CAR_Public/190905.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, September 5, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 178

                            Headlines

38 WEST 26TH STREET: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
3M COMPANY: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
ACCESS BIO: Summary Judgment in Perez Suit Affirmed
ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Rosi Class Suit Ongoing
ADVANCED PLUMBING: Carwoola Bushfire Class Suit Has Go Signal

ALDI INC: Ice Cream Has Less Vanilla, Weber-Lugo Says
ALLERGAN PLC: Class Cert. Bid in Loestrin Direct Buyers Suit Okayed
ALLERGAN PLC: Denial of Class Cert. in Celexa/Lexapro Suit Upheld
ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery Ongoing Restasis(R) Litigation
ALLERGAN PLC: Dismissal of Generic Drug Pricing Suit Challenged

ALLERGAN PLC: Offers of Judgment Made in Asacol(R) Litigation
ALLERGAN PLC: Shire Class Action Stayed Until Dec. 27
ALLERGAN PLC: Suit vs. Warner Chilcott Marketing Tossed
ALLERGAN PLC: Trial in Namenda(R) Litigation to be Bifurcated
AMB RANCH MANAGEMENT: Sirilo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

AMERICAN FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss St. Clair-Hibbard Still Pending
AMERICAN FINANCE: Plaintiffs' Bid for Rehearing En Banc Denied
AMERICAN FINANCE: Terry Hibbard Class Suit Ongoing
ANDREA ROSEN GALLERY: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ANGLO AMERICAN: Potential Class-Action Over Zambia Lead Poisoning

APPLE INC: 'Radiation Scandal' Attracts Class Action Lawsuit
APPLE INC: Class Suit Filed for Old iPhones Who Lost FaceTime
APPLE INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Over Siri Recordings
APPLE INC: Judge Tosses iPhone Securities Class Action
ARAMARK CAMPUS: Buchanan Remanded to California State Court

ARGENT TRUST: Judge Tosses Class Action Over $198MM Stock Buy
ATLANTIC CREDIT: Franklin Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
ATOSSA GENETICS: Court OKs Check Distribution in Securities Suit
AVERY TECHNICAL: Robertson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
B. RILEY FBR: Gottlieb Files Rule 4(d)(c) Statement

BABCOCK & WILCOX: Price Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Still Defends Kent Class Suit
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Stipulation of Settlement Submitted in NC Suit
BENNINGTON PFOA: Judge Grants Class Action Status
BIOTELEMETRY INC: Settlement in Matthews Suit Has Final Approval

BITTREX INC: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
BOLL & BRANCH: Faces Griffith Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
BOULEVARD DEL: Torrisi Seeks Minimum Wage for Exotic Dancers
CALLICOON FINE ARTS: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CANON GARDEN: Lopez Sues Over Illegal Tip Pooling Scheme

CAPITAL ONE: Busby et al Sue over Data Breach
CAPITAL ONE: Diamond & Diamond Files Data Breach Class Action
CAPITAL ONE: Emerson Firm Files Class Suit Over Data Breach
CAPTAIN HAWKIN'S HOUSE: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CDK GLOBAL: Jones Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Texts Messages

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Bid to Stay Rosenbohm FLSA Suit Denied
CHEMEON SURFACE: Denial of Prelim Injunction Bid in Harris Affirmed
CHICAGO, IL: Thulis Seeks to Recover Damages Over Uncashed Checks
CLGM INC: Tomala Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CNO SERVICES: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania

CONCOURSE TEAM: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CONNECTICUT: Inmates' Hep C Suit Granted Class-Action Status
COOK COUNTY, IL: Bid to Certify Class in Alicea Suit Continued
COOK COUNTY, IL: Dickman Files Suit for Medical Malpractice
CORBUS PHARMA: Kempf and Wood Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed

DESERT JACK: Licea Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Soda Dispensers
DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Settles Class-Action Suit for $14.1MM
DIRECTV LLC: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Ruling in Creve Coeur Suit
DSW SHOE: Wingate & Rucker Sue over Unsolicited Text Messages

DUTY FREE AMERICA: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EAGLE ROAD: Adams Suit Remanded to Oklahoma State Court
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Giambalvo Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
ELECTRICITY MAINE: Discovery Underway in Veilleux Class Suit
ESP RECEIVABLES: Reynolds Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation

FARMLAND PARTNERS: Turner Insurance Suit Proceeds to Discovery
FLORIDA TECHNICAL: Removes Garcia FLSA Suit to S.D. Florida
FORD MOTOR: Class Action Calls for Recall on Explorer Hoods
FORD MOTOR: Class Status for Women Suing Over Harassment Denied
FORD MOTOR: Settles MyFord Touch Class Action for $17MM

FORD MOTOR: Woellecke et al Sue over Wrongful Termination
FURNITURE ROW: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
G&M MANAGEMENT: Peraza Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
GARDEN CITY: Court Dismisses Fourtstar Pro Se Complaint
GEICO GENERAL: Court Denies Bid to Remand Insurance Suit

GENERAL MILLS: Truxel Appeal N.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
GENIE ENERGY: Hearing on Bid to Compel Arbitration Set for Oct. 31
GENIE ENERGY: Remaining Class Action Liability Settled in Full
GOGO INC: Bid to Dismiss Pierrelouis Class Action Still Pending
GOOGLE INC: 3rd Cir. Strikes Down Class Action Settlement

GOOGLE INC: Baker Hostetler Discusses 3d Cir. Ruling on Settlement
GR TRUCKING: Holt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
HASTEN BEDS: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HELIUS MEDICAL: Faces Caramihai and Evans Class Suits

HERSHEY ENTERTAINMENT: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
HOMEJAB LLC: Chamely Files Suit in S.D. Florida
JUST BRANDS: Overstates Quantity of CBD in Products, Gaddis Says
KING'S AUTO SALES: Ogbomo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
L.T.D. COMMODITIES: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

LABORATORY CORPORATION: Gray Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
LE ENERGY: Court Denies Dismissal of FAC in Charvat TCPA Suit
LIBERTY MEDIA: Continues to Defend Deora Class Action
LITHIA OF SANTA ROSA: Puerto Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LITTLE JOHN: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Warner Suit

LTD FINANCIAL: Depascale Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
MARRONE BIO: $256K Attys' Fees Awarded in Securities Suit
MASSAGE ENVY: Court Stays Lapa False Advertising Suit
MDL 2904: Gras et al v. LabCorp. over Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2904: Oswald et al v. LabCorp. over Data Breach Consolidated

MEDIANT COMMUNICATIONS: Toretto Sues Over Data Breach
MERCK & CO: Trial in Zetia Litig. to Begin September 2020
MIAMI-DADE EXPRESSWAY: Summary Judgment Orders in Tropical Affirmed
MIDLAND CREDIT: Torres Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
MONARCH RECOVERY: Stivers Sues over Debt Collection Practices

MU HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
NANTHEALTH INC: BCERF Case Management Conference Set for Sept. 17
NAT'L RIFLE: Donor Files Fraud Class Action in Tennessee
NEBRASKA: Procedural Victory in Prisons Lawsuit
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit

NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
NORTHSTAR REALTY: Schwartz Proxy Statement Misleading
OHIO: Court Denies L. Claggett Inmate's Suit
OHIO: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Mann Prisoners Suit
OMNICELL INC: Pomerantz Investigating Investors' Claims

ORACLE INC: Board OKs Investors Suit Over NetSuite
OUTLAW LABORATORY: Court OKs Counterclaimants' Bid to File SAC
PERRIGO CO: Baton Class Suit in Tel Aviv Still Stayed
PERRIGO CO: Roofers' Pension Fund Suit Ongoing
PERRIGO CO: Suits Alleging Price-Fixing of Drugs Underway

PIZZA HUT: Reyes Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
POWER STOP: Worker Files Class Action Over Biometrics Scanning
PRIDWIN HOTEL: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PRO-DIRECT SPORT: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
R.I.B. ENTERPRISES: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania

RADIUS GLOBAL: Demato Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
RAHIMALI S MAKNOJIA: Fernandes Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
RECRO PHARMA: Securities Suit over IV Meloxicam Reports Underway
REPUBLIC WASTE: Approval of Summary Judgment Bid in Sharp Endorsed
RESPOND POWER: Appeal in Gillis Class Suit Still Pending

RIOT GAMES: Gender Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit Settled
RUDOLPH TECHNOLOGIES: Rosenblatt Sues Over Sale to Nanometrics  
SB DIRECTIONAL: Court Narrows Claims in Foutch FLSA Suit
SHANGHAI CITY CORP: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Huang Says
SIRIUS XM: Tornetta Files Rule 4(d)(c) Statement

SPARK ENERGY: Confidential Settlement Reached in Richardson Suit
SPARK ENERGY: Settlement Reached in Albrecht Suit
SPARK THERAPEUTICS: Grant Suit over Roche Merger Dismissed
STOCKX INC: Failed to Safeguard Personal Info, IC Suit Alleges
TELENETWORK PARTNERS: $65K Madrid FLSA Suit Settlement Has Approval

TEVA PHARMA: Psagot Funds Leads Generic Drug, Opioid Class Action
TEXAS: Court Dismisses Hoffman's Pro Se Suit
TORO COMPANY: Accused by Gruenwald of Selling Faulty Lawn Mowers
TRADER JOE'S: Removes Webb Case to Southern District of California
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court OKs Filing of Amended Complaint in Smith

UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Matulewski Suit
UPPER MIDWEST: Shanahan Sues Over Unauthorized Telephone Calls
VALARIS PLC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action Lawsuit
VALARIS PLC: Kessler Topaz Files Class Action Lawsuit
VALARIS PLC: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit

VALARIS PLC: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
VALARIS PLC: Zhang Files Securities Class Action in New York
VERDE ENERGY: Settlement in Jurich Suit Kept Under Wraps
VIVINT SOLAR: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Suit in D.C.
VIVINT SOLAR: Wage and Hour Class Action Still Ongoing

WHEATON FRANCISCAN: Patient Record Fees Class Suit Certified

                            *********

38 WEST 26TH STREET: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 38 West 26th Street
Restaurant Corp. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. 38 West 26th
Street Restaurant Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07926 (S.D.
N.Y., Aug. 23, 2019).

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

38 West 26th Street Restaurant Corp. is a Brewpub crafting unique
beers, cocktails & eclectic global grub in hip digs with a beer
cellar.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
     The Marks Law Firm PC
     175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
     New York, NY 10014
     Phone: (646) 770-3775
     Fax: (646) 867-2639
     Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


3M COMPANY: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against 3M Company (NYSE:  MMM) and certain of its officers.   The
class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
District of New Jersey, and indexed under 19-cv-17090, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded 3M
securities between February 9, 2017 and May 28, 2019, inclusive
(the "Class Period") against 3M, its current and former Chief
Executive Officer ("CEO"), and its Chief Financial Officer ("CFO")
for violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder (17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5) by engaging in a scheme to
defraud investors and issuing false and misleading statements to
conceal the truth about the Company's exposure to legal liability
associated with its most lucrative product offerings: man-made
chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").

If you are a shareholder who purchased 3M securities during the
class period, you have until September 27, 2019, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

3M is an American multinational conglomerate corporation that
produces a variety of chemical substances and related products.
3M's most lucrative product has been PFAS.  PFAS are characterized
by bonds between carbon and fluorine that are among the strongest
in organic chemistry.  PFAS are man-made chemicals that come in
5,000 or more varieties and are used in industrial and consumer
products, including non-stick cookware, water-repellent clothing,
camping gear, shoes, stain resistant fabrics, textiles and carpets,
cosmetics, surfactants for electronics manufacturing, and products
that resist grease, water, and oil, such as coated papers for
fast-food takeout.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, 3M and certain
of its officers made materially false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding 3M's
business and operations.  Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose the extent of the Company's exposure to legal liability
associated with 3M's most lucrative product offerings: man-made
chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
While publicly denying that PFAS cause harm to humans and the
environment, defendants concealed and misrepresented: (i) 3M's vast
internal evidence dating back decades confirming that PFAS are
toxic (which was first publicly revealed in February 2018 by
Minnesota's Attorney General); (ii) 3M's decades-long history of
suppressing negative information and/or damaging data about PFAS;
and (iii) 3M's legal exposure to state, county, and local
governments and individuals around the country as a result of its
knowledge and intentional concealment of the toxic harm caused by
the use of PFAS.  These omissions and misrepresentations caused
3M's stock price to trade at artificially inflated prices of as
high as $258 per share during the Class Period.

On April 25, 2019, 3M announced its first quarter 2019 financial
results, acknowledging that the first quarter of 2019 "'was a
disappointing start to the year for 3M'" and disclosing that on top
of the "$1.16 per share impact" already recorded in the first
quarter of 2018 related to the settlement of a lawsuit brought by
the State of Minnesota, 3M had "recorded significant
litigation-related pre-tax charges of $548 million, or $0.72 per
share" in the first quarter 2019 for additional PFAS liability.  3M
also announced that it was cutting 2,000 jobs and trimming fiscal
year 2019 capital expenditures, including on manufacturing, in
addition to accelerating other cost control reductions it said were
already underway.  On this news, the price of 3M common stock
declined nearly 13%.

Then on May 29, 2019, New Hampshire filed two lawsuits against 3M
and others for PFAS contamination. New Hampshire's Attorney General
said the goal was to recoup damages for the PFAS contamination that
had been found in all ten New Hampshire counties, noting that, in
towns like Merrimack and Portsmouth, the contamination had put
hundreds of families on bottled water.  On this news, the price of
3M common stock declined from its close of $163.35 per share on May
28, 2019 to trade as low as $160.50 per share in intraday trading
and close at $161.40 per share on May 29, 2019.

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

Contact:

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


ACCESS BIO: Summary Judgment in Perez Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, FELIX PEREZ, KARINA MARROQUIN, MARIA BARAHONE,
ESPERANZA BARAHONE, GABRIELLA HERNANDEZ, and GRACIE Y. RIVERA,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ACCESS BIO, INC., Defendant-Respondent,
and OLYMPUS MANAGEMENT SERVICES (f/k/a ATLANTIS PERSONNEL, INC. and
AM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.), Defendants, Case No. A-3071-16T4
(N.J. Super. App. Div.), the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Appellate Division, affirmed the Oct. 24, 2014 order of the Law
Division denying in part the Plaintiffs' request for class
certification of their claims of violations of the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Law ("WHL") and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("WPL"),
as well as the trial court's Feb. 6, 2015 order granting summary
judgment in favor of Defendant Access Bio, and its March 20, 2015
and Dec. 12, 2016 orders denying their motions for
reconsideration.

Access Bio manufactures diagnostic medical tests at its Somerset
facility.  On Jan. 1, 2012, it entered into a staffing agreement
with defendant Atlantis Personnel Inc., alos known as AM
Professional Services, Inc., a staffing agency, to provide
temporary staffing services to Access Bio.  Defendant Olympus
Management Services is the successor in interest to Atlantis
Personnel.

Pursuant to the agreement, it was the Agency Defendants'
responsibility to recruit, screen, interview, and assign its
employees to work at Access Bio's facility.  The Agency Defendants
were also responsible for processing the necessary tax and
employment eligibility forms for the Assigned Personnel.  Access
Bio, on the other hand, was responsible for supplying safe working
conditions to the Assigned Personnel, advising them of safety
procedures, and instructing them on the services they were
performing.

For several years beginning in 2010, the Plaintiffs were employed
by the Agency Defendants and assigned to work at the Access Bio
facility.  They performed various tasks, including but not limited
to: cleaning, removing trash, moving materials, assembling, working
on the production line, manual counting, and packing medical
devices in plastic.  Idania Caseres, an Agency Defendants employee,
supervised the Plaintiffs at Access Bio's facility.  Access Bio
employees instructed Caseres daily with respect to the tasks to be
performed by the Plaintiffs, many of whom spoke only Spanish.
Caseres, who is bilingual, translated the instructions for the
Plaintiffs.  Caseres performed the same function when the
Plaintiffs were trained.

In 2012, the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce
Development ("DOL") audited the Agency Defendants' wage and payment
practices.  The DOL concluded that the Agency Defendants were the
Assigned Personnel's employers and had underpaid the Assigned
Personnel $164,333.32 in overtime wages in violation of the WHL and
WPL.  The DOL awarded the Plaintiffs the following amounts from the
Agency Defendants: Perez, $1,131.39; Marroquin, $467; Maria
Barahone, $1,027.73; Esperanza Barahone, $753.08; Hernandez,
$885.68; and Rivera, $933.19.  Some Plaintiffs refused to accept
their checks for back wages.  In addition, the DOL imposed a
$351,000 penalty on the Agency Defendants.

The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint in the Law
Division against Access Bio and the Agency Defendants, alleging
violations of the WHL and WPL.  They alleged that they, and all
similarly situated persons, were: (1) incorrectly categorized as
employees of only the Agency Defendants and not of both the Agency
Defendants and Access Bio; (2) forced to take the Agency
Defendants' transportation to and from the Access Bio facility, the
cost of which was improperly withheld from their paychecks; (3) not
compensated for their time waiting for the mandatory transportation
to and from the Access Bio facility; and (4) denied overtime pay.

On Oct. 24, 2014, the trial court entered an order denying class
certification as to the Plaintiffs' overtime claims because 345 out
of the 351 potential class members were made whole by the
administrative efforts of the DOL, negating the numerosity
requirement of Rule 4:32-1.  It granted class certification as to
the Plaintiffs' claims related to compelled transportation.

On Dec. 11, 2014, Access Bio moved for summary judgment in its
favor on all claims.  The court concluded that under the facts of
this case, there is no way that Access Bio could prevent violations
of either the WHL or the WPL relating to the Plaintiffs.  Thus, on
Feb. 6, 2015, the court entered an order granting summary judgment
to Access Bio and dismissing all claims against it.

The Plaintiffs thereafter moved for reconsideration of the Feb. 6,
2015 order.  On April 8, 2016, they filed a second motion for
reconsideration of the Feb. 6, 2015 order and also moved for
summary judgment in their favor.

After granting Access Bio's request to sever the two motions, the
trial court, on Dec. 12, 2016, issued an oral opinion denying the
Plaintiffs' second reconsideration motion.  The trial court's
denial of their second motion for reconsideration left Access Bio
as a dismissed party, mooting the Plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment.  The court, therefore, did not decide that motion.

On Jan. 25, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal
without prejudice of all claims alleged against the Agency
Defendants.  At their, on March 3, 2017, the court entered a final
judgment.

The appeal followed.  The Plaintiffs argue: (1) the trial court
erred in granting summary judgment to Access Bio because it applied
the Enterprise test to determine if Access Bio was plaintiffs'
joint employer when the test set forth in Hargrove controls; and
(2) assuming that Hargrove does not control, the trial court erred
in concluding as a matter of law that Access Bio was not a joint
employer of plaintiffs under the Enterprise test.  In its
opposition brief, Access Bio argues that the Plaintiffs
manufactured appellate jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders
of the trial court by dismissing their claims against the Agency
Defendants without prejudice.

The Court holds that the Plaintiffs' argument that the trial court
applied an incorrect legal standard to determine whether Access Bio
was the Plaintiffs' joint employer is without merit.
Reconsideration of the trial court's order granting summary
judgment to Access Bio, therefore, was correctly denied.

In addition, after reviewing the record, the Court is convinced
that the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Access
Bio is well supported.  Access Bio did not have the authority to
hire or fire plaintiffs and had no control over the amount and
method of their compensation, benefits, and withholdings for taxes,
workers' compensation, and unemployment.  The Court agrees with the
trial court that the fact that Access Bio employees instructed
Caseres on daily tasks to be performed by the Plaintiffs does not
rise to the level of control necessary to be an employer.  It is
instead indicative of Access Bio attempting to ensure that the work
performed by the Plaintiffs at its facility was done correctly and
safely.  The record contains no evidence on which a reasonable
finder of fact could conclude that Access Bio had control over
plaintiffs sufficient to be their joint employer.

The Court therefore affirmed the trial court's Feb. 6, 2015 order
granting summary judgment to Access Bio on all claims, and its Dec.
12, 2016 order denying the Plaintiffs' motions for reconsideration.
In light of our decision affirming the trial court's conclusion
that Access Bio was not the Plaintiffs' joint employer, the
Plaintiffs' appeal of the trial court's Oct. 24, 2014 order denying
in part their motion for class certification is moot.

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

Ravi Sattiraju -- rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com -- argued the
cause for appellants (The Sattiraju Law Firm, PC, attorneys; Ravi
Sattiraju, of counsel and on the brief; Anthony S. Almeida and
Carole L. Nowicki, on the brief).

Micala Campbell Robinson -- robinsonmi@gtlaw.com -- argued the
cause for respondent (Greenberg Traurig, LLP, attorneys; Jason H.
Kislin -- kislinj@gtlaw.com -- and Micala Campbell Robinson, of
counsel and on the brief).


ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Rosi Class Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Linda Rosi v. Aclaris
Therapeutics, Inc. et al.

On July 30, 2019, plaintiff Linda Rosi  (the "Plaintiff") filed a
purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of
its executive officers  (the "Defendants"), alleging violations by
the Defendants of certain federal securities laws.

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made misleading statements to
investors about the Company's business, operations and prospects
and failed to disclose an alleged likelihood that regulators would
scrutinize advertising materials related to ESKATA and find that
the materials minimized the risks or overstated the efficacy of the
product.  

Plaintiff is seeking unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of
herself and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's securities between May 8, 2018, and June 20,
2019.

Defendants dispute the Plaintiff's claims and intend to defend the
matter vigorously.  

Aclaris Therapeutics said, "The Company is unable to determine any
potential liability or financial exposure which may be associated
with this matter at this time."

Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., incorporated on July 13, 2012, is a
dermatologist-led, biopharmaceutical company. The Company is
focused on identifying, developing and commercializing
differentiated drugs for the treatment of dermatological
indications. The company is based in Wayne, Pennsylvania.


ADVANCED PLUMBING: Carwoola Bushfire Class Suit Has Go Signal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Williams, writing for The Canberra Times in Australia,
reports that homeowners who had their properties destroyed in the
2017 Carwoola bushfires have a chance at receiving compensation
thanks to a recent NSW Supreme Court decision.

However, one homeowner who lost everything says while money from
the class action would help, "it'll never replace the loss".

The fire was started when two workers for the company Advanced
Plumbing and Drains were using a power cutter which sent sparks
into nearby grass at a Carwoola property.

While the company had public liability insurance through insurance
giant CGU, the insurance company had sought to deny liability.

It argued, in part, that because the work was being carried out at
the property of the plumbing company's owner it was not part of its
regular business for which it was covered.

Also, the men had been using the power cutter to cut reinforcing
steel for a retaining wall and not for the installation of plumbing
which was the company's usual work and therefore wasn't covered,
CGU argued.

The insurance policy also held a clause that it did not cover
welding, which CGU argued also indemnified it from being liable.

However, Justice Stephen Campbell of the NSW Supreme Court found
there was an argument that CGU was liable for the actions of
Advanced Plumbing and Drains' two workers that day.

He found the fact it was on the owner's property did not preclude
it from being covered and that the tool used did not meet the
welding caveat.

Regional Victorian firm Maddens Lawyers is preparing a class action
on behalf of those affected by the Carwoola bushfire and the
company said Justice Campbell's decision was a "green light" to
move forward.

Kevin Lindley and his wife Vanessa lost everything when the fire
tore through their property.

On top of their home, the pair had run a successful mechanical
repair business for 28 years, specialising in heavy machinery.

Mr Lindley lost all his tools and a seven-bay storage compactus
worth of documents and manuals that represented decades of
knowledge.

The couple were covered by nine different insurance policies and
had to battle for two years to get the companies to pay out a
cent.

"They just string you along," Mr Lindley said.

"You're having to re-live the whole experience."

The Lindleys originally did not join the class action as their
insurers told them if they received a payout the insurers would
make a claim against them to pay back the original payout.

However, the insurer later changed their stance and the couple
could join the suit.

Mr Lindley said they joined the action to help cover things that
their personal payout did not extend to, to help get them back on
their feet.

"Five or 10 per cent of something real is better than 100 per cent
of nothing," he said.

"But it still won't put our world together again."

He said he knew of other people in the Carwoola community who had
experienced divorce due to stress caused by the aftermath of the
fire and people who had moved away because they could not bear to
remain. [GN]


ALDI INC: Ice Cream Has Less Vanilla, Weber-Lugo Says
-----------------------------------------------------
Jami Weber-Lugo, Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Aldi Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-04861 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2019), contends that the
Defendant's vanilla-flavored ice cream products misleadingly claim
that they derive the entirety of their flavor from vanilla and
overstate the amount and/or the percentage of vanilla,
individually, and compared to the overall flavor component.

The presence of flavor not derived from vanilla is inconsistent
with vanilla ice cream as expected by consumers and required by
law, the lawsuit contends.

Aldi Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells ice
cream and novelties labeled as types of, or containing vanilla ice
cream under its Sundae Shoppe and Belmont Ice Cream (including
Premium and Light varieties) brands.

The Products are available to consumers nationwide from one or more
of the following: Aldi grocery stores, third-party retailers,
including brick and mortar and online stores, directly from
defendant's website in sizes.

The Products are represented as vanilla light ice cream on the
labels, in point-of-sale marketing, retailers' display ads and
promotions, websites, television and/or radio ads.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

ALLERGAN PLC: Class Cert. Bid in Loestrin Direct Buyers Suit Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that court overseeing the Loestrin(R) 24
litigation recently granted the direct purchaser plaintiffs' class
certification motion.  The court has yet to rule on the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs' class motion.

Putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers as well as
opt-out direct purchasers have filed complaints that have been
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode
Island.

The lawsuits allege that subsidiaries of the Company engaged in
anticompetitive conduct, including when settling patent lawsuits
related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe, in violation of federal and state
antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek
declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.

The court recently granted the direct purchaser plaintiffs' class
certification motion and has yet to rule on the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' class motion.  

Summary judgement briefs are now fully briefed.

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International. The company was formerly known as
Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015.
Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Denial of Class Cert. in Celexa/Lexapro Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit has affirmed the denial of the class
certification motions but reversed the lower court's decision
granting the defendants' summary judgment motions in
Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) related suit.

Certain subsidiaries of the Company were named in federal court
actions relating to the promotion of Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R)
all of which were consolidated in an MDL proceeding in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Most of these
claims were resolved through a settlement in September 2014.

However, two lawsuits remain which assert claims under the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act. The
court had entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants in
both actions and denied plaintiffs' class certification motions.

Plaintiffs in both cases appealed the dismissal of their claims and
denial of class certification to the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit and the appeals court issued a decision in
January 2019 affirming the denial of the class certification
motions but reversing the lower court's decision granting the
defendants' summary judgment motions.

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

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International. The company was formerly known as
Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015.
Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery Ongoing Restasis(R) Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in the Restasis(R)
Class Action Litigation.

Several class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers of Restasis(R) alleging that
subsidiaries of the company harmed competition by engaging in
conduct to delay the market entry of generic versions of
Restasis(R) in violation of the federal antitrust laws as well as
state antitrust and consumer-protection laws and unjust enrichment.


The cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey. All plaintiffs seek damages, declaratory
relief, and injunctive relief.

The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International. The company was formerly known as
Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015.
Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Dismissal of Generic Drug Pricing Suit Challenged
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the ERISA plaintiffs have taken an appeal
to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals from a district court's
decision granting the company's motion to dismiss the complaint in
the Generic Drug Pricing Securities and the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) Litigation.

Putative classes of shareholders and two individual opt-out
plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers alleging that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements between February
2014 and November 2016 regarding the Company's internal controls
over its financial reporting and that it failed to disclose that
its former Actavis generics unit had engaged in illegal,
anticompetitive price-fixing with its generic industry peers.

These lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey. The complaints seek unspecified
monetary damages.  

On April 11, 2019, the court heard oral arguments on the Company's
motion to dismiss the complaint.

In addition, class action complaints have been filed premised on
the same alleged underlying conduct that is at issue in the
securities litigation but that assert claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). These complaints
have been consolidated in the district court in New Jersey.

The court granted the Company's motion to dismiss this complaint.
The ERISA plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International. The company was formerly known as
Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015.
Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Offers of Judgment Made in Asacol(R) Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that defendants made offers of judgment to the
three remaining individual plaintiffs in the Asacol(R) Litigation,
pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures which
the plaintiffs have accepted.

Class action complaints have been filed against certain
subsidiaries of the Company on behalf of putative classes of direct
and indirect purchasers. The lawsuits have been consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaints allege that plaintiffs paid higher prices for
Asacol(R) HD and Delzicol(R) as a result of alleged actions
preventing or delaying generic competition in the market for an
older Asacol(R) product in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws
and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief,
treble damages and/or attorneys' fees.

The Company has settled the claims brought by the direct purchaser
plaintiffs.

While the district court granted the indirect purchaser plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, the Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit later issued a decision reversing the lower court's
decision on class certification.

The appellate court denied plaintiffs' motion for rehearing en banc
and remanded the case back to the District Court where the court
denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification.  

Recently, defendants made offers of judgment to the three remaining
individual plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedures which the plaintiffs have accepted. The Rule 68
letters have been presented to the court so that it can enter final
judgment in these cases.

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International. The company was formerly known as
Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015.
Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Shire Class Action Stayed Until Dec. 27
-----------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the court has entered an order staying
the class action suit initiated by Shire through December 27,
2019.

Shire, which offers the dry-eye disease drug Xiidra(R), sued
subsidiaries of the Company in U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey alleging that defendants unlawfully harmed
competition by foreclosing Xiidra(R) from sales to Medicare Part D
plans (and the members of such plans) through the use of discounts
(a) contingent on Restasis(R) receiving preferential formulary
treatment; and/or (b) across a bundle of Allergan's products,
including Restasis(R).

The complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages under federal and
state law.

The court issued a decision on March 22, 2019 granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 25, 2019,
Shire filed an amended complaint. Defendants have moved to dismiss
the amended complaint. At the request of the parties, the court
entered an Order on June 28, 2019, staying the action through
December 27, 2019.

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International. The company was formerly known as
Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015.
Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Suit vs. Warner Chilcott Marketing Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that a court has granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in the class action suit related to
Warner Chilcott Marketing Practices.

A putative nationwide class of private payer entities, or their
assignees, that paid Medicare benefits on behalf of their
beneficiaries filed a complaint against certain subsidiaries of the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The complaint asserts claims under the federal The Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) statute, state
consumer protection statutes, common law fraud, and unjust
enrichment with respect to the sale and marketing of certain
products.

The Court recently granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International. The company was formerly known as
Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015.
Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Trial in Namenda(R) Litigation to be Bifurcated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the court overseeing the case, Namenda(R)
Litigation, has granted defendants' motion to bifurcate the trial
into separate phases.

In 2014, the State of New York filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Forest
was acting to prevent or delay generic competition to Namenda(R) in
violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and committed
other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial plans for
Namenda(R) XR.

The district court granted the state's motion for a preliminary
injunction which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit. The parties in that case then reached a settlement
to resolve the dispute.

Following the conclusion of the New York Attorney General Matter,
putative class actions were filed on behalf of direct and indirect
purchasers in the same federal court. The class action complaints
make claims similar to those asserted by the New York Attorney
General and also include claims that Namenda(R) patent litigation
settlements between a Company subsidiary and generic companies also
violated the antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive
relief, treble damages and attorneys' fees.

The court has denied defendants' motion for summary judgement in
the direct purchaser action, certified the direct purchaser class
of plaintiffs and set a trial date for October 2019.  

The court granted defendants' motion to bifurcate the trial into
separate phases in which the claims relating to the patent
litigation settlements will be tried to verdict followed by the
claims relating to Forest's plans for Namenda XR.

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International. The company was formerly known as
Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015.
Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


AMB RANCH MANAGEMENT: Sirilo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMB RANCH MANAGEMENT
INC. et al. The case is styled as EULALIA HERNANDEZ SIRILO, AS AN
INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff v. AMB RANCH MANAGEMENT INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,
WONDERFUL CITRUS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
WONDERFUL CITRUS PACKING LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-102385 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
Cty., Aug. 23, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited".

Amb Ranch Management, Inc is in the Farm Management Services
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     PAUL K. HAINES, ESQ.
     Retained


AMERICAN FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss St. Clair-Hibbard Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss the class action lawsuit initiated by Carolyn St.
Clair-Hibbard is still pending.

On February 8, 2018, Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard, a purported
stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, Nicholas S.
Schorsch and William M. Kahane.

On February 23, 2018, the complaint was amended to, among other
things, assert some claims on the plaintiff's own behalf and other
claims on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
shareholders of the Company as a class. On April 26, 2018,
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

On May 25, 2018, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The
second amended complaint alleges that the proxy materials used to
solicit stockholder approval of the Merger at the Company’s 2017
annual meeting were materially incomplete and misleading.

The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act against the Company, as well as control person liability
against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane
under 20(a).

It also asserts state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against the Advisor, and claims for aiding and abetting such
breaches, of fiduciary duty against the Advisor, AR Global and
Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, rescission of the
Company's advisory agreement (or severable portions thereof) which
became effective when the Merger became effective, and a
declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the Company's
advisory agreement are void.

The Company believes the second amended complaint is without merit
and intends to defend vigorously. On June 22, 2018, defendants
moved to dismiss the second amended complaint.

On August 1, 2018, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants'
motions to dismiss. Defendants filed reply papers on August 22,
2018, and oral argument was held on September 26, 2018. That motion
is now pending.

American Finance said, "Due to the early stage of the litigation,
no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses
are determinable at this time."

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.


AMERICAN FINANCE: Plaintiffs' Bid for Rehearing En Banc Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has denied plaintiffs' Petition for
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, in the Maryland class action
suit.

On January 13, 2017, four affiliated stockholders of  Retail
Centers of America, Inc. (RCA) filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland a putative class action lawsuit
against RCA, the Company, Edward M. Weil, Jr., Leslie D. Michelson,
Edward G. Rendell (Weil, Michelson and Rendell, the "Director
Defendants"), and AR Global, alleging violations of Sections 14(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by RCA
and the Director Defendants, violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by AR Global and the Director Defendants, breaches of
fiduciary duty by the Director Defendants, and aiding and abetting
breaches of fiduciary duty by AR Global and the Company in
connection with the negotiation of and proxy solicitation for a
shareholder vote on what was at the time the proposed Merger and an
amendment to RCA's charter.

The complaint sought on behalf of the putative class rescission of
the Merger, which was voted on and approved by RCA stockholders on
February 13, 2017, and closed on February 16, 2017, together with
unspecified rescissory damages, unspecified actual damages, and
costs and disbursements of the action. RCA was sponsored and
advised by affiliates of the Advisor.

On April 26, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff. Lead
plaintiff, along with other stockholders of RCA, filed an amended
complaint on June 19, 2017.

The amended complaint named additional individuals and entities as
defendants (David Gong, Stanley Perla, Lisa Kabnick, all of whom
were independent directors of the Company at the time of the Merger
("Additional Director Defendants"), Nicholas Radesca, the Company's
chief financial officer at the time of the Merger and RCA’s
advisor), added counts alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act in connection with the Registration
Statement for the proposed merger, under Section 13(e) of the
Exchange Act, and counts for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.

The Company, RCA, the Director Defendants, the Additional Director
Defendants and Nicholas Radesca deny wrongdoing and liability and
intend to vigorously defend the action. On August 14, 2017,
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
.
On March 29, 2018, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
and dismissed the amended complaint. On April 26, 2018, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court’s order. On
March 11, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the
complaint.

On March 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing
and Rehearing En Banc, which was subsequently denied on April 9,
2019.

American Finance Trust said, "Due to the stage of the litigation,
no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonable possible losses
are determinable at this time. No provisions for such losses have
been recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements
for the six months ended June 30, 2019 or 2018."

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

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.


AMERICAN FINANCE: Terry Hibbard Class Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Terry
Hibbard.

On October 26, 2018, Terry Hibbard, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State
Supreme Court, New York County, against the Company, AR Global, the
Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil,
Jr., Nicholas Radesca, David Gong, Stanley R. Perla, and Lisa D.
Kabnick.  

The complaint alleges that the registration statement pursuant to
which Retail Centers of America, Inc. (RCA) shareholders acquired
shares of the Company during the Merger contained materially
incomplete and misleading information.  

The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act against Messrs. Weil, Radesca, Gong, and Perla, and Ms.
Kabnick, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
against the Company and Mr. Weil, and control person liability
against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane
under Section 15 of the Securities Act.  

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and rescission of the
Company's sale of stock pursuant to the registration statement.

The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
defend vigorously.

American Finance said, "Due to the early stage of the litigation,
no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses
are determinable at this time."

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

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.


ANDREA ROSEN GALLERY: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andrea Rosen Gallery,
Inc. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Andrea Rosen Gallery,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07939 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 23,
2019).

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

Andrea Rosen Gallery is an art gallery in New York City, founded by
Andrea Rosenin 1990. The gallery specializes in contemporary and
modern art, representing an international group of established and
emerging artists, as well as historical artist estates.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANGLO AMERICAN: Potential Class-Action Over Zambia Lead Poisoning
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Stoddard, writing for Maverick, reports that London-based Anglo
American PLC might soon face another class-action lawsuit for past
corporate practices -- this time over lead poisonings in Zambia,
where Anglo had a long-standing presence before the government of
Kenneth Kuanda went on a nationalisation binge.

