CAR_Public/190715.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 15, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 140

                            Headlines

208 TAVERN INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Argueta et al. Say
AIR LINE PILOTS: Must Face Pilot Instructors' Class Action
AIR METHODS: Armato Sues over Contract Violations
AKORN INC: Gabelli Moves to Certify Class in Securities Suit
AMERICAN HONDA: Averts Class Action Over Dealership Supervision

ANOVOS: Faces Fraud Class Action Over Missing Merchandise
AO SMITH: July 29 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
APPLE INC: iOS Developers File Class Action Over App Store Fees
APPLIED SERVICES: Thompson Seeks Conditional Class Certification
ARRAY BIOPHARMA: Kent Challenges Merger Deal with Pfizer

BANK OF AMERICA: Court Denies Class Cert. in Lopez Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Young Sues over Unauthorized Text Messages
BANKSA: In Talks to Resolve Samra Ponzi Scheme Class Action
BIG RIVER: 8th Cir. Vacates Attorney's Fees Disapproval in Barbee
BLOSSOM WEST: Tarax et al Seek OT Pay for Restaurant Staff

BOSE: Seeks Dismissal of Wiretapping, Eavesdropping Class Action
BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Dismissal Bid in Jarquin Suit
BP EXPLORATION: Court OKs Dismissal Bid in Rabalais
BRIGGS RENTALS: Hays et al Seek Minimum & OT Premium Pay
BROUSSEAU MANAGEMENT: Leja Seeks to Certify Class Under FLSA

BUCKS COUNTY, PA: To Appeal Jury Verdict in CHRIA Class Action
CANADA: Farmers to Launch Class Action Over Handling of CWB File
CASTLE PARKING: Faces Evanston Insurance Suit in N.D. Georgia
CEMTREX INC: Court Approves Securities Class Action Settlement
CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE: Wins Prelim. OK of Raquedan Settlement

CHARLESTON, SC: Coastal Conservation League Files Class Action
CHASE BANK: Sued Over Interest on Credit Card Pain in Full
CHUY'S OPCO: Humphrey Seeks Proper OT Pay for Assistant Managers
CICERO, IL: Class of Female Detainees Certified in Adair Suit
CLOUDERA INC: Faces Franchi Suit over 53% Drop in Share Price

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in Tennessee
CORTEVA, INC: Thondukolam et al. Sue over DuPont Retirement Plan
COSTA DEL MAR: Class Certification of Buyers of Sunglasses Sought
DETROIT PROPERTY: James Moves to Certify Class of Property Buyers
DISH NETWORK: 4th Cir. Affirms $61MM Damages in TCPA Class Action

DOUGLAS PARKING: Underpays Parking Attendants, Bang Alleges
DUKE UNIVERSITY: Court OKs $10.65MM Settlement in ERISA Suits
ELASTOS FOUNDATION: Removes Owen et al. Suit to S.D. New York
EVENTBRITE: Judge Tosses Ticketfly Hack Class Action
FIRST AMERICAN: Faces Forney et al. Suit over Data Breach

FOUR SEASONS: Court Narrows Claims in C. Zyda's UMOC Suit
FOX RUN: Faces Class Action in New York Over ADA Violation
GALVIS & MUSA CORP: Franco Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay
GENERAL MOTORS: Campos et al. Sue over Defective Motor Vehicle
GREATCALL: Recalls MobilePlus Devices Amid Class Action

GRUBHUB: Faces Class Action in Philadelphia Over Hidden Fees
GRUBHUB: Seeks Dismissal of Philadelphia Class Action
HASBRO INC: Removes Erler et al. Suit to N.D. Georgia
HERON THERAPEUTICS: Aug. 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
HOME DEPOT: McGuireWoods Attorneys Discuss Supreme Court Ruling

HOMELAND SECURITY: Sued over Redetermination Memo on Alien Kids
HVG: Defends Alucobond PE-Core Cladding Class Action in Australia
ICAN BENEFIT: Policy Exclusion Relieves Insurer from Class Action
ILLINOIS: Ford's Amended Complaint May Proceed, Says Court
ITS NATIONAL: Deweese Settlement Has Final Court Approval

JANNSEN PHARMA: Oct. 21 Trial Date Set for Opioid Class Action
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES: Can Appeal Ruling in Sexual Assault Lawsuit
JMR LANDSCAPING: Zuniga Moves to Certify Class of Employees
JP MORGAN: Settles Class Action Over Parental Leave Policy
JPMORGANCHASE: Sends Forced Arbitration Email to Customers

JUUL: Alabama Teens File E-Cigarette Addiction Class Action
KIA MOTORS: Faces Galvan Suit over Defective GDI Engine
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Removes Tanious Suit to C.D. California
LIVENT CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
MACY'S INC: Underpays Sales Associates, Ghalbi Fouladbazou Say

METRO BANK: Kahn Swick Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
MICHAEL KORS (USA): Faces Chu ADA Suit in N.D. California
MICHAEL T. ANGELO: Fla. App. Flips Class Certification in Parker
MONARCH RECOVERY: Jones et al Sue over Misleading Collection Letter
MONCTON HOSPITAL: Nurse Refute Allegations in Class Action

MONSANTO CO: Carbone Lawyers Files Roundup Weedkiller Lawsuit
MONSANTO COMPANY: Austin et al Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MOVE INC: Court Grants NAR's Bid to Dismiss Silverman TCPA Suit
NAT'L ASSOCIATION: Class Action to Impact Traditional Brokerages
NATIONAL INDEMNITY: 8th Circuit Appeal Initiated in Muri FLSA Suit

NATIONWIDE LIFE: Brown Moves for Certification of Two Classes
NIANTIC: Submits Revised Pokemon Go Settlement for Approval
NIO INC: Faces Donlon Suit over 50% Drop in Share Price
NIPPON YUSEN: Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing Can Proceed
NPSG GLOBAL: Court Denies Amended Discovery Plan in Reese

OHIO HOSPICE: Spano Moves to Expand CNAs Class Definition
ON MY OWN: Hartley Case Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute
P.E.I.: Class Action Over Disability Support Program Can Proceed
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Serio Sues over Debt Collection Practices
POST UNIVERSITY: Davis Moves for Certification of TCPA Class

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Rogge et al. Suit Over Data Breach
RAUSCH STURM: Johnson Sues over Debt Collection Practices
REVLON: Class Actions Pile Up Over SAP ERP System Error
RIO TINTO: New York Court Dismisses Investor Class Action
S&S UTILITIES: Morgan Seeks Nod to Send Notice to Laborers Class

SKECHERS USA: Employees Class Certified Under FLSA in Wilk Suit
SKYLINE STEEL: Holguin et al. Suit Transferred to D. Ariz.
SOUTHERN CABLE: Allied Bid to Quash Wallace Case Subpoena Denied
SPRINT: Faces Class Action Over Buy One Get One Cellphone Offer
STATE EMPLOYEE'S ASSOC: Doughty Appeals Dismissal Order to 1st Cir.

SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Court Consolidates Holloway Suit With Butler
SUPERVALU: 8th Cir. Affirms Data Breach Class Action Decision
TAIWAN KAI: Aug. 6 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
TAKEDA PHARMA: Appeal in Painters' Fund Class Suit Still Pending
TAKEDA PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Actos-Related Suit in NY Pending

TAKEDA PHARMA: Class Suit over ELAPRASE Tests Underway in Brazil
TAKEDA PHARMA: Faces 3 Proton Pump Inhibitor Class Suits in Canada
TECHPRECISION CORP: Discovery Extended to July 22 in Suit v. Ranor
TIME INC: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Subscriptions
TIVITY HEALTH: OK Firefighters Seek Class Cert. in Weiner Suit

TO-RISE LLC: Seeks Prelim. Approval of Lora Suit Settlement
TOYOTA: $33.6MM Power-Sliding Door Class Action Settlement Okayed
TREASURY WINE: Court Grants Costs of Stayed Class Action
U.S. SUGAR: Class Action Calls for End of Sugarcane Burns
UBS PAINEWEBBER: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Class Action

UMB BANK: Garrett Seeks to Certify Class of Loan Originators
UNIFUND CCR: Knaak Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco
UNITED STATES: Faces Driever Suit over Inmates' Civil Rights
UNITED STATES: Sued for Discriminating Against Asylum-Seekers
UNITED STATES: Westbrook Suit Transferred to District of Nevada

UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses M. Dane's CUTPA Suit
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Seeks Transfer of Class Action to Massachusetts
VITAL ONE: Court OKs Filing of Amended Answer in Dickey Suit
VOLUME SERVICES: Wins Prelim. Nod of Settlement in Raquedan Suit
VULTIK, INC: Fails to Produce Viable Client Leads, Wilshire Says

WAGEWORKS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Cal.
[*] Three Dozen Canadian Airports May Face Class Action Over Fees
[*] U.S. Class Action Litigation Spending Hits Highest Level

                            *********

208 TAVERN INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Argueta et al. Say
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO ARGUETA; EFRAIN CHAVARRIA; and LENIN HERNANDEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. 208 TAVERN, INC.; BRAND TAVERN, INC.; HARUTYUN
HARUTYUNYAN; TIGRAN AZATIAN; MINAS JEGALIAN; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV20549 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., June 11, 2019) is an action against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize
and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements,
and reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly paid,
non-exempt employees.

208 Tavern, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of California. The Company is engaged in the
lodging and restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Pouya B. Chami, Esq.
          CHAMI LAW, PC
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 484-5001
          Facsimile: (310) 484-5002
          E-mail: pchami@chamilaw.com


AIR LINE PILOTS: Must Face Pilot Instructors' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
DM Herra, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a federal
judge has grounded an airline pilots' union's efforts to dodge a
class-action lawsuit by arguing the claims brought by the suit
expired while the case was on appeal, and the class action over pay
owed to pilot instructors will continue.

U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman denied the Air Line Pilots
Association International's motion to end the lawsuit, and instead
certified the class of pilot instructors, as sought by named
plaintiffs David Bishop and Eric Lish in the six-year-old case.

The lawsuit stems from a 2012 collective bargaining agreement
between ALPA and United Continental Holdings, which employed pilots
for both Continental Airlines and United Airlines. As part of the
agreement, United Continental paid $400 million in retroactive pay
to compensate union members for raises they would have received had
the contract negotiations not taken two years.

ALPA developed a formula to distribute $225 million allocated to
United pilots between several pilot groups, including line pilots,
management pilots and pilot instructors. According to Bishop and
Lish, the formula unfairly favored line pilots. A class of
management pilots settled with ALPA on charges the union breached
its duty of fair representation. The court initially rejected the
pilot instructor subclass, but that decision was rejected by the
U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and sent back to Feinerman's
courtroom for further hearings.

ALPA asked the court to strike the class allegations as time
barred. According to the union, absent class members' opportunity
to join the action ended when the subclass was denied and the
six-month statute of limitations for duty of fair representation
ended before the denial was reversed by the appellate court.

"The problem with ALPA's argument is that it loses sight of what a
statute of limitations is and when tolling matters," Feinerman
wrote. "Filing of a class action within the limitations period
satisfies the statute of limitations for all persons who are
'subsequently determined' to be class members, even if that
determination is made after a successful appeal."

Because the original class action was timely filed, the court
wrote, the statute of limitations could not run out while the case
was on appeal. Feinerman offered an explanation of the 1974 case
cited by the union in which absent class members were time barred
from intervening in a failed class action. In that case, the judge
wrote, the plaintiffs were not acting as a class but attempting to
intervene as individual plaintiffs, subjecting their claims to a
tolling period.

"Here, no member of the putative pilot instructor class has
attempted to intervene or to file her own individual suit or class
action," the court wrote. "Rather, all absent class members have
continued to prosecute their claims as part of this timely filed
class action suit. If the pilot instructor class is certified, that
timely filing will satisfy the statute of limitations."

Feinerman found that the class proposed by Bishop and Lish -- all
United pilots who worked as a United pilot instructor between Jan.
1, 2010, and Dec. 18, 2012 -- meets all the criteria for class
certification. Because ALPA offered no objection other than its
failed argument that the class was time barred, the court granted
class certification.

ALPA has been represented in this case by in-house counsel and by
attorneys with Cohen, Weiss & Simon of New York, Gladstein, Reif &
MeGinniss of New York, and Goldman, Ismael, Tomaselli, Brennan &
Baum of Chicago. [GN]


AIR METHODS: Armato Sues over Contract Violations
-------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Air Methods
Corporation, Inc. for alleged contract violations. The case is
captioned Armato v. Air Methods Corporation et al, Case No.
1:19-cv-01771-NRN (D. Colo., June 19, 2019). It is assigned to Hon.
Judge N. Reid Neureiter.

Headquartered in Englewood, Colorado, Air Methods Corporation is an
American privately owned helicopter operator. The air medical
division provides emergency medical services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard Joseph Burke, Esq.
     Quantum Legal LLC
     513 Central Avenue Suite 300
     Highland Park, IL 60035
     Telephone: (847) 433-4500
     Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
     E-mail: Richard@Qulegal.com

AKORN INC: Gabelli Moves to Certify Class in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiffs Gabelli & Co. Investment Advisors, Inc. and Gabelli
Funds, LLC, move to certify the action styled IN RE AKORN, INC.
DATA INTEGRITY SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-01713 (N.D.
Ill.), as a class action on behalf of this class:

     all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
     Akorn, Inc.'s common stock between November 3, 2016 and
     January 8, 2019, inclusive, and were damaged thereby.
     Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) other
     former and current directors and officers of Akorn, Inc.,
     including their families and affiliates; (iii) any
     investment funds, companies, partnerships, trusts or other
     entities controlled by or benefitting such excluded parties;
     and (iv) the legal representatives, heirs, successors or
     assigns of any such excluded party (the "Class").

The Lead Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives and to appoint Entwistle & Cappucci LLP as Class
Counsel and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as Class
Liaison Counsel.[CC]

The Lead Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          500 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1900-16
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 710-5960
          E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com

               - and -

          Joshua K. Porter, Esq.
          Brendan J. Brodeur, Esq.
          Andrew M. Sher, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10171
          Telephone: (212) 894-7200
          Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
          E-mail: jporter@entwistle-law.com
                  bbrodeur@entwistle-law.com
                  asher@entwistle-law.com

               - and -

          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
          Abe Alexander, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          875 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 373-3880
          E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com
                  johnr@blbglaw.com
                  abe.alexander@blbglaw.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Averts Class Action Over Dealership Supervision
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joey Pizzolato, writing for Auto Finance News, reports that
American Honda Finance Corp. has avoided a class-action claim that
it was culpable in negligent supervision of one of its dealership
partners, according to a unanimous opinion published by the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiff, Harvinder Singh, alleged
that the Auburn, Wash.-based dealer Hinshaw Honda did not provide
him with three add-on features. [GN]


ANOVOS: Faces Fraud Class Action Over Missing Merchandise
---------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Cullins, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that a
company that sells props and replicas of costumes from hit sci-fi
franchises including Star Wars, Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica
is being sued for fraud -- along with the studios who gave the
company permission to create the products -- for allegedly not
fulfilling presale orders.

A Louisiana man named Richard Dalton says he paid Anovos more than
$40,000 for merchandise but never received it, according to a
complaint filed on June 3 in California federal court. The items he
ordered include a Star Trek Spock replica blue tunic, a Star Wars:
The Force Awakens Kylo Ren costume with helmet and a $9,000
buildable replica of a starship. More than three years after his
first purchase, having never received his products, Dalton read an
explanation on the company's website. It said when products
experienced production delays, some customers would cancel orders
and fewer pre-orders led to an increase in the price of the raw
materials and per-unit cost as well as cancellation of items that
failed to meet the factory's minimums.

"Despite Anovos' inability to fulfill the hundreds, if not
thousands of pre-paid orders customers have already submitted,
Anovos continues to market and sell pre-order items on its website
and on social media in the same manner: requiring full upfront
costs of the items in addition to shipping," writes attorney Joshua
Swigart in the complaint, adding that the company in April
instituted an "all sales are final" policy.

Disney, NBCUniversal and CBS are also defendants in Dalton's class
action complaint, which estimates total damages will exceed $5
million. Dalton says the studios permitted Anovos to defraud
consumers by renewing their licensing agreements with the
companies.

The proposed class is currently defined as: "All consumers who paid
for a pre-order product(s) from Anovos and licensed by Disney,
NBCU, and/or CBS, and who have not received the product nor a
refund from January 1, 2016, through the present." [GN]


AO SMITH: July 29 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of A.O. Smith Corporation (NYSE: AOS)
from July 26, 2016 through May 16, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important July 29, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in
the class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for A.O.
Smith investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the A.O. Smith class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1575.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) A.O. Smith had undisclosed business connections and
entanglements with Jiangsu UTP Supply Chain ("UTP") through which
it funneled up to 75% of its China product sales; (2) A.O. Smith
had used UTP to engage in channel stuffing by artificially
inflating inventories purportedly sold through distributors that
were not based on consumer demand, thereby approximately doubling
the normal level of inventory at such distributors; (3) A.O. Smith
had used its UTP relationship to artificially inflate the sales
figures it reported to investors by as much as 8% and to conceal
worsening sales trends that A.O. Smith was experiencing in China;
(4) A.O. Smith's sales growth had been primarily in lower margin
products as its higher priced products were being undercut by
competition in "second-tier" Chinese cities, causing the Company to
experience significant market pressures; (5) A.O. Smith had
increased its cash reserves in China to over $530 million in
furtherance of its channel stuffing and sales manipulation scheme,
encumbering A.O. Smith's ability to repatriate the cash for use for
capital expenditures; and (6) as a result, A.O. Smith's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 29,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1575.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action

Contact:

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


APPLE INC: iOS Developers File Class Action Over App Store Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hardwick, writing for MacRumors, reports that Apple is facing a
new class-action lawsuit from iOS developers who claim that the
company uses its monopoly in the App Store to impose
"profit-killing" commissions.

Filed on June 4 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California in San Jose, the lawsuit argues that the
tech giant's practice of instating a 30 percent commission rate on
all app sales is anticompetitive and "sets the stage for Apple to
abuse its market power."

The suit also takes aim at Apple's minimum $0.99 price requirement
for paid apps in the App Store and in-app purchases, as well as the
annual $99 Apple Developer fee, calling these policies "especially
damaging to smaller and new developers."

"Between Apple's 30 percent cut of all App Store sales, the annual
fee of $99 and pricing mandates, Apple blatantly abuses its market
power to the detriment of developers, who are forced to use the
only platform available to them to sell their iOS app," said Steve
Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and attorney representing
the proposed class of developers. "In a competitive landscape, this
simply would not happen."

"The lawsuit seeks to force Apple to end its abusive monopoly and
allow competition in the distribution of iOS apps and related
products, to get rid of its pricing mandates, and to reimburse
developers for overcharges made through abuse of its monopoly
power."

"We think app developers should be rewarded fairly for their
creations, not over-taxed by a corporate giant," Berman said.
"After 11 years of monopoly conduct and profits, we think it's high
time that a court examine Apple's practices on behalf of iOS app
developers and take action as warranted by the law and facts."

Hagens Berman won a suit against Apple and various publishing
companies in 2016 that settled for a total of $560 million on
behalf of e-book purchasers, who said they were forced to pay
"artificially high prices due to Apple and the publishing
companies' colluded price-fixing." That suit went to the Supreme
Court, where the Court ruled against Apple.

The latest class action accuses Apple of violating federal
antitrust law and California's unfair competition law. [GN]


APPLIED SERVICES: Thompson Seeks Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JACK THOMPSON, Individually
and for Others Similarly Situated v. APPLIED SERVICES AUGMENTATION
PARTNERS, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00127-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C.), asks the
Court to grant conditional certification and authorize notice be
sent to the putative class members.

To facilitate the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act's
collective action provisions, Mr. Thompson asks that the Court
grant this Motion and (1) conditionally certify this action for
purposes of notice and discovery; (2) authorize judicial notice be
sent to all Putative Class Members ("straight time for overtime
workers"); (3) approve the Notice and Consent forms attached to his
Motion; (4) authorize the mailing and e-mailing of notice, along
with a reminder notice; (5) authorize Class Counsel to contact the
Putative Class Members by telephone/via text message or through a
reminder postcard if their mailed or emailed Notice and Consent
forms return undeliverable; (6) order ASAP to produce to Class
Counsel the contact information for each of the Putative Class
Members within 10 days of the Court's order; and (7) authorize a
sixty-day notice period for the Putative Class Members to join the
case.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Christopher Strianese, Esq.
          Tamara Huckert, Esq.
          STRIANESE HUCKERT LLP
          3501 Monroe Rd.
          Charlotte, NC 28205
          Telephone: (704) 966-2101
          E-mail: chris@strilaw.com
                  tamara@strilaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kevin Dalton, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
          227 West Trade Street, Suite 2020
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 334-4565
          Facsimile: (704) 334-9774
          E-mail: kdalton@fisherphillips.com


ARRAY BIOPHARMA: Kent Challenges Merger Deal with Pfizer
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Array BioPharma
Inc., its Board of Directors, Pfizer Inc., and Arlington
Acquisition Sub Inc. for alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The case is captioned MICHAEL KENT,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. ARRAY BIOPHARMA INC., CARRIE S. COX, CHARLES M. BAUM,
GWEN A. FYFE, KYLE A. LEFKOFF, JOHN A. ORWIN, SHALINI SHARP, RON
SQUARER, GIL J. VAN LUNSEN, PFIZER INC., and ARLINGTON ACQUISITION
SUB INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01248-UNA (D. Del., July 1,
2019).

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 17,
2019 pursuant to which Array will be acquired by Pfizer Inc. and
Arlington Acquisition Sub Inc. On June 28, 2019, defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in connection with the
proposed transaction. In this complaint, Plaintiff alleges that
that defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Solicitation
Statement that contained false and misleading material
information.

With respect to the forecasts for October 2018, June 2, 2019 and
June 14, 2019, the Solicitation Statement failed to disclose: (i)
all line items used to calculate EBIT; (ii) all line items used to
calculate unlevered free cash flow; and (iii) a reconciliation of
all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. The Solicitation Statement also
failed to disclose the results of the analyses performed by the
Array's financial advisor in connection with the proposed
transaction, Centerview Partners LLC. Further, the Solicitation
Statement failed to disclose whether the Array entered into any
confidentiality agreements that contained standstill and/or "don't
ask, don't waive" provisions that are or were preventing the
counterparties from submitting superior offers to acquire the
Array.

Array is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices at 3200 Walnut Street, Boulder, Colorado 80301.
Array’s common stock is traded on the NasdaqGM under the ticker
symbol “ARRY.” Array is a fully integrated biopharmaceutical
company focused on the discovery, development, and
commercialization of transformative and well-tolerated targeted
small molecule drugs to treat patients afflicted with cancer and
other high-burden diseases. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Telephone: (302) 295-5310
     Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
     E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
             bdl@rl-legal.com
             gms@rl-legal.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Denies Class Cert. in Lopez Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Vince Chhabria denied on predominance grounds the motion
for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure in the lawsuit captioned LAURA LOPEZ, et al. v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 3:18-cv-02346-VC (N.D. Cal.).

The evidence, including some of the Plaintiffs' own evidence, shows
that some of Bank of America's small business bankers spend over
half of their workdays inside the office, while some do not, Judge
Chhabria says.  California has chosen to use this metric as the
primary determinant of whether a salesperson is exempt from the
state's overtime laws.  Therefore, Judge Chhabria notes, some small
business bankers are properly classified as exempt, and some are
not.  And the only way to determine who falls into which camp is to
conduct an employee-by-employee assessment -- an individual
undertaking that precludes class certification, Judge Chhabria
opines.

"It's worth noting, however, that Bank of America's argument
against class certification is effectively a concession that it's
violating California law as to some of its small business bankers.
Nor does Bank of America appear to have any system in place for
ensuring that individual small business bankers are classified
properly.  The evidence suggests that the subset of bankers who are
misclassified could be substantial.  As a result, while it is not
appropriate to certify a damages class on the facts of this case,
it may well be appropriate to certify a class seeking injunctive
relief," Judge Chhabria wrote in the Order.

The administrative motion to file under seal is denied.  Judge
Chhabria notes that Bank of America did not submit a declaration
setting forth a justification for sealing the designated materials,
as required by the Local Rules.  Even if it had, Judge Chhabria
adds, it is highly unlikely that any portion of these documents
needs to be sealed -- and they certainly don't need to be sealed in
full.

The Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions is denied.  Judge Chhabria
opines that while Bank of America's discovery responses suggest a
degree of incompetence, it does not appear that it acted in bad
faith.

Bank of America's motion for a temporary restraining order is
denied.  Granting Mr. Wynne's assertion that he does not intend to
contact these putative class members (let alone their mothers) in
the future, the Bank's request for an injunction preventing such
contact is moot, according to the Order.

"And although Mr. Wynne's aggressive outreach almost certainly
crossed the line, it is unnecessary--at least at this juncture--to
address his adequacy as class counsel or otherwise impose
sanctions," Judge Chhabria concludes.[CC]


BANK OF AMERICA: Young Sues over Unauthorized Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., the Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-03867 (N.D. Cal., July 3, 2019), seeks to recover
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Bank of
America in sending text messages to Plaintiff on her cellular
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Jamie Young has not had an account with
Bank of America since October 2017, when she closed an account she
had opened with them in or around February 2011. Since closing that
account, Plaintiff has not had any contact with Bank of America.

Nevertheless, on September 15, 2018, nearly a year after
terminating her customer relationship with BofA, Plaintiff's cell
phone rang, indicating that she had received a text message. The
text message stated that BofA had received a request from her for a
code.

The text message was followed by eight identical messages on
October 3, 2018, October 20, 2018, November 6, 2018, November 23,
2018, December 12, 2018, December 29, 2018, January 15, 2019, and
February 2, 2019. These text messages invaded Plaintiff's privacy
and subjected her to aggravation. The aggravation was exacerbated
by BofA's persistent refusal to respond to her repeated inquiries
regarding the unauthorized text messages she received.

By sending unauthorized text messages to Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals, BofA violated federal law and caused them
concrete harm, not only in the form of the frustration and invasion
of privacy, but also in the form of payments made to cell phone
service providers for the receipt of such wireless spam.

Bank of America is a national bank with its headquarters and
principal place of business located in Charlotte, NC. Among other
things, Defendant is engaged in the business of providing retail
banking services to consumers. Defendant operates banking centers,
and thus conducts business, throughout the State of California,
including within this District.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  apersinger@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

BANKSA: In Talks to Resolve Samra Ponzi Scheme Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawyerly reports that Westpac unit BankSA is in talks to resolve a
class action alleging it failed to detect the fraud of convicted
Ponzi schemer Michael Samra. [GN]


BIG RIVER: 8th Cir. Vacates Attorney's Fees Disapproval in Barbee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, issued an
Opinion vacating the judgment of the District Court disapproving
the Attorney’s Fees in the Settlement in the case captioned
Paulette Barbee, Administrator of the Estate of Kimberly Hope
Gillock, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Big River Steel, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee. No. 18-2255. (8th Cir.).

Paulette Barbee, Administrator of the Estate of Kimberly Hope
Gillock (formerly known as Kim Pierce), appeals the district
court's order modifying the attorney fees in the parties'
settlement agreement.

Kim Pierce filed a proposed class action against Big River Steel,
LLC (Big River Steel) for unpaid overtime wages. She asserted
claims under both the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Pierce and Big River Steel reached a settlement and filed a joint
status report notifying the court they had settled and would soon
file a voluntary dismissal. The court ordered the parties to submit
the settlement for approval, including the proposed agreement and
any attorney billing records. The parties complied.

After reviewing the parties' settlement agreement, the district
court disapproved of both the settlement of the wage claims and the
settled amount of attorney fees for independent reasons. Pierce
passed away shortly thereafter, and the court stayed the case until
it could substitute her estate for her as a party.

Barbee, as the estate's administrator, and Big River Steel
submitted a new agreement addressing only the district court's
concerns on the wage settlement. The district court then approved
of the new wage settlement, again disapproved of the amount of
attorney fees, and entered a judgment with the full wage settlement
amount and a reduced attorney fee amount.  

Barbee argues on appeal that any required review of the settlement
agreement did not extend to settled attorney fees.

The Court has never taken a side on this issue. The Court had noted
the Eleventh Circuit's opinion but the Court have never had
occasion to interpret whether 29 U.S.C. Section 216 requires
judicial approval of all FLSA settlements.

Because the Court agrees with Barbee that any authority for
judicial approval of FLSA settlements in 29 U.S.C. Section 216 does
not extend to review of settled attorney fees, the Court needs not
decide our view on the circuit split today. This is a question of
law, and the Court reviews the issue de novo.  

This reading of the statute is consistent with the rationale of the
circuits that require approval for all FLSA settlements because
such approval serves the FLSA's underlying purpose of protecting
workers' rights. When the parties negotiate the reasonable fee
amount separately and without regard to the plaintiff's FLSA claim,
the amount the employer pays to the employees' counsel has no
bearing on whether the employer has adequately paid its employees
in a settlement. Thus, regardless of whether the Court reads the
statute as requiring approval for FLSA settlements, we do not read
it as requiring approval of settled attorney fees.

Since the Court concludes 29 U.S.C. Section 216 does not require
approval of settled attorney fees, the district court erred below.


Here, the district court agreed the parties' proposed wage
settlement satisfied Barbee's claims. Regardless of whether that
assertion of authority was proper, the district court's authority
did not extend beyond concluding the merits settlement was
satisfactory. The parties were entitled to settle the attorney fee
issue, and no law gave the district court authority to interfere
with that unconditional right.

The Court vacates the portion of the district court's judgment
below that addressed settled attorney fees.

A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's June 20, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5yh5k63 from Leagle.com.

Kathlyn Graves -- kgraves@mwlaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Josh Sanford -- josh@sanfordlawfirm.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Steve Rauls, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Nathan A. Read -- nread@mwlaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

April Rheaume, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


BLOSSOM WEST: Tarax et al Seek OT Pay for Restaurant Staff
----------------------------------------------------------
EFRAIN TARAX TARAX, GETULIO LOPEZ MURILLO, MANUEL JESUS SONTAY
HERRERA, and SANTOS TARAX, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. BLOSSOM WEST INC. (D/B/A
BLOSSOM ON COLUMBUS), RONEN SERI, RAMIRO RAMIREZ, JESUS DOE, and
CHINO DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06228 (S.D.N.Y., July
3, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are both current and former employees of Defendants
Blossom West Inc. The Defendants own, operate, or control a vegan
restaurant, located at 507 Columbus Avenue, New York, New York
10024 under the name "Blossom on Columbus". The Plaintiffs have
been employed as porters, dishwashers, and ostensibly as delivery
workers at the restaurant.

The Plaintiffs have worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they have worked.

Rather, the Defendants have failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium.

Further, the Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which they have had to work
over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, Defendants have repeatedly failed
to pay Plaintiffs wages on a timely.

Regardless, the Defendants have paid these Plaintiffs at the
lowered tip-credited rate. However, under both the FLSA and NYLL,
Defendants are not entitled to take a tip credit because these
Plaintiffs' non-tipped duties have exceeded 20% of each workday, or
2 hours per day, whichever is less in each day.

The Defendants have employed the policy and practice of disguising
these Plaintiffs' actual duties in payroll records by designating
them as delivery workers instead of non-tipped employees. This has
allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiffs Lopez and Sontay at
the minimum wage rate and has enabled them to pay them at the
lowered tip-credited rate, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

BOSE: Seeks Dismissal of Wiretapping, Eavesdropping Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Sanchez, writing for Digital Music News, reports that two
years ago, Kyle Zak, a consumer from Chicago, purchased a $350 pair
of Bose wireless headphones.

Unbeknownst to him, the company allegedly collects and records the
details of music and audio files played through the headphones.
Represented by consumer privacy firm Edelson PC, Zak alleged that
Bose transmits this data, along with customers' personal
identifiers, to third parties, including data miners.

The collection process has allegedly been happening through Bose's
Connect app.

Consumers have no idea this is happening, said Zak and Edelson PC.
So, they filed a class-action lawsuit against the company.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, Zak listed five causes of action
against Bose.

First, the company violated the Federal Wiretap Act.  First
established in 1968, the Wiretap Act prohibits intentional
"interception" of "wire, oral, or electronic communications."

Second, the headphones/speaker company violated the Illinois
Eavesdropping Statute.

Third, Bose intruded upon the seclusion of Kyle Zak and other
consumers.  Dubbed Intrusion Upon Seclusion (a special form of
invasion of privacy), the company knowingly transmitted consumer
Media information.

Fourth, the company's actions directly violate the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act (ICFA).

Fifth, Bose benefited from hidden collection data.  Titled Unjust
Enrichment, the company disclosed consumer information to
third-party without any knowledge or content.

Two months ago, U.S. District Court judge Andrea Wood dismissed
Zak's key wiretapping claim.  He can't claim the Connect app
illegally "intercepted" the names and duration of songs he streamed
on Spotify.

Simply put, Wood found Zak failed to show Bose was a "party" to the
communication.

The company couldn't willfully "intercept" this information.  Thus,
Bose hadn't violated federal wiretapping law.

Yet, Judge Wood refused to drop another key claim.  Bose has
allegedly breached Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.  The company has reportedly misled consumers about
how it collects and then subsequently shares data.

In a 17-page decision, she noted,

"The court finds that Zak has pleaded an [Illinois Consumer Fraud
Act] violation sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss stage."

Now, in an attempt to survive in court, Bose has filed a motion to
dismiss the class action lawsuit.

"Please, please, please make this case go away."

On May 31, the company told Judge Wood to "permanently toss" Zak's
wiretapping claims.

Bose said his second amended class-action complaint against the
company only makes "limited and superficial" changes.  Zak's latest
filing merely adds "window dressing."

He had attempted to once again push the wiretapping claims against
the company instead of pushing forward with Judge Wood's original
ruling, which allowed the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act violation
accusation against Bose to proceed.

Arguing the company hadn't actually violated wiretapping and
eavesdropping law, Bose wrote,

"Inadequate disclosure -- and not illegal interception -- has
always been the nature of plaintiff's claim, which is why the court
properly dismissed his Wiretap and Eavesdropping Act claims."

In addition, Zak had "knowingly and deliberately installed, opened,
and used the Bose Connect App with streaming music services."
Plus, intercepting track titles played on music streaming services,
including Spotify, can't be considered 'content' under existing
wiretapping laws.

"If it were the content of the communication it would be the song
itself -- music and lyrics.  But plaintiff alleges only that the
app collects record information each time he presses the track
forward or backward button.

"This demonstrates that what is occurring is not an interception of
a communication, but rather the logging of one… Plaintiff does
not allege that the Bose [app] listens to -- or can even access --
the songs or podcasts themselves, but only that it logs record
information about those songs and podcasts, like the name of the
track."

Thus, Judge Wood should once again dismiss Zak's wiretapping
claims. [GN]


BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Dismissal Bid in Jarquin Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana issued a Order and Reasons granting Defendants BP
Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company's
(BP) Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned FREDDY
ANTONIO JARQUIN, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC. ET AL.,
SECTION I. Civil Action No. 18-9572. (E.D. La.).

This case arises from Jarquin's alleged exposure to oil and gas
dispersants while he worked as a clean-up worker in response to the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Jarquin was diagnosed on May 16, 2014
with chronic damage to conjunctiva, chronic rhinosinusitis, and
chronic dermatitis at the site of contact. BP does not dispute that
Jarquin was a clean-up worker after the oil spill and that he is a
member of the class covered by the MSA.8 BP also does not dispute
that Jarquin's alleged conditions, diagnosed after April 16, 2012,
fit within the MSA's definition of a later-manifested physical
condition.

