CAR_Public/190910.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 181

                            Headlines

2U INC: Chinn Hits Share Price Drop
3M COMPANY: Rousseau Hits Share Price Drop
ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Suit
AEGIS SENIOR: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Newirth Suit Affirmed
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit

AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Wolf Popper Files Class Action Lawsuit
ANNETT HOLDINGS: Class Certification in Roland Suit Affirmed
ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces Pineda Suit in California State Court
ATG CREDIT: Napolitano Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Florida
BAKER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Telemarketing Practices

BANK OF AMERICA: Wolf Popper Files Class Action vs. Merrill
BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Herbert Smith Discusses NSW Court's Ruling
BELLAOCHIO LUXURY: Garcia Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
BELMONT MANAGEMENT: Wisneski Seeks OT Wages for Laborers
BRITISH PETROLEUM: Class Action Suit vs Law Firms Filed

CAPITAL ONE: Credit Card Holders Sue Over Credit Card Data Breach
CAPITAL ONE: Easton Sues Over Credit Card Data Breach
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Greenberg et al Suit to S.D. New York
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Imperatori Suit in District of Columbia
CENTRAL DODGE: Pluntke Seeks OT Pay for Inside Sales Person

CENTURY 21 PLAZA: Tikotzky Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls/Text
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Boumaiz Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Brooks Files ADA Suit in E.D. California
COBALT INT'L: 2 Insurers Seek Transfer of Coverage Dispute
COMCAST CABLE: Escobar Sues Over Illegally Recorded Phone Calls

COOPER COMPANIES: Deal in Contact Lens Suit Awaits Final OK
CRAIG WRIGHT: Faces Potential Class Lawsuit for Forgery, Fraud
DEV HOTELS: Kirk Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
DICK'S SPORTING: $2.9MM Greer Class Settlement Has Prelim OK
ELENI OPERATING: Faces Murphy Suit in New York Southern District

ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Jackson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
EXXON MOBIL: Court Quashes Notice of Natelson Video Deposition
FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Settlement in Morris Suit Has Final Court OK
GARDEN CITY, MI: Court Dismisses Suit Over Weed Ordinance
GBT US LLC: Cook Seeks Overtime Pay for Travel Agents

GRAND CANYON: Removes Austin's RICO Suit to N.D. Georgia
GREAT WALL CHINESE: Denied Delivery Workers Overtime Pay, Says Suit
GREIF INC: Suit Over Noxious Odor at Wisconsin Plant Still Ongoing
HAIN CELESTIAL: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in N.Y.
HALLCON CORP:  Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Bell Suit Says

HEALTH INSURANCE: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Moser Suit
HENDERSON, NV: Woodburn Suit Asserts FLSA Breach
HILTON MANAGEMENT: Booker Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
HP INC: Forsyth Class Action Suit Remains Stayed
HUDSON CITY SAVINGS: Court Dismisses Lin FDCPA Suit

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Class Settlement in B. Glenn Suit Has Final Approval
IMCMV HOLDINGS: Godwin Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Bronson Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD: 7th Cir. Appeal Filed in Bator Suit
JANI-KING OF PHILADELPHIA: Court OKs $3.7MM Class Settlement

JEI TRUCKING: Williams Seeks OT Pay for Truckers
KOLTER GROUP: Devivo Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Kawa Orthodontics TCPA Suit Pending
LABORATORY CORP: Bloomquist Suit v. Covance Ongoing
LABORATORY CORP: Faces 18 Class Suits Related to AMCA Incident

LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends Feckley Class Suit over Commissions
LAKE GEORGE RV: Faces Murphy Suit in Southern District of New York
LIBERTY TIRE: Fails to Pay OT to Drivers and Helpers, Green Says
LOKAI HOLDINGS: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LOOMIS ARMORED: Court Certifies Classes in Myers FLSA/NCWHA Suit

MALDEN, MA: Police Officers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
MARRONE BIO: Special Securities Suit Settlement w/ EY Has Final OK
MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit Over Covidien Acquisition Still Ongoing
MENASHA CORPORATION: Alvarez Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Settlement in Owens Suit Preliminarily Approved.

MICHAEL A. JACOB: Court Strikes Class Claims in Campbell Suit
MICHIGAN: Arnold Seeks to Certify Class of Jewish Inmates
MIKE COTTLE: Martin Seeks OT & Minimum Wage for Plumbers
MINNESOTA: Tyler Sues Revenue Department in State Court
NAVIENT CORPORATION: Riddell Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation

NETFLIX INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
NETFLIX INC: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
NICKERSON PARK: Faces Murphy Suit in Southern District of New York
NINTENDO: Vergara Sues over Sales of Defective Switch Controllers
NORTHSTAR REALTY: Scarantino Files Suit Over Sale to AXA Affiliates

NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Policy Owners Sue Over Illegal Service Charge
OASIS LEGAL: Payday Lending Class Action Survives Challenge
OASIS PETROLEUM: Operators, Technicians Seek Unpaid Wages, Damages
OHIO: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of J. Mann's Hep-C Suit
PARADE MANAGEMENT: Gonzalez Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA

PARADE MANAGEMENT: Sessoms Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PAUL M. ZAGARIS: Cal. App. Affirms Arbitration Denial in 2 Cases
PFIZER INC: Array BioPharma Securities Litigation Ongoing
PNC BANK: Kazi, et al Seek to Certify Mortgage Loan Officers Class
PORCH.COM INC: Fisher Files TCPA Suit in Arizona

PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Seeks to Consolidate Class Actions
PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: McKeen-Chaplin & Neal Suits Concluded
PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: Settlement Amount Forwarded to Administrator
RALPHS COFFEE SHOP: Ramos Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Pay
REJ PROPERTIES: Badgerow Appeals E.D. Louisiana Order to 5th Cir.

SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: PFOA Contamination Case Now Class Action
SANDERSON FARMS: Plaintiffs' Appeal in NY Securities Suit Pending
SCANA: Begins VC Summer Project Class Action Settlement Payouts
SEATTLE CITY: Utility Facing Class Action for Over-Billing
SEDGWICK CMS: Brown Seeks Overtime Wages

SELECT PORTFOLIO: Garay Sues Over Illegal Processing Fees
SOUTHWEST KEY: Hernandez et al Suit Moved to S.D. California
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Court Approves $5MM Class Action Settlement
SWINERTON BUILDERS: Wage Statements Lack Details, Ali Claims
SYNERGY FLIGHT: Ill. App. Affirms Denial of Bid to Junk Schaeffer

T-MOBILE USA: $980K Black Labor Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
TOTAL SYSTEM: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
TOYOTA MOTOR: Morales Files Suit Over Defective Transmissions
TRAINING SERVICES: Person Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
TSR INC: Paskowitz Class Action Still Ongoing

U.S. IMMIGRATION: Faces Fraihat et al Suit to C.D. California
WACKY D'S PIZZA: Chawla Seeks Minimum Wage for Delivery Drivers

                            *********

2U INC: Chinn Hits Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------
Anne M. Chinn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 2U, Inc., Christopher J. Paucek and
Catherine A. Graham, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07479 (S.D. N.Y.,
August 9, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

2U is an educational technology company that partners with
nonprofit colleges and universities to offer online degree programs
through a cloud-based "software-as-a-service" platform. It failed
to disclose that its business model needed to undergo substantial
adjustment to compete in an increasingly saturated online education
market and its cash flows were inadequate for maintaining its
purported growth trajectory. On this news, the price of 2U stock
collapsed, falling to a close of $12.80 per share, down 65% on
extremely heavy trading volume. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423
      Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Guri Ademi, Esq.
      Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
      ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP
      3620 E Layton Ave
      Cudahy, WI 53110
      Tel: (414) 482−8000
      Fax: (414) 482−8001
      Email: gademi@ademilaw.com
             jfruchter@ademilaw.com


3M COMPANY: Rousseau Hits Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------
BRUCE ROUSSEAU, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, INGE G. THULIN, MICHAEL F.
ROMAN and NICHOLAS C. GANGESTAD, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-17090
(D. N.J., Aug. 22, 2019) is a securities class action brought on
behalf of purchasers of 3M securities between February 9, 2017 and
May 28, 2019, inclusive against 3M, its current and former Chief
Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer  for violating
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by engaging in a scheme to
defraud investors and issuing false and misleading statements to
conceal the truth about the Company's exposure to legal liability
associated with its most lucrative product offerings: man-made
chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").

3M's most lucrative product has been PFAS. PFAS are man-made
chemicals that come in 5,000 or more varieties and are used in
industrial and consumer products, including non-stick cookware,
water repellent clothing, camping gear, shoes, stain resistant
fabrics, textiles and carpets, cosmetics, surfactants for
electronics manufacturing, and products that resist grease, water,
and oil, such as coated papers for fast-food takeout. Two of the
best-known PFAS, which are unregulated, industrial chemicals, which
3M has produced for decades, include perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"), also called C8
because of the eight carbon chain that makes up its chemical
backbone. 3M has repeatedly claimed that PFAS are not a danger to
public health.

On April 25, 2019, 3M announced its first quarter 2019 financial
results, acknowledging that the first quarter of 2019 "was a
disappointing start to the year for 3M" and disclosing that on top
of the "$1.16 per share impact" already recorded in the first
quarter of 2018 related to the settlement with the State of
Minnesota, 3M had "recorded significant litigation-related pre-tax
charges of $548 million, or $0.72 per share" in the first quarter
2019 for additional PFAS liability. 3M also announced that it was
cutting 2,000 jobs, approximately 2% of its 93,500 employees, and
trimming fiscal year 2019 capital expenditures, including on
manufacturing, in addition to accelerating other cost control
reductions it said were already underway. On this news, the price
of 3M common stock fell $28.36 per share, or nearly 13%, to close
at $190.72 per share on April 25, 2019.

On May 14, 2019, New Jersey filed suit against 3M and other PFAS
manufacturers alleging environmental and consumer fraud claims in
connection with making and selling firefighting foam products for
decades in New Jersey that contained toxic chemicals. Noting that
nearly one in five New Jersey residents had received tap water that
contained at least trace amounts of one of these chemicals, some of
which have been linked to cancer, the lawsuit alleged that the
companies knew that their firefighting foam posed a significant
health threat. On May 29, 2019, New Hampshire filed two lawsuits
against 3M and others for PFAS contamination. New Hampshire
Attorney General Gordon MacDonald said the goal was to recoup
damages for the PFAS contamination that had been found in all ten
New Hampshire counties, noting that, in towns like Merrimack and
Portsmouth, the contamination had put hundreds of families on
bottled water. On this news, the price of 3M common stock declined
from its close of $163.35 per share on May 28, 2019 to trade as low
as $160.50 per share in intraday trading and close at $161.40 per
share on May 29, 2019.

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

Plaintiff acquired 3M securities at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period.

3M is an American multinational conglomerate corporation that
produces a variety of chemical substances and related
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
            ahood@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 377-1181
     Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
     Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
     BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 697-6484
     Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
     Email: peretz@bgandg.com


ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. (ACRS)
from May 8, 2018 through June 20, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important September 30, 2019 lead plaintiff
deadline in securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Aclaris investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Aclaris class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1637.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Aclaris's advertising materials minimized the risks and
overstated the efficacy of ESKATA to generate sales; (2) Aclaris
was reasonably likely to face regulatory scrutiny; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about
Aclaris's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
30, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1637.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact:

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


AEGIS SENIOR: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Newirth Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUNE NEWIRTH, by and through her Guardian ad Litem,
Frederick J. Newirth, on her own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated; ELIZABETH BARBER; ANDREW BARDIN; THOMAS BARDIN,
as successors-in-interest to the Estate of Margaret Pierce; on
their own behalves and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AEGIS SENIOR COMMUNITIES, LLC, DBA Aegis
Living, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 17-17227 (9th Cir.), Judge
Sandra Segal Ikuta of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying Aegis' motion
to compel arbitration.

Newirth, Margaret Pierce, and Barbara Feinberg were residents of
three different senior living communities, all operated by Aegis.
Each of them (through a representative holding a valid power of
attorney) entered into an agreement with Aegis which included an
arbitration provision.  The provision stated "that any legal claim
or civil action arising out of or relating to care or services
provided" by Aegis "will be determined by submission to arbitration
as provided in accordance with California law."

Notwithstanding her arbitration agreement, Newirth filed a class
action complaint against Aegis in California state court in April
2016, alleging that Aegis engaged in a scheme to defraud seniors by
falsely representing that staffing levels would be determined by
the overall needs of the residents, when in fact staffing was based
on budget considerations.  Aegis removed the complaint to district
court in July 2016, and filed a motion to compel arbitration as
well as a motion to dismiss a week later.

Instead of pursuing these motions, however, Aegis and Newirth filed
a stipulated agreement a week later.  Pursuant to the stipulation,
Newirth filed a second amended complaint in August 2016, adding
additional Plaintiffs.  For its part, Aegis withdrew its motion to
compel arbitration and its motion to dismiss.  In September 2016,
it filed a new motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, in
which it made no mention of arbitration or the arbitration
agreements. T he following day, the parties filed an agreement
stating they were attempting mediation of their dispute.

Over the next 11 months, while the second motion to dismiss was
pending, the parties actively engaged in the discovery process.
The parties participated in a discovery conference, entered into a
court-approved stipulation regarding the production of documents
and electronic records, and submitted a proposed joint conference
report that included a proposed schedule for discovery, class
certification briefing and hearing dates, and a date for trial.  In
December 2016, the parties served their initial disclosures.  In
the early stages of discovery, Aegis disclosed a copy of the
relevant agreements with Newirth, Pierce, and Feinberg; each
agreement included an arbitration provision initialed by the
party's representative.

Feinberg and Aegis entered into a settlement agreement later that
month.  The remaining parties continued to meet and confer
regarding moving forward with the discovery process.

The district court finally denied Aegis's pending motion to dismiss
Newirth's second amended complaint in May 2017.  Aegis filed a new
motion to compel arbitration two months later, almost a year after
it had withdrawn its initial motion to compel arbitration.

In September 2017, the district court denied Aegis' renewed motion
to compel arbitration on the ground that Aegis had waived its right
to arbitrate.  Aegis filed a timely notice of appeal.

Judg
e Ikuta finds that Newirth carried her burden of showing that Aegis
took actions inconsistent with its known right to arbitrate.
Although Aegis promptly filed a motion to compel arbitration, Aegis
intentionally withdrew the motion and proceeded to take advantage
of the federal forum by filing a motion to dismiss Newirth's
arbitrable claims, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.
She explains that when defendants move for dismissal with prejudice
on a key merits issue that would preclude relief as to one or more
of the plaintiffs' claims they are seeking a ruling on the merits.
Only after receiving an adverse ruling on the motion did Aegis
refile the motion to compel arbitration that it had withdrawn a
year earlier.  Under the totality of these circumstances, the JUdge
concludes that Aegis knowingly decided to defer its right to compel
arbitration to avail itself of the benefits of the federal court
forum, an intentional action inconsistent with its known right to
compel arbitration.

Aegis further argues that despite the fact its motion to dismiss on
the merits directly caused Newirth to incur costs contesting that
motion, Newirth was not prejudiced because Aegis does not intend to
make the same challenges in arbitration.  This argument fails, the
Judge holds.  It ignores that Newirth already expended costs
"contesting the Defendants' motion to dismiss on the merits; costs
directly traceable to Aegis's acts inconsistent with its known
right to compel arbitration.  That Aegis intends not to revive its
rejected merits arguments once sent to arbitration does not
alleviate the prejudice.  Accordingly, Newirth has carried her
heavy burden of showing prejudice.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Ikuta affirmed.

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

Lann G. McIntyre (argued), Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, San
Diego, California; Leona Lam Reddy, Katherine C. Den Bleyker, and
Jeffrey S. Ranen -- jeffrey.ranen@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Los Angeles, California; for
Defendant-Appellant.

Sarah Colby -- scolby@schneiderwallace.com -- (argued) and Guy B.
Wallace -- gwallace@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Emeryville, California; Christopher
J. Healey -- chris.healey@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, San Diego,
California; George Kawamoto and Kathryn A. Stebner, Stebner and
Associates, San Francisco, California; Michael D. Thamer, Law
Offices of Michael D. Thamer, Callahan, California; W. Timothy
Needham, Janssen Malloy LLP, Eureka, California; Robert S. Arns --
rsa@arnslaw.com -- The Arns Law Firm, San Francisco, California;
Kirsten M. Fish, Neeham Kepner & Fish LLP, San Jose, California;
for Plaintiffs-Appellees.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against AmTrust
Financial Services, Inc. ("AmTrust" or "the Company") (OTC: AFSIA,
AFSIB, AFSIC, AFSIM, AFSIN, AFSIP) 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 preferred shares between
January 22, 2018 and January 18, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before October 28,
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. When the market learned the truth about
AmTrust, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Wolf Popper Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP has filed a securities class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
AmTrust Financial Services, Inc., Barry D. Zyskind, George
Karfunkel, and Leah Karfunkel (together, "Defendants").  The case,
No. 1:19-cv-08030-KPF, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder on behalf of investors who purchased any of
the six series of AmTrust's preferred shares during the period
January 22, 2018 through January 18, 2019, and were damaged
thereby.

Beginning on January 22, 2018, Defendants made repeated statements
that, unlike AmTrust's common shares, which would be purchased by
the company's controlling shareholder and delisted as part of a
merger, the six series of publicly traded AmTrust preferred stock
would continue to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange and
would remain listed and outstanding.  On January 18, 2019, less
than two months after the close of the merger, AmTrust announced
the delisting of all six series of its preferred stock.

The very next trading day following the announcement, the prices of
all six series of the preferred stock dropped by almost 40%, losing
hundreds of millions of dollars in value.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, and wish to serve as
Lead Plaintiff, you must file a motion with the Court no later than
October 30, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other Class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed Class may move the Court to
serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice.  Members
may also choose to do nothing and remain part of the proposed
Class.

Wolf Popper has successfully recovered billions of dollars for
defrauded investors.  Ten Wolf Popper attorneys were named Super
Lawyers or Rising Stars in the 2018 Super Lawyers New York City
Metro Edition, including Wolf Popper partner Carl Stine, who was
included in the Super Lawyers Top 100 List for the New York City
Metro area.  More information about Wolf Popper and the biographies
of its attorneys can be found on the firm's website at
www.wolfpopper.com.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Carl Stine
at (212) 759-4600 or cstine@wolfpopper.com

Contact:

         Wolf Popper LLP
         845 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (221) 759-4600
         Toll Free Tel.: (877) 370-7703
         Toll Free Fax: (877) 370-7704
         Email: cstine@wolfpopper.com [GN]


ANNETT HOLDINGS: Class Certification in Roland Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary E. Tabor of the Court of Appeals of Iowa affirmed the
district court's class certification ruling in the case, ANTHONY
ROLAND, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANNETT HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant (Iowa App.).

The work-related injury suffered by Roland planted the seed for the
class action.  In October 2013, Roland started work for Annette
Holdings as an over-the-road truck driver.  He lived in Oxford,
Alabama, 897 miles away from Annett Holdings' headquarters in Des
Moines.  Annett Holdings requires all of its drivers, as a
condition of their employment, to sign a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU").

After less than a year on the job, Roland injured his elbow while
working in Indiana.  Consistent with the MOU, after preliminary
treatment in Indiana, Annett Holdings assigned Roland to the
modified-duty program in Des Moines.  The company transferred
Roland's medical care to Des Moines to accommodate the
modified-duty work program.  

Dissatisfied with the medical care he was receiving in Des Moines,
Roland asked Annett Holdings to authorize treatment by an
orthopedic surgeon in Alabama. Annett Holdings agreed.  In May
2014, after undergoing elbow surgery in Alabama, Annett Holdings
again assigned Roland to modified-duty work.  The company again
compelled him to relocate to Des Moines and to forgo follow-up care
in Alabama.

In June 2014, Roland petitioned the Iowa Workers' Compensation
Commission seeking alternate medical care in Alabama instead of Des
Moines.  The deputy commissioner concluded the MOU functionally
deprived Roland of reasonable medical care.  Annett Holdings sought
judicial review and the district court affirmed.

Annett Holdings then appealed, and the Court affirmed, finding
substantial evidence supported the agency's conclusion the MOU, as
applied to Roland, violated Iowa Code section 85.18 (2013).  Less
than a week after the decision, Roland sued Annett Holdings on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated. He cited the
company's continued attempts to compel him to travel to Des Moines
for the light-duty work program despite judicial direction
otherwise. Roland alleged Annett Holdings acted in bad faith and
violated his statutory rights and those of similarly situated
employees. Roland sought compensatory and punitive damages.2
Roland's petition asked the district court to certify the matter as
a class action.

The district court held a hearing on the class certification in
April 2018.  In a May 2018 order, the district court decided Roland
and the other drivers met the requirements for class certification.
Annett Holdings timely appealed the court's certification of the
class.  The state  supreme court granted a stay of the district
court's proceedings until conclusion of the appeal.

Annett Holdings contends the district court abused its discretion
in certifying the class because the case does not present a common
question of law or fact.  The company asserts the administrative
appeal did not declare the MOU invalid on its face but rather found
it violated Roland's statutory rights.  From that premise, Annett
Holdings argues Roland has not shown the class members share a
common injury because simply requiring drivers to sign the MOU does
not violate the workers' compensation statute.

Judge Tabor is unpersuaded by the company's contention.  At this
class-certification stage, it is premature to assess whether the
alleged injuries did in fact occur.  Roland's complaint alleges
circumstances, such as signing the Annett Holdings MOU and
suffering work-related injuries, experienced by all members of the
class, which created a common grievance.  The district court did
not abuse its discretion in finding a common question of law or
fact among all members of the purported class.

Annett Holdings next claims that the class certification was
improper because individual questions predominate over those common
to the class.  First, the Judge finds that the parties have yet to
engage in discovery.  If further development of the record reveals
the class claims require more individualized proof than at first
appeared, the district court may decertify the class, if
appropriate.  Second, a central issue common to the proposed class
is the lawfulness or validity of the MOU as it relates to the light
duty work and medical care provided in Iowa.  This common question
clearly predominates over any questions, such as the amount of
damages, affecting only individual members.  

Finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's
certification of the class action, Judge Tabor affirmed the
interlocutory order and remanded for further proceedings.

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

Sasha L. Monthei -- smonthei@smithmillslaw.com -- of Smith Mills
Schrock Blades Monthei, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant.

Matthew R. Denning, Christopher D. Spaulding, and Nicholas L.
Shaull of Spaulding, Berg & Schmidt, P.L.C., Des Moines, for
appellee.


ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces Pineda Suit in California State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asomeo Environmental
Restoration Industry, LLC et al. The case is captioned as Hugo
Pineda and Jay Robinson, On behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Asomeo Environmental Restoration
Industry, LLC, a California Corporation, Phillips & Jordan
Environmental Services, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1-10,
the Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Aug 16, 2019). The suit alleges employment-related issues.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Patricia A Savage, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PATRICIA A. SAVAGE
          1550 Humboldt Rd No. 4
          Chico, CA 95928
          Telephone: 844 590 9795

ATG CREDIT: Napolitano Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ATG Credit, LLC. The
case is styled as Holly Napolitano individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATG Credit, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00172-AW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., Aug. 29,
2019).

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

ATG Credit, LLC (ATG) is a third-party collection agency based in
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BAKER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Telemarketing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Schiller, writing for Cannabis Business Times, reports that
a class action lawsuit against Baker Technologies and its parent
company Tilt Holdings Inc. may have the cannabis industry
reconsidering its telemarketing practices.

Plaintiffs Richard Komaiko and Marcie Cooperman filed the
litigation against the Denver-based cannabis industry business
service provider in federal court in the Northern District of
California June 28 over alleged repeated violations of federal and
state telemarketing legislation.  The lawsuit alleges that Baker's
involvement in sending telemarketing text messages violated the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and California's
Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

According to the complaint, Baker collected mobile phone numbers
and provided them to its cannabis dispensary clients. The lawsuit
alleges that Baker was heavily involved in sending telemarketing
text messages to the phone numbers without first obtaining the
proper written consent to do so.

"As we understand it, Baker basically provides services to about
1,100 cannabis dispensaries throughout the country," said Peter
Roldan, Esq. -- peter@emergent.law -- partner at Emergent LLP,
which represents the plaintiffs in the case. "Baker's business
model . . . . stresses the importance of text marketing to its
client dispensaries. They make it clear that one of the services
they can provide is this direct advertising, which, for
dispensaries, it's one of the few legal ways for them to advertise
because there are a lot of restrictions that apply to advertising
for businesses in the cannabis industry. They market heavily their
ability to reach potential clients through these texts."

Baker has an application that harvests mobile phone numbers from
the customers of its clients' dispensaries, according to Roldan.
Baker then allows its clients to send text messages to the phone
numbers using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS), he
said.

"One of the things it does is it allows these texts to be sent to
the recipients from spoof numbers, so, it's not necessarily the
number of the business on behalf of whom the text is being sent,"
Roldan added.

According to Roldan, Baker is liable under the TCPA because the
company was heavily involved in all aspects of the telemarketing
efforts—it gathered phone numbers, provided a means to create
databases with the phone numbers and transmitted the text messages
using these databases. Baker also manages the orders that are
ultimately generated by the text messages, Roldan added.

"I think Baker's position would be that they're essentially just
acting as a telecom compan -- they're just the means through which
messages are sent," he said. "But for the reasons that I've
explained, we allege that they actually have an active role in
collecting numbers, determining how and when to send texts, and how
their clients can best utilize their telemarketing services."

The reason all of this could be illegal, Roldan said, is that,
allegedly, neither Baker nor its client dispensaries have obtained
the express written consent of the customers whose phone numbers
they are collecting. This direct consent is required under the
TCPA.

"You can't just send texts to customers using an automatic dialing
system unless there's prior express written consent to receive
those messages," Roldan said. "Our representative clients say
they've been receiving these texts from Baker's clients, and they
also confirm that they never provided this written consent."

The TCPA provides for statutory damages up to $1,500 for each
unlawful text message, and Emergent LLP believes that Baker sent
messages in violation of applicable laws to thousands of
customers.

"As far as the TCPA claims, it's $500 for a negligent violation of
the TCPA and $1,500 if the company is found to have intentionally
violated the act," Roldan said. "As far as our two clients, we
understand that between the two of them, they've received about 250
texts so far."

Emergent LLP has also pleaded claims under the UCL, alleging that
by sending these text messages, Baker has caused its clients'
customers economic harm, as the recipients were charged for the
unauthorized text messages.

The lawsuit has been served to the counsel of Baker and Tilt, and
Emergent LLP is awaiting their response to the pleading.

"I'm not sure what they plan to do, whether they intend to answer
the complaint, or they plan to bring a motion to dismiss," Roldan
said.

More broadly speaking, the case illustrates how critical it is for
cannabis businesses to be in compliance with not only the
regulations specific to the cannabis industry, but also the laws
that apply to all businesses in general, especially when it comes
to consumer privacy, Roldan said.

Although the TCPA was originally designed to cover telemarketing
phone calls, it has taken a new meaning in this day and age, when
most people use their cell phones for text messages, Roldan said.

"If I see a phone call from an unknown number, I often just ignore
it, whereas if somebody sends me a text, I have no choice but to
look at it to see if it's something I actually wanted," he said.
"There's no way to screen that until after the fact. . . . The
government understandably has made consumer privacy a priority, and
we think it's important for all businesses to make sure that
they're in compliance with those laws so that consumers aren't
harmed." [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Wolf Popper Files Class Action vs. Merrill
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP has filed a class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No.
1:19-cv-07998) against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation
(NYSE:  BAC).  The lawsuit challenges Merrill's practice of
defaulting customers into its lowest yielding "sweep account,"
which currently pays a paltry 0.05% annual percentage yield on cash
balances.  Merrill's interest rates are dramatically below
competitors' rates of approximately 2.0%.  Moreover, Merrill fails
to follow SEC rules in initiating client accounts, which require
clients' "prior written affirmative consent" before Merrill sweeps
their cash.

The lawsuit, among other things, seeks to compel Merrill to adopt
transparent disclosure concerning cash investments and pay
investors reasonable, market-based interest on cash balances.  The
lawsuit also seeks payment of back interest.

Interested persons may contact Robert C. Finkel for more
information concerning the litigation.