Johannesburg-based attorneys Mbuyisa Moleele, Esq. and London-based
human rights law firm Leigh Day are preparing the case and an
application to certify a class action will be filed in the
Johannesburg High Court. This is a necessary first step in a class
action.

The case stems from health issues linked to Kabwe, which Leigh Day
said in a statement was once the world's largest lead mines and
operated from around 1915 until its closure in 1994. The law firm
said Anglo owned and operated the mine from 1925 to 1974.

"The mine is situated in close proximity to villages comprising
around 230,000 residents. Tens of thousands of Kabwe residents are
estimated to have developed high blood-lead levels, mainly through
ingestion of dust contaminated by emissions from the mine smelter
and waste dumps. A series of published reports have found very high
levels of lead in the blood of a substantial proportion of the
local population, in particular very young children," the law firm
said.

(A report was also published on Friday 23 August by Human Rights
Watch, titled "‘We Have to Be Worried': The Impact of Lead
Contamination on Children's Rights in Kabwe, Zambia".)

"It is alleged that from 1925 to 1974, Anglo American SA played a
key role in the management of the medical, engineering and other
technical services at the mine and that it failed to take adequate
steps to prevent lead poisoning of the local residents," Leigh Day
said in the statement.

In response, Anglo American said it was never the majority owner
and was one of a number of investors involved in the operation.

The company stated: "Anglo American was one of a number of
investors in the company that owned the Kabwe mine. Anglo American
was, however, at all times, far from being a majority owner. In the
early 1970s the company that owned the mine was nationalised by the
government of Zambia and for more than 20 years thereafter the mine
was operated by a state-owned body until its closure in 1994.

"We were concerned to learn of the situation at Kabwe as reported
by the press, but since the nationalisation more than 40 years ago
effectively placed these issues under the control of the Zambian
government, we are not in a position to comment further about the
matter, but we certainly don't believe that Anglo American is in
any way responsible for the current situation."

There is precedent for a class action related to health and mining
succeeding in South Africa. In July this year, the Johannesburg
High Court approved a R5-billion class action settlement between
gold mining companies and law firms representing thousands of
miners who contracted fatal lung diseases silicosis and
tuberculosis.

It was a very long battle, launched in 2012. Anglo American was
forced to be part of the settlement even though, at the time of the
case, it no longer owned gold mines. But Anglo did own a stake in
what is now AngloGold Ashanti at one time and so became one of six
companies forced to pay up. [GN]


APPLE INC: 'Radiation Scandal' Attracts Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Zak Doffman, writing for Forbes, reports that in the least
surprising news of the week, lawyers have already filed a class
action lawsuit against Apple and Samsung, following revelations
this week that the radiation emitted by smartphones from both
manufacturers exceed safety standards—at least according to tests
commissioned by the Chicago Tribune.

The tests, reported the newspaper, "conducted according to federal
guidelines at an accredited lab," found that "radio-frequency
radiation exposure from the iPhone 7—one of the most popular
smartphones ever sold—measured over the legal safety limit and
more than double what Apple reported to federal regulators from its
own testing."

Meanwhile, "the three Samsung phones tested by the Tribune," met
safety limits at all distances except 2mm from the body, "to
represent a device being used while in a pocket," at which point
"the exposures measured well over the standard."

The lawsuit was filed on Friday [August 23] in the the Northern
District of California, despite assurances that the products are
safe, the lawsuit claims, "recent testing of the defendants'
products shows that the potential exposure for an owner carrying
the phone in a pants or shirt pocket was over the exposure limit,
sometimes far exceeding it—in some instances by 500%."

The lawsuit sets out the marketing assurances as to the safety and
use cases of the devices, seeking to show that if the devices are
used as recommended, then this latest testing puts users at risk of
medical harm. "Carry your smartphone in your back pocket? Of
course, say the defendants. Use your smartphone to conduct a
sonogram of your unborn child in utero? That's ok too, according to
Samsung."

Citing "numerous recent scientific publications," the lawsuit
claims users are putting themselves at "increased cancer risk...
genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the
reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological
disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans."

While the lawsuit sets out various studies and recommendations, it
is clearly reliant on the testing performed by California's RF
Exposure Lab for the Chicago Tribune. Findings which have promoted
the FCC to confirm it will conduct its own testing "over the coming
months." You're getting the sense of urgency here.

There is no reason to panic. Smartphones are significantly safer
than they used to be, and the manufacturers have taken issue with
the test protocols used in this instance—Apple described those as
"inaccurate due to the test setup not being in accordance with
procedures necessary to properly assess the iPhone models."

There is also significant debate as to what the test results
actually mean in practice. Phones behave differently when held then
when left "free," which is why some advice has been not to make
calls using phones left in pockets close to the body.

The Chicago Tribune acknowledges that its testing "was not meant to
rank phone models for safety -- nor is it possible to know whether
any of the cellphones that tested above limits could cause harm.
Two of the phone manufacturers, including Apple, disputed the
Tribune's results, saying the lab used by the newspaper had not
tested the phones the same way they do."

There are no reported medically established links between
cellphones and cancer.

But the news will run and the lawyers will file. In this instance,
the defendants are being sued for "negligence, breach of warranty,
consumer fraud and unjust enrichment, seeking actual damages, the
costs of medical monitoring, restitution and injunctive relief."

If the phones have breached safety standards and manufacturer
reported test results, that's bad news for consumers. And what is
certainly needed is more data and then significantly more
information as to what the implications might be.

The Chicago Tribune makes the same point, "the results of the
investigation contribute to an ongoing debate about the possible
risks posed by radiofrequency radiation from cellphones, and they
offer evidence that existing federal standards may not be adequate
to protect the public."

In the meantime, expect more lawsuits to follow. [GN]


APPLE INC: Class Suit Filed for Old iPhones Who Lost FaceTime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple reports that a new consumer class action against
Apple was brought by plaintiff Austin Belanger, a senior airman in
the Unites States Air Force and a citizen of Florida. This consumer
class action is brought forward by Belanger on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated Florida residents who owned an
Apple iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S that was operating on iOS 6 or an
earlier operating system, and therefore lost the ability to use
Apple's "FaceTime" video conferencing feature when Apple
intentionally broke FaceTime for iOS 6 and earlier operating
systems on April 16, 2014.

In the formal complaint Belanger notes that "There are two types of
ways that participants in a FaceTime call can exchange audio/video
media: (1) the so-called "peer-to-peer method," where a direct
connection is formed between the caller and the callee; and (2) the
so-called "relay method," where the caller and the callee connect
to a relay server that relays the data on behalf of the devices.

During the period relevant to this action, the servers used by
Apple for relaying FaceTime calls were owned by a company called
Akamai Technologies, Inc. ("Akamai"). Unlike peer-to-peer FaceTime
calls, Apple made significant payments to Akamai for "relay usage"
(i.e., bandwidth) on Akamai's servers.

Prior to November 7, 2012, approximately 90-95% of FaceTime calls
were connected through the peer-to-peer method, and only 5-10%
through the relay method. Thus, Apple's relay usage -- and the
expense to Apple arising therefrom -- were relatively low.

On November 7, 2012, however, a jury found that Apple's
peer-to-peer method of connecting FaceTime calls infringed on
patents held by VirnetX, Inc. ("VirnetX"). The only way for Apple
to avoid knowingly and intentionally continuing its infringement on
VirnetX's patents was to shift 100% of FaceTime call volume to the
relay method.

Upon shifting 100% of FaceTime call volume to the relay method,
Apple's relay usage soared. As a result, Apple began to incur
multi-million-dollar monthly charges for its use of Akamai's
servers. Therefore, as internal Apple emails reveal, Apple
undertook a concerted effort to find a way to reduce its relay
usage by reducing the volume of FaceTime calls connected through
the relay method. Indeed, an internal Apple email chain circulated
during this time period bore the subject "Ways to Reduce Relay
Usage," and explored potential strategies for doing so.

On September 13, 2013, potential relief from Apple's high relay
usage fees arrived. On that day, Apple introduced iOS 7, a next
generation operating system that could connect FaceTime calls
through the peer-to-peer connection method in a way that had not
yet been found to infringe on VirnetX's patents. The introduction
of iOS 7 therefore helped Apple reduce its relay usage and the
resultant payments from Apple to Akamai.

More than seven months after the introduction of iOS 7, however,
millions of Apple users' devices still operated on iOS 6 or earlier
operating systems and thus could only be connected via FaceTime
through the relay method. Because of this, Apple was still amassing
significant relay usage and, therefore, facing substantial payment
obligations to Akamai.

Consequently, to further reduce its relay usage costs, Apple
devised a scheme to force millions of its users -- i.e., users
running iOS version 6 and earlier -- to stop using FaceTime on
their devices. As Apple's internal emails and sworn testimony at
the VirnetX trial revealed, Apple formulated a plan by which its
engineers caused a digital certificate necessary to the operation
of FaceTime on iOS 6 or an earlier operating system to prematurely
expire. Upon the expiration of that certificate, and as a direct
result of Apple's actions, the valuable FaceTime feature
immediately and abruptly stopped working for millions of users
running iOS 6 or an earlier operating system (the "FaceTime
Break"). To regain FaceTime capability, those users had to either
transition to iOS 7, or buy an entirely new Apple device with iOS 7
preinstalled.

Apple did this knowing that for millions of users, moving to iOS 7
was highly problematic because it was essentially incompatible with
certain Apple devices. For iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S users, for
example, the coerced move to iOS 7 subjected their devices to
slowness, system crashes, erratic behavior and/or the elimination
of their ability to use critical functions on their phone. As
succinctly stated in one of the media reports that discussed these
widespread functionality problems, "the older handsets buckle under
the weight of the new software." Thus, for millions of Apple's
customers, a move to iOS 7 would significantly harm the
functionality of their device.

In addition to recognizing these perils of moving certain Apple
devices to iOS 7, Apple more generally recognized the gravity of
its decision to implement the FaceTime Break. Indeed, in the days
leading up to the FaceTime Break, then-Apple Manager of Operating
System Security Jacques Vidrine ("Vidrine") sent an email to other
Apple personnel in which he highlighted the significance of what
the company planned to do, stating: "Let me just voice my concern
here. Maybe someone can talk me off the ledge by convincing me this
is not as big a deal as I think."

Unfortunately, Vidrine's appeal fell on deaf ears. In a disturbing
juxtaposition to Apple's marketing campaigns that highlighted the
life-changing importance of FaceTime to separated families,
deployed soldiers, hearing-impaired individuals and countless
others, Apple advanced its financial interests by intentionally
breaking FaceTime for millions of its users. Indeed, Apple
employees mocked the situation -- and the millions of users
unwittingly marching toward the FaceTime Break -- with a cartoon
that was circulated within Apple via email.

Apple selected April 16, 2014 as the day on which the FaceTime
Break would strike its customers. At the appointed time on that day
and without warning, millions of Apple user -- every user who had
not installed iOS 7 -- suddenly lost the ability to use FaceTime.

The public response to the unexpected and unexplained FaceTime
Break was swift and substantial, including numerous media reports
and vast customer outcry. Rather than revealing the truth about the
cause and impetus of the FaceTime Break, Apple claimed that
FaceTime had suffered a "bug," and that to regain the ability to
use FaceTime, users needed to transition their device to iOS 7.

Internal Apple emails eliminate any doubt that Apple intentionally
broke FaceTime, and did so in order to reduce relay usage and the
high costs related thereto. For example, weeks or months after the
FaceTime break, Apple engineering manager Patrick Gates ("Gates")
[no longer with Apple] sent the following email to various Apple
personnel: "Hey, guys. I'm looking at the Akamai contract for next
year. I understand we did something in April around iOS 6 to reduce
relay utilization." Apple engineer Gokul Thirumalai responded to
Gates, stating the following: "It was a big user of relay
bandwidth. We broke iOS 6, and the only way to get FaceTime working
again is to upgrade to iOS 7."

Following the FaceTime Break, millions of iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S
users whose devices were operating on iOS 6 or an earlier operating
system faced three options for continuing to use their device: (1)
remain on a pre-iOS 7 operating system, but without the ability to
use FaceTime; (2) transition to iOS 7, and accept the significant
reduction in functionality that their iPhone would suffer as a
result; or (3) purchase a new Apple device with the necessary
processing power to run iOS 7 without significantly reducing the
functionality of the device. To quote the colorful language used by
an Apple employee in an internal Apple email sent within hours of
the FaceTime Break, as a result of the break "our users on [iOS 6]
and before are basically screwed."  

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated consumers who, at the time of the April 16, 2014
FaceTime Break, owned an iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S that was running on
iOS 6 or an earlier operating system, and who therefore lost the
ability to use FaceTime on their devices. Plaintiff alleges
trespass to chattels and violations of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act."

Please note that Patently Apple added simple yellow highlighting
for emphasis along links to Linkedin regarding Apple employees for
verification purposes not found in the original court document.

Two-Count Class Action

The class action lists two counts against Apple as follows:

Count 1: Trespass to Personal Property under Florida Law

Count 2: Violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act [GN]


APPLE INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Over Siri Recordings
----------------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple posted a report titled "With Apple's Siri "Grading"
in the Privacy Spotlight, Apple Decides to Temporarily Suspend the
Practice." Apparently for some, that action came a little too late
and they've filed a four-count class action against Apple.

Summary of Allegations

This action arises from Defendant's unlawful and intentional
recording of individuals' confidential communications without their
consent from approximately October 2011 to the present.

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

Siri Devices are only supposed to record conversations preceded by
the utterance of "Hey Siri" (a "wake phrase") or through a specific
gesture, such as pressing the home button on a device for a
specified amount of time. California law prohibits the recording of
oral communications without the consent of all parties to the
communication. California's privacy laws recognize the unique
privacy interest implicated by the recording of someone's voice.
This privacy interest has been heightened by recent reports
government agencies of multiple countries are secretly collecting
voice samples with the aim of being able to "voiceprint" any living
person, and by the fact the private technology companies are
constantly searching for ways to acquire and exploit consumers'
personal information.

Individuals who have purchased or used Siri Devices and interacted
with Siri have not consented to Apple recording conversations where
"Hey Siri" was not uttered or where they did not otherwise perform
a gesture intending to activate Siri, such as pressing and holding
down the home button on a device for a certain period of time.
Similarly, minors who did not purchase Apple products or set them
up in their homes have not consented to these recordings.

On July 26, 2019, The Guardian reported that Apple had hired
contractors to review recordings made by Siri Devices and that many
recordings reviewed were made without the knowledge of the
individuals recorded. According to The Guardian's source, it is a
"regular" occurrence for Siri Devices to record nonconsenting
individuals where no wake phrase has been uttered or no button has
been pushed. The content of the unauthorized recordings made by
Siri Devices include, according to The Guardian's source,
"confidential medical information, drug deals, and the recordings
of couples having sex."

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

Apple has sold millions of Siri Devices to consumers during the
Class Period. Many of these consumers would not have bought their
Siri Devices if they had known Apple was recording their
conversations without consent.

Given the concealed and secretive nature of Defendant's conduct,
more evidence supporting the allegations in this Complaint will be
uncovered after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.

Causes for Action

Count 1: Violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act

Count 2: Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law

Count 3: Violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act

Count 4: Violation of the Declaratory Judgment Act [GN]


APPLE INC: Judge Tosses iPhone Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge dismissed
with prejudice a class action that claims Apple products are
vulnerable to hacking, as plaintiffs did not show that their
iPhones diminished in value or were degraded in performance.

A copy of the Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is
available at: https://tinyurl.com/y55txltc


ARAMARK CAMPUS: Buchanan Remanded to California State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division,
remanded the case, ROBERT BUCHANAN, Plaintiff, v. ARAMARK CAMPUS,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.19-cv-00384-VKD (N.D. Cal.), to
the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

Buchanan sues for himself and on behalf of a putative class (and
several subclasses) claiming that Defendants Aramark Campus, LLC
and Aramark Sports, LLC committed wage and hour violations contrary
to various provisions of the California Labor Code.  According to
his complaint, Mr. Buchanan was employed by the Defendants for
several years, first as a concessions worker, and then as a
concessions supervisor, at the Defendants' facilities and in
connection with their operations at the SAP Center in San Jose,
California.

Essentially, Mr. Buchanan claims that the Defendants did not pay
him for hours worked beyond his scheduled shift hours; did not
permit him to take legally required meal and rest breaks; failed to
maintain and provide accurate wage statements; and did not timely
pay all wages due upon termination of employment.  The putative
class members are individuals who, at any time from four years
prior to the filing of the lawsuit, were "employed as non-exempt,
hourly concessions managers in connection with the concessions
operations and services Defendants provide at facilities and venues
within the State of California."

Mr. Buchanan filed the action in the Santa Clara County Superior
Court on Dec. 10, 2018, asserting nine claims for relief: (1)
failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay wages and
overtime; (3) meal period liability; (4) rest-break liability; (5)
failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; (6) failure
to pay for all hours worked; (7) failure to timely pay all wages
earned; (8) failure to timely pay all wages due at termination; and
(9) unlawful and unfair business practices.

The Defendants answered Mr. Buchanan's complaint on Jan. 18, 2019
and subsequently removed the matter to the Court on Jan. 22, 2019,
asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a).
On Feb. 14, 2019, Mr. Buchanan filed a First Amended Complaint
("FAC"), adding a representative claim under the California Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), which provides for civil penalties
stemming from the Defendants' alleged conduct that violates the
California Labor Code.  The FAC acknowledges, but does not endorse,
the Defendants' assertion that diversity jurisdiction exists.  The
Defendants answered the FAC.

In the parties' joint case management statement, the Defendants
advised that on Jan. 7, 2019, in connection with a matter pending
before the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Mr.
Buchanan signed a general release of all claims against them.  The
Court directed the parties to brief the propriety of the
Defendants' removal to the Court and Mr. Buchanan's standing to
pursue the action.

The parties timely submitted their briefs, and the Court held a
hearing on the matter on June 4, 2019.  The Defendants maintain
that they properly removed the action based on diversity
jurisdiction, and that the matter must be dismissed in view of Mr.
Buchanan's general release.  Mr. Buchanan does not dispute that
complete diversity of citizenship exists.  However, he contends
that the matter must be remanded to the state court because the
Defendants have not met their burden to establish that the amount
in controversy exceeds the $75,000 threshold.  Assuming the Court
has diversity jurisdiction over the case, the parties disagree
whether Mr. Buchanan may pursue the PAGA claim.  

Upon consideration of the papers submitted, as well as the
arguments of the counsel, Magistrate Judge DeMarchi concludes that
the Defendants have not met their burden of establishing that the
amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold under 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(a).  Because the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the case, the Magistrate does not reach the
parties' arguments regarding Mr. Buchanan's standing to pursue at
least the PAGA claim.  The matter is remanded to the Santa Clara
County Superior Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/7v5R9N from Leagle.com.

Robert Buchanan, Plaintiff, represented by David Harmik Yeremian --
david@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian & Associates, Inc., Alvin
Brock Lindsay -- alvin@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian &
Associates, Inc. & Walter Lewis Haines -- whaines@uelg.com
-- United Employees Law Group, P.C.

Aramark Campus, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company & ARAMARK
Sports, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants,
represented by Christie Paulette Bahna, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Claire Marie Lesikar -- claire.lesikar@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP & Eric Meckley --
eric.meckley@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


ARGENT TRUST: Judge Tosses Class Action Over $198MM Stock Buy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a North Carolina federal judge has tossed a
proposed class action against Argent Trust co., holding that the
Choate Construction Co. employee who claimed Argent failed to
properly vet her company benefits plan's $198 million purchase of
allegedly overvalue stock misunderstood the nature of the
transaction. [GN]


ATLANTIC CREDIT: Franklin Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tanya Franklin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc., Midland Funding LLC,
and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:19-cv-03696-CAP-AJB (N.D. Ga., Aug.
16, 2019), arises from the Defendant's deceptive, misleading and
false debt collection practices, in violation of the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.

ACF is a "debt collector" as the phrase is defined in the FDCPA
with an address in Roanoke, Virginia.

Midland is a "debt collector" as the phrase is defined in the FDCPA
with an address in San Diego, California.  The identities of the
Doe Defendants are currently unknown.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan B. Mason, Esq.
          MASON LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1100 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 920-8040
          Facsimile: (404) 920-8039
          E-mail: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com


ATOSSA GENETICS: Court OKs Check Distribution in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington issued an Order authorizing Checks Distribution to
Authorized Claimants in the case captioned In re Atossa Genetics,
Inc. Securities Litigation. Civil Action No. 13-cv-01836-RSM. (W.D.
Wash.).

The funds that are currently in the Net Settlement Fund (less any
necessary amounts to be withheld for payment of potential tax
liabilities and related fees and expenses) shall be distributed on
a pro rata basis to the Authorized Claimants.

Any Claim received after May 19, 2019 shall be rejected as untimely
and (b) any responses to Deficiency Letters, Rejection Letters, and
Transaction Reports received after May 19, 2019 shall be rejected
as untimely.

The Court finds that the administration of the Settlement and
proposed distribution of the Net Settlement Fund comply with the
terms of the Stipulation and the Plan of Allocation and that all
persons involved in the review, verification, calculation,
tabulation, or any other aspect of the processing of the claims
submitted herein.

The checks for distribution to Authorized Claimants shall bear the
notation CASH PROMPTLY, VOID AND SUBJECT TO RE-DISTRIBUTION IF NOT
CASHED BY DATE 90 DAYS AFTER ISSUE DATE  Lead Counsel and The
court-appointed Claims Administrator, Rust are authorized to locate
and/or contact any Authorized Claimant who has not cashed his, her
or its check within said time.

Following distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, Rust is hereby
ordered to maintain the completed Proofs of Claims on file for
three years after the Effective Date as defined in the
Stipulation.

A copy full-text copy of the District Court's August 19, 2019
Opinion and Order is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y3fpl54s
from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Cook, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman,
POMERANATZ LLP, pro hac vice, Marc I. Gross, POMERANTZ LLP, pro hac
vice, Michael Jonathan Wernke, POMERANTZ LLP, 600 Third Avenue,
20th Floor New York, New York 10016, pro hac vice &Dan Drachler,
ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, 1904 3rd Ave Ste 1030, Seattle, WA
98101-1170

David Chobanian, Plaintiff, pro se.

Atossa Genetics, Inc. & Steven C. Quay, an individual, Defendants,
represented by Barry M. Kaplan -- bkaplan@wsgr.com -- WILSON
SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, Christopher M. Petroni --
cpetroni@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI & Gregory
Lewis Watts -- gwatts@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
ROSATI.


AVERY TECHNICAL: Robertson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARIAH ROBERTSON, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AVERY TECHNICAL RESOURCES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02409 (D. Colo., Aug. 23, 2019) is a
collective action seeking to recover the additional overtime wages
and other damages owed to these workers.

Avery Technical Resources, Inc., pays its hourly employees a daily
per diem in addition to an hourly rate of pay. The per diem
represents compensation that is primarily for the benefit and
convenience of Avery hourly employees. As a result, the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") requires that this type of compensation be
included in the calculation of the regular rate of pay for overtime
purposes. Because the per diem was not used in calculating the
regular rate of pay, Avery hourly employees were not properly
compensated at the FLSA overtime rate of one-and-one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty
hours in a single week, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Zachariah Robertson worked for Avery as an
hourly-employee during the relevant statutory time period.

Avery is an oilfield service company operating that "provides
quality inspection and project management services in today's
energy industry".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: 713-352-1100
     Facsimile: 713-352-3300
     Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
            adunlap@mybackwages.com

          - and -

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


B. RILEY FBR: Gottlieb Files Rule 4(d)(c) Statement
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARK GOTTLIEB, on his own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN
DUSKIN, SETH R. JOHNSON, KERI L. JONES, KENT A. KLEEBERGER, WILLIAM
F. SHARPE, III, JOEL WALLER, LAURA WEIL, B. RILEY FBR, INC., and B.
RILEY FINANCIAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2019-0639- (Chancery
Ct., State of Del., Aug. 14, 2019), Plaintiff filed a statement
pursuant to Chancery Court Rule 4 (d)(c) in connection with the
service of process pursuant to 10 Del. C. Section 3114 on
individual Defendants Jonathan Duskin, Seth R. Johnson, Keri L.
Jones, Kent A. Kleeberger, William F. Sharpe, III, Joel Waller and
Laura Weil.

According to the statement, Christopher & Banks Corporation is a
Delaware corporation headquartered at 2400 Xenium Lane North,
Plymouth, MN 55441. It's registered agent is National Registered
Agents, Inc., 160 Greentree Drive, Suite 101, Dover, DE 19904.

Individual Defendants are or were officers and/or directors of the
board. After a diligent  search, Plaintiff's counsel does not have
information at this time as to the residential addresses of the
Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
     COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
     The Brandywine Building
     1000 West Street, 10th Floor
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 984-3800

BABCOCK & WILCOX: Price Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8,
2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court
has granted the plaintiff's request to voluntarily dismiss the
class action suit entitled, Price v. Avril, et al., C.A. No.
2019-0393-JRS (Del. Ch.).

On May 28, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Board in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. The complaint is captioned Price v. Avril, et al., C.A.
No. 2019-0393-JRS (Del. Ch.).

The complaint asserted, among other things, that the Board breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose all material
information necessary for a fully-informed vote on certain of the
proposals presented for consideration at the annual meeting of the
Company's stockholders.

The plaintiff also filed a motion to preliminarily enjoin the
stockholder vote on the proposals unless and until all material
information regarding the proposals was disclosed to the Company's
stockholders.

The plaintiff withdrew her motion to preliminarily enjoin the
stockholder vote on the proposals following the Company's issuance
of a supplemental proxy statement on June 6, 2019.

The Court granted the plaintiff's request to voluntarily dismiss
this action with prejudice on July 31, 2019, and retained
jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating an anticipated
application for attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by
plaintiff's counsel.

Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc., incorporated on January 13,
2015, is a technology-based provider of fossil and renewable power
generation and environmental equipment that includes a suite of
boiler products and environmental systems. The Company operates in
three segments: Power, Renewable and Industrial. The company is
based in Barberton, Ohio.


BABCOCK & WILCOX: Still Defends Kent Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8,
2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Kent v.
Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc., et. al.

On June 3, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company, the Board and Mr. Young in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint is
captioned Kent v. Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc., et. al., No.
1:19-cv-01032-MN (D. Del.).

The complaint asserts, among other things, claims under Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly disseminating a
materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement in connection
with the Equitization Transactions, which was filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on May 13, 2019.

The complaint seeks an order rescinding the Equitization
Transactions or, in the alternative, awarding monetary damages as
well as other relief. The plaintiff has yet to serve process on the
Company, the Board or Mr. Young in this action.

Babcock & Wilcox said, "The Company, the Board and Mr. Young
believe that the plaintiff's allegations in the complaint lack
merit and intend to vigorously defend against the action."

Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc., incorporated on January 13,
2015, is a technology-based provider of fossil and renewable power
generation and environmental equipment that includes a suite of
boiler products and environmental systems. The Company operates in
three segments: Power, Renewable and Industrial. The company is
based in Barberton, Ohio.


BABCOCK & WILCOX: Stipulation of Settlement Submitted in NC Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8,
2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that parties in
the class action suit in U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, have executed a stipulation of
settlement and have submitted it to the Court for its preliminary
approval.

On March 3, 2017 and March 13, 2017, the Company and certain of its
former officers were named as defendants in two separate but
largely identical complaints alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.

The two complaints were brought on behalf of a class of investors
who purchased the Company's common stock between July 1, 2015 and
February 28, 2017 and were filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina (collectively, the
"Stockholder Litigation").

During the second quarter of 2017, the Stockholder Litigation was
consolidated into a single action and a lead plaintiff was selected
by the Court. Through subsequent amendments, the putative class
period was expanded to include investors who purchased shares
between June 17, 2015 and August 9, 2017.

The plaintiff in the Stockholder Litigation alleges fraud,
misrepresentation and a course of conduct relating to certain
projects undertaken by the Volund & Other Renewable segment, which,
according to the plaintiff, had the effect of artificially
inflating the price of the Company's common stock.

The plaintiff further alleges that stockholders were harmed when
the Company later disclosed that it would incur losses on these
projects. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

On November 13, 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss ("MTD")
in the Stockholder Litigation, and on December 28, 2017, plaintiff
filed its opposition to the MTD. The federal trial court judge
denied the MTD on February 8, 2018, which allowed the case to
proceed.

After engaging in some discovery, the parties held a mediation on
December 14, 2018 to discuss possible settlement of the Stockholder
Litigation. The parties did not successfully resolve the
Stockholder Litigation at the December 14, 2018 mediation.

Following a period of additional discovery, the parties held a
second mediation on April 16, 2019.

At the second mediation, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the Stockholder Litigation, which is subject to
court approval. The agreement requires defendants to pay or cause
to be paid $19.5 million into a settlement fund. The $19.5 million
payment is expected to be covered in full by certain of our
insurance carriers.

The parties have subsequently executed a stipulation of settlement
and have and have submitted it to the Court for its preliminary
approval.

Babcock & Wilcox said, "Within our Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets as of March 31, 2019, the $19.5 million liability is
recorded in other accrued liabilities and the $19.5 million
insurance receivable is recorded in accounts receivable - other.

Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc., incorporated on January 13,
2015, is a technology-based provider of fossil and renewable power
generation and environmental equipment that includes a suite of
boiler products and environmental systems. The Company operates in
three segments: Power, Renewable and Industrial. The company is
based in Barberton, Ohio.


BENNINGTON PFOA: Judge Grants Class Action Status
-------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Gribkoff, writing for vtdigger.com, reports that a
federal judge Aug. 23, 2019, has ruled that a lawsuit brought by a
group of Bennington residents with PFOA contaminated wells can
proceed as a class action.

The decision could open the door for hundreds of local homeowners
who live in the contamination zone to join the lawsuit.

"This was a really important decision that establishes significant
legal rights for groups who have been harmed by the common conduct
of a defendant to seek class based remedies in federal court in
Vermont," said Emily Joselson, one of the attorneys for the
plaintiffs.

The residents filed a lawsuit in 2016 alleging that emissions from
the ChemFab plants in town had polluted their drinking water wells.


Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, an international conglomerate
based in France that owns the former ChemFab facilities, had fought
the class action certification.

The plaintiffs want the company pay for property damages from
groundwater contamination and long-term medical monitoring. One
plaintiff's drinking water well had 2,730 parts per trillion of
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), according to a court filing --
significantly higher than the state's 20 ppt combined drinking
water advisory.

Currently, there are nine plaintiffs. The group filed to expand the
lawsuit by obtaining class status for other Bennington residents
impacted by PFOA contamination. There would be one class for the
thousands of residents who live in the "zone of contamination," and
a smaller class for Bennington area residents with elevated levels
of the chemical in their blood.

Federal U.S. District Court Judge Geoffrey Crawford granted the
plaintiffs' request for both class statuses August 23.

He acknowledged that while the plaintiffs and Saint-Gobain believe
the PFOA contamination came from different sources, both will have
to rely on modeling to determine "source and transport" as neither
side has PFOA data from before 2016.

"These are questions for which it is reasonable to anticipate
common answers," said Crawford.  "These are not questions in which
the individual circumstances of each plaintiff predominate."

Langrock Sperry and Wool is representing the plaintiffs.  Attorney
Emily Joselson, Esq. -- ejoselson@langrock.com -- categorized the
decision as an "absolutely essential and major step" forward in the
case. She said the plaintiff's legal team had believed from the
start that this case was best treated on a class basis because of
the proof of liability.

The case still has a long way to go.  Crawford states in his
decision that the next step will be to determine whether medical
monitoring is allowed as a remedy under Vermont law -- and in this
case in particular.

"Once he rules on medical monitoring through a motion for summary
judgement, then the case would be set for trial," said Joselson.

Dina Pokedoff, senior communications director for Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics, said that the company was aware of August
23's "procedural ruling."

"We plan to appeal this decision and will continue to defend
vigorously," Pokedoff said.

Earlier this year, state officials announced a multi-million dollar
settlement with Saint-Gobain to extend municipal water lines for
Bennington residents who have wells contaminated by PFOA, a toxic
chemical in the PFAS family that has now been phased out by
industry.

Chemfab operated in North Bennington from 1970 through 2000, when
it was purchased by Saint-Gobain. The local facility, which applied
coatings to fiberglass fabrics, closed in 2002 and operations were
moved by Saint-Gobain to New Hampshire.

Vermont state officials tested drinking water wells in North
Bennington near the former ChemFab plant in 2016. By April 2017,
the state had tested 570 private drinking water wells, with 276
showing elevated levels of PFOA, according to the plaintiffs'
amended complaint.

This summer, Vermont started widespread PFAS sampling by all public
drinking water supplies, car washes, landfills and other sites. The
state Agency of Natural Resources is moving ahead with setting
drinking water standards for PFOA and four other PFAS compounds at
20 parts per trillion -- among the strictest in the country.

PFOA was used in the manufacture of Teflon in products like
nonstick cookware, stain-resistant carpets and fabrics, water
repellent clothing, paper and cardboard food packaging. The
chemical has been detected in a number of states in apparent
connection to manufacturing facilities.

Scientists have linked exposure to PFOA with increased risks of
certain kinds of cancer, thyroid disease, immune system damages,
developmental problems in children and low birth weight. [GN]


BIOTELEMETRY INC: Settlement in Matthews Suit Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM MATTHEWS, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, v. BIOTELEMETRY, INC. d/b/a CARDIONET,
Civil Action No. 18-561 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted Matthews's Motion for Approval of the Joint Stipulation of
Settlement and Release and Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees
and Reimbursement Expense.

The case was filed on behalf of a class of certain employees of the
Defendant, asserting that it violated the Fair Labor Standards Act;
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act; and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law, by failing to pay them minimum wage and
overtime compensation.

After a brief period of discovery, the parties entered into a class
settlement.  The Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and authorized the sending of notice to the class
members.  On April 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs' Class Representative,
Matthews, filed a Motion for Approval of the Joint Stipulation of
Settlement and Release as well as a Motion for Approval of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement Expense.

The Court held a hearing on the Motion for Approval of the
Agreement on April 22, 2019.  Judge Baylson holds that the overall
record demonstrates that the settlement is fair and reasonable and
that there is no reason for him not to approve the Agreement.  He
finds that the settlement terms are clear and that the members of
the class will be well served and rewarded in appropriately
proportional amounts to their injuries, after counsel fees and
costs are awarded.

On the subject of attorneys' fees, the Judge finds that the
Plaintiffs' attorneys have performed their tasks in a very
satisfactory manner.  He is aware that the Plaintiffs have
requested attorneys' fees in the amount of $70,000, which reflects
35% of the total settlement amount.  The Plaintiffs have also
supplied their "lodestar" calculations in the amount of $46,823.33.
The hourly rates requested of $285 and $400 are very reasonable in
the Philadelphia legal marketplace, and the number of hours
expended ($157.50) in the case is also reasonable.  In the case,
the Court believes that the total amount of the settlement to be
awarded to the Settlement Class should be not less than 65%.  Thus,
the total sum of legal fees, administrative fees, and the service
fee should be limited to $70,000.  

This will result in legal fees being awarded in the amount of
$58,000, which is an appropriate premium on the lodestar in the
specific case.  The case was not a very complex one; it did not
involve a great deal of time or extra factors that would warrant
higher attorneys' fees.  Although the Plaintiffs' counsel deserves
a premium on the actual lodestar, the overall facts of the case
demonstrate that a $58,000 legal fee is reasonable.  The
recommended "cross-check" between the percentage awarded and the
lodestar shows a very close relationship.

As to the service award requested for the Class Representative, the
Judge agrees that conceptually such an award is appropriate but
concludes that it should be limited to $2,000.  He further finds
that a maximum of $9,500 to be awarded for the administrative
expenses is also reasonable and approved.

Judge Baylson therefore entered the Order of Final Approval.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/gcuRoy from Leagle.com.

WILLIAM MATTHEWS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL GROH, MURPHY
LAW GROUP, LLC & MICHAEL PATRICK MURPHY, Jr. --
murphy@phillyempoymentlawyer.com -- MURPHY LAW GROUP LLC.

BIOTELEMETRY, INC., doing business as CARDIONET, Defendant,
represented by BETH L. BRADDOCK, JACKSON LEWIS, P.C., JAMES M.
MCDONNELL -- James.McDonnell@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS LLP
& MARJORIE KAYE, Jr. -- Marjorie.Kaye@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON
LEWIS LLP.


BITTREX INC: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BITTREX, INC. The
case is styled as JOHN MAHONEY ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. BITTREX, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-03836-CFK (E.D. Pa., Aug. 23, 2019).