Summary judgment is proper when, after reviewing the pleadings, the
discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits, the
Court determines that there is no genuine dispute of material fact.


A genuine issue of material fact exists when the evidence is such
that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party. Although the substance or content of the evidence submitted
to support or dispute a fact on summary judgment must be
admissible, the material may be presented in a form that would not,
in itself, be admissible at trial. The party responding to the
motion for summary judgment may not rest upon the pleadings but
must identify specific facts that establish a genuine issue.  

A district court has somewhat greater discretion to consider what
weight it will accord the evidence in a bench trial than in a jury
trial. Where the evidentiary facts are not disputed, a court in a
nonjury case may grant summary judgment if trial would not enhance
its ability to draw inferences and conclusions.

To date, Jarquin has not indicated that he has retained an expert
who will testify on his behalf at trial, and he has not disclosed
to BP any expert reports in compliance with this Court's May 17,
2019 deadline. The only evidence before the Court with respect to
Jarquin's medical condition and that relates to causation is a
report of a medical examination performed by Charlie Le, MD (Dr.
Le) at the East Jefferson Family Practice (EJFP) health clinic on
May 16, 2014.

Essentially for reasons assigned by BP in its unopposed motion for
summary judgment, the Court finds that Dr. Le's report is not
competent summary judgment evidence.15 Jarquin has failed to
present a genuine issue of material fact or present any evidence
that would support the fact that his injuries were caused by his
alleged exposure to oil and dispersants while he worked in response
to the spill.

The motion for summary judgment is granted and that all claims
asserted by Jarquin against BP are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 20, 2019 Order and
Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6e8m4fk from
Leagle.com.

Joshua Frances Rabalais, Plaintiff, represented by Howard L.
Nations, Nations Law Firm & Jade M. Ruiz, Nations Law Firm, 3793,
3131 Briarpark Dr # 208, Houston, TX 77042

BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company,
Defendants, represented by Sean Matthew Toomey --
stoomey@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Alexander J. Baynham --
ajbaynham@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore --
cbwilmore@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Devin C. Reid --
stoomey@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Don Keller Haycraft --
dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis & Russell Keith Jarrett --
dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis.


BP EXPLORATION: Court OKs Dismissal Bid in Rabalais
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana issued a Order and Reasons granting Defendants BP
Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company's
(BP) Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned JOSHUA
FRANCES RABALAIS, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC. ET AL.,
SECTION I. Civil Action No. 18-9718. (E.D. La.).

This case arises from Rabalais's alleged exposure to oil and gas
dispersants while he worked as a clean-up worker in response to the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Rabalais was diagnosed on May 15, 2014
with chronic damage to conjunctiva, chronic rhinosinusitis, and
chronic dermatitis at the site of contact. BP does not dispute that
Rabalais was a clean-up worker after the oil spill and that he is a
member of the class covered by the MSA.8 BP also does not dispute
that Rabalais's alleged conditions, diagnosed after April 16, 2012,
fit within the MSA's definition of a later-manifested physical
condition.

Summary judgment is proper when, after reviewing the pleadings, the
discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits, the
Court determines that there is no genuine dispute of material fact.
A party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its
motion, and identifying those portions of the record which it
believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact.

To date, Rabalais has not indicated that he has retained an expert
who will testify on his behalf at trial, and he has not disclosed
to BP any expert reports in compliance with this Court's May 31,
2019 deadline.The only evidence before the Court with respect to
Rabalais's medical condition and that relates to causation is a
report of a medical examination performed by Jyoti Chakraborti, MD
(Dr. Chakraborti) on May 15, 2014.

Essentially for reasons assigned by BP in its unopposed motion for
summary judgment, the Court finds that Dr. Chakraborti's report is
not competent summary judgment evidence.15Rabalais has failed to
present a genuine issue of material fact or present competent
summary judgment evidence that would support the fact that his
injuries were caused by his alleged exposure to oil and dispersants
while he worked in response to the spill.

That the motion for summary judgment is granted and that all claims
asserted by Rabalais against BP are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 20, 2019 Order and
Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyjhud63 from
Leagle.com.

Joshua Frances Rabalais, Plaintiff, represented by Howard L.
Nations, Nations Law Firm & Jade M. Ruiz, Nations Law Firm, 3793,
3131 Briarpark Dr # 208, Houston, TX 77042

BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company,
Defendants, represented by Sean Matthew Toomey --
stoomey@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Alexander J. Baynham --
ajbaynham@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore --
cbwilmore@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Devin C. Reid --
stoomey@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Don Keller Haycraft --
dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis & Russell Keith Jarrett --
dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis.


BRIGGS RENTALS: Hays et al Seek Minimum & OT Premium Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Briggs Rentals LLC
and Bobby Briggs for violations of the minimum wage and overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act (AMWA). The case is captioned CHRISTOPHER HAYS and
LINSAY BRADBURY, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFFS vs. BRIGGS RENTALS LLC and BOBBY
BRIGGS, DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:19-cv-00466-JM (E.D. Ark., July 1,
2019).

Defendants allowed Plaintiffs and other hourly employees to record
45 hours per week and paid them accordingly, but refused to allow
Plaintiffs and other hourly employees to record their actual hours
worked. As a direct result of Defendants' policies, even though
Plaintiffs and other hourly employees worked far more than 40 hours
in many weeks that they worked for Defendants during time period
relevant to this Complaint, they were not paid minimum wage or an
overtime premium for all of their overtime hours worked.

Briggs Rentals LLC is a domestic, limited liability company
registered to do business in the state of Arkansas. The company
owns and operates rental property, including apartment complexes,
in central Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Blake Hoyt, Esq.
     Josh Sanford, 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: blake@sanfordlawfirm.com


BROUSSEAU MANAGEMENT: Leja Seeks to Certify Class Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ROBERT LEJA, Jr., et al. v.
BROUSSEAU MANAGEMENT CO., L.L.C., et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-00269-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La.), ask the Court to:

   (1) conditionally certify this action for purposes of notice
       and discovery;

   (2) order Brousseau to produce to Class Counsel the contact
       information for each putative class member within 10 days
       of the Court's order;

   (3) order that judicial notice be sent to all putative class
       members;

   (4) approve their proposed notice and consent forms;

   (5) authorize a 60-day notice period for putative class
       members to join the case;

   (6) order the mailing, e-mailing, and text messaging of
       notice, along with a reminder notice;

   (7) permit Class Counsel to contact by telephone those
       putative class members whose contact information is not
       valid; and

   (8) order Brousseau to post the Notice and Consent forms in
       Brousseau's jobsites/offices for the entire opt-in period.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs accuse Brousseau of engaging in
practices that flagrantly violate the Fair Labor Standards Act,
including failure to pay hourly employees overtime wages required
under federal law.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          PO Box 540907
          800 Sawyer St. (77007)
          Houston, TX 77254
          Telephone: (713) 999-5228
          Facsimile: (713) 999-1187
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law

The Defendants are represented by:

          James R. Bullman, Esq.
          THE BULLMAN LAW FIRM, LLC
          201 St. Charles St.
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 993-7169
          E-mail: james@thebullmanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          William H. Caldwell, Esq.
          THE BARINGER LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
          201 St. Charles St.
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 383-9953
          E-mail: william@baringerlawfirm.com


BUCKS COUNTY, PA: To Appeal Jury Verdict in CHRIA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Metz, writing for The Reporter, reports that Bucks County
intends to appeal a federal jury's verdict from May 28 which found
them to be in violation of Pennsylvania's Criminal History Record
Information Act (CHRIA).

The county had been disseminating the criminal record history of
nearly 67,000 individuals booked in the Bucks County Correctional
Facility between 1938 and 2013.

Members of the lawsuit, Taha v. County of Bucks, have been awarded
punitive damages of $1,000 for each member, with the precise number
of eligible recipients to be determined by the court at a later
date.

Any of the 66,799 individuals processed through the Bucks County
Correctional Facility in the 75 year period the county was
disseminating this information is eligible to receive damages part
of the award.

Bucks County was brought into question after criminal history had
been disseminated through an inmate lookup tool on the county's
website from 2011-2013.

How the case began

The case was filed in 2013 after Daryoush Taha found his mugshot on
"mugshots.com," a commercial site which published criminal history
records of individuals who had been incarcerated.

At the time of the finding, Taha's record had been ordered to be
expunged over 10 years earlier, according to CNN.

In 2013, before Taha filed the suit, he wrote a letter to the
county asking why the expungement had not been handled.

They claimed they did not know Taha's record had not been expunged,
according to Jonathan Shub, co-lead counsel for the class.

The trial

The case lasted five days in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The jury found the county to have "willfully violated" the act,
which resulted in punitive damages being awarded to the class.

According to Shub, an attorney for Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., this
was due to the county recklessly disregarding the law by
disseminating the information.

"We're quite pleased [with the verdict] because we believe the jury
sent a signal that the reckless treatment of one's information has
consequences," Shub said.

The county's intent to appeal is based upon their reasoning that
the inmate lookup tool did not violate the act, and they
specifically did not do so in a willful manner.

"We have always believed -- and continue to believe -- that the
County's inmate lookup tool did not violate the Pennsylvania
Criminal History Record Information Act ("CHRIA"), much less that
the County willfully violated that Act," according to the Bucks
County Commissioners in a press release. "Thus, we vigorously
dispute that Taha or the class members he represents are entitled
to any punitive damages at all."

They argue the inmate lookup tool was launched with a single
purpose of empowering crime victims by providing information to
enable them to verify the whereabouts of those accused of crimes
against them.

Applicability to other county/state "inmate lookup tools"

Prior to the launch of Bucks County's inmate lookup tool, the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania developed the Statewide Automated
Victim Information and Notification program (SAVIN).

SAVIN provides victims of crimes with information regarding
offenders in Pennsylvania county prisons and, according to the
county, "enables crime victims to quickly take steps to ensure
their safety by notifying the victims of any changes in an
offender's custody status."

This information became easily available because of commercial
mugshot websites.

"Those companies, such as mugshots.com, specifically targeted the
County and other public entities by taking the information from the
inmate lookup tools and using it for their own purposes to obtain
money from those who had criminal records," the county said in its
press release.

Bucks County also claims numerous other counties throughout
Pennsylvania maintained inmate lookup tools that contained the same
or similar information, and they continued to do so for years.

If other counties are found to be disseminating similar
information, they may also be at risk of facing lawsuits awarding
damages for CHRIA violations.

"I think this decision will have a chilling impact on the use of
locator tools that violate CHRIA," Shub said.

Going forward

Bucks County hopes that a different decision will be reached in
appellate court.

"We intend to take all appropriate actions through the legal
process to challenge the verdict in this case," county
commissioners said.

Though Shub believes it is the county's prerogative to appeal, he
thinks doing so "will further display an arrogance that Bucks
County has displayed throughout this case."

In the meantime, Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. is trying to locate
individuals who are a part of the class, and those who may be
eligible can visit chrialitigation.com to provide their
information.

The total award of the ruling could amount to as much as $67
million. [GN]


CANADA: Farmers to Launch Class Action Over Handling of CWB File
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Cross, writing for The Western Producer, reports that the
Canadian Wheat Board may be gone, but it hasn't been forgotten.

Prairie farmers opposed to the way the CWB was dismantled made an
appearance in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench May 28.

The farmers, supported by an organization known as Friends of the
Canadian Wheat Board (FCWB), hope to launch a class action lawsuit
against the federal government for its handling of the CWB file.

In a May 29 news release, FCWB chair Stewart Wells described the
recent court hearing in Manitoba as "a series of technical appeals
by Ottawa to delay justice and frustrate prairie farmers' efforts
to hold them to account for their stewardship of farmers' money
held by the CWB."

"The Harper government did not treat farmers fairly when it
dismantled the CWB in 2012," Wells said.

"We contend their irresponsible actions resulted in over $150
million being withheld from farmers in the 2010-11 and 2011-12 crop
years.

"The problem has now been compounded by the Liberal government's
failure to act responsibly and so the issue is still working its
way through the court."

Andrew Dennis, a farmer from Brookdale, Man., is the plaintiff in a
yet-to-be-certified class action lawsuit.

"We hope a favourable ruling (in Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench)
will clear the way to the next step, which is a hearing to have the
action certified as a class action with myself as representative
plaintiff," Dennis said. [GN]


CASTLE PARKING: Faces Evanston Insurance Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Castle Parking
Solutions, LLC. The case is assigned to EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CASTLE PARKING SOLUTIONS, LLC; MENTEWAB AYALEW; and
JIM MCANALLY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02674-LMM (N.D. Ga.,
June 12, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Leigh Martin May.

Castle Parking Solutions, LLC offers car parking and management
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael J. Athans, Esq.
     FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP –ATL
     100 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1600
     Atlanta, GA 30339-5948
     Telephone: (770) 818-1000
     Facsimile: (770) 937-9960
     E-mail: mathans@fmglaw.com


CEMTREX INC: Court Approves Securities Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cemtrex Inc. (Nasdaq: CETX, CETXP, CETXW), a leading global
technology company, on June 4 disclosed that the court has approved
the previously announced settlements in the alleged securities
class action lawsuit and related shareholder derivative
litigations, filed in the Eastern District of New York and New York
state court.

Under the class action settlement, the Company specifically denies
any liability or that it has engaged in any wrongdoing. On behalf
of the defendants, the Company's insurer will pay $625,000 to the
class of plaintiffs to resolve all claims asserted or could have
been asserted in the litigation.

Under the derivative litigation settlement, the Company and the
directors and officers of the Company named as defendants also deny
any liability or wrongdoing in connection with the allegations
contained in the lawsuit. The terms of the settlement require the
Company to implement certain corporate governance changes and
modify certain governance practices, and the Company's insurer will
pay $100,000 to the plaintiffs' counsel. Like the class action
settlement, the derivative litigation settlement resolves all
claims that were or could have been asserted in the litigations.

"We are pleased to finally have the court approval of our
settlement, and clear this cloud that has been hanging over us for
the past two years," said Saagar Govil, Cemtrex's Chief Executive
Officer, "This settlement has concluded these lawsuits
expeditiously and further avoids interference on operations, which
we believe is beneficial to the Company and its shareholders,"
continued Mr. Govil.

The full settlement terms and all other filings in the class action
litigation can be found under the case caption: Cullinan v.
Cemtrex, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01067-JFB-AYS (E.D.N.Y.);
the full settlement terms and all other filings in the derivative
litigations are available under the following captions:
Desmond-Newman v. Govil, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-03992 (E.D.N.Y.),
and Alami v. Govil, et al., No. 606635/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk
County).

The Company is represented by Doug Greene, a nationally prominent
securities litigation attorney, of the law firm of BakerHostetler.

Cemtrex, Inc. (CETX) -- http://www.cemtrex.com-- is a diversified
technology company that's driving innovation in a wide range of
sectors, including smart technology, virtual and augmented
realities, advanced electronic systems, industrial solutions, and
intelligent security systems. [GN]


CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE: Wins Prelim. OK of Raquedan Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lucy H. Koh grants the parties' motion for preliminary
approval of third amended class action settlement in the lawsuit
entitled MONIQUE RAQUEDAN, et al. v. CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE, INC.,
Case No. 5:17-cv-03828-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

These persons are certified as Class Members solely for the purpose
of entering a settlement in this matter:

     All non-exempt employees of Centerplate who worked for
     Centerplate in the State of California at any time from
     May 24, 2013, to March 31, 2019, excluding those individuals
     who already have resolved all the claims asserted in the
     Action, whether by settlement or adjudication.

Class Members will receive a Settlement Share unless they submit a
valid and timely Opt-Out Form not later than 45 days after the
mailing of the Fourth Amended Class Notice.

Simpluris, Inc., is appointed to act as the Settlement
Administrator, pursuant to the terms set forth in the Settlement.

Plaintiffs Monique Raquedan and Ronald Martinez are appointed the
Class Representatives.  Shaun Setareh, Esq., Thomas Segal, Esq.,
and Farrah Grant, Esq., of Setareh Law Group are appointed Class
Counsel.

A final approval hearing will be held on November 14, 2019, at 1:30
p.m., to determine whether the Settlement should be granted final
approval.

In another order and in connection with the settlement, the Court
finds as moot the Plaintiffs' pending motion for class
certification, and the Plaintiffs' pending administrative motion
for leave to supplement the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.[CC]


CHARLESTON, SC: Coastal Conservation League Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Murray, writing for WCBD, reports that the Coastal
Conservation League is filing a class action lawsuit challenging
the use of the half-cent sales tax funds for the extension of
I-526. Right now, the State Infrastructure Bank would pay $420
Million and the Charleston county would pay $305 Million to
complete the project that has a $725 million-dollar price tag.

The Executive Director for the Coastal Conservation League, Laura
Cantral, says, "We are concerned and think that it's time to hold
our elected officials accountable… We have serious concerns and
questions about the legality of the contract."

Under a three-party, intergovernmental contract, Charleston county,
the S.C. Department of Transportation and the S.C. Transportation
Infrastructure Bank will fund the $725 million-dollar project
together. All three parties are defendants in the lawsuit.

The Coastal Conservation League says that Charleston County is
breaking its contract with voters by obligating sales-tax money to
cover its portion of the I-526 extension project.

"When voters were asked to vote for the 2016 half-cent sales tax to
fund a number of projects related to transportation and drainage
priorities, this project was not on that list," Cantral said.

They claim that voters have been misled by the county about which
projects the 2016 sales tax dollars will be allocated to.

"We believe that this is a violation of a contract with the voters
to now want to use this money for other purposes than the things
that were on this list that voters thought they were voting for,
and that need to be complete, and are priorities," Cantral said.

Charleston County officials tell News 2 that they do want to
provide any comment on the claims in this lawsuit. [GN]


CHASE BANK: Sued Over Interest on Credit Card Pain in Full
----------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that Chase Bank has been
hit with a proposed nationwide class action in Delaware accusing it
of charging its credit-card customers interest on purchases that
are paid in full by the payment deadline, contrary to promises in
its card agreements.

Filed on Monday in Wilmington federal court, the lawsuit said Chase
tells customers it will give them an interest-free grace period on
new purchases when a balance is paid in full, but in fact it
eliminates the grace period if the entire balance was not paid off
the previous two months. [GN]


CHUY'S OPCO: Humphrey Seeks Proper OT Pay for Assistant Managers
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Chuy's Opco, Inc.
for alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA). The
case is captioned TAUSHA HUMPHREY, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFF, v. CHUY'S OPCO, INC.,
DEFENDANT, Case No. 4:19-cv-00464-KGB (E.D. Ark., July 1, 2019).

Plaintiff Tausha Humphrey brings this collective action for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including a reasonable attorney's
fee, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other
salaried assistant managers proper overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Chuy's Opco, Inc., is a foreign, for-profit corporation registered
to do business in the state of Arkansas and may receive service of
process through its registered agent The Corporation Service
Company at 300 South Spring Street, Suite 900, Little Rock,
Arkansas 72201. The company directly operates Chuy's brand Tex-Mex
restaurants in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and
Virginia. It maintains a website at https://www.chuys.com. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CICERO, IL: Class of Female Detainees Certified in Adair Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly certifies a class in the lawsuit
captioned LESIA ADAIR, ANITA DONATO, JORDAN GARCIA, VERONICA
GARCIA, and ARECELI VEGA, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. TOWN OF CICERO, Case No. 1:18-cv-03526 (N.D.
Ill.), under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:

     all female detainees who were or will be in the future
     detained at the Town of Cicero Police Department lock-up
     facility for eight hours or more during the time period of
     May 18, 2016 to the present.

The Court appoints attorneys Adele D. Nicholas, Esq., Mark G.
Weinberg, Esq., and Richard Dvorak, Esq., as class counsel.

The status hearing set for August 13, 2019, is vacated and advanced
to July 22, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.  The parties are directed to confer
regarding the form of an appropriate notice to the class and are to
file a joint status report including a joint proposal or separate
proposals by July 18, 2019.

The Plaintiffs are five women, who were detained at a lock-up
facility operated by the police department of the Town of Cicero.
They have sued Cicero, alleging that the configuration of the
lock-up facility required them to use the bathroom (and thereby
expose their genitals) in full view of male lock-up employees and
male detainees.

The Plaintiffs contend that Cicero is liable under Monell v.
Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658
(1978), because the facility's configuration constitutes an
official policy that causes male lock-up employees to engage in
unreasonable searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution.[CC]


CLOUDERA INC: Faces Franchi Suit over 53% Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY FRANCHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLOUDERA, INC.; INTEL CORPORATION; THOMAS
J.REILLY; JIM FRANKOLA; PRIYA JAIN; MICHAEL A. OLSON; MARTIN I.
COLE; KIMBERLY HAMMONDS; ROSEMARY SCHOOLER; STEVE J. SORDELLO;
MICHAEL A. STANKEY; ROBERT BEARDEN; PAUL CORMIER; PETER FENTON; and
KEVIN KLAUSMEYER, Defendants, Case No. 19CV348790 (Cal. Super.,
Santa Clara Cty., June 11, 2019) is a class action against
Cloudera's common stock issued in connection with its January 3,
2019 acquisition of and merger with Hortonworks, Inc.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Registration
Statement filed by the Defendants with the SEC were false and
misleading and omitted material facts rendering those financial and
operational statements materially misleading.

The Registration Statement concealed that Cloudera's Hadoop
offerings were facing increased competition from next-generation
cloud products and services offered by Amazon Web Services,
Microsoft Azure, and Google Compute Cloud. As a result, Cloudera
was losing customers and market share at an untenable rate. The
Registration Statement also failed to state that the increased
competition, along with Cloudera's constantly in-flux roadmap, was
negatively impacting Cloudera's ongoing business relations with its
customers.

With the benefit of the misrepresentations and omissions in the
Registration Statement, the Defendants were able to complete the
merger. But when the truth of the Defendants' misrepresentations
and omissions became known, the price of Cloudera's shares fell
sharply. On June 10, 2019, the day before this action commenced,
Cloudera's share closed at $5.18, representing a nearly 53% decline
from the approximate $11 price per share on the exchange date for
the merger.

Cloudera, Inc. provides a suite of data analytics and management
products in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The company
provides consulting, professional, and education services. It
serves corporate enterprises and public sector organizations
primarily through its direct sales force. The company has strategic
partnerships with Intel Corporation and IBM. Cloudera, Inc. was
founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------
Ayla Ellison, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that  a
federal class-action complaint filed May 30 alleges Franklin,
Tenn.-based Community Health Systems and three top executives made
false and misleading statements about the company's business that
artificially inflated its stock price.

The complaint, pending in U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, specifically alleges that between Feb. 20,
2017, and Feb. 27, 2018, CHS failed to disclose to investors that
it had understated its contractual allowances and provision for bad
debts, which caused the company to overstate its net revenue and
understate its net loss. During that roughly one-year period, CHS
and three of its executives -- Chairman and CEO Wayne T. Smith, CFO
Thomas J. Aaron and former CFO W. Larry Cash -- allegedly made
false and misleading statements that improperly propped up the
company's stock price.

According to the complaint, CHS and the executives misled investors
about the company's "financial well-being" and their omissions and
misstatements came to light on Feb. 28, 2018, when the company
announced its financial results for 2017. At that time, CHS
allegedly reported a $591 million increase to contractual
allowances and bad debt provision. On this news, the company's
share price fell more than 17 percent to close at $5.12 per share
on Feb. 28, according to the complaint.

The alleged misstatements and omissions of CHS and its top
executives resulted in investors buying the company's securities at
artificially inflated prices between Feb. 20, 2017, and
Feb. 27, 2018.

Caleb Padilla filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated. He allegedly suffered damages in connection
with his purchase of CHS shares at an artificially inflated price.
Mr. Padilla is seeking an award of monetary damages proven at
trial, in addition to attorney's fees and costs.

CHS did not immediately respond to Becker's request for comment.
[GN]


CORTEVA, INC: Thondukolam et al. Sue over DuPont Retirement Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corteva, Inc. et al.
on behalf of participants in the U.S. DuPont Pension and Retirement
Plan, pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.  The plaintiffs seek permanent injunctive relief, declaratory
plan-wide relief, make-whole relief for their losses, and/or
disgorgement of ill-gotten profits against the Defendants.

According to the complaint, nearly two years ago, The Dow Chemical
Company merged with the 217-year-old E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, one of the oldest companies in the United States. The
combined entity, DowDuPont, was the largest chemical conglomerate
in the world. The two historical companies had intended and planned
from the beginning to separate into three wholly independent
companies and move the Plan to one of the newly formed companies.

Barely a year later more details on the plan were finally released
when, on November 1, 2018, Ed Breen, CEO of DowDuPont, announced
that the Plan, along with Historical DuPont, were moving to a
company with the trade name Corteva Agriscience, a spin-off purely
focused on agriculture. The existence of Historical DuPont, the
Plan's sponsor for more than a century and the company for whom the
plan participants worked, would be mostly nominal, as all of the
asset and business lines of that company other than its
agricultural businesses would stay with the New DuPont or the New
Dow, while all of its pension liabilities, along with tremendous
litigation liabilities, would transfer.

Retirees were told by Breen to take comfort in the fact that
Corteva was going to be "highly rated" and that a recent
contribution of $1.1 billion had been made to top up the Plan
which, at the time, was still short of being fully-funded by
several billion dollars. In fact, the shortfall was more than $3.2
billion at the end of 2018 when using the artificially inflated
interest rates amended into ERISA by MAP-21 and more than $5.9
billion at the end of 2018 using unadjusted, traditional ERISA
rates as described in greater detail infra.

Using artificially high interest rates to calculate statutory
segment rates decreases the funding shortfall that a Plan is
required to disclose to participants annually. At the same time,
these inflated interest rates decrease the minimum amount a plan
sponsor is required to be contribute each year. Understated
liabilities and reduced contributions are a double whammy. Not only
are the Plan's liabilities understated, but, because liabilities
are directly linked with funding requirements, less cash is being
invested to cover future benefits. Should Corteva suffer any
downturns in its business, retirees are at risk. More importantly,
Historical DuPont, the steward of the Plan since its formal
adoption on September 1, 1904 is no longer a functioning business
capable of meeting its funding obligations under the  Plan.
Instead, it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Corteva, to whom the
Plan participants must now turn for their promised benefits, the.

In violation of ERISA and in violation of their fiduciary duties to
retirees, Dow, DuPont, Plan Sponsor and certain individual officers
and directors have, among other violations, acted disloyally and
engaged in prohibited transactions by putting their own financial
interests in front of retiree earned benefits. These individuals
and entities are motivated by self-interest and have fatal
conflicts of interest that prevent them from making appropriate
impartial decisions about the future of more than 120,000 retirees
and their families, the lawsuit says.

The case is captioned as KRISHNAN R. THONDUKOLAM, STEPHEN W.
RECORDS, WILLIAM C. MALLONEE and DAVID L. EVERETT, individually and
as representatives on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons,the Plaintiffs, vs. CORTEVA, INC., DOW INC., DOWDUPONT
INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, U.S. DUPONT PENSION AND RETIREMENT PLAN,
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, BENEFIT PLAN ADMINISTRATION
COMMITTEE, DOWDUPONT, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS, LAMBERTO ANDREOTTI,
AJAY BANGA, JACQUELINE K. BARTON, JAMES A. BELL, EDWARD D. BREEN,
ROBERT A. BROWN, ALEXANDER M. CUTLER, RICHARD K. DAVIS, JEFF M.
FETTIG, MARILYN A. HEWSON, LOIS D. JULIBER, PAUL POLMAN, JAMES M.
RINGLER, RUTH G. SHAW, LEE M. 18 THOMAS, HOWARD UNGERLEIDER,
PATRICK J. WARD, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, ELEUTHERE I. DU PONT, JAMES L. GALLOGLY, ULF MARK
SCHNEIDER, THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ANDREW N.
LIVERIS, RONALD C. EDMONDS, MARK LOUGHRIDGE, RAYMOND J. MILCHOVIC,
ROBERT S. MILLER, DENNIS H. REILLEY, JENNIFER SLOAN, BENITO
CACHINERO-SÁNCHEZ, JOHANNA SŌDERSTRÖM and NICHOLAS FANANDAKIS,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03857-SK (N.D. Cal., July 3,
2019).

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are:

          Elizabeth Hopkins, Esq.
          KANTOR & KANTOR
          19839 Nordhoff Street
          Northridge, CA 91324
          Telephone: (818) 886-2525
          Facsimile: (818) 350-6274
          E-mail: ehopkins@kantorlaw.net

               - and -

          W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
          James Eubank, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN
             PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (800) 898-2034
          Facsimile: (334) 965-7555
          E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
                  james.eubank@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Thomas O. Sinclair, Esq.
          Rebecca D. Gilliland, Esq.
          SINCLAIR LAW FIRM, LLC
          2000 SouthBridge Parkway, Suite 601
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (877) 249-0091
          Facsimile: (205) 868-0894
          Email: tsinclair@sinclairlawfirm.com
                 rgilliland@sinclairlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Edward S. Stone, Esq.
          EDWARD STONE LAW P.C.
          175 West Putnam Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Greenwich, CT 06830
          Telephone: (203) 930-3401
          Facsimile: (203) 348-8477
          E-mail: eddie@edwardstonelaw.com

COSTA DEL MAR: Class Certification of Buyers of Sunglasses Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled TROY SMITH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. COSTA DEL MAR, INC., a
Florida corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-01011-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla.),
seeks an order certifying this class:

     All citizens in the United States who, prior to Costa's
     switch to a "Limited Lifetime Warranty," purchased a pair of
     Costa sunglasses backed by a Lifetime Warranty and who,
     within the applicable limitations period, paid Costa a fee
     to repair or replace those sunglasses damaged by a
     manufacturer's defect.

Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, any entity or division
in which the Defendant has a controlling interest, and their legal
representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and successors; (2)
the judge to whom this case is assigned and the judge's staff; and
(3) counsel for each of the parties in this case.

Mr. Smith also asks the Court to (a) appoint his counsel from
Holland & Knight LLP as class counsel, (b) appoint him as class
representative; and (c) award other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter P. Hargitai, Esq.
          Joshua H. Roberts, Esq.
          Laura B. Renstrom, Esq.
          Michael M. Gropper, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 353-2000
          Facsimile: (904) 358-1872
          E-mail: peter.hargitai@hklaw.com
                  joshua.roberts@hklaw.com
                  laura.renstrom@hklaw.com
                  michael.gropper@hklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sara F. Holladay-Tobias, Esq.
          Emily Y. Rottmann, Esq.
          Justin Opitz, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          50 North Laura Street, Suite 3300
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 798-2662
          E-mail: stobias@mcguirewoods.com
                  erottmann@mcguirewoods.com
                  jopitz@mcguirewoods.com


DETROIT PROPERTY: James Moves to Certify Class of Property Buyers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled NATALIE JAMES, et al. v.
DETROIT PROPERTY EXCHANGE, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-13601-SFC-SDD
(E.D. Mich.), ask the Court to certify a class defined as:

     all persons who sought to purchase real property from any of
     the Defendants at any time from November 19, 2015 through
     final judgment, and who have signed:

     (1) any document that Defendants characterize as necessary
         for a "Rent to Own" transaction, OR

     (2) two or more of the following documents drafted by or on
         behalf of Defendants: "lease," "option to purchase,"
         "real estate purchase agreement," OR

     (3) a Land Contract with Defendants.

The case arises from Defendant Michael Kelly's alleged use of
numerous entities--including Defendants Detroit Property Exchange,
American Tax Refund, LLC and others--to perpetrate a predatory
seller-financing scheme involving the purported "sale" of real
property in Detroit, Michigan.

The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, seeking: a declaratory judgment that the
standardized agreements they have executed with the Defendants are
land contracts or equitable mortgages under Michigan law; to enjoin
the Defendants' abusive practices; additional equitable relief; and
damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1640(a) for the Defendants'
alleged failure to provide mandatory disclosures in violation of
the Truth in Lending Act and the Homeownership Equity Protection
Act.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives, and appoint Mantese Honigman, P.C. and Michigan
Legal Services as co-Class Counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Theresamarie Mantese, Esq.
          Kathryn R. Eisenstein, Esq.
          James A. Buster, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Rd.
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200
          E-mail: tmantese@manteselaw.com
                  keisenstein@manteselaw.com
                  jbuster@manteselaw.com

               - and -

          Marilyn Mullane, Esq.
          Joe McGuire, Esq.
          MICHIGAN LEGAL SERVICES
          2727 Second Avenue, Suite 333
          Mailbox #37
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 964-4130
          E-mail: mmullane@milegalservices.org
                  jmcguire@milegalservices.org


DISH NETWORK: 4th Cir. Affirms $61MM Damages in TCPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Fortin, Esq., Esther McDonald, Esq., and Jennifer Riley, Esq.,
of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that on May
30, 2019, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in Krakauer v. Dish
Network, L.L.C., No. 18-1518 (4th Cir. May 30, 2019), that paved
the way for TCPA plaintiffs to collect historic awards from
unsuspecting defendants. The Fourth Circuit held that TCPA
plaintiffs need not show any threshold level of injury to have
standing, so long as they prove the statutory elements of a TCPA
claim; the TCPA creates a simple cause of action that is "conducive
to class-wide disposition" without reference to individualized
inquiries; and Dish Network could be held responsible for the
actions of its third-party marketer even if it repeatedly
admonished the third party against violating the law and its
contracts disclaimed any agency relationship.  As a result,
companies should be wary of using third parties to conduct
telemarketing without appropriate oversight.

Case Background

Plaintiff Thomas Krakauer placed his number on the national
Do-Not-Call registry. Nonetheless, he received multiple calls from
a company called Satellite Systems Network ("SSN") trying to sell
him the services of defendant Dish Network, L.L.C. Krakauer sued
Dish under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") on behalf
of a class of persons whose numbers had been listed on the registry
for at least 30 days and who had received two or more calls on
behalf of Dish in the course of a year.

The district court certified the class in 2015. A year later, Dish
moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, arguing that
many or most class members did not experience an injury that would
have risen to the level of a cause of action at common law. The
district court denied the motion, and the case proceeded to trial.

The district court charged the jury with determining: (1) whether
SSN was acting as Dish's agent when it called consumers; (2)
whether SSN made multiple calls to the class members' numbers
within the relevant period; and (3) the appropriate damages award
for such calls. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff on the
first two points and assigned damages of $400 per call. The
district court then determined, as a matter of law, that Dish acted
willfully and knowingly, allowing an award of treble damages "to
deter Dish from future violations and . . . give appropriate weight
to the scope of the violations."  Krakauer, No. 18-1518 at *29.

Dish appealed the judgment.

The Fourth Circuit's Opinion

In an opinion by Judge Wilkinson, the Fourth Circuit considered
three issues: (1) whether the class as certified had Article III
standing to bring claims; (2) whether the district court correctly
applied the factors for class certification, especially commonality
and predominance, and whether the class was overbroad; and (3)
whether Dish was responsible for SSN's calls, including whether it
had acted willfully and knowingly in not remedying SSN's alleged
misconduct. Id. at *10.