         Contact:
         Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
         Wolf Popper LLP
         Website: www.wolfpopper.com
         Tel.: (212) 451-9620
         Email: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com [GN]


BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Herbert Smith Discusses NSW Court's Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Darwin, Esq. -- Mark.Darwin@hsf.com -- Guy Narburgh, Esq. --
Guy.Narburgh@hsf.com -- and Travis Gooding, Esq. --
travis.gooding@hsf.com -- of Herbert Smith Freehills LLP , in an
article for Lexology, report that in good news for policyholders
defending class actions, the NSW Court of Appeal has ruled that
multiple claims in a class action against Bank of Queensland over a
"Ponzi scheme" should be treated as a single claim under the Civil
Liability Policy's aggregation clause, meaning that only one
deductible (or excess) was payable by the policyholder.

The decision overturns the trial judge's decision which refused to
deem the claims of class members to be a single claim on the basis
that each of the Bank's Wrongful Acts in processing the various
fraudulent requests for different customers was not 'a series of
related' acts.

We said at the time that:

'This is a harsh decision against the policyholder. While in many
respects it comes down to the facts behind the class action, if
this is the approach to be taken by insurers to the application of
deductibles in the class actions they are charging increasing
premiums to insure, we expect this to be the subject of further
controversy.'

The Court of Appeal's decision is therefore a welcome outcome for
policyholders, particularly given the increasingly high premiums
they are being charged for class action risks (both in professional
indemnity and D&O policies). However, as the decision notes,2 the
application of aggregation clauses will be heavily dependent on the
particular facts and policy in question. Policyholders and their
brokers should therefore continue to take particular care when
reviewing their coverage to make sure they are securing coverage
appropriate to their circumstances and anticipated risks.

Background facts

The Bank of Queensland offered a 'Money Market Deposit Account' the
terms of which included a requirement for signed written
instructions and a promise to question suspicious instructions. A
financial planner (independent of the Bank) acted as authorised
signatory for at least 192 of its clients who held such accounts,
and withdrew funds via email instructions. It became evident that
the financial planner was operating a Ponzi scheme (in which it
would withdraw one customer's money for its own purposes or to pay
another to give the illusion of a return on funds invested).

The 192 account holders signed a Class Member Registration Form and
brought a class action against the Bank and its agent, alleging
that, despite alleged knowledge of the scheme, they failed to
question suspicious transactions, wrongly accepted email
instructions and allowed withdrawals that were not authorised. The
Bank and its agent each agreed to pay $6m in settlement of all the
claims.

The Bank had a $2m deductible under its liability policy for 'each
and every Claim', so lodged a claim for $4m with its insurers. The
insurers pointed to the various actions of the financial planner
for various customers and argued that at least three 'Claims' were
made in the class action, therefore wiping out the entire $6m
settlement.

The decision at first instance

The aggregation clause of the policy provided that:

'all Claims arising out of, based upon or attributable to one or a
series of related Wrongful Acts shall be considered to be a single
Claim'.

'Claim' was defined to include:

'(i) any suit or proceeding, including any civil proceeding…
against the insured… or (ii) any verbal or written demand… of
any specified Wrongful Act.'

On the key issue of whether the Bank's alleged knowledge of the
scheme and failure to question suspicious transactions was 'a
series of related Wrongful Acts', the trial judge held that there
had to be a logical or causal relationship between the Wrongful
Acts. The trial judge held that this relationship did not exist
here because each Wrongful Act was made on different occasions,
from different accounts, causing loss to different parties and in
response to different and separate purported email instructions.
The trial judge considered that the mere fact that each occurrence
was within the broader, more remote scheme of a fraudulent practice
by the same financial planner was not sufficient to create a
'causal or logical relationship' between them.

The Court of Appeal decision

The Court of Appeal delivered three separate judgments, but all
were broadly in alignment and unanimous in agreeing that the trial
judge's decision should be overturned. The claims were to be
aggregated, and treated as a single 'Claim' for the purpose of the
deductible payable under the policy, on the basis that the claims
arose from 'a series of related Wrongful Acts'.

The Appeal Court's view was that a separate Wrongful Act occurred
each time a request for a withdrawal was acted upon by the Bank.

It then went on to consider what level of connection was required
to make those Wrongful Acts 'related' (or be a 'series'), and
concluded that the terms of the aggregation clause did not require
a causal relationship between the Wrongful Acts. Instead, the
identification of what would be a sufficient connecting factor was
to be found in the clause's reference to the acts being
'wrongful'.

In this case, the reason the acts were wrongful was that the Bank
allegedly acted with knowledge of the Ponzi scheme. The knowledge
of the scheme was held to be a unifying factor sufficient to render
the Wrongful Acts 'related' for the purpose of the aggregation
clause. Essentially, each Wrongful Act consisted of the same breach
(acting with knowledge), and that was sufficient for them to be
deemed a 'series of related Wrongful Acts'.

This finding meant that the multiple claims could be aggregated and
treated as a single 'Claim' for the purpose of the policy's
deductible (or excess).

COMMENT

This decision is in our view sensible and a good outcome for
policyholders, although, as the Appeal Court warned, the conclusion
in each case will still depend on the terms used by the aggregation
clause and the particular facts. To maximize the benefits of cover
under liability policies for class action claims, policyholders and
their brokers should carefully consider the class action risk to
which the policyholder is exposed and, where possible, negotiate
aggregation clauses tailored to the coverage required. [GN]


BELLAOCHIO LUXURY: Garcia Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bellaochio Luxury, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 19-cv-23315 (S.D. Fla., August 8, 2019), seeks statutory
damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant is an online designer brand sales site. To promote its
services, it engages in unsolicited SMS ads sent en masse via an
auto dialer. Garcia did not give his express written consent to be
contacted in such manner. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
      Jordan D. Utanski, Esq.
      EDELSBERG LAW, PA
      19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 975-3320
      Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
             utanski@edelsberglaw.com

             - and -

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: 305-479-2299
      Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
             gberg@shamisgentile.com


BELMONT MANAGEMENT: Wisneski Seeks OT Wages for Laborers
--------------------------------------------------------
TERESA WISNESKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BELMONT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02523-JAR-ADM (D. Kan., Aug. 29, 2019),
seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as an hourly employee at one
of Defendant's apartment complexes during the three years preceding
the filing of the complaint.

As a result of Defendant's policy requiring Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees to perform maintenance and repair work after
hours, they performed uncompensated labor.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON, LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, Missouri 64105
          Telephone: (816) 945-7110
          Facsimile: (816) 945-7118
          E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com

               - and -

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

BRITISH PETROLEUM: Class Action Suit vs Law Firms Filed
-------------------------------------------------------
Adam Eisenberg, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a
Louisiana attorney has filed a federal class action lawsuit against
several national law firms, accusing them of breach of contract,
professional malpractice and fraud related to their involvement in
representing victims of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Thibodeaux attorney Jerald Block, Esq. -- jpb@blocklawfirm.com --
filed the lawsuit in May 2019 alleging that the national firms saw
the spill as an opportunity to make a "quick buck" and prioritized
that goal over representing their clients' interests. The suit
names firms in Texas, California and Mississippi as defendants. The
firms formed a joint venture in 2015.

The suit covers recreational fishermen, who the out-of-state firms
solicited as clients in order to pursue claims against BP following
the spill.

Block says those firms did not provide proper representation in
relation to those claims.

"If you had a recreational fishing license, then you were eligible
to recover from BP under the settlement program. They accepted
those people as clients, but they didn't file their claims," Block
said. "They left the clients hanging high and dry."

The suit seeks to compensate victims based on the amount they
originally sought when they hired the defendants to file their
claims.

"The claims go from somewhere near $5,000 for some of them to
$75,000 for others," Block said.

While hundred of claimants have joined the suit, Block said it's
too early in the process to know just how many plaintiffs will come
forward, but he expects the number to be "significant."

"We think it'll be in the thousands," Block said.

Block said it's unfortunate that victims of the spill were again
victimized by the alleged malpractice.

"Not only were they treated in such a way that they thought their
claims were being handled, but when they followed up over the years
to say 'what's going on?' they were told their claim was pending,"
Block said. [GN]


CAPITAL ONE: Credit Card Holders Sue Over Credit Card Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Cox, Sean DeMarco, Nicole Greer, Thomas Leffler and Jason
Yoder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-01042, (E.D. Va., August 8, 2019), seeks damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and such other and further relief
resulting from breach of contract, negligence, unjust enrichment
and violations of various state consumer protection acts.

On July 29, 2019, it was reported that Capital One experienced an
unauthorized access by a hacker who obtained certain types of
personal information relating to people who had applied for credit
card products. Dames applied for and/or used a Capital One credit
card at some time.

Capital One is a bank holding company and financial institution
that offers credit cards to consumer applicants throughout the
United States. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Grant Morris, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      700 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20003
      Tel: (646) 402-5650
      Email: gmorris@sanfordheisler.com

            - and -

      Kevin H. Sharp, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Tel: (615) 434-7000
      Fax: (615) 434-7020
      Email: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com

             - and -

      Adán Martínez, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (646) 402-5650
      Email: amartinez@sanfordheisler.com

             - and -

      Ben Barnow, Esq.
      Erich P. Schork, Esq.
      Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
      BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 621-2000
      Fax: (312) 641-5504
      Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
             e.schork@barnowlaw.com
             j.blake@barnowlaw.com

             - and -

      Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
      Thomas J. O'Reardon, Esq.
      BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
      501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 338-1100
      Fax: (619) 338-1101
      Email: tblood@bholaw.com
             toreardon@bholaw.com

             - and -

      Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
      Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
      ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
      3620 East Layton Avenue
      Cudahy, WI 53110
      Tel: (414) 482-8000
      Fax: (414) 482-8001
      Email: sademi@ademilaw.com
             bslatky@ademilaw.com


CAPITAL ONE: Easton Sues Over Credit Card Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
Jessica Easton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital
One, N.A., Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Amazon.Com, Inc. and
Amazon Web Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00574, (E.D.
Va., August 9, 2019), seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
such other and further relief resulting from breach of contract,
negligence, unjust enrichment and violations of various state
consumer protection acts.

On July 29, 2019, it was reported that Capital One experienced an
unauthorized access by a former Amazon employee who obtained
certain types of personal information relating to people who had
applied for credit card products. Easton applied for and/or used a
Capital One credit card at some time.

Capital One is a bank holding company and financial institution
that offers credit cards to consumer applicants throughout the
United States while Amazon is an online retailer. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott A. Surovell, Esq.
     SUROVELL ISAACS & LEVY PLC
     4010 University Drive, Suite 200
     Fairfax, VA 22030
     Tel: (703) 277-9750
     Fax: (703) 591-9285
     Email: ssurovell@surovellfirm.com

            - and -

     Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: (215) 875-3000
     Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
     Email: scarson@bm.net

            - and -

     E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
     BERGER AND MONTAGUE
     43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
     Minneapolis, MN 55414
     Tel: (612) 594-
     Email: emdrake@bm.net
            jalbanese@bm.net


CAPITAL ONE: Faces Greenberg et al Suit to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Financial
Corporation, et al. The case is captioned as Aaron Saul Greenberg,
Emily Behar, Wendy Friedman, and Molly S. Piesco, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
Capital One Financial Corporation; Capital One, N.A.; and Capital
One Bank (USA), N.A., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07752-UA
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2019). The suit demands $5 million in damages.


Capital One is a bank holding company specializing in credit cards,
auto loans, banking, and savings accounts, headquartered in McLean,
Virginia. Capital One is ranked 10th on the list of largest banks
in the United States by assets.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Melissa R. Emert., Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          East 45th Street, Ste 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (954) 675-5240
          E-mail: memert@ssbny.com

CAPITAL ONE: Faces Imperatori Suit in District of Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Financial
Corporation, et al. The case is captioned as JOSE A. IMPERATORI,
III, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; CAPITAL ONE
BANK (USA), N.A.; and CAPITAL ONE, N.A., the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02503-JEB (D. D.C., Aug. 19, 2019).  The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge James E. Boasberg.

Capital One is a bank holding company specializing in credit cards,
auto loans, banking, and savings accounts, headquartered in McLean,
Virginia. Capital One is ranked 10th on the list of largest banks
in the United States by assets.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Benjamin James Vernia, Esq.
          THE VERNIA LAW FIRM
          1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 349-4053
          E-mail: bvernia@vernialaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          John C. Toro, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-2806
          E-mail: jtoro@kslaw.com

CENTRAL DODGE: Pluntke Seeks OT Pay for Inside Sales Person
-----------------------------------------------------------
AUTUMN PLUNTKE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CENTRAL DODGE, INC.; CENTRAL BUICK
GMC, INC.; PMP MOTORS, INC.; MBC MOTORS, INC.; RICHARD CATANESE,
individually; PETER CATANESE II, individually; and CENTRAL AUTO
GROUP, the Defendants, Case No. 19-2622 (Mass. Super., Aug. 16,
2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay Ms. Pluntke overtime
wages and Sunday pay.

Ms. Pluntke worked more than 40 hours per week for Defendants in
almost every (if not every) week of her employment for Defendants.
Ms. Pluntke also worked more than half of the Sundays during her
employment for Defendants and worked on at least one state
holiday.

However, Defendants did not pay Ms. Pluntke wages equal to 1.5
times minimum wage for any of: (a) her overtime hours worked; or
(b) her hours worked on Sundays/holidays. Rather, Defendants paid
Ms. Pluntke primarily on a commission-basis.

Ms. Pluntke worked as an inside sales person for Defendants at
their Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep/Ram/Fiat and Buiclc/GMC dealerships in
Norwood, Massachusetts hum approximately April 9, 2019 until the
present.

The Defendants operate car dealership business.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jeffrey S. Strom, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY S. STROM
          P.O. Box 916
          Boylston, MA 01505
          Telephone: (508) 925-5525
          E-mail: jeffrey@jeffreystromlaw.com

               - and -

          John Regan, Esq.
          EMPLOYEE RIGHTS GROUP, LLC
          185 Devonshire Street, Ste. 200
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (857) 277-0902
          Facsimile. (857) 401-3023
          E-mail: jregan@maemployeerights.com

CENTURY 21 PLAZA: Tikotzky Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls/Text
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eta Tikotzky, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Century 21 Plaza, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-06968 (C.D. Cal., August 9, 2019), seeks actual monetary loss
or the sum of five hundred dollars for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, treble damages, pre-judgment
interest, costs and such further relief.

Century 21 operates a real estate company. It utilizes an automatic
telephone dialing system to call consumers with pre-recorded
messages and send text individuals en masse promoting its services.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ
      11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 800
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Tel: (323) 979-2063
      Fax: (323) 488-6748
      Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com

             - and -

      Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
      MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
      701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
      Asbury Park, NJ 07712
      Tel: (732) 695-3282
      Fax: (732) 298-6256
      Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Boumaiz Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Mary-Catherine Boumaiz, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Charter Communications, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
19CV-0310 (Cal. Super., May 23, 2019), was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on August 12,
2019 under Case No. 19-cv-06997.

Boumaiz seeks redress for Defendant's failure to provide meal and
rest breaks, failure to provide itemized wage statements, interest
thereon at the statutory rate, actual damages, all wages due
terminated employees, costs of suit, prejudgment interest and such
other and further relief pursuant to the California Labor Code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders.[BN]

Defendant is represented by:

     Anahi Gonzalez, Esq.
     Aimee G. Mackay. Esq.
     Max C. Fischer, Esq.
     MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
     300 South Grand Ave., 22nd Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
     Tel: (213) 612-2500
     Email: anahi.gonzalez@morganlewis.com
            aimee.mackay@morganlewis.com
            max.fischer@morganlewis.com


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Brooks Files ADA Suit in E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Children's Place,
Inc. The case is styled as Valerie Brooks, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The
Children's Place, Inc. a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01689-KJM-EFB (E.D. Cal., Aug. 29, 2019).

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

Children's Place Inc. is an American specialty retailer of
children's apparel and accessories. The company also markets
apparel under the Children's Place, Place, and Baby Place brand
names.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
     Wilshire Law Firm
     3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Phone: (213) 381-9988
     Fax: (213) 381-9989
     Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


COBALT INT'L: 2 Insurers Seek Transfer of Coverage Dispute
----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that two insurers have asked the Fifth Circuit to
move to federal court a dispute over whether they must pay out for
Cobalt International Energy Inc.'s $220 million securities class
action settlement, saying the Class Action Fairness Act requires
it.  Allied World Assurance Co. and Alterra America Insurance Co.
argued in a brief on Aug. 6 that a lower court got it wrong when it
said Texas state courts could decide the issue. [GN]


COMCAST CABLE: Escobar Sues Over Illegally Recorded Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Escobar, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC and
Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
19CV341868 (Cal. Super., March 19, 2018), seeks redress for
non-consensual recording of cellular communications in violation of
the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

On January 24, 2019, Escobar called Comcast to inquire about their
internet and cable television offerings. Said call was recorded.
The operator failed to disclose upfront or obtain prior consent to
its recordation of calls, notes the complaint.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jon B. Fougner, Esq.
     11600 California Street, 11th FL
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Telephone: (434) 623-2843
     Facsimile: (206) 338-0783
     Email: Jon@FougnerLaw.com


COOPER COMPANIES: Deal in Contact Lens Suit Awaits Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Cooper Companies, Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2019, that the settlement in the
contact lens-related class action remains subject to final Court
approval at a future hearing to be set by the Court.

Since March 2015, over 50 putative class action complaints were
filed by contact lens consumers alleging that contact lens
manufacturers, in conjunction with their respective Unilateral
Pricing Policy (UPP), conspired to reach agreements between each
other and certain distributors and retailers regarding the prices
at which certain contact lenses could be sold to consumers.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages against CooperVision, Inc.,
other contact lens manufacturers, distributors and retailers, in
various courts around the United States.

In June 2015, all of the class action cases were consolidated and
transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.

In August 2017, CooperVision entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs, without any admission of liability, to settle
all claims against CooperVision.

In July 2018, the Court approved the plaintiffs’ motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement, and the Company paid the
$3.0 million settlement amount into an escrow account.

The settlement remains subject to final Court approval at a future
hearing to be set by the Court.

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

The Cooper Companies, Inc. operates as a medical device company
worldwide. It operates through CooperVision and CooperSurgical
business units. The Cooper Companies, Inc. was founded in 1980 and
is headquartered in Pleasanton, California.


CRAIG WRIGHT: Faces Potential Class Lawsuit for Forgery, Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Priyeshu Garg, writing fo Cryptoslate, reports that after losing
the Kleiman case, Craig Wright could face another major lawsuit.
British podcaster Peter McCormack said he was considering a
class-action lawsuit against Wright, Calvin Ayre, and Jimmy Nguyen
for falsely claiming that Wright is Satoshi and that Bitcoin SV is
"Satoshi's vision."

No end in sight for Craig Wright's legal woes

After Craig Wright's year-long battle with the estate of his former
partner, Dave Kleiman, came to an end earlier this week, many
industry heavyweights doubled down on the self-proclaimed Satoshi
Nakamoto. The judge's ruling on the case was partially based on the
fact that Wright lied, falsified documents, and deliberately
obstructed court proceedings, which was taken by many as a clear
sign that the court didn't believe Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto.

While the entire industry has seen this a clear win for justice,
some decided to push even further and hold Wright and his
associates accountable for falsely claiming he was the original
creator of Bitcoin.

British podcaster Peter McCormack, who is currently embroiled in a
libel lawsuit with Wright, proposed filing a class action against
the Satoshi claimant. In an Aug. 28 tweet, McCormack said that a
class-action lawsuit "would only be right" for falsely claiming
that BSV is the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto, when it was
proven that Wright is not Satoshi.

The host of ‘What Bitcoin Did' podcast said that he would be
consulting with lawyers in the U.S. to determine the best way to
deal with the matter, as well as those who have been "defrauded" by
Wright and BSV.

Community divided on whether to double down on Wright

McCormack explained that the lawsuit would be filed against three
individuals—Craig Wright, Calvin Ayre, and Jimmy Nguyen. The
three are "likely" guilty of misleading investors by lying about
BSV's origins and claiming Craig Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto, he
said.

Many members of the crypto community applauded McCormack's idea and
said they would back him and help the lawsuit get off the ground.
Crypto researcher Seeking Satoshi suggested crowd-funding the
lawsuit to speed up the process.

Others saw this as an opportunity to bring Wright down once and for
all, saying there was plenty of evidence lying around that show
Wright defrauded investors.

However, not everyone seemed to be on board with the class-action
lawsuit. Many commented it would be a waste of time, giving Wright
more media attention than he deserves. [GN]


DEV HOTELS: Kirk Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Kirk, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dev Hotels, LLC
and Four Brothers Resources, LLC, Vijay D. Ahir, Rakish Ahir,
Garmesh Ahir and Nitun Ahir, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-04918 (D.
Ariz., August 8, 2019), seeks an award of unpaid wages, liquidated,
treble and punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair labor Standards Act and the Arizona Fair Wages Act.

Defendants own, operate, and/or manage low cost or budget motels
and hotels throughout Arizona where Kirk worked as a manager at the
"Budget Motel" or the "Oyo Motel" in Phoenix. Kirk works regularly
in excess of 40 hours during a week without being compensated
overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Troy P. Foster, Esq.
      The Foster Group, PLLC
      518 East Willetta Street
      Phoenix, Arizona 85004
      Tel: (602) 461-7990
      Email: tfoster@thefosterlaw.com


DICK'S SPORTING: $2.9MM Greer Class Settlement Has Prelim OK
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court from the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Parties' Settlement Agreement in the
case captioned JIMMY GREER, Plaintiff, v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS,
INC., Defendant. Case No. 2:15-cv-01063-KJM-CKD. (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Jimmy Greer filed this class action, alleging defendant
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. violated multiple provisions of the
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code
section 17200.

Under the proposed settlement agreement, DSG would pay a gross
settlement amount of $2,900,000. From this gross settlement amount,
Greer seeks an attorneys' fee award of 33 percent of the gross
settlement ($966,667) and $200,000 in expenses, $65,000 in
settlement administration costs and a $10,000 incentive payment for
Greer's service as a class representative and for agreeing to a
broader release than those required of other Class Members.

This net settlement amount would be distributed to participating
members of the settlement class, which Greer defines as: All
persons who worked at Defendant's California retail stores in
non-exempt positions at any time during the period from: (1) March
18, 2011 to January 31, 2015 (Security Check Class) and (2) March
18, 2011 to April 13, 2017 (Business Reimbursement Class'.

LEGAL STANDARD

These factors substantively track those provided in 2018 amendments
to Rule 23(e)(2), under which the court may approve a settlement
only after considering whether:

(A) the class representatives and class counsel have adequately
represented the class (B) the proposal was negotiated at arm's
length (C) the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking
into account (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal
(ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing
relief to the class, including the method of processing
class-member claims;(iii) the terms of any proposed award of
attorney's fees, including timing of payment  and(iv) any agreement
required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3)  and(D) the proposal
treats class members equitably relative to each other.

Preliminary Approval

Whether the Proposed Relief is Adequate in Light of the Costs,
Risks and Delay
Under Rule 23, the court determines whether the proposed relief is
adequate, considering in part the costs, risks, and delay of trial
and appeal.

Class counsel attest to their exhaustive investigation into the
claims at issue. The parties pursued both formal and informal
discovery, with class counsel reviewing several hundred pages of
documents, including Defendant's written policies regarding the
claims at issue, and a sample of employee time records. Class
counsel also took a total of seven depositions, including
depositions of two DSG Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses, two DSG employee
witnesses, Greer and two plaintiff experts. Counsel's investigation
efforts included determining whether Greer was suitable to serve as
a class representative, evaluating potential class claims,
researching similar, relevant class actions and settlements;
analyzing DSG's policies and practices, conducting a discounted
valuation analysis of the class claims; drafting the mediation
brief and attending mediation; and finalizing the settlement
agreement.  

The security inspection class claims turn on plaintiff's
allegations that DSG required management personnel to search
employees' bags and clothing at the end of their shifts without
compensating employees for their time. Relying on DSG's records,
plaintiff estimates security inspection class members worked
approximately 880,220 shifts during the class period, with security
checks lasting an average of 6 minutes each, resulting in DSG's
maximum exposure of $1,427,717 (880,220 shifts × $16.22/hour ×
0.1 hours). As bases for compromise on the security inspection
claims, plaintiff notes DSG's is likely to argue its security
inspections were sporadic and inconsistent, citing evidence DSG's
Modesto store allowed class members to decide whether they wanted
to participate in an inspection rather than requiring them to do
so.  

The court also certified certain derivative claims tied to claims
for off-the-clock work.  

In plaintiff's derivative claim under California Labor Code section
226(a), he alleges DSG did not provide class members with itemized
wages accurately reflecting their gross and net wages throughout
the one-year statutory limitations period of off-the-clock security
inspections. In determining DSG's maximum liability, plaintiff
opted for a conservative estimate, anticipating DSG would argue
$100 penalties for subsequent violations of Section 226(a) are
unavailable because DSG did not receive formal notification of the
initial violation.  Accordingly, plaintiff estimated DSG's exposure
as $1,380,850 using the $50, rather than $100, violation rate
(27,617 pay periods × $50). Plaintiff argues this figure is
further justified by DSG's anticipated argument that any
inaccuracies in the wage statements were technical and cannot be
deemed to have injured employees as required to obtain damages
under Section 226(e).  

The business expense reimbursement class claims arise from
plaintiff's allegations that DSG required class members to wear
specific clothing styles to work in certain departments but did not
reimburse class members for expenses incurred purchasing such
clothing.  

Taking these claims together, plaintiff estimates DSG's maximum
potential exposure as $17,192,639.50. The parties have agreed to
settle this matter for $2,900,000, which constitutes approximately
17 percent of DSG's total potential liability. Plaintiff has
sufficiently explained several potential impediments to full
recovery in this case, and the prospect of plaintiff's losing at
trial or on appeal, with all attendant costs, indicates the
recovery here is reasonable.

Arm's Length Settlement Negotiations

The court also considers whether the parties reached the settlement
agreement through arm's length negotiations.  

Here, the parties attended private mediation with an experienced
wage and hour mediator, who helped to manage the Parties'
expectations and provided a useful, neutral analysis of the issues
and risks to both sides. The parties did not settle at mediation
but continued their negotiations with the mediator after formal
mediation concluded. The mediator eventually issued a mediator's
proposal, which both parties accepted. The parties' participation
in mediation tends to support the conclusion that the settlement
process was not collusive.

Adequate Representation

Whether the class representatives and class counsel have adequately
represented the class and whether the proposal treats class members
equitably relative to each other also factor into the court's
assessment of whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable
and adequate. To that end, a proposed agreement should not
improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or
segments of the class.

As discussed above, class counsel undertook significant discovery
in this case and successfully moved for class certification. At
this juncture, there is nothing before the court indicating class
counsel have not adequately represented the class. As the sole
representative plaintiff, Greer has served this class through
several years of litigation. Even so, the court is unlikely to
award him the $10,000 incentive award he requests based on what it
currently can discern. This proposed award is significantly, if not
prohibitively, larger than the average $155 award each class member
is expected to receive and represents a significant portion of the
overall $2,900,000 gross settlement amount.  

An excessive class representative service award may be an
indication that the named class member is not adequately
representing the interests of the class. Indeed, a class
representative may be more likely to support a settlement that
shortchanges absent class members when he stands to gain a much
more significant award. There is no such evidence currently before
the court, though the court acknowledges plaintiff intends to
provide this evidence in his formal motion for an incentive award.

Accordingly, while the court preliminarily approves an incentive
award in an amount to be determined in principle and will consider
plaintiff's formal motion for an incentive award of $10,000, it
cannot provide assurance the full $10,000 award sought is likely to
be awarded.

The court also notes the settlement agreement provides the number
of Security Check Class Members will not exceed 5,800 (in order of
date of hire, and the number of Business Reimbursement Class
Members will not exceed 10,700 (in order of date of hire). At
hearing, DSG's counsel assured the court that these figures are
based on DSG's records and estimated with 99 percent accuracy that
no class member would be excluded because of this definition. If
the parties or settlement administrator determines any class member
may be excluded based on his or her hire date, the parties are
ORDERED to notify the court immediately so as to allow the court to
determine how the exclusion should affect the settlement moving
forward.

While the court expresses doubt as to the amount of plaintiff's
incentive award and class counsels' attorneys' fees, the proposed
settlement overall appears to be fair, reasonable and adequate. The
court grants preliminary approval.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 26, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ke5rdk from Leagle.com.

