CAR_Public/190906.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, September 6, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 179

                            Headlines

AETNA INC: Court Enters Stipulated Protective Order in KCC Suit
AFNI INC: Vlasak Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco
ALL NATION HOME: Parties File Joint Stipulation to Resolve Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal in Testosterone Replacement Suit Ongoing
AMERICAN CORADIUS: Taylor Sues Over Confusing Collection Letter

AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: Settlement in Employees Suit Finally Approved
ART OF BEAUTY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ASSOCIATED PHARMACIES: Insurer Removes Case to N.D. Alabama
AVERY TECHNICAL: Robertson Seeks Proper Wages
BAPTIST HEALTH: Smith Seeks Overtime Pay for Medical Staff

BEST COURIER: Swickheimer Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers
BOOMBAH INC: Faces Nixon Suit in Southern District of New York
CAPITAL ONE: Baisden et al. Sue over Breach of Personal Data
CAPITAL ONE: Potts Sues over Data Breach
CENTRAL RESEARCH: Certification of Class Sought in Vlasak Suit

CENTRAL RESEARCH: Court Stays Bid for Class certification
CENTURYLINK INC: Agrees to Settle Sales Practices & Securities Suit
CENTURYLINK INC: Continues to Defend Houser Class Action
CONDOR HOSPITALITY: Graham Class Suit Challenges Sale to NexPoint
CONTINENTAL GENERAL: Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought

DAUPHINS LLC: Agrees to Certification of Class in Boothe Suit
DIAMOND SUPPLY: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DISCOUNT FILTERS: Livingstone Sues Over TCPA Violation
DOMINION DENTAL: Henshaw et al Sue over Data Breach
DOOR XPRESS CORP: Rios Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

DOORDASH INC: McGrath Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
EAGLE TEAM: Williams Seeks Proper Overtime Wages
ELECTRICAL BUILDERS: Raykovitz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ELECTRONIC RECYCLERS: Removes Gilman Case to E.D. California
EMC INSURANCE: Iowa State Court Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed

EN ENGINEERING: Rossman Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
ENBRIDGE INC: Robertson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
FIFTH THIRD: Dismissal in Early Access Cash Advance Suit Reversed
FIS OPERATIONS: Jordan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
FORD MOTOR: Van's Class Cert. Bid Denied; Hearing Set for Sept. 12

FUNKO INC: Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit in Washington Granted
FUNKO INC: Kanugonda Class Action Underway
GENERAL MOTORS: Diesel Truck Owners Sue Over Defective Fuel Pump
GET TOGETHER: Lynn Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
GLOBE LIFE: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Joh Class Suit

GLOBE LIFE: Dismissed from Golz Class Action
GLOBE LIFE: Putros Class Suit Against Unit Ongoing
GLOBE LIFE: Unit Still Faces Hamilton Class Action in California
GORDON REED: Alaniz Moves for Class Certification and Notice
GOVBERG LLC: Diaz Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act

HARRIS & HARRIS: Bayeg Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES: Voyager Sues Over HDD Assembly Price-fixing
HOMEADVISOR INC: Newell Sues Over Automated Telemarketing Calls
IDEMIA IDENTITY: Rueda Wins Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
ITALIANTOUCH USA: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

JUUL LABS INC: Quercia Files Suit Over e-Cigarette Side-effects
JUUL LABS: Phillips Sues Over Fraudulent Scheme
KOHLS DEPARTMENT: Third Circuit Appeal Initiated in Gordon Suit
L'OREAL USA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Borchenko Class Suit
LANE BRYANT: Tatum-Rios Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Class Cert. Ruling in Mason Suit Upheld
MDL 2551: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Order for Ewen Suit
MDL 2902: 14 Merck Sharp & Dohme Patent Lawsuits Moved to Delaware
MDL 2905: 12 Defective Airbag Suits Moved to Central California
MDL 2905: Underwood v. Kia over Defective Airbag Moved to Calif.

MDL 2908: Court Deems as Moot Boeing's Bid to Transfer 66 Suits
MERRILL LYNCH: Valelly Files Suit for Unjust Enrichment
MIDLAND CREDIT: Porricelli Sues Over FDCPA Violation
MIKE ROVNER: Williamson Seeks Unpaid Wages for Carpenters
MISSISSIPPI: Hosemann Appeals Ruling in Hopkins Suit to 5th Cir.

NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Enriquez and Manna Suits Consolidated
NAVIENT CORP: DeWitt Seeks to Certify 3 Classes and 3 Sub-Classes
NEW YORK: BOD Files 23 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit
NEW YORK: Court Certifies Class of Medicaid Recipients
NEW YORK: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Slade Says

NEWMARK SOLUTIONS: Denied Construction Workers Overtime Pay
NHK GROUP: CMP Files Sues Over Hard Drive Assembly Price-fixing
NOBLE ENVIRONMENTAL: Dezzutti Seeks Overtime Wages for Laborers
OSMOTICA PHARMA: Shumacher & Tello Suits Consolidated
P&Y OPERATIONS: Pedrera Seeks Unpaid Half-Time Overtime Wages

PASCHALL TRUCK: Certification of Class Sought in Carter Suit
PERSONNEL STAFFING: Calderon Seeks OK of $279K Class Settlement
PIN UPS: Ortiz Hits Misclassification, Seeks Unpaid Wages
PSE&G: Faces Forrest Hill Suit in District of New Jersey
PTZ INSURANCE: Legg's Class Cert. Bid Stricken Without Prejudice

RAYTHEON COMPANY: Faulkner Files Suit Over United Tech Merger Deal
REAL VALUE PRODUCTS: Camp Drug Store Seeks Certification of Class
RELIANCE TRUST: Casey Files Motion to Compel Stout
ROBERT CLERGERIE: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RUSH AUTO RECYCLERS: Pizer Suit Removed to Arizona Dist. Ct.

SANTA BARBARA TRANS: Diaz Suit Moved to Calif. Central District
SBE ENT HOLDINGS: Heckman Moves to Certify Class of Customers
SHIPT, INC: Turner et al. Seek Minimum & OT Wages for Shoppers
SOKO GLAM: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STATE OF NEW YORK: Sughrim Files Suit in S.D. New York

STELLA & DOT: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STOVER DIAGNOSTICS: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SWANSON HEALTH: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TECHNIPFMC PLC: Continues to Defend Prause Class Suit in Texas
TEQUILLA CORPORATION: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

TIVITY HEALTH: Trial in Okla. Firefighters Suit Set for May 2021
TRINITY COURIERS: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
TROPICAL FOODS: Cordova Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
TURKEY HILL: Kane Files Product Mislabeling Class Action
UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class in Galvez SIJS Suit

UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Teamsters Local 456 Suit Pending
VICTORIA'S SECRET: Lee Suit Removed to C.D. California
WESTWARD MANAGEMENT: Channon et al Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
WILCO LIFE: Anderson Suit Stayed Pending 11th Cir. Appeal

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AERCO International Withdraws Appeal in Ciano Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Withdraws Appeal in Isernia Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had 1,400 Pending Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Summary Judgment Favoring ACL, et al.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $102.3MM Reserve at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garrett Motion Paid $38MM to Honeywell in 2Q 2019
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Won't Face SEC Charges re Accounting
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Had $835.8MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 24,000 Claims Pending at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Klopman-Baerselman Claims vs. Cost Less Dismissed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Klopman-Baerselman to Amend Notice of Deposition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kodak Escapes Insurer's Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Still Faces 575 Lawsuits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Louis Jurors Award Former Mechanic $8.4MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Appeals New Burden in Calif. Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 1,540 Fibro Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 366 Pending Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weil Atty Closing Remarks in J&J Talc Trial Struck
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Had 800 PI Suits at June 30


                            *********

AETNA INC: Court Enters Stipulated Protective Order in KCC Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Western Division, has entered
the parties' Stipulated Qualified Protective Order in the case, KCC
CLASS ACTION SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. AETNA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-CV-1018-JFW-JEM (C.D. Cal.).

A full-text copy of the Court's July 19, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/1EPfYS from Leagle.com.

KCC Class Action Services, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher Rene Ramos -- ramosc@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig
LLP, Blaine C. Kimrey -- bkimrey@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price
PC, pro hac vice, Bryan K. Clark -- bclark@vedderprice.com --
Vedder Price PC, pro hac vice, Deborah Anne Hedley --
dhedley@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price LLP, Jeanah Park --
jpark@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price PC, pro hac vice & Marie
Elise Christiansen -- mchristiansen@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price
LLP.

Aetna, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brandon P. Reilly --
breilly@manatt.com -- Manatt Phelps and Phillips LLP, Craig Steven
Rutenberg -- crutenberg@manatt.com -- Manatt Phelps and Phillips
LLP, Donna L. Wilson -- dlwilson@manatt.com -- Manatt Phelps and
Phillips LLP, Kishan Hasmukh Barot -- KBarot@manatt.com -- Manatt
Phelps and Phillips LLP & Matthew P. Kanny -- mkanny@manatt.com --
Manatt Phelps and Phillips LLP.


AFNI INC: Vlasak Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco
------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Vlasak moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit captioned JENNIFER VLASAK,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
AFNI, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01209 (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks
that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to
grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALL NATION HOME: Parties File Joint Stipulation to Resolve Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit styled DENIQUIA STEVENS, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. ALL NATION HOME
HEALTHCARE, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02364-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), file
with the Court their stipulation and proposed order for conditional
certification, notice, due diligence exchange and mediation.

The Parties believe they can avoid substantial litigation costs by
entering into certain stipulations, exchanging due diligence
materials, and negotiating a global settlement.  Therefore, subject
to the Court's approval, the parties stipulate and consent to the
entry of the stipulation as an order of the Court.  The stipulated
matters consist of (1) conditional certification of the case as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b), on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly
situated, as defined, (2) provisions regarding the distribution of
notice to potential opt-ins, (3) informal exchange of documents and
information between the parties enabling them to conduct due
diligence regarding the claims and issues, and (4) the exploration
of settlement.

The Parties stipulate that this case may be conditionally certified
by the Court as a collective action under Section 216(b) on behalf
of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, defined as:

     All former and current Home Health Aides, or similar home
     care providers with different job titles, who worked more
     than 40 hours in one or more workweeks during the period of
     three (3) years preceding the Complaint filing date and
     through the present (the "Collective Class Members").

The Parties will jointly file a proposed plan for notice which
shall include (i) the form of the proposed notice, (ii) the
compilation of a roster of present and former employees to whom the
notice will be sent, and (iii) logistical details of the
distribution.

First, however, the Parties ask the Court to postpone notice so
that the proposed due-diligence exchange and settlement discussions
can take place.  If the discussion is unsuccessful, the Parties
will engage the services of a mediator.  If the Parties are
ultimately unable to settle this case, they will jointly ask the
Court to approve a notice informing potential opt-ins of this case
and enabling them to participate.

For purposes of due diligence, the Parties will exchange documents
and information on or before October 31, 2019, as follows:

   (a) the Defendant will provide, in Excel format, a spreadsheet
       identifying, by dates of employment, all Collective Class
       Members during the period beginning three years preceding
       the filing of this stipulation and the present; and

   (b) the Defendant will provide, in Excel format, time, payroll
       and other data for all Collective Class Members, showing
       their base hourly wages for each workweek, the amount of
       regular and overtime hours worked during each workweek,
       and the amount and dates of wages paid.

Following the due diligence exchange, the Parties will engage in
settlement discussions.  If those discussions are unsuccessful, the
Parties will engage in mediation with a mediator selected by mutual
consent.  The Parties agree that applicable statutes of limitations
shall be tolled from the date of the filing of this stipulation and
proposed order.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage St. NW, Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          614 West Superior Ave., Suite 1148
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 230-2955
          E-mail: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Philip W. Gerth, Esq.
          THE GERTH LAW OFFICE, LLC
          465 Waterbury Court, Suite A
          Columbus, OH 43230
          Telephone: (614) 856-9399
          E-mail: philipgerth@gerthlaw.com


ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal in Testosterone Replacement Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 appeal in Testosterone Replacement
Therapy Class Action remains pending.

Subsidiaries of the Company were named in a class action complaint
filed on behalf a putative class of third-party payers in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit
alleges that the Company's subsidiaries violated various laws
including the federal the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO)statute and state consumer protection laws in
connection with the sale and marketing of Androderm(R).

The class plaintiffs seek to obtain certain equitable relief,
including injunctive relief and an order requiring restitution
and/or disgorgement, and to recover damages and multiple damages in
an unspecified amount.

While the lawsuit is ongoing, the court has denied plaintiff's
class certification motion. On February 14, 2019, the court granted
Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case in its
entirety.   

On June 12, 2019, plaintiffs/appellants filed their opening brief
in the Seventh Circuit. Appellees' Seventh Circuit brief was filed
on July 17, 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.


AMERICAN CORADIUS: Taylor Sues Over Confusing Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rozell Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. American Coradius International, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04890-LDH-VMS (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 27,
2019) seeks to recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

In its efforts to collect an alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter dated August 28, 2018. The Letter conveyed
information regarding the alleged Debt. A debt collector has the
obligation not just to convey the name of the creditor to whom the
debt is owed, but also to convey such clearly and such explicitly.


According to the complaint, the Letter fails to identify by name
and label any entity as "current creditor," "account owner," or
"creditor to whom the debt is owed." Instead, the Letter sets forth
three disparate entities: "Synchrony Bank"; "PayPal Credit"; and
"Bill Me Later, Inc." The Letter further states, "This account has
been placed with our office for collection."

The Letter fails to indicate who placed the account with Defendant,
notes the complaint. It fails to indicate who the Defendant
represents and who the Defendant's client is.  The least
sophisticated consumer would likely be confused as to whether the
creditor to whom the debt is owed is "Synchrony Bank," "PayPal
Credit," "Bill Me Later, Inc.," or Defendant. The Defendant
violated the FDCPA as it failed to clearly and explicitly convey
the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Rozell Taylor is a natural person allegedly obligated to
pay a debt.

Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of
debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 706-5055
     Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: Settlement in Employees Suit Finally Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation 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 settlement
agreement in the retired employees' suit has been finally
approved.

In February 2017, the Corporation, its indirect subsidiary Akers
National Roll Company, as well as the Akers National Roll Company
Health & Welfare Benefits Plan were named as defendants in a class
action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, where the plaintiffs (currently
retired former employees of Akers National Roll Company and the
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial, and Service Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO) alleged that the defendants breached collective bargaining
agreements and violated the benefit plan by modifying medical
benefits of the plaintiffs and similarly situated retirees.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case, and plaintiffs petitioned
the court to compel arbitration. On June 13, 2017, the District
Court compelled arbitration and denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss as moot. Defendants appealed this decision to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals on June 21, 2017. The Third Circuit Court
of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision to compel
arbitration on August 29, 2018.

The plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied.

Rather than litigating the merits of the case at the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the
Corporation reached a settlement agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs, which approved by the court on July 22, 2019.

Ampco-Pittsburgh said, "As expected, the final resolution of this
settlement agreement did not have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital
resources."

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation manufactures engineered equipment. The
Company produces finned tube heat exchange coils, large standard
and custom air handling systems, centrifugal pumps, feed screws,
hardened steel rolls, and heat transfer rolls. Ampco's products are
used in the construction, power generation, refrigeration, chemical
processing, marine defense, and steel industries. The company is
based in Carnegie, Pennsylvania.

ART OF BEAUTY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Art of Beauty
Company, Inc. et al. The case is styled as Linda Slade individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Art of Beauty Company, Inc. doing business as:
Zoya.com, Zoya Company, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07952 (S.D.
N.Y., Aug. 26, 2019).

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

Zoya makes the world's longest wearing natural nail polish and nail
care treatments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASSOCIATED PHARMACIES: Insurer Removes Case to N.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company removed the case captioned
AMERICAN ASSOCIATED PHARMACIES; and ASSOCIATED PHARMACIES, INC.,
the Plaintiffs, vs. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. CV-2019-900154 (Filed July 9, 2019), from the
Circuit Court of Jackson County, Alabama, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Aug. 13,
2019. The Northern District of Alabama Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:19-cv-01295-CLS to the proceeding.

Philadelphia Indemnity issued an insurance policy to AAP, Policy
No. PHSD662532, effective dates September 1, 2011 – September 1,
2012. Policy No. PHSD662532 provides claims-made coverage.

In 2012, a lawsuit styled State of West Virginia v. Associated
Pharmacies, Inc., et al, was filed against API in the Circuit Court
of Boone County, WV, Civil Action No. 12- C-141. Philadelphia
Indemnity provided coverage for this suit. This suit was settled
with Philadelphia Indemnity funding the settlement. AAP and API
contend approximately $4,000,000 in policy limits remain on Policy
No. PHSD662532.

Philadelphia Indemnity issued an insurance policy to AAP, Policy
No. PHSD1276309, effective dates September 1, 2017 - September 1,
2018. Policy No. PHSD1276309 provides claims-made coverage. Policy
No. PHSD1276309 contains a REGULATORY SUBLIMIT endorsement.

AAP and API contend the 2018 Opioid Suits arise out of the same
alleged Wrongful Act or series of the same, similar or related
Wrongful Acts as the 2012 lawsuit, State of West Virginia v.
Associated AAP and/or API have subsequently been named in
approximately 60 additional opioid-related lawsuits that are part
of the MDL. These suits are cumulatively referred to as the "2018
Opioid Suits."

The Plaintiffs have been damaged as a direct and proximate result
of this civil conspiracy, and Plaintiffs demand compensatory
damages and punitive damages.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Keith Jackson, Esq.
          RILEY& JACKSON, P.C.
          3530 Independence Drive
          Birmingham, Alabama 35209
          Telephone: (205) 879-5000

               - and -

          Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.
          Shayna E. Sacks
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000

               - and -

          Theodore Lawson, Esq.
          JEFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          716 Richard Arrington Blvd. North, Room 280
          Birmingham. AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 325-5688

AVERY TECHNICAL: Robertson Seeks Proper Wages
---------------------------------------------
ZACHARIAH ROBERTSON, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AVERY TECHNICAL RESOURCES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02408 (D. Colo., Aug. 23, 2019) is a
collective action seeking to recover additional overtime wages and
other damages owed to 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 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, notes 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


BAPTIST HEALTH: Smith Seeks Overtime Pay for Medical Staff
----------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA SMITH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the PLAINTIFF, vs. BAPTIST HEALTH and PARKWAY HEALTH
CENTER, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case No. 4:19-cv-00600-BRW (E.D. Ark.,
Aug. 26, 2019), seeks for declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendants' failure to
pay Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid employees lawful overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The case is a collective action brought by Plaintiff Melissa Smith,
individually and on behalf of all employees who performed work at
varying rates of pay for Defendants at any time within a three-year
period preceding the filing of the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants within the past three
years as an hourly-paid employee. The basic duties of Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees included, but were not limited
to, administering medicine; responding to patient requests such as
help with daily chores; treatments for injuries; daily rotating
assignments such as cleaning wheelchairs or cleaning the dining
room.

The Defendants have deprived Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated of a proper overtime premium for all hours they worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week, the lawsuit says.

Baptist Health owns and operates Defendant Parkway Health Center in
Little Rock, Arkansas.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          Stephen Rauls, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

BEST COURIER: Swickheimer Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SWICKHEIMER, 5028 Nelson Dr. Southbloomfield, Ohio 43103, On
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. BEST COURIER, INC. c/o Statutory Agent David A. Grogg 6855
Greenleaf Dr. Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 and JOE ECKART 1200 Technology
Drive Columbus, OH 43230, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-03706-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 26, 2019), challenges the
policies and practices of Defendants that violate the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Although Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiff and other
members of the FLSA Collective and Ohio Class to work more than 40
hours per workweek, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and
other members of the FLSA Collective and Ohio Class overtime at a
rate of one and one half times the regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 in a workweek. As a result, Plaintiff and
other members of the FLSA Collective and Ohio Class were not paid
overtime for their overtime hours worked as required by the FLSA
and Ohio law.

Best Courier is engaged in the business of delivering packages and
materials for immediate service, medical, inter-company, and mail
service clients. Best Courier has engaged in that business for more
than 30 years. Best Courier utilizes delivery drivers to make these
deliveries.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

BOOMBAH INC: Faces Nixon Suit in Southern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boombah Inc. The case
is captioned as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Boombah Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-07618-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2019). The suit
alleges violation of Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick.

Boombah Inc. retails apparels and footwear. The Company offers
shirts, pants, trousers, belts, hats, socks, shoes, necklaces,
bags, gloves, and other related products. Boombah operates in the
United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
          Kew Gardens, NY 11374
          Telephone: (516) 807-1748
          E-mail: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com

CAPITAL ONE: Baisden et al. Sue over Breach of Personal Data
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE BAISDEN; NATALIE ROSSI; SCOTT ROSSI; and PATRICIA MURPHY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; CAPITAL ONE N.A.;
and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA) N.A., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00623
(W.D. Wis., Aug. 7, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
their failure to safeguard the Plaintiffs and the class' sensitive
personal information.

On March 22 and 23, 2019, Capital One's data stored on the
third-party data storage service was accessed by someone who was
not authorized to access that data. This person, a 'hacker'
identified online by the username "erratic," used computer commands
to obtain information about the types of data Capital One stored on
the servers, and to extract data from Capital One's files on those
servers. The user, "erratic" was successfully able to obtain this
information. Evidence that this had been done was able to be
located after the actions were taken. Capital One would not
discover these actions until July 17, 2019.

As a result of Capital One's failure to detect the data breaches,
and then failure to promptly notify affected individuals, and
failure to specify which information related to which applicants
had been compromised, and failure to provide specific remedies for
affected individuals, the Plaintiffs and the class members they
represent are unable to determine whether they are affected, and to
what degree, and accordingly have to take steps to protect
themselves even if ultimately they learn that their data was not
leaked as a result of this breach.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Briane F. Pagel, Esq.
           Dixon R. Gahnz, Esq.
           Daniel P. Bach, Esq.
           Terrence M. Polich, Esq.
           LAWTON & CATES, S.C.
           345 W. Washington Ave. Ste. 201
           Madison, WI 53703
           Telephone: (608) 282-6200
           Facsimile: (608) 282-6252
           E-mail: bpagel@lawtoncates.com
                   dgahnz@lawtoncates.com
                   dbach@lawtoncates.com
                   tpollich@lawtoncates.com


CAPITAL ONE: Potts Sues over Data Breach
----------------------------------------
STEPHANIE POTTS, the Plaintiff, vs. CAPITAL ONE, N.A. and CAPITAL
ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01001-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 13, 2019),
seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory relief from
Defendants, arising from a data breach announced to the public on
July 29, 2019.

From approximately March 12 to July 17 of 2019, the sensitive
financial and personal data of an unknown number of customers was
compromised as a result of Capital One's failure to adequately
secure individual's personal and financial information on its
systems.

During that period of time, an unauthorized person, identified as
Paige Thompson of the State of Washington, intruded upon servers
controlled by Capital One through a vendor of Capital One called
Amazon Web Services, Inc. ("AWS"), division of Amazon, which
provides cloud computing services to Capital One. Ms. Paige worked
for AWS as a systems engineer from 2015 to 2016.

Ms. Thompson, who communicates online under the name 'ERRATIC,' was
arrested on July 29, 2019 and is accused of the data breach by the
FBI. She was able to intrude into Capital One's servers and
exfiltrate customers' sensitive financial and personal data.
.
According to Capital One, 106 million people had their personal
information stolen, including 100 million U.S. residents and 6
million Canadian residents who had, or applied for, Capital One
accounts. The breach exposed 40,000 Social Security numbers and
about 80,000 linked bank account numbers. The scope of the breach
is massive. The bank says it became aware of it on July 19, the
lawsuit says.

While Ms. Thompson was the perpetrator of the breach, its
occurrence was inevitable. Capital One's systemic incompetence and
a longstanding, lackluster approach to data security has existed
within the company for years and is ingrained in its culture from
the top down. Capital One's failure to seriously address data
security persisted despite warnings by outside cybersecurity
experts, the occurrence of other data breaches at Capital One and
other numerous, high-profile data breaches at other major American
corporations, including Equifax, all of which should have alerted
Capital One of the need to revamp and enhance its inadequate data
security practices.

Capital One is a national bank incorporated in the State of
Virginia with its principal place of business in McLean,
Virginia.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1835 Market Street Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169

               - and -

          Chad A. Jerome, Esq.
          O'CONNELL & ARONOWITZ, P.C.
          54 State Street, 9th Floor
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 462-5601
          Facsimile: (518) 462-2670

CENTRAL RESEARCH: Certification of Class Sought in Vlasak Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Vlasak moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled JENNIFER VLASAK, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CENTRAL RESEARCH,
INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01207-WED (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks
that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to
grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CENTRAL RESEARCH: Court Stays Bid for Class certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JENNIFER VLASAK, the
Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL RESEARCH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
19-CV-1207 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered
an order on Aug. 27, 2019, granting Plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings on the motion for class certification.

On August 20, 2019, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint.
At the same time, she filed what the court commonly refers to as a
"protective" motion for class certification.

The plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the complaint
but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on that
motion. In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir.
2011), the court suggested that class‐action plaintiffs "move to
certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint."
"The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from
attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."