Dish argued that many, if not most, class members lacked standing
because their injury did not rise to "a level that would support a
common law cause of action." Id. at *13. The Fourth Circuit
rejected this argument, relying on the Supreme Court's guidance in
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016). Spokeo held that
traditional standing requirements, including a concrete and
particular injury, applied to statutory causes of action, and that
Congress could not create a cause of action without an underlying
injury that would have been cognizable under the common law. The
Fourth Circuit found that receipt of repeated, unwanted telephone
marketing by someone who had taken steps to avoid such marketing
was a type of injury cognizable at common law -- an intrusion on
privacy. Id. at *13-14 (citing Spokeo, 136 S.Ct. at 1549).

Next the Fourth Circuit addressed the district court's
certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(3), finding that the
simple scheme created by Congress avoided the kinds of
individualized determinations that "so often plague class actions."
Id. at *16-18. Dish argued that many class members did not have a
claim because they were not "subscribers" to telephone service, and
only a "subscriber" could place a number on the Do-Not-Call
registry. But the Fourth Circuit rejected this argument, noting
that the plain text of the statute allowed a private right of
action by any "person" who received unwanted calls, not just
subscribers, and a non-subscriber living in the house where the
call was received could suffer the same privacy intrusion as the
subscriber. Id. at *19.

The Fourth Circuit also determined that the class was properly
ascertainable because the data on potential class members was found
in the call data of the defendant companies and the Do-Not-Call
registries. Id. at 22-23.

Left unspoken in the Fourth Circuit's analysis, however, was how to
determine who received the phone call at a given number and thus
who experienced the injury. Although the SSN/Dish call data
revealed numbers called, it did not necessarily reveal the identity
of the persons who received unwanted calls. The Fourth Circuit gave
the example of a subscriber wife whose husband received a call and
noted that the husband could experience an injury to his right to
privacy. Id. at 21. But the Fourth Circuit did not explain how it
possibly could identify the husband from the company records and,
as a result, how it could provide compensation to the real injured
party (the recipient) without an individualized investigation.

This slippage between subscribers and call recipients also muddies
the standing inquiry. The Fourth Circuit justifies reading a phone
call as an intrusion on privacy because the recipient "took steps
to avoid" such calls by placing his number on the Do-Not-Call
registry. Id. at 12. But if the recipient is not the subscriber,
did he actually take such steps?

Finally, the Fourth Circuit addressed whether Dish could be held
liable for SSN's unwanted calls, a question that turned on whether
SSN was acting as Dish's agent when it made the calls. Dish argued
that it was not, pointing to contracts that characterized the
relationship as independent and not an agency relationship. Id. at
* 27-28. But the Fourth Circuit held that a party's contractual
characterization of the relationship is irrelevant; it is the
nature of the relationship that matters. The Fourth Circuit held
that it was it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that SSN was
Dish's agent because their contract "afford[ed] Dish broad
authority over SSN's business, including what technology it used
and what records it retained" and because Dish claimed to have the
right to monitor SSN to ensure compliance with the TCPA. Id. at
*27. The Fourth Circuit also held that Dish had knowledge of SSN's
violations of the TCPA, and its failure to act to stop such
violations was evidence that SSN was acting within the scope of its
authority. Id.

Although Dish argued that it had repeatedly instructed SSN to
follow the law in acting on Dish's behalf, the Fourth Circuit held
that these verbal instructions were outweighed by Dish's "failure
to respond to" statutory violations "in any serious way" while it
was "profiting handsomely from SSN's sales tactics. Id. at *28-29.

The Fourth Circuit also approved the district court's finding that
Dish had acted willfully and knowingly. The Fourth Circuit relied
heavily on the fact that Dish had notice of alleged violations via
"lawsuits and enforcement actions" as well as "consumer complaints"
but "did nothing to monitor, much less enforce, SSN's compliance
with the telemarketing laws." Id. at *31.

Implications

The Fourth Circuit provided ample reason for companies to be
cautious in drafting contracts with third-party marketers and
overseeing their activities. The Fourth Circuit confirmed that a
company can be held liable for the behavior of a contractor making
calls on its behalf, even if it "includes certain language in a
contract or issues the occasional perfunctory warning." Id. at *32.
A court will "look past the formalities and examine the actual
control exercised." Id. Indeed, contractual language requiring one
party to comply with the law and giving the other party the right
to monitor compliance may even be viewed as a sign of "control" and
agency. Id. at 27. And, if a company has the right to control and
to monitor compliance, the failure to do so may be viewed as a
willful decision to ignore potential violations of the law. Thus,
companies should carefully consider the structure of their
contractual relationships.

The Fourth Circuit also relaxed the standard for certification of
such claims by suggesting that Congress has a great deal of
latitude to intentionally structure consumer protection statutes to
be class-friendly and to avoid individualized inquiries. Id. at
*18. In the Fourth Circuit's view, so long as the statutory
violation causes some concrete and particular injury, even if it
would be viewed as minor or de minimis under the common law,
Congress may impose statutory damages for it, and those damages
need not be tightly targeted to the magnitude of the injury. As the
Fourth Circuit's seeming conflation of subscribers and call
recipients shows, in the case of privacy interests, a strong nexus
between the claim and a class member's own efforts to protect his
privacy also may not be necessary. Thus, companies subject to
consumer protection statutes like the TCPA should take less comfort
in arguments regarding standing or the need for individualized
consideration of class members' injuries. [GN]


DOUGLAS PARKING: Underpays Parking Attendants, Bang Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOUGLAS PARKING, LLC; LELAND DOUGLAS; STEVEN
DOUGLAS; DAVID DOUGLAS; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-576648 (Cal. Super., San Francisco
Cty., June 12, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as parking attendant.

Douglas Parking LLC provides parking services. The Company offers
parking management, valet parking, shuttles, and consulting on
contract or fee basis. Douglas Parking serves customers in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew Righetti, Esq.
     Michael Righetti, Esq.
     RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
     456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: (415) 983-0900
     Facsimile: (415) 397-9005


DUKE UNIVERSITY: Court OKs $10.65MM Settlement in ERISA Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Final Approval of a Settlement Agreement in the cases
captioned DAVID CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DUKE UNIVERSITY, et
al., Defendants. KATHI LUCAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DUKE
UNIVERSITY, Defendant. Nos. 1:16-CV-1044, 1:18-CV-722 (M.D.N.C.).

The plaintiffs seek final court approval of a settlement agreement
with the defendants and dismissal with prejudice of two
consolidated ERISA class actions.

The Plaintiffs filed Clark v. Duke University in August 2016,
alleging, inter alia, that defendants: (1) breached their fiduciary
duties by causing the Duke University Faculty & Staff Retirement
Plan to incur unreasonable recordkeeping expenses (2) committed
prohibited transactions by allowing four vendors to provide Plan
recordkeeping services and receive Plan assets from which they
retained unreasonable compensation and (3) failed to prudently
monitor Plan investment options resulting in the use of high-cost,
low-performing funds compared to available alternatives.  

The Court granted class certification in Clark to a class of:

     All participants and beneficiaries of the Duke Faculty and
Staff Retirement Plan from August 10, 2010 through the date of
judgment, excluding Defendants.

Proposed Settlement Agreement

The proposed settlement agreement provides for a Gross Settlement
Amount2 of $10,650,000.  From this and subject to court approval,
Class Counsel may receive up to $3,550,000, or one-third the common
fund, in attorney's fees and $825,000 in attorney's expenses, and
class representatives may receive case contribution awards of
$25,000 for two named plaintiffs in Clark and $30,000 for three
named plaintiffs in both Clark and Lucas, who were also appointed
class representatives for their respective classes. Class Counsel
has requested these awards in another motion,  which the Court has
granted in an Order issued concomitantly with this one.

The remaining $6.1 million, less administrative expenses and a
contingency award, will be distributed to class members in amounts
proportional to their average quarterly balance during the Class
Period. At the preliminary approval stage, Class Counsel estimated
total administrative expenses would be $162,729, with a net
settlement of approximately $5,972,2713 and an average recovery of
about $103 per participant. At the settlement hearing, Class
Counsel revised the estimated net settlement to just under $5.7
million but also updated the estimate for the average recovery to
$118. The estimated maximum recovery by an individual class member
is $10,309.

Final Class Action Settlement Approval

The Court should approve a class settlement if it is fair,
reasonable, and adequate.  
A four-factor test is applied to determine the fairness of a
proposed settlement: (1) the posture of the case at the time
settlement was proposed (2) the extent of discovery that had been
conducted (3) the circumstances surrounding the negotiations and
(4) the experience of counsel in the area of law at issue.

The Court assesses the adequacy of the settlement through the
following factors: (1) the relative strength of the plaintiffs'
case on the merits (2) the existence of any difficulties of proof
or strong defenses the plaintiffs are likely to encounter if the
case goes to trial (3) the anticipated duration and expense of
additional litigation (4) the solvency of the defendants and the
likelihood of recovery on a litigated judgment and (5) the degree
of opposition to the settlement.

All four fairness factors favor approval here.
    
The settlement is also adequate in light of the relevant factors
and the record. As noted above, Class Counsel estimates that
approximately $5.7 million will remain after attorney's fees,
expenses, and administrative costs are deducted, providing an
average recovery of $118, with individual variation allowing some
class members to recover as much as $10,000. Although the amount of
recovery is relatively small in proportion to the claimed damages,
this amount reflects a reasonable and significant recovery under
the circumstances given the value of settlement terms benefitting
the class beyond the direct monetary payments and the substantial
challenges to obtaining full recovery.

The monetary value of the settlement is greater when the injunctive
relief and resulting reduced fees are taken into account. Class
Counsel has presented evidence that reforms in the Plan's
administration resulting from this litigation will also save
approximately $24 million in present-day dollars from 2019 to 2023.
The settlement has an additional advantage over recovery at trial
as class members will accrue the tax-deferred monetary value now
rather than in several years. Taken together, the total value of
the monetary and non-monetary relief reflects over 12% of the
damages sought.  

The Court has great familiarity with the plaintiffs' claims through
the motions practice in Clark and litigation around adding the
claims in Lucas. The Court concurs with the evaluations of Class
Counsel and the plan's independent fiduciary that despite
substantial evidence to support the plaintiffs' claims, there were
potential but real legal and factual obstacles to ultimate
recovery. The settlement amount reasonably takes into account the
strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs' case, as well as the
potential likelihoods that the defendants may either prevail in
motions practice or at trial or appeal any recovery at trial, thus
delaying or foreclosing any benefit to the class members.

The settlement also includes non-monetary terms, such as reforms in
the Plan, that are beneficial to the class and might not be
included in any recovery at trial. Overall, the settlement terms
are substantial in light of the tens of thousands of class members
who will recover damages and benefit from the additional
non-monetary changes to the Plan.

The parties would almost certainly incur substantial additional
litigation expense if Clark proceeds through summary judgment
briefing to trial and if Lucas continues to discovery and trial.
The parties expected trial in Clark to take approximately 20 days,
which would likely require substantial expenses to present expert
witnesses. Class Counsel have not expressed any concerns as to the
solvency of the defendants or their ability to recover if they were
to proceed to trial, nor is there a basis for any such concerns on
the record. Overall, the record supports that, in light of the
relevant factors, the settlement here is fair.

Finally, the proposed settlement treats class members equitably
relative to each other.  All class members entitled to recovery
will be paid proportionately to their average quarterly balances.
The difference in payment methods direct deposit for current and
check for former participants is justified given the different
circumstances of current and former participants, and former
participants can still receive tax benefits by opting for a
roll-over payment. While no distributions will be made of $5.00 or
less, this disparate treatment is also acceptable, as any awards of
this size would cost more in processing than its value. Allowing
such small recoveries would only increase administrative costs and
diminish recovery to all class members in exchange for negligible
benefits to some class members.

In sum, the record and information provided by Class Counsel in
filings and at the fairness hearing, and the absence of any
objections by class members, support the conclusion that the
proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and it
should be approved. The Court so finds.

The motion for final approval of the settlement agreement is
granted and the settlement of the consolidated Class Action is
approved as adequate and as fair and reasonable to the Plan and the
Settlement Class. Judgment will be entered concomitantly.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 24, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxn5stdn from
Leagle.com.

DAVID CLARK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF
PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES ON BEHALF OF THE DUKE FACULTY AND
STAFF RETIREMENT PLAN, KEITH A FEATHER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A
REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES ON
BEHALF OF THE DUKE FACULTY AND STAFF RETIREMENT PLAN, JORGE LOPEZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF PARTICIPANTS AND
BENEFICIARIES ON BEHALF OF THE DUKE FACULTY AND STAFF RETIREMENT
PLAN & THOMAS C MEHEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A
CLASS OF PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES ON BEHALF OF THE DUKE
FACULTY AND STAFF RETIREMENT PLAN, Plaintiffs, represented by
JEROME J. SCHLICHTER, SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, HEATHER LEA,
SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, KURT C. STRUCKHOFF, SCHLICHTER BOGARD &
DENTON, MICHAEL A. WOLFF, SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, SCOTT A.
BUMB, SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, SEAN E. SOYARS, SCHLICHTER
BOGARD & DENTON,TROY A. DOLES, SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON 100 S 4th
St Ste 1200, Saint Louis, MO 63102-1816 & DAVID B. PURYEAR, Jr.,
PURYEAR AND LINGLE, P.L.L.C., 5501-E Adams Farm LaneGreensboro, NC
27407- 6396.

KATHI LUCAS, Plaintiff, represented by HEATHER LEA, SCHLICHTER
BOGARD & DENTON,KURT C. STRUCKHOFF, SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON,
MICHAEL A. WOLFF, SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, SCOTT A. BUMB,
SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, SEAN E. SOYARS, SCHLICHTER BOGARD
& DENTON, TROY A. DOLES, SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON &JEROME J.
SCHLICHTER, SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON.

DUKE UNIVERSITY, DUKE INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, KYLE
CAVANAUGH, TIM WALSH, JAMES S. ROBERTS, RHONDA BRANDON & Steve
Smith, Defendants, represented byBRENT F. POWELL, WOMBLE BOND
DICKINSON (US) LLP, JEREMY P. BLUMENFELD
-jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP,
ABBEY M. GLENN -abbey.glenn@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS &
BOCKIUS, LLP, CHRISTOPHER A. WEALS --
christopher.weals@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP,
DONALD L. HAVERMANN -- donald.havermann@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN
LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP & JAMES P. COONEY, III --
jim.cooney@wbd-us.com -- WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US), LLP.

ANDERS HALL, RICHARD SCHMALBECK, MICHAEL LAZAR, DR. NAN JOKERST,
ERIC KOEHRSEN & JEAN SHIELDS, Defendants, represented by BRENT F.
POWELL -- brent.powell@wbd-us.com -- WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US)
LLP, JEREMY P. BLUMENFELD, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP & JAMES P.
COONEY, III, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US), LLP.


ELASTOS FOUNDATION: Removes Owen et al. Suit to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of MARK OWEN, and JAMES WANDLING,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ELASTOS FOUNDATION; FENG HAN; RONG CHEN; FAY LI; and
BEN LEE, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (Case
No. 650628/2019) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on June 11, 2019. The clerk of court for the
Southern District of New York assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-05462-GHW.
The case is assigned to Judge Gregory H. Woods.

Elastos Foundation develops an Internet operating system that
focuses on re-decentralizing the Internet with block-chain to
secure identity. The company is based in Beijing, China. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Warren Angelo Raiti, Esq.
          99 Hudson Street, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (215) 237-3917
          E-mail: law@warrenraiti.com

               - and -

          Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
          BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
          7 Times Square, 27th Fl
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 789-1340
          Facsimile: (212) 205-3961
          E-mail: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com

               - and -

          Ross Mitchell Shikowitz, Esq.
          BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
          7 Times Square, Ste 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 789-1349
          E-mail: rshikowitz@bfalaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          William Jospeh Foley , Jr., Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP (NYC)
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 506-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 506-5151
          E-mail: wfoley@orrick.com

               - and -

          Kenneth Patrick Herzinger, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP (NYC)
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 773-5409
          Facsimile: (415) 773-5759
          E-mail: kherzinger@orrick.com


EVENTBRITE: Judge Tosses Ticketfly Hack Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Ashley King, writing for Digital Music News, reports that an
Illinois judge has dismissed the class action lawsuit filed against
Eventbrite over the Ticketfly hack.

Claimants have until July 9th to file an amended complaint.

Last May, a hacker sent emails to Ticketfly about security flaws
that existed in its WordPress blog. When Ticketfly did not address
the issue, the hacker, calling himself 'Ishakdz,' breached the site
and gained access to 26 million user's information.

Ishakdz asked Ticketfly to supply one bitcoin (worth about $7,500
at the time) in exchange for the data.

When Ticketfly didn't pay the hacker's ransom, he posted all 26
million customer's information online. That information included
names, addresses, emails, passwords, phone numbers, and credit card
details. The event prompted Ticketfly's parent company Eventbrite
to be named in a class action lawsuit over the breach.

Eventbrite formally responded to the lawsuit in March by asking the
judge to dismiss the case.  Eventbrite said the claimants had
failed to prove that they bought their tickets from Ticketfly.

Lawyers also argued that even if the data grab had impacted the
claimants, they could not prove that direct harm resulted.

Judge Michael T. Mullen agreed with Eventbrite's assessment of the
situation. He dismissed the lawsuit as it currently stands and said
plaintiffs would need to explain how their contract with Eventbrite
had been breached. In addition, plaintiffs must provide evidence
that the data hack caused concrete injury.

Plaintiffs in the case argued that having to pay to monitor their
credit was tangible harm, but the judge disagreed. He told
plaintiffs that "potential harm" is not a viable reason to proceed
with the suit. If the two plaintiffs amend the lawsuit with new
evidence by July 9th, it can continue, however.

If the plaintiffs do provide sufficient evidence, Eventbrite plans
to claim that the lawsuit should be judged in California rather
than Illinois.  Judge Mullen said he would consider that argument
if the plaintiffs file an amended lawsuit by the deadline. [GN]


FIRST AMERICAN: Faces Forney et al. Suit over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
LASHEEDA FORNEY; RYAN GOODYEAR; and BROOKE WRAY HAGER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FIRST
AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION; and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01180-DSF-E (C.D. Cal., June 12, 2019)
is a class action against the Defendants for failure to adequately
safeguard the Plaintiffs' and the other Class members' valuable and
sensitive personally identifiable information, including, but not
limited to, their names, email addresses, mailing addresses, dates
of birth, social security numbers, bank account numbers, lender
details, mortgage and tax records, driver's license images, and
other personal information (collectively, "PII") such that their
PII was exposed to unauthorized users (the "Data Breach").

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that as a result of the
Defendants' failure to maintain adequate security measures, the
Plaintiffs and the other Class members' PII was compromised. They
have suffered an ascertainable loss in that the PII contained in
documents on the Defendants' website, including social security
numbers, addresses, dates of birth, banking information, and more,
was exposed as a result of the Defendants' failures. Furthermore,
the Plaintiffs and the other Class members must undertake
additional security measures, some at their own expense, to
minimize the risk of future data breaches including, without
limitation, closing credit card accounts, bank accounts, debit card
accounts, etc. But there is no guarantee that such security
measures will in fact adequately protect their PII. As such, the
Plaintiffs and the other Class members have an ongoing interest in
ensuring that their PII is protected from past and future
cybersecurity threats.

First American Financial Corporation provides insurance services.
The Company offers title, lenders, and property and casualty
insurance, as well as foreclosure, asset disposition, commercial
due diligence, and trustee services. First American Financial
serves individuals and businesses throughout the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
          Tarek H Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R Padgett, Esq.
          Trisha Kathlee Monesi, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Mark.ozzello@capstonelawyers.com
                  Tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  Trisha.monesi@capstonelawyers.com

               - and –

          Ivy Ngo, Esq.
          FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          14426 East Evans Avenue
          Aurora, CO 80014
          Telephone: (303) 757-3300
          Facsimile: (720) 213-5131
          E-mail: ngoi@fdazar.com


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

The instant case arises from the policy change regarding the daily
fees for renters and unaccompanied guests at the Hualalai Resort
(Resort) that was announced in 2015 (DRGF). The Third Amended
Complaint alleges the following claims: unfair methods of
competition (UMOC) and unfair or deceptive acts or practices
(UDAP), in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. Section 480-2 (Count III),
promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance (Count IV); violation of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing (Count V); negligent
misrepresentation (Count VI); estoppel (Count VII) and unjust
enrichment (Count VIII).

The Defendants seek summary judgment as to all claims, except for
the UMOC claim.

UDAP Claim

The Hawai'i Supreme Court has stated: a deceptive act or practice
is (1) a representation, omission, or practice that (2) is likely
to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances
where (3) the representation, omission or practice is material.
This test is an objective one, turning on whether the act or
omission is likely to mislead consumers, as to information
important to consumers, in making a decision regarding the product
or service.

Count III is silent as to what specific acts or omissions the UDAP
claim is based upon. The basis of Zyda's UDAP claim, and his case
as a whole, must be gleaned from the evidence that he has
presented: Zyda testified that, before he purchased his lot in the
Resort, he was told his future renters and guests would be able to
use all of the Resort's amenities without paying any fees.

Zyda has presented evidence that other Class members were given the
same, or similar, information.  

Initially, the periodic increases in the DRGF were in the range of
five to ten dollars In 2015, a policy change was announced under
which the DRGF were as high as $250 during certain times of the
year (2015 DRGF Policy). However, there has also been testimony
that, at other times of the year, the DRGF increased to only $65
when the 2015 DRGF Policy took effect.  

Mr. Schoon acknowledged that, for the times when the DRGF became
$250, the rate did increase dramatically. Mr. Schoon also
acknowledged that he is not aware of another Resort that charges
its guests a $250 per day fee. Zyda contends Defendants' hidden
purpose behind this dramatic increase is to limit the number of the
Resort owners' renters and guests, which allows the Hotel guests
greater access to the Resort amenities.

Since the imposition of the 2015 DRGF Policy, Resort owners still
rent their homes. However, unless the DRGF is paid, their renters
cannot access the Resort amenities and are treated the same renters
of Resort owners who are not Club members.    

In considering Defendants' Motion, this Court must view the
evidence in the light most favorable to Zyda, as the nonmoving
party. While the evidence of Defendants' alleged scheme to increase
the Hotel guests' access to the amenities appears infirm, it does
minimally manage to establish a material representation, omission,
or practice for purposes of a summary judgment motion.  

Even so, summary judgment must be denied largely because the
remaining element of a UDAP claim that the representation,
omission, or practice was likely to mislead consumers acting
reasonably under the circumstances requires the application of an
objective standard that is ordinarily for the trier of fact.

While Zyda received documents expressly stating the Resort
management's right to impose guest fees for the use of the Resort
amenities, when the record is viewed as a whole, genuine issues of
material fact exist which preclude summary judgment as to whether
Defendants' representation, omission, or practice was likely to
mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances.

Genuine issues of material fact also exist as to whether the UDAP
claim was brought within the statute of limitations. Chapter 480
claims, including UDAP claims and UMOC claims, are subject to a
four-year statute of limitations.
  
These issues are: 1) when the statute of limitations on Zyda's UDAP
claim began to run and 2) if Zyda's UDAP claim is untimely, whether
any other Class member has a timely UDAP claim. For instance, did
the statute of limitations start to run when any fees were first
imposed? If so, then it would appear that the UDAP and UMOC claims
were untimely brought for those Class members who had purchased
before the fees were first imposed.

The Defendants' request for summary judgment as to Zyda's UDAP
claim in Count III is denied. Further, because the analysis of the
Class members' UDAP claims are the same, Defendants' Motion is also
denied as those claims.

Equitable Claims

Counts IV, VII, and VIII are equitable claims.  

In Porter, the Hawai'i Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) held
that: the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ruled
that an unjust enrichment remedy was appropriate because the
plaintiffs had no adequate legal remedy; and the trial court did
not err when it allowed the plaintiffs to make a post-verdict
election between the contract remedy, the tortious interference
remedy, and the unjust enrichment remedy. Porter, 116 Hawai'i at
56, 169 P.3d at 1008.

The ICA endorsed the application of the principle that no adequate
legal remedy exists where the contract did not provide for the
redress of the specific harm done. Zyda argues that he does not
have an adequate legal remedy because the remedies for his other
claims do not include the disgorgement of Defendants' earnings
resulting from Defendants' improper actions. Zyda's reliance on
Porter is misplaced. Porter is inapplicable because the ICA's
analysis was solely as to whether the plaintiffs had an adequate
tort remedy.  

Unlike the case at hand, the factual basis of the plaintiffs'
tortious interference claim was the same as that of their unjust
enrichment claim, i.e., the defendants deprived the plaintiffs of
plaintiffs' books of business after the terminating plaintiffs'
employment by diverting their clients from them through intentional
misrepresentations.  

The trial court in Porter recognized that the contract did not
expressly address the compensation of an agent who wrongfully lost
his book of business as a result of the parent insurer's misconduct
and the ICA noted that this conclusion of law was not contested on
appeal. Further, the ICA held that the defendants failed to show
the employment contracts addressed the conduct which was the basis
of the unjust enrichment claim.  

Here, Zyda's equitable claims are based upon his position that,
through the 2015 DRGF Policy, Defendants have effectively deprived
him of a right provided in the Hualalai CCRs his right to rent his
Resort home. Zyda could have brought a breach of contract claim
based on these same facts. Because Zyda's equitable claims are
based on the same facts as his breach of contract claim, he has an
adequate legal remedy and thus his equitable claims cannot stand.

That the remedies Zyda could have obtained in a breach of contract
claim would be different from those remedies which could be
obtained in equitable claims is of no relevance. Zyda cannot bring
equitable claims to distort a negotiated arrangement by broadening
the scope of the contract. Because the breach of contract claim
which could have been brought is an adequate remedy at law, it is
not necessary to address whether any tort claim or statutory claim
is also an adequate remedy at law.

There are no genuine issues of material fact, and Defendants are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Zyda's claims in
Counts IV, VII, and VIII. Further, the analysis of the Class
members' claims is the same, and Defendants are entitled to summary
judgment as to those claims as well. In light of these rulings, it
is not necessary to address the statute of limitations issue.

Claim for Violation of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Count V alleges that, due to the nature of Defendants' control of
the Resort and the relationship of the parties, Defendants owed the
Class a duty of good faith and fair dealing and have breached that
duty, Under Hawai'i law, every contract contains an implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing that neither party will do
anything that will deprive the other of the benefits of the
agreement. A bad faith tort claim is not cognizable because Hawai'i
law does not recognize such a claim outside of the insurance
context or, perhaps a situation involving a special relationship.

Zyda has affirmatively represented that Count V asserts a tort
claim. It is not a bad faith claim in the insurance context. Thus,
Zyda's bad faith tort claim fails as a matter of law unless there
is a special relationship between him and Defendants. Hawaii courts
have noted that other jurisdictions recognizing the tort of bad
faith limit such claims to the insurance context or situations
involving special relationships characterized by elements of
fiduciary responsibility, public interest, and adhesion.

While Mr. Schoon acknowledges that, in his capacity as HVH's
principal broker, he owes certain duties to his HVH clients, he
also states Zyda is not now, nor has he ever been, a client of HVH.
Zyda has not presented any admissible evidence suggesting a special
relationship exists between him and Defendants. There are no
genuine issues of material fact, and this Court concludes that, as
a matter of law, no special relationship between Zyda and
Defendants exists to permit Zyda to maintain a bad faith tort
claim.

Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Zyda's
claim in Count V.   of limitations issue.

Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

The negligent misrepresentation claim in Count VI is based upon
allegedly false information provided to Zyda and the Class when
considering making their property purchases in the Resort.
Specifically, that they were told their renters and guests would be
able to use the Resort amenities without paying additional fees.
However, the LPSA refers to the Amenity Rules, which were given at
the time of purchase   his membership in the Club and his use of
the Resort amenities.  

Even viewing the record in the light most favorable to Zyda, the
statements made at the time of his lot purchase that guest fees
would not be charged for the use of the Resort amenities were, at
most, merely a prediction that the Resort management would not
exercise its discretion to impose guest fees in the future.  

While there is an exception to this rule a promise relating to
future action or conduct will be actionable if the promise was made
without the present intent to fulfill the promise,  Zyda fails to
present any evidence of a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether the representations allegedly made about never imposing
guest fees constituted a promise that was made without the present
intent to fulfill it. Defendants are therefore entitled to summary
judgment as to Count VI.

There are no genuine issues of material fact, and Defendants are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to Zyda's claim in Count
VI. Further, the analysis of the Class members' claims is the same,
and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to those claims
as well. In light of these rulings, it is not necessary to address
the statute of limitations issue.

Based on this, the Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,
is granted in part and denied in part.  The Motion is granted
insofar as summary judgment is granted in the Defendants' favor as
to Counts IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII. The Motion is denied as to the
UDAP claim in Count III. Thus, this case will proceed to trial on
the UDAP claim and the UMOC claim in Count III.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 24, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2c47maw from Leagle.com.

Christopher Zyda, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated & Carol Meyer, (Class Plaintiffs) On Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Patrick Kyle Smith, Law Offices of Ian Mattoch, 737 Bishop St.,
Pacific Guardian Ctr., Mauka Twr., Honolulu, HI, 96813-3201 &
Terrance M. Revere -- terry@revereandassociates.com -- Revere &
Associates, LLLC.

Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, Four Seasons Hualalai Resort &
Hualalai Development Company, Defendants, represented by William
Meheula, Sullivan Meheula Lee LLLP, Topa Finacial Center Fort St.
Tower745 Fort StSuite 800Honolulu, HI 96813

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

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


FOX RUN: Faces Class Action in New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Wine Industry Advisor reports that when Scott Osborn, owner of Fox
Run Vineyards near Seneca Lake in upstate New York, first heard
that winery websites should be addressing the needs of visually
impaired people last October, he said he and his team immediately
began to work on "getting our site up to standard."

In January he got sued.

And his business wasn't the only one.

According to the New York Wine and Grape Foundation, last fall, 26
wineries from Long Island and the Hudson Valley were named in a
class action lawsuit and another 12, including Fox Run Vineyards,
in January for " . . . failure to design, construct, maintain and
operate its website to be fully accessible and independently usable
by (Plaintiff) and other visually impaired people."

At issue is Title III of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA),
which applies to private businesses. The intent of the Act, signed
into law by George Bush in 1990, is to ensure that individuals with
disabilities have equal access, opportunity, participation,
independence and economic self-sufficiency as individuals without
disabilities. (https://ag.ny.gov/civil-rights/disability-rights).

When first enacted, the law was primarily directed at businesses in
buildings that lacked adequate provisions for people with physical
handicaps who might be unable to access steps or navigate narrow
corridors and doorways.

But with the rise of the Internet in the 21st century and society's
reliance on it to conduct nearly all aspects of contemporary
commerce, Title III of the ADA has been extended to website
development as well.

There's little controversy about the intent of the law and its
basic premise. As Osborn puts it, "I want everyone to come to my
winery and access my website. I want to achieve as much as I can.
The problem is, there's not much information available as to how to
go about it. "

The sticking point appears to be a lack of clarity from the federal
government as to what exactly defines website accessibility for the
visually impaired and what those businesses that have been found to
be out of compliance need to do to fix it.

James Marshall Berry is Chief Strategy Officer with JMB Web
Consulting, LLC based out of Sonoma County. He works with a number
of winery clients who have serious concerns about the compliance
issue and how address it.

Berry contends that since the Department of Justice (DOJ) has
declined to be specific about issuing any official website
compliance guidelines, small businesses are scrambling to define
their own best practices and the actual decisions about compliance
are coming down from individual courtrooms where the cases are
being litigated.

"We all would like a standard of measure that tells us is it or
isn't it compliant," Berry asserts. "But if it's up to a judge and
jury to decide what's good enough -- that has sweeping
ramifications."

Berry says that many wineries and small businesses are turning to
website accessibility practices that were developed in 1999 by the
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), an international community where
"member organizations, a full time staff and the public work
together to develop web standards."
(https://www.w3.org/Consortium/).

Under the W3C, a workgroup came up with an initial list of 14
standards and checkpoints, known as the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG 1.0) that could be followed in order to make the
Internet more accessible to people with disabilities.

In 2008, those guidelines were updated (WCAG 2.0) to reflect the
ever-evolving nature of technology, and focused more on
"principle-centered guidelines," rather than the
"technique-centered guidelines," which made up the bulk of the
earlier work. (https://webaim.org/standards/wcag/).

However, as Berry points out, "It can be as arbitrary as
contrasting colors on a logo, or one color of orange being brighter
than another . . . at the end of the day, it's going to fall to CMS
(Content Management System) to become compliant. And, were winery
websites originally built that way? Not really. Do they have the
money to fashion their websites to facilitate compliance? Probably
not, but it will likely be cheaper than a lawsuit."

Richard J. Idell is an attorney with Dickenson, Peatman and
Fogarty, a law firm in Napa CA, with extensive experience
representing wine industry concerns. He is also an entertainment
lawyer, specializing in live performances and has significant
experience with ADA issues.

Idell agrees that it can be frustrating for wineries and other
small businesses to be subject to lawsuits without clear Justice
Department guidelines. But, as he points out, "the fact that there
are not clear guidelines on the issue doesn't mean you shouldn't
fix it."

Idell references the WCAG 2.1 standards for website development
guidance that suggest, among other things, installing software with
alternative text that contains a code that describes images on a
page, or screen reading software that does allow the visually
impaired to read online content.

He notes that the risk of damage awards and attorney's fees is
significant and a good reason to address the problem, even without
clarity from the Justice Department.

"This will all get sorted out eventually," Idell predicts, because,
as he says, the litigation will result in decisions where the
courts say what is covered in the law and not. "When the law was
passed, Congress saw the best way to get a law implemented is have
attorneys bring cases for private litigants. That is why you have
private individuals filing suit."

For their part, winery owners like Scott Osborn are doing their
best to cope with an ever-shifting legal and technical landscape.
Under his direction, Fox Run Vineyards has completely rebuilt its
website, with assistance from the Center for Disability Rights in
Rochester New York.

Osborn hired User 1st, a company specializing in website
accessibility. At the top left on the Fox Run Vineyards homepage,
there is now an Accessibility tab. When activated, users may choose
among several options to address accessibility needs, including
activating a screen reader, navigating by keyboard, changing color
contrast, making a grayscale and stop moving elements.

"It took us three to four months to get this thing done and done
correctly," Osborn reports. "People who don't have (disability)
issues -- we don't think about it. And we should. We just need a
way to think about it without having a lawsuit."

Sam Filler, the Executive Director of the New York Wine and Grape
Foundation, could not agree more.

"No one is intentionally trying to limit access," Filler states.
"The problem is with the rules not being clear.  Even if you've
followed best practices and WCAG 2.0, it doesn't absolve you from a
lawsuit. You could be 98 percent there, but one photo that wasn't
accessible can bring up a complaint."

"Bigger companies have the resources to settle (lawsuits)," Filler
continues. "For smaller wineries a settlement and the money to fix
a website can mean their yearly marketing budget.

"There needs to be breathing room so wineries can become compliant.
Our industry is totally committed to providing appropriate
disability access. If it's not there, our winery owners are
committed to making the appropriate improvement." [GN]


GALVIS & MUSA CORP: Franco Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Galvis & Musa,
Corp. d/b/a Delicias Tropical Restaurant, Zulma Musa and Maria
Galvis for alleged violations of the minimum wage and overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York
Labor Law (NYLL). The case is captioned MONICA FRANCO, On Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. GALVIS &
MUSA, CORP. d/b/a DELICIAS TROPICAL RESTAURANT, ZULMA MUSA and
MARIA GALVIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03828 (E.D.N.Y., July 1,
2019).