Jimmy Greer, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa Grant --
melissa.grant@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Raul Perez
-- Raul.perez@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Robert J.
Drexler -- Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC,
Bevin Elaine Allen Pike -- Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com --
Capstone Law APC & Jonathan Sing Lee --
Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Babak G.
Yousefzadeh -- byousefzadeh@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton, LLP, Paul S. Cowie -- pcowie@sheppardmullin.com
-- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP, Africa Reanne
Swafford, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Caryn F. Horner
-- chorner@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP.


ELENI OPERATING: Faces Murphy Suit in New York Southern District
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eleni Operating Corp.
The case is captioned as James Murphy, And on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Eleni Operating
Corp., the Defendant, Case 1:19-cv-07744-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19,
2019). The suit alleges violation of Americans with Disabilities
Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lorna G.
Schofield.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Zare Khorozian, Esq.
          ZARE KHOROZIAN LAW, LLC
          1047 Anderson Avenue
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024
          Telephone: (201) 957-7269
          E-mail: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com

ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Jackson Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK JACKSON on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. D/B/A SIMPLICITY PROTECTION, Case
No. 1:19-cv-11799 (D. Mass., Aug. 22, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending
the Plaintiff automated telemarketing calls.

Enterprise Financial Group, Inc. offers extended warranty services.
To generate placements, Enterprise relies on telemarketing.

Mr. Jackson alleges that one of Enterprise's strategies for
telemarketing involves the use of an automatic telephone dialing
system ("ATDS") to solicit business by third parties.  He adds that
Enterprise engages third parties for the use of this equipment
because it allows for thousands of automated calls to be placed at
one time, and saves Enterprise money because its telemarketing
representatives, who are paid by the hour, only talk to individuals
who pick up the telephone.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (508) 221-1510
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

               - and -

          Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq.
          JEREMY COHEN CW LAW GROUP, P.C.
          188 Oaks Road
          Framingham, MA 01701
          Telephone: (508) 309-4880
          E-mail: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com


EXXON MOBIL: Court Quashes Notice of Natelson Video Deposition
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons granting Tuboscope Flight
Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash the Notice of Video Deposition in the
case captioned  WARREN LESTER, ET AL., v. EXXON MOBIL CORP., ET
AL., SECTION "L" (2). Civil Action No. 14-1824. (E.D. La.).

These Plaintiffs are, or assert claims on behalf of, seven former
Tuboscope employees who worked at the Tuboscope pipe yard in
Harvey, Louisiana. These employees allege they were occupationally
exposed to Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) while
working at the Tuboscope Harvey pipe yard, cleaning, inspecting,
and/or coating used oilfield pipes belonging to various Tuboscope
customers. The employees allegedly inhaled NORM-contaminated dust
generated during pipe yard operations and were thereby exposed to
radioactive materials, which have allegedly caused them various
illnesses, fear of cancer and increased risk of cancer.

The Tuboscope Flight Plaintiffs filed a motion to quash the Notice
of Video Deposition of Ethan Natelson.

In the motion, Plaintiffs assert Defendants unilaterally issued a
notice of video deposition setting Ethan Natelson, M.D.'s
deposition for all purposes to take place in Houston, Texas on
August 30, 2019. Plaintiffs contend this date is after the deadline
set in the Scheduling Order, which dictates that all discovery and
taking of trial perpetuation depositions must be done by August 19,
2019. Moreover, Plaintiffs argue there was no prior notice or the
courtesy of checking Plaintiffs' counsel's availability, and no
leave of court sought to take the deposition after the deadline set
in the Scheduling Order.  

In opposition, Defendants argue good cause exists to allow the
trial perpetuation deposition of Dr. Natelson to proceed as planned
for August 30, 2019 in Houston. Specifically, Defendants contend
Dr. Natelson resides in Houston, which is outside of the Court's
subpoena power, and he is unavailable for trial due to his
professional responsibilities as a doctor in hematology and
internal medicine. Defendants state Dr. Natelson indicated the
earliest date he was available for a video perpetuation deposition
was on August 30, 2019 in Houston.   

Defendants argue Plaintiffs' need to prepare for the deposition is
not prejudicial, as Plaintiffs would need to prepare to
cross-examine Dr. Natelson whether he was testifying at a video
deposition in advance of trial or live at trial.

Rule 16(b) governs the amendment of pleadings after a scheduling
order deadline has expired. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
16(b)(4), a Court's scheduling order may be modified only for good
cause and with the judge's consent. To demonstrate good cause for
modifying a scheduling order, the movant must show that the
deadlines cannot be reasonably met despite the diligence of the
party needing the extensions.

When a party moves to amend the scheduling order, a court must
consider (1) the explanation for the failure to timely move for
leave to amend (2) the importance of the amendment (3) potential
prejudice in allowing the amendment and (4) the availability of a
continuance to cure such prejudice.

In this case, the Scheduling Order issued by the Court states:
Depositions for trial use shall be taken and all discovery shall be
completed not later than August 19, 2019. Defendants have not moved
to amend the scheduling order, and instead, have attempted to set
Dr. Natelson's video deposition for August 30, 2019, over ten days
after the deadline stated in the Scheduling.
  
The Court issued the Scheduling Order in February 2019, however,
and it is unclear why the Defendants waited so long to contact Dr.
Natelson to schedule his deposition. The Scheduling Order was
issued approximately seven months prior to the scheduled trial
date, so Defendants should have had ample opportunity to set the
video perpetuation deposition with Dr. Natelson in advance of the
August 19, 2019 deadline. Moreover, Defendants did not seek leave
of the Court to conduct this deposition beyond the deadline set by
the Court nor did they seek an extension of the deadline before
scheduling the video deposition.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 26, 2019 Order and
Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxzxdc2o from
Leagle.com.

Warren Lester, Alfreda Marshall, David Quinn, Demetria Sterling,
Dawn Humphries, Joseph LeBlanc, Sr., Jeffrey Guidry, Eugenio
Mallol, Antionette Clark, Wade Bethley, Charles Paine, III, Rebekah
Paine, Renee Deris, Kevin Pollard, Harold Singleton, Arthur
Russell, Jr., Darlene Roche, Leo Pollard, Ronald Williams, John
Williams, Sr., Roderick Roussell, surviving child of decedent,
Henry Roussell, Jr., Henry Roussell, III, suviving child of
decendent, Henry Roussell, Jr. & Shaun Comeaux, rec doc 652,
Plaintiffs, represented by Timothy John Falcon, Falcon Law Firm,
Jarrett S. Falcon, Falcon Law Firm, Jeremiah A. Sprague, Falcon Law
Firm, 5044 Lapalco Blvd., Marrero, LA, 70072-4236, Juan C. Obregon
-- Juan.Obregon@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C., Kevin
David Micale, Smith Stag, LLC, 365 Canal Street, Suite 2850, New
Orleans, LA 70130, Michael G. Stag, Stag Liuzza, LLC & Stuart
Housel Smith, Smith Stag, LLC, 365 Canal Street, Suite 2850, New
Orleans, LA 70130

Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Glen Marion
Pilie, Adams & Reese, LLP, 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4500, New
Orleans, LA 70139, David M. Stein, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &
Carey, 1100 Poydras St Ste 3300, New Orleans, LA, 70163-3300,
Donald Cole Massey -- dmassey@couhigpartners.com -- Couhig
Partners, LLC, E. Paige Sensenbrenner, Adams & Reese, LLP, Martin
Alan Stern, Adams & Reese, LLP,Roland M. Vandenweghe, Jr., Adams &
Reese, LLP, Ronald J. Sholes, Adams & Reese, LLP & Valeria M.
Sercovich, Adams & Reese, LLP. 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4500, New
Orleans, LA 70139


FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Settlement in Morris Suit Has Final Court OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of a Class Action Settlement in the case captioned ADRIAN
MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FIDELITY INVESTMENTS, FMR LLC, and FIDELITY
BROKERAGE SERVICES LLC, Defendants. No. C 17-06027 WHA. (N.D.
Cal.).

In this wage-and-hour class action, plaintiff moves for final
approval of a class action settlement and FLSA settlement.  

In short, plaintiff Adrian Morris worked as a non-exempt financial
representative for defendant Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC and
participated in the company's quarterly-bonus,
student-loan-repayment, and fitness-reimbursement programs.
Plaintiff alleges defendants failed to pay her earned overtime
wages by miscalculating her regular rate of pay with respect to her
bonus overtime and by failing to consider compensation paid under
these programs when calculating her regular rate of pay for
overtime purposes.

Adequacy of Notice

The notice must be reasonably calculated, under all the
circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the
action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.
It must also describe the terms of the settlement in sufficient
detail to alert those with adverse viewpoints to investigate and to
come forward and be heard. The undersigned judge previously
approved the proposed class notice provided that the missing
information in the notices was filled out. As described above, the
claims administrator has fulfilled the notice plan. This order
accordingly finds that notice to class members is adequate.

Scope of Release

As stated in the motion granting preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement, the agreement appropriately defines the class
and collective using the same definitions set forth in the class
certification order. The proposed settlement agreement releases
only claims actually asserted in this action and those seeking
relief based on substantially the same recovery.

Accordingly, the scope of the class and collective definition,
release, and treatment of other pending litigation in the proposed
settlement agreement is appropriately tailored and approved.

Fairness, Reasonableness, and Adequacy of Proposed Settlement

The gross settlement fund will be more than one hundred percent of
the $1,071,404 in wages that plaintiff contends is owed to the
class and collective. Pursuant to PAGA, a sum of $15,000 will be
paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency out
of the gross settlement fund. Furthermore, the class representative
and class counsel have adequately represented the class. The
parties reached the proposed settlement after nearly two years of
litigation and a settlement conference with Chief Magistrate Judge
Spero, the scope of the class definition and release in the
settlement agreement is appropriately tailored, and no class member
has objected to the settlement.

Second, the plan of allocation of the settlement proceeds is fair
and reasonable. The net settlement after the deduction of expenses
and attorney's fees will be distributed on a pro rata basis among
class members based on the actual amount of unpaid wages each
member would receive if plaintiff established her claims at trial.
Moreover, the proposed settlement agreement does not require class
members to participate in a claims process in order to claim their
share of the settlement fund.  

Final approval of the proposed class settlement and plan of
allocation is GRANTED.

FLSA COLLECTIVE SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff also moves for final approval of a settlement of
plaintiff's FLSA claims.

The FLSA prohibits traditional class actions and authorizes only an
opt-in collective action. A proposed FLSA settlement must be "a
fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA
provisions. This order finds that the parties have a bona fide
dispute regarding overtime wages and that the settlement represents
a reasonable compromise of those claims. Defendants have continued
to deny liability, and there is thus a distinct possibility that
plaintiff would have recovered nothing had she pursued the action
through trial. The extent to which the parties had conducted
discovery and the experience and views of counsel also weigh in
favor of approving the settlement.

This order accordingly finds that the proposed settlement is a
fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of plaintiff's FLSA
claims and is accordingly APPROVED.

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES, EXPENSES, AND INCENTIVE AWARD.

Expenses

Class counsel seeks $13,290.79 in litigation costs. The largest
component of these expenses is data expert ($10,134.50). The next
largest component is travel ($1,574.03). Counsel also seeks
reimbursement for filing fees and service charges ($664.09),
postage ($23.01), research ($330.50), and copies ($564.66). These
expenses were a reasonable and necessary part of the litigation,
and are of a type customarily billed to a fee-paying client. No
class member objected to recovery of these costs.

The motion for reimbursement of these costs is GRANTED.

Enhancement Award

Plaintiff requests a $5,000 enhancement award. Generally, a class
representative should not get a bonus. In this case, counsel at
oral argument represented that the class representative attended
the parties' settlement conference and spent approximately 40 hours
assisting counsel with the case. As such, the class representative
shall be awarded a $500 enhancement award.

The motion for an enhancement award is GRANTED to the extent stated
above.

Attorney's Fees

A district court must ensure that attorney's fees are fair,
adequate, and reasonable, even if the parties have entered into a
settlement agreement that provides for those fees. In common-fund'
cases where the settlement or award creates a large fund for
distribution to the class, the district court has discretion to use
either a percentage or lodestar method. Our court of appeals has
recognized 25 percent of the common fund as a benchmark award for
attorney's fees.  

Class counsel seeks $300,000 in attorney's fees or 25 percent of
the gross settlement fund and approximately 3.7% more than the
claimed lodestar (up until July 2, 2019) of $289,101.50. Counsel
conducted motion practice and discovery, and engaged in significant
settlement negotiations in this case. Moreover, counsel also worked
on a contingent-fee basis despite the risks of litigation for
approximately two years. All of these factors weigh in favor of an
attorney's fees payment in line with our court of appeals'
benchmark of 25 percent.

However, in light of the $13,290.79 in expenses and $500 incentive
award claimed in this case, the $1.2 million recovery is reduced to
a net settlement fund of $1,186,209.21. Such a fee would come out
of the pocket of class members. A resulting award of $296,552
representing 25% of the net settlement fund is fair, adequate, and
reasonable. The request for attorney's fees is accordingly GRANTED
in the amount of $296,552. Half of this amount shall be paid after
the effective date as defined in the settlement agreement. The
other half shall be paid when class counsel certify that all funds
have been properly distributed and the file can be completely
closed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 26, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y52vqrhp from Leagle.com.

Adrian Morris, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher David Baker --
cbaker@bakerlp.com -- Baker Curtis & Schwartz, P.C. & Deborah R.
Schwartz -- dschwartz@bakerllp.com -- Baker Curtis & Schwartz,
P.C.

FMR LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company & Fidelity Brokerage
Services LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants,
represented by Malcolm A. Heinicke -- Malcolm.Heinicke@mto.com --
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Marja-Liisa Overbeck --
Mari.Overbeck@mto.com -- Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP & Martin D.
Bern -- Martin.Bern@mto.com -- Munger Tolles & Olson LLP.


GARDEN CITY, MI: Court Dismisses Suit Over Weed Ordinance
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued a Opinion and Order granting
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned Investment
Realty Services, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. City of Garden City,
Defendant. Case No. 19-10198. (E.D. Mich.).

Two named Plaintiffs filed this putative class action challenging
the constitutionality of Defendant Garden City's Weed and Nuisance
Ordinance and its Rental Ordinance.

Claims Asserted By Safevest

Safevest is the sole named Plaintiff that asserts the claims that
pertain to the City's Rental Ordinance (Counts Four, Five, and part
of Count Seven, of the Amended Complaint).

Count Five of the Amended Complaint alleges a violation of the
Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, specifically
that the Rental Ordinance is unconstitutional on its face and
as-applied based on Safevest's allegation that the ordinances
authorize warrantless searches.

Count Four alleges that the Rental Ordinance violates the Fifth and
Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and
specifically the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, by
conditioning the sale or rental of a property on property owners'
consent to relinquish their Fourth Amendment protection against
warrantless searches. This claim is derivative of Count V in that
Plaintiffs assert that by conditioning a rental certificate on an
owner's agreement to refrain from exercising his or her
constitutional right to be free from unlimited warrantless
searches, the City has violated the unconstitutional conditions
doctrine.

Count Seven is also asserted by Safevest. In that count, Safevest
seeks to bring a claim under Section 1983 but does not raise any
substantive claim, other than those asserted in Counts Four and
Five.

Article III standing requires the claimant to establish three
things: (1) a concrete and particularized injury, actual or
imminent (2) traceable to the defendant and (3) proof that a
favorable outcome would redress the harm.

The party that invokes federal jurisdiction must establish its
standing at every stage of the litigation. When litigants present
multiple claims in a case, as Plaintiffs1 do here, they must show
injury for each claim they press.

Here, the City asserts that Safevest lacks standing to bring its
claims because: 1) it has not suffered an injury-in-fact and 2) its
alleged harm is not redressable. This Court need not proceed past
the first standing argument presented in the motion. Vonderhaar v.
Village of Evendale, Ohio, 906 F.3d 397, 401 (6th Cir. 2018).

The City contends that, like the plaintiffs in Vonderhaar, Safevest
lacks standing. It notes that in Vonderhaar, the Sixth Circuit
dismissed a facial and as-applied Fourth Amendment challenge to a
rental property ordinance for lack of standing due to lack of an
actual or imminent injury under facts virtually identical to those
present in this case.

In Vonderhaar, property owners filed suit against the Village of
Evendale, alleging that its rental ordinance violated the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution by authorizing
warrantless searches.  

The district court rejected the plaintiffs' as-applied Fourth
Amendment challenge because the village did not search any of their
properties. But the district court granted a preliminary
injunction, concluding that the building code's inspection
procedures facially violate the Fourth Amendment.The village
appealed and the Sixth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction,
concluding that the plaintiff lacked standing as to the facial
challenge too.

Again, it is Safevest's burden to establish its standing to bring
its claims in this case. To defeat the City's factual attack to
subject matter jurisdiction, Safevest must prove the existence of
subject-matter-jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence and
is obliged to submit facts through some evidentiary method to
sustain its burden of proof. Safevest has failed to meet that
burden.

Like the ordinance at issue in Vonderhaar, the City's Rental
Ordinance provides that: 1) if the structure or premises is
occupied the code official shall present credentials to the
occupant and request entry 2) if the structure or premises is
unoccupied, the code official shall first make a reasonable effort
to locate the owner, owner's authorized agent or other person
having charge or control of the structure or premises and request
entry and 3) If entry is refused, the code official shall have
recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry.

In the Amended Complaint, Safevest merely alleges that it submitted
an application for registration of its property on Cardwell and
that, on or about October 15, 2018, a code official from the City
entered Safevest's property at 5918 Cardwell and conducted an
inspection of that property. Notably, the Amended Complaint does
not include any further factual allegations regarding the
circumstances surrounding the inspection such as whether Safevest's
representative or tenant refused entry to the code official or
whether they consented to the code official entering the property.
Then, in response to this pending motion, Safevest has not
submitted any affidavits from its representatives or tenants as to
such facts.

Indeed, in response to the City's motion, Safevest has not
presented any evidence to indicate that the City has ever conducted
an inspection under its Rental Ordinance in a manner that violates
the Fourth Amendment (absent either consent or a warrant). It has
also failed to present any evidence that the City is likely to do
so in the future.

Safevest also fails to allege, or present any evidence to
establish, that it has ever been fined or prosecuted in connection
with its application or the Cardwell property.
Accordingly, Safevest lacks standing to challenge the City's Rental
Ordinance.
Because the other substantive count asserted by Safevest (Count
Four) appears to be derivative of Count Five, Safevest would also
lack standing as to that count. In addition, that count shall also
be dismissed for the same reason why it was dismissed in MS Rental,
as explained below.

Claims Asserted By IRS

IRS is the sole named Plaintiff who asserts the claims that pertain
to the City's Weed and Nuisance Ordinance (Counts One, Two, Three,
Six, and Seven of the Amended Complaint).

In Count One, IRS alleges that the Weed and Nuisance Ordinance
violates due process, because it does not provide an opportunity to
challenge a determination that a property is in violation, or the
fees associated with abatement of that violation.

Count Two alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United
States Constitution, claiming that fees for grass abatement under
the Weed and Nuisance Ordinance are excessive fines.

Count Three alleges a second violation of due process with respect
to the Weed and Nuisance Ordinance, asserting that the City does
not provide proper notice of violations under its own ordinance.

Count Six, seeks declaratory relief, and is asserted by IRS. But it
does not appear to assert a substantive claim. Rather, it seeks the
remedy of declaratory relief for substantive claims asserted in
Counts One, Two, and Three.

Count Seven is also asserted by IRS. In that count, IRS seeks to
bring a claim under § 1983 but does not raise any substantive
claim other than those asserted in Counts One, Two, or Three.

Chapter 92 further provides that the City will abate a nuisance,
after providing notice and an opportunity to abate it:

Section 92.16 Control And Maintenance By City.If the provisions of
Section 92.15 are not complied with, the Director of Public
Services, or his duly authorized representatives, shall notify the
occupant or owner of unoccupied premises to comply with the
provisions within a time to be specified in the notice. The notice
shall be given in accordance with Section 10.12 of this Code. The
notice shall require compliance within five days after services of
the notice, and if the notice is not complied with within the time
specified within the notice, the Director shall cause the weeds,
grass, and other vegetation to be removed or destroyed, together
with any grading necessary to allow the removal of the vegetation.
The cost of cutting, removal, grading, or destruction shall be
charged in accordance with the Comprehensive Fee Schedule in
Chapter 12 of this Code. The charge shall become at once a debt to
the city from the persons to whom they are assessed, together with
all charges thereon, and shall, on July 1, become a lien on the
property assessed of the same character and effect as the lien
created by general law for state and county taxes, until paid.

IRS purchased the Balmoral Property from Christopher Brewer on May
17, 2017, after the alleged nuisance had been abated by the City.
The closing statement for that sale reflects a debit to the seller
of $2,000.00 for Grass Cutting Invoices to City of Garden City. It
does not list the dates that are associated with those
grass-cutting invoices.

IRS owned the Balmoral Property for a very short period of time.
IRS sold the Balmoral Property to Piper 22045, LLC on July 1, 2017.
Thus, IRS owned it for less than two months. Piper 22045, LLC later
sold the Balmoral Property to Safevest.  

The City produced an invoice for a $400.00 abatement fee for the
May 12, 2017 grass cutting at the Balmoral Property, that appears
to have been issued and sent to Safevest on May 23, 2017, at the
Balmoral Property address. That invoice listed an Invoice Number
0001006259 for the May 12, 2017 grass cutting.  

The City asserts that IRS lacks standing to raise the three
substantive counts that challenge the Weed and Nuisance Ordinance
(Counts One, Two, and Three) because it lacks an injury in fact or
causation.   

The City argues that IRS lacks both an injury in fact and a causal
link necessary to assert standing for any of its claims in this
action.  

The Court concludes that IRS has failed to meet its burden of
establishing its standing, by a preponderance of the evidence.

First, IRS has not presented evidence to establish, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that it actually paid the fee that
was assessed by the City for the May 12, 2017 abatement of the
alleged nuisance at the Balmoral Property. That fee could have been
paid by Brewer, as part of the $2,000.00 in grass cutting fees that
were withheld from his sales proceeds when he sold the Balmoral
Property to IRS.

Alternatively, that fee could have been paid by Safevest, as the
City's records appear to indicate. It is also possible that the
title company paid that fee to the City from the sales proceeds it
withheld from IRS when it sold the Balmoral Property to Piper 22045
LLC, although the documents produced by IRS do not contain any
identifying information such as the date or invoice number. This
vague and seemingly conflicting evidence does not establish, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the $400.00 withheld from IRS's
sales proceeds at closing was for this nuisance abatement fee.

Second, even if IRS produced evidence that established that the
$400.00 that was withheld from the sales proceeds was used to pay a
lien placed on the property after the prior owner failed to pay the
fee for the May 12, 2017 grass cutting, this Court would still
conclude that IRS has failed to establish standing to assert its
claims in this action.

Here, IRS owned the Balmoral Property for a very brief window of
time (less than two months). No notices of alleged violations of
the Weed and Nuisance Ordinance were issued to IRS by the City, or
posted on the Balmoral Property, during the time period that it
owned it.

The City's Other Challenges To Plaintiffs Claims, Under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(c)
The City's motion also challenges Plaintiffs' claims under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(c). Because the Court agrees that Safevest and IRS lack
standing to assert Counts One through Five, then the Court need not
reach these additional or alternative grounds for challenging those
counts. That said, Count Four appears to be derivative of Count
Five, but it also fails for the same reason why it was dismissed in
MS Rental.

In addition, the Court shall address the City's challenge to the
other counts, that do not assert substantive claims on behalf of
Safevest or IRS (Counts Six and Seven).
Motions brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) are adjudicated under
the same standards as those under Rule 12(b)(6).  

Rule 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a case where the
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff and accept its allegations as true. To survive a
motion to dismiss, the complaint must offer sufficient factual
allegations that make the asserted claims plausible on their face.
Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations will not suffice.
Rather, a claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

Count Four (Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine Claim)

The City's motion asserts that, even if Safevest was found to have
standing, Count Four of the Amended Complaint should still be
dismissed because an unconstitutional conditions claim is not
available in conjunction with its Fourth Amendment claim.

In their response brief opposing the City's motion, Plaintiffs
state denied as untrue as to the City's statement of this issue.
But the body of their brief ignores this argument. Plaintiffs do
not respond to this argument or attempt to explain how they can
proceed with Count Four in light of their assertion of the
violation of their Fourth Amendment rights in other counts. As
such, Count Four shall be dismissed.

Counts Six (Declaratory Judgment) and Seven (Section 1983)

The City's motion asserts that it is entitled to judgment on the
pleadings in its favor as to Counts Six and Seven because
declaratory relief and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 are not substantive
causes of action.  

Notably, in their response brief opposing the motion, Plaintiffs do
not respond to this argument or attempt to explain how these counts
can proceed as independent claims.

The same is true of the Amended Complaint in this action. This
Court shall dismiss Counts Six and Seven because they do not assert
independent causes of action on behalf of Safevest or IRS.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 26, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxpk6xrn from
Leagle.com.

Investment Realty Services, LLC & Safevest Oakland Acquisitions,
LLC, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark K. Wasvary --
mark@wasvarylaw.com -- Mark K. Wasvary, P.C. & Aaron D. Cox, Law
Offices of Aaron D. Cox PLLC, 23380 Goddard Road, Taylor, Michigan
48180

City of Garden City, Defendant, represented by Anne McClorey
McLaughlin, Rosati, Schultz, Joppich & Amtsbuechler, P.C. & Matthew
J. Zalewski, Rosati Schultz Joppich & Amtsbuechler, PC, 27555
Executive Drive Suite 250, Farmington Hills, MI 48331


GBT US LLC: Cook Seeks Overtime Pay for Travel Agents
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against GBT US LLC, Global
Business Travel, and American Express GBT for alleged violations of
the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) and several provisions of
the California Labor Code. The case is captioned CARL COOK,
individually and in his representative capacity, Plaintiff, vs. GBT
US, LLC; GLOBAL BUSINESS TRAVEL; AMERICAN EXPRESS GBT; and DOES 1
through 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1921957 (Cal.
Super., San Bernardino Cty., July 24, 2019). Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to
provide meal and rest periods, failing to pay overtime wages, and
failing to provide itemized written wage statement. Accordingly,
Plaintiff seeks recovery of penalties under the PAGA, prejudgment
interest at the legal rate, attorney's fees and costs, and other
and further relief as the court may deem just proper and
equitable.

Founded in 2013, GBT US LLC, doing business as American Express
Global Business Travel, operates as a travel agency. It focuses on
travel management, meetings, and events. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sanford A. Kassel, Esq.
     Gavin P. Kassel, Esq.
     SANFORD A. KASSEL, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
     Wells Fargo Bank Building, Suite #207
     334 West Third Street
     San Bernardino, CA 92401-1823
     Telephone: (909) 884-6451
     Facsimile: (909) 884-8032
     E-mail: Office@skassellaw.com

GRAND CANYON: Removes Austin's RICO Suit to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
Grand Canyon University, Inc. and Grand Canyon Education, Inc.
removed the case captioned as DEBRA AUSTIN and TAMMY BAKER, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY, INC., and GRAND CANYON
EDUCATION, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2019CV324006 (Filed July
18, 2019), from the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, to
the Atlanta Division of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on Aug. 19, 2019. The Northern
District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-03734-SCJ
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that they and the putative class have been
harmed in connection with their enrollment in Grand Canyon's
professional degree programs. The Plaintiffs' assert claims for:
(i) fraudulent omission; (ii) fraudulent misrepresentation; (iii)
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, (iv) violation of the Arizona Civil RICO act; (v) violation of
the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act; (vi) intentional misrepresentation;
and (vii) unjust enrichment.

The complaint seeks compensatory, punitive, and other damages, as
well as attorneys’ fees and a judicial declaration that certain
unidentified contract provisions are unenforceable.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          E. Adam Webb, Esq.
          Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339

Attorneys for Defendants Grand Canyon are:

          Derin B. Dickerson, Esq.
          Andrew Liebler, Esq.
          Kathryn Klorfein, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Telephone: 404 881-7000
          Facsimile: 404 253-8169
          E-mail: derin.dickerson@alston.com
                  andrew.liebler@alston.com
                  kathryn.klorfein@alston.com



GREAT WALL CHINESE: Denied Delivery Workers Overtime Pay, Says Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Candido Cano and Vicente Juarez Candido, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Xing Fu, Inc.,
Jin Jiang Chun Chinese Restaurant, Ltd., Min Feng Chen, Angel Doe
and Danny Doe, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07485 (S.D. N.Y., August
9, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and
redress for failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control "Great Wall Chinese Restaurant"
in New York where Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers.
They claim to have spent more than 20% of their time performing
non-tipped duties for Defendant such as opening and closing the
restaurant, rolling silverware, performing side work, and other
non-tipped duties, which usually is in excess of forty hours per
week but did not receive overtime pay for this. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


GREIF INC: Suit Over Noxious Odor at Wisconsin Plant Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greif, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 29, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2019, that the company, together with
Container Life Cycle Management (CLCM), continues to defend a
putative class action suit in Wisconsin concerning one of CLCM's
Milwaukee reconditioning facilities.

on November 8, 2017, the Company, CLCM and other parties were named
as defendants in a punitive class action lawsuit filed in Wisconsin
state court concerning one of CLCM's Milwaukee reconditioning
facilities.