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

Bittrex, Inc. operates as an institutional brokerage firm. The
Company offers platform to buy and sell cryptocurrencies and
digital tokens for traders who demand trade execution, stable
wallets, and industry-best security practices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     DAVID S. GLANZBERG, ESQ.
     GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
     123 S. BROAD STREET SUITE 1640
     PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109
     Phone: (215) 981-5400
     Email: dglanzberg@aol.com


BOLL & BRANCH: Faces Griffith Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENA GRIFFITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BOLL & BRANCH, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-01551-JM-LL (S.D.
Cal., Aug. 18, 2019), arises from the Defendant's illegal actions
in transmitting unsolicited, autodialed text messages to the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number and the cellular telephone
numbers of numerous other consumers across the country, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Boll & Branch, LLC is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its
corporate headquarters in Summit, New Jersey.  The Defendant owns
and operates an e-commerce business at the Web site
http://www.bollandbranch.com/,where it sells bedding products to
consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 766-3534
          Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com


BOULEVARD DEL: Torrisi Seeks Minimum Wage for Exotic Dancers
------------------------------------------------------------
GIANNA TORRISI on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE BOULEVARD DEL INC., d/b/a
MOLLY BROWN'S GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, RONALD J. KRENN, the Defendants,
Case No. 6:19-cv-01645-CEM-LRH (M.D. Fla., Aug. 23, 2019), contends
that the Defendants required and/or permitted Gianna Torrisi and
others similarly situated to work as exotic dancers at their adult
entertainment club but refused to compensate them at the applicable
minimum wage.

In fact, the Defendants refused to compensate them whatsoever for
any hours worked. Plaintiffs' only compensation was in the form of
tips from club patrons, and even those were partly confiscated by
the club.

The Defendants took money from Plaintiffs in the form of "house
fees" or "rent". The Plaintiffs were also required to divide tips
with Defendants' managers and employees who do not customarily
receive tips.

The Defendants misclassify dancers, including Plaintiffs, as
independent contractors so that they do not have to compensate them
at the federally mandated minimum wage rate, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jupiter Gardens, Esq.
          Cathleen Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          www.ScottWagnerLaw.com
          250 South Central Boulevard, Suite 104-A
          Jupiter, FL 33458
          Telephone: (561) 653-0008
          Facsimile: (561) 653-0020
          E-mail: CScott@scottwagnerlaw.com
          Secondary e-mail: mail@scottwagnerlaw.com

               - and -

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

CALLICOON FINE ARTS: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Callicoon Fine Arts
LLC. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Callicoon Fine Arts LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07938 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 23, 2019).

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

Callicoon Fine Arts LLC is a gallery, devoted to young contemporary
artists, has an unusual provenance, as it was started upstate in
2009 as the weekend project of Photios Giovanis, whose regular job
was bookkeeper at Chelsea's blue-chip Metro Pictures gallery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CANON GARDEN: Lopez Sues Over Illegal Tip Pooling Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------
WALTERIO LOPEZ and RIJEL LINDA EGGAN TAVELLA, individually and on
behalf of all aggrieved employees and the general public,
Plaintiffs, v. CANON GARDEN, INC., a California Corporation dba
CAFFE ROMA; SANDRO SCIANDRI, an individual; AGOSTINO SCIANDRI, an
individual; MICHELE RIVIELLO, an individual; and DAVIDE GILIBERTI,
an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 19STCV2930 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 21, 2019)
is a California class action arising from Defendants' scheme to
pool tips to pay managerial staff and to deny legally mandated meal
and rest periods.

Under Caffe Roma's mandatory "tip pooling policy" Defendants
required tipped employees to contribute up to 40% of their
collected tips, a portion of which was then paid to managerial
staff. Defendants thereby obtain an illegal "tip credit" against
wages they owe and cause tipped employees to lose a portion of
their tips. The Defendants did and continue to maintain a mandatory
policy requiring servers and bartenders to contribute up to 40
percent of collected tips to a tip-pool. The Defendants
distributed, and continue to distribute, a portion of the employee
tip pool to managerial personnel. Defendants failed to provide
Plaintiffs and other class members with a proper accounting showing
all other individuals who received shares of their earned tips.

Plaintiffs bring this action to recover their stolen tips, premium
wages, interest, liquidated damages, and penalties based on the
Defendants' violations of their rights under California labor law,
including the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order 5-2001. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants'
actions not only violate numerous provisions of the California
Labor Code, but also constitute unfair business practices under
California's Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs assert that
Defendants' violations of state labor laws are unlawful acts which
have afforded Defendants an unfair competitive advantage over
restaurants that comply with California wage and hour laws. Thus,
Plaintiffs seek restitution, disgorgement, and other equitable
relief to remedy Defendants' illegal and unfair business practices,
says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants pursuant to oral contracts
of employment to perform the work of servers, bussers and
bartenders at Caffe Roma.

CANON GARDEN, INC., doing business as CAFFE ROMA is a Corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the state of California
operating a well-known Beverly Hills restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jenna L Miara, Esq.
     Sebastian Sanchez, Esq.
     Kelsey R Chappie, Esq.
     BET TZEDEK LEGAL SERVICES
     3250 Wilshire Blvd. 13th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Phone: (323) 939-0506
     Facsimile: (213)471-4568
     Email: jmiara@bettzedek.org
            ssanchez@bettzedek.org
            kchapple@bettzedek.org

          - and -

     Matthew K Handley, Esq.
     HANDLEY FARAH ANDERSON
     777 6th Street, NW
     Eleventh Floor
     Washington, DC 20001
     Email: mhandey@hfajustice.com


CAPITAL ONE: Busby et al Sue over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------
TASHAYIA BUSBY, DAMIEN ROSS, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE, N.A., CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A.,
AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01062-RDA-TCB (E.D. Va., Aug. 8, 2019), alleges
that Defendants failed to protect the confidential information of
over 100 million consumers including: names, addresses, zip
codes/postal codes, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth,
income, credit scores, credit limits, balances, payment history,
contact information, transaction data, as well as approximately
140,000 social security numbers and approximately 80,000 bank
account numbers (collectively Personally identifiable information,
PII).

On July 29, 2019, Capital One publicly announced that "there was
unauthorized access by an outside individual who obtained certain
types of personal information relating to people who had applied
for its credit card products and to Capital One credit card
customers (Data Breach).

Through its failure to adequately protect Plaintiffs' and the Class
members' PII, the Amazon Defendants and Capital One allowed Paige
A. Thompson, a former Amazon employee, to obtain access to and to
surreptitiously view, remove, and make public Plaintiffs' and the
Class members' PII entrusted to Capital One, as well as the Amazon
Defendants, the lawdsuit says.

As a result of Capital One's and the Amazon Defendants' conduct and
the ensuing Data Breach, Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed
Class have suffered actual damages, failed to receive the benefit
of their bargains, lost the value of their private data, and are at
imminent risk of future harm, including identity theft and fraud
which would result in further monetary loss.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Class are:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
          Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
          Karina Puttieva, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: 202 408 4600
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                  afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
                  dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
                  kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          Jason T. Dennett, Esq
          Kaleigh N.B. Powell, Esq
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: 206 682 5600
          Facsimile: 206 682 2992
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
                  jdennett@tousley.com
                  kpowell@tousley.com

               - and -

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          Swathi Bojedla, Esq.
          Theodore F. DiSalvo, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: 202 540 7200
          E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
                  sbojedla@hausfeld.com
                  tdisalvo@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312 214 7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevit.com
                  akeller@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: 612.594.5933
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net

               - and -

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          Matthew A. Pearson, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: 818 788 8300
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
                  mapearson@pswlaw.com

CAPITAL ONE: Diamond & Diamond Files Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a class-action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of Canadians affected by the massive Capital One
data breach that was disclosed on July 30.

The suit, launched by lawyers at Ontario firm Diamond & Diamond,
seeks compensation for Canadians who applied for credit cards from
Capital One between 2005 and 2019.

"This data breach could have very serious ramifications for those
affected with regards to their future finances," said Jeremy
Diamond, managing partner at the firm, in a statement.

The suit's representative plaintiff is Rina Del Guidice of Bolton,
Ont., who obtained a Costco Wholesale MasterCard through Capital
One.

It notes that Capital One also operated credit cards offered by
other merchants including the Hudson's Bay Co.

Darryl Singer, the firm's lead lawyer on the suit, said in a
statement that the stolen information could pose a risk to identity
theft for years.

"What makes this breach so egregious is that it includes
identifying information such as someone's name and social insurance
number that cannot be changed."

The statement of claim seeks that the lawsuit be certified as a
class action calling for more than $350 million in financial
compensation and other forms of relief for the plaintiffs.

Capital One has said that as many as six million people in Canada
may have been affected by the breach, and that one million social
insurance numbers were among the leaked sensitive information. The
breach also exposed the data of roughly 100 million U.S. clients,
including about 140,000 Social Security numbers and 80,000 linked
bank account numbers.

The company said it would start to inform Canadians affected by the
breach either by letter or email, but not by phone.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada said that it had
launched an investigation into the data breach.

The Diamond & Diamond suit has been filed with Ontario Superior
Court in Toronto. Vancouver-based Charney Lawyers said that it
planned to file a similar class action against Capital One. [GN]


CAPITAL ONE: Emerson Firm Files Class Suit Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Firm, PLLC announces that it has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Western District of
Washington at Seattle, Amjed Ali Ababseh v. Capital One Financial
Corporation, Capital One, N.A., Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.,
Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and GitHub, Inc.,
Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-1397, on behalf of 100 million or more
Capital One customers in the US whose personal and financial
information was compromised in the data breach announced by Capital
One on July 29, 2019. This is one of the largest-ever data breaches
of financial services firm.

Capital One explained that a hacker stole the personal and
financial information that Capital One had collected and stored.
The hacker posted this information on GitHub.com.  This data was
made publicly available.  The hacker was a former Amazon employee
and the lawsuit alleges that the failure of the Amazon defendants
to take adequate and reasonable measures to protect their data
systems from hacklers, among other allegations, resulted in
substantial harm and injuries to consumers across the US.

Capital One is a bank holding company that specializes in credit
cards and offering credit, including car loans and bank accounts.
Capital One solicits potential customers to provide them with
sensitive personal and financial information through applications
for credit cards and other financial products.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Capital One
customers whose personal and financial information was compromised.
Plaintiff is represented by the Houston-based firm of Emerson
Firm, PLLC with offices in Houston, Texas and Little Rock,
Arkansas, and represents consumers throughout the nation.  Emerson
Firm, PLLC and its predecessor firms have devoted their practice to
complex commercial litigation for more than thirty-eight years and
have recovered more than a billion dollars for consumers in class
actions throughout the United States. If you have a Capital One
account or applied for a Capital One account since 2005 then your
data may have been compromised in this breach.  Please contact us
immediately to protect your rights.  It makes no difference what
state you reside in.

Please contact plaintiff's counsel, Emerson Firm, PLLC via e-mail
to Tanya Autry, Esq. -- tautry@emersonfirm.com -- or John G.
Emerson, Esq. -- jemerson@emersonfirm.com  A copy of the complaint
is available from the Court or from Emerson Firm, PLLC. [GN]


CAPTAIN HAWKIN'S HOUSE: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Captain Hawkin's
House Restoration, LLC. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v.
Captain Hawkin's House Restoration, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07928 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 23, 2019).

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

CAPT HAWKINS HOUSE RESTORATION LLC category is ON-PREMISES LIQUOR
located at 400 S JAMESPORT AVE, JAMESPORT, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
     The Marks Law Firm PC
     175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
     New York, NY 10014
     Phone: (646) 770-3775
     Fax: (646) 867-2639
     Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


CDK GLOBAL: Jones Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Texts Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
STANLEY JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CDK GLOBAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Case No. 1:19-cv-05594 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 19, 2019), seeks to stop
CDK from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending
unsolicited, autodialed text messages to consumers, including to
consumers who have registered their phone numbers on the national
Do Not Call registry.

CDK is a Delaware registered limited liability company with its
head office located in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.  CDK provides
technology solutions to the automotive industry, including
marketing and inventory management for automotive dealers.

CDK offers services to dealers, such as digital advertising,
digital websites, and the CDK Global SMS Program through which
automotive dealers can communicate with their customers using text
messages.  CDK also offers CarZoom.net, a site through which
consumers can seek auto financing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juneitha Shambee, Esq.
          SHAMBEE LAW OFFICE, LTD.
          701 Main St., Suite 200A
          Evanston, IL 60202
          Telephone: (773) 741-3602
          E-mail: juneitha@shambeelaw.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Bid to Stay Rosenbohm FLSA Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NEIL ROSENBOHM, Plaintiff, v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP,
d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-731
(S.D. Ohio), Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, (i) overruled
the Defendant's Objection to the Magistrate Judge's May 16, 2019
Order, and (ii) denied the Emergency Motion to Stay Case Pending
Resolution of Objections.

Plaintiff Rosenbohm sued Cellco Partnership, doing business as
Verizon Wireless, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA").
The Court granted conditional certification of the FLSA collective
action on Sept. 17, 2018, and the parties have sent notice to the
potential collective action members.  No action has been taken on
the Rule 23 class action for violations of Ohio law.

On April 17, 2019, Magistrate Judge Vascura entered a Scheduling
Order establishing the scope of discovery in the FLSA collective
action.  The Magistrate Judge limited discovery to 94 randomly
selected opt-in Plaintiffs in addition to Rosenbohm.  In the April
17 order, the Magistrate Judge ordered that the Defendant will
serve a uniform questionnaire on the 94 randomly-selected opt-in
Plaintiffs no later than May 30, 2019 with responses due within 30
days.  

Additionally, the Magistrate Judge ordered that written discovery
of the 94 randomly selected opt-in Plaintiffs be completed no later
than Sept. 13, 2019 and that responses were due within 60 days.
The Magistrate Judge also limited potential trial or other
testimony to these 94 randomly selected opt-in Plaintiffs.

On May 1, 2019, the Defendant timely objected to the Magistrate
Judge's order on the basis of the scheduling order's trial-stage
limitation on available trial witnesses and the limitation of
discovery to 94 randomly selected opt-in Plaintiffs.  The
Magistrate Judge then held a telephonic conference with the parties
on May 15, 2019.

On May 16, 2019 the Magistrate Judge issued a new scheduling order
vacating the April 17 scheduling order and eliminating the
trial-stage limitations found in the original order.  The Defendant
timely objected to the new scheduling order.  The second objection
was based on the court's discovery restrictions and to the
Magistrate Judge vacating her own order before the Court had
reviewed the Defendant's May 1, 2019 objections in accordance with
Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Defendant
then filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Case Pending Resolution of
Objections.

The Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's Order on discovery
matters and to the Magistrate Judge's vacating the Order before the
Court ruled on its first objections.  Its discovery objections are
two-fold: (1) the sample size should be larger with a smaller
margin of error or (2) discovery should be based on a stratified
random sample rather than a simple random sample.

The Defendant contends that these discovery decisions infringe its
due process rights by restricting their ability to develop defenses
and highlight differences in the conditional class.  It requests
the use of a 5% margin of error, which would require performing
discovery on 350 opt-in Plaintiffs as opposed to the 94 opt-in
Plaintiffs established in the Magistrate Judge's scheduling order.


Additionally, the Defendant requests that discovery be conducted
using stratified random sampling, as opposed to simple random
sampling.  It contends that this would allow for "opt-in
sub-groups" such as "those who claim they were required to perform
closing tasks off-the-clock; those who claim they were required to
wait for others to perform closing tasks without compensation;
those of a certain tenure; or who worked for certain managers,
among others."  The Defendant argues that the use of stratified
random sampling would allow them "to analyze whether certain
sub-groups had differing or more similar experience with regard to
closing tasks."

Judge Marbley opines that although the Defendant's requested 5%
margin of error is more precise than the 10% margin of error
established in the Magistrate Judge's order, the Magistrate Judge's
decision to fix the margin of error at 10% is in no way contrary to
law.  The Court has approved the use of a statistically significant
representative sample in FLSA collective actions several times.
By the Defendant's own chart filed in used a confidence interval of
95% with a 10% margin of error.  Neither the Sixth Circuit nor the
Supreme Court has specified a margin of error or confidence
interval for the discovery process in FLSA collective action cases.
In light of the discretionary authority courts possess for
determining the scope of discovery, the Magistrate Judge's
limitations on the number of opt-in Plaintiffs, and the method for
selecting these opt-in Plaintiff's for the discovery process was
not contrary to law.

As to stratified random sampling, it is after discovery that the
Court takes a closer look to determine whether the Plaintiffs are
similarly situated based on the additional information obtained
through discovery.

The Defendant additionally objected that the Magistrate Judge
exceeded her authority by ruling on its objection to her scheduling
order.  Although the Magistrate Judge did not formally rule on the
Defendant's objection, her updated scheduling order addressed some
aspects of the Defendant's objections and therefore rendered them
moot.  Rule 72 requires the District Judge to consider a party's
objection, and typically such objections should be ruled on prior
to the continuation of the case.  However, the only prejudice to
the Defendant from the Magistrate Judge vacating her initial
scheduling order was to delay the Court's consideration of the
issue.  The Judge is left with no choice but to review the
Defendant's Objections to the amended scheduling order as any other
outcome would only result in further delay.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Marbley overruled the Defendant's
Objections to the May 16, 2019 Scheduling Order.  He denied the
Motion to Stay Case Pending the Resolution of Objections.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/VgOeZy from Leagle.com.

Neil Rosenbohm, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. Lazzaro, Chastity
Lynn Christy, Michael Fradin -- mike@fradinlaw.coms -- Fradin Law
Office & Lori M. Griffin, Lazzaro Law Firm, LLC.

Cellco Partnership, doing business as, Verizon Wireless Defendant,
represented by Tonya B. Braun -- tbraun@jonesday.com -- Jones Day &
Stanley Weiner -- sweiner@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.


CHEMEON SURFACE: Denial of Prelim Injunction Bid in Harris Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHEMEON SURFACE TECHNOLOGY, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY; DEAN MEILING; AND MADYLON MEILING, Appellants,
v. MARC HARRIS; JEFF MACKINEN; JERRY ALEXANDER; MARTY COHEN;
CHARLES DELLE DONNE; RICHARD SCOTT ELDER; ARNIE GETTELSON; JERRY
HOLLANDER; ELIAS KASOUF; DON MARSHALL; JERRY McDONALD; RON
MELANSON; KEN MILES; MARVIN MILLS; MARC MORIN; ROBERT PARKER;
DENNIS POULSEN; RON SMITH; ANDREW TANNER; CRAIG TIEFENTHALER;
VIRGINIA WALLACE; AND GERALD WOLFE, Respondents, Case No. 75370
(Nev.), the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court's
order denying Chemeon's a motion for preliminary injunction.

Appellants Chemeon, Dean Meiling, and Madylon Meiling sought a
preliminary injunction in state court to enjoin the Respondents
from pursuing a federal class action.  The state court denied
Chemeon's motion.  

In the federal action, the Respondents alleged that Chemeon
defrauded investors (which include the Respondents) of Metalast
International, LLC, a now defunct shell company that had owned
intellectual property later purchased by Chemeon in a state court
receivership action.  Chemeon argues that the state district court
should have enjoined respondents from bringing the federal class
action under the prior-exclusive-jurisdiction doctrine.

The Court explains that under the prior-exclusive-jurisdiction
doctrine, when one court is exercising in rem jurisdiction over a
res, a second court will not assume in rem jurisdiction over the
same res.  Chemeon is correct that the state court receivership was
an action in rem.  However, the prior-exclusive-jurisdiction
doctrine is inapplicable because the subsequent federal class
action alleging fraud is strictly in personam.

Additionally, the Court holds that the state district court
terminated the receivership prior to the federal class action.
With this termination, the district court relinquished its in rem
jurisdiction over the res, rendering the
prior-exclusive-jurisdiction doctrine inapplicable. .

Chemeon's additional arguments are unavailing because state courts
are completely without power to restrain federal court proceedings
in in personam actions.  The prior-exclusive-jurisdiction doctrine
provides the sole exception to the rule that state courts cannot
enjoin parties from federal court.  Thus, because the
prior-exclusive-jurisdiction doctrine does not apply, the district
court had no authority to enjoin the parties from pursuing their
federal court suit.  The district court therefore did not err in
denying Chemeon's motion for preliminary injunction.

The Court has considered and rejected Chemeon's other arguments and
denied as moot the motion to strike Chemeon's notice of
supplemental authority.  

Based on the foregoing, the Court affirmed the judgment of the
district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/yMKWbV from Leagle.com.


CHICAGO, IL: Thulis Seeks to Recover Damages Over Uncashed Checks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Thulis, James Webb v. City of Chicago, Case No. 2019CH09581
(Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Aug. 19, 2019) seeks to recover damages
against the Defendant, the City of Chicago, for knowingly
concealing, or knowingly and improperly avoiding an obligation to
report and transmit money or property to the State under the
State's unclaimed property act; and for interest per the Illinois
Interest Act; and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act.  The Plaintiffs contend their
claims are based on the City's failure to report and turn over to
the Illinois State Treasurer money from issued checks that have
gone uncashed for years.

This lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and as
representative members for all others similarly situated of the
proposed class of all people the City owed money, who are contained
in the list of payees of uncashed City of Chicago checks, for which
the City's actions kept them from being able to have a way to learn
of it and recover it.

The City of Chicago is a "holder" under the Act, subject to Revised
Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (infra), and liable under the False
Claims Act for concealing and improperly avoiding to report and pay
or transmit funds to the State, according to the complaint.
"Holder" means a person obligated to hold for the account of, or to
deliver or pay to, the owner, property subject to the Interest
Act.

A hearing in the lawsuit is currently set for December 18, 2019, at
9:30 a.m.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
          Kenneth Goldstein, Esq.
          KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD
          20 Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 606-0500
          E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com
                  ken@krislovlaw.com

               - and -

          Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
          Jacie C. Zolna, Esq.
          MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          30 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-2100
          E-mail: mcherry@cherry-law.com
                  jzolna@cherry-law.com

               - and -

          THE CENTER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT LAW CLINIC ("COG")
          AT THE ILLINOIS INSTITUTE FOR TECHNOLOGY CHICAGO-
          KENT COLLEGE OF LAW
          565 W. Adams, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60661


CLGM INC: Tomala Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------
RAUL ENRIQUE TOMALA, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CLGM, INC. d/b/a YEFSI ESTIATORIO, and
CHRISTOS CHRISTOU, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07839 (S.D. N.Y.,
Aug. 21, 2019) alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law, he is entitled to recover
from Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid "spread of
hours" premium for each day that his work shift exceeded 10 hours,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

At the time of his hire, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff
with a written wage notice setting forth, among other things, his
regular hourly rate of pay and corresponding overtime rate of pay,
notes the complaint. The Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff's regularly scheduled 10 hour shift would often exceed 10
hours. However, from the beginning of his employment and continuing
through December 2018, Plaintiff was not paid proper overtime
compensation. Upon paying Plaintiff his wages each week, Defendants
failed to provide Plaintiff with proper and accurate wage
statements setting forth, among other things, Plaintiffs true and
correct gross wages, deductions, and net wages, says the
complaint.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully operate their business with
a policy of not paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees either the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one-halt), or
the New York State ove1time rate (of time and one-halt), in direct
violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law and the supporting
federal and New York State Department of Labor Regulations, the
complaint asserts.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as a non-exempt
kitchen helper/food preparer at the Restaurant from in or about
October 2018 until on or about July 25, 2019.

YEFSI, owns and operates a Greek restaurant known as Yefsi
Estiatorio located at 1481 York Avenue, New York, New York
10075.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin Cilenti, Esq.
     Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
     CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
     10 Grand Central
     155 East 44th Street - 6th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 209-3933
     Fax: (212) 209-7102
     Email: info@jcpclaw.com


CNO SERVICES: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CNO SERVICES, LLC.
The case is styled as JOHN MAHONEY ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. CNO SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03837-CMR (E.D. Pa., Aug. 23, 2019).

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

CNO Financial was incorporated in 1979 as Security National of
Indiana Corp. by Stephen Hilbert. SNI bought Consolidated National
Life Insurance Co. in 1983. It began insurance operations in 1982
and became a public company in 1985.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     DAVID S. GLANZBERG, ESQ.
     GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
     123 S. BROAD STREET SUITE 1640
     PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109
     Phone: (215) 981-5400
     Email: dglanzberg@aol.com


CONCOURSE TEAM: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concourse Team
Express LLC. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Concourse Team
Express LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07889 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 22,
2019).

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

Concourse Team Express is "dedicated to providing fanatical
customer service and ease of shopping to the baseball and softball
players who demand the best performance products at reasonable
prices".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


CONNECTICUT: Inmates' Hep C Suit Granted Class-Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------
NBC Connecticut reports that a federal judge has given class-action
status to a lawsuit that alleges Connecticut's Correction
Department has not done enough to screen and treat inmates with
hepatitis C in the state's prisons.

U.S. District Court Judge Michael Shea also turned down a state
motion to dismiss that lawsuit.

The plaintiffs say they were denied sufficient treatment by prison
medical staff, resulting in suffering while putting thousands of
other prisoners at risk.

Similar federal lawsuits have been filed across the country.

A judge in Tennessee ordered that state to mediate with a group of
prisoners who are demanding treatment for their hepatitis C
infections.

The Connecticut legislature's Office of Fiscal Analysis has
estimated it could cost up to $158 million to diagnose and treat
inmates with hepatitis C. [GN]


COOK COUNTY, IL: Bid to Certify Class in Alicea Suit Continued
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Elizabeth Alicea, Michelle Urrutia, Katina Ramos, and
Jack Artinian, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. County of Cook, and Thomas J. Dart,
individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Cook
County, Defendants, Case No. 18 C 5381 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Ronald A.
Guzman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, entered and continued the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification pending further briefing as
directed.

The case arises from the Plaintiffs' allegation that the
Defendants' monitoring and recording of pretrial detainees using
toilets in holding cells in Cook County courthouses constitutes an
unreasonable search, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments, and is an intrusion upon seclusion under Illinois law.


The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class defined as all persons
who used the toilet in a holding cell in a courthouse in Cook
County, Illinois since Aug. 8, 2016, wherein any part of the toilet
is visible in the camera feed monitoring the cell.

Judge Guzman finds that all of the Rule 23(a) factors have been
satisfied.  As to certification under Rule 23(b)(3), he finds that
the predominance requirement is satisfied.   The Defendants argue
that a class action is not superior because "no single document
identifies in which holding cell a particular detainee was held."
It is not clear, however, that the fact precludes a finding that a
class action is a superior way to adjudicate the Plaintiffs'
claims.  Nevertheless, the Judge has concerns about manageability
given the possible number of claimants and the Plaintiffs' ability
to identify them.

Accordingly, he directs the Plaintiffs to provide additional
specific information -- in other words, a plan, as to how the class
members will be identified and notified.  The Plaintiffs also
mention bifurcation and issue certification under Rule 23(c)(4).
The Plaintiffs are directed to address these two possibilities in
more detail and propose how each might be used in the context of
the case to move the case along in the most efficient manner
possible. Any recommendations as to the preferred course will be
indicated, with the supporting reasons.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Guzman entered and continued the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification pending further briefing
as directed.  The Plaintiffs' brief is due 21 days from the date of
entry of the Order.  The Defendants may file a response within 14
days thereafter.  They are encouraged not to simply rebut and
dismiss the Plaintiffs' proposals, but to acknowledge any strengths
in the Plaintiffs' proffered solution(s) and supplement them with
their own ideas as to how difficulties in managing a putative
class, assuming arguendo it is certified, might best be addressed.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/XYaAh2 from Leagle.com.

Elizabeth Alicea, Michelle Urrutia, Katina Ramos & Jack Artinian,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr. --
tom@attorneyzim.com -- Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., Matthew C. De
Re -- matt@attorneyzim.com -- Zimmerman Law Offices, P.c., Nickolas
J. Hagman -- nick@attorneyzim.com -- Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C. &
Sharon Harris -- sharon@attorneyzim.com -- Zimmerman Law Offices,
P.C.

County Of Cook & Sheriff Thomas J. Dart, individually, and in his
official capacity as Sheriff of Cook County, Defendants,
represented by Elizabeth A. Ekl -- eekl@reiterburns.com -- Reiter
Burns LLP, Terrence Michael Burns -- tburns@reiterburns.com --
Reiter Burns LLP, Daniel Jerome Burns -- kate@reiterburns.com --
Reiter Burns Llp, Daniel Matthew Noland -- dnoland@reiterburns.com
-- Reiter Burns LLP, Katherine Carole Morrison --
kmorrison@reiterburns.com -- Reiter Burns LLP & Paul A. Michalik --
pmichalik@reiterburns.com -- Reiter Burns LLP.


COOK COUNTY, IL: Dickman Files Suit for Medical Malpractice
------------------------------------------------------------
Bella Dickman b/n/f Nicole Dickman, Aaliyah Dickman b/n/f Nicole
Dickman, Nicole Dickman and Matthew Dickman, Nicole Dickman,
Executor of the Estate of Hailey Yale, and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Dr. Norell Rosado, Dr. Zena
Leah Harris, Dr. Ranna A. Rozenfeld, Dr. Susan Woo, Tierney Stutz,
Lurie Children's Hospital, Mary Stein, individually and in her
capacity as assistant states attorney, Michael Zhu, individually
and in his capacity as assistant states' attorney, and the County
of Cook, a municipal corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2019L008710
(Ill. Cir., August 6, 2019), seeks redress for professional
negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false
light invasion of privacy, defamation per se, defamation per quod,
indemnification, medical malpractice and wrongful death action on
the estate of Hailey Yale.

Nicole and Matthew Dickman are parents of minors Bella, Aaliyah and
Hailey Yale (deceased) Dickman. They accuse the Defendants of
conniving to put the blame on Nicole and Matthew for the accidental
death of Hailey Yale and the eventual deprivation of their custody
over Bella and Aaliyah. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Luke A. Casson, Esq.
      ANDREOU & CASSON, LTD.
      661 West Lake Street, Suite 2N
      Chicago, IL 60661
      Tel: (312) 935-2000
      Email: lcasson@andreou-casson.com


CORBUS PHARMA: Kempf and Wood Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corbus Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8,
2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the class
action suits entitled, Kempf v. Corbus Pharmaceutical Holdings,
Inc., et al. and  Wood v. Corbus Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., et
al., have been voluntarily dismissed.

On March 12, 2019 and March 29, 2019, putative securities class
action complaints were filed against the Company and two of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, entitled Kempf v. Corbus Pharmaceutical Holdings,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-10457 and Wood v. Corbus
Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
1:19-cv-10600.

The complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, relating to
certain disclosures of the Company. Each plaintiff sought to
represent a class of shareholders who purchased or acquired stock
of the Company between November 14, 2016 and February 28, 2019 and
sought damages and other relief based on alleged false or
misleading statements.

On May 13, 2019, purported shareholder Marie Berner filed a motion
to consolidate the matters and be appointed lead plaintiff and was
appointed lead plaintiff on June 3, 2019. Prior to that
appointment, the Wood plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her action on
May 24, 2019.  On August 2, 2019, lead plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed the remaining action without prejudice.

Corbus Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc. incorporated on December 18,
2013, is a Phase-III, clinical-stage pharmaceutical company focused
on the development and commercialization of novel therapeutics to
treat rare, chronic, and serious inflammatory and fibrotic
diseases. The Company operates through developing and
commercializing therapeutics to treat rare life-threatening
inflammatory fibrotic diseases segment. The company is based in
Norwood, Massachusetts.


DESERT JACK: Licea Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Soda Dispensers
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN LICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DESERT JACK, LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-01549 (C.D. Cal.,
Aug. 19, 2019), alleges that the Defendant violated the Americans
with Disabilities Act by denying the Plaintiff full access to its
facilities due to its inaccessible soda fountain dispensers and
failure to affirmatively offer or provide assistance to the
Plaintiff with the otherwise inaccessible soda fountain
dispensers.

The Plaintiff is a legally blind individual.

Desert Jack, LLC is a for profit company organized under the laws
of the state of California and headquartered in Victorville,
California.

The Defendant owns, operates, leases, and/or maintains 19 fast food
hamburger restaurants under the trade name Jack in the Box in
California, including one restaurant located at 6350 W. Ramsey St.,
in Banning, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald D. Wells III, Esq.
          CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
          101 Lindenwood Drive, Suite 225
          Malvern, PA 19355
          Telephone: (610) 822-3700
          Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
          E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com

               - and -

          Eric D. Zard, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1350 Columbia St., Suite 603
          San Diego, CA, 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1905
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: ezard@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Diebold
Nixdorf, Inc. (NYSE:DBD) for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between May 4, 2017
and July 4, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to
contact the firm before September 3, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Diebold experienced delays and slowdowns
in a number of areas, including system rollouts, customer
decision-making, and the order-to-revenue conversion cycle. These
delays had a negative impact on the Company's operations and its
service business. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Diebold,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

Contact:

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


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: Settles Class-Action Suit for $14.1MM
--------------------------------------------------------
Alia Paavola, writing for Beckers Hospital Review, reports that
Flint, Mich.-based Diplomat Pharmacy will pay $14.1 million to
settle a class-action lawsuit that accused the company of
misleading thousands of investors, according to MLive.com.

The settlement, finalized on Aug. 20, will be distributed to people
who invested in Diplomat stock between February 2016 and November
2016.

Diplomat was accused in a November 2016 lawsuit of violating
federal securities laws by promoting misleading or false
information in news releases that artificially inflated its stock.
In addition, investors claim they weren't aware of problems
Diplomat had with one of its pharmacy benefit managers.

The pharmacy attempted to dismiss the suit, arguing that the
plaintiffs failed to provide plausible motive for fraud and knew
that their accounting estimates were wrong at the time they were
published.

After more than two years of legal battles, the parties reached a
settlement July 16 and asked a judge to finalize it. [GN]


DIRECTV LLC: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Ruling in Creve Coeur Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants DISH Network Corporation, DISH Network, L.L.C, DirecTV
LLC, Hulu, LLC and Netflix, Inc. filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuits titled City of Creve Coeur v. DirecTV LLC,
et al., Case Nos. 4:18-cv-01453-RLW and 4:18-cv-01495-RLW, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St.
Louis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants
removed the case entitled City of Creve Coeur, Missouri,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DirecTV, LLC; Dish Network Corp.; and Dish Network,
L.L.C., Case No. 18SL-CC02821, from the Circuit Court of the State
of Missouri, County of St. Louis to the District Court.  The class
action lawsuit titled City of Creve Coeur, Missouri, the on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Netflix, Inc. and Hulu LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
18SL-CC02819, was removed from the Circuit Court, St. Louis County,
Missouri, to the District Court.

The lawsuits allege violations related to cable/satellite TV
services.

The appellate case is captioned as City of Creve Coeur v. DirecTV
LLC, et al., Case No. 19-8016, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent City of Creve Coeur, Missouri, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Garrett Ray Broshuis, Esq.
          John W. Hoffman, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          3600 U.S. Bank Plaza
          505 N. 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101-0000
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844
          Facsimile: (314) 241-1854
          E-mail: gbroshuis@koreintillery.com
                  jhoffman@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Elkin L. Kistner, Esq.
          BICK AND KISTNER, PC
          101 S. Hanley Road, Suite 1280
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 727-0777
          Facsimile: (314) 727-9071
          E-mail: elkinkis@bick-kistner.com

               - and -

          Carl J. Lumley, Esq.
          CURTIS AND HEINZ, P.C.
          130 S. Bemiston Avenue, Suite 200
          St. Louis, MO 63105-1951
          Telephone: (314) 725-8788
          Facsimile: (314) 725-8789
          E-mail: clumley@lawfirmemail.com

               - and -

          John F. Mulligan, Jr., Esq.
          8000 Maryland Avenue
          Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000
          Telephone: (314) 727-5002
          E-mail: jfmulliganjr@aol.com

Defendant-Petitioner DirecTV LLC is represented by:

          Robert J. Wagner, Esq.
          Roman Paul Wuller, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN, LLP
          One US Bank Plaza
          505 N. 7th Street
          St. Louis, MO 63101-1693
          Telephone: (314) 552-6000
          Facsimile: (314) 552-7206
          E-mail: rwagner@thompsoncoburn.com
                  rwuller@thompsoncoburn.com

Defendants-Petitioners DISH Network Corporation and DISH Network,
L.L.C are represented by:

          Jared R. Butcher, Esq.
          Markham C. Erickson, Esq.
          Pantelis Michalopoulos, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036-0000
          Telephone: (202) 429-3000
          E-mail: jbutcher@steptoe.com
                  merickson@steptoe.com
                  pmichalopoulos@steptoe.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Schultz, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
          7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1800
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 621-5070
          Facsimile: (314) 621-5065
          E-mail: jschultz@armstrongteasdale.com

Defendant-Petitioner Netflix, Inc. is represented by:

          David C. Baxter, Esq.
          Robert P. Berry, Esq.
          Carol M. Silberberg, Esq.
          BERRY AND SILBERBERG PC
          16150 Main Circle Drive, Suite 120
          St. Louis, MO 63017
          Telephone: (636) 777-7870
          E-mail: dbaxter@berrysilberberg.com
                  rberry@berrysilberberg.com
                  csilberberg@berrysilberberg.com

               - and -

          Rebecca Durham, Esq.
          Priscilla Ayn Parrett, Esq.
          Andres Vallejo, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
          Telephone: (415) 659-5613
          E-mail: rdurham@reedsmith.com
                  pparrett@reedsmith.com
                  avallejo@reedsmith.com

Defendant-Petitioner Hulu, LLC is represented by:

          Victor Hao-Jan Jih, Esq.
          Moon Hee Lee, Esq.
          Andrew Strabone, Esq.
          IRELL & MANELLA LLP
          1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-0000
          Telephone: (310) 277-1010
          E-mail: VJih@irell.com
                  mlee@irell.com
                  astrabone@irell.com

               - and -

          Darci Faulkner Madden, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          3600 One Metropolitan Square
          211 N. Broadway
          Saint Louis, MO 63102-2186
          Telephone: (314) 259-2000
          E-mail: dfmadden@bclplaw.com


DSW SHOE: Wingate & Rucker Sue over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
SOPHIA WINGATE and LINDSAY RUCKER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. DSW SHOE
WAREHOUSE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-05324 (N.D. Cal.,
Aug. 25, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets
its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Sophia Wingate and Lindsay Rucker bring this class action complaint
and demand for jury trial against DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc. to stop
its practice of sending unwanted text messages to the cellular
telephones of consumers, and to obtain redress for all persons
injured by their conduct.