However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a
motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the
Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to
delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

The plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on the motion
for class certification is granted. The parties are relieved from
the automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b)
and (c). Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary
that the Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class
certification. However, this motion will be regarded as pending to
serve its protective purpose under Damasco.[CC]

CENTURYLINK INC: Agrees to Settle Sales Practices & Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, 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 subject to confirmatory
discovery and court approval, the company has agreed to settle the
consolidated suit entitled, In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and
Securities Litigation, for payments of $15.5 million to compensate
class members and of up to $3.5 million for administrative costs.

In June 2017, a former employee filed an employment lawsuit against
the company claiming that she was wrongfully terminated for
alleging that the company charged some of its retail customers for
products and services they did not authorize.

Starting shortly thereafter and continuing since then, and based in
part on the allegations made by the former employee, several legal
proceedings have been filed.

In June 2017, McLeod v. CenturyLink, a putative consumer class
action, was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California alleging that the company
charged some of its retail customers for products and services they
did not authorize.

A number of other complaints asserting similar claims have been
filed in other federal and state courts, as well. The lawsuits
assert claims including fraud, unfair competition, and unjust
enrichment.

Also in June 2017, Craig. v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., a putative
securities investor class action, was filed in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the company
failed to disclose material information regarding improper sales
practices, and asserting federal securities law claims. A number of
other cases asserting similar claims have also been filed.

Beginning June 2017, the company also received several shareholder
derivative demands addressing related topics. In August 2017, the
Board of Directors formed a special litigation committee of outside
directors to address the allegations of impropriety contained in
the shareholder derivative demands.

In April 2018, the special litigation committee concluded its
review of the derivative demands and declined to take further
action. Since then, derivative cases were filed. Two of these
cases, Castagna v. Post and Pinsly v. Post, were filed in Louisiana
state court in the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Ouachita. The remaining derivative cases were filed in federal
court in Louisiana and Minnesota. These cases have been brought on
behalf of CenturyLink against certain current and former officers
and directors of the Company and seek damages for alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties.

The consumer putative class actions, the securities investor
putative class actions, and the federal derivative actions have
been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings as
In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation.

CenturyLink said, "Subject to confirmatory discovery and court
approval, we have agreed to settle the consumer putative class
actions for payments of $15.5 million to compensate class members
and of up to $3.5 million for administrative costs. We have accrued
for those amounts."

CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in the
United States and internationally. The company operates in two
segments, Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in
1968 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana.


CENTURYLINK INC: Continues to Defend Houser Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, 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, Houser et al. v. CenturyLink,
et al.

CenturyLink and certain CenturyLink board members and officers were
named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
filed on June 12, 2018 in the Boulder County District Court of the
state of Colorado, captioned Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al.

The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of
former Level 3 shareholders who became CenturyLink shareholders as
a result of the transaction.

It alleges that the proxy statement provided to the Level 3
shareholders failed to disclose material information of several
kinds, including information about strategic revenue, customer loss
rates, and customer account issues, among other items.

The complaint seeks damages, costs and fees, rescission, rescissory
damages, and other equitable relief.

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

CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in the
United States and internationally. The company operates in two
segments, Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in
1968 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana.


CONDOR HOSPITALITY: Graham Class Suit Challenges Sale to NexPoint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM GRAHAM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CONDOR HOSPITALITY TRUST, INC., J. WILLIAM BLACKHAM,
THOMAS CALAHAN, NOAH DAVIS, DAPHNE J. DUFRESNE, DANIEL R. ELSZTAIN,
MATIAS IVAN GAIVIRONSKY, DONALD J. LANDRY, BRENDAN MACDONALD,
BENJAMIN WALL, CONDOR HOSPITALITY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, NHT
OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, LLC, NHT OPERATING PARTNERSHIP II, LLC, NHT
REIT MERGER SUB, LLC, and NEXPOINT HOSPITALITY TRUST, Case No.
1:19-cv-01552-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 20, 2019), arises out of the Board
of Directors' attempt to sell the Company to NexPoint Hospitality
Trust through its operating partnership, NHT Operating Partnership,
LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiary NHT REIT Merger Sub, LLC.

The Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on July 22, 2019, and
the deal is valued at approximately $318 million and is expected to
close in the in the fourth quarter of 2019.

The Plaintiff, a shareholder of the Company, alleges that the
Defendants have violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
causing a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy
statement to be filed, which recommends that Condor shareholders
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction.  Specifically, the
Plaintiff contends, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning the sales process, financial
projections prepared by Condor management, as well as the financial
analyses conducted by KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Condor's
financial advisor.

Condor is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Maryland and has its principal executive offices
located in Bethesda, Maryland.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of Condor.

Condor, formed in 1994, is a real estate investment trust that owns
upscale hotels in the top metropolitan statistical areas.  Condor's
hotels are franchised by Marriott International, Hilton Hotels
Corporation, InterContinental Hotels Group and Choice Hotels
International, Inc.  The hotels are owned by Condor's operating
partnership, Condor Hospitality Limited Partnership, and Condor
acts as general manager.  As of December 31, 2018, Condor held
sixteen hotels in eight states, and one hotel owned through a joint
venture.

NexPoint Hospitality Trust is an unincorporated real estate
investment trust established under the laws of Ontario.  NHT
Operating Partnership, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company.
NHT Operating Partnership II, LLC is a Virginia limited liability
company.  Condor Hospitality Limited Partnership is a Virginia
limited partnership.  NHT REIT Merger Sub, LLC is a Delaware
limited liability company and is a wholly owned subsidiary of NHT
Operating Partnership, LLC.[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
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
          ROWLEY LAW PLLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 400-1920
          Facsimile: (914) 301-3514
          E-mail: info@rowleylawpllc.com


CONTINENTAL GENERAL: Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JOHN FASTRICH, UNIVERSAL
INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC., and REGINALD J. GOOD, the Plaintiffs,
vs. CONTINENTAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GREAT AMERICAN FINANCIAL
RESOURCE, INC., AMERICAN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., LOYAL AMERICAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, and AMERICAN RETIREMENT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00615-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order granting Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are:

          James P. Booker, Esq.
          Lydia M. Floyd, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          1422 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1610
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 589-9280
          Facsimile: (216) 916-9220
          E-mail: jbooker@pwcklegal.com
                  lfloyd@pwcklegal.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Alan Rosca, Esq.
          ROSCALAW LLC
          23250 Chagrin Blvd, Suite 100
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 570-0097
          E-mail: arosca@roscalaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas S. Reavely, Esq.
          WHITFIELD & EDDY, P.L.C.
          699 Walnut St., Suite 2000
          Des Moines, IA 50309-4195
          Telephone: (515) 288-6041
          Facsimile: (515) 246-1474
          E-mail: reavely@whitfieldlaw.com

DAUPHINS LLC: Agrees to Certification of Class in Boothe Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit styled TARA BOOTHE and JUTTA MAYLAND on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. DAUPHINS,
LLC and ALOHA HOSPITALITY INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a DAUPHINS, and
ROBERT BAUMHOWER, Case No. 1:19-cv-00408-JB-M (S.D. Ala.), filed
with the Court their agreed to motion and stipulation regarding
conditional certification and notice to the putative class
members.

The Parties agree to conditional certification of a Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action Class of "ALL SERVERS WHO
WORKED AT DAUPHIN'S RESTAURANT, LOCATED AT 107 ST. FRANCIS STREET,
SUITE 3400, MOBILE, AL 36602 AT ANY TIME ON OR AFTER JULY 15, 2016
(the "Putative Class Members").

The Defendants will provide the names and last known addresses,
personal e-mail addresses (if available), and dates of employment
for the Putative Class Members no later than fourteen (14) days
following the Court's granting of the Order for Conditional
Certification.  The Plaintiffs' counsel will have seven days from
the date of receipt of the information from the Defendants to
distribute the Notice and Consent form to the Putative Class
Members.

The Plaintiffs' counsel will send the Putative Class Members a
Notice and Consent Form by regular First Class mail and e-mail.
The Plaintiffs' counsel will also send a reminder Notice and
Consent Form by regular First Class mail and e-mail 30 days after
the initial mailing.  The Putative Class Members will have 60 days
from the initial mailing of the Notice and Consent Form to file the
Consent Form with this Court to opt-in to the lawsuit (the "opt-in
period").

The Plaintiffs' counsel must maintain the Putative Class members'
contact information as confidential records and shall not share the
information with any third-party.  At the conclusion of the opt-in
period, the Plaintiffs' counsel must destroy/delete all copies of
the information pertaining to any Putative Class Member who did not
timely file a Consent Form.

The Parties agree that the Notice and Consent Form are timely,
informative, and accurate. The Parties agree to use such forms as
the exclusive means to inform the Putative Class Members of their
right to opt into this lawsuit.  Nothing in the Agreed Stipulation
or in the Notice and/or Consent Form shall be interpreted as
limiting, waiving, or modifying any of the Parties' claims and/or
defenses.  Despite the agreed nature of this Motion, the Defendants
deny that they have violated the FLSA, that the Plaintiffs and
Putative Class Members are "similarly situated" under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b), and that this case is appropriate for collective
action treatment. Defendant specifically reserves its right to seek
decertification of the conditionally certified class at a later
time.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert C. Epperson, Esq.
          ROBERT EPPERSON LAW OFFICE
          P. O. Box 477
          Foley, AL 36536-0477
          Telephone: (251) 943-8870
          E-mail: repperson@rcelaw.com

               - and -

          Sam J. Smith, Esq.
          Loren B. Donnell, Esq.
          FL Bar No. 0013429
          BURR & SMITH, LLP
          111 2nd Ave. N.E., Suite 1100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (813) 253-2010
          E-mail: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com
                  ldonnell@burrandsmithlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kelly D. Reese, Esq.
          THE KULLMAN FIRM, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          P. O. Box 1287
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 432-1811
          E-mail: KR@KullmanLaw.com


DIAMOND SUPPLY: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diamond Supply
Company. The case is styled as Valentin Reid on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Diamond Supply
Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07969 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 26,
2019).

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

Diamond Supply Co. is a California based skateboarding accessories
and clothing line that was started in 1998 by skateboarder and
designer Nick "Diamond" Tershay.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DISCOUNT FILTERS: Livingstone Sues Over TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
AMY LIVINGSTONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. DISCOUNT FILTERS, LLC, d/b/a
DISCOUNTFILTERS.COM, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-62131-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., Aug. 23, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint for damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Discount Filters in
negligently or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

At no time did Plaintiff provide express written consent to receive
these unsolicited text message advertisements from Discount
Filters. Plaintiff is a former customer of Discount Filters.
Plaintiff provided her telephone number to Discount Filters for the
sole purpose of being contacted for issues regarding her order, and
only for that limited purpose. Through the unsolicited SPAM text
messages, Discount Filters contacted Plaintiff several times on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone regarding an unsolicited service via
an "automatic telephone dialing system". Plaintiff was damaged by
Discount Filters' text messages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff's domicile is in Broward County, Florida. Plaintiff is a
citizen of the state of Florida.

Discount Filters hosts a website that specializes in selling
filters of all sorts, including refrigerator filters, air filters,
humidifier filters, water filters, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
     EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
     425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954-524-2820
     Facsimile: 954-524-2822
     Email: seth@epllc.com


DOMINION DENTAL: Henshaw et al Sue over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY HENSHAW, AMBER S. PARKER, and MATTHEW A. SLATE
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. DOMINION DENTAL SERVICES USA, INC., a Virginia
corporation; DOMINION DENTAL SERVICES, INC., a Virginia
corporation, DOMINION DENTAL USA, INC., a Virginia corporation, and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01063-TSE-IDD (E.D. Va., Aug. 14, 2019), asserts that the
Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered significant injuries and
damages as a result of a security breach that compromised the full
names, addresses, email addresses, dates of birth, Social Security
numbers, member ID numbers, group numbers, subscriber numbers, and
other Private Identifiable Information of Plaintiffs and the Class
Members.

The Defendants are insurance company, offering dental and vision
insurance. Thousands of individuals come to Dominion every day as
an insurer for their dental and vision treatment, trusting Dominion
with their sensitive medical and personal information.

These individuals reasonably expect the highest level of protection
for their private identifiable information, when giving highly
sensitive information such as their Social Security numbers and
medical information to Defendants. What these patients do not
expect, and did not expect, during the period between August 25,
2010 and April 24, 2019, was that their personal and sensitive
information would be harvested by unauthorized individuals.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful actions and inactions,
unauthorized individuals gained access to and harvested Plaintiffs'
and Class Members' PII. The Plaintiffs have been forced to take
remedial steps to protect themselves from future loss. Indeed, all
Class Members are currently at a very high risk of identity theft
and/or credit fraud, and prophylactic measures, such as the
purchase of credit monitoring, are reasonable and necessary to
prevent and mitigate future loss.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful actions and inactions, patient
information was stolen. Many of Dominion's insureds have had their
PII compromised, have had their privacy rights violated, have been
exposed to the risk of fraud and identify theft, and have otherwise
suffered damages.

Further, despite the fact that the breach first occurred on August
25, 2010, and was discovered on April 24, 2019, Defendants did not
inform their customers of the data breach until late June 2019.
During that time -- almost nine years after the breach first
occurred -- Defendants sent a letter to their customers informing
them that "On April 24, 2019, through our investigation of an
internal alert, with the assistance of a leading cyber security
firm, we determined that an unauthorized party may have accessed
some of our computer servers. The unauthorized access may have
occurred as early as August 25, 2010, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the proposed class are:

          Jonathan E. Halperin, Esq.
          HALPERIN LAW CENTER, LLC
          5225 Hickory Park Drive, Suite B
          Glen Allen, VA 23059
          Telephone: (804) 527-0100
          Facsimile: (804) 597-0209
          E-mail: jonathan@hlc.law

               - and -

          Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
          Robert J. Dart, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12 th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  rdart@wilshirelawfirm.com

DOOR XPRESS CORP: Rios Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
ENRIQUE M. RIOS and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. DOOR XPRESS CORP., a/k/a STORAGE XPRESS, and ANGEL A.
NAVAS, individually Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-23537-UU (S.D.
Fla., Aug. 23, 2019) is an action seeking to recover money damages
for unpaid half-time overtime wages under the laws of the United
States pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff as a collective action
to recover from Defendants overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and the costs and reasonably attorney's fees under the
provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of Plaintiff, and
all other current and former employees similarly situated to
Plaintiff and who worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more
weeks on or after August 2016, without being compensated overtime
wages pursuant to the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff ENRIQUE M. RIOS was employed by Defendant as
laborer/installer from approximately June 9, 2013, through August
18, 2018, or more than 5 years.

STORAGE XPRESS is a company providing services to the warehousing
and storage business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Phone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


DOORDASH INC: McGrath Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------
JACOB McGRATH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DOORDASH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-05279-KAW (N.D. Cal., Aug. 23, 2019) is an action brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Portal-to-Portal Act
seeking damages for Defendant's failure to pay the
federally-mandated minimum wage.

DoorDash does not pay Plaintiff or its other Dashers an hourly wage
or a salary; rather, Plaintiff receives the "delivery fee" that is
paid by DoorDash's customers, as well as any gratuity that the
customer pays to the Dasher, asserts the complaint. DoorDash, not
Plaintiff or the other Dashers, determines the "delivery fee."

While DoorDash classifies Plaintiff as an "independent contractor,"
Plaintiff is truly an "employee" pursuant to the FLSA's economic
realities test, says the complaint.

Plaintiff McGrath is a current employee of Defendant who works as a
Dasher from approximately October 10, 2018 to the present.

DoorDash, Inc. provides takeout food delivery via a phone
application and website throughout the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq.
     Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
     SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 621-2277
     Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
     Email: bdebes@eeoc.net
            rprieto@eeoc.net

          - and -

     Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
     BARON & BUDD, P.C.
     15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
     Encino, CA 91436
     Phone: (818) 839-6506
     Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
     Email: marbuckl@baronbudd.com


EAGLE TEAM: Williams Seeks Proper Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------
Glendon Williams, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Eagle Team NYC CR LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-08017 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 27, 2019) alleges that
Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former employees
who worked for the Defendant are: (i) entitled to unpaid wages from
Defendant for working more than forty hours in a week and not being
paid an overtime rate of at least 1.5 times the regular rate for
each and all such hours over forty in a week, and (ii) entitled to
maximum liquidated damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Minimum Wage Act, New York Lab.
Law.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a construction
laborer/carpenter for about six months ending on or about July 24,
2019. Plaintiff worked about 45-60 hours each week for Defendant,
5-7 days a week, says the complaint.

Defendant was engaged in the building construction and renovation
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
     Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC
     215-28 Hillside Avenue
     Queens Village, NY 11427
     Phone: 718-740-1000
     Fax: 718-740-2000
     Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


ELECTRICAL BUILDERS: Raykovitz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK RAYKOVITZ, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ELECTRICAL BUILDERS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00137-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., Aug. 22, 2019) is a collective
action seeking to recover unpaid overtime and other damages.

Electrical Builders, Inc. has failed to pay Frank Raykovitz and
other workers like him, overtime as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act. Instead, they are paid the same hourly rate for all
hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek, says
the complaint.

Raykovitz worked for EBI from approximately September 2018 until
May 2019.

EBI is a high power conductor service provider and has been
involved with utility and substation projects.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Troy A. Lanier, Esq.
     Troy A. Lanier, PC
     430 Ellis Street
     Augusta, GA 30901
     Phone: 706-823-6800
     Email: tlanier@tlanierlaw.com


ELECTRONIC RECYCLERS: Removes Gilman Case to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Recyclers International Inc. removes case captioned as
AMY GILMAN, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, v.
ELECTRONIC RECYCLERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19C0249, from the
California Superior Court, County of Kings, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California on Aug. 14,
2019. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:19-cv-01112-DAD-EPG.

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Electronic Recyclers offers electronic recycling services to its
clients. The company's range of solutions include data destruction
and shredding.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Mark D. Kruthers, Esq.
          William H. Littlewood, Esq.
          G. Andrew Slater, Esq.
          DOWLING AARON INCORPORATED
          8080 North Palm Avenue, Third Floor
          P.O. Box 28902
          Fresno, CA 93729-8902
          Telephone: (559) 432-4500
          Facsimile: (559) 432-4590
          E-mail: mkruthers@dowlingaaron.com
                  wlittlewood@dowlingaaron.com
                  aslater@dowlingaaron.com

EMC INSURANCE: Iowa State Court Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMC Insurance Group 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 a
lawsuit in state court in Iowa relating to the November 15, 2018
proposal by Employers Mutual to acquire all outstanding shares of
stock in the Company not already owned by Employers Mutual, without
prejudice.

On March 22, 2019, a lawsuit was filed in state court in Iowa
relating to the November 15, 2018 proposal by Employers Mutual to
acquire all outstanding shares of stock in the Company not already
owned by Employers Mutual.  

The lawsuit was filed as a purported class action, and names as
defendants Employers Mutual and the five individual directors of
the Company. The lawsuit alleges that the proposal is unfair to the
Company's minority shareholders, and seeks an unspecified amount of
damages.  

Employers Mutual and the Company and its directors deny all
allegations of wrongdoing set forth in the lawsuit.

On July 26, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion to
Voluntarily Dismiss the lawsuit. On July 31, 2019, the court
granted that motion and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice.

EMC Insurance Group Inc., an insurance holding company, provides
property and casualty insurance, and reinsurance products in the
United States. It operates through two segments, Property and
Casualty Insurance, and Reinsurance. The company was founded in
1974 and is based in Des Moines, Iowa. EMC Insurance Group Inc. is
a subsidiary of Employers Mutual Casualty Company.


EN ENGINEERING: Rossman Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
KEVIN ROSSMAN, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. EN ENGINEERING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-05768 (N.D. Pa., Aug. 27, 2019) is a lawsuit to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Defendant EN
Engineering, LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, and the Massachusetts Wage & Hour Law.

Rossman and the Putative Class Members regularly worked more than
40 hours a week. But EN paid Rossman and the other employees like
him the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in
excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. EN's straight time for
overtime pay plan violates the overtime requirements of the FLSA,
the IMWL, and the MWHL. Rossman brings this collective action to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to him and
other EN hourly workers like him, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Rossman was employed by EN from approximately April 2018
until April 2019.

EN ENGINEERING, LLC provides engineering, consulting, and
automation services, to pipeline companies, utilities, and
industrial customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
     Werman Salas P.C.
     77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 419-1008
     Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
            msalas@flsalaw.com

          - and -

     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


ENBRIDGE INC: Robertson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
ZACHARIAH ROBERTSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENBRIDGE (U.S.) INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-01080-LPL (W.D. Pa., Aug. 27, 2019) is a lawsuit
seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from
Enbridge (U.S.) Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, Robertson and the other workers like
him regularly worked for Enbridge in excess of 40 hours each week.
But these workers never received overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime
as required by the FLSA and PMWA, Enbridge improperly classified
Robertson and those similarly situated workers as exempt employees
and paid them a daily rate with no overtime compensation.

This collective action seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages
and other damages owed to these workers.

Plaintiff Robertson worked for Enbridge from April 2018 until
August 2018 as a welding inspector.

Enbridge is an energy delivery company.[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

          - and -

     Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
     GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
     3634 California Ave.
     Pittsburgh, PA 15212
     Phone: (412) 766-1455
     Fax: (412)766-0300
     Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com



FIFTH THIRD: Dismissal in Early Access Cash Advance Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp 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 Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals has reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim in the consolidated class suit entitled, In re:
Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No.
1:12-CV-00851), and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a
lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v.
Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% Annual Percentage Rate
(APR) that Fifth Third disclosed on its Early Access program was
misleading. Early Access is a deposit-advance program offered to
eligible customers with checking accounts.

The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class of customers
who used the Early Access program and repaid their cash advances
within 30 days.

On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

In 2013, four similar putative class actions were filed against
Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and
Danielle Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third
Bank, Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v.
Fifth Third Bank). Those four lawsuits were transferred to the
Southern District of Ohio and consolidated with the original
lawsuit as In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation
(Case No. 1:12-CV-00851).

On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs sought unspecified
monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive
damages, attorney's fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

On March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the
consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the Truth in Lending Act
(TILA). On January 10, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to hear the
immediate appeal of the dismissal of their breach of contract
claim. On March 28, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion and
stayed the TILA claim pending that appeal. On April 26, 2018,
plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal for the breach of contract
claim with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

On May 28, 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
dismissal of plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and remanded for
further proceedings. The plaintiffs claim damages for the alleged
breach of contract claim exceed $280 million.

Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services
company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in
1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.


FIS OPERATIONS: Jordan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
ANA JORDAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. FIS OPERATIONS, LLC D/B/A FRONTIER
INTEGRITY SOLUTIONS, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00202 (W.D. Tex.,
Aug. 23, 2019) is a collective action and lawsuit on behalf of
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 to recover unpaid overtime wages from
Defendant.

During Plaintiff's employment with FIS, she regularly worked in
excess of forty hours per week. FIS knew or reasonably should have
known that Plaintiff worked in excess of forty hours per week. FIS
did not pay Plaintiff overtime "at a rate not less than one and one
half times the regular rate at which she was employed." Instead,
FIS paid Plaintiff a flat sum for each day's work regardless of the
number of hours she worked in a workweek. FIS knew or reasonably
should have known that Plaintiff was not exempt from the overtime
provisions of the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Jordan was employed by FIS as a project inspector/clerk
from approximately May 2018 July 2019.

FIS provides pipeline inspection and maintenance services to
customers in the oil and gas industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bridget Davidson, Esq.
     MOORE & ASSOCIATES
     Lyric Centre
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 222-6775
     Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


FORD MOTOR: Van's Class Cert. Bid Denied; Hearing Set for Sept. 12
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert M. Dow, Jr., denies the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the lawsuit styled CHRISTIE VAN, et al. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 1:14-cv-08708 (N.D. Ill.).

The Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion
to exclude the testimony, reports, and opinions of Dr. Louise
Fitzgerald, and grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs'
motion to bar the testimony and expert report of Dr. Liza Gold and
Dr. Gregory Mitchell, PhD.

The case is set for further status hearing on September 12, 2019,
at 10:30 a.m.

The Plaintiffs are women, who currently are employed or who were
employed at one of the two Chicago-area Ford Motor Company
facilities (the "Plants")--the Chicago Assembly Plant ("Assembly
Plant") and the Chicago Stamping Plant ("Stamping Plant").  The
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all present and former
female employees, who worked at the Assembly Plant or the Stamping
Plant between February 14, 2012 and present.  The Plaintiffs have
moved for class certification on their sexual harassment and
hostile work environment claims.

The Court opines that the subjective element of the Plaintiffs'
hostile work environment claim does not present common issues
appropriate for class-wide determination.  The Court concludes that
the Plaintiffs have not met their burden of satisfying the
commonality requirement of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Judge Dow also opines that to date, the Plaintiffs have not made a
showing that any two individuals--much less the class they seek to
certify--experienced the same misconduct in the same way.  The
Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not at this juncture
satisfied Rule 23(a)'s typicality requirement.[CC]


FUNKO INC: Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit in Washington Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Funko, 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 Superior Court of Washington in and
for King County dismissed the consolidated action entitled, In re
Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On November 16, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington
in and for King County against the Company, certain of its officers
and directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering
(IPO), entitled Robert Lowinger v. Funko, Inc., et. al.