The plaintiffs are alleging that odors from this facility have
invaded their property and are interfering with the use and
enjoyment of their property and causing damage to the value of
their property. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive
damages, along with their legal fees.

The Company and CLCM are vigorously defending themselves in this
lawsuit.

The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
estimate a range of reasonably possible losses.

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

Greif, Inc. produces and sells industrial packaging products and
services worldwide. It operates through four segments: Rigid
Industrial Packaging & Services; Paper Packaging & Services;
Flexible Products & Services; and Land Management.  The company was
formerly known as Greif Bros. Corporation and changed its name to
Greif, Inc. in 2001. Greif, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is
headquartered in Delaware, Ohio.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. continues to defend against the
class action suit entitled, In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation, the company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August
29, 2019, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019.

On August 17, 2016, three securities class action complaints were
filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Company
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The three complaints are: (1) Flora v. The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc., et al. (the "Flora Complaint");

(2) Lynn v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Lynn
Complaint"); and

(3) Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Spadola
Complaint" and, together with the Flora and Lynn Complaints, the
"Securities Complaints").

On June 5, 2017, the court issued an order for consolidation,
appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of selection of
co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, the Securities Complaints
were consolidated under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Consolidated Securities Action"),
and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel were appointed as
Co-Lead Plaintiffs.

On June 21, 2017, the Company received notice that plaintiff
Spadola voluntarily dismissed his claims without prejudice to his
ability to participate in the Consolidated Securities Action as an
absent class member.

The Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action filed
a Consolidated Amended Complaint on August 4, 2017 and a Corrected
Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 7, 2017 on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities between November 5,
2013 and February 10, 2017 (the "Amended Complaint").

The Amended Complaint named as defendants the Company and certain
of its current and former officers (collectively, "Defendants") and
asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly materially false or
misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press
releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's business,
prospects, financial results and internal controls.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
October 3, 2017 which the Court granted on March 29, 2019,
dismissing the case in its entirety, without prejudice to replead.


Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on May 6, 2019 (the "Second Amended Complaint"). The
Second Amended Complaint again names as defendants the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and asserts violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on allegations similar to those in the Amended Complaint,
including materially false or misleading statements and omissions
in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the
Company's business, prospects, financial results and internal
controls.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on June 20, 2019. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition on August
5, 2019, and Defendants had until September 3, 2019 to submit a
reply.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes,
and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in
seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's
Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake
Success, New York.


HALLCON CORP:  Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Bell Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
MARIA BELL on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and
on behalf of the general public v. HALLCON CORPORATION; and DOES
1-100, Case No. CGC-19-578605 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty.,
Aug. 22, 2019), accuses the Defendants of violating the California
Labor Code by failing to pay all wages due and overtime wages to
their drivers, road drivers, yard drivers and bus drivers.

The Defendants own and operate trucks, industrial trucks,
industrial vehicles, and/or industrial work sites.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Mara, Esq.
          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          MARA LAW FIRM, PC
          2650 Camino Del Rio N, Suite 205
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
          E-mail: dmara@maralawfirm.com
                  jserb@maralawfirm.com


HEALTH INSURANCE: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Moser Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., filed an appeal from
a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Kenneth Moser v. HII, et al.,
3:17-cv-01127-WQH-KSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court issued an Order requiring Non-Disclosure of Confidential
Information in the case.

Before the District Court for in camera review are copies of
Settlement Agreements containing confidentiality clauses that the
Plaintiff executed in other litigation involving alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants violated the TCPA by making
multiple, unauthorized calls to his cellular and residential
telephones using an automatic dialing system or artificial,
pre-recorded voice.

The appellate case is captioned as Kenneth Moser v. HII, et al.,
Case No. 19-80111, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

The questions presented are:

   1. Whether a defendant waives his right to challenge personal
      jurisdiction over unnamed class members' claims by not
      asserting lack of personal jurisdiction in a motion to
      dismiss before class certification;

   2. Whether Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S.
      Ct. 1773 (2017), applies to class actions in federal court;
      and

   3. Whether the District Court properly certified the two
      nationwide classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
      Civil Procedure.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent KENNETH J. MOSER, individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq.
          Matt Malone, Esq.
          RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
          101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-4949
          E-mail: jbc@rocklawcal.com
                  mjm@rocklawcal.com

               - and -

          Justin Prato, Esq.
          PRATO & REICHMAN, APC
          8555 Aero Drive, Suite 303
          San Diego, CA 92123
          Telephone: (619) 886-0252
          E-mail: chrisr@prato-reichman.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Reichman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. REICHMAN
          750 B Street, Suite 2720
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 683-7971
          E-mail: chrisr@prato-reichman.com

Defendant-Petitioner Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. is
represented by:

          Anne M. Voigts, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          601 South California Avenue, Suite 100
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 422-6700
          E-mail: avoigts@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew V.H. Noller, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 321-4800
          E-mail: mnoller@kslaw.com

               - and -

          David L. Balser, Esq.
          Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
          Danielle Chattin, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          E-mail: dbalser@kslaw.com
                  zmcentyre@kslaw.com
                  dchattin@kslaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner NATIONAL CONGRESS OF EMPLOYERS, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, is represented by:

          Ryan Davis, Esq.
          Barton Hegeler, Esq.
          HEGELER & ANDERSON, APC
          4660 LA Jolla Village Drive
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 597-9975
          Facsimile: (858) 452-1491
          E-mail: rdavis@hegeler-anderson.com


HENDERSON, NV: Woodburn Suit Asserts FLSA Breach
------------------------------------------------
KELLY WOODBURN and THOMAS WOODBURN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF HENDERSON;
DOES I through V, inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through V,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01488-JAD-VCF (D. Nev.,
Aug. 27, 2019) is a case arising out of Defendants' willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to make, keep, and
preserve records reflecting the precise number of overtime hours
Plaintiffs, and all others similarly situated, worked, in violation
of the FLSA.

Plaintiffs were employed by the City of Henderson as Corrections
Officers.

CITY OF HENDERSON was at all relevant times the political
subdivision operating the Henderson Police Department and Henderson
Corrections Division.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     JOSEPH N. MOTT, ESQ.
     SCOTT E. LUNDY, ESQ.
     REMPFER MOTT LUNDY, PLLC
     10091 Park Run Dr., Ste. #200
     Las Vegas, NV 89145-8868
     Phone: (702) 825-5303
     Fax: (702) 825-4413
     Email: Joey@rmllegal.com
            Scott@rmllegal.com

HILTON MANAGEMENT: Booker Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Booker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hilton Management, LLC and Doubletree
Hotel Systems, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2019CH09270 (Ill. Cir.,
August 12, 2019), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease
all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage
and use of biometrics, and for statutory damages together with
costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Hilton Management, is a hotel management company located in McLean,
VA, and operates as Doubletree by Hilton Chicago, where Booker
worked as a housekeeper from July 1 to 19, 2019, at its facility
located at 300 E. Ohio Street, Chicago, IL 60611. She was required
to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned
fingerprints.

Hilton improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data without
informed consent, the complaint asserts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312) 233 1550
     Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
            cmitchell@stephanzouras.com


HP INC: Forsyth Class Action Suit Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 29, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2019, that the class action suit entitled, Forsyth,
et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, remains stayed.

This is a purported class and collective action filed on August 18,
2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, against HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging the
defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment
Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
California public policy and the California Business and
Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them
with younger workers.

Plaintiffs originally sought to certify a nationwide collective
class action under the ADEA comprised of all U.S. residents
employed by defendants who had their employment terminated pursuant
to a workforce reduction ("WFR") plan on or after May 23, 2012 and
who were 40 years of age or older.

Plaintiffs also originally sought to represent a Rule 23 class
under California law comprised of all persons 40 years or older
employed by defendants in the state of California and terminated
pursuant to a WFR plan on or after May 23, 2012.

Following a partial motion to dismiss, a motion to strike and a
motion to compel arbitration that the defendants filed in November
2016, the plaintiffs amended their complaint. New plaintiffs were
added, but the plaintiffs agreed that the class period for the
putative nationwide ADEA collective action should be shortened and
now starts, at the earliest, on December 9, 2014. The plaintiffs
also agreed that the class period for the putative California state
law class action should be shortened and now starts on August 18,
2012.

On January 30, 2017, the defendants filed another partial motion to
dismiss and motions to compel arbitration as to several of the
plaintiffs. On March 20, 2017, the defendants filed additional
motions to compel arbitration as to a number of the opt-in
plaintiffs.

On September 20, 2017, the Court granted the motions to compel
arbitration as to the plaintiffs and opt-ins who signed WFR release
agreements, denied the pending motion to dismiss without prejudice,
stayed the action and administratively closed the case pending the
completion of the compelled arbitrations.

On November 30, 2017, three named plaintiffs and twelve opt-in
plaintiffs filed a single arbitration demand.  An additional
arbitration claimant was added later by stipulation.

On December 22, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to: (1) stay
the claims of individuals not subject to arbitration and (2) enjoin
the demanded arbitration and require each plaintiff to file a
separate arbitration demand.  

On February 6, 2018, the Court granted the motion to stay and
denied the motion to enjoin. Pre-arbitration mediation proceedings
took place on October 4 and 5, 2018, and the claims of all 16
arbitration claimants were resolved. Between November 2018 and
April 2019, an additional 154 individuals filed consents to
opt‐in to the action as party‐plaintiffs.

Of the new opt-ins, 145 signed separation agreements that include
class waivers and mandatory arbitration provisions. The addition of
these opt-ins brings the total number of named and opt-in
plaintiffs to 193. Mediation proceedings took place in June 2019
with respect to the 145 op-ins who signed separation agreements,
and the parties are continuing to engage in settlement discussions.


The stay of the litigation remains in place.

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

HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.


HUDSON CITY SAVINGS: Court Dismisses Lin FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting Defendants' Motions to Dismiss in the
case captioned AY LIN and IRENE LIN, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HUDSON CITY SAVINGS
BANK, M&T BANK, and PARKER McCAY, P.A., Defendants.  Civil Action
No. 3:18-cv-15387-BRM-LHG. (D.N.J.).

Plaintiffs executed a mortgage and note of $680,000 to Hudson, in
connection with a property located in Warren, New Jersey, to pay
off an existing mortgage of $200,000.  Hudson through its counsel,
non-party Zucker, Goldberg & Ackerman, filed a foreclosure action
against Plaintiffs, alleging default by virtue of Plaintiffs'
failure to tender a payment due.

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint, in which they sought class action
certification, against Defendants asserting causes of action for:
violations of the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. Section
362(a) (Count One), violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) (Count Two), violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA)
(Count Three); and unjust enrichment (Count Four).

The Defendants argue this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this action pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this
Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction pursuant to the
Colorado River abstention doctrine, Plaintiffs' claims are barred
by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata, and that
notwithstanding these doctrines, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim
for which relief can be granted.

Plaintiffs argue this Court should deny Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss because neither Defendant submitted Corporate Disclosure
Statements as required by Rule 7.1 and Defendants' reliance on Rule
12(b)(1) is wholly without merit in the absence of existing state
court judgments subject to relitigation in federal court.

Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

Rooker-Feldman serves to bar a claim when: (1) the federal claim
was actually litigated in state court before the plaintiff filed
the federal action or (2) if the federal claim is inextricably
intertwined with the state adjudication, meaning that federal
relief can only be predicated upon a conviction that the state
court was wrong.

Here, the four criteria necessary to invoke the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine are satisfied.
First, final judgment was entered in the Foreclosure Action against
Plaintiffs on July 28, 2017. Prior to the entry of final judgment
in the Foreclosure Action, Plaintiffs argued unsuccessfully that
the action should have been stayed due to Zucker Goldberg's
bankruptcy and by operation of the automatic stay.  

Second, Plaintiffs complain of injuries caused by the Foreclosure
Action, as they specifically allege Defendants continued to
prosecute Plaintiffs' foreclosure case and caused damages and
irreparable damages to Plaintiffs.

Third, the entry of final judgment in the Foreclosure Action and
the orders denying Plaintiffs' other motions were all rendered
prior to Plaintiffs' filing of this action.   

Finally, Plaintiffs seek a determination from this Court that would
necessarily find that the Superior Court erred with respect to the
validity of the foreclosure proceedings, thereby requiring this
Court to improperly undertake the role of reviewing and overruling
orders from the Superior Court.

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits this Court from providing
relief that would reverse the decisions, directly or indirectly
invalidate the determinations, prevent the enforcement of the
orders, or void the rulings, orders, or judgments issued by the
Superior Court in the Foreclosure Action.  

In their opposition, Plaintiffs rely on Chung v. Shapiro & Denardo,
LLC, No. 14-6899, 2015 WL 3746332 (D.N.J. June 15, 2015) in
asserting that this Court may hear their FDCPA claim despite the
Superior Court's entry of summary judgment in the Foreclosure
Action. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend the FDCPA is controlling
where there is a conflict between state and federal law and that
such a conflict exists between New Jersey state law and the FDCPA,
which Plaintiffs assert offers greater protections.  

Plaintiffs' argument is baseless. The decision in Chung does not
address the application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine whatsoever,
but rather, with whether New Jersey's Fair Foreclosure Act
conflicts with the FDCPA. Chungconcerned whether a debt collector's
direct contact with a debtor despite his retention of counsel
violated the FDCPA. The plaintiff in Chung did not claim that his
injuries were caused by a state court judgment nor did he invite
the District Court to review or reject the judgment of the state
court. As such, Chung provides no support whatsoever to Plaintiffs'
position.

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives this Court of subject matter
jurisdiction to hear this matter.

Colorado River Abstention Doctrine

Under the Colorado River abstention doctrine, a federal court may
abstain exercising jurisdiction when there is a parallel concurrent
proceeding pending in state court. Colo. River Water Conservation
Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 (1976). In the context of
Colorado River abstention, parallel means that the state and
federal proceedings involve the same parties and substantially
identical claims raising nearly identical allegations and issues.

Here, this action has the same parties as did the Foreclosure
Action and identical underlying operative facts from which
Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to relief.

Plaintiffs merely craft different causes of action to seek relief
from the disposition of their state case.  

This Court abstains from asserting jurisdiction.

Entire Controversy Doctrine

The doctrine requires a party to bring in one action all
affirmative claims that it might have against another party or be
forever barred from bringing a subsequent action involving the same
underlying facts. The central consideration is whether the claims
arise from related facts or the same transaction or series of
transactions.

The purposes of the doctrine are threefold: (1) the need for
complete and final disposition through the avoidance of piecemeal
decisions (2) fairness to parties to the action and those with a
material interest in the action and (3) efficiency and the
avoidance of waste and the reduction of delay.

The entire controversy doctrine applies to foreclosure proceedings
but encompasses only germane counterclaims. N.J. Ct. R. 4:64-5. New
Jersey courts have held that the exact claims raised by Plaintiffs
herein FDCPA, NJCFA, and unjust enrichment are indeed germane
counterclaims that must be raised during a foreclosure action.  

Plaintiffs failed to assert these claims in the Foreclosure Action.


The entire controversy doctrine bars Plaintiffs' suit.

D. Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion)

The doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, is a
court-created rule that is designed to draw a line between the
meritorious claim on the one hand and the vexatious, repetitious
and needless claim on the other hand. The doctrine bars a party
from initiating a second suit against the same adversary based on
the same cause of action as the first suit.

Here, res judicata bars Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants.
Plaintiffs' claims arise from the same transactions and occurrences
as the Foreclosure Action, and the issues raised in the Complaint
both could have and in some cases were raised in the Foreclosure
Action. Moreover, it is indisputable that Plaintiffs and Hudson
were parties to the Foreclosure Action and that a final judgment
was entered therein.  

Therefore, res judicata precludes Plaintiffs' claims.

Collateral Estoppel

Finally, Plaintiffs' claims are similarly precluded by the doctrine
of collateral estoppel. Collateral estoppel prevents a party from
re-litigating an issue when: (1) the issue to be precluded is
identical to the issue decided in the prior proceeding (2) the
issue was actually litigated in the prior proceeding (3) the court
in the prior proceeding issued a judgment on the merits (4) the
determination of the issue was essential to the prior judgment and
(5) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted was a party to
or in privity with a party to the earlier proceeding.

Here, the Plaintiffs seek to re-litigate before this Court an
identical issue for which a judgment on the merits was rendered in
the Foreclosure Action. Accordingly, the doctrine of collateral
estoppel bars Plaintiffs' suit as well.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 26, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxsxsnca from Leagle.com.

Esq. Jay Lin, Lead Plaintiff, represented by JAY J. LIN, 18
Sheppard Pl Ste E
Edison, NJ, 08817-3134

JAY LIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, pro se.
IRENE LIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by JAY J. LIN.

HUDSON CITY SAVINGS BANK & M&T BANK, Defendants, represented by
FRED W. HOENSCH -- fred.hoensch@piblaw.com -- Parker Ibrahim & Berg
LLP, JAMES PAUL BERG, PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP, MARISSA EDWARDS,
PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP & SCOTT W. PARKER, PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG
LLP, 270 Davidson Avenue Somerset, NJ 08873

PARKER MCCAY PA, Defendant, represented by ANDREW CHRISTOPHER
SAYLES -- asayles@connellfoley.com -- CONNELL FOLEY LLP.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Class Settlement in B. Glenn Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Settlement Approval and Award of Attorney's Fees in the case
captioned BILLY GLENN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA, et al., Defendants. Case No. 8:15-cv-02052-DOC-KES. (C.D.
Cal.).

The Court finds, following a rigorous analysis and for purposes of
settlement only, that the following settlement Class satisfies the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23:

     All persons and entities who bought or leased a Class Vehicle
in the United States, excluding its territories, as of the date of
Preliminary Approval (February 25, 2019), and all persons who
bought or leased a Class Vehicle while on active military duty in
the Armed Forces of the United States as of the date of Preliminary
Approval.

The Court finds that notice has been disseminated to the Class in
compliance with the Court's Order Directing Settlement Notice and
that the notice given was the best notice practicable under the
circumstances, fully satisfied due process, and met the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable,
and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2), is in the best interests of the
class, and should be and hereby is fully and finally approved.  The
Settlement Agreement: (a) results from efforts by Class
Representatives and Class Counsel who adequately represented the
class (b) was negotiated at arm's length with the assistance of
former United States Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi (c) provides
relief for the class that is fair, reasonable, and adequate, taking
into account: (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal
(ii) the effective proposed method of distributing relief to the
class, including the method of processing class-member claims (iii)
the terms of the proposed award of attorney's fees, including
timing of payment and (d) the settlement treats Class Members
equitably relative to each other.

The Court finds the attorney fees requested by Class Counsel to be
fair and reasonable, given Class Counsel's lodestar of
$5,797,056.25, the results achieved through this litigation, and
the contingent nature of the fee. The Court has reviewed the
records submitted by Class Counsel and finds Class Counsel
reasonably spent 9,895.20 hours representing the Class's interests
through this litigation, that Class Counsel's hourly rates are
reasonable and in line with the prevailing rates in the community
for complex class action litigation, and that the $738,226.00 in
costs incurred to prosecute the litigation were reasonable.
Accordingly, Class Counsel is hereby awarded $5,400,000 in
attorney's fees (inclusive of reimbursement of counsel's litigation
costs and the class representative service awards). This amount is
to be paid by Hyundai pursuant to the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

The Court further finds the requested service awards are fair and
reasonable, given the time and effort expended by the Class
Representatives on behalf of the Class. The six Class
Representatives are hereby awarded $5,000 each, to be paid by
Defendant (included as part of the $5,400,000 attorney's fee award,
not in addition to that award) pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 26, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyb4ssys from Leagle.com.

Billy Glenn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David K. Stein --
ds@classlawgroup.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP, A.J. De Bartolomeo,
Tadler Law LLP, Adam A. Edwards, Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice,
Caroline Corbitt -- ccc@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP,
Cecily C. Shiel -- cshiel@tousley.com -- Tousley Brain Stephens
PLLC, pro hac vice, Dylan Hughes -- dsh@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs
Law Group LLP, Eric Lechtzin -- elechtzin@bm.net -- Berger Montague
PC, Gregory F. Coleman  -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman
Law PC, pro hac vice, James M. Bulthuis, Tousley brain Stephens
PLLC, 1700 7th Ave Ste 2200, Seattle, WA, 98101-4416, pro hac vice,
Jason T. Dennett -- jdennett@tousley.com -- Tousley Brain Stevens
PLLC, pro hac vice, Kim D. Stephens -- kstephens@tousley.com --
Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC, pro hac vice, Lisa A. White --
lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice, Mark
E. Silvey -- mark@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, pro
hac vice, Paul C. Peel -- ppeel@farris-law.com -- Farris Bobango
Branan PLC, pro hac vice, Shanon J. Carson – scarson@bm.net --
Berger and Montague PC, pro hac vice, Steven Augustine Lopez --
sal@girardgibbs.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP & Eric H. Gibbs --
ehg@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP.

Hyundai Motor America & Hyundai Motor Company, Defendants,
represented by Carlos Manuel Lazatin -- clazatin@omm.com -- O
Melveny and Myers LLP, Jason Alan Orr-  jorr@omm.com -- O Melveny
and Myers LLP & Adam G. Levine -alevine@omm.com -- O Melveny and
Myers LLP.
Exponent, Inc., Respondent, represented by James J. Ficenec,
Newmeyer & Dillion, 1333 N California Blvd Ste 600, Walnut Creek,
CA, 94596-4551.


IMCMV HOLDINGS: Godwin Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN J. GODWIN, and other similarly situated individuals v.
IMCMV HOLDINGS INC, IMCMV DAYTONA LLC, d/b/a LANDSHARK BAR & GRILL
DAYTONA BEACH, Case No. 6:19-cv-01643 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 22, 2019),
seeks to recover money damages for unpaid regular and overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are Florida corporations and share corporate offices
at 7380 Sand Lake Road, in Orlando, Florida.

The Defendants operate Landshark Bar & Grill, which is an American
casual dining restaurant brand.  The Plaintiff worked at Landshark
Bar & Grill located at 471 South Atlantic Avenue, in Daytona Beach,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Bronson Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Bronson and Meagan Lamon, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Intercontinental Hotels
Group, Inc., Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, LLC, Six
Continents Hotels, Inc., Joliet Hi Hotels, LLC and ADP, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2019CH09294 (Ill. Cir., August 12, 2019),
seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful
activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of
biometrics; and statutory damages together with costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

Intercontinental, is a hotel management company, where Booker
worked as a Prep Chef from February 2019 to present at a Holiday
Inn & Suites located at 1471 Rock Creek Blvd, Joliet, IL 60431. He
was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that
scanned fingerprints. He asserts that Intercontinental improperly
disclosed employees' fingerprint data without informed consent.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312) 233 1550
     Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
            jzouras@stephanzouras.com


INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD: 7th Cir. Appeal Filed in Bator Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Donald Bator, et al., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in their lawsuit titled DONALD BATOR, EDMOND W. MOSES,
CHRISTOPHER O'MALLEY, MICHAEL ANTHONY PAPPA and ROGELIO JIMENEZ,
JR. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTER-LOCAL PENSION FUND of the
Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, LOCAL NO. 458-M GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 4 GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE OF
THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, and THE INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Case No. 1:18-cv-01770, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 13, 2019, Judge
John J. Tharp, Jr., granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss the
case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a
claim.

The Plaintiffs, former members of a local union that participates
in an employee benefits plan, allege that both the union and the
pension plan board of trustees violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 by breaching their fiduciary duties to
the plan.

At issue is the administration and alleged underfunding of the
Inter-Local Pension Fund of the Graphic Communications Conference
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a defined benefit
plan designed to provide retirement and other benefits to members
of participating local unions.  Unlike most defined benefit plans,
the Fund is not collectively bargained.  Rather, it is organized as
a trust described in Section 501(c)(18) of the U.S. Internal
Revenue Code.  As such, it is completely employee funded--employers
do not contribute or participate in Fund governance.

The appellate case is captioned as Donald Bator, et al. v. District
Council 4, Graphic Co., et al., Case No. 19-2626, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet was due September 5, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's brief due on or before October 1, 2019, for
      Donald Bator, Rogelio Jimenez Jr., Edmond W. Moses,
      Christopher O'Malley and Michael Anthony Papa.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DONALD BATOR, et al., are represented by:

          Larry D. Drury, Esq.
          100 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60602-0000
          Telephone: (312) 346-7950

Defendants-Appellees DISTRICT COUNCIL 4, GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS
CONFERENCE, IBT, and LOCAL 458-3M, GCC/IBT, are represented by:

          Wesley G.S. Kennedy, Esq.
          ALLISON, SLUTSKY & KENNEDY, P.C.
          230 W. Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60606-0000
          Telephone: (312) 364-9400
          E-mail: kennedy@ask-attorneys.com

Defendant-Appellee BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTER-LOCAL PENSION
FUND OF THE GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS is represented by:

          Robert A. Seltzer, Esq.
          CORNFIELD AND FELDMAN LLP
          25 E. Washington Street
          Chicago, IL 60602-1803
          Telephone: (312) 236-6640
          E-mail: rseltzer@cwsny.com


JANI-KING OF PHILADELPHIA: Court OKs $3.7MM Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum laintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Final Class Action Settlement Approval PAMELA MYERS ET AL., v.
JANI-KING OF PHILADELPHIA, INC. ET AL. Civil Action No. 09-1738.
(E.D. Pa.).

In this class action, Plaintiffs Darryl Williams and Howard Brooks
pursue claims on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
against Defendants Jani-King of Philadelphia, Inc.; Jani-King,
Inc.; and Jani-King International, Inc. Plaintiffs performed
cleaning services in Pennsylvania under Jani-King's janitorial
franchise system. Plaintiffs allege that Jani-King misclassified
them as independent contractors as opposed to employees and, by
doing so, took improper deductions from their wages in violation of
Pennsylvania's Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL).

The Settlement Agreement

Under the proposed Settlement Agreement, Defendants will pay a
total of $3,700,000 to a non-reversionary settlement fund.
Reductions from this fund include amounts for attorneys' fees,
expenses, and service awards. Specifically, Plaintiffs' counsel has
requested $1,233,333.33 in attorneys' fees, $30,000 in service
awards to the Named Plaintiffs, and $16,757.37 in costs. After
these reductions, $2,419,909.30 will remain in the settlement fund.


The Court's consideration of the proposed settlement will include
the following: (1) whether the proposed WPCL class action meets the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
is entitled to final certification; (2) whether the settlement
proposed by the parties is fair and adequate; (3) whether the
service payment awards to the Named Plaintiffs are fair and
reasonable; and (4) whether Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees
and costs merits approval.

Class Certification of WPCL Class Under Rule 23

Before determining whether the proposed settlement warrants
approval, the Court must first determine whether Plaintiffs have
met the elements of final certification of the WPCL class.  

Class certification under Rule 23 has two components. The party
seeking class certification must first establish the four
requirements of Rule 23(a): (1) the class is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of
law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.

Numerosity

Plaintiffs must first demonstrate that the class is so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable. No minimum number of
plaintiffs is required to maintain a suit as a class action, but
generally if the named plaintiff demonstrates that the potential
number of plaintiffs exceeds 40, the numerosity requirement has
been met. Plaintiffs have produced evidence demonstrating that
there were approximately 288 possible Jani-King franchisees that
qualified as potential members of the WPCL settlement class.

The numerosity requirement is met.

Commonality

Plaintiffs must also demonstrate questions of law or fact common to
the class. Commonality does not require perfect identity of
questions of law or fact among all class members. Rather, even a
single common question will do. This requirement of class
certification is easily met. It is satisfied if the named
plaintiffs share at least one question of fact or law with the
grievances of the prospective class.

Here, questions of fact and law are common to the proposed
settlement class.