Plaintiff Monica Franco further alleges that the Defendants have
violated the NYLL by failing to pay the spread of hours, failing to
provide their employees with wage statements on each payday
containing specific categories of information and failing to
furnish their employees with a wage notice at the time of hiring
containing specific categories of accurate information.

Throughout her employment, Defendants required Plaintiff to work,
and Plaintiff did work, more than forty hours per week. However,
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at the minimum wage or overtime
rate of pay of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for
each hour that Plaintiff worked per week in excess of forty, as the
FLSA and the NYLL require.

Delicias Tropical Restaurant was and is a domestic business
corporation with its principal place of business located at 93-16B
37th Avenue, Jackson Heights, NY 11372. This restaurant offers
Colombian cuisine. Galvis and Musa own, manage and oversee the
day-to-day operations of this restaurant.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Amit Kumar, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
     108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
     New York, NY 10018
     Telephone: (212) 583-7400
     E-mail: AKumar@Cafaroesq.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Campos et al. Sue over Defective Motor Vehicle
--------------------------------------------------------------
CELINA S. CAMPOS; and RICARDO CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV20776
(Cal. Super., June 12, 2019) is an action against the Defendants
for manufacturing and selling a defective motor vehicle.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' 2011 Chevrolet Cruze
contained or developed defects, including but not limited to,
cooling system defects; transmission defects; defects requiring
adjustment to the transmission range selector lever; defects
requiring modification to the engine shield; defects related to the
shift lever; defects requiring battery cable replacement; defects
causing loss of coolant; defects causing cooling system leaks;
defects causing overheating; defects causing the Vehicle to not
turn over, crank, and/or start; defects causing replacement of
brake vacuum micro switch; defects causing the heater bypass valve
to leak; defects requiring replacement of heater bypass valve
and/or hose; defects causing low engine coolant without an external
leak; defects causing storage of diagnostic trouble code (DTC)
P0101; defects requiring reprogramming of the engine control
module; defects causing the illumination of the check engine light
("CEL"); defects causing illumination of the "service power
steering" message; defects causing the water pump to leak; defects
requiring replacement of the water pump; defects causing the
illumination of the service engine soon ("SES") light; defects
causing storage of diagnostic trouble code (DTC) P0171, P0299,
P0496,P00B7, and/or P2270; defects requiring replacement of the
EVAP Purge Solenoid; defects causing Vehicle's hesitation on start
up; defects causing engine shut down when coming to a stop; defects
causing replacement of PCV hose; defects causing engine fluid
leaks; defects requiring replacement of torque converter housing
gasket; defects causing a faulty turbocharger; defects causing
replacement of the starter motor; defects causing replacement of
valve cover gasket; defects requiring replacement of tire pressure
monitor sensors; defects causing replacement of cooling system
hoses; defects causing failure to start; and/or any other defects
enumerated in the Vehicle's repair history. Said defects
substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the Vehicle.

General Motors LLC was incorporated in 2009 and is based in
Wilmington, Delaware. General Motors LLC operates as a subsidiary
of General Motors Company. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tionna Dolin, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 430
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 929-4900
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
          E-mail: tdolin@slpattomey.com


GREATCALL: Recalls MobilePlus Devices Amid Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Jonah Comstock, writing for MobiHealthNews, reports that Best Buy
subsidiary GreatCall has quietly and voluntarily recalled some
portion of its recently-launched Lively MobilePlus devices, and has
halted the sale of new units. The exact nature of the defect is not
clear, but GreatCall referred to the recall in letters to
purchasers as an "important safety recall."

The device is currently listed as "Coming Soon" on GreatCall's
website with no option to purchase, despite being previously
available for purchase. GreatCall did not issue a public recall,
nor has a recall notice been issued by the FDA. A GreatCall
spokesperson told MobiHealthNews that the device is outside the
agency's jurisdiction.

"Thank you for your recent purchase of Lively Mobile Plus," CEO
David Inns wrote in a letter to customers dated May 15th.
"Unfortunately, we have identified a quality issue in a limited
number of Lively Mobile Plus devices manufactured earlier this
year. Out of an abundance of caution -- and because your safety is
our top priority -- we need you to stop using the device
immediately and return it to us. We want to help ensure your device
is working when you need it the most."

The letter, obtained by MobiHealthNews as part of the documentation
in a class action suit against the company filed May 22nd, goes on
to offer affected users a full refund, a free Jitterbug flip phone,
and a $50 Best Buy gift card.

A GreatCall spokesperson confirmed the news.

"We identified a quality issue in a small number of Lively
MobilePlus devices," the spokesperson told MobiHealthNews. "We
decided to stop selling these devices. Every customer who had
purchased one was contacted within 72 hours and has either gotten a
full refund or a Jitterbug flip phone."

The company declined to disclose the number of devices that had
been sold or were affected. The spokesperson told MobiHealthNews
that the decision to contact customers individually rather than
through a public recall was based on the fact that they had contact
information for every customer and felt they could reach them more
quickly and reliably in that way.

The class action suit was filed on behalf of Scott Barnes, who told
MobiHealthNews via email that the device failed to detect his falls
on two occasions. Barnes said he was not told about the recall
until after he called and complained, a sentiment echoed by a
number of similar reports on the consumer product review site
BestCompany. The class action suit charges that GreatCall was aware
of the issue for some time before contacting customers.

"Even though Defendants have been aware of the Defect, and that
there has been a drastic increase in failed emergency services
calls, Defendants continued to sell the Defective Medical Alert
Device and knowingly hid the Defect from consumers," Barnes's
lawyers allege in the suit. "Defendants made a business decision
that publicly notifying all potential consumers about the Defect
would negatively affect sales and profits and therefore chose to
conceal the serious consequences of the Defect. Faced with this
no-win situation, Defendants put profits over quality and safety."

GreatCall provided MobiHealthNews with a statement about the class
action suit.

"The claims in the lawsuit do not appear to be related to the
quality issues we identified with Lively Mobile Plus," the company
said. "However, we are continuing to investigate the situation."

The spokesperson said GreatCall is investigating the issue with the
devices and plans to resume sales of the device once they're sure
it has been corrected. [GN]


GRUBHUB: Faces Class Action in Philadelphia Over Hidden Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Tanenbaum, writing for PhillyVoice, report that takeout
delivery service Grubhub is facing a potential class-action lawsuit
led by a Philadelphia restaurant that claims the Chicago-based
company charged hidden fees.

The lawsuit was filed in January by Indian restaurant chain Tiffin,
which has 12 locations across the Philadelphia region.

Restaurateur Munish Narula claims Grubhub has been charging
thousands of restaurants for customer calls that didn't actually
result in food orders.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia claims Grubhub
collected fees even when customers simply placed calls to get
information about restaurant menus and hours. Tiffin is seeking
class-action status to cover many of Grubhub's 115,000 restaurant
partners.

In court, Grubhub's attorneys argued the lawsuit belongs in
arbitration, New York Post reported. The company claims its
partners knowingly agreed to terms of use that have included
arbitration and class action waiver provisions since 2016.

Tiffin says Grubhub's non-order charges have amounted to thousands
of dollars annually for at least seven years for some businesses.

Attorneys representing Tiffin told the Post Grubhub is "Monday
morning quarterbacking" and "grasping at straws" in order to dodge
liability.

Restaurateurs affected by the alleged phantom charges say Grubhub
has been attempting to broker deals that cover only a fraction of
the accumulated fees -- about 60-90 days worth of refunds.

Grubhub, which owns Menupages and Seamless, frequently receives
informational calls.

In one instance, a woman called the Italian restaurant Enoteca, in
Brooklyn, to see whether she could order gluten-free pasta. The
restaurant was charged a $9.07 fee for the call, plus the
additional 15-20 percent Grubhub commission when she placed an
order on the app minutes later.

Tiffin seeks $5 million in damages with the possibility of an
increase if more restaurants join the lawsuit. [GN]


GRUBHUB: Seeks Dismissal of Philadelphia Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dugan and Lisa Fickenscher, writing for New York Post, report
that Grubhub wants to keep an explosive lawsuit claiming it's
ripped off restaurants out of the public eye -- even as it
scrambles to quietly contain the fallout from irate restaurant
owners.

The giant food delivery company is asking a Philadelphia federal
judge to toss a lawsuit claiming that Grubhub has been charging
restaurants each time diners pick up the phone -- regardless of
whether the calls result in a food order generated by Grubhub.

The lawsuit, filed by the owner of an Indian restaurant in
Philadelphia called Tiffin, is seeking class-action status.

But the Chicago company tossed water on that prospect when it told
the judge that the lawsuit belongs in arbitration, where it would
be handled behind closed doors.

"Plaintiffs signed written contracts in 2011 with Grubhub that
incorporate online terms of use, which since 2016 have included
arbitration and class waiver provisions," Grubhub said in a court
filing.

Grubhub, founded by Matt Maloney, has been under siege after
thousands of restaurants learned in May -- thanks to an exclusive
report in The Post -- that the company has been charging them up to
thousands of dollars a month to answer the phone, even if it's just
for a customer asking when they're open.

Grubhub, which also owns Seamless and Menupages.com, is supposed to
only charge restaurants a percentage of orders it helps generate.

Lawyers for Tiffin shot back on June 3, accusing the company of
"Monday-morning quarterbacking, grasping at straws, scorching the
earth, using every available resource, dozens of employees and
lawyers . . . in a mad scramble to avoid liability for its
misconduct."

Indeed, Grubhub has gone so far as to threaten another angry
restaurateur that his eateries will disappear from the company's
apps if he files suit to get back bogus charges, The Post has
learned.

"If you would like to pursue legal action, you can send us a letter
accordingly. Both accounts would have to be paused until the legal
matter is resolved," a Grubhub account adviser wrote to the owner,
according to December emails obtained by The Post.

Angry restaurateurs say Grubhub is taking an à la carte approach
to paying them back -- offering them 60 to 90 days' worth of
refunds despite years of potential overcharges.

Owners who balk at these meager refunds have been offered as much
as a year's worth of returns, sources said.

Gente Ristorante Italiano owner Jay Mitchell said Grubhub
pre-emptively refunded his restaurant for erroneous fees going back
as far as December 2018, including one $9 fee for a missed call.

"Our statements going back to December listed 'credit' next to
these phone orders even though we didn't ask for that," Mitchell
said.

A Grubhub spokeswoman declined to comment.

Grubhub's argument for sending Tiffin's lawsuit to arbitration
rests in part on the online records showing the owner clicked on
and viewed the company's terms of use before suing.

"Even if plaintiffs had not explicitly accepted the terms when
first signing up, they would still be bound," according to Grubhub.
[GN]


HASBRO INC: Removes Erler et al. Suit to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of JOHNATHAN ERLER; THOMAS COX; IAN
NYTES; THOMAS RODRIGUEZ; MICHAEL LEE; CHARLES DECELLES; CYNTHIA
MOREN; BILAL AWADALLAH; AARON PINKHAM; TRAVIS HENLEY; NATHAN
KUJACZNSKI; MARK LAROCHE; RYAN JAQUES; MICHAEL RANTON; CAMERON
BURGER; GRANT SHINDO; THOMAS BELLO; ALDEN RANDALL; JARED LIEBOWITZ;
ANDREW SCHWEIG; JAMES LEA; MITCHELL LEVY; BRANDON PETTIT; MICHAEL
APPERSON; ULISES MORENO-ORTEGA; AARON SMITH; JORDAN POLLACK; and
IZAAK KEMP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. HASBRO, INC.; and WIZARDS OF THE COAST,
LLC, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the
State Court of the State of Georgia, County of Gwinnett County
(Case No. 19C03355-S4) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on June 11, 2019. The clerk of court for the
Northern District of Georgia assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02658. The
case is assigned to Amy Totenberg.

Hasbro, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a play
and entertainment company. The company sells its products to
wholesalers, distributors, chain stores, discount stores, drug
stores, mail order houses, catalog stores, department stores, and
other traditional retailers, as well as Internet-based e-tailers.
Hasbro, Inc. was founded in 1923 and is headquartered in Pawtucket,
Rhode Island. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Q. Wetherington, Esq.
          WERNER WETHERINGTON, P.C. - GA.
          2860 Piedmont Rd., N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 564-4329
          E-mail: matt@wernerlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Neil Friedman, Esq
          Werner Wetherington, P.C.
          2860 Piedmont Rd., N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 991-3692
          E-mail: Robert@wernerlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kimberly Blount Reeves, Esq.
          Shelby R. Grubbs, Esq.
          MILLER & MARTIN, PLLC – ATL
          1180 West Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 2100
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3407
          Telephone: (404) 962-6412
          Facsimile: (404) 962-6300
          E-mail: kimberly.reeves@millermartin.com
                  sgrubbs@millermartin.com


HERON THERAPEUTICS: Aug. 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on June 4 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the
securities of Heron Therapeutics, Inc. ("Heron," "HRTX" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: HRTX) between October 31, 2018 and April 30,
2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit, filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, seeks to recover damages for Heron investors under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased HRTX securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options, please visit Heron Therapeutics HRTX
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Heron had failed to include adequate Chemistry, Manufacturing,
and Controls ("CMC") and non-clinical information in its new drug
application ("NDA") for HTX-011, a drug for management of
post-operative pain; (ii) the foregoing increased the likelihood
that the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") would not approve
Heron's NDA for HTX-011; and (iii) as a result, Heron's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On May 1, 2019, Heron announced that it had received a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA on April 30, 2019 regarding
the Company's NDA for HTX-011.  Heron advised investors that "[t]he
CRL stated that the FDA is unable to approve the NDA in its present
form based on the need for additional CMC and non-clinical
information."

On this news Heron's stock price fell $3.93 per share, or 18.13% to
close at $17.75 per share on May 1, 2019.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Heron class action,
you must move the court no later than August 5, 2019. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you
take no action, you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Heron securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options, please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/heron-therapeutics-hrtx-shareholder-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-138/or
contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years. [GN]


HOME DEPOT: McGuireWoods Attorneys Discuss Supreme Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Flannery, Esq. -- dflannery@mcguirewoods.com -- Andrew Gann
Jr., Esq. -- agann@mcguirewoods.com -- and Trent Taylor, Esq. --
rtaylor@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, report that on Tuesday May 28, 2019, the United State
Supreme Court declined to afford state court third-party, class
action defendants the ability to remove a class action to federal
court. See Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 17-1471 (May 28,
2019).

In Jackson, Citibank, N.A., filed a debt-collection action against
George Jackson in North Carolina state court. Jackson answered this
action and filed his own claims: (1) an individual counterclaim
against Citibank and (2) a third-party class-action against Home
Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Carolina Water Systems, Inc.

After Citibank dismissed its claims against Jackson, Home Depot
filed a notice of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1332, 1441,
1446, and 1453. Jackson subsequently moved to remand which the
federal district court granted and the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

After oral argument, the United State Supreme Court affirmed the
Fourth Circuit in a 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Thomas. In
the opinion, the Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) does not
permit removal by a third-party counterclaim defendant as such
removal is limited to the original defendants as held in Shamrock
Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941). The Court also held
that 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b) does not compel a different outcome.
Although § 1453(b) states "may be removed by any defendant" as
opposed to § 1441(a)'s "the defendant", the Court held that this
clause does not alter the limitation on who can remove a class
action.

In the end, Jackson affirmed what Judge Niemeyer over a decade ago
had called "an unfortunate loophole in the Class Action Fairness
Act that only the Supreme Court can now rectify." Palisades
Collections LLC v. Shorts, 552 F.3d 327, 345 (4th Cir. 2008). Now,
it is up to Congress to rectify this "loophole." Until then,
however, the decision in Jackson presents an additional challenge
for third-party defendants in class actions. [GN]


HOMELAND SECURITY: Sued over Redetermination Memo on Alien Kids
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), Kevin McAleenan, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS), and Kenneth Cuccinelli for alleged
violations of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA), and the constitutional due process rights of
children who seek to access the statutory asylum system in the
United States. The case is captioned J.O.P. (by and through Next
Friend G.C.P.), M.A.L.C., M.E.R.E., and K.A.R.C., on behalf of
themselves as individuals and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
KEVIN MCALEENAN (in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of
Homeland Security), U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, and
KENNETH CUCCINELLI (in his official capacity as Acting Director of
U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services), Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-01944-GJH (D. Md., July 1, 2019).

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have violated the
aforementioned laws by their sudden shift in a policy that
retroactively strips Plaintiffs of critical, statutory asylum
protections. Plaintiffs are considered as unaccompanied alien
children (UAC) and TVPRA relieves them of two procedural hurdles to
accessing the asylum system, providing a more child-appropriate way
for the government to process their claims to protection under U.S.
and international law fairly. However, the permanent protections
enacted by Congress in the TPVRA are unlawfully curtailed by
Defendants' recent actions.

On June 14, 2019, USCIS posted a memorandum dated May 31, 2019
(2019 Redetermination Memo) to its website announcing significant
changes to how USCIS will implement the TPVRA, effective on June
30, 2019. USCIS did not publish the 2019 Redetermination Memo in
the Federal Register, and the agency did not invite the public
comment on any of the new directives set forth in the memorandum.
The 2019 Redetermination Memo now mandates that an asylum officer
must make an independent factual inquiry to redetermine whether an
applicant met the statutory definition of a UAC on their filing
date – even if that filing date was years ago, when the prior
policy was in effect.

DHS is a federal cabinet department responsible for implementing
and enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act. USCIS is a
bureau within DHS and an "agency" within the meaning of APA. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Brian Burgess, Esq.
     Stephen R. Shaw, Esq.
     Goodwin Procter LLP
     901 New York Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC 20001-4432
     Telephone: (202) 346-4000
     Facsimile: (202) 346-4444
     E-mail: BBurgess@goodwinlaw.com
             SShaw@goodwinlaw.com

             - and -

     Elaine Herrmann Blais, Esq.
     Sarah K. Frederick, Esq.
     Kevin J. DeJong, Esq.
     Christie Larochelle, Esq.
     GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
     100 Northern Avenue
     Boston, MA 02210
     Telephone: (617) 570-1000
     Facsimile: (617) 523-1231
     E-mail: EBlais@goodwinlaw.com
             SFrederick@goodwinlaw.com
             KDejong@goodwinlaw.com
             CLarochelle@goodwinlaw.com
             
             - and -

     Scott Schuchart, Esq.
     KIDS IN NEED OF DEFENSE
     1201 L Street, NW, Floor 2
     Washington, DC 20005
     Telephone: (202) 318-0595
     Facsimile: (202) 824-0702
     E-mail: sschuchart@supportkind.org

             - and –

     Wendy Wylegala, Esq.
     KIDS IN NEED OF DEFENSE
     c/o Lowenstein Sandler LLP
     1251 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10020
     Telephone: (862) 926-2069
     Facsimile: (202) 824-0702
     E-mail: wwylegala@supportkind.org

             - and -

     Michelle N. Mendez, Esq.
     CATHOLIC LEGAL IMMIGRATION NETWORK (CLINIC)
     8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 850
     Silver Spring, MD 20910
     Telephone: (301) 565-4824
     Facsimile: (301) 565-4824
     E-mail: mmendez@cliniclegal.org

             - and -

     Rebecca Scholtz, Esq.
     Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC)
     c/o University of St. Thomas Legal Services Clinic
     30 S. 10th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55403
     Telephone: (651) 962-4833
     Facsimile: (301) 565-4824
     E-mail: rscholtz@cliniclegal.org

             - and -

     Kristen Jackson, Esq.
     Mary Tanagho Ross, Esq.
     PUBLIC COUNSEL
     610 South Ardmore Avenue
     Los Angeles, CA 90005
     Telephone: (213) 385-2977
     Facsimile: (213) 201-4727
     E-mail: kjackson@publiccounsel.org
             mross@publiccounsel.org


HVG: Defends Alucobond PE-Core Cladding Class Action in Australia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bleby, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that Alucobond panels complied with all relevant laws and codes and
it was only the decisions of consultants and contractors that
resulted in them being used in ways that were dangerous and created
risk of fire, the country's largest supplier of polyethylene-core
panels says in its defence to a potentially devastating class
action claim.

The 100 per cent PE-core aluminium composite cladding sheets "were
capable of being used or fitted onto buildings by qualified
professionals" in ways that met state and territory requirements as
well as the National Construction Code, Sydney-based Halifax Vogel
Group said in defence documents filed with the Federal Court.

As a result, any fault for incorrect use lay with the contractors
who put the ACP panels on buildings and certifiers who declared it
to be used safely, not HVG, which disclosed all necessary
information to allow its products to be used safely, the company
said.

"The obligation to use building products, including ACPs, in a safe
manner, in compliance with all relevant standards, codes and
regulations, is on the builder, architect and/or the developer,"
HVG says.

The outcome of the case matters. A judgment could give compensation
to owners of potentially thousands of apartments across Australia,
as well as owners of commercial and government buildings and even
long-term leaseholders with the obligation to rectify defects.

The dispute revolves around the use of Australian Consumer Law over
an issue that would normally be fought between consumers --
apartment owners -- and the builder, as was the case in the
long-running legal action over combustible cladding on Melbourne's
Lacrosse tower.

The lead applicants are owners of 17 apartments in the Shore Dolls
Point, at 172-174 Russell Avenue, in Sydney's southern suburb of
Dolls Point. HVG during 2011 and 2012 supplied 128 panels for use
on the four-level building.

ACL guarantee cited
In their statement of claim, owners in the case backed by
litigation funder IMF Bentham and represented by William Roberts
Lawyers argue the panels failed to meet standards set by consumer
protection laws and carried a "material risk" of causing or
spreading fire

The owners argue that Alucobond PE-core cladding was "at all
material times" a good acquired for consumption under Australian
Consumer Law and was subject to an ACL guarantee that it be of
acceptable quality.

In its statement, HVG argues that the Alucobond panels were not
goods for use or consumption as defined by ACL or the Trade
Practices Act and  anyone being supplied with the panels was not a
consumer under those laws.

The company also says that facade contractor Modernise
Installations, which put the panels on the building, acquired the
panels for the purpose of resupply to the building and did not meet
the definition of a consumer.

HVG says the panels were not subject to either the Acceptable
Quality Guarantee of ACL or the Merchantable Quality provisions of
the TPA, which in general terms require them to be fit for the
purpose. A second line of defence, common in legal arguments, is
that if the court finds that either provision does apply, then any
non-compliance with those guarantees is the fault of parties
responsible for installing and certifying the product.

Arguments by both sides have yet to be finalised. The Federal Court
Justice Michael Wigney ruled that 3A Composites, the German
manufacturer of the panels, had a prima facie case to answer and
gave the applicants leave to serve their statement of claim against
the Osnabruck-based company.

3A Composites will now have to hire local lawyers to represent it
and draft a defence to the claims.

In addition, HVG replaced its solicitors, appointing Sparke Helmore
in place of firm Quinn Emanuel, which prepared the defence
document.  Its new lawyers may amend the original defence
statement.

HVG did not respond to a question as to why it replaced its
solicitors. HVG has retained barrister Nicholas Owens, SC. [GN]


ICAN BENEFIT: Policy Exclusion Relieves Insurer from Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew G. Simpson, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that a
federal judge in Florida has ruled that a policy exclusion for
invasion of privacy claims relieved an insurer of any
responsibility for a $60 million settlement against a Boca Raton
company for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Liberty International Underwriters, a division of Liberty Mutual,
was granted a summary judgment against plaintiffs looking to
collect on a class action settlement they obtained from iCan
Benefit Group for violating the TCPA by sending them unsolicited
advertisements by text.

The U.S District Court in the Southern District of Florida agreed
with the insurer that there was no coverage and barred the
plaintiffs from recovering the settlement or defense costs from
Liberty.

The court concluded that Liberty's Private Advantage policy's broad
exclusion barring coverage for claims "arising out of" an actual or
alleged invasion of privacy precluded coverage for iCan entirely.

After Liberty denied coverage for the TCPA claims by those
receiving iCan's unwanted autodialed text messages on their
cellular telephones, health insurance broker iCan settled the class
action for $60 million. The plaintiffs then received an assignment
of iCan's rights and interests in the Liberty insurance policy and
sought to collect from the insurer.

The dispute led to cross-motions for summary judgment, with
plaintiffs arguing wrongful denial of coverage and Liberty arguing
that there was no coverage because of its invasion of privacy
exclusion.

The Liberty exclusion in the policy providing coverages for
directors and officers and employment practices read in part that
the insurer would not be liable for a loss on account of any claim
made against its insured that is:

based upon, arising out of, or attributable to any actual or
alleged defamation, invasion of privacy, wrongful entry and
eviction, false arrest or imprisonment, malicious prosecution,
abuse of process, assault, battery or loss of consortium.

Liberty argued that since its policy broadly defined "claim" as a
"civil proceeding" and the class action alleged TCPA violations
that caused actual harm in the form of invasions of privacy, among
other harms, the entire lawsuit "arises out of" an invasion of
privacy.

But plaintiffs contended that the exclusion was inapplicable
because there were other allegations in addition to invasion of
privacy within the complaint against iCan, that the invasions of
privacy were just one part of the underlying case. Plaintiffs also
argued that they did not have to prove invasion of privacy in order
to prevail in the class action since it is not an element of the
TCPA cause of action.

U.S. District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg determined that the question
for the court was whether the underlying complaint, or some
component of it, is a claim, which arose out of an invasion of
privacy.

The judge cites several precedents supporting the idea that a
violation of the TCPA may in some circumstances be considered an
invasion of privacy when analyzing insurance coverage.

The Florida Supreme Court's analysis of the nexus between the TCPA
and invasion of privacy in Penzer v. Transportation Insurance
Company in 2010 found the "source of the right of privacy is the
TCPA, which provides the privacy right to seclusion" . . . and that
"the stated purpose of the TCPA . . . . is to protect the privacy
of individuals . . ." in a case involving the faxing of unsolicited
advertisements.

The court also looked at a 2017 Ninth Circuit case -- Los Angeles
Lakers, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co. -- which evaluated the
precise question of whether an exclusion from coverage of suits
arising from an invasion of privacy also includes suits arising
from TCPA violations. This court concluded that because a "TCPA
claim is inherently an invasion of privacy claim," TCPA claims fell
under the policy's exclusionary clause.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals also looked at the relationship
between the TCPA and invasion of privacy in Universal Underwriters
Insurance Co. v. Lou Fusz Automotive Network in 2005. This court
examined whether an insurance policy that defined an "injury" as
including "invasion[s] of rights of privacy" covered a lawsuit
alleging TCPA violations. Like the Florida Supreme Court and the
Ninth Circuit, this court concluded that "it is clear that Congress
viewed violations of the Act as 'private nuisances' and as
'invasions of privacy' under ordinary, lay meanings of these
phrases."

The Eastern District of Virginia also concluded that a policy
exclusion for "invasion of privacy" included TCPA claims in
Resource Bank v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.

According to Rosenberg, it is important that the Liberty policy
excludes claims that "arise out of" an invasion of privacy because,
she noted, the Florida Supreme Court has held that the words
"arising out of" in an insurance policy are unambiguous and
absolute in scope.

Coupling the case law that interprets TCPA violations as invasions
of privacy with Florida's interpretation of "arising out of," the
court found that the TCPA violations at issue in the iCan matter
arise out of an invasion of privacy and therefore are excluded from
coverage under Liberty's privacy exclusion.

The court also considered whether the entire iCan claim is excluded
from coverage or whether just those aspects of the underlying case
that involve invasion of privacy are excluded. The court noted that
the plaintiffs expressly alleged invasion of privacy as a basis for
their lawsuit and thus the claim includes allegations that the iCan
plaintiffs suffered the harm of invasion of privacy. But even if
the broad definition of claim did not preclude coverage over the
entirety of the underlying action, the plaintiffs failed to
allocate the settlement agreement between covered and uncovered
claims as required by Florida law, Rosenberg added.

"Florida law is well-settled that the party seeking coverage for a
settlement has the burden of proving that the settlement is covered
under the insurance policy," the decision stated. [GN]


ILLINOIS: Ford's Amended Complaint May Proceed, Says Court
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly entered an order in the lawsuit titled
Melvin Ford (M487792) v. John Baldwin, et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-50074 (N.D. Ill.), ruling that the Plaintiff's amended
complaint may proceed consistent with the order.

John Baldwin is the Acting Director of the Illinois Department of
Corrections.  Mr. Ford, an Illinois prisoner, has filed a pro se
lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 regarding his detentions at
the Northern Reception and Classification Center at Stateville
Correctional Center (NRC).

The Court orders the Clerk of Court to (1) file the amended
complaint; (2) substitute Randy Pfister as Defendant for John Doe
Warden; (3) issue summonses for service of the amended complaint on
Defendants Pfister, Porter, Coles, Brimmage, Menchaca, Walker,
Robinson , McGruder, Brothers, Koscyk, and MacCador ; (4) terminate
all other Defendants; and (4) send Plaintiff eleven blank USM-285
(Marshals service) forms, a magistrate judge consent form, filing
instructions, and a copy of this order.

The Plaintiff must promptly complete and return a USM-285 form for
service on each Defendant.  Failure to return the USM-285 forms may
result in dismissal of the unserved Defendant(s), as well as
dismissal of this case in its entirety.  The Plaintiff also must
promptly submit a change-of-address notification if he is
transferred to another facility or released.  If the Plaintiff
fails to keep the Court informed of his address, this action will
be subject to dismissal for failure to comply with a Court order
and for failure to prosecute.

The Court appoints the U.S. Marshal to serve the Defendants.  The
Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification is denied.  The
Plaintiff's renewed motion for attorney representation is denied as
premature, without prejudice to renewal after the Defendants
respond to the complaint.

In the Order, Judge Kennelly notes that in regard to the civil
conspiracy claim, which the Plaintiff attempts to bring against all
Defendants, he alleges in a conclusory fashion that the Defendants
conspired to deprive him of his rights and a fair trial.  Judge
Kennelly opines that a bare allegation of conspiracy is
insufficient to state a claim.  Because the Plaintiff has not
alleged any facts that indicate the Defendants entered into a
conspiracy to violate his rights, the claim is dismissed.[CC]


ITS NATIONAL: Deweese Settlement Has Final Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement in the case captioned GLENN DEWEESE and JOSHUA
HOLTOM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ITS NATIONAL, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants. Case No. 3:18-cv-00375-MMD-WGC. (D. Nev.).

The Court confirms as final the following settlement class: All
Inside Sales Positions (Account Executives, Account Managers, and
other similar job positions) and Carrier Specialists (and other
similar job positions) who were employed by Defendant ITS National,
LLC, at any time from June 6, 2015 to March 19, 2019.

The Court confirms the appointment of Glen Deweese and Joshua
Holtom as the Class Representatives and approves the enhancement
payment of $15,000 to each, $30,000 in total, as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement given the work these Class Representatives
performed on behalf of the Class and in consideration of their
execution of a general release of all their claims against
Defendant.

The Court confirms the appointment of Thierman Buck LLP as Class
Counsel for the settlement class and approves their requests for
attorneys' fees and litigation costs of $215,000 and $5,000,
respectively.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), the Court grants final approval
to this settlement and finds that the settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate in all respects, including the attorneys'
fees, costs, and incentive award provisions. The Court specifically
finds that the settlement confers a substantial benefit to
settlement class members, considering the strength of plaintiff's
claims and the risk, expense, complexity, and duration of further
litigation. The response of the class supports settlement approval.
Zero (0) class members objected to the settlement and only three
(3) requested exclusion from the settlement. The Court further
finds that the settlement is the result of arms-length negotiations
between experienced counsel representing the interests of both
sides, with the assistance of a federal Magistrate Judge, which
supports approval of the settlement in accordance with the
standards set forth in the joint motion for final approval of
settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 20, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/y2otkydx from Leagle.com.

Glenn DeWeese & Joshua Holton, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark R.
Thierman -- mark@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP, Joshua D.
Buck -- josh@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP & Leah Lin
Jones -- leah@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP.

ITS National, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jill Irene Greiner,
Dotson Law & Robert A. Dotson, Dotson Law, City Hall Tower, One
East First St. Reno, NV 89501


JANNSEN PHARMA: Oct. 21 Trial Date Set for Opioid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Wagner, writing for Rome News-Tribune, reports that the
bellwether cases in Rome and Floyd County's lawsuit against opioid
manufacturers and distributors are set to go to trial
Oct. 21 in a federal district court.

Dec. 13 is the deadline for closing statements and final
instructions to the jury, according to the latest, May 1, order by
U.S. District Judge Dan. A. Polster of the Northern District of
Ohio.

Rome attorney Andy Davis, who's taking the lead on the local cases
with attorney Bob Finnell, has said the legal decisions in the
Track One cases will be applied to all the others in the class
action suit.

Polster consolidated the lawsuits filed by cities, counties and
states into a single multidistrict litigation case in December 2017
to speed resolution.

Rome and Floyd joined a suit with Chattooga and Whitfield counties
and the city of Cartersville in May 2018. They're seeking damages
to fund increased costs for police, medical and other services and
to fund local programs to address the epidemic.

A new report through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's opioid
assessment tool states that 32 people died of opioid overdoses in
Floyd County in the five years from 2013 to 2017. That's a rate of
10.7 per 100,000 people.

The rate is 11.5 statewide and 16.4 nationally, and it appears to
be trending up. Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and North and South
Carolina are among the states with what the Centers for Disease
Control call "a statistically significant increase" in deaths from
2016 to 2017.

However, the tool notes that there are variations in how overdoses
are reported and estimates should be used with caution. Last year,
the USDA tool indicated 68 Floyd County deaths between 2012 and
2016 -- a rate of 22.2 per 100,000. The state's rate was 16.8 for
those five years and the national rate was 22.5.

Roughly 1,500 cases are part of the consolidated case in Ohio.

The plaintiffs argue that manufacturers knew the painkillers such
as oxycontin and hydrocodone were highly addictive -- but they
downplayed the risk and aggressively marketed them to physicians.
Other elements include an accusation that distributors failed to
monitor sales, as required, and didn't report suspicious orders.

In Floyd County, prescriptions for opioid painkillers such as
oxycodone and morphine were issued at a rate of 153.3 for every 100
residents in 2016, according to a CDC study.

About 500 cases are proceeding separately in states. The first
trial, in Oklahoma, has started.

Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter's opened the state's case
against consumer products giant Johnson & Johnson and several
subsidiaries by saying the powerful painkillers have led to the
"worst manmade public health crisis" in U.S. history.

"This crisis is devastating Oklahoma," Hunter said, adding that
opioid overdoses killed 4,653 people in the state from 2007 to
2017.

Lawyers for Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson
say the products the company manufactured were not just legal, but
were heavily regulated. Janssen attorney Larry Ottaway told the
judge that the drugs are important because they can help people
manage debilitating pain.

"Serious chronic pain is a soul-stealing, life-robbing thief. It
leads to depression. It leads to suicide. People can't take care of
their own basic functions," Ottaway said. "You will hear from
doctors, who practice right here in Oklahoma, some of those
stories."

The Oklahoma case is significant because it's the first to go to
trial and could help shape negotiations to resolve the consolidated
case. Two companies, OxyContin-maker Purdue Pharma and Teva
Pharmaceuticals , settled with Oklahoma ahead of the trial.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. [GN]


JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES: Can Appeal Ruling in Sexual Assault Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Presse Canadienne & Montreal Gazette, writing for Montereal
Gazette, reports that Jehovah's Witnesses in Quebec may appeal a
judgment that gave the green light to a class-action lawsuit
against them for alleged sexual assault on minors.