In January and March 2018, five additional putative class action
lawsuits were filed in Washington state court, four in the Superior
Court of Washington in and for King County and one in the Superior
Court of Washington in and for Snohomish County.

Two of the King County lawsuits, Surratt v. Funko, Inc. et. al.
(filed on January 16, 2018) and Baskin v. Funko, Inc. et. al.
(filed on January 30, 2018), were filed against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors.

The other two King County lawsuits, The Ronald and Maxine Linde
Foundation v. Funko, Inc. et. al. (filed on January 18, 2018) and
Lovewell v. Funko, Inc. et. al (filed on March 27, 2018), were
filed against the Company, certain of its officers and directors,
ACON, Fundamental and certain other defendants.

The Snohomish County lawsuit, Berkelhammer v. Funko, Inc. et. al.
(filed on March 13, 2018), was filed against the company, certain
of the Company's officers and directors, and ACON. On May 8, 2018,
the Berkelhammer action was voluntarily dismissed, and on May 15,
2018 a substantially similar action was filed by the same plaintiff
in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County.  

On April 2, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit Jacobs v. Funko,
Inc. et. al was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain other defendants.

On May 21, 2018, the Jacobs action was voluntarily dismissed, and
on June 12, 2018 a substantially similar action was filed by the
same plaintiff in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King
County.

On July 2, 2018, all of the above-referenced suits were ordered
consolidated for all purposes into one action under the title In re
Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation in the Superior Court of
Washington in and for King County.

On August 1, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON,
Fundamental, and certain other defendants. On October 1, 2018, the
Company moved to dismiss that action.

Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Company's motion to
dismiss on October 31, 2018, and the Company filed its reply to
plaintiffs' opposition on November 30, 2018.  

Oral arguments on the motions to dismiss were held on May 3, 2019.


On August 2, 2019, the Superior Court of Washington in and for King
County dismissed the consolidated action, allowing Plaintiffs leave
to amend the complaint. The Court found, inter alia, that "Funko's
statements regarding its financial disclosures were not materially
false or misleading" and that "plaintiffs have not shown that
Funko's 'opinion statements' were false or that such statements
were not simply corporate optimism or puffery."

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.


FUNKO INC: Kanugonda Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------
Funko, 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 entitled, Kanugonda v. Funko, et al.

On June 4, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit Kanugonda v.
Funko, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain other defendants.

On January 4, 2019, a lead plaintiff was appointed in that case.  

On April 30, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
against the previously named defendants.

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

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.

GENERAL MOTORS: Diesel Truck Owners Sue Over Defective Fuel Pump
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Chapman, Leroy Gwinn Jr., William McDuffie, Gary Godwin and
Robert Hoag, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. General Motors LLC, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-12333, (E.D. Mich., August 6, 2019), seeks damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and such other and further relief
resulting from breach of contract, negligence, deceit by
concealment and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and
various state consumer protection acts.

Plaintiffs are owners of diesel trucks manufactured by GMC. They
claim that their vehicles contain the CP4 fuel pump that is not
compatible with American diesel fuel. American diesel fuel
allegedly contains less lubrication thus running the fuel pump
nearly dry. Air pockets form inside the pump during operation,
causing metal to rub against metal, generating metal shavings which
are dispersed throughout the fuel injection system, contaminating
and destroying the fuel system. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Telephone: (206) 623-7292
     Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
     Email: steve@hbsslaw.com

GET TOGETHER: Lynn Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN LYNN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GET TOGETHER, INC. D/B/A IRL APP a Delaware
corporation and SCOTT BANISTER Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-05276
(N.D. Cal., Aug. 23, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint and Demand
for Jury Trial against Defendants to stop Defendants' practice of
sending unsolicited text messages to cellular telephones and
otherwise engaging in prohibited telemarketing, and to obtain
redress, including injunctive relief, for all persons injured by
their conduct.

In an attempt to promote the app, Defendants conducted (and
continue to conduct) a wide-scale telemarketing campaign that
features the sending of unsolicited text messages to consumers'
cellular telephones, all in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

By sending the autodialed text messages at issue in this Complaint,
Defendants caused Plaintiff and the members of the Classes actual
harm and cognizable legal injury. This includes the aggravation,
annoyance, and nuisance and invasions of privacy that result from
the receipt of such calls, says the complaint.

Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all
unsolicited text messaging activities to consumers and seeks an
award of statutory damages to the members of the Classes under the
TCPA together with costs.

Plaintiff Steven Lynn is a natural person and resident of Texas.

Get Together is a mobile application that encourages users to make
plans, invite friends and socialize through their app.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David S. Ratner, Esq.
     David Ratner Law Firm, LLP
     33 Julianne Court
     Walnut Creek, CA 94595
     Phone: (917) 900-2868
     Facsimile: (925) 891-3818
     Email: david@davidratnerlawfirm.com


GLOBE LIFE: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Joh Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation) 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 second amended complaint has been filed in the case, Joh v.
American Income Life Insurance Company, Case No. C18-01863.

On September 12, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against American Income in California's Contra Costa County
Superior Court (Joh v. American Income Life Insurance Company, Case
No. C18-01863). An amended complaint was filed on October 18, 2018.


American Income removed the case to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California (Case No.
3:18-cv-06364-TSH).

A second amended complaint was filed on May 20, 2019.

The plaintiffs, former insurance sales agents of American Income,
are suing on behalf of all current and former trainees and sales
agents who sold insurance for American Income in the State of
California for the four years prior to the filing of the complaint.


The second amended complaint alleges that such individuals are
employees and asserts claims under the California Labor Code,
California Business and Professions Code, and California Private
Attorney General Act.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties and attorney
fees on claims for failure to pay wages/commissions, failure to
appropriately pay agents at termination, failure to provide
itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse expenses,
misclassification and unfair business practices.

Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation) , incorporated on
November 29, 1979, is an insurance holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides a range of life and health
insurance products and annuities to a base of customers. The
Company's segments include life insurance, health insurance,
annuities and investment. The life insurance segment includes
traditional and interest-sensitive whole life insurance as well as
term life insurance. Effective August 8, 2019, Torchmark
Corporation changed its corporate name to Globe Life Inc. The
company is based in McKinney, Texas.


GLOBE LIFE: Dismissed from Golz Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation) 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 has been dismissed in the putative class action suit
entitled, Golz v. American Income Life Insurance Company, et al.

On October 18, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against Torchmark Corporation and American Income in California's
Los Angeles County Superior Court (Golz v. American Income Life
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 18STCV01354).

American Income removed the case to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Case No.
2:18-cv-09879 R (SSx)).

An amended complaint was filed on February 5, 2019.

On February 6, 2019, Torchmark Corporation was dismissed without
prejudice and the case proceeded with respect to American Income.

On April 2, 2019, the District Court granted American Income's
motion to dismiss four of the five causes of action asserted. The
amended complaint's remaining claim alleges that plaintiff, as an
American Income insurance agent trainee in California, was an
employee who should have been compensated accordingly.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of individuals in
California who trained to contract as American Income agents and
who subsequently worked as contracted agents.

The class period is alleged to begin four years prior to the
complaint's filing.

The complaint seeks restitution under the California Business and
Professions Code for alleged unfair business practices such as
failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, failure to provide meal
and rest breaks, and failure to reimburse business expenses.

Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation) , incorporated on
November 29, 1979, is an insurance holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides a range of life and health
insurance products and annuities to a base of customers. The
Company's segments include life insurance, health insurance,
annuities and investment. The life insurance segment includes
traditional and interest-sensitive whole life insurance as well as
term life insurance. Effective August 8, 2019, Torchmark
Corporation changed its corporate name to Globe Life Inc. The
company is based in McKinney, Texas.


GLOBE LIFE: Putros Class Suit Against Unit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation) 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 subsidiary American Income Life Insurance Company,
continues to defend against a putative class action suit entitled,
Putros v. American Income Life Insurance Company.

On January 16, 2019, putative class action litigation was filed
against American Income in Orange County, California Superior Court
(Putros v. American Income Life Insurance Company, Case No.
30-2019-01044772-CU-OE-CXC).

An amended complaint was filed on January 22, 2019.

The plaintiff, a former insurance sales agent of American Income,
is suing on behalf of all current and former sales agents who sold
insurance for American Income in the State of California for the
year prior to the filing of the complaint. The lawsuit alleges that
putative class members are employees and asserts claims under the
California Private Attorney General Act.

The complaint seeks penalties for failure to pay minimum wage,
failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to appropriately
pay agents at termination, failure to provide itemized wage
statements, failure to reimburse expenses, and misclassification.

Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation) , incorporated on
November 29, 1979, is an insurance holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides a range of life and health
insurance products and annuities to a base of customers. The
Company's segments include life insurance, health insurance,
annuities and investment. The life insurance segment includes
traditional and interest-sensitive whole life insurance as well as
term life insurance. Effective August 8, 2019, Torchmark
Corporation changed its corporate name to Globe Life Inc. The
company is based in McKinney, Texas.



GLOBE LIFE: Unit Still Faces Hamilton Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation) 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 subsidiary American Income Life Insurance Company
continues to face
a putative class action suit entitled, Hamilton v. American Income
Life Insurance Company.

On December 14, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against American Income in United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Hamilton v. American Income Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 4:18-cv-7535-KAW). An amended complaint
was filed on January 23, 2019.

The plaintiffs, former insurance sales agents of American Income,
are suing on behalf of all current and former sales agents who sold
insurance for American Income in the State of California for the
last four years prior to the filing of the complaint.

The lawsuit alleges that putative class members are employees and
asserts claims under the California Labor Code, California Business
and Professions Code, and California Private Attorney General Act.


The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties and attorney
fees on claims for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime,
failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to appropriately
pay agents at termination, failure to provide itemized wage
statements, failure to reimburse expenses, misclassification and
unfair business practices.

Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation) , incorporated on
November 29, 1979, is an insurance holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides a range of life and health
insurance products and annuities to a base of customers. The
Company's segments include life insurance, health insurance,
annuities and investment. The life insurance segment includes
traditional and interest-sensitive whole life insurance as well as
term life insurance. Effective August 8, 2019, Torchmark
Corporation changed its corporate name to Globe Life Inc. The
company is based in McKinney, Texas.


GORDON REED: Alaniz Moves for Class Certification and Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled RAY ALANIZ, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GORDON REED &
ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 6:18-cv-01595-MJJ-CBW (W.D. La.), moves
the Court for certification of collective action and request for
notice to putative class members.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
          Adam R. Credeur, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
          417 W. University Avenue (70506)
          P.O. Box 4325
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Telephone: (337) 235-5294
          Facsimile: (337) 235-1095
          E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com
                  adam@kwdejean.com


GOVBERG LLC: Diaz Asserts Breach of American Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Govberg, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Govberg, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07851 (S.D. N.Y., Aug.
21, 2019).

Govberg, LLC is an online retail consignment store featuring luxury
clothing, jewelry, and watches.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal

HARRIS & HARRIS: Bayeg Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
---------------------------------------------------
Erica Flowers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Harris & Harris, Ltd., Defendants, Case
No. 2019CH09123 (Ill. Cir., August 7, 2019), seeks an injunction
requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the
capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics; and statutory
damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The complaint alleges that Harris improperly disclosed employees'
fingerprint data without informed consent.

Harris & Harris is a debt collection agency located in Chicago,
Illinois, where Plaintiff worked as an hourly employee. She was
required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that
scanned fingerprints. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
      Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
      Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 419-1008
      Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
             msalas@flsalaw.com
             zflowerree@flsalaw.com
             sarendt@flsalaw.com


HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES: Voyager Sues Over HDD Assembly Price-fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VOYAGER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY
PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT
PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK
SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING
(THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING
PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE
MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND ND TDK CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
0:19-cv-02357 (D. Minn., Aug. 27, 2019) is a class action against
Defendants for damages, injunctive relief and other relief pursuant
to federal antitrust laws, state antitrust, unfair competition,
consumer protection laws, and the laws of unjust enrichment under
Section 16 of the Clayton to secure equitable and injunctive relief
against Defendants for violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act.

This lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and
their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares
for hard disk drive ("HDD") suspension assemblies. HDD suspension
assemblies are a component of hard disk drives, which use magnetism
to store information electronically. HDDs containing HDD suspension
assemblies are sold both as stand-alone devices and incorporated
into a variety of ubiquitous electronics such as computers, gaming
systems, printers, and copy machines.

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

Starting in approximately May 2008 Defendants and their
co-conspirators contracted, combined, or conspired to fix, raise,
maintain, and/or stabilize prices of and allocate market shares for
HDD suspension assemblies in the United States, asserts the
complaint. United States and foreign governments have investigated
potential price- fixing of HDD suspension assemblies; and in 2019,
Defendant NHK admitted guilt. On July 29, 2019, the DOJ announced
that Defendant NHK agreed to plead guilty and pay a $28.5 million
fine for its role in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate
competition by fixing prices of HDD suspension assemblies sold in
the United States and elsewhere.

The complaint alleges that the combination and conspiracy engaged
in by the Defendants and their co-conspirators was in unreasonable
restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce in violation
of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, and state
antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection laws, and the
common law of unjust enrichment. As a direct and proximate result
of the anticompetitive and unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the
Classes paid more during the Class Period for HDD suspension
assemblies than they otherwise would have paid in a competitive
market and have thereby suffered antitrust injury to their business
or property, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Voyager Technology Solutions, LLC purchased at least one
HDD suspension assembly indirectly from at least one Defendant, in
Minnesota.

Headway Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Milpitas, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rhett A. McSweeney, Esq.
     MCSWEENEY LANGEVIN, LLC
     2116 Second Avenue South
     Minneapolis, MN 55404
     Phone: (612) 746-4646
     Facsimile: (612) 454-2678
     Email: ram@westrikeback.com

          - and -

     Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
     Kathryn R. Eisenstein, Esq.
     MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.
     1361 E. Big Beaver Rd.
     Troy, MI 48083
     Phone: (248) 457-9200
     Email: gmantese@manteselaw.com
            keisenstein@manteselaw.com


HOMEADVISOR INC: Newell Sues Over Automated Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOUREY NEWELL, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons
and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HOMEADVISOR, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02392 (D. Colo., Aug. 22, 2019) is an
action seeking to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal statute enacted in
1991 in response to widespread public outrage about the
proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices.

Mr. Newell alleges that HomeAdvisor, Inc. made automated
telemarketing calls to Mr. Newell and other putative class members
without their prior express written consent. Mr. Newell and
putative class members never consented to receive these calls.
Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds
of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, Mr.
Newell brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class
of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or
on behalf of HomeAdvisor, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Jourey Newell currently resides in Pennsylvania.

HomeAdvisor, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business at 14023 Denver West Parkway, Suite 100, Golden,
Colorado 80401.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
     Jonathan P. Misny, Esq.
     Murray Murphy Moul + Basil LLP
     1114 Dublin Road
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Phone: (614) 488-0400
     Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
     Email: murphy@mmmb.com
            misny@mmmb.com

          - and -

     Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
     Paronich Law, P.C.
     350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
     Hingham, MA 02043
     Phone: (508) 221-1510
     Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com



IDEMIA IDENTITY: Rueda Wins Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Vince Chhabria granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of amended class & collective action
settlement in the lawsuit entitled Connie Rueda, Jessica Cotton,
and Shelia Spencer, individually, on behalf of others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Idemia Identity &
Security USA, LLC, MorphoTrust USA, LLC, and Does 1-50, Case No.
3:18-cv-03794-VC (N.D. Cal.).

To comply with the Northern District's Procedural Guidance for
Class Action Settlements, Class Counsel will file their motion for
fees and costs 14 days before the expiration of the 60-day period
to opt out or serve objections to the Amended Stipulation of Class
Action, Collective Action, and Representative Action Settlement and
Release (the "Amended Settlement"), or before November 15, 2019,
according to the Order.

A final fairness hearing on whether the proposed Amended
Settlement, attorneys' fees to Class Counsel, the Class
Representatives' enhancement payments, and the cy pres recipient
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the
members of the Settlement Class will be held on December 12, 2019,
at 10:00 a.m.

The Court approves, as to form and content, the notices of class
and collective settlement attached to the Settlement Agreement.
The Court approves the procedure for Class Members to participate
in, opt out of, and object to the Settlement as set forth in the
Notice.  The Court appoints Rust Consulting as the Settlement
Administrator.

The Court directs the mailing of the Notice in accordance with the
Implementation Schedule, which includes:

   -- Deadline for Defendants to provide Class data to Settlement
      Administrator is 14 days after Court enters this Order;

   -- Deadline for Settlement Administrator to calculate Net Pro
      Rata Distribution and deliver the same to Defendants'
      Counsel and Class Counsel is seven days after Defendants
      provide Class Data to Settlement Administrator; and

   -- Deadline for California Class Members to opt out or serve
      written objections to the Settlement is 60 days after
      Notices of Settlement are mailed by the Settlement
      Administrator.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan Schwartz, Esq.
          Rachel Terp, Esq.
          BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
          180 Broadway, Suite 1380
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 444-9300
          Facsimile: (510) 444-9301
          E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
                  rachel@bryanschwartzlaw.com


ITALIANTOUCH USA: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Italiantouch USA,
Inc. The case is styled as Valentin Reid on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Italiantouch USA, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07970 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 26, 2019).

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

Italiantouch creates and develops unique, custom-tailored
e-commerce services and logistic hubs in the main worldwide luxury
markets. Its mission is to offer customised end-to-end solutions to
maximize online sales, creating and developing technological
platforms with an excellent quality standard.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JUUL LABS INC: Quercia Files Suit Over e-Cigarette Side-effects
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANASTASIA QUERCIA, on behalf of herself and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JUUL LABS INC., ALTRIA GROUP,
INC., and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-05664 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 22, 2019) asserts that JUUL has
fraudulently concealed material information about the addictive
nature of its e-cigarettes, and this lawsuit seeks to redress the
harm already sustained, and to prevent future harm, to others.

Plaintiff is only 20 years old yet she is addicted to JUUL, an
e-cigarette. She also suffers from mood swings, fits of rage, and
pulmonary issues. The federal Food & Drug Administration (FDA) just
announced it was studying the association between seizures and
e-cigarettes. Health authorities consider youth e-cigarette use an
epidemic. And now that Philip Morris, seller of Marlboro, the
country's most popular cigarette especially among youth, partnered
with JUUL, the country's lead e-cigarette seller, progress in
nicotine cessation stands to erode. The Defendants use the very
fraudulent and deceptive youth marketing business practices
adjudged to violate federal racketeering laws, says the complaint.

Plaintiff's claims arise out of JUUL's fraudulent concealment of
material facts concerning the JUUL e-cigarette and representations
about the JUUL e-cigarettes' nicotine content, its addictiveness,
and it physiological effects. JUUL knew that JUUL e-cigarettes'
were not safe for non-smokers, and posed a risk of aggravating
nicotine addiction in those already addicted to cigarettes. JUUL
was under a duty to disclose this material information based upon
its exclusive knowledge of it, and its concealment of it; yet JUUL
never disclosed the defect to Plaintiff or the public, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff resides in Cook County, Illinois, and is a citizen of the
State of Illinois.

JUUL manufactures, designs, sells, markets, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen Cady, Esq.
     Ken Moll, Esq.
     MOLL LAW GROUP
     22 W Washington Street, 15th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 462-1700
     Fax: (312) 756-0045
     Email: scady@molllawgroup.com
            kmoll@molllawgroup.com


JUUL LABS: Phillips Sues Over Fraudulent Scheme
-----------------------------------------------
Chasity Phillips, individually, and as guardian of her minor child,
A.P., on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. JUUL LABS, INC., and ALTRIA GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-04172-MDH (W.D. Mo., Aug. 21, 2019) is a case involving a
scheme in interstate commerce to mislead and defraud teens and
others by inducing them to buy a new e-cigarette called JUUL.

Defendants devised and deployed this fraudulent scheme to enter and
dominate the e-cigarette market through deception and misdirection,
notes the complaint.

A.P. was a bright, social 16-year-old who began using JUUL around
May of 2018. What started as something he did only in the evenings
and on weekends quickly escalated, over just a few short months,
into an addiction that A.P. thought about and partook in all day
throughout each day. When she first became aware of A.P.'s JUUL
use, Phillips attempted to get A.P. to stop cold-turkey. By this
point, however, A.P. was so addicted to nicotine that he became
extremely anxious and irritated when he did not have it.

The Defendants did so through an enterprise of third parties they
used to deceive people about the attributes and health benefits of
"JUULing." This fraudulent scheme has caused injury to the property
of millions of people who have purchased these JUUL products.
Though not alone in pursuing development of electronic cigarettes,
JUUL did so with a familiar strategy. Taking a page from big
tobacco's playbook, which includes defendant Altria, JUUL, in
concert with its advertising agencies, developed a product and
marketing strategy that sought to portray its e-cigarette as
trend-setting, stylish and used by the type of people teenagers
look up to. In addition to advertisements eerily similar in scheme
and content to those of traditional cigarette manufacturers, JUUL
utilized social media extensively, knowing full well that teenagers
are the primary users of social media.

JUUL knew of the significant health risks posed by nicotine use, in
particular vaping, and, with that knowledge, developed an
e-cigarette that is more potent than any other. JUUL was also aware
that nicotine has a more significant adverse impact on adolescents,
including an increased risk of becoming addicted to nicotine. With
that knowledge, JUUL developed a marketing strategy that targeted
teenagers. This action seeks to hold JUUL, Altria and others who
acted in concert and independently towards the same goal
accountable for their tortious and illegal conduct resulting in
serious harm to millions of individuals, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Chasity Phillips is the parent and natural guardian of
A.P. who is 17 years old.

JUUL manufactures, designs, sells, markets, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes and related products, including
through sales at physical retail locations across the United States
and internet sales through websites maintained by JUUL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
     Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
     Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
     Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP
     4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Phone: (816) 701-1100
     Fax: (816) 531-2372
     Email: tcartmell@wcllp.com
            jpkieffer@wcllp.com
            thudson@wcllp.com


KOHLS DEPARTMENT: Third Circuit Appeal Initiated in Gordon Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jennifer Gordon, Valerie Tantlinger and Jennifer
Underwood filed an appeal from a Court ruling entered in their
lawsuit titled Jennifer Gordon, et al. v. Kohls Department Stores
Inc., et al., Case No. 2-15-cv-00730, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Named
Plaintiff Jennifer Underwood sought to certify a class against the
Defendants arguing that the companies were unjustly enriched at her
and the class' expense.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants profited from a
deficient credit-monitoring product called PrivacyGuard that was
sold to her and members of the putative class.  In particular, when
the Plaintiff and putative class members did not complete the
second step in registering for PrivacyGuard services, they did not
receive the full range of promised credit-monitoring services.

The appellate case is captioned as Jennifer Gordon, et al. v. Kohls
Department Stores Inc., et al., Case No. 19-2865, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JENNIFER GORDON, et al., are represented by:

          Angela Edwards, Esq.
          72 Canterbury Circle
          East Longneadow, MA 01028
          Telephone: (413) 525-3820
          E-mail: angelaedwards@charter.net

               - and -

          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY PC
          1650 Market Street
          One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-3895
          E-mail: phoward@smbb.com
                  ckocher@smbb.com
                  sparis@smbb.com

               - and -

          Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
          MCLAUGHLIN & STERN LLP
          260 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 448-1100
          E-mail: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com

               - and -

          Wade C. Wilkinson, Esq.
          FRAZER & FELDMAN LLP
          1415 Kellum Place
          Garden City, NY 10016
          Telephone: (516) 742-7777

Defendants-Appellees KOHLS DEPARTMENT STORES INC. and CAPITAL ONE
NA are represented by:

          Martin C. Bryce, Jr., Esq.
          Daniel McKenna, Esq.
          Elanor A. Mulhern, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864-8238
          E-mail: bryce@ballardspahr.com
                  mckennad@ballardspahr.com
                  mulherne@ballardspahr.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. Schuster, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SACHS & CO
          200 West Street
          New York, NY 10282
          Telephone: (215) 864-8347


L'OREAL USA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Borchenko Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Nataliya Borchenko filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
her lawsuit styled Nataliya Borchenko v. L' Oreal USA, Inc., Case
No. 2:19-cv-01426-R-AS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
asked the Court to certify this class:

   * Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") California-Only Class:

     All California consumers who within the applicable statute
     of limitations period until the date notice is disseminated,
     purchased the Products.

Additionally, Ms. Borchenko asked the Court to appoint her as Class
representative and to appoint the law firm of Bonnett, Fairbourn,
Friedman & Balint, P.C. as Class Counsel.