Specifically, the question of whether and to what extent Jani-King
controlled or directed its franchisees is common to all class
members. As the Third Circuit concluded, various documents that
serve as evidence in this case, including the Jani-King franchise
agreement, policies manual, and training manual, describe the level
of Jani-King's right to control its franchisees. The claims of the
settlement class members arise from the same policies and
procedures used by Defendants; therefore, their claims are
susceptible to the same common proof.

The commonality requirement is met.

Typicality

Plaintiffs must also demonstrate that the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
proposed class.  A district court should determine whether the
named plaintiffs' claims are typical, in common-sense terms, of the
class, thus suggesting that the incentives of the plaintiffs are
aligned with those of the class. In addition, factual differences
will not render a claim atypical if the claim arises from the same
event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the
claims of the class members, and if it is based on the same legal
theory.

There are three Named Plaintiffs in this class action, each of whom
was a franchisee for a Jani-King Defendant. Like other members of
the proposed class, they allege that Defendants' policies and
procedures led to the misclassification of franchisees as
independent contractors, which led to monetary damages. Their
claims arise out of the same policies and practices as the claims
of other members of the settlement class. The incentives of the
Named Plaintiffs are aligned with those of the class.

The typicality requirement is met.

Adequacy

Finally, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the representative
parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class.  This requirement concerns both: (1) the experience and
performance of class counsel and (2) the interests and incentives
of the representative plaintiff. The adequacy requirement serves to
uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class
they seek to represent.

Here, there have been no allegations from either side that the
Named Plaintiffs have any interests that are incompatible with the
class members' interest. In fact, as will be explained more below,
the Named Plaintiffs were able to negotiate a settlement that
benefits both former and current franchisees, small or large. As to
the second requirement, class counsel have very diligently and
competently pursued the claims of all class members.

The adequacy requirement has been satisfied.

Predominance and Superiority

Rule 23(b)(3), under which Plaintiffs seek final class
certification, requires the Court to find that the questions of law
or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and that a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy.

The predominance requirement is easily met. Plaintiffs contend that
Jani-King controlled franchisees and that this level of control is
revealed in documents that dictate Jani-King company-wide policy
and procedure. Every class member is seeking the same type of
relief based on the same legal claims against Jani-King. Questions
of law and fact common to the class members predominate over
questions affecting only individual members.  

The superiority requirement is also met. Even if individual class
members had the resources to pursue individual claims against
Defendants, the costs of pursuing such claims would likely exceed
any recovery. In addition, the class members' interests in having
their claims adjudicated through the class action proceeding is
revealed by the fact that approximately 40% of class members filed
claims, not one class member objected to the proposed settlement,
and only five class members requested exclusion.

Accordingly, we are satisfied that final certification of the class
under Rule 23 is appropriate. Therefore, we will certify the
proposed WPCL class for the purposes of settlement approval.

Approval of Settlement Agreement

Rule 23(e) requires a district court to approve any settlement of a
certified class before settlement becomes final.  

In Girsh v. Jepson, the Third Circuit articulated nine factors for
district courts to consider in deciding whether a class-action
settlement is fair and reasonable: (1) the complexity, expense and
likely duration of the litigation (2) the reaction of the class to
the settlement (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of
discovery completed (4) the risks of establishing liability (5) the
risks of establishing damages (6) the risks of maintaining the
class action through the trial (7) the ability of the defendants to
withstand a greater judgment (8) the range of reasonableness of the
settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery (9) the
range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible
recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation.

Complexity, Expense, and Likely Duration of the Litigation

The first factor captures the probable costs, in both time and
money, of continued litigation. If the proposed Settlement
Agreement is not approved by the Court, the parties would face
summary judgment, and possibly trial and subsequent appeals. This
litigation has already lasted over ten years, in part due to
Defendants' appeal to the Third Circuit regarding whether the class
could be certified. There is a real risk that subsequent appeals
would be filed, particularly on the issues raised in the parties'
summary judgment submissions, for example, whether Plaintiffs were
properly classified as independent contractors under Pennsylvania
law. Dispositive motions, trial, and subsequent appeals would not
only further extend this already protracted litigation, but it
would also burden the parties and the Court with additional costs.


This factor weighs in favor of approving the Settlement Agreement.

Reaction of the Class to the Settlement

Of the 265 class members who received notice of the Settlement
Agreement, approximately 109 filed claims. Not one class member
objected to the Settlement Agreement. In addition, only five class
members requested to opt out of the settlement. The reaction of the
class members to the Settlement has been overwhelmingly positive,
which further supports approval of the proposed Settlement
Agreement.  

The Stage of the Proceedings and the Amount of the Discovery
Completed

This factor captures the degree of case development that class
counsel have accomplished prior to settlement. Through this lens,
courts can determine whether counsel had adequate appreciation of
the merits of the case before negotiating. As mentioned above, the
parties completed discovery and filed summary judgment briefs prior
to engaging in settlement negotiations.

This factor also weighs in favor of approving the settlement.

The Risks of Establishing Liability and the Risks of Establishing
Damages

These inquiries survey the possible risks of litigation in order to
balance the likelihood of success and the potential damage award if
the case were taken to trial against the benefits of an immediate
settlement.

The Court agrees with class counsel that Plaintiffs face serious
risks if they proceed to trial. In their summary judgment motion,
Defendants argued that (1) Plaintiffs were properly classified as
independent contractors under Pennsylvania law and (2) even if they
were misclassified, Plaintiffs could not recover under the WPCL
because there was allegedly no agreement to pay Plaintiffs wages.
These issues are fact-intensive, which increases a risk that a jury
could find for Defendants.

As a result, this factor also weighs in favor of approving the
Settlement Agreement.

The Risks of Maintaining the Class Action through Trial

There will always be a risk or possibility of decertification and,
consequently, the court can always find that this factor weighs in
favor of settlement. Therefore, the manageability inquiry in
settlement-only class actions may not be significant.

Nevertheless, Defendants would likely oppose certification of the
class and could also seek to decertify the class prior to trial.
However, the Third Circuit has already confirmed our decision to
certify this WPCL class. This significantly decreases the risk of
decertification.

As a result, this factor neither weighs in favor or, nor against,
approving the proposed settlement.

Defendants' Inability to Withstand a Greater Judgment

The parties provided no information to the Court about Defendants'
financial health and whether they would be able to withstand a
greater judgment. Since we are unable to assess this factor, it
neither weighs in favor of, nor against, approving the Settlement
Agreement.

The Range of Reasonableness of the Settlement in Light of the Best
Possible Recovery and All Attendant Risks of Litigation

The final two Girsh factors assess whether the settlement
represents a good value for a weak case or a poor value for a
strong case. The ultimate test of the value of a settlement in the
class context is who gets what and how much. Class counsel
calculated the maximum value of Plaintiffs' claims to be
approximately $12,200,000. Defendants calculated a maximum
entitlement to damages of $6,200,000 based on the same information.
The parties negotiated a settlement amount that provides Plaintiffs
a recovery amount of approximately $2,429,909.30, after deductions
of the amounts for attorneys' fees, costs, and awards for Named
Plaintiffs. The settlement amount represents a recovery to
Plaintiffs of between 20% and 39% of the maximum damages'
calculations. The Court is satisfied that this recovery is
reasonable, particularly considering the risks Plaintiffs would
face if they proceeded to trial, and because Plaintiffs received
other non-monetary benefits as part of the settlement, i.e. a
negotiated franchise agreement that permits them greater control
over their clients.

This factor weighs in favor of approving the Settlement Agreement.

Having examined the proposed Settlement Agreement considering the
Girsh factors, we are satisfied that the settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 26, 2019 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4grpoar from Leagle.com.

DARRYL WILLIAMS & HOWARD BROOKS, Plaintiffs, represented by DAVID
J. COHEN -- dcohen@stephanzouras.com -- STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, JAMES
B. ZOURAS, STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, 205 N. Michigan Avenue Suite 2560,
Chicago, IL, 60601-6024, PETER DELANO -- pdelano@llrlaw.com --
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC, RYAN F. STEPHAN, STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, 100
N Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150, Chicago, Illinois 60606, SHANNON
LISS-RIORDAN -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC,
ADELAIDE PAGANO -- apagano@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC
& PATRICK HOWARD -- phoward@smbb.com -- SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT &
BENDESKY.

JANI-KING OF PHILADELPHIA, INC., JANI-KING, INC. & JANI-KING
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, represented by AARON D. VANOORT --
aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE, BAKER, DANIELS, KERRY L.
BUNDY -- kerry.bundy@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE BAKER & DANIELS LLP,
DADRI-ANNE A. GRAHAM -- dadri.graham@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE BAKER
DANIEL LLP, GEORGE A. STOHNER -- george.stohner@FaegreBD.com --
FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP, JOSEPH E. WOLFSON -- jwo@stevenslee.com
-- STEVENS & LEE, KENNETH D. KLEINMAN -- kdk@stevenslee.com --
STEVENS & LEE PC & LARRY E. LATARTE  -- larry.latarte@FaegreBD.com
-- FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP.


JEI TRUCKING: Williams Seeks OT Pay for Truckers
------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN WILLIAMS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JEI TRUCKING, LLC, STEVEN NASON, and
STARR OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, the  DEFENDANTS, Case No.
4:19-cv-00606-DPM (E.D. Ark., Aug. 29, 2019), seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a
result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated overtime compensation for all hours that
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated worked in excess of 40
per workweek under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants had a policy of requiring Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees to work every day of the week, sometimes as much
as twenty hours per day. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff or
similarly situated employees any overtime premium for hours worked
in excess of 40 per week.

The Plaintiff was a piece-rate paid employee at Defendants'
trucking business on location in Oklahoma. He worked as a
specialized trucker, called a sand hauler, which involved loading,
transporting, and unloading sand.

JEI Trucking operates a trucking business within and without the
State of Arkansas.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

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

KOLTER GROUP: Devivo Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
-------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Devivo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE KOLTER GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-62008 (S.D. Fla., August 12, 2019), seeks statutory damages,
punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant is real estate development company. To promote its
services, it engages in unsolicited SMS ads sent en masse via an
auto dialer. Devivo did not give his express written consent to be
contacted in such manner. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
      Jordan D. Utanski, Esq.
      EDELSBERG LAW, PA
      19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 975-3320
      Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
             utanski@edelsberglaw.com

             - and -

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: 305-479-2299
      Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
             gberg@shamisgentile.com


LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Kawa Orthodontics TCPA Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the
motion to dismiss filed in the class action suit entitled, Kawa
Orthodontics LLP, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America
Holdings, et al., remains pending.

On April 22, 2019, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Kawa Orthodontics LLP, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, et al., filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The lawsuit alleges that on or about February 6, 2019, the
defendants violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) by sending unsolicited facsimiles to Plaintiff and at least
40 other recipients without the recipients' prior express
invitation or permission.

The lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of
$0.0005 for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and
injunctive relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case on May 28, 2019.  

In response to the Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint, which contains additional allegations, including
allegations related to another facsimile. The Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Bloomquist Suit v. Covance Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that Covance
Inc. continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Bloomquist
v. Covance Inc., et al.

On August 3, 2016, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Daniel L. Bloomquist v. Covance Inc., et al., filed
in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.

The Complaint alleges that Covance Inc. violated the California
Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code by failing to
provide overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods,
failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to pay for all wages
owed upon termination, and failing to provide accurate itemized
wage statements to Clinical Research Associates and Senior Clinical
Research Associates employed by Covance in California.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive
relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

On October 13, 2016, the case was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California. On May 3, 2017, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
remanded the case to the Superior Court.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Faces 18 Class Suits Related to AMCA Incident
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the
company has been named as a defendant in 18  putative class action
lawsuits related to the AMCA Incident.

On May 14, 2019, Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a
American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), an external collection
agency, notified the Company about a security incident AMCA
experienced that may have involved certain personal information
about some of the Company's patients (the AMCA Incident).

The Company referred patient balances to AMCA only when direct
collection efforts were unsuccessful. The Company's systems were
not impacted by the AMCA Incident.

Upon learning of the AMCA Incident, the Company promptly stopped
sending new collection requests to AMCA and stopped AMCA from
continuing to work on any pending collection requests from the
Company. AMCA informed the Company that it appeared that an
unauthorized user had access to AMCA's system between August 1,
2018 and March 30, 2019, and that AMCA could not rule out the
possibility that personal information on AMCA's system was at risk
during that time period.

Information on AMCA's affected system from the Company may have
included name, address, and balance information for the patient and
person responsible for payment, along with the patient's phone
number, date of birth, referring physician, and date of service.

The Company was later informed by AMCA that health insurance
information may have been included for some individuals, and
because some insurance carriers utilize the Social Security Number
as a subscriber identification number, the Social Security Number
for some individuals may also have been affected. No ordered tests,
laboratory test results, or diagnostic information from the Company
were in the AMCA affected system.

The Company notified individuals for whom it had a valid mailing
address. For the individuals whose Social Security Number was
affected, the notice included an offer to enroll in credit
monitoring and identity protection services that will be provided
free of charge for 24 months.

Eighteen putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company related to the AMCA Incident. Numerous similar lawsuits
have been filed against other health care providers who used AMCA.
The lawsuits against the Company were filed in various United
States District Courts.

The lawsuits generally allege that the Company did not adequately
protect its patients' data, and assert various causes of action,
including but not limited to negligence, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and the violation of state data
protection statutes.

The lawsuits seek damages on behalf of a class of all affected
Company consumers.

The attorneys for certain of the Plaintiffs filed a motion with the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (JPML) seeking to have
all cases related to the AMCA Incident consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings in a multi-district litigation. The JPML ordered the
transfer of the cases to the District of New Jersey.

The Company will vigorously defend the multi-district litigation.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends Feckley Class Suit over Commissions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
8, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Feckley
v. Covance Inc., et al.

On December 20, 2018, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Feckley v. Covance Inc., et al., filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Orange.

The complaint alleges that Covance Inc. violated the California
Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code by failing to
properly pay commissions to employees under a sales incentive
compensation plan upon their termination of employment.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, punitive
damages, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. On January 22,
2018, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LAKE GEORGE RV: Faces Murphy Suit in Southern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lake George R.V.
Park, Inc. The case is captioned as James Murphy, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. Lake George R.V. Park, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07735-LTS (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2019). The suit alleges
violation of Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Laura Taylor Swain.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN G SOLOTOFF PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 317-2453
          Facsimile: (516) 706-4692
          E-mail: ds@lawsolo.net

LIBERTY TIRE: Fails to Pay OT to Drivers and Helpers, Green Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
TODD J. GREEN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. LIBERTY TIRE RECYCLING, LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-03141
(S.D. Tex., Aug. 22, 2019), alleges that the Defendant violates the
Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime to its Box
Truck Drivers, Route Drivers and Helpers.

Liberty is a Delaware limited liability company authorized to do
and is doing business in the State of Texas.  The Defendant is in
the business of used and discarded tire collecting, hauling, and
recycling.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com


LOKAI HOLDINGS: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lokai Holdings LLC.
The case is styled as Mary Conner and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lokai Holdings LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04950 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 29, 2019).

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

Lokai is a New York-based lifestyle brand that creates products
representing the importance of balance like bracelets carrying
elements from the highest and lowest points on earth like water
from Mt Everest in the white bead, representing the high points in
life, and mud from the Dead Sea in the black bead, signifying the
difficult moments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOOMIS ARMORED: Court Certifies Classes in Myers FLSA/NCWHA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAKEERA MYERS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOOMIS ARMORED US, LLC,
Defendant, Docket No. 3:18-cv-00532-FDW-DSC (W.D. N.C.), Judge
Frank D. Whitney of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification Pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, Court-Authorized Notice to be Issued
under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(B), Class Certification under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23, and Appointment of Class Counsel Under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(G).

Myers brings suit against Defendant Loomis for alleged violations
of the FLSA, and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA").
According to Myers' Complaint, Loomis is a cash management
specialist business offering uniformed and armored guard services.


Myers and the putative Plaintiffs worked as Armored Service
Technicians ("ASTs"), an all-encompassing title for guards,
drivers, messengers, and/or similar positions.  As ASTs, they were
responsible for transporting cash and valuables in armored
vehicles, in addition to replenishing ATM machines.  Myers and the
putative Plaintiffs contend that Loomis maintained a company policy
wherein ASTs were paid "straight time" for all hours worked on
weekdays, even when their hours worked on weekdays were in excess
of forty hours per week.

For hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week worked on weekend,
Myers and the putative Plaintiffs allege that they were at times
paid only one-half times their regular rate.  They aver that they
can demonstrate that they "regularly performed a significant
portion of their work, i.e. entire shifts, in vehicles weighing
less than 10,000 pounds" such that the small vehicle exception
overrides any exemptions to the overtime requirements under the
FLSA.  Finally, Myers and the putative Plaintiffs allege Loomis
made deductions from their wages for equipment without proper
written authorization and/or they have personal knowledge of other
ASTs who have been victims of this policy.  

Myers seeks (1) unpaid overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of forty hours per week pursuant to the FLSA; and (2) all
earned, accrued, and unpaid (wages) promised straight-time,
overtime, and unauthorized deductions pursuant to the NCWHA.

Myers seeks conditional certification and authorization to send
court-supervised notice under the FLSA, for the following class:
All individuals who were, are, or will be employed by Defendant in
North Carolina as armored service technicians, including armed
drivers, armed messengers, and armed guards, or in similar
positions at any time within the three years prior to the filing of
the Complaint, through the present, and who were not compensated at
the appropriate one and one-half times their regular hourly rate
for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

Finding that the requirements for Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) are
met, Judge Whitneytherefore granted Myers' motion for Rule 23 class
certification at this time.

The case will proceed with respect to the NCWHA claims as a class
action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 and with respect
to the FLSA claims as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b).

For purposes of Myers' FLSA claim, the class is defined as follows:
All current and former armored service technicians, including armed
drivers, armed messengers, and armed guards, or in similar
positions, who worked for Loomis Armored US, LLC in North Carolina
at any time within the three years prior to the date of
commencement of this action through the present, and who were not
compensated at the appropriate one and one-half times their regular
hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

For purposes of Myers' NCWHA claims, the class is defined as
follows: All current and former armored service technicians,
including armed drivers, armed messengers, and armed guards, or in
similar positions, who worked for Loomis Armored US, LLC in North
Carolina at any time within the two years prior to the date of
commencement of this action through the present, and who were not
compensated at the approximate one and one-half times their regular
hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week, and/or
from those wages Defendant deducted amounts for bulletproof vests
or firearms.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), the Plaintiff's counsel will
serve as the counsel for the class.

The Defendant will provide the Named Plaintiff's counsel the last
known names, mailing addresses, email addresses, and dates of
employment of all putative collective members and Rule 23 class
members who worked for Defendant at any time from Oct. 1, 2015 to
Oct. 1, 2018 in native format within 10 days of the Order.

The Judge denied without prejudice Myers' motion to authorize class
notices.  He directed the parties to confer and agree upon the
content, form, and distribution of the notice (including
appropriate forms), and jointly submit, within seven days of the
Order, proposed notice and forms for the Court's approval.  In the
event the parties are unable to agree, parties are directed to
brief the outstanding issues to be submitted within 10 days from
the Order.  Supplemental briefings should be no longer than 1,500
words in length.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Kql53W from Leagle.com.

Shakeera Myers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Robert Ash, IV --
crash@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice,
Charlotte Claire Smith -- csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com -- Law
Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, Matthew L. Turner --
mturner@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice &
Gilda Adriana Hernandez -- ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com -- The
Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez.

Loomis Armored US, LLC, Defendant, represented by Claire B. Deason
-- cdeason@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C., pro hac vice,
Jerry Howard Walters, Jr. -- jwalters@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C. & Lyndsey M. Marcelino, Littler Mendelson P.C., pro
hac vice.


MALDEN, MA: Police Officers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
JACK OWENS, JEFFREY DREES, KATELYN MURPHY, PATRICK MANOLIAN, SCOTT
MANN, and SEAN HUSSEY, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF MALDEN, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-11835 (D. Mass., Aug. 28, 2019) is an action brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1939 (The Act) for overtime
wages that were not paid to police employees of the City of Malden,
amongst others, performing paid details for or on behalf of the
City of Malden, and for the City's charge of a fee of ten percent
of the cost of services to each employee performing paid details at
all times material to this Complaint.

Plaintiffs Jack Owens, Jeffrey Drees, Katelyn Murphy, Patrick
Manolian, Scott Mann and Sean Hussey are members of the Malden
Police Patrolmen's Association and are employed as police officers
by the City of Malden.

According to the complaint, by Massachusetts statute, the City is
permitted to charge a detail administration fee of ten percent of
the cost of services to the persons requesting detail, not to the
employee performing said detail. Contrary to Massachusetts statute
and the Act, the City has unlawfully reduced the hourly detail rate
for each employee by an amount of ten percent and, has otherwise
failed to pay said overtime wages. Some, but not all, details
performed by the Plaintiffs were details performed for or on behalf
of the City of Malden for the performance of public services and,
as such, are covered by the Act. The payment of wages to the
Plaintiffs for details performed for private persons other than the
City of Malden are otherwise governed by the Massachusetts Wage
Act. The Defendant's willful violations of the FLSA include
unlawful reduction of the paid detail rate in the amount of ten
percent per Plaintiff per detail hour worked, says the complaint.

Defendant in this action is the City of Malden which is a person or
entity that falls within the definition of "employer".[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joseph A. Padolsky, Esq.
     Louison, Costello, Condon & Pfaff LLP
     101 Summer Street
     Boston, MA 02110
     Phone: (617) 439-0305
     Facsimile: (617) 439-0325
     Email: jpadolsky@lccplaw.com


MARRONE BIO: Special Securities Suit Settlement w/ EY Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III QP, L.P., SPECIAL
SITUATIONS CAYMAN FUND, L.P, and DAVID M. FINEMAN, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. MARRONE
BIO INNOVATIONS, INC., PAMELA G. MARRONE, JAMES B. BOYD, DONALD J.
GLIDEWELL, HECTOR ABSI, ELIN MILLER, RANJEET BHATIA, PAMELA CONTAG,
TIM FOGARTY, LAWRENCE HOUGH, JOSEPH HUDSON, LES LYMAN, RICHARD
ROMINGER, SHAUGN STANLEY, SEAN SCHICKEDANZ, and ERNST & YOUNG LLP,
Defendants, Master No. 2:14-cv-2571-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Morrison C. England, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California has entered the Order and Final Judgment
Approving Class Action Settlement with Defendant Ernst & Young LLP
("EY").

Lead Plaintiffs Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. and Special
Situations Cayman Fund, L.P., on behalf of themselves and the other
members of the EY Settlement Class, and Defendant EY, have
determined to settle all claims asserted in the Action with
prejudice on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement dated Jan. 14, 2019, subject to the
approval of the Court.

By Order dated Feb. 14, 2019, the Court: (a) preliminarily approved
the EY Settlement; (b) certified the Class solely for purposes of
effectuating the EY Settlement; (c) ordered that notice of the
proposed EY Settlement be provided to potential Class Members; (d)
provided Class Members with the opportunity either to exclude
themselves from the Class or to object to the proposed EY
Settlement; and (e) scheduled a hearing regarding final approval of
the EY Settlement.

Judge England, having reviewed and considered the EY Stipulation,
all papers filed and proceedings held in connection with the EY
Settlement, all oral and written comments received regarding the EY
Settlement, and the record in the Action, and good cause appearing
therefor, affirmed the Court's determinations in the Preliminary
Approval Order certifying, for settlement purposes only, the Action
as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a settlement class consisting
of all persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired MBI common stock directly in or traceable to the Company's
secondary offering pursuant to MBI's Form S-1 Registration
Statement, dated May 16, 2014, and its Prospectus dated June 5,
2014, and were damaged thereby.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
for settlement purposes only, the Judge affirmed the Court's
determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order certifying the
Lead Plaintiffs as the Class Representative for the EY Settlement
Class and appointing the Lead Counsel as the Class Counsel for the
EY Settlement Class.

Pursuant to, and in accordance with, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the Judge fully and finally approved the EY
Settlement set forth in the EY Stipulation in all respects
(including, without limitation: the amount of the EY Settlement;
the Releases provided for therein; and the dismissal with prejudice
of the claims provided for therein).

All of the claims asserted in the Action by the Lead Plaintiffs and
the other EY Settlement Class Members against EY are dismissed with
prejudice.  The Settling Parties will bear their own costs and
expenses, except as otherwise expressly provided in the EY
Stipulation.

The Releases set forth in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the EY Stipulation,
together with the definitions contained in paragraph 1 of the EY
Stipulation relating thereto, are expressly incorporated in the
Order in all respects.  The Releases are effective as of the
Effective Date.

A separate order will be entered regarding approval of the motion
of the Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses.  Such order will in no way
affect or delay the finality of the Judgment and will not affect or
delay the Effective Date of the EY Settlement.

The Judge direceds immediate entry of the Final Judgment by the
Clerk of the Court, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to close
the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3SeJzZ from Leagle.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit Over Covidien Acquisition Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended July 26, 2019, that the company continues to
defend itself in a consolidated class action suit involving the
acquisition of Covidien PLC.

On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking
to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien.

The lawsuit named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the
Medtronic, Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and
alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to
shareholders with regard to the then-potential acquisition.

On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also
seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien
acquisition.

In September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters were
consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien
transaction. On March 20, 2015, the District Court issued an order
and opinion granting Medtronic's motion to dismiss the case. In May
of 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January of 2016,
the Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part, and reversed
in part.

On April 19, 2016 the Minnesota Supreme Court granted the Company's
petition to review the issue of whether most of the original claims
are properly characterized as direct or derivative under Minnesota
law.

In August of 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the
decision of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals, sending the
matter back to the trial court for further proceedings, which are
ongoing. The Company has not recognized an expense related to
damages in connection with this matter, because any potential loss
is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S.
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the
range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters.

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

Medtronic plc develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells
device-based medical therapies to hospitals, physicians,
clinicians, and patients worldwide. It operates through four
segments: Cardiac and Vascular Group, Minimally Invasive Therapies
Group, Restorative Therapies Group, and Diabetes Group. The company
was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


MENASHA CORPORATION: Alvarez Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, Noe Alvarez, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. Menasha Corporation, a
Wisconsin corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH08270, was
removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 19,
2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:19-cv-05592 to the proceeding.

The suit demands $75,000 worth of damages. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Gary Feinerman.

Menasha Corporation manufactures paper and plastic packaging
solutions.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          William P. N. Kingston, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Upper Wacker Dr., Floor 9
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: wkingston@mcgpc.com

Attorneys for Menasha Corporation are:

          Danielle M. Kays, Esq.
          Richard Patrick McArdle, Esq.
          Joseph A Donado, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
          Chicago, IL 60606-6448
          Telephone: (312) 460-5674
          E-mail: dkays@seyfarth.com
                  rmcardle@seyfarth.com
                  jdonado@seyfarth.com

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Settlement in Owens Suit Preliminarily Approved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8,
2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court
in Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed
April 17, 2014), has preliminarily approved the proposed settlement
in which Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has agreed to pay $80
million to resolve the claims of all class members.

Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of persons for
whom Metropolitan Life Insurance Company established a Total
Control Account ("TCA") to pay death benefits under an Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") plan.

The action alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's use
of the TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits
under some group life insurance policies violates Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's fiduciary duties under ERISA.

As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company realized on accounts owned by
members of the class.

In addition, plaintiff, on behalf of a subgroup of the class, seeks
interest under Georgia's delayed settlement interest statute,
alleging that the use of the TCA as the settlement option did not
constitute payment.

On September 27, 2016, the court denied Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's summary judgment motion in full and granted plaintiff's
partial summary judgment motion. On September 29, 2017, the court
certified a nationwide class. The court also certified a Georgia
subclass.

On July 29, 2019, the court preliminarily approved a proposed
settlement in which Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has agreed
to pay $80 million to resolve the claims of all class members.

Metropolitan Life said, "The settlement does not include or
constitute an admission, concession, or finding of any fault,
liability, or wrongdoing by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.
The Company accrued the full amount of the settlement payment in
prior periods."

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and
asset management services in the United States. The company was
incorporated in 1868 and is based in New York, New York.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of MetLife,
Inc.