The Quebec Court of Appeal on June 3 granted them the right to
appeal a judgment authorizing the class action, handed down in
February by Justice Chantal Corriveau of the Superior Court.

At the heart of the class action is whether the church failed to
protect its members when they tried to denounce sexual abuse.

The class action argues the church's internal reporting policies
conceal abuse and have silenced hundreds of sexual assault
complaints through the years. It seeks at least $250,000 in damages
for each alleged victim.

The lawsuit targets the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of
Canada, the parent company of Jehovah's Witnesses in the country,
and another society based in Pennsylvania that's responsible for
the church's communications and publications.

At the heart of the class action is whether the church failed to
protect its members when they tried to denounce sexual abuse.

According to the lawsuit, Lisa Blais, now in her 40s, first spoke
out about the alleged abuse when she was 16 years old. She sought
help from her parents, another Jehovah's Witness and an elder --
members who act as spiritual leaders in different congregations --
but says she was discouraged from reporting the abuse in order to
protect the community.

Blais left her family at 17 and was officially disfellowshipped at
24.

In seeking leave to appeal Corriveau's judgment, Watch Tower Canada
described the decision as "unprecedented in Quebec." The alleged
assaults did not take place in an institutional setting, the
organization noted, and it was not leaders or employees of the
religious organization who allegedly committed the acts.

The Quebec Court of Appeal found that the Jehovah's Witnesses'
arguments deserve to be further assessed. Jehovah's Witnesses will
now have to plead their case before the Court of Appeal, at a date
yet to be determined. [GN]


JMR LANDSCAPING: Zuniga Moves to Certify Class of Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled SERGIO ARMANDO LAZCON ZUNIGA,
on behalf of himself, and all other similarly situated plaintiffs
known and unknown v. JMR LANDSCAPING LLC, and JOEY ROSSA,
Individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-07470 (N.D. Ill.), moves for class
certification of his overtime wage claims under the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act for the Defendants' alleged failure to
comply with the Act's requirements governing deductions from the
wages of its employees.

The class is defined as:

     All individuals who performed work for JMR Landscaping, LLP,
     between July 24, 2008, and the present; and who had
     deductions made from their pay for uniform purchase, rental,
     laundering or other uniform related deductions.

Mr. Zuniga also seeks an order:

   A. authorizing notice to issue to putative class members;

   B. appointing his counsel as class counsel, and him as Class
      Representative; and

   C. directing the Defendants to produce to his counsel the
      names and last known postal addresses, telephone numbers,
      and e-mail addresses of all individuals who fall within the
      class definition and who worked for Defendant JMR from
      July 24, 2008, to the present, to be produced in a usable
      electronic format within ten (10) days of the date of the
      order.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
          LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
          77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 420-6784
          E-mail: jsanchez@lopezsanchezlaw.com

               - and -

          Alexandria Santistevan, Esq.
          FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
          33 N. La Salle, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 784-3541
          E-mail: litigation@flapillinois.org

One of the Plaintiff's attorneys certifies that notice was sent to
this attorney of record:

          David Ritter, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4400,
          Chicago, IL 60606-2833
          Telephone: (312) 214-4862
          E-mail: david.ritter@btlaw.com


JP MORGAN: Settles Class Action Over Parental Leave Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
Scottish Legal News reports that banking giant JP Morgan has
settled a class action lawsuit over its parental leave policy by
agreeing to pay affected employees $5m (GBP3.9m).

Derek Rotondo said the bank refused him parental leave benefit
normally available to all employees who are "primary caregivers".

He took legal action against the company in 2017, which was
followed by a class action lawsuit led by the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), the first of its kind.

The class action was on behalf of male employees who claimed to be
unlawfully refused paid parental leave on the same terms as mothers
between 2011 and 2017.

Mr Rotondo said in the complaint that when he sought to take 14
weeks' "primary caregiver" leave following the birth of his son, JP
Morgan said that fathers were eligible for only two weeks' paid
parental leave unless they could show that their partners were
either incapacitated or had returned to work.

The ACLU said that the firm has agreed to establish a $5m fund to
compensate the fathers.

The firm will also now maintain a gender-neutral parental leave
policy.

JP Morgan's Associate General Counsel Reid Broda said the company
was "pleased to have reached an agreement in this matter and look
forward to more effectively communicating the policy so that all
men and women employees are aware of their benefits".

"We thank Mr Rotondo for bringing the matter to our attention."
[GN]


JPMORGANCHASE: Sends Forced Arbitration Email to Customers
----------------------------------------------------------
Ian Millhiser, writing for ThinkProgress, reports that JPMorgan
Chase, the banking behemoth that provides credit cards to thousands
of Americans, sent an email to many of its customers on Friday
which seeks to strip those customers of most of their rights to sue
the bank if the bank violates the law. Though the email gives those
customers the ability to opt out of this effort to strip away their
rights, the instructions on how to do so are buried deep in the
email -- deep enough that the bank likely hopes that no one will
read that far.

The subject of the email is "Important information regarding
changes to your Chase account." A copy of this email was forwarded
to ThinkProgress by a Chase customer who received it.

Forced arbitration
The relevant portions of the email concern forced arbitration, an
abusive practice largely invented by conservatives on the Supreme
Court.

Beginning in the 1980s, the Supreme Court began to rewrite the
Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 -- a statute that, in Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg's words, was intended to allow "merchants with
relatively equal bargaining power" to resolve disputes through
private arbitrators -- to allow companies to force workers and
consumers into a privatized arbitration system that favors
corporate parties. This rewriting accelerated in the 21st century,
with a series of 5-4 decisions that departed sharply from the
Arbitration Act's text.

The Act, for example, exempts "workers engaged in foreign or
interstate commerce." Nevertheless, in Circuit City v. Adams, the
Supreme Court held that most workers engaged in foreign or
interstate commerce may be forced into arbitration agreements.

Similarly, in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the Supreme Court held
that companies may force their customers to sign away their right
to join a class action lawsuit as a condition of doing business for
that company. More recently, in Epic Systems v. Lewis, a 5-4 court
explained that workers can be forced to sign a forced arbitration
agreement with a class action ban under pain of firing.

As a paper by the Economic Policy Institute's Ross Eisenbrey
explains, individual workers forced into arbitration are less
likely to prevail before an arbitrator than they are before a real
judge. And when they do prevail, they typically receive far less
money.

Similarly, class action bans effectively allow companies to
illegally take money from their workers or consumers with impunity,
so long as they only take a little bit at a time.

Class actions allow multiple plaintiffs, who all share a similar
grievance against the same defendant, to join together in a single
lawsuit against that defendant. They are particularly important
when a company engages in widespread, low-dollar lawbreaking
against many individuals.

Suppose, for example, that a bank decides to illegally charge a
$150 fee to each of its 100,000 credit card customers. Nearly none
of these customers will sue the bank over a matter of only $150,
because the cost of litigating such a case will exceed the amount
of money at issue. So if the customers cannot join together in a
class action, the bank will walk away with a cool $15 million ($150
* 100,000).

How to opt-out
The Chase email contains both a forced arbitration provision and a
ban on class actions. It "provides that all disputes between you
and Chase must be resolved by BINDING ARBITRATION," and explicitly
states that parties to the forced arbitration agreement "GIVE UP
YOUR RIGHT TO GO TO COURT (except for matters that may be taken to
a small claims court)." The email further provides that class
actions "are not available under this agreement to arbitrate."

Though the email does allow some claims to proceed in small claims
court rather than before an arbitrator, it also provides that such
claims must proceed "on an individual basis." Thus, the email seeks
to immunize Chase from class action litigation.

Significantly, however, the email also provides that customers may
opt out of the forced arbitration provision and class action ban,
but only if they comply with very specific instructions.

Can I (the customer) reject this agreement to arbitrate?

Yes. You have the right to reject this agreement to arbitrate if
you notify us no later than 8/9/2019. You must do so in writing by
stating that you reject this agreement to arbitrate and include
your name, account number, address and personal signature. Your
notice must be mailed to us at P.O. Box 15298, Wilmington, DE
19850-5298. Rejection notices sent to any other address, or sent by
electronic mail or communicated orally, will not be accepted or
effective.

If you received this email, in other words, and do not wish to give
up your rights to your credit card company, you must send a letter
via snail mail to the P.O. Box listed above — and you must do so
by early August.

Though it may be surprising that Chase allows people to opt-out of
forced arbitration, the opt-out provision serves a very specific
legal purpose. As Professor Charlotte Garden writes in a recent
paper on forced arbitration, California law arguably permits courts
to strike down forced arbitration provisions if that provision is
imposed without choice. So it's in a company's interest to give
customers a choice to opt-out -- so long as the choice is buried
where few people are likely to notice it.

As Garden explains, the delivery service Grubhub imposed a forced
arbitration agreement on its drivers. Yet "only two delivery
drivers of thousands had opted out of the [forced arbitration
provision] during the months after Grubhub added its opt out
clause." Similarly, "only 270 drivers out of more than 160,000"
opted out of Uber's forced arbitration agreement. Thus, opt-out
clauses help protect companies from a court decision invalidating a
forced arbitration agreements, and they typically do so at
virtually no cost to the company. Few people notice them. Fewer
still probably understand them. So almost no one opts out.

Chase, however, cannot prevent members of the media from reporting
on this abusive practice. Nor can it prevent any of its customers
who read this column from invoking the opt-out provision. [GN]


JUUL: Alabama Teens File E-Cigarette Addiction Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that two teens who
claim to have become addicted to e-cigarettes while in their late
teens are suing the manufacturer they claim has teamed up with
old-school tobacco to market products to young people.

"Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to redress the harm already
sustained and to prevent future harm to others," the lawsuit, filed
May 22, in U.S. District Court in Alabama's Northern District,
Western Division, states.

In their 38-page complaint, Elizabeth Ann Swearingen of Montgomery
County, Alabama, and John Thomas Via Peavy of Lee County, Alabama,
claim they became addicted to JUUL's e-cigarette at ages 18 and 17,
respectively, and now suffer nicotine ingestion-related
complications. The two, both now 19, filed their putative class
action against JUUL, tobacco company Altria, which owns a sizable
chunk of JUUL, and Philip Morris, also owned by Altria.

"Now that JUUL has Altria's infrastructure, progress in nicotine
cessation stands to erode," Swearingen and Via Peavy said in their
lawsuit. "Defendants use the very same fraudulent and deceptive
youth marketing business practices adjudged to violate federal
racketeering laws."

Earlier in June, North Carolina became the first state to sue
e-cigarette manufacturer JUUL over its alleged marketing practices.
In a statement released shortly after he filed North Carolina's
lawsuit in Durham County Superior Court on May 15, the state's
Attorney General Josh Stein maintained JUUL was targeting young
people as customers.

"As a result, vaping has become an epidemic among minors," Stein
said in his statement. "JUUL's business practices are not only
reckless, they're illegal. And I intend to put a stop to them. We
cannot allow another generation of young people to become addicted
to nicotine."

JUUL responded with its own statement, maintaining its products
were never intended for children and that they are supposed to be
used to help adult tobacco users kick their disease-causing habit.

"While we have not yet reviewed the complaint, we share the
attorney general's concerns about youth vaping, which is why we
have been cooperating with his office and why we have taken the
most aggressive actions of anyone in the industry to combat youth
usage," JUUL said in a widely published statement.

North Carolina's lawsuit isn't all that it seems, a government
relations expert for an Illinois-based free-market think tank told
Legal Newsline shortly after that case was filed.

"It's the same old situation," George Jamerson, director of
government relations at The Heartland Institute, told Legal
Newsline. "It is politically convenient. The lawsuit is frivolous,
and amounts to political grandstanding."

Swearingen claims in her lawsuit with Via Peavy that she was
unaware that JUUL vaping products contained nicotine before she
became addicted.

"Swearingen still does not know how much nicotine JUUL contained or
that JUUL was specifically developed to create and sustain a
nicotine addiction," the lawsuit said. "Swearingen was attracted to
and most often used the mango flavor JUULpod."

Via Peavy, a student at Auburn University, claims he has
experienced severe breathing problems since JUUL products.

Via Peavy and Swearingen both claim to have been exposed to
"significant toxic substances" in their JUUL product usage, which
may cause or contribute to nicotine addiction and economic harm.
They allege that neither "would not have purchased JUUL products"
had they "known the true facts."

Both plaintiffs "reasonably fear" that JUUL, Altria and Philip
Morris "are working in concert to market and advertise JUUL to
youth and teenagers and that defendants' association and marketing
efforts increase the likelihood that minor children will begin
using e-cigarettes and become addicted," the lawsuit said. "Unless
these defendants are enjoined from their unlawful acts as described
below, the harms will continue as their family members will
continue to be exposed to their deceptive youth marketing
campaigns."

The case, assigned to U.S. District Court Judge L. Scott Coogler,
was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by attorneys from the law
firms of Methvin, Terrell, Yancey, Stephens & Miller in Birmingham,
Alabama; Jinks, Crow & Dickson in Union Springs, Alabama; and
Morris, King & Hodge in Huntsville, Alabama.

The case number is 7:19-cv-00779-LSC [GN]


KIA MOTORS: Faces Galvan Suit over Defective GDI Engine
-------------------------------------------------------
LOURDES GALVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV20507 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., June 11, 2019) alleges that the Defendants' vehicle
and its 2.0 gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine were defective
and susceptible to sudden and catastrophic failure.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knew since 2009, if not
earlier, that the 2011-2019 KIA Optima, 2011-2019 KIA Sportage,
2012-2019 KIA Sorento, 2011-2019 Hyundai Sonata, and 2013-2019
Hyundai Santa Fe vehicles equipped with a 2.0 or 2.4L engine,
including the 2011 Kia Optima contained one or more design and/or
manufacturing defects in their engines that results in the
restriction of oil flow through the connecting rod bearings, as
well as to other vital areas of the engine.

The defect -- which typically manifests itself during and shortly
after the limited warranty period has expired -- causes the KIA
Vehicle to experience catastrophic engine failure, stalling while
in operation and poses an unreasonable safety risk of non-collision
fires all due to inadequate lubrication. Furthermore, engine
seizure often causes internal parts, such as the connecting rods,
to break and a knock hole in the engine, permitting fluids to leak
and ignite a fire.

Kia Motors America, Inc. operates as an automobile dealer. The
Company offers passenger cars, minivans, sports utility vehicles,
crossovers, sedans, vans, and cargo trucks. Kia Motors serves
customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tionna Dolin, Esq.
          Sean Crandall, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 430
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 929-4900
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
          E-mail: tdolin@slpattomey.com
                  scrandall@slpattorney.com


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Removes Tanious Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of HANY TANIOUS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LANDSTAR
SYSTEM, INC.; LANDSTAR RANGER, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino (Case
No. CIVDS1902511) to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District Of California on June 11, 2019. The clerk of court for the
Central District Of California assigned Case No.
5:19-cv-01067-DSF-SHK. The case is assigned to Judge Dale S.
Fischer and referred to Magistrate Judge Shashi H. Kewalramani.

Landstar System, Inc. provides integrated transportation management
solutions in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and
internationally. It operates through two segments, Transportation
Logistics and Insurance. The company markets its services through
independent commission sales agents and third party capacity
providers. Landstar System, Inc. was founded in 1968 and is
headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John Rowbotham, Esq.
          Fletcher W H Schmidt, Esq.
          Matthew Kevin Moen, Esq.
          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                  mmoen@haineslawgroup.com
                  phaines@haineslawgroup.com

               - and –

          Levik Yarian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LEVIK YARIAN
          700 N. Central Ave., Suite 470
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 459-4999
          Facsimile: (818) 484-2345
          E-mail: levik@yarianlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher Chad McNatt , Jr.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON
             AND FEARY LLP
          2 North Lake Avenue Suite 560
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795-4700
          Facsimile: (626) 795-4790
          E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com

               - and -

          James Anthony Eckhart, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON
          AND FEARY LLP
          10 West Market Street Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 637-1777
          Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
          E-mail: jeckhart@scopelitis.com

               - and -

          Adam C Smedstad, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON
          AND FEARY LLP
          3241 West McGraw Street Suite 301F
          Seattle, WA 98199
          Telephone: (206) 288-6192
          Facsimile: (206) 299-9375
          E-mail: asmedstad@scopelitis.com


LIVENT CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Livent Corporation (NYSE: LTHM)
pursuant and/or traceable to Livent's false and/or misleading
registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with Livent's
initial public offering completed in October 2018 (the "IPO") of
the important July 22, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in securities
class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Livent
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Livent class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1579.html

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement was false
and/or contained misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) a supply contract with Nemaska Lithium Inc. had been
terminated; (2) Livent would be forced to fulfill its customer
contracts using alternative vendors at reduced revenues and lower
margins; (3) Livent had a long-standing contract to supply lithium
hydroxide to a customer at a much lower price than any of Livent's
existing contracts; (4) Livent's margins were squeezed due to the
customer's increased orders; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about Livent's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 22,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.

If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1579.html

Contact:

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


MACY'S INC: Underpays Sales Associates, Ghalbi Fouladbazou Say
--------------------------------------------------------------
PARVANEH GHALBI FOULADBAZOU, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MACY'S INC. D/B/A
BLOOMINGDALE'S and FORTY CARROTS; and DOES 1through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01075572-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super.,
Orange Cty., June 10, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Ghalbi Fouladbazou was employed by the Defendants as
sales associate.

Macy's, Inc., an omnichannel retail organization, operates stores,
Websites, and mobile applications. The company was formerly known
as Federated Department Stores, Inc. and changed its name to
Macy's, Inc. in June 2007. Macy's, Inc. was founded in 1830 and is
based in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676

               - and -

          Sean S. Vahdat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SEAN S. VAHDAT
          & ASSOCIATES, APLC
          1224 East Katella Avenue, Suite 211
          Orange, CA 92867
          Telephone: (949) 496-2011
          Facsimile: (949) 313-7088
          E-mail: sean@vahdatlaw.com


METRO BANK: Kahn Swick Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until July 29, 2019 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Metro Bank PLC
(MBNKF), if they purchased the Company's securities between March
6, 2018 and May 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This
action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Metro Bank and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/otc-mbnkf/ to learn more. To serve
as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the
Court by July 29, 2019.

About the Lawsuit

Metro Bank and certain of its executives are charged with failing
to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On January 23, 2019, the Company disclosed that it had
misclassified the risk of a substantial number of its commercial
loans.  On May 1, 2019, the Company revealed its 1Q2019 results
including a 3.6% reduction in deposits, the loss of a "small number
of large commercial and partnership customers," lowered growth
expectations for the year, and a 50% decline in profit from a year
earlier.

On this news, the price of Metro Bank's shares plummeted.

The case is Amann v. Metro Bank Plc, 19-cv-4739.

Contact:

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163  
         Phone: 1-877-515-1850
         Website:  www.ksfcounsel.com.     
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


MICHAEL KORS (USA): Faces Chu ADA Suit in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
KYOHAK CHU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL KORS (USA), INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:19-cv-03286-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2019) alleges violation
of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.

Michael Kors (USA), Inc. designs and sells apparel, accessories,
and footwear. The Company offers shirts, t-shirts, sweaters,
jackets, pants, suits and blazers, shorts, underwear, dresses,
skirts, shorts, and swimwear for men and women. Michael Kors serves
customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


MICHAEL T. ANGELO: Fla. App. Flips Class Certification in Parker
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, issued an
Opinion reversing the District Court's Order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned MICHAEL T.
ANGELO d/b/a Orange Park Auto Mall, Appellant, v. TIMOTHY PARKER,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Appellee.
No. 1D18-1304. (Fla. App.).

Parker purchased a vehicle from the Dealership and was charged $420
for title and registration fees. The sales contract signed by
Parker included a disclosure that the fees were estimated at the
time of sale but was silent about any overage. Eleven days after
the sale, the Dealership paid $403.90 to the Department of Highway
Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) for the title and registration
fees. The Dealership did not refund Parker the difference between
the estimate and the amount paid to the DHSMV ($16.10).Parker sued
the Dealership alleging that it violated FDUTPA by not refunding
the difference between the estimated title and registration fees
and the amount paid to the DHSMV.

The Dealership argues that the trial court abused its discretion in
certifying the class because Parker did not allege a legally
sufficient FDUTPA claim, preventing the trial court from conducting
the rigorous analysis required before ordering class certification.


He later amended the complaint to assert claims on behalf of a
class of consumers defined as:
(a) All persons or entities with Florida addresses at the time of
the transaction, who purchased or leased a vehicle from the
Dealership (b) during the four-year period prior to the filing of
his action through class certification (c) and were charged and
paid a title and registration fee greater than the actual title and
registration cost and (d) the difference between the amount charged
and the actual title cost was never refunded.

The Court reviews an order granting class certification for an
abuse of discretion.Before certifying a class, a trial court must
perform a rigorous analysis of the claims asserted on behalf of the
class because certification expands the dimensions of the lawsuit
and commits the court and the parties to additional labor over and
above a traditional lawsuit.  

The Dealership argues that the trial court erred in granting class
certification because: (1) it did not perform a rigorous analysis
of the substance of Parker's FDUTPA claims; and (2) it failed to
make factual findings in the class certification order. As stated
earlier, two FDUTPA counts were asserted on behalf of the class:
one alleging a general violation of the Act, and the other brought
under section 501.203(3)(c) Florida Statutes. Only the count
brought under the general provision of FDUTPA remains at issue in
this appeal.

To state a legally sufficient claim under FDUTPA, a plaintiff must
allege: (1) a deceptive act or unfair practice; (2) causation and
(3) actual damages. A deceptive practice is one likely to mislead
consumers acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumers'
detriment.

The class complaint alleged that the Dealership violated FDUTPA by:
(1) overestimating the cost of title and registration fees and (2)
failing to refund the difference between the amount charged to
class members and the amount paid to the DHSMV.  

Parker also concedes that the title and registration fees charged
to purchasers were based on specific information provided by each
individual purchaser, such as their date of birth and whether the
purchaser was transferring a title. Parker further acknowledges
that he had no expectation of receiving a refund for any
overpayment. But despite the express disclosure that the fees were
estimated, that the estimates were based on individual-specific
information, and that he did not expect a refund of any
overpayment, Parker maintains that the mere existence of the
overcharge is enough to state a claim under FDUTPA.

The Court disagrees. Standing alone, the mere existence of an
overcharge does not establish a violation of FDUTPA. Instead, to
state a claim under FDUTPA, Parker had to allege that the
Dealership acted in a way that was unscrupulous, oppressive,
unethical, or immoral or in a way likely to mislead the class
members to their detriment.

Parker alleged no deceptive or unfair acts by the Dealership.
Without a legally sufficient claim under the substantive law
applicable to this case, the court could not determine whether
Parker's complaint satisfied the requirements of commonality,
typicality, numerosity, and adequacy. Nor could the court perform
the rigorous analysis required by rule 1.220. The court could not
assess commonality whether Parker's claim arose from the same
practices or course of conduct that gave rise to the claims of the
other class members. The court could not determine typicality
whether there was a strong similarity in the legal theories between
Parker's claims and the claims of the other class members. Nor
could the court evaluate the number of people in the class or
whether counsel was adequate. Thus, we hold that the court erred in
certifying the class because Parker never alleged a facially
sufficient violation of FDUTPA.  

The court erred further when it failed to make factual findings to
support its conclusion that Parker satisfied each of the four
prerequisites for certification.

Because the trial court did not perform a rigorous analysis of the
substance of Parker's FDUTPA claims and failed to make sufficient
factual findings in the class certification order, the Court
reverses the order granting class certification.

A full-text copy of the Fla. App.'s June 20, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2lnnaoz from Leagle.com.

Michael Fox Orr -- knm@dawsonorr.com -- and Jeremy M. Paul --
jmp@dawsonorr.com -- of Dawson Orr, Professional Association,
Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Roger D. Mason, II, and Elizabeth A. Buchwalter, of Roger D. Mason,
II, P.A., 5135 W Cypress St Suite 105, Tampa, FL 33607, for
Appellee.


MONARCH RECOVERY: Jones et al Sue over Misleading Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Monarch Recovery
Management, Inc. for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices. The case is captioned Ila Jones and Malik Johnson,
individually andhttps://writenewsnow.com/wp-admin/profile.php on
behalf of all others, Plaintiffs, vs. Monarch Recovery Management,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03814 (E.D.N.Y., July 1, 2019).

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant sent a debt collection letter
that failed to instruct the consumer to which of the multiple
addresses provided requests for the name of the original creditor
must be sent. In addition, Plaintiffs contend that the multiple
addresses overshadow the disclosure of the consumer's right to
receive verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against
the consumer provided by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(4).

Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation
headquartered in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. As a debt collection
agency, the company regularly collects or attempts to collect debts
asserted to be owed to others. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MONCTON HOSPITAL: Nurse Refute Allegations in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
CTV Atlantic reports that a former labour and delivery nurse at The
Moncton Hospital accused of inappropriately administering the
labour-inducing drug Oxytocin without consent has denied any
wrongdoing.  Horizon Health has also denied the allegations.

A sworn statement of defence, filed in response to a class-action
lawsuit launched by a Moncton mother on April 11, states former
nurse Nicole Ruest ". . . did not engage in any course of conduct
intended to harm the plaintiff or any proposed class member if the
plaintiff or any proposed class member did suffer injuries or
damages as alleged, any such injuries or damages were not caused by
Ms. Ruest."

In documents filed with the court, Horizon Health states: ". . .the
defendant hospital admits that its physicians were becoming
concerned over the increasing number of emergency caesarean
sections and were attempting to determine the reason for the
increase in the number of emergency caesarean sections."

A class-action lawsuit was filed by Jayde Scott, a mother who was
forced to have her twins in an emergency C-section.  

The hospital admits Scott had an emergency C-section, and that
Ruest was employed as a registered nurse in the labour and delivery
unit of the hospital, but denies all other allegations.

The lawsuit has not been certified and the allegations have not
been tested in court. [GN]


MONSANTO CO: Carbone Lawyers Files Roundup Weedkiller Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Kang, writing for The Asian Lawyer, reports that in light of
three consecutive verdicts totaling $2.2 billion in the U.S linking
the weedkiller Roundup to cancer, the Australian firm Carbone
Lawyers has filed a lawsuit against Roundup manufacturer Monsanto
Co., while the Victoria State Government is launching an
investigation into the use of glyphosate, the most commonly used
herbicide globally and the main ingredient in Roundup.

Melbourne-based Carbone Lawyers filed a lawsuit in the Supreme
Court of Victoria against Monsanto on June 3 on behalf of
self-employed gardener Michael Ogalirolo, 54, who is seeking
damages against the company for his long-term use of Roundup.
Ogalirolo claims the glyphosate-based weedkiller caused his blood
cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, which was diagnosed in 2011 and
forced him to retire in 2015.*

Two other Australian firms are considering filing lawsuits against
Monsanto. Sydney-based LHD Lawyers is considering a class action
against Monsanto, which German pharmaceutical giant Bayer A.G.
acquired in June last year for $63 billion, while local media
reports say Melbourne-based Maurice Blackburn is evaluating
individual cases.

Meanwhile, the Australian State of Victoria is investigating the
use of glyphosate, including by Roundup, across its public land
management, according to Melbourne-based newspaper The Age. The
investigation, which is being conducted by Victoria's Department of
Environment, Land, Water and Planning, is expected to last six
weeks. It is the first by an Australian state government in the
wake of a series of verdicts in U.S. courts, according to the
newspaper.

The developments come about three weeks after Monsanto was hit with
a $2.05 billion punitive damages verdict by a jury in Alameda
County Superior Court in Oakland, California – the largest U.S.
jury verdict so far against the company over glyphosate's link to
the same kind of blood cancer with the plaintiff in Australia.
Previously, Monsanto was hit initially with a $289 million verdict
in August, though that was reduced to $78.5 million; and $80
million in March, both in San Francisco.*

Bayer said it will appeal the $2.05 billion verdict.

Globally, a number of countries and jurisdictions have either
banned the use of glyphosate or have restricted its use. These
include Belgium, France, Italy, Canada, Argentina, Colombia, the
Czech Republic and Denmark. [GN]


MONSANTO COMPANY: Austin et al Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BRENDA J. AUSTIN and GARY W. AUSTIN, Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01034 (Filed on April
29, 2019), was transferred from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on June 19, 2019. The
case is now assigned to Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria.
It is opened in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California as Case No. 3:19-cv-03540-VC pursuant to the
Conditional Transfer Order 5 from the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation. It is then consolidated to the lead case,
3:16-md-02741-VC (IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION).

In this complaint, Plaintiffs seeks redress for the damages they
suffered as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent
and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup,
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation, Missouri Secretary of
State Charter No. F00488018, with a principal place of business in
St. Louis, Missouri. It is a multinational agricultural
biotechnology corporation that is regarded as the world's leading
producer of glyphosate. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Seth S. Webb, Esq.
     BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
     One Metropolitan Square
     211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Telephone: (314) 222-2222
     Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
     E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MOVE INC: Court Grants NAR's Bid to Dismiss Silverman TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting Defendant
National Association of Realtors' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim in the case
captioned COURTNEY SILVERMAN, Plaintiff, v. MOVE INC., et al.,
Defendants. Case No. 18-cv-05919-BLF. (N.D. Cal.)

In this putative class action, Plaintiff Courtney Silverman alleges
a single cause of action against Defendants NAR and Move for
advertising text messages that violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA). Move and NAR, jointly and as agents of one
another, allegedly sent unsolicited advertising text messages to
real estate professionals, including Plaintiff and the putative
class, who were members of NAR, in order to promote Realtor.com and
its services.

NAR moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim because this Court does
not have personal jurisdiction over NAR and because the Plaintiff
fails to state a claim against NAR.  

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Florida and a member of
NAR. NAR is an Illinois corporation. NAR's website shows that its
home office is in Chicago, IL. Realtor.com has its headquarters in
California.NAR provides numerous resources, services, and benefits
for its members nationwide through Realtor.com.  

NAR allegedly transacts substantial business in, and has maintained
continuous and systematic contacts in and with, California
generally and specifically relating to marketing its official
moniker, website, REALTOR marketing hub, and brand, Realtor.com' in
and from California, from which the text messages at issue were
sent. This business includes NAR's strategic partnership with Move,
starting with the 1996 perpetual marketing agreement (1996
Agreement) that sets forth the relationship between the parties.  

The 1996 Agreement states that California law governs it and that
the venue for disputes under it shall be California. The 1996
Agreement also provides that NAR has ultimate authority to approve
the advertising plan; that NAR may audit the marketing process;
that Move must open its records to NAR; that Move must prepare a
business plan related to its efforts on NAR's behalf; and other
related oversight provisions.  

The Plaintiff argues that the Court has general personal
jurisdiction over NAR; she does not argue that the Court has
specific jurisdiction over NAR.  

General Jurisdiction Law

The Supreme Court has recognized two types of personal
jurisdiction: (1) general (or all-purpose) jurisdiction and (2)
specific (or case-specific) jurisdiction. General jurisdiction is
based on certain limited affiliations that the defendant has with
the forum state. A court may exercise general jurisdiction only
when the defendant's affiliations with the State are so 'continuous
and systematic' as to render [the defendant] essentially at home in
the forum State. In the paradigmatic circumstance for exercising
general jurisdiction, a corporate defendant is incorporated or has
its principal place of business in the forum state.  

The Plaintiff has failed to plead or submit facts sufficient to
show that NAR is at home in California. First, NAR is neither
incorporated nor has its principal place of business in California.
Plaintiff must show that this is the exceptional case in which a
corporate defendant's contacts with a state in which it is not
incorporated and does not have its headquarters are so continuous
and systematic as to render the state the one clear and certain
forum in which a corporate defendant may be sued on any and all
claims.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff does not satisfy this exacting
standard.

NAR's contacts with California can fairly be grouped into two
categories: (1) its contacts with Move/Realtor.com; and (2) its
contacts with its members and other business operations in
California. Neither category, either independently or combined, is
sufficiently continuous and systematic as to render NAR at home in
California.

As to Move and Realtor.com, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that
Realtor.com is such a substantial portion of NAR's business as to
render NAR at home in California. Though Realtor.com is
headquartered in California, through the site NAR provides services
to its members throughout the country.  

Moreover, NAR submits evidence that it does not operate the
Realtor.com site. Move is independently responsible for operating
the site. Though NAR has ultimate authority over the site and the
advertising plan, this relationship appears to be no different than
any contractual relationship in which one party hires another to
perform certain of its operations. Such a relationship is not as
extensive as a subsidiary/parent relationship, which on its own
would be insufficient to show general jurisdiction.  

Thus, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that
NAR is subject to personal jurisdiction in California. Because the
Plaintiff was provided leave to amend on this issue, the Court
concludes that any future amendments would be futile. NAR's motion
is granted with prejudice to refiling the claim in California. The
Plaintiff may refile her claim in a district that has personal
jurisdiction over NAR.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 24, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3elbtrg from Leagle.com.

Courtney Silverman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Candace Alexandra
Phillips, Zebersky Payne Shaw Lewenz, pro hac vice, Edward Herbert
Zebersky, Zebersky Payne LLP, pro hac vice, Jordan Alexander Shaw,
Zebersky Payne LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Stanley Fistos, Zebersky
Payne LLP, 110 SE 6th St Ste 2150, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-5016,
pro hac vice, Sarah L. Hennessy -- sarah@fhattorneys.com --
FLAHERTY HENNESSY, LLP & Sarah Lynn Gough, MILSTEIN ADELMAN, LLP,
8055 W. Manchester Ave., Suite 420, Playa Del Rey, CA 90293

Move Inc, a California Corporation & National Association of
Realtors, an Illinois Corporation, Defendants, represented by
Rebecca McLemore Lamberth -- rmlamberth@duanemorris.com -- Duane
Morris LLP, pro hac vice, Robin L. McGrath  --
rlmcgrath@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP, pro hac vice,
Kenneth Bradley Franklin -- KBFranklin@duanemorris.com -- Duane
Morris LLP, pro hac vice & Michael Louis Fox --
MLFox@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP.


NAT'L ASSOCIATION: Class Action to Impact Traditional Brokerages
----------------------------------------------------------------
R.A. Schuetz, writing for Houston Chronicle, reports that for the
average Houston home, priced at $310,700, real estate agent
commissions cost $18,600. If the same deal had closed in London,
the homeseller would have only paid agents about $3,700.

The reasons for the difference are at the center of a class-action
suit that could dramatically change the way homes are bought and
sold in the United States.

The case, brought by a Minnesota homeowner, seeks to strike down
the standard practice of agents splitting commissions. If
successful, the suit would potentially save individual home sellers
thousands of dollars in commissions, but it would also cut the
earnings of real estate agents across the country -- including some
37,000 in the Houston area -- and put more pressure on traditional
brokerages, already contending with a host of discount and online
competitors.

If defeated or dismissed, as the National Association of Realtors
has requested, it would mean business as usual for years to come
and, perhaps, pose a stumbling block for startup companies seeking
to shake up the real estate business through the use of
technology.

The case, brought by lead plaintiff Christopher Moehrl, argues that
if not for rules put in place by the National Association of
Realtors and used by local groups including the Houston Association
of Realtors, commissions in the U.S. would be similar to those in
the U.K., where sellers only pay the agent who lists the home, not
the agent who helps the buyer make the purchase.

In the U.K., the average listing agent fee has been falling
steadily since 2011, according to a survey by the homeseller
website The Advisory, sinking to a mere 1.18 percent in 2018.