The appellate case is captioned as Nataliya Borchenko v. L' Oreal
USA, Inc., Case No. 19-55970, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Nataliya Borchenko's opening brief is due on
      October 21, 2019;

   -- Appellee L' Oreal USA, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      November 21, 2019;

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

Plaintiff-Appellant NATALIYA BORCHENKO, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David N. Lake, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 788-5100
          Facsimile: (818) 479-9990
          E-mail: david@lakelawpc.com

               - and -

          Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6978
          E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com
                  psyverson@bffb.com

               - and -

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com

Defendant-Appellee L' OREAL USA, INC., a Delaware corporation is
represented by:

          Elizabeth Anne Dorsi, Esq.
          Thomas B. Mayhew, Esq.
          FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 954-4400
          E-mail: edorsi@fbm.com
                  tmayhew@fbm.com


LANE BRYANT: Tatum-Rios Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
LYNETTE TATUM-RIOS, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LANE BRYANT, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-08014 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 27, 2019) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.lanebryant.com to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Tatum-Rios and
other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant denies full and equal access to its Website, the
complaint asserts. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, asserts claims under the Americans With
Disabilities Act, New York
State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law against
Defendant. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause
Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Plaintiff Lynette Tatum-Rios is a legally blind person.

Defendant is a retailer of plus size clothing for women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
     Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
     LIPSKY LOWE LLP
     630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Phone: 212.392.4772
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
            chris@lipskylowe.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Class Cert. Ruling in Mason Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Mason et al. v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No.
1:17-cv-04780 (E.D.N.Y., August 15, 2017), Judge Margo K. Brodie
affirmed a May 2019 decision by the magistrate judge granting
conditional class certification.  "As indicated in the May 2019
Order, Defendant is directed to produce a list of the names,
addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, work locations, and
dates of employment for all potential collective action members
during the relevant time period."

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that on or
about August 15, 2017, Ashleigh Mason, Dan Morse, Ryan Carroll and
Osagie Ehigie filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
behalf of all current and former store managers, store managers in
training, installation sales managers and similarly situated
current and former employees holding comparable positions but
different titles (collectively, the "Putative Class Employees")
alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by classifying the
Putative Class Employees as exempt. The alleged violations include
failure to pay for overtime work.

The plaintiffs seek certification of the Putative Class Employees
for (i) a collective action covering the period beginning three
years prior to the filing of the complaint (plus a tolling period)
through the disposition of this action for the Putative Class
Employees nationwide in connection with FLSA and (ii) a class
action covering the period beginning six years prior to the filing
of the complaint (plus a tolling period) through the disposition of
this action for members of the Putative Class Employees who
currently are or were employed in New York in connection with NYLL.


The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages but, in
addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek class
certification, unspecified amounts for unpaid wages and overtime
wages, liquidated and/or punitive damages, declaratory relief,
restitution, statutory penalties, injunctive relief and other
damages.

In November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting
conditional certification for all store managers and store managers
in training who worked within the federal statute of limitations
period.  

In May 2019, the magistrate judge granted plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification.  The Company filed objections to the
magistrate judge's class certification decision with the district
judge.

The Company disputes the Putative Class Employees' claims and
intends to defend the matter vigorously.  On August 30, it filed a
Second Amended Answer to Amended Complaint.

On September 4, Mason filed a Consent Motion for Extension of Time
to Complete Discovery and to authorize second issuance of judicial
notice based on an incomplete collective list.

Lumber Liquidators said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that must be
met for, among other things, class certification and success on the
merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and
therefore no accrual has been made related to this. Any such losses
could, potentially, have a material adverse effect, individually or
collectively, on the Company’s results of operations, financial
condition and liquidity."

Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer of hard-surface
flooring, and hard-surface flooring enhancements and accessories.
The company also offers its products through its Website, catalogs,
and call center. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Toano, Virginia.


MDL 2551: Court Vacates Conditional Transfer Order for Ewen Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION, MDL No.2551, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has vacated the Panel's
conditional transfer order designated as "CTO-6," which
conditionally transferred EWEN v. NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:19-03656 from the Central District of California to the
District of Minnesota for inclusion in MDL No. 2551.

Defendant National Hockey League moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to
vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring the Ewen action
to the District of Minnesota for inclusion in MDL No. 2551.  The
Ewen plaintiff supports the motion.

After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Vance grants the
motion.  This MDL was created in August2014, and is significantly
advanced.  Common discovery proceeded in the transferee court for
several years, and the court denied class certification last year.
According to the parties, only six of the 139 total claims involved
in the MDL remain.  Of these, two were transferred to the MDL under
Section 1407.  The transferee judge has before her a motion for
suggestion of Section 1407 remand of those transferred claims, as
well as motions to dismiss or transfer the other four claims that
were directly filed in the transferee district.  The Ewen plaintiff
is represented by members of the MDL No.2551 plaintiffs' executive
committee and will have access to common discovery produced in the
MDL.  Given these circumstances, as well as the parties' uniform
opposition to transfer, vacatur is warranted at this time.  If the
transferee judge denies the motion for a suggestion of remand and
determines that the MDL instead should continue in the District of
Minnesota, the parties should inform the Panel and the Panel will
determine whether to transfer Ewen at that time.  

A full-text copy of the Court's August 9, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/q6tzUY


MDL 2902: 14 Merck Sharp & Dohme Patent Lawsuits Moved to Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SITAGLIPTIN PHOSPHATE ('708 & '921) PATENT
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2902, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring
14 lawsuits initiated by MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. as listed on
Schedule A to the District of Delaware, and with the consent of
that court, assigned them to the Honorable Richard G. Andrews for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiff and patentholder Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation moves
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in
this patent infringement litigation in the District of Delaware.
This litigation consists of fourteen actions pending in two
districts, as listed on Schedule A.  Mylan Inc. and Mylan
Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively, Mylan), which are defendants in
the Northern District of West Virginia action, do not oppose the
motion.  Generic manufacturer defendants in thirteen District of
Delaware actions take no position on centralization, but if it is
ordered, suggest that the District of Delaware serve as the
transferee district.

Merck filed these actions after generic drug manufacturers
submitted a total of 26 Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs)
seeking approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to
make and sell generic versions of sitagliptin phosphate drugs,
which are popular diabetes medications known as dipeptidyl
peptidase-IV (DPP-IV) inhibitors.  Sitagliptin phosphate is the
active ingredient of Merck's Januvia (sitagliptin phosphate),
Janumet (metformin hydrochloride; sitagliptin phosphate), and
Janumet XR (metformin hydrochloride; sitagliptin phosphate extended
release tablets) drug products.  The actions on the motion area
series of Hatch-Waxman patent infringement lawsuits, in which Merck
alleges that each of the defendants has infringed two U.S. Patents
by filing an ANDA seeking FDA approval to market generic
sitagliptin phosphate in the United States.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing held, Judge Vance
finds that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the District of Delaware will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation.  All actions involve
substantially identical claims that defendants infringed the two
Merck patents.  Centralization is warranted to prevent inconsistent
rulings (particularly with respect to claim construction and issues
of patent validity) and overlapping pretrial obligations, to reduce
costs, and to create efficiencies for the parties, courts, and
witnesses.

Although the cases in this litigation are pending in only two
districts, the Panel has long acknowledged that "actions involving
the validity of complex pharmaceutical patents and the entry of
generic versions of the patent holder's drugs are particularly
well-suited for transfer under Section 1407."  Given the complexity
of the allegations and regulatory framework governing Hatch-Waxman
cases, as well as the need for swift progress in this litigation
that involves the potential entry of generic diabetes drugs into
the market, placing all actions before a single judge should foster
the efficient resolution of all the actions.

Judge Vance selects the District of Delaware as the appropriate
transferee district for these actions.  Thirteen of the fourteen
actions are pending in this district.  Judge Vance is confident
that Judge Richard G.  Andrews, who is well-versed in complex
patent litigation, will steer this matter on a prudent course.

A full-text copy of the Court's August 8, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/95dPzu


MDL 2905: 12 Defective Airbag Suits Moved to Central California
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ZF-TRW AIRBAG CONTROL UNITS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2905, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring
12 actions to the Central District of California, and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable John A. Kronstadt
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in an action in the Central District of California
(Altier) and an action in the Eastern District of Michigan
(Samouris) move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this
litigation in the Central District of California, or, in the
alternative, the Eastern District of Michigan.  The litigation
consists of twelve actions: five in the Central District of
California, two in the Southern District of Florida, three in the
Eastern District of Michigan and one each in the Eastern District
of New York and the Western District of Washington.  The Panel has
been notified of five potentially-related actions, all in the
Central District of California.

Central District of California
------------------------------
   * CROFT, ET AL. v. ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG, ET AL., C.A. No.
2:19-04256;
   * HERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., ET AL.,C.A.
No. 8:19-00782;
   * ALTIER, ET AL. v. ZF-TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP., ET
AL.,C.A. No. 8:19-00846;
   * BELL, ET AL. v. ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG, ET AL., C.A. No.
8:19-00963;
   * BLISS, ET AL. v. ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG, ET AL., C.A. No.
8:19-00970

Southern District of Florida
------------------------------
   * SANTOS, ET AL. v. ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG, ET AL., C.A. No.
0:19-61174;
   * PAYNE, ET AL. v. ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG, ET AL., C.A. No.
1:19-21681;

Eastern District of Michigan
------------------------------
   * SAMOURIS, ET AL. v. ZF-TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORPORATION, ET
AL., C.A. No. 2:19-11215;
   * RUBIO, ET AL. v. ZF-TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS, CORP., ET
AL.,C.A. No. 2:19-11295;
   * HEILMAN-RYAN, ET AL. v. ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP., ET
AL.,C.A. No. 4:19-11464;

Eastern District of New York
------------------------------
   * RADI, ET AL. v. FCA US LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-02769

Western District of Washington
------------------------------
   * COPLEY, ET AL. v. ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP., ET
AL.,C.A. No. 2:19-00707

All responding plaintiffs support centralization, but disagree, to
some extent, on an appropriate transferee district.  Most
plaintiffs support selection of the Central District of California,
but plaintiffs in the two actions in the Southern District of
Florida argue for the Southern District of Florida.

Responding defendants' positions on centralization vary.  ZF-TRW
Defendants, which are2named in all actions, support centralization
in the Eastern District of Michigan, as do Honda Defendants.
Defendants Hyundai Motor America, Inc., and Kia Motors America,
Inc., also support3centralization, but in the Central District of
California.  Toyota Defendants, defendants Mitsubishi Motors North
America, Inc., and FCA US LLC oppose centralization, but, in the
alternative, argue for creation of separate, automaker-specific
MDLs in either the Central District of California (Toyota and
Mitsubishi's favored venue)or the Eastern District of Michigan
(FCA's favored venue).  Finally, defendant Hyundai Mobis Co., Ltd.,
opposes centralization, and argues, in the alternative, for the
Central District of California as transferee district.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Vance finds that these actions involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the Central District of California
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.  The actions
share factual issues arising from allegations that airbag control
units manufactured by the ZF-TRW defendants are defective, in that
an electrical overstress condition can cause a malfunction of the
ACU's application specific integrated circuit.  Because of this
alleged defect -- which may affect more than twelve million
vehicles made by multiple automakers, including FCA, Honda,
Hyundai/Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota -- there is a risk that the
airbag could fail to deploy in an accident.  Centralization would
eliminate duplicative discovery and other pretrial proceedings, as
well as the possibility of inconsistent rulings on class
certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial matters, and
conserve judicial and party resources.

In opposing centralization, the Toyota, Mitsubishi, FCA, and
Hyundai Mobis defendants argue, inter alia, that (1) individual
issues – such as those concerning the design of each automaker's
vehicles and their susceptibility to an ACU failure and each
automaker's relationship with ZF-TRW– predominate; (2)
centralization would only create inefficiencies because of the need
to safeguard each defendant's trade secrets and other confidential
information; and(3)plaintiffs' legal claims vary from case to case.
These arguments are not convincing.  First, the existence of
individual issues, which is relatively common place in products
liability MDLs, does not negate the common ones, which appear to be
sufficiently substantial and complex to warrant creation of an MDL.
Second, because a number of these cases involve multiple automaker
defendants, denying centralization would hardly alleviate any trade
secret concerns.  The transferee judge can utilize protective
orders or other appropriate methods to address confidentiality
issues and other defendant-specific matters.  Third, "where common
factual issues exist, the presence of different legal theories
among the actions is not a bar to centralization."

The Toyota, Mitsubishi, and FCA defendants' alternative suggestion
that the Panel create separate, automaker-specific MDLs is
impracticable.  These actions all arise from the same National
Highway Traffic Administration investigation into airbags
manufactured by the ZF-TRW defendants.  Given the significant
overlap in the core factual issues, parties, and claims, creation
of a single MDL will best effectuate Section 1407's purposes.

The Judge selects the Central District of California as the
transferee district.  Several defendants, including American Honda
Motor Co., Hyundai Motor America, Inc., and Kia Motors America,
Inc. are headquartered in that district, and relevant documents and
witnesses likely will be found there.  In addition, five
constituent actions are pending in the Central District of
California, as are all five potential tag-along actions.  Judge
John A.  Kronstadt, to whom the Panel assigns the litigation, is an
experienced jurist, and already is presiding over nine of the ten
Central District of California actions.  The Panel is confident
that he will steer this litigation on a prudent course.

A full-text copy of the Court's August 7, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/DqRYkt


MDL 2905: Underwood v. Kia over Defective Airbag Moved to Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against seven car manufacturers was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles) on Aug. 14, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-07097-JAK-FFM to the proceeding.

The case is captioned as Robert A. Underwood on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Kia Motors
America, Inc., Hyundai Motor America, FCA US LLC, Mitsubishi Motors
America, Inc., American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Toyota Motor Sales
U.S.A., Inc., and ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.

The Underwood case is being consolidated with MDL 2905 in re:
ZF-TRW AIRBAG CONTROL UNITS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL
was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on August 7, 2019. These actions share
common factual questions arising from allegations that airbag
control units manufactured by the ZF-TRW defendants are defective,
in that an electrical overstress condition can cause a malfunction
of the ACU's application specific integrated circuit. Because of
this alleged defect -- which may affect more than 12 million
vehicles made bymultiple automakers, including FCA, Honda,
Hyundai/Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota -- there is a risk that the
airbag could fail to deploy in an accident. In its August 7, 2019
Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Central
District of California will serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Centralization would eliminate duplicative discovery
and other pretrial proceedings, as well as the possibility of
inconsistent rulings on class certification, Daubertmotions, and
other pretrial matters, and conserve judicial and party resources.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt. The
lead case is 2:19-ml-02905-JAK-FFM.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are:

          David Seabold Casey, Jr, Esq.
          David Sisco Casey, Esq.
          Jeremy Keith Robinson, Esq.
          Patricia Camille Guerra, Esq.
          Seth H Barron, Esq.
          Gayle M Blatt, Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA
          BLATT AND PENFIELD LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
          E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
                  caseyd@cglaw.com
                  jrobinson@cglaw.com
                  camille@cglaw.com
                  sbarron@cglaw.com
                  gmb@cglaw.com

MDL 2908: Court Deems as Moot Boeing's Bid to Transfer 66 Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: AIR CRASH NEAR EJERE, ETHIOPIA, ON MARCH 10,
2019, MDL No. 2908, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has deemed as moot The Boeing Company's motion seeking
centralization in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois of 66 actions for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.  The Panel also ordered that the Hearing Session Order
is VACATED insofar as it relates to these actions.

Before the Panel is a motion by defendant The Boeing Company,
seeking centralization, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
of the actions on the attached schedule for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.  The Panel has now been advised
that the actions filed in the District of South Carolina have been
voluntarily dismissed, thus depriving this litigation of its
multidistrict character.  

In SOUTH CAROLINA District, Div. 2
----------------------------------
   19-01443 - Thugge et al v. Boeing Company, The
   19-01455 - Vdovic et al v. Boeing Company, The
   19-01594 - Matsliah v. Boeing Company, The

In ILLINOIS NORTHERN District, Div. 1
-------------------------------------
   19-02170 - In re: Ethiopian Airlines Flight ET 302 Crash
   19-02281 - Stumo et al v. The Boeing Company et al
   19-02322 - Hammamy et al v. Boeing
   19-02348 - Hussein Abdi v. The Boeing Company
   19-02531 - Karuri et al v. The Boeing Company
   19-02597 - Kondaveeti v. The Boeing Company
   19-02709 - Carrasco et al v. Boeing Co., The
   19-02770 - Mungai v. Boeing Corporation, The et al
   19-02839 - Vaidya v. Boeing Company, The et al
   19-02840 - Vaidya v. The Boeing Company et al
   19-02841 - Vaidya v. The Boeing Company et al
   19-02842 - Njoroge v. The Boeing Company et al
   19-02843 - Njoroge v. The Boeing Company et al
   19-02844 - Njoroge v. The Boeing Company et al
   19-02846 - Njoroge v. The Boeing Company et al
   19-02847 - Vaidya v. The Boeing Company et al
   19-02848 - Vaidya et al v. The Boeing Company et al
   19-02849 - Vaidya et al v. The Boeing Company et al
   19-02969 - Spini v. Boeing Co., The et al
   19-02971 - Spini v. Boeing Co., The et al
   19-03285 - K'Obien et al v. Boeing Company, The
   19-03297 - Mairesse v. Boeing Company, The et al
   19-03298 - Chimenti v. Boeing Co., The et al
   19-03381 - Konarski v. The Boeing Company
   19-03392 - Seex et al v. The Boeing Company
   19-03506 - Dziurawiec-Duda v. The Boeing Company
   19-03525 - Gitelson v. The Boeing Company
   19-03540 - Connolly v. Boeing Co., The
   19-03668 - Karanja v. The Boeing Company
   19-03669 - Jesse v. The Boeing Company
   19-03671 - Kimiti v. The Boeing Company
   19-03677 - Chafi v. Boeing Co., The
   19-03740 - ADESANMI v. The Boeing Company
   19-03751 - Lacroix v. The Boeing Company et al
   19-03819 - Egal v. Boeing Company, The
   19-03820 - Gathumbi et al v. The Boeing Company
   19-03822 - Hrnko v. The Boeing Company
   19-03823 - Hrnko v. The Boeing Company
   19-03824 - Hrnko v. The Boeing Company
   19-03844 - Riffel et al v. The Boeing Company
   19-03845 - Riffel v. Boeing Company, The
   19-03846 - Moore et al v. The Boeing Company
   19-03901 - Gebler-Reem v. The Boeing Company
   19-03927 - Muturi v. Boeing Company, The et al
   19-03965 - Yakob v. The Boeing Company
   19-04004 - Mwashi et al v. Boeing Company, The
   19-04009 - Cheruiyot v. The Boeing Company
   19-04027 - French et al v. The Boeing Company
   19-04074 - Conway v. The Boeing Company et al
   19-04076 - Conway v. The Boeing Company et al
   19-04106 - Akeyo et al v. The Boeing Company
   19-04107 - Philipp v. The Boeing Co. et al
   19-04137 - Westerlind v. Boeing Co., The et al
   19-04140 - Toole v. Boeing Co., The et al
   19-04162 - Abdalla v. Boeing Co., The et al
   19-04219 - Adhikari et al v. Boeing Co., The et al
   19-04242 - Wondmsigegn v. The Boeing Company et al
   19-04282 - De Luis v. The Boeing Company
   19-04284 - Gaititi et al v. The Boeing Company
   19-04285 - Al-Mutairi v. The Boeing Company
   19-04295 - Kalbfleisch v. The Boeing Company
   19-04382 - Saafi et al v. Boeing Co., The et al
   19-04422 - Fili v. The Boeing Co. et al
   
A full-text copy of the Court's August 23, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/8b3BOs


MERRILL LYNCH: Valelly Files Suit for Unjust Enrichment
-------------------------------------------------------
SARAH VALELLY, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER &
SMITH INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07998 (S.D. N.Y.,
Aug. 27, 2019) is a class action on behalf of Plaintiff and a Class
of similarly situated persons or entities, who are or were Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated brokerage customers
beginning March 3, 2014, and who were defaulted by Merrill into a
low interest Merrill Lynch Direct Deposit ("MLDD") "sweep account"
(the "Brokerage Subclass").

The complaint alleges that Merrill's MLDD sweep accounts pay
investors a paltry 0.05% to 0.14% annual percentage yield ("APY")
notwithstanding the absence of adequate disclosure, contract
formation, or customers' "prior written affirmative consent" to be
placed into a sweep account, as is required by common law
principles, and NYSE and SEC rules and regulations. Beginning in
the late 1990s, brokerage firms like Merrill began "sweeping"
customer's cash into bank accounts of affiliated entities that were
lawfully able to use that cash to generate profits in their
operations. The movement of that cash frequently came with only
minimal disclosure to customers that their cash was being
transferred to affiliated entities. Most times (at least with
Merrill) the customer only earned a de minimus return on that cash,
well below the amounts earned by the affiliated entities and paid
to Merrill on the use of the cash.

Plaintiff asserts claims (i) on behalf of the Brokerage Subclass
under the doctrine of implied contract, unjust enrichment and
quasi-contract, since there was no valid bilateral contract between
the parties as to the payment of interest on sweep accounts and in
the absence of a binding contract Subclass members are entitled to
be paid a reasonable, market rate, (ii) on behalf of a "Retirement
Class" for breach of a unilateral contract to pay interest at a
"reasonable rate," and (iii) on behalf of a "Brokerage Subclass"
and "BANA Subclass" for negligence and violation of customer
suitability rules. Claims on behalf of each Subclass are also
asserted under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law, Mass.
Gen. Law Chapter 93A, on behalf of a Massachusetts resident
Subclass. Plaintiff seeks both monetary recovery and declaratory
and injunctive relief, says the complaint.

Plaintiff, Sarah Valelly resided in Boston, Massachusetts.
Plaintiff currently resides in Charleston, South Carolina.

Merrill Edge is an online brokerage service operated by Merrill
beginning in 2010.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
     Adam J. Blander, Esq.
     WOLF POPPER LLP
     845 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: 212-759-4600



MIDLAND CREDIT: Porricelli Sues Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
LISA PORRICELLI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC, and ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., formerly MCM CAPITAL
GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07992 (S.D. N.Y., Aug.
27, 2019) is a class action for damages brought under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from engaging in any false,
deceptive, or misleading practices in the collection of any debt.

According to the complaint, Defendants--who are debt
collectors--sent Plaintiff and the putative class members a
collection letter bearing the ominous threat that it would be the
"FINAL NOTICE" before the account would be transitioned to the
"attorney review process." But Defendants continued to send
multiple collection notices to Plaintiff and the putative class
members after this purported "FINAL NOTICE". Thus, the Defendants'
"FINAL NOTICE" collection letters contain language that is false,
deceptive, and misleading, in violation of the FDCPA, asserts the
complaint.

Plaintiff Lisa Porricelli is a consumer who resides in The Bronx,
New York.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("MCM") is a nationwide debt
collector with its principal place of business at 8875 Aero Drive,
San Diego, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     BRIAN L. BROMBERG, ESQ.
     BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
     26 Broadway, 27th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 248-7906

          - and -

     CARY L. FLITTER, ESQ.
     ANDREW M. MILZ, ESQ.
     JODY LOPEZ-JACOBS, ESQ.
     FLITTER MILZ, PC
     450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101
     Narberth, PA 19072
     Phone: (610) 822-0782


MIKE ROVNER: Williamson Seeks Unpaid Wages for Carpenters
---------------------------------------------------------
TOLLICE WILLIAMSON, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MIKE ROVNER
CONSTRUCTION, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19CV353263 (Cal. Super., Aug.
14, 2019), seeks to redress Defendants' unlawful employment
practices against Plaintiff, and similarly situated employees.

The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with rest periods or pay
him premium wages in lieu thereof; failed to pay minimum wage for
all hours worked; failed to pay overtime wages; failed to reimburse
for necessary business expenses; failed to provide with accurate
wage statements; and failed to timely pay all earned and unpaid
wages after discharge in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff spent all of his working hours performing non-exempt
work for Defendant. The Plaintiff was entitled to overtime premium
pay for all overtime hours worked. The Defendants assign Plaintiff
and other workers to certain job sites where remodeling or
renovation is taking place. For the tenure of Plaintiff's
employment, Plaintiff was assigned to work on the Cyprus Village
Apartments in Santa Clara county.

The Plaintiff was hired as a Carpenter on May 5, 2016. Despite the
job title, Plaintiffs job duties encompassed carpentry, electrical
work, cleaning the site after the day's work was over, and other
general labor around the site. Plaintiff was laid off on November
16, 2018, the lawsuit says.

Defendants are a construction company that redevelops residential
and commercial properties in Santa Clara County and throughout
California.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Robert W. Ottinger, Esq.
          Saima Ali, Esq.
          robert@ottingerlaw.com
          saima@ottingerlaw.com
          THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
          535 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: 415-262-0096
          Facsimile: 212-571-0505

               - and -

          Anthony Label, Esq.
          Annie Wu, Esq.
          THE VEEN FIRM, P.C.
          Haight Street
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 673-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 771-5845
          E-mail: AL.Team@VeenFirm.com

MISSISSIPPI: Hosemann Appeals Ruling in Hopkins Suit to 5th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Dennis Hopkins, et al. v. Delbert
Hosemann, Case No. 3:18-CV-188, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Daniel
P. Jordan, III, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The consolidated action (with ROY HARNESS, ET AL. v. DELBERT
HOSEMANN, SECRETARY OF STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Case No.
3:17-CV-791-DPJ-FKB) to restore the voting rights of convicted
felons is before the District Court on the Hopkins Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.