MICHAEL A. JACOB: Court Strikes Class Claims in Campbell Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas, Western Division, issued Order granting Defendants’
Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Strike Class Allegations in the
case captioned LAURA K. CAMPBELL, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL A. JACOB, II;
JACOB LAW GROUP, PLLC; JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendants,
JEANNETTE WELCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL A. JACOB, II; JACOB LAW GROUP,
PLLC; MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.
Defendants, LILLIE BROWNLEE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL A. JACOB, II; JACOB LAW
GROUP, PLLC; MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.
Defendants. BETTY JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL A. JACOB, II; JACOB LAW
GROUP, PLLC; MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.
Defendants. Consolidated Case Nos. 4:19-cv-179-JM, 5:19-cv-105,
4:19-cv-208, 4:19-cv-267 (E.D. Ark.).

Pending is the motion to compel arbitration and to strike class
allegations of Plaintiff Lillie Brownlee filed on behalf of
Defendants Midland Funding LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc.


Plaintiff Brownlee filed this action alleging that Defendants
Michael A. Jacob, II, Jacob Law Group, PLLC and Midland Funding,
LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc. attempted to collect
consumer debts from her and putative class members through
standardized, form debt collection complaints filed in Arkansas
state courts that fraudulently and falsely averred that Midland
Funding LLC holds in due course a claim.pursuant to a defaulted
Synchrony Bank credit card account. Plaintiff asserts that Midland
is not a holder in due course of Synchrony Bank accounts and that
this representation violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA).

Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) states that an
agreement to arbitrate "shall be valid, irrevocable, and
enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity
for the revocation of any contract.

Plaintiff does not dispute that the arbitration provision is valid,
she is bound to it, and her claims fall within its scope. Relying
in large part on Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 139 S.Ct. 1407 (2019)
Plaintiff argues that the right to enforce the arbitration
provision was not assigned to Midland and neither Midland or JLG
have the right to require arbitration. In Lamps Plus, the Supreme
Court held that the FAA bars a court order compelling class
arbitration if the arbitration agreement is ambiguous about the
availability of class arbitration Emphasizing the difference
between class wide arbitration and individual arbitration the Court
concluded that the statue requires more than ambiguity to ensure
that the parties actually agreed to arbitrate on a classwide
basis.

The Court does not agree, as argued by Plaintiff, that the holding
in Lamps Plus precludes the assignment of the agreement to
arbitrate in this case.

The Cardholder agreement originally entered between Plaintiff and
Synchrony specifically provided that Synchrony could sell, assign
or transfer any or all of its rights under the agreement without
notice to the Plaintiff of such action. Synchrony sold and
transferred its rights under the agreement to Midland Funding. That
included the right to arbitration.  

JLG may compel arbitration because the Plaintiff agreed to
arbitrate any claims against between you or any other user of your
account and us, our affiliate, agents and/or J.C. Penny Corporation
Inc. if it relates to your account. As stated above, Midland
Funding stands in the shoes of the Synchrony by virtue of the
assignment of the Agreement. Midland Funding, its affiliate, MCM
and JLG as an agent of Midland in the collection of the debt are
all entitled to enforce the terms of the Arbitration Provision.
These defendants' right to enforce the terms of the Arbitration
Provision includes the right to enforce the Class Action
prohibition.  

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and to
strike Plaintiff's class allegations is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 26, 2019  Order is
available at    https://tinyurl.com/y5cpo2gh from Leagle.com.

Lillie Brownlee, on behalf of herself and all othes similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Cathleen M. Combs --
ccombs@edcombs.com -- Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, pro
hac vice, Corey Darnell McGaha, Crowder McGaha, LLP, 5507 Ranch Dr
Ste 202, Little Rock, AR, 72223-0043, Daniel A. Edelman --
courtecl@edcombs.com -- Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC,
pro hac vice & William Thomas Crowder, Crowder McGaha, LLP, 5507
Ranch Dr Ste 202, Little Rock, AR, 72223-0043

Michael A Jacob, II & Jacob Law Group PLLC, Defendants, represented
by Elizabeth Fletcher, Munson, Rowlett, Moore & Boone, P.A.,
Regions Center400 West Capitol, Ste. 1900, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Midland Funding LLC & Midland Credit Management Inc, Defendants,
represented by Michael Norris Shannon -- mshannon@qgtlaw.com --
Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC.


MICHIGAN: Arnold Seeks to Certify Class of Jewish Inmates
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MICHAEL ARNOLD, the
Plaintiff, v. HEIDI WASHINGTON, et al, the Defendants, Case No.
4:13-cv-14137-LVP-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff ask the Court for
an order certifying a class of:

   "all Jewish individuals confined with the Michigan Department
   of Corrections who are designated by the prison system to
   receive kosher meals and have a sincere religious belief that
   meat/fish and dairy products are required to be part of their
   Kosher meals on Sabbath and four religious holidays (Rosh
   Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, and Shavuot)."

The Defendant has claimed at one time that there were up to 600
Jewish prisoners confined within MDOC but only 193 have been
approved to receive Kosher meals.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Daniel E. Manville, Esq.
          MI. STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
          PO Box 1570
          East Lansing, Michigan 48826
          Telephone: (517) 432-6866
          E-mail: daniel.manville@law.msu.edu

MIKE COTTLE: Martin Seeks OT & Minimum Wage for Plumbers
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Martin, individually, and in his representative capacity,
the Plaintiff, vs. Mike Cottle Plumbing Co Inc. dba Cole Services,
and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV29196
(Cal. Super., Aug. 8, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay
overtime and minimum wage, failed to provide meal periods and rest
periods, and failed to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to
the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, COLE has company-wide policies and
procedures that control virtually every facet of the plumber's
jobs, including the uniforms they wear, the materials they use, and
the jobs they perform, including when and where they perform them.


COLE has employed a workforce of hundreds of plumbers who perform
residential and commercial plumbing duties, including but not
limited to drain, sewer and pipe cleaning, camera inspection, leak
detection and preventative maintenance.

In order to meet the requirements of their job duties, plumbers
typically work more than 40 hours per week and more than eight
hours per day, and sometimes have to work seven days per week at
the direction of COLE. Plumbers are also not provided meal
and rest periods as required by the Labor Code, the lawsuit says.

COLE provides plumbing, drain, sewer, gas service, repair and
installation throughout Los Angeles County. COLE's plumbers,
including Plaintiff and the members of the Aggrieved Employees that
Plaintiff seeks to represent, primarily perform manual labor
associated with plumbing services at times and locations specified
by COLE.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          David Garrett, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: 323 962 3777
          Facsimile: 323 962 3004

MINNESOTA: Tyler Sues Revenue Department in State Court
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the State of
Minnesota, et al.  The case is captioned as Geraldine Tyler, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. State of Minnesota, and Cynthia Bauerly in her capacity as
Commissioner, and Minnesota Department of Revenue, the Defendants,
Case No. 62-CV-19-6012 (Minn. 2nd Jud'l Dist., Aug. 16, 2019).

The Minnesota Department of Revenue is a department of the State of
Minnesota in the United States. The department manages and enforces
the reporting, payment, and receipt of state taxes.[BN]

NAVIENT CORPORATION: Riddell Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLE RIDDELL, an individual California resident, and the
proposed class, Plaintiff v. NAVIENT CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware corporation, and
DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-01623-AJB-BLM (S.D. Cal., Aug. 28, 2019) is a complaint for
violations by Navient of California law and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by making inaccurate, misleading, untrue,
and unfair misrepresentations and omissions to Plaintiff and other
borrowers like Plaintiff who were placed on forbearances with
Navient.

Navient services approximately $300 billion in federal and private
student loans held by 12 million borrowers, including an estimated
1.5 million in California. Plaintiff Danielle Riddell is a borrower
of a Navient owned and processed student loan.

Between 2011 and the present, Plaintiff was placed by Defendants
into at least three forbearances. As with every other similarly
situated student loan borrower from Defendants, when Plaintiff
requested information regarding a forbearance, or asked to be
placed into a forbearance, Defendant made certain representations
and omissions to Plaintiff and other borrowers like her, which was
false or misleading, made with the purpose for the effect of
placing Defendants borrowers like Plaintiff into less fair, less
appropriate, and/or more costly to Plaintiff and other borrowers
like her. Navient guided Plaintiff into these forbearances without
first exchanging less expensive and more appropriate options for
her, notes the complaint.

Plaintiff alleges that Navient failed to advise Plaintiff and other
borrowers toward the better and, ultimately, less costly, options
available to them, instead steering these borrowers into
forbearances with higher repayment costs. Plaintiff alleges this
constituted unfair competition and false advertising. The
forbearance Navient placed on Plaintiff was based on misleading
advice and other communications from Navient to Plaintiff, and
other borrowers like her, who sought from Navient and reasonably
relied upon Navient's marketing, counseling, selling and advice
regarding the real facts of the forbearance, in particular, that
this was not a good financial option for Plaintiff, and that there
were not other better options available to Plaintiff, although not
as profitable for Navient, were not explained to Plaintiff and
other borrowers like her. Navient made material misrepresentations
and omissions by Navient to Plaintiff and other borrowers like
her.

Moreover, Navient omitted and misrepresented the credit benefits of
rehabilitating defrauded loans, rather than entering into
forbearance, provided false information as it relates to collection
fees on rehabilitation, and inaccurately advises borrowers that the
disability loan forgiveness required a permanent inability to work,
when in fact no such stringent requirement existed, says the
complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
     HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APLC
     18960 Ventura Blvd., P.O. Box 46
     Tarzana, CA 91356
     Phone: (818) 876-9631
     Email: chamner@hamnerlaw.com


NETFLIX INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Marian Johns, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
securities class action suit has been filed against Netflix by
purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities who claim
the company's executives knowingly inflated and misrepresented its
anticipated subscription rates.

According to a July 22 filing in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, plaintiff Johan Wallerstein,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed the
suit against the defendants Netflix Inc., Reed Hastings and Spencer
Neumann alleging violation of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5.

In his suit, the plaintiff claims he purchased Netflix publicly
traded securities between April 17 and July 17 of this year. The
plaintiff alleges a letter sent to shareholders and information
stated in a call to shareholders regarding Netflix's first-quarter
earnings and anticipated 5 million new subscribers contained false
and misleading information.

According to the suit, Netflix executives were aware of issues with
the company and when the actual earnings were released, the company
had lost 126,000 U.S. subscribers. As a result, Netflix's shares
dropped $47.34 per share in July.

The lawsuit seeks damages, post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees for the plaintiffs in the class action. The plaintiff is
represented by Laurence M. Rosen of The Rosen Law Firm in Los
Angeles.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number 5:19-cv-04195 [GN]


NETFLIX INC: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Netflix, Inc. (NASDAQ:  NFLX) and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
Northern District of California, and indexed under 19-cv-04395, is
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
Netflix between April 17, 2019 and July 17, 2019, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").  Plaintiff seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Netflix securities during
the class period, you have until, September 20, 2019, to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Netflix provides Internet entertainment services, primarily
streaming services.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) Netflix would not be able to
gain its expected target number of new subscribers in the second
quarter of 2019; (ii) Netflix would also lose subscribers from the
United States in the second quarter of 2019; and (iii) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On July 17, 2019, post-market, Netflix released a letter to
shareholders which revealed that Netflix missed its expected target
for number of new subscribers and lost 126,000 subscribers in the
United States during the second quarter of 2019.  Also on July 17,
2019, Netflix held an earnings call to discuss its financial and
operating results for the quarter.  During the earnings call, the
Company's Chief Financial Officer attributed the missed
subscription target to the "timing of [Netflix's] content slate"
and price increases.

On this news, Netflix's stock price fell $47.34 per share, or over
13%, over the following two trading sessions, closing at $315.10
per share on July 19, 2019.

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

Contact:

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


NICKERSON PARK: Faces Murphy Suit in Southern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nickerson Park
Campground, Inc. The case is captioned as James Murphy, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
Nickerson Park Campground, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07741-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2019). The suit alleges
violation of Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned
to the Judge Vernon S. Broderick.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN G SOLOTOFF PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 317-2453
          Facsimile: (516) 706-4692
          E-mail: ds@lawsolo.net

NINTENDO: Vergara Sues over Sales of Defective Switch Controllers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY VERGARA, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NINTENDO OF AFRICA, fNC.,
a Washington corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH09511 (Ill.
Cir., Aug. 16, 2019), seeks redress for Defendant's sale of
defective products.

According to the complaint, Nintendo's Switch Controllers contain a
defect that causes the joystick to activate or drift on its own
without the user actually manipulating the joystick (the "Joystick
Defect").

Manual operation of the Controllers is part of the Switch's, and
other video game consoles', core functionality. The Joystick Defect
affects the video game play of the Switch and compromises the core
functionality and overall usage of the Controllers and the Switch
gaming console.

The Defendant is a leading producer and manufacturer of video game
consoles, controllers, and games sold throughout the country.
The Nintendo Switch is one of Defendant's products that was
released in March 2017. The Defendant manufactures, markets, and
sells the Switch and its Controllers.

The Joystick Defect is a material defect, hindering overall usage
of the Controllers and the Switch console itself, which deprives
consumers of their expected use of the products.

As a result of Defendant's unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent
business practices, consumers who purchased the Switch and/or its
Controllers have suffered an ascertainable loss of money and
property value. The Joystick Defect has caused Plaintiff and the
proposed Class and Subclass to incur damages, including monies
spent on purchase of the defective Switch products that they would
not have otherwise bought and monetary costs associated with
attempting to repair or replace the Switch game consoles'
Controllers.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:

          Eugene Y. Turin, sEsq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275- 7895
          E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com

NORTHSTAR REALTY: Scarantino Files Suit Over Sale to AXA Affiliates
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NORTHSTAR REALTY EUROPE CORP.,
RICHARD B. SALTZMAN, MAHBOD NIA, MARIO CHISHOLM, THOMAS J. BARRACK,
JR., JUDITH A. HANNAWAY, DIANE HURLEY, OSCAR JUNQUERA, WESLEY D.
MINAMI, NORTHSTAR REALTY EUROPE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, NIGHTHAWK
MERGER SUB LLC, NIGHTHAWK PARTNERSHIP MERGER SUB LLC, and CORE
PANEURO 2019 13 S.À.R.L., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01592-UNA
(D. Del., Aug. 28, 2019) is an action stemming from a proposed
transaction announced on July 3, 2019, pursuant to which NorthStar
Realty Europe Corp. will be acquired by affiliates of AXA
Investment Managers - Real Assets.

On July 3, 2019, NorthStar's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with NorthStar Realty
Europe Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership,
Nighthawk Merger Sub LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Nighthawk Partnership Merger Sub LLC, and CoRE PANEURO 2019 13
S.a.r.l. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, NorthStar
stockholders will receive $1.68 and the U.S. Dollar equivalent of
EUR9.26 and GBP3.82 in cash for each share of NorthStar common
stock they own. On August 14, 2019, defendants filed a proxy
statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction, which scheduled a
stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction for September 25,
2019.

The complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the
plaintiff alleges that that the Defendants violate Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
the Proxy Statement.

Plaintiff is the owner of NorthStar common stock.

NorthStar is a European-focused commercial real estate company with
predominantly high quality office properties in Germany, the United
Kingdom, and France.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Policy Owners Sue Over Illegal Service Charge
------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Russett, Beth Calabrese, and Jan Bullard, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-07414, (S.D. N.Y., August 8, 2019), seeks compensatory and
statutory damages and injunctive relief for violation of New York
General Business Law.

Plaintiffs are policy owners of Northwestern Mutual. They claim
that Northwestern Mutual charges a $1.00 fee if premiums are not
paid via electronic funds transfer. Russett, Calabrese and Bullard
all pay by check. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frederick J. Klorczyk, III, Esq.
      1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 300-4455
      Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
      E-Mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com

              - and -

      Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 989-9113
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-Mail: pfraietta@bursor.com


OASIS LEGAL: Payday Lending Class Action Survives Challenge
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the Eleventh
Circuit denied a Georgia legal finance payday lender's bid to
enforce contract clauses that would have required a group of
Georgia residents to sue in Illinois and barred them from pursuing
a class action.

The six plaintiffs entered into separate loan agreements with Oasis
Legal Finance LLC and its affiliates. The loans generally amounted
to less than $3,000 and were to be repaid from any recovery that
the plaintiffs received in their individual personal injury
lawsuits.

The plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Oasis in
Georgia state court, claiming the agreements violated Georgia's
Payday Lending Act, Industrial Loan Act, and usury laws. Oasis
successfully removed the case to federal district court.

The loan agreements contained clauses requiring lenders to bring
suit only in Illinois and barring their ability to file a class
action. The district court was right to reject Oasis' request to
dismiss this case based on these provisions, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit said.

"Georgia's Payday Lending Act and Industrial Loan Act articulate a
clear public policy against enforcing forum selection clauses in
payday loan agreements and in favor of preserving class actions as
a remedy for those aggrieved by predatory lenders," the court said
in its Aug. 28 decision.

The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that the PLA established a
clear public policy against payday lenders attempting to skirt
Georgia law through forum selection clauses, the court said. It
rejected Oasis' argument that the PLA doesn't apply to loan
agreements between a Georgia borrower and an out-of-state lender.

The PLA and ILA also contain provisions stating that class actions
may be brought on behalf of a class of borrowers. "Enforcing the
class action waiver here would undermine the purpose and spirit of
Georgia's statutory scheme," the appeals court found.

The forum selection and class action waiver clauses in these
contracts are therefore unenforceable, the court concluded.

The opinion was written by Judge Adalberto Jordan and joined by
Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat and Judge Harvey Schlesinger of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by
designation.

The plaintiffs are represented by The Summerville Firm LLC, Karsman
McKenzie & Hart, and Savage & Turner PC. The defendants are
represented by Barnes & Thornburg LLP.

The case is Davis v. Oasis Legal Fin. Operating Co., 11th Cir., No.
18-10526, 8/28/19. [GN]


OASIS PETROLEUM: Operators, Technicians Seek Unpaid Wages, Damages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Solomon, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. OASIS PETROLEUM, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00180-DLH-CRH (W.D. N.D., Aug. 28, 2019) is a lawsuit
seeking to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff,
FLSA Class Members, and North Dakota Class Members proper overtime
wages, as required by law. In particular, the Defendant violated
the FLSA by paying the Plaintiffs, Opt-In Plaintiffs, and the FLSA
Class Members overtime rates less than what the law requires and/or
neglecting to pay Plaintiff anything whatsoever for certain
overtime hours worked.

Through this lawsuit, Plaintiff, and the FLSA Class Members seek
unpaid overtime compensation, an equal amount for liquidated
damages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as Operators and Technicians in
Defendant's oil and gas drilling operations.

Defendant is a Texas for-profit corporation authorized to conduct
business in this state.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
     Morgan & Morgan, P.A.
     8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone. (954) WORKERS
     Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
     Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com


OHIO: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of J. Mann's Hep-C Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
issued a Report and Recommendation granting Defendant Annette
Chambers-Smith's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned  JEFFREY
D. MANN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION
AND CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-01565. (S.D. Ohio).

Plaintiffs indicate that they all have been diagnosed with HCV
infections. Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff Mann was told he would
not be eligible for treatment until his APRI level reached 1.5,
even though it was acknowledged that an APRI of over 1.5 indicated
the later stages of the disease, with irreversible damage to the
liver and its functions with the stated reason for the delay being
the costs. Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff Bragg was also denied
treatment based on his APRI level. Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff
Pastrano has been continually denied treatment and is also denied
periodic blood testing, which Plaintiffs allege is required by Ohio
policies and protocols.

Here, Defendants Chambers-Smith and Parks request that the Court
grant their Motions to Dismiss because ODRC has established
guidelines for the management of inmates infected with Hep-C
pursuant to which the immediate treatment with Direct Acting
Anti-Viral medications (DAAs) that Plaintiffs demand is not
considered warranted.

The District Judge addressed the same issue in his Order: The Court
again disagrees with the Magistrate Judge and finds that
Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to plead the subjective component of a
medical deliberate indifference claim. Plaintiffs' merely disagree
with the course of treatment, but have failed to allege that
Defendants have ignored their condition. Accordingly, Defendants'
objection is sustained and their Motion to Dismiss this claim is
granted.

Accordingly, because the Court has spoken directly to the only
issue raised in Defendants Chambers-Smith and Parks' Motions to
Dismiss, and found that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for
medical deliberate indifference, the Magistrate recommends that the
two pending Motions to Dismiss be granted.  As to Plaintiffs'
Motion to Strike, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits a
court to strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 26, 2019 Report and
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6x94cfn from
Leagle.com.

Jeffrey D. Mann, Plaintiff, pro se.

John T. Bragg, Plaintiff, pro se.

Eric Pastrano, Plaintiff, pro se.

Mona Parks, Annette Chambers-Smith & Grafton Corr. Inst. Health
Care Administrator,
Defendants, represented by Mindy Ann Worly, Ohio Attorney General's
Office Criminal Justice Section.


PARADE MANAGEMENT: Gonzalez Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER GONZALEZ, and similarly situated individuals v. PARADE
MANAGEMENT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY a/k/a PARADE ENTERPRISES, LLC,
a/k/a BURGER KING, and all other affiliated entities and/or joint
employers and BHARAT DESAI, individually, MAHESH PATEL,
individually, and BHAVESH PATEL, individually, Case No.
2:19-cv-17062 (D.N.J., Aug. 22, 2019), seeks to recover overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey
State Wage Payment Law.

Parade is a New Jersey corporation with a principal office located
in Old Bridge, New Jersey.  The Individual Defendants are owners,
partners, officers and/or managers of Parade.

The Defendants own, operate, and/or manage restaurants, throughout
the tri-state area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: Aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
                  jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


PARADE MANAGEMENT: Sessoms Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LASHIDA SESSOMS, and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v.
PARADE MANAGEMENT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY a/k/a PARADE
ENTERPRISES, LLC, a/k/a BURGER KING, and all other affiliated
entities and/or joint employers and BHARAT DESAI, individually,
MAHESH PATEL, individually, and BHAVESH PATEL, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-17060 (D. N.J., Aug. 22, 2019) is a
lawsuit seeking recovery against Defendants for Defendants'
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New Jersey State
Wage Payment Law, and associated New Jersey Administrative, and
other applicable state laws.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants improperly classified
Plaintiff and members of the putative class as "exempt," refusing
to pay them overtime for the hours that they worked in a work week
in excess of 40 hours. Additionally, Defendants refused to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for all hours that
they worked each work week. Pursuant to Defendants' practice and
policy, Defendants regularly improperly deducted wages from
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, says the
complaint.

Sessoms was employed by Defendants full time as a restaurant worker
with the title assistant manager, performing duties in furtherance
of Defendants' business.

Parade is a New Jersey corporation formed in or about 2003, with
their principal offices located at 105 White Oak Lane, Suite 201-B,
Old Bridge, NJ, 08857.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
     Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
     JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
     301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
     Princeton, NJ 08540
     Phone: (201) 687-9977
     Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
     Email: Aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
            jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


PAUL M. ZAGARIS: Cal. App. Affirms Arbitration Denial in 2 Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Three,
issued an Opinion affirming the Trial Court's denial of Defendants'
Motion for Arbitration in the case captioned JOSEPH R. SPRACHER,
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAUL M. ZAGARIS, INC., et al.,
Defendants and Appellants. CAROL HIGASHI, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. DISCLOSURE SOURCE, et al., Defendants and Appellants. Nos.
A152941, A152962. (Cal. App.).

The Plaintiffs allege that defendants entered into a scheme to
defraud PMZ's clients related to the provision of natural hazard
disclosure (NHD) reports as part of real estate transactions. In
brief, plaintiffs allege that the scheme involved the formation of
a company to purchase NHD reports from defendant Disclosure Source
at one price and sell them to PMZ's clients at over double that
price without any disclosure regarding the markup. Plaintiffs
further allege that certain defendants also received kickbacks
related to NHD reports issued directly by defendant Disclosure
Source.

Plaintiffs allege that Higashi employed PMZ as her broker to sell
her home and was provided a NHD report as part of the transaction.
Defendants deny these allegations.

A motion to compel arbitration is properly denied when the moving
party has waived its right to do so.    

Although no single test delineates the nature of the conduct that
will constitute a waiver of arbitration, the California Supreme
Court has identified the following factors as relevant for
consideration: (1) whether the party's actions are inconsistent
with the right to arbitrate (2) whether `the litigation machinery
has been substantially invoked' and the parties were well into
preparation of a lawsuit' before the party notified the opposing
party of an intent to arbitrate (3) whether a party either
requested arbitration enforcement close to the trial date or
delayed for a long period before seeking a stay (4) whether a
defendant seeking arbitration filed a counterclaim without asking
for a stay of the proceedings (5) whether important intervening
steps, e.g., taking advantage of judicial discovery procedures not
available in arbitration had taken place and (6) whether the delay
affected, misled, or prejudiced the opposing party.

Here, the trial court properly applied the factors set forth in St.
Agnes Medical Center and found that Higashi carried the heavy
burden of proving that defendants waived the right to arbitration
by unreasonably delaying the demand for arbitration, substantially
invoking the litigation machinery, and taking steps inconsistent
with a right to arbitrate. St. Agnes Medical Center, supra, at p.
1196.

Unreasonable delay in seeking arbitration may, standing alone,
constitute a waiver of a right to arbitrate. (Burton v. Cruise
(2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 939, 945 (Burton).) The trial court's
finding that the delay in moving to compel arbitration until
September 5, 2017, almost two years into the litigation and
approximately three months before the deadline for the filing of
the motion for class certification, was a strategic decision is
well supported. The trial court's determination that defendants'
delay of nearly two years before seeking to compel this dispute to
arbitration and stay this lawsuit constitutes an unreasonably long
period of time, and defendants' explanation for their delay is
unavailing" is copiously supported by the evidence.  

The trial court found defendants substantially invoked the
litigation machinery before providing any notice regarding an
intent to arbitrate and did so in a manner inconsistent with the
right to arbitrate. As stated in the order, defendants' actions in
filing multiple rounds of demurrers, propounding extensive
discovery, filing a lengthy and complicated summary judgment
motion, and litigating this case in court for nearly two years both
in isolation and when taken together, all without ever even
suggesting that the dispute should be arbitrated, are inconsistent
with a right to arbitrate. Those same actions demonstrate that the
litigation machinery' has been substantially invoked in this case,
and that the parties are well into the preparation of this
lawsuit.

The Court now turns to prejudice and find ample, clear evidence in
support of the trial court's finding that defendants' delay
resulted in prejudice to Higashi by causing her to expend
significant time and resources while denying her the efficiencies
of arbitration.  

Defendants' claim that they had the right to extensive litigation
because they were originally dealing with multiple plaintiffs who
had signed different real estate agreements with different
arbitration provisions is unavailing.

As set forth in the trial court's order, defendants say that they
could not have moved earlier to compel arbitration because there
were other plaintiffs in the case who had signed different
arbitration agreements defendants made a strategic decision to
forego seeking arbitration in favor of litigating all of the claims
alleged by the various plaintiffs including Higashi in Court. By
their own admission, they chose to do so to avoid a consequence
that they viewed as undesirable.

As stated by the trial court, arbitration might be more
strategically convenient for defendants now that only one plaintiff
subject to one arbitration agreement remains, but it is difficult
to see how arbitration only became appropriate now.

As the trial court's determination that defendants waived
arbitration is supported by substantial evidence, its ruling stands
and this case shall proceed in the trial court.

The judgment is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s August 26, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6xaq2st from
Leagle.com.


PFIZER INC: Array BioPharma Securities Litigation Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that two class action suits filed against
Array BioPharma Inc. have been consolidated.

In November 2017, two purported class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that
Array BioPharma Inc., which the company acquired in July 2019 and
is the company's wholly owned subsidiary, and certain of its former
officers violated federal securities laws in connection with
certain disclosures made, or omitted, by Array regarding the
NRAS-mutant melanoma program.

In March 2018, the actions were consolidated into a single
proceeding.

Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology,
inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica,
Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi,
Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PNC BANK: Kazi, et al Seek to Certify Mortgage Loan Officers Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TANSEER KAZI, et al.,
individually and on 21 behalf of all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. PNC BANK, N.A., et al., the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-04810-JCS (N.D. Cal.), Tanseer Kazi and Linda Scheid will
move the Court on January 24, 2020, for an order:

   1. granting class certification of:

      "Mortgage Loan Officers (MLOs) whom Defendant PNC Bank,
      N.A., employed in California at any time since June 28, 2014

      through the disposition of this legal action."

   2. appointing themselves as class representatives; and

   3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel, including their law firms,
      as class counsel.