NAR, which is being sued along with Austin-based Keller Williams
Realty, Re/Max Holdings, Homeservices of America and Realogy
Holdings (owner of Century 21, Coldwell Banker, Sotheby's
International Realty and other household-name brokerages), argued
the complaint characterized its rules incorrectly.

On Wednesday, a Federal Judge in Illinois allowed Moehrl to file an
amended complaint by June 14. Now both sides are retrenching, the
Department of Justice has opened its own investigation and the
property data company CoreLogic has been dragged into the fray.

"The claims are devoid of accuracy," said Mantill Williams, vice
president of public relations at the National Association of
Realtors. "They withdrew their complaint and are going to regroup
to try to salvage what we see as a baseless claim."

Expanded inquiry

Court filings also showed the Department of Justice has opened an
investigation into real estate agent fees. In the investigation,
which is separate from the Moehrl case, the DOJ has demanded
information from CoreLogic, which provides many real estate agents
with platforms where they can share listings, known as multiple
listing services. The inquiry centers on whether or not multiple
listing services prevent competition in the real estate agent fee
structure.

Multiple listing services are drawing scrutiny for their central
role in negotiating these fees. Homesellers in the United States
pay both the listing agent and the buyer's agent. And when listing
agents add homes into the National Association of Realtors' listing
service -- which holds the majority of listings and often
syndicates it to other real estate search sites such as Zillow and
Realtor.com -- they must say upfront how much they're offering to
pay the agent whose client buys the home. Agents can negotiate that
offer as the transaction progresses.

The commission on the sale of a home is usually 6 percent, which is
traditionally split between the agents for the buyer and seller. As
a result, Moehrl alleges buyers' agents have little motivation to
sell their clients on homes that will offer them less than the
industry standard of 3 percent.

The Department of Justice has requested information regarding
whether buyer agents can sort listings by fees paid.

By the numbers

Regardless of whether that is the case, Alex Doubet, chief
executive of the discount brokerage Door, said he'd seen the
system's upward pressure on pricing firsthand.

When the company started in 2015, it listed comparable homes priced
at the same price in the same gated community at the same time. One
said it would pay the buyer's agent the standard 3 percent, while
the other offered 2 percent.

"The 2 percent one was getting half the showings than the 3 percent
one was," Doubet said. "The seller finally agreed to offer 3
percent, and then the houses went one for one, equal showings . . .
If you're a seller and you don't offer a 3 percent buyer's fee,
your listing gets discriminated against."

Others have found success in circumventing the multiple listing
services altogether. When Houston resident Larry Lanclos was
looking to sell his home, he searched for a way around paying the
buyer's fee. But Lanclos' real estate agent friends who offered to
list his home at cost said he would have to pay 3 percent to the
buyer's agent, even if he found a buyer himself.

"It kind of gets into a Catch-22," he said. "You're having to give
money to someone who really didn't do anything -- they're just
called in by the Realtor who is representing you."

He ended up going with REX, a discount brokerage charging only 2
percent to sell a home. The price is made possible by not paying
the buyer's agent -- buyers have the option of having a salaried
REX agent guide them through the transaction for free or paying for
an outside agent themselves. But not making the buyer's agent an
offer also means that the listing cannot be advertised on multiple
listing services, such as HAR.com and Realtor.com.

Instead, REX's homes can only be advertised directly to customers
or on websites such as Zillow and Trulia, which only receive part
of their listings from multiple listing services. Jonathan
Friedland, the company's head of communications, said such
restrictions are worth it in order to offer lower fees.

"If you're in the (Multiple Listing Service) you're bound to live
within these rules. That's what makes the MLS so problematic for
anyone who is really trying to innovate in the industry," he said.
"If you don't abide by some of these rules, you are kicked out."

Kara Biggs found Lanclos' home through Zillow and closed four weeks
after it went on the market. [GN]


NATIONAL INDEMNITY: 8th Circuit Appeal Initiated in Muri FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Marc J. Muri filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum & Order and Judgment both dated June 18, 2019, entered
in the lawsuit entitled Marc Muri v. National Indemnity Company,
Case No. 8:17-cv-00178-JMG, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska - Omaha.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged claims pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
sought certification of a class defined as:

     All persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
     Plan at any time from January 1, 2015 up to and including
     the date of judgment in this action and whose Plan accounts
     included investments in the Fund.

The appellate case is captioned as Marc Muri v. National Indemnity
Company, Case No. 19-2408, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Appendix is due on August 12, 2019;

   -- Brief of Appellant Marc J. Muri is due on August 12, 2019;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 21 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Marc J. Muri, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq.
          Edward H. Glenn, Esq.
          James Ostaszewski, Esq.
          Justin Sauerwald, Esq.
          Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
          ZAMANSKY, LLC
          50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 742-1414
          Facsimile: (212) 742-1177
          E-mail: samuel@zamansky.com
                  eglenn@zamansky.com
                  james@zamansky.com
                  justin@zamansky.com
                  jake@zamansky.com

               - and -

          Brian K. Matise, Esq.
          BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH & JARDINE, P.C.
          40 Inverness Drive East
          Englewood, CO 80112-2866
          Telephone: (303) 792-5595
          Facsimile: (303) 708-0527
          E-mail: BMatise@burgsimpson.com

Defendant-Appellee National Indemnity Company is represented by:

          Paul J. Ondrasik, Jr., Esq.
          Eric G. Serron, Esq.
          Andrew Sloniewsky, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036-0000
          Telephone: (202) 429-3000
          Facsimile: (202) 429-3902
          E-mail: pondrasik@steptoe.com
                  eserron@steptoe.com
                  asloniewsky@steptoe.com

               - and -

          Shawn D. Renner, Esq.
          CLINE WILLIAMS WRIGHT JOHNSON & OLDFATHER, L.L.P.
          1900 U.S. Bank Building
          233 S. 13th Street
          Lincoln, NE 68508-0000
          Telephone: (402) 474-6900
          E-mail: srenner@clinewilliams.com

               - and -

          Tara A. Stingley, Esq.
          CLINE WILLIAMS WRIGHT JOHNSON & OLDFATHER, L.L.P.
          Sterling Ridge, Suite 200
          12910 Pierce Street
          Omaha, NE 68144-1105
          Telephone: (402) 397-1700
          E-mail: tstingley@clinewilliams.com


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Brown Moves for Certification of Two Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Brown, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled THERESA
BROWN, et al. v. NATIONWIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case
No. 2:17-cv-00558-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio), moves the Court to certify a
plaintiff class and a defendant class described as:

   * Plaintiff Class, represented by Theresa Brown:

     All participant-directed individual 401(k) account plans
     that, at any time from October 1, 2014 through the date of
     judgment (the "Class Period"), that (1) have total Plan
     assets of less than $10 million; (2) paid Nationwide for
     recordkeeping and other administrative services through the
     Nationwide Retirement Flexible Advantage Retirement Plans
     Program; and (3) paid recordkeeping and administrative
     service fees to Nationwide in excess of $64 per participant.
     Excluded from the Plaintiff Class are employees of
     Plaintiff's law firms; and

   * Defendant Class, represented by Defendant Andrus Wagstaff,
     P.C.:

     All sponsors of participant-directed individual 401(k)
     account plans that, at any time from October 1, 2014 through
     the date of judgment (the "Class Period"), (1) have total
     Plan assets of less than $10 million; (2) entered into
     Program Agreements with Nationwide through the Nationwide
     Retirement Flexible Advantage Retirement Plans Program to
     provide recordkeeping and administrative services for their
     companies' defined contribution retirement plans; and (3)
     paid recordkeeping and administrative service fees to
     Nationwide in excess of $64 per participant.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as the Plaintiff Class
representative.  The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint
Andrus Wagstaff, Esq., as the Defendant Class representative; Paul
R. Wood, Esq., and Keith R. Scranton, Esq., of Franklin D. Azar &
Associates and John Smalley, Esq., of Dyer, Garofalo, Mann &
Schultz as the Plaintiff Class' counsel; and Joseph Lyon, Esq., of
the Lyon Law Firm as the Defendant Class' counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Smalley, Esq.
          DYER, GAROFALO, MANN & SCHULTZ
          131 N. Ludlow Street, Suite 1400
          Dayton, OH 45402
          Telephone: (937) 223-8888
          Facsimile: (937) 226-9436
          E-mail: jsmalley@dgmslaw.com

               - and -

          Keith Scranton, Esq.
          Paul R. Wood, Esq.
          FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCS.
          14426 East Evans Ave.
          Aurora, CO 80014
          Telephone: (303) 757-3300
          Facsimile: (303) 757-3206
          E-mail: scrantonk@fdazar.com
                  woodp@fdazar.com

Defendants Nationwide, et al., are represented by:

          Brian. D. Boyle, Esq.
          Shannon M. Barrett, Esq.
          Michael McCarthy, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, NW
          Washington, DC 2006-4001
          Telephone: (202) 383-5327
          E-mail: bboyle@omm.com
                  sbarrett@omm.com
                  mmccarthy@omm.com

               - and -

          Michael H. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER LIPPS & LELAND LLP
          280 Plaza, Suite 1300
          280 N. High Street
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 365-4100
          E-mail: carpenter@carpenterlipps.com

Defendant Andrus Wagstaff is represented by:

          Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
          THE LYON FIRM
          2754 Erie Drive
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Telephone: (513) 281-2333
          E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com


NIANTIC: Submits Revised Pokemon Go Settlement for Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a revised class action
settlement over Pokemon Go's placing of digital targets on private
property was submitted on June 13 for approval by a federal judge
in California. The revised settlement includes a procedure that
allows future property owners to contact game maker Niantic about
removing the targets from their property, as well $4 million for
plaintiffs' attorney fees and costs.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Settlement
is available at:

                     https://is.gd/9XanHB


NIO INC: Faces Donlon Suit over 50% Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DONLON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NIO INC.; BIN LI; LOUIS T. HSIEH; LIHONG
QIN; PADMASREE WARRIOR; TIAN CHENG; XIANG LI; LIANG LI; HAI WU;
YAQIN ZHANG; XIANGPING ZHONG; ZHAOHUI LI; DENNY TING BUN LEE; JAMES
GORDON MITCHELL; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA)
L.L.C.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; MERRILL LYNCH; PIERCE; FENNER &
SMITH INCORPORATED; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS INC.; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; and UBS
SECURITIES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 653422/2019 (N.Y. Sup., New
York Cty., June 11, 2019) is a class action on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased NIO American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") in or traceable to the Company's September 12, 2018
initial public offering (the "IPO"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1933.

According to the complaint, on August 13, 2018, the Company filed
with the SEC a registration statement on Form F-1 for the IPO,
which, after several amendments, was declared effective on
September 11, 2018. The next day, on September 12, 2018, the
Company filed a Prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4, which
incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement. The
Registration Statement was used to sell to the investing public 184
million NIO ADSs, including the exercise of the underwriters'
overallotment option, representing 184 million NIO Class A ordinary
shares, at $6.26 per ADS for more than $1.15 billion in gross
offering proceeds.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement failed to
disclose the following adverse facts that existed at the time of
the IPO: (a) that the ES8 was suffering from quality-control
defects in the production and design of the vehicles, including
operating system malfunctions and driving ranges that were up to
30% lower than those advertised in the Registration Statement; (b)
that, as a result, NIO was subject to reputational harm and the
loss of customers to competitors, a fact exacerbated by the
"premium" price tag of its vehicles; (c) that the planned reduction
in subsidies by the Chinese government, set to begin in 2019, had
accelerated and inflated 2018 ES8 vehicle sales, as price-sensitive
consumers sought to lock in purchases before the subsidy reductions
took place; (d) that NIO was not in a position to complete its
touted Shanghai manufacturing plant, and thus would not enjoy the
cost, control and EV credit advantages such a facility would
provide, and instead the Company needed to continue and expand its
dependence on JAC for the manufacture of its vehicles; (e)  that
the Chinese premium EV market was subject to far greater
competitive threats than represented in the Registration Statement;
and (f)  that, as a result of (a)-(e), NIO would suffer adverse
sales trends following the IPO, was not in a position to capitalize
on China's fast-growing premium EV market, and was poised to lose
market share to its competitors.

On May 28, 2019, NIO issued a press release announcing its results
for the quarter ended March 31, 2019. The Company announced that it
had slightly exceeded the guidance provided in the FY 2018 Release,
but that vehicle deliveries for the quarter had still decreased 50%
from the fourth quarter of 2018. The Company also stated that April
2019 deliveries totaled only 1,124 vehicles. In addition, the
Company stated that it expected the slowdown to accelerate in the
second quarter of 2019, as vehicle deliveries compared to the
already abysmal first quarter 2019 numbers declined between 20% and
30%. Among the factors cited by the Company for the slowdown was
increased competition, notwithstanding representations in the
Registration Statement that NIO would experience minimal
competition following the IPO. The Company stated that it continued
to suffer massive losses, having suffered net losses attributable
to ordinary shareholders of $395 million during the quarter, and
had cash and cash equivalents of only $738 million as of March 31,
2019, despite generating $1.8 billion in gross proceeds in the IPO
and the Notes Offering.

On June 3, 2019, NIO ADSs closed at $2.96 per ADS. This price
represented a greater than 50% decline from the price at which NIO
ADSs had been sold to the investing public less than nine months
earlier in the IPO.

NIO Inc. manufactures and sells automobiles. The Company offers
electric vehicles and parts, as well as provides battery charging
services. NIO serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          James I. Jaconette, Esq.
          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92 1 01
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: jamesj@rgrdlaw.com
                  bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          40 Powder Springs Street
          Marietta, GA 30064
          Telephone: (470) 632-6000
          Facsimile: (770) 200-3 101
          E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com


NIPPON YUSEN: Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Zytaruk, writing for Surrey Now-Leader, reports that a
class-action lawsuit seeking compensation related to an alleged
price-fixing conspiracy that resulted in British Columbian being
overcharged for vehicles has been given the green light to proceed
from the Court of Appeal.

Justice Mary Saunders, in a May 29 judgment in Vancouver related to
Darren Ewert versus Nippon Yusen Kaushiki Kaisha et al, overturned
the decision of a lower court judge who declined to certify the
litigation as class action under the Class Proceedings Act after
finding Ewert's expert failed to determine if data needed to assess
if an overcharge had been passed through to indirect purchasers was
available.

"I would allow the appeal in part and certify the action as a class
proceeding in respect of the direct and indirect purchasers of the
vehicle carrier services provided by the defendants during the
class period," Saunders decided, with Justices Harvey Groberman and
John Hunter concurring.

The appeal court found that the lower court judge erred by imposing
a standard to identify data that exceeded statutory requirements.
The litigation centres on the allegation of a price-fixing
conspiracy of marine shippers who bring automobiles and other
vehicles across the oceans to Canada. Ewert claims this resulted in
higher costs to himself and others who bought vehicles in B.C.

"To succeed in the litigation," Saunders noted, "he will have to
establish that the conspiracy existed, that it resulted in excess
shipping charges, and that those charges were passed on to him and
to others in a like position. He seeks to certify the action as a
class action."

The defendants are vehicle carriers that transport cars, trucks and
other equipment by ocean to Canada, including Vancouver, using
specialized cargo ships known as roll on/roll off vessels. Ewert
claims that between Feb. 1, 1997 and Dec. 31, 2012 they made
illegal price-fixing agreements that artificially inflated the
price of transporting the vehicles.

"The plaintiff's theory is that as a consequence of these
price-fixing agreements, the cost of transporting these vehicles
was artificially and unreasonably enhanced, and that the extra cost
was passed on to purchasers of the vehicles resulting in an
overcharge for those vehicles," Saunders explained. "He seeks to
bring a class proceeding to recover for himself and other similarly
situated persons the loss caused by the alleged conspiracy, or a
proportionate share of the benefits realized by the defendants as a
result of the alleged conspiracy."

The plaintiff also claims punitive damages.

Saunders noted Ewert has led evidence that all of the defendants
"have pled guilty, sought amnesty or reached compromise agreements"
in the U.S. and Japan "in repect of anti-competition wrongs arising
from agreements relating to international shipping services to
North America."

There is a long list of defendants. They are Nippon Yusen Kabushiki
Kaisha, NYK Line Inc. (North America and Canada), Mitsui O.S.K.
Lines Ltd., Mitsui O.S.K. Bulk Shipping (U.S.A.) Inc., Kawasaki
Kisen Kaisha, Ltd., "K" Line America Inc., Eukor Car Carriers Inc.,
Wilh. Wilhelmsen Logistics Americas LLC, Wallenius Wilhelmsen
Logistics AS, Wallenius Lines AB, WWL Vehicle Services Canada Ltd.,
Toyfuji Shipping Co. Ltd., Compania Sud Americana De Vapores S.A.,
CSAV Agency North America LLC, Nissan Motor Car Carrier Co. Ltd,
World Logistics Service (USA) Inc., Hoegh Autoliners AS and Hoegh
Autoliners Inc.

A dozen lawyers were heard in the appeal case.

The judge noted the "central issue" is whether Ewert has a
"plausible methodology to prove that any excess charges were passed
on to vehicle purchasers and not simply absorbed along the supply
chain." [GN]


NPSG GLOBAL: Court Denies Amended Discovery Plan in Reese
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order denying Parties' Amended Discovery Plan in the case
captioned DEVONTE REESE, Plaintiff(s), v. NPSG GLOBAL, LLC,
Defendant(s). Case No. 2:19-cv-00209-JCM-NJK. (D. Nev.).

This case involves both putative collective action and class action
claims. Because the parties' initial discovery plan did not address
those aspects of the case, the Court instructed the parties to go
back to the drawing board and to present a discovery plan that did.


Because the parties' positions have not been sufficiently
explained, the amended discovery plan will be denied without
prejudice. A second amended discovery plan must be filed by July 8,
2019. In addition to the default requirements in Local Rule 26-1,
the second amended discovery plan must provide a deadline for
filing a motion for conditional certification of the collective
action or must provide an explanation why such a deadline should
not be set.

To the extent the parties continue to seek phased discovery with
damages discovery to be conducted in Phase II, the second amended
discovery plan must explain why phasing discovery in that manner is
unlikely to result in insufficient discovery for final
certification purposes and/or wasted resources in potentially
revisiting final certification rulings after Phase II discovery has
been completed.

To the extent the parties continue to seek a scheduling order that
does not set any deadlines for Phase II given the expected pendency
of motion practice at the conclusion of Phase I, the second amended
discovery plan must explain why it is appropriate to preemptively
stay Phase II discovery in light of that anticipated motion
practice.4 Lastly, the second amended discovery plan must explain
whether discovery will be conducted with respect to the plaintiffs
who opt-in and, if so, the scope of that discovery.  

Counsel must carefully review the requirements and procedures for
litigating an FLSA collective action and a class action before
filing the second amended discovery plan.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 20, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxz4e8xd from Leagle.com.

DeVonte' Reese, Plaintiff, represented by Marta D. Kurshumova, HKM
Employment Attorneys, Henry Brudney, HKM Employment Attorneys LLP,
pro hac vice, Jason Rittereiser, HKM Employment Attorneys LLP &
Jenny L. Foley, HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP, 1785 E Sahara Ave Ste
300, Las Vegas, NV, 89104-3760

NPSG Global, LLC., Defendant, represented by Kirsten Ann Milton --
Kirsten.Milton@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC, pro hac vice,
Daniel Aquino -- Daniel.Aquino@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C. & Lisa A. McClane -- Lisa.McClane@jacksonlewis.com --  Jackson
Lewis P.C..


OHIO HOSPICE: Spano Moves to Expand CNAs Class Definition
---------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned VIRGINIA SPANO; SUSAN
MIZAK; ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED v. OHIO HOSPICE AND PALLIATIVE
CARE d/b/a PARAMOUNT HOSPICE AND PALLIATIVE CARE; PARAMMOUNT
HOSPICE AND PALLIATIVE CARE; JAMES J. COX, Individually, Case No.
2:17-cv-00717-CCC (W.D. Pa.), moves for class certification.

According to the Motion, the Court's Order of March 5, 2019,
required the Defendants to provide a list of the names and
addresses of "all individuals who are employed or were employed as
certified nursing assistants in defendants' hospice departments
during the relevant five (5) year period."

On March 20, 2019, the Court issued another Order limiting the time
period involved to between April 3, 2014 and April 3, 2017 but
apparently including all certified nursing assistants, not limited
to hospice division certified nursing assistants.

By this Motion, the Plaintiffs ask that the putative class include
all Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) not just limited to the
hospice division.  The Plaintiffs also ask that the putative class
be expanded to include all certified nursing assistants working on
an hourly basis at the Defendants' various facilities.

Hence, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the class to include
all Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) who worked for Defendants
from April 3, 2014 through April 3, 2017.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Davant, Esq.
          DAVANT & ASSOCIATES
          One Oxford Centre
          301 Grant Street, Suite 4300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 519-2274
          Facsimile: (412) 904-3255


ON MY OWN: Hartley Case Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order dismissing for Failure to Prosecute the
case captioned AMBER HARTLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ON MY OWN
INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:17-cv-00353 KJM-EFB. (E.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiff Janice Taylor, proceeding pro se, has not responded to
this court's order to show cause or otherwise attempted to further
litigation in this matter.  

After plaintiffs Amber Hartley and Janice Taylor brought this class
action suit, the court granted counsel's motion to withdraw as
Taylor's counsel on the grounds that plaintiff Taylor has not
responded to any communications from counsel in over six months.On
August 1, 2018, the clerk of the court served Taylor by mail with
the court's order granting defendants' motion to compel arbitration
and stay proceedings, but the mail was returned as undeliverable.
The court's August 20, 2018 minute order setting a status
conference was likewise served on Taylor by mail and returned as
undeliverable.On September 7, 2018, the court contacted Taylor by
telephone, obtained her new mailing address and ordered her to
formally file a notice of change of address with the clerk of the
court.  

A federal court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to
prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure  

Before dismissing an action for failure to prosecute, the court
must consider the following factors: (1) the public's interest in
expeditious resolution of litigation (2) the court's need to manage
its docket (3) the risk of prejudice to the parties (4) the
availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public
policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.

Public's Interest in Expeditious Resolution of Litigation

As to the first factor, the public's interest in expeditious
resolution of litigation always favors dismissal. Here, although
Taylor has taken no action in this case since her counsel withdrew,
the parties and the court must attempt to proceed without her
participation while she remains a named plaintiff. Her refusal to
litigate this case delays its resolution, and this factor favors
dismissal.  

Court's Need to Manage Its Docket

Taylor has long been absent from this case, failed to respond to
the court's order to show cause why she should not be dismissed for
non-prosecution, and is impeding proceedings toward resolution. Put
differently, in attempting to manage its docket, the court has
exhausted its limited resources to prompt Taylor to take action in
this case to no avail. Moreover, this factor is usually reviewed in
conjunction with the public's interest in expeditious resolution of
litigation to determine if there is unreasonable delay and it also
favors dismissal here.  

Risk of Prejudice to the Defendant

In determining whether a defendant has been prejudiced, [the court]
examine[s] whether the plaintiff's actions impair the defendant's
ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful
decision of the case.

Here, Taylor has ignored an order requiring her to show cause why
her claim should not be dismissed with prejudice, has not filed her
change of address as ordered by this court and has not made herself
available to participate in the discovery process, impairing the
ability of the case to proceed.  

Availability of Less Drastic Alternatives

The court must consider the adequacy of less drastic sanctions
prior to dismissal.  

Here, as noted above, Taylor has long refused to participate in
this case, even after the court has given her time to update her
information and warned her that it was considering dismissing her
for failure to prosecute. The court has no reason to believe
further efforts to prompt Taylor to take action would be
successful. This factor favors dismissal.

Public Policy Favoring Disposition on the Merits

While this factor generally weighs against dismissal, Taylor has
provided the court with no basis for finding retention of this
action would increase the likelihood that the matter would be
resolved in its merits as to Taylor's claims.

Accordingly, the court dismisses plaintiff Janice Taylor from this
matter with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 20, 2019 Order and
Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxhhgr48 from
Leagle.com.

Amber Hartley, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Anderson Hoyer --
rhoyer@hoyerlaw.com -- Hoyer & Hicks, Ryan Lee Hicks, Hoyer &
Hicks, 4 Embarcadero Ctr Ste 1400, San Francisco, CA 94111-4164,
Sean Desmond McHenry -- sean@mchenryemployment.com -- McHenry Law
Firm & Walter L. Haines, United Employees Law Group, PC, 5500 Bolsa
Ave Ste 201, Huntington, Beach, CA, 92649-1102

On My Own Community Services & On My Own Independent Living
Services, Defendants, represented by Alden John Parker --
aparker@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips, LLP, Cameron M.
Peyton, Fisher & Phillips LLP & William R.H. Mosher --
wmosher@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP.


P.E.I.: Class Action Over Disability Support Program Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Ross, writing for Journal Pioneer, reports that a class action
lawsuit involving disability supports for people with mental
illness is going ahead after a recent decision out of P.E.I.'s
Supreme Court.

In his decision, Justice Gregory Cann said he was satisfied the
requirements to have the lawsuit proceed as a class action have
been met.

A class action lawsuit is initiated by one or more people on behalf
of a larger group.

In this case, Laura King and Nathan Dawson are the plaintiffs who
sought certification with a motion to have the class defined as all
living people currently or formerly resident of P.E.I. since Oct.
1, 2001 who claim to suffer or have suffered from a mental
disability.

King has been involved with the fight for inclusion of people with
mental illness in the province's disability support program for
several years.

Her mother, Millie King, filed a human rights complaint on her
daughter's behalf, which saw a P.E.I. Human Rights Commission panel
rule in 2016 that the program was discriminatory.

The panel ordered the government to pay Laura $15,000 in damages
and $16,000 in costs.

In response to that decision the government sought a judicial
review, which eventually ended up before the P.E.I. Court of
Appeal.

The court of appeal found the panel made findings and conclusions
that were reasonable and upheld its decision.

Since the initial human rights panel decision, the provincial
government expanded its support program and renamed it
AccessAbility Supports.

With his decision, Cann directed the plaintiffs to file an amended
litigation plan that sets out their views related to individual
issues and proposed methodology for resolution. [GN]


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Serio Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS VINCENT SERIO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,
LLC; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV348789
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara, June 11, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to Judge Nathanael M. Cousins.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor
Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts. It serves
customers through account representatives. The company was
incorporated in 1996 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC operates as a subsidiary of PRA Group,
Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
          Matthew C Salmonsen, Esq.
          Raeon Rodrigo Roulston, Esq
          CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
          1435 Koll Circle, Suite 104
          San Jose, CA 95112-4610
          Telephone: (408) 294-6100
          Facsimile: (408) 294-6190
          E-mail: fred.shwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com
                  matthew.salmonsen@sjconsumerlaw.com
                  raeon.roulston@sjconsumerlaw.com


POST UNIVERSITY: Davis Moves for Certification of TCPA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled MELANIE DAVIS, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. POST UNIVERSITY, INC.,
Case No. 9:18-cv-81004-RKA (S.D. Fla.), moves to certify this class
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

     From July 30, 2014 through July 30, 2018, all persons within
     the United States who, on their residential or cellular
     telephone number, received more than one telephone call from
     Defendant in a 12-month period, while the entry or file in
     Defendant's CRM system associated with that person was
     marked as, flagged as, or considered a "Rejected Lead" or
     "Opportunity Lost."

Ms. Davis alleges on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated a claim for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, stemming from the Defendant's alleged practice of
making telemarketing calls to her and Class members despite not
having the required policies, procedures, and training in place to
document and honor "do-not-call" requests.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradford R. Sohn, Esq.
          THE BRAD SOHN LAW FIRM PLLC
          2600 South Douglas Rd., Suite 1007
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (786) 708-9750
          Facsimile: (305) 397-0650
          E-mail: brad@sohn.com

               - and -

          Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq.
          THE GLAPION LAW FIRM, LLC
          1704 Maxwell Drive
          Wall, NJ 07719
          Telephone: (732) 455-9737
          Facsimile: (732) 709-5150
          E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Rogge et al. Suit Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK ROGGE; and TIFFANY DUONG, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
INCORPORATED; AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC.; and
OPTUM360, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-13648-KM-MAH (D.N.Y.,
June 11, 2019) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendants'
unlawful disclosure of the confidential information of the
Plaintiff and the class, and the millions of patients' financial
information, medical information, personal information, and other
protected health information.

According to the complaint, on June 3, 2019, Quest quietly
disclosed in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing that
hackers had accessed the Personal Information of 11.9 million of
its patients. The Personal Information, which was stored by
American Medical, included incredibly Personal Information;
specifically, HIPAA-protected medical information, bank account
information, credit card numbers, and Social Security numbers.

Quest knew of the breach by May 14, 2019, if not before, yet Quest
waited almost three weeks to disclose the data breach -- and then
only disclosed it quietly in an SEC filing. Because of the data
breach, Class Members now face significant risks of identity theft.
According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office,
perpetuators of fraud can use stolen personal information -- such
as account numbers, passwords, or Social Security numbers -- to
take out loans or seek medical care under someone else's name, or
make unauthorized purchases on credit cards, among other crimes.
Foreign state-based actors can use personal information to support
espionage or other nefarious uses.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated provides diagnostic testing,
information, and services in the United States and internationally.
The company also offers risk assessment services for the life
insurance industry; and health information technology solutions for
healthcare organizations and clinicians. Quest Diagnostics
Incorporated was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Secaucus,
New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Duran L. Keller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF EDWYN D. MACELUS
          PO Box 374
          Edgewater, NJ 07020
          Telephone: (765) 444-9202
          Facsimile: (765) 807-3388
          E-mail: duran@kellerlawllp.com

               - and-

          Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
          Tarek H Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R Padgett, Esq.
          Trisha Kathlee Monesi, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Mark.ozzello@capstonelawyers.com
                  Tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  Trisha.monesi@capstonelawyers.com


RAUSCH STURM: Johnson Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RAUSCH STURM ISRAEL ENERSON & HORNIK, LLP;
WORLDWIDE ASSET PURCHASING II, LLC; and JOHN DOES -125, Defendants,
Case No 1:19-cv-05460-JSR (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2019) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.
The case is assigned to Judge Jed S. Rakoff.

Rausch Sturm Israel Enerson & Hornik LLC operates as a law firm.
The Company offers debt collection, legal advice, risk management,
and security control services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq.
          Joseph Karl Jones
          JONES WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          60 East 42st, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (646) 459-7971
          Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
          E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com
                  jkj@legaljones.com


REVLON: Class Actions Pile Up Over SAP ERP System Error
-------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Caldwell, writing for Global Cosmetic News, reports that
Revlon is facing a series of class action lawsuits from
shareholders over its handling of the planning, monitoring and
implementation of its enterprise resource planning system,
according to a report published by Computer Weekly.

Some four law firms have filed class action suits to date, based on
the US beauty behemoth's quarterly results where it confessed it
was unable to fulfil orders to the tune of US$64 million because of
its inability to record and account for inventory.

“In early February [2018], we rolled out SAP for a large part of
our North American business to integrate planning, sourcing,
manufacturing, distribution and finance . . . However, we
experienced issues during the SAP changeover that caused the plant
to ramp up capacity slower than anticipated,” Christopher
Peterson, COO, told investors on a call following the announcement
of the company's first quarter results for fiscal 2018, per
Computer Weekly. [GN]


RIO TINTO: New York Court Dismisses Investor Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Darren Gray, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that global
miner Rio Tinto has had a significant victory in the United States,
with a New York court dismissing an investor class action against
it over a costly, failed mining venture.

The lawsuit, filed in 2017 by Seattle-based firm Hagens Berman, was
over Rio's failed investment in a Mozambique coal project which ran
into a number of setbacks, and eventually cost the miner billions
of dollars.

But US District Court of New York Judge Analisa Torres dismissed
the complaint against the defendants, listed as Rio Tinto, former
Rio chief executive Tom Albanese and former chief financial officer
Guy Elliott.

The judge ruled that some of the complaints made in the lawsuit
were too old under US law to proceed, while one claim was dismissed
because of "a failure to allege falsity" and another because of a
"failure to allege both falsity and materiality".

The law firm had alleged that the defendants had made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information
about the true value of Rio's Mozambique coal investment made in
2011.

Rio acquired the assets for $US3.7 ($A5.3) billion in 2011, but its
plans for coal mining in the African country hit major hurdles, the
assets crumbled in value, and the miner sold them in October 2014
for just $US50 ($A71.8) million.

The US law firm undertook the action on behalf of buyers of Rio
American Depositary Receipts between October 23, 2012 and February
15, 2013. The writ alleged: "Defendants' wrongful conduct has
inflicted significant damages on Rio Tinto investors." [GN]


S&S UTILITIES: Morgan Seeks Nod to Send Notice to Laborers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled PAUL MORGAN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. S&S UTILITIES
ENGINEERING, LLC A Florida Limited Liability Company, and STEPHEN
C. SMITH, individually, Case No. 0:19-cv-61048-WPD (S.D. Fla.),
seeks entry of an order permitting, under Court supervision, notice
to this class of similarly situated employees:

     All persons employed as hourly paid laborers for Defendants
     in March/April 2019, who did not receive at least minimum
     wage for all hours worked in one or more workweeks, due to
     Defendants' failure to provide them with their final
     paychecks.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah E. Storch, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          10368 W. SR. 84, Suite 103
          Davie, FL 33324
          Telephone: (866) 344-9243
          Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
          E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com


SKECHERS USA: Employees Class Certified Under FLSA in Wilk Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Jesus G. Bernal granted-in-part the Plaintiff's
Motion to Certify Action as FLSA Collective Action in the lawsuit
titled Ealeen Wilk v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No.
5:18-cv-01921-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.).

The Court conditionally certifies this putative FLSA class:

     Current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant, who
     were employed by Defendant and who received commissions,
     non-discretionary bonuses and/or other items of compensation
     and worked overtime during one or more pay periods from
     September 10, 2015, through the present.

According to the Court's civil minutes, the parties are ordered to
meet and confer as to the substance of the proposed notice to the
FLSA class.  On or before July 22, 2019, the parties shall file a
mutually agreed-upon notice.  If the parties are unable to agree
upon such a notice, each may file their proposed notice accompanied
by no more than 5 pages of briefing.

On or before July 29, 2019, each party may file a 5-page response
to the other's proposed notice.  The July 8, 2019 hearing is
vacated.

On September 10, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the
Defendant alleging three causes of action: (1) failure to pay
overtime in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act and California
Labor Code; (2) failure to pay all wages due upon termination in
violation of California Labor Code; and (3) unfair business
practices in violation of California Business and Professions
Code.[CC]



SKYLINE STEEL: Holguin et al. Suit Transferred to D. Ariz.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, Holguin et al v. Skyline Steel Incorporated et al, Case
No. CV2019-008110 (Filed on June 6, 2019), was transferred from the
Maricopa County Superior Court to the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona on July 1, 2019. It is now assigned to
Hon. Judge G. Murray Snow. The United States District Court for the
District of Arizona assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-04609-GMS to the
proceeding.

In this complaint, Plaintiffs Oscar Holguin, Adrian Dorantes-Meza,
Cesar Hernandez Castillo, and Jesse Muruato allege that Defendants
have violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Arizona's Paid Sick Time Law. They further assert that the
Defendants have enforced a uniform company-wide policy wherein it
improperly requires its field works -- Plaintiffs and the Putative
Class Members -- to perform work off the clock and without pay.