The Hopkins Plaintiffs seek class certification to challenge two
sections of the Mississippi Constitution -- sections 241 and 253.
Under section 241, individuals who have been convicted of murder,
rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false
pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement, or bigamy are ineligible
to vote.  And section 253 allows the legislature to restore an
individual's suffrage by a two-thirds vote of both houses, of all
members elected.

The Plaintiffs say the lifetime voting ban violates the Eighth
Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and the
Fourteenth Amendment, which only permits states to temporarily
"abridge" an individual's right to vote based on participation in a
crime.  They also contend that the mechanism to restore voting
rights violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment and the First Amendment.

The appellate case is captioned as Dennis Hopkins, et al. v.
Delbert Hosemann, Case No. 19-90024, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents Cross-Petitioners DENNIS HOPKINS,
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated, et al., are represented by:

          Janet A. Gochman, Esq.
          SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, L.L.P.
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-3954
          Telephone: (212) 455-2815
          E-mail: jgochman@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Jody E. Owens, II, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          111 E. Capitol Street
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 948-8882
          E-mail: jody.owens@splcenter.org

Defendant-Petitioner Cross-Respondent SECRETARY OF STATE DELBERT
HOSEMANN, in his official capacity, is represented by:

          Krissy C. Nobile, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 220
          Jackson, MS 39205
          Telephone: (601) 359-3824
          E-mail: knobi@ago.state.ms.us


NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Enriquez and Manna Suits Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nabriva Therapeutics 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 class action suits
entitled, Larry Enriquez v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC, and Ted
Schroeder and Anthony Manna v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC, and Ted
Schroeder, have been consolidated.

On May 8, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and its Chief Executive Officer in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
Larry Enriquez v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC, and Ted Schroeder, No.
19-cv-04183.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's securities between November 1, 2018 and
April 30, 2019. The complaint generally alleges that the Company
and its Chief Executive Officer violated Sections 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading
statements and omitting to disclose material facts concerning the
Company's submission of a New Drug Application (NDA) to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for marketing approval of
CONTEPO for the treatment of cUTI in the United States and the
likelihood of such approval. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, attorneys' fees, and other costs.

On May 22, 2019, a second putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and its Chief Executive Officer in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Anthony Manna v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC, and Ted
Schroeder, No. 19-cv-04713.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased our securities between November 1, 2018 and April 30,
2019.  

The allegations made in the Manna complaint are similar to those
made in the Enriquez complaint, and the Manna complaint seeks
similar relief.

On May 24, 2019, these two lawsuits were consolidated by the court.
The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved plaintiff's
selection of lead counsel on July 22, 2019.

The Company denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing and
intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. The Company is
unable, however, to predict the outcome of this matter at this
time.

Nabriva Therapeutics said, "Moreover, any conclusion of this matter
in a manner adverse to the Company and for which it incurs
substantial costs or damages not covered by the Company's
directors' and officers' liability insurance would have a material
adverse effect on its financial condition and business. In
addition, the litigation could adversely impact the Company's
reputation and divert management's attention and resources from
other priorities, including the execution of its business plan and
strategies that are important to the Company's ability to grow its
business, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business."

Nabriva Therapeutics plc, a biopharmaceutical company, engages in
the research and development of anti-infective agents to treat
infections in humans. The company was formerly known as Nabriva
Therapeutics Forschungs GmbH and changed its name to Nabriva
Therapeutics plc in 2007. Nabriva Therapeutics plc was incorporated
in 2005 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


NAVIENT CORP: DeWitt Seeks to Certify 3 Classes and 3 Sub-Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned GLYNIS DEWITT v. NAVIENT
CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-02509-CM-GEB (D. Kan.), seeks
certification of these Classe:

   * "Misallocated Payments Class":

     All individuals who reside in the United States, who were
     subjected to the grossly negligent, improper, wrongful,
     unfair, or deceptive loan servicing or debt collection
     practices by Defendants, individually or collectively,
     including Defendants' failure to correctly apply or allocate
     borrower payments to the borrower's specified loan, and who
     suffered damages therefrom;

   * "Improper Verification Class":

     All individuals who reside in the United States, who were
     subjected to the improper, wrongful, unfair, or deceptive
     debt collection practices by Defendants, individually or
     collectively, including Defendants' failure to properly or
     sufficiently verify student loan debt properly disputed by
     individuals one or more times, and who suffered damages
     therefrom; and

   * "Loan-Rehabilitation Class":

     All individuals who reside in the United States, who were
     subjected to the improper, wrongful, unfair, or deceptive
     debt collection practices by Defendants, individually or
     collectively, who have been improperly and wrongly forced
     into a loan rehabilitation program, and who suffered damages
     therefrom.

The Plaintiff also asks to certify these Kansas Sub-Classes:

   * "Misallocated Payments Class":

     All individuals who reside(d) in the Kansas, who were
     subjected to the grossly negligent, improper, wrongful,
     unfair, or deceptive loan servicing or debt collection
     practices by Defendants, individually or collectively,
     including Defendants' failure to correctly apply or allocate
     borrower payments to the borrower's specified loan, and who
     suffered damages therefrom;

   * "Improper Verification Kansas Sub-Class":

     All individuals who reside(d) in the Kansas, who were
     subjected to the improper, wrongful, unfair, or deceptive
     debt collection practices by Defendants, individually or
     collectively, including Defendants' failure to properly or
     sufficiently verify student loan debt properly disputed by
     individuals one or more times, and who suffered damages
     therefrom; and

   * "Loan-Rehabilitation Kansas Sub-Class":

     All individuals who reside(d) in the Kansas, who were
     subjected to the improper, wrongful, unfair, or deceptive
     debt collection practices by Defendants, individually or
     collectively, who have been improperly and wrongly forced
     into a loan rehabilitation program, and who suffered damages
     therefrom.

Ms. DeWitt further asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative for both the Classes and Kansas Subclasses, and to
appoint her counsel as counsel to the Classes and Subclasses
described in this Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary J. Willnauer, Esq.
          Blake H. Butner, Esq.
          MORROW WILLNAUER CHURCH, L.L.C.
          8330 Ward Parkway, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64114
          Telephone: (816) 382-1382
          Facsimile: (816) 382-1383
          E-mail: gwillnauer@mwcattorneys.com
                  bbutner@mwcattorneys.com

Defendants NAVIENT CORPORATION, NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC., UNITED
STUDENT AID FUNDS, INC., are represented by:

          Lisa M. Simonetti, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
          Telephone: (424) 204-7700
          E-mail: simonettil@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Justin M. Dean, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4520 Main Street, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 471-1303
          E-mail: justin.dean@ogletree.com

Defendant EOS CCA is represented by:

          Benjamin N. Hutnick, Esq.
          BERMAN & RABIN, P.A.
          15280 Metcalf
          Overland Park, KS 66223
          Telephone: (913) 649-1555
          E-mail: bhutnick@bermanrabin.com


NEW YORK: BOD Files 23 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed appeals from the District Court's judgment
entered on June 6, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on
November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.
The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in
the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant,
the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of
New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass
certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to
obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.[BN]

The appellate cases brought before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit are:

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2587

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2243

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2246

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2248

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2256

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2257

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2258

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2259

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2261

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2262

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2264

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2265

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2267

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2269

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2270

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2271

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2272

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2273

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2274

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2277

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2280

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2281

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2287


Plaintiff-Appellees Ana Maria Tejada, Colleen Andrea Leacock,
Dionne Dopwell, Elizabeth Scott, Marie Bigord, Victor Acevedo,
Margarita Rodriguez, Carolyn Booker, Ramiro Cantres, Maritza Carmen
Fasack, Nat Osoria,
Shelley Kiwana Heath, Alfreda Griffin-Johnson, Carmen Gonzalez,
Agustin Mejia, Carmen Jerez, Alphonse Max Cineus, Gloria Ann Elrod,
Barbara Gonzalez, David Theodore, Gina Simmons, Linda Haynes, Dulce
Esperanza Jordan are represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov

NEW YORK: Court Certifies Class of Medicaid Recipients
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as SALVATORE GUADAGNA,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. HOWARD ZUCKER, as Commissioner of the New York State
Department of Health, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03397-ADS-AKT
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arthur D. Spatt entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

      "all Medicaid recipients who were enrolled in the GuildNet
      managed long-term care plans in Suffolk, Nassau, or
      Westchester County as of March 1, 2017 and who suffered
      reductions in care without prior notice and opportunity to
      be heard when they transferred to new managed long-term care

      plans as a result of GuildNet's closure in their counties of

      residence";

   2. appointing Salvatore Guadagna as class representative;

   3. appointing New York Legal Assistance Group as class counsel;

      and

   4. directing to meet and confer regarding whether class notice
      is appropriate and submit a joint letter in that regard no
      later than 14 days from the issuance of this order.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Benjamin Wait Taylor, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Jois, Esq.
          Jane Greengold Stevens, Esq.
          Julia Grossman Russell, Esq.
          NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
          7 Hanover Square 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK
          STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          200 Old Country Road Suite 460
          Mineola, NY 11501

NEW YORK: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Slade Says
------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SLADE, Individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. NEW YORK ZIPLINE
ADVERNTURES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07951 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 26, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and
visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services NY ZIPLINE provides to their
non-disabled customers through http://www.Ziplinenewyork.com/

According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision;
others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York, the
lawsuit says.

Ziplinenewyork.com provides to the public a wide array of the
goods, services, price specials, employment opportunities and other
programs offered by NY ZIPLINE. Yet, Ziplinenewyork.com contains
thousands of access barriers that make it difficult if not
impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the
website.

Attorneys for the the Plaintiff and the Class are:

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

NEWMARK SOLUTIONS: Denied Construction Workers Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Del Aguila and Jonathan Centeno, on behalf of themselves and
on behalf of other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Newmark
Solutions Corp. and Wilfredo Rodriguez Crus, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-07372 (S.D. N.Y., August 6, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid non-overtime wages, and damages for
failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring and wage
statements with each wage payment under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York labor laws.

Newmark is a full-service construction business owned and operated
by Wilfredo Rodriguez Crus where Plaintiffs worked as construction
workers at their construction sites pursuant to contracts with the
New York City Department of Design and Construction as well as
other non-public contracts. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Christopher Q. Davis, Esq.
      Rachel M. Haskell, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS
      225 Broadway, Suite 1803
      New York, NY 10007
      Tel: (646) 430-7931, (646) 430-7930
      Fax: (646) 349-2504


NHK GROUP: CMP Files Sues Over Hard Drive Assembly Price-fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
CMP Consulting Services, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NHK Spring Co. Ltd., NHK
International Corporation , NAT Peripheral (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd.,.
NAT Peripheral (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., NHK Spring (Thailand) Co.,
Ltd., TDK Corporation, Magnecomp Precision Technology Public Co.
Ltd., SAE Magnetics (H.K.) LTD, and Hutchinson Technology Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-12337, (E.D. Mich., August 7, 2019),
seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief pursuant to the
Sherman Act, federal antitrust laws, state antitrust, unfair
competition, consumer protection laws and the laws of unjust
enrichment.

This lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and
their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares
for hard disk drive ("HDD") suspension assemblies.

Defendants are manufacturers of hard disk drive suspension
assemblies. Suspension assemblies are a component of hard disk
drives and are installed in a variety of electronic products.

CMP Consulting Services claims to have purchased hard disk drive
suspension assemblies indirectly from one or more defendants.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David H. Fink, Esq.
      Darryl Bressack, Esq.
      Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
      FINK BRESSACK
      38500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 350
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
      Telephone: (248) 971-2500
      Tel: dfink@finkbressack.com
           dbressack@finkbressack.com
           nfink@finkbressack.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
      Tel: (917) 438-9189
      Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
             bcohen@nussbaumpc.com

             - and -

      Michael E. Criden, Esq.
      Kevin B. Love, Esq.
      CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
      7301 SW 57th Court, Ste. 515
      South Miami, FL 33143
      Telephone: (305) 357-9000
      Email: mcriden@cridenlove.com
             klove@cridenlove.com

NOBLE ENVIRONMENTAL: Dezzutti Seeks Overtime Wages for Laborers
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN DEZZUTTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NOBLE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALTY
SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01026-MJH (W.D. Pa.,
Aug. 15, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.

Dezzutti worked for Noble as a Backyard Hand and Laborer. Dezzutti
and the other workers like him regularly worked for Noble in excess
of 40 hours each week.

But these workers never received overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime
as required by the FLSA and PMWA, Noble improperly classified
Dezzutti and those similarly situated workers as independent
contractors and paid them a daily rate with no overtime
compensation.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766-1455
          Facsimile: (412)766-0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

OSMOTICA PHARMA: Shumacher & Tello Suits Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------
Osmotica Pharmaceuticals 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 class action
suits entitled Leo Shumacher, et al., v. Osmotica Pharmaceuticals
plc, et al. and Jeffrey Tello, et al., v. Osmotica Pharmaceuticals
plc, et al., have been consolidated.

On April 30, 2019, Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc was served with a
complaint in an action entitled Leo Shumacher, et al., v. Osmotica
Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset
County No. SOM-L-000540-19.

On May 10, 2019, a Complaint entitled Jeffrey Tello, et al., v.
Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey,
Somerset County No. SOM-L-000617-19 was filed in the same court as
the Shumacher action.  

The complaints name Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, certain of its
directors and officers and the underwriters of its initial public
offering as defendants in putative class actions alleging
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
related to the disclosures contained in the registration statement
and prospectus used for the Company's initial public offering of
ordinary shares.

On July 22, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
consolidating the two actions, reiterating the previously pled
allegations and adding an additional individual defendant.  

The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends
to vigorously defend against the action.

Osmotica said, "However, this litigation matter is still in an
early stage and there is no assurance that we will be successful in
our defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund
any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action,
which could adversely affect the Company's results of operations
and financial condition. At this time there is no loss that is
probable or reasonably estimatable."

Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, an integrated biopharmaceutical
company, develops, manufactures, and commercializes specialty
products that target markets with underserved patient populations.
Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc is headquartered in Bridgewater, New
Jersey.


P&Y OPERATIONS: Pedrera Seeks Unpaid Half-Time Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA PEDRERA and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. P & Y OPERATIONS INC. PBS OPERATIONS INC, PATRICIA BORGES, and
ALEXEY SAN MARTIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-23535-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., Aug. 23, 2019) is an action to recover money damages for
unpaid half-time overtime wages under the laws of the United States
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff as a collective action
to recover from Defendants overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and the costs and reasonably attorney's fees under the
provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of Plaintiff, and
all other current and former employees similarly situated to
Plaintiff and who worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more
weeks on or after August 2016, without being compensated overtime
wages pursuant to the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff ANGELA PEDRERA was employed by Defendants as a cashier
and general store employee, from approximately May 1, 2011, to
August 06, 2019.

Defendants P & Y OPERATIONS INC. and PBS OPERATIONS INC are retail
businesses operating as Shell, Chevron, and Mobil gas stations and
convenience stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Phone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


PASCHALL TRUCK: Certification of Class Sought in Carter Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled GALE CARTER and FORBES HAYES
v. PASCHALL TRUCK LINES, INC., et al., Case No.
5:18-cv-00041-TBR-LLK (W.D. Ky.), move the Court to certify the
matter as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

Gale Carter and Forbes Hayes further ask that the Court facilitate
notice to the putative opt-in plaintiffs.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Hwy N. Ste, 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: jboyette@swartz-legal.com


PERSONNEL STAFFING: Calderon Seeks OK of $279K Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned HILDA CALDERON, MICHELLE
GONGORA and ERIC SMITH, on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated employees v. PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC d/b/a MVP and
MVP WORKFORCE, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-09626 (N.D. Ill.), move the
Court for an order preliminarily approving the Parties' Class
Action Settlement Agreement and an order approving certification of
three classes and conditional certification of a collective action
for settlement purposes, the form and manner of class notice, and
scheduling a Fairness Hearing for final approval of settlement.

The Overtime Class and Collective is defined as:

     Plaintiff Calderon and all other laborers employed by
     Defendants PSG and Workforce in Illinois between and
     including October 28, 2012 and the date of Preliminary
     Approval who were assigned to work more than a combined
     forty (40) hours in a single work week by both PSG and
     Workforce.

The Defendants have agreed to fund a Total Settlement Amount of the
Overtime Claims in the amount of $30,000.

The Four-Hour-Pay-At-Visual-Pak Class and Collective is defined
as:

     Plaintiff Gongora and all other laborers employed by
     Defendant PSG in Illinois and assigned to work at Visual Pak
     Company from November 23, 2012 to the date of Preliminary
     Approval who were not compensated for at least 4 hours on
     any day they were assigned to work at Visual Pak Company
     within that period.

The Defendants have agreed to fund a Total Settlement Amount of the
Four-Hour-Pay-At-Visual-Pak Claims in the amount of $225,000.

The Workforce-Four-Hour-Pay Class and Collective is defined as:

     Plaintiffs Calderon and Smith and all other laborers
     employed by Defendant Workforce in Illinois and assigned to
     work at a client company of Workforce from November 23, 2012
     to the date of Preliminary Approval.

The Defendants have agreed to fund a Total Settlement Amount of the
Workforce-Four-Hour-Pay Class in the amount of $24,000.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          NATIONAL LEGAL ADVOCACY NETWORK
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1224
          Chicago, IL 60604


PIN UPS: Ortiz Hits Misclassification, Seeks Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
ELENA ORTIZ on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated Plaintiff, v. PIN UPS OF DAYTONA BEACH, LLC,
d/b/a PIN UPS OF DAYTONA BEACH, JOSEPH LOGUIDICE, TIMOTHY
BLAKESLEE, Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-01644-RBD-LRH (M.D. Fla.,
Aug. 23, 2019) is an action brought as a Fair Labor Standard Act
collective action on behalf of all persons who were or are employed
by Defendants as exotic dancers at any time during the three years
prior to the commencement of this action to present.

The Defendants required and/or permitted Elena Ortiz and others
similarly situated to work as exotic dancers at their adult
entertainment club but refused to compensate them at the applicable
minimum wage, the complaint asserts. In fact, Defendants refused to
compensate them whatsoever for any hours worked. Plaintiffs' only
compensation was in the form of tips from club patrons, and even
those were partly confiscated by the club. Defendants took money
from Plaintiffs in the form of "house fees" or "rent". 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 complaint alleges.
The Defendants' practice of failing to pay employees any wages
violates the FLSA's minimum wage provision, and Defendants'
practice of charging house fees and confiscating tips also violates
the FLSA because for at least one workweek in the relevant
statutory period, these practices caused Plaintiffs to be paid
below the minimum wage, says the complaint.

Named Plaintiff Elena Ortiz consistently worked at Pin Ups from
January 2017 until March 2018.

Defendants operate an adult entertainment club in Florida, under
the name of "Pin Ups".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Cathleen Scott, Esq.
     SCOTT WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
     Jupiter Gardens
     250 South Central Boulevard, Suite 104-A
     Jupiter, FL 33458

     101 Northpoint Parkway
     West Palm Beach, FL 33407
     Phone: (561) 653-0008
     Facsimile: (561) 653-0020
     Primary Email: CScott@scottwagnerlaw.com
     Secondary Email: mail@scottwagnerlaw.com
     Website: www.ScottWagnerLaw.com

          - and -

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


PSE&G: Faces Forrest Hill Suit in District of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newark City. The case
is captioned as FORREST HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. and GAYTHA
KRAUSER On behalf of herself and all other persons who are
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PUBLIC SERVICES ELECTRIC &
GAS COMPANY; PHILLIP SCOTT, as the Director of the Department of
Engineering of the City of Newark; and CHRISTOPHER WATSON, as the
City Planning Officer of the City of Newark, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-16692-ES-MAH (D.N.J., Aug. 15, 2019). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Esther Salas.

PSE&G is the largest utility in New Jersey, serving both business
owners and homeowners since 1903.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          George R. Sommers, Esq.
          51 Newark Street, Suite 309
          Hoboken, NJ 07030
          Telephone: (201) 656-6575
          E-mail: grsgold@hotmail.com

Attorneys for Public Services Electric & Gas Company are:

          Aaron I. Karp, Esq.
          PSEG SERVICES CORPORATION
          80 Park Plaza
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 430-8970
          E-mail: aaron.karp@pseg.com

               - and -

          Peter L. Agostini, Esq.
          William E. Frese, Esq.
          80 Park Place, T5D
          P.O. Box 570
          Newark, NJ 07101
          Telephone: (973) 430-8200
          Facsimile: (973) 645-1103
          E-mail: peter.agostini@pseg.com

Attorneys for Phillip Scott are:

          Gary S. Lipshutz, Esq.
          CITY OF NEWARK DEPARTMENT OF LAW
          920 Broad Street, Room 316
          City Hall
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 733-5945
          Facsimile: (973) 733-5394
          E-mail: lipshutzg@ci.newark.nj.us

PTZ INSURANCE: Legg's Class Cert. Bid Stricken Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman has stricken without prejudice
the motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled
Christopher Legg, et al. v. PTZ Insurance Agency, LTD, et al., Case
No. 1:14-cv-10043 (N.D. Ill.).

In light of the pending class action settlement, the Plaintiff's
third amended class certification motion and sealed motion are
stricken without prejudice, the Court rules.[CC]


RAYTHEON COMPANY: Faulkner Files Suit Over United Tech Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Faulkner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Raytheon Company, Thomas A. Kennedy, Tracy
A. Atkinson, Robert E. Beauchamp, Adriane M. Brown, Stephen J.
Hadley, Letitia A. Long, George R. Oliver, Dinesh C. Paliwal, Ellen
M. Pawlikowski, William R. Spivey, Marta R. Stewart, James A.
Winnefeld, Jr. and Robert O. Work, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01477
(D. Del., August 7, 2019) seeks to enjoin defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the proposed merger between Raytheon and
United Technologies Corporation, rescinding it in the event
defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this
action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys'
and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Under the proposed transaction, Each Raytheon stockholder will be
entitled to receive 2.3348 shares of UTC common stock for each
share of Raytheon common stock they own.

The complaint alleges that the registration statement for the
merger failed to include critical financial analysis performed by
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and RBC Capital Markets, LLC,
including all line items used to calculate EBITDA, EBIT and
unlevered free cash flow and net income that support the fairness
opinions, in order to make a fully informed decision whether to
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal needed
by the shareholders to make an informed decision on the merger
deal.

Raytheon specializes in defense markets throughout the world
specializing in integrated air and missile defense, electronic
warfare, command, control, communications, computers, cyber,
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Zemel, Esq.
      ZEMEL LAW, LLC
      1373 Broad St., Suite 203C
      Clifton, NJ 07013
      Tel: (862) 227-3106
      Fax: (973) 282-8603
      Email: DZ@zemellawllc.com

              - and -

      George Pazuniak, Esq.
      PAZUNIAK LAW OFFICE, LLC
      1201 Orange Street
      7th Floor, Suite 7114
      Wilmington, DE 19801-1186
      Tel: (302) 478-4230
      Email: gp@del-iplaw.com


REAL VALUE PRODUCTS: Camp Drug Store Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled CAMP DRUG STORE, INC., an
Illinois Corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons v. REAL VALUE PRODUCTS, CORP
d/b/a HOSPITAL PHARMACEUTICAL CONSULTING, Case No.
5:19-cv-01009-OLG (W.D. Tex.), seeks to certify this class:

     Each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone
     facsimile messages after August 20, 2015 offering the
     pharmaceutical products available through
     www.realvalueproducts.com or 1-855-681-7201.

The Plaintiff asserts that it files this motion soon after the
filing of its Class Action Complaint in order to avoid an attempt
by Defendant Real Value Products, Corp. dba Hospital Pharmaceutical
Consulting ("Defendant") to moot its individual claims in this
class action.  But, in this case, additional discovery is necessary
for the Court to determine whether to certify the class the
Plaintiff says it seeks to represent.  As a result, the Plaintiff
will seek leave to pursue class discovery as soon as practicable.

Camp Drug Store contends that it files this motion as a precaution
as the Rule 67 "pick-off" question has not been decided in the
Fifth Circuit—such as the Supreme Court has ruled against
attempts to moot a class action complaint under Rule 68 in
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 671 (2015) (an
unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment does not moot a class action
complaint).  Camp Drug Store adds that it intends to file an
amended motion for class certification at the earliest practicable
time after the completion of discovery.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: Tod@classlawyers.com


RELIANCE TRUST: Casey Files Motion to Compel Stout
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned JESSICA CASEY and JASON COLEMAN, on behalf of
the RVNB Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on
behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, v.
RELIANCE TRUST COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-CV-00424-ALM is
moved from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, Sherman Division to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on Aug. 19, 2019, and assigned Case No.
4:19-mc-02439.