DSW Shoe operates a footwear retail chain across 45 states.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (773) 831-8000
          Facsimile: (504) 272-2956
          E-mail: whb@beaumontcostales.com

               - and -

          Glenn M. Goffin, Esq.
          920 Beach Park Blvd #39
          Foster City, CA 94404
          Telephone: (415) 845-8556
          E-mail: ggoffin@glenngoffinlaw.com

DUTY FREE AMERICA: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Duty Free America,
Inc. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Duty Free America, Inc,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07927 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 23, 2019).

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

Duty Free Americas. Duty Free Americas is a leading travel retailer
in the Western Hemisphere offering an extensive selection of
fragrances, cosmetics, wines, spirits, tobacco, edibles, luxury
leather goods, watches, jewelry and travel-exclusive
merchandise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
     The Marks Law Firm PC
     175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
     New York, NY 10014
     Phone: (646) 770-3775
     Fax: (646) 867-2639
     Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


EAGLE ROAD: Adams Suit Remanded to Oklahoma State Court
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES ADAMS, on behalf of himself and other Oklahoma
citizens similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EAGLE ROAD OIL LLC,
CUMMINGS OIL COMPANY, TERRITORY RESOURCES, LLC, ENERVEST OPERATING,
L.L.C., PETRO WARRIOR, L.L.C., PETROQUEST ENERGY, L.L.C., and
TRINITY OPERATING (USG) LLC, Defendants, Case No.
18-CV-00568-GKF-FHM (N.D. Okla.), Judge Gregory K. Frizzell of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma remanded
the action to the District Court for Pawnee County, Oklahoma.

On Nov. 17, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed the Class Action Petition in
the District Court in and for Pawnee County, Oklahoma against
Defendants Eagle Road Oil, LLC, Cummings Oil Co., and John Does.
On Dec. 21, 2016, Cummings Oil removed the case to the Northern
District of Oklahoma on the basis of federal question jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, where it was designated case
no. 16-CV-757 and randomly assigned to U.S. District Judge Claire
V. Eagan.  On April 12, 2017, Judge Eagan concluded the court
lacked federal question jurisdiction and therefore remanded the
case back to the District Court for Pawnee County.

The Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Complaint -- the operative
pleading in the matter -- on Aug. 27, 2018 in the District Court
for Pawnee County.  In addition to previously named Defendants
Eagle Road and Cummings, the Third Amended Complaint named as
Defendants Territory Resources, LLC; Enervest Operating, L.L.C.;
Petro Warrior, L.L.C.; PetroQuest Energy, L.L.C.; and Trinity
Operating (USG) LLC for the first time.  Trinity removed the case
to the Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").

The Plaintiffs now ask the Court to decline jurisdiction and
remand, and Enervest and Trinity have responded.

Jude Frizzell finds that all of the Plaintiffs are Oklahoma
citizens because the putative class is limited to citizens of
Oklahoma.  The "main allegation" is that disposal of fracking
wastewater with injection wells caused the Pawnee earthquake, and
Eagle Road is alleged to have injected the second most wastewater
amongst the Defendants.  Further, the relief sought is based solely
on damage to Oklahoma residential or business property as a result
of earthquakes that occurred in Oklahoma and therefore the
principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct are limited
to Oklahoma.  Based on the foregoing examples, the Judge concludes
the matter constitutes a matter of "truly local focus" that should
not be moved to the Court because Oklahoma has a strong interest in
adjudicating the dispute.

In addition, the requirements of the local controversy exception
are satisfied.  Accordingly, Section 1332 dictates that the Court
will decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction in the matter,
and remand the case back to state court.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Frizzell the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Remand.  The Court Clerk is directed to remand the action to the
District Court for Pawnee County, Oklahoma.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 23, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/6W6yFj from Leagle.com.

James Adams, on behalf of himself and other Oklahoma citizens
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alex T. Gray, Steel
Wright Gray & Hutchinson PLLC, Billy Joe Ellington --
bjelaw33@gmail.com -- Attorney at Law, Curt Douglas Marshall --
cmarshall@weitzlux.com -- Weitz & Luxenberg, PC, Nate Steel, Steel
Wright Gray & Hutchinson PLLC, Robin Lynn Greenwald --
rgreenwald@weitzlux.com -- Weitz & Luxenberg, PC & Scott Emory
Poynter -- scott@poynterlawgroup.com -- Poynter Law Group.

Eagle Road Oil LLC, Defendant, represented by Ryan Andrew Pittman
-- rpittman@gablelaw.com -- Gable & Gotwals & Steven Joseph Adams
-- sadams@gablelaw.com -- Gable & Gotwals.

Cummings Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Christa Sullivan ,
Edinger Leonard & Blakley PLLC, Jacqueline Gayle Stone --
jstone@elbattorneys.com -- Edinger Leonard & Blakley PLLC, Jason
Allen Reese, Edinger Leonard & Blakley PLLC, Kenneth H. Blakley --
kblakley@elbattorneys.com -- Edinger Leonard & Blakley PLLC &
Travis Walter Brown, Edinger Leonard & Blakley PLLC.

Territory Resources, LLC, Defendant, represented by Justin Todd
Woolery -- todd.woolery@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft & Patrick
L. Stein -- patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft.

Enervest Operating, L.L.C, Defendant, represented by Christopher
Eric Shephard, Fellers Snider Blankenship Bailey & Tippens, Greg
Albert Castro, Fellers Snider Blankenship Bailey & Tippens & Mark
Kenneth Stonecipher, Fellers Snider Blankenship Bailey & Tippens.

Petro Warrior, L.L.C, Defendant, represented by Trevor Ray Henson,
Levinson, Smith & Huffman, P.C.

Petroquest Energy, L.L.C, Defendant, represented by John Louis
Randolph, Jr. -- jrandolph@praywalker.com -- Pray Walker PC &
Robert J. Winter -- rwinter@praywalker.com -- Pray Walker PC.

Trinity Operating (USG) LLC, Defendant, represented by J. Kevin
Hayes -- khayes@hallestill.com -- Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden
& Nelson, James C.T. Hardwick -- jhardwick@hallestill.com -- Hall
Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson, Michael D. Morfey, Hunton
Andrews Kurth LLP, Michele R. Blythe, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP &
Pamela S. Anderson -- panderson@hallestill.com -- Hall Estill
Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson.


EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Giambalvo Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
ROSANNE GIAMBALVO, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 8:19-cv-02076-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla., Aug.
21, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Edgewell Personal Care is a limited liability company organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its
principal place of business in Shelton, Fairfield County,
Connecticut.

The Defendant is a consumer products company providing personal
care and hygiene products to various businesses throughout Pasco
and Pinellas County, Florida, the state of Florida, and throughout
the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo A. Duarte, Esq.
          THE DUARTE FIRM, P.A.
          401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 405-1783
          Facsimile: (813) 371-1836
          E-mail: rick@duartefirm.com


ELECTRICITY MAINE: Discovery Underway in Veilleux Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that discovery is still
ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Katherine Veilleux, et
al. v. Electricity Maine LLC, Provider Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo,
LLC, Kevin Dean, and Emile Clavet.

A settlement conference began on July 2, 2019.

Katherine Veilleux, et. al. v. Electricity Maine LLC, Provider
Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean, and Emile Clavet is a
purported class action lawsuit filed on November 18, 2016 in the
United States District Court of Maine, alleging that Electricity
Maine, LLC ("Electricity Maine"), an entity acquired by Spark
Holdco in mid-2016, enrolled and re-enrolled customers through
fraudulent and misleading advertising, promotions, and other
communications prior to and following the acquisition.

Plaintiffs allege claims under The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), the Maine Unfair Trade Practice Act,
civil conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment
and breach of contract.

Plaintiffs seek damages for themselves and the purported class,
rescission of contracts with Electricity Maine, injunctive relief,
restitution, and attorney's fees.

Discovery is ongoing in this matter.

Spark Energy said, "Spark HoldCo and Electricity Maine intend to
vigorously defend this matter and the allegations asserted therein,
including the request to certify a class. Electricity Maine and
Spark HoldCo have also filed a motion to compel arbitration of
certain Plaintiffs' claims as some of the applicable Terms of
Service contain an arbitration provision and class action waiver.
The parties are currently in settlement negotiations. In a parallel
declaratory judgment action, the Company won a favorable verdict
against Zurich, one of Electricity Maine's insurance carriers, and
Zurich has been ordered to pay certain costs associated with this
claim that the Company believes will offset any total losses to the
Company. The Company also believes indemnity offsets with the
former sellers of Electricity Maine will be applicable to any
settlement, but the Company may have some additional liability
beyond the existing indemnity and insurance coverage to resolve
this matter. Given the early stages of the settlement discussions,
we cannot predict the amount of additional liability of this case
at this time, but we do not believe that the potential additional
liability, if any, will have a material adverse effect on our
financial position."

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

Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


ESP RECEIVABLES: Reynolds Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Russell Reynolds, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ESP Receivables Management, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-01623 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 21, 2019) is an
action against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

In connection with the collection of a debt, Defendant sent
Plaintiff written communication dated December 6, 2018, which lists
the balance of the Debt as $20,065.84. The Defendant's December 6,
2018 letter states: "If we do not receive prompt payment, we will
advise our client of their options to collect this debt. To avoid
pending action, you must pay immediately or contact our office to
make acceptable arrangements." The letter then claims that "[t]his
however does not overshadow the rights outlined below" and purports
to provide the dispute rights contained in the FDCPA.

However, Defendant's threat of "action" and demand for immediate
payment would still cause the consumer to overlook their rights due
to fear of an imminent lawsuit, notes the complaint. A consumer,
faced with the demand for a $20,000 payment, may well wonder what
good it would do to dispute, given that he or she may face a
lawsuit anyway if payment is not made. The Defendant's December 6,
2018 letter purports to provide the dispute rights contained in the
FDCPA by stating: "If you notify me that the debt, or any portion
thereof, is disputed, I will obtain and mail to you verification of
the debt or a copy of the judgement (if applicable) against you."
The Defendant's December 6, 2018 letter omits the "in writing"
requirement, thus failing to inform Plaintiff, or the least
sophisticated consumer, that the right to verification is triggered
only through written dispute, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt who
resided in the State of Florida, County of Osceola, and City of
Kissimmee.

Defendant is an entity who at all relevant times was engaged, by
use of the mails and telephone, in the business of attempting to
collect a "debt" from Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alex D. Weisberg, Esq.
     Weisberg Consumer Law Group, PA
     5846 S. Flamingo Rd, Ste. 290
     Cooper City, FL 33330
     Phone: (954) 212-2184
     Fax: (866) 577-0963
     Email: aweisberg@afclaw.com


FARMLAND PARTNERS: Turner Insurance Suit Proceeds to Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Farmland Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, The Turner Insurance Agency,
Inc. v. Farmland Partners, Inc.  

On July 11, 2018, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit,
captioned Kachmar v. Farmland Partners, Inc. ("the Kachmar
Action"), was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado against the Company and certain of our
officers by a purported Company stockholder.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that our disclosures
related to the FPI Loan Program were materially false and
misleading in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On August 17, 2018, a second purported class action, then-captioned
Mariconda v. Farmland Partners Inc. (the "Turner Action") was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
alleging substantially identical claims as the Kachmar Action.  

On November 20, 2018, the court appointed The Turner Insurance
Agency, Inc., and Cecilia Turner as lead plaintiffs in the Turner
Action and re-captioned the case as The Turner Insurance Agency,
Inc. v. Farmland Partners, Inc.  

On March 11, 2019, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs and
additional plaintiff Obelisk Capital Management filed an amended
complaint in the Turner Action. On April 15, 2019, the defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint in the Turner Action. On
June 18, 2019, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss
the amended complaint in the Turner Action.  

The defendants answered the amended complaint on July 2, 2019. The
Turner Action will now proceed to the discovery phase of
litigation.  

Farmland Partners said, "At this time, no class has been certified
in the Turner Action and we do not know the amount of damages or
other remedies being sought by the plaintiffs. The Company can
provide no assurances as to the outcome of this litigation or
provide an estimate of related expenses at this time. The Company
believes that a substantial portion of the costs associated with
the stockholder class action litigation will be covered by
insurance. However, because the Company is still in negotiations
with its insurance carrier regarding the coverage of defense costs
incurred to date, the Company has not recognized any receivable for
insurance recoveries that the Company believes it will be entitled
to upon completion of the claim review process."

Farmland Partners Inc. is an internally managed real estate company
that owns and seeks to acquire high-quality North American farmland
and makes loans to farmers secured by farm real estate. The company
is based in Denver, Colorado.


FLORIDA TECHNICAL: Removes Garcia FLSA Suit to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant removed on August 16, 2019, the purported class
action lawsuit styled ERIK GARCIA, and others similarly-situated v.
FLORIDA TECHNICAL COLLEGE, INC., a Florida corporation, Case No.
19-021250-CA-01, from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami
Division.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-23453-XXXX to
the proceeding.

On July 17, 2019, Erik Garcia commenced the state court action.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eddy O. Marban, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
          2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 804
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 448-9292
          E-mail: em@eddymarbanlaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip A. Ortiz, Esq.
          THE FIRM LAW GROUP
          14100 Palmetto Frontage Road, Suite 390
          Miami Lakes, FL 33016
          Telephone: (305) 693-8899
          E-mail: phillip@firmlawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Peter W. Homer, Esq.
          Priscilla Jimenez, Esq.
          Homer Bonner Jacobs
          1200 Four Seasons Tower
          1441 Brickell Avenue
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 350-5100
          Facsimile: (305) 372-2738
          E-mail: phomer@homerbonner.com
                  pjimenez@homerbonner.com


FORD MOTOR: Class Action Calls for Recall on Explorer Hoods
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Lopez, writing for Ford Authority, reports that a new
class action lawsuit alleges that Ford must issue a recall for
corroding hoods on a wide range of Ford Explorer models.  The
corroding hoods are the product of contamination in the aluminum
body panel, which results in bubbling and flaking paint, among
other aesthetic issues.

What's more, the lawsuit alleges that Ford has known about the hood
corrosion issue for nearly two decades at this point, but failed to
issue a recall or cover repairs.

Apparently, the corroding hood issue first started in the early
2000's, when Ford Explorer construction was moved over to lighter
aluminum panels with the intention of offering greater fuel economy
figures.

The Ford Explorer corroding hood issue stems from iron
contamination of the aluminum panel prior to the application of
paint during production. Over time, the iron particles move into
the aluminum body part, causing it to corrode.

As highlighted in a recent report from Car Complaints, Ford has
already created several technical service bulletins (TSB) on the
issue. The first was in 2004, followed by a second in 2006 and a
third in 2016. A fourth TSB was issued in February of 2019 that
recommended outright panel replacement.

The plaintiff also points out that the two-year extended coverage
for body panel corrosion is limited, as it only applies to a body
panel that "perforates," that is, corrodes through completely.
However, aluminum panels can't perforate, making the warranty
essentially meaningless with regard to issues surrounding corroding
hoods on Ford Explorer models.

The lawsuit includes "All persons in the United States and its
territories who, within the applicable statute of limitations
period, and as shown by Defendants records, purchased or leased a
new or used Ford Explorer."

In 2018, a separate class action was filed addressing bubbling
paint for 2013 to 2018 Ford Explorer, Ford Expedition and Ford
Mustang models, all of which use aluminum body components.

Subscribe to Ford Authority for more Ford Explorer news and
around-the-clock Ford news coverage. [GN]



FORD MOTOR: Class Status for Women Suing Over Harassment Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Wittich, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reports that a federal
judge has denied class-action status for a group of women who have
sued Ford Motor Company, alleging rampant sexual misconduct at the
auto giant's two Chicago plants.

Judge Robert Dow's ruling on August 22 marks a loss for the 30-plus
women who worked at the plants and filed a lawsuit in the Northern
District of Illinois in 2014, claiming their male coworkers and
supervisors subjected them to sexual harassment, discrimination and
threats of retaliation if they reported the inappropriate
behavior.

In a 70-page decision, Dow shot down their bid for class-action
status, writing that the women could instead sue as individuals
because they weren't "exposed to the same conduct."

"To the contrary, the evidence indicates that named Plaintiffs and
putative class members were exposed to a wide range of purported
misconduct — from exposure to sexual graffiti, to quid pro quo
sexual propositions, to rape," Dow wrote.

Last year, three of the women testified in City Council chambers
about the vulgarities they faced while working at the two plants.

The women, who said they were greeted with chants of "fresh meat"
on their first day, accused their male coworkers of masturbating on
the assembly line, sharing photos of their penises, groping and
propositioning women and retaliating against those who complained.

"They flexed their power, threatened my career and suggested if I
wanted to continue to provide for my family, I had to engage in
sexual acts or favors," Miyoshi Morris told aldermen of her 18
years at Ford.

Their lawsuit is not the first to allege sexual misconduct at
Ford's Chicago plants. In 1999, a class-action lawsuit alleging
sexual harassment was settled and a court-ordered monitor was
appointed.

A Ford spokesperson said in an email that the company "does not
tolerate sexual harassment or discrimination" and that it will
"take those claims very seriously and investigate them
thoroughly."

"While we are pleased with the judge's decision, we will continue
to reinforce the importance of respectful, harassment-free
environments at all of our facilities, including our Chicago
plants," the statement said.

The Ford spokesperson said the company has a "comprehensive
approach" in place to prevent and address sexual harassment and
discrimination.

The plaintiffs' attorneys did not immediately return messages
seeking comment. [GN]



FORD MOTOR: Settles MyFord Touch Class Action for $17MM
-------------------------------------------------------
Ronan Glon, writing for autoblog, reports that Ford is setting
aside $17 million to compensate owners of vehicles equipped with
early versions of the MyFord Touch and MyLincoln Touch infotainment
systems, reports Top Class Actions via The Drive. The company chose
to settle a class-action lawsuit filed by motorists who complained
about the software's alleged shortcomings.

The settlement compensates over 360,000 motorists who purchased or
leased a car equipped with the aforementioned infotainment systems
between 2010 and August 2013. The law firm representing disgruntled
screen-poking drivers claims MyFord Touch and MyLincoln Touch were
defective -- the website for the settlement is here. It notes the
software didn't respond to voice commands, didn't connect to the
owner's cell phone, didn't get motorists to their destination,
froze, and crashed. Drivers were left without features they often
paid a significant premium for, and Apple CarPlay wasn't around to
save the day.

The problems Ford encountered with MyFord Touch and MyLincoln Touch
were well documented during the early 2010s. In 2011, a Michigan
dealer began offering buyers a free touchscreen tutorial. Ford
later paid dealers to train buyers, but the complaints gradually
got louder ,and glitches sank the brand in a 2012 Consumer Reports
survey. Jim Farley, the company's marketing chief at the time,
vowed to fix it. Updates (and extended warranties) appeased
motorists, but even family scion Bill Ford later admitted he got
stuck on the side of the road after his navigation system crashed.

Ford firmly denies wrong-doing, and it stands behind the
infotainment systems it put in its cars, but it agreed to settle
the class-action lawsuit out of court. Only motorists who live in
California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio,
Virginia, and Washington are able to file a claim.

The amount of money that current and former owners can receive
depends on the number of times they took their car to shop to fix
an infotainment-related problem. Those who had it repaired once can
file a $100 claim. Motorists who took two trips to the dealer can
get $250, and the unlucky few whose car returned to the dealership
three or more times will be awarded $400. Strangely, motorists who
owned a model covered by the lawsuit and simply didn't like the
infotainment system but never needed to get it repaired can ask
Ford for $45.

Current and former owners seeking compensation need to submit a
claim online before September 24. Proof of ownership is required.
[GN]


FORD MOTOR: Woellecke et al Sue over Wrongful Termination
---------------------------------------------------------
WERNER WOELLECKE and TERRY HAGGERTY individually and on behalf of
similarly situated LL1 through LL5 former Ford Motor Company
managers, the Plaintiffs, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-12430-JEL-EAS (E.D.
Mich., Aug. 16, 2019), targets Ford Motor's wrongful termination in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

In order to reduce operating expenses and reduce debt and pension
liabilities, Ford adopted a Salaried Involuntary Reduction Process
("SIRP") which was carried out in four waves.

Ford, at a cost of more than $28 million, retained the services of
Boston Consulting Group ("BCG") to develop a headcount and pension
reduction plan. This plan was promoted as a High-Tech program
designed to modernize Ford and was given the title of "Smart
Redesign." At the core of the BCG program was a proprietary
algorithm that was capable of quickly reviewing information from
tens of thousands of personnel records. This automated system was
deliberately programmed to target older and higher pension-cost
salaried employees based on legally protected characteristics
including the employee's proximity to retirement benefit milestones
or the employee's age. The Plaintiffs and the other LL1 through LL5
managers ("Managers") were separated in one of the Four Waves
ending on May 31, 2019.

Managers such as Plaintiffs, hired before January 1, 2004, were
eligible to participate in Ford's General Retirement Plan ("GRP").
Milestones for full retirement benefits per the terms of the GRP
included a  supplemental benefit upon attaining 30 years of Ford
Service, regardless of age ("Service Milestone" or "30 and out") or
attaining the age of 55 and at least 10 years of Ford Service, thus
entitling the employee to an early retirement benefit ("Age
Milestone" or "55 and 10").

Ford, with the aid of the BCG algorithm, terminated Plaintiffs for
the purpose of preventing them from attaining their "30 and Out"
supplemental benefit and "55 and 10" early retirement benefit, or
both. By terminating its Managers to prevent them from attaining
one or both Milestones, Ford significantly reduced the employee's
lifetime retirement benefits and significantly improved its balance
sheet by reducing its ongoing pension obligations.

The impact on Ford's long-term Managers terminated short of their
Age and Service Milestones has been financially devasting. In one
case presented in this Complaint, a terminated Manager's lump sum
pension at 53 years of age and 27.5 years of service has been
valued at $865,000. If the Company permitted him to work until
September 1, 2020, at age 55, the lump sum value of his pension
would be $1.633 million. If the Company permitted him to work until
November 1, 2021 and thereby attaining 30 years of service, the
lump sum value of his pension would be $1.890 million.

Many Managers who were notified of their impending terminations and
who were close to reaching either a Service or Age Milestone
requested that Ford "Bridge" them to one or both Milestones.
Bridging could be accomplished in several ways. One form of
Bridging would be to delay the Manager's termination date until he
or she reaches a pension Milestone. Another form of Bridging is for
the Company to add to the employee's age or years of service so
that the employee will achieve an important retirement milestone.

The opportunity for a Manager covered by ERISA to be Bridged is a
retirement benefit set forth in a Ford ERISA plan and is a
protected ERISA right.

Qualified Managers (LL1 through LL5) who were terminated in the
2019 SIRP were entitled to Bridging pursuant to Ford's Select
Retirement Plan ("SRP"). Each of them could have received an
appropriate Bridge to greater retirement benefits if Senior
management had informed them of their right to apply for a Bridge
or to meaningfully appeal any adverse decision on their
application.

Instead of being honest and forthright about this Bridging benefit,
Ford's Senior management breached their moral, ethical and legal
duties to the Company's former Managers by denying requests for a
Bridging benefit and concealing from this set of Managers their
right to secure this SRP benefit.

SRP Bridging consisted of adding three years of age to LL1 through
LL5 Managers who were hired before January 1, 2004 and who had
reached age 52 or older and/or adding three years of service
credits for these eligible Managers with 10 or more years of
service. These add-ons enabled the eligible Manager to qualify for
a "55 and 10" early retirement. SRP Bridging is also known within
the Company as a "3+3 Bridge". During the 2019 SIRP, Ford granted
some Managers an opportunity to Bridge and denied Bridging to other
similarly situated Managers, including Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs, unaware of the existence of SRP or their ERISA rights
to pursue Bridging benefits, executed releases in order to obtain
severance and other benefits from Ford upon termination.

The Company, by itself and through its Plan Administrators, had a
fiduciary duty to disclose to Plaintiffs and similarly situated
former Managers the existence of the SRP and to describe in enough
detail their Bridging rights so they could make an informed
decision as to their best course of action.

The releases executed by Plaintiffs are invalid and should be set
aside because they were secured by the Company through what amounts
to fraudulent concealment. Unlawful age bias was an additional
reason motivating Ford to select Plaintiffs for termination.

In addition to the BCG algorithm, Ford used a forced ranking
performance evaluation process which was and remains biased against
its older Managers. Specifically, the SIRP process required the
selection of employees for termination based in part on performance
and projected or potential future performance. The SIRP selections
were thus tainted because Ford used an algorithm and performance
evaluation tools which were infected with age bias.

The systemic and automated form of age bias made Plaintiffs more
vulnerable for separation. Ford has refused to allow those Managers
terminated in the 2019 SIRP from transferring laterally to open
positions and it has refused to permit the targeted Managers from
taking a lower status position to continue their employment.

The Plaintiffs are Managers who were selected for separation in the
2019 SIRP for the purpose of preventing them from reaching
important pension milestones which would have allowed them to
receive greater retirement benefits and consequently would have
dramatically increased Ford's pension obligations to its former
managers.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael L. Pitt, Esq.
          Megan A. Bonanni, Esq.
          PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER AND RIVERS PC
          117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          (248) 398-9800 (phone)
          (248) 268-7996 (fax)
          E-mail: mpitt@pittlawpc.com
                  mbonanni@pittlawpc.com

               - and -

          Kevin M. Carlson, Esq.
          KEVIN M. CARLSON PLLC
          P.O. Box 6028
          Plymouth, MI 48170
          Telephone: (734) 386-1919
          E-mail: kevin@kevincarlsonlaw.com

FURNITURE ROW: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Furniture Row, LLC.
The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Furniture Row, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07891 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 22, 2019).

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

Furniture Row, LLC retails furniture products. The Company offers
home furnishing products which includes chairs, tables, reclines,
sofa, and shelves. Furniture Row serves its clients in the State of
Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


G&M MANAGEMENT: Peraza Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
--------------------------------------------------
Oscar Quiroz Peraza, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. G & M Management, LLC d/b/a Branford Car
Wash, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01298-JAM (D. Conn., Aug. 21,
2019) is a collective action complaint alleging, on behalf of
Plaintiff, and all other similarly-situated current and former
employees of Defendant who elect to opt into this action, pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), that they are (i)
entitled to unpaid wages from the Defendant for all tips illegally
retained by the Defendant, and (ii) entitled to liquidated damages
pursuant to the FLSA.

The Defendant enacted policies to illegally retain customer tips
meant for Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, including by
running a tip pool that diverted customer to managers and
supervisors, and by enacting a policy that any employee who arrived
even one minute late would lose half or all of their earned tips,
says the complaint. These policies violated the FLSA and
Connecticut statutory provisions. Moreover, the Defendant fired
Plaintiff for complaining about this unfair and illegal tip policy,
the complaint asserts.

Plaintiff worked on detailing, washing cars, and helping with oil
changes for Defendant in 2016.

Defendant is a car wash, cleaning and detailing cars.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James Bhandary-Alexander, Esq.
     New Haven Legal Assistance Assoc.
     426 State Street
     New Haven, CT 06510
     Phone: (203) 946-4811
     Fax: (203) 498-9271 (fax)
     Email: Jbhandary-alexander@nhlegal.org


GARDEN CITY: Court Dismisses Fourtstar Pro Se Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Columbia issued an
Order dismissing Pro Se Complaint in the case captioned Victor
Charles Fourstar, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Garden City Group, Inc. et.
al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 18-966 (UNA). (D.D.C.).

Plaintiff Victor Charles Fourstar, Jr. is a prisoner currently
incarcerated at the Cascade Detention Facility in Great Falls,
Montana. He has filed a First Amended Complaint, on behalf of
himself and three prisoners who at the time of the filing were all
at the Federal Detention Center in Sheridan, Oregon. The proposed
class includes all Native Americans of Indian reservations within
the State of Montana. The complaint is brought under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The Court deems this action brought only by Fourstar. As a pro se
litigant, Fourstar must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.   

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
complaints to contain (1) a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court's jurisdiction and (2) a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief. Additionally, each allegation must be simple, concise, and
direct.

The Amended Complaint is far from clear, particularly as to any
claims pertaining solely to Fourstar. Therefore, the Court will
dismiss that complaint without prejudice and with leave for
Fourstar to plead only his claims in accordance with Rule 8(a) and
(d)(1).  

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 19, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyw4zv4b from
Leagle.com.

VICTOR CHARLES FOURSTAR, Jr., Plaintiff, pro se.


GEICO GENERAL: Court Denies Bid to Remand Insurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for
Consideration of Remand in the case captioned RANDY ROSENBERG,
D.C., P.A., a/a/o Danielle Russell, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. 19-cv-61422-BLOOM/Valle. (S.D. Fla.).

Plaintiff brings a class claim for declaratory relief against Geico
General Insurance Company, alleging that Defendant have a
wide-spread practice of improperly paying personal injury
protection (PIP) claims at a reduced amount. In addition to
declaratory relief, Plaintiff seeks an order awarding monetary
damages to the individual plaintiff only and requiring
re-adjustment of all claims based on a proper reading of the
insurance policy.

The question before the Court is whether Plaintiff has standing
under Article III of the Constitution. To establish Article III
standing, a plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact (2)
that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant
and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision.

In Gerber, the plaintiff challenged the interpretation of the same
fee schedule endorsement at issue in the present case by the same
Defendant as in the present case. Gerber, 925 F.3d 1205, 1209.
There, the plaintiff sought declaratory relief and did not seek
monetary damages. The Eleventh Circuit reiterated the governing
precedent for Article III standing for declaratory relief claims: a
plaintiff seeking declaratory relief only must allege facts from
which it appears that there is a `substantial likelihood that he
will suffer injury in the future.'

In so holding, the Eleventh Circuit distinguished Gerber, in which
the plaintiff did not seek monetary damages, from Mills v. Foremost
Ins. Co., 511 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2008), an insurance coverage
dispute in which the plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and
damages for breach of contract.

In Mills, the plaintiffs owned a mobile home that was insured under
a policy issued by the defendant, Foremost Insurance Company. They
filed a class action alleging that Foremost had failed to pay them
and other insureds for overhead, profit, and taxes after they
sustained hurricane-damaged losses, and they sought compensation
for those Withheld Payments.

The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss,
holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims
because they failed to allege that they satisfied certain
preconditions in the insurance policy to receive the Withheld
Payments. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's
decision, holding as to the issue of standing as follows: The
complaint alleges that the Millses had a mobile home, that Foremost
issued an insurance policy covering hurricane damage to the mobile
home, that a hurricane damaged the Millses' mobile home, that the
Millses made a claim under the Policy for those damages, and that
Foremost paid less on the claim than the Millses contend they are
owed. Thus, the Millses clearly had standing to sue for damages
under the Policy.  

In distinguishing Mills, the Eleventh Circuit in Gerber articulated
the relevant distinctions between the allegations in the two cases:
Mills was not as here an exhaustion of benefits case. Rather, it
was a coverage dispute that included a breach of contract claim
seeking damages arising out of that dispute. This distinction is
critical because if the plaintiffs had prevailed in Mills, they
would have been entitled to the Withheld Payments. Thus, we found
there that the Millses clearly had standing to sue for damages
under the Policy because the plaintiffs alleged that the insurer
paid them less on the claim than [they] contend they are owed, and
a ruling in their favor on that point would entitle them to the
money owed. By contrast, when insurance benefits are fully
exhausted (as here, and as in certain of the cases cited supra),
there is no case or controversy because no money is owed regardless
of how the case is ultimately decided. Mills would apply if Gerber
alleged breach of contract and sought damages. But, it specifically
tailored its complaint to avoid such allegations

Here, as in Mills and unlike in Gerber, Plaintiff is seeking
monetary damages resulting from Defendant allegedly paying less on
certain insurance claims than Plaintiff contends it is owed. If
Plaintiff prevails it may be entitled to the difference between the
amount Defendant reimbursed Plaintiff and the full amount billed
for the four charges for Russell's medical services referenced in
the Complaint. Thus, Plaintiff has standing to sue under
Defendant's automobile policy.

Plaintiff's Motion for remand is denied. Additionally, because the
Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary, Defendant's request for
a hearing on the Motion for Remand is denied.  

A copy full-text copy of the District Court's August 19, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yy6a3ho8 from Leagle.com.

Randy Rosenberg, D.C., P.A., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Edward Herbert
Zebersky -- ezebersky@zpllp.com -- Zebersky Payne, LLP, Mark S.
Fistos, Zebersky Payne LLP & Michael Trent Lewenz, Zebersky Payne
LLP, 110 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 2150, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
33301

GEICO General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Thomas
Lee Hunker -- thomas.hunker@csklegal.com -- Cole, Scott & Kissane,
P.A. & Peter David Weinstein -- peter.weinstein@csklegal.com --
Cole Scott Kissane PA.


GENERAL MILLS: Truxel Appeal N.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Stephen Hadley and Beverly Truxel filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in their lawsuit titled Beverly Truxel, et al. v.
General Mills Sales, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-04957-JSW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, General Mills
touts its products as healthy, but they contain unhealthy levels of
sugar, according to the class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed Aug. 29, 2016, alleged General Mills made false
claims for a number of its cereals and breakfast bars, including
Cheerios, Fiber One and Nature Valley brands.

In the filing, Plaintiffs Bev Truxel and Stephen Hadley stated the
science on the dangers of excessive sugar intake is "compelling,"
yet General Mills has marketed its high-sugar products using health
and wellness claims.

The appellate case is captioned as Beverly Truxel, et al. v.
General Mills Sales, Inc., Case No. 19-16621, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellants Stephen Hadley and Beverly Truxel's opening
      brief is due on October 15, 2019;

   -- Appellee General Mills Sales, Inc.'s answering brief is due
      on November 14, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants BEVERLY TRUXEL and STEPHEN HADLEY,
individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, and the
general public, are represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Trevor Flynn, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee GENERAL MILLS SALES, INC. is represented by:

          David Taro Biderman, Esq.
          Jacqueline Elizabeth Young, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          505 Howard Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 344-7003
          E-mail: DBiderman@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Hanson, Esq.
          Mica D. Klein, Esq.
          Charles Christian Sipos, Esq.
          Lauren Elizabeth Watts Staniar, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 359-3206
          E-mail: jhanson@perkinscoie.com
                  MicaKlein@perkinscoie.com
                  CSipos@perkinscoie.com
                  LStaniar@perkinscoie.com


GENIE ENERGY: Hearing on Bid to Compel Arbitration Set for Oct. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that hearing on a motion to
compel arbitration of claims made by one of the named plaintiffs
along with a stay of litigation is schedule for October 31, 2019.

On October 5, 2018, named plaintiffs Scott Mackey and Daniel
Hernandez filed a putative class action complaint against IDT
Energy in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq.

The named plaintiffs filed the suit on behalf of: (1) a putative
Cell Phone class consisting of all persons in the U.S. to whom IDT
Energy and/or a third party acting on IDT Energy's behalf allegedly
made one or more telemarketing calls promoting IDT Energy's goods
or services to their cellular telephone number through the use of
an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice within the four year period preceding the filing
of the complaint and (2) a putative Do-Not-Call class consisting of
all persons in the U.S. who allegedly received more than one call
from IDT Energy and/or some party acting on IDT Energy's behalf
promoting IDT Energy's goods or services in a 12-month period on
their cellular phone or residential telephone line and whose number
appears on the National Do-Not-Call registry within the four year
period preceding the filing of the complaint.

On November 30, 2018, IDT Energy filed its Answer and Defenses to
the complaint and the parties are now engaged in discovery.

On July 10, 2019, IDT Energy filed a motion to (1) compel
arbitration of claims made by one of the named plaintiffs along
with a stay of litigation against such named plaintiff pursuant to
terms alleged to have been opted in and agreed to, and (2)
bifurcation of individual and class claims to expedite discovery
and dispositive motions related to the named plaintiffs. The
hearing on the motion is schedule for October 31, 2019.

Genie Energy said, "IDT Energy denies the allegations in the
complaint, which it believes to be meritless and plans to
vigorously defend this action. Based upon the Company’s
preliminary assessment of this matter, a loss based on the merits
is not considered probable, nor is the amount of loss, if any,
estimable as of June 30, 2019."

Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail
energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The
company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Genie
Energy Services; and Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. Genie Energy Ltd. was
incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


GENIE ENERGY: Remaining Class Action Liability Settled in Full
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the remaining balance of
the company's liability related to a class-action lawsuit was
settled in full.

On March 13, 2014, July 2, 2014 and July 15, 2014, named plaintiffs
in Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey commenced three separate
putative class-action lawsuits against IDT Energy, Genie Retail
Energy (GRE), Genie Energy International Corporation (GEIC), and
Genie (collectively, "IDTE") contending, among other things, that
they and other former and current customers of IDTE were injured as
a result of IDTE's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing
practices. The Company denied any basis for those allegations
and/or wrongdoing.

On July 5, 2017, the Company entered into a settlement of all three
actions to further its efforts to address its customers' concerns.
On July 31, 2018, the Magistrate Court issued a report and
recommendation recommending approval of the settlement and
reduction of the attorneys' fees. On October 18, 2018, the Court
entered a final order approving the Settlement Agreement.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company agreed to pay certain
amounts to resolve the lawsuits and obtain a release of claims that
were, or could have been, asserted in the lawsuits or that are
related to, or arise out of the conduct alleged in the lawsuits or
similar conduct, wherever it may have occurred. The settlement
payment includes payments to customers who timely made a claim,
class counsel, and the named plaintiffs, as well as the cost of a
claims administrator for administrating the claims process. The
period for class members to make claims has expired, and in first
quarter of 2018, based on the claims received and related
administrative costs, the Company estimated that the total
settlement payment would be approximately $7.6 million.

In the second quarter of 2019, the remaining balance of the
liability of $0.4 million related to the class-action lawsuit was
settled in full.

Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail
energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The
company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Genie
Energy Services; and Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. Genie Energy Ltd. was
incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


GOGO INC: Bid to Dismiss Pierrelouis Class Action Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gogo Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss the class
action suit styled as, Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., is still pending.

On June 27, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division styled
Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., naming the Company, its former Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and its current Chief
Financial Officer and President, Commercial Aviation as defendants
purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the company's securities
from February 27, 2017 through May 4, 2018.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or omissions by
the company purporting to relate to its 2Ku antenna's reliability
and installation and remediation costs.

The plaintiffs seek to recover from the company and the individual
defendants an unspecified amount of damages.

In December 2018 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in
February 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss such amended
complaint. In April 2019 the plaintiffs filed a response to the
company's motion, and the company filed its reply in May 2019.

The parties are currently awaiting the Court's ruling on the
motion.

Gogo said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and intend
to continue to defend them vigorously. In accordance with Delaware
law, we will indemnify the individual named defendants for their
defense costs and any damages they incur in connection with the
suit. We have filed a claim with the issuer of our Directors’ and
Officers' insurance policy with respect to this suit. No amounts
have been accrued for any potential losses under this matter, as we
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation or any
potential losses."

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

Gogo Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides inflight broadband
connectivity and wireless entertainment services to the aviation
industry in the United States and internationally. It operates
through three segments: Commercial Aviation North America (CA-NA),
Commercial Aviation Rest of World (CA-ROW), and Business Aviation
(BA). The company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.


GOOGLE INC: 3rd Cir. Strikes Down Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Chan, writing for Jurist, reports that the US Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit on Aug. 6 struck down Google's $5.5.
million settlement over its invasion of privacy of millions of
users.

Google settled $5.5 million for installing cookies in browsers and
not paying users for their information. The company was accused of
exploiting loopholes in the Internet Explorer and Apple Safari
browsers to bypass cookie blockers. In a 3-0 decision, the appeals
court decided to let a lower court revisit the case. The judges
expressed concern over due process and whether the settlement
amount was adequate and in the best interest of impacted parties.
Under the current settlement, many privacy groups would be paid out
instead of class members.

The judges ultimately decided that the lower court's fact finding
was inadequate for the appeals court to made a fair ruling and
therefore vacate the settlement decision. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Baker Hostetler Discusses 3d Cir. Ruling on Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hostetler, writing for JD Supra, reports that in a
refreshingly plain-spoken opinion issued Aug. 6, 2019, a
three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals criticized
a multimillion-dollar class action settlement in litigation over
Google's unauthorized use of internet tracking "cookies," remanding
to the District Court for more detailed findings of fact. In re:
Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation, No.
17-cv-1480 (3d Cir. Aug. 6, 2019).

The case arose from allegations that Google created a web browser
cookie, which tracks an internet user's browsing activity even if
the user tries to configure privacy settings to block it. The
parties reached a settlement that would require Google to "stop
using the cookies for Safari browsers and to pay $5.5 million to
cover class counsel's fees and costs, incentive awards for the
named class representatives, and cy pres distributions, without
directly compensating any class members." The District Court
certified an injunctive relief-only settlement class under Rule
23(b)(2), notwithstanding the fact that the settlement purported to
release all class members' potential claims for money damages. The
only monetary benefit to the class was tangential: Google was to
pay $3 million to organizations devoted to advocating for online
privacy -- a mechanism commonly referred to as cy pres, meaning a
distribution that is supposed to be "as near as possible" to direct
monetary relief.

A single objector timely appealed and challenged the District
Court's ruling on multiple fronts. Two features of the proposed
settlement raised the Third Circuit's ire.

The first was the proposed settlement's requirement that absent
class members release their claims for money damages, even though
the District Court certified the class only for injunctive relief
purposes. Although Rule 23(e) requires District Courts to approve
all class action settlements, the Rules afford District Courts more
leeway in approving injunctive relief-only settlements because such
settlements typically do not ask class members to forgo their right
to bring monetary damages claims separately. See Rule 23(b)(2). The
Rules require more caution, however, for settlements involving
class claims for money damages; District Courts must apply
heightened certification and notice requirements and give the
settlement terms enhanced substantive scrutiny. See Rule 23(b)(3).

In the Google Cookie Placement litigation, class counsel and Google
tried to thread a middle ground. Their proposed settlement required
class members to release claims for money damages, while seeking to
certify an injunctive relief-only settlement class – thus
avoiding the more rigorous standards for class certification and
settlement approval in damages cases.

The Third Circuit said this "raises a red flag," noting that Google
and class counsel had "obtained -- for themselves anyway -- the
precise benefits that a Rule 23(b)(3) class gives to the defendant
and class counsel: namely, a broad class-wide release of claims for
money damages for the defendant, and a percentage-of-fund
calculation of attorneys' fees for class counsel[,]" while
sidestepping the heightened requirements for money damages class
settlements. The Court admonished the District Court for its
failure to scrutinize this "troubling aspect" of the settlement.
Without the means to review the settlement's fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy, the Third Circuit remanded to the
District Court to decide this issue: "whether a defendant can ever
obtain a class-wide release of claims for money damages in a Rule
23(b)(2) settlement, and if so, whether a release of that kind
requires a heightened form of notice either under Rule 23(c)(2)(B)
or due process tenets."

The Third Circuit's second point of concern centered on apparent
conflicts of interest between the parties (and counsel) and the
organizations selected as cy pres recipients. The Court noted, for
example, that Google has longstanding ties to Stanford and is a
regular donor and cy pres payor to the Berkeley Center for Law &
Technology, the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard
University, the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford
University, and the Center for Democracy & Technology. In addition,
one of the lawyers representing the class was also a board member
of Public Counsel, another cy pres beneficiary.

The District Court had disposed of this concern in one sentence,
concluding simply and without any factual findings that "no
conflict of interest" had "undermine[d] the selected cy pres
recipients." But the Third Circuit voided this holding as
impermissibly shallow. Although it generally approved of the cy
pres mechanism in certain cases – such as where direct monetary
relief is impracticable or where excess funds remain after class
members who submit claims are made whole – it held that the
circumstances in this case raised enough concern about the adequacy
of the cy pres recipients that the District Court should have
scrutinized them more closely. For class action litigants, the
lesson is that a relationship between a party and a cy pres
recipient will not automatically defeat the propriety of that award
– but it may, if the circumstances are egregious enough.

The Court remanded to the District Court to wrestle with this key
issue, which is likely to pervade in the lower courts for years to
come: Exactly when does a relationship between a cy pres recipient
and a class action litigant undermine the proposed settlement's
fairness? While we might not get a clear answer for years, if ever,
the Third Circuit's opinion teaches that District Courts should
conduct at least a modicum of fact-finding on the issue. It even
offered a few guideposts for making that determination:

If challenged by an objector, a District Court must review the
selected cy pres recipients to determine whether they have a
significant prior affiliation with any party, counsel or the
court.

A settlement should not be approved if such a prior affiliation
"would raise substantial questions . . . whether the selection of
the recipient was made on the merits." (Citing ALI, Principles of
the Law of Aggregate Litigation Section 3.07 cmt. b.)

The parties seeking settlement approval bear the burden of
explaining to a court why the cy pres selection was fair, which may
include describing the nature of any prior affiliations; what role,
if any, each affiliation played in the cy pres selection process;
whether other recipients were sincerely considered; and why these
recipients are the proper choice.
In the wake of this opinion, class action litigants should keep an
eye on two issues: (1) whether a settlement predicated on an
injunctive relief-only class can require class members to release
claims for monetary damages, and (2) under what circumstances a
relationship between a cy pres recipient and a class action
litigant will defeat the fairness of that award. [GN]


GR TRUCKING: Holt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GR Trucking. The case
is styled as Delmer Holt, On behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GR Trucking, Daniel Krpata, Antonios
Maragakis, Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
34-2019-00263345-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Aug.
22, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment".

GR Trucking, LLC provides trucking transportation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Galen T Shimoda, Esq.



GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Granite
Construction Incorporated (NYSE:GVA) for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between October 26,
2018 and August 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before October 14, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Granite took on various risks associated
with bids for heavy civil joint venture projects between 2012 and
2014. The distribution of risk between the Company and the joint
venture project partners was unbalanced to the point of being
"untenable." Based on the imbalance of risk, the Company was likely
to incur both additional project costs and dispute costs. Based on
the facts the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Granite, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

Contact:

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


HASTEN BEDS: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hastens Beds, Inc.
The case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios Individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hastens Beds,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07930 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 23,
2019).

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

Hastens Beds Inc. is a privately held company in New York, NY and
is a Single Location business, categorized under Beds and
Accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 764-7171
     Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


HELIUS MEDICAL: Faces Caramihai and Evans Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Helius Medical Technologies Inc. in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in two class action suits entitled, Caramihai
v. Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. et al. and Evans v. Helius
Medical Technologies, Inc. et al.

On or about July 9, 2019, a putative shareholder class action
lawsuit, Caramihai v. Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-06365 (S.D.N.Y.), was filed against the Company
and three of its individual officers in the Southern District of
New York ("the Caramahai Action").

The lawsuit alleges that the Company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the prospects for Federal Drug
Administration (FDA) approval of Helius's application for de novo
classification and marketing authorization of its PoNS device in
the United States.  

As a result of these alleged misstatements, the Caramahai Action
asserts claims on behalf of shareholders who bought or sold Helius
common stock between from November 9, 2017 to April 10, 2019 for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws, specifically
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.

On or about July 31, 2019, a putative shareholder class action
lawsuit, Evans v. Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-07171 (S.D.N.Y.), was filed against the Company and
three of its individual officers in the Southern District of New
York (the "Evans Action"). The Evans Action alleges similar claims
as the Caramahai Action.

Helius said, "While the Company believes that each of the Caramahai
Action and the Evans Action is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend its position in each case, it recognizes that
additional putative class actions or related proceedings may be
filed. Given that each of these legal proceedings is in its early
stages, the Company is unable to predict the probable outcomes at
this time."

Helius Medical Technologies Inc. is a neurological research
company. The Company explores neuroplasticity, electrotactile
stimulation and neuromodulation. The company is based in Newtown,
Pennsylvania.

HERSHEY ENTERTAINMENT: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HERSHEY ENTERTAINMENT
& RESORTS COMPANY. The case is styled as JOHN MAHONEY ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. HERSHEY
ENTERTAINMENT & RESORTS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-03835-TJS (E.D. Pa., Aug. 23, 2019).

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

Hershey Entertainment & Resorts Company (HE&R) is a world-class
entertainment & hospitality company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     DAVID S. GLANZBERG, ESQ.
     GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
     123 S. BROAD STREET SUITE 1640
     PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109
     Phone: (215) 981-5400
     Email: dglanzberg@aol.com


HOMEJAB LLC: Chamely Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Homejab, LLC. The
case is styled as Jason Chamely individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Homejab, LLC a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-23539-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., Aug. 23, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

HomeJab is a growing real estate photography service in more and
more cities, offering listing photography, videography, and aerial
packages.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


JUST BRANDS: Overstates Quantity of CBD in Products, Gaddis Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE S. GADDIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JUST BRANDS USA, INC., JUST BRANDS FL, LLC, and SSGI
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 0:19-cv-62067-RS (S.D. Fla.,
Aug. 16, 2019), alleges that the Defendants' labeling and packaging
repeatedly overstate the quantity of cannabidiol contained in their
products.

The putative class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of
purchasers of Just CBD-branded products against the Defendants for
manufacturing, distributing, and selling underfilled cannabidiol
("CBD") products.  CBD is a highly sought-after dietary supplement
that is commonly used to treat anxiety, insomnia, depression,
diabetes, PTSD, and chronic pain.  CBD is sold in a variety of
forms, including compounds, tinctures, and edibles. CBD can be
administered by inhalation of smoke or vapor.  Alternatively, food
and beverage items can be infused with CBD as an alternative means
of ingesting the substance.

Just Brands USA, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its principal
place of business in Coral Springs, Florida.  Just Brands FL, LLC
is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in
Coral Springs, Florida.

SSGI Financial Services, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its
principal place of business in Coral Springs, Florida.  SSGI--as
the parent company of Just Brands USA and Just Brands FL--dominates
and controls all aspects of their operations.

The Defendants manufacture, sell, and/or globally distribute
JustCBD-branded products, and are responsible for the advertising,
marketing, and for packaging of CBD-infused edibles, oils,
tinctures, creams, and vapes, including the CBD Products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Suite 220
          Miami, FL 33133-5402
          Telephone: (305) 330-5512
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com

               - and -

          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
                  fklorczyk@bursor.com


KING'S AUTO SALES: Ogbomo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against King's Auto Sales,
LLC. The case is styled as Efosa Ogbomo, All other similarly
situated consumers, Plaintiff v. King's Auto Sales, LLC, a
California Coporation, WE Finance, Inc., a California Coporation,
Defendants, Case No. SCV-265033 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sonoma Cty., Aug.
22, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Breach of
Contract/Warranty".

King's Auto Sales, LLC is a used car dealership specializing in
cash only sales.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     JOHN HENDRICKSON, ESQ.
     Retained


L.T.D. COMMODITIES: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against L.T.D. Commodities
LLC. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L.T.D. Commodities LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07892 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 22, 2019).

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

LTD Commodities LLC sells and markets items by television, catalog,
and mail-order. The Company offers books, gifts, purses, travel
bags, electronics, stationery, crafts, home improvement, baby, and
holiday related items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Gray Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, et al. The case is styled as ERIN
THERESA GRAY on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings,
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, OPTUM360 LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00139-CDL (M.D. Ga., Aug. 23 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, more commonly known as
LabCorp, is an American S&P 500 company headquartered in
Burlington, North Carolina. It operates one of the largest clinical
laboratory networks in the world, with a United States network of
36 primary laboratories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J BENJAMIN FINLEY, ESQ.
     200 13th Street
     Columbus, GA 31901
     Phone: (706) 322-6226
     Fax: (706) 322-6221
     Email: bfinley@thefinleyfirm.com

          - and -

     MARYBETH V GIBSON, ESQ.
     3535 PIEDMONT RD BLDG 14 STE 230
     ATLANTA, GA 30305
     Phone: (404) 320-9979
     Email: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com


LE ENERGY: Court Denies Dismissal of FAC in Charvat TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the case captioned
PHILIP CHARVAT, Plaintiff, v. LE ENERGY, LLC d/b/a UTILITY GAS &
POWER, Defendant. Case No. 2:19-cv-1325. (S.D. Ohio).

Philip Charvat filed this class action suit against Defendant LE
Energy, LLC d/b/a Utility Gas & Power for alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.(TCPA).  In his Amended
Complaint, Charvat alleges that LE Energy made a pre-recorded
telemarketing call to his residential telephone number. According
to Mr. Charvat, the pre-recorded message stated:
This is an important message. If you have paid your recent bills on
time you can now have a fixed rate to avoid expensive rate
increases this season. Press one to see if you can qualify for the
long term savings. Please press one now.

The Amended Complaint alleges one claim, a violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The TCPA was enacted in 1991 to
protect citizens and consumers from unwanted telemarketing calls so
it places limitations on unsolicited calls for commercial purposes.


Specific to the claims in this case, the TCPA provides: "It shall
be unlawful for any person within the United States, or any person
outside the United States if the recipient is within the United
States, to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone
line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message
without the prior express consent of the called party, unless the
call is initiated for emergency purposes, is made solely pursuant
to the collection of a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United
States, or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission under
paragraph (2)(B)."

Thus, to state a claim a complaint must allege a defendant (1)
initiated a telephone call (2) that used an artificial or
prerecorded voice to deliver a message (3) to a residential
telephone line (4) without the prior express consent of the
recipient.  

In the Amended Complaint, Charvat alleges that someone initiated a
prerecorded call to him on his residential telephone without his
consent but that the initial call did not identify the name of the
initiating organization or person. He does, however, allege that
after he pressed one as instructed by the recording, he was
transferred to a live individual; that live individual told Charvat
that his company was Utility Gas & Power. Though there may be many
companies that use the terms utilities, gas and power in their
names as Defendant argues in its Reply. Mr. Charvat alleges that he
was given a specific company name, Utility Gas & Power and that
name is a registered trade name of LE Energy. As a result of what
he was told after being transferred to a live operator, Charvat
alleges that LE Energy and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or other
persons or entities acting on LE Energy's behalf violated the TCPA.


These allegations are sufficient to raise a plausible inference
that LE Energy was responsible for initiating the call to Mr.
Charvat's residential line. While it is possible that the call
could have been made by some other third party, Plaintiff is not
required to come forward at this time with allegations or evidence
conclusively proving that LE Energy made the call itself or that it
can be held indirectly liable for the call. He has alleged
sufficient facts from which LE Energy's direct or indirect
liability may plausibly be inferred. That is all that is required
at this stage of the case.  

The Court specifically rejects Defendant's arguments that Mr.
Charvat failed to allege vicarious liability and that, by pressing
one after receiving a generic message, it resulted in an outbound
call to an apparent inbound call center. Both of these arguments,
if adopted by the Court, would effectively eviscerate the
protections afforded by the TCPA. Charvat has alleged that a call
was placed to his residential telephone number and a pre-recorded
message was played. The message artfully dodged identifying who had
placed the call and on whose behalf the call was placed. Only when
he acted as instructed by the pre-recorded message was he able to
talk to a live person, who stated that he was acting on behalf of
Utility Gas & Power. Plaintiff then claims that LE Energy and/or
its affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or entities acting on
LE Energy's behalf violated the TCPA.   

Mr. Charvat's claims have been plead with sufficient specificity.

Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
Complaint is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 19, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y66kwevo from
Leagle.com.

Philip Charvat, Plaintiff, represented by Brian K. Murphy, Murray
Murphy Moul Basil LLP, 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215, Anthony
Paronich -- anthony@paronichlaw.com -- Paronich Law, P.C., pro hac
vice & Jonathan P. Misny, Murray Murphy Moul + Basil, 1114 Dublin
Road Columbus, OH 43215

LE Energy, LLC, doing business as Utility Gas & Power, Defendant,
represented by David John Butler -- dbutler@taftlaw.com -Taft
Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Matthew A. Keilson, Kabat Chapman &
Ozmer LLP, 171 17th St NW Ste 1550, Atlanta, GA, 30363-1070, pro
hac vice & Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr. -- mzbiegien@taftlaw.com --
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.

LE Energy, LLC, doing business as, Defendant, represented by Ryan
D. Watstein, Katz & Korin PC, 171 17th St NW Ste 1550, Atlanta, GA,
30363-1070, pro hac vice.


LIBERTY MEDIA: Continues to Defend Deora Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
NantHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Deora v. NantHealth, Inc.,
2:17-cv-01825

In March 2017, a number of putative class action securities
complaints were filed in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of the company's current or former executive officers and
directors.

These complaints have been consolidated with the lead case
captioned Deora v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-01825 ("Deora"). In
June 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, which generally alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by making material misrepresentations in
NantHealth's initial public offering (IPO) registration statement
and in subsequent public statements.

In particular, the complaint refers to various third-party articles
in alleging that defendants misrepresented NantHealth’s business
with the University of Utah, donations to the university by
non-profit entities associated with our founder Dr. Soon-Shiong,
and orders for GPS Cancer.

The lead plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief on
behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or acquired
NantHealth securities in the IPO or on the open market from June 1,
2016 through May 1, 2017. In March 2018, the court largely denied
Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.
On July 30, 2019, the court certified the case as a class action.
We believe that the claims lack merit and intend to vigorously
defend the litigation.

NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
healthcare technology company in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is as a
subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC.


LITHIA OF SANTA ROSA: Puerto Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lithia of Santa Rosa,
Inc. The case is styled as Jason Puerto, All other similarly
situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Lithia of Santa Rosa, Inc., a
California Coporation DBA: Lithia Chrysler Jeep Dodge of Santa
Rosa, Defendants, Case No. SCV-265035 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sonoma
Cty., Aug. 22, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Breach of
Contract/Warranty".

Lithia Chrysler Dodge Jeep FIAT of Santa Rosa, located in Sonoma
County, California joined the Lithia Motors family of dealerships
in December 2003 after being acquired from Santa Rosa Dodge.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     JOHN HENDRICKSON, ESQ.
     Retained


LITTLE JOHN: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Warner Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE WARNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LITTLE JOHN TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES, INC.; CHRISTOPHER DALE; and STEVEN DALE, Defendants, No.
5:19-CV-05042 (W.D. Ark.), Judge P.K. Holmes, III of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville
Division, denied the Plaintiff's motion for Rule 23 class
certification.

The Plaintiff seeks Rule 23 class certification of an Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA") claim premised on allegations that she
and other "Agents" or "Freight Brokers" were not paid overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours.  She seeks
class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).

The Plaintiff argues that the predominance issue under Rule
23(b)(3) is met but makes no representation that a class action is
superior to other methods of adjudication.  Having failed
demonstrate that a class action is the superior method of
adjudication, Judge Holmes holds that the Plaintiff fails to meet
her Rule 23(b)(3) burden.

Even assuming the Plaintiff had attempted such a demonstration,
while both a collective action of an air Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") claim and a class action of an AMWA claim may be certified
in the same case, the Court has repeatedly found that doing so will
likely result in unmanageable difficulties.  Actions under the FLSA
provides for participation on an opt-in basis while Rule 23
requires nonparticipating class members to affirmatively opt-out of
the action.  The Court has already certified a collective action.
The Judge need not certify a Rule 23 class when pursuit of the
already-certified collective action will allow the parties in the
action to fairly and effectively litigate their claims.  Because
the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how a class action is a
superior method of adjudication, her motion will be denied.

For these reasons, Judge Holmes denied the Plaintiff's motion for
Rule 23 class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/Cv038B from Leagle.com.

Michelle Warner, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by George M. Rozzell, IV --
grozzell@arkattorneys.com -- Keith, Miller, Butler, Schneider &
Pawlik & Jenna Reed Fogleman -- jfogleman@arkattorneys.com --
Keith
Miller Butler Schneider Pawlik PLLC.

Little John Transportation Services, Inc., Christopher Dale &
Steven Dale, Defendants, represented by Allison Christine Pearson
-- apearson@fridayfirm.com -- Friday, Eldredge & Clark, Christy
Comstock -- Christy@walescomstock.com -- Wales & Comstock & Daniel
L. Herrington -- herring@fridayfirm.com -- Friday, Eldredge &
Clark.


LTD FINANCIAL: Depascale Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LTD Financial
Services Limited Partnership. The case is styled as Richard
Depascale individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LTD Financial Services Limited Partnership,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04843 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 23, 2019).

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

LTD Financial Services, L.P. is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Michael 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


MARRONE BIO: $256K Attys' Fees Awarded in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III QP, L.P., SPECIAL
SITUATIONS CAYMAN FUND, L.P, and DAVID M. FINEMAN, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. MARRONE
BIO INNOVATIONS, INC., PAMELA G. MARRONE, JAMES B. BOYD, DONALD J.
GLIDEWELL, HECTOR ABSI, ELIN MILLER, RANJEET BHATIA, PAMELA CONTAG,
TIM FOGARTY, LAWRENCE HOUGH, JOSEPH HUDSON, LES LYMAN, RICHARD
ROMINGER, SHAUGN STANLEY, SEAN SCHICKEDANZ, and ERNST & YOUNG LLP,
Defendants, Master No. 2:14-cv-2571-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Morrison C. England, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted the Lead Counsel's motion for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses.

The Settlement has created a fund of $775,000 in cash that has been
funded into escrow pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, and
that the numerous Class Members will benefit from the Settlement
that occurred because of the efforts of the Lead Counsel.

Having considered and determined the fairness and reasonableness of
the proposed request for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses, Judge England awarded the Lead Counsel attorneys' fees in
the amount of $255,750, and $120,000 in reimbursement of the Lead
Counsel's litigation expenses (which fees and expenses will be paid
from the Settlement Fund).

Any appeal or any challenge affecting the Court's approval
regarding any attorneys' fees and expense application will in no
way disturb or affect the finality of the Judgment.

As there is no reason for delay in the entry of the Order, and
immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/tHGbRk from Leagle.com.

Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P., Special Situations Cayman
Fund, L.P., David M. Fineman, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael
John McGaughey -- mmcgaughey@lowenstein.com -- Lowenstein Sandler
LLP.

Kent Oldham, Plaintiff, represented by Robert S Green, Green &
Noblin, P.C..

Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., Pamela G. Marrone, James B. Boyd,
Donald J. Glidewell, Elin Miller, Ranjeet Bhatia, Pamela Contag,
Tim Fogarty, Lawrence Hough, Joseph Hudson, Les Lyman, Richard
Rominger, Shaugn Stanley, Sean Schickedanz, Defendants,
represented
by Judson Earle Lobdell -- jlobdell@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster
LLP.

Hector Absi, Defendant, represented by John V. McDermott --
jmcdermott@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, pro
hac vice, Jonathan Charles Sandler -- jsandler@bhfs.com --
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck & Judson Earle Lobdell, Morrison &
Foerster LLP.

Piper Jaffray & Co., Roth Capital Partners, LLC, Jefferies, LLC,
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Charlene Sachi Shimada -- charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Lucy Han Wang --
lucy.wang@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Ernst & Young, LLP, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Dianne
Mann
-- emann@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & Stanley J Parzen --
sparzen@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown and Platt, pro hac vice.

Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P., Special Situations Fund III
QP, L.P., Movant, represented by Lawrence M. Rolnick --
lrolnick@lowenstein.com -- Lowenstein Sandler LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael John McGaughey -- mmcgaughey@lowenstein.com -- Lowenstein
Sandler LLP, Steven M. Hecht -- shecht@lowenstein.com --
Lowenstein
Sandler LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas E. Redburn, Jr. --
tredburn@lowenstein.com -- Lowenstein Sandler LLP, pro hac vice.

Marrone Investor Group, Movant, represented by Jon A. Tostrud --
jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com -- Tostrud Law Group, P.C..

United States of America, Movant, represented by Todd A. Pickles,
United States Attorney's Office.


MASSAGE ENVY: Court Stays Lapa False Advertising Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Stay
Proceedings Pending Settlement in Related Case in the case
captioned DAVID LAPA, Plaintiff, v. MASSAGE ENVY FRANCHISING, LLC,
Defendant. Case No. 19-cv-02694-MMC. (N.D. Cal.).

In the instant action, Lapa alleges that he entered into a
Membership Agreement with Defendant that the agreement required him
to pay a monthly membership fee of $59.00, and that,  Defendant MEF
raised the monthly fee to $70.00. Based on said allegation, Lapa,
who seeks to proceed on behalf of a class comprised of all persons
in New York who were or are presently enrolled in a Massage Envy
membership and whose monthly membership fee was increased above the
amount stated in their Membership Agreement, asserts five causes of
action, titled, respectively, Unfair and Deceptive Business
Practices, N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. Section 349, False Advertising, N.Y.
Gen. Bus. L. Section 350, Negligent Misrepresentation, Intentional
Misrepresentation/Fraud and Restitution.

The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent
in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its
docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and
for litigants.

In deciding whether to stay proceedings pending resolution of
another action, a district court must weigh the competing interests
which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay
including (1) the possible damage which may result from the
granting of a stay (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may
suffer in being required to go forward and (3) the orderly course
of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of
issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to
result from a stay.

Here, the Court considers at the outset the last of the
above-referenced three factors. There is no dispute that Lapa, as
well as all members of the putative class in the Lapa Action, is a
member of the class conditionally certified in the McKinney
Action.

Under such circumstances, if the Court were to grant final approval
of the McKinney Action settlement, that order would not only
simplify the issues, proof, and questions of law presented by the
Lapa Action, but would fully resolve them. In particular, under the
terms of the settlement agreement, class members must release all
claims based on an increase of the monthly Membership fee
additional to the amount initially stated by the Membership
Agreement and, as noted above, the claims in both the McKinney
Action and the Lapa Action are based on that same assertion.  

In the absence of a stay, resources likely will be expended by the
parties and the Court in the Lapa Action in connection with such
matters as the initial disclosures, the case management conference,
and any challenge to the complaint all of which would be
unnecessary if final approval of the settlement is granted.

The third factor strongly weighs in favor of a stay.

The remaining factors require the Court to consider whether Lapa
would be harmed by a stay and whether MEF would be harmed in the
absence of a stay. These factors also weigh in favor of a stay.
Although Lapa argues he would be prejudiced by a stay of
indeterminate length, the final approval hearing in the McKinney
Action is scheduled for November 1, 2019.

Consequently, the proposed stay would last approximately two and
half months, and Lapa fails to identify any prejudice likely to
result from a stay of such limited duration. By contrast, if the
requested relief is not granted, MEF will be required to expend
resources to defend a class action that, although pending court
approval, it already has settled.

A stay of the instant action is warranted.

MEF's motion for a stay is granted, and the action is stayed,
pending the Court's decision as to whether to grant final approval
of the settlement agreement in the McKinney Action.

A copy full-text copy of the District Court's August 19, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5djaw5h from Leagle.com.

David Lapa, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Fitzgerald
– jack@fitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald,
PC, Jason Frederick Lowe -- jlowe@ucla.edu -- Law Offices of Jason
Lowe, Yecheskel Menashe, Menashe & Associates LLP, 400 Rella Blvd,
Montebello, NY 10901 & Ishan Dave, Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC. One
Penn Plaza, Suite 4905, New York, NY, 10119.

Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, represented by Indraneel Sur --
isur@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Kahn A.
Scolnick -- kscolnick@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
LLP, Luanne Sacks -- lsacks@srclaw.com -- Sacks, Ricketts & Case,
LLP & Robert Brett Bader -- rbader@srclaw.com -- Sacks, Ricketts &
Case LLP.


MDL 2904: Gras et al v. LabCorp. over Data Breach Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROSA VILLARREAL, KARINA GRAS and JEFFREY GROSSMAN,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., and
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, the Defendants, Case
No. 7:19-cv-05340 (Filed June 6, 2019), was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Aug. 22,
2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:19-cv-17037 to the proceeding.

The Gras 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 Plaintiffs are:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Jennifer Scullion, Esq.
          Parvin Aminolroaya, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                  jscullion@seegerweiss.com
                  paminolroaya@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036-8718
          Telephone: (917) 438-9189
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                  bcohen@nussbaumpc.com

Attorneys for LabCorp. are:

          Michelle Anne Kisloff, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP (DC)
          555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-5600
          Facsimile: (202) 637-5910



MDL 2904: Oswald et al v. LabCorp. over Data Breach Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROBERT OSWALD, Mary Beth Kerns, Marcia Sorin-Rosenthal,
and STEPHEN ROSENTHAL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION
AGENCY INC., and LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, the
Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-05302 (Filed June 5, 2019), was
removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Newark) on Aug. 22, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-17036 to the proceeding.

The Oswald 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 Plaintiffs are:

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          570 Lexington Avenue, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 702-7053
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

Attorneys for LabCorp. are:

          Michelle Anne Kisloff, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP (DC)
          555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-5600
          Facsimile: (202) 637-5910

MEDIANT COMMUNICATIONS: Toretto Sues Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP TORETTO and DANIEL C. KING, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MEDIANT
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-05208 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 21, 2019) is a Class Action
Complaint against Defendant for failure to protect the information
it was entrusted to safeguard.

Public companies and mutual funds hire Mediant as their proxy agent
to distribute materials to shareholders, coordinate shareholder
votes, and tabulate voting results. During this process, companies
entrust Mediant with sensitive shareholder information in order to
effectuate the distribution of materials and the coordination of
important votes. On April 1, 2019, hackers obtained unauthorized
access to Mediant's business email accounts and exfiltrated the
personal information of its customers' investors. The stolen
shareholder information included names, genders, physical
addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, Social Security Numbers,
tax identification numbers, account numbers, and various other
types of information such as units owned, issue dates, and
owner/annuitant designation (hereafter, collectively referred to as
"Personal Information").

Mediant, a company that touts itself as employing cutting-edge
technology, is responsible for allowing the breach to occur by
failing to implement and maintain reasonable safeguards and failing
to comply with industry-standard data security practices, contrary
to the representations made in Mediant's privacy policy, notes the
complaint.

As a result of Mediant's failure to protect the information it was
entrusted to safeguard, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been
exposed to or are at a significant risk of identity theft,
financial fraud, and other identity-related fraud into the
indefinite future. Moreover, although Mediant discovered the breach
the same day that it occurred, it waited almost two months before
notifying impacted shareholders, thereby knowingly exposing
vulnerable individuals to even further identity theft and fraud,
says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are individuals whose Personal Information was
compromised in the Data Breach.

Mediant is an investor communications firm whose "pioneering use of
technology helps companies improve shareholder and client
relationships and safeguard regulatory compliance".[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
     BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
     600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 798-4593
     Fax: (602) 274-1199
     Email: psyverson@bffb.com

          - and -

     Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
     J. Austin Moore, Esq.
     STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
     460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Phone: (816) 714-7100
     Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
     Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
            moore@stuevesiegel.com



MERCK & CO: Trial in Zetia Litig. to Begin September 2020
---------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 defendants and retailer
plaintiffs that have opted out in the Zetia Antitrust Litigation
have objected to a report and recommendation by a magistrate judge.
The objections remain pending.  Trial is currently scheduled to
begin on September 30, 2020.

Merck, MSD, Schering Corporation and MSP Singapore Company LLC
(collectively, the Merck Defendants) are defendants in putative
class action and opt-out lawsuits filed in 2018 on behalf of direct
and indirect purchasers of Zetia alleging violations of federal and
state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common
law causes of action.

The cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal
multidistrict litigation before Judge Rebecca Beach Smith in the
Eastern District of Virginia.

In December 2018, the court denied the Merck Defendants' motions to
dismiss or stay the direct purchaser putative class actions pending
bilateral arbitration.

On February 6, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation recommending that the district judge grant in part
and deny in part defendants’ motions to dismiss on
non-arbitration issues.

On February 20, 2019, defendants and retailer opt-out plaintiffs
filed objections to the report and recommendation. The parties
await a decision from the district judge.

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

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. It
operates through four segments: Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Healthcare Services, and Alliances. Merck & Co., Inc. was founded
in 1891 and is headquartered in Kenilworth, New Jersey.


MIAMI-DADE EXPRESSWAY: Summary Judgment Orders in Tropical Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Tropical Trailer Leasing, LLC, et al., Appellants, v.
Miami-Dade Expressway Authority, etc., et al., Appellees, Case Nos.
3D18-77 and 3D17-2608 (Fla. Dist. App.), Judge Ivan F. Fernandez of
the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, affirmed
1) the trial court's Oct. 31, 2017 non-final order denying
Tropical's motion for summary judgment as to Count I (injunctive
relief) and Count III (declaratory relief), including the denial of
Tropical's request for a permanent prospective injunction to
prevent Miami-Dade Expressway Authority ("MDX") from charging its
trailers tolls; and 2) the trial court's Dec. 12, 2017 non-final
order granting MDX's motion for summary judgment regarding Counts I
and III.

Tropical Trailer and its eight Tropical affiliates are engaged in
the trailer leasing business.  Each of the affiliates own a fleet
of semi-trailers, and Tropical Trailer provides management
services.  Neither Tropical Trailer nor its affiliates own any
"truck cabs," "truck tractors," or "tractors."  Tropical Trailer
and its affiliates hire their trailers out to contractors who: 1)
in turn, may hire a sub-contractor who owns a tractor to tow the
trailer; 2) may own a tractor and use its own drivers to tow the
trailer; or 3) may own a tractor and hire an independent driver to
drive its tractor.  These contractors and/or their sub-contractors
are the registered owners of the tractors that tow Tropical's
trailers.

