CAR_Public/190718.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, July 18, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 143

                            Headlines

389 BROOME: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
3M COMPANY: Cain Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Malone Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Milligan Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Spencer Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs

785 CAFE: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
812 BROADWAY INC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ALDO U.S.: Faces Brett Suit in Central District of California
AMAZON.COM: Removes Buero Suit to District of Oregon
AMERICAN BUILDING SUPPLY: Faces Nieto's Civil Rights Suit in Calif.

ANCESTRY.COM: Mo. App. Flips Denial of Arbitration Bid in Hughes
ANDEAVOR LOGISTICS: Class Cert. Bid Denied, Case Goes to N. Dakota
ARAMARK CORP: Mercer & Ford Sue over Unpaid Incentive Bonuses
ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Jacobson Sues Over Sale to Elanco
ARIZONA: More Fines Sought Over Inmate Care

ARM FAST FOOD: Rahman Seeks OT Pay for Subway Restaurant Staff
BARBOUR INC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BASEMENT TECH: Ahmad Seeks OT Pay for Basement Services Techs
BAYER INC: Class Suit Over Oral Contraceptive Yaz Going Forward
BOX INC: Schall Law Files Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit

CALIFORNIA: Court Affirms Dismissal of Strother With Leave to Amend
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Jones et al. Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Court Narrows Claims in Weaver Suit
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Can Compel Arbitration in Prizler FLSA Suit
CHULA VISTA: Court Narrows Claims in Sartin DTPA Suit

CLIENT SERVICES: Degroot Sues over Debt Collection Practices
COLDWATER DISTRICT: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CONSTAR FINANCIAL: Whitney Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
CORTEVA INC: Retirees File Class Suit Over Pension Transfer
CRYSTAL PLACE: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

CURTIS INT'L: Scanlon Suit Moved to Eastern District of California
CUSHFIELD MAINTENANCE: Court Won't Dismiss Settlement in Nellis
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Proxy Statement Misleading, Wheby Says
ECOMMUNITY: $60MM Class Action Suit Filed Over Huge Fires
ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING: Court Denies Notice of Discovery Dispute

ESSILOR OF AMERICA: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN: Denial of Bacon Mandatory Class Cert. Flipped
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Abbink Sues over Background Checks
FIRST SOLAR: Trial in Smilovits Suit to Begin in January 2020
FLORIDA FINE: Can Compel Arbitration in Emeric FCRA Suit

FORD MOTOR: Sartip et al Sue over Overstated Fuel Economy Ratings
G6 HOSPITALITY: Mullen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
GBR PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Breit Jr. Suit Alleges
GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Lift Bar Date to Assert Class Claim Denied
GEORGIA: Ga. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Boyd Suit

HARTSFIELD ROOFING: Ross Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Laborers
HELIFLITE SHARES: Petersen Seeks Overtime Pay for Dispatchers
HENDERSON, NV: Former Jail Officers File Overtime Lawsuit
HOP RESTAURANT: Underpays Wait Staffs, Branham Suit Alleges
IMAGEONE INDUSTRIES: Rapp Seeks Overtime Pay for Field Supervisors

INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Violates Securities Laws, Skrzeczkoski Says
INTREPID USA: Settlement in Mitcham Suit Has Conditional Approval
INTUIT INC: Free Tax Filing Program Deceptive, Malloy et al. Claim
ITG INC: Court to Review Denial of Bid to Dismiss Mauthe TCPA Suit
J.G. WENTWORTH: Gill Suit Transferred to Eastern Dist. of Virginia

JACKSON COUNTY, MO: County Property Assessments Worry Taxpayers
JIASHENG: Edwin Sues over Unpaid Wages, Tips and Gender Bias
JIGSAW USA INC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JITROIS AMERICA: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JPMORGAN CHASE: Illegally Records Phone Calls, Raffin Claims

JR ASIAN: Guo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
KELLY SERVICES: Removes Perea Suit to Central Dist. of California
KEYES COMPANY: Greenberg Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Summary Judgment in Henry CSPA Suit Affirmed
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Hearing on Lead Counsel Bids Set for September

LABORATORY CORP: Faces Jan Suit in California Superior Court
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Allende et al Sue over Data Breach
LAW OFFICES OF MORSE MEHRBAN: Faces Shin's Fraud Suit
LINCOLN LIFE: Faces Vida Suit in Southern District of New York
LOVEPOP, INC: Faces Duncan Suit to Southern District of New York

LYFT, INC: Ronquillo Sues over Unwanted Cellular Phone Calls
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
MDL 2665: Court Narrows Class Claims in Pepper Sales Litigation
MDL 2741: Antley v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Coleman v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: Fox v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Franco v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Holt v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2909: Salzhauer Sues over Inhumane Treatment of Dairy Cows
MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Olson Labor Suit in Calif. State Court

MERRILL LYNCH: Spoofed Precious Metal Prices, Robert Charles Says
MICHAEL STORES: Chu Alleges ADA, Civil Rights Violations
MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Bushberger FDCPA Suit
MIDWAY INDUSTRIES: Court Denies Settlement Approval in Shepardson
MILE HIGH: Sanders Files FLSA Suit in District of Colorado

MONEY STORE: Court Dismisses Asberry Suit With Prejudice
NAGEL RICE: Gore Suit Removed to District of New Jersey
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Class
NCAA: Hutcherson Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
NCAA: Jones Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety

NESCTC SECURITY: Plasse et al. Seek Overtime Pay
NEW JERSEY: Psychiatric Hospital Staff Can't Stop Rampages
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Allen Initiated in Gulino Bias Suit
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Bernard Filed in Gulino Bias Suit
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Frye Initiated in Gulino Bias Suit

NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Guerra Filed in Gulino Bias Suit
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Lopez-Feliciano Filed in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Robinson Filed in Gulino Bias Suit
NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal v. Charlton Initiated in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: Appeal v. Brito Initiated in Gulino Discrimination Suit

NEW YORK: Appeal v. Cabrera Filed in Gulino Discrimination Suit
NEW YORK: Appeal v. Hewitt Filed in Gulino Discrimination Suit
NEW YORK: Appeal v. Jacques Filed in Gulino Discrimination Suit
NEW YORK: Board of Educ. Files Appeal v. Caraballo in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: Board of Educ. Files Appeal v. Havercome in Gulino Suit

NEW YORK: Board of Educ. Files Appeal v. Medina in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: Board of Education Appeals Ruling v. Brady in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Appeals Judgment for Jones in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Appeals Judgment for Noriega in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Appeals Judgment for Todd in Gulino Suit

NEW YORK: Educ. Board Appeals Judgment v. Michel in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Appeals Ruling v. Hamilton in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files Appeal v. Bido in Gulino Bias Suit
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files Appeal v. Trujillo in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: Second Cir. Appeal v. Alexis Filed in Gulino Class Suit

NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal v. Fletcher Filed in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal v. Gustama Filed in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal v. Luna Filed in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal v. Marin Commenced in Gulino Suit
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Charges Improper Fee, Bullard Suit Alleges

OPRONA, INC: Torres Seeks Overtime Wages for Field Service Techs
PILLARS PROTECTION: Condtional Certification of FLSA Class Sought
PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Abera Sues over 28% Drop in Share Price
PLAIN GREEN: Swiger Sues Officers over Loan Interest Rates
POSTURE WORKS: Sep. 12 Hearing on Placeholder Class Cert. Bid

PPDAI GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Stay Securities Litigation
PRICESMART INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
PRO CUSTOM: Huber Sues Over Intrusive Telemarketing Practices
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Hollway Sues over Data Breach
R.J. REYNOLDS: Faces $10.6MM Engle Jury Damages Award

RA MEDICAL: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
RANCH AND HOME SUPPLY: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROCKLEDGE ATOMIC FITNESS: Holmes Sues over Pre-Recorded Messages
SAEJ ENTERPRISES: Court Issues Protective Order in Millan
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Young Sues over Technicians' Pay Scheme

SANDY HUTCHENS: 10th Cir. Affirms Contempt of Court in Hutchens
SARASOTA DOCTORS HOSPITAL: Day Suit Transferred to M.D. Fla.
SAVE-A-LOT KNOXVILLE: McCloud Appeals Decision to Sixth Circuit
SCELZI ENTERPRISES: Court Vacates Dates Due to Settlement in Murray
SDX HOME: Buhl Seeks OT & Minimum Wages for Health Assistants

SEMPRIS LLC: Solorio Sues over Racketeering Activities
SERAPHINE MATERNITY: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SERVICE KING: Court Dismisses Ajemyan Labor Suit Without Prejudice
SFP DEVELOPMENT: Faces Marnet Suit in California Superior Court
SMILEDIRECTCLUB: Faces Sollinger Suit in S.D. New York

SONOS INC: Steiner Sues over Destructive Software Updates of CR100
STRATEGIC PRACTICE: Ryan D.D.S. Sues over Facsimile Advertisement
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Pay for Services Reps
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Williams Suit Moved to C.D. California
TOTAL SAFETY: Gilreath Files ERISA Suit Over Denied COBRA Coverage

TRAMEC CONTINENTAL: Henry Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
UNITED STATES: Dowell Extraordinary Writ Challenge Denial Upheld
UNIVERSAL CREDIT: Alvarez Sr. Sues over Background Checks
VERB TECHNOLOGY: Securities Statement Misleading, Hartmann Says
VIKING SUPPLY: Couple Sues Over Faulty Sprinkler

WEBCOLLEX, LLC: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
WESTERN EXPRESS: Cruz et al. Seek Unpaid Wages for Truck Drivers
WHITE COMPANY: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Simon Sues over Phony Discounts
WINCO HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Petersen Suit With Prejudice


                            *********

389 BROOME: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 389 Broome LLC. The
case is styled as Mary Conner and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 389 Broome LLC doing business as:
Goldbar, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03917-DLI-CLP (E.D. N.Y., July
8, 2019).

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

389 Broome LLC doing business as: Goldbar is a night club offering
cocktails & DJ music in a gold-themed space with a velvet rope out
front.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     Gottlieb & Associates
     150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com
            nyjg@aol.com

          - and -

     Darryn G Solotoff, Esq.
     The Law Office of Darryn Solotoff
     100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 695-0052
     Fax: (212) 656-1845
     Email: ds@lawsolo.net


3M COMPANY: Cain Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOSEPH KELVIN CAIN, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01954-RV-HTC
(N.D. Fla., July 2, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss
or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in
the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The
Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2
("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed
and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.

CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S.
military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing
protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better
maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice
commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and
other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's
specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection
to service members.

Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant
sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the
U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S.
military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing
Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries,
such as hearing loss.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
          Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
          306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 859-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
          E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
                  bowden_law@bellsouth.net

3M COMPANY: Malone Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ALEXANDER MALONE, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01941-MCR-MJF
(N.D. Fla., July 2, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss
or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in
the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The
Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2
("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed
and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.

CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S.
military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing
protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better
maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice
commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and
other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's
specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection
to service members.

Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant
sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the
U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S.
military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing
Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries,
such as hearing loss.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Dennis G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
          Evan Pantazis, Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS,
             FISHER, & GOLDFARB, LLC
          The Kress Building
          301 Nineteenth Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0530
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
          E-mail: dgpjr@wigginschilds.com

3M COMPANY: Milligan Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TYLER MILLIGAN, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01944-RV-HTC
(N.D. Fla., July 2, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss
or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in
the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The
Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2
("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed
and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.

CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S.
military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing
protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better
maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice
commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and
other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's
specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection
to service members.

Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant
sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the
U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S.
military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing
Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries,
such as hearing loss.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Dennis G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
          Evan Pantazis, Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS,
             FISHER, & GOLDFARB, LLC
          The Kress Building
          301 Nineteenth Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0530
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
          E-mail: dgpjr@wigginschilds.com

3M COMPANY: Spencer Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JASON SPENCER, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01946-MCR-HTC
(N.D. Fla., July 2, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss
or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in
the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The
Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2
("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed
and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.

CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S.
military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing
protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better
maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice
commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and
other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's
specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection
to service members.

Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant
sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the
U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S.
military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing
Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries,
such as hearing loss.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Dennis G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
          Evan Pantazis, Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS,
             FISHER, & GOLDFARB, LLC
          The Kress Building
          301 Nineteenth Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0530
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
          E-mail: dgpjr@wigginschilds.com

785 CAFE: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 785 Cafe Inc. The
case is styled as Mary Conner and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 785 Cafe Inc. doing business as:
The Distillery, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03920 (E.D. N.Y., July
8, 2019).

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

The Distillery is a prohibition-style craft cocktail bar in the
heart of Manhattan's theatre district. It is a sophisticated
gathering place with inventive cocktails, upmarket bar fare & cozy
lounge seating.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     Gottlieb & Associates
     150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com
            nyjg@aol.com

          - and -

     Darryn G Solotoff, Esq.
     The Law Office of Darryn Solotoff
     100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 695-0052
     Fax: (212) 656-1845
     Email: ds@lawsolo.net


812 BROADWAY INC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 812 Broadway Inc. The
case is styled as Mary Conner and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 812 Broadway Inc. doing business
as: Karaoke Boho, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03922 (E.D. N.Y.,
July 8, 2019).

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

Karaoke BOHO is a New York's karaoke bar and lounge in NYC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     Gottlieb & Associates
     150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com
            nyjg@aol.com

          - and -

     Darryn G Solotoff, Esq.
     The Law Office of Darryn Solotoff
     100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 695-0052
     Fax: (212) 656-1845
     Email: ds@lawsolo.net


ALDO U.S.: Faces Brett Suit in Central District of California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aldo US Inc. The case
is captioned as Brett DeSalvo individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Aldo US Inc., a
Delaware corporation and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-05611-RGK-E (C.D. Cal., June 27, 2019). The suit
demands $5 million worth of damages alleging Americans With
Disabilities Act violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
R. Gary Klausner.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Babak 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

AMAZON.COM: Removes Buero Suit to District of Oregon
----------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of LINDSEY BUERO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM
SERVICES INC. d/b/a AMAZON FULFILLMENT SERVICES INC.; and
AMAZON.COM INC., Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit
from the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, County of Multnomah
(Case No. 19cv22979) to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon on June 21, 2019. The clerk of court for the District of
Oregon assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00974-BR. The case is assigned to
Michael W. Mosman.

Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. provides e-commerce services. The
Company retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances,
apparels, and accessories. Amazon Fulfillment Services distributes
its products worldwide.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sarah J. Crooks, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor
          Portland, OR 97209-4128
          Telephone: (503) 727-2252
          E-mail: SCrooks@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq.
          Joseph A. Nuccio, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          502 Carnegie Center
          Princeton, NJ 08540-6241
          Telephone: (609) 919-6600
          E-mail: richard.rosenblatt@morganlewis.com
                  joseph.nuccio@morganlewis.com


AMERICAN BUILDING SUPPLY: Faces Nieto's Civil Rights Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
American Building Supply, Inc. (ABS) for alleged civil rights
violations. The case is captioned Jesus Nieto vs. American Building
Supply, Inc., Case No. 34-2019-00259025-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., June 19, 2019). It is assigned to Department 47 of
the Sacramento Superior Court.

ABS is a manufacturer and wholesale distributor of quality door,
millwork, and hardware products for both residential and commercial
applications.  With locations in California, Nevada, Arizona,
Washington, Georgia, Colorado, Texas, North Carolina, and Hawaii,
ABS considers itself an industry leader in the business-to-business
material supply chain for door related products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kane Moon, Esq.
     MOON & YOUNG, APC
     1055 W. Seventh St. Suite 1880
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Telephone: (213) 232-3128
     Facsimile: (213) 232-3125

ANCESTRY.COM: Mo. App. Flips Denial of Arbitration Bid in Hughes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, T. PARSLEY HUGHES, ET AL., Respondents, v.
ANCESTRY.COM, ET AL., Appellants, Case No. WD81996 (Mo. App.),
Judge Edward R. Ardini, Jr. of the Court of Appeals of Missouri for
the Western District reversed the trial court's denial of
Ancestry's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Litigation.

Plaintiffs Hughes and Jose Cordada filed suit in the Circuit Court
of Jackson County against Ancestry.com Inc. and Ancestry.com DNA,
LLC, alleging that Ancestry released their private health
information to third parties without their expressed permission.  

Ancestry is a Utah company doing business nationwide and
internationally.  It sells genealogy and DNA products and services,
including through operation of the website Ancestry.com.  As part
of its services, Ancestry offers its customers the opportunity to
have their DNA tested to discover their ethnicity.  

The Plaintiffs purchased DNA-testing kits from Ancestry and created
Ancestry.com accounts.  In order to create their respective
accounts, they entered their full names and email addresses and
created a password on a webpage.  The webpage contains the Ancestry
Terms and Conditions and Privacy Statement, which were visibly
hyperlinked to send users to those documents.  A "Continue" button
immediately followed this disclaimer.  The Plaintiffs clicked
"Continue" to create their accounts.

The Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Petition, alleging that
Ancestry released the Plaintiffs' and the members of the Class'
private health information to unknown persons or entities without
expressed permission to do so from them or members of the Class.
Ancestry filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Litigation,
arguing that the "Dispute Resolution" section of the Terms and
Conditions agreed to by the Plaintiffs included an agreement to
arbitrate all disputes subject to three exceptions.

The Plaintiffs filed Suggestions in Opposition to Ancestry's Motion
to Compel Arbitration, arguing that the arbitration agreement
"lacks consideration and is unconscionable."  Specifically, they
asserted that the agreement lacked consideration because the Terms
and Conditions allowed Ancestry to unilaterally amend the
arbitration agreement.  They also alleged that the agreement was
procedurally and substantively unconscionable.

The trial court overruled Ancestry's Motion to Compel Arbitration
and Stay Litigation, finding that the arbitration agreement was
invalid because it lacked mutual consideration.  Ancestry appeals.

Ancestry raises three points on appeal.  In its first point, it
alleges that the trial court erred in overruling its Motion to
Compel Arbitration, arguing there was sufficient consideration to
support the contract, including the arbitration agreement.  In its
second point, Ancestry claims that the trial court erred in finding
that the consideration supporting the arbitration agreement was
illusory because its right to modify the Terms and Conditions of
the contract was limited to prospective modifications.  Finally, in
its third point, Ancestry argues that the trial court erred in
overruling the Motion to Compel Arbitration because the parties
delegated threshold questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
Because it is dispositive, Judge Ardini addresses only Point III.

Before the trial court, Ancestry argued that the parties had agreed
to delegate issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  In
response, the Plaintiffs did not specifically challenge the
delegation provision.  Instead, they rested upon the same arguments
they directed at the arbitration agreement as a whole; an approach
that has been specifically rejected by the courts.  Because the
Plaintiffs failed to separately contest the validity of the
delegation provision, it must be "treated as valid and enforced."
Point III is granted.

Judge Ardini reversed and remanded the judgment of the circuit
court with directions to stay the litigation, and ordered the
parties to proceed to arbitration where issues of arbitrability can
be addressed.  All concur.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/4xwZLS from Leagle.com.

Mark Schmitz, for Respondents.

John C. Aisenbrey -- aisenbrey@stinson.com -- for Appellants.


ANDEAVOR LOGISTICS: Class Cert. Bid Denied, Case Goes to N. Dakota
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JOANN CHASE ET AL., the
Plaintiffs, vs. ANDEAVOR LOGISTICS, L.P., ANDEAVOR, f/k/a Tesoro
Corporation, TESORO LOGISTICS GP, LLC, TESORO COMPANIES, INC., and
TESORO HIGH PLAINS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
5:18-cv-01050-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David Alan Ezra
entered an order on July 9, 2019:

     1. granting Defendants' motion to transfer case to the
District of North Dakota;

     2. denying, without prejudice to refiling, Plaintiffs' motion
to certify class and Defendants' amended motion to dismiss; and

     3. denying as moot Defendants' motion for an extension of time
and Plaintiffs' motion for venue discovery.

The Court concludes that Defendants have carried their burden of
clearly demonstrating that transfer to the District of North Dakota
is more convenient for the parties and in the interest of justice.

The case concerns a crude-oil pipeline that runs across the Fort
Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota. The Plaintiffs are
beneficial owners of land within the Reservation over which the
Pipeline runs. The Defendants are a group of related companies that
operate numerous oil and natural-gas infrastructure projects across
the United States, including the Pipeline that runs across the
Reservation.[CC]

ARAMARK CORP: Mercer & Ford Sue over Unpaid Incentive Bonuses
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Aramark Corporation
for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and for alleged
violations of Delaware's Wage Payment and Collection Act, and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. The case is captioned
MICHAEL MERCER and LEO FORD, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ARAMARK CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-02762-JP (E.D. Pa., June 21, 2109).

The case is brought by Plaintiffs Michael Mercer and Leo Ford on
behalf of all managers employed by Defendant Aramark Corporation in
the United States who: (a) were contractually entitled to receive
an annual bonus as described in Aramark's standardized Management
Incentive Bonus plan or Front Line Manager Bonus Plan and did not
receive an Incentive Contract payment in the amount equal to what
was owed under the Incentive Contract Plans, or any Incentive
Contract Plan payment at all; and/or (b) were contractually
entitled to receive and/or exercise Restricted Stock Units (RSUs)
pursuant to the Aramark Amended and Restated 2013 Stock Incentive
Plan, and did not receive or were refused the ability to exercise
RSUs as promised under the Stock Incentive Plans.

In this action, Plaintiffs challenge, among other things,
Defendant's practice of withholding Incentive Contract Plan
compensation that was owed to Plaintiffs and the Class in
accordance with these metrics. They allege that the Defendant has
breached its obligations and engaged in unlawful, abusive and
unfair practices with respect to compensation under the Incentive
Contract Plans, including, (a) failing to pay the full amount of
Incentive Contract Plan compensation owed to Plaintiffs and the
Class by failing to include the full amount of revenue into the
contract formula when calculating Incentive Contract Plan
calculations; (b) withholding amounts owed in Incentive Contract
Plan compensation to Plaintiffs and members of the Class under the
guise of company-wide financial distress, while at the same time
making Incentive Contract Plan payments to Aramark's executives;
and (c) continually promising Incentive Contract Plan payments to
Plaintiffs and members of the Class and later reneging on those
promises.

In addition, Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant has been
unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs and the Class by (i)
encouraging Plaintiffs and the Class to reach financial targets for
the benefit of Aramark with the lure of receiving Incentive
Contract Plan compensation that Aramark refused to pay in part or
full; and/or (ii) encouraging Plaintiffs and the Class to expend
effort and perform work for Aramark's benefit with the lure of
paying RSU compensation that Aramark refused to pay in part or
full.

Aramark was founded in 1959 and is based in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Aramark was formerly known as ARAMARK Holdings
Corporation and changed its name to Aramark in May 2014. Aramark
provides food, facilities management, and uniform services to
education, healthcare, business and industry, sports, leisure, and
corrections clients in North America and internationally. It
operates in three segments: Food and Support Services United
States, Food and Support Services International, and Uniform and
Career Apparel. Aramark employs roughly 274,400 employees
consisting of approximately 180,000 full-time and approximately
94,400 part-time employees, in 19 countries. At least 146,700 of
these employees work within the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
     Mark B. DeSanto, Esq.
     Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
     CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
     361 W. Lancaster Avenue
     Haverford, PA 19041
     Telephone: (610) 642-8500
     E-mail: sas@chimicles.com
             mbd@chimicles.com
             seh@chimicles.com

             - and -

     Robert J. Kriner, Esq.
     CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
     2711 Centerville Road Suite 201
     Wilmington, DE 19808
     Telephone: (302) 656-2500
     E-mail: rjk@chimicles.com


ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Jacobson Sues Over Sale to Elanco
-------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN JACOBSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ARATANA THERAPEUTICS, INC., CRAIG
A. TOOMAN, CRAIG A. BARBAROSH, DAVID L. BRINKLEY, IRVINE O.
HOCKADAY, JR., MERILEE RAINES, LOWELL W. ROBINSON, ROBERT P. ROCHE,
JR., JOHN VANDER VORT, WENDY L. YARNO, ELANCO ATHENS INC., and
ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH INCORPORATED, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01200-UNA (D. Del., June 25, 2019) is a class action on
behalf of the public stockholders of Aratana Therapeutics, Inc.
against Aratana's Board of Directors for their violations of
Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
arising out of the Board's attempt to sell the Company to Elanco
Animal Health Incorporated through its wholly-owned subsidiary
Elanco Athens Inc.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have violated the
Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and misleading
registration statement (the "S-4") to be filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission on May 30, 2019 and the
subsequently filed, and substantively similar, Schedule 14A Proxy
Statement filed with the SEC on June 17, 2019. The S-4 and the
Proxy recommend that Aratana shareholders vote in favor of a
proposed transaction whereby Aratana is acquired by Elanco. The
Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on April 26, 2019, when
Aratana and Elanco announced that they had entered into a
definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Aratana stockholders
will receive 0.1481 shares of Elanco and one contingent value right
of $0.25 for each share of Aratana common stock that they hold. The
deal is valued at approximately $234 million, which would increase
to $245 million including the contingent value right payment, and
is expected to close in mid-2019.

The complaint asserts that the Proposed Transaction was approved by
the Board after pressure from an activist investor. While the
Company had just begun bringing in significant revenue,
profitability was within reach. But before Aratana could hit that
point, the Board agreed to sell the Company. The Merger
Consideration fails to adequately value the Company, falling short
of analyst price targets. Furthermore, the S-4 and Proxy are
materially incomplete and contain misleading representations and
information in violation of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the S-4
and the Proxy contain materially incomplete and misleading
information concerning the sales process, financial projections
prepared by Aratana management, and the financial analyses
conducted by Barclays Capital Inc. ("Barclays"), Aratana's
financial advisor, the complaint says.

Plaintiff is the owner of shares of common stock of Aratana.

Aratana develops therapeutic products for pets. Currently, the
Company sells three such products: ENTYCE stimulates appetite in
dogs; NOCITA is a post-surgery pain relief product; and Galliprant
relieves pain and inflammation in canine osteoarthritis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
     Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
     ROWLEY LAW PLLC
     50 Main Street, Suite 1000
     White Plains, NY 10606
     Phone: (914) 400-1920
     Facsimile: (914) 301-3514

          - and -

     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 295-5310
     Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
     Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
            gms@rl-legal.com


ARIZONA: More Fines Sought Over Inmate Care
-------------------------------------------
Jacques Billeaud, writing for News-Press Now, reports that
attorneys challenging the quality of health care in Arizona prisons
are seeking another round of contempt-of-court fines against the
state for failing to file monthly reports documenting its
noncompliance with a legal settlement that requires improvements to
inmate care.

The request on July 1, 2019, marks the third major attempt since
October 2017 to fine the state in the class-action lawsuit.

Corrections Director Charles Ryan was found in civil contempt and
the state was fined $1.4 million a year ago for failing to
adequately follow through on its promises when settling the case to
improve health care for its 34,000 prisoners. The state has
appealed the contempt ruling.

Nearly two months ago, a judge threatened -- but hasn't yet imposed
-- as much as $1.6 million in additional fines after concluding the
state remains noncompliant with many elements of the four-year-old
settlement.

Now, lawyers for the inmates are seeking a fine of $10,000 for each
day that the state fails to provide the reports of all instances of
noncompliance from March 2018 to the present. They allege the state
has flouted the obligation for more than a year.

The Department of Corrections declined to comment on the request
for more fines. But the state has previously said it has improved
its compliance since the judge raised the possibility of more
fines.

When Ryan was found in civil contempt a year ago, the state was
required to file monthly reports showing every instance of
noncompliance.

Attorneys representing prisoners said they have made multiple
attempts to get the reports but haven't received the documents.

They say the state hasn't fully complied on several performance
measures, such as ensuring newly prescribed medications are
provided to inmates within two days and making medical providers
tell inmates about the results of pathology reports and other
diagnostic studies within five days of receiving such records.

The lawsuit alleged that Arizona's 10 state-run prisons didn't meet
the basic requirements for providing adequate medical and mental
health care. It said some prisoners complained that their cancer
went undetected or that they were told to pray to be cured after
begging for treatment.

The state denied the allegations that it was providing inadequate
care, and the lawsuit was settled without the state acknowledging
any wrongdoing.

Late last year, the judge raised the possibility of throwing out
the settlement and resuming litigation, saying the state's
insistence on defending its performance was ill-advised.

The state paid the $1.4 million fine issued nearly a year ago and
was later fully reimbursed by Corizon Health Care, which at the
time had been the state's provider for health care in prisons.
Another company, Centurion of Arizona, took over on July 1 as the
state's prison health care provider. [GN]


ARM FAST FOOD: Rahman Seeks OT Pay for Subway Restaurant Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABIDUR RAHMAN, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class, the Plaintiffs, vs. ARM FAST FOOD LLC, MC BROTHERS LLC,
AKOTA FOUR CORP., MOHAMMED MATIN ARBAB CHOWDURY and SHOFIQUR
RAHMAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03836 (E.D.N.Y., July 2,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid spread-of-hours
premium, statutory penalties for wage notice violations, lost wages
for retaliation, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

Rahman was employed at three of Defendants' Subway franchise
restaurants as a non-exempt employee from approximately November 5,
2018 to June 25, 2019. Despite working in excess of 40 hours per
week and 10 hours per day, Rahman was not paid all his overtime
owed or any spread-of-hours pay.

Furthermore, the Defendants committed statutory wage violations, by
failing to provide Rahman with a proper wage notice upon his hire
or annually. Lastly, the Defendants retaliated against Rahman by
wrongfully terminating his employment after he complained of being
improperly paid, the lawsuit says.

MC Brothers is a Subway franchise restaurant.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class
are:

          Robert D. Salaman, Esq.
          AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 1420
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 825-1400
          E-mail: rob@akinlaws.com

BARBOUR INC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barbour Inc. The case
is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Barbour Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-06302 (S.D. N.Y., July 8, 2019).

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

Barbour Inc was founded in 1987. The company's line of business
includes the wholesale distribution of women's, children's, and
infants' clothing and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BASEMENT TECH: Ahmad Seeks OT Pay for Basement Services Techs
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABDULHAMID AHMAD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. BASEMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. d/b/a/
BUSY DOG, and JAMES PRATT, the Defendants, Case No. 19-0815 (Mass.
Super. Ct., June 27, 2019), alleges that Defendants misclassified
Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons who have worked for
Defendants as basement services technicians, as independent
contractors and were not paid overtime for all hours worked over 40
per week in violation of M.G.L.

During the time they were classified as independent contractors,
the Plaintiff, as well as the other drivers, were paid a flat rate
per day. They were paid one rate if they worked at least 10 hours
per day, but were paid less if they worked less than 10 hour, the
lawsuit says.