The Defendant allegedly failed to pay for all time worked under
California Labor Code and Wage Order 4-2001.

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          James M. Sitkin, Esq.
          jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com
          Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 318-1048
          Facsimile: (415) 362-3268

               - and -

          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Swartz Swidler LLC
          1101 Kings Hwy. N. Ste. 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com

               - and -

          Robert D. Soloff, Esq.
          ROBERT D. SOLOFF, P.A.
          10 7805 S.W. 6th Court
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 472-0002
          Facsimile: (954) 472-0052
          E-mail: robert@solofflaw.com

               - and -

          Marc A. Silverman, Esq.
          FRANK WEINBERG BLACK, P.L.
          7805 S.W. 6th Court
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 474-8000
          Facsimile: (954) 474-9850
          E-mail: msilverman@fwblaw.net

PORCH.COM INC: Fisher Files TCPA Suit in Arizona
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Porch.com
Incorporated. The case is styled as Mary Conner and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Porch.com
Incorporated, German Roofing LLC, Unknown Parties named as John Doe
Telemarketing Defendants and John Doe Home Improvement Defendants,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05054-JZB (D. Ariz., Aug. 29, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Porch is an online platform that connects homeowners with local
home repair services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James C Vlahakis, Esq.
     Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
     2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 575-8181 x116
     Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Seeks to Consolidate Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Emmariah Holcomb, writing for glassbytes.com, reports that
Progressive Select Insurance Co. (Progressive) has recently been in
Florida's federal courtroom over a class action lawsuit, which
could have implications for the auto glass industry, led by MRI
provider Clearview Imaging LLC (Clearview).

The lawsuit centers on medical providers seeking damages, totaling
as much as $10 million, for Progressive's copayment reductions, or
short payments. Earlier this month Progressive argued, in court
documents, that providers should "take it up with their patients
instead." Now both parties have filed a joint document asking the
Federal Court to consolidate this class action with another lawsuit
currently pending, because both are similar in nature.

Prior to the motion to consolidate, Progressive sought to have the
case dismissed. The insurance company stated the reduced payments
the patients owed were not covered by its medical insurance
policies.

"By this lawsuit, Clearview seeks to inflate the amount paid by its
patients as co-payments for medical bills," Progressive said in a
portion of court documents.

According to court documents, Clearview acknowledged the fact that
Progressive is entitled to adjust the billed amount of its charges.
In court documents, Progressive stated the lawsuit would lead to an
inflated process for patients if it continued.

Progressive also stated, in court documents, that Clearview's
allegations were baseless due to reasons that include:

Clearview improperly attempting to sue Progressive for the inflated
co-payment amounts. (which are co-payments that are not covered
under the patients' Progressive auto policies) Any attempt to
address the extra-contractual payments must be directed at the
patients.

The patients are necessary parties to any litigation over their
payments.

Clearview's theory as to why it may recover the co-payments from
Progressive is inconsistent with the language of the applicable
policies, the Florida PIP Statute, precedent, and basic common
sense.

The lawsuit, originally filed in April 2019, acknowledges the fact
that Progressive is allowed to reduce reimbursements using a
"schedule of maximum charges," but it also claims the reductions
could not be applied to copays charged to patients. According to
court documents, the case represents Florida health care providers
who previously billed Progressive insurance policyholders and had
rate reductions applied to its copay portion.

According to Progressive, if it applied the schedule of maximum
charges to reduce the billable amount, it would reduce a patient's
copay by about $55. Providers however, are seeking an effective
copay reduction across all applicable cases, which could translate
to more than $10 million in damages across roughly 800,000 bills,
according to Progressive's estimate included in court documents.
[GN]


PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: McKeen-Chaplin & Neal Suits Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------
Provident Financial Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August
30, 2019, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019, that the
McKeen-Chaplin and Neal cases are now completed and dismissed.

On December 17, 2012, a class and collective action lawsuit, Gina
McKeen-Chaplin, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated vs. the Bank was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California (the "Court") against the
Bank claiming damages, restitution and injunctive relief for
alleged misclassification of certain employees as exempt rather
than non-exempt, resulting in a failure to pay appropriate overtime
compensation, to provide meal and rest periods, to pay waiting time
penalties and to provide accurate wage statements (the
"McKeen-Chaplin lawsuit").

On May 22, 2013, counsel in the McKeen-Chaplin lawsuit filed
another class action called Neal vs. Provident Savings Bank, F.S.B.
(the "Neal lawsuit") in California Superior Court in Alameda County
(the "State Court"). The Neal lawsuit is virtually identical to the
McKeen-Chaplin lawsuit alleging that mortgage underwriters were
misclassified as exempt employees.

On August 12, 2015, the Court issued an order denying the
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granting the Bank's
motion for summary judgment affirming that the plaintiffs were
properly classified as exempt employees and denying the federal
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FSLA"). On August 18,
2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the order.

On July 5, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit") reversed the Court's ruling granting
the Bank's motion for summary judgment, instead ruling the
plaintiffs were improperly classified as exempt employees and were
entitled to overtime compensation.

The Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the Court with
instructions to enter summary judgement in favor of the plaintiffs.


As a result of the Ninth Circuit's unfavorable ruling, the Bank
filed on September 7, 2017, a petition for writ of certiorari to
the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on November 27,
2017.

On December 18, 2017, the Bank entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs' representatives to memorialize
an agreement in principle to settle the pending McKeen-Chaplin and
Neal lawsuits.

The Memorandum of Understanding assumes class certification for
purposes of the settlement only and provides for an aggregate
settlement payment by the Bank of $1.8 million, which includes all
settlement funds, the named plaintiff service payments,  and class
counsel's attorneys' fees and costs.

Any additional costs and expenses related to employer-side payroll
taxes will be paid by the Bank.

The parties subsequently successfully negotiated and executed a
mutually acceptable long-form settlement agreement.

On February 21, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion in McKeen-Chaplin
asking the Court to approve the FLSA portion of the settlement
agreement. The parties also worked together to jointly request that
the Court of Appeal in the Neal lawsuit pass jurisdiction back to
the State Court to oversee the settlement process, which was
preliminary approved on May 15, 2018.  

Subsequently, on July 18, 2018 the Court approved the FLSA portion
of the settlement which allowed the parties to begin the process of
providing notice of the settlement to class members. The State
Court had already granted preliminary approval of the state law
class settlement in the Neal lawsuit.

The Bank's decision to settle these lawsuits was the result of the
unfavorable ruling by the United States Supreme Court in the
McKeen-Chaplin lawsuit and the significant legal costs, distraction
from day-to-day operating activities and substantial resources that
would be required to defend the Bank in protracted litigation if
the Neal lawsuit would proceed.  

In addition, the Bank determined that the settlement would reduce
the Bank's potential exposure to damages, penalties, fines and
plaintiffs' legal fees in the event of an unfavorable outcome in
the Neal lawsuit.

The settlement includes the dismissal of all claims against the
Bank and related parties in the McKeen-Chaplin and Neal lawsuits
without any admission of liability or wrongdoing attributed to the
Bank.

Based on the proposed settlement, the Corporation recorded a
litigation settlement expense accrual of $650,000 in the second
quarter of fiscal 2018 to fully reserve for the agreed upon
settlement amount.

On November 13, 2018, the State Court approved the motion for final
approval of the settlement agreement in the two class and
collective action lawsuits filed by McKeen-Chaplin and Neal,
respectively, against the Bank.

Following the grant of the final approval, the Court in
McKeen-Chaplin dismissed the case. The settlement funds have been
distributed to the plaintiffs and plaintiff's counsel consistent
with the settlement agreements.

On April 8, 2019, the State Court signed an order closing and
dismissing the cases. The McKeen-Chaplin and Neal cases are now
completed and dismissed.

Provident Financial Holdings, Inc. operates as the holding company
for Provident Savings Bank, F.S.B. that provides community and
mortgage banking services to consumers and small to mid-sized
businesses in the Inland Empire region of Southern California. The
company was founded in 1956 and is based in Riverside, California.


PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: Settlement Amount Forwarded to Administrator
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Provident Financial Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August
30, 2019, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019, that the
settlement amount in the "Cannon Settlement" has been forwarded to
the class administrator.

On August 6, 2015, a former employee, Christina Cannon, filed a
lawsuit called Cannon vs. the Bank in the California Superior Court
for the County of San Bernardino (the "Cannon lawsuit").

Cannon seeks to represent a class of all non-exempt employees in a
class action lawsuit brought under California's Unfair Competition
Law, Business & Professions Code section 17200.  

The underlying claims include unpaid overtime (including
off-the-clock work), meal and rest period violations, minimum wage
violations, and failure to reimburse business expenses.

On September 8, 2017, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the
Cannon lawsuit sent notification to the Bank and to the California
Labor & Workforce Development Agency informing them of their intent
to bring a claim under the Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004
("PAGA") on behalf of all non-exempt employees and covering a
variety of alleged wage and hour violations.

On September 12, 2017, the Bank entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs' representatives to memorialize
an agreement in principle to settle the pending Cannon lawsuit.

The Memorandum of Understanding assumes class certification for
purposes of the settlement only and provides for an aggregate
settlement payment by the Bank of up to $2.8 million, which
includes all settlement funds, the class representative enhancement
award, settlement administrator's expenses, any employer-side
payroll taxes, and class counsel’s attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Bank's decision to settle this matter was the result of the
significant legal costs, distraction from day-to-day operating
activities and substantial resources that would be required to
defend the Bank in protracted litigation.

In addition, the Bank determined that the settlement would reduce
the Bank's potential exposure to damages, penalties, fines and
plaintiffs' legal fees in the event of an unfavorable outcome in a
court trial.

The settlement includes the dismissal of all claims against the
Bank and related parties in the Cannon lawsuit and claim under the
PAGA, without any admission of liability or wrongdoing attributed
to the Bank.

Because of the uncertainty surrounding this litigation, no
litigation reserve had been previously established by the Bank
resulting in the full $2.8 million settlement expense being
recognized in the first quarter of fiscal 2018.

On December 20, 2018, counsel in the Cannon lawsuit filed a Motion
for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement in the California
Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino. On April 12, 2019,
this court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

On July 24, 2019, the California Superior Court for the County of
San Bernardino, California granted final approval of the settlement
in the Cannon vs. Bank lawsuit.

On July 26, 2019, the final order was signed by this court and on
August 6, 2019, the Bank forwarded the settlement amount to the
class administrator. The total settlement may be slightly reduced.

Provident Financial Holdings, Inc. operates as the holding company
for Provident Savings Bank, F.S.B. that provides community and
mortgage banking services to consumers and small to mid-sized
businesses in the Inland Empire region of Southern California. The
company was founded in 1956 and is based in Riverside, California.


RALPHS COFFEE SHOP: Ramos Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
RODOLFO RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RALPHS COFFEE SHOP & DINER INC., RAMON
BATISTA, and DARIO LOPEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04912 (E.D.
N.Y., Aug. 28, 2019) is an action seeking equitable and legal
relief for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, as amended and New York Labor Law.

Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was a
non-exempt employee pursuant to the FLSA and the NYLL, and was
entitled to receive at least the minimum wage for all hours worked,
as well as spread of hours pay and overtime compensation, notes the
the complaint. However, Plaintiff was not paid at least the minimum
wage for all hours worked, and was not paid an additional hour at
the minimum wage on days in which Plaintiff worked a spread of
hours that exceeded 10 hours. Additionally, Plaintiff was not paid
overtime compensation of one and one-half times his regular hourly
rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a "grill man" from in or
around 2005 until on or around January 24, 2019.

Ralphs is a diner that serves American and Spanish cuisine to its
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Katherine Morales, Esq.
     KATZ MELINGER PLLC
     280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 460-0047
     Email: kymorales@katzmelinger.com


REJ PROPERTIES: Badgerow Appeals E.D. Louisiana Order to 5th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Denise A. Badgerow filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
her lawsuit titled Denise Badgerow v. REJ Properties, Incorporated,
et al., Case No. 2:17-CV-9492, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans.

The appellate case is captioned as Denise Badgerow v. REJ
Properties, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 19-30687, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 13, 2019, Ms.
Badgerow also appealed a ruling in her lawsuit.  That appellate
case is entitled Denise Badgerow v. REJ Properties, Incorporated,
et al., Case No. 19-30584.

Ms. Badgerow has filed the action against her former employer, REJ
Properties, doing business as Walters, Meyer, Trosclair &
Associates ("WMT"), and Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc.
Ameriprise is a registered broker dealer that offers financial
products and services to customers through several models.  WMT was
a small private financial advisory practice affiliated with
Ameriprise.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DENISE A. BADGEROW, on behalf of herself and a
class of those similarly situated, is represented by:

          Amanda Jeanne Butler, Esq.
          BUSINESS LAW GROUP
          700 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 319-4528
          E-mail: abutler@lawgroup.biz

Defendant-Appellee REJ PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED, doing business as
Walters, Meyer, Trosclair and Associates, is represented by:

          Eve Barrie Masinter, Esq.
          Matthew Miles McCluer, Esq.
          Ernst Fredrick Preis, Jr., Esq.
          BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P.
          909 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 584-5468
          E-mail: eve.masinter@bswllp.com
                  matthew.mccluer@bswllp.com
                  fred.preis@bswllp.com

               - and -

          Claude Favrot Reynaud, Jr., Esq.
          BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P.
          301 Main Street
          1 American Place
          Baton Rouge, LA 70801
          Telephone: (225) 387-4000
          E-mail: claude.reynaud@bswllp.com

Defendant-Appellee AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, is
represented by:

          Nancy Scott Degan, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
          201 Saint Charles Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 566-5249
          E-mail: ndegan@bakerdonelson.com


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: PFOA Contamination Case Now Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reports that a lawsuit filed by Vermont residents
seeking damages for chemical contamination in groundwater in their
Bennington neighborhood can proceed as a class action, a federal
judge has ruled.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Geoffrey Crawford means qualified
property owners can join in the lawsuit against Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics, the Bennington Banner reports. The state
believes the plastics company is responsible for widespread water
contamination with perfluorooctanoic acid, a suspected carcinogen,
around two former ChemFab Corp. factories in Bennington.

"This decision, certifying the case as a class action, means that
the people of Bennington and North Bennington will be able to prove
– on a class-wide basis – that Saint-Gobain's air discharges of
PFOA over more than three decades resulted in the widespread
contamination of their groundwater, their properties, and their
bodies," said lawyer Emily Joselson, of Langrock Sperry & Wool, of
Middlebury. "This is crucially important, as any one individual
could not muster the resources necessary to prove the liability of
a major corporation, but a class of people acting together can."

ChemFab coated fabrics and liquid Teflon at plants in Bennington
and North Bennington for more than 30 years until 2002 when the
operations moved to New Hampshire. Saint-Gobain acquired ChemFab in
2000.

The suit was filed in May 2016 in federal court in Rutland shortly
after elevated levels of PFOA were found in about 400 wells around
the former factories.

Saint Gobain Communications Manager Lia LoBello said in an email
that the company plans to appeal Crawford's decision. The company's
attorneys have argued that the amount of contamination released by
the factories over 30 years was much lower than what the
plaintiff's experts determined it to be and that there are other
sources of PFOA contamination.

In the spring, Vermont officials announced a settlement in which
Saint Gobain had agreed to extend municipal water lines to 245 more
homes on the east side of Bennington. [GN]


SANDERSON FARMS: Plaintiffs' Appeal in NY Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2019, that the company still awaits
a ruling on the appeal made by the plaintiff in the putative class
action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Sanderson Farms, Inc.; Joe F. Sanderson, Jr., the Chairman of the
Registrant's Board of Directors and its Chief Executive Officer;
and D. Michael Cockrell, director and Chief Financial Officer, were
named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed on
October 28, 2016, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On March 30, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding Lampkin Butts, director, Chief Operating Officer, and
President, as a defendant, and on June 15, 2017, the lead plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made statements in the
Company's SEC filings and press releases, and other public
statements, that were materially false and misleading in light of
the Company's alleged, undisclosed violation of the federal
antitrust laws.

The complaint also alleges that the material misstatements were
made in order to, among other things, "artificially inflate and
maintain the market price of Sanderson Farms securities." The
complaint alleges the defendants thereby violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), including
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and, for the individual defendants, Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, and seeks damages, interest, costs and attorneys'
fees.

On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and entered judgment for the defendants. On January 31,
2018, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

That appeal is now fully briefed, and the Court of Appeals heard
oral argument on August 31, 2018. The Company is awaiting a ruling
on the appeal.

Sanderson said, "If the plaintiffs were to prevail in the action,
the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a
material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of
operations."

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

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.


SCANA: Begins VC Summer Project Class Action Settlement Payouts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Bleiweis, writing for WIS, reports that two years later,
there's a check-in your mailbox. But for how much?

If you received a check in the mail for the SCANA settlement of a
class-action lawsuit after the failure of the VC Summer Nuclear
Project, you're quite literally one in a million. And those one
million customers are splitting $146 million.

According to the SCE&G Ratepayer Settlement website, if you were an
electricity customer of SCE&G and were charged costs for the
construction of 2 nuclear plants in Jenkinsville, you may have been
eligible for a payment from a class action settlement.

That lawsuit was filed after the abandonment of those two nuclear
units in Fairfield County. The project's abandonment had been
financed by customers since 2009, and in the wake of the project's
loss and the years of customer payment, SCE&G and SCANA settled a
large class-action lawsuit over the summer while denying the
allegations within it.

According to Dominion Energy, which merged with SCE&G at the
beginning of 2019, the checks are not a complete "refund" of
customer dollars, they are a "disbursement or certain proceeds from
the court-approved class action settlement."

There has been some confusion over the proposal of a $1,000 rebate,
which was proposed by Dominion before the merger. But once the
merger was finalized, that proposal was taken off the table.

The amount of these settlement checks does vary, according to
Dominion. Some customers will receive less than $50 for some, less
than $1, depending on the rates paid by each class member.

A Dominion spokesperson also said the payments are in addition to
the average rate reduction of $22 per customer account that
customers are already receiving due to the merger of Dominion and
SCANA.

To be clear, Dominion Energy is NOT issuing these checks, nor were
they in charge of determining the amount of the checks. The dollars
are coming from the claims administrator.

The initial checks were to be sent out between August 1st and
August 10th. The refund could also show up as a bill credit in your
account if you opted for that option in the spring. [GN]


SEATTLE CITY: Utility Facing Class Action for Over-Billing
----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Farrick, writing for Legal Reader, reports that Seattle
City Public Light is facing a potential class action lawsuit for
systematically over-billing customers during a smart meter
rollout.

The Seattle Times shares the story of Ian Wathen, a South Lake
Union Resident. Wathen says he received a bill totaling nearly
$2,000 from Seattle City Public Light, the northwestern
metropolis's largest utility. According to the company, it had
under-billed everyone in Wathen's entire building for the past two
and a half years. And now, Public Light was sending out receipts to
recover its costs.

And the bill, says Wathen, wasn't a misprint. SCPL told him that it
reserved the right to back-bill customers up to six years if they'd
previously been under-billed.

"I understand mistakes happen, but this is unbelievable," Wathen
told the Times. "Imagine if I had received the same bill for a
six-year period: It would have been nearly $4,500!"

To counter some of the utility's most egregious claims, Seattle law
firm Terrell Marshall has proposed and a filed a class action
request in King County Superior Court. If the request is granted,
the class could encompass every customer impacted by Public Light's
purportedly problematic billing practices. Terrell Marshall claims
"thousands" have been affected.

The firm, reports Crosscut.com, is seeking "actual and
consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial," as
well as "other and further relief as may be just and equitable."

Crosscut says many of the problems can be traced back to Seattle's
"rocky 2016 rollout of a new billing system." Over-budget and built
around "smart readers," Public Light directed employees to check
energy-usage readings at each site the meters were installed.

If employees were unable to check and "certify" a smart reader's
measurement, a usage estimate would be automatically generated.
With Seattle City Public Light short on workers, a lot of consumers
wound up with uncertified invoices.

In many cases, consumers who received abnormally high bills weren't
told their reading—revised or not—had been based upon a usage
estimate.

"City Light's acts and practices set forth [. . . .] are unfair or
deceptive," Terrell Marshall's filing claims. "Such practices
include using estimated meter readings to charge customers when
actual meter readings are available, using undisclosed methods to
arrive at estimates that are disadvantageous to its customers,
failing to clearly designate that bills are the products of
estimated usage and failing to provide a method to promptly correct
erroneous estimates, relying on estimates for extended periods of
time, and attributing any amounts it considers to be unbilled to
higher rates than those it would have billed its customers had it
actually read their meters and billed accordingly."

To determine who might be eligible for a claim if the class action
is certified, Terrell Marshall says the firm will ask Public Light
to produce all its bills based on estimates. With that paperwork in
hand, T.M. attorney Ari Brown, Esq. -- abrown@terrellmarshall.com
-- said they "should be able to determine which estimates were
improper and who was overcharged as a result based on their
databases." [GN]


SEDGWICK CMS: Brown Seeks Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------
ZAKIA BROWN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, a Foreign
for Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-01531 (M.D.
Fla., Aug. 16, 2019), seeks to recover damages resulting from
Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40
hours per week but was not compensated for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours at a rate of not less than one-an-half times
their regular rate of pay.

Sedgwick CMS provides claims administration, managed care, program
management and related services through the expertise of nearly
10,000 colleagues in more than one hundred and fifty offices and
service locations in the U.S. and Canada.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
          David V. Barszcz, Esq.
          LYTLE &  BARSZCZ, PA
          543 N.  Wymore Road, Ste 103
          Maitland, FL 32751
          Telephone: (407) 622 6544
          Facsimile: (407) 622 6545
          E-mail: mlytle@lblaw.attorney
                  dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney

SELECT PORTFOLIO: Garay Sues Over Illegal Processing Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Garay, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-23323 (S.D. Fla.,
August 8, 2018), seeks relief for violations of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act, for breach of contract and for
unjust enrichment.

Pedro Garay owns a house at 3730 SW 26th Terrace, Miami, Florida
33134, which is subject to a mortgage serviced by Select Portfolio
Servicing. He alleges Select Portfolio Servicing of charging
illegal "processing fees" of $10.00 and $5.00 when payments on the
mortgage are made over the phone or online, respectively. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Moskowitz, Esq.
      Howard Bushman, Esq.
      Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
      THE MOSKOWITZ FIRM, PLLC
      2 Alahambra Plaza, Suite 601
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Tel: (305) 740-1423
      Fax: (786) 298-5737
      Email: adam@moskowitz-law.com
             howard@moskowitz-law.com
             joseph@moskowitz-law.com

             - and -

      Michael S. Budwick, Esq.
      Solomon B. Genet, Esq.
      MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
      3200 Southeast Financial Center
      200 South Biscayne Boulevard
      Miami, Florida 33131
      Telephone: (305) 358-6363
      Facsimile: (305) 358-1221
      Email: mbudwick@melandrussin.com
             sgenet@melandrussin.com


SOUTHWEST KEY: Hernandez et al Suit Moved to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Maria Hernandez, as an individual; Azael Sanchez, as an
individual; and Roberto Nava, as an individual, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Southwest Key
Programs, Inc., a Texas corporation; Talentwise, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
37-02019-00036821-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of CA, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Aug. 29,
2019. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:19-cv-01636-BEN-AGS to the proceedings. The suit alleges
violation of Consumer Credit related issues. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Roger T. Benitez.

Southwest Key is a Texas-based nonprofit organization that operates
shelter facilities for unaccompanied immigrant minors and immigrant
youth separated from their parents. It also provides youth justice
alternative programming and educational programming. The
organization was founded in 1987.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
          433 North Camden Drive, Suite 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 496-5818
          Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
          E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com

Attorneys for Southwest Key Programs, Inc. are:

          Glendy Lau, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS
          19191 S. Vermont Avenue, Suite 950
          Torrance, CA 90502
          Telephone: (310) 965-2074
          E-mail: glendy.lau@ogletree.com

ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Court Approves $5MM Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has approved a $5 million
settlement of a national class action brought against St. Jude
Medical, Inc. and St. Jude Medical Canada, Inc. The class action
relates to certain models of implantable cardiac defibrillators or
cardiac resynchronization therapy devices manufactured between
January 2010 and May 23, 2015 under the brand names Fortify,
Fortify Assura, Quadra Assura, Unify, Unify Assura, and Unify
Quadra.  The class action alleges that the battery in these
defibrillators has the potential to form lithium clusters, which
may result in rapid, premature depletion of the battery in a very
small number of cases.

There are approximately 8,900 individuals in Canada who were
implanted with the potentially affected devices.

Under the terms of the settlement, any person in Canada who was
implanted with one of the affected devices may make a claim for
compensation.  The amount of compensation to which the class member
will be entitled will depend upon a number of factors including the
date of the implant, whether and when the device was replaced, and
the reasons for the replacement.

Certain close family relations may also make a claim for death
benefits in the event that they can establish that the cause of
death was premature battery depletion.  More specifically, the
family member must show that: (1) the battery depletion occurred
earlier than expected based on the defibrillator usage, and (2)
there was no indication that the depletion was related to a cause
other than a short circuit that may have been due to the formation
of lithium clusters.

Both implanted persons and their close family members may also make
claims for out of pocket expenses incurred as a result of the
explant procedure or arising from the Advisory.

Details of the settlement can be found at: www.stjudeicdclaim.ca or
at:
https://waddellphillips.ca/class-actions/st-jude-defibrillator-class-action/

Waddell Phillips Professional Corporation and Howie, Sacks & Henry
LLP are class counsel, and can be reached at the addresses below
for further information regarding the class action or the
settlement.

                   About Waddell Phillips PC

Waddell Phillips Professional Corporation is a boutique law firm,
specializing in plaintiff-side class actions.  The principals of
the firm have helped victims in a wide range of cases, including
product liability, consumer protection, aboriginal residential
schools, franchise disputes and securities misrepresentations.

For more information on the St. Jude Defibrillator class action,
please visit:
https://waddellphillips.ca/class-actions/st-jude-defibrillator-class-action/
or call our law firm at 647-261-4486, or email
reception@waddellphillips.ca

                 About Howie, Sacks & Henry LLP

Howie, Sacks & Henry -- http://waddellphillips.ca-- advances mass
tort claims and class actions on behalf of people injured by
dangerous products, pharmaceuticals and medical devices. These
include victims who have suffered exposure to asbestos, cancer
caused by the use of baby powder, the side effects of
pharmaceutical drugs like Taxotere and Abilify, and those adversely
impacted by defective medical devices, including St. Jude
Defibrillators, Hernia Mesh and Transvaginal Mesh.