Tropical contends that MDX is violating section 316.1001, Florida
Statutes (2012), by charging Tropical for tolls through the
Toll-by-Plate method rather than charging the registered owner of
the tractor or the driver of the tractor.  Tropical asserts that
historically, before the Toll-by-Plate method, the driver of the
tractor would pay the full toll directly with cash or through a
SunPass transponder.

With the Toll-by-Plate method, MDX first attempts to charge a
SunPass transponder mounted inside the tractor, if there is one
available. If that fails, it will attempt to bill the owner of the
front-facing license plate located on the tractor, if the toll lane
is equipped with a front facing camera (at this time, not all toll
lanes have a front-facing camera installed) and if the image
captured by the front-facing camera is clear enough to read.  If
this fails, it will then attempt to bill the owner of the
rear-facing license plate located on the trailer. This last option,
billing the owner of the trailer, is at issue on appeal.

Tropical initiated a class action suit against MDX and MDX's
Executive Director, Javier Rodriguez, in his official capacity.
Relevant to the instant appeal, in the Second Amended Complaint,
Tropical sought a permanent prospective injunction to prevent MDX
from charging its trailers (Count I).  Tropical never pled or
otherwise argued that the statutes governing MDX's imposition of
tolls are unconstitutional or illegal.  Tropical also requested
declaratory relief that would prevent MDX from charging Tropical
tolls (Count III).  Counts I and III are the only counts relevant
to this appeal, which are both prospective in nature. Neither count
concerns refunds, either prior to 2012 or after.

In the Oct. 31, 2017 order on appeal, the trial court merely denied
Tropical's motion for summary judgment without explanation.  In the
Dec. 26, 2017 order on appeal, the trial court denied injunctive
relief and granted summary judgment as to Counts I and III, in
accordance with MDX's motion.

The appeal followed.

On review of the 2012 amendment and the relevant statutes, Judge
Fernandez concludes that MDX is exercising its proper authority to
charge tolls to all trailers using its roadways.  On this basis,
Tropical has failed to provide evidence of a clear legal right to
the relief sought and has not established irreparable harm.
Tropical, and every other rental trailer company, has an adequate
remedy through contract.  Summary judgment granted in favor of MDX
was proper, and the trial court did not err in denying Tropical's
motion for summary judgment and request for injunction.
Accordingly, the Judge affirmed the orders on appeal.  The Order is
not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/WrNbjD from Leagle.com.

Akerman, LLP and Diane G. DeWolf (Tallahassee), Gerald B. Cope,
Jr., A. Rodger Traynor, Jr. -- rodger.traynor@akerman.com -- and
Lawrence D. Silverman -- lawrence.silverman@akerman.com -- for
appellants.

Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman, PA, Christopher
J. Stearns -- Stearns@jambg.com -- and Jonathan H. Railey --
Railey@jambg.com -- (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellees.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Torres 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 Edna Torres on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04855 (E.D.
N.Y., Aug. 23, 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 appears pro se.


MONARCH RECOVERY: Stivers Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Stivers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-at-00604 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 23, 2019),
alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant regularly collects or
attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due, or
asserted to be owed or due, another.

Synchrony Bank assigned the Debt to Defendant for collection when
it was allegedly in default. In connection with the collection of
the Debt, Defendant sent Plaintiff initial written communication
dated May 30, 2019.

The Defendant's May 30, 2019 letter was its initial communication
with Plaintiff with respect to the Debt. The Defendant did not send
Plaintiff any other written communication within five days of its
May 30, 2019 letter.

The Defendant's May 30, 2019 letter states, in relevant part:

"Unless you notify this office in writing within 30 days after
receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt,
or any portion thereof, this office will assume that this debt is
valid."

The Defendant's May 30, 2019 letter is based on a template used by
Defendant to send an initial written communication to consumers in
connection with the collection of consumer debts.

The Template falsely represents that a consumer must dispute the
alleged obligation in writing in order to prevent the Defendant
from assuming the validity of the alleged obligation.

The Defendant sent letters based on the Template to over 40
individuals in the State of California within the year prior to the
filing of the original complaint in this matter where such letter
was the initial written communication with the individual, the
lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a
debt. The Plaintiff's alleged obligation arises from a transaction
in which the money, property, insurance, or services that are the
subject of the transaction were incurred primarily for personal,
family, or household purposes.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Russell S. Thompson IV, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          5235 E. Southern Ave. D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 388-8898
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          E-mail: rthompson@thompsonconsumerlaw.com

MU HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------
Barry Mangold, writing for ABC17, reports that a growing group of
individuals impacted by a data breach at MU Health Care are part of
a class action lawsuit that was filed on Aug. 6.

MU Health Care announced in a statement on Aug. 2 that an
"unauthorized individual" may have had access to two employees'
email accounts in late April. As a result, the private and health
information of more than 14,000 patients may have been implicated.

"We have no indication that individuals' information was actually
viewed by the unauthorized individual, or that it has been
misused," the online statement reads. The company set up a call
center for anyone with questions regarding the breach. The number
is 833-762-0222, and is open 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m Monday through
Friday.

In response to the breach, more than 10 affected individuals have
joined a class action lawsuit seeking damages from MU Health Care.
Attorney A. W. Smith said his office and the other firm
representing the group, Lear Werts LLP, have responded to several
people hoping to learn more about the lawsuit since it was filed on
Aug. 6.

The lawsuit is seeking damages from MU Health Care as a result of
their failure to retain sensitive information. It also demands a
strengthening of MU Health Care's data security system, including
annual audits.

"This isn't just any type of information. This is Protected Health
information," or PHI, Smith said. "PHI is more valuable on the
black market than credit card numbers or personal identifiable
information."

MU Health Care is the only source of information on the incident.
Smith said he is skeptical of the company's claim that no one's
information was viewed by the unauthorized individual or others.

"Of course the university is going to try to downplay this," Smith
said. "How can they say that it's only a small number of people?"

No hearings have been scheduled yet, according to online court
records. [GN]


NANTHEALTH INC: BCERF Case Management Conference Set for Sept. 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NantHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the case management
conference in the class action suit entitled, Bucks County
Employees Retirement Fund v. NantHealth, Inc., is scheduled for
September 17, 2019.

In May 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, asserting claims for
violations of the Securities Act based on allegations similar to
those in Deora.

That case is captioned Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v.
NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330.

The parties have agreed to stay the case until the next case
management conference, scheduled for September 17, 2019.

NantHealth said, "We believe that the claims lack merit and intend
to vigorously defend the litigation."

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

NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
healthcare technology company in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is as a
subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC.


NAT'L RIFLE: Donor Files Fraud Class Action in Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------
David Sherfinski, writing for The Washington Times, reports that a
major National Rifle Association donor sued the gun-rights
organization for fraud, saying its leaders have misspent money over
the last four years, ignoring the group's core mission while paying
for expensive clothing and trips for CEO Wayne LaPierre.

David Dell'Aquila filed a federal class-action lawsuit in Tennessee
and fired off letters to the attorneys general in New York and
Washington on Aug. 7, urging them to complete investigations into
the NRA well before the 2020 election.

"We feel that the NRA no longer represents its membership and has
been corrupted by those in control," said Mr. Dell'Aquila, who has
given about $100,000 worth of cash and gifts to the group in the
last several years and -- until recently -- had pledged most of his
estate to the group when he died.

The lawsuit is the latest headache for the gun-rights organization,
which has been rocked this year by the departure of top staffers
including President Oliver North and former top strategist Chris
Cox, and parted ways with its longtime advertising agency after a
public dispute over finances.

The NRA is also facing probes by the attorneys general in New York
and Washington over financial activities, with the organization's
coveted nonprofit status at risk.

Mr. Dell'Aquila, in his new lawsuit that posted to the Middle
District of Tennessee on Aug. 7, says the NRA under Mr. LaPierre
has drifted from its "core mission" of protecting gun owners'
rights and promoting firearm safety. [GN]


NEBRASKA: Procedural Victory in Prisons Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
Joanne Young, writing for Lincoln Journal Star, reports that as a
federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Nebraska against the Nebraska
Department of Correctional Services winds through the courts, the
ACLU said Aug. 23, 2019, it won an important procedural motion in
the case.

The lawsuit, filed in 2017, named 11 Nebraska prisoners it said
suffer because of conditions and crowding that endanger the health,
safety and lives of prisoners on a daily basis. The lawsuit
challenges what it alleges are dangerous overcrowding and
unconstitutional conditions of confinement in Nebraska's prison
system.

In February it filed a motion to increase the reach of the
complaint with class-action status on behalf of about 5,500 men and
women in the state's prisons. It enlisted six people with expertise
in treatment of prisoners with mental health, medical, dental
treatment needs and disabilities to tour the prisons and provide
sworn statements on conditions.

The state then sought to strike the affidavits of four of those
experts, and portions of two others. It said the affidavits
contained legal conclusions, irrelevant and unsupported statements,
assumptions, insufficient facts and data, and flawed methodology.
And they offered opinions on the merits of the case rather than
class certification.

The state argued the experts' opinions wandered outside their
qualifications and expertise.  

On Aug. 22, federal District Court Judge Michael Nelson denied the
motion to strike the experts' statements.  The court said the
opinions were sufficiently reliable in light of the available
evidence and purpose for which they were offered.

Also, it said, class considerations generally involve
considerations that are enmeshed in factual and legal issues
comprising the cause of action.

"The court will be capable of compartmentalizing its
class-certification analysis from its merits analysis when
reviewing the evidence in support and in opposition to class
certification ...," the ruling said.

David Fathi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union
National Prison Project, said he hoped to see a ruling on the
class-certification motion soon after Labor Day.

ACLU of Nebraska Executive Director Danielle Conrad said in an
update on the case that two more prisoners have committed suicide
since February.

In April, Adrian Eagle Elk, 29, was found unresponsive in his cell
at Tecumseh State Correctional Institution from an apparent suicide
attempt, and died about an hour later. Then in June, Brindar
Jangir, 36, was found unresponsive in his cell at Lincoln
Correctional Center from an apparent suicide attempt and pronounced
dead about a half an hour later.

The most recent data available, which goes through 2014, Fathi
said, showed that Nebraska had a suicide rate of 21 per 100,000
prisoners, compared with nationwide average rate of 16 per 100,000
for all state prisons.

Fathi faults the Department of Corrections for failing to have an
adequate suicide prevention program in place.

Nebraska's Inspector General for Corrections recently issued a
report raising alarm about a continued reliance on overtime to
staff the Nebraska State Penitentiary in Lincoln, combined with a
population at the penitentiary at more than 180% of design
capacity.

Prisons Director Scott Frakes responded to that report, saying
Nebraska is taking multiple approaches to solve the problems in the
prisons, including last month's pay increases to many employees
that came from union negotiations. [GN]


NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Nektar Therapeutics (NASDAQ: NKTR) from February 15,
2019 through August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Nektar investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Nektar class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1661.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) that the Company did not comply with current good
manufacturing practices; (2) that, as a result, batches of NKTR-214
were not produced consistently and differed meaningfully; (3) that
clinical results from PIVOT-02 differed based on the batch of
NKTR-214 used in the study; (4) that, as a result, the PIVOT-02
study did not produce statistically significant results to support
a finding of clinical benefit; and (5) as a result, Nektar's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
18, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1661.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact:

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


NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Nektar
Therapeutics (NASDAQ: NKTR) for violations of Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between February 15,
2019 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before October 18, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Nektar failed to comply with commonly
accepted good manufacturing processes. Due to its poor practices,
batches of the Company's NKTR-214 immunotherapy were not uniform
and differed from each other significantly. Because of the lack of
uniformity, clinical tests on NKTR-214 varied based on the batch
used. The Company's PIVOT-02 study could not produce statistically
significant data in support of NKTR-214 due to the variation
between batches. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Nektar,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

CONTACT:

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


NORTHSTAR REALTY: Schwartz Proxy Statement Misleading
-----------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NORTHSTAR REALTY EUROPE
CORP., RICHARD BRETT SALTZMAN, JUDITH A. HANNAWAY, MAHBOD NIA,
THOMAS J. BARRACK, JR., WESLEY D. MINAMI, OSCAR J. JUNQUERA, DIANNE
HURLEY, and MARIO CHISHOLM, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07915
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2019), is brought as a class action by
Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public holders of the
common stock of NorthStar Realty Europe Corp. against the Company
and the members of the Company's board of directors for their
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed merger between NRE and
AXA Investment Managers - Real Assets.

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding a shareholder
vote on the proposed merger transaction and taking any steps to
consummate the Proposed Transaction unless, and until, the material
information is disclosed to NRE shareholders sufficiently in
advance of the vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the event
the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages
resulting from Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.

On July 3, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's
shareholders stand to receive $17.03 in cash for each share of NRE
stock they own.

On August 1, 2019, in order to convince NRE shareholders to vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing
of a materially incomplete and misleading Form PREM14A Preliminary
Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
materially incomplete and misleading Proxy violates both Regulation
G (17 C.F.R. section 244.100) and SEC Rule 14a-9 (17 C.F.R. section
240.14a-9), each of which constitutes a violation of Section 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On August 14, 2019, the Company filed a Form DEFM14A Definitive
Proxy Statement that did not correct the materially incomplete and
misleading nature of the preliminary proxy. The Board has scheduled
a special meeting of the Company's shareholders on September 25,
2019 to vote on the Proposed Transaction.

While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the Proxy, the Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and
rendering certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and
misleading.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) the financial projections
for the Company that were prepared by the Company and relied on by
Defendants in recommending that NRE shareholders vote in favor of
the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain valuation
analyses conducted by NRE's financial advisor, Goldman Sachs & Co.
LLC in support of its opinion that the Merger Consideration is fair
to shareholders, on which the Board relied.

It is imperative that the material information that has been
omitted from the Proxy is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote
to allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision
regarding the Proposed Transaction, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26 th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com

OHIO: Court Denies L. Claggett Inmate's Suit
--------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
issued an Order dismissing the Prisoner Pro Se Complaint in the
case captioned LARRY CLAGGETT, Petitioner, v. WARDEN ERIC IVEY, et
al., Respondents. Case No. 1:19CV0015. (N.D. Ohio).

Pro se Petitioner Larry Claggett filed the above-captioned Petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241
against the Warden of the Cuyahoga County Corrections Center
(CCCC), Eric Ivey and Sheriff Clifford Pinkney. Claggett, a
pretrial detainee, claims that he brings this Petition as a class
action concerning the conditions of confinement at the CCCC.

Pro se prisoners may not serve as class representatives, and
Claggett's claims are restricted to alleged violations of his own
rights. In addition, the memorandum supporting the Petition is
signed by Claggett and two other prisoners, but the Petition is
signed only by Claggett and only Claggett sought to proceed with
this matter in forma pauperis. Therefore, the Court will recognize
Claggett as the Petitioner in this action, and any claims brought
on behalf of others are dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 19, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y66ns9aj from
Leagle.com.

Larry Claggett, Petitioner, pro se.

Warden Eric Ivey, Respondent, pro se.


OHIO: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Mann Prisoners Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY D. MANN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-1565 (S.D. Ohio), Judge George C. Smith of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, granted the motions to dismiss filed by the Interested
Party, the State of Ohio, and the Defendants.

On June 26, 2019, the U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the Interested Party, the State of
Ohio's Motion to Dismiss and the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be
granted in part and denied in part.  It was also recommended that
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Class Counsel and the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify Claims as a Class Action be denied without
prejudice.  The parties were advised of their right to object to
the Report and Recommendation and Order.

The matter is now before the Court on the Defendants' Objections to
the Report and Recommendation.  The Plaintiffs have responded.

The Defendants object to the Magistrate Judge's conclusions
regarding respondeat superior and the medical indifference claims.
Specifically, they argue that the recommendation to deny Defendants
Eddy and GCIHCA's Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of respondeat
superior should be overruled.

Judge Smith holds that the Defendants are correct that Section 1983
liability cannot be imposed under a theory of respondeat superior.
At a minimum, a Section 1983 Plaintiff must show that a supervisory
official at least implicitly authorized, approved or knowingly
acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending
subordinate.

The Defendants argue that the Magistrate Judge's reliance on Love
v. Franklin Cnty. Kentucky, is misplaced because the Love case
involved a pregnant woman in labor, about to give birth, and the
Defendant failed to intervene.  The Judge agrees with them.  This
is not the same situation as Love and the Plaintiffs have not
alleged that Defendants Eddy and GCIHCA have committed any actual
acts against them, nor is it alleged that they implicitly
authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in providing medical
care, or the lack thereof.  There have been no allegations by the
Plaintiffs, like those in Love, that they were suffering from any
urgent medical condition that was ignored or not being treated.
The Plaintiffs were under ongoing care.

Accordingly, the Judge will sustain the Defendants' objection and
grant Defendants Eddy and GCIHCA's Motion to Dismiss on the theory
of respondeat superior.

With respect to the medical deliberate indifference claim against
Defendant Dr. Janice Douglas, the Defendants again assert the
Magistrate Judge erred in recommending that the Motion to Dismiss
the claim be denied.  They argue that the Plaintiffs are receiving
treatment for their Hep-C, but they desire more aggressive
treatment.

The parties do not dispute that Hepatitis C is a serious medical
condition, satisfying the objective component of the claim.
However, there is a dispute as to the subjective component.  The
Judge is concerned that the Plaintiffs' Complaint lacks the
allegations that their Hepatitis C is not being treated.
Generally, in the individual Plaintiffs' cases, they are being
monitored and treated.  In Watson v. Mohr, the district court
declined to second guess the judgment of the prison's medical
providers, finding that the defendants had not ignored plaintiff's
Hep-C or rendered medical treatment so woefully inadequate as to
amount to no treatment at all.  Rather, the Sixth Circuit considers
the subjective component to be satisfied where defendants
recklessly disregard a substantial risk to a plaintiff's health.
Furthermore, a difference of opinion between a prisoner and the
prison health care providers and a dispute over the adequacy of a
prisoner's treatment does not amount to an Eighth Amendment claim.

The Judge again disagrees with the Magistrate Judge and finds that
the Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to plead the subjective component
of a medical deliberate indifference claim.  The Plaintiffs' merely
disagree with the course of treatment, but have failed to allege
that the Defendants have ignored their condition.  Accordingly, he
will sustain the Defendants' objection, and granted their Motion to
Dismiss this claim.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth, Judge Smith sustained the
Defendants' Objections.  He adopted and affirmed the remaining
issues addressed in the Report and Recommendation, and not the
subject of the Defendants' Objections.  He granted the Interested
Party, the State of Ohio, and the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.
He denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Class
Counsel and the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Claims as a Class
Action.

The Clerk will remove Documents 4, 5, 15, and 20 from the Court's
pending motions list.  Judgment will be entered in favor of the
moving Defendants, the State of Ohio, the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction, Andrew Eddy, David Hannah, and
Janice Douglas.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/MGhChK from Leagle.com.

Jeffrey D. Mann, Plaintiff, pro se.

John T. Bragg, Plaintiff, pro se.

Eric Pastrano, Plaintiff, pro se.

Mona Parks, Annette Chambers-Smith & Grafton Corr. Inst. Health
Care Administrator, Defendants, represented by Mindy Ann Worly,
Ohio Attorney General's Office.


OMNICELL INC: Pomerantz Investigating Investors' Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Omnicell, Inc. (NASDAQ: OMCL).  Such investors are advised to
contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888-476-6529, ext. 9980.

The investigation concerns whether Omnicell and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.

On July 11, 2019, GlassHouse Research LLC published a report
alleging that Omnicell prematurely recognized over $38 million in
sales. The report also alleged that new product lines had been
pushed onto customers, who were hesitant to purchase more inventory
because of implementation issues, and that the Company would need
to write off $23 million in obsolete inventory.

On this news, Omnicell's stock price fell $11.41 per share, or
nearly 14%, to close at $75.11 per share on July 11, 2019.

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

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


ORACLE INC: Board OKs Investors Suit Over NetSuite
--------------------------------------------------
Shaun Nichols, writing for The Resigster UK, reports that three
members of Oracle's board of directors say a class-action lawsuit,
filed against Oracle in the US by Oracle shareholders over Oracle's
2016 acquisition of NetSuite, should go forward.

In a filing to the Delaware Chancery Court [PDF], the three-person
Special Litigation Committee -- a group comprised of members from
Oracle's board assigned to help mediate a settlement -- says it
believes that both sides of the legal brouhaha will benefit from
the matter being aired in court.

The class-action suit, brought against Big Red by its own
shareholders in 2017, alleges that chairman Larry Ellison and
co-CEO Safra Katz acted against the best interests of the database
goliath. Instead, it is claimed, Ellison put his own interests
ahead of the business, by pushing through the $9.3bn purchase of
NetSuite, an ERP outfit that Oracle's founder just happened to
control a 40 per cent stake in.

The shareholders, including the Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority, reckon Big Red's management only sought
to line Ellison's pockets, and lobbed a class-action sueball on
behalf of all Oracle investors. This put the company's board in the
unenviable position of being in the middle of a conflict between
Oracle's own stock owners and the company's top executives.

In hopes of keeping the case from going to trial, the Special
Litigation Committee was appointed to help strike a settlement
deal. Earlier this month, however, the committee told the court
that things were at an impasse, and at this point taking the matter
to court would probably be the best way forward.

"The SLC sought to negotiate a settlement that appropriately
reflected the potential risks, advantages and disadvantages of
further litigation," its memo, obtained by Reuters this week,
reads.

"As noted those settlement negotiations were not successful. After
carefully considering the issues, the SLC concluded it would not be
in Oracle's best interests to seek to dismiss the derivative
claims."

In particular, the committee says it believes that a critical legal
rule related to the case, Delaware's "Entire Fairness Doctrine" is
not something it should decide, but rather a task for the courts.

"As a result of its investigation, it is the SLC's view that the
critical legal issue of whether the challenged NetSuite acquisition
will be reviewed under the entire fairness standard would not
likely be resolved prior to trial, thereby posing risks to both
plaintiff and defendants," the committee wrote.

"Establishing entire fairness is a heavy burden under Delaware
law."

This does not, however, mean that Oracle's board is looking forward
to a prolonged court battle. The committee says that it still
believes getting the case settled as quickly as possible is the way
to go, and once the court decides on a handful of key issues, the
committee would like to see everyone agree on a settlement package.
[GN]


OUTLAW LABORATORY: Court OKs Counterclaimants' Bid to File SAC
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant/Counterclaimant and
Third-Party Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended
Counterclaim and Third-Party Complaint to Add Three New Defendants
in the case captioned IN RE OUTLAW LABORATORY, LP LITIGATION. Case
No. 3:18-cv-840-GPC-BGS, Consolidated with No.
3:18-cv-1882-GPC-BGS. (S.D. Cal.).

Counterclaimants filed a counterclaim and third-party complaint
against Outlaw in DG in PB, Case No. 3:18-CV-1882.
Counterclaimants sought to represent a class of gas station and
corner store owners who received what Counterclaimants characterize
as extortionate and demonstrably-false demand letters sent by
Outlaw.  Outlaw's letters warned that sale of Rhino products
exposed recipients to RICO and Lanham Act liability for amounts
greater than $100,000, which Outlaw would forego for a much smaller
settlement sum.

The original counterclaims asserted three causes of action: (1)
civil RICO (2) RICO conspiracy and (3) rescission of any settlement
agreements entered into as a result of Outlaw's demand letters.

Undue Delay

Outlaw argues that Counterclaimants' motion is dilatory because the
discovery taken by Steven A. Elia in the DG in PB action, which
gives rise to some of Counterclaimants' proffered amendments, was
served on January 31, 2019, almost six months before
Counterclaimants requested leave to amend.

Counterclaimants retort that in assessing undue delay, courts are
primarily concerned whether the moving party knew or should have
known the facts and theories raised by the amendment in the
original pleading. Counterclaimants point out that their first
amended counterclaims were filed on November 30, 2018, before any
discovery was produced to Steven A. Elia on January 31, 2019. When
viewed under AmerisourceBergen, Counterclaimants argue, it is clear
that there was no undue delay because at the filing of the earlier
counterclaim, because they could not have known at that point of
any information uncovered on January 31, 2019.

The Court does not find that there has been undue delay. First, the
DG in PB discovery information did not exist at the filing of the
earlier counterclaim. Second, Counterclaimants rely not only on
that discovery, but also on information obtained through the
reporting conducted by Vice News, which investigation continued
through June of 2019, the month immediately preceding their July 1,
2019 motion. And, in any event, undue delay by itself is
insufficient to justify denying leave to amend.

Bad Faith

Outlaw argues that Counterclaimants' motion is made in bad faith
because the two items they rely upon as new information are
suspect. First, Outlaw questions how Counterclaimants purport to
have received information from Vice News when no documentary has
been released  and when Vice News denies that it has provided
Counterclaimants with any information relating to this lawsuit.
Second, Outlaw believes Counterclaimants' reliance on the DG in PB
discovery responses as support for its claim that would-be
defendants engaged in a `collect evidence first, create a product
later' scheme is less than genuine, since such a theory is
contradicted by the responses themselves, which state that TriSteel
was sold as early October 10, 2016, one year prior to when Tauler
Smith LLP is alleged to have dispatched investigators to take
photos of Counterclaimants' storefronts.  

In determining whether an amendment is brought in bad faith, a
court focuses on the plaintiff's motives for not amending the
complaint earlier. Courts have denied leave to amend due to bad
faith where the court determines that the plaintiff's motion was
brought to avoid the possibility of an adverse summary judgment
ruling and to prejudice the defendant by requiring the reopening of
discovery. Courts have also denied leave to amend based on a
finding of bad faith where the plaintiff's motive was to destroy
diversity jurisdiction. Bad faith may also be found where a movant
files repetitive motions to amend. Bad faith, however, will not be
found where the record demonstrates that the movants' allegations
were not frivolous and that they were endeavoring in good faith to
meet the pleading requirements.

The Court finds no bad faith or improper motive in the timing of
Counterclaimants' motion for leave to amend.  

Repeated Failures to Cure Deficiencies By Amendments Previously
Permitted

Repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed is another valid reason for a district court to deny a
party leave to amend. Counterclaimants were given an opportunity to
amend their original counterclaims, the first amended counterclaims
were challenged twice, first by Outlaw's motion to dismiss and then
again by its motion for judgment on the pleadings. The first
amended counterclaims were sustained both times. Outlaw does not
dispute that Counterclaimants' success in amending their original
pleadings counts in their favor.

Prejudice to New Counterclaim Defendants

In considering the potential prejudice of any amendment, the Court
considers whether the amended complaint would greatly change the
parties' positions in the action, and require the assertion of new
defenses.

Outlaw argues that adding new defendants would require the
modification of the operative scheduling order, since the new
defendants would have the right to propound discovery and raise
Rule 12 motions.
  
Outlaw also argues that naming Mr. Lynch and Mr. Wear, as well as
their legal representation, would fundamentally change the parties'
positions, since the parties would need to obtain new counsel.
While the Court recognizes that Outlaw will be impacted by
obtaining substitute counsel if Tauler Smith LLP is named as a
co-defendant, the Court does not find that such impact would
fundamentally change the parties' positions. For one, as counsel
to, and constituent members of Outlaw, none of the three proposed
defendants can argue unfair surprise. Indeed, Counterclaimants have
long alleged in their pleadings as early as Counterclaimants'
August 24, 2018 answer and original countercomplaint that the
lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP, and Outlaw's principals, jointly
participated in the RICO scheme.

Second, even if the amendment will require Outlaw to secure new
counsel, the Court does not find the inconvenience prejudicial
given the relative infancy of the stage of discovery. To the extent
that the present scheduling order proves constrictive, the Court
would be prepared to entertain motions seeking deadline extensions
required in the event of a change in counsel. The Court will not
bar the proposed amendment based on prejudice.

Futility of Amendment

Outlaw makes four arguments for why amendment would be futile. The
Court addresses them in turn.
Lack of Specificity for Fraud Pleadings

Outlaw asserts that amendment would be futile because
Counterclaimants' RICO allegations which are premised on predicate
acts of mail fraud are not pled with specificity under Rule 9(b) as
to each new party.

However, the Court agrees with Counterclaimants that given the
liberal amendment standards, arguments concerning the sufficiency
of the proposed pleadings, even if meritorious, are better left for
briefing on a motion to dismiss.  

In any event, the Court is prepared to hold in the alternative that
Counterclaimants' allegations are specific enough with respect to
each new proposed defendant.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) provides that in all averments of fraud or
mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be
stated with particularity. This rule requires the identification of
the circumstances constituting fraud so that the defending parties
can prepare an adequate answer from the allegations. To satisfy
this requirement, Counterclaimants must state the time, date and
specific content or nature of the fraudulent representations or
omissions. In addition, Counterclaimants must satisfy the above
requirements for each defendant.  

Here, the Court is satisfied that the proposed amendments
adequately identify the circumstances constituting fraud with
respect to each defendant. And to the extent that Outlaw has
suggested that two predicate acts are necessary with respect to
each defendant under the RICO conspiracy count, that notion must
also be rejected.  

Proximate Cause

Outlaw also contends that the Counterclaimants have failed to
allege that the proposed defendants' RICO violations was a
substantial factor, or proximate cause, of any injury they
sustained.  

Outlaw argues that Counterclaimants Roma Mikha and NMRM have not
suffered any injury because they continue to sell the Rhino
products, despite the fact that they claim to have pulled the Rhino
products from their shelves as a result of the demand letter.

The Court does not find a lack of proximate cause here.
Counterclaimants plead that Roma Mikha and NMRM suffered injury
because they initially believed the demand letter's false
assertions, and removed the Rhino products from their shelves,
thereby losing legitimate sales. This statement articulates a loss
of business profits resulting from allegedly unlawful RICO conduct,
and is not contradicted by the fact that the two stores may have
resumed selling the products after initially withdrawing the
products.

Similarly, Outlaw argues that there in no injury in Counterclaimant
Skyline Market's cause of action for rescission because rescission
is not a cause of action under California law, and that in any
event there can be no such claim because Skyline Market, had been
represented by counsel when it signed the settlement agreement.
Both these arguments were previously addressed by the Court in its
order denying Outlaw's motion to dismiss: While rescission is not
an affirmative' claim, California courts have recognized that
claims such as economic duress' can be asserted offensively.

As before, these arguments are unavailing.

Futility as to Mr. Wear and Mr. Lynch

Outlaw argues amendment would be futile because there are no
allegations demonstrating that Mr. Wear and Mr. Lynch were the
moving, active conscious force behind the wrongdoing of Outlaw, the
corporate entity. To plead personal liability against a corporate
officer or director, mere authority to direct the infringing
behavior is not enough; personal involvement is necessary.
Here, the Court finds allegations of Mr. Wear and Mr. Lynch's
personal involvement sufficient to state that they were a moving,
active conscious force in the alleged RICO scheme.

Counterclaimants allege that Mr. Wear and Mr. Lynch participate
with the other members of the Outlaw Enterprise in conducting the
enterprise's affairs, including by creating the competing' TriSteel
products upon which to found the false advertising claims, and by
working with other members to decide the geographies in which to
conduct the scheme, and by signing for, and accepting receipt of
the ill-gotten gains from settlement agreements like the one
entered into by Skyline Market. There are also additional
allegations that Tauler Smith worked directly with Mr. Wear and Mr.
Lynch to orchestrate the very formation of this shakedown scheme.

Any amendment including Mr. Wear and Mr. Lynch would not be futile
on the ground asserted by Outlaw.

Futility as to Tauler Smith LLP

Finally, Outlaw urges that amendment would be futile to Tauler
Smith because its conduct would be protected under the
Noerr-Pennington doctrine. In so arguing, Outlaw repeats many of
the arguments it previously raised in connection with its motion to
dismiss the RICO claims; it also urges an especial First Amendment
protection for lawyers who engage in pre-litigation petitioning
conduct on the part of a client.

The Court disagrees, and sees no need to revisit its previous
determination with respect to the Frist Amended Counterclaims that
Counterclaimants satisfied Noerr-Pennington's heightened pleading
standard and sufficiently alleged Outlaw's demand letters which
Tauler Smith LLP is alleged to have masterminded fall within the
doctrine's sham litigation exception. The Court rejects Outlaw's
attempt to relitigate the issue in the Rule 15(a) posture.

There is no futility to naming Tauler Smith LLP.  

The Court GRANTS Counterclaimants' motion for leave to file a
second amended counterclaim.
  
A copy full-text copy of the District Court's August 19, 2019 Order
is available at   https://tinyurl.com/y2g86yx4 from Leagle.com.

Outlaw Laboratory, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership, Plaintiff,
represented by Matthew J. Smith -- matt.smith@taulersmith.com -- &
Robert Tauler -- rtauler@taulersmith.com -- Tauler Smith LLP.

Kachi Enterprises Inc., a California Corporation, Main Calif, Inc.,
a California Corporation, R&M Palm, Inc., a California Corporation,
Zaya Enterprises Inc., a California Corporation & Fountain Trading
Corp., a California Corporation, Defendants, represented by Mark
Poe -- mpoe@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw --
rgaw@gawpoe.com -- Gaw Poe LLP, Samuel Song -- ssong@gawpoe.com --
Gaw & Poe LLP & Victor Meng -vmeng@gawpoe.com -- Gaw & Poe LLP.

Pacific Beach Gas, Inc, a California Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Robert K. Butterfield -- rbutterfield@bsllp.com --
Butterfield Schechter LLP.

Eashou, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP.
Roma Mikha, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw, Gaw Poe LLP, Samuel Song,
Gaw & Poe LLP, Victor Meng, Gaw & Poe LLP & Flora Vigo, Gaw Poe
LLP.

Midway M3, Inc., a California Corporation, Kalyana Inc., a
California Corporation, Big City Liquor, a California Entity Form
Unknown, HH Eagles Market, a California Corporation, Little Brown
Jug Liquor, a California Entity Form Unknown, Blaze Smoke Shop, a
California Entity Form Unknown, Midway Cigars & Smoke Shop, a
California Entity Form Unknown, Point Loma Liquor, Inc., a
California Corporation, Sunset Mini Mart, a California Corporation,
Servall Market, Inc., a California Corporation, Hillcrest Smoke
Shop, a California Entity Form Unknown, Magic Market, a California
Entity Form Unknown, Criscola's Liquor Store, a California Entity
Form Unknown, F&F Food Bargain, Inc., a California Corporation,
Greene Cat Liquors, a California Entity Form Unknown, Bel Air
Market, a California Entity Form Unknown & Cardiff Gas, Inc., a
California Corporation, Defendants, represented by Mark Poe, Gaw &
Poe LLP &Flora Vigo -- fvigo@gawpoe.com -- Gaw Poe LLP.

EBM Jr Market, a California Entity Form Unknown & Ideal Market, a
California Entity Form Unknown, Defendants, represented by Flora
Vigo, Gaw Poe LLP.

NMRM, Inc. & Skyline Market, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiffs,
represented by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw, Gaw Poe LLP,
Samuel Song, Gaw & Poe LLP, Victor Meng, Gaw & Poe LLP & Flora
Vigo, Gaw Poe LLP.

Roma Mikha, Inc., a California Corporation, ThirdParty Plaintiff,
represented by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw, Gaw Poe LLP,
Victor Meng, Gaw & Poe LLP & Flora Vigo, Gaw Poe LLP.

Outlaw Laboratory, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership, ThirdParty
Defendant, represented byMatthew J. Smith .

Roma Mikha, Inc., a California Corporation, Counter Claimant,
represented by Mark Poe, Gaw & Poe LLP, Randolph Gaw, Gaw Poe LLP,
Samuel Song, Gaw & Poe LLP, Victor Meng, Gaw & Poe LLP & Flora
Vigo, Gaw Poe LLP.

Outlaw Laboratory, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership, Counter
Defendant, represented byMatthew J. Smith & Robert Tauler, Tauler
Smith LLP.


PERRIGO CO: Baton Class Suit in Tel Aviv Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that the class action suit in
Tel Aviv entitled, Baton v. Perrigo Company plc, et. al., remains
stayed.

On December 31, 2018, a shareholder filed an action against the
Company, its CEO Murray Kessler, and its former CFO Ronald
Winowiecki in Tel Aviv District Court (Baton v. Perrigo Company
plc, et. al.).

The case is a securities class action brought in Israel making
similar factual allegations for the same period as those asserted
in the In re Perrigo Company plc Sec. Litig case in New York
federal court.

This case alleges that persons who invested through the Tel Aviv
stock exchange can assert claims under Israeli securities law that
will follow the liability principles of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act. The plaintiff does not provide an
estimate of class damages.

The company filed a request for a stay, the plaintiff agreed in
part, and the court approved a stay and required the parties to
update the court about the U.S. proceedings by September 1, 2019.

Perrigo said, "We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously."

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

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


PERRIGO CO: Roofers' Pension Fund Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that the company continues to
defend the consolidated securities class action suit entitled,
Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et al.

On May 18, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities case against the
company and its former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey (Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et
al.).

The plaintiff purported to represent a class of shareholders for
the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016, inclusive. The
original complaint alleged violations of Securities Exchange Act
sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against both defendants
and 20(a) control person liability against Mr. Papa.

In general, the allegations concerned the actions taken by the
company and the former executive to defend against the unsolicited
takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through
November 13, 2015. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants
provided inadequate disclosure concerning alleged integration
problems related to the Omega acquisition in the period from April
21, 2015 through May 11, 2016.