On or about January 10, 2019, Plaintiffs Jessica Casey and Jason
Coleman served a properly issued subpoena duces tecum upon
valuation firm Stout Risius Ross, LLC ("Stout") through its counsel
identified to accept service, Lars C. Golumbic, of the Groom Law
Group. In response to two of Plaintiffs' 23 requests for documents,
Stout responded that it has responsive electronic documents in
native form that would be legible to Plaintiffs, but it refuses to
produce them. Plaintiffs therefore move to compel production.

Plaintiffs bring the underlying ERISA suit on behalf of the RVNB
Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "Plan"), and they
are the proposed representatives for a class of participants in the
Plan, in a lawsuit against the Plan's trustee, Reliance Trust
Company ("Reliance"). The Plan's sponsor, RVNB Holdings, Inc.
("RVNB"), is headquartered in Texas and does business as All My
Sons Moving and Storage. The documents Stout is withholding are of
crucial importance to the litigation. Stout conducted a valuation
of RVNB on behalf of Reliance and the Plan, which Reliance relied
upon to negotiate the $85,000,000 purchase price paid by the Plan
for RVNB. Plaintiffs allege that the Plan overpaid for RVNB by
millions of dollars due to Reliance's breaches of its ERISA duties.
Key issues in the underlying litigation include whether Reliance
caused the Plan to sleep purchase the RVNB shares for more than
fair market value, the methodology used by Stout, whether Reliance
properly reviewed and questioned Stout's work, and the accuracy and
appropriateness of multiple factors in Stout's valuation, such as
if the stock was adequately discounted for lack of control.
However, Stout now refuses to produce proprietary models, which it
used to render the valuation and its fairness and solvency
opinions, in a legible native Excel format.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Thomas R. Ajamie, Esq.
     John S. Edwards, Jr., Esq.
     AJAMIE LLP
     Pennzoil Place - South Tower
     711 Louisiana, Suite 2150
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 860-1600
     Fax: (713) 860-1699
     Email: tajamie@ajamie.com
            jedwards@ajamie.com

          - and -

     James L. Kauffman, Esq.
     Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
     Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
     BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
     1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 463-2101
     Fax: (202) 463-2103 fax
     Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com
            rjenny@baileyglasser.com


ROBERT CLERGERIE: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert Clergerie
America, Inc. The case is styled as Valentin Reid on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Robert
Clergerie America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07967 (S.D.
N.Y., Aug. 26, 2019).

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

Clergerie is an authentic French brand that creates handcrafted
shoes for men and women with a daring, unconventional
approach.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RUSH AUTO RECYCLERS: Pizer Suit Removed to Arizona Dist. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Brian Pizer, a married man, and Daniel Noble, a
married man, as Individuals and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Rush Auto Recyclers, Inc., an Arizona
Corporation; Janet Rush, an individual; and Dan Rush, an
individual, Defendants, Case No. CV2019-010953 was removed from the
Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County to the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona on Aug. 22, 2019, and
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-05019-DLR.

The Plaintiffs assert this Class Action/Collective Action pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Amy J. Gittler, Esq.
     J. Alexander Dattilo, Esq.
     JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
     2111 E. Highland Ave., Suite B-250
     Phoenix, AZ 85016
     Phone: (602) 714-7044
     Facsimile (602) 714-7045
     Email: Amy.Gitler@jacksonlewis.com
            Alexander.Dattilo@jacksonlewis.com


SANTA BARBARA TRANS: Diaz Suit Moved to Calif. Central District
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Jose L Diaz, on his own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Santa Barbara
Transportation Corporation dba Student Transportation of America
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
CIVDS1920120, was removed from the San Bernardino County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Aug. 26, 2019. The
Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-07394 to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Santa Barbara Transportation Corporation was founded in 1983. The
Company's line of business includes operating school buses.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Santa Barbara Transportation Corporation are:

          Kathleen J Choi, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          400 South Hope Street Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-9800
          Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
          E-mail: kathleen.choi@ogletreedeakins.com

SBE ENT HOLDINGS: Heckman Moves to Certify Class of Customers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JONATHAN HECKMAN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. SBE ENT HOLDINGS, LLC,
MORGANS HOTEL GROUP CO. LLC, MORGANS HOTEL GROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC,
1100 WEST INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS, LLC, 1100 WEST INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Case No. 1:18-cv-22258-JEM (S.D. Fla.), moves the Court to certify
the action as a class action on behalf of these classes:

   a) All persons who, from June 6, 2014 through the conclusion
      of this case, (i) dined at either or any of the Pool Bar
      restaurant, In-Room dining or the Mondrian Caffe at the
      Mondrian South Beach Hotel; (ii) were presented with a menu
      that represented that an automatic gratuity or service
      charge in the amount of eighteen percent (18%) would be
      added to the check; (iii) the check instead contained an
      automatic gratuity or service charge in the amount of
      twenty percent (20%); and, (iv) the person paid the check
      in full;

   b) All persons who, from June 6, 2014 through the conclusion
      of this case, (i) ordered food or beverage from In-Room
      dining; (ii) were presented with a menu that represented
      that delivery charge of three dollars and fifty cents
      ($3.50) would be added to their order; (iii) the check
      instead added a delivery charge of four dollars ($4.00) to
      the order; and, (iv) the person paid the check in full; and

   c) All persons who, from June 6, 2014 through the conclusion
      of this case, (i) dined at either or any of the Pool Bar
      restaurant, In-Room dining or the Mondrian Caffe at the
      Mondrian South Beach Hotel; (ii) were presented with a menu
      that provided no notice, or inconspicuous notice, that an
      automatic gratuity or service charge would be added to
      their check; (iii) the check contained an automatic
      gratuity or service charge; and, (iv) the person paid the
      check in full.

Mr. Heckman additionally moves the Court for an Order deeming him
an adequate representative of the Classes and appointing David M.
Marco, Esq., of SmithMarco, P.C., James A. Francis, Esq., John
Soumilas, Esq., and David A. Searles, Esq., of Francis & Mailman,
P.C. and Lewis J. Saul, Esq., of Lewis Saul & Associates, P.C. as
Class Counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Marco, Esq.
          SMITHMARCO, P.C.
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 546-6539
          Facsimile: (888) 418-1277
          E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com

               - and -
          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          David A. Searles, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Lewis J. Saul, Esq.
          LEWIS SAUL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          29 Howard Street, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 376-8450
          Facsimile: (212) 376-8447
          E-mail: lsaul@lewissaul.com


SHIPT, INC: Turner et al. Seek Minimum & OT Wages for Shoppers
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZALEKA TURNER, and LAUREN KIKTAVI, in their capacities as Private
Attorneys General Representatives, the Plaintiffs, vs. SHIPT, INC.
d/b/a SHIPT, and TARGET CORPORATION d/b/a TARGET, the Defendants,
Case No. 19STCV28802 (Cal. Super., Aug. 15, 2019), alleges that
Shipt has unlawfully failed to reimburse shoppers for all
reasonably necessary expenditures incurred in the discharge of
their duties, including but not limited to, the vehicle maintenance
costs and reimbursement for mileage, in violation of California
Labor Code; has failed to ensure that its shoppers receive the
applicable state minimum wage for all hours worked; has failed to
pay shoppers the appropriate overtime premium for all overtime
hours worked beyond 40 per week or eight hours per day.

Shipt shoppers shop for, pick up, and deliver groceries from Target
or other local stores to Shipt customers at their homes or
businesses.

The case is brought on behalf of the state of California and other
similarly situated aggrieved individuals who have worked as
shoppers for Shipt, Inc.  Shipt has misclassified its shoppers,
including Plaintiffs Zaleka Turner and Lauren Kiktavi. Because of
the shoppers' misclassification as independent contractors, Shipt
has violated multiple provisions of the California Labor Code.

Shipt is a grocery and household essentials, same-day delivery
service that providers shoppers and drivers who can be scheduled
through a mobile phone application (an "app") or through Shipt's
website. Target Corporation owns and operates Shipt and offers an
integrated Target same-day delivery service through Shipt at 25
locations in California.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs are:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, esq.
          Anne Kramer, esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617)994-5800
          Facsimile: (617)994-5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  akramer@llrlaw.com

SOKO GLAM: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Soko Glam, Inc. The
case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Soko Glam, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07990 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 26, 2019).

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

Soko Glam is an online marketplace that specializes in Korean
beauty products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STATE OF NEW YORK: Sughrim Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of New York et
al. The case is styled as Brian Sughrim, David Feliciano,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. State of New York, New York State Department of
Corrections and Community Supervision, Anthony J. Annucci Acting
Commissioner (in his official capacity), John A. Shipley Director
of Labor Relations (in his personal and official capacities),
Na-Kia Walton Assistant Director of Labor Relations/ADA Coordinator
(in her personal and official capacities), Leory Fields
Superintendent of Fishkill Correctional Facility (in his personal
and official capacities), Stephen Urbanski Deputy Superintendent
for Security Services of Fishkill Correctional Facility (in his
personal and official capacities), James Johnson Deputy
Superintendent for Administrative Services of Fishkill Correctional
Facility (in his personal and official capacities), Alan Washer
Corrections Captain (in his personal and official capacities),
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07977 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 26, 2019).

The nature of suit Other Civil Rights.

New York is a state in the northeastern U.S., known for New York
City and towering Niagara Falls. NYC’s island of Manhattan is
home to the Empire State Building, Times Square and Central
Park.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joshua Samuel Moskovitz
     Bernstein Clarke & Moskovitz PLLC
     11 Park Place, Suite 914
     New York, NY 10007
     Phone: (212) 321-0087
     Fax: (917) 722-0930
     Email: moskovitz@bcmlaw.com


STELLA & DOT: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stella & Dot LLC. The
case is styled as Valentin Reid on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Stella & Dot LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-07973 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 26, 2019).

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

Stella & Dot LLC retails jewellery and handbags. The Company offers
necklaces, bracelets, earrings, rings, and gift cards.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STOVER DIAGNOSTICS: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
AMBER JONES and VICTORIA LUGO, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STOVER DIAGNOSTICS
LABORATORIES, INC., STOVER MEDICAL LOGISTICS, INC., and STOVER
MEDICAL PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00740
(M.D. Tenn., Aug. 22, 2019) is an action for unpaid wages against
Defendants on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
individuals, as a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants provide their mobile phlebotomists with schedules
that dictate the number of patient visits, which patients to visit,
and the distance to be driven each day. These schedules require
mobile phlebotomists, including Plaintiffs, to perform several
visits and to travel hundreds of miles each day. As mobile
phlebotomists, Plaintiffs almost always worked in excess of eight
hours each day--and typically at least 12 hours each day--and five
days per week. As a result, Plaintiffs routinely worked over 40
hours in a week. Due to the long work hours, Plaintiffs could not
seek out or take on additional jobs or see additional patients
outside of those assigned by Defendants.

Defendants violated the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the
FLSA. Defendants did not record Plaintiffs time worked. However,
Defendants were aware of the long hours Plaintiffs and other mobile
phlebotomists worked each day because they scheduled Plaintiffs
visits and because Plaintiffs invoiced their mileage. Thus,
Defendants knew and/or acted with reckless disregard of the fact
that their failure to pay Plaintiffs and other employees for their
work violates the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the
FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as mobile phlebotomists.

Defendants provide mobile phlebotomy services in 18 states.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     DAVID W. GARRISON, ESQ.
     JOSHUA A. FRANK, ESQ.
     BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
     Philips Plaza
     414 Union Street, Suite 900
     Nashville, TN 37219
     Phone: (615) 244-2202
     Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
     Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
            jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

          - and -

     EMILY ALCORN, ESQ.
     GILBERT MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT, PLC
     341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230
     Franklin, TN 37067
     Phone: (615) 354-1144
     Email: ealcorn@gilbertfirm.com


SWANSON HEALTH: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Swanson Health
Products, Incorporated. The case is styled as Valentin Reid on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Swanson Health Products, Incorporated, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07975 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 26, 2019).

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

Swanson Health Products, Incorporated provides natural health care
products. It offers vitamins and supplements in the areas of amino
acids,vitamins, calcium and bone health, blood pressure support,
and healthy food.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TECHNIPFMC PLC: Continues to Defend Prause Class Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
TechnipFMC 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 company remains a
defendant in a shareholder class action suit entitled, Prause v.
TechnipFMC, et al., No. 4:17-cv-02368.

A purported shareholder class action filed in 2017 and amended in
January 2018 and captioned Prause v. TechnipFMC, et al., No.
4:17-cv-02368 (S.D. Texas) is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and certain
current and former officers and employees of the Company.

The suit alleged violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the Company's restatement of our first quarter 2017
financial results and a material weakness in our internal control
over financial reporting announced on July 24, 2017.

On January 18, 2019, the District Court dismissed claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
("Securities Act").

A remaining claim for alleged violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act in connection with the reporting of certain
financial results in the Company's Form S-4 Registration Statement
filed in 2016 is pending and seeks unspecified damages.

The Company is vigorously contesting the litigation and cannot
predict its duration or outcome.

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

TechnipFMC plc engages in the oil and gas projects, technologies,
and systems and services businesses. It operates through three
segments: Subsea, Onshore/Offshore, and Surface Technologies. The
company was formerly known as Technip SA and changed its name to
TechnipFMC plc in January 2017. TechnipFMC plc was founded in 1958
and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


TEQUILLA CORPORATION: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ESDRAS NEHEMIAS MARTINEZ RAMIREZ, an individual, GILBERTO DANIEL
PEREZ GARCIA an individual, and TERESO DE JESUS PEREZ GARCIA, an
individual, on behalf of themselves and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. THE TEQUILLA
CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation d/b/a BLUE AGAVE TEQUILA BAR &
RESTAURANT, TEQUILA555 CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation d/b/a
BLUE AGAVE TEQUILA BAR & RESTAURANT 2, and MARIO GONZALEZ, an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05654 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 22,
2019) is a lawsuit arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance  of
the Municipal Code of Chicago, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs, and other
similarly situated employees, overtime compensation for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek, and for taking improper deductions
from Plaintiffs' wages.

The Defendants did not compensate Plaintiffs, and other non-exempt
cooks, dishwashers and kitchen staff employees, at one and one-half
times their regular hourly rates of pay for hours worked in excess
of 40 in individual workweeks, notes the complaint. In order to
conceal their failure to pay overtime compensation, Defendants paid
Plaintiffs, and other non-exempt cooks, dishwashers and kitchen
staff employees, by check for only a portion of their hours,
typically no more than 50 hours, and paid for the remainder of
Plaintiffs' hours in cash. The Defendants knew or should have known
that their illegal wage and hour practices violated the FLSA, the
complaint asserts.

Plaintiffs worked as cooks at Defendants' restaurant.

The Tequilla Corporation is an Illinois corporation that operates
the Blue Agave Tequila Bar & Restaurant located on North State
Street in Chicago, Illinois and is engaged in selling and serving
prepared food and beverages, including alcoholic beverages, to
customers for consumption on and off its premises.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
     NOLAN LAW OFFICE
     53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 322-1100
     Fax: (312) 322-1106
     Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com


TIVITY HEALTH: Trial in Okla. Firefighters Suit Set for May 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tivity Health, 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 trial in the
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System Suit, is set on
May 18, 2021.

On November 20, 2017, Eric Weiner, claiming to be a stockholder of
the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who
purchased the Company's Common Stock between February 24, 2017 and
November 3, 2017 ("Weiner Lawsuit").  

The Weiner Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming as defendants
the Company, the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial
officer and a former executive who served as both chief accounting
officer and interim chief financial officer.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the
Exchange Act in making false and misleading statements and
omissions related to the United Press Release.  

The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported
class.  

On April 3, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing the
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead
plaintiff, designated counsel for the lead plaintiff, and
established certain deadlines for the case.  

On June 4, 2018, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The
Court denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss on March 18, 2019 and
the Company's Motion to Reconsider on May 22, 2019.

The case is currently set for trial on May 18, 2021.

Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement
programs in the United States. The company was formerly known as
Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in
January 2017. Tivity Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


TRINITY COURIERS: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, TATIANA MANCE, CHRISTOPHER LYMON, MARCUS
JOHNSON, VERONICA RENDA, and individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TRINITY COURIERS, INC., TRINITY
COURIERS OF OHIO, INC., RUSH OF OHIO, INC., TRINITY COURIERS OF
HOUSTON, INC., TRINITY COURIERS OF KANSAS, INC., TRINITY COURIERS
OF ST. LOUIS, INC., TRINITY COURIERS OF SAN ANTONIO, INC., TRINITY
COURIERS OF AUSTIN, INC., TRINITY COURIERS OF DFW, INC., TRINITY
COURIERS OF MINNESOTA, INC., and TRINITY COURIERS OF DENVER, INC.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00686-SJD (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 20, 2019), alleges that
the Plaintiffs and the collective are entitled to be paid overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act for all hours
worked over 40 in a workweek.

Trinity Couriers supplies last-mile delivery services to
Amazon.com, LLC and Amazon Logistics, Inc. (together, "Amazon") via
its participation in Amazon's Delivery Service Provider ("DSP")
program.  Trinity Couriers employs Delivery Associates, such as the
Plaintiffs and the proposed Collective and Classes, to deliver
packages to Amazon's customers.

Trinity Couriers, Inc. is a registered Texas corporation, and is
headquartered in Garden Ridge, Texas.  Trinity Couriers of Ohio,
Inc. is a registered Ohio corporation and headquartered in Garden
Ridge, Texas, with facilities in Cincinnati, Ohio.  Rush of Ohio,
Inc. is a registered Ohio corporation and is headquartered at
Trinity Couriers' corporate office in Garden Ridge, Texas, with
facilities in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Trinity Couriers of Houston, Inc. is a registered Texas corporation
and is headquartered at Trinity Couriers' corporate office in
Garden Ridge, with facilities in Houston, Texas.  Trinity Couriers
of San Antonio, Inc. is a registered Texas corporation and is
headquartered at Trinity Couriers' corporate office in Garden
Ridge, with facilities in San Antonio, Texas.  Trinity Couriers of
Austin, Inc. is a registered Texas corporation and is headquartered
at Trinity Couriers' corporate office in Garden Ridge, with
facilities in Austin, Texas.

Trinity Couriers of DFW, Inc. is a registered Texas corporation and
is headquartered at Trinity Couriers' corporate office in Garden
Ridge, with facilities in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas.  Trinity
Couriers of Kansas, Inc. is a registered Kansas corporation and is
headquartered at Trinity Couriers' corporate office in Garden
Ridge, with facilities in Shawnee, Kansas.

Trinity Couriers of St. Louis, Inc. is a registered Missouri
corporation and is headquartered at Trinity Couriers' corporate
office in Garden Ridge, with facilities in St. Louis, Missouri.
Trinity Couriers of Minnesota, Inc. is a registered Minnesota
corporation and is headquartered at Trinity Couriers' corporate
office in Garden Ridge, with facilities in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Trinity Couriers of Denver, Inc. is a registered Colorado
corporation and is headquartered at Trinity Couriers' corporate
office in Garden Ridge, with facilities in Denver, Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Drew Legando, Esq.
          MERRIMAN LEGANDO WILLIAMS & KLANG, LLC
          1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522-9000
          Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
          E-mail: drew@merrimanlegal.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


TROPICAL FOODS: Cordova Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
GLORIA CORDOVA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TROPICAL FOODS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
RONALD GARRY JR., and RANDY GARRY, the Defendants, Case No.
19-2595A (Mass. Super., Aug. 5, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
wages for hourly employees who have worked for Tropical Foods
International, Inc. in its grocery store located in Roxbury,
Massachusetts. More specifically, the suit seeks unpaid wages,
minimum wages, and overtime pay owed to hourly employees pursuant
to the Massachusetts Wage Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair
Wages Law.

Ms. Cordova worked for Tropical Foods International, Inc. in its
bakery department from October 2016 until May 2018.

Tropical Foods International, Inc. was founded in 1966. The
Company's line of business includes the retail sale of canned foods
and dry goods.[BN]

          Rachel Smit, Esq.
          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3260
          E-mail: rachel@fairworklaw.com
                  hillary@fairworklaw.com

TURKEY HILL: Kane Files Product Mislabeling Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Russell Kane, Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Turkey Hill, L.P., Case No.
2:19-cv-04794-JS-ARL (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019), alleges that the
representations of the Defendant's vanilla ice cream products are
misleading because they misrepresent the exclusive flavor source,
the amount of vanilla, the percentage of vanilla compared to the
overall flavor component.

Turkey Hill, L.P. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells ice cream and novelties labeled as types of, or containing
vanilla ice cream under the Turkey Hill brand ("Products").  The
Products are available to consumers nationwide from third-party
retailers, including brick and mortar and online stores, directly
from the Defendant's Web site and from its convenience stores.

The relevant product lines include (1) All Natural Ice Cream, (2)
Premium Ice Cream, (3) Light Ice Cream, (4) No Sugar Added Ice
Cream, (5) Ice Cream Sandwiches, (6) Sundae Cones and (7)
Individual Selections.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class in Galvez SIJS Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEOBARDO MORENO GALVEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KENNETH
T. CUCCINELLI, et al., Defendants, Case No. C19-0321RSL (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.

The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.  The three named Plaintiffs seek certification
of a class of all individuals who have been issued predicate
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status ("SIJS") orders by Washington
state courts after turning 18 years old but prior to turning 21
years old and have submitted or will submit SIJS petitions to
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") prior
to turning 21 years old.

Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted
by the parties, and having heard the arguments of the counsel in
the context of the preliminary injunction motion, Judge Lasnik
finds that the Plaintiffs and the class satisfy the requirements of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).

Accordingly, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  He ordered that the action will be maintained as a
class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and on behalf of the
Class of all individuals who have been issued predicate Special
Immigrant Juvenile Status ("SIJS") orders by Washington state
courts after turning 18 years old but prior to turning 21 years old
and have submitted or will submit SIJS petitions to United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") prior to turning 21
years old.

He appointed the Plaintiffs as the class representatives, and their
counsel are appointed and designated as the counsel for the class
and are authorized to act on behalf of the members of the classes.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 17, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/5cWCKq from Leagle.com.

Leobardo Moreno Galvez, on behalf of themselves as individuals and
others similarly situated, Jose Luis Vicente Ramos, on behalf of
themselves as individuals and others similarly situated & Angel de
Jesus Munoz Olivera, on behalf of themselves as individuals and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron
Korthuis -- aaron@nwirp.org -- NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT,
Leila Kang -- leila@nwirp.org -- NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS
PROJECT, Matt Adams -- matt@nwirp.org -- NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS
PROJECT, Meghan E. Casey -- meghan@nwirp.org -- NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT
RIGHTS PROJECT, Olivia Fiona Gibbons -- olivia@nwirp.org --
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT & Tim Henry Warden-Hertz --
tim@nwirp.org -- NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT.

Lee Francis Cissna, Director, United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Secretary, United States
Department of Homeland Security, Robert Cowan, Director, National
Benefits Center, United States Department of Homeland Security &
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants,
represented by Matt Waldrop, US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

State of Washington, Amicus, represented by Chalia I.
Stallings-Ala'ilima, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Teamsters Local 456 Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, 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 filed in the class action suit entitled, Teamsters Local
456 Pension Fund, et al. v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et al.
(Case No. 2:17-CV-02817-LS), is still pending.

In December 2016 a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the company (UHS) and certain UHS officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.

The case was originally filed as Heed v. Universal Health Services,
Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:16-CV-09499-PSG-JC). The court
subsequently appointed Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund and
Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiffs.  

The case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the style of the case has been
changed to Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et. al. v. Universal
Health Services, Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:17-CV-02817-LS).

In September, 2017, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund filed an
amended complaint.

The amended class action complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws relating to disclosures made in public filings
associated with alleged practices and operations at the company's
behavioral health facilities.  

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for shareholders during the
defined class period as a result of the decrease in share price
following various public disclosures or reports.

In December 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. We deny liability and intend to defend ourselves
vigorously.

Universal Health said, "At this time, we are uncertain as to
potential liability or financial exposure, if any, which may be
associated with this matter."

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

Universal Health Services, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates acute care hospitals, outpatient facilities, and
behavioral health care facilities. The company operates through
Acute Care Hospital Services, Behavioral Health Care Services, and
Other segments. Universal Health Services, Inc. founded in 1978 and
is headquartered in King Of Prussia, Pennsylvania.


VICTORIA'S SECRET: Lee Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned SHAUNTESE LEE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VICTORIA'S SECRET, a
Delaware Corporation; VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC.; a Delaware
Corporation; L BRANDS, INC., a Ohio Corporation, and DOES 1 to 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01072480-CU-OE-CXC was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Orange to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on Aug. 23, 2019, and assigned Case No.
8:19-cv-01625.

Plaintiff asserts claims under the California Labor Code for: (a)
an alleged failure to pay wages, including overtime; (b) an alleged
failure to provide meal periods; (c) an alleged failure to provide
rest breaks; (d) an alleged failure to timely pay all wages at
termination, i.e., for waiting time penalties; and (e) an alleged
failure to provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff also asserts
a claim for unfair competition, and seeks attorneys' fees and
costs.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Phillip J. Eskenazi, Esq.
     Kirk A. Hornbeck, Esq.
     Jeff R. R. Nelson, Esq.
     HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
     550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
     Phone: (213) 532-2000
     Facsimile: (213) 532-2020
     Email: peskenazi@HuntonAK.com
            khornbeck@HuntonAK.com
            jnelson@HuntonAK.com


WESTWARD MANAGEMENT: Channon et al Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Harry Channon and Dawn Channon, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
Westward Management, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 2019CH04869, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Aug. 15, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-05522 to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of real
property-related issues. The case is assigned to the Hon. Andrea R.
Wood.