For further information: on the St. Jude Defibrillator class
action, please visit:
http://www.hshlawyers.com/expertise/mass-tort-litigation/st-jude-defibrillatorpacemaker/,
or call our law firm at 1-877-474-5997. [GN]


SWINERTON BUILDERS: Wage Statements Lack Details, Ali Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
OMAR ALI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED,
the PLAINTIFF, v. SWINERTON BUILDERS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND
DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, the DEFENDANTS, Case No.
CGC-19-578474 (Cal. Super., Aug. 19, 2019), alleges that Defendants
failed to provide wage statements to current and former California
employees that do not contain the name and address of the legal
entity that is the employer in violation of the state's Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants and performed work as a
Senior Scheduler in San Francisco and other locations in
California.  His wage statements simply stated "Swinerton," with no
address of the employer. The name of the employer was "Swinerton
Builders", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Kevin F. Woodall, Esq.
          WOODALL LAW OFFICES
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 413-4629
          Facsimile: (866) 937-4109
          E-mail: kevin@kwoodalllaw.com

SYNERGY FLIGHT: Ill. App. Affirms Denial of Bid to Junk Schaeffer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division,
issued an Opinion affirming the Circuit Court's judgment denying
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned JOHN C.
SCHAEFER, as Administrator of Estate of Andrew C. Butler, Deceased;
Lyndsey F. Jones, as Executor of the Estate of Woodrow Jason Jones,
Deceased; Lindsay R. Leetch, as Executor of the Estate of Aaron R.
Leetch, Deceased; Joan B. Stralow, as Executor of the Estate of
Terry L. Stralow, Deceased; and Janice Ward, as Administrator of
the Estate of Torrey Ward, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
SYNERGY FLIGHT CENTER, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; AIRCRAFT
PROPELLER SERVICE, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; AIRCRAFT
PROPELLER SERVICE, INC., a Corporation; G&N AIRCRAFT, INC., a
Corporation; RAM AIRCRAFT, L.P., a Limited Partnership; CONTINENTAL
MOTORS, INC., a Corporation; SANDEL AVIONICS, INC., a Corporation;
GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Corporation; GARMIN AT, INC., a
Corporation; GARMIN USA, INC., a Corporation; and GARMIN NORTH
AMERICA, INC., a Corporation, Defendants, (RAM Aircraft, L.P.,
Defendant-Appellant). AMI HILEMAN, as Executor of the Estate of
Thomas W. Hileman, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SYNERGY FLIGHT
CENTER, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company for Profit; G&N
AIRCRAFT, INC., a Corporation for Profit; CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC.,
a Corporation for Profit; RAM AIRCRAFT PROPELLER SERVICE, INC., an
Illinois Corporation for Profit; and AIRCRAFT PROPELLER SERVICE,
LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company for Profit, Defendants,
(RAM Aircraft, L.P., Defendant-Appellant). CARRIE L. BITTNER, as
Executive of the Estate of Scott Lee Bittner, Deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SYNERGY FLIGHT CENTER, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company; AIRCRAFT PROPELLER SERVICE, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company; AIRCRAFT PROPELLER SERVICE, INC., a Corporation;
G&N AIRCRAFT, INC., a Corporation; RAM AIRCRAFT, L.P., a Limited
Partnership; CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC., a Corporation; SANDEL
AVIONICS, INC., a Corporation; GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
Corporation; GARMIN AT, INC., a Corporation; GARMIN USA, INC., a
Corporation; GARMIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Corporation, Defendants,
(RAM Aircraft, L.P., Defendant-Appellant). JOAN B. STRALOW, as
Executor of the Estate of Terry L. Stralow, Deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SYNERGY FLIGHT CENTER, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company; AIRCRAFT PROPELLER SERVICE, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company; AIRCRAFT PROPELLER SERVICE, INC., a Corporation;
G&N AIRCRAFT, INC., a Corporation; RAM AIRCRAFT, L.P., a Limited
Partnership; CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC., a Corporation; SANDEL
AVIONICS, INC., a Corporation; GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
Corporation; GARMIN AT, INC., a Corporation; GARMIN USA, INC., a
Corporation; GARMIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Corporation, Defendants,
(RAM Aircraft, L.P., Defendant-Appellant). LYNDSEY F. JONES, as
Executor of the Estate of Woodrow Jason Jones, Deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SYNERGY FLIGHT CENTER, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company; AIRCRAFT PROPELLER SERVICE, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company; AIRCRAFT PROPELLER SERVICE, INC., a Corporation;
G&N AIRCRAFT, INC., a Corporation; RAM AIRCRAFT, L.P., a Limited
Partnership; CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC., a Corporation; SANDEL
AVIONICS, INC., a Corporation; GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
Corporation; GARMIN AT, INC., a Corporation; GARMIN USA, INC., a
Corporation; GARMIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Corporation, Defendants,
(RAM Aircraft, L.P., Defendant-Appellant). LINDSAY R. LEETCH, as
Executor of the Estate of Aaron R. Leetch, Deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SYNERGY FLIGHT CENTER, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company; AIRCRAFT PROPELLER SERVICE, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company; AIRCRAFT PROPELLER SERVICE, INC., a Corporation;
G&N AIRCRAFT, INC., a Corporation; RAM AIRCRAFT, L.P., a Limited
Partnership; CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC., a Corporation; SANDEL
AVIONICS, INC., a Corporation; GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
Corporation; GARMIN AT, INC., a Corporation; GARMIN USA, INC., a
Corporation; GARMIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Corporation, Defendants,
(RAM Aircraft, L.P., Defendant-Appellant). JANICE WARD, as
Administrator of the Estate of Torrey Ward, Deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SYNERGY FLIGHT CENTER, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company; AIRCRAFT PROPELLER SERVICE, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company; AIRCRAFT PROPELLER SERVICE, INC., a Corporation;
G&N AIRCRAFT, INC., a Corporation; RAM AIRCRAFT, L.P., a Limited
Partnership; CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC., a Corporation; SANDEL
AVIONICS, INC., a Corporation; GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
Corporation; GARMIN AT, INC., a Corporation; GARMIN USA, INC., a
Corporation; GARMIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Corporation, Defendants,
(RAM Aircraft, L.P., Defendant-Appellant). No. 1-18-1799. (Ill.
App.).

A plane crashed and seven men died. The estates of the seven
decedents filed complaints alleging that RAM negligently
overhauled, repaired, and tested the plane's controller, left
engine, and other parts. The circuit court consolidated the cases
and permitted discovery on the jurisdictional issue raised in RAM's
motion to dismiss it from all the lawsuits.

On appeal, RAM argues that the circuit court erred as a matter of
law when it concluded that RAM is subject to personal jurisdiction
in Illinois.  Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(3) (eff. Nov. 1,
2017) gives this court jurisdiction over the appeal. The circuit
court held no evidentiary hearing, and it based its decision solely
on the documents the parties presented in court.  

Russell v. SNFA, 2013 IL 113909, guides the Court's decision here.
SNFA, a French company, manufactured bearings for aircraft. It had
no office, assets, property, or employees in Illinois, and it had
no license to do business in Illinois.  SNFA sold some tail-rotor
bearings for helicopters to Agusta, an Italian company that
manufactured helicopters.  

The circuit court granted SNFA's motion to dismiss the claim
against it for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The Illinois supreme
court noted that a court can assert personal jurisdiction over a
defendant based on either general jurisdiction or specific
jurisdiction.The plaintiff in Russell did not contend that the
court had general jurisdiction over SNFA. The parties here
similarly agree that Illinois courts do not have general
jurisdiction over RAM.

To establish specific jurisdiction, the plaintiff must show that
the defendant purposefully directed its activities at the forum
state and the cause of action arose out of or relates to the
defendant's contacts with the forum state. The Russell court found
that SNFA's business relationship with an Illinois customer proved
that SNFA benefitted from Illinois' system of laws, infrastructure,
and business climate, even though the Illinois customer installed
SNFA's products in California, and the Illinois office only
processed the payments.  

Here, RAM had ongoing business relationships with at least six
Illinois customers, who reliably accounted for more than 1% of
RAM's revenues and who in some years accounted for more than 2% of
that revenue. RAM advertised in magazines with national
distribution, and it considered owners of general aviation fleet,
including planes based in Illinois, as its market. The plaintiffs
also adequately alleged that defects in the controller RAM sold and
the overhauling RAM performed on the engine caused the fatal crash
in Illinois of a plane owned by an Illinois company and occupied by
Illinois passengers.

The Court finds sufficient contacts with Illinois to permit the
exercise of specific jurisdiction over RAM in this case.

Just as the Russell court found that the circuit court had personal
jurisdiction over SNFA, the Court holds that the circuit court
properly exercised personal jurisdiction over RAM.

The Court finds that RAM had sufficient contacts with Illinois for
the assertion of personal jurisdiction because RAM had ongoing
business relationships with six Illinois customers and plaintiffs
adequately alleged that RAM's negligence caused the crash in
Illinois of an Illinois-based plane. Following Russell, the Court
holds that the circuit court has personal jurisdiction over RAM.

The Court affirms the circuit court's order denying the motion to
dismiss the claims against RAM from the complaints.

A full-text copy of the Ill. App.'s August 26, 2019 Opinion is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/y3yqg36e from Leagle.com.

John S. Hoff -- jhoff@cremerspina.com --  and Jared A. Schneider --
jschneider@cremerspina.com -- of Cremer, Spina, Shaughnessy, Jansen
& Siegert, LLC, of Chicago, for appellant.

Donald J. Nolan, Thomas P. Routh, and Michael S. McArdle, of Nolan
Law Group, of Chicago, 20 North Clark, 30th Floor, Chicago, IL
60602, for appellees John C. Schaefer, Carrie L. Bittner, Lyndsey
F. Jones, and Lindsay R. Leetch.

Kevin J. Golden, of Dudley & Lake, LLC, of Chicago, 100 East Cook
Avenue, 2nd Floor, Libertyville, IL 60048, for appellee Joan B.
Stralow.

David I. Katzman, of Katzman Lampert & Stoll, of Troy, Michigan,
100 W Big Beaver Rd Ste 130 Troy, MI, 48084-5283, for appellee Ami
Hileman.

Matthew C. Minner, of Hare Wynn Newell & Newton, of Lexington,
Kentucky, 325 W Main Street, Suite 210, Lexington, KY 40507, for
other appellee.


T-MOBILE USA: $980K Black Labor Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSE BLACK, Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-04151-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (i) granted the Plaintiff's motions for final
approval of class action settlement, and (ii) granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees, costs
and expenses, and enhancement payment.

Black filed the putative labor and employment class action in
Alameda Superior Court on Jan. 31, 2017.  T-Mobile removed the
action to the Court in July 2017.  In his Complaint, the Plaintiff
alleges that he worked for the Defendant as a Senior Field
Technician and was denied adequate overtime compensation as well as
meal and rest periods from approximately 2008 through 2015.
According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant had "a company-wide"
policy of scheduling technicians for rotating "on-call" weeks in
which they "had to be available 24/7 to respond to service calls"
and "could not use that time freely for their own purpose."

An on-call week would run from Monday at 5:00 p.m. through the
following Monday at 7:59 a.m.  The Defendant paid technicians
$22.47 per day during these on-call weeks, but failed to pay the
Plaintiff and the class members for the remainder of the time
during which they were not free to use their time for their own
purposes.  The Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant did not
have a policy permitting its employees to take a second 30-minute
meal period on days they worked in excess of 10 hours.

On the basis of these facts, the Plaintiff asserts nine causes of
action under California law on behalf of himself and the putative
class for: (1) unpaid overtime; (2) unpaid minimum wage; (3)
failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest
periods; (5) failure to provide accurate wage statements and
maintain payroll records; (6) failure to pay wages upon
termination; (7) failure to provide reporting time pay; (8)
unlawful business practices; and (9) unfair business practices.

The parties participated in mediation on Aug. 21, 2018, and were
able to agree on the principal terms of a settlement agreement.
They filed their motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement on Oct. 25, 2018,which the Court granted on Feb.y 8,
2019.

Following extensive formal discovery and with the assistance of a
mediator, the parties eventually entered into a settlement
agreement on Oct. 10, 2018.

The settlement includes all persons who have worked for the
Defendant as non-exempt, hourly-paid field technicians in
California at any time from Feb. 1, 2013 through the date of
Preliminary Approval.   

The Defendant will pay a total settlement amount of $980,000,
including settlement payments to all the Class Members totaling an
estimated $594,580 after excluding settlement administrative costs
estimated at $10,000, any incentive awards, any attorneys' fees and
costs award, and a payment of $18,750 to the Labor Workforce
Development Agency pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of
2004.  Individual settlement payments will be calculated
proportionately based on the number of workweeks a Class Member
worked during the class period.  Individual settlement amounts will
average approximately $3,110.

A third-party settlement administrator will send class notices via
U.S. mail to each member of the class, using a class list provided
by the Defendant.  The parties propose that any putative Class
Member who does not wish to participate in the settlement must sign
and postmark a written request for exclusion to the settlement
administrator no later than 30 days after the date notice is
mailed.

The Named Plaintiff will apply for an incentive award of no more
than $10,000, subject to the approval of the Court.   The
Plaiintiff will file an application for attorneys' fees not to
exceed one-third of the settlement fund ($326,667), and costs not
to exceed $20,000.

In its unopposed motion, the Class Counsel asks the Court to
approve an award of $326,667 in attorneys' fees and $20,000 in
costs.  The Class Counsel also seeks a $10,000 incentive award for
the Named Plaintiff.

After considering and weighing the factors, Judge Gilliam finds
that the settlement agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable,
and that the settlement Class Members received adequate notice.
Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiff's motion for final approval
of the class action settlement.

The Class Counsel is entitled to recover "those out-of-pocket
expenses that would normally be charged to a fee paying client."
The Class Counsel seeks reimbursement of $20,000 in out-of-pocket
costs.  The Class Counsel submitted a table summarizing the costs
and expenses incurred.  These expenses include professional service
fees (experts, investigators), travel fees, and discovery-related
fees.  The Judge is satisfied that these costs were reasonably
incurred and grants the motion for costs in the amount of $20,000.

The Judge finds that the incentive award of $10,000 is appropriate
to compensate the Plaintiff for his time and effort invested and
the risk he took to enable a highly favorable result for his fellow
Class Members.  He therefore grants the request for an incentive
award in the amount of $10,000.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gilliam granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.  He grnted in
part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Counsel's
Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses, and Class Representative
Enhancement Payment.

He approved the settlement amount of $980,000, including payment in
the amount of $18,750 to the Labor Workforce Development Agency
under the PAGA; settlement administrator costs in the amount of
$10,000; attorneys' fees in the amount of $294,000; costs in the
amount of $20,000; and an incentive fee for the Named Plaintiff in
the amount of $10,000.

The parties and settlement administrator are directed to implement
the Final Order and the settlement agreement in accordance with the
terms of the settlement agreement.  The parties are further
directed to file a stipulated final judgment within 21 days from
the date of the order.

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

Jesse Black, Plaintiff, represented by Arnab Banerjee --
Arnab.Banerjee@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC & Raul
Perez, Capstone Law APC.

T-Mobile USA, Inc, Defendant, represented by Gregory G. Iskander
--
giskander@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Keith Adam
Jacoby
-- kjacoby@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Sophia Behnia --
sbehnia@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Perry Kim Miska
--
pmiska@littler.com -- Jr., Littler Mendelson, P.C.


TOTAL SYSTEM: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Georgia, Case No. 4:19-cv-00114-CDL, on behalf of shareholders
of Total System Services, Inc. ("TSS" or the "Company") (NYSE:TSS)
who have been harmed by TSS's and its board of directors' (the
"Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection
with the proposed merger of the Company with Global Payments, Inc.
("Global Payments").

On May 27, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger ("Proposed Transaction") under which
TSS shareholders stand to receive 0.8101 shares of Global Payments
stock for each share of TSS they own (the "Merger Consideration").

The complaint alleges that the Form S-4 Registration Statement
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission violates Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because it provides materially
incomplete and misleading information about the Company and the
Proposed Transaction, including information concerning the
Company's financial projections and certain valuation analyses
conducted by the Company's financial advisors, on which the Board
relied to recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to TSS
shareholders.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can
do so by clicking www.faruqilaw.com/TSS

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California,
Georgia, and Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from
August 7, 2019, the date of this notice.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action,
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact:

         Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
         James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (877) 247-4292
                    (212) 983-9330
         E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                 jwilson@faruqilaw.com
         Website: http://www.faruqilaw.com[GN]


TOYOTA MOTOR: Morales Files Suit Over Defective Transmissions
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAUL MORALES, ROBINSON BERTRAND, and ROSALIE QUINONES,
individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a
California corporation, TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., a
California corporation, and TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, a Japanese
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-07313 (C.D. Cal., Aug.
22, 2019) is a consumer class action for themselves and on behalf
of all persons in the United States, and in the alternative on
behalf of all persons in the states of California, Georgia and New
York, who purchased or leased any of the following vehicles: 2018
to present Toyota Highlander, 2018 to present Toyota Sienna, 2018
to present Toyota Avalon, 2018 to present Lexus ES 350, 2018 to
present Lexus RX 350, 2018 to present Lexus GS 350, ("Class
Vehicles"), concerning a failure to disclose material facts and a
safety concern to consumers.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants manufactured, marketed,
distributed, and sold the Class Vehicles without disclosing that
the Class Vehicles' transmissions were defective. The Class
Vehicles are equipped with Toyota's UA80 transmission, a
transverse, eight-speed transmission marketed and hereinafter
referred to as the "Direct Shift-8AT." Plaintiffs allege that the
Class Vehicles' Direct Shift-8AT Transmission is defective in its
design and/or manufacture in that, among other problems, it causes
harsh or delayed shifting and engagement, delayed acceleration,
hesitation, jerking, shuddering, and loss of power.

The 8AT Transmission Defect is inherent in each Class Vehicle and
was present at the time of sale. Despite these widespread and
well-known problems, Toyota continued to market the Direct Shift
8AT Transmission not only as a fuel efficient model, but one that
would achieve "quick and smooth response to accelerator pedal
operation" which would "create an 'as desired' direct driving
feel."  Owners of Toyota vehicles equipped with the Direct Shift
8AT have complained to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration in droves.

Despite access to aggregate internal data, Defendants have actively
concealed the existence of the defect, asserts the complaint. The
8AT Transmission Defect is material because it poses a serious
safety concern. For example, delayed acceleration, unpredictable
engagement and shifting, jerking, and loss of power severely affect
the driver's ability to control the car's speed, acceleration, and
deceleration, and can make it difficult to safely merge into
traffic or to turn left across incoming traffic. Had Defendants
disclosed the 8AT Transmission Defect, Plaintiffs and Class Members
would not have purchased or leased the Class Vehicles or would have
paid less for them, the complaint adds.

Plaintiffs leased one of the Class Vehicles from authorized Toyota
dealers.

TMS designs and manufactures motor vehicles, parts, and other
products for sale in California, in the United States, and
throughout the world.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
     Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
     Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
     Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
     Capstone Law APC
     1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 556-4811
     Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
     Email: Mark.Ozzello@capstonelawyers.com
            Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
            Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
            Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com


TRAINING SERVICES: Person Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELCINDA PERSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TRAINING SERVICES, INC. d/b/a
AVIATION INSTITUTE OF MAINTENANCE, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-03735-LMM (N.D. Ga., Aug. 19, 2019), contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Training Services, Inc. made automated
and pre-recorded telemarketing calls to Plaintiff and other
putative class members without their consent.

The Plaintiff bring this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide
class of other persons who received illegal robocalls from or on
behalf of the Defendant.[BN]

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

          Steven H. Koval, Esq.
          THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
          3575 Piedmont Road
          Building 15, Suite 120
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 513-6651
          Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
          E-mail: shkoval@aol.com

               - and -

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (617) 485-0018
          Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Heidarpour, Esq.
          1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 190-318
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: 202-234-2727
          E-mail: aheidarpour@hlfirm.com

TSR INC: Paskowitz Class Action Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
TSR, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 29, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Susan Paskowitz.

On October 16, 2018, the Company was served with a complaint filed
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County, by
Susan Paskowitz, a stockholder of the Company, against the Company;
Joseph F. Hughes and Winifred M. Hughes; current and former
directors Christopher Hughes, Raymond A. Roel, Brian J. Mangan,
Regina Dowd, James J. Hill, William Kelly, and Eric Stein; as well
as stockholders Zeff Capital, L.P. ("Zeff"), QAR Industries, Inc.
("QAR") and Fintech Consulting LLC ("Fintech," and collectively
with Zeff and QAR, the "Zeff Group").

The complaint purports to be a class action lawsuit asserting
claims on behalf of all minority stockholders of the Company. Ms.
Paskowitz alleges the following: the sale by Joseph F. Hughes and
Winifred M. Hughes of an aggregate of 819,491 shares of the
Company's common stock ("controlling interest") to Zeff, QAR and
Fintech was in breach of Joseph F. Hughes' and Winifred M. Hughes'
fiduciary duties and to the detriment of the Company's minority
stockholders; the members of the Board of Directors of the Company
named in the complaint breached their fiduciary duties by failing
to immediately adopt a rights plan that would have prevented Joseph
F. Hughes and Winifred M. Hughes from selling their shares and
preserved a higher premium for all stockholders; Zeff, QAR, and
Fintech are "partners" and constitute a "group." Ms. Paskowitz also
asserts that the Zeff Group aided and abetted Joseph F. Hughes’
and Winifred M. Hughes' conduct and ultimately seeks to buy out the
remaining shares of the Company at an unfair price.

On May 6, 2019, a stipulation dismissal was filed in this action
with respect to defendants Joseph F. Hughes, Winifred M. Hughes,
and Regina Dowd, in which the plaintiff and these defendants agreed
to the dismissal of all claims asserted by and against them,
without prejudice.

On June 14, 2019, Ms. Paskowitz filed an amended complaint against
the members of the Board of Directors and the Zeff Group, which
asserts substantially similar allegations to those contained in the
October 11, 2018 complaint. In addition to the members of the Board
of Directors named in the original complaint, the amended complaint
names directors Ira Cohen, Joseph Pennacchio, and William Kelly as
defendants.

The amended complaint also asserts a derivative claim purportedly
on behalf of the Company against the named members of the Board of
Directors. The amended complaint seeks declaratory judgment and
unspecified monetary damages. The complaint requests: (1) a
declaration from the court that the members of the Board of
Directors named in the complaint breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to timely adopt a stockholder rights plan, which resulted
in the loss of the ability to auction the Company off to the
highest bidder without interference from the Zeff Group; (2)
damages derivatively on behalf of the Company for unspecified harm
caused by the Directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties; (3)
damages and equitable relief derivatively on behalf of the Company
for the Directors' alleged failure to adopt proper corporate
governance practices; and (4) damages and injunctive relief against
the Zeff Group based on their knowing dissemination of false or
misleading public statements concerning their status as a group.
The complaint has not assigned any monetary values to alleged
damages.

On July 15, 2019, the Company filed an answer to the amended
complaint and cross-claims against the Zeff Group for breaches of
their fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary
duties, and indemnification and contribution based on their
misappropriation of material nonpublic information and their
failure to disclose complete and accurate information in SEC
filings concerning their group actions to attempt a creeping
takeover of the Company.

In addition, on December 21, 2018, the Company filed a complaint in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
against Zeff Capital, L.P., Zeff Holding Company, LLC, Daniel Zeff,
QAR Industries, Inc., Robert Fitzgerald, Fintech Consulting LLC
d/b/a ApTask, and Tajuddin Haslani for violations of the disclosure
and anti-fraud requirements of the federal securities laws under
Sections 13(d) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act"), and the related rules and regulations promulgated
by the SEC, for failing to disclose to the Company and its
stockholders their formation of a group and the group's intention
to seize control of the Company.

The complaint requests that the court, among other things, declare
that the defendants have solicited proxies without filing timely,
accurate and complete reports on Schedule 13D and Schedule 14A in
violation of Sections 13(d) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act, direct
the defendants to file with the SEC complete and accurate
disclosures, enjoin the defendants from voting any of their shares
prior to such time as complete and accurate disclosures have been
filed, and enjoin the defendants from further violations of the
Exchange Act with respect to the securities of the Company.

The Company has filed motions for preliminary injunction and
expedited discovery.

The court held an initial pretrial conference on April 23, 2019
during which it ordered the parties to participate in a mediation
of the claims raised in the action. The parties subsequently
participated in mediation sessions through the Court-annexed
Mediation Program; however, no resolution has been reached.

Ms. Paskowitz has also filed a related action against Zeff Capital,
L.P., Zeff Holding Company, LLC, Daniel Zeff, QAR Industries, Inc.,
Robert Fitzgerald, Fintech Consulting LLC, and Tajuddin Haslani in
the Southern District of New York, which asserts claims against
them for breach of fiduciary duty and under federal securities laws
similar to those asserted in TSR’s action. Although TSR is not a
party to Ms. Paskowitz's action, the court has determined to treat
TSR's and Ms. Paskowitz's actions as related.

The Company is engaged in discussions with the Zeff Capital LP,
Zeff Holding Company LLC and Daniel Zeff, QAR Industries, Inc. and
Robert Fitzgerald and Fintech Consulting LLC and Tajuddin Haslani
(the "Investor Parties") regarding the settlement of the proxy
contest with Zeff Capital L.P. and all disputes and pending
litigation between the Company and the Investor Parties.  

The settlement terms under discussion involve, among other things,
(a) the purchase of the shares of TSR, Inc. beneficially owned by
the Investor Parties for cash by the Company and Christopher
Hughes, Chairman, President, Treasurer and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company; (b) a settlement payment by the Company to the
Investor Parties for the settlement of the pending litigation
involving them; and (c) certain actions with respect to the
governance of the Company and the upcoming 2018 Annual Meeting of
the Company's Stockholders.  

Inasmuch as settlement discussions are ongoing and certain material
terms of the proposed settlement agreement have not been resolved,
there can be no assurance that a settlement agreement will be
reached.  The discussions do not purport to resolve the two pending
litigation filed by TSR, Inc. stockholder, Susan Paskowitz.

TSR said, "At this time, it is not possible to predict the outcome
of any of these litigation matters or their effect on the Company
and the Company's consolidated financial position."

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

TSR, Inc. provides contract computer programming services in the
New York metropolitan area, New England, and the Mid-Atlantic
region. TSR, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is based in Hauppauge,
New York.


U.S. IMMIGRATION: Faces Fraihat et al Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, et al. The suit alleges violation of
Rehabilitation Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jesus G.
Bernal.

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination and
requires employers with federal contracts or subcontracts that
exceed $10,000 to take affirmative action to hire, retain, and
promote qualified individuals with disabilities.

The case is captioned as Faour Abdallah Fraihat, Marco Montoya
Amaya, Raul Alcocer Chavez, Jose Segovia Benitez, Hamida Ali,
Melvin Murillo Hernandez, Jimmy Sudney, Jose Baca Hernandez,
Edilberto Garcia Guerrero, Martin Munoz, Luis Manuel Rodriguez
Delgadillo, Ruben Dario Mencias Soto Alex Hernandez, Aristoteles
Sanchez Martinez, Sergio Salazar Artaga, Inland Coalition for
Immigrant Justice, an organization Al Otro Lado, an organization,
the Plaintiffs, vs. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; Kevin McAleenan, in his official
capacity as Acting Secretary; U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
Matthew T. Albence, in his official capacity as Acting Director,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Derek N. Brenner, in his
official capacity as Deputy Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; Timothy S. Robbins, in his official capacity as Acting
Executive Associate Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations;
Tae Johnson, in his official capacity as Assistant Director of
Custody Management, Enforcement and Removal Operations; Stewart D.
Smith, in his official capacity as Assistant Director, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Health Service Corps.; Jacki Becker Klopp;
and David P. Pekoske, in his official capacity as Senior Official
Performing Duties of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Homeland
Security, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01546-JGB-SHK (C.D.
Cal., Aug. 19, 2019).

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a federal law
enforcement agency under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
principally responsible for immigration enforcement, with
additional responsibilities in countering transnational crime.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Jake Routhier, Esq.
          Mark Mermelstein, Esq.
          William F Alderman, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON AND SUTCLIFFE LLP
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
          Telephone: (415) 773-5700
          Facsimile: (415) 773-5759
          E-mail: mmermelstein@orrick.com
                  walderman@orrick.com

               - and -

          Jessica Catherine Agatstein, Esq.
          Melissa Riess, Esq.
          Stuart Seaborn, Esq.
          Monica M Porter, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          2001 Center Street 4th Floor
          Berkeley, CA 94104
          Telephone: (510) 665-8644
          Facsmile: (510) 665-8511
          E-mail: jagatstein@dralegal.org
                  mriess@dralegal.org
                  mporter@dralegal.org
                  sseaborn@dralegal.org

               - and -

          Timothy P Fox, Esq.
          Elizabeth B Jordan, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER
          104 Broadway Suite 400
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 757-7901
          Facsimile: (303) 872-9072
          E-mail: tfox@creeclaw.org
                  ejordan@creeclaw.org

               - and -

          Shalini Goel Agarwal, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          106 East College Avenue No 1010
          Tallahassee, FL 32302
          Telephone: (850) 521-3024
          Facsimile: (850) 521-3001
          E-mail: shalini.agarwal@splcenter.org

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          OIL-DCS Trial Attorney
          OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION
          PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 353-8806
          E-mail: oil-dcs.cacd@usdoj.gov

WACKY D'S PIZZA: Chawla Seeks Minimum Wage for Delivery Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
RISHI CHAWLA, the Plaintiff, vs. WACKY D'S PIZZA LLC d/b/a,
DOMINO'S PIZZA and TODD PHILIP DYRDA, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03730-CAP (N.D. Ga., Aug. 19, 2019), contends that, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Defendants failed to
adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related
expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally
mandated minimum wage wages for all hours worked.

All delivery drivers working for Defendants, including Plaintiff,
have been subject to the same or similar employment policies and
practices, including policies and practices with respect to wages
and reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses, the lawsuit says.

Defendants operate approximately seven Domino's Pizza franchises in
Georgia, including one located at 1230 Powers Ferry Road, Marietta,
Georgia, in Cobb County.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Gary R. Kessler, Esq.
          GARY KESSLER P.C
          3379 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 400
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 909-8100
          Facsimile: (404) 909-8120
          E-mail: gkessler@martensonlaw.com


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***