Basement Technologies is in the business of providing basement
waterproofing and other basement contracting services. Basement
Technologies does business as Busy Dog.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Benjamin J. Weber, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN J. WEBER
          P.O. Box 960796
          50 Federal Street, Suite 208
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 202-6270
          E-mail: bweber@bcnweberlaw.com

BAYER INC: Class Suit Over Oral Contraceptive Yaz Going Forward
---------------------------------------------------------------
A notice of authorization of a class action regarding the oral
contraceptives Yasmin and/or Yaz was in early July 2019.  This
class action against the defendant Bayer inc. is based on
allegations regarding alleged increased risks of arterial
thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism or
gallbladder disease associated with the use of Yasmin and/or Yaz
compared to other oral contraceptives, as well as allegations of
insufficiency of the warning to the members of the Class and/or
their physicians regarding these alleged increased risks, and of
alleged misleading representations regarding the safe nature of the
oral contraceptives Yasmin and/or Yaz.

The class action seeks to obtain monetary damages from the
defendant in order to compensate the Class members for the bodily,
material and moral damages suffered, allegedly resulting from the
use of Yasmin and/or Yaz.  The court has not yet decided whether
the defendant has committed a fault and the defendant is contesting
the class action.

The class action includes all persons residing in Quebec, who were
prescribed and ingested the drugs Yasmin and/or Yaz, from their
respective introduction into the market (December 10, 2004, in
respect of Yasmin and January 6, 2009, in respect of Yaz) and the
date of November 30, 2011, and who were diagnosed with deep vein
thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, arterial thromboembolism or
gallbladder disease, and their successors, assigns, family members,
and dependants (the "Class").

Class members who do not want to be part of the class action have
to opt-out before September 4, 2019. The Opt-Out Form and more
information are available at
https://www.siskinds.com/class-action/yasmin-yaz/

Contact information for Class members:

For inquiries, please click on the "Get in touch" link on the class
action:
        
      Website: https://www.siskinds.com/class-action/yasmin-yaz/ or


      Email: recours@siskindsdesmeules.com.

For telephone inquiries please:
      
      Call: (418) 694-2009 [GN]


BOX INC: Schall Law Files Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Box, Inc.
(BOX) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between November 28,
2018 and June 3, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 5, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Box failed to close large deals within
the quarter. The failure to close important deals materially
impacted the Company's revenue. Based on these facts, the Company's
public statements were false and materially misleading throughout
the class period. When the market learned the truth about Box,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.
        
Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone:
            Office: 310-301-3335
            Cell: 424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com [GN]


CALIFORNIA: Court Affirms Dismissal of Strother With Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRYAN JAMES STROTHER, Sgt., California Army National
Guard, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAVID S. BALDWIN, Adjutant General,
State of California National Guard; MIKE McCORD, Pentagon
Comptroller; DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICES; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-15244 (9th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of Strother's complaint with leave to
amend all but the contract claim (Claim II).

In 2007, a recruiter promised Strother a bonus and student loan
repayment if he reenlisted in the California Army National Guard
("CA ARNG").  Strother reenlisted, received the bonus and part of
the loan repayment, and was deployed to Iraq.  Years later, the
military determined that Strother was not entitled to his
reenlistment incentives and began "recouping" them from his pay.
Roughly 1,400 other CA ARNG members were subject to similar
recoupment efforts.  An additional 16,000 members were potentially
subject to such efforts.

In February 2016, Strother filed a class action complaint against
the Adjutant General of CA ARNG (David Baldwin) and the Pentagon
Comptroller (Michael McCord), in their official and individual
capacities.  The complaint sought injunctive, declaratory, and
monetary relief based on five claims: (I) "failure to train"
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; (II) "breach/impairment of
contracts"; (III) "intentional misrepresentation"; (IV) "deceit or
intentional fraud"; and (V) "concealment fraud."

After Strother filed his complaint, Congress passed legislation
that resulted in the military ceasing its recoupment efforts and
returning all previously recouped funds to Strother and most other
CA ARNG members.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the action.  The district court
found that none of Strother's claims were moot but dismissed each
claim on other grounds.  It dismissed Strother's complaint with
leave to amend all but the contract claim (Claim II).  Strother
chose not to amend the complaint and the district court entered
final judgment for the Defendants.

The appeal followed.  

The district court found that none of Strother's causes of action
is moot because there are possible nominal damages under Counts I
and II and possible damages beyond the return of the recouped money
under Counts III to V.  The Ninth Circuit agrees.  Even nominal
damages suffice to prevent dismissal for mootness.

The district court found that Claim I does not clearly allege such
a due process violation, and that even if it did, Strother's
Section 1983 claim would fail as a matter of law.  The Circuit
Court agains agrees.  It finds that Strother has failed to identify
a constitutional right to which his Section 1983 claim could attach
because soldiers do not have a contractual right to their
reenlistment bonuses.

The Cicuit Court also finds that the district court properly
dismissed Claim II under Rule 12(b)(6).  Claim II alleges that
Defendants breached their contractual obligations to CA ARNG
members "by illegally recouping monies."  As Strother confirmed at
oral argument, he does not claim that his bonus was authorized by
statute.  His contract claim (Claim II) was thus properly dismissed
with prejudice under Bell v. United States and United States v.
Larionoff.

Strother's remaining three claims sound in fraud.  To the extent
that Strother brings Claims III to V against the Defendants in
their official capacities, he must identify an applicable waiver of
sovereign immunity.  To the extent Strother brings Claims III to V
against the Defendants in their personal capacities, he must plead
those claims with particularity under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 9(b).  Strother conceded at oral argument that he did not
plead his claims with particularity with regard to Defendants
Baldwin and McCord.

Based on this, the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/euooay from Leagle.com.


CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Jones et al. Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as SHONGA JONES and JOSE RIOS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC (a/k/a Capstone Logistics of
GA, LLC), the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01483 (Filed April 18,
2019), was transferred form the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, to U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta) on July 9, 2019. The Northern
District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-03120-JPB
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jean-Paul
Boulee.

The Plaintiffs file this lawsuit individually and on behalf of the
putative collective action members and seek all damages available
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, including unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, legal fees, costs, and post-judgment
interest.

Defendant is in the warehouse logistics business with warehouse
worksites throughout the United States. In connection with those
operations, Defendant employs thousands of unloaders (a/k/a
lumpers) who perform work to accomplish Defendant’s business
operations, including unloading trailers or trucks at warehouses
around the nation.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219-4281
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605
          E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com

               - and -

          Hans A. Nilges. Esq.
          BROUSE MCDOWELL
          106 South Main Street, Suite 500
          Akron, OH 44308
          Telephone: (330) 535-5711

Attorneys for Capstone Logistics, LLC are:

          Christina M. Janice, Esq.
          Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
          Chicago, IL 60606-6448
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: gmaatman@seyfarth.com

CHAMPION PETFOODS: Court Narrows Claims in Weaver Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin issued an Order granting in part denying in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the second amended complaint in the
case captioned SCOTT WEAVER, Plaintiff, v. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA
INC., and CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, Defendants. Case No.
18-CV-1996-JPS. (E.D. Wis.).

In the second amended complaint, the Plaintiff's operative
pleading, he alleges that the Defendants misrepresented the
presence of certain contaminants in their dog foods, to the
detriment of a class of consumers who believed they were buying a
premium product free of such impurities. Similar allegations have
been leveled against Defendants in other actions in this District
and across the country.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(6). FRCP
12(b)(6) provides for dismissal of complaints which fail to state a
viable claim for relief. In reviewing Plaintiff's complaint, the
Court is required to accept as true all of the well-pleaded facts
in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor.
To state a viable claim, a complaint must provide a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.

The Plaintiff asserts five distinct claims for relief based on his
core theory that Defendants' products are contaminated. Count One
alleges a violation of the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act
(WDTPA), which prohibits false or misleading statements in the sale
of goods to consumers.

Count Two states that Defendants have made, and breached, numerous
express warranties to consumers.

Count Three accuses Defendants of fraud by failing to disclose that
their products are contaminated. Count Four alleges negligence, and
Count Five asserts that Defendants have been unjustly enriched.  

The Defendants seek dismissal of each claim.  

Count One - WDTPA

The purpose of the WDTPA is to deter sellers from making false and
misleading representations in order to protect the public. Toward
that end, Section 100.18 prohibits the use of marketing statements
for products or services which contain any assertion,
representation or statement of fact which is untrue, deceptive or
misleading. A cause of action pursuant to Section 100.18 requires
proof of three elements: (1) the defendant made a representation to
the public with the intent to induce an obligation (2) the
representation was untrue, deceptive or misleading and (3) the
representation materially induced (caused) a pecuniary loss to the
plaintiff.

Understanding Plaintiff's instant claim requires a brief historical
detour. In her complaint, Loeb alleged that Defendants violated the
WDTPA by selling pet foods containing excessive or dangerous levels
of heavy metals, which rendered false their advertisements of
premium quality.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the claim asserting, inter alia,
that Loeb had failed to plead any standard by which one could
assess whether the heavy metal concentrations were in fact
excessive or dangerous. The Court rejected this contention,
concluding that Loeb's allegations stated a claim for relief, and
that she was free to marshal evidence to support those allegations.


The Defendants later sought summary judgment on Loeb's WDTPA claim.
They offered expert testimony to the effect that the heavy metal
levels in their products were neither dangerous nor excessive. Loeb
did not submit any evidence to contradict Defendants' expert. The
Court held that without such evidence, the WDTPA claim had to be
dismissed. In other words, Loeb had expressly tied her claim to the
theory of excessive and dangerous heavy metal concentrations, but
had failed to support that theory when the time came.  

The problem is a legal one. All pet and human foods contain at
least some tiny amount of heavy metals. Plaintiff does not allege a
comparative theory that Defendants' products have greater
concentrations of heavy metals than other pet foods, thus making
the premium label arguably false. Rather, he insists that the mere
presence of heavy metals defeats Defendants' quality claims. If
this were true, the result would be truly preposterous. No one
would sell foodstuffs in Wisconsin. If they had the audacity to
claim that their products were tasty or fresh or in any other way
of high quality, they would be quickly slapped with a WDTPA lawsuit
based on the lead, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium indisputably
present in their products.

The Court's holding here has some important limitations. As of now,
it applies only to the allegations concerning heavy metals.
Defendants maintain that BPA is just as omnipresent in consumer
products as the heavy metals, but Plaintiff has not directly
alleged this. Further, data provided by Loeb establishes the
foundation of the Court's view on heavy metals. That data
demonstrates that heavy metals exist in nearly all human and animal
foods sold in grocery stores. The Court is not equipped with
similarly concrete information for BPA. The Court deems it more
prudent, then, to allow the BPA allegations to continue and await
the parties' evidentiary submissions on the matter. As for
pentobarbital, Defendants do not claim that it is a naturally
occurring substance.

Thus, Plaintiff's allegations about the mere presence of the
chemical, or even the risk of its presence, are adequate to survive
dismissal at this time.

Count Two - Express Warranties

Plaintiff alleges that the marketing statements on Defendants'
product packaging represent express warranties which, Plaintiff
learned after his purchases, have been breached. Defendants argue
that Wisconsin law requires privity of contract to assert a claim
for breach of express warranties, and Plaintiff has failed to plead
such privity. An identical claim was advanced in Loeb. This Court
found that privity is a requirement of an express warranty claim
that extends even to ultimate purchasers of consumer goods.

Plaintiff maintains that the Court got it wrong in Loeb. He
contends that Wisconsin law distinguishes between implied warranty
claims, which do require privity, and express warranty claims,
which do not. The Court disagrees, finding that it must maintain
its position set out in Loeb. Plaintiff's citations to the contrary
do not aid him as much as he believes. Most pre-date St. Paul
Mercury, and are either non-binding opinions from various district
courts, or are actually in agreement with the Loeb opinion.
Further, Plaintiff's cases are not factually analogous. They
involve statements made by the manufacturer aimed directly toward
the end user and which were identified as warranties in the
traditional manner.  

Here, the express warranties allegedly arose simply from the
marketing statements on the product's packaging. This theory for
relief is fully encompassed in Plaintiff's claim under the WDTPA.
In the end, the Court is bound to follow Seventh Circuit authority
and reject Plaintiff's attempt to broadly expand express warranty
claims to encompass consumers who saw nothing more than
advertisements.

Count Three - Fraud By Omission

Plaintiff's claim for fraud by omission is better described as one
for intentional misrepresentation.The claim is founded on
Plaintiff's belief that Defendants were required to inform him of
the tainted nature of their products. Defendants assert that they
were under no duty to disclose any defects in their products
because the traditional legal rule that there is no duty to
disclose in an arm's-length transaction is part of the common law
doctrine of caveat emptor.

Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff's allegations easily
satisfy the first three elements of the duty as pronounced in
Kaloti. Thus, the Court is left to decide whether Plaintiff could
reasonably expect disclosure under the fourth element. The Court
finds that he could, on the facts of this case. Plaintiff could
have reasonably expected that something so dangerous and disgusting
as harmful chemicals and other contaminants would be disclosed if
present in Defendants' products, where all of the marketing
materials emphasized their premium quality and healthfulness.
Plaintiff has, therefore, properly pleaded a claim of intentional
misrepresentation.

Defendants offer two additional arguments counseling against this
view, but neither changes the Court's determination. First,
Defendants cite an Illinois district court's dismissal of a similar
claim of fraudulent omissions. Leppert v. Champion Petfoods USA
Inc., No. 18-C-4347, 2019 WL 216616, at *11 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 16,
2019). Leppert is inapposite, however, because Illinois law finds a
duty to disclose only when the parties have an intimate
relationship, such as between fiduciaries or one of trust and
confidence.

The Court concludes that Wisconsin law is not so restrictive.
Second, Defendants contend that their product packaging made no
affirmative representations about a lack of contaminants and did
disclose the use of frozen and non-regional ingredients. This
argument was raised for the first time in Defendants' reply brief,
and is therefore waived.  

Count Five - Unjust Enrichment

In Wisconsin, an unjust enrichment claim requires (1) a benefit
conferred on the defendant by the plaintiff; (2) appreciation or
knowledge by the defendant of the benefit and (3) acceptance or
retention of the benefit by the defendant under circumstances
making it inequitable to do so. The conferral of the benefit must
be directly from the plaintiff to the defendant and not, for
instance, a third-party retailer. Plaintiff does not allege that he
purchased the pet foods directly from Defendants. Instead, the
products were bought from independent retailers.   

Thus, he has not properly pleaded a claim for unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff counters that Defendants were intimately involved in
the marketing and sale of the products at the store level. Thus,
Defendants indirectly benefited from sales of the product, because
they controlled the sale and ultimately were paid a portion of the
proceeds that portion being overpayment for a purportedly premium
product.

The Court went on to state that it will not expand on the Sands,
Sands, 904 N.W.2d at 801, definition where Loeb refuses to make
even a minimal effort to supply contrary authority. Unlike Loeb,
Plaintiff has supplied a few citations in his argument defending
his unjust enrichment claim. However, none are persuasive. He notes
that unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine focused on
recouping an improperly conferred benefit. Plaintiff also quotes
Sands for the proposition that the Court should focus on the
property accumulated b Defendants, not on the type of personal
relationship between the parties.  

As to the first point, the equity concern embodied in the doctrine
of unjust enrichment is getting something for nothing, not
providing a product for a price. Plaintiff did receive something,
just not something of the quality he desired. As noted above, he
has adequate legal avenues to redress this concern. Plaintiff need
not resort to a parallel equitable theory of recovery.

In light of this, the Defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted
in part and denied in part. The Plaintiff may not proceed on Count
One with respect to heavy metals, but his claim will survive as to
BPA, pentobarbital, and the alleged use of non-regional and
non-fresh ingredients. Counts Two, Four, and Five will be
dismissed.

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss be and the same is
granted in part and denied in part in accordance with the terms of
this Order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 1, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y44vt26d from Leagle.com.

Scott Weaver, Plaintiff, represented by Katherine Van Dyck --
kvandyck@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP,Charles Laduca
-- charlesl@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP, Daniel E.
Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600,
Minneapolis, MN 55402, Joseph J. Depalma --
jdepalma@litedepalma.com -- Lite Depalma Greenberg LLC, Karla M.
Gluek, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600,
Minneapolis, MN 55402, Kevin A. Seely -- kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
-- Robbins Arroyo LLP, Raina C. Borrelli, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, 120
South 6th Street, Suite 2600, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Rebecca A.
Peterson, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP,

Champion Petfoods USA Inc & Champion Petfoods LP, Defendants,
represented by David A. Coulson -- coulsond@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig LLP, Derek J. Waterstreet -- jaolivieri@michaelbest.com --
Michael Best & Friedrich, Mark E. Schmidt --
mjschmitt@michaelbest.com -- Michael Best & Friedrich & Susan E.
Lovern --  slovern@vonbriesen.com -- Michael Best & Friedrich.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Can Compel Arbitration in Prizler FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREW J. PRIZLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS,
LLC (dba SPECTRUM, TWC ADMINISTRATION, LLC, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-1724-L-MSB (S.D. Cal.),
Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration.

Charter, a telecommunications company, employed Prizler as a retail
sales employee in California from July 2014 until 2018.  On Oct. 6,
2017, Charter announced to its employees that it would begin using
a dispute resolution program called the Solution Channel to resolve
employment-based legal disputes.  To that end, it offered mutual
arbitration agreements to its candidates and employees.  Paul
Marchand, Charter's Executive VP of Human Resources, sent the
Solution Channel announcement to all Charter employees' email
accounts, including Prizler.

A link to the Solution Channel webpage was embedded in the email
announcement.  The Solution Channel webpage included a reference
and link to Charter's Mutual Arbitration Agreement and the Program
Guidelines.  The Agreement requires Charter employees to
individually arbitrate all disputes arising out of their employment
with Charter.  It bars claims brought on a class basis or in any
representative proceeding.  It also requires any challenge to the
validity, enforceability, or breach of the Agreement be sent to
arbitration.  The Agreement explicitly declares that the Agreement
will be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act.

Despite the Agreement's limitations, Prizler filed a class action
complaint against Charter alleging the following causes of action:
(1) violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), (2)
violation of the California Labor Code, (3) violation of the
California Business and Professions Code, (4) failure to provide
meal periods, and (5) failure to provide rest periods. Charter
seeks to compel Prizler's claims to binding arbitration on an
individual basis under the Agreement, dismiss Prizler's class
claims, and stay Prizler's fifth cause of action for PAGA
penalties.

Prizler presents three arguments in opposition to compelled
arbitration.  First, Prizler contends that Charter failed to comply
with their obligations under Rule 26.  Second, he contends that
Charter failed to carry their affirmative burden of proving the
parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement.  Finally, he
contends that it is impossible to evaluate unconscionability based
on the information set forth in Charter's motion.

Judge Lorenz only addresses Prizler's two latter contentions as the
first has no bearing on the ultimate issue in the case.  He finds
that  any argument that Prizler did not receive the Solution
Channel announcement unpersuasive.  The Agreement is self-executing
by its terms and became valid when Prizler failed to opt out of the
program.  It is undisputed that Prizler failed to opt out the
program. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Agreement is valid.

The Judge further finds that the arbitration agreement was imposed
and drafted by the Defendants, who, as employer, appear to be the
party of superior bargaining strength.  Notwithstanding, he  finds
that the Agreement was not adhesive as Prizler had the opportunity
to opt out.  Accordingly, he finds the Agreement is not
procedurally unconscionable.

Prizler only contends that certain provisions of the Agreement are
substantively unconscionable.  However, the Judge will not reach
the question whether the Agreement was substantively unconscionable
because the Agreement was not procedurally unconscionable.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Lorenz finds that the Agreement is
valid and enforceable.  Therefore, the dispute must proceed to
arbitration.  Accordingly, he granted Charter's Motion to Compel
Arbitration.  The parties are ordered to proceed to arbitration of
the plaintiff's claims.  Prizler's PAGA claim is stayed and
Charter's Motion to Stay Litigation is denied as moot.  The Clerk
of Court will terminate the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3HoUWh from Leagle.com.

Andrew J. Prizler, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Righetti --
matt@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski PC & Michael Righetti --
mike@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski P.C.

Charter Communications, LLC, doing business as Spectrum & TWC
Administration, LLC, Defendants, represented by Katherine Ann
Roberts -- KATE.ROBERTS@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP & Wendy M.
Lazerson -- WLAZERSON@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin.


CHULA VISTA: Court Narrows Claims in Sartin DTPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin issued a Decision and Order granting in part and denying
in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned JOSEPH
SARTIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHULA VISTA, INC., et al.,
Defendants. Case No. 18-CV-1890. (E.D. Wis.).

Chula Vista has moved for judgment on the pleadings as to Counts
4-6 (Theft by Fraud), 7-9 (Constructive Fraud), 12-14 (Breach of
Fiduciary Duty), 15-17 (Negligent Misrepresentation), 19-21
(Intentional Misrepresentation), and 25-27 (Wisconsin Deceptive
Trade Practices Act) on the ground that each is barred by the
statute of limitations. They also contend that the claims under the
Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) should be dismissed
because the complaint does not set forth facts plausibly suggesting
a violation of the Act.

Haggerty and Michael Best move for judgment on the pleadings as to
Counts 10-11 (Constructive Fraud), 18 (Negligent Misrepresentation
against Michael Best), 22 (Aiding and Abetting Conversion against
Michael Best), 23 (Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty
against Michael Best), another Count 23 (Aiding and Abetting
Conversion against Haggerty), and 24 (Aiding and Abetting Breach of
Fiduciary Duty against Haggerty) on the same ground as Chula Vista
that they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations and
on Counts 28 and 29 (Legal Malpractice) on the ground that the
plaintiffs lack standing to pursue such claims.

Plaintiffs Tony Edwards, Kenneth Riche, Joseph Sartin, Robert
Silberman, and Scott Willock all own condominiums at Chula Vista
Resort and Waterpark in the Wisconsin Dells, which they rented to
vacationers. They filed a proposed class action complaint against
defendants Chula Vista, Inc., CVR Management, LLC, and Michael
Kaminski (because it is not crucial for present purposes which
defendant allegedly did what, the court will refer to these
defendants collectively as simply Chula Vista), as well as attorney
Nancy Haggerty and her law firm, Michael Best & Friedrich.

Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that
after the pleadings are closed...a party may move for judgment on
the pleadings. A motion under Rule 12(c) generally requires the
court to apply the same well-established standard applicable to a
motion under Rule 12(b)(6). Thus, to survive a motion for judgment
on the pleadings, the complaint must state a claim that is
plausible on its face.

Statute of Limitations

Chula Vista's statute of limitations argument depends on a letter
attached to the answer. The letter, dated January 14, 2011, was
from Michael C. Bruck, an attorney purporting to represent certain
unit owners in the Chula Vista Unit Owners Condominium Association,
Inc. It was directed to Nancy Haggerty, counsel for the Association
and Chula Vista. (Id.) A preliminary question is whether the court
may consider this letter in considering Chula Vista's, Haggerty's,
and Michael Best's motions for judgment on the pleadings.

In Northern Indiana Gun & Outdoor Shows, the district court granted
the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Although the
defendant attached a letter to its answer, N. Ind. Gun & Outdoor
Shows, 163 F.3d at 454, the letter was not one of the exhibits the
court relied on in granting the defendant's motion. Rather, the
court relied on attachments to the complaint.  The court of appeals
did not approve a defendant relying on an exhibit appended to its
answer in moving for judgment on the pleadings. That is the
situation presented here; Chula Vista attached a letter to its
answer and now seeks to rely on that letter in support of its
motion for judgment on the pleadings.

This court has identified at least two instances where the Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit noted that defendants supported
motions for judgment on the pleadings by relying on documents
appended to their answer.  However, in none of these cases did the
courts discuss whether it was proper to consider documents attached
to the answer when ruling on the defendant's motion for judgment on
the pleadings. Rather, the courts ended up denying the defendants'
motions anyway.

This court is not persuaded that, when deciding a defendant's
motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court may automatically
accept and rely on a document attached to the defendant's answer.

Judgment on the Pleadings Practice Under Rule 12(c). The
circumstances in which the court may grant a defendant's motion for
judgment on the pleadings based on documents attached to an answer
are narrow. Documents "referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and
which are central to his claim" may be attached to the answer and
considered as part of the pleadings.

Neither exception applies here. Absent either exception, if the
defendant seeks judgment based on a document neither referenced in
nor attached to the complaint, the proper procedure is a motion for
summary judgment rather than one for judgment on the pleadings.  

If a defendant were to move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), it
could not append an exhibit to that motion and ask the court to
consider it when ruling on the motion unless, as discussed, it was
referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and central to his claim
or subject to judicial notice.

The court cannot discern any plausible reason for such a material
and consequential distinction between motions under Rules 12(b) and
12(c).

Rather, in the context of a defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings, a document attached to an answer is presumed to have no
veracity. Nothing in the complaint demonstrates that any claim is
untimely. In short, the plaintiffs have not pled themselves out of
court. Therefore, Chula Vista is not entitled to judgment on the
pleadings.

Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act Claims

In addition to moving to dismiss the claims under the DTPA (Counts
25-27) on the ground that they are barred by the applicable statute
of limitations, Chula Vista also moves to dismiss the claims on the
ground that the complaint does not set forth facts plausibly
suggesting a violation of the DTPA. Specifically, they contend that
nothing in the complaint alleges that misrepresentations made by
Chula Vista materially induced the plaintiffs to enter a contract
or other obligation.
  
In response, the plaintiffs argue that, for the reasons discussed
above, the information in the letter attached to Chula Vista's
answer, which serves as the basis for the argument that any alleged
misrepresentations could not have caused them any injury, cannot be
considered at this stage. Thus, the motion should be denied.

In reply, Chula Vista argues that the plaintiffs never respond to
the argument that the complaint does not plausibly suggest that
Chula Vista made an advertisement, announcement, statement or
representation of any kind to the public, as required by the DTPA.


The complaint contains no allegation that the condominium unit
owners are the public for purposes of the DTPA such that any
representations made to them violate the DTPA. Rather, the
plaintiffs' DTPA claim and the complaint generally refers to the
general public only in the context of noting to whom the Club
memberships were made available.

The absence of any such allegation is the basis for Chula Vista's
alternative argument for moving to dismiss the DTPA claims. And, as
Chula Vista points out, the plaintiffs do not respond to the
argument that nothing in the complaint alleges that Chula Vista
made an advertisement, announcement, statement or representation to
the public. Having failed to respond to this argument, the
plaintiffs have waived any argument to the contrary.  

The court will grant Chula Vista's motion for judgment on the
pleadings with respect to Counts 25 through 27.

Plaintiffs' Legal Malpractice Claims

Counts 28 and 29 of the complaint assert legal malpractice claims
on behalf of the Association against Haggerty and Michael Best.
Haggerty and Michael Best move to dismiss those claims because the
Plaintiffs do not have standing to assert claims on behalf of the
Association. They assert that, although the Association has the
right to sue on behalf of all unit owners under section
703.15(3)(a)3 of the Wisconsin Statutes, the reverse is not true;
that is, an individual unit owner does not have the right to sue on
behalf of the Association.  As such, the complaint does not state a
viable claim for legal malpractice.

In opposing the motion, the plaintiffs assert that, for all
practical purposes, MBF and Haggerty represented not only the
Association but Plaintiffs and the condominium unit owners. For
that reason alone, they have standing to bring the claims set forth
in Counts 28 and 29. The plaintiffs offer no legal or factual
support for this conclusion. Alternatively, they argue that in
Wisconsin attorneys can be held liable to third parties when fraud
is present.  As a result, they contend they have standing to bring
their legal malpractice claims.

Although the plaintiffs' response contends that they have personal
claims against Nancy Haggerty and her law firm, the complaint is
clear that the plaintiffs are bringing their claims on behalf of
the Chula Vista Condominium Unit Owners Association. In fact, as
the defendants note in reply, the plaintiffs do not even respond to
the argument that the plaintiffs cannot pursue claims on behalf of
the Association.

Again, having failed to respond to that argument, the plaintiffs
have waived any argument that they have authority to bring a
malpractice claim on behalf of the Association. Whether the
plaintiffs might have any personal claim against Haggerty and
Michael Best is not before the court because no such claim is
alleged in the complaint.

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by CVR Management LLC,
Chula Vista, Inc., and Michael Kaminski   is granted in part and
denied in part. It is granted as to the plaintiffs' claims under
the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Counts 25 through 27)
and denied as to all other claims.

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by Nancy Haggerty and
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP  is granted in part and denied in
part. It is granted as to the plaintiffs' claims for legal
malpractice, which they assert on behalf of the Chula Vista
Condominium Unit Owners Association, and denied as to all other
claims.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 1, 2019 Decision and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2fy4kql from
Leagle.com.

Joseph Sartin, Kenneth Riche, Tony Edwards, Robert Silberman &
Scott Willock, Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin Shrader --
bshrader@hmelegal.com -- Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge LLC, Brian H.
Eldridge -- beldridge@hmelegal.com -- Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge
LLC & Steven A. Hart, Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge LLC, 22 W
Washington St., Ste 1600, Chicago, IL, 60602-1615

Chula Vista Inc, CVR Management LLC & Michael Kaminski, Defendants,
represented by David J. Hanus -- dhanus@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP, Elizabeth A. Odian -- eodian@hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Paige L. McCreary --
PMcCreary@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP & Nancy Haggerty, Defendants,
represented by Noah D. Fiedler -- nfiedler@hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Alyssa A. Johnson --
ajohnson@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.


CLIENT SERVICES: Degroot Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Client Services,
Inc. for alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCA). The case is captioned JOSEPH DEGROOT, individually on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CLIENT
SERVICES, INC., a Missouri Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00951 (E.D. Wis., July 1, 2019). Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant has violated FDCPA by sending a debt collection letter
that falsely implied to the unsophisticated consumer that interest
and other charges may begin accruing when and if Client Services
returns the account to Capital One. Plaintiff seeks, both
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, such
relief as is allowed under FDCPA including, without limitation,
statutory damages, attorney fees, and cost.

Client Services, Inc. is a for-profit corporation formed under the
laws of the state of Missouri. The company regularly engages in the
collection of defaulted consumer debts. It maintains its principal
business address at 3451 Harry S. Truman Boulevard, St. Charles,
Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Francis R. Greene, Esq.
     Philip D. Stern, Esq.
     Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
     STERN THOMASSON LLP
     3010 South Appleton Road
     Menasha, WI 54952
     Telephone: (973) 379-7500
     E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com
             Andrew@SternThomasson.com
             Francis@SternThomasson.com


COLDWATER DISTRICT: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coldwater Direct LLC.
The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Coldwater Direct LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06296 (S.D. N.Y., July 8, 2019).