Skyline is a domestic for-profit corporation, licensed to and doing
business in Arizona. The company manufactures and supplies steel
foundation products for customers in the United States, Canada,
Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America, and Colombia. It also
offers fabricated products, including pipes, beams and columns,
angles, and channels.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.
     Stanley Lubin, Esq.
     Corey R. Feltre, Esq.
     LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C.
     349 North Fourth Avenue
     Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505
     Telephone: (602) 234-0008
     Facsimile: (602) 626-3586


SOUTHERN CABLE: Allied Bid to Quash Wallace Case Subpoena Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Wallace Capel, Jr., denied, as moot, Allied Eastern
Indemnity Company's Motion to Quash Subpoena in the case captioned
as TIMOTHY A. WALLACE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN CABLE SYSTEMS, LLC; JERRY
RUSSELL TYLER; and ALLIED EASTERN INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No.
2:19-mc-03874-WKW (M.D. Ala., June 11, 2019).  The Court directed
the clerk to close this file.

Allied Eastern Indemnity Company provides property and casualty
insurance services. The company was founded in 2002 and is based in
Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Allied Eastern Indemnity Company operates
as a subsidiary of Eastern Insurance Holdings, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremiah J. Talbott, Esq.
          Ryan Patrick Stoner, Esq.
          Travis Phillip Lampert, Esq.
          JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, PA
          900 East Moreno Street
          Pensacola, FL 32503
          Telephone: (850) 437-9600
          Facsimile: (850) 437-0906
          E-mail: jj@talbottlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Justin Glyien Williams, Esq.
          TANNER & GUIN, LLC
          2711 University Boulevard
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
          Telephone: (205) 633-0218
          Facsimile: (205) 633-0318
          E-mail: justin@tannerguin.law

               - and -

          Russell Frank Van Sickle, Esq.
          BEGGS & LANE RLLP- PENSACOLA FL
          501 Commendencia St
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 469-3331

               - and -

          Madeleine Greskovich, Esq.
          Starnes Davis Florie LLP
          100 Brookwood Place-7th Floor
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 868-6000
          Facsimile: (205) 868-6099
          E-mail: msg@starneslaw.com


SPRINT: Faces Class Action Over Buy One Get One Cellphone Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class action in L.A.
Superior Court claims that Sprint's "buy [or lease] one, get one
free" offer for cellphones is actually a usurious loan, with
"exorbitant, unconscionable charges if the phone is not purchased,
or the lease is terminated."


STATE EMPLOYEE'S ASSOC: Doughty Appeals Dismissal Order to 1st Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Patrick Doughty and Randy Severance filed an appeal from
the District Court's oral order and judgment granting the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss issued on May 30, 2019, in the
lawsuit styled Patrick Doughty, et al. v. State Employee's
Association of NH, SEIU, Local 1984, CTW, CLC, Case No.
1:19−cv−00053−PB, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Hampshire.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover compensatory damages, refunds or restitution in
the amount of compulsory union fees paid to the union from the
Plaintiffs' wages without their written consent, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to the
First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Patrick Doughty and Randy Severance are public employees of the
State of New Hampshire but not members of the union, the State
Employees' Association of New Hampshire.  They were allegedly
forced by provisions of the operative collective bargaining
agreements to pay union fees to the union as a condition of their
employment.  The State deducted those compulsory fees without
Plaintiffs' consent and remitted them to the union, notes the
complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Patrick Doughty, et al. v. State
Employee's Association of NH, SEIU, Local 1984, CTW, CLC, Case No.
19-1636, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Bryan K. Gould, Esq.
          Cooley A. Arroyo, Esq.
          CLEVELAND, WATERS AND BASS, P.A.
          Two Capital Plaza, P.O. Box 1137
          Concord, NH 03302-1137
          Telephone: (603) 224-7761
          Facsimile: (603) 224-6457
          E-mail: gouldb@cwbpa.com
                  arroyoc@cwbpa.com

               - and -

          Milton L. Chappell, Esq.
          Alyssa K. Hazelwood, Esq.
          Frank D. Garrison, Esq.
          NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL
          DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC.
          8001 Braddock Rd, Suite 600
          Springfield, VA 22160
          Telephone: (703) 770-3329
          E-mail: mlc@nrtw.org
                  akh@nrtw.org
                  fdg@nrtw.org

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Leon Dayan, Esq.
          Ramya Ravindran, Esq.
          BREDHOFF & KAISER PLLC
          805 15th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 842−2600
          E-mail: ldayan@bredhoff.com
                  rravindran@bredhoff.com

               - and -

          John S. Krupski, Esq.
          COOK KENISON BEDARD & SULLIVAN PA
          PO Box 1465
          Concord, NH 03302−1465
          Telephone: (603) 225−3323
          E-mail: jake@milnerkrupski.com

               - and -

          Gary Snyder, Esq.
          STATE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION OF NH, INC.
          207 N Main St.
          Concord, NH 03301
          Telephone: (603) 271−6384
          E-mail: gsnyder@seiu1984.org


SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Court Consolidates Holloway Suit With Butler
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiff's Application
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in the case captioned TARELL T.
HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff, v. SUFFOLK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ERROL
TOULON, JR., Sheriff, Defendants. TARELL T. HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff, v.
SUFFOLK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ERROL TOULON, JR., Sheriff,
Defendants. Nos. 19-CV-1819(JS)(GRB), 19-CV-1895(JS)(GRB)
(E.D.N.Y.).

Tarell T. Holloway (Plaintiff) filed a pro se Complaint together
with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.   Plaintiff filed
another Complaint in this Court against the same Defendants as his
March 29th Complaint and alleging the same claims, together with an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. Again, Plaintiff did not
file a PLRA with the Complaint. Accordingly, by Notice of
Deficiency dated April 2, 2019, Plaintiff was instructed to
complete and return the enclosed PLRA within fourteen (14) days in
order for his case to proceed.

The Court's Notices were sent to Plaintiff's address of record in
each case. However, the Notices sent to Plaintiff at the Suffolk
County Correctional Facility were returned to the Court and were
marked Undeliverable, Discharged", Return to Sender and Unable to
Forward. To date Plaintiff has not filed the completed PLRA forms,
nor has he updated his address or otherwise communicated with the
Court since April 1, 2019.

However, because the Plaintiff provided a residential address in
his case assigned 19-CV-1819, and mail sent to the Plaintiff there
has not been returned, the Court presumes this to be his current
address and DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to update his address of
record in the case assigned docket number 19-CV-1895 to the
residential address provided in 19-CV-1819. And, since Plaintiff is
not incarcerated, the PLRA forms are not required.

Upon review of the declarations in support of the applications to
proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that Plaintiff is
qualified by his financial status to commence these actions without
prepayment of the filing fee. Accordingly, Plaintiff's applications
to proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED.

Pursuant to the Court's Order of Consolidation in Butler, et al. v.
DeMarco, et al., No. 11-CV-2602 (JS)(GRB) (Consolidated Action),
the Court has reviewed the instant Complaints and finds that they
relate to the subject matter of the Consolidated Action.

Accordingly, these actions shall be consolidated with the
Consolidated Action. This affects Plaintiff in the following ways:

   -- The Plaintiff in this action shall become a member of the
certified classes in Butler (11-CV-2602);

   -- Any claims in the instant Complaint that are not included in
the Consolidated Amended Complaint in Butler shall be severed.
Plaintiff, as a member of the class, shall be represented by pro
bono counsel, Shearman & Sterling LLP.

If the Plaintiff does not wish to proceed as a member of the
Consolidated Action, he must so indicate in a letter to the Court
within thirty (30) days of receiving a copy of this Order. Upon
receipt of such a letter, the Court will direct the Clerk of the
Court to sever these Complaints from the Consolidated Amended
Complaint and reopen and reinstate his individual pro se actions.

The Plaintiff's applications to proceed in forma pauperis are
granted and the Clerk of the Court is directed to consolidate this
matter with Butler, et al. v. DeMarco, et al., No. 11-CV-2602; to
mail a copy of this Order, the Order of Consolidation, and the
Consolidated Amended Complaint to Plaintiff at his last known
address; and to mark these cases closed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 24, 2019 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxkjoj52 from
Leagle.com.

Tarell T. Holloway, Plaintiff, pro se.


SUPERVALU: 8th Cir. Affirms Data Breach Class Action Decision
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Yannella, Esq. -- yannellap@ballardspahr.com -- Ballard
Spahr LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the law firm
blogged on the Saks data breach class action, and in the process
mentioned a trend among federal courts to reject fear of future
identity theft claims in retail breach cases.  Because retail
breaches rarely involve theft of social security numbers, date of
birth, healthcare information or other data that can be used to
commit identity theft, courts have typically found that plaintiffs
in such cases lack standing to pursue their claims in federal
court.

Dismissal in one of those cases, SuperValu, was affirmed on May 31
by the 8th Circuit.  The Court's opinion doesn't address the
standing argument we blogged about, but instead rests on a
different ground that highlights another hurdle that data breach
plaintiffs continue to face: even if they can plausibly allege an
injury in fact for standing purposes, that injury may be
insufficient to meet damages standards under applicable state law.

The procedural history of the SuperValu case spans five years and
multiple dismissals and appeals, but here's the skinny: after the
district court initially dismissed the action for lack of standing,
plaintiffs' counsel located a consumer who had suffered fraudulent
charges on his credit card stemming from the SuperValu breach in
2014. This fact distinguished the consumer from other plaintiffs
who relied unsuccessfully on a fear of future identity theft to
support their standing claim.  After significant motion practice
over whether the post-judgment process plaintiffs used to amend the
complaint was proper, the new consumer was substituted in as a
plaintiff/class representative and the case reinstated.  The
district court then granted  SuperValu's 12(b)(6) motion, finding
that the plaintiff had failed to plead cognizable negligence,
consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, and implied contract claims.

The 8th Circuit affirmed the district court decision.  The most
important rulings relate to the viability of the plaintiff's
negligence and consumer fraud claims.  The 8th Circuit found that
Illinois state law did not recognize a common law duty of merchants
to protect consumers against criminal activity, including data
breaches.  In the Court's view, consumers and merchants do not have
a special relationship sufficient to establish such a duty, and the
FTCA does not establish a private right of action to pursue such a
claim.

The Court also affirmed dismissal of the consumer fraud claim,
finding that the Illinois statute required plaintiffs establish
"actual damage", defined to mean "pecuniary harm."  Although the
plaintiffs did not state so in the amended complaint, the Court
concluded that plaintiff had been reimbursed for the fraudulent
credit card charge -- because federal law and credit card contracts
require such reimbursement -- and therefore hadn't suffered any
pecuniary harm.  The Court also held that the time the Plaintiff
had spent monitoring his credit and obtaining a new credit card did
not constitute actual damage under the Illinois Consumer Fraud
Act.

The SuperValu opinion is a reminder that legal injury and damages
are not the same thing.  Even where plaintiffs are successful in
establishing an injury sufficient for Article III standing, the
injury may not be sufficient to meet damages requirements under
state causes of action, which often require out of pocket losses.
Moreover, not every state has recognized a common law duty for
businesses to protect sensitive customer data from unauthorized
access.  Data breach plaintiffs will continue to face an uphill
climb in those jurisdictions, even if they can clear the standing
hurdle. [GN]


TAIWAN KAI: Aug. 6 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Hartley LLP and Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C. on June 3 disclosed
that all persons and entities in the United States, and its
territories and possessions, which purchased Aftermarket Automotive
Sheet Metal Products ("AMSM") directly from Taiwan Kai Yih
Industrial Co., Ltd., Tong Yang Industry Co., Ltd., TYG Products,
L.P., Jui Li Enterprise Company, Ltd., Gordon Auto Body Parts Co.
Ltd., AP Auto Parts Industrial, Ltd. (formerly known as Auto Parts
Industrial, Ltd.), or Cornerstone Auto Parts, LLC between January
1, 2003 and September 4, 2009 (the "Class"), may be affected by a
class action settlement with AP Auto Parts Industrial Ltd.,
formerly known as Auto Parts Industrial, Ltd. and its wholly owned
subsidiary, Cornerstone Auto Parts, LLC (together "API").

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated the
United States federal antitrust laws by agreeing to fix prices and
limit supply for AMSM. AMSM includes hoods, doors, bumpers,
fenders, bonnets, floor panels, trunk assemblies, trunk lids,
tailgates, roof panels and reinforcement parts. Defendants have
denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims and
contentions alleged by Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, as well as all
charges of wrongdoing or liability. The Court has not decided in
favor of either Party.

A proposed Settlement has been reached with AP Auto Parts
Industrial Ltd. for USD$3,250,000 in cash, which, after Taiwan
taxes, will net USD$2,600,000 in a settlement fund ("Settlement
Fund"). Prior settlements were reached with Tong Yang Industry Co.,
Ltd., Taiwan Kai Yih Industrial Co., Ltd., and TYG Products, L.P.,
and Gordon Auto Body Parts Co. Ltd. After deducting costs, fees and
expenses, the balance of the AP Auto Parts Settlement Fund will be
distributed to the Class on a pro-rata basis depending on how much
you spent on AMSM during the Class Period from all the Defendants.

You are included in the Court certified Class if you fit the
following description: All persons and entities in the United
States, and its territories and possessions, that purchased
Aftermarket Automotive Sheet Metal Products directly from any of
the Defendants between January 1, 2003 and September 4, 2009.

If you are included in the Court certified Class and you submitted
a valid Claim Form in conjunction with the prior settlements, you
will automatically receive a payment from this Settlement if it is
approved and becomes final. If you did not exclude yourself from
the certified Class, you may object to all or any part of the
Settlement and give reasons why you think the Court should not
approve it. Your written objection must be mailed to the Settlement
Administrator, Class Counsel, Counsel for API, and the Court and
must be postmarked no later than
July 3, 2019. You may also request to appear and speak at the Final
Approval Hearing. You may have your own attorney attend, at your
own expense, but are not required to. More information regarding
how to object to the Settlement and request to appear at the Final
Approval Hearing can be found in the Long Form Notice available at
www.AftermarketSheetMetalSettlement.com.

The Court will hold the Final Approval Hearing beginning at 11:00
a.m. on August 6, 2019, at the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin. At this hearing, the Court will
listen to any objections and consider whether to approve the
Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; a request by Class
Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses; and a service award of
$10,000 to each of the Class Representatives (Fond du Lac Bumper
Exchange Inc. and Roberts Wholesale Body Parts, Inc.). Class
Counsel is requesting attorneys' fees in the amount of no more than
33% of the total Settlement Fund, payable only as a percentage of
the funds actually deposited into the U.S. based escrow account,
and payment of litigation costs and expenses. These costs and
expenses include each law firm's reported expenses and common costs
to date. Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and costs and
service awards will be available at
www.AftermarketSheetMetalSettlement.com, on or about June 19,
2019.

For more information go to www.AftermarketSheetMetalSettlement.com,
or call 1-866-413-5892.
[GN]


TAKEDA PHARMA: Appeal in Painters' Fund Class Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27,
2019, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the appeal in
the the Painters' Fund class action suit related to ACTOS, is still
pending.

Takeda has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in U.S. federal
and state courts in which plaintiffs allege to have developed
bladder cancer or other injuries as a result of taking products
containing type 2 diabetes treatment pioglitazone (U.S. brand name
ACTOS).

Eli Lilly and Company ("Lilly"), which co-promoted ACTOS in the
United States for a period of time, also has been named as a
defendant in many of these lawsuits.

Under the parties' co-promotion agreement, Takeda has agreed to
defend and indemnify Lilly in the U.S. matters. Outside the U.S.,
lawsuits and claims have also been brought by persons claiming
similar injuries.

In April 2015, Takeda reached an agreement with the lead
plaintiffs' lawyers that resolved the vast majority of ACTOS
product liability lawsuits pending against Takeda and Lilly in the
U.S. The settlement covered all bladder cancer claims pending in
any U.S. court as of the date of settlement.

Claimants with unfiled claims in the U.S. represented by counsel as
of the date of settlement and within three days thereafter were
also eligible to participate. The settlement became effective when
95% of litigants and claimants opted-in.

In connection with this broad settlement, Takeda has paid 2.4
billion USD (approximately 288 billion JPY) into a qualified
settlement fund. Takeda received insurance proceeds totaling
approximately 58 billion JPY under various policies covering
product liability claims against Takeda. Takeda also established
provisions for the remaining ACTOS claims and lawsuits.

In addition to remaining product liability claims, the following
lawsuits have been filed against Takeda by public and private
third-party payors, as well as consumers, seeking damages for
alleged economic losses:

A purported nation-wide class action lawsuit has been filed in
federal court in California, the Painters' Fund case on behalf of
third-party payors and consumers seeking, among other things,
reimbursement of monies spent on ACTOS.

In April 2018, the court dismissed the Painters' Fund case.
Plaintiffs appealed.

A purported California class action has been filed in federal court
in California asserting claims similar to the Painters' Fund case.

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, together with its
subsidiaries, engages in the research, development, manufacturing,
and marketing of pharmaceutical products, over-the-counter
medicines and quasi-drug consumer products, and other healthcare
products. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited was founded in 1781
and is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.


TAKEDA PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Actos-Related Suit in NY Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27,
2019, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the company
has filed a motion to dismiss the remaining legal theory in the
purported class action lawsuits filed in federal court in New York
by several end payors and wholesalers against Takeda alleging
anticompetitive conduct to delay generic competition for ACTOS.

There have been purported class action lawsuits filed in federal
court in New York by several end payors and wholesalers against
Takeda alleging anticompetitive conduct to delay generic
competition for ACTOS.

In September 2015, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss
the antitrust claims asserted by the end payors. The end payors
appealed this decision to the Federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.


The wholesalers' lawsuit had been stayed pending the appellate
court's decision in the end payors' lawsuit.

In February 2017, the appellate court reversed in part the
dismissal of the end payors' case and allowed one of plaintiffs'
antitrust theories to proceed in the trial court.

Specifically, the court ruled that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged
that Takeda's characterizations of two patents in the FDA Orange
Book were false, and that this resulted in delaying Teva's launch
of generic ACTOS. Takeda disagrees with these allegations and
believes the Orange Book listings were correct.

The court, however, affirmed the trial court's dismissal of other
antitrust theories. The end payors' case, along with the
wholesalers' case, is proceeding in the trial court, where Takeda
has filed a motion to dismiss the remaining legal theory.

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, together with its
subsidiaries, engages in the research, development, manufacturing,
and marketing of pharmaceutical products, over-the-counter
medicines and quasi-drug consumer products, and other healthcare
products. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited was founded in 1781
and is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.


TAKEDA PHARMA: Class Suit over ELAPRASE Tests Underway in Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27,
2019, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that Takeda is
currently waiting the assignment of the case involving Shire
Farmaceutica Brasil Ltda to one of the Justices of the Superior
Court of Justice.

In 2014, Shire's Brazilian affiliate, Shire Farmaceutica Brasil
Ltda, was served with a lawsuit brought by the State of Sao Paulo
where the Brazilian Public Attorney's office has intervened
alleging that Shire would be obligated to supply ELAPRASE for an
indefinite period at no cost to patients who participated in
ELAPRASE clinical trials in Brazil, and seeking recoupment to the
Brazilian government for amounts paid on behalf of these patients
to date, and moral damages associated with these claims.

On May 6, 2016, the trial court judge ruled on the case and
dismissed all the claims under the class action, which was
appealed. On February 20, 2017, the Court of Appeals in Sao Paulo
issued a decision upholding the decision rendered by the lower
court judge, dismissing, therefore, all the claims under the class
action.

On July 12, 2017, the Public Prosecutor filed an appeal addressed
to the Supreme Court. On October 10, 2017, the State of Sao Paulo
filed appeals addressed to the Superior Court of Justice and to the
Supreme Court. On November 13, 2017, Shire submitted its answers to
the aforementioned appeals. On July 3, 2018 the President of Sao
Paulo Court of Appeals issued a decision denying the remittance of
all appeals to the Superior Courts.

Against such decision, both the State (on August 23, 2018) and the
Public Prosecutor (on October 3, 2018) filed an appeal. By virtue
of such appeal, the case records were remitted to the Superior
Court of Justice on February 27, 2019. Takeda is currently waiting
the assignment of the case to one of the Justices of the Superior
Court of Justice.

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, together with its
subsidiaries, engages in the research, development, manufacturing,
and marketing of pharmaceutical products, over-the-counter
medicines and quasi-drug consumer products, and other healthcare
products. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited was founded in 1781
and is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.


TAKEDA PHARMA: Faces 3 Proton Pump Inhibitor Class Suits in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27,
2019, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that three proposed
class actions have been filed in three provinces in Canada (Quebec,
Ontario, and Saskatchewan) related to Proton Pump Inhibitor ("PPI")
Related Claims.

As of June 10, 2019 approximately 6,000 product liability lawsuits
involving PREVACID and DEXILANT have been filed against Takeda in
U.S. federal and state courts.

The federal lawsuits are consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in
a multi-district litigation in federal court in New Jersey.

The plaintiffs in these cases allege they developed kidney injuries
as a result of taking PREVACID and/or DEXILANT, and that Takeda
failed to adequately warn them of this potential risk.

It remains unclear how many of the plaintiffs actually took
PREVACID and/or DEXILANT.

Similar cases are pending against other manufacturers of drugs in
the same PPI class as Takeda's products, including AstraZeneca plc
("AstraZeneca"), Procter & Gamble Company ("Procter & Gamble") and
Pfizer Inc. ("Pfizer").

Outside the U.S., three proposed class actions have been filed in
three provinces in Canada (Quebec, Ontario, and Saskatchewan).

The defendants in these actions include Takeda, AstraZeneca,
Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies ("Janssen") and several generic
manufacturers. It is unclear how many additional actions, if any,
may be filed against Takeda in the U.S., Canada or elsewhere.

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, together with its
subsidiaries, engages in the research, development, manufacturing,
and marketing of pharmaceutical products, over-the-counter
medicines and quasi-drug consumer products, and other healthcare
products. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited was founded in 1781
and is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.


TECHPRECISION CORP: Discovery Extended to July 22 in Suit v. Ranor
------------------------------------------------------------------
TechPrecision Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the court has extended
discovery in the employee class action against Ranor, Inc. to July
22, 2019.

On or about February 26, 2016, nine former employees, or plantiffs,
of Ranor filed a complaint in the Massachusetts Superior Court,
Worcester County, against Ranor and former and current executive
officers of Ranor, alleging violations of the Massachusetts Wage
Act, breach of contract and conversion based on a modification made
to Ranor's personal time off policy.

Plaintiffs claim that Ranor's modification to its personal time
off, or PTO, policy in April 2014 caused these employees to forfeit
earned PTO. Plaintiffs assert their claims on behalf of a class of
all current and former employees of Ranor who were affected by the
modification to Ranor's PTO policy.

The Court held a status conference on this matter on February 28,
2019. At that conference, the Court extended discovery to July 22,
2019. The Court also ruled that summary judgment motions must be
served by August 21, 2019 and filed by September 21, 2019.
Discovery is ongoing.

TechPrecision Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells precision, large-scale fabricated, and
machined metal components and systems in the United States and the
People's Republic of China. It offers custom components for ships
and submarines, aerospace equipment, nuclear power plants, and
large scale medical systems. The company also provides
manufacturing engineering services to assist customers. It serves
customers in defense, aerospace, nuclear, energy, medical, and
precision industrial markets. The company was founded in 1956 and
is headquartered in Westminster, Massachusetts.


TIME INC: Faces Class Action Over Automatic Subscriptions
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action
accuses Time Inc. and Meredith Corp. of automatically re-enrolling
magazine subscribers for new subscriptions without adequate notice,
and taking money from their bank accounts.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

                    https://is.gd/a3zOyR


TIVITY HEALTH: OK Firefighters Seek Class Cert. in Weiner Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Lead Plaintiff
in the lawsuit entitled ERIC WEINER, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. TIVITY HEALTH, INC., DONATO
TRAMUTO, GLENN HARGREAVES and ADAM HOLLAND, Case No. 3:17-cv-01469
(M.D. Tenn.), moves the Court for an order:

   (1) certifying this matter as a class action pursuant to
       Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
       Procedure;

   (2) appointing it Class Representative; and

   (3) appointing Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as Class
       Counsel.[CC]

Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System
is represented by:

          Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
                  beng@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                  dsommers@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Christina D. Saler, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          Three Logan Square, 1717 Arch Street, Suite 3410
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 479-5707
          Facsimile: (267) 479-5701
          E-mail: csaler@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Alice Buttrick, Esq.
          Jessica (Ji Eun) Kim, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street, Fourteenth Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-0979
          Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
          E-mail: abuttrick@cohenmilstein.com
                  jekim@cohenmilstein.com

Plaintiff Eric Weiner is represented by:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: ek@zlk.com

               - and -

          James A. Holifield, Jr., Esq.
          HOLIFIELD JANICH RACHAL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          11907 Kingston Pike, Suite 201
          Knoxville, TN 37934
          Telephone: (865) 566-0115
          Facsimile: (865) 566-0119
          E-mail: aholifield@holifieldlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brandon R. Keel, Esq.
          Jessica Perry Corley, Esq.
          Lisa R. Bugni, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-4717
          Facsimile: (404) 572-4677
          E-mail: bkeel@kslaw.com
                  jpcorley@kslaw.com
                  lbugni@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph B. Crace, Jr., Esq.
          Wallace Wordsworth Dietz, Esq.
          BASS, BERRY & SIMS
          150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 742-7896
          Facsimile: (615) 742-2700
          E-mail: jcrace@bassberry.com
                  wdietz@bassberry.com


TO-RISE LLC: Seeks Prelim. Approval of Lora Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit captioned EILEEK LORA, JEFFREY GOMEZ,
SERGIO MOSCOSO, BERNARDO MENDOZA, NICHOLAS MITRANO, KEVIN MANCO,
and WILMER MARIN GARCIA, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated v. TO-RISE, LLC and JORGE SALCEDO a/k/a JORGE E.
SALCEDO JR., Case No. 16-cv-03604 (E.D.N.Y.), jointly renew their
motion for an order:

     (i) preliminarily approving their Settlement Agreement and
         Release;

    (ii) certifying the proposed Class for the purposes of
         settlement;

   (iii) approving and directing the distribution of the proposed
         Notice of Settlement of Class Action and the proposed
         Claim Form and Release;

    (iv) setting the date and time for a fairness hearing; and

     (v) appointing the Law Offices of William Cafaro as Class
         Counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William Cafaro, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 583-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 583-7401
          E-mail: BCafaro@CafaroEsq.com


TOYOTA: $33.6MM Power-Sliding Door Class Action Settlement Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge granted final
approval of a $33.6 million settlement Toyota reached in a class
action alleging defects in the power-sliding rear passenger doors
of Sienna minivans. The settlement includes $7 million in attorney
fees, costs and incentive awards.

A copy of the Ruling is available at:

                      https://is.gd/RPS3iZ


TREASURY WINE: Court Grants Costs of Stayed Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Lawyerly reports that the Federal Court has granted Treasury Wine
Estates costs of a stayed class action filed against it by a firm
owned by solicitor Mark Elliot. [GN]


U.S. SUGAR: Class Action Calls for End of Sugarcane Burns
---------------------------------------------------------
Gianna Caserta, writing for WPBF, reports that Florida's sugar
industry is at the center of a new class-action lawsuit. The
lawsuit calls for an end to sugarcane burns, along with the
recovery of economic damages and health monitoring for residents.

"The burning does a lot of bad things, they discolor homes and
cars. The black snow is across our properties," said Clover Coffie,
Belle Glade resident.

Clover Coffie has lived in Belle Glade most of his life.

"I see far too many children on breathing devices including my own
grandchild. I hear from too many parents who are concerned about
their children during the sugarcane burning season," said Coffie.

He is one of tens of thousands of residents part of a federal
lawsuit filed by The Berman Law Group against U.S. Sugar
Corporation, Florida Crystals Corporation, and eleven other
defendants.

In order to accelerate harvesting speeds, sugarcane companies set
large areas of sugarcane fields on fire, like in this video
provided to us by the plaintiff's law firm.

The lawsuit claims the smoke and ash that fills the air during
these seasonal burns may be linked to several serious health
problems, including respiratory issues, as well as property
damage.

"The community itself is dying, the black snow that falls from the
sky, people are breathing it in, they are getting sicker and sicker
everyday," said Fred Taylor, Belle Glade resident and Retired
Professional Football Player.

Former Florida State Senator Joseph Abruzzo says there are safer
alternatives.

"What they do in Brazil, and this creates more jobs, they chop the
cane. There is also what Frank alluded to, there is technology,
where there are machines that take the waste and put it back into
the ground for fertilizer," said Abruzzo.

We reached out to several of the defendants for comment and
received a statement from Florida Crystals Corporation. The company
said they were unable to comment on any specifics but said "…Our
pre-harvest activities are regulated and permitted by the Florida
Forest Service, the State agency that regulates and permits the
90,000 prescribed burns across the State each year that are
conducted for wildlife protection, land clearing, agriculture and
more." [GN]


UBS PAINEWEBBER: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on May 24, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit affirmed in a unanimous decision the dismissal of a
putative securities class action against a major financial services
company and several of its subsidiaries in relation to their
alleged involvement in Enron's "financial manipulation." Lampkin et
al. v. UBS PaineWebber Inc. et al., No. 17-20608 (5th Cir. May 24,
2019). Plaintiffs -- (i) individual retail-brokerage customers of
defendants, and (ii) former Enron employees who acquired Enron
stock options through Enron's stock option plan -- alleged
defendants violated Section 11 and Section 12 of the Securities Act
of 1933 (the "Securities Act") by acting as an underwriter and
seller of Enron securities and were liable for materially false and
misleading statements contained in Enron's prospectuses and
registration statements. Plaintiffs also alleged defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by failing to disclose
their alleged knowledge of Enron's alleged manipulation of its
"public financial appearance."

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants collectively were a "single,
integrated business venture" that "maintained a 'mutually
self-serving relationship [with Enron] that took precedence over
and conflicted with the interests of [defendants'] retail
customers.'" According to plaintiffs, the brokerage subsidiary
defendant that operated Enron's employee stock option plan acted as
a "seller" and "underwriter" of Enron securities within the meaning
of the Securities Act through its administration of the plan, and
as such is liable for "materially false statements contained in the
Enron prospectuses and registration statements" related to Enron's
stock. Plaintiffs further alleged that defendants "had knowledge of
Enron's 'financial chicanery' because of [their] 'long standing
banking history with Enron,'" which allegedly included "material
nonpublic information about Enron's financial manipulations," and
that such knowledge created a "duty to disclose that information"
to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs highlighted several Enron transactions
that defendants participated in that allegedly amounted to "devices
and schemes designed to inflate the appearance of Enron's financial
status," and argued that defendants had a duty to disclose the
material nonpublic information they obtained through their
participation in these actions and failed to do so in violation of
the securities laws.

The Fifth Circuit first considered in the context of plaintiffs'
Securities Act claims whether the Enron employee stock option plan
constituted a sale of securities, thus bringing the plan within the
purview of the Securities Act. Plaintiffs argued that "the district
court erred by conflating employee stock ownership plans and
employee stock option plans" in determining that the plans did not
constitute a "sale" under the securities laws. Citing the Supreme
Court's decision in Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Daniel, 439
U.S. 551, 558 (1979), the Fifth Circuit noted that "an employee's
'participation in a noncontributory, compulsory pension plan' is
not the equivalent of purchasing a security." The Court further
noted that post-Daniel, the SEC issued releases clarifying that
"for the registration and antifraud provisions of the 1933 Act to
be applicable, there must be an offer or sale of a security," and
that although "plans under which an employer awards shares of its
stock to covered employees at no direct cost to the employees" do
award securities, "there is no 'sale' in the 1933 Act sense to
employees, since such persons do not individually bargain to
contribute cash or other tangible or definable consideration to
such plans." Noting that "[c]onsistent with the interpretations of
the SEC, courts have extended Daniel to compulsory and involuntary
employee stock option plans," the Fifth Circuit stated that the
central question is "whether employees made an investment decision
that could be influenced by fraud or manipulation." The Court found
that where the employees' participation is an "incident of
employment" -- as was alleged by plaintiffs -- there is "no
bargained-for exchange that requires an affirmative investment
decision" and that "under Daniel, the 'exchange of labor' is
insufficient." Further, the Court determined that plaintiffs' claim
is based entirely on the grant of the options, rather than an
exercise of those options, an action which "required no affirmative
investment decisions by plaintiffs." As such, the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of the Securities Act claims.

Turning to the brokerage customer plaintiffs' Exchange Act claim,
the Fifth Circuit held that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently
allege that defendants had a duty to disclose or that they
possessed "material, nonpublic knowledge." Plaintiffs alleged that
the defendant brokerage firm they used (then a separate legal
entity, but presently a subsidiary defendant of the financial
institution defendant) and another subsidiary defendant "united in
a joint venture" in an effort to establish that the various
defendant entities shared knowledge and a duty to disclose any
materially misleading information of which they were aware. The
Court rejected this argument, citing Giancarlo, et al. v. UBS
Financial Services Inc., et al., No. 16-20663 (5th Cir. Feb. 26,
2018), a recent unpublished decision by another panel of the Fifth
Circuit that heard a related case (previously discussed in a prior
post). Although not bound by the decision, the Fifth Circuit
adopted the reasoning from Giancarlo, finding it "persuasive," and
held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege defendants
operated as a joint venture (as there was no sharing in loss or
profits and no joint control) and failed to advance any persuasive
theories to "aggregate the actions and knowledge of the defendant
entities for purposes of assessing liability."

The Court next considered plaintiffs' argument that defendants'
alleged "special relationship" with its retail clients (plaintiffs)
and issuer client (Enron) created a duty to disclose material
nonpublic information to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs cited as support
the Supreme Court's decision in Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v.
U.S., 406 U.S. 128 (1972), which held that defendants' "special
relationship" with plaintiffs gave rise to a duty of disclosure. In
distinguishing Affiliated Ute, the Fifth Circuit found that
plaintiffs failed to "allege an analogous relationship" in the
instant case because plaintiffs were relying on "grouping" entities
with "separate legal statuses" in order to cure the lack of
evidence against any particular entity. The Court held that because
plaintiffs failed to allege the existence of a joint venture,
plaintiffs must demonstrate that the subsidiaries independently
knew of the alleged material information, something plaintiffs
"fundamentally fail[ed] to establish." According to the Court, the
"lack of particularized allegations that any defendant entity
possessed material information about Enron's finances and a duty of
disclosure [were] fatal to their claim."

The Court similarly rejected plaintiffs' argument that the
securities industry's self-regulatory organization rules imposed a
duty to disclose, finding that although the brokerage firm
defendant had a duty to disclose based on the regulatory
organization's rules, plaintiffs failed to allege that the
brokerage firm defendant possessed any knowledge to disclose.
According to the Court, it was the other subsidiary defendants that
participated in the transactions that would have the alleged
knowledge about the accounting issues. But because plaintiffs could
not establish the existence of a joint venture between defendants
and there were no allegations that the information was actually
shared between them, defendants did not have a duty to disclose.

Finally, the Court considered whether the district court had
properly dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice. As
in Giancarlo, plaintiffs argued that the district court abused its
discretion and that the reason plaintiffs failed to timely amend
their complaint was due to the depositions of Enron's former CFO
and defendants' expert, which occurred after the deadline to amend
and from which plaintiffs sought additional information. The Fifth
Circuit rejected this argument, emphasizing that plaintiffs failed
to clarify how their amended allegations, if permitted, would have
provided support for "their theory that [the brokerage firm and the
other subsidiary] participated in a joint venture." The Fifth
Circuit thus determined that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in refusing to grant leave to amend and affirmed the
district court's dismissal.