On July 19, 2016, a different shareholder filed a securities class
action against the company and its former CEO, Joseph Papa, also in
the District of New Jersey (Wilson v. Papa, et al.). The plaintiff
purported to represent a class of persons who sold put options on
our shares between April 21, 2015 and May 11, 2016.

In general, the allegations and the claims were the same as those
made in the original complaint filed in the Roofers' Pension Fund
case described above.

On December 8, 2016, the court consolidated the Roofers' Pension
Fund case and the Wilson case under the Roofers' Pension Fund case
number. In February 2017, the court selected the lead plaintiffs
for the consolidated case and the lead counsel to the putative
class. In March 2017, the court entered a scheduling order.

On June 21, 2017, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint that superseded the original complaints in the
Roofers' Pension Fund case and the Wilson case.

In the amended complaint, the lead plaintiffs seek to represent
three classes of shareholders - shareholders who purchased shares
during the period April 21, 2015 through May 3, 2017 on the U.S.
exchanges; shareholders who purchased shares during the same period
on the Tel Aviv exchange; and shareholders who owned shares on
November 12, 2015 and held such stock through at least 8:00 a.m. on
November 13, 2015 (the final day of the Mylan tender offer)
regardless of whether the shareholders tendered their shares.

The amended complaint names as defendants the company and 11
current or former directors and officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy
Brown, Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs.
Joe Papa, Marc Coucke, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald
Kunkle, Herman Morris, and Donal O'Connor). The amended complaint
alleges violations of Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and
Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against all defendants and 20(a) control
person liability against the 11 individuals.

In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by the
company and the former executives to defend against the unsolicited
takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through
November 13, 2015 and the allegedly inadequate disclosure
throughout the entire class period related to purported integration
problems related to the Omega acquisition, alleges incorrect
reporting of organic growth at the Company and at Omega, alleges
price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription
pharmaceuticals, and alleges improper accounting for the Tysabri(R)
royalty stream. The amended complaint does not include an estimate
of damages.

During 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the
plaintiffs opposed. On July 27, 2018, the court issued an opinion
and order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss in part and
denying the motions to dismiss in part.

The court dismissed without prejudice defendants Laurie Brlas,
Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa,
Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, Donal O'Connor, and Marc Coucke. The
court also dismissed without prejudice claims arising from the
Tysabri(R) accounting issue described above and claims alleging
incorrect disclosure of organic growth described above.

The defendants who were not dismissed are Perrigo Company plc, Joe
Papa, and Judy Brown. The claims (described above) that were not
dismissed relate to the integration issues regarding the Omega
acquisition and the alleged price fixing activities with respect to
six generic prescription pharmaceuticals. The defendants who remain
in the case (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) have filed
answers denying liability, and the discovery stage of litigation
has begun. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

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

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


PERRIGO CO: Suits Alleging Price-Fixing of Drugs Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that the company continues to
defend multiple suits related to alleged price-fixing of drugs.

The company has been named as a co-defendant with certain other
generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in a number of class actions
alleging that we and other manufacturers of the same product
engaged in anti-competitive behavior to fix or raise the prices of
certain drugs and/or allocate customers starting, in some
instances, as early as June 2013.

The class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of (a)
direct purchasers, (b) end payors, and (c) indirect resellers. The
products in question are Clobetasol gel, Desonide, and Econazole.

The same class plaintiffs have filed complaints naming the company
as a co-defendant, along with 27 other manufacturers, alleging an
overarching conspiracy to fix or raise the prices of 15 generic
prescription pharmaceutical products starting in 2011.

Perrigo manufactures only two of the products at issue, Nystatin
cream and Nystatin ointment.

The compangy has also been named a co-defendant along with 35 other
manufacturers in a complaint filed by three supermarket chains
alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of 31 generic
prescription pharmaceutical products starting in 2013. The only
allegations specific to the company relates to Clobetasol,
Desonide, Econazole, Nystatin cream, and Nystatin ointment.

On August 3, 2018, a large managed care organization filed a
complaint against the company alleging price-fixing and customer
allocation concerning 17 different products among 27 manufacturers
including Perrigo. The only allegations specific to the company's
concern are  Clobetasol gel, Desonide, Econazole, Nystatin cream,
and Nystatin ointment.

Most recently, on January 16, 2019, a similar suit was brought by a
health insurance carrier in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota alleging a conspiracy to fix prices of 30
products among 30 defendants. The only allegations specific to the
company's concern are Clobetasol gel, Desonide, Econazole, Nystatin
cream, and Nystatin ointment.

Certain complaints listed above were amended in December 2017,
January 2018, and April 2019. All of the above complaints have been
consolidated for pretrial proceedings, along with complaints filed
against other companies alleging price fixing with respect to more
than two dozen other drugs, as part of a case captioned In re
Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2724
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Pursuant to the court's schedule staging various cases in phases,
the company moved to dismiss the complaints relating to Clobetasol
and Econazole. The court issued a decision denying the motions in
part in October 2018 and issued a second decision in February 2019
dismissing various state law claims, but allowing other state law
claims to proceed. We filed answers to the Clobetasol gel
complaints on December 31, 2018. The company filed answers to the
Desonide and Econazole complaints on March 15, 2019.

Motions to dismiss certain other complaints listed above were filed
on February 21, 2019. Plaintiffs’ oppositions were due on May 2,
2019 and defendants’ replies were filed on June 13, 2019. Certain
deposition discovery is allowed to proceed as of the court’s July
15, 2019 order in all cases and documentary discovery is also
proceeding. At this stage, we cannot reasonably predict the outcome
of the liability, if any, associated with these claims.

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


PIZZA HUT: Reyes Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------
Daisy Reyes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Linda Snow and John Richmond, individually,
Pizza Hut of San Antonio Number 1, Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio
Number 2, Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio Number 3 Inc., Pizza Hut
of San Antonio Number 6, Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio Number 7,
Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio Number 9, Inc., Pizza Hut of San
Antonio Number 10, Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio Number 11, Inc.,
Pizza Hut of San Antonio Number 12, Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio
Number 13, Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio Number 14, Inc., Pizza
Hut of San Antonio Number 18, Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio Number
20, Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio Number 21, Inc., Pizza Hut of
San Antonio Number 25, Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio Number 27,
Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio Number 28, Inc., Pizza Hut of San
Antonio Number 29, Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio Number 30, Inc.,
Pizza Hut of San Antonio Number 31, Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio
Number 36, Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio Number 37, Inc., Pizza
Hut of San Antonio Number 38, Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio Number
39, Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio Number 40, Inc., Pizza Hut of
San Antonio Number 41, Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio Number 42,
Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio Number 43, Inc., Pizza Hut of San
Antonio Number 44, Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio Number 45, Inc.,
Pizza Hut of San Antonio Number 47, Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio
Number 48, Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio Number 49, Inc., Pizza
Hut of San Antonio Number 50, Inc., Pizza Hut of San Antonio No.
51, Inc., Newton Associates, Inc., And Newton Associates I, Ltd.
All D/B/A Pizza Hut of San Antonio, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00934, (S.D. Tex., August 2, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime
wages and statutory damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendants operate numerous Pizza Hut franchises where Reyes worked
as an hourly, non-exempt employee. She claims to have worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek but was not paid time-and-one-half her
regular rate of pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Forester, Esq.
      FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
      1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 210-2100
      Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com


POWER STOP: Worker Files Class Action Over Biometrics Scanning
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reports that a man who formerly worked for a car
brake maker has filed a class action lawsuit, accusing his employer
of violating an Illinois privacy law in the way it required
employees to scan their "biometrics" when punching in and out of
work shifts.

Jose Luna, individually and on behalf of others in the same
situation, filed suit July 22 in Cook County Circuit Court,
accusing Power Stop LLC of obtaining and using their private
information without their consent. The lawsuit claims Power Stop, a
company that makes and sells performance brake pads, used biometric
identifiers, such as fingerprints, voiceprints and palm scans, to
track employees' work hours, yet did not first secure employees'
written authorization. The lawsuit says the company also didn't
provide employees with disclosures explaining how the information
was being stored, why it was being scanned and how and when it
would be destroyed, if it was being stored or distributed.

The lawsuit asserts these were violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

Luna said his information was scanned when he worked at one of
Power Stop's Illinois facilities. The suit alleges Power Stop used
biometric scanning and time-tracking devices to keep track of its
workers and their time. Luna had to scan his information into the
Power Stop database as an employee for payroll purposes.

He asked the court to certify the class, declare Power Stop
violated the BIPA law, and award statutory damages of $1,000-$5,000
per violation, plus attorney fees and injunctive relief.

He is represented by attorneys with the firm of McGuire Law P.C.,
of Chicago.

Cook County Circuit Court Case No. 2019-CH-8545 [GN]


PRIDWIN HOTEL: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pridwin Hotel
Limited. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Pridwin Hotel
Limited, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07923 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 23,
2019).

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

Pridwin Hotel and Cottages is a classic all-wood American resort
hotel that has been providing guests a unique experience on Shelter
Island since 1927.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
     The Marks Law Firm PC
     175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
     New York, NY 10014
     Phone: (646) 770-3775
     Fax: (646) 867-2639
     Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


PRO-DIRECT SPORT: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pro-Direct Sport,
Inc. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pro-Direct Sport, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07894 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 22, 2019).

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

Pro-Direct Sport Limited operates as an online sports store. The
Company offers balls, apparels, shoes, rackets, and accessories for
various sports. Pro-Direct Sportserves customers in the United
Kingdom.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


R.I.B. ENTERPRISES: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against R.I.B. ENTERPRISES,
INC. The case is styled as JOHN MAHONEY ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. R.I.B. ENTERPRISES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03838-JP (E.D. Pa., Aug. 23,
2019).

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

R I B Enterprises Inc. is a privately held company in Houston, TX
and is a Single Location business, categorized under Computer
Consultants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     DAVID S. GLANZBERG, ESQ.
     GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
     123 S. BROAD STREET SUITE 1640
     PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109
     Phone: (215) 981-5400
     Email: dglanzberg@aol.com


RADIUS GLOBAL: Demato Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Frank Demato individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Radius
Global Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04853 (E.D.
N.Y., Aug. 23, 2019).

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

Radius Global Solutions is a leading provider of account recovery
and debt collection, customer relationship management and
healthcare revenue cycle management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Michael 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


RAHIMALI S MAKNOJIA: Fernandes Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oston Diogo Fernandes; and All Others Similarly Situated v.
Rahimali S. Maknojia, Niyazali Maknojia, Abbasali S. Maknojia and
Shafiqali N. Maredia, Case No. 4:19-cv-03112 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 20,
2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking to
recover unpaid overtime wages.

The Defendants have acted directly or indirectly, in the interest
of an employer with respect to the Plaintiff and Members of the
Plaintiff Class.  The Defendants together own, operate and control
several gasoline stations/convenience stores in the Houston and
surrounding areas, where the Plaintiff worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
          ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
          One Arena Place
          7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
          Houston, TX 77074
          Telephone: (713) 223-1300
          Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
          E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


RECRO PHARMA: Securities Suit over IV Meloxicam Reports Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit related to Recro Pharma, Inc.'s
disclosure concerning the New Drug Application (NDA) for IV
meloxicam remains pending, Recro Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that purported to state a claim for
alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, based on statements made
by the Company concerning the New Drug Application (NDA) for IV
meloxicam.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and other costs.

On December 10, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that asserted the same claims and sought the same relief but
included new allegations and named additional officers and
directors as defendants.

On February 8, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety, which the lead plaintiff opposed
on April 9, 2019. On May 9, 2019, the Company filed its response
and briefing was completed on the motion to dismiss. On June 26,
2019, the judge heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss.  

The judge asked the plaintiffs to file a supplemental brief by
August 30, 2019, and the Company will have 30 days to submit a
reply brief.  

Recro Pharma said, "The Company believes that the lawsuit is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. The
lawsuit is in the early stages and, at this time, no assessment can
be made as to its likely outcome or whether the outcome will be
material to the Company."

Recro Pharma, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical company.
It operates through two divisions, an Acute Care, and Contract
Development and Manufacturing (CDMO). The company was formerly
known as Recro Pharma I, Inc. and changed its name to Recro Pharma,
Inc. in August 2008. Recro Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is
based in Malvern, Pennsylvania.

REPUBLIC WASTE: Approval of Summary Judgment Bid in Sharp Endorsed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHARP MEXICAN PARTNERS, LP, d/b/a MANNY'S UPTOWN and
SHARP MEXICAN #8, LLC d/b/a MANNY'S LAKEWOOD, Plaintiffs, v.
REPUBLIC WASTE SERVICES OF TEXAS, LTD. d/b/a REPUBLIC SERVICES OF
DALLAS & d/b/a ALLIED WASTE SERVICES OF DALLAS, Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-1605-S-BN (N.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge David L. Horan of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, recommended that the Court (i) denies as moot the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; (ii) dismisses with
prejudice the Plaintiffs' breach-of-contract claim; (iii) grants
the Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment; and (iv)
denies the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Continuance of
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Motion for Protection.

The action is a breach-of-contract case in which the Court must
determine whether the contracts are ambiguous or unambiguous and,
if they are unambiguous, to interpret them as a matter of law.  The
contract terms at issue concern a "container refresh" charge.

Plaintiffs Sharp Mexican Partners, LP, doing business as Manny's
Uptown, and Sharp Mexican #8, LLC, doing business as Manny's
Lakewood, two restaurant entities, contracted with Defendant
Republic Waste Services of Texas Ltd., doing business as Republic
Services of Dallas and doing business as Allied Waste Services of
Dallas, a waste collection service provider, for the collection,
transportation, and disposal of all of the Plaintiffs'
non-hazardous waste materials.  To be eligible for waste-collection
services from Republic, the Plaintiffs were required to sign
Customer Service Agreements.

Manny's Uptown contracted with Republic for waste removal services
in a July 2014 contract ("2014 CSA").  The 2014 CSA's first page
listed costs under headings, including headings for "monthly" costs
and "additional charges."  The second page included a provision
that allowed for the modification of the contract rates.

In January 2016, Republic provided Manny's Uptown with written
notice regarding the addition of the Container Refresh service.  In
the "Important Information" section of the January invoice sent to
Manny's Uptown, Republic explained that future invoices would
include a $9 monthly rate for the service.  The February 2016
invoice included a notice of the rate change and additional service
in the "Important Information" section.

On Oct. 21, 2106, Republic entered into a new Customer Service
Agreement with Manny's Uptown ("2016 Uptown CSA") and Manny's
Lakewood ("2016 Lakewood CSA").  The first page of both the 2016
Uptown CSA and the 2016 Lakewood CSA listed costs under headings,
including headings for "monthly service," "additional charges," and
"one time charges." It listed "Container Refresh" as an "additional
charge" of $9.  On the second page of each of the 2016 CSA's, the
Container Refresh charge is explained.

As a new customer, Manny's Lakewood obtained six months' free
enrollment in the Container Refresh program.  The Comments section
of the first page of the 2016 Lakewood CSA provides: "Container
Refresh Promotional Period: 6 months free."

Republic invoiced both the Plaintiffs $9 each month for Container
Refresh.  The invoices listed the Container Refresh charge on each
invoice and specifically designated the month to which the fee
applied.  he Lakewood CSA invoices also reflected a $9 credit each
month for Container Refresh for the first six months of the CSA in
compliance with the promotional period.

The Plaintiffs sued Republic over the Container Refresh charges.
In their Second Amended Complaint and Class Action, filed after
Republic removed the case based on diversity jurisdiction, the
Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, fraud by
nondisclosure, and fraudulent inducement.  The Court dismissed the
Plaintiffs' fraud by nondisclosure and fraudulent inducement
claims.  Only the breach-of-contract claim remains.

The Plaintiffs allege that Republic unilaterally added a Container
Refresh fee onto Manny's Uptown's monthly invoice in 2014 and that,
after paying the Container Refresh charge for nine months without a
contractual agreement, they were fraudulently induced into signing
new contracts with Republic that contained ambiguous language
regarding the Container Refresh program and that Republic failed to
disclose that the Container Refresh fee was a monthly charge.  They
allege that they never requested enrollment in the Container
Refresh program and never requested a container exchange.
Nevertheless, they have paid and continue to pay the Container
Refresh fee to Republic.

Republic filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court
denied without prejudice without opinion.  Republic states that the
Court told the parties that Republic could refile the motion for
summary judgment if mediation between the parties was unsuccessful
-- which it was.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification before
mediation, and, after mediation, filed a motion to amend their
complaint to add two additional parties.

Republic filed an amended motion for summary judgment based on the
argument that the contracts between the parties are unambiguous and
may be construed by the Court as a matter of law.  The Plaintiffs
filed a response, and Republic did not file a reply.

The Plaintiffs then filed a motion to continue the amended motion
for summary judgment, which they amended.  They ask the Court to
decide their motion for class certification before it decides
Republic's amended motion for summary judgment.  The Plaintiffs
also assert that they need additional discovery to provide a full
and complete response to the amended motion for summary judgment.
Republic filed a response to the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for
Continuance of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Motion for
Protection, and the Plaintiffs did not file a reply.

The Plaintiffs raise four arguments in their amended motion for
continuance: (1) the Court should rule on the motion for class
certification first because the case will be remanded if the motion
for class certification is denied; (2) Republic has filed the same
motion for summary judgment that was previously denied; (3) there
has been no new discovery or case development since the prior
motion for summary judgment was denied other than mediation and the
filing of the motion for class certification and responses; and (4)
the Plaintiffs need discovery from Republic to provide a full and
complete response to the amended motion for summary judgment.

Judge Horan finds that the Plaintiffs fail to show either why they
need additional discovery or how the additional discovery will
likely create a genuine issue of material fact in response to the
amended motion for summary judgment as to their' own claims -- not
those of any as-yet-uncertified putative class members.  They also
fail to present specific facts explaining their inability to make a
substantive response to the amended motion for summary judgment.
Instead, they seek additional discovery related to existing
customers and potential customers, but the amended motion for
summary judgment is directed to the individual breach-of-contract
claims of the two named Plaintiffs and is based on contract
construction principles.  

The Plaintiffs also argue that Republic is re-urging the prior
motion for summary judgment that was previously denied and that
there has been no new discovery or case developments since the
original motion for summary judgment was denied.  But the prior
motion for summary judgment was denied without prejudice and
without opinion.  The issues raised in both the original and
amended motion for summary judgment have not been resolved, and the
Court may consider the amended motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, for all of these reasons, the JUdge should deny the
Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Continuance of Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment/Motion for Protection.

Republic argues that the breach of contract case involves two
issues.  The first issue is a matter of contract interpretation --
specifically, whether a $9 charge included in the 2016 Uptown CSA
and the 2016 Lakewood CSA is a monthly charge or a one-time charge.
The second issue is whether Republic and Manny's Uptown modified
the 2014 CSA to add a monthly charge.

The Magistrate Judge concludes that the 2016 CSAs unambiguously
provide for a $9 monthly Container Refresh charge.  And, because
the 2016 CSAs are unambiguous, he need not consider extrinsic
evidence.   Viewing all facts and drawing all reasonable inferences
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving parties, Manny's
Uptown has not come forward with evidence that would create a
genuine dispute of material fact as to the breach of contract
claim, on which Republic has carried its summary judgment burden.
Accordingly, the Judge recommends that the Court grants Republic's
amended motion for summary judgment.

Finally, because dismissal of the Plaintiffs' only remaining claim
resolves the case, the Judge should deny as moot the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify Class -- which is based on certification of the
Plaintiffs' existing claims and was fully briefed before they
sought leave to amend to add two new named Plaintiffs in their
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Adding Plaintiffs.  

The Court always is empowered to make a determination on the merits
irrespective of the denomination of the suit as a class action; The
propriety of that inquiry is limited only by concerns of whether
the class determination should be postponed until after the merits
determination.  If summary judgment is granted prior to
certification, the decision will bind only the named parties.  If
the Court accepts this recommendation, the Judge can then address
the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Adding
Plaintiffs.

Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Horan recommended that the
Court should (i) deny the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for
Continuance of Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment/Motion for
Protection, (ii) grant the Defendants' Amended Motion for Summary
Judgment, (iii) dismiss with prejudice the Plaintiffs'
breach-of-contract claim, and (iv) deny as moot the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify Class

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation will be
served on all parties in the manner provided by law.  Any party who
objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, and
recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days
after being served with a copy.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 23, 2019 Recommendation is
available at https://is.gd/gYy2aJ from Leagle.com.

Sharp Mexican Partners L P, doing business as Manny's Uptown &
Sharp Mexican #8 LLC, doing business as Manny's Lakewood,
Plaintiffs, represented by Evan L. Van Shaw --
info@shawlawoffice.com -- Law Offices of Van Shaw, David Welch,
Law
Office of Van Shaw, Jeremy Beau Powell, Law Offices of Van Shaw &
Robert Stephen Weinberg , Whitson Wells PMG LLC.

Republic Waste Services of Texas Ltd, doing business as Manny's
Lakewood, Defendant, represented by Melanie Kemp Okon --
mokon@okonhannagan.com -- Okon Hannagan, PLLC, Sarika Naresh Patel
-- spatel@okonhannagan.com -- Okon Hannagan, PLLC & Susan E.
Hannagan -- shannagan@okonhannagan.com -- Okon Hannagan, PLLC.

ADR Provider, Mediator, represented by Joe Kendall --
jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com -- Kendall Law Group PLLC.


RESPOND POWER: Appeal in Gillis Class Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit has not yet ruled on the appeal made in the
case, Gillis et al. v. Respond Power, LLC.

Gillis et al. v. Respond Power, LLC is a purported class action
lawsuit that was originally filed on May 21, 2014 in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas but was later removed to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

On September 15, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the disclosure
statement contained in Respond Power, LLC's variable rate contracts
with Pennsylvania consumers limited the variable rate that could be
charged to no more than the monthly rate charged by the consumers'
local utility company and alleged claims of deceptive conduct in
violation of Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, and breach of contract and of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing by charging rates above the utility.

The amount of damages sought is not specified. By order dated
August 31, 2015, the district court denied class certification. The
plaintiffs appealed the district court's denial of class
certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit and that court vacated the district court's denial of class
certification and remanded the matter to the district court for
further proceedings.

On July 16, 2018, the district court granted Respond Power LLC's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's class action claims. Plaintiffs
filed their notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court on August
7, 2018. The Third Circuit has declined to hear oral arguments on
this matter but has not yet ruled on this appeal.

The Company believes it has full indemnity coverage for any actual
exposure in this case at this time.

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

Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


RIOT GAMES: Gender Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit Settled
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Webb, writing for Business Insider, reports that Riot Games,
the creator of "League of Legends," has settled a class action suit
that accused the company of fostering a sexist work environment.
Two employees, one former and one current, filed the suit in
California Superior Court in November accusing Riot of denying them
equal pay and blocking their career advancements on the basis of
gender.

The suit alleged that Riot created a sexist work environment by
fostering "bro culture" that normalized sexual harassment and
misogyny aimed at employees of both genders. In December 2018 Riot
suspended Chief Operating Officer Scott Gelb for upholding that
culture of toxic masculinity, following reports that he had farted
on employees and repeatedly hit their genitals as a running joke.

Riot announced the class action settlement in a joint statement
with the plaintiffs on August 23. The company said that it chose
not to pursue litigation in favor of progressing past the dispute
as a company.

"While we believed that we had a strong position to litigate, we
realized that in the long run, doing what is best for both Riot and
Rioters was our ideal outcome," the company said in a blog post.
"Therefore, rather than entrench ourselves and continue to
litigate, we chose to pivot and try to take an approach that we
believe best demonstrates our commitment to owning our past, and to
healing the company so that we can move forward together."

Riot has been overhauling its internal policies and company culture
since reports of gender discrimination surfaced in August 2018, but
some employees have remained critical of its approach. In May more
than 100 employees participated in a walk-out of the company's Los
Angeles studio to protest a newly introduced forced arbitration
policy for workplace disputes.

Rioters Against Forced Arbitration, the employee organization that
planned the walkout, issues a statement regarding the settlement as
well:

"Settling this class action is a victory for women in games. We
believe that this & Riot's policy changes help continue the
progress toward equity that we've made over the past year. While
this settlement helps bring peace of mind to women at Riot, we want
to acknowledge that issues of discrimination and harassment go
beyond gender, and acknowledge the victims who aren't covered in
this suit.

This settlement is an important step on the journey of making the
games industry a more diverse and welcoming place, but the fight is
far from over. Making Riot — and the entire industry — more
inclusive is an ongoing process, and we are excited to see this big
step in the right direction."

Riot Games still faces an ongoing investigation into sexual
harassment, gender discrimination, and unequal pay between men and
women at the company. In June, the California Department of Fair
Employment and Housing filed an enforcement action against Riot in
the Los Angeles County Superior Court to compel Riot to release
employee pay information.

Riot pushed back against the department's accusations, claiming
that they were cooperating with the review in good faith. The
company said it had already provided the requested data to the DFEH
and filed the action without giving the company an opportunity to
respond.

Riot's Chief Diversity Officer, Angela Roseboro, was hired in
February to help the company repair its internal structure, and
reflected on the company's progress in the year since the initial
accusations of gender discrimination were reported by the gaming
website Kotaku.

Roseboro said Riot had expanded its leadership and made new efforts
to recruit women and minorities. More than 2,500 Riot employees
participated in training exercises and the company installed a new
set of cultural values.

You can read the full statement announcing the Riot's class action
settlement agreement below:

All parties have reached an agreement in principle today to resolve
the class action case against Riot Games.

"This is a very strong settlement agreement that provides
meaningful and fair value to class members for their experiences at
Riot Games," said Ryan Saba, Esq. -- rsaba@rosensaba.com -- of
Rosen Saba, LLP, the attorney representing the plaintiffs. "This is
a clear indication that Riot is dedicated to making progress in
evolving its culture and employment practices. A number of
significant changes to the corporate culture have been made,
including increased transparency and industry-leading diversity and
inclusion programs. The many Riot employees who spoke up, including
the plaintiffs, significantly helped to change the culture at
Riot."

The parties will now move toward seeking court approval of the
proposed settlement, and we will provide additional details about
its terms when that filing takes place.

"We are grateful for every Rioter who has come forward with their
concerns and believe this resolution is fair for everyone
involved," said Nicolo Laurent, CEO of Riot Games. "With this
agreement, we are honoring our commitment to find the best and most
expeditious way for all Rioters, and Riot, to move forward and
heal. Over the past year, we've made substantial progress toward
evolving our culture and will continue to pursue this work as we
strive to be the most inclusive company in gaming." [GN]


RUDOLPH TECHNOLOGIES: Rosenblatt Sues Over Sale to Nanometrics  
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. RUDOLPH TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DAVID
B. MILLER, JEFFREY A. AUKERMAN, LEO BERLINGHIERI, DANIEL H. BERRY,
VITA CASSESE, THOMAS G. GREIG, III, MICHAEL P. PILSINSKI, JOHN R.
WHITTEN, NANOMETRICS INCORPORATED, and PV EQUIPMENT INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01559-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 21, 2019) is
an action stemming from a proposed transaction announced on June
24, 2019, pursuant to which Rudolph Technologies, Inc.  will be
acquired by Nanometrics Incorporated and PV Equipment Inc.

On June 23, 2019, Rudolph's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Nanometrics.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Rudolph's
stockholders will receive 0.8042 shares of Parent common stock for
each share of Rudolph common stock they own. On August 15, 2019,
Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Proposed Transaction.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement filed in line
with the transaction omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement
false and misleading. Accordingly, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants violate Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") in connection with the
Registration Statement.

Plaintiff is the owner of Rudolph common stock.

Rudolph is a leader in the design, development, manufacture, and
support of defect inspection, lithography, process control
metrology, and process control software used by semiconductor and
advanced packaging device manufacturers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     RM LAW, P.C.
     1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Phone: (484) 324-6800
     Facsimile: (484) 631-1305


SB DIRECTIONAL: Court Narrows Claims in Foutch FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLAYTON FOUTCH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SB DIRECTIONAL
SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. CIV-19-362-C (W.D.
Okla.), Judge Robin J. Cauthron of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma granted in part Defendants SB
Directional Services, LLC and Scott Burch's Motion for Partial
Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs filed the action as a putative class action alleging
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Oklahoma
Protection of Labor Act ("OPLA").  They allege that the Defendants
have a practice of classifying all their employees as independent
contractors and paying them a day wage for each day worked as
opposed to wages.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6), arguing that the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint fails
to state a claim for violation of the OPLA and/or that the
Plaintiffs are improper class representatives.  The Defendants
argue that the Plaintiffs' OPLA claim must fail as the allegations
in the Amended Complaint only support a claim for unpaid overtime
wages. Defendants argue the OPLA mandates only that wages must be
paid as agreed.  Because there was no agreement to pay overtime
wages, there can be no violation of the OPLA.  In response, the
Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants mistake the fact that the OPLA
does not require payment of overtime wages.

As Defendants note, the Judge finds that the statute and
regulations relied on by the Plaintiffs to argue payment of
overtime is required are not contained in the OPLA.  Rather, those
authorities are part of the Oklahoma Employment Security Act, which
is not asserted by the Plaintiffs.  Thus, to the extent the
Plaintiffs rely on the OPLA as a mechanism to pursue their claims
for unpaid overtime, those claims fail as a matter of law.  The
Defendants request these claims be dismissed with prejudice.  While
the Judge is not persuaded that the Plaintiffs can overcome the
legal barriers to this claim, they will be given an opportunity to
amend to state a claim consonant with the rulings herein.

The Defendants also challenge the Plaintiffs' status as proper
class representatives.  The Plaintiffs were directional drillers
for the Defendants.  The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint seeks to
plead a class action comprised of all employees of the Defendants
that were treated as independent contractors.  The Defendants argue
that the Plaintiffs, as directional drillers, are not similarly
situated to office or clerical staff and so cannot properly
represent those persons in a class action.  The Plaintiffs offer no
response to the Defendants' argument on this issue.

The Judge finds that at this stage, the Plaintiffs' pleading is
sufficient.  When certification of a class is proposed, it may be
that the Defendants' arguments are correct and that the Plaintiffs
are not similarly situated to other persons the Defendants treated
as independent contractors.  However, at this stage, there is no
evidence as to the kind of workers treated as independent
contractors.  Thus, it cannot be said that the Plaintiffs are not
similarly situated.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Cauthron granted in part the
Defendants' Motion for Partial Dismissal.  She dismissed without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims for violation of the OPLA .  The
Plaintiffs will file any Amended Complaint within 10 days of the
date of the Order.  The Plaintiffs' claims under the FLSA remain.
The Status and Scheduling Conference scheduled for Aug. 1, 2019, is
stricken to be reset at a later date.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/N8Wl0X from Leagle.com.

Clayton Foutch, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, Clint Stallworth,
Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
known and unknown & Jobin Sims, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs,
represented by Jacque L. Pearsall -- JacquePearsall@gmail.com --
Jacque Pearsall PLLC & William J. Bergner, Sr. --
wbergner@kolawllp.com -- William J. Bergner Sr. PLLC.

SB Directional Services LLC & Scott Burch, Defendants, represented
by Mary P. Snyder -- mary.snyder@crowedunlevy.com -- Crowe &
Dunlevy & Tanya S. Bryant -- tanya.bryant@crowedunlevy.com -- Crowe
& Dunlevy.


SHANGHAI CITY CORP: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Huang Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HUER HUANG, LIANQIN LU, GLORIA PEREZ MENDEZ, CLARA FLORES, REYES
PEREZ GUERRERO, HUI ZHEN HUANG, JUAN LI, and HAI HUA ZHAI, on their
own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SHANGHAI
CITY CORP d/b/a Joe's Shanghai; SHANGHAI DUPLICATE CORP d/b/a Joe's
Shanghai; EAST BROTHER CORP d/b/a Joe's Shanghai; and SHANGHAI
ORIGINAL INC. d/b/a Joe's Shanghai; KIU SANG SI a/k/a Joseph Si
a/k/a Joe Si, YIU FAI FONG, TUN YEE LAM a/k/a Peter Lam, GUI BING
SHI, SOLOMON C. LIOU, MIMI SI, WILLIAM KO, LILLIAN LIOU, CHENG
KUENG LIU, YUN CAI, JOHN ZHANG, and TERRY, Case No. 1:19-cv-07702
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 16, 2019), alleges that the Defendants have
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law by
failing to pay their employees, including the Plaintiffs, minimum
wage and overtime compensation.

Shanghai City Corp d/b/a Joe's Shanghai is a domestic business
corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York with
a principal address in New York City.  Shanghai Duplicate Corp
d/b/a Joe's Shanghai is a domestic business corporation organized
under the laws of the State of New York with a principal address in
New York City.

East Brother Corp d/b/a Joe's Shanghai is a domestic business
corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York with
a principal address in New York City.  Shanghai Original Inc. d/b/a
Joe's Shanghai is a domestic business corporation organized under
the laws of the State of New York with a principal address in
Flushing, New York.  The Individual Defendants are officers,
directors, managers and/or majority shareholders or owners of the
Corporate Defendants.

The Defendants, doing business as Joe's Shanghai, operate three
Chinese restaurants in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com


SIRIUS XM: Tornetta Files Rule 4(d)(c) Statement
------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RICHARD J. TORNETTA, On Behalf of Himself and
All Other Similarly Situated Former Stockholders, Plaintiff, v.
SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS INC., GREGORY B. MAFFEI, JAMES E. MEYER, DAVID
J. FREAR, ROGER J. LYNCH, JASON HIRSCHHORN, ROGER CONANT FAXON,
TIMOTHY LEIWEKE, MICHAEL M. LYNTON, and MICKIE ROSEN, Defendants,
Case No. 2019-0649 (Chancery Ct., Del., Aug. 15, 2019), the
Plaintiff filed a statement pursuant to Chancery Court Rule 4
(d)(c) in connection with the service of process pursuant to 10
Del. C. Section 3114.

According to the statement, the Defendants Gregory B. Maffei, James
E. Meyer, David J. Frear, Roger J. Lynch, Jason Hirschhorn, Roger
Conant Faxon, Timothy Leiweke, Michael M. Lynton, and Mickie Rosen
were members of the Board of Directors of Pandora Media, Inc. n/k/a
Pandora Media, LLC at the time of the wrongs complained of in the
Verified Class Action Complaint in this matter.

The principal place of business of Pandora Media, Inc. n/k/a
Pandora Media, LLC outside the State of Delaware is: Pandora Media,
Inc. dba Pandora Media, LLC 2100 Franklin Street, Suite 700
Oakland, CA 94612. The registered agent for Pandora Media, Inc.
n/k/a Pandora Media, LLC in the State of Delaware is The
Corporation Trust Company, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE
19801.

The address outside the State of Delaware for individual Defendants
Gregory B. Maffei, James E. Meyer, David J. Frear, Roger J. Lynch,
Jason Hirschhorn, Roger Conant Faxon, Timothy Leiweke, Michael M.
Lynton, and Mickie Rosen as shown on Pandora Media, Inc.'s most
recent Annual Franchise Tax Report filed with the Delaware
Secretary of State is as follows: c/o Pandora Media, Inc. n/k/a
Pandora Media, LLC, 2100 Franklin Street, Suite 700, Oakland, CA
94612.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Corinne Elise Amato, Esq.
     Samuel L. Closic, Esq.
     PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
     1310 N. King Street
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 888-6500

          - and -

     Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
     Craig J. Springer, Esq.
     David M. Sborz, Esq.
     ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
     3801 Kennett Pike
     Building C, Suite 305
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 504-4957

          - and -

     Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
     David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
     FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
     493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
     Bedford Hills, NY 10507
     Phone: (888) 529-1108


SPARK ENERGY: Confidential Settlement Reached in Richardson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a confidential
settlement has been reached in Richardson et. al. v. Verde Energy
USA, Inc.

Richardson et. al. v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a purported class
action filed on November 25, 2015 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the
Verde Companies violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") by placing marketing calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system ("ATDS") or a prerecorded voice to the purported
class members' cellular phones without prior express consent and by
continuing to make such calls after receiving requests for the
calls to cease. Following discovery and dispositive motions, the
Verde Companies received a favorable ruling on summary judgment
with the court agreeing with the Verde Companies that the call
system used in this case was not an ATDS as defined by the TCPA.

Plaintiffs subsequently amended their petition eliminating theirs
ATDS claim and including a class based on failure to comply with
the National Do Not Call registry.

As part of an agreement in connection with the acquisition of the
Verde Companies, the original owners of the Verde Companies are
handling this matter.

The parties have reached a confidential settlement in this matter
which is pending court approval.

The Company believes it has full indemnity coverage, net of tax
benefit, for the settlement exposure in this case.

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

Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


SPARK ENERGY: Settlement Reached in Albrecht Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a confidential class
settlement has been reached in the class action suit entitled,
Albrecht v. Oasis Power, LLC.

Albrecht v. Oasis Power, LLC, is a putative nationwide class action
that was filed on February 12, 2018 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that Oasis
made illegal prerecorded telemarketing calls, including auto-dialed
calls, to consumers' mobile phones, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and the Illinois Automatic
Telephone Dialers Act ("ATDA").

Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Oasis to cease all
unsolicited calling activities, an award of statutory and trebled
damages under the TCPA and the ATDA, as well as costs and
attorney's fees.

Oasis filed its motion to dismiss on April 16, 2018 and a renewed
motion to dismiss on May 4, 2018.

The parties have reached a confidential class settlement which is
pending court approval.

The Company has sought indemnity and insurance coverage from two
vendors and their carriers that worked for the Company on the
telemarketing campaigns at issue.  

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

Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


SPARK THERAPEUTICS: Grant Suit over Roche Merger Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Spark Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court dismissed the
Grant v. Bennett, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02615 suit with
prejudice for lack of prosecution of the case due to plaintiff's
failure to respond.

On February 22, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement) with Roche Holdings, Inc.
(Roche) and 022019 Merger Subsidiary, Inc. (Merger Sub). Pursuant
to the Merger Agreement, and upon the terms and subject to the
conditions thereof, Merger Sub has commenced a cash tender offer
(the Tender Offer) to acquire all of the issued and outstanding
shares of the Company's common stock at a price per share of
$114.50, net to the seller of such shares in cash, without
interest, subject to any withholding of taxes required by
applicable law.

On March 7, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint,
Wang v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-00479, or the
Wang Complaint, was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware by purported company stockholder Elaine
Wang against the company and its directors in connection with the
merger.

On March 11, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint,
Kent v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-00485, or the
Kent Complaint, was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware by purported company stockholder Michael
Kent against the company, its  directors, the Merger Sub, and Roche
in connection with the merger.

On March 18, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint,
Newman v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-00528, or
the Newman Complaint, was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware by purported company stockholder
Arthur Newman against the company and its directors in connection
with the merger.

On March 20, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint,
Gomez v. Spark Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-02487, or the
Gomez Complaint, was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York by purported company stockholder
Zarrin Gomez against our company and our directors in connection
with the merger.  

The Wang Complaint, the Kent Complaint, the Newman Complaint and
the Gomez Complaint allege that the Schedule 14D-9 filed on March
7, 2019 in connection with the merger omitted certain supposedly
material information. The Wang Complaint, the Kent Complaint, the
Newman Complaint and the Gomez Complaint assert claims against all
the defendants for violation of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act,
and against the company's directors, and in the case of the Kent
Complaint, Roche, and in the case of the Gomez Complaint, the
company, for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Wang Complaint, the Kent Complaint and the Gomez Complaint also
assert claims against all defendants for violation of Section 14(d)
of the Exchange Act. The Wang Complaint, the Kent Complaint, the
Newman Complaint and the Gomez Complaint seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On April 18, 2019, a complaint, Grant v. Bennett, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-02615, or the Grant Complaint, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
certain trustees at the University of Pennsylvania, the company and
Roche, alleging intellectual property infringement and false claims
by the trustees and seeks, among other relief, to enjoin the
licensing of all adeno-associated virus patents by the University
of Pennsylvania to the company and the consummation of the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement. On June 25,
2019, the court dismissed the Grant Complaint with prejudice for
lack of prosecution of the case due to plaintiff's failure to
respond.

Spark Therapeutics said, "We, and our board, believe that the Wang
Complaint, the Kent Complaint, the Newman Complaint and the Gomez
Complaint are without merit and we, our board, the Merger Sub, and
Roche intend to defend vigorously against such claims. Additional
similar cases may also be filed in connection with the tender offer
or the merger."

Spark Therapeutics, Inc. focuses on the development of gene therapy
products for patients suffering from debilitating genetic diseases.
Spark Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2013 and is headquartered
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

STOCKX INC: Failed to Safeguard Personal Info, IC Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
I.C., a minor, by and through his natural parent, NASIM CHAUDHRI,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. STOCKX,
INC.; and STOCKX, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-12441-VAR-EAS (E.D. Mich.,
Aug. 19, 2019), arises from StockX's failure to reasonably
safeguard the Plaintiff's personally identifiable information (PII)
based on StockX's August 8, 2019 Notice of Data Breach.

As a result of StockX's negligent, intentional, or unconscionable
failure to adequately satisfy its contractual, statutory, and
common-law obligations, the Plaintiff's PII was accessed, acquired,
stolen, and re-sold by thieves for the express purpose of misusing
the Plaintiff's data and causing further irreparable harm to the
Plaintiff's personal, financial, reputational, and future
well-being, according to the complaint.

StockX, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Detroit, Michigan.  StockX, LLC, is a Michigan limited
liability company with its principal place of business in Detroit,
Michigan.

StockX is an ecommerce platform for luxury goods, fashion clothing,
and accessories, with a particular emphasis on ultrarare, custom,
vintage, and highly sought shoes for "sneakerheads," including
minors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          William Kalas, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  wk@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq.
          Daniel J. Buller, Esq.
          FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
          32 Corporate Woods, Suite 600
          9225 Indian Creek Parkway
          Overland Park, KS 66210-2000
          Telephone: (913) 253-2144
          Facsimile: (866) 347-1472
          E-mail: snehrbass@foulston.com
                  dbuller@foulston.com

               - and -

          Boyd A. Byers, Esq.
          FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
          1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100
          Wichita, KS 67206-4466
          Telephone: (316) 291-9796
          Facsimile: (866) 559-6541
          E-mail: bbyers@foulston.com


TELENETWORK PARTNERS: $65K Madrid FLSA Suit Settlement Has Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HUGO MADRID, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TELENETWORK
PARTNERS, LTD., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-04519-BLF
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court,
for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted
the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Approval of FLSA Collective
Settlement, Named Plaintiff Service Payments, and Attorneys' Fees
and Cost.

In the putative class and collective action, Named Plaintiffs
Madrid, Leigha Salyers, and Jenifer Marchon allege that Defendants
teleNetwork Partners, LTD., doing business as teleNetwork, and
teleNetwork California, Inc., violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and various California labor laws.

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion seeking
settlement approval.  he settlement resolves the claims of the
Named Plaintiffs and the 65 individuals who opted in to the FLSA
collective action.  In their motion, the Plaintiffs request that
the Court approves the payments to the Opt-In Plaintiffs, the
service awards to the Named Plaintiffs, and the attorney's fees and
litigation costs, as well as dismiss without prejudice the claims
of the putative Rule 23 class members who did not opt in to the
FLSA claims.

In the Parties' Settlement Agreement, the Defendants agreed to a
gross settlement amount of $65,000.  The gross settlement reserves
$31,894.63 for attorney's fees and costs.  In addition, the Named
Plaintiffs will receive $2,000 each from the gross settlement
amount as service awards.  The remainder ($27,105.37) will be
distributed as individual payments to each participating Opt-In
Plaintiff.

The gross settlement does not allocate any money to the PAGA claim.
The terms of the settlement also state that the Defendants will
donate any uncashed settlement checks or other residual funds to
the California Unclaimed Wage Fund. Finally, the gross settlement
does not include the Defendants' share of payroll taxes, so the
Defendants will need to pay those taxes in addition to the
settlement amount.

In terms of the allocation formula for individual payments, the
payments will be determined by considering the number of hours and
weeks that each Opt-In Plaintiff worked, as well as each employee's
hourly rate.  Any work week in which an Opt-In Plaintiff worked
fewer than 39 hours will not be counted.  However, additional hours
and weeks that an Opt-In Plaintiff worked will increase his or her
individual payment.  Each Opt-In Plaintiff will receive a minimum
individual payout of $80.  The Settlement Agreement also allocates
50% of each individual payment to wages, which will be subject to
all required payroll taxes and deductions.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs agreed
to release "any and all wage and hour claims" under both state and
federal law "that were made or could have been made" against the
Defendants in the action.  The Plaintiffs also consented to release
their PAGA claims and their rights to any other fees or costs
related to the litigation.  Finally, they agreed to seek Court
approval to dismiss without prejudice the putative class claims.

The Defendants will mail settlement notices enclosing the
settlement checks to the Plaintiffs no later than 90 days after the
Court approves the settlement.  The Settlement Notice will inform
each Opt-In Plaintiff of the claims made, the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, their share of the Settlement Payment, and
the claims that they are releasing. See Settlement Notice.  The
Defendants will also notify the Plaintiffs' Counsel if any checks
are undeliverable, and the Plaintiffs' Counsel will attempt to
locate these Opt-In Plaintiffs.  Per the agreement, the Opt-In
Plaintiffs will have 180 calendar days after the initial issuance
of their settlement check to sign and cash the settlement check.

Finally, the Plaintiffs' Counsel stated that they notified the
Opt-In Plaintiffs of the terms of the Settlement Agreement before
filing the motion. At oral argument, the Plaintiffs' Counsel stated
to the Court that they notified the Opt-In Plaintiffs of the terms
of the Settlement Agreement on firm letterhead and gave the Opt-In
Plaintiffs until the date of this Order to opt-out.  No Opt-In
Plaintiffs objected or opted out.

Having considered the papers filed by the parties, the relevant
legal authority, and the oral arguments at the June 20, 2019
hearing, Judge Freeman granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
settlement approval, and dismissed the class claims.  She
concurrently entered the parties' stipulated judgment dismissing
the action with prejudice.  The Clerk is directed to close the
case.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/c2luQd from Leagle.com.

Hugo Madrid, Leigha Salyers & Jenifer Marchon, Plaintiffs,
represented by Jahan C. Sagafi -- jsagafi@outtengolden.com --
Outten & Golden LLP & Kevin J. Stoops -- kstoops@sommerspc.com --
Sommers Schwartz, P.C.

TeleNetwork Partners, Ltd., doing business as Telenetwork &
TeleNetwork California, Inc., Defendants, represented by John W.
Stapleton -- jstapleton@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips
LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew W. Simpson --
msimpson@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Philllips LLP, pro hac vice
& Aaron Franklin Olsen -- aolsen@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher &
Phillips, LLP.


TEVA PHARMA: Psagot Funds Leads Generic Drug, Opioid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nickeesha Swaby, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
joining a long list of complainants against pharmaceutical giant
Teva Pharmaceuticals and similar drug makers, Israel's largest
pension fund manager claims in a class action that Teva colluded
with competitors to exorbitantly raise the price of generic drugs
over the past five years.

Teva investor, Psagot Mutual Funds and Psagot Provident Funds &
Pension Ltd., is suing the company and its senior officers in the
U.S. District Court of Connecticut for the alleged "illegal
marketing and distribution of opioid narcotics," that saw the
company rake in $2.3 billion in profits by increasing the price of
certain generic drugs by almost 100 percent from February 6, 2014
to May 30, 2019.

The lawsuit attributes the devastating opioid crisis ravaging the
United States in part to Teva's participation in "one of the
largest illegal cartels ever in the history of the United States,
that wiped out billions in investor funds and could result in over
$4 billion in damages and criminal liability."

Teva officers, the complaint says, repeatedly made dishonest
statements about the company's explosive revenue growth while
concealing its "price-hike strategy" where, in cahoots with
competitors, Teva methodically raised the prices of generic drugs
at least 76 times. Meanwhile, the company credited the growth to
portfolio diversification and new products.

"In truth, Teva's price-hike strategy was responsible for $155
million, or 31 percent, of the company's year over-year growth,
and, overall, generated approximately $848 million in inflated
profits for 2015," the lawsuit states, adding that the price hike
contributed as much as $236 million in inflated profits for the
second quarter of 2017.

Teva's underlying rationale was the $40.5 billion acquisition of
Actavis in 2015 that coincided with the growing opioid crisis,
eventually culminating in a Department of Justice investigation in
June 2016.

Teva had no choice but to quit the price-hike scheme when the
public became aware of the investigations. "The end of the
price-hike strategy brought further declines in profits," the
lawsuit says, and the firing of several executives including CEO
Erez Vigodman.

Teva stock reached a 19-year low in May of this year, closing at
$8.84 on May 30.

Psagot is represented by Erin Green Comite and Margaret B. Ferron
of Scott+Scott Attorneys At Law in Colchester, Conn. [GN]


TEXAS: Court Dismisses Hoffman's Pro Se Suit
--------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Corpus Christi Division, adopts the memorandum and
recommendation recommending the dismissal of the Pro Se Class
Action Complaint in the case captioned  FRED HOFFMAN III,
Plaintiff, v. PHILLIP SIFUENTES, et al., Defendants. Civil No.
2:18-CV-336. (S.D. Tex.).

Accordingly, the Court retains Hoffman's claim of deliberate
indifference against Defendant Warden Phillip Sifuentes in his
official capacity for injunctive relief. The Court dismisses
Hoffman's remaining claims against all Defendants for failure to
state a claim and/or as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections
1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1).

The Court denies the Plaintiff's request to have this case proceed
as a class action.

A copy full-text copy of the District Court's August 19, 2019
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y47j9gdy
from Leagle.com.

Warden Phillip Sifuentes, in his official capacity, Defendant,
represented by Jonathan M. Pena, Office of the Attorney General.

Office of the Attorney General, Amicus, represented by Jonathan M.
Pena, Office of the Attorney General.


TORO COMPANY: Accused by Gruenwald of Selling Faulty Lawn Mowers
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT GRUENWALD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE TORO COMPANY, TORO INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No.
0:19-cv-02294 (D. Minn., Aug. 19, 2019), arises from the
Defendants' manufacture, distribution and sale of defective
TimeCutter lawn mowers.

Toro designs, manufactures, markets and sells professional turf
maintenance equipment and services, turf irrigation systems,
landscaping equipment and lighting products, snow and ice
management products, agricultural irrigation systems, rental and
specialty construction equipment, and residential yard and snow
thrower products.  Toro's products are advertised and sold
worldwide through a network of distributors, dealers, mass
retailers, hardware retailers, home centers, as well as online
direct to end-users) under the primary trademarks of Toro(R),
Exmark(R), BOSS(R), Irritrol(R), Hayter(R), Pope(R), PERROT(R),
Unique Lighting Systems(R), and Lawn-Boy(R).

Despite representations, Toro has designed, manufactured,
distributed, marketed and sold its TimeCutter driving lawn mowers
("Lawn Mower(s)") that present a serious safety risk to the
TimeCutter Lawn Mower consumer, and an accompanying risk of
property loss, notes the complaint.

The Toro Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located in Bloomington, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
          Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 54402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
                  awilliams@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          333 University Avenue, Suite 200
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 207-6017
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: mjt@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          James Pepper, Esq.
          THE PEPPER LAW FIRM, LLC
          122 E. Court Street, Suite 2
          Doylestown, PA 18901
          Telephone: (215) 340-2500
          E-mail: pepper@jamespepperlaw.com


TRADER JOE'S: Removes Webb Case to Southern District of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trader Joe's Company removed the case captioned as CHRISTINA WEBB,
on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the
general public, the Plaintiff, vs. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 37-2019-00035568-CU-BT-CTL (Filed July 10,
2019), from the San Diego Superior Court to the to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
Aug. 23, 2019. The Southern District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01587-CAB-WVG to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims against Trader Joe's relating to its
marketing and sale of raw poultry products, including the Trader
Joe's All Natural Boneless Chicken Breasts, Trader Joe's All
Natural Chicken Thighs, and Trader Joe's All Natural Chicken
Wings.

The Plaintiff alleges that Trader Joe's misleadingly labels the
Products because the Products allegedly contain more retained water
than disclosed on the Products' label and less poultry product than
stated on the net weight label, in violations of the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act; California Unfair Competition Law; False
Advertising Law; Breach of Express Warranties; Breach of Implied
Warranties; Theft by False Pretenses; and Unjust Enrichment.

Trader Joe's is an American chain of grocery stores headquartered
in Monrovia, California. By 2015, it was a competitor in "fresh
format" grocery stores in the United States. By October 2017,
Trader Joe's had 474 stores nationwide in 43 states and Washington,
D.C.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Angel A. Garganta, Esq.
          Amit Rana, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          101 California Street, Suite 3800
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415 653 3750
          Facsimile: 415 653 3755
          E-mail: agarganta@venable.com
                  arana@venable.com

UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court OKs Filing of Amended Complaint in Smith
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland Division, issued an Order granting Filing of
Amended Class Action Complaint in the case captioned JANE SMITH, on
her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE CO. and UNITED BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH, Defendants. Case No. 4:18-cv-06336-HSG. (N.D. Cal.).

The Class Action Complaint in this action was filed by Plaintiff
Jane Smith, proceeding pseudonymously, on her own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.

Plaintiff Smith moved unopposed to proceed pseudonymously, which
motion the Court granted   subject to reconsideration if Plaintiff
Smith moves for class certification.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint which motion
Plaintiff Smith opposed.

The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Complaint, and dismissed Plaintiff Smith's claims
predicated on an alleged violation Section 2706 of the Affordable
Care Act (Section 2706) without leave to amend.

Defendants consent to the filing of the attached Amended Class
Action Complaint.

Defendants consent to Roe's request to proceed pseudonymously at
this stage of the litigation.

Upon entry of the Proposed Order attached hereto, Plaintiffs will
file the Amended Class Action Complaint attached at Exhibit 1,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) based on Defendants' consent.

Roe will proceed pseudonymously, subject to reconsideration if she
moves for class certification, consistent with the reasoning set
forth in the Court's  Order.

For the reasons set forth in Defendants' motion to dismiss and
reply brief in support thereof  Defendants contend Roe's claims
should be dismissed.

For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff Smith's opposition to
Defendants' motion to dismiss Roe opposes dismissal of her claims.

Upon entry of the Proposed Order attached hereto, Roe's claims
predicated on Section 2706 are dismissed, for the same reasons
articulated in the Court's Order.

No party waives their right to appellate review of the Court's
decision on Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The deadlines set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order shall
remain in effect.

Defendants reserve the right to move to dismiss claims only as to
Roe and only on grounds other than those asserted in their prior
motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff Smith.

Defendants will file a response to the Amended Class Action
Complaint within 14 days of the filing of the Amended Class Action
Complaint attached hereto.

Counsel for Plaintiff Smith and the putative class shall file the
Amended Class Action Complaint attached as Exhibit 1 to this
Stipulation as soon as practicable after entry of this Order.

Upon filing of the Amended Class Action Complaint, and over Roe's
opposition, Roe's claims predicated on alleged violations of
Section 2706 are dismissed by the Court for the same reasons set
forth in the Court's  Order.

The Court grants Roe's request to proceed pseudonymously, subject
to reconsideration if Roe moves for class certification, consistent
with the Court's  Order.

The deadlines set forth in the Court's  Scheduling Order remain in
effect.

Defendants will file a response to the Amended Class Action
Complaint within 14 days of the filing of the Amended Class Action
Complaint.

A copy full-text copy of the District Court's August 19, 2019 Order
is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y4t4nwfq from Leagle.com.

Jane Smith, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by D. Brian Hufford --
dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice,
Jason S. Cowart -- jcowart@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP,
pro hac vice, Rachel F. Cotton -- rcotton@zuckerman.com --
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice, Anant Kumar
-akumar@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice, Nell
Zora Peyser -- npeyser@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro
hac vice, Shawn P. Naunton -- snaunton@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice & Meiram Bendat -mbendat@psych-appeal.com
-- Psych-Appeal, Inc.

Jane Roe, Plaintiff, represented by Nell Zora Peyser, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP.

United Healthcare Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer Salzman Romano  -- jromano@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring
LLP, Jared L. Facher -- jfacher@crowell.com -- Crowell Moring LLP,
pro hac vice, Kumar A. Narain -- nkumar@crowell.com -- Margaret
Carroll Gomes -- MGomes@crowell.com -- CROWELL MORING LLP & Michael
W. Lieberman -- mlieberman@crowell.com -- Crowell Moring LLP.

United Behavioral Health, Defendant, represented by Jennifer
Salzman Romano, Crowell & Moring LLP, Jared L. Facher, Crowell
Moring LLP, Kumar A. Narain, Margaret Carroll Gomes, CROWELL MORING
LLP & Michael W. Lieberman, Crowell Moring LLP, pro hac vice.


UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Matulewski Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEONARD MATULEWSKI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MIKE
POMPEO, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-3370 (ES) (SCM) (D.
N.J.), Judge Esther Salas of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted the Defendants' motion to dismis the
Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs are six individuals who are United States citizens
and who bring a putative class action complaint on behalf of
themselves, their non-citizen family relatives, and all others who
are similarly situated.  In essence, the Amended Complaint
challenges the Defendants' rule on unlawful presence departure
under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA").


More specifically, the Plaintiffs challenge the rule set forth in 9
FAM 302.11-2, which, they claim, misconstrues and applies INA
Section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II), to any and all departures made by
aliens unlawfully in the United States.  Hence the rule, the
Plaintiffs conclude, incorrectly fails to exempt departures
pursuant to removal proceeding orders; violates the statute's clear
meaning; and is ultra vires.  The Plaintiffs assert that the rule
itself is a final agency action and thus is reviewable.

With respect to purported injuries, the Plaintiffs apparently
allege that the consequences of their own anticipated litigation
strategies would be "unnecessary" or "expensive."  They also claim
that the Defendants' anticipated enforcement of the rule would
deprive them of an 'opportunity' for an 'immediate relative'
permanent residence benefit or relief or will cause them to be
separated from their families for 10 years.

The Defendants, in response, submit that the Amended Complaint
should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.  Among
other arguments, the Defendants contend that the rule itself is not
a "final agency action" and because there is no final agency
decision by a consular officer on the Plaintiffs' hypothetical visa
applications, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the
APA.

Judge Salas agrees.  She holds that two conditions must be
satisfied for agency action to be 'final'" First, the action must
mark the 'consummation' of the agency's decision-making process,
and second, the action must be one by which 'rights or obligations
have been determined,' or from which `legal consequences will flow.
She finds that the Amended Complaint fails to identify any
"decision-making process" that the Defendants have even begun.
Furthermore, the proposition that the rule itself is a "final
agency action" is legally unfounded.

The Judge cannot discern how any factor used to determine whether
an agency action is final would support the Plaintiff's conclusion
that the rule itself is a final agency action.  Therefore, she
concludes that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and must
dismiss the Amended Complaint.  Accordingly, she granted the the
Defendants' motion to dismis the Amended Complaint.  An appropriate
order accompanies her Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/peb2uv from Leagle.com.

LEONARD MATULEWSKI, US Citizen Husband, ARTEMISA YASMIN LOZANO
ROMERO, Wife, MELHA BATTOU, US Citizen, LOUIZA BATTOU, Sisters,
NANCY A. SELTZER, FREDI LOPEZ, Husband, CHRISTIAN TENA QUINTERO,
ALBERTO TENA GARCIA, US Citizen Son and Father, ESMERALDA LUCERO,
PETRA ROSALES MORAN, US CItizen Daughter and Mother, LEODAN GOBEA
OTERO, HIGENIA OTERO FLORES & SIPRIANO GOBEA, US Citizen Son,
Mother and Father, Plaintiffs, represented by REGIS FERNANDEZ.

Secretary of State MIKE POMPEO, In his official capacity as
Secretary of State or Acting Secretary of State, JOHN DOES 1-200,
In their official capacity as the consular officials responsible
for issuing Immigrant visas & REX W. TILLERSON, Defendants,
represented by KRUTI D. DHARIA, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY.


UPPER MIDWEST: Shanahan Sues Over Unauthorized Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
TERRENCE SHANAHAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. UPPER MIDWEST REALTY INC. DBA EXIT
REALTY UPPER MIDWEST, a Minneapolis Corporation, and John Doe 1,
Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00359 (D. Neb. Aug. 21, 2019) is a
class action complaintagainst Defendants to stop their illegal
practice of making, and permitting to be made on their behalf,
unauthorized telephone calls using an automatic dialing system to
the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide, and to obtain
redress for all persons injured by their conduct.

In the course of advertising employment opportunities and real
estate services, Defendant and Defendant's authorized agents
including Defendant John Doe 1, placed thousands of automated calls
to consumers' cell phones nationwide. The Defendant and Defendant's
authorized agents including Defendant John Doe 1, did not obtain
consent prior to placing these calls and, therefore, are in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, says the
complaint.

By placing the calls at issue, Defendant and Defendant's authorized
agents including Defendant John Doe 1, have violated the privacy
and statutory rights of Plaintiff and the Class. Plaintiff,
therefore, seeks an injunction requiring Defendant and Defendant's
authorized agents including Defendant John Doe 1, to stop its
unconsented calling, as well as an award of actual and statutory
fines to the Class members, together with costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff TERRENCE SHANAHAN is a natural person and is a citizen of
the District of Nebraska.

Defendant Exit Realty is a real estate agent or brokerage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
     Javitch Law Office
     480 S. Ellsworth Ave
     San Mateo, CA 94401
     Phone: 650-781-8000
     Facsimile: 650-648-0705
     Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com



VALARIS PLC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Valaris plc (NYSE: VAL) and
certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired Valaris securities between April 11, 2019 and
July 31, 2019, both dates inclusive. Such investors are encouraged
to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/val

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Valaris was plagued by a weak ultra-deepwater segment,
massive cash usage, and significant negative cash flow; (2) the
foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact
on Valaris's second quarter 2019 results; (3) the merger leading to
Valaris's establishment could not deliver on its touted benefits;
and (4) as a result, Valaris's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/val or you may contact Peretz
Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss Valaris you have until October 21, 2019 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff acts on
behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.

Contact:

         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Tel: 212-697-6484
         Email: info@bgandg.com
                peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


VALARIS PLC: Kessler Topaz Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Valaris plc (NYSE:  VAL) ("Valaris") on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Valaris securities between April
11, 2019 and July 31, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Important Deadline:  Investors who purchased Valaris securities
during the Class Period may, no later than October 21, 2019, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class.
For additional information or to learn how to participate in this
litigation please visit
www.ktmc.com/valaris-plc-securities-class-action

According to the complaint, Valaris provides offshore drilling
services in various water depths worldwide, operating a rig fleet
of ultra-deepwater drillships, versatile semisubmersibles, and
modern shallow-water jackups. Valaris' offshore fleet includes
sixteen drillships, twelve semisubmersibles, fifty-four jackups,
and two deepwater managed units. Prior to the Class Period, Valaris
was known as Ensco plc ("Ensco").

The Class Period commences on April 11, 2019, when Ensco issued a
press release, pre-market, announcing the completion of the merger
of Ensco and Rowan Companies plc ("Rowan") into Ensco Rowan plc
("Ensco Rowan").  The press release touted, among other things,
Ensco Rowan's "diverse rig fleet of ultra-deepwater drillships,
versatile semisubmersibles and modern shallow-water jackups" that
purportedly enabled Ensco Rowan "to provide drilling services
across all water depths with unmatched scale, geographic presence
and customer relationships." The press release also contained
statements by top-level management which touted the financial
strength and growth opportunities generated by the Ensco Rowan
merger. On July 2, 2019, Ensco Rowan announced that it would change
its name to Valaris plc, effective July 31, 2019.

According to the complaint, on July 31, 2019, Valaris issued a
press release announcing its second quarter 2019 financial results
-- purportedly its first earnings report post-merger reflecting the
results of the combined company -- which missed market
expectations. Upon issuance of the press release, analysts at
Seeking Alpha published an article on August 2, 2019, entitled
"Valaris PLC - Off To A Bad Start", and noted that Valaris' results
"shock[ed] investors with massive cash usage [and] . . .
surprisingly weak outlook for the ultra-deepwater segment with
further dayrate recovery likely delayed until at least the second
half of next year." The article further criticized Valaris' free
cash flow for the quarter, which was "negative by a whopping $375
million causing the company's remaining pro forma cash balance
adjusted for roughly $741 million in payments related to the recent
debt tender offer to decline to just $353 million."

Following this news, Valaris' stock price fell $3.25 per share, or
approximately 39%, over the two trading sessions following its
announcement of its quarterly financial results, to close at $5.02
per share on August 2, 2019.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Valaris was plagued by a weak ultra-deepwater
segment, massive cash usage, and significant negative cash flow;
(ii) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material
negative impact on Valaris' second quarter 2019 results; (iii) the
merger leading to Valaris' establishment could not deliver on its
touted benefits; and (iv) as a result, Valaris' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 887-9500 (toll free) or (610) 667–7706, or via
e-mail at info@ktmc.com.

Valaris investors may, no later than October 21, 2019, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world.  The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars).  The complaint in this action was
not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.

Contact:

         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Tel: (844) 887-9500
              (610) 667-7706
         Email: info@ktmc.com
                jmaro@ktmc.com
                abell@ktmc.com [GN]


VALARIS PLC: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Valaris plc (f/k/a Ensco Rowan plc) (NYSE:  VAL) and
certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, for the Southern District of New York, and indexed
under 19-cv-07816, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded Valaris securities between April
11, 2019 and July 31, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Valaris securities during
the class period, you have until October 21, 2019, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Valaris is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.  The
Company provides offshore drilling services in various water depths
worldwide, operating a rig fleet of ultra-deepwater drillships,
versatile semisubmersibles, and modern shallow-water jackups.  The
Company's offshore fleet includes sixteen drillships, twelve
semisubmersibles, fifty-four jackups, and two deepwater managed
units.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that:  (i) the Company
was plagued by a weak ultra-deepwater segment, massive cash usage,
and significant negative cash flow; (ii) the foregoing was
reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's second quarter 2019 results; (iii) the merger leading to
Valaris's establishment could not deliver on its touted benefits;
and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 31, 2019, Valaris issued a press release announcing its
second quarter 2019 financial results—purportedly its first
earnings report post-merger reflecting the results of the combined
company—which missed market expectations (the "2Q 2019 Press
Release").  Upon issuance of the 2Q 2019 Press Release, Seeking
Alpha published an article on August 2, 2019, entitled "Valaris PLC
- Off To A Bad Start" (the "Seeking Alpha Article"), noting that
Valaris's results "shock[ed] investors with massive cash usage
[and] . . . surprisingly weak outlook for the ultra-deepwater
segment with further dayrate recovery likely delayed until at least
the second half of next year."  The Seeking Alpha Article further
criticized the Company's free cash flow for the quarter, which was
"negative by a whopping $375 million causing the company's
remaining pro forma cash balance adjusted for roughly $741 million
in payments related to the recent debt tender offer to decline to
just $353 million."

On this news, Valaris's stock price fell $3.25 per share, or
approximately 39%, over the two trading sessions following the
Company's announcement of its quarterly financial results, to close
at $5.02 per share on August 2, 2019.

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

Contact:

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
         Web site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/[GN]


VALARIS PLC: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Valaris plc (NYSE: VAL) from April 11, 2019 through
July 31, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Valaris investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Valaris class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1660.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Valaris was plagued by a weak ultra-deepwater segment,
massive cash usage, and significant negative cash flow; (2) the
foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact
on Valaris's second quarter 2019 results; (3) the merger leading to
Valaris's establishment could not deliver on its touted benefits;
and (4) as a result, Valaris's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
21, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1660.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact:

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


VALARIS PLC: Zhang Files Securities Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
XIAOYUAN ZHANG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. VALARIS PLC, THOMAS P. BURKE, and JONATHAN
H. BAKSHT, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07816 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 20,
2019) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Valaris securities between April 11, 2019 and
July 31, 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 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against
the Company and certain of its top officials.

On April 11, 2019, Ensco plc and Rowan Companies plc merged to form
Ensco Rowan plc, which was touted as an industry-leading offshore
driller. On July 2, 2019, Ensco Rowan announced that it would
change its name to Valaris plc, effective July 31, 2019, and that
the Company's ordinary shares would trade under the new ticker
symbol "VAL" following the name change.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company was plagued by a weak ultra-deepwater segment, massive cash
usage, and significant negative cash flow; (ii) the foregoing was
reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's second quarter 2019 results; (iii) the merger leading to
Valaris's establishment could not deliver on its touted benefits;
and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 31, 2019, Valaris issued a press release announcing its
second quarter 2019 financial results--purportedly its first
earnings report post-merger reflecting the results of the combined
company--which missed market expectations. Upon issuance of the 2Q
2019 Press Release, Seeking Alpha published an article on August 2,
2019, entitled "Valaris PLC - Off To A Bad Start", noting that
Valaris's results "shocked investors with massive cash usage and
surprisingly weak outlook for the ultra-deepwater segment with
further dayrate recovery likely delayed until at least the second
half of next year." The Seeking Alpha Article further criticized
the Company's free cash flow for the quarter, which was "negative
by a whopping $375 million causing the company's remaining pro
forma cash balance adjusted for roughly $741 million in payments
related to the recent debt tender offer to decline to just $353
million." On this news, Valaris's stock price fell $3.25 per share,
or approximately 39%, over the two trading sessions following the
Company's announcement of its quarterly financial results, to close
at $5.02 per share on August 2, 2019.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff acquired Valaris securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

Valaris is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. It provides
offshore drilling services in various water depths worldwide,
operating a rig fleet of ultra deepwater drillships, versatile
semisubmersibles, and modern shallow-water jackups.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


VERDE ENERGY: Settlement in Jurich Suit Kept Under Wraps
--------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the parties in Jurich v.
Verde Energy USA, Inc. have reached a confidential settlement
agreement.

Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, Inc., is a class action originally
filed on March 3, 2015 in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut and subsequently re-filed on October 8,
2015 in the Superior Court of Judicial District of Hartford, State
of Connecticut.

The Amended Complaint asserts that the Verde Companies charged
rates in violation of its contracts with Connecticut customers and
alleges (i) violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sections 42-110a et seq., and (ii) breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages for
the class and injunctive relief.

As part of an agreement in connection with the acquisition of the
Verde Companies, the original owners of the Verde Companies are
handling this matter.

The parties have reached a confidential settlement in this matter,
which is pending court approval.

Spark Energy said, "The Company believes it has full indemnity
coverage, net of tax benefit, for any actual exposure in this case
at this time."

Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


VIVINT SOLAR: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Suit in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia over alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

In July 2018, an individual filed a putative class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
purportedly on behalf of himself and other persons who received
certain telephone calls.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and some of its implementing regulations.

The complaint seeks statutory penalties for each alleged violation.


The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint, has retained
counsel and intends to vigorously defend itself in the litigation.


The Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of potential
loss, if any, at this time.

Vivint Solar said, "If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in this
case, it is possible that the impact could be material to the
Company's results of operations in the period(s) in which any such
outcome becomes probable and estimable."

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

Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to
residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs
solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The
company was formerly known as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc.
was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Lehi, Utah.


VIVINT SOLAR: Wage and Hour Class Action Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the the company
continues to defend a purported class action lawsuit involving
employee wage and hour violation.

In February 2018, two former employees, on behalf of themselves and
a purported class, named the Company in a putative class action
alleging that the Company misclassified those employees and
violated other wage and hour laws.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and statutory penalties for
the alleged violations. The Company disputes the allegations and
has retained counsel to defend it in the litigation.

Vivint said, "If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in this case,
it is possible that the impact could be material to the Company's
results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome
becomes probable and estimable.

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

Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to
residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs
solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The
company was formerly known as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc.
was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Lehi, Utah.


WHEATON FRANCISCAN: Patient Record Fees Class Suit Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
State Bar of Wisconsin reports that a state appeals court has ruled
that a class action can proceed against a health care provider
regarding fees the provider charged to obtain medical records
despite fee exemptions that apply when attorneys request records on
behalf of clients.

Elizabeth Harwood sued entities within the Wheaton Franciscan
health system and sought an order to certify a class of similarly
situated patients who paid at least $28 for copies of their health
records in the preceding six years.

A circuit court certified the class, applying a newly revised
version of the class certification rule, Wis. Stat. section 803.08,
which governs the criteria that must be met before a circuit court
can certify the case to proceed as a class action.

The revised statute, effective July 1, 2018, imposes stricter
requirements to be certified as a class and harmonizes the state
class action law with federal law.

In Harwood v. Wheaton Franciscan Services, 2018AP1836 (Aug. 20,
2019), a three-judge panel for the District I Court of Appeals
affirmed, concluding the  circuit court "correctly considered the
relevant facts" and applied the new statute consistent with federal
law on class certification. The decision means the class action can
proceed.

The litigation followed an injury that Harwood sustained in a 2015
car accident. She signed HIPAA releases designating her attorneys
to request and receive her certified medical records. Wheaton
Franciscan Medical Group charged the attorneys $31.14, and another
Wheaton Franciscan affiliate charged $61.31 for hospital records.

Harwood's class certification motion included 44 invoices showing
Wheaton Franciscan charged certification and retrieval fees to
patients who provided written authorization for their attorneys to
request and receive their medical records. The Wisconsin Supreme
Court, in 2017, ruled that patients are exempt from statutory
certification and retrieval fees if their attorneys, through a
HIPPA release, request records on their behalf.

Like the circuit court, the appeals court rejected Wheaton
Franciscan's numerous arguments against class certification,
including arguments that certification could not be certified under
so-called "numerosity," "superiority," and "commonality"
requirements.

The appeals court decision, in an opinion by Judge Kitty Brennan,
ruled that the trial court "applied the correct law to the facts of
record and reached a reasonable decision," noting the court
carefully analyzed the case under state and federal class action
law.

"In its eleven-page order, the trial court set forth the applicable
legal standards for each statutory requirement and stated a factual
basis for concluding that each had been satisfied," Judge Brennan
wrote.

Wis. Stat. section 146.84 governs the penalties for violating state
law related to patient health care records, including section
146.83, which relates to fees. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***