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

Coldwater Direct LLC or Coldwater Creek is an American catalog and
online retailer of women's apparel, accessories and home decor with
six brick-and-mortar stores as of December 2018.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONSTAR FINANCIAL: Whitney Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
----------------------------------------------------
JEAN WHITNEY, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CONSTAR FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, an Arizona
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00922 (E.D.
Wis., June 24, 2019) is an action brought individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated for the illegal practices
of Defendant when attempting to collect an alleged debt in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

CONSTAR mailed or caused to be mailed a two-page letter dated
November 23, 2018 to WHITNEY. The Letter alleged WHITNEY had
incurred and defaulted on a financial obligation. On information
and belief, sometime prior to November 23, 2018, the creditor of
the Debt either directly or through intermediate transactions
assigned, placed, or transferred the debt to CONSTAR for
collection. In the top-right corner of the first page of the
Letter, CONSTAR stated in relevant part: "Creditor: HYUNDAI MOTOR
FINANCE COMPANY." Beneath the date on the first page of the Letter,
CONSTAR stated in relevant part: "Current Creditor: HYUNDAI MOTOR
FINANCE COMPANY." In the body of the first page of the Letter,
CONSTAR stated in relevant part: "HYUNDAI MOTOR FINANCE COMPANY has
placed your account with this agency for collection."

However, the creditor of the Debt was not Hyundai Motor Finance
Company, asserts the complaint. By stating that the Creditor was
"HYUNDAI MOTOR FINANCE COMPANY", CONSTAR failed to accurately state
the name of the creditor to whom the Debt is owed in violation of
the FDCPA, the complaint says.

Plaintiff WHITNEY is a natural person who was a citizen of, and
resided in, the City of Menasha, Winnebago County, Wisconsin.

CONSTAR regularly engages in the collection of defaulted consumer
debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Francis R. Greene, Esq.
     Philip D. Stern, Esq.
     Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
     STERN•THOMASSON LLP
     3010 South Appleton Road
     Menasha, WI 54952
     Phone (973) 379-7500
     Email: Philip@SternThomasson.com
            Andrew@SternThomasson.com
            Francis@SternThomasson.com


CORTEVA INC: Retirees File Class Suit Over Pension Transfer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Delaware Business Now reports that a class-action lawsuit has been
filed in U.S. District Court for Northern California over pensions
for retired DuPont Co. workers.

The suit follows the DowDuPont merger and later spin-off into three
companies, Corteva, DuPont and Dow.

The suit names the three companies and their officials.
Spokespeople for Corteva and DuPont did not immediately respond to
a request for comment on the suit.

Under the spinoff, Corteva will handle DuPont pensions.  Corteva is
a combination of DuPont and Dow agricultural businesses.

In announcing the transfer of pension management to Corteva, DuPont
CEO Edward Breen said retirees should feel confident about Corteva
and its business prospects, as a "pure play" company with growth
potential.

There has been some skepticism among retirees with the choice of
Corteva.

DuPont is a collection of businesses that include food ingredients,
building products like Tyvek, solar materials, and Kevlar, a
lightweight material that is widely used for protection in law
enforcement and the armed services, as well as in aircraft
components.Been says some of DuPont'snoncore businesses will be
sold.

Retirees have expressed reservations about the finances of Corteva
and its presence in agriscience an area where earnings can be
subject to weather, global trade and other issues.

The suit claims that the Corteva-led pension plan is underfunded
and uses overly optimistic estimates. DuPont added funding to the
pension plan prior to the spinoff.

"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 contribute each year.," the suit claims.

"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," plaintiffs claim. DuPont of has thousands of retirees in
Delaware  and adjacent areas. [GN]   


CRYSTAL PLACE: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Crystal Place.
The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Crystal Place,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06299 (S.D. N.Y., July 8, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CURTIS INT'L: Scanlon Suit Moved to Eastern District of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Roman Scanlon on behalf of
himself, the general public, and those similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. Curtis International, Ltd. and Technicolor SA d/b/a
Technicolor USA, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 19CV-01882, was
removed from the Superior Court, County of Merced, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California – (Fresno)
on July 9, 2019. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-at-00499 to the proceeding. The suit alleges
fraud related violation.

Curtis International Ltd. manufactures and distributes consumer
electronics. The Company develops, produces, and markets home
electronic products including portable audio systems, telephones,
home stereos, televisions, telephones, and appliances.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          John Nadolenco, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Telephone: (213) 229-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
          E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com

CUSHFIELD MAINTENANCE: Court Won't Dismiss Settlement in Nellis
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order denying Plaintiff
Vernon Nellis's Motion to Dismiss Parties Settlement Agreement in
the case captioned VERNON NELLIS, Plaintiff, v. CUSHFIELD
MAINTENANCE WEST CORP., Defendant. Case No. 18-CV-03946-LHK. (N.D.
Cal.).

The Plaintiff filed an individual claim pro se with the California
Labor Commissioner's Office (Labor Commissioner) and alleged
violations of the California state labor laws governing overtime,
minimum wages, meal and rest periods, and payment of all wages due
on termination.

The settlement agreement that both parties signed provided that the
Defendant would pay the Plaintiff a settlement payment of $7,500
and provide a reference letter and a point of contact for future
employment related inquiries regarding Plaintiff. In exchange,
Plaintiff agreed to release his claims against Defendant. In
addition, as a condition of the release, Plaintiff promised to
voluntarily dismiss the instant case and the Related Action.

The Plaintiff filed a document titled first amended Plaintiff's
opposition to Defendant's motion to enforce settlement agreement
and support of motion to dismiss settlement agreement. The Court
notes that this April 4, 2019 filing is Plaintiff's fourth filing
in briefing for Plaintiff's motion to dismiss and Defendant's
motion to enforce. The Local Rules provide only that Plaintiff
could file his motion to dismiss, a reply in support of his motion
to dismiss, and an opposition to Defendant's motion to enforce.
Civil L.R. 7-3. Thus, at least one of Plaintiff's filings is
unauthorized.

First, the Court discusses whether the parties entered into an
enforceable settlement agreement. Second, the Court addresses
Plaintiff's arguments as to why the contract should be rescinded.

The Parties Entered into an Enforceable Settlement Agreement

Based on the parties' submissions, the relevant law, and the record
in this case, the Court finds that Defendant has met its burden of
demonstrating that the parties entered into a legally enforceable
settlement agreement under California law.

First, the parties, Plaintiff and Defendant, are capable of
entering into contract. Pursuant to California Civil Code Section
1556, all persons are capable of contracting, except minors,
persons of unsound mind, and persons deprived of civil rights. None
of these exceptions apply to Plaintiff or Defendant. Both parties
signed the settlement agreement.

Second, the settlement agreement has a lawful object. The
settlement agreement seeks to resolve pending litigation, which is
a lawful reason to enter into a contract.  

Third, the parties mutually agreed to settle this case. Both
Plaintiff and Defendant through Ms. Mercer accepted the terms of
the settlement agreement. The terms of the settlement agreement
were prefaced with The Company and I agree as follows and both
parties signed the settlement agreement to demonstrate their mutual
assent.

Fourth, the settlement agreement is supported by sufficient
consideration. Consideration is satisfied when a party (1) confers
or agrees to confer a benefit on a party not entitled to that
benefit, or (2) suffers or agrees to suffer a prejudice that a
party is not legally bound to suffer.  

Here, the settlement agreement provided that Defendant would pay
Plaintiff $7,500 and provide a neutral reference letter as well as
a point of contact for any future employment related inquiries
regarding Plaintiff. In exchange, Plaintiff agreed to release his
claims against Defendant. In addition, as a condition of the
release, Plaintiff promised to voluntarily dismiss the instant case
and the Related Action. Therefore, the settlement agreement is
supported by sufficient consideration.

Thus, the Defendant has met its burden of demonstrating that the
parties entered into a legally enforceable settlement agreement.
Moreover, having found all necessary conditions for settlement met,
the Court concludes that no evidentiary hearing is needed to
determine the terms of the settlement agreement.  

Plaintiff's Arguments Regarding Duress, Mistake of Fact and Law,
and Fraud Do Not Provide a Basis to Rescind the Settlement
Agreement

The Court turns next to the issues raised by Plaintiff's motion to
dismiss the settlement agreement. Specifically, Plaintiff argues
that the settlement agreement should be rescinded for duress, or
for mistake of fact and law, and fraud. The Court considers first
Plaintiff's duress arguments.

Second, the Court considers Plaintiff's mistake of fact and law and
fraud arguments. Based on the parties' submissions, the relevant
law, and the record in this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff's
arguments regarding duress, mistake of fact and law, and fraud do
not provide a basis to rescind the settlement agreement.

Duress

First, Plaintiff argues that he was under duress to settle.
Specifically, Plaintiff claims that he felt pressure from Judge
Cousins to settle the case. To undo a contract on the basis of
duress, one must show the doing of a wrongful act which is
sufficiently coercive to cause a reasonably prudent person faced
with no reasonable alternative to succumb to the perpetrator's
pressure. Generally, duress must emanate from the opposing party to
an agreement, unless the opposing party knows of the duress.

For the reasons below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown
that the settlement agreement should be rescinded because of
duress. First, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his claimed
duress emanated from the Defendant or that Defendant knew of the
duress. Second, the record reflects that Plaintiff was willing to
settle and had good reasons to settle the case considering the
weaknesses of his case. Finally, Plaintiff has not demonstrated
that Judge Cousins' actions were coercive.

The Claimed Duress Did Not Emanate From Defendant Nor Did Defendant
Know of the Duress
First, Plaintiff makes no argument that his claimed duress emanated
from Defendant or that Defendant knew of the duress. Defendant and
defense counsel had no substantive contact with Plaintiff during
the entire settlement conference because Judge Cousins separated
the parties and met with each of them individually as he
communicated each side's positions and proposed settlement numbers.
Indeed, Plaintiff acknowledges that at no time were the merits of
the case discussed directly between the Defense Counsel and the
Plaintiff.

Thus, Plaintiff has not shown his claimed duress emanated from
Defendant or that Defendant knew of the duress. Accordingly,
Plaintiff cannot establish duress or undo the settlement
agreement.

Plaintiff Was Willing to Settle and Had Good Reasons to Settle

Moreover, the record reflects that Plaintiff was willing to settle
and had good reasons to settle the case considering the weaknesses
of his case.

First, early in the settlement conference, Plaintiff indicated he
was tired and would be willing to settle as it was very difficult
emotionally to relive the pain over and over going through the
notes on the case and being reminded of how awful the work was
under the supervisor and how painful it was to endure the sexual
harassment from the co-worker.

Second, Plaintiff attempted to bring the instant putative class
action pro se, which he could not successfully do because Plaintiff
cannot represent a class pro see. Indeed, several courts have
dismissed class claims brought by pro se litigants at the screening
or motion to dismiss stage because pro se plaintiffs cannot
represent and protect the interests of the class fairly and
adequately.   

Thus, Plaintiff's class claims faced likely dismissal.

Third, the DFEH closed Plaintiff's discrimination case for the
following reason: Investigated and Dismissed Insufficient Evidence
and gave Plaintiff notice on April 7, 2017 that he had 90 days to
file suit on any of his claims brought pursuant to federal
discrimination laws.  However, Plaintiff did not file the instant
lawsuit until almost five months later, on September 5, 2017. Thus,
Plaintiff's federal discrimination claims faced possible dismissal
for lack of timeliness.

Fourth, the Labor Commissioner had already evaluated Plaintiff's
Labor Code claims, which overlap with the claims in the instant
litigation, and found those claims to be lacking. Thus, the Labor
Commissioner only awarded Plaintiff $195.22 in unpaid overtime and
double premium wages, along with $22.30 for interest pursuant to
California Labor Code Sewction 98.1, for a total award of $217.52.
By contrast, the settlement agreement provided that Plaintiff would
receive $7,500, which is significantly greater than the Labor
Commissioner's award of $217.52.  

Finally, the record reflects that during the settlement conference,
Plaintiff expressed concerns about his reputation and potential
negative reports to prospective employers that might come from
Company representatives. Thus, in response, Defendant's counsel
offered to prepare a neutral letter of reference for Plaintiff and
to provide him with an exclusive point of contact in the Human
Resources Department.
  
Accordingly, the record reflects that Plaintiff had good reasons to
settle the case considering the weaknesses of his case.

Judge Cousins' Actions Were Not Coercive Nor is Plaintiff's Claimed
Duress Reasonable

Finally, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Judge Cousins' actions
were coercive or that Plaintiff's claimed duress is reasonable.   

Here, Plaintiff's purported duress focuses on Plaintiff's own
personal stress related to him thinking about his supervisor and
sexual harassment from a co-worker, which is related to the instant
lawsuit, and from having been sexually molested as a child through
teen years, which is unrelated to the instant lawsuit.  

The Plaintiff also claims pressure from the presence of" Judge
Cousins. However, the actions that the Plaintiff represents Judge
Cousins took are not coercive. Judge Cousins spoke individually
with Plaintiff and Defendant and provided each side with the
other's position. Judge Cousins, in his role as mediator at the
settlement conference, explained to Plaintiff the Defendant's
position about the strength of Plaintiff's case and also explained
that Defendant's arguments had merit. This is exactly what was
expected of Judge Cousins in conducting the settlement conference.


The Plaintiff's representations are directly contradicted by the
Plaintiff's declarations under penalty of perjury in the settlement
agreement. Specifically, when Plaintiff signed the settlement
agreement, Plaintiff agreed to section 5, which provided that
before signing this agreement, "I was given a reasonable period of
time in which to consider this Agreement. I waive any right I might
have to additional time within which to consider this Agreement."

In section 5, Plaintiff further acknowledged: "(1) I took advantage
of the time I was given to consider this Agreement before signing
it (2) I carefully read this Agreement (3) I fully understand it
(4) I am entering into it voluntarily (5) I am receiving valuable
consideration in exchange for my execution of this Agreement that I
would not otherwise be entitled to receive and (6) the Company, by
this writing, encouraged me to discuss this Agreement with my
attorney at my own expense before signing it, and that I did so to
the extent I deemed appropriate."

The Plaintiff's allegations about Judge Cousins' actions do not
constitute coercion. Moreover, the Court cannot find that a
reasonably prudent person faced with no reasonable alternative
would succumb to Judge Cousins' alleged pressure. Thus, the Court
concludes that Plaintiff's claimed duress does not constitute a
basis to rescind the settlement agreement.

Mistake of Fact and Law or Fraud

The Plaintiff argues that there was a mistake of fact and mistake
of law or fraud on the court. Specifically, Plaintiff takes issue
with the fact that Judge Cousins reported to Plaintiff that
Defendant would have raised a statute of limitations defense and
that Defendant's defense would result in most of Plaintiff's case
being dismissed. Plaintiff also appears to take issue with any
general commentary regarding the strength of his case.  

The Court finds that there is no mistake of fact and law or fraud.
As an initial matter, Plaintiff presents no evidence except his own
declaration that such information was presented as described by
Plaintiff. Nonetheless, even if the information was presented as
Plaintiff described, Judge Cousins was permitted to weigh in on the
strength of Plaintiff's case.

Even if this information had been presented to Judge Cousins during
the settlement conference or even if Judge Cousins had discussed
this information with Plaintiff, the Court finds that there would
be no mistake of fact and law or fraud.

Summary

In sum, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated
that the settlement agreement should be rescinded for duress, or
for mistake of fact and law, and fraud.

Instead, the record shows that the Plaintiff brought a putative
class action pro se, and that he had not found any counsel to take
his case prior to or during the settlement conference. The
Plaintiff indicated to Judge Cousins that Plaintiff was he was
tired and would be willing to settle as it was very difficult
emotionally to relive the pain over and over going through the
notes on the case and being reminded of how awful the work was
under the supervisor and how painful it was to endure the sexual
harassment from the co-worker. Plaintiff and Defendant each met
with Judge Cousins individually as Judge Cousins went back and
forth between the parties to convey their separate settlement
positions. Both parties agreed to the $7,500 settlement figure,
which is substantially greater than the $217.52 award that the
Labor Commissioner awarded for Plaintiff's Labor Code claims, as
well as the neutral reference letter in exchange for Plaintiff's
dismissal of his lawsuits.

The terms of the settlement agreement were recorded on paper, and
both parties signed the settlement agreement. Plaintiff was
pleasant during his minimal and non-substantive interactions with
Defendant during the settlement conference. The record further
reflects that Plaintiff then went home and later heard from counsel
who agreed to represent Plaintiff's class action if the settlement
agreement was rescinded. Two weeks after executing the settlement
agreement, instead of dismissing his case, Plaintiff filed a motion
to dismiss the settlement agreement. These facts do not support
rescission of the settlement agreement. Instead, they support a
finding that Plaintiff has buyer's remorse, which does not
constitute a basis to rescind the settlement agreement.  

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the settlement
agreement is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 1, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2axabox from Leagle.com.

Vernon Nellis, Plaintiff, pro se.

Cushfield Maintenance West Corp., erroneously sued as Cushman
Maintenance West Corp., Defendant, represented by Betsey Annette
Boutelle -- betsey.boutelle@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Mary
Catherine Dollarhide -- mary.dollarhide@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper
LLP.


CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Proxy Statement Misleading, Wheby Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, EARL M. WHEBY, JR., Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR
CORPORATION, W. STEVE ALBRECHT, HASSANE EL-KHOURY, OH CHUL KWON,
CATHERINE P. LEGO, CAMILLO MARTINO, JEFFREY J. OWENS, JEANNINE
SARGENT, and MICHAEL S. WISHART, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01267-UNA (D. Del., July 8, 2019), stems from a proposed
transaction announced on June 3, 2019, pursuant to which Cypress
Semiconductor Corporation will be acquired by Infineon Technologies
AG. On June 3, 2019, Cypress's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Infineon.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Cypress's
stockholders will receive $23.85 in cash for each share of Cypress
common stock they own.

On July 2, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the Proposed Transaction.

The lawsuit contends that the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading, in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
                 gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com

ECOMMUNITY: $60MM Class Action Suit Filed Over Huge Fires
---------------------------------------------------------
David Israel, writing for The Jewish Press, reports that the Green
Israel Forum on July 7, 2019, filed a class action suit with the
District Court in Jerusalem together with residents from the
communities of Shekef and Negohot near Kiryat Gat, Israel, against
an Israeli company responsible for waste recycling and
environmental protection.

The lawsuit is in response to a string of huge fires resulting from
the burning of electronic waste in two Arab villages just across
the green line border from the Jewish communities.

The class action suit was filed against Ecommunity, a social
corporation for waste recycling and protection of the ecology,and
its subsidiary, following an investigation by the Green Israel
Forum, supported by documents and photographs, claiming that the
corporation is the source of the pollutants.

The forum claims that its investigators followed vehicles
associated with Ecommunity taking pictures of their actions and
documenting the path of electronic waste from the ecological
facility to the Arab villages where they are being burned.

According to the suit, the smoke is caused by the almost daily
fires set by the Arab villagers, to illegally remove the metals
from the electronic waste. The heavy, black smoke reaches the
nearby Jewish communities of Shekaf, Eliav, Bnei Dekalim, Amatzia,
Carmi Katif, Neta, Adora and Negohot and severely harms the health
of local residents.

In the claim, the plaintiffs requested compensation of 5,000 shekel
($1,400) for each of the 42,000 residents of the communities in the
area, which adds up to a total of 210 million shekel ($60
million).

The lawsuit suggests that had Ecomunity behaved in a reasonable
professional manner, the damage to the health of the plaintiffs
would have been significantly reduced. As things stand now,
plaintiffs are exposed to the ravages of smoke inhalation,
inhalation of hazardous substances, bad odors and air pollution,
which may cause severe suffering, including the risk of serious
illnesses, breathing difficulties, disturbing coughs, and sneezing
attacks, besides harm to the quality of life. [GN]


ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING: Court Denies Notice of Discovery Dispute
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order denying
Defendants' Notice of Discovery Dispute and Request for Telephone
Conference in the case captioned MICHAEL SEEFELDT, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING INTERNATIONAL, LLC. OUTFIELD BREW HOUSE,
LLC. d/b/a BUDWEISER BREW HOUSE, Defendants. Case No.
4:19-cv-00188-SNLJ. (E.D. Mo.).

Currently before the Court is the defendants' notice of discovery
dispute and request for telephone conference.

This is a putative class-action brought by plaintiff, Michael
Seefeldt, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  

The Plaintiff objected to Interrogatory 14 on the ground that it
sought irrelevant information for purposes of class certification.
The Defendants' only response is that Interrogatory 14 does not
request attorney-client privilege information, having only asked
plaintiff to identify the date on which he first communicated with
his attorney. Be that as it may, plaintiff's objection was as to
relevancy not privilege and defendants do nothing at all to address
that point.

The Plaintiff objected to Interrogatory 15 on the grounds that it
sought irrelevant information for purposes of class certification
and that it was overbroad and vague, which defendants purportedly
conceded by agreeing verbally to narrow the request to the
communications made by plaintiff to other class members.

As for Interrogatory 19, plaintiff responded without objection by
saying he has a professional relationship with the lawyers who have
appeared on his behalf and a personal relationship with other
lawyers employed by Wood Law Firm who have not appeared on his
behalf. Defendants, apparently dissatisfied with this answer,
attempt to explain through case law why they deserve to know the
parameters of the professional relationship. The Plaintiff points
out, however, that this is a "separate question they failed to
ask."

This Court agrees. Terse as it may seem to defendants, plaintiff
responded to the questioned asked of him the phrase nature of the
relationship does not clearly indicate that what was expected was
the detailed parameters of the relationship.

The Defendants also seek certain responsive documents to these
interrogatories, but they fail to explain the scope of that request
or what requests for production are implicated. The Defendants
argue, for example, that they need plaintiff's phone records and
transaction history at Brew House information that is apparently
sought through their requests for production of documents, though
defendants do not tell the Court which requests in particular so
that they can determine whether plaintiff consented to receiving
text messages to thereby form an established business relationship
under 47 C.F.R. Section  64.1200(f)(5). The legal strategy and
logic make sense.

But then, according to Request 25, the closest request this Court
could find for itself on the issue what defendants actually sought
was "all telephone bills and telephone records for each phone used
by You during the period from April 2014 through the present. That
request is considerably broader than the information defendants say
they seek now, and they do nothing at all to explain why
plaintiff's answer was insufficient when he responded: there is
only one phone number at issue, and the only text messages at issue
are the July 18, 2018 text and the texts set forth in  

Accordingly, the Defendants' notice of discovery dispute and
request for telephone conference is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 1, 2019 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyp86dqa from
Leagle.com.

Michael Seefeldt, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony L. DeWitt,
BARTIMUS AND FRICKLETON, Edward D. Robertson, III, BARTIMUS AND
FRICKLETON, 109B E. High Street, Jefferson City, MO 65101,
Aristotle N. Rodopoulos -- ari@woodlaw.com -- WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC &
Kelly Clare Frickleton, BARTIMUS AND FRICKLETON, 109B E. High
Street, Jefferson City, MO 65101

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor, represented by Joshua Charles
Abbuhl, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-CIVIL DIVISION.

Entertainment Consulting International, LLC & Outfield Brew House,
LLC, doing business as Budweiser Brew House, Defendants,
represented by Geoffrey W. Castello -- gcastello@kelleydrye.com --
KELLEY AND DRYE, LLP, Lauri A. Mazzuchetti --
lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY AND DRYE, LLP, pro hac vice,
Glenn T. Graham -- ggraham@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY AND DRYE, LLP,
pro hac vice, Jacqueline M. Sexton -- jsexton@fwpclaw.com -- FOLAND
WICKENS, P.C., Whitney M. Smith -- wsmith@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY
AND DRYE, LLP & Zachary T. Bowles -- zbowles@fwpclaw.com -- FOLAND
WICKENS, P.C..


ESSILOR OF AMERICA: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Essilor of America,
Inc. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Essilor of America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06309 (S.D. N.Y., July 8, 2019).

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

Essilor of America, Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes
optical lenses to eye care practitioners and retail optical chains
in the United States and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN: Denial of Bacon Mandatory Class Cert. Flipped
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Pastor David Bacon, Patricia Hepner, Ruth Dold, Sharon
Hvam, individually and as representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, and on behalf of the Evangelical Lutheran Church
in America Retirement Plan and the ELCA Retirement Plan for the
Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, Appellants, v. Board
of Pensions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America d/b/a
Portico Benefit Services, Respondent, Case No. A18-1307 (Minn.
App.), Judge Peter M. Reyes, Jr. of the Minnesota Court of Appeals
reversed the district court's order denying the Appellants' motion
for certification of a mandatory class.

The appeal involves class certification in an action for breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and fraud and concealment of these
breaches in the management of two retirement plans.  The
Respondent, the Board of Pensions of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America, doing business as Portico Benefit Services,
manages retirement accounts for employees of the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America (the church) and employees of
organizations affiliated with the church.

The plan is a defined-contribution plan, and the participants'
retirement benefits are determined by the performance of the
investments in the plan.  There are over 39,000 participants in the
plan nationally. Portico manages over $4 billion in assets for the
plan, which are held in a trust with Portico as the trustee.  The
plan states that fiduciaries will discharge their duties with
respect to the Retirement Plan solely in the interests of the
Appellant members.

The plan consists of two separate plans: The Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America Retirement Plan ("ELCA plan"), and the ELCA
Retirement Plan for Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society
("GSS plan").  The plan includes 20 different investment funds from
which plan participants can pick and choose to invest. Portico
designs, manages, and controls these funds. Portico charges two
types of fees for management: investment fees and administrative
fees.  GSS fees consist of a flat basis-point fee and an annual
account fee.

Appellant plan members Pastor David Bacon, Pastor Timothy Hepner,
Ruth Dold, and Sharon Hvan filed suit against Portico in March
2015.  They seek recovery of monetary losses to the plan and seek
equitable relief, such as removal of Portico as trustee, injunctive
relief, restitution, accounting, and the creation of a constructive
trust.

Portico moved to dismiss the action, and the district court granted
the motion under the excessive-entanglement doctrine.  The Court
reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case to
the district court for further proceedings.

Following remand, the members filed a motion for class
certification under Minn. R. Civ. P. 23.  The district court
certified an opt-out class under Minn. R. Civ. P. 23.02(c) with
respect to the members' claims that Portico charged excessive fees
(excessive-fees claims) and denied certification with respect to
the members' claims that Portico mismanaged funds (underperformance
claims).  The district court denied members' request to certify the
class under Minn. R. Civ. P. 23.02(a) as a mandatory class for both
claims.
The members filed a petition for discretionary review, asking the
Court to review the district court's denial of certification under
Minn. R. Civ. P. 23.02(a) with respect to the excessive-fees claim.
The Court granted discretionary review.

The issue now is whether the district court abused its discretion
by denying class certification under Minn. R. Civ. P. 23.02(a).
Judge Reyes holds that a class action may be certified as a
mandatory class under rule 23.02(a) when the class seeks monetary
recovery and equitable relief on behalf of a retirement plan,
rather than on behalf of individual participants, for excessive
fees charged by the plan's trustee.

In the class-certification context, a district court abuses its
discretion if it adopts an incorrect legal rule or misapplies the
rule 23 factors.  However, because members' claims involve both
equitable and monetary relief sought on behalf of the plan as a
whole, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes is not dispositive.  And when
a class is eligible for certification under rules 23.02(a) and (c),
rule 23.02(a) controls.  The district court therefore abused its
discretion.  Accordingly, the Judge reversed and remanded for the
district court to certify the class under rule 23.02(a).

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/rhC1vv from Leagle.com.

Charles N. Nauen -- cnnauen@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen,
P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and

Michael A. Wolff -- mwolf@wrslawyers.com -- Jerome J. Schlichter,
Sean E. Soyars -- ssoyars@uselaws.com -- pro hac vice, Schlichter,
Bogard & Denton, L.L.P., St. Louis, Missouri, for appellants.

Sharon R. Markowitz -- sharon.markowitz@stinson.com -- Jon M.
Woodruff -- jon.woodruff@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street,
L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and

Christopher A. Weals -- christopher.weals@morganlewis.com -- pro
hac vice, James D. Nelson -- james.nelson@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for respondent.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Abbink Sues over Background Checks
--------------------------------------------------------
BRYCE ABBINK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; LEND
TECH LOANS, INC.; and UNIFIED DOCUMENT SERVICES, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-05435 (C.D. Cal., June 21, 2019) alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

On June 21, 2019, a Notice of Intra-District Transfer was issued by
the Clerk of Court for Central District of California due to
incorrect intra-district venue selected by the filer. The case is
transferred to the Southern Division with Case No.
8:19-cv-01257-JFW-PJW. The case is assigned to Judge John F. Walter
and referred to Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. operates as an information
services company. The Company offers credit information, analytical
tools, and marketing services. Experian Information Solutions
serves clients worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D. Aftergood, Esq.
          THE AFTERGOOD LAW FIRM
          1880 Century Park East, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 550-5221
          Facsimile: (310) 496-2840
          E-mail: aaron@aftergoodesq.com

               - and -

          Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          E-mail: tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com


FIRST SOLAR: Trial in Smilovits Suit to Begin in January 2020
-------------------------------------------------------------
First Solar, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 10, 2019, 2019,
that the trial in the case, Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al.,
is slated to begin on January 7, 2020.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-DGC,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona (the "Arizona District Court") against the Company and
certain of its current and former directors and officers (the
"Defendants").

The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between
April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 (the "Class Action").

The complaint generally alleges that the Defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial performance and prospects.

The action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative
class.

On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted Defendants'
motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, and
certified an issue for immediate appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit").

On January 31, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming
the order of the Arizona District Court. On August 6, 2018,
Defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court.

On November 14, 2018, the Arizona District Court vacated the
previously scheduled trial date until the outcome of the certiorari
petition is clear. On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied
the petition.

Following the denial of the petition, the Arizona District Court
ordered that the trial begin on January 7, 2020.

First Solar, Inc. provides photovoltaic (PV) solar energy solutions
in the United States and internationally. It operates in two
segments, Modules and Systems. The company was formerly known as
First Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to First Solar,
Inc. in 2006. First Solar, Inc. was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Tempe, Arizona.


FLORIDA FINE: Can Compel Arbitration in Emeric FCRA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY ANNE EMERIC and NATALIA MARIE RIVERA, Plaintiffs,
v. FLORIDA FINE CARS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-20987-GAYLES
(S.D. Fla.), Judge Darrin P. Gayles of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida granted Defendant Florida Fine
Cars ("FFC")'s Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration.

