404a-5 administrative
and fund fee disclosures to conceal its excessive fees.

The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without
merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 4, 2018, and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February
8, 2018.

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

Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.


VOYA FINANCIAL: Still Faces Barnes COI Litigation
-------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. continues to defend itself in a cost of
insurance litigation styled Barnes v. Security Life of Denver,
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.

Barnes v. Security Life of Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No.
1:18-cv-00718) (filed March 27, 2018), is a putative class action
in which the plaintiff alleges that his insurance policy only
permitted the Company to rely upon his expected future mortality
experience to establish and increase his cost of insurance, but the
Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed factors to do so.

Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and conversion claims against
the Company and also seeks declaratory relief.

The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the matter
vigorously.

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

Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.


WASTE PRO: Wright Seeks OT Pay for Waste Disposal Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY WRIGHT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WASTE PRO USA, INC., and WASTE PRO OF
FLORIDA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-62051-KMM (S.D.
Fla., Aug. 15, 2019), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime
pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and other current and former similarly situated
employees are Waste Disposal Drivers for the Defendants who were
paid on a purported job/day rate for work performed. Due to
Defendants' company-wide policies and procedures, Plaintiffs were
deprived of wages for hours actually worked.

Specifically, the Defendants did not pay a true day rate for any
and all hours worked in a given day, but placed limitations on the
number of hours worked before the "day rate" was paid.

Further, Defendants also coupled the day rate with "other forms of
compensation." Therefore, the Defendants violated the FLSA in both
their calculation of the prevailing hour rate and only paying
Plaintiffs "half-time" for all hours worked over 40 in a given
workweek.

Waste Pro provides waste removal services. The Company offers
residential, roll-off dumpster, recycling, compaction equipment,
transfer and landfill, and other related services. Waste Pro serves
customers in the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Class Members are:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Paul M. Botros, Esq.
          600 N. Pine Island Road., Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 327-5352
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3017
          E-mail: pbotros@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com
                  clif@a2xlaw.com

WATERWORKS OPERATING: Delacruz Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------------
Waterworks Operating Co., LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Waterworks Operating Co.,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07799 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019).

Waterworks Operating Co., LLC offers waterworks bathroom fittings,
fixtures and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



WAYPOINT RESOURCE: Dillard Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Waypoint Resource
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Yvonne Dillard individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Waypoint
Resource Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04764 (E.D. N.Y.,
Aug. 19, 2019).

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

Waypoint Resource Group, LLC (WRG) is a third-party collection
agency based in Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



WELLS FARGO: Hernandez Suit over Mortgage Loan Plans Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALICIA HERNANDEZ, EMMA WHITE, KEITH LINDNER, TROY
FRYE, COSZETTA TEAGUE, IESHA BROWN, RUSSELL and BRENDA SIMONEAUX,
JOHN and YVONNE DEMARTINO, ROSE WILSON, TIFFANIE HOOD, GEORGE and
CYNDI FLOYD, DEBORA GRANJA, and DIANA TREVINO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO
& COMPANY, and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. C
18-07354 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California granted WFCWells
Fargo & Co. ("WFC")'s motion to dismiss.

WFC is a financial services company headquartered in San Francisco,
California.  The firm's primary operating subsidiary is Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. ("Bank").  The Plaintiffs all had their mortgage loans
serviced by the Bank when they faced various financial hardships
and defaulted on their loans.  Although they sought loan
modifications, those applications were denied.

At the time the Plaintiffs requested loan modifications, the
Defendants participated in the Home Affordable Modification Program
("HAMP"), through which mortgage lenders received stimulus funds in
exchange for issuing loan modifications to qualified borrowers.
Although the Plaintiffs met the program's threshold requirements
for such a modification, the Defendants failed to offer them one.
Instead, the Bank foreclosed on eleven of the named Plaintiffs and
more than 500 other customers who could not make their monthly
payments without a modification.  Two Plaintiffs, Russell and
Brenda Simoneaux, did not face foreclosure and ultimately paid off
their mortgage.

A 2010 investigation by the Office of Comptroller of the Currency
("OCC") found numerous deficiencies in the Bank's mortgage
modification and foreclosure practices, including that it failed to
devote adequate oversight to its foreclosure processes, failed to
ensure compliance with applicable laws, and failed to adequately
audit its foreclosure procedures.  The Bank and WFC each signed a
consent order agreeing to correct these deficiencies.  

In its consent order, WFC was ordered to strengthen its oversight
of the Bank's compliance with HAMP, ensure its audit and compliance
programs were adequately staffed, and to improve the information
and reports that it would regularly review.  WFC's Board of
Directors agreed.  The Bank's Board of Directors, made up entirely
of WFC board members, agreed to its consent order as well.
However, in June 2015, the OCC found the Bank and WFC were still
not compliant, and that the Bank failed to detect multiple
systematic errors in the automated decision-making software it used
to determine customers' eligibility for a mortgage modification.