Lampkin v. UBS PaineWebber Inc. [GN]


UMB BANK: Garrett Seeks to Certify Class of Loan Originators
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled STEVE L. GARRETT and M. GWEN
GOINS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. UMB BANK, N.A., Case No. 4:19-cv-00369-ODS (W.D. Mo.), seek
conditional collective action certification of the this
collective:

     All current and former mortgage loan originators who worked
     for Defendant at any time from three years prior to the
     filing of the Complaint through the present.

The Plaintiffs filed suit against the Defendant alleging that it
had a policy and practice of failing to properly pay the
Plaintiffs, and similarly situated employees, overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiffs also
asks the Court to enter an order:

   a. appointing Plaintiffs Steve L. Garrett and M. Gwen Goins as
      collective action representatives;

   b. appointing McClelland Law Firm, P.C. as counsel for the
      putative collective action members;

   c. ordering the Defendant to produce this information for all
      putative collective action members in a Microsoft Excel
      document within fourteen (14) days of the Court's Order on
      this motion: (a) full name; (b) last known address; (c)
      last known phone number; (d) last known e-mail address; (e)
      date(s) of employment; and (f) location(s) of employment;

   d. approving the FLSA Collective Notice and Consent Form
      ("Notice") attached to the Suggestions as Exhibit E;

   e. ordering that the Notice be mailed via first-class mail and
      electronic mail to putative collective action members
      within 45 days of the Order, and setting a 90-day opt-in
      period (after the mailing of the Notice) for those persons
      to opt-in;

   f. ordering the posting of the Notice of the pending suit in
      conspicuous locations at Defendant's office locations where
      putative collective action members are employed (including
      break room bulletin boards or bulletin boards where job
      notices are posted) during the opt-in period; and

   g. allowing two reminder notices to putative collective action
      members at least 30 days before the opt-in deadline.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
          Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
          MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          The Flagship Building
          200 Westwoods Drive
          Liberty, MO 64068-1170
          Telephone: (816) 781-0002
          Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
          E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
                  mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com


UNIFUND CCR: Knaak Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Knaak moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit styled RICHARD KNAAK, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. UNIFUND CCR, LLC, KOHN
LAW FIRM, S.C., GLOBAL CREDIT & COLLECTION CORP., and DISTRESSED
ASSET PORTFOLIO III, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00952-JPS (E.D. Wisc.),
and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief
from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and
requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, 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
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


UNITED STATES: Faces Driever Suit over Inmates' Civil Rights
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against the government of
the United States of America, the director of Federal Bureau of
Prisons, Judy Upton and others for alleged violations of civil
rights. The case is captioned DRIEVER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-01807-UNA (D.D.C., June 19, 2019). This
civil rights lawsuit is now assigned to Hon. Judge Timothy J.
Kelly.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a law enforcement agency that
oversees the custody, control, and care of individuals incarcerated
in the federal prison system of the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

UNITED STATES: Sued for Discriminating Against Asylum-Seekers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Farrick, writing for Legal Reader, reports that
asylum-seekers kept behind bars in the Deep South are launching a
class action lawsuit against the government.

The lawsuit, led by the Southern Poverty Law Center and American
Civil Liberties Union, claims the Trump administration is
categorically discriminating against asylum-seekers. According to
The Los Angeles Times, detention in the Deep South carries its own
set of problems -- detention centers are often isolated, with scant
access to lawyers and no opportunity for inmates to obtain parole.

In a statement published on its website, the SPLC claims that
asylum-seekers have followed legal procedures to gain entry into
the United States but are now being denied fundamental rights.

"Like hundreds of people being held in multiple ICE detention
centers in the Deep South, our asylum-seeking plaintiffs are being
punished for following the law," said SPLC Senior Supervising
Attorney Luz Virginia Lopez. "They followed the legal checklist by
first presenting themselves at a point of entry, and this is how
America is paying them back—with cruelty and disrespect for the
law."

Furthermore, the SPLC claims that parole approvals are hitting new
lows under the direction of President Donald Trump. Last year --
out of 130 asylum-seekers to petition for parole in one Immigration
and Customs Enforcement district -- only two individuals won
conditional release.

Parole statistics in ICE's New Orleans field district are
particularly bad. In 2016, 75% of parole requests were approved --
in 2018, that figure had plummeted to 1.5%.

Southern Poverty Law Center staff attorney Laura Rivera said ICE's
decision to ship detainees South likely isn't without motive.

"When ICE makes strategic decisions about where to ship hundreds of
asylum seekers, it has to know the Louisiana field office is not
granting relief on parole to anybody," Rivera said.

Rivera also echoed contemporary wisdom on incarceration, arguing
that keeping people behind bars does little good for anyone.

"Across this nation, there is consensus building that incarceration
does much more harm than good to our communities," she said. "Yet,
as criminal justice reform leads to lower rates of incarceration,
this administration is filling jails and prisons with record
numbers of migrants -- more than 53,000 at last count. It's causing
untold human suffering, and it's violating the law."

River and the SPLC's complaint notes that, along with potentially
breaking the law, refusing parole to asylum-seekers costs American
taxpayers a lot of money.

"ICE's refusal to consider the release of these asylum-seekers on a
case-by-case basis violates federal law, costs taxpayers millions
of dollars each month, and causes untold suffering to the men and
women who seek legal protection inside the United States," the
lawsuit states.

The L.A. Times notes that Rivera and the SPLC filed suit on behalf
of detainees across a swath of states, including Alabama, Arkansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee.

Some migrants party to the suit have put forward claims of immense
suffering. One Cuban dissident, whose name is simply abbreviated
'Y.A.L.,' was repeatedly denied parole even though his wife lives
in Miami and is a legal, permanent U.S. resident.

Y.A.L., notes the Times, has gout.

Denied proper treatment and a 'medically suitable diet' down south,
Y.A.L.'s condition progressed to the point that he lost the ability
to walk, bathe or use the toilet without assistance.

Other class members include Adrian Toledo Flores, a Cuban pharmacy
technician who fled the country -- Toledo-Flores, says the L.A.
Times, was beaten by government agents after refusing to withhold
prescription medication from a client.

And 18-year old M.R.M.H -- who fled Honduras after being brutalized
by MS-13 gang members -- isn't able to access a diet that accounts
for extreme allergies. Consequently, eating in ICE facilities has
made the teenager break out in hives and struggle breathing.

One physician even noted that M.R.M.H. is at "extremely high risk
of dying in ICE custody from a preventable condition."

While ICE has stressed that its 'commitment' to detainees' health,
the ACLU says its suing to stop the sorts of abuses recounted by
those fleeing dictatorship and gang violence.

"Here in Louisiana, thousands of immigrants and asylum-seekers are
now being exposed to brutal and inhumane conditions in our jails
and prisons—with virtually no hope of release," said Bruce
Hamilton, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Louisiana. "We're suing
to stop these abuses and hold the Trump administration accountable
for following the law."

Meanwhile, the SPLC has continued to charge the administration with
shuffling migrants to jurisdictions where it's practically
impossible for them to garner relief.

"There's no rhyme and reason to why they're being brought to
Mississippi from the border," Rivera said, "other than that beds
are available, the price is right, and it's in a hostile
jurisdiction." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Westbrook Suit Transferred to District of Nevada
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Elena Westbrook individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, the Petitioner, vs. U.S. Department
of Justice; Attorney General William Barr. in his official capacity
as the Attorney General of the United States; U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Thomas D Homan, in his official capacity as the Senior Official
Performing the Duties of the Director of ICE; David A. Marin, in
his official capacity as the Director of the Los Angeles Field
Office of ICE; Thomas P Giles, in his official capacity as the
Deputy Field Office Director of Detention and Removal Operation for
Disctrict 23; Robert M Culley, in his official capacity as the
Director of the Salt Lake City Field Office of ICE; and U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, the Respondents, Case No.
2:19-cv-01198 (Filed Feb. 15, 2019), was transferred from the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, to the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada (Las Vegas) on July 3, 2019. The District of Nevada Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01160-KJD-BNW to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kent J. Dawson.

The Justice Department is a federal executive department of the
U.S. government, responsible for the enforcement of the law and
administration of justice in the United States, equivalent to the
justice or interior ministries of other countries.[BN]

Attorneys for the Petitioner are:

          Nicolette Glazer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R GLAZER
          1875 Century Park East No. 700, Suite 700
          Century City, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 407-5353
          E-mail: nicolette@glazerandglazer.com

Attorneys for the Respondents:

          Jennifer R Jacobs, Esq.
          Karen Yumi Paik, Esq.
          AUSA-OFFICE OF US ATTORNEY
          300 North Los Angeles Street Suite 7516
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 894-6167
          Facsimile: (213) 894-7819

               - and -

          Mary Larakers, Esq.
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION
          P.O. Box 868
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 353-4419
          E-mail: mary.l.larakers@usdoj.gov

UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses M. Dane's CUTPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case
captioned MARK DANE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al., Defendants. No. 3:18-cv-00792 (SRU).(D. Conn.).

Dane brings claims on behalf of a purported nationwide class of
current and former insureds who purchased United Medigap coverage.
He asserts seven Connecticut-law causes of action: (1) violation of
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA),(2) breach of
contract (3) unjust enrichment (4) breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing  (5) money had and received  (6)
conversion and (7) statutory theft.  He also asserts one District
of Columbia claim: violation of the District of Columbia's Consumer
Protection Procedures Act (CPPA).

Dane argues the following: (1) AARP Trust is wholly dominated and
controlled by AARP, Inc., and United pays AARP in the form of a
premium rebate (2) individual consumers, including himself, are
harmed by Defendants' scheme because they are forced to absorb the
costs of the inducement in the form of a 4.9% surcharge on top of
premiums (3) the most current version of the AARP kickback has been
kept secret and confidential (4) Defendants' reliance on the filed
rate doctrine, which bars suits against regulated utilities
grounded on the allegation that the rates charged by the utility
are unreasonable, is misplaced because the case involves only state
law claims; and (5) Defendants violated CUTPA or CPPA by
mischaracterizing the alleged premium rebate to AARP as a royalty.
Dane also raises several common law claims.

The Court rejects Dane's arguments and grant Defendants' motion to
dismiss.

The AARP Royalty is not an Unlawful Premium Rebate

Connecticut's anti-rebate statute prohibits any insurance company
doing business in Connecticut from paying or allowing or offering
to pay or allow, as inducement to insurance, any rebate of premium
payable on the policy or any valuable consideration or inducement
not specified in the policy of insurance. The District of
Columbia's anti-rebate statute is similar.  

The FAC does not provide facts to support a theory that a payment
to AARP induces AARP members to choose United Medigap overage over
other insurance options because individual insureds are not
receiving any monetary award for choosing United. AARP is a
distinct entity from AARP Trust, which is the group policyholder.
See Agreement and Declaration of Trust (Agreement) AARP Trust
reimburses United only for administrative expenses, rather than for
referrals.

The payments that AARP makes to United are for use of AARP's
intellectual property.  
The alleged rebate is not paid to the ultimate insureds, so United
cannot be said to be influencing individual insured's purchasing
decisions. Because Dane does not plausibly allege that policyholder
AARP Trust is induced in any way, the royalty payment cannot
plausibly be viewed as a premium rebate.

Dane's Premium Rebate Claim is Barred by the Filed Rate Doctrine

Even if Dane's premium rebate theory were plausible, the filed rate
doctrine precludes this lawsuit.

The filed rate doctrine bars suits against regulated utilities
grounded on the allegation that the rates charged by the utility
are unreasonable. It holds that any rate approved by the governing
regulatory agency is "per se reasonable and unassailable in
judicial proceedings brought by ratepayers. The Second Circuit has
held that "two companion principles lie at the core of the filed
rate doctrine: first, that legislative bodies design agencies for
the specific purpose of setting uniform rates, and second, that
courts are not institutionally well suited to engage in retroactive
rate-setting.  

The Filed Rate Doctrine can apply to Connecticut state law claims

Although Connecticut has not used the filed rate doctrine to bar a
plaintiff's claim, in Lentini v. Fidelity National Title Insurance
Co. of New York, the District of Connecticut recognized the filed
rate doctrine as it applies to state law claims. In Lentini,
District Judge Alvin W. Thompson held that the application of the
filed rate doctrine is limited to preventing a plaintiff from
bringing a cause of action whenever either purpose underlying the
filed rate doctrine is implicated. Lentini v. Fid. Nat. Title Ins.
Co. of New York, 479 F.Supp.2d 292, 300 (D. Conn. 2007) (quoting
Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc. v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., 253 F.Supp.2d
262, 275 (D. Conn. 2003)).

In addition, courts in New York and Texas have relied on the filed
rate doctrine to dismiss challenges claiming damages relating to
United's royalty payment analogous to the claims here. Roussin v.
AARP, Inc., 664 F.Supp.2d 412, 417-18 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), aff'd sub
nom. Roussin v. AARP, 379 F. App'x 30 (2d Cir. 2010).

In Roussin, a member of a non-profit corporation brought a class
action against the corporation, trust, and trustees, alleging
breach of fiduciary duty with regard to defendants' approval of
certain health insurance premium rates charged to members who
participated in insurance plans offered by defendants.   

The Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The
court held that the filed rate doctrine barred plaintiff's claims
because, although the claims were styled as breach of fiduciary
duty and gross negligence, the plaintiff essentially sought relief
from an injury allegedly caused by her payment of health care
premiums, including an Allowance. Therefore, the court held, the
claims were barred by the filed rate doctrine. The decision was
then affirmed by the Second Circuit by summary order.  

Accordingly, the filed rate doctrine applies to Dane's state law
claims in this case.

Principles Underlying the Filed Rate Doctrine

The non-justiciability strand of the filed rate doctrine, as set
forth by the Second Circuit that courts should not involve
themselves in the rate-making process or determinations of the
reasonableness of such filed rates is implicated by the complaint
in this case.

In Roussin, the district court agreed with defendants' assertion
that the filed rate doctrine barred plaintiff's claims because she
was essentially challenging the reasonableness of the cost to her
of AARP-sponsored health insurances rates, which the New York State
Department of Insurance had approved. The court held that although
the Complaint focuses its attention on the impropriety of the AARP
Allowance and its method of calculation, such a dispute necessarily
challenges the rate. As a result, plaintiff is challenging United's
insurance premiums, albeit one particular element of the premiums,
and thus her claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine.  

Because he is seeking relief for an injury allegedly caused by the
payment of a rate on file with a regulatory commission, Dane's
claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine.  

Dane Does Not Plead a Viable CUTPA or CPPA Claim

Even if Dane's claims could survive the conflict with the filed
rate doctrine, the FAC would be dismissed because Dane fails to
plead a viable CUTPA or CPPA claim under Connecticut and the
District of Columbia consumer protection laws.

The CPPA Does Not Apply to Dane's Case

The District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA),
which establishes an enforceable right to truthful information from
merchants about consumer goods and services that are or would be
purchased, leased, or received applies only to goods and services
that have been purchased, leased, or received within the District
of Columbia.  

Dane cites to Shaw v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 474 F.Supp.2d 141,
149-50 (D.D.C. 2007) to support the proposition that the CPPA has
extraterritorial reach in this circumstance. But Shaw concerns the
issue how to apply District of Columbia's choice-of-law principles
to District of Columbia causes of action in cases involving diverse
parties, and therefore does not apply to these facts. Accordingly,
CPPA does not apply to Dane's purchase of insurance coverage in
Connecticut.

Because Dane admits that he was enrolled in United Medigap in
Connecticut and nowhere alleges that he purchased or received his
policy or any other goods or services in the District of Columbia,
the CPPA claim must be dismissed.

Defendants Did Not Engage in Misrepresentation

In addition, as discussed above, Dane does not plausibly allege
that AARP Trust is induced in any way to purchase insurance, so the
royalty payment cannot be viewed as a premium rebate. Accordingly,
AARP did not misrepresent or fail to disclose that the royalty was
an unlawful premium rebate, so Dane's CUTPA and CPPA claims fail.

Dane Does Not Allege Loss Causation Required to Establish Standing

To prevail on a CUTPA claim, in addition to proving that the
defendant engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the
conduct of trade or commerce, the plaintiff must also prove that
each class member claiming entitlement to relief under CUTPA has
suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of
the defendants acts or practices. Furthermore, the ascertainable
loss requirement is a threshold barrier which limits the class of
persons who may bring a CUTPA action seeking either actual damages
or equitable relief. Thus, to be entitled to any relief under
CUTPA, a plaintiff must first prove that he has suffered an
ascertainable loss due to a CUTPA violation. A plaintiff must also
prove that the ascertainable loss was caused by, or was a result of
the prohibited act.  

Even if the AARP royalty constituted an unlawful premium rebate and
Defendants misrepresented the nature of the royalty payment, Dane
fails to establish standing under either CUTPA or CPPA.

The fee that Dane and each insured pays is an expense of the
program paid out of United's CID-approved Medigap premiums, and
Dane paid only the legally required rate. Because Dane did not pay
more than the CID-approved filed rate for the coverage he received,
and he could not have purchased United Medigap coverage for any
other rate, he cannot plausibly allege any loss caused by United's
allocation of its premium revenue to program expenses. Although
Dane argues that he would have chosen another insurance company had
he known about the alleged misconduct, that allegation does not
demonstrate that he suffered any loss from his selection of United
Medigap insurance.

Therefore, Dane does not meet the standing requirements under CUTPA
or CPPA.

Dane's Common Law Claims Fail

In addition to consumer protection law claims, Dane also alleges
(1) breach of the Medigap group insurance contract (2) unjust
enrichment (3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and (4) conversion. As discussed above, the royalty that
Dane pays is not an additional cost, but is instead a program cost
paid out of the CID-approved rate.

Because the insurance contract does not prohibit royalty payments
or program costs, Dane's breach of contract and breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing arguments both fail. In
addition, Dane does not allege any benefit that Defendants unjustly
retained because the royalty payment for use of AARP's intellectual
property was openly disclosed. Finally, Dane did not have ownership
rights to the 4.9% of his payment because that payment was a
royalty for use of AARP's intellectual property. Thus, Dane's
conversion argument also fails.

The case is dismissed and the Clerk is directed to close the file.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 24, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3cb2cc5 from Leagle.com.

Mark Dane, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented bySean K. Collins, Sean K.
Collins, Attorney at Law, Christopher Chagas Gold, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Dorothy Antullis, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Ex Kano S. Sams, II, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Jeffrey O.
McDonald, Hassett & George, PC, Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Louis N. George, Hassett & George, PC & Stuart A.
Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Unitedhealthcare Insurance Company & UnitedHealth Group, Inc.,
Defendants, represented byBrian D. Boyle, O'Melveny & Myers, Jean
Elizabeth Tomasco, Robinson & Cole, Jennifer Sokoler, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Meaghan Vergow, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP & Theodore J.
Tucci, Robinson & Cole, LLP.


UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Seeks Transfer of Class Action to Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Miami attorney's proposed class action
against UnitedHealthcare over cancer treatment coverage, which made
the rounds of the Southern District of Florida when several judges
passed on it due to possible conflicts, could be on the move again
as the insurer argued on Monday for transfer to Massachusetts.
Three judges recused themselves shortly after Richard Cole of Cole
Scott & Kissane PA filed his April 3 complaint. [GN]


VITAL ONE: Court OKs Filing of Amended Answer in Dickey Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion for Leave to
File Amended Answer in the case captioned DAWN DICKEY, Plaintiff,
v. VITAL ONE HEALTH PLANS DIRECT, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Defendant. No. 1:18-cv-01399-DAD-BAM. (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges as follows. Beginning in or
around the fall of 2016, defendant contacted plaintiff on her
cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system
(ATDS) without first obtaining plaintiff's consent. Plaintiff, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, filed a class
action complaint on October 10, 2018 seeking damages and other
available legal or equitable remedies from defendant based on
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The Defendant's motion for leave to amend seeks to add: (1) an
arbitration defense and (2) a  reasonable procedures defense to the
TCPA's do-not-call regulations pursuant to 47 C.F.R. Section
64.1200(c)(2)(i). Plaintiff does not oppose defendant's motion for
leave to amend to the extent that it seeks to add affirmative
defenses articulated in the TCPA regulations, but does oppose
defendant's motion to the extent that it seeks to add an
arbitration defense.  

Whether Defendant Waived the Right to Arbitration

The Ninth Circuit has held that a party seeking to prove waiver of
a right to arbitrate must demonstrate: (1) knowledge of an existing
right to compel arbitration (2) acts inconsistent with that
existing right and (3) prejudice to the party opposing arbitration
resulting from such inconsistent acts.

In seeking leave to amend, defendant states that it issued a
subpoena to Precise Leads, the entity from which defendant obtained
plaintiff's contact information. Precise Leads responded on
February 22, 2019, stating that plaintiff's contact information was
obtained by AlliedCoverage LLC through its website.  Thus,
defendant avers that it only became aware of a potential
arbitration defense on or about April 17, 2019.
  
In her opposition to defendant's motion, plaintiff does not dispute
that defendant was unaware of a potential right to arbitration
before April 2019. Plaintiff's objection that defendant litigated
this case for eight months before asserting an arbitration defense
therefore does not constitute an act inconsistent with the
arbitration right because defendant did not have knowledge of the
right during that time. At the hearing on the pending motion,
plaintiff's counsel argued for the first time that defendant should
have been aware of a potential arbitration defense earlier than
April 2019 because defendant had a contract with Precise Leads, was
in direct communication with Precise Leads, and could have
subpoenaed Precise Leads earlier than it did. Even if these
representations were true, however, such a delay is not sufficient
on its own to demonstrate waiver of the arbitration right:
plaintiff fails to argue that she has suffered any prejudice by
these purportedly inconsistent efforts to enforce the arbitration
provision.  

The Plaintiff has failed to meet her heavy burden of showing that
defendant had prior knowledge of a potential right to arbitration
or engaged in acts inconsistent with such a right. Most critically,
plaintiff has failed to demonstrate or even argue that she would
suffer prejudice from any purportedly inconsistent acts.
Accordingly, the court finds that defendant did not waive the right
to arbitrate.

Whether Defendant's Arbitration Defense Has Merit

The Plaintiff argues in the alternative that the arbitration
defense is meritless, because with a month until the close of fact
discovery, Vital One has not produced a single document evidencing
an agreement to arbitrate. Plaintiff objects to the addition of
such a defense on various grounds, including that defendant's
arbitration defense is based on the website of a third party, that
the website is likely a browsewrap agreement and not a clickwrap
agreement and that even if this third-party website did constitute
an agreement to arbitrate, there is no evidence that defendant was
an intended third-party beneficiary thereof.  

These objections would be relevant if a motion to compel
arbitration were pending before the court. But in considering a
motion for leave to amend, the court need not determine whether
defendant will ultimately prevail on its arbitration defense.  As
explained above, the court's assessment regarding futility of
amendment under Rule 15 is limited to whether it would be possible
for the claim or defense to be proven under any set of facts. Under
this framework, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that amendment
would be futile.

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion for leave to file a first
amended answer is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 20, 2019 Order is
available at   https://tinyurl.com/y3exnf8q from Leagle.com.

Dawn Dickey, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jarrett L. Ellzey ,
Hughes Ellzey, LLP, 1105 Milford Street,Houston, TX 77066, pro hac
vice, John P. Kristensen -- john@kristensenlaw.com -- Kristensen
Weisberg, LLP & David Levi Weisberg -- david@kristensenlaw.com --
Kristensen Weisberg LLP.

Vital One Health Plans Direct, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Defendant, represented by David Jay Kaminski  --
KaminskiD@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP & Stephen Albert
Watkins -- watkinss@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP.


VOLUME SERVICES: Wins Prelim. Nod of Settlement in Raquedan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lucy H. Koh grants the parties' motion for preliminary
approval of third amended class action settlement in the lawsuit
styled MONIQUE RAQUEDAN, et al. v. VOLUME SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Case No. 5:18-cv-01139-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

These persons are certified as Class Members solely for the purpose
of entering a settlement in this matter:

     All employees and applicants in the United States who
     applied for a job, promotion or job change with Centerplate
     for which a background check, including a consumer report,
     was conducted at any time from February 22, 2011, to
     March 31, 2019, excluding those individuals who already have
     resolved all the claims asserted in the Action, whether by
     settlement or adjudication, including, but not limited to,
     the settlement in Phlisida Gibbs v. Centerplate, Inc., et
     al., U.S.D.C., M.D. Fla., No. 8-17-cv-2187-EAK-JSS.

Class Members will receive a Settlement Share unless they submit a
valid and timely Opt-Out Form not later than 45 days after the
mailing of the Fourth Amended Class Notice.

Simpluris, Inc., is appointed to act as the Settlement
Administrator, pursuant to the terms set forth in the Settlement.

Plaintiffs Monique Raquedan and Ronald Martinez are appointed the
Class Representatives.  Shaun Setareh, Esq., Thomas Segal, Esq.,
and Farrah Grant, Esq., of Setareh Law Group are appointed Class
Counsel.

A final approval hearing will be held on November 14, 2019, at 1:30
p.m., to determine whether the Settlement should be granted final
approval.[CC]


VULTIK, INC: Fails to Produce Viable Client Leads, Wilshire Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, P.L.C., a California corporation, the Plaintiff,
vs. VULTIK, INC., an Iowa corporation; COREY SEAMAN, an individual,
and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case 19STCV21004 (cal.
Super., June 17, 2019), alleges that Defendants breached a contract
by failing to produce any viable personal injury leads and
retaining a $50,000 payment despite the fact that they utterly
failed to perform under the contract. The Plaintiff and Class
Members sustained actual losses and damages.

According to the complaint, Vultik, Inc. advertises itself on its
website as the "No. 1 Lead Generation Company and Platform,"
proclaiming that "we don't only have the leads, we have the
platforms and the support." Vultik's website further states: "you
want a partner in the lead generation  space that is consistent in
their results," and "you're tired of being taken advantage of by
over promise and under deliver providers."

The Plaintiff hired Defendant to provide personal injury leads,
paying Defendant $50,000 for Defendant's services. Defendant
generated absolutely no qualifying leads. The few phone calls that
Plaintiff did receive were from individuals who were trying to get
hold of their insurance companies, and who were not interested in
pursuing litigation.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful actions and inactions,
Plaintiff has lost its $50,000 investment in its entirety and has
failed to receive the benefit of its bargain, which were actual
leads. While Defendant Corey Seaman, the President and Chief
Executive Officer of Vultik has promised repeatedly to refund the
initial payment, he has utterly failed to do so.

Although Seaman had promised to refund the $50,000 fee, several
weeks passed without any payment being received. In early November,
Mr. Seaman sent Plaintiff a text stating, "it should be there at
latest mid next week." However, a week passed and no payment was
received. When, on November 13, 2018, the Plaintiff informed Seaman
that it had still not received the refund, Seaman sent a text
stating, "I am at the doctors I have a tracking number at my
office." When Plaintiff requested the tracking number from Seaman,
Seaman did not respond. Id. On Friday, November 30, 2018, Plaintiff
sent Seaman a text stating, "Hi Corey, we still have not received
the refund. Please let me know if it was sent out. Thanks." Seaman
did not respond, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

WAGEWORKS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
WageWorks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a securities class action suit in California.

On March 9, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California (the
"Securities Class Action"). On May 16, 2019, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed by the lead plaintiffs asserting claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer
and its former Chief Financial Officer on behalf of purchasers of
WageWorks common stock between May 6, 2016 and March 1, 2018.

The complaint also alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, arising from the Company's June 19, 2017 common stock
offering against those same defendants, as well as the members of
its Board of Directors at the time of that offering and the
underwriters of the offering.

WageWorks, Inc. engages in administering consumer-directed benefits
(CDBs) that empower employees to save money on taxes, and provide
corporate tax advantages for employers in the United States.
WageWorks, Inc. was incorporated in 2000 and is headquartered in
San Mateo, California.


[*] Three Dozen Canadian Airports May Face Class Action Over Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos P Martins, Esq. -- cmartins@lexcanada.com -- and Emma
Romano, Esq. -- eromano@lexcanada.com -- of Bersenas Jacobsen
Chouest Thomson Blackburn LLP, in an article for Lexology, report
that three dozen Canadian airports may be on the hook for fees
charged to airline employees flying on employee travel passes. A
proposed class action has been commenced in the Federal Court of
Canada claiming compensation for airline employees who paid certain
fees which the representative plaintiff claims should not have been
paid pursuant to agreements signed by the defendant airports.

Parties

Class actions in Canada require a representative plaintiff to
advance the claim on behalf of a class. In this case, the
representative plaintiff is Brian Roy, a pilot employed by Air
Canada who resides in Nova Scotia.

Roy represents all airline employees who have travelled through
various airports across Canada using an employee travel pass and
paid certain fees charged by the airports.

Each defendant is a corporation, society or non-profit corporation
which operates a commercial airport in Canada.

Basis of claims

The representative plaintiff claims that the airports charged two
fees -- an airport improvement fee (AIF) and a passenger facility
fee (PFF). In doing so, the claim is that the airports breached
their contractual obligations, as they had signed memorandums of
agreement (MOAs) not to charge these fees to employees using travel
passes.

The representative plaintiff also claims that the airports have
been unjustly enriched by charging these fees when they had agreed
not to.

Finally, the representative plaintiff claims that the airports
misrepresented to the proposed class members that AIFs and PFFs
were required, breaching Section 52 of the Competition Act, which
provides as follows:

52 (1) No person shall, for the purpose of promoting, directly or
indirectly, the supply or use of a product or for the purpose of
promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest, by any
means whatever, knowingly or recklessly make a representation to
the public that is false or misleading in a material respect.

The representative plaintiff claims that the airports are liable
under three theories of liability. First, under the law of contract
for breaching the MOAs regarding AIFs and PFFs.

Second, under Section 36 of the Competition Act, which creates a
private right of action for breaching the act. In this case, the
class is attempting to claim for damage caused by the airports
allegedly misrepresenting that employees using travel passes were
required to pay AIFs and PFFs.

Third, under the law of restitution, as the representative
plaintiff claims the airport defendants were unjustly enriched by
collecting the fees to the detriment of the class members.

Fees

The fees at issue in this litigation are imposed by airports to
support capital improvements and cover operating expenses.

AIFs are fees charged to passengers departing from an airport.
These fees are levied by airports and the proceeds are usually
intended for funding capital improvements.

PFFs are fees levied by airports which fund capital improvements or
operations of the airport.

MOAs

The three MOAs on which the representative plaintiff bases his
claim for breach of contract are agreements to which the various
defendant airports are parties.

The representative plaintiff contends that these MOAs include
contractual terms preventing the defendant airports from charging
AIFs and PFFs to airline employees travelling on business or
customers travelling on passes or other travel documents with
certain industry discount codes.

The claim also raises the issue that the MOAs were deliberately
concealed from the representative plaintiff and states that a
number of the defendant airports represented on their websites or
in public documents that AIFs and PFFs are not charged to airline
employees travelling on business.

The claim also argues that the failure to produce the MOAs to the
representative plaintiff on request was a breach of the duty of
good faith because the defendant airports are in a
business-to-consumer relationship with airline employees travelling
through their airports.

Privity of contract issue

The claim specifically deals with the issue of privity of contract,
because the plaintiffs are clearly not parties to the MOAs.

The claim points to a number of exceptions to the rule that
non-parties to a contract cannot enforce the rights and obligations
agreed to therein, including the following:

   -- the claim states that the airlines were acting as agents for
their passengers when signing the MOAs;
   -- the claim states that the MOAs were collateral contracts to
those between the passengers and the airlines (a 'collateral
contract' is one that induces a person to enter into a separate
primary contract); and
   -- the claim states the MOAs were made for the benefit of the
class member passengers.
Jurisdiction

The proposed class proceeding was commenced in the Federal Court of
Canada, which has jurisdiction over actions pursuant to the
Competition Act and aeronautics.

Scope of proceedings and potential exposure

As noted above, three dozen airports are named in the proposed
class action. The claims states "it is estimated that each airline
employee contributed at least $3,000 per year to the Defendant
airports collectively".

Should the airports be required to reimburse the AIFs and PFFs,
this could amount to a significant damages award.

Comment

This proposed class proceeding will be of particular interest to
airports, as it will illuminate whether private agreements among
airports with respect to fees charged can be enforced by
passengers.

The proceeding will certainly cause airports to re-evaluate their
public disclosure and practices with respect to AIFs and PFFs and
consider whether their practices align with any agreements they are
parties to. [GN]


[*] U.S. Class Action Litigation Spending Hits Highest Level
------------------------------------------------------------
Holger Besch, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that News Flash: "Caveat Propraetor" or
"Proprietor Beware" might soon replace "Eureka" as the state motto
of California.  Okay, that's just melodramatic hyperbole, but one
can imagine that business owners in the state might feel similarly
given California's increasingly hostile business environment. Ever
expanding litigation exposure, particularly with regard to labor
and employment class actions, weighs heavily on the minds of
businesses operating in California, and increasingly nationwide.
It should come as no great surprise that class action costs to U.S.
companies are at their highest in a decade. According to a recent
report by Carlton Fields, spending on class action litigation has
reached its highest level in the United States since 2008, and that
figure is expected to climb even further. [1]  Of the $2.46 billion
spent in 2018, labor and employment matters account for a full
quarter of the total, with most legal departments highlighting wage
and hour class actions as their chief area of concern.[2] Private
equity firms should thus take note as these escalating expenses
pose increased risks to their investments, particularly because of
labor and employment law.

Potential class action exposure may not even be immediately evident
under the existing state of the law. Witness California's recent
judicial and subsequent legislative erosion of piece-rate
compensation methods (including mandating complex separate
calculations for rest periods and potentially nonproductive time)
in favor of hourly pay.  Another example is the recent California
Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations v. Superior Court, 4
Cal. 5th 903 (2018), which created a brand new standard for
determining whether workers are misclassified as independent
contractors in the state.  The Supreme Court in Dynamex wove its
opinion out of new cloth, imposing a never-before imposed standard
that makes the classification of a worker as an independent
contractor far more difficult. The subject is also presently before
the California legislature as Assembly Bill 5 and awaits possible
codification.  Might such dramatic shifts in the law have been
predicted? Perhaps not, but they were certainly in keeping with the
judicial trend over the years to protect workers' base pay and to
favor employment relationships over independent work -- all the
more reason for private equity firms to seek the advice of seasoned
labor and employment counsel familiar with upcoming trends in the
law.

So what are wary private equity firms and other proprietors in the
state to do to guard against the growth in class-action costs? As
part of the pre-investment due diligence process, investors seeking
to mitigate class action risks should scrutinize potential labor
and employment liabilities (and potential trends) at target
companies ranging from such topics as exempt / nonexempt employee
and independent contractor classification issues to compensation
methods and pay equity issues. Post-acquisition, when more detailed
information is available, investors can reduce potential exposure
by conducting thorough labor and employment audits of acquired
entities, particularly on wage and hour topics. Companies should
also strongly consider implementing enforceable arbitration
agreements with class action waivers (particularly in light the
Supreme Court's Epic Systems decision) -- which can often
substantially reduce potential exposure associated with class and
collective action litigation. Even then, companies should be aware
that California exempts Private Attorney General Act representative
actions from such class action waivers.  In short, the principle of
Caveat Propraetor applies -- so it is imperative to know what
potential liabilities are being bought in evaluating the terms of a
deal. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***