FFC operates a used vehicle business and sells vehicles to the
general public.  In April 2017, the Plaintiffs were interested in a
vehicle they found on FFC's website.  The Plaintiffs called FFC to
confirm that the vehicle was on the lot.  During that call an FFC
representative instructed the Plaintiffs to fill out FFC's
financing "pre-approval" form.  The Plaintiffs completed the form
on April 11, 2017, and checked the box allowing FFC to perform a
"soft" credit inquiry which would not affect their credit score.
The Plaintiffs allege, however, that FFC performed a "hard" credit
inquiry affecting their credit score without their consent.  

On April 15, 2017, they entered into a Retail Installment Sale
Contract ("RISC") and Purchase Order with FFC for the purchase and
financing of a used vehicle.  The RISC contained arbitration
provision.  Similarly, the Purchase Order also contained
arbitration provision.  
The Plaintiffs' purported Class Action Complaint brings claims
against FFC under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), and the
Florida Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FFCRA").  The Defendant filed
the instant Motion on April 9, 2019, seeking to compel the parties
to arbitration because the RISC and Purchase Order contained
arbitration clauses requiring the parties to arbitrate all claims
arising from the relationship between them.  The Plaintiffs oppose
the Motion, claiming that the arbitration clauses at issue do not
apply because they were signed after the violating transaction took
place.

The Plaintiffs' sole argument is that the transaction on April 11,
2017, does not in any way "relate to" to the purchasing documents
which contain the arbitration clauses, and thus the arbitration
clauses cannot be applied retroactively to encompass disputes
arising from that transaction.  Judge Gayles disagrees.  

He finds that the Plaintiffs' argument is essentially one relating
to scope and arbitrability, issues that the parties clearly and
unmistakably agreed to arbitrate.  Moreover, the arbitration
clauses in the RISC and the Purchase Order are enforceable as to
the pre-contract conduct alleged by the  Plaintiffs to violate the
FCRA and FFCRA.  

Based on this, the Judge granted FFC's Motion to Dismiss and Compel
Arbitration.  The  Plaintiffs' Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice, and the parties will proceed through arbitration.  All
pending motions are denied as moot.  The case will be
administratively closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/G6VfEc from Leagle.com.

Mary Anne Emeric, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated & Natalia Marie Rivera, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Tammi A.
Calarco -- tcalarco@harkelaw.com -- Harke Law LLP & Lance August
Harke -- lharke@harkelaw.com -- Harke Law LLP.

Florida Fine Cars, Inc., a Florida profit corporation, Defendant,
represented by Philip A. Allen, III, Garbett Stiphany Allen & Roza
& Brian P. Yates -- byates@gsarlaw.com -- Garbett, Allen & Roza,
P.A..


FORD MOTOR: Sartip et al Sue over Overstated Fuel Economy Ratings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RAMIN SARTIP, DARREN HONEYCUTT, AND AHMED ABDI, ON BEHALF
OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05905-CAS-E
(C.D. Cal., July 9, 2019), balks at the Defendant's promotion and
sale of vehicles, including the 2019 Ford Ranger and the 2017-2019
Ford F-150 trucks, with overstated fuel economy ratings.

The vehicles are and were advertised on the basis of specific
estimates of the fuel economy for each vehicle. In reality, Ford
cheated on the fuel economy calculations, thereby rendering its
fuel economy labels misleading and deceiving consumers into
purchasing vehicles that did not and do not offer the fuel economy
advertised.

Based upon the proprietary investigation of counsel and testing by
Plaintiffs' experts, the fuel economy reported on the Monroney and
other window stickers at the point of sale of Class Vehicles has
been overstated.

Specifically, Plaintiffs' testing has revealed that Ford
miscalculated the road load used in fuel economy calculations by
manipulating certain testing parameters.

By misrepresenting the road load for the Class Vehicles, Ford was
able to produce unrealistic results in dynamometer testing that
would not reflect the reality of on-road vehicle performance.
Therefore, the tested models for the Class Vehicles reported higher
fuel efficiency than the actual fleet of Class Vehicles that Ford
marketed and sold or leased to Plaintiffs and other consumers in
the United States, the lawsuit says.

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

Attorney for the Plaintiffs are:

          Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1129 State Street, Suite 8
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456-1496
          Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
          E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com
                  lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  rmcdevitt@kellerrorhback.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
          Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
          PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 692-0772
          Facsimile (415) 366-6110
          E-mail: jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
                  ecp@pritzkerlevine.com

G6 HOSPITALITY: Mullen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against G6 HOSPITALITY LLC.
The case is styled as BARTLEY M. MULLEN, JR. individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. G6
HOSPITALITY LLC, G6 HOSPITALITY FRANCHISING LLC, MOTEL 6 OPERATING,
L.P., G6 HOSPITALITY PROPERTY LLC, G6 HOSPITALITY REAL ESTATE LLC,
BRE/EVERBRIGHT M6 LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00809-DSC (W.D.
Pa., July 8, 2019).

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

G6 Hospitality LLC owns, operates, and franchises economy lodging
locations in the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GBR PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Breit Jr. Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES ALLAN BREIT JR., individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. GBR PIZZA, INC. d/b/a "DOMINO'S
PIZZA"; and GERALD B. RHODES, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00257-D
(E.D.N.C., June 21, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff Breit Jr. was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.

GBR Pizza, Inc. d/b/a "Domino's Pizza" operates as a pizza delivery
company in the United States and internationally. The company
offers pizzas under the Domino's brand name through company-owned
and franchised stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jacob J. Modla, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF JASON E. TAYLOR P.C.
         454 S. Anderson Rd., Suite 303
         Rock Hill, SC 29730
         Telephone: (803) 328-0898
         E-mail:  jmodla@jasonetaylor.com

               - and -

         Jay Forester, Esq.
         FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
         1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
         Dallas, TX 75202
         Telephone: (214) 210-2100
         Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
         E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Lift Bar Date to Assert Class Claim Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: MOTORS LIQUIDATION COMPANY, f/k/a GENERAL
MOTORS CORPORATION, et al., Chapter 11, Debtors, Case No. 09-50026
(MG) (Jointly Administered) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Martin Glenn of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied
the motion filed by Celestine and Lawrence Elliott to "lift the bar
date" to allow them to assert a late class claim based on the
driver's door module ("DDM") defect.

The Elliotts purchased General Motors vehicles in 2006 and 2007.
On June 1, 2009, General Motors Corp. ("Old GM") filed for
bankruptcy.  The Court established Nov. 30, 2009 as the bar date
and General Motors, LLC ("New GM") emerged from bankruptcy in 2011.
Between 2012 and 2014, New GM issued dozens of recalls related to
vehicles sold before the bankruptcy filing.  Several of those
recalls applied to the Elliotts' vehicles, including recalls
related to an issue with the ignition switch and an issue with the
DDM.

On Jan. 21, 2019, the Elliotts moved the Court to "lift the bar
date" to allow the Elliotts to assert a late class claim based on
the DDM defect.  The Wilmington Trust Co., as the General Unsecured
Creditors Trust ("GUC Trust") administrator, objects to the Motion.
New GM joined the GUC Trust Objection.

The Motion indicates that the Elliotts submit "proposed proof of
individual, class and representative claims."  The Motion attaches
a proof of claim and a rider to the proof of claim.  The Rider
explains that the Elliotts wish to assert an economic loss claim
against Old GM and the GUC Trust.  The Rider also explains that the
Elliotts wish to assert these claims on behalf of themselves and a
proposed class of all residents of the District of Columbia who,
prior to June 2009, either owned or leased a GM vehicle subject to
Recall No. 14V404.

The Elliotts argue that their failure to file a timely proof of
claim should be excused because they did not receive proper notice
of the bar date.  The GUC Trust argues that it would be prejudiced
because allowing the Elliotts' claim would open the floodgates to
additional late claims.

In Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, the
Supreme Court stated that the determination of whether a party has
shown "excusable neglect" is taking account of all relevant
circumstances surrounding the party's omission.  Under Pioneer, a
court must consider four factors: the danger of prejudice to the
debtor, the length of the delay and its potential impact on
judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether
it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the
movant acted in good faith.

Judge Glenn analyzes the Motion under the four Pioneer factors.  He
finds that the Elliotts have failed to satisfy the standard for
permitting late claims related to the DDM defect.  The Elliotts
filed the Motion with respect to the DDM defect almost 10 years
after the bar date in the case.  They argue this delay should be
excused because they did not receive proper notice of the bar date.
Even if he assumes the Elliotts' due process rights were violated,
however, this would only explain a portion of the Elliotts' delay.
The Elliotts should have filed the Motion no later than December
2016.  Their counsel attended a hearing on Nov. 16, 2016 during
which the Court explained that it was ready to decide whether late
claims could be filed and that parties should proceed with filing
late claims motions.  Despite this, the Elliotts waited until Jan.
21, 2019 to file the Motion.  The Judge finds that there is no
excuse for this significant delay.

It appears the Elliotts believe they preserved their ability to
file a late claims motion by filing a joinder to motions to permit
the filing of late claims that were filed by other parties in
December 2016.  The Judge disagrees.  He opines that the motions
the Elliotts joined very clearly asserted claims based only on
defective ignition switches, side airbags, and power steering,
specifically identified by recall numbers.  By joining these
motions, the Elliotts only preserved their right to file claims
based on these same defects.

The Judge has not yet decided the late claims motion with respect
to the owners of vehicles that were the subject of recalls
specifically identified in the late claims motion filed by economic
loss claimants.  The Elliott Joinder may have timely preserved
their arguments with respect to those defects, but the
determination of that portion of the Elliotts' claim must await the
determination of the economic loss plaintiffs' pending motions.
The Elliotts' late claims motion did not preserve the Elliotts'
right to file a late claim based on the DDM defect, as the Elliotts
now seek to do in the Motion.

Judge Glenn holds that the reason for delay, the length of delay,
and the prejudice to the debtor weigh in favor of denying the
Motion.  The fourth factor, good faith of the proposed claimant,
would not be enough to overcome the other three factors even if the
Court found it to be present.  It is also far from clear on the
facts that the Elliotts' counsel acted in good faith: the Elliotts'
counsel has actively participated in the proceedings in the Court
and in the MDL against New GM in the district court, the Elliott
Joinder did not include the DDM defect, and the late claims motions
it was joining did not include the DDM defect.  If the Elliotts'
counsel intended to seek to file a late claim based on the DDM
defect, he should have done so no later than January 2017.  
Because the Second Circuit has instructed that the factor of the
reason for delay predominates when balancing these factors, the
Judge finds that the Motion must be denied.

Therefore, the Judge concludes that the Elliotts cannot show
excusable neglect.  Accordingly, he denied the Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/RpU8SH from Leagle.com.

Motors Liquidation Company, Debtor, represented by Donald F. Baty,
Jr. -- dbaty@honigman.com -- Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn,
LLP, David R. Berz -- david.berz@retired.weil.com -- Weil Gotshal &
Manges, LLP, Judy B. Calton, Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn, LLP,
Stephen Karotkin, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Deborah Kovsky-Apap,
Pepper Hamilton LLP, Robert J. Lemons, Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP,
Harvey R. Miller, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Daniel R. Murray,
Jenner & Block, LLP, Joseph R. Sgroi, Honigman Miller Schwartz and
Cohn LLP, Tricia A. Sherick, Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn,
LLP, Joseph H. Smolinsky, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Patrick J.
Trostle, Thompson & Knight LLP & Robert B. Weiss --
rweiss@honigman.com -- Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn, LLP.

Terry Moore, Petitioning Creditor, represented by Alexander McHenry
Memmen -- amm@memmenlaw.com -- The Memmen Law Firm, LLC.

Wilmington Trust Company, Trustee, represented by Jonathan D.
Fortney -- jfortney@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
Alejandro A. Herrera , Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Mitchell A.
Karlan -- mkarlan@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP,
Lisa H. Rubin, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Aric Wu, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP.

GUC Trust, Trustee, represented by Mitchell A. Karlan, GIBSON DUNN
& CRUTCHER LLP.

United States Trustee, U.S. Trustee, represented by Brian S.
Masumoto, Office of the United States Trustee, Andrea B. Schwartz,
Dept. of Justice - Office of the U.S. Trustee & Andrew D.
Velez-Rivera, Office of the U.S. Trustee.

GCG, Inc. Claims Agent, Claims and Noticing Agent, represented by
Angela Ferrante, Garden City Group, LLC & Jeffrey S. Stein, The
Garden City Group, Inc.

Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., Claims and Noticing
Agent, represented by Lorri Staal, Garden City Group.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of General Motors
Corporation, Creditor Committee, represented by Philip Bentley,
Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, David E. Blabe, Kramer
Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Amy Caton , Kramer Levin Naftalis &
Frankel, LLP, Eric Fisher , Dickstein Shapiro LLP, Lauren Macksoud
, Kramer Levin LLP, Thomas Moers Mayer , Kramer Levin Naftalis &
Frankel, LLP, Gordon Z. Novod , Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
LLP, Gregory G. Plotko , Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Adam
C. Rogoff , Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Robert T. Schmidt
, Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel, LLP & Jennifer Sharret ,
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors Holding Asbestos-Related
Claims, Creditor Committee, represented by Lauren Macksoud , Kramer
Levin LLP.


GEORGIA: Ga. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Boyd Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BOYD et al., v. NEAL, NEAL, v. GEORGIA DEPT. OF
COMMUNITY HEALTH et al, A19A0227, A19A0369 (Ga. App.), Judge Carla
Wong McMillian of the Court of Appeals of Georgia for the Second
Division affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment
in favor of the Department but reversed its denial of Board of
Community Health's motion to dismiss.

Neal, a DeKalb County school system employee who enrolled in the
State Health Benefits Plan for the calendar year 2014, initially
filed the putative class action against the Department for breach
of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing after the Department changed the benefits that she had
elected and for which she had agreed to pay premiums.  Neal
subsequently amended the complaint to assert a petition for writ of
mandamus against the Board members to require them to perform what
Neal alleges was their official duty to conduct an actuarial
analysis and recalculate premiums before changing the plan
benefits.

These related appeals arise from the trial court's order granting
summary judgment to the Department on sovereign immunity grounds
(Case No. A19A0369) and denying the Board's motion to dismiss
Neal's alternative claim for a writ of mandamus (Case No.
A19A0227).

By statute, the Board is authorized to establish a health insurance
plan for state employees, public school teachers, and public school
employees; the plan is called the State Health Benefits Plan
("SHBP").  During the open enrollment period in 2013, the
Department offered Plan members three coverage options for the 2014
calendar year: Gold, Silver, and Bronze.  In exchange for higher
premiums, Gold and Silver members would receive more money for
their Health Reimbursement Accounts, lower deductibles, lower
co-insurance rates, and lower out-of-pocket maximums than Bronze
members.

Neal registered online for Gold coverage. By doing so, Neal
accepted the Plan's "terms and conditions," including her
"responsibility to review any applicable Plan documents."  When the
Department faced financial shortfalls in the Plan, it eliminated
the three tiers of co-insurance for most health care services and
established a single tier of co-payments, a change made on January
27, 2014 and retroactive to Jan. 1, 2014.  Following this change,
Gold and Silver Plan members were required to continue paying
higher premiums despite the fact that they no longer had the
benefit of better co-insurance rates as compared to the Bronze
Plan.

In May 2014, Neal filed suit against the Department, seeking class
certification on behalf of Gold and Silver Plan members for breach
of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing.  The Department moved to dismiss, arguing that Neal
was unable to prove a waiver of its sovereign immunity by written
contract.  Neal then amended her complaint to attach the Active
Decision Guide and Summary Plan Description.  The Department again
filed a motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds, which the
trial court denied.  On appeal, the Court reversed the trial
court's order, holding that even read as a whole, the documents at
issue do not show that the parties entered into a signed, written
contract.

Following its grant of Neal's petition for writ of certiorari, the
state Supreme Court vacated the Court's opinion and remanded the
case for the Court to reconsider its conclusion that it had
jurisdiction over the Department's direct appeal in light of the
Supreme Court's intervening holding in Rivera v. Washington.  After
concluding on remand that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the
Department's direct appeal under the collateral order doctrine, it
dismissed the appeal.

Once the case was remitted back to the trial court, the Department
filed a motion to set aside the prior order and enter a new order
granting its motion to dismiss.  Neal opposed the motion and filed
an amended complaint, adding an alternative claim for mandamus
against the individual members of the Board. T he Department then
filed a motion for partial summary judgment related to the breach
of contract claims, and the Board filed a motion to dismiss the
petition for mandamus.  Following a hearing, the trial court
granted the Department's motion on sovereign immunity grounds, but
denied the Board's motion to dismiss.  The appeal followed.

In her first two enumerations of error, Neal asserts that the trial
court erred in finding that neither the Plan documents nor the
implementing statutes constitute a written contract with the State
sufficient to waive sovereign immunity.

Judge McMillian finds that Neal has failed to point to any language
in the Plan documents that expressly incorporates the statute or
regulations.  When the plain language of the statute does not
provide for a specific waiver of government immunity nor the extent
of such a waiver, courts cannot imply a waiver.  Accordingly, the
trial court did not err in granting the Department's motion for
partial summary judgment.  Because she finds that there is no
contract as alleged between Neal and the Department, Neal's second
claim also fails.

In the related case, Case No. A19A0227, the Board appeals after the
trial court denied its motion to dismiss Neal's alternative claim
for writ of mandamus.  The Judge agrees with the Board that in
seeking mandamus relief, Neal attempts to impose requirements
beyond the plain language of the statutes themselves.  And she
finds that, based on the facts of this case and the Board's
statutorily granted discretion, that its actions were not arbitrary
or capricious, such that mandamus would lie.  Accordingly, the
trial court erred in denying the Board's motion to dismiss Neal's
petition for mandamus, and she reverses that portion of its order.

Based on th foregoing, Judge McMillian affirmed in Case No.
A19A0369, and reversed judgment in Case No. A19A0227.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/JhXMBo from Leagle.com.

Julie Adams Jacobs, for Appellant.

William Wright Banks, Jr., for Appellant.

Christopher Michael Carr, for Appellant.

Robin Joy Leigh -- rleigh@law.ga.gov -- for Appellant.

Jeffrey L. Berhold, for Appellee.

Peter Andrew Lampros -- alampros@hallandlampros.com -- for
Appellee.

Allan Leroy Parks, Jr. -- lparks@pcwlawfirm.com -- for Appellee.


HARTSFIELD ROOFING: Ross Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Laborers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNY ROSS, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. HARTSFIELD ROOFING & CONSTRUCTION, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00124-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., July 2,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
owed to him by Hartfield Roofing & Construction, LLC (HRC).

HRC is a roofing contractor providing residential and commercial
roof installation and repair services that employs laborers like
Ross to carry out its work. Ross and the other laborers regularly
work more than 40 hours in a week. But HRC does not pay them
overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek.

Instead of paying overtime, HRC paid Ross and its other laborers a
daily rate with no overtime compensation. Ross worked for HRC from
approximately August 2018 to April 2019 as a roof installer.

Throughout his employment with HRC, Ross was paid a $110.00
day-rate with no overtime compensation, even though he regularly
worked more than 40 hours each week.

HRC provides residential and commercial roof installation and
repair services. To provide its services, HRC hires personnel (like
Ross) to perform this work. Many of these individuals worked for
HRC on a day-rate basis and make up the proposed Putative Class.

HRC paid Ross and the Putative Class Members a flat sum for each
day worked, regardless of the number of hours that they worked that
day (or in that workweek) and failed to provide them with overtime
pay for hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
For example, Ross worked for HRC from approximately August 2018 to
April 2019 as a roof installer.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N Orange Ave., Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: 407 418-2069
          Facsimile: 407 245-3401
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, 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
                  litkin@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

HELIFLITE SHARES: Petersen Seeks Overtime Pay for Dispatchers
-------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA PETERSEN , Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HELIFLITE SHARES, LLC, KURT
CARLSON, and FRANCESCO LAZZARINI, Jointly and Severally, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-14796 (D.N.J., July 8, 2019), alleges
that Defendants willfully violated the New Jersey Labor Law and
Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime premium pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week, and failing to pay
for all hours worked.

Ms. Petersen also asserts claims of age (65) discrimination on her
own behalf under The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
The Plaintiff has worked for Defendants for nearly 8 years as a
Scheduler & Dispatcher, until her resignation effective June 4,
2019. In this capacity, Petersen was responsible for assisting
clients with requests for helicopter services via phone or email,
as well as, assigning and/or updating available helicopters and
crews, providing pricing, updating client trip sheets, and checking
weather through METARS/TAFS .

However, neither Ms. Petersen, nor the other Dispatchers were
permitted to exercise any discretion or judgment in performing her
duties. Helicopter availability was determined by the Director of
Maintenance, Director of Operations, and/or Frank Lazzarini, and
pilot/crew availability was determined by the Chief Pilot, the
Director Of Operations and/or Frank Lazzarini and subsequently
entered into the Flight Operating System (FOS) via the Crew
Schedule. That information was then available to the During the
overnight shifts, Ms. Petersen remained responsible for fielding
any and all client calls and emails, as well as being the first
point of contact for any helicopter crew that had not yet returned
to the HeliFlite hangar at Newark Airport.

Based on Plaintiff's own time records for the year July 2017-July
2018, she worked over 900 hours of overtime for which she is
entitled to more than $50,000 in overtime premium pay, plus
interest, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees.

Defendants provide Executive helicopter transportation services in
the Northeast, Southern Florida and, more recently, Downtown
Chicago.  Defendants provide these services 24 hours a day, 365
days per year, as confirmed by the HeliFlite website and their
marketing materials.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          Sara Isaacson, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: 212 392 4772
          Facsimile: 212 444 1030
          E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com
                  sara@lipskylowe.com

HENDERSON, NV: Former Jail Officers File Overtime Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
David Ferrara, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports that
former Henderson Detention Center officers who say they were forced
to work overtime without pay have filed a class-action lawsuit
against the city.

The suit lists Kelly Woodburn and Thomas Woodburn, who are married,
and at least 100 others as plaintiffs. It alleges that the officers
were not compensated for "pre-shift" and "post-shift" duties,
including uniform changes, head counts and meetings to "de-brief"
fellow officers.

"The Woodburns allege the City of Henderson has employed dozens, if
not hundreds, of corrections officers during the operative years
and that the City of Henderson has not properly paid these
corrections officers overtime wages and other wages owed for hours
worked," the lawsuit states.

Henderson spokeswoman Kathleen Richards did not respond to a
reporter's message on July 5 seeking comment on the lawsuit.

Joseph Mott, Esq. and Scott Lundy, Esq. -- info@rmllegal.com --
filed the complaint on July 3 in Clark County District Court.

According to the document, the unpaid assignments also included
checking firearms in and out of a gun locker, as well as picking up
and dropping off detention center keys and vehicles.

The officers were required to arrive 30 to 45 minutes before the
start of each shift and stay at the detention center an additional
20 to 45 minutes at the end of each shift, according to the
lawsuit. They were required to change into and out of their
uniforms at the jail.

According to the suit, the officers were reprimanded if they did
not complete the tasks before and after their shifts.

Kelly Woodburn worked for the detention center from November 2007
to July 2017, while her husband worked from September 2011 to July
2018, the lawsuit states. Kelly Woodburn said in the suit that she
is owed more than $12,000 per year, and Thomas Woodburn said he is
owed more than $7,500 per year.

"Without complete pay and time records we can't put an exact number
on the damages," Mott and Lundy wrote in an email on July 5.

Thomas Woodburn received more than $120,000 in pay and benefits
during his final year as a detention center officer, and Kelly
Woodburn received nearly $84,000 during her final year as an
officer, according to TransparentNevada.com. Both have since
retired. [GN]


HOP RESTAURANT: Underpays Wait Staffs, Branham Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARY ANN BRANHAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IBRAHIM S. GANIM; SHUKRI MAZEN
GANIM a.k.a. SHURKI MAZEN GANIM;IMAD KHALAF; DENA KHALAF; HOP
RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a HOUSE OF PIES; and I M I INVESTMENTS, INC.
d/b/a HOUSE OF PIES, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02251 (S.D. Tex.,
June 21, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Branham was employed by the Defendants as wait
staff.

Hop Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a House of Pies is engaged in the
restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Neuman, Esq.
          SOSA MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (281) 885-8630
          Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
          E-mail: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com


IMAGEONE INDUSTRIES: Rapp Seeks Overtime Pay for Field Supervisors
------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY RAPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. IMAGEONE INDUSTRIES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02961-PD (E.D. Pa., July 8, 2019),
contends that Defendant has improperly failed to pay the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated overtime compensation pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and
the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant who was employed as
Field Supervisor/Installer. During the course of his employment,
the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but was
not properly compensated for his work.

Imageone manufactures and distributes branding and advertising
services. The Company offers interior and exterior signage, bank
environments, graphics and imaging, facilities maintenance,
lighting, and contracting services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Michael Murphy, Esq.
          Michael Groh, Esq.
          Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
          1628 John F, Kennedy Blvd/
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 267 273 1054
          Facsimile: 215 525 0210
          E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com

INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Violates Securities Laws, Skrzeczkoski Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SKRZECZKOSKI, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, J. LELAND STRANGE, MATTHEW A. WHITE, A. RUSSEL
CHANDLER III, PHILLIP H. MOISE, and PARKER H. PETIT, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03949 (E.D.N.Y., July 9, 2019), seeks
to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The case is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Intelligent Systems
securities from January 23, 2019 through May 29, 2019, inclusive.

After the close of the market on January 22, 2019, Intelligent
Systems issued a press release with its preliminary financial
results for the year ended December 31, 2018.

On May 3, 2019, Intelligent Systems also filed its quarterly report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2019 with the SEC that
confirmed the financial results that the Company announced. The 1Q
2019 10-Q was signed by Defendants Strange and White and also
contained certifications pursuant to SOX signed by those Defendants
that attested to the accuracy of financial reporting, the
disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal
controls over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud.
The statements contained were materially false and/or misleading
because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following
adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and
prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendant Petit, the "financial
expert" on the Company's Audit Committee, engaged in accounting
fraud as the CEO of MiMedx Group; (2) the Company's CEO, Defendant
Strange, engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions with
Defendant Petit and others and had an undisclosed personal
relationship with the Company's auditor; (3) the Company had its
employees set up or take control of shell companies in Asia so they
could partake in undisclosed related-party transactions for the
purpose of either fabricating revenue for the Company and/or
siphoning money out of the Company; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' statements about Intelligent Systems' business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On this news, shares of Intelligent Systems fell $6.82 from the
prior day's closing price of $33.81 or over 20%, to close at $26.99
per share on May 30, 2019, further damaging investors.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages.

Intelligent Systems purports to primarily engaged in the business
of providing technology solutions and processing services to the
financial technology and services market.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com

INTREPID USA: Settlement in Mitcham Suit Has Conditional Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TINA MITCHAM, On Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. INTREPID U.S.A., INC., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-703-CHB (W.D. Ky.), Judge
Claria Horn Boom of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, conditionally granted
the Parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Section 216(b)
Settlement, pending resolution of the reasonableness of the
proposed attorneys' fees.

On Nov. 22, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the action, seeking unpaid
overtime pay owed under the FLSA and under Kentucky state law.  She
also brought the action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

On April 18, 2018, the Parties moved for conditional certification
and Court-approved notice to the putative class members pursuant to
Section 216(b).  The Court granted conditional certification and
Court supervised notice on May 30, 2018.  It conditionally
certified the following collective class: All former and current
non-exempt home health workers employed by the Defendants in the
position of Licensed Practical Nurse, Physical Therapist Assistant,
Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant or Home Health Aid at any
of defendants' Kentucky locations at any time within the period
beginning three years prior to the filing date of the Stipulation
to provide in home health care services to patients and who were
paid on a fee per visit basis, but excluding any individual who
entered into the settlement in the case, Paine et. al. v. Intrepid
U.S.A., Inc., 3:14-CV-02005 (M.D. Tenn. 2017).

Following the close of the opt-in period, the Parties participated
in mediation and ultimately reached a settlement.  The Parties then
submitted a Joint Status Report and Joint Motion to Set Schedule
for Seeking Court Approval of Settlement. The Court granted the
Parties' motion and held a telephonic status conference to outline
the schedule of settlement briefing.

Pursuant to the Parties' settlement agreement, the Defendants agree
to pay the Section 216(b) Plaintiffs ("Original Class Members") an
aggregate gross amount of $23,000.  The Original Class Members
consist of 8 individuals, including the Named Plaintiff, Tina
Mitcham, who are current or former non-exempt home health workers
at Intrepid in Kentucky (1) who worked at any time since April 18,
2015; (2) whose pay was computed on a fee per visit basis; and (3)
who filed consents to join the present lawsuit brought by Named
Plaintiff Tina Mitcham.

According to the Agreement, each Opt-In Plaintiff's payment is
based on a determination of overtime compensation calculated by
including alleged unrecorded compensable travel time and other
alleged unrecorded work time, including time spent charting for
patients outside of their inhome visits.  The Plaintiff's counsel
also seek a service award for Plaintiff Mitcham in the amount of
$7,000 for her efforts in serving as Named Plaintiff in the
action.

In exchange for the Defendants' payments, the Original Class
Members agree to release Defendant Intrepid and its related
entities and persons from claims for unpaid wages, penalties,
liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and any other relief
under the [FLSA], the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act based on the
facts and allegations set forth in the Complaint in the action.  In
addition to the service fee, the Plaintiff's counsel also requests
attorneys' fees and expenses in the total amount of $142,500 in
addition to the 216(b) Settlement Fund and the Rule 23 Settlement
Fund.

Judge Boom concludes that on balance they weigh in favor of
approving the Parties' Settlement Agreement.  She finds that it is
a fair and reasonable settlement of a bona fide dispute.

As to the reasonableness of the proposed attorneys' fees in the
matter, the Judge finds that the counsel provides the Court with no
hours worked, no time sheets, and no other evidence, save the
declarations of the Plaintiffs' attorneys, who attest that they've
done considerable work during discovery to get the case towards
resolution.  As the Court has additional questions regarding the
reasonableness of the fees against the unrepresented class, the
Judge will conditionally approve the Section 216(b) Class
Settlement pending further briefing on this issue.

Based on the above, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently
advised, Judge Boom conditionally granted the Parties' Joint Motion
for Approval of Section 216(b) Settlement, pending resolution of
the reasonableness of the proposed attorneys' fees.  The Attorney's
Fees requested as a part of the Parties' Settlement Agreement are
taken under advisement pending further briefing announced in the
Court's Concurrent Opinion and Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3ZmBe3 from Leagle.com.