In October 2015, the Bank discovered a calculation "error" in a
software tool it used to determine whether to issue a mortgage
modification.  This calculation error, which underlies the claims
in this case, caused certain fees to be misstated and resulted in
incorrect modification denials.  The OCC issued a $70 million
penalty.  These errors were not disclosed until 2018.  In total,
870 customers were incorrectly denied a loan modification, 545 of
who lost their homes in foreclosure.  According to the Plaintiffs,
these repeated failures to implement adequate testing procedures --
as well as other high-profile scandals that have roiled the bank in
recent years -- are emblematic of the Defendants' chronic and
intentional lack of oversight.

In December 2018, Plaintiff Hernandez filed the putative nationwide
class action, asserting claims for negligence, conversion,
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, and violations
of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  In response to a motion to
dismiss, Hernandez filed an amended complaint in February 2019.
The operative complaint added 15 new named Plaintiffs, added WFC as
a new Defendant, and added nine additional claims for relief.

WFC now moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim.  The instant motion is brought only by WFC.  The Bank moved
separately to dismiss, which was granted in part and denied in
part.  The instant order only addresses the claims from the
parties' Joint Response to the Court's June 3, 2019 Order.

The Plaintiff alleges in its amended complaint that WFC "owns and
controls" the Bank, and had "oversight responsibilities" for
ensuring the Bank "tested and audited its mortgage modification
operations."  It further alleges all of the Bank's board members
were WFC board members as well.

Judge Alsup finds that although the fact that the Bank's board
members are completely composed of WFC board members weighs towards
the existence of control, such an allegation is insufficient on its
own.  Importantly, there is no allegation that WFC participated in
or controlled the Bank's day-to-day operations regarding mortgage
approval or servicing.  As such, the Plaintiffs have not
sufficiently alleged WFC's liability under an agency theory.

The Plaintiff points to the same arguments it made for agency
theory in demonstrating a unity of interests.  The Order has
already addressed these arguments.  The allegations of control do
not exhibit anything more than mere supervision.   It will not
address the second prong of the alter-ego test as the first prong
has not been met.  In sum, the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently
alleged that WFC is indirectly liable for the Bank's actions.

The amended complaint alleges WFC failed to oversee and review the
Bank's compliance with HAMP in the face of a consent decree which
put WFC on notice.  The Plaintiffs argue WFC's inaction, given the
fact it had notice, could be considered reckless behavior.  The
Judge finds that the cases it cites to in support of this claim are
unconvincing as they do not concern IIED claims.  WFC's failure to
act even with notice, as currently pled, cannot be deemed
outrageous and reckless.  The borrower-Plaintiffs have not stated a
claim for IIED against WFC and the motion to dismiss this claim is
granted.

Since indirect liability does not apply, WFC's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' California's Homeowners Bill of Rights ("HBOR")
claim against WFC is accordingly granted.  The Judge holds that
HBOR, Section 2924.17 provides, a mortgage servicer will ensure
that it has reviewed competent and reliable evidence to
substantiate the borrower's default and the right to foreclose,
including the borrower's loan status and loan information.  The
Plaintiffs have alleged that the Bank, not WFC is the mortgage
servicer.

To state a claim for unfair competition under Section 17200 of the
California Business and Professions Code, a plaintiff must allege
that a defendant engaged in an "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent
business act or practice."  The statute is violated when a
defendant's conduct violates any of the foregoing prongs.  In the
instant case, the Plaintiffs assert a Section 17200 claim based on
the "unlawful" and "unfair" prongs.  Again, although WFC's board
was put on notice of the errors in the Bank's software, the Judge
finds that its failure to act without any duty cannot plausibly be
considered immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or
substantially injurious regardless of any competitive advantage is
may have gained or the extent of customers whose homes were
foreclosed on.  The motion to dismiss the claims under the "unfair"
prong against WFC is thus granted.

The Plaintiffs bring a claim for relief under the consumer
protection statutes of five other states: the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act and Consumer Debt Collection Act, Section 349(a) of
New York's General Business Law, and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.  WFC moves to dismiss these
claims by stating that WFC itself did not service the Plaintiffs'
loans, deny them loan modifications, nor foreclose on their
properties.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged among other claims
that WFC failed to implement or maintain procedures to ensure the
Bank was complying with HAMP or other applicable government
requirements.  As stated, WFC is not indirectly liable for the
Bank's actions and a failure to act without any duty does not
plausibly point to unfair and misleading business practices in
violation of the state consumer protection laws.  The motion to
dismiss these claims against WFC is thus granted.