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey Charles Blumenthal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY C. BLUMENTHAL
          2970 Maria Avenue, Suite 223
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: (847) 498-3220
          E-mail: jeffrey@jcblawyer.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth M. Al-Dajani, Esq.
          Michael David Richman, Esq.
          KERKONIAN DAJANI LLC
          1555 Sherman Avenue, Suite 344
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (312) 416-6180
          E-mail: ealdajani@kerkoniandajani.com
                  michael@jcblawyer.com

               - and -

          Terrie Sullivan, Esq.
          Jeffrey C. Blumenthal, Esq.
          JCB LAWYER
          2970 Maria Avenue, Suite 223
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: (847) 498-3220
          E-mail: terrie@jcblawyer.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Brian James Riordan, Esq.
          Krista Marie Stoumbos, Esq.
          CLAUSEN MILLER P.C.
          10 South La Salle Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 855-1010
          E-mail: briordan@clausen.com
                  KStoumbos@clausen.com

WILCO LIFE: Anderson Suit Stayed Pending 11th Cir. Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VANESSA ANDERSON, Individually and on Behalf of a
Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiff, v. WILCO LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. CV 119-008 (S.D. Ga.), Judge
J. Randal Hall of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Georgia, Augusta Division, granted Wilco's unopposed motion to
stay pending appeal.

Anderson originally filed the putative class action in the Superior
Court of Columbia County, Georgia.  At issue are Wilco's "cost of
insurance" charges on certain life insurance policies held by
Georgia residents.  

On Jan. 11, 2019, Wilco removed the case to the Court alleging
jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332.  Wilco invoked
both ordinary diversity jurisdiction and jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA").

After removal, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to
state court contending Wilco could not prove the requisite amount
in controversy for either jurisdictional basis.  On June 20, 2019,
the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion and remanded the action
back to the Superior Court of Columbia County, Georgia.  The Court
held that the Plaintiff and the class' request for reinstatement of
their life insurance policies did not put the face value of those
policies in the amount in controversy because it was too
speculative to assume Wilco will be required to pay the face value
on those policies.

On July 1st, Wilco petitioned the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
for permission to appeal the Court's June 20th Remand Order.  Now,
Wilco moves the Court to stay the Remand Order pending the Eleventh
Circuit's ruling on its appeal.  Wilco's motion states the
Plaintiff has no objection to granting a stay pending appeal.

Judge Hall concludes that a stay of the June 20th Remand Order is
warranted.  First, Wilco has shown a sufficient likelihood of
success on the merits of the appeal because of the not
insignificant caselaw, most notably Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.
v. Muniz, supporting its argument that the class' request for
reinstatement of their policies puts the face value of those
policies at issue.  Next, the Plaintiff will not suffer substantial
injury from the issuance of a stay.  Finally, a stay serves the
public interest because it will conserve finite judicial resources
by preventing duplicative litigation.

Based on the foregoing, the balance of factors weighs in favor of
staying the Court's June 20th Remand Order until the Eleventh
Circuit decides Wilco's appeal.  Therefore, Judge Hall granted
Wilco's motion to stay pending appea.  The Court's June 20th Remand
Order is stayed pending final resolution of Wilco's appeal in the
Eleventh Circuit.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 17, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/TCEtYP from Leagle.com.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AERCO International Withdraws Appeal in Ciano Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The First Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
of New York has ordered withdrawn the appeal in the case styled In
Re: New York City Asbestos Litigation. Joseph Ciano and Diane Buss,
as Co-Administrators for the Estate of Lena C. Ciano,
Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. American Biltrite Inc.,
Defendant-Appellant, AERCO International, Inc., et al., Defendants,
Index No. 190129/16, (N.Y. App. Div. 1d.).

The Court received a notice from counsel for defendant-appellant
indicating its withdrawal of the appeal taken from the Sept. 6,
2018 Order of the New York County Supreme Court.

A copy of the Order dated Aug. 20, 2019, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2ns97am from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Withdraws Appeal in Isernia Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The First Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
of New York has ordered withdrawn the appeal in the case styled In
Re: New York City Asbestos Litigation. Frances Isernia, as
Administratrix for the Estate of John M. Isernia, and Francis
Isernia, Individually, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. American Biltrite
Inc., Defendant-Appellant, A.O. Smith Water Products Co., et al.,
Defendants. Index No. 190071/16, (N.Y. App. Div. 1d.).

The Court received a correspondence from counsel for
defendant-appellant specifying its withdrawal of the appeal taken
from the Oct. 16, 2018 Order of the New York County Supreme Court.

A copy of the Order dated Aug. 20, 2019, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y5m62us8 from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had 1,400 Pending Claims at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, ArvinMeritor, Inc., continues to defend
approximately 1,400 pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits at
June 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "ArvinMeritor, Inc. ("AM"), a predecessor of
Meritor, along with many other companies, has also been named as a
defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell
products many years ago.  Liability for these claims was
transferred at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business
from Rockwell in 1997.  There were approximately 1,400 pending
active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM, together with many
other companies, as defendants at June 30, 2019 and September 30,
2018.

"A significant portion of the claims do not identify any Rockwell
products or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to
asbestos attributable to Rockwell products, and past experience has
shown that the vast majority of the claimants will likely never
identify any of Rockwell products.  Historically, AM has been
dismissed from the vast majority of similar claims filed in the
past with no payment to claimants.  For those claimants who do show
that they worked with Rockwell products, management nevertheless
believes it has meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to
the integrity of the products involved and the lack of any
impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/XLjJcI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Summary Judgment Favoring ACL, et al.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Maryellen Noreika adopted Magistrate Judge Fallon's
Report and  Recommendation and granted Defendants' motions for
summary judgment in the case entitled In re Asbestos Litigation.
Richard Wayne Rogers, Plaintiff, v. Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation, et al., Defendant, C.A. No. 17-1570 (MN)(SRF), (D.
Del.).

Plaintiff Richard Wayne Rogers filed objections to two of Judge
Fallon's recommendations in the Report, particularly the
recommended grants of summary judgment to Asbestos Corporation
Limited and to Charles A. Wagner Company.

Plaintiff filed this action against multiple defendants in the
Superior Court of Delaware on Sept. 18, 2017. Plaintiff sued
Defendants "for asbestos exposure while working at the Dupont
Seaford Facility in the 1960s and 1970s," as well as other
defendants for "exposure to asbestos while serving in the U.S. Navy
from 1966 to 1970." The case was removed to this Court on Nov. 2,
2017 by defendant Foster Wheeler LLC. Thereafter, the case was
referred to Judge Fallon.

Rogers was deposed on April 2018, but did not produce any other
fact or product identification witnesses for deposition. Mr. Rogers
testified that while working in DuPont, he performed housekeeping
duties where he swept the warehouse floor in the staple area.

In addition, the Plaintiff relies on the testimony of Marguerite
Warren and the 1972 memo to confirm the existence of other
products. Warren's testimony confirms that other products, such as
Kleensweep, were used as sweeping compounds at the plant.
Similarly, the 1972 memo refers multiple products being used as
sweeping compound. Although the memo refers to an "asbestos type"
sweeping compound, it does not identify the supplier and does not
suggest that Plaintiff used the "asbestos type" product. Thus, it
would be speculative for the Court to conclude that the proffered
evidence refers to the sweeping compound Plaintiff used.

Given evidence that there were other compounds used as sweeping
products at the DuPont Seaford plant, the Court found no evidence
what product Rogers used or that the product Rogers used actually
contained asbestos. The was no evidence that Plaintiff worked with
or around sweeping compound distributed by Defendant Wagner that
contained asbestos mined or supplied by ACL.

The Court noted that Plaintiff could not identify the product he
used as a sweeping compound at DuPont Seaford. He testified that he
knew that the sweeping compound was stored in three or four
galvanized containers located in his area of the plant, but did not
recall any name or writing on the galvanized containers. Plaintiff
also testified that he did not "have any reason to believe" that
sweeping compound he used contained asbestos. Moreover, the color
and consistency of the sweeping compound described by Plaintiff
(pink or purple) did not match the color or consistency of the
product sold to the DuPont Seaford plant by Defendants or the
description of the product in the testimony of other employees at
the plant.

The Court further noted Plaintiff's  testimony that the color of
the sweeping compound did not change while he was working at
DuPont, and that he has no reason to believe that the sweeping
compound contained asbestos.

Moreover, the Court said that even if Plaintiff had established
that an asbestos containing product was supplied by ACL or Wagner
to DuPont -- showing the presence of that product in Plaintiff's
workplace -- is not sufficient to establish nexus and proximity.
The Plaintiff has not disputed the Report's conclusion that there
is "no meaningful intersection between the Plaintiff and the other
DuPont employees who testified."

Thus, the Court concludes Plaintiff's proffered evidence is not
material to product nexus or would require impermissible
speculation in order to conclude that Plaintiff was in close
proximity to an asbestos containing product manufactured or
distributed by Defendants. It does not raise a genuine issue of
material fact and summary judgment is appropriate.

A copy of the Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y24xhsvj
from Leagle.com.

Richard Wayne Rogers, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Barnes
Lewis , Law Office of E.C. Lewis, P.C. & David Thomas Crumplar --
davy@jcdelaw.com -- Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A.

Richard Wayne Rogers, Cross Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
Barnes Lewis , Law Office of E.C. Lewis, P.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $102.3MM Reserve at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc. had total litigation reserve of
US$102.3 million as of June 30, 2019, with regards to potential
liability arising from the Company's asbestos-related litigation,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

Gardner Denver states, "The Company has been named as a defendant
in a number of asbestos-related and silica-related personal injury
lawsuits.  The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to
asbestos or silica from multiple sources and typically the Company
is one of approximately 25 or more named defendants.

"Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos and
silica-related lawsuits (the "Products").  However, neither the
Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed,
produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the
materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits.
Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products, if
any, were enclosed within the subject Products.

"Although the Company has never mined, manufactured, mixed,
produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand nor sold
products that could result in a direct asbestos or silica exposure,
many of the companies that did engage in such activities or
produced such products are no longer in operation.  This has led to
law firms seeking potential alternative companies to name in
lawsuits where there has been an asbestos or silica related
injury.

"The Company believes that the pending and future asbestos and
silica-related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations or liquidity, based on: the Company's
anticipated insurance and indemnification rights to address the
risks of such matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure from
the Products; the Company's experience that the vast majority of
plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease attributable to alleged
exposure to asbestos or silica from or relating to the Products or
for which the Company otherwise bears responsibility; various
potential defenses available to the Company with respect to such
matters; and the Company's prior disposition of comparable matters.
However, inherent uncertainties of litigation and future
developments, including, without limitation, potential insolvencies
of insurance companies or other defendants, an adverse
determination in the Adams County Case, or other inability to
collect from the Company's historical insurers or indemnitors,
could cause a different outcome.  While the outcome of legal
proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on presently known
facts, experience, and circumstances, the Company believes that the
amounts accrued on its balance sheet are adequate and that the
liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica-related personal
injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.  "Accrued liabilities" and "Other liabilities" in the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets include a total litigation
reserve of US$102.3 million and US$105.8 million as of June 30,
2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively, with regards to potential
liability arising from the Company's asbestos-related litigation.
Asbestos related defense costs are excluded from the asbestos
claims liability and are recorded separately as services are
incurred.  In the event of unexpected future developments, it is
possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters may be
material to the Company's consolidated financial position, results
of operation or liquidity.

"The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain
of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential
indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for
the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits
filed against the Company.  The Company has also pursued litigation
against certain insurers or indemnitors, where necessary.  The
Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos
related recoveries of approximately US$102.8 million and US$103.0
million as of June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively,
which was included in "Other assets" in the Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets.

"The largest such recent action, Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al., was filed on July 9, 2010,
in the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Adams County, Illinois, as case
number 10-L-48 (the "Adams County Case").  In the lawsuit, the
Company seeks, among other things, to require certain excess
insurer defendants to honor their insurance policy obligations to
the Company, including payment in whole or in part of the costs
associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the
Company.

"In October 2011, the Company reached a settlement with one of the
insurer defendants, which had issued both primary and excess
policies, for approximately the amount of such defendant's policies
that were subject to the lawsuit.  Since then, the case has been
proceeding through the discovery and motions process with the
remaining insurer defendants.

"On January 29, 2016, the Company prevailed on the first phase of
that discovery and motions process ("Phase I").  Specifically, the
Court in the Adams County Case ruled that the Company has rights
under all of the policies in the case, subject to their terms and
conditions, even though the policies were sold to the Company's
former owners rather than to the Company itself.

"On June 9, 2016, the Court denied a motion by several of the
insurers who sought permission to appeal the Phase I ruling
immediately rather than waiting until the end of the whole case as
is normally required.  The case is now proceeding through the
discovery process regarding the remaining issues in dispute ("Phase
II").

"A majority of the Company's expected future recoveries of the
costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits are the subject
of the Adams County Case.

"The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance recoveries are based on currently
available information and assumptions that the Company believes are
reasonable based on an evaluation of relevant factors.  The actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than
those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the
assumptions.  There are a number of key variables and assumptions
including the number and type of new claims to be filed each year,
the resolution or outcome of these claims, the average cost of
resolution of each new claim, the amount of insurance available,
allocation methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer
with whom the Company has reached settlements, the resolution of
coverage issues with other excess insurance carriers with whom the
Company has not yet achieved settlements, and the solvency risk
with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.  Other factors
that may affect the future liability include uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, legal rulings that may be made
by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal
legislation.  The Company makes the necessary adjustments for the
asbestos liability and corresponding insurance recoveries on an
annual basis unless facts or circumstances warrant assessment as of
an interim date."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/bqfZAV


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garrett Motion Paid $38MM to Honeywell in 2Q 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Motion Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that it paid Honeywell International Inc. the
Euro-equivalent of US$38 million in connection with the
Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement during the three months
ended June 30, 2019.

In the six months ended June 30, 2019, the Company paid the
Euro-equivalent of US$76 million.

As previously reported, Garrett Motion Inc. became an independent
publicly-traded company on October 1, 2018 through a pro rata
distribution by Honeywell International Inc. of 100% of the
then-outstanding shares of Garrett to Honeywell's stockholders (the
"Spin-Off").

The Company states, "Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury actions mainly related to its legacy Bendix
friction materials ("Bendix") business.  The Bendix business
manufactured automotive brake linings that contained chrysotile
asbestos in an encapsulated form.  Claimants consist largely of
individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either
performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed
brake replacements.  Certain operations that were part of the
Bendix business were transferred to Garrett.

"In connection with the Spin-Off, we entered into an
Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement with Honeywell on
September 12, 2018.  As of the Spin-Off date of October 1, 2018, we
are obligated to make payments to Honeywell in amounts equal to 90%
of Honeywell's asbestos-related liability payments and accounts
payable, primarily related to the Bendix business in the United
States, as well as certain environmental-related liability payments
and accounts payable and non-United States asbestos-related
liability payments and accounts payable, in each case related to
legacy elements of the Business, including the legal costs of
defending and resolving such liabilities, less 90% of Honeywell's
net insurance receipts and, as may be applicable, certain other
recoveries associated with such liabilities.  Pursuant to the terms
of this Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement, we are
responsible for paying to Honeywell such amounts, up to a cap of an
amount equal to the Euro-to-U.S. dollar exchange rate determined by
Honeywell as of a date within two business days prior to the date
of the Distribution (1.16977 USD = 1 EUR) equivalent of US$175
million in respect of such liabilities arising in any given
calendar year.  The payments that we are required to make to
Honeywell pursuant to the terms of this agreement will not be
deductible for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

"The Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement provides that the
agreement will terminate upon the earlier of (x) December 31, 2048
or (y) December 31st of the third consecutive year during which
certain amounts owed to Honeywell during each such year were less
than US$25 million as converted into Euros in accordance with the
terms of the agreement.  During the three and six months ended June
30, 2019, we paid Honeywell the Euro-equivalent of US$38 million
and US$76 million, respectively, in connection with the
Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/YAUnNH


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Won't Face SEC Charges re Accounting
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micah Maidenberg, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reported
that Honeywell International Inc. said securities regulators have
decided not to pursue any actions related to an investigation into
how it accounted for asbestos-related liabilities.

According to the report, citing the company, the Securities and
Exchange Commission told the Charlotte, N.C.-based conglomerate
that it concluded a probe into those accounting practices and
won’t recommend enforcement steps.

A spokeswoman for the SEC declined to comment, the Journal said.

The Journal related that last year, Honeywell revised its asbestos
liabilities tied to Bendix, the vehicle-brakes business it sold
several years ago, increasing them by $1.1 billion to $2.61 billion
as of Dec. 31, 2017. The company said at the time that the SEC had
opened an investigation into the matter and that it was cooperating
with regulators, the report further related.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Had $835.8MM Liability at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc. had an undiscounted asbestos-related liability of US$835.8
million as of June 30, 2019, for pending claims and unasserted
claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, ITT LLC and Goulds Pumps
LLC, are joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in
product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos
exposure.  These claims allege that certain of their products sold
prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g.,
a gasket) which contained asbestos.  To the extent these
third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated
in the gasket (or other) material and was non-friable.  Frequently,
the plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or Goulds Pumps
LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure.  In addition, a
large majority of claims pending against the Company's subsidiaries
have been placed on inactive dockets because the plaintiff cannot
demonstrate a significant compensable loss.  Our experience to date
is that a substantial portion of resolved claims have been
dismissed without payment by the Company's subsidiaries.

"We record a liability for pending asbestos claims and asbestos
claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years.  While it is
probable that we will incur additional costs for future claims to
be filed against the Company, a liability for potential future
claims beyond the next 10 years is not reasonably estimable due to
the variables and uncertainties inherent in the long-term
projection of the Company's asbestos exposures and potential
recoveries.  As of June 30, 2019, we have recorded an undiscounted
asbestos-related liability for pending claims and unasserted claims
estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of US$835.8 million,
including expected legal fees, and an associated asset of US$354.6
million which represents estimated recoveries from insurers,
resulting in a net asbestos exposure of US$481.2 million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/rlPeKQ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 24,000 Claims Pending at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc.'s subsidiaries had 24,000 pending asbestos-related claims
at June 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, including ITT LLC and
Goulds Pumps LLC, have been sued, along with many other companies
in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to
asbestos exposure.  These claims generally allege that certain
products sold by our subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part
manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained
asbestos.  To the extent these third-party parts may have contained
asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and
was non-friable.  As of June 30, 2019, there were approximately 24
thousand pending claims against ITT subsidiaries, including Goulds
Pumps LLC, filed in various state and federal courts alleging
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.

"Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or
Goulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure.  Our
experience to date is that a majority of resolved claims are
dismissed without any payment from ITT subsidiaries.  Management
believes that a large majority of the pending claims have little or
no value.  In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in
large groups, the average cost per resolved claim can fluctuate
significantly from period to period.  ITT expects more
asbestos-related suits will be filed in the future, and ITT will
continue to aggressively defend or seek a reasonable resolution, as
appropriate.

"Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation.  Frequently,
the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not state
a specific claim amount.  After filing a complaint, the plaintiff
engages defendants in settlement negotiations to establish a
settlement value based on certain criteria, including the number of
defendants in the case.  Rarely do the plaintiffs seek to collect
all damages from one defendant.  Rather, they seek to spread the
liability, and thus the payments, among many defendants.  As a
result of this and other factors, the Company is unable to estimate
the maximum potential exposure to pending claims and claims
estimated to be filed over the next 10 years."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/rlPeKQ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Klopman-Baerselman Claims vs. Cost Less Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert J. Bryan of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington dismissed Defendant Cost Less Auto Parts,
Inc. from the case styled Eric Klopman-Baerselman, as Personal
Representative for the Estate of Rudie Klopman-Baerselman,
deceased, Plaintiff, v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-05536-RJB, (W.D. Wash.).

In the operative complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Rudie
Klopman-Baerselman ("Decedent") was exposed to asbestos-containing
products sold or supplied by Cost Less, causing Decedent injuries
for which Cost Less is liable. Decedent was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on approximately July 11, 2017, and died on Nov. 25,
2017.

The complaint provides that "Decedent was an employee of Royal
Dutch Lloyd, Rotterdam Lloyd and worked as a merchant mariner
assigned to several vessels. While performing his duties as a
boiler oilman/stoker from approximately 1955 through 1959, Decedent
was exposed to asbestos, asbestos-containing materials and products
while aboard the vessels." The complaint continues, "Decedent
performed all maintenance work on his vehicles specifically
friction work, during the approximate years 1966 through 1997.
Decedent was exposed to asbestos, asbestos materials and products
while performing vehicle maintenance."  

On July 11, 2019, Cost Less filed for Summary Judgment, arguing
that: (1) Plaintiff is unable to identify any evidence, admissible
or otherwise, that the Decedent was exposed to any
asbestos-containing products sold or supplied by Cost Less; (2)
Plaintiff is unable to identify any evidence, admissible or
otherwise, that the Decedent suffered a substantial exposure to
asbestos associated with any asbestos-containing products sold or
supplied by Cost Less; and (3) Plaintiff has failed to present
evidence sufficient to establish genuine issues of material fact
with respect to Plaintiff's claims of negligence, conspiracy,
strict liability under Section 402A and 402B of the Restatements of
Torts, and premises liability.

The Court cannot determine that there is sufficient evidence for a
jury to find that causation -- which is a necessary element of
Plaintiff's claim -- has been established. Plaintiff has not
offered admissible evidence establishing a reasonable connection
between Decedent's injury and death to products manufactured, sold,
or supplied by Cost Less; and Decedent's injury and death to Cost
Less. Plaintiff has not offered evidence showing, even viewed in a
light most favorable to Plaintiff, that Cost Less or products that
it sold or supplied caused Decedent's injuries and death.

While Plaintiff has provided testimony from witnesses showing that
Decedent shopped for automotive parts at Cost Less, however, none
of the witnesses appear to have identified an asbestos-containing
product that Decedent purchased from Cost Less. Plaintiff has also
offered evidence of an ARI clutch found in Decedent's garage with a
hand-written Cost Less sticker on it, as well as evidence that Cost
Less sold ARI clutches, but Plaintiff has not shown from where the
clutch was purchased, nor, crucially, that it contains asbestos. In
addition, Plaintiff has provided evidence of asbestos-containing
Fel-Pro gaskets found in Decedent's garage, but Plaintiff has not
shown that they were purchased from Cost Less. Finally, Plaintiff
has offered evidence that Cost Less sold EIS brakes -- a brand of
brakes that Decedent may have used, but Plaintiff has not shown
that the EIS brakes that Defendant may have used were purchased
from Cost Less.

Therefore, the Court granted Cost Less's Motion for Summary
Judgment as to Plaintiff's Washington product liability claim.

A copy of the Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3e9wrgx
from Leagle.com.

Rudie Klopman-Baerselman, deceased & Muriel Klopman-Baerselman,
husband and wife, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexandra B. Caggiano
, WEINSTEIN CAGGIANO PLLC & Brian Weinstein , WEINSTEIN CAGGIANO
PLLC.

Eric Klopman-Baerselman, as Personal Representative for the Rudie
Klopman-Baerselman, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra B. Caggiano
, WEINSTEIN CAGGIANO PLLC, Benjamin H. Adams -- badams@dobllp.com
-- DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, pro hac vice & Brian Weinstein ,
WEINSTEIN CAGGIANO PLLC.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation,
individually, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig --
kcraig@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP, Mark B. Tuvim
-- mtuvim@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP & Trevor J.
Mohr -- tmohr@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP.

Borg Warner Morse Tec, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Richard D. Ross -- rross@bbllaw.com -- BENNETT
BIGELOW & LEEDOM.

CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Viacom, Inc. successor in
interest CBS Corporation formerly known as Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher S. Marks --
mjohnson@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP, Erin P. Fraser --
efraser@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP & Malika Johnson --
mjohnson@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP.

Crosby Valve Inc, a Massachusetts corporation & Viad Corporation, a
Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Ronald C. Gardner
-- rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, sued as successor in
interest Felt-Products Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by
Christine E. Dinsdale , SOHA & LANG PS, Frances Lopez --
flopez@hpylaw.com -- HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP, pro hac
vice & Rachel A. Rubin , SOHA & LANG PS.

Flowserve US Inc, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Marc Marshall Carlton , LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, Randy
J. Aliment -- Randy.Aliment@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS
BISGAARD & SMITH LLP & Rachel Tallon Reynolds --
Rachel.Reynolds@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &
SMITH LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, a Delaware corporation & General
Electric Company, a New York corporation, Defendants, represented
by Christopher S. Marks -- cmarks@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE
LLP & Erin P. Fraser -- efraser@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE
LLP.

Genuine Parts Company, a Georgia corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jeanne F. Loftis -- jeanne.loftis@bullivant.com --
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC & Megan Uhle -- megan.uhle@bullivant.com
-- BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC.