Tina Mitcham, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Lesia Garner, Domica Triplet, Kelly M. Hester, Angela
Parker, Melissa Wychulis & Dianisha Arrambidez, Plaintiffs,
represented by David W. Garrison -- dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
-- Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders --
csanders@chrissanderslaw.com -- Jerry E. Martin --
jmartin@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison,
LLC, Joshua A. Frank, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,
Peter D. Winebrake -- pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake &
Santillo, LLC & Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison,
LLC.

Rhea Bucher, Plaintiff, represented by J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E.
Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Joshua A. Frank,
Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Peter D. Winebrake,
Winebrake & Santillo, LLC & Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin
& Garrison, LLC.

Intrepid U.S.A., Inc & F.C. of Kentucky Inc, doing business as
Intrepid USA Healthcare Services, Defendants, represented by Wendy
V. Miller -- wendy.miller@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, PC.


INTUIT INC: Free Tax Filing Program Deceptive, Malloy et al. Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
LAUDIA MCCONNAUGHEY, JOHN GILLIN II, JENIFER CASTO, AND ANDREA
MALLOY, individually and on behalf of all others, Plaintiffs, v.
INTUIT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-03745-CRB (N.D. Cal.,
June 27, 2019), alleges that Intuit, the market leader in the
electronic tax filing business, has engaged in false and deceptive
advertising, diverting lower-income tax payers who are eligible to
receive free tax preparation and filing services under the Internal
Revenue Service's (IRS) Free File program (Free File Program) to
its paid TurboTax products. The suit seeks injunctive and equitable
relief to put an end to Intuit's misrepresentations and deception,
and for damages.

Legally obligated under an agreement with the IRS to provide free
tax filing services to tax payers who fall in the bottom 70% of
earners, Intuit deliberately hid access to its TurboTax Free File
Program by locating the service on a different website and using
code to block search engine access to that very website.

Then, to further confuse and mislead its 36 million TurboTax
customers, the majority of whom are likely qualified for the IRS
Free File Program, Intuit also launched a "free" product on its
main website and widely advertised its "free" tax services to draw
taxpayers to that website, as opposed to the separate (and largely
hidden website) for the Free File Program. Once the taxpayer
entered in extensive personal information, TurboTax would inform
the applicant that they had to pay a fee in order to submit their
tax returns. As a result of its misrepresentations and deceptive
practices, Intuit has profited handsomely, the lawsuit says.

By evading and violating its obligations under its agreement with
the IRS, Intuit coopted a free program that was intended to
minimize the burden of filing taxes, and instead, through
misrepresentations and deceptive practices, made billions of
dollars on the backs of millions of lower-income taxpayers who were
legally entitled to receive free tax services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq.
          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Christopher L. Ayerv
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street, 8th Fl.
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: jscullion@seegerweiss.com
                  sweiss@seegerweiss.com
                  cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                  cayers@seegerweiss.com

ITG INC: Court to Review Denial of Bid to Dismiss Mauthe TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum granting Defendants' Motions for
Reconsideration of the denial of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
Class Action Complaint in the case captioned ROBERT W. MAUTHE,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. ITG, INC., et al.,
Defendants. Civil Action No. 18-1968. (E.D. Pa.).

This suit arises from Defendants' alleged sending of five
facsimiles (faxes) to Plaintiff Robert Mauthe, M.D., PC in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Plaintiff1 alleges that Defendants sent him and other health
professionals advertisements by fax without their express consent
offering compensation in exchange for their participation in one or
more internet or telephone surveys. During the time the faxes were
allegedly sent to Plaintiff, Defendants were providing their
customers with market research on the healthcare market.  

The Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the Class Action Complaint
arguing that the faxes in question were not advertisements as
defined by the statute and were thus unactionable. The Court denied
those motions on November 29, 2018.

Defendant ITG Inc. also filed a Motion for Reconsideration joining
in M Science's request.  

In Mauthe, M.D., P.C. v. Optum Inc., 925 F.3d at 131-32 (3d Cir.
2019), the facts of the case were essentially undisputed:

The Defendants maintain a national database of healthcare
providers, containing providers' contact information, demographics,
specialties, education, and related data. The Defendants market,
sell, and license the database typically to health care, insurance
and pharmaceutical companies, who use it to update their provider
directories, identify potential providers to fill gaps in their
network of providers, and validate information when processing
insurance claims.

Obviously, it is important that the information contained in the
database be accurate and Mauthe, who is a healthcare provider, does
not contend otherwise. One of the ways defendants update and verify
the information in their database is to send unsolicited faxes to
healthcare providers listed in the database, requesting them to
respond and correct any outdated or inaccurate information. The
faxes also advise the recipients that [t]here is no cost to you to
participate in this data maintenance initiative. This is not an
attempt to sell you anything. The fax that defendants sent Mauthe
included these provisions.

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Mauthe advanced
his third-party based liability argument on a theory that, although
he was not a purchaser of defendants' products or services,
defendants violated the TCPA because they had a profit motive in
sending him the fax so that the fax should be regarded as an
advertisement. Moreover, Mauthe asserted that defendants sought the
information in the fax to enhance the accuracy of their database
and thus increase their profits.

The Third Circuit rejected Mauthe's argument, affirmed the district
court's dismissal of the case, and set forth a clear standard for
establishing third-party based liability under the TCPA.

In order to establish third-party based liability under the TCPA a
plaintiff must show that the fax: (1) sought to promote or enhance
the quality or quantity of a product or services being sold
commercially (2) was reasonably calculated to increase the profits
of the sender and (3) directly or indirectly encouraged the
recipient to influence the purchasing decisions of a third party.

First, the Court finds that Optum  presents an intervening change
in controlling law as it promulgates a clear standard for
third-party based liability actions under the TCPA, which did not
exist at the time this Court denied Defendants' motions to dismiss.


Second, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim in
accordance with the requirements established by Optum.
Specifically, Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege how Defendants
directly or indirectly encouraged the recipient to influence the
purchasing decisions of a third party. It is undisputed that the
Defendants were commissioned by third parties to conduct
fax-recruited surveys to gather information that the third parties
could incorporate into their own product marketing strategies.

The Plaintiff, however, further theorizes in his response to the
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, that the Defendants sent the faxes
to induce recipients to indirectly influence the purchasing
decisions of third parties, i.e., the future purchasers of the
products of the clients that commissioned Defendants to conduct the
surveys in the first place.

Though this may be true, the Complaint wholly fails to not only
allege the facts necessary to support such a theory of liability in
this case, but the Court seriously doubts whether even if the
Plaintiff could provide sufficient facts to support such a theory
of liability, that theory would provide facts adequate to establish
that the fax would convey the impression that a seller is trying to
make a sale such that there would be a nexus between the fax and
the purchasing decisions of an ultimate purchaser as required under
Optum.

Accordingly, the Defendants' Motions for Reconsideration of
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Class Action Complaint will be
granted without prejudice.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 1, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yykepyq2 from Leagle.com.

ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY-SITUATED PERSONS,
Plaintiff, represented by MOLLY S. GANTMAN --
molly@classlawyers.com -- BOCK HATCH LEWIS & OPPENHEIM LLC, PHILLIP
A. BOCK -- phil@classlawyers.com -- BOCK HATCH LEWIS & OPPENHEIM
LLC, RICHARD E. SHENKAN, SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS LLC, 6550 Lakeshore
Street, West Bloomfield, MI, 48323, ANDREW J. REILLY --
areilly@swartzcampbell.com -- SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWILER & DANIEL
J. COHEN, BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC, 134 North LaSalle
StreetSuite 1000Chicago, IL 60602-1233

ITG, INC., Defendant, represented by ESTEBAN MORALES --
Emorales@mintz.com -- MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO,
P.C., FRANCIS J. EARLEY -- FEarley@mintz.com -- MINTZ LEVIN COHN
FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO PC, JAMES W. KRAUS -- JWK@Pietragallo.com --
PIETRAGALLO BOSICK & GORDON, LLP & KEVIN E. RAPHAEL --
KER@Pietragallo.com -- PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI
LLP.

ITG INVESTMENT RESEARCH, INC. & M SCIENCE LLC, Defendants,
represented by CRAIG DOUGLAS MILLS -- craig.mills@bipc.com --
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC & PATRICK D. DORAN --
patrick.doran@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC.


J.G. WENTWORTH: Gill Suit Transferred to Eastern Dist. of Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as MATTHEW GILL, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. J.G.
WENTWORTH HOME LENDING LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-80591
(Filed May 2, 2019), was transferred from U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, to U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) on July 9, 2019. The
Eastern District of Virginia court clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-00898-TSE-IDD to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge T. S. Ellis, III.

Because Defendant did not accurately track and pay for all hours
worked, including overtime hours, Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation for
all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendant also
violated the FLSA by failing to include all required remuneration
into the regular rate of pay to calculate overtime for any overtime
pay it managed to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated are:

          Christopher Richard Miltenberger, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
          Southlake, TX 76092
          Telephone: (817) 416-5060
          Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com

               - and -

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 337-7992
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com

Attorneys for J.G. Wentworth Home Lending LLC are:

          Jonathan David Christman, Esq.
          Dori Katrine Stibolt, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 200
          P.O. Box 3001
          Blue Bell, PA 19422-3001
          Telephone: (610) 397-6500
          Facsimile: (610) 397-0450
          E-mail: jchristman@foxrothschild.com
                  dstibolt@foxrothschild.com

JACKSON COUNTY, MO: County Property Assessments Worry Taxpayers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Fox, writing for Boonville Daily News, reports that Jackson
County, Missouri property owners concerned about recent
reassessments might get a little more time to gather documentation
and appeal the county's determinations.

The deadline for an informal appeal was July 8.

However, the county's Board of Equalization has set a meeting on
July 8with a possible extension as its only agenda item.  The board
was asked to extend the deadline but didn't, and members gave no
indication about whether they are inclined to do so.

Several county legislators were at the BOE meeting, and two
suggested an extension.

The county reassesses property every two years. Assessment Director
Gail McCann Beatty said this week that Realtor data pointed to a 13
percent increase in property values across the county from 2017 to
2019.

"Property values have increased in Jackson County and in the state
as a whole," Beatty said this week.

But many individuals have seen sharper increases than that -- and
that could mean a higher tax bill.

Alan Young of the Ivanhoe neighborhood in Kansas City said his
assessment went up 2,184 percent "on a lot I didn't strike oil on -
I'm growing vegetables."

Ivanhoe has struggled for years, and although neighbors have worked
together to make many improvements and have come a long way, Young
said, the average income is still $21,000 a year.

"The people will not be able to pay these taxes," he told
legislators.

Several residents have said -- echoed by some legislators -- that
they fear being taxed out of their homes. A Kansas City resident
filed a class-action lawsuit, challenging the county's method of
determining assessments.

There are roughly 300,000 parcels of property in the county, and as
of early this week more than 21,000 people had filed informal
appeals.

Solutions?

If higher assessments stay in place, higher property taxes would
follow. Local governments could roll back their own levies to hold
the line on taxes, but that would go jurisdiction by jurisdiction
-- school districts, cities, the county and then entities with a
far smaller share of taxes such as the library system.

The county collects property taxes for all of those local
governments and distributes the money, but the county's actual
portion of a homeowner's tax bill is often less than 10 percent.
Schools usually account for most of the tax bill. In other words,
the county alone probably can't do enough with its levy rates to
offset a homeowner's significant increase.

Residents and some legislators – some acknowledging that property
values have been too low for decades -- have said the county should
find a way to ease into the increases over time.

"There is nothing in the (state) statute that allows me to do
that," Beatty said.

Making an appeal

For now at least, the deadline for an informal appeal is on July 8.
(State statue set it at June 17, but the BOE extended it to July
8.)

Get the application form to do that by doing one of these:

   * Go to www.jacksongov.org/331/Board-of-Equalization-Appeals.

   * Go to the Assessment Department office on the first floor of
the Truman Courthouse on Lexington Avenue on the Independence
Square, or the department's office in the Downtown Courthouse at
415 E. 12th St., Kansas City.

   * Call 816-881-3309.

Appeals have to be filed or postmarked by July 8. A separate
application is needed for each property.

Mail an application, with supporting documentation, to:

    Jackson County Board of Equalization
    415 E. 12th St., room 102
    Kansas City, MO 64106

Or drop it off in person at the Kansas City address or at the
Truman Courthouse, 112 W. Lexington Ave., Suite 145.

The Board of Equalization holds appeal hearings in July and August.
It can raise, lower or leave in place what the Assessment
Department has found. The BOE is separate from the Assessment
Department. It sets property values but not taxes. A property owner
unsatisfied with the BOE's ruling can appeal to the Missouri State
Tax Commission. [GN]


JIASHENG: Edwin Sues over Unpaid Wages, Tips and Gender Bias
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Jiasheng, Inc.,
d/b/a Jia Asian Fusion and Sushi Bar for alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. The case is captioned KELLY EDWIN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JIASHENG,
INC. D/B/A  JIA ASIAN FUSION AND SUSHI BAR, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00306 (W.D. Cal., July 1, 2019).

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant willfully failed to comply
with the terms of the minimum wage requirements of the FLSA
regarding payment for off-the-clock work and compliance with the
tip credit provisions. In or about late June 2017, Defendant began
scheduling Plaintiff to work less hours and pressuring Plaintiff to
take time off because of her pregnancy. Accordingly, Plaintiff
brings her Title VII claims against Defendants for unlawful
discrimination based on her sex (female) and pregnancy. Further,
Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages, misappropriated tips, and
statutory penalties for Plaintiff and any similarly situated
co-workers who worked or have worked as servers at Jiasheng, Inc.

Jiasheng, Inc is a domestic business corporation with its principal
place of business located at 3418 South New Hope Rd., Gastonia,
North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason S. Chestnut, Esq.
     Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
     Craig L. Leis, Esq.
     GIBBONS LEIS, PLLC
     14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Ste 325
     Charlotte, NC 28277
     Telephone: (704) 612-0038
     E-mail: jason@gibbonsleis.com
             phil@gibbonsleis.com
             craig@gibbonsleis.com


JIGSAW USA INC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jigsaw USA Inc. The
case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jigsaw USA Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-06297 (S.D. N.Y., July 8, 2019).

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

Jigsaw USA Inc. offers luxury clothing that showcases premium
fabrics and timeless style.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JITROIS AMERICA: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jitrois America Inc.
The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jitrois America Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06306 (S.D. N.Y., July 8, 2019).

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

Jitrois America Inc is in the Women's Clothing Stores
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JPMORGAN CHASE: Illegally Records Phone Calls, Raffin Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
SHEENA RAFFIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK, and DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05744 (C.D.
Cal., July 2, 2019), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from
the illegal actions of the Defendants, their related entities,
subsidiaries and agents in knowingly, and/or willfully employing
and/or causing to be employed certain recording equipment in order
to record telephone conversations with Plaintiff without the
knowledge or consent of Plaintiff, in violation of California Penal
Code sections 630 et seq., thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants continue to violate Penal
Code section 632.7 by impermissibly recording its telephone
conversations with California residents while said residents are on
cellular telephones. The Plaintiff alleges that despite
California's two-party consent rule, the Defendants continue to
violate Penal Code section 632 by impermissibly recording its
telephone conversations with California residents.

The contents of the call/s between the Defendants and Plaintiff
that were recorded by Defendants were confidential in nature due to
the fact that private financial information and the status of a
legal matter between the Parties was discussed.

At no point did Plaintiff have a reasonable expectation that any of
the calls with Defendants, that were initiated by Defendants, were
being recorded especially because such private and sensitive
subjects, including but not limited to Plaintiff's alleged debt,
were discussed.

It is Defendants' pattern and practice to record incoming calls
made to by California residents. The calls are about individuals'
finances and debt. Defendants do not inform, or warn, the
California residents, including Plaintiff, that the telephone calls
may be or will be recorded. Plaintiff was unaware that the phone
calls between herself and Defendants in California were recorded.
There was no pre-call recorded message. The Defendants'
representatives never informed Plaintiff that the calls were being
recorded.

California Penal Code prohibits one party to a telephone call from
intentionally recording the conversation without the knowledge or
consent of the other. Penal Code is violated the moment the
recording is made without the consent of all parties thereto,
regardless of whether it is subsequently disclosed.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a leading global financial services firm
and one of the largest banking institutions in the United States,
with operations worldwide.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Kelsey L Kuberka, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: 323-306-4234
          Facsimile: 866-633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  kkuberka@toddflaw.com

JR ASIAN: Guo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
JINCHUN GUO, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly,
situated Plaintiff, v. JR ASIAN FUSION INC d/b/a JR Asian Fusion;
YANYU CHEN a/k/a Alice Chen, YUN WU a/k/a James Wu, and a/k/a Jimmy
Wu, "JOHN" WU, and JIAOHAO "DOE" a/k/a Jiaohao Wu Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-03653 (E.D. N.Y., June 21, 2019) is an action brought
by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself as well as other employees
similarly situated, against the Defendants for alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law
(NYLL), arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful
employment policies, patterns and practices.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern
and practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff,
minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff JINCHUN GUO was employed by Defendants to work as a
dishwasher and miscellaneous worker from August 1, 2018 to June 2,
2019.

JR ASIAN FUSION INC d/b/a JR Asian Fusion purchased and handled
goods moved in interstate commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Troy, Esq.
     TROY LAW, PLLC
     41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Phone: (718) 762-1324


KELLY SERVICES: Removes Perea Suit to Central Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Services USA, LLC removed the case styled as DOLLY PEREA, an
individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. KELLY SERVICES USA, LLC, a Michigan
limited liability company; WORLDPAC, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
30-2019-01074498-CU-OE-CXC, from Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on July 8, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-05860
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action, including claims for:
failure to pay wages and/or overtime; meal break violations; wage
statement violations; waiting time penalties; unfair business
practices; violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act; and
violation of California Civil Code.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Gerald L. Maatman, Esq.
          Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
          Justin Curley, Esq.
          Melissa B. Black, Esq.
          Minal Haymond, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 S. Wacker Drive, 80th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: jriley@seyfarth.com
                  jcurley@seyfarth.com
                  mblack@seyfarth.com
                  mahaymond@seyfarth.com
                  gmaatman@seyfarth.com

KEYES COMPANY: Greenberg Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES GREENBERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE KEYES COMPANY, a Florida
Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61556-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., June 21, 2019) is an action against Defendant to secure
redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, notes the
complaint. This case arises from Defendant's unauthorized text
messages to cellular subscribers who never provided Defendant with
prior express consent, as well as cellular subscribers who
expressly requested not to receive the Defendant's text messages.
As a result, the Defendant caused thousands of text messages to be
sent to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members who
either never provided Defendant with consent to contact them or who
had revoked any prior express consent, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Broward County,
Florida.

Defendant is a real estate and property management company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone (305) 479-2299
     Facsimile (786) 623-0915
     Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
            gberg@shamisgentile.com


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Summary Judgment in Henry CSPA Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAURA HENRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT
STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 2018-L-113 (Ohio App.),
Judge Mary Jane Trapp of the Court of Appeals of Ohio for the
Eleventh District, Lake County, affirmed the judgment of the Lake
County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of
the Appellee, Kohl's.

The case involves whether an advertisement from Kohl's violates
Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act ("CSPA").  Kohl's issued
advertisements and marketing materials offering customers the
opportunity to earn $10 Kohl's Cash coupons for every $50 the
customers spent during a specified "earning period."  The recipient
of Kohl's Cash coupons could then redeem them on purchases at
Kohl's during a specified "redemption period."

Kohl's permitted its customers to combine their Kohl's Cash coupons
with other coupons, including percent-off coupons that Kohl's
periodically issued to its customers.  When a customer used a
Kohl's Cash coupon along with a percent-off coupon, Kohl's practice
was to apply the Kohl's Cash coupon first and the percent-off
coupon second.  Kohl's did not disclose this order of application
in the Kohl's Cash advertisement.  However, Kohl's did disclose the
order of application directly on the back of the Kohl's Cash
coupon.

On March 30, 2013, Ms. Henry purchased $375.89 of merchandise at a
Kohl's store.  Kohl's then issued her a $70 Kohl's Cash coupon,
consistent with the Kohl's Cash advertisement offering $10 Kohl's
Cash coupons for every $50 spent.

On April 2, 2013, Ms. Henry purchased $80.24 of merchandise at a
Kohl's store and presented two coupons -- the $70 Kohl's Cash
coupon and a 20%-off coupon.  Consistent with its practice, Kohl's
deducted the $70 Kohl's Cash coupon first to reduce the price to
$10.24.  It then applied the 20%-off coupon to reduce the price by
an additional $2.05, for a total purchase price of $8.19 plus tax.

If Kohl's had applied the 20%-off coupon before the Kohl's Cash
coupon, the price would have first been reduced by $16.05 to
$64.19.  After deducting the $70 Kohl's Cash coupon, Ms. Henry
would have retained $5.81 in Kohl's Cash instead of owing
additional funds.

Ms. Henry filed a class action complaint against Kohl's in the Lake
County Common Pleas Court alleging deceptive advertising in
violation of the CSPA.  Specifically, Ms. Henry alleged Kohl's
violated Ohio Admin.Code 109:4-3-02(A)(1), an administrative rule
issued pursuant to the CSPA, by advertising its Kohl's Cash
promotion in written and/or printed advertising or promotional
literature without stating in close proximity to the words stating
the offer, any reservations, limitations, or conditions on how
Kohl's applies percent-off coupons to transactions by customers
using earned Kohl's Cash.

Because Kohl's did not disclose in close proximity to the Kohl's
Cash advertisement the order in which Kohl's Cash coupons and
percent-off coupons were applied, Ms. Henry argues Kohl's committed
a deceptive act prohibited by the CSPA.

Following discovery, the parties filed cross motions for summary
judgment.  The trial court subsequently granted Kohl's motion for
summary judgment and denied Ms. Henry's motion for summary
judgment.  It determined there was no evidence that Kohl's practice
of applying a Kohl's Cash coupon before applying a percentage off
coupon when a consumer stacks two coupons amounts to an unfair or
deceptive practice.

Ms. Henry now appeals, asserting the following assignment of error:
The trial court erred by granting the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment on the Plaintiff's CSPA claim when the Defendant
committed a deceptive act by failing to disclose a material
limitation on a written offer in close proximity to the offer.  

The parties dispute centers on Ms. Henry's assertion that Kohl's
practice of applying Kohl's Cash coupons before percent-off coupons
constituted a "material limitation" on the offer contained in the
Kohl's Cash advertisement.  Therefore, Judge Trapp finds that the
meaning of "material limitation" as applied to the language of the
Kohl's Cash advertisement is dispositive.  The order of application
must constitute an important restriction on the offer set forth in
the Kohl's Cash advertisement.  Based on these authorities, Kohl's
practice of applying Kohl's Cash coupons before percent-off coupons
does not constitute a "material limitation" on the offer contained
in the Kohl's Cash advertisement.

Since the order of application did not constitute any limitation,
much less a "material limitation," on the offer contained in the
Kohl's Cash advertisement -- the offer to purchase Kohl's
merchandise and earn a Kohl's Cash coupon -- Kohl's did not violate
the advertisement rule by failing to disclose it in close proximity
to the offer.  Ms. Henry cannot establish a "deceptive act" in
violation of the advertisement rule as a matter of law. A
ccordingly, the trial court did not err in determining that the
advertisement rule did not apply.

In the present case, the trial court determined that Ms. Henry and
no other consumer had a reasonable belief that Kohl's Cash would
not be applied first.  Since Ms. Henry is not able to establish a
technical violation of the advertisement rule as a matter of
statutory interpretation, the Judge finds that it is not necessary
for us to consider reasonableness or whether Ms. Henry could have
been deceived.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Trapp concludes that the trial
court properly granted Kohl's motion for summary judgment.  Ms.
Henry's sole assignment of error is without merit.  Accordingly,
she affirmed the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common
Pleas.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/hWZfJN from Leagle.com.

Patrick J. Perotti -- pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- Nicole T. Fiorelli
-- nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com -- and Frank A. Bartela --
fbartela@dworkenlaw.com -- Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A., 60
South Park Place, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellant).

Lisa Babish -- lbforbes@vorys.com -- and Katie L. Steiner --
klsteiner@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, LLP, 200 Public
Square, Suite 1400, Cleveland, OH 44114 (For Defendant-Appellee).


KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Hearing on Lead Counsel Bids Set for September
---------------------------------------------------------------
KushCo Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 9, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2019, that the hearing on the
motions for appointment of lead counsel in the case, May v. KushCo
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-00798-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.,
April 30, 2019) is scheduled for September 2019.

This putative shareholder class action against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's securities between July 13, 2017 and
April 9, 2019, inclusive.

In July 2019, purported Company shareholders filed motions for
appointment of lead counsel and lead plaintiffs.

No trial date has been set.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims.

KushCo Holdings, Inc. primarily engages in the wholesale
distribution of packaging supplies in the United States, Canada,
Europe, and internationally. The company offers pop-top bottles;
child resistant exit, paper exit, and foil barrier bags; tubes; and
polystyrene, silicone-lined polystyrene or glass containers. The
company was formerly known as Kush Bottles, Inc. and changed its
name to KushCo Holdings, Inc. in September 2018. KushCo Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Garden Grove,
California.


LABORATORY CORP: Faces Jan Suit in California Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laboratory
Corporation of America. The case is captioned as Meer Jan on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Laboratory
Corporation of America, a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1-100, the
Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00259413-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., June
26, 2019). The suit alleges employment-related violation.

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

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Marcus Joseph Bradley, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP
          2815 Townsgate Rd, Ste 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361-3089
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com

LABORATORY CORPORATION: Allende et al Sue over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
GINA ALLENDE and MORGAN OTTMANN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. LABORATORY
CORPORATION OF AMERICA, LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS,
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, and OPTUM360 SERVICES, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05989 (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2019), seeks
redress for negligence because Defendants did not implement and
maintain reasonable security measures over consumers' sensitive
personal information, financial information, and health
information.

Quest apparently allowed hackers to access Plaintiff's and other
Class Members' Sensitive Information for some seven months, and did
nothing to let the victims know about the Data Breach for nearly a
year after it began, the lawsuit says.

LCA's website boasts that LCA employs nearly 61,000 employees
worldwide, provides diagnostic, drug development and
technology-enabled solutions for more than 120 million patient
encounters per year, and supports clinical trial activity in
approximately 100 countries.

LCA offers a suite of clinical and diagnostic services, serving
customers ranging from managed care organizations,
biopharmaceutical companies, governmental agencies, physicians and
other healthcare providers, hospitals and health systems,
employers, patients and consumers, contract research organizations,
and independent clinical laboratories. Quest is the world’s
leading provider of medical diagnostic testing services. It
performs medical tests that aid in the diagnosis or detection of
diseases, and that measure the progress of or recovery from a
disease.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971-1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

               - and -

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, 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: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com

LAW OFFICES OF MORSE MEHRBAN: Faces Shin's Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Law Offices of
Morse Mehrban, A.P.C., Morse Mehrban, Julie A. Mehrban, and
Alfrado Garcia for fraud. The case is captioned James Shin, an
individual and on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Law Office of Morse Mehrban, A.P.C. et al, Case No.
2:19-cv-05479-GW-RAO (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2019). It is assigned to
Hon. Judge George H. Wu for all further proceedings.

Law Offices of Morse Mehrban, A.P.C. is located at 15233 Ventura
Boulevard Suite 1000 Sherman Oaks, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

     James Shin
     1557 Westwood Blvd. No. 229
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Telephone: (213) 703-3268

LINCOLN LIFE: Faces Vida Suit in Southern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lincoln Life &
Annuity Company of New York. The case is captioned as Vida
Longevity Fund, LP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New
York, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06004-ALC (S.D.N.Y., June 27,
2019). The suit alleges insurance-related violation demanding $5
million worth of damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Andrew L. Carter, Jr.

Lincoln Life offers annuity, life insurance and retirement planning
products to individuals and businesses. The company was
incorporated in 1996 and is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Seth D. Ard, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
          E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com

LOVEPOP, INC: Faces Duncan Suit to Southern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lovepop, Inc. The
case is captioned as Eugene Duncan, on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Lovepop, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06023-PAE-DCF (S.D.N.Y., June 27,
2019). The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.

LovePop, Inc. designs and develops greeting cards. The Company
offers birthday, anniversary, wedding, seasonal, animals, boats,
floral, spring, and special cards. Lovepop serves customers in the
United States.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Telephone: (646) 770-3775
          Facsimile: (646) 867-2639
          E-mail: bmarkslaw@gmail.com

LYFT, INC: Ronquillo Sues over Unwanted Cellular Phone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelissa Ronquillo, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plainitff, vs. Lyft, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-01230-BEN-BGS (S.D. Cal., July 2, 2019), seeks to recover
damages and injunctive relief, and any other available relief
against Lyft, Inc. for negligently or intentionally contacting
Plaintiff and Class Members on their cellular telephones, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was personally affected
by Defendant's actions because Defendant's use of an ATDS and
pre-recorded voice forced Plaintiff to live without the utility of
Plaintiff's cell phone by forcing her to silence her cell phone
and/or block incoming numbers.

The Plaintiff was further personally affected because she was
frustrated and distressed that despite never having any contact
with Defendant, the Defendant harassed Plaintiff with calls using
an ATDS and pre-recorded voice.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: yana@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222-7429
          Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
          E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


MAMMOTH ENERGY: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Mammoth
Energy Services, Inc. (TUSK) for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between October 19,
2017 and June 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 6, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Mammoth subsidiary Cobra was awarded two
infrastructure contracts with PREPA totaling more than $1.8
billion. The contracts were obtained as the result of improper
steering and were not awarded on the basis of a competitive RFP
process. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were
false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When
the market learned the truth about Mammoth, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone:
            Office: 310-301-3335
            Cell: 424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com [GN]


MDL 2665: Court Narrows Class Claims in Pepper Sales Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: MCCORMICK & COMPANY, INC., PEPPER
PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION (MDL 2665), Case
No. 1:15-mc-01825-ESH (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Ellen S. Huvelle
entered an order on July 10, 2019:

   1. denying Defendants' joint motion to exclude report and
      opinions of Dr. Armando Levy;

   2. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for
      class certification as follows:

       -- the motion is denied with respect to plaintiffs' motion
          to certify a consumer protection multi-state class, an  
          unjust enrichment (restatement) multi-state class, and  
          an unjust enrichment (appreciation) multi-state class;

       -- the motion is denied with respect to plaintiffs' motion
          to certify single-state unjust enrichment classes for  
          California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia,  
          Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, and Pennsylvania and to  
          certify a single-state consumer protection class for
          Illinois; and

       -- the motion is granted with respect to plaintiffs'
          motion to certify single-state consumer protection
          classes for California, Florida, and Missouri;

   3. defining California Consumer Protection Class as:

      "all persons residing in California who purchased slack-
      filled pepper products 1 for their personal or household
      use";

      The class is certified to bring claims against McCormick
      under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the
      California Unfair Competition Law. Ms Deborah Esparza and
      Holly Marsh are appointed as class representatives.