Finally, the Plaintiffs offer five documents for judicial notice:
(1) WFC's Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2018, (2) WFC's
Form 10-Q for the period ending Sept. 30, 2018, (3) WFC's Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ending Dec. 31, 2018, (4) In re: Wells Fargo &
Co. Consent Order dated April 13, 2011, and (5) In re: Wells Fargo
& Co. Order to Cease and Desist Issued Upon Consent Pursuant to the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act dated Feb. 2018.

These documents are a matter of public record as they are publicly
filed.  WFC argues that none of the documents should be judicially
noticed because a court cannot take judicial notice of such
documents for the truth of the matter asserted therein.  The Judge
holds that this statement is not entirely correct as party
admissions may be judicially noticed for the truth of the matter if
requested by the opposing party.  In the case, the 2018 SEC
filings, which were written by WFC, and the consent orders, which
were signed and accepted by WFC's board, may be judicially noticed
in their entirety for their contents because they are party
admissions.  The Order accordingly grants judicial notice as to all
of the documents requested.

For the reasons stated, Judge Alsup granted WFC's motion to dismiss
the mentioned claims solely against it.  The case against the Bank
will go forward.  The Court is of the view that further leave to
amend in regards to WFC would be futile.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 10, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/6xkirm from Leagle.com.

Alicia Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Richard M. Paul, III,
Paul LLP, pro hac vice, Ashlea Gayle Schwarz, Paul LLP, pro hac
vice, Laura Catherine Fellows, Paul LLP, 601 Walnut Street, Suite
300, Kansas City, MO 64106, pro hac vice, Linda Pham Lam --
Llam@lewisfeinberg.com -- Lewis Feinberg Lee & Jackson, P.C. &
Michael Lawrence Schrag -- mls@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law
Group LLP.

Diana Trevino, Coszetta Teague, Yvonne Demartino, Iesha Brown,
George Floyd, Troy Frye, Russell Simoneaux, Tiffanie Hood, Rose
Wilson, Emma White, Cyndi Floyd, John Demartino, Keith Lindner,
Brenda Simoneaux & Debora Granja, Plaintiffs, represented by Laura
Catherine Fellows, Paul LLP, pro hac vice, Linda Pham Lam, Lewis
Feinberg Lee & Jackson, P.C. & Michael Lawrence Schrag, Gibbs Law
Group LLP.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Amanda L. Groves
-- agroves@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Kobi
Kennedy Brinson -- kbrinson@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn,
LLP,
pro hac vice, Stacie Corbett Knight -- sknight@winston.com --
Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice & Morgan E. Stewart --
mstewart@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn LLP.

Wells Fargo & Company, Defendant, represented by Amanda L. Groves,
Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice & Morgan E. Stewart, Winston
and
Strawn LLP.


YELP INC: Davis Seeks Certification of Shareholders Class
---------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff Jonathan Davis seeks an order certifying the matter
captioned JONATHAN DAVIS and ROEI AZAR, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. YELP, INC., JEREMY STOPPELMAN,
LANNY BAKER, and JED NACHMAN, Case No. 3:18-cv-00400-EMC (N.D.
Cal.), as a class action.

The proposed class is defined as:

     All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
     acquired the shares of Yelp, Inc. common stock between
     February 10, 2017 and May 9, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
     Period"), and 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 entity in which Defendants have or had a
     controlling interest.

Mr. Davis also asks the Court to appoint him as Class
Representative, and to appoint Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and
Holzer & Holzer LLC as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 14, 2019, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Lead Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua L. Crowell, Esq.
          Stan Karas, Esq.
          Christopher R. Fallon, Esq.
          Natalie S. Pang, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: jcrowell@glancylaw.com
                  skaras@glancylaw.com
                  cfallon@glancylaw.com
                  npang@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          Luke R. Kennedy, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
                  mdees@holzerlaw.com
                  lkennedy@holzerlaw.com


ZIRTUAL STARTUPS: Macaluso Hits Misclassification, Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTI MACALUSO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ZIRTUAL STARTUPS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-03616-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 19, 2019) is a case
challenging the policies and practices of Defendant that violates
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant, in violation of the FLSA, classifies most of its
virtual assistants as so-called "independent contractors." Through
this misclassification, Defendant knowingly, willfully, and
deliberately fails to compensate Plaintiff and other members of the
FLSA Collective overtime compensation at least one and one-half
their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Kristi Macaluso has been employed by Defendant Zirtual as
a virtual assistant since approximately June 2017 to August 2019.

Zirtual is a Columbus, Ohio-based company providing virtual
assistants to companies and individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
     Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
     Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
     SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
     The Caxton Building
     812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
     Cleveland, OH 44115
     Phone: (216) 912-2221
     Fax: (216) 350-6313
     Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
            rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
            kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.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 ***