Henry Company LLC, a California corporation, Defendant, represented
by Daira S. Waldenberg -- dwaldenberg@selmanlaw.com -- SELMAN
BRIETMAN LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Kristine E. Kruger -- KKruger@perkinscoie.com --
PERKINS COIE & Mary Z. Gaston -- MGaston@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS
COIE.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant,
represented by Kevin J. Craig -- kcraig@grsm.com -- GORDON REES
SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP, Mark B. Tuvim -- mtuvim@grsm.com -- GORDON
REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP, Peter W. Sheehan, Jr. --
peter.sheehan@nelsonmullins.com -- NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH LLP, pro hac vice & Trevor J. Mohr -- tmohr@grsm.com --
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP.

National Automotive Parts Association, a Georgia corporation,
Defendant, represented by Megan Uhle -- megan.uhle@bullivant.com --
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC.

O’Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc, an Ohio corporation, Defendant,
represented by Stephen Garrett Leatham , HEURLIN POTTER JAHN,
LEATHAM, HOLTMAN & STOKER PS.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation, an Ohio corporation, Defendant,
represented by Diane Catherine Babbitt --
dbabbitt@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD, Howard (Terry) I.
Hall -- thall@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD, J. Scott
Wood -- swood@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD & R. Dirk
Bernhardt , FOLEY & MANSFIELD.

Pneumo Abex, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Diane J. Kero -- dkero@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.

Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation,
Defendant, represented by John Michael Mattingly --
mmattingly@rizzopc.com -- RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC & Kevin
Clonts -- kclonts@rizzopc.com -- RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc, a California corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jose Edward Gaitan , THE GAITAN GROUP, Virginia
Leeper , THE GAITAN GROUP & John Earl Lenker , THE GAITAN GROUP
PLLC.

WW Henry Company LP, a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant,
represented by Gary T. Tandberg -- gary.tandberg@wilsonelser.com --
WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER, pro hac vice, Jeff Bone --
jbone@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN, LLP, William Randolph Squires,
III -- rsquires@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN, LLP, Kevin C.
Baumgardner -- kbaumgardner@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN, LLP &
Robert G. Engel -- robert.engel@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON ELSER
MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER.

Toyota Motor Corporation, a Japanese corporation, Defendant,
represented by John Earl Lenker , THE GAITAN GROUP PLLC & Virginia
Leeper , THE GAITAN GROUP.

DCO LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael Edward Ricketts --
mricketts@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Klopman-Baerselman to Amend Notice of Deposition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case entitled Eric Klopman-Baerselman, as Personal
Representative for the Estate of Rudie Klopman-Baerselman,
deceased, Plaintiff, v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-05536-RJB, (W.D. Wash.), Plaintiff
served O'Reilly with a notice of deposition requiring O'Reilly Auto
Enterprises, LLC to designate a FRCP 30(b)(6) corporate
representative, containing 52 topics of examination.

O'Reilly filed a Motion for Protective Order, arguing that "the
scope of plaintiff's notice of deposition is impossibly broad,
unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of this case.
The Court should issue a protective order, limiting the scope of
the upcoming deposition as requested in this motion."

Judge Robert J. Bryan of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington said that he will not issue a protective
order at this time, but rather, he selected several topics that
needs Plaintiff's amendment. He directed Plaintiff to amend and
serve on O'Reilly the notice of deposition in conformity with these
guidelines:

      (A) Topic 4: O'Reilly's corporate history and business,
including the dates of inception; the asbestos containing products
it manufactured, distributed, and sold; the brands of brakes,
clutches, and gaskets it sold; the identity of its suppliers of
brakes, clutches, and gaskets; the quantity of brakes, clutches,
and gaskets it purchased and sold each year before 2003; the scope
of its business; the locations of its business; the locations of
production, distribution, and sale; yearly revenue from its
business before 2003; O'Reilly's total revenue from the years when
it was selling and distributing asbestos-containing brakes,
clutches, and/or gaskets; and O'Reilly's business relationship with
CSK Auto -- the Court noted that Topic 4 is overbroad, unduly
burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Portions
of Topic 4 appear to relate to all of O'Reilly's business activity,
regardless of its relationship, if any, to asbestos-containing
products or a particular geographic region or certain store
locations, which leaves O'Reilly, and the Court, to speculate.

      (B) Topic 7: The brands of brakes, clutches, and gaskets
Schucks sold before 2003 -- the Court found that Topic 7 lacks
reasonable particularity because it has no clear date range.
Moreover, the Court observed that Schucks was apparently founded in
1917, which may raise concerns of relevancy and proportionality.

      (C) Topics 8, 12-22, and 24: Sales Activity Topics -- these
topics are overbroad and lack reasonable particularity for having
no date range or an unclear date range.

      (D) Topics 25-26: O'Reilly's knowledge and understanding of
discovery and court orders -- these topics lack reasonable
particularity and are overbroad, not proportional to the needs of
the case, and not reasonably related to Plaintiff's claims.
Plaintiff argued these topics are necessary because "Plaintiff
believes that O'Reilly has perpetrated a fraud on the court and on
Plaintiff by repeatedly providing willfully false and misleading
responses to written discovery that directly contradict its prior
sworn testimony." However, the Court would only consider
Plaintiff's allegation by a motion. The Court would not allow
Plaintiff to subject O'Reilly to these overbroad topics.

      (E) Topic 28: O'Reilly's knowledge and understanding
regarding its purchase of CSK Auto, including the amount of money
it paid for CSK, all investigation and due diligence it performed
before purchasing the company, and the location and substance of
any documents it reviewed before purchasing CSK -- this topic is
overbroad and lacks reasonable particularity, especially its vague
reference to "all investigation and due diligence." Moreover, the
breadth of this topic does not appear proportional to the needs of
this case.

      (F) Topic 36-38: O'Reilly's corporate values and codes of
conduct, including its positions, beliefs, and opinions regarding
safety, public health, compliance with federal law, compliance with
state law, providing clean and safe products, conducting business
in an open and fair way, clarity and transparency in communication
and disclosure, moral obligations to customers, conscientiousness,
common sense, caring, doing what's right, warnings that clearly
provide the necessary information to the user, and the principle of
safe design -- this is overbroad and lacks reasonable
particularity, for instance, it is substantially unclear what
Plaintiff means by O'Reilly's "positions, beliefs, and opinions
regarding... caring, doing what's right."

      (G) Topics 40 & 41: The locations where O'Reilly's &
Schucks's businesses operated -- these topics lack particularity
because they have no date range. Moreover, they are overbroad and
not proportional to the needs of the case. The topics have no
geographical limitations related to Plaintiff's claims or to the
stores in Camas and Vancouver.

      (H) Topic 49: O'Reilly's knowledge, contentions, and opinions
regarding Rudie Klopman-Baerselman, his disease, his treatment, his
life, his exposures to asbestos, his family, his wife, his
children, his death, and this lawsuit -- this topic is overbroad
and lacks reasonable particularity. For example, a question
concerning O'Reilly's opinion on the life of Rudie
Klopman-Baerselman is almost boundless.

A copy of the Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4rxqpb8
from Leagle.com.

Rudie Klopman-Baerselman, deceased & Muriel Klopman-Baerselman,
husband and wife, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexandra B. Caggiano
, WEINSTEIN CAGGIANO PLLC & Brian Weinstein , WEINSTEIN CAGGIANO
PLLC.

Eric Klopman-Baerselman, as Personal Representative for the Rudie
Klopman-Baerselman, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra B. Caggiano
, WEINSTEIN CAGGIANO PLLC, Benjamin H. Adams -- badams@dobllp.com
-- DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, pro hac vice & Brian Weinstein ,
WEINSTEIN CAGGIANO PLLC.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation,
individually, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Craig --
kcraig@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP, Mark B. Tuvim
-- mtuvim@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP & Trevor J.
Mohr -- tmohr@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP.

Borg Warner Morse Tec, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Richard D. Ross -- rross@bbllaw.com -- BENNETT
BIGELOW & LEEDOM.

CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Viacom, Inc. successor in
interest CBS Corporation formerly known as Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher S. Marks --
mjohnson@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP, Erin P. Fraser --
efraser@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP & Malika Johnson --
mjohnson@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP.

Cost Less Auto Parts, Inc., a Washington corporation, Defendant,
represented by Howard (Terry) I. Hall -- thall@foleymansfield.com
-- FOLEY & MANSFIELD & Diane Catherine Babbitt --
dbabbitt@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD.

Crosby Valve Inc, a Massachusetts corporation & Viad Corporation, a
Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Ronald C. Gardner
-- rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, sued as successor in
interest Felt-Products Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by
Christine E. Dinsdale , SOHA & LANG PS, Frances Lopez  --
flopez@hpylaw.com -- HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP, pro hac
vice & Rachel A. Rubin , SOHA & LANG PS.

Flowserve US Inc, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Marc Marshall Carlton , LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, Randy
J. Aliment -- Randy.Aliment@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS
BISGAARD & SMITH LLP & Rachel Tallon Reynolds --
Rachel.Reynolds@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &
SMITH LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, a Delaware corporation & General
Electric Company, a New York corporation, Defendants, represented
by Christopher S. Marks -- cmarks@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE
LLP & Erin P. Fraser -- efraser@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE
LLP.

Genuine Parts Company, a Georgia corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jeanne F. Loftis -- jeanne.loftis@bullivant.com --
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC & Megan Uhle -- megan.uhle@bullivant.com
-- BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC.

Henry Company LLC, a California corporation, Defendant, represented
by Daira S. Waldenberg -- dwaldenberg@selmanlaw.com -- SELMAN
BRIETMAN LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Kristine E. Kruger -- KKruger@perkinscoie.com --
PERKINS COIE & Mary Z. Gaston -- MGaston@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS
COIE.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant,
represented by Kevin J. Craig -- kcraig@grsm.com -- GORDON REES
SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP, Mark B. Tuvim -- mtuvim@grsm.com -- GORDON
REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP, Peter W. Sheehan, Jr. --
peter.sheehan@nelsonmullins.com -- NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH LLP, pro hac vice & Trevor J. Mohr -- tmohr@grsm.com --
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP.

National Automotive Parts Association, a Georgia corporation,
Defendant, represented by Megan Uhle -- megan.uhle@bullivant.com --
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC.

O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc, an Ohio corporation, Defendant,
represented by Stephen Garrett Leatham , HEURLIN POTTER JAHN,
LEATHAM, HOLTMAN & STOKER PS.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation, an Ohio corporation, Defendant,
represented by Diane Catherine Babbitt --
dbabbitt@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD, Howard (Terry) I.
Hall -- thall@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD, J. Scott
Wood -- swood@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD & R. Dirk
Bernhardt , FOLEY & MANSFIELD.

Pneumo Abex, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Diane J. Kero -- dkero@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.

Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation,
Defendant, represented by John Michael Mattingly --
mmattingly@rizzopc.com -- RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC & Kevin
Clonts -- kclonts@rizzopc.com -- RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc, a California corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jose Edward Gaitan , THE GAITAN GROUP, Virginia
Leeper , THE GAITAN GROUP & John Earl Lenker , THE GAITAN GROUP
PLLC.

WW Henry Company LP, a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant,
represented by Gary T. Tandberg -- gary.tandberg@wilsonelser.com --
WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER, pro hac vice, Jeff Bone --
jbone@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN, LLP, William Randolph Squires,
III -- rsquires@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN, LLP, Kevin C.
Baumgardner -- kbaumgardner@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN, LLP &
Robert G. Engel -- robert.engel@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON ELSER
MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER.

Toyota Motor Corporation, a Japanese corporation, Defendant,
represented by John Earl Lenker , THE GAITAN GROUP PLLC & Virginia
Leeper , THE GAITAN GROUP.

DCO LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael Edward Ricketts --
mricketts@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kodak Escapes Insurer's Claims
-----------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that a New York bankruptcy judge found that Eastman
Kodak Co.'s duty to indemnify Travelers Indemnity Co. for asbestos
claims against a defunct subsidiary ended when Kodak emerged from
bankruptcy in 2014, calling the insurer's arguments to the contrary
"nonsense."

Kodak asked the Bankruptcy Court to reopen its Chapter 11 case for
the limited purpose of considering its request to enforce the Plan
and Confirmation Order, including the discharge and injunction
provisions.  According to Kodak, asbestos litigation matters are
currently pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Seventh Judicial District, Monroe County, for which at least
Travelers has affirmatively asserted that the Reorganized Debtor is
responsible for defending and indemnifying Travelers.

According to Travelers, the issue is already moot because Travelers
satisfied itself that Ridge, which is named in the lawsuits, is a
predecessor of Kodak and that no claim currently is being asserted
against Travelers by Ridge or anyone else in the Ridge lawsuits.
Travelers have withdrawn its request for defense and indemnity from
Kodak.

Travelers further argued that the 1998 Agreement of Settlement and
Release was not an executory contract, was not rejected in Kodak's
bankruptcy case, and thus still remains in full force and effect.

At a hearing, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Michael Wiles rejected
Traveler's arguments that he should hold off on ruling on Kodak's
request for an injunction until more facts are available about the
claims being made against the photo company's long-gone
construction affiliate, saying Kodak's liability under a
pre-Chapter 11 settlement could not have survived the end of the
bankruptcy case.

Judge Wiles ruled, "Travelers and Lumbermens are permanently
enjoined and barred from asserting claims for indemnification and
defense against the Reorganized Debtor based on the Settlement
Agreements . . . This injunction and bar applies, without
limitation, to any suit, proceeding, action, litigation or
arbitration, brought in law or equity, brought in court or
otherwise."

A full-text copy of the Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y5c6na85 from PacerMonitor.com at no charge.

Eastman Kodak is represented by:

     Pauline K. Morgan, Esq.
     Sean T. Greecher, Esq.
     YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
     1270 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2210
     New York, New York 10020
     Telephone: (212) 332-8840
     Facsimile: (212) 332-8855

Attorneys for The Travelers Indemnity Company and Travelers
Casualty and Surety Company:

     Evan Glassman, Esq.
     Filiberto Agusti, Esq.
     STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
     1330 Connecticut Ave., NW
     Washington, DC 20036
     Tel: (202) 429-3000
     Facsimile: (202) 261-0658
     Email: eglassman@steptoe.com
            fagusti@steptoe.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Still Faces 575 Lawsuits at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc. continues to defend itself against approximately
575 lawsuits involving approximately 1,151 claims as of June 30,
2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits that
plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that
exposure to asbestos allegedly caused.  Plaintiffs and their family
members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of
defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,
distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos
containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly
caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos.  These plaintiffs
typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of
third-party manufactured products that our MRC Global (US) Inc.
subsidiary purportedly distributed.

"As of June 30, 2019, we are named a defendant in approximately 575
lawsuits involving approximately 1,151 claims.  No asbestos lawsuit
has resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a majority
being settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved.  Applicable
third-party insurance has substantially covered these claims, and
insurance should continue to cover a substantial majority of
existing and anticipated future claims.  Accordingly, we have
recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement
of asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/he5AK2


ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Louis Jurors Award Former Mechanic $8.4MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record,
reported that a St. Louis jury awarded a former mechanic and his
wife $8.433 million in an asbestos trial against Ford Motor
Company.

The jury reached a verdict in favor of plaintiffs Al and Pam
Bennett on Aug. 22 in Judge Christopher McGaugh's courtroom.

Jurors awarded Al Bennett $5,725,000 in actual damages and $2
million in punitive damages. They also awarded Pam Bennett $708,000
in actual damages, finding that she "did sustain damage as a direct
result of injury to her husband."

In an Aug. 30 order, the verdict was reduced by $1,497,500 for
set-offs. As a result, Al Bennett was awarded $4,392,311.13 in
actual damages and $2 million in punitive damages. Pam Bennett was
awarded $543,188.87 in actual damages.

The Bennetts were represented by Chris Layloff and Jason Steinmeyer
of Gori Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.

Ford Motor Company was represented at trial by Sherry Ann Rozell,
Brita Cantrell and Steve Ward of McAfee & Taft, according to the
docket sheet.

"Chris and I couldn't be more honored to represent Al and Pam,"
Steinmeyer stated in a press release following the verdict.
"Although Al is currently suffering from pleural mesothelioma, we
hope that this sizable verdict will help him and his family find
some peace during this difficult time."

Bennett was born and raised in St. Louis. He had been employed as a
mechanic at Ford, Mercury and Lincoln automobile dealerships from
the 1960s until the 1980s.

According to his complaint, Bennett was allegedly exposed to
asbestos fibers by working with brakes, gaskets, clutches and OEM
replacement parts. Bennett later developed pleural mesothelioma in
his right lung.

Following retirement, Bennett moved to South County, where he
currently resides and seeks treatment.

According to a press release, Al Bennett was undergoing treatment
and was unable to attend trial. Pam Bennett attended on his
behalf.

"Chris and Jason are always fighting tirelessly for their clients,
and this case is no exception," founding partner Randy Gori stated.
"I'm extremely proud of our team and their effort in obtaining
justice for Mr. and Mrs. Bennett."

"We're happy to achieve justice for our clients, especially
wonderful people like Al and Pam," Layloff stated. "Hopefully this
verdict serves as a lesson for companies large and small; when
companies do wrong, they should expect to face justice."

According to asbestos filing numbers reported by Washington-based
consulting group KCIC, Gori Julian filed the most asbestos cases in
the nation with 348 cases at mid-year. Compared to last year, the
firm filed 306 cases at mid-year in 2018, representing a 13.7
percent increase.

St. Louis City Circuit Court is ranked as the fourth largest
asbestos docket in the nation, with Madison County remaining the
largest asbestos docket in the country. In St. Louis, mid-year
filings show an increase of 75 percent with 117 filed this year.
There were 67 asbestos cases filed at mid-year in 2018.

The Plaintiffs' counsel can be reached at:

     Christopher Layloff, Esq.
     Jason Steinmeyer, Esq.
     Gori Julian & Associates PC
     Edwardsville, IL
     Email: clayloff@gorijulianlaw.com
            jsteinmeyer@gorijulianlaw.com

Defendant Ford Motor Company's counsel can be reached at:

     Sherry Ann Rozell, Esq.
     Brita Cantrell, Esq.
     Steve Ward, Esq.
     McAfee & Taft
     Williams Center Tower II
     Two W. Second Street, Suite 1100
     Tulsa, OK 74103
     Tel: (918) 587-0000
     Fax: (918) 599-9317
     Email: sherry.rozell@mcafeetaft.com
            brita.cantrell@mcafeetaft.com
            steve.ward@mcafeetaft.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Appeals New Burden in Calif. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that it is pursuing "all rights of appeal"
regarding the February 2019 amended court verdict that increased
the Company's responsibility in an asbestos liability case in
California.  

The Company states, "In accordance with our policy of performing an
annual actuarial evaluation in the third quarter of each year, and
whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that
additional provisions may be necessary, an actuarial study was
performed as of August 31, 2018.  The results of the August 31,
2018 study included an estimate of our undiscounted liability for
settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages,
excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from insurance
carriers, ranging from US$37.1 million to US$56.9 million for the
period through 2061.  Based upon the results of the August 31, 2018
actuarial study, in September 2018 we increased our asbestos
liability to US$37.1 million, the low end of the range, and
recorded an incremental pre-tax provision of US$3.5 million in
earnings (loss) from discontinued operations.

"During 2018, we were involved in an asbestos liability case in
California, in which a jury returned a verdict, in November 2018,
in favor of the plaintiff for the gross amount of US$8.6 million in
compensatory damages.  Of this amount, we were held responsible for
approximately US$7.4 million.  In February 2019, the court amended
the verdict on the judgment, thereby increasing our responsibility
to approximately US$7.6 million.  We are pursuing all rights of
appeal.  While the verdict is being appealed, interest will accrue
at a rate of ten percent (10%) per annum.

"As a result of the California asbestos liability case, in the
fourth quarter of 2018, our actuarial firm revised the results of
the August 31, 2018 study.  The results of the revised actuarial
study increased the low end of the estimated range of our
undiscounted liability for settlement payments and awards of
asbestos-related damages, excluding legal costs and any potential
recovery from insurance carriers, from US$37.1 million to US$46.7
million, and increased the high end of the range from US$56.9
million to US$83.9 million for the period through 2061.  Based upon
the results of the revised actuarial study, in December 2018, and
in accordance with our practice, we increased our asbestos
liability to US$46.7 million, the low end of the range, and
recorded an additional incremental pre-tax provision of US$10.1
million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations.  Future
legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported in
earnings (loss) from discontinued operations, are estimated,
according to the revised study, to range from US$45 million to
US$83.1 million.

"We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the third
quarter of each year for the foreseeable future and whenever events
or changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may
be necessary.  Given the uncertainties associated with projecting
such matters into the future and other factors outside our control,
we can give no assurance that additional provisions will not be
required.  We will continue to monitor events and changes in
circumstances surrounding these potential liabilities in
determining whether to perform additional actuarial evaluations and
whether additional provisions may be necessary.  At the present
time, however, we do not believe that any additional provisions
would be reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our
liquidity or consolidated financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/lXCvp9


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 1,540 Fibro Cases at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 1,540 cases were outstanding at June 30, 2019, for
which Standard Motor Products, Inc., may be responsible for any
related liabilities in connection to its former brake business,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation in the accompanying statement of operations.
When we originally acquired this brake business, we assumed future
liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business.
In accordance with the related purchase agreement, we agreed to
assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after
September 2001.  Our ultimate exposure will depend upon the number
of claims filed against us on or after September 2001, and the
amounts paid for settlements, awards of asbestos-related damages,
and defense of such claims.

"At June 30, 2019, approximately 1,540 cases were outstanding for
which we may be responsible for any related liabilities.  Since
inception in September 2001 through June 30, 2019, the amounts paid
for settled claims are approximately US$29.8 million.  We do not
have insurance coverage for the indemnity and defense costs
associated with the claims we face."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/lXCvp9


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 366 Pending Cases at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation has 366 pending asbestos-related personal injury
cases as of June 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "As of June 30, 2019, the Company was a party
to 366 pending cases involving an aggregate of 4,806 claims
primarily alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated
and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of its
subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical, refining and
exploration industries.

"In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition.  The Company believes that many of its
pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were
distributed or used.

"The Company may be subjected to significant additional
asbestos-related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases
in which product identification can be made may increase, and the
Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors.  The Company is
unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary
claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things,
claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without
specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or
maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter
the amount sought.  The large majority of claims do not specify the
amount sought.

"Of the 4,806 claims pending at June 30, 2019, 61 set forth
specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the statutory
minimum or maximum).  At June 30, 2019, of the 61 claims that set
forth specific amounts, there were no claims seeking specific
amounts for punitive damages.

"In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the
discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery
stage.

"Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 25 years ago, have been
approximately US$9.2 million.  All relief sought in the asbestos
cases is monetary in nature.  To date, approximately 40% of the
Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos
litigation have been covered by its primary insurance.  Effective
February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-place
agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the
coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims
when the primary insurance is exhausted.  The coverage-in-place
agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity insurance
coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed
by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration
of such expenses.  The Company's primary insurance exhausted in
November 2018, and the Company will be solely responsible for
defense costs and indemnity payments prior to the commencement of
coverage under this agreement, the duration of which would be
subject to the scope of damage awards and settlements paid.

"Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims
dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the
Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not
bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability.  Based
upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in
annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other
available information (including the availability of excess
insurance), the Company does not believe these cases will have a
material adverse effect on its financial position and results of
operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/CTdsnE


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weil Atty Closing Remarks in J&J Talc Trial Struck
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that a New Jersey judge struck the entire closing
argument of a Johnson & Johnson attorney who told a jury that
"lawsuit fiction" dominated claims by four mesothelioma victims,
giving the Weil Gotshal partner a stern rebuke about her conduct.

Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Anna C. Viscomi struck the
closing argument of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP's Diane Sullivan, who
repeatedly suggested during her summation that attorneys of the
four plaintiffs "created" evidence to back their claims that they
developed terminal cancer from using the company's talcum powder.

Ms. Sullivan can be reached at:

     Diane P. Sullivan, Esq.
     Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
     Tel: (609) 986-1120
     Email: diane.sullivan@weil.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Had 800 PI Suits at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------
WestRock Company is still facing approximately 800 personal injury
lawsuits related to asbestos matters as of June 30, 2019, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "We have been named a defendant in
asbestos-related personal injury litigation.  To date, the costs
resulting from the litigation, including settlement costs, have not
been significant.  As of June 30, 2019, there were approximately
800 such lawsuits.  We believe that we have substantial insurance
coverage, subject to applicable deductibles and policy limits, with
respect to asbestos claims.

"We also have valid defenses to these asbestos-related personal
injury claims and intend to continue to defend them vigorously.
Should the volume of litigation grow substantially, it is possible
that we could incur significant costs resolving these cases.  We do
not expect the resolution of pending asbestos litigation and
proceedings to have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows.  In any given period
or periods, however, it is possible such proceedings or matters
could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations,
financial condition or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/IYpwdJ



                            *********

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 ***