   4. defining Florida Consumer Protection Class as:

      "all persons residing in Florida who purchased slack-filled
      pepper products for their personal or household use"

      The class is certified to bring claims against McCormick
      under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
      Ms. Carmen Pellitteri is appointed as the class
      representative.

   5. defining Missouri Consumer Protection Class as:

      "all persons residing in Missouri who purchased slack-
      filled pepper products for their personal or household use"

      The class is certified to bring claims against McCormick
      under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. Ms.
      Catherine Grendel is appointed as the class representative.

      Excluded from the classes are (i) Defendants, (ii) any
      entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest or
      which has a controlling interest in defendants, and (iii)
      the court and its staff.

   6. scheduling appointment of class counsel at the next status
      conference;

   7. setting a status conference at August 19, 2019, at 2:00
      p.m.; and

   8. directing Parties to confer and file by no later than
      August 7, 2019, a joint proposal for further proceedings,
      including an identification of all cases that can be
      remanded to the transferor court.[CC]


MDL 2741: Antley v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
BEVERLY ANTLEY AND CHARLES ANTLEY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-01512 (Filed May 29, 2019) was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on July 10, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03908-VC to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the 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 (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Beverly
Antley's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.

The Antley case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiffs allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. The Plaintiffs also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MDL 2741: Coleman v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL COLEMAN and RUBY COLEMAN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-01684 (Filed June 12, 2019) was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on July 10, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03917-VC to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the 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 (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Michael
Coleman's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.

The Coleman case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiffs allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. The Plaintiffs also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MDL 2741: Fox v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
BEVERLY FOX, INDIVIDUALLY and ON BEHALF OF TIMOTHY F. FOX, the
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01511 (Filed May 29, 2019) was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on July 10, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-03907-VC to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the 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 (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Timothy F.
Fox's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated
victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.

The Fox case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiffs allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. The Plaintiffs also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MDL 2741: Franco v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO FRANCO AND ELUIRA FRANCO, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-01515 (Filed May 29, 2019) was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on July 10, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03911-VC to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the 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 (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Eduardo
Franco's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.

The Franco case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiffs allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. The Plaintiffs also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MDL 2741: Holt v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
JACK L. HOLT and GWENDOLYN HOLT, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-01063 (Filed April 30, 2019) was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on July 10, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03903-VC to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the 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 (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Jack L.
Holt's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.

The Holt case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiffs allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. The Plaintiffs also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MDL 2909: Salzhauer Sues over Inhumane Treatment of Dairy Cows
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against the Fairlife, LLC
and the Coca-Cola Company for alleged violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and for unjust
enrichment. The case is captioned ELIANA SALZHAUER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. THE
COCA-COLA COMPANY, and FAIRLIFE, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02709-MHC (N.D. Ga., June 21, 2019).

Plaintiff alleges that Fairlife is making false representations in
its pervasive marketing scheme that focuses on the company's humane
treatment of its dairy cows. Fairlife specifically targets its
advertising toward consumers who are willing to choose its milk
products and pay a price premium to guarantee that the dairy
products they purchase are from animals that are humanely treated.
Contrary to Defendants' representations, the Products are not
derived from cows that are treated "fairly" or with "extraordinary
care and comfort"; to the contrary, Defendants' dairy cows are not
treated "fairly" at all -- rather, they are the victims of
horrendous animal abuse. The cruelty and suffering inflicted on the
cows and calves at Fair Oaks Farms -- the flagship farm for the
Fairlife Products -- was so significant that it has led to criminal
charges being brought against three individuals. Accordingly,
Plaintiff brings this class action to put a stop to Defendants'
deceptive and unlawful practices and to recover financial
compensation for their injuries.

The case has been consolidated in the multi-district litigation, IN
RE: Fairlife Milk Products Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, jpml-0:2019-md-02909, pending in the Northern District
of Georgia.

Fairlife, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois. Fairlife,
LLC, manufactures, markets, and sells a brand of milk products
under the "Fairlife" label that are marketed as premium products
throughout the United States. Fairlife, LLC, is a joint venture
owned by The Coca-Cola Company and Select Milk Producers, Inc.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth S. Canfield, Esq.
     DOFFERMYRE SHIELDS CANFIELD & KNOWLES, LLC
     1355 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 1725
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Telephone: (404) 881-8900
     E-mail: canfield@dsckd.com

             - and -

     Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
     Amy E. Keller, Esq.
     Adam Prom, Esq.
     DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
     Ten North Dearborn Street Eleventh Floor
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 214-7900
     E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
             akeller@dicellolevitt.com
             aprom@dicellolevitt.com
       
             - and -
        
     Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
     Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
     PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
     800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Telephone: (612) 389-0600
     E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com
             jbourne@pswlaw.com

             - and –

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

             - and –

     Michael R. Reese, Esq.
     Sue J. Nam, Esq.
     Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq.
     REESE LLP
     100 West 93rd Street Sixteenth Floor
     New York, NY 10025
     Telephone: (212) 643-0500
     E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
             snam@reesellp.com
             cramirez@reesellp.com

MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Olson Labor Suit in Calif. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Medtronic, Inc.,
Medtronic USA, Inc., and Covidien Sales, LLC for alleged violations
of the California Business and Professions Code, the California
Labor Code, and the Section 9 of the applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order. The case is captioned JORDAN OLSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. MEDTRONIC, INC., a Minnesota Corporation; a
Minnesota Corporation; COVIDIEN SALES, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
CGC-19-576875 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., June 21, 2019).

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to reimburse/indemnify
costs and expenses incurred in performing business-related duties,
including costs of printing, mileage expenses, and personal cell
phone expenses for business calls, messaging, and other
work-related communications. In addition, Plaintiff asserts that
the Defendants also failed to timely pay final wages to terminated
or resigned employees and failed to provide accurate wage
statements.  The failure by Defendants to pay Plaintiff and members
of the Unfair Competition Law Subclass for all earned commissions
and failure to pay all reimbursements for costs and expenses
constitutes an unlawful, deceptive, and unfair business practice
within the meaning of Business and Professions Code sections 17200,
et seq., including but not limited to a violation of the applicable
State of California regulations and statutes, or is otherwise a
practice which is unfair and unlawful.

Medtronic, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation registered and
authorized to do business in the state of California. It is
considered as the world's largest medical device company. Covidien
Sales, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company registered and
authorized to do business in the state of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
     Michael D. Singer, Esq.
     Kristina De La Rosa, Esq.
     COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
     605 C Street, Suite 200
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 595-3001
     Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
     E-mail: ikhoury@ckslaw.com
             msinger@ckslaw.com
             kdelarosa@ckslaw.com

             - and –

     Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
     LEBE LAW, APC
     777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90021
     Telephone: (213) 358-7046
     Facsimile: (310) 820-1258
     E-mail: jon@lebelaw.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Spoofed Precious Metal Prices, Robert Charles Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROBERT CHARLES CLASS A, L.P. and ROBERT L. TEEL,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. MERRILL LYNCH COMMODITIES, INC., BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, EDWARD BASES, JOHN PACILIO, and JOHN DOES NOS. 1-10,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06172 (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2019),
targets Defendants' manipulation of prices for precious metals
futures contracts through a scheme known as "spoofing."

Spoofing is a practice in which traders artificially manipulate
conditions -- such as supply, demand, and price -- by entering buy
or sell orders that they do not intend to follow-through on and
then cancelling those orders. These deceptive buy and sell orders
inject materially false and misleading information into markets and
are intended to cause other investors to trade on Defendants'
genuine orders under conditions that are more favorable to
Defendants than would otherwise have occurred.

According to the complaint, Edward Bases and John Pacilio were
precious metal traders at Defendant Merrill Lynch Commodities,
Inc., wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation and,
along with other employees of the bank, undertook the spoofing
scheme. Merrill Lynch has entered into a non-prosecution agreement
with the Department of Justice and a settlement agreement with the
Commodities Futures Trading Commission for its involvement in the
unlawful conduct, that was designed to, and did, artificially move
the price of precious metals futures contracts in a direction that
was favorable to Defendants to the detriment of other market
participants.

The illegal scheme covered gold, silver, platinum, and palladium
futures contracts (Precious Metals Futures Contracts) traded on the
Commodity Exchange, Inc. ("COMEX"), a wholly owned subsidiary of
CME Group Inc. ("CME Group"), a commodities marketplace made up of
several exchanges.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action on
behalf of all persons who traded Precious Metals Futures Contracts
on the COMEX from approximately January 1, 2008 through December
31, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"), for Defendants'
violations of the Commodity Exchange Act.[BN]

Attorneys for the Robert Charles Class A, L.P. and Robert L. Teel
are:

          Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
          Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq.
          Max R. Schwartz, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
                  dweintraub@scott-scott.com
                  mschwartz@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Louis F. Burke, Esq.
          LOUIS F. BURKE P.C.
          460 Park Avenue, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 682-1700
          Facsimile: (212) 808-4280
          E-mail: lburke@lfblaw.com

MICHAEL STORES: Chu Alleges ADA, Civil Rights Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Michael Stores,
Inc. for alleged violations of the American Disabilities Act of
1990 and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.  The case is captioned Kyo Hak
Chu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. Michaels Stores, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-03638-SK (C.D. Cal.,
June 24, 2019). It is assigned to Hon. Judge Sallie Kim.

Michael Stores, Inc. operates a retail chain selling art and craft
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     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: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Bushberger FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERESA BUSHBERGER, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 17-CV-1468 (E.D. Wis.), Judge William E.
Duffin of the U.S. Case District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3).

Bushberger brought the proposed class action against the Defendant
for an alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").  On Oct. 28, 2016, Midland Credit sent Bushberger the
collection letter that is the subject of the action.  Four months
later, on Feb. 27, 2017, Bushberger filed a voluntary Chapter 7
bankruptcy petition.

In her bankruptcy petition, Bushberger did not schedule an FDCPA
claim against Midland Credit because, although the debt collection
letter Midland Credit mailed to her was ambiguous and confusing on
its face, Bushberger's attorneys did not believe it violated the
FDCPA at the time she filed her bankruptcy.  On June 6, 2017,
Bushberger received a discharge from the bankruptcy court and the
bankruptcy case was closed.

On Oct. 26, 2017, a little over four months after the bankruptcy
case was closed and just inside the one-year statute of limitations
set forth in the FDCPA, Bushberger filed the class-action complaint
in the action.  In her complaint, Bushberger alleges that the
letter she received from Midland Credit contained language that
misleads the consumer as to the probability of legal action to
collect the debt.  She also alleges that the letter ambiguously
states that for a payment of $500 Bushberger could stop the process
from continuing.  The complaint alleges that Bushberger was
confused by the letterand that the letter violates the FDCPA.

On Feb. 14, 2018, Midland Credit moved to dismiss the complaint on
the ground that Bushberger did not have standing to prosecute the
FDCPA claim and because she was judicially estopped from pursuing
it as a result of not disclosing it during the bankruptcy
proceedings.  The next day, Feb. 15, 2018, Bushberger filed in the
bankruptcy court a Motion to Reopen Case to Permit Amendment of the
Schedules in which she sought to exempt the FDCPA claim against
Midland Credit.

While that motion was pending, Bushberger filed in the Court a
motion to stay the resolution of Midland Credit's motion to dismiss
pending resolution of the proceedings in the bankruptcy court.
Midland Credit opposed the motion to stay.  Over Midland Credit's
objection, the Court granted Bushberger's motion to stay.

Meanwhile, back in the bankruptcy court, over Midland Credit's
objection the court reopened the case for the purpose of
determining whether the FDCPA claim was property of the bankruptcy
estate.  After briefing, the court on June 27, 2018, issued a
decision determining that the FDCPA action is property of the
bankruptcy estate that Bushberger may schedule and claim exempt,
subject to the rights of the creditors and trustee to object to the
exemption.

Bushberger then scheduled the FDCPA claim against Midland Credit
with a value of $1,000 and exempted $1,000 of that asset.  Midland
Credit objected to Bushberger's claim of exemption, arguing that it
became time-barred under the FDCPA in October 2017.  On Sept. 27,
2018, Midland Credit's objection to Bushberger's claim of exemption
was overruled by the bankruptcy court.

On Feb. 12, 2019, the counsel for Bushberger informed the Court
that, in correspondence with the Chapter 7 trustee in Bushberger's
bankruptcy case, the trustee indicated that the closing of Ms.
Bushberger's bankruptcy case acts as an abandonment of any assets
and that the trustee will not be taking any further action in Ms.
Bushberger's bankruptcy case.  As a result, on Feb. 14, 2019, the
Court issued an order vacating the stay.

On March 21, 2019, Midland Credit filed the present motion to
dismiss.  it contends that Bushberger lacked standing to bring the
case when she filed her complaint because the trustee of the
bankruptcy estate had the exclusive right to prosecute the alleged
claims.  As a result, the complaint was a nullity when filed, and
no future filings can relate back to a nullity.  And, it argues,
there is no such thing as "retroactive standing" that would permit
the court to retroactively confer standing on Bushberger.  As a
result, it seeks dismissal pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Duffin concludes that Midland Credit is correct that
Bushberger lacked "standing" when she filed her complaint.
However, she lacked prudential standing, not constitutional
standing.  Specifically, she was not the real party in interest.
This defect was not jurisdictional.  Consequently, now that
Bushberger has become the real party in interest, she may proceed.
For these reasons, he denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3).

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/P1xu6q from Leagle.com.

Teresa Bushberger, Plaintiff, represented by Ben J. Slatky --
bslatky@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Jesse Fruchter --
jfruchter@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Mark A. Eldridge --
meldridge@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP & John D. Blythin --
jblythin@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP.

Midland Credit Management Inc, Defendant, represented by Alyssa A.
Johnson -- ajohnson@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,
David M. Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP & Todd P. Stelter -- tstelter@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP.



MIDWAY INDUSTRIES: Court Denies Settlement Approval in Shepardson
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas, Harrison Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
denying Joint Motion for Stipulated Collective Action Settlement
and Settlement Approval in the case captioned DALE SHEPARDSON,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
Plaintiff, v. MIDWAY INDUSTRIES, INC; TOOL STEEL SERVICE, INC; and
TOOL STEEL SERVICE OF CALIFORNIA, INC. Defendants. Case No.
3:18-CV-3105. (W.D. Ark.).

Dale Shepardson filed his Complaint against Defendants Midway
Industries, Inc., Tool Steel Service, Inc., and Tool Steel Service
of California, Inc. The Complaint is a hybrid class and collective
action seeking to recover under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA) for Defendants' allegedly
illegal practice of allowing employees such as Shepardson to
accumulate comp time in lieu of receiving overtime premium pay when
they worked over forty hours in a given week.

The Joint Motion seeks to certify, for settlement purposes only,
the following group:

     All current and former employees of Midway who received paid
time off in exchange for working overtime hours between October 5,
2015, and the date of execution of this Settlement Agreement.

In exchange for settling and releasing the classes' FLSA and AMWA
claims, the Settlement Agreement notes that Midway agrees to pay
the total sum of $17,306.00, with $5,406.00 being allocated to
settlement class members, $2,000.00 being allocated to Dale
Shepardson as a service (incentive) payment, and $9,900.00
allocated to Class Counsel for attorney's fees, costs, and
expenses. In addition, the Settlement Agreement specifies that
members of the settlement class must timely cash their settlement
checks in order to opt in to the settlement. The Agreement purports
to release the FLSA and AMWA claims only for those members of the
settlement class who do so.

Before a court approves an FLSA settlement agreement, it must
determine that the litigation involves a bona fide dispute and that
the proposed settlement is fair and equitable to all parties. A
settlement is bona fide if it reflects a reasonable compromise over
issues actually in dispute, since employees may not waive their
entitlement to minimum wage and overtime pay under the FLSA.  If
the court determines that there is a bona fide dispute, it must
next determine that the agreement purporting to settle that
agreement is fair and reasonable to all parties. Such a
determination usually involves considering: the stage of the
litigation and amount of discovery exchanged, the experience of
counsel, the probability of plaintiffs' success on the merits, any
'overreaching' by the employer in the settlement negotiations, and
whether the settlement was the product of arm's length negotiations
between represented parties based on the merits of the case.

Insufficient Opt-In Procedures for FLSA Claim

The parties have identified seventeen potential members of the
settlement class. The Agreement and Notice of Settlement both allow
individual members of the settlement group to opt in to the
settlement by negotiating (cashing) their settlement check within
90 days of it being mailed. Such a procedure is insufficient. Under
the provisions of the FLSA, no employee shall be a party plaintiff
to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become
such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such
action is brought. Therefore, courts have held it improper to treat
those who cash their settlement checks as having opted in.  

No Discussion of Effect of Class Treatment of State Law Claims

A related problem with the Scope of Release paragraph in the
Settlement Agreement lies in its provision that the settlement
would release all federal and state statutory claims for those who
opt in. This provision ignores that the state law AMWA claim would
have to proceed according to Rule 23 in order to be resolved on a
class-basis.  

The Settlement Agreement and Notice of Settlement do not attempt to
explain that, if certified as a settlement class, class members
would have to opt out of the class in order to not be bound by any
settlement of the state AMWA claim. Because class members are bound
by the judgment in a Rule 23 class action unless they opt out, such
notice to the prospective settlement class members is crucial.
Moreover, the statement in the Agreement and Notice of Settlement
that only those who opt in to the settlement will release all of
their claims, state and federal, is incorrect. The Court cannot
approve a settlement agreement which incorrectly advises class
members of their rights.

The Court cannot determine whether the Settlement Agreement is fair
and reasonable
Beyond the obvious structural problems identified above, the Court
also cannot determine whether the proposed settlement is fair and
reasonable. The Settlement Agreement states a total payment amount
of $5,406.00 to settlement class members. Section 4.1 of the
Agreement further provides that settlement group members will be
paid according to estimates of the amount of overtime that they
worked. However, it is not clear from the Settlement Agreement
whether this $5,406.00 fully compensates all of the settlement
group's overtime amount or whether this total represents some
compromise.

For instance, the Court has been provided with no information
documenting the hours for the seventeen members of the proposed
settlement class. Moreover, the Court's concerns are compounded by
comparing the requested amount of fees, $9,900.00 or approximately
57% of the settlement with the recovery amount devoted for repaying
settlement class members. Without ensuring that the $5,406.00 fully
compensates settlement class members for their unpaid overtime, the
Court has great difficulty approving a settlement that gives such a
large and disproportionate amount of the settlement fund to class
counsel. Without the documentation to assure itself of the
settlement's fairness to the class members, the Court cannot
resolve its doubts about the justification for such a large award
of attorney's fees.

Accordingly, the Joint Motion for Stipulated Collective Action
Settlement and Settlement Approval is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 1, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2uzhu7h from
Leagle.com.

Dale Shepardson, Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Josh Sanford, Sanford Law Firm
PLLC, One Financial Center, 650 South Shackleford, Suite 110,
Little Rock, AR, 72211

Midway Industries, Inc, Tool Steel Service, Inc. & Tool Steel
Service of California, Inc., Defendants, represented by Phil W.
Campbell, Fuqua Campbell, P.A., Riviera Tower, 3700 Cantrell Road,
Suite 205, Little Rock, AR 72202


MILE HIGH: Sanders Files FLSA Suit in District of Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mile High Valet, LLP
et al. The case is captioned as Jonathan Sanders Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Mile
High Valet, LLP; Glendale Restaurant Concepts LP; and Jimmie
Hamilton, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01850-NYW (D. Colo.,
June 26, 2019). The suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act
violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Nina Y. Wang.

Mile Hi Valet Services provides hospitality staffing contract and
parking services. As of October 1, 2008, Mile Hi Valet Services
operates as a subsidiary of Towne Park Limited.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Joshua Jon Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

MONEY STORE: Court Dismisses Asberry Suit With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DARRELL ASBERRY, MICHAEL F. CORDES, SHIRLEY PIATT, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. THE MONEY STORE, TMS MORTGAGE, INC., HOMEQ SERVICING CORP.,
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-CV-01291-ODW
(PLAx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright, II of the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California granted with prejudice
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class
Action Complaint.

Asberry, Cordes, and Piatt brought the putative class action on
behalf of themselves and two subclasses seeking damages for
allegedly fraudulent lending practices by teh Defendants.  

On Aug. 8, 2018, the Court granted, in part, the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.  The Court
found the Fee-Split Class II claims barred by res judicata and Late
Fee Class II claims barred by the applicable statute of limitation,
absent some form of tolling.  It found tolling unavailable under
American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, but possibly available
for California residents under California's equitable tolling laws.


Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Fee-Split Class II claims, the
Late Fee Class II claims of non-California residents, and the
individual claims of Shirley Piatt, a non-California resident,
without leave to amend.  It granted limited leave to amend to
Asberry, Cordes, and the California members of the Late Fee Class
II, only to the extent they could allege additional facts that
would bring their claims within the reach of California's equitable
tolling laws.  The Court subsequently denied Asberry, Cordes, and
Piatt's motion for reconsideration.

Asberry and Cordes ("Plaintiffs") filed the SAC asserting four
causes of action and alleging that their claims should be tolled
pursuant to American Pipe and California's equitable tolling
doctrine.  In addition to equitable tolling, the Plaintiffs allege
new theories to bar the application of the statute of limitations
to their Late Fee Class II claims, including fraudulent
concealment, equitable estoppel, and the discovery rule.  The
Plaintiffs also allege new claims of other improper fees charged by
the Defendants.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' SAC, arguing that
the Plaintiffs' claims are time-barred because no tolling theory
applies, the Plaintiffs improperly amended the SAC to include
claims and theories beyond the scope of the limited amendment, and
they failed to adequately plead each cause of action asserted, as
required by Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b).

Judge Wright finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to assert
factual allegations sufficient to meet their burden to establish
that application of California's equitable tolling doctrine is
appropriate.  Accordingly, he finds that equitable tolling is not
available to the class or individual claims.  The Plaintiffs'
claims are time-barred.  The Judge will grant the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' SAC.

Next, he finds that fraudulent concealment, equitable estoppel, and
the discovery rule do not save the Plaintiffs' time-barred claims.
Even were the Plaintiffs' late-raised theories permitted, the
Plaintiffs fail to set forth sufficient allegations to support the
application of these theories.  They fail to allege that any of the
alleged misrepresentations dissuaded or otherwise prevented them
from bringing the action.  Similarly, the Plaintiffs fail to allege
their own due diligence, that the inquiries supporting their claims
were not available to them upon pay-off in 2005 and 2006, or that
they investigated the claims.

The Plaintiffs have previously amended their Complaint in the
action twice, most recently with specific direction from the Court
as to its insufficiencies. The facts and issues arise from the
Mazzei litigation, a case spanning more than 15 years, and from
facts known to Plaintiffs Cordes and Asberry since 2005 and 2006.
The facts and theories of liability in this matter have been
developed and honed over a significant amount of time.  The Court
previously informed the Plaintiffs of the existing pleading
deficiencies, yet they have failed again to assert factual
allegations sufficient to support the application of California's
equitable tolling doctrine.  Thus, the Judge finds that allegation
of other facts consistent with the SAC could not possibly cure the
deficiency.  Nor do the Plaintiffs request leave to amend.
According, leave to amend is denied.

For the reasons he discussed, Judge Wright granted with prejudice
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class.
The parties will confer and submit a proposed judgment for the
Court's review within seven days of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/xRB5Cd from Leagle.com.

Shirley Piatt, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Darrell Asberry, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated & Michael Cordes, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert
J.
Girard, II, Girard Bengali APC, Paul S. Grobman, The Law Offices
of
Paul Grobman, pro hac vice & Omar H. Bengali --
obengali@girardbengali.com -- Girard Bengali APC.

The Money Store, TMS Mortgage Inc, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. & HomEq
Servicing Corporation, Defendants, represented by Amy P. Williams
-- amy.williams@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice

& Jessica Rose Ellis Lohr -- jessica.lohr@troutmansanders.com --
Troutman Sanders LLP.


NAGEL RICE: Gore Suit Removed to District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as DEBBIE GORE on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BRUCE H. NAGEL, NAGEL
& RICE, ANDREW L. O'CONNOR, ROBERT SOLOMON, NAGEL RICE, LLP, DEREK
POTTS, POTTS LAW FIRM, L.L.P., BAILEY PEAVEY BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN,
PLLC, BAILEY PEAVEY BAILEY, MESH LITIGATION CENTER, ANNIE MCADAMS,
STEELMAN MCADAMS, JUNELL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, K. CAMP BAILEY, PC,
BURNETT LAW FIRM, ABC CORPS 1-100, and JOHN DOES 1-100, the
Defendants, Case No. BER-L-004381-19, was removed from the New
Jersey Superior Court, Bergen County, to U.S. District Court
District of New Jersey (Newark) on June 26, 2019. The District of
New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-14287-MCA-LDW to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Madeline Cox
Arleo.

According to a report by Mesh Medical Device News Desk, the case
alleges legal malpractice by six firms involved in pelvic mesh
litigation in New Jersey.  Women who had their cases settled in the
New Jersey court have "paid improper and excessive attorney's fees
and expenses from their settlements," and in doing so their lawyers
have breached their fiduciary duty while enriching themselves.  If
successful, it could mean the return of conservatively $15 million
to about 1,450 plaintiffs filed in New Jersey who were represented
by the named firms.

The women were implanted with Ethicon (Johnson & Johnson) pelvic
mesh, or pelvic mesh made by C.R. Bard, their cases were
consolidated in Bergen County and they were represented in the New
Jersey courts by one or more of the defendant firms named.  The
report noted that New Jersey court rules do not allow any personal
injury law firm to take more than one-third (33.3%)  contingency in
a personal injury case.  In the case of pelvic mesh litigation, 40%
was the standard fee charged by firms for representation and
out-of-state law firms left that in their retainer contracts.  Some
of the named firms failed to sign retainer agreements with their
New Jersey partner as is required to file a lawsuit in that state.
One Texas firm failed to file to make an appearance in New Jersey
even though his name was on the complaint.  A failure to follow the
New Jersey rules can mean you can't take a percentage of the case
but rather can recover at most attorney's fees on a quantum meruit
basis, which could mean a small fee of about $1,000 per case.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Adam M. Slater, Esq.
          David M. Freeman, Esq.
          Dacid A. Maize, Esq.
          MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN
          103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 207
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 228-9898
          Facsimile: (973) 228-0303
          E-mail: aslater@mskf.net
                  dfreeman@mskf.net
                  dmazie@mskf.net

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Adrienne C. Rogove, Esq.
          Michael Ray Darbee, Esq.
          Stephen M. Orlofsky, Esq.
          BLANK ROME, LLP
          300 Carnegie Center, Suite 220
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 750-2648
          Facsimile: (609) 897-7287
          E-mail: rogove@blankrome.com
                  mdarbee@blankrome.com
                  orlofsky@blankrome.com

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MYRA COWAN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01225-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff moved the Court on
July 10, 2019, for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying proposed collective Fair Labor
      Standards Act class defined as;

      "all hourly call-center employees who have been employed by
      Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, anywhere in the United
      States, at any time from April 1, 2016 through the final
      disposition of this matter (Putative Class Members)";

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
      Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and
      text-message) to the Putative Class Members;

   3. approving a Reminder Email to be sent to Putative Class
      Members halfway through the 60-day notice period; and

   4. requiring Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
      order, identify all Putative Class Members by providing a
      list in electronic and importable format, of the names,
      addresses, and e-mail addresses of all Putative Class
      Members who worked for Defendant at any time from beginning
      three years immediately preceding the filing of the
      Original Complaint through the present.[CC]

Attorneys in Charge for the Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members
are:

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

               - and -

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
            GOODIN DE ROSEWENTZ, LLP
          250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                  jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com

NCAA: Hutcherson Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Hutcherson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association and Gannon University, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02572-JPH-DLP (S.D. Ind., June 25, 2019) seeks to obtain
redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendants' reckless
disregard for the health and safety of generations of generations
of GU student-athletes.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other GU football players from
the long-term dangers associated with them, says the complaint.
They did so knowingly and for profit. As a direct result of
Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and countless former GU
football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries
from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class
Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights and
hold the NCAA accountable.

Plaintiff Cameron Hutcherson is a natural person and citizen of the
State of Texas.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Hampton.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

          - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NCAA: Jones Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02564-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind., June 25,
2019) seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of
Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Western Kentucky University ("WKU")
student-athletes.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other WKU football players from
the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly
and for profit. As a direct result of Defendant's acts and
omissions, Plaintiff and countless former WKU football players
suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA
football. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in
order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA
accountable, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Erik Jones is a natural person and citizen of the State
of Texas.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Hampton.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

          - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NESCTC SECURITY: Plasse et al. Seek Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PLASSE and MICHAEL CARRIERE, Indivually abd On Behalf of
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs,. vs. NESCTC
SECURITY AGENCY, LLC; FACILITY MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, LLC; and
MICHAEL J. MALLOY, Individually and I his Official Capacity, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00358-JJM-LDA (D.R.I., July 2, 2019),
seeks unpaid wages from the Defendants for work performed which
they did not receive any compensation as well as overtime work for
which they did not receive overtime premium pay, as required by
law; and liquidated damages pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act
and Rhode Island's Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, on a pay period basis, the Defendants
reduce the predetermined wages of Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated when the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated failed
to work at least 45 hours in a workweek unless they "make up the
hours prior to the following pay day."[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Louise A. Herman, Esq.
          1445 Wampanoag Trail, Suite 104
          E. Providence, RI 02915
          Telephone: (401) 277 4110
          Facsimile: (401) 433 0139
          E-mail: lherman@lhermanlaw.com

NEW JERSEY: Psychiatric Hospital Staff Can't Stop Rampages
----------------------------------------------------------
William Westhoven, writing for Morristown Daily Record, reports
that an on-call psychiatrist at Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital
testified on July 3, 2019, that staff at the state-run facility in
Parsippany are afraid of violent patients committed there, and are
unable to stop their "psychiatrically decompensated rampages."

Another doctor, former Greystone Medical Director Aleksander
Miceveski, said that declining to support a Department of Justice
investigation into violence, overcrowding and under-staffing there
is "the single greatest regret of my career."

Miceveski's alarming recollection of his nine-year tenure at
Greystone was contained in a reply brief in support of a recent
motion for injunctive relief, the latest filing in an ongoing
class-action lawsuit against the New Jersey Department of Health,
submitted by the state office of the Public Defender on behalf of
11 current or former patients.

Miceveski, who left Greystone in November, said that while serving
as medical director, he repeatedly was met with "difficult-to
understand indifference" from administrators and state officials
when he warned them about "an out-of-control increase in violence,
a significant increase of staff injuries, lack of staffing and
dangerous conditions."

"They continued to ignore the life-threatening conditions," said
Miceveski, who is now chief of inpatient psychiatric services at
St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Paterson.

Plaintiffs named in the original December 2018 lawsuit are:

   * Gov. Phil Murphy

   * Attorney General Gurbir Grewal

   * DOH Health Commissioner Shereef M. Elnahal

   * Department of Human Services Commissioner Carole Johnson

   * Acting DOHS Human Services Commissioner Elizabeth Connolly

   * Current and former Greystone CEOs and others

Relief is sought for the plaintiffs from "policies and practices"
that violate their constitutional rights or their rights under the
Americans With Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and
the Patients' Bill of Rights, according to the suit. It also seeks
to recover plaintiff costs and attorneys fees, and any other relief
"the court deems right and proper."

Department of Health spokeswoman Donna Leusner said the department
does not comment on pending litigation.

In May, the DOH released a report that detailed a 29 percent drop
in assaults throughout the state hospital system since 2018, along
with improvements to staffing issues and other recognized areas of
need.

"Across the hospital system, we've made significant progress in
improving the culture of safety and standardizing training and
evidence-based clinical treatment practices," Elnahal said in a
statement. "There is still much work to do, but every day we are
moving closer to ensuring the best possible quality of care for
those who are among the most vulnerable patients in the state."

Miceveski, though, testified "I realized that [the] Greystone
Administration publicly reported rate of violence/assaults was so
outrageously deflated; it was an ongoing joke among the medical
staff."

He also alleged administrators instructed staff psychiatrists to
"inaccurately represent our status to the courts during our
testimony."

"We were instructed [as covering psychiatrists] to not testify that
we had little-to-no basis of knowledge regarding many patients,
that sometimes we met patients just prior to their hearing,"
Miceveski said. "We were told that we cannot say we are 'covering
psychiatrist,' rather we had to find 'creative words' to explain to
the judge who we are."

When he ignored those instructions to instead "tell the truth,"
Miceveski said he was "humiliated" and reprimanded by his
superiors.

"The pressure to lie under oath, the significant caseload increase
due to lack of psychiatrists, our inability to provide proper
clinical care were the primary reasons for my resignation as a
full-time clinical psychiatrist at Greystone," he said. "I am now
an on-call psychiatrist at Greystone, with no responsibility to
testify."

Violence, drugs

The reply brief filed on July 5 also included the sworn testimony
of a current on-call clinical psychiatrist at Greystone, Dr. Irmute
Usiene.

"At Greystone, there is no patient safety," Usiene testified. "The
Greystone administration is not capable of stopping the influx of
illegal drugs into the hospital.

"Nurses at Greystone sometimes refuse orders to administer
seclusion, restraints, or PRN injections to psychiatrically
decompensated patients out of fear of being assaulted," Usiene
said. "Professionally, I cannot blame them.  As a result, violent
patients are allowed to continue their psychiatrically
decompensated rampages." [GN]


NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Allen Initiated in Gulino Bias Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit titled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1936, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Forest Allen is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Bernard Filed in Gulino Bias Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1924, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Yva Bernard is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Frye Initiated in Gulino Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1928, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Vera Frye is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Guerra Filed in Gulino Bias Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1922, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Leonel Ivan Guerra is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Lopez-Feliciano Filed in Gulino Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1915, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Edna Lopez-Feliciano is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Robinson Filed in Gulino Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit titled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1926, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Ella Robinson is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal v. Charlton Initiated in Gulino Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit titled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1918, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Yvonne Joy Charlton is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Appeal v. Brito Initiated in Gulino Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1942, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Ana Edimela Brito is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Appeal v. Cabrera Filed in Gulino Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1939, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Sandra Cabrera is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Appeal v. Hewitt Filed in Gulino Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1941, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Naomi Hewitt is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Appeal v. Jacques Filed in Gulino Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit titled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1940, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Jude Jacques is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Board of Educ. Files Appeal v. Caraballo in Gulino Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit titled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1927, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Juana Caraballo is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Board of Educ. Files Appeal v. Havercome in Gulino Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1929, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Van Havercome is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Board of Educ. Files Appeal v. Medina in Gulino Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1925, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Ana Medina is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Board of Education Appeals Ruling v. Brady in Gulino Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on April 24, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 14,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1502, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Beverly Orinthia Brady is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Educ. Board Appeals Judgment for Jones in Gulino Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1938, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Maggie Jones is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Educ. Board Appeals Judgment for Noriega in Gulino Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1899, , in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Victoria Noriega is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Educ. Board Appeals Judgment for Todd in Gulino Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1916, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Michelle Renee Todd is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Educ. Board Appeals Judgment v. Michel in Gulino Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
issued on April 25, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 14,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1547, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Josy Michel is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Educ. Board Appeals Ruling v. Hamilton in Gulino Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No.
96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 14,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1533, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Andrea Hamilton is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files Appeal v. Bido in Gulino Bias Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1932, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Mirtha Bido is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files Appeal v. Trujillo in Gulino Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1931, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Iris Trujillo is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Second Cir. Appeal v. Alexis Filed in Gulino Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
issued on April 25, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 14,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1494, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Betty Alexis is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal v. Fletcher Filed in Gulino Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
issued on April 24, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 14,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1508, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Carmen Fletcher is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal v. Gustama Filed in Gulino Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1914, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Carole Gustama is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal v. Luna Filed in Gulino Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1912, , in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Melania Luna is represented by:

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

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

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


NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal v. Marin Commenced in Gulino Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on April 25, 2019, in the lawsuit titled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 14,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1543, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Violeta Altagracia Marin is represented by:

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

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

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


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Charges Improper Fee, Bullard Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAN BULLARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00747-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., June 21,
2019) alleges that the Defendant charges a $1 fee to all
policyowners who have a scheduled monthly payment who send the
Defendant a check each month instead of using the electronic funds
transfer, in violation of the New York General Business Law.

Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company provides life insurance
products to personal, business, and estate markets in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com

               - and -

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


OPRONA, INC: Torres Seeks Overtime Wages for Field Service Techs
----------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO TORRES, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OPRONA, INC. d/b/a ROSEN
USA, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02376 (S.D. Tex., July 2,
2019), alleges that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and its other
Field Service Technicians (FSTs) overtime wages when they work or
worked more than 40 hours in a workweek as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant's pay practices and policies
applied not only to Plaintiff, but also to all Class Members. The
Plaintiff worked as a FST for Defendant Rosen in Houston, Texas.
He was misclassified by Defendant as exempt from overtime
compensation however, he was expected to work over 40 hours per
work week. He reported to and was supervised by Defendant's
Operations/Field Services Manager (Joe Coleman and Phillip
Colborn). Other individuals who work or worked with Plaintiff,
performed the same or similar job duties, were/are paid the same
and were/are titled Field Service Technician.

Plaintiff's primary duties included but were not limited to,
loading trailers, strapping down all the equipment on the trailer,
filling out forms with the start and stop times for the
inspections, unloading the trailer to get the equipment in the
pipeline and driving or transporting the tool used to do the
inspection in the pipeline. All FSTs employed by Defendant
performed these job duties or substantially similar job
duties.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Gregg M. Rosenberg, Esq.
          Tracey D. Lewis, Esq.
          ROSENBERG & SPROVACH
          3518 Travis Street, Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 960-8300
          Facsimile: (713) 621-6670
          E-mail: gregg@rosenberglaw.com
                  tracey@rosenberglaw.com

PILLARS PROTECTION: Condtional Certification of FLSA Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBERT BRANDON CAVANESS
O'BRYANT, for himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. PILLARS PROTECTION SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01354-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Filed April 11, 2019), Robert
Brandon Cavaness O'Bryant and James Bidlack move the Court for an
order:

   1. conditionally certifying Plaintiffs' proposed collective
      Fair Labor Standards Act class defined as:

      "all current and former Security Guards employed by
      Defendant during the 3 years prior to the date of filing
      this Complaint, who were paid on an hourly basis and did
      not receive overtime payment at a rate of one and one-half
      times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in a
      workweek in excess of 40, including drive-time and time
      spent completing pre-shift and post-shift tasks";

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
      Plaintiffs' FLSA claim is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail)
      to Plaintiffs' proposed class as set forth above; and

   3. requiring Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
      order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
      providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
      the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential
      opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendant in the time
      frame specified by Plaintiffs.

Mr. O'Bryant filed the action alleging that Pillars Protection
Services, LLC failed to pay him and similarly situated hourly
employees for all wages earned, including overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one half times their respective regular rates
for the hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
          Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
          Kyle T. Anderson, Esq
          MANSELL LAW, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: 614-610-4134
          Facsimile: 614-547-3614
          E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Kyle@MansellLawLLC.com


PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Abera Sues over 28% Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------
MIKEBEB M. ABERA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIVOTAL SOFTWARE, INC.; ROBERT
MEE; CYNTHIA GAYLOR; PAUL MARITZ; MICHAEL S. DELL; ZANE ROWE; EGON
DURBAN; WILLIAM D. GREEN; MARCY S. KLEVORN; KHOZEMA Z.
SHIPCHANDLER; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC;
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER &
SMITH INCORPORATED; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES
(USA) LLC; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; UBS SECURITIES LLC; WELLS
FARGO SECURITIES, LLC; KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC.; WILLIAM BLAIR
& COMPANY, LLC; MISCHLER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.; SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ &
COMPANY, INC.; SIEBERT CISNEROS SHANK & CO.; LLC; and WILLIAMS
CAPITAL GROUP, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-03601-HSG (N.D.
Cal., June 20, 2019) is a class action on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased Pivotal Software securities pursuant and
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's April 2018 initial public offering.
The Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933.

According to the complaint, on April 20, 2018, the Company filed
its prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC, which forms part of the
Registration Statement. In the IPO, the Company sold 42,550,000
shares of Class A common stock at a price of $15 per share. The
Company received $544.4 million proceeds, net of underwriting
discounts and expenses. The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly
to be used for working capital and other general corporate
purposes, including continued investments in the growth of the
business.

On June 4, 2019, after the market closed, the Company disclosed
sales execution issues, as well as a "complex technology
landscape," negatively impacted its first quarter 2020 financial
results and significantly lowered its full year guidance.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $7.65 per share, over
41%, to close at $10.89 per share on June 5, 2019, on unusually
heavy trading volume. Pivotal Software stock was trading as low as
$10.74 per share, a 28% decline from the $15 per share IPO price.

Pivotal Software, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides a
cloud-native application platform and services in the United
States. Its cloud-native platform, Pivotal Cloud Foundry (PCF),
accelerates and streamlines software development by reducing the
complexity of building, deploying, and operating cloud-native and
modern applications. The company also enables its customers to
accelerate their adoption of a modern software development process
and their business success using its platform through its strategic
services, Pivotal Labs (Labs). Pivotal Software, Inc. markets and
sells PCF and Labs through its sales force and ecosystem partners.
The company was founded in 2013 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com


PLAIN GREEN: Swiger Sues Officers over Loan Interest Rates
----------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE MARIE SWIGER, on behalf of herself and all individuals
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JOEL ROSETTE, TED WHITFORD,
TIM MCINERNEY, and KENNETH E. REES, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-12014-BAF-RSW (E.D. Mich., July 8, 2019), seeks to hold the
Defendants accountable for violations of federal and Michigan laws
in the marketing, making, and collection of loans with criminally
usurious interest rates under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations.

The Plaintiff also asserts a class claim for violations of
Michigan's usury laws and unjust enrichment.

Because the interest rates on Plain Green's loans exceed 25% annual
percentage rate ("APR"), such loans are unlawful and neither the
lender nor any third party may collect, obtain, or receive any
interest, official fees, delinquency or collection charge, attorney
fees or courts costs.

The class action challenges the usurious loan practices, involving
interest rates starting at 354%, which target the most necessitous
and least sophisticated borrowers in a scheme concocted by a
predatory lender to evade state and federal regulations by using
the Chippewa Cree and Otoe-Missouria Tribes as conduits for their
loans.

The basis of the scheme involves a "rent-a-tribe enterprise" that
was established by Think Finance, LLC and its principal, Kenneth E.
Rees, to evade federal banking and consumer finance laws and state
usury and consumer protection laws.

Under the rent-a-tribe model, loans were made in the name of Plain
Green, LLC -- an entity formed under the law of the Chippewa Cree,
a federally recognized Indian tribe centered on the Rocky Boy's
Reservation in Box Elder, Montana, to serve as the front to
disguise Think Finance's role and to shield the scheme from
application of federal and state law by exploiting tribal sovereign
immunity.

Since its creation, Plain Green has engaged in and continues to
engage in a series of predatory loan practices that violate the law
and that have injured numerous people who are struggling
financially.

In return for use of their agency, the tribal companies receive a
nominal flat-fee from loan revenues, but otherwise have at most
nominal control over the income, expenses, or day-to-day operations
of the loan enterprise, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class are:

          Henry Baskin, Esq.
          THE BASKIN LAW FIRM, PC
          355 S. Old Woodward Ave., Suite 100
          Birmingham, MI 48009
          Telephone: (248) 646-3300
          E-mail: hbaskin@baskinlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Allan Falk, Esq.
          ALLAN FALK, PC
          2010 Cimarron Dr.
          Okemos, MI 48864-3908
          Telephone: (517) 381-8449
          E-mail: falklaw@comcast.net

POSTURE WORKS: Sep. 12 Hearing on Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Morton Grove Living & Rehab
Center, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. The Posture Works, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No.: 1:19−cv−04184 (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Robert W. Gettleman entered an order continuing the so-called
Damasco motion for class certification and request for status
conference on Sept. 12, 2019.

According to the docket made by the Clerk on July 10, 2019,
Plaintiff's "Damasco" motion for class certification and request
for status conference is entered and continued to a status hearing
set for Sept. 12 at 9:00 a.m.[CC]

PPDAI GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Stay Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an Opinion denying
Defendant's Motion to Stay in the case captioned MATTER OF PPDAI
GROUP SECURITIES LITIGATION, 654482/2018 (N.Y. Sup.).

In this action alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933
(33 Act), the defendants move, pursuant to CPLR 2201, for a stay of
the putative class action brought by the plaintiffs  pending final
disposition of an action currently pending in federal court.

The Plaintiffs allege that PPDAI's exposure to loans with rates
higher than 36% was significant because, under Chinese law, the
part of any interest rate in excess of 36% is unenforceable. The
Plaintiffs assert that Moving Defendants failed to disclose the
extent of its exposure to these unenforceable loans in the Offering
Materials. Plaintiffs allege that, contrary to the assurances in
its Offering Materials, PPDAI engaged in prohibited credit
enhancement practices, exposing PPDAI to fines and regulatory
repercussions and jeopardizing PPDAI's ability to do business.

The Moving Defendants originally moved to stay this action by Order
to Show Cause. That motion was later withdrawn without prejudice
and Moving Defendants refiled this motion for a stay on notice.
Moving Defendants also request an order staying discovery in this
action until the resolution of any motions to dismiss.

Motion to Stay Action Pursuant to CPLR 2201

CPLR 2201 states that except where otherwise prescribed by law, the
court in which an action is pending may grant a stay of proceedings
in a proper case, upon such terms as may be just. A trial court's
decision on a motion pursuant to CPLR 2201 is discretionary.  

There are numerous factors that a court may consider in determining
whether to issue a stay: 1) which forum will offer a more complete
disposition of the issues 2) which forum has greater expertise in
the type of matter 3) which action was commenced first and the
stage of the litigations 4) whether there is substantial overlap
between the issues raised in each court; 5) whether a stay will
avert duplication of effort and waste of judicial resources and 6)
whether plaintiffs have demonstrated that they would be prejudiced
by a stay.

Identity of Parties, Substantial Overlap of Issues and Complete
Disposition

The Moving Defendants argue that a majority of the Moving
Defendants are named in both actions. The Plaintiffs note, however,
that there is not complete identity of parties, as four Moving
Defendants in this action were not included in the EDNY Action.  

This fact weighs in favor of proceeding with the '33 Act claims in
this court.

The Moving Defendants next contend that there is a substantial
overlap of the issues in this case and the EDNY Action in that both
assert '33 Act claims and seek money damages. Further, the Moving
Defendants posit that the EDNY Action offers more complete relief
because only a federal court can reach a complete resolution of all
of Plaintiffs' claims. In opposition, Plaintiffs urge that their
deliberate choice to pursue this case on a narrower basis by only
bringing easier-to-plead-and-prove '33 Act claims in this forum
should not be overlooked on grounds of more complete resolution in
federal court.

The Plaintiffs also assert that the federal action will not
actually offer a complete disposition because the '33 Act claims in
the EDNY Action are time-barred by the one-year statute of
limitations.

The Court disagrees with Moving Defendants that the EDNY Action
necessarily offers more complete relief than this action because
if, as Plaintiffs argue, the '33 Act claims are time-barred in
federal court, then this Court is the only forum that can resolve
the '33 Act claims. And, if only the '34 Act claims survive in
federal court, overlapping of issues will be reduced. Thus,
consideration of party identity, substantial overlap of issues and
complete disposition does not support imposition of a stay in this
action.

First to file

It is undisputed that Plaintiffs commenced this action two and a
half months before the EDNY Action was commenced. Moving Defendants
argue that, even though first-filed actions are often given
priority, that rule should not be applied here because the EDNY
Action offers a complete disposition of the issues.

Although it is not dispositive, being first to file is still
significant. And, in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Ret.
Fund, 138 S.Ct. 1061, 1075 (2018), the Supreme Court made clear
that state courts have subject matter jurisdiction to hear '33 Act
claims. If the first-to-file rule is uniformly abandoned whenever
later filed federal court actions assert other federal claims along
with '33 Act claims, New York state courts would never exercise
their jurisdiction to resolve first-filed '33 Act claims. This
result would render Cyan meaningless.   

The fact that Plaintiffs commenced this action before the EDNY
Action therefore significantly favors litigation of Plaintiffs' '33
Act claims in this court.

Expertise

The Moving Defendants argue that federal courts have greater
experience and familiarity with federal claims and because this
action only brings federal claims, the federal court is the better
forum.

The Moving Defendants also note that pre-Cyan, the majority of New
York federal courts barred plaintiffs from proceeding with '33 Act
claims in state court. However, these cases are irrelevant, as the
Supreme Court expressly held in Cyan that state courts have
jurisdiction to adjudicate class actions alleging only 1933 Act
violations.

Moreover, the Commercial Division is a long-standing, specialized
business court which deals exclusively with complex commercial
litigation. The federal courts have general dockets of both
criminal and civil actions. Consideration of expertise weighs in
favor of keeping this action in the Commercial Division.

Duplication of effort

The Moving Defendants assert that absent a stay, they will have to
duplicate efforts to litigate the same claims in two courts. The
Plaintiffs correctly argue that this concern is tempered by the
alleged untimeliness of the '33 Act claims in the EDNY Action. The
possibility that at some point there might be two trials is not an
appropriate basis for granting a stay.  

The Moving Defendants remaining arguments in favor of a stay are
unavailing. Also, the Court notes that Moving Defendants do not
cite to any post-Cyan case in support of their arguments in favor
of staying this action and the cases they do cite are inapposite.
Indeed, there are no decisions by the New York appellate courts
addressing a motion to stay a '33 Act claim in favor of a later
filed federal court action in a post-Cyan universe.

In sum, after review of the factors enunciated in Asher and in
accordance with Cyan, the Court declines to stay this action in
favor of the later-filed EDNY Action.

The motion by defendants PPDAI Group, Inc., Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Keefe,
Bruyette & Woods, Law Debenture Corporate Services Inc., and
Giselle Manon to stay Plaintiffs' action is denied.

A full-text copy of the New York Supreme Court's July 1, 2019
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y69k8k8z from
Leagle.com.


PRICESMART INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
PriceSmart, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended  May 31, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.

On May 22, 2019, a class action complaint was filed against
PriceSmart, Inc., as well as certain former and current officers in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, in connection with the Company's 2017 Form 10-K and
2018 Form 10-Qs. The complaint has not yet been served.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against such claims.  However, the outcome
of the legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.  

PriceSmart said, "Based on information available to the Company at
present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss and
accordingly has not accrued any liability associated with this
action."

PriceSmart, Inc. owns and operates U.S. style membership shopping
warehouse clubs in Central America, the Caribbean, and Colombia.
PriceSmart, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in San
Diego, California.


PRO CUSTOM: Huber Sues Over Intrusive Telemarketing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN HUBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PRO CUSTOM SOLAR LLC, D/B/A MOMENTUM SOLAR,
a New Jersey company, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01090-UN4 (M.D.
Pa., June 25, 2019) is an action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, a federal statute enacted in response to widespread
public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance
telemarketing practices.

The Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint and Demand for
Jury Trial against Defendant to stop Momentum Solar from violating
the TCPA by making unsolicited calls to consumers without their
consent, and who are registered on the National Do Not Call
registry. As telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to
hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en
masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of proposed
nationwide class of other persons who received illegal
telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendant.

Plaintiff John Huber is a Pennsylvania resident and a resident of
this District who received Defendant's calls into this District.

Momentum Solar sells and installs solar panels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Anthony Paronich, Esq.
     PARONICH LAW, P.C.
     350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
     Hingham, MA 02043
     Phone: (617) 485-0018
     Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com



QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Hollway Sues over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ELIZABETH HOLLWAY, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
INCORPORATED, and OPTUM 360, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-14392-BRM-JAD (D.N.J., June 27, 2019), alleges that
Defendants failed to properly secure and safeguard protected health
information, as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), medical information, and other
personally identifiable information (collectively, "PII"); failed
to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff and
other Class Members that the integrity of their PII had been
compromised; and failed to provide timely, accurate, and adequate
notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members of the nature and scope
of the PII that was exposed.

On June 3, 2019, Quest publicly announced that approximately two
weeks earlier on May 14, its billing collections vendor AMCA
advised Quest of "unauthorized activity on AMCA's web payment page"
which compromised the PII of approximately 11.9 million Quest
patients. The exposed PII included "financial information (e.g.,
credit card numbers and bank account information), medical
information and other personal information (e.g., Social Security
Numbers)" ("Data Breach"). Quest further revealed that the exposure
occurred between August 1, 2018, and March 30, 2019.

Despite the breadth and sensitivity of the PII that was exposed and
the attendant consequences to patients as a result thereof, the
Defendants failed to disclose the Data Breach for nearly two months
from the time it was first discovered, further exacerbating harm to
patients. Moreover, to date, Defendants have not disclosed the full
extent and nature of the Data Breach, nor offered anything to its
patients to address and compensate the harm they have suffered.

The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect Patient PII. The Defendants
disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by:
intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems
were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose
that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and
security practices to safeguard Patient PII; failing to take
standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach;
failing to monitor and timely detect the Data Breach; and failing
to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice
of the Data Breach.

As a result of Defendants' failure to implement and follow basic
security procedures, Patient PII is now in the hands of thieves.
Plaintiff and Class Members have had to spend, and will continue to
spend, significant amounts of time and money in an effort to
protect themselves from the adverse ramifications of the Data
Breach and will forever be at a heightened risk of identity theft
and fraud, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com

R.J. REYNOLDS: Faces $10.6MM Engle Jury Damages Award
-----------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. is facing a $10.6 million jury verdict
involving the death of a Florida woman in an Engle progeny case.

Courtroom Video Network said on July3 that the 17th Circuit Court
jury in Broward County awarded $6 million in compensatory damages
and $4.6 million in punitive damages.

The lawsuit involved Janice Hamilton, who died in 1992 from lung
cancer.

Engle progeny lawsuits sprang from a decision in 2006 by the
Florida Supreme Court that decertified a $145 billion class-action
lawsuit initially filed by Howard Engle. The decertification means
that former class members are now limited to filing individual
lawsuits stating that cigarettes caused their respective
illnesses.

Reynolds typically appeals Engle jury verdicts. [GN]


RA MEDICAL: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Ra Medical
Systems, Inc. (NYSE: RMED) for violations of the federal securities
laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant to and/or
traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering in September
2018 (the "IPO") are encouraged to contact the firm before August
6, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Ra Medical's evaluation of sales
candidates and training for those candidates hired were inadequate.
The Company failed to ensure that candidates hired for sales
positions had sufficient work experience. This resulted in the
Company experiencing a shortage of qualified sales personnel. At
the same time, the Company experienced problems in increasing
catheter production, suffering production delays. Based on the
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Ra Medical, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Rina Restaino, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone:
            Office: 310-301-3335
            Cell: 424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com [GN]


RANCH AND HOME SUPPLY: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ranch and Home
Supply, LLC. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ranch and Home
Supply, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06301 (S.D. N.Y., July 8,
2019).

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

Ranch And Home Supply, LLC owns and operates retail stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROCKLEDGE ATOMIC FITNESS: Holmes Sues over Pre-Recorded Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Rockledge Atomic
Fitness, Inc. for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. The case is captioned ROBERT HOLMES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
ROCKLEDGE ATOMIC FITNESS, INC. D/B/A PLANET FITNESS, Defendant,
Case No. 6:19-cv-01205 (M.D. Fla., July 1, 2019).

Plaintiff Robert Holmes alleges that the Defendant used prerecorded
messages as a means of marketing its business and promoting sales
to prior customers who have since cancelled their membership. The
prerecorded messages asked Plaintiff to join Defendant's gym and
presented him with a discount/promotional code which he could use
to obtain a discount on a new gym membership.

Rockledge Atomic Fitness, Inc. is a Florida company that owns and
operates a fitness center located at 1802 S US HWY 1, Rockledge,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Eisenband, Esq.
     EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
     515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Telephone: (954) 533-4092
     E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

           - and -

     Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
     IJH LAW
     14 NE First Ave. 10th Floor
     Miami, FL 33132
     E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
     Telephone: (786) 351-8709


SAEJ ENTERPRISES: Court Issues Protective Order in Millan
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota,
Western Division, issued a Protective Order in the case captioned
RYAN McMILLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. SAEJ ENTERPRISES, L.L.C. d/b/a SAEJ ENTERPRISES. Case
No. 1:19-cv-00091-DLH-CRH. (N.D.W.D.).

Documents, electronically stored information (including writings,
drawings, charts, photographs, sound recordings, video recordings,
images, and other data or data compilations), other tangible items
produced in discovery and testimony in this litigation that contain
confidential information shall hereafter be referred to as
Protected Materials.

The Party seeking to mark Protected Materials shall hereafter be
referred to as the Designating Party. Except as otherwise indicated
below, documents, electronically stored information, other tangible
items produced in discovery, and testimony designated Confidential
or Subject to Protective Order that are produced or delivered to
the Parties and/or the Parties' attorneys, consultants, agents, or
experts in this action, shall be Protected Materials and given
confidential treatment as described below.

For purposes of this Protective Order, Protected Materials includes
any document, electronically stored information, other tangible
items produced in discovery, and testimony that the Designating
Party believes in good faith to contain confidential or sensitive
information as defined by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(c)(1)(G), including trade secrets or other confidential
research, development, or commercial information; protected health
information (PHI); or other personal information that is protected
by law. Protected Materials shall not contain or consist of any
information generally available to the public.

Deposition testimony may also be designated as Protected
Materials.

(a) The Designating Party must designate the protected testimony
within 30 days of service of the final transcript of the testimony
to be designated. In designating such testimony, the Designating
Party must specifically identify (by page and line) the discrete
portions of the testimony to be protected.

(b) Testimony may be designated as subject to this Protective Order
by declaration of a Party or Party's Counsel on the record during a
deposition. If testimony is designated as protected on the record
during a deposition, the testimony will be subject to this
Protective Order until 30 days after service of the final
transcript of the testimony to be designated, unless the
Designating Party has otherwise designated the testimony as
protected in accordance with paragraph 4(a).

To the extent that Protected Materials or information contained
therein are used in the taking of depositions, such Protected
Materials or information shall remain subject to the provisions of
this Protective Order.

Both the Protected Materials and the information contained therein
shall be treated as confidential. The Protected Materials or
information contained therein may be shown, disseminated, or
disclosed only to the following persons:

   (a) The Parties to this action;

   (b) If a party is a business entity, then that party's current
officers, directors, and partners;

   (c) Counsel of record for any party in this case, including
other attorneys and supporting personnel in Counsel's law firms;

   (d) Experts and consultants retained by a party for the
preparation or trial of this case including their employees,
associates, and support staff, provided that no disclosure shall be
made to any expert or consultant who is employed by a competitor of
the Designating Party;

   (e) The Court and Court personnel (including Special Masters
appointed by the Court);

   (f) Mediators or Special Masters jointly retained by the
parties;

   (g) Any witness giving deposition testimony in this case;

   (h) A third party who is employed by a party for litigation
support (such as document coding, image scanning, exhibit
preparation, copying or management of discovery materials, court
reporting services, translation services, mock trial, and/or jury
profiling), but who is not the competitor of any party;

   (i) Any other person to whom the Designating Party provides
prior, written consent; and

   (j) Such other person as this Court may order after notice and
an opportunity to be heard.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 1, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxql3x34 from Leagle.com.

Ryan McMillan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Parmet --
matt@parmet.law -- Parmet PC.

Saej Enterprises, L.L.C., doing business as Saej Enterprises,
Defendant, represented by William C. Black , Larson Latham Huettl
LLP, P.O. Box 2056, 1100 College Drive, Bismarck, ND 58501


SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Young Sues over Technicians' Pay Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO E. YOUNG, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-01027 (Wash. Super., July 2, 2019), alleges that
Defendant engaged in a systematic scheme of wage and hour
violations against its current and former mobile technicians and
technicians who were compensated by Defendant on a production-based
piece-rate compensation plan.

According to the complaint, the Defendant paid its mobile
technicians and technicians on a piece-rate scheme under which it
did not compensate mobile technicians and technicians separately
and hourly, or at all, for rest periods and certain
non-installation tasks as required under Washington law, and failed
to make retroactive back payments to Plaintiff and Class Members.

The Defendant violated Washington wage and hour law and is liable
to Plaintiff and Class Members pursuant to the Washington
Industrial Welfare Act, Washington 9 Minimum Wage Act, Washington
Wage Rebate Act, and regulations promulgated by the State's
Department of Labor and Industries and codified in WAC 296-126.

During his employment, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant to
install vehicle windows as a mobile technician (until approximately
October 2016) and as a technician. From approximately April 2014 to
April 2017, Plaintiff was paid on Defendant's piece-rate
Performance Pay Plan (PPP) when he met certain incentive goals
pursuant to the compensation policy. When he did not meet the
incentive goals, he was paid on an hourly basis. At all relevant
times, when he worked as a mobile technician, Plaintiff worked out
of Defendant's shop in Seattle, Washington, and installed windows
for the Defendant throughout the greater Seattle area. When he
worked as a technician, Plaintiff was employed to install windows
at Defendant's Shoreline, Washington shop.  Plaintiff worked
approximately 5-6 days per week and approximately 10-11 hours per
day, approximately 5-6 days per week and approximately 9 hours per
day for Defendant.  He was not compensated separately and hourly
for rest breaks and for all non-installation activity, during pay
periods when he was paid on a piece rate pursuant to the PPP
piece-rate compensation basis, and Plaintiff did not receive any
retro back payments, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          India Lin Bodien, Esq.
          INDIA LIN BODIEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          2522 North Proctor Street, No. 387
          Tacoma, WA 98406-5338
          Telephone: (253) 212-7913
          Facsimile: (253)276-0081
          E-mail: india@indialinbodienlaw.com

               - and -

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          Brian Denlinger, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          2602 North Proctor Street, Suite 205
          Tacoma, WA 98406
          Telephone: (310) 277-0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com

SANDY HUTCHENS: 10th Cir. Affirms Contempt of Court in Hutchens
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, issued an Order
and Judgment affirming the District Court's judgment Finding
Defendants In Contempt of Court in the case captioned CGC HOLDING
COMPANY, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; HARLEM
ALGONQUIN LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; JAMES T.
MEDICK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SANDY HUTCHENS, a/k/a Fred Hayes, a/k/a
Moishe Alexander, a/k/a Moshe Ben Avraham; TANYA HUTCHENS; JENNIFER
HUTCHENS, Defendants-Appellants. No. 18-1444. (10th Cir.).

Defendants-Appellants Sandy Hutchens, Tanya Hutchens, and Jennifer
Hutchens, proceeding pro se, appeal from a post-judgment order
finding them in contempt for failing to pay a discovery sanction
and ordering them to pay an additional $500 sanction per day until
the contempt is purged by payment of the discovery sanction.
Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291.

A magistrate judge entered a discovery sanctions order awarding
Plaintiffs $62,457.13 in attorney fees and costs incurred in
connection with two motions to compel, The Hutchens Defendants were
ordered to pay the award by January 31, 2017, but they failed to
object to the order or pay the award.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking sanctions, including a
finding of contempt of court, based on the Hutchens Defendants'
failure or refusal to comply with the January 2017 order. On
October 12, 2018, the district court granted the motion and found
the Hutchens Defendants in contempt (Contempt Order).  

The Hutchens Defendants argue that the Contempt Order was improper
because 1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter a civil
contempt order over a year post-trial and after the judgment was on
appeal and 2) the January 2017 order was subsumed into the judgment
on attorney fees.

The Court is not persuaded by their arguments.

In general, the imposition of costs, attorney fees, and contempt
sanctions involve collateral issues that may be considered after
the principal suit has been terminated. But Plaintiffs argue that
the district court exceeded its jurisdiction because the Contempt
Order will affect their pending appeal of the amended judgment in
18-1014. They fail to explain, however, how the Contempt Order,
which was based on Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions filed four
months after the Hutchens Defendants filed their appeal from the
amended judgment, will affect that appeal. The Contempt Order
involves a collateral matter that was not comprehended within the
Hutchens Defendants' appeal of the amended judgment.

The district court was therefore not divested of jurisdiction to
consider Plaintiffs' motion seeking sanctions for the Hutchens
Defendants' failure to comply with the January 2017 order and to
enter its Contempt Order.

The Hutchens Defendants also seem to argue the district court
exceeded its authority by issuing the Contempt Order more than a
year post-trial. But the district court has inherent power to
enforce compliance with its lawful orders through civil contempt.
And the Hutchens Defendants fail to cite to any authority that
limits the time for a court to exercise its inherent authority to
enforce compliance with its orders.

Moreover, the Hutchens Defendants do not argue that the district
court lacked jurisdiction to enter the January 2017 order at the
time it was entered or that the January 2017 order was unlawful.
Because the district court had the jurisdiction and authority to
enter the January 2017 order, it had the inherent authority to
enforce compliance with that lawful order through its Contempt
Order.

The Court affirms the district court's Contempt Order.

A full-text copy of the Tenth Circuit's July 1, 2019 Order and
Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/y53q2ezl from
Leagle.com.


SARASOTA DOCTORS HOSPITAL: Day Suit Transferred to M.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, David Day, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, v. Sarasota Doctors Hospital, Inc.,
Case No. 2017CC007665 (Filed on Dec. 1, 2017), was transferred from
the County Court of Florida's Twelfth Judicial District to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
June 24, 2019. This breach of contract lawsuit is now assigned to
Hon. Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington. The United District
Court for the Middle District of Florida opened Case No.
8:19-cv-1522-T-33TGW for all further proceedings.

Sarasota Doctors Hospital is a full-service, emergency care
facility specializing in orthopedics and heart health in the
Sarasota. [BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Bruce S. Rosenberg, Esq.
     ROSENBERG LAW, PA
     2385 NW Executive Center Dr Suite 100
     Boca Raton, FL 33431-8510
     Telephone: (561) 962-2736
     Facsimile: (561) 962-2710
     E-mail: rosenberg@rosenberglawpa.com

             - and -

     Heather Alexis Rosenberg, Esq.
     ROSENBERG LAW, P.A.
     1895 Floyd Street, Suite B
     Boca Raton, FL 34239
     Telephone: (941) 373-6777
     Facsimile: (941) 893-1410
     E-mail: arosenberg@rosenberglawpa.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

     Ashley Bruce Trehan, Esq.
     BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC
     401 E Jackson St Ste 2400
     Tampa, FL 33602-5236
     Telephone: (813) 222-2083
     Facsimile: (813) 384-2814
     E-mail: ashley.trehan@bipc.com

             - and -

     Walter J. Tache, Esq.
     TACHE, BRONIS, CHRISTIANSON AND DESCALZO
     150 SE 2nd Ave Suite 600
     Miami, FL 33131
     Telephone: (305) 537-9565
     Facsimile: (305) 537-9567
     E-mail: wtache@tachebronis.com

             - and -

     John David Emmanuel, Esq.
     BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC
     401 E Jackson St Ste 2400
     Tampa, FL 33602-5236
     Telephone: (813) 222-8180
     Facsimile: (813) 222-8189
     E-mail: John.emmanuel@bipc.com


SAVE-A-LOT KNOXVILLE: McCloud Appeals Decision to Sixth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Larry McCloud filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Larry McCloud v. Save-a-lot Knoxville, LLC, et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00486, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.

The appellate case is captioned as Larry McCloud v. Save-a-lot
Knoxville, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-5653, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant LARRY MCCLOUD, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Brian K. Herrington, Esq.
          SCHLANGER LAW GROUP LLP
          602 Steed Road, Suite 100
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 566-1538
          E-mail: bherrington@consumerprotection.net

Defendants-Appellees SAVE-A-LOT KNOXVILLE, LLC, NEWCORP, LLC, MORAN
FOODS, LLC, and SAVE-A-LOT, LTD, are represented by:

          Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 416-8185
          E-mail: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc H. Harwell, Esq.
          HARWELL LAW GROUP
          832 Georgia Avenue, Suite 510
          Chattanooga, TN 37402
          Telephone: (423) 756-7333
          E-mail: marc@harwelllawgroup.com


SCELZI ENTERPRISES: Court Vacates Dates Due to Settlement in Murray
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order vacating Dates in View of Settlement
Agreement in the case captioned RODERICK MURRAY an individual, on
behalf of the State of California, as a private attorney general,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. SCELZI
ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 to 50,
inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 1:18-CV-01492-LJO-SKO. (E.D.
Cal.).

The Plaintiff must file his motion for preliminary approval of the
class action settlement on or before August 27, 2019.

In view of the class-wide settlement, all other deadlines and
hearings, including the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration set for July 8, 2019, are vacated.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 1, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4wq5dva from Leagle.com.

Roderick Murray, an individual, on behalf of the State of
California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan
Melmed -- jm@melmedlaw.com -- Melmed Law Group P.C. & Craig Justin
Ackermann -- cja@ackermanntilajef.com -- Ackermann & Tilajef, PC.

Scelzi Enterprises, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant,
represented by S. Brett Sutton -- brett@suttonhague.com -- Sutton
Hague Law Corporation, P.C.


SDX HOME: Buhl Seeks OT & Minimum Wages for Health Assistants
-------------------------------------------------------------
RACHAEL BUHL, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SDX HOME CARE OPERATIONS,
LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through
100, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV23623 (Cal. Super., July 8,
2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay all overtime and
minimum wages under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in the non-exempt position
of "Home Health Assistant" from approximately February 1, 2018 to
approximately November 2, 2018, in Lancaster, California. Plaintiff
worked directly in patients' homes or sometimes at assisted living
facilities.

Specifically, the Defendants required Plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees to clock-in using a mobile phone application, "ClearCare
Go," which recorded their actual time worked. Plaintiff and other
aggrieved employees were instructed to arrive to their shifts at
the patient's home or assisted living facility 10 minutes prior to
clocking-in and were required leave 10 minutes after clocking-out,
in order to do "shift reports" with the employee who they were
relieving, or who was relieving them, which included discussing
what had taken place with the patient during the shift, explaining
any necessary information related to medications or other medical
issues, or any other pertinent information needed to be passed on
to the following shift.

However, the Defendants would compensate employees for their
scheduled shift only (i.e. 8.0 hours). Therefore, the Plaintiff and
other aggrieved employees would not be compensated for all hours
actually worked, depriving them of all required minimum and
overtime wages earned.

The Defendants provide in-home health care and hospice services to
elderly and disabled persons throughout California.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
          Brittaney D. de la Torre, 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: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmi dt@haineslawgroup.com
                  mmoen@haineslawgroup.com
                  bdelatorre@haineslaewgroup .com

               - and -

          Asaf Agazan, Esq.
          ASAF LAW, APC
          2300 Westwood Blvd., Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (424) 254-8870
          Facsimile: (888) 254-0651
          E-mail: asaf@lawasaf.com

SEMPRIS LLC: Solorio Sues over Racketeering Activities
------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Sempris, LLC for
alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act. The case is captioned Diana Solorio Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Sempris, LLC et
al, Case No. 2:19-cv-05473-ODW-PLA (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2019). It
is assigned to Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Sempris, LLC is a
marketing services company that engages in developing, marketing,
and managing a portfolio of continuity savings, lifestyle, and
customer relationship marketing programs for consumer marketing
companies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
     245 Fischer Avenue Unit D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Telephone: (800) 400-6808
     Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
     E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

             - and -

     Jason A Ibey
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
     245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Telephone: (800) 400-6808
     Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
     E-mail: jason@kazlg.com

             - and -

     Joshua B Swigart, Esq.
     HYDE AND SWIGART APC
     2221 Camino Del Rio South Suite 101
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Telephone: (619) 233-7770
     Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
     E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

             - and -

     Nicholas Barthel, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
     245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Telephone: (800) 400-6808
     Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
     E-mail: nicholas@kazlg.com

             - and -

     Sam H Nordean
     NORDEAN LAW APC
     245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Telephone: (949) 236-6296
     Facsimile: (888) 254-3222
     E-mail: sam@nordeanlaw.com


SERAPHINE MATERNITY: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seraphine Maternity,
LLC. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Seraphine Maternity, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06308 (S.D. N.Y., July 8, 2019).

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

Seraphine is an international maternity fashion label and store
offering top maternity fashion destination for stylish mums to
be.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SERVICE KING: Court Dismisses Ajemyan Labor Suit Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dale S. Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California dismissed without prejudice, the case, HAGOP
AJEMYAN and HUGO GUTIERREZ, as individuals and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SERVICE KING PAINT & BODY, LLC,
a Texas limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00644-DSF-KS (C.D. Cal.),
in entirety.  The parties' have submitted and the Court has granted
their Stipulation of Dismissal of Entire Action Pursuant to Rule
41(a)(1)(A)(ii).  The dismissal does not require notice to putative
class members.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/1HF6Op from Leagle.com.

Hagop Ajemyan, as individual and on behalf of others similarly
situated & Hugo Gutierrez, as individual and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Eric Albert
Boyajian, Law Offices of Eric A Boyajian APC & Amaras Zargarian,
Law Offices of Erica A Boyajian APC.

Service King Paing and Body, LLC, a Texas limited liablity company,
Defendant, represented by Spencer C. Skeen --
spencer.skeen@ogletree.com -- Olgletree Deakins Nash Smoak and
Stewart PC, Jesse C. Ferrantella -- jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com
-- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC, Nikolas T.
Djordjevski -- nikolas.djordjevski@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak and Stewart PC & Timothy L. Johnson --
tim.johnson@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart
PC.


SFP DEVELOPMENT: Faces Marnet Suit in California Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SFP Development
Company, LLC. The case is captioned as Grover A. Marnet II, on
behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SFP
Development Company, LLC and Does 1-100, the Defendants, Case No.
34-2019-00259409-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., June 26, 2019). The suit
alleges employment-related violation.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Clayeo Clyde Arnold, Esq.
          ARNOLD LAW FIRM
          865 Howe Ave.
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: carnold@justice4you.com

SMILEDIRECTCLUB: Faces Sollinger Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SmileDirectClub, LLC.
The case is captioned as Taylor Sollinger on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SmileDirectClub,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05977-JPO (S.D.N.Y., June 26,
2019). Mr. Sollinger sues over deceptive trade practices demanding
$5 million in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge J.
Paul Oetken.

SmileDirectClub is a teledentistry company. The company was
co-founded in 2014 by Jordan Katzman and Alex Fenkell and is based
out of Nashville, Tennessee. SmileDirectClub produces 3D-printed
clear aligners.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Justin Aaron Kuehn, Esq.
          MOORE KUEHN, PLLC
          30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 709-8245
          E-mail: jkuehn@moorekuehn.com

SONOS INC: Steiner Sues over Destructive Software Updates of CR100
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Sonos, Inc. for
violations of the Unfair Business Practices Act, the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and
the California Computer Crime Law, and for trespass to chattels and
for conversion. The case is captioned MATTHEW STEINER,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. SONOS, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant,
Case No. 19STCV21795 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 21,
2109).

On or around July 2018, thousands of Sonos CR100 Controllers in
homes and small offices across the country failed. These failures
resulted from SONOS, INC. implementing a software update that CR100
Controllers purchased prior to July, 2018. The failed Sonos CR100
Controllers displayed an error message that services were
unavailable and directed consumers to "www.sonos.com/crl00". Sonos
devised and executed its software update as a means of gaining an
advantage over its competition in the market by rendering the
devices inoperable and forcing consumers to purchase replacement
devices. Sonos did not announce its software update would render
the Sonos CR100 Controllers inoperable to consumers, and consumers
did not anticipate it. With its update, Sonos acted by force to
limit choice instead of competing lawfully, based upon the quality
and servicing of its consumer devices. Sonos' unfair methods of
competition and deceptive trade practices harmed people who own its
CR100 Controllers. Plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting Sonos
from hijacking their devices again, and appropriate recovery for
himself and the other owners of Sonos devices affected by the
software update.

Sonos, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, duly authorized and
conducting business in California. It is a consumer electronics
company that develops and manufactures smart speakers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Kelsey L. Kuberka, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Telephone: (323) 306-4234
     Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
     E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com
             kkuberka@toddflaw.com

STRATEGIC PRACTICE: Ryan D.D.S. Sues over Facsimile Advertisement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE T. RYAN, D.D.S., P.C., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STRATEGIC PRACTICE
SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-11983-AC-MKM (E.D.
Mich., June 2, 2019), alleges that Defendant sent advertisements by
facsimile in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
and the regulations the Federal Communications Commission.

Defendant sent Plaintiff at least eight advertisements by facsimile
and in violation of the TCPA. The Plaintiff did not grant Defendant
prior express invitation or permission to send any advertisement to
Plaintiff by facsimile.

Moreover, Defendant's faxes do not contain an opt-out notice,
making any "established business relationship" irrelevant in this
case. The Plaintiff requested that Defendant stop sending faxes,
but even then, the Defendant continued to send Plaintiff its fax
advertisements.

Defendant's unsolicited faxes damaged Plaintiff and the other class
members. Unsolicited faxes tie up the telephone lines, prevent fax
machines from receiving authorized faxes, prevent their use for
authorized outgoing faxes, cause undue wear and tear on the
recipients' fax machines, and require additional labor to
attempt to discern the source and purpose of the unsolicited
message. The recipient of a "junk" fax transmission loses the use
of its fax machine, and many lose their paper and ink toner in
printing the fax. Such an unsolicited fax interrupts the
recipient's privacy.

The Plaintiff is a medical provider of dental healthcare services.
Defendant is a for-profit provider of consulting and training
services for dentists.[BN]

The attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          E-mail: service@classlawyers.com

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Pay for Services Reps
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MELVIN RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, 713 New Street Camden, NJ 08103, the Plaintiff, vs.
SUBARU OF AMERICA 60 Newton Avenue Camden, NJ 08103, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-14659 (D.N.J., July 2, 2019), seeks to redress
Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law. The Plaintiff brings this action on
behalf of all persons presently and formerly employed by Defendant
in the United States as "Customer Retailer Services
Representatives" and/or in other similar non-exempt positions, who
are or were subject to Defendant's pay practices and policies at
any point from the three years to the date that the instant action
was initiated through the present.

The Defendant has acted and refused to act on grounds that apply
generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or
corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the
class as a whole insofar as Defendant have applied consistent
unlawful wage policies to the entire class and have refused to end
these policies.

The Defendant's violations of the FLSA include, but are not limited
to, not paying Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs at least one and
one-half times their regular rates for all hours worked more than
40 per workweek.

Subaru of America, Inc. wholesales and markets new and used cars.
The Company offers passenger automobiles, trucks, trailers, and
other motor vehicles. Subaru of America serves customers in the
United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 N. Kings Highway Ste 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Williams Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as ANTONIO WILLIAMS and JAMES
ARIAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100,
Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1833454 (Filed Dec. 21, 2018),
was removed from the California Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on July 8,
2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:19-cv-01250 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendants have a consistent policy
of failing to pay wages, including minimum wages to the Plaintiffs
and other non-exempt employees in the State of California in
violation of California state wage and hour laws.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          Melissa M. Kurata, Esq.
          THE NOURMANI LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone (310) 553-3600
          Facsimile (310) 553-3603

TOTAL SAFETY: Gilreath Files ERISA Suit Over Denied COBRA Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY GILREATH, and EULA GILREATH, on behalf of themselves,
Individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOTAL SAFETY U.S., INC. and the TOTAL
SAFETY U.S., INC. EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02230 (S.D. Tex., June 21, 2019) is a
civil enforcement action brought pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 concerning the failure of
Total Safety U.S., Inc., the plan sponsor of the Total Safety
Employee Health and Welfare Benefit Plan, to provide participants
and beneficiaries in the Total Safety Health Plan with the general
notice of their rights under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) at the time of commencement of
coverage under the Total Safety Health Plan; a copy of the Summary
Plan Description (SPD) for the Total Safety Health Plan within 90
days after the employee becoming a participant in the Plan; the
notice of their rights to elect continuation coverage under COBRA
upon the occurrence of a qualifying event under COBRA; and the same
opportunity to elect other medical coverage as other Plan
participants during an open enrollment period.

The Defendant Total Safety's failure to provide COBRA coverage
deprived Plaintiffs and the Class of necessary health coverage to
which they were entitled by law, asserts the complaint. The failure
of Total Safety and the Total Safety Health Plan (administered by
Total Safety) to provide statutorily required COBRA notices and the
SPD prevented Plaintiffs and the Class from exercising their rights
to COBRA coverage and made Total Safety and the Total Safety Health
Plan liable to Plaintiffs and the Class for statutory penalties of
up to $110.00 a day for each failure to give notice to a Total
Safety Health Plan participant or beneficiary (referred to in COBRA
as covered employees and spouses and qualified beneficiaries
depending on the nature of the notice obligation breached), says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Gregory Gilreath was employed by Total Safety from April
2016 until September 2016. Plaintiff Eula Gilreath is the spouse of
Gregory Gilreath and a qualified beneficiary under the Total Safety
Health Plan.

Total Safety U.S., Inc. Employee Health and Welfare Benefit Plan
provides medical, dental and/or vision benefits to employees of
Total Safety and their beneficiaries directly or through insurance,
reimbursement or otherwise, and is an employee welfare benefit
plan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     J. Alfred Southerland, Esq.
     SOUTHERLAND LAW FIRM
     4141 Southwest Freeway, Suite 300
     Houston, TX 77027
     Phone: (281) 928-4932
     Facsimile: (713) 228-8507
     Email: alf@southerlandlawfirm.com


TRAMEC CONTINENTAL: Henry Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Tramec
Continental-Aero, its subsidiaries and affiliates for alleged
violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The
case is captioned NADEJA HENRY, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRAMEC CONTINENTAL-AERO
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH07551 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., June
24, 2019).

Plaintiff Nadeja Henry alleges that the Defendants have violated
BIPA by engaging in unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric data.
In addition, Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant also failed to
inform its employees that it discloses their handprint data to
other, currently unknown, third parties, which host the biometric
data in their data centers; failed to inform its employees of the
purposes and duration for which it collects their sensitive
biometric data; and, failed to obtain written releases from
employees before collecting their handprints.

Tramec Continental-Aero is a corporation that conducts business in
the State of Illinois, including Cook County. The company is
engaged in the business of stocking and distributing locknut
inventories across the country for heavy-duty tractor and trailer
markets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     Catherine Mitchell, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     100 N. Riverside Plaza Suite 2150
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Telephone: (312) 233-1550
     Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
     E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
             cmitchell@stephanzouras.com


UNITED STATES: Dowell Extraordinary Writ Challenge Denial Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SAMUEL DOWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee, Case No. 19-35110 (9th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's judgment denying Dowell's "Extraordinary Writ Challenge."

Dowell appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying
his "Extraordinary Writ Challenge."  He contends that the district
court erred in concluding that he was attempting to attack his
conviction.  Rather, he argues that he was seeking a "class action
civil writ" under 28 U.S.C. Section 1651 based on the
unconstitutionality of the federal statutes proscribing child
pornography, 18 U.S.C. Section 2250-2260.

As an initial matter, the Court finds that Dowell points to no
authority suggesting that 28 U.S.C. Section 1651 is a proper
vehicle for such an action.  Moreover, child pornography is not
protected by the First Amendment, and the Commerce Clause
authorizes Congress to criminalize its intrastate possession.  The
district court, therefore, properly denied relief.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/LjGpZq from Leagle.com.


UNIVERSAL CREDIT: Alvarez Sr. Sues over Background Checks
---------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL ALVAREZ, SR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL CREDIT SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02693 (E.D. Pa., June 20, 2019) alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned
to Paul S. Diamond.

Universal Credit Services, LLC provides mortgage services, lending
services and tri-merge credit reports. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, 25th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          Elizabeth Apostola, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
                  ea@zemellawllc.com


VERB TECHNOLOGY: Securities Statement Misleading, Hartmann Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT C. HARTMANN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. VERB TECHNOLOGY COMPANY,
INC., and RORY J. CUTAIA, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05896
(C.D. Cal., July 9, 2019), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Verb common
stock between January 3, 2018 and May 2, 2018, both days inclusive.
The Plaintiff purchased Verb securities during the Class Period at
artificially inflated prices.

On January 3, 2018, the Company announced a purported agreement
with Oracle America, Inc. widespread attention. During the Class
Period the stock increased from approximately $0.12 per share on
January 3, 2018 to $2.70 per share on April 19, 2018, an
astonishing increase of over 2000%.

The statements were materially false and/or misleading because they
misinterpreted and failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business and operations which were
known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements as
to the scope of the Agreement with Oracle as the Company did not
have a contract with Oracle to jointly develop and market the
Company's product and that as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

Following the rapid rise of the Company's stock price, on April 23,
2018, the truth as to the Company's relationship with Oracle began
to emerge. First, the Company revealed the actual terms of the
Oracle Agreement through the filing of a Form 8-K. The terms of the
agreement revealed that the prior representations as  to the scope
of the relationship with Oracle were materially misleading. As a
result of the foregoing, the market price of Verb securities was
artificially inflated during the Class Period.

As a result of the wrongful conduct alleged, the Plaintiff and
other members of the Class have suffered damages, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
          Brittany N. Dejong, Esq.
          Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
          Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
             FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 1820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619/239-4599
          Facsimile: 619/234-4599
          E-mail: byrd@whafh.com
                  dejong@whafh.com
                  guiney@whafh.com
                  kcooper@whafh.com

VIKING SUPPLY: Couple Sues Over Faulty Sprinkler
------------------------------------------------
Nicole Valdes, writing for ABC15 Arizona, reports that a device
meant to protect their home from damage instead caused tens of
thousands of dollars worth without reason or warning.

"I couldn't even believe it was happening," said Christine. "First
you think, is there a fire? Is there a fire somewhere else in the
house was my first thought, but there was nothing."

Christine and Joe Ray say they've lived in their Scottsdale home
for 25 years, but last year, had to do a major renovation after a
faulty sprinkler head burst inside the bedroom. Water soaked the
carpet, drywall, furniture, and ruined computers and other
electronics inside.

"Everything had to be either washed, repaired, re-varnished,
painted, new drywall, new flooring," said Christine.

The couple was forced to sleep elsewhere for two months until the
damage was fixed. Their insurance company, Liberty Mutual, covered
less than half the cost.

"I can't believe that there are thousands of people out there that
have the same problem, but nothing has been done," she added.

The Ray's are just one of many who've reported sprinkler heads
suddenly bursting inside their home, without any reason to set them
off.

The culprit in most cases -- a sprinkler head manufactured by
Viking Supply Network. The company is now facing a class action
lawsuit for selling the faulty devices.

"We hired a professional company to come out here and install it
that is certified," she added. "They have nothing to say about it
either."

The Ray family says they're still battling with their insurance
company after they say Liberty Mutual raised their rates due to the
claim.

Their advice; find out what's in your ceiling before it happens to
you.

You can call local contractors or in some cases, your local fire
department to inspect sprinklers to check for any issues or the
type of sprinklers. Some contractors who know of the problem with
the Viking 457 sprinkler heads are offering to replace them free of
charge. [GN]


WEBCOLLEX, LLC: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIAN ROZANI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. WEBCOLLEX, LLC, d/b/a CKS FINANCIAL, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00980-DEJ (E.D Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as
class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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


WESTERN EXPRESS: Cruz et al. Seek Unpaid Wages for Truck Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL CRUZ and IRINA CARMEN NEACSU Individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. WESTERN EXPRESS,
INC., a Tennessee Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00575 (M.D. Tenn., July 9, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and other damages owed to Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated current and former employees, also known as
"over the road" truck drivers under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is an asset-based truckload carrier headquartered in
Nashville, Tennessee with terminals and facilities throughout the
United States. Defendant owns and operates a fleet of over 2800
power units and over 6500 trailers that are 100% GPS trackable.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' minimum wage claims are
unified by common theories of Defendant's FLSA statutory
violations.

The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class.
Plaintiffs and other members of the class were subjected to the
same operational, compensation and timekeeping policies and
practices of Defendant, without being paid for all their
aforementioned training and orientation work at the applicable FLSA
minimum wage.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Nathanial Bishop, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  jholt@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

WHITE COMPANY: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The White Company,
Inc. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The White Company, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06311 (S.D. N.Y., July 8, 2019).

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

The White Company is a retailer of linens, home decor, dinnerware,
and furniture based in England.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Simon Sues over Phony Discounts
------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Williams-Sonoma,
Inc. for alleged violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
the False Advertising Law and the Unfair Competition Law. The case
is captioned JENNIVINE LEE SIMON, for Herself, as a Private
Attorney General, and/or On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC.; and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-576923 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco, June 24, 2019).

In this complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Williams-Sonoma has
perpetrated a massive false reference pricing scheme involving
thousands of its Exclusive Products, whereby Williams-Sonoma
advertises an inflated and fictitious "Sugg. Price" (i.e., a false
reference price) alongside the Exclusive Product's purported "sale"
price which is advertised in bold red text.

San Francisco, California-based Williams-Sonoma currently operates
211 retail stores throughout the United States, with 33 locations
in California.  Williams-Sonoma describes itself as a leading
specialty retailer of high-quality products for the kitchen and
home. Approximately half of Williams-Sonoma's U.S. sales are in its
211 brick-and-mortal retail stores; the other half of U.S. sales
are on the Williams-Sonoma website at www.williams-sonoma.com.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
     HATTIS & LUKACS
     400 108th Avenue NE, Suite 500
     Bellevue, WA 98004
     Telephone: (425) 233-8650
     Facsimile: (425) 412-7171
     E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com

             - and -

     Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
     HATTIS & LUKACS
     1401 Twenty-First Street, Suite 400
     Sacramento, CA 958111
     Telephone: (916) 292-9739
     Facsimile: (916) 444-8723
     E-mail: pkl@hattislaw.com


WINCO HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Petersen Suit With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California dismissed with prejudice the case,
DENNIS J. PETERSEN, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WINCO HOLDINGS,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00360-MCE-AC (E.D.
Cal.), for failure to comply with the applicable rules and orders
of the Court.

The Plaintiff initiated the putative class action in Sacramento
County Superior Court, after which the Defendants removed the
matter and filed a Motion to Dismiss.  

The Plaintiff failed to file an opposition or statement of
non-opposition in response to the Defendants' Motion, prompting the
Court to issue the following Order to Show Cause ("OSC") on May 7,
2019: The Plaintiff is ordered to show cause in writing, not later
than 10 days following the date the minute order is electronically
filed, as to why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice.
Absent sufficient justification for the Plaintiff's failure to
adhere to the Local Rules, the action will be dismissed.  If the
Plaintiff fails to respond to the Order to Show Cause the case will
be dismissed with prejudice upon no further notice to the parties.

The Plaintiff failed to respond to that OSC as well.  The Clerk of
the Court is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/BDjePK from Leagle.com.

Dennis J. Petersen, Plaintiff, represented by Marcus J. Bradley --
mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com -- Bradley Grombacher, LLP & Kiley
Lynn Grombacher -- kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com -- Bradley
Grombacher, LLP.

WinCo Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Julie Grace Yap --
jyap@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Simon Lee Yang --
syang@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Phillip James Ebsworth --
pebsworth@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

WinCo Foods Foundation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Julie Grace
Yap, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Phillip James Ebsworth, Seyfarth Shaw
LLP.



                            *********

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 ***