CAR_Public/190911.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, September 11, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 182

                            Headlines

ADDISON HOSPITALITY: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMAZON.COM INC: Ababseh Files Suit in W.D. Washington
AMAZON.COM INC: Emerson Firm Files Class Suit Over Data Breach
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Suit Over Sale of Unsafe Products
AMERICAN ALLIANCE: Faces Cervantes Suit Over Policy Disputes

AMETROS FINANCIAL: Sharp Files Fraud Class Suit in N.D. Alabama
BAYBRIDGE SZECHUAN: Worker Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Damages
BENRUBI GALLERY: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BIG BISCUIT COMPANY: Gutierrez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BILL HAMILTON: Padilla Supplements Bid for Class Certification

BITFORMS INC: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CAFE BUON GUSTO: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Tadler Suit in Eastern District of New York
CAPITAL ONE: Summer, et al Sue over Consumer Data Breach
CARBONITE INC: Faces Feng Suit Over Share Price Drop

CASO INC: Valentina Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
CHICAGO, IL: Santiago Seeks to Certify 2 Classes of Vehicle Owners
CHICAGO: Thulius et al Seek Turnover of Funds from Uncashed Checks
D & D MANUFACTURING: Sued over Biometric Data Collection
DG RETAIL: Flores Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages Under FLSA

DOMETIC CORP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Papasan Suit
E.C. RUFF MARINE: Locasio Seeks Proper Overtime Rate
EL PORTON BAR: Urzua Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
FABI INC: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Jaramillo Suit Says
FIRE ISLAND HOTEL: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

FIRST STUDENT: Does not Pay Split Shift Wages, Lopez Suit Asserts
GALLERIA CA DOOR: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
GITHUB INC: Emerson Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
GOOGLE LLC: LGBTQ Plaintiffs Sue for Censorship, Discrimination

GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Greene Hits Share Price Drop
GREENPORTER LAND: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HAT CLUB: Website not Accessible to Blind Persons, Nixon Says
HEALTHPLANONE LLC: $448K Quintana FLSA Suit Settlement Has Approval
HEWLETT PACKARD: McLees Sues over Issuance of DXC Shares

HOMELAND SECURITY: Valladares Suit over Alien Detention Terminated
INCASE DESIGNS CORP: Mallh Sues over Consumer Product Warranty
JUST BRANDS: Hit With Class Suit Over Amount of CBD in Products
KAY & JAMES INC: Ventura Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay
KSE RETAIL SALES: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

L'OREAL USA: Consumers Appeal Dismissed Faulty Dispenser Case
LABORATORY CORP: Appeal in Davis Class Action Still Pending
LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss North Carolina Suit Still Pending
LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Nix Sequenom Merger-Related Suit Pending
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Haro Class Suit in California

LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in Sealock Suit
LYFT INC: Mackintosh Alleges Economic Espionage
LYFT INC: Underpays Drivers, Brunner Suit Alleges
MCNEIL GROUP: Harbour's Joint Bid for Class Certification Granted
METLIFE INC: Gavitt Seeks Return of Insurance Premiums Collected

MIDLAND CREDIT: Castle Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
MIDWAY RENT: Cal. App. Affirms Judgment in Adhav Suit
MIRAK CHEVROLET: Leverone Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
MODERNIZE INCORPORATED: Fisher Files TCPA Suit in Arizona
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Class Certification Sought in Allende Suit

NETAPP INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit
NEWREZ LLC: Best Sues over Debt Collection Practices
PALL CORPORATION: Lundy Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PAYLESS CAR WASH: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Garcia Claims
PIONEER CREDIT: Council Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls

PODESTA PACKING: Sepulveda Sues over Time Rounding System
PREMIUM MERCHANT: Hardin Sues Over TCPA Violation
RAZBAN ENTERPRISES: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Day Suit Alleges
REGAL AUTOMOTIVE: Grant Moves for Certification of TCPA Class
RUDOLPH TECHNOLOGIES: Stein Files Suit Over Nano Merger Deal

SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Suit
SCION GROUP: Cristales Sues Over SMS Ad Blasts
SELLSTATE RESULTS: Mailhot Files Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing
SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in Class Suit vs. Directors Reached
SHENANDOAH VALLEY: Doe Appeals W.D. Va. Decision to 4th Circuit

SHOP MA: Faces Nixon ADA Suit in Southern District of New York
SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Buford Files PI Suit in E.D. Arkansas
TRUMP CORP: Court Narrows Claims in RICO Suit
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Class Suit Over Gas Fuel Economy Claims Settled
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Vehicle Owners Get $98MM Settlement

WEST KENDALL: Gomez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

                            *********

ADDISON HOSPITALITY: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Addison Hospitality
Group LLC. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Addison Hospitality
Group LLC, 35th Street Ventures LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-08127 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 30, 2019).

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

Addison Hospitality Group LLC operates a restaurant, bar and lounge
located at 346 West 40th Street.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



AMAZON.COM INC: Ababseh Files Suit in W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon.com Inc. The
case is styled as Amjed Ali Ababseh, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Amazon.com Inc., Amazon
Web Services, Inc., Capital One, Capital One, NA, Capital One Bank
(USA) NA, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01397 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 30,
2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Amazon.com, Inc., is an American multinational technology company
based in Seattle, Washington, that focuses on e-commerce, cloud
computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Duncan Calvert Turner, Esq.
     BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC
     19929 BALLINGER WAY NE, STE 200
     SEATTLE, WA 98155
     Phone: (206) 621-6566
     Email: dturner@badgleymullins.com

          - and -

     John G Emerson, Esq.
     EMERSON SCOTT LLP
     830 APOLLO LANE
     HOUSTON, TX 77058-2610
     Phone: (281) 488-8854
     Phone: (206) 621-6566
     Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

          - and -

     Stephen R Basser, Esq.
     BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
     600 W BROADWAY, STE 1700
     SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 230-0800
     Phone: (206) 621-6566
     Email: sbasser@barrack.com



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

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

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

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

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


AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Suit Over Sale of Unsafe Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Naham, writing for Law & Crime, reports that a class action
lawsuit filed against Amazon.com, Inc., in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleged
that the company has engaged in deceptive business practices by
"selling banned, unsafe, mislabeled and/or recalled products on its
website, thereby endangering the health, safety and welfare of the
consuming public."

Plaintiff Ryan Edmunson, "individually and on behalf of the
proposed class," claims that Amazon violated the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Illinois Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act by "consistently abus[ing] its market
power to sell thousands of banned, unsafe, mislabeled and/or
recalled products to the unknowing consuming public."

The lawsuit follows a Wall Street Journal report from Aug. 23 that
found "4,152 items for sale on Amazon.com Inc.'s site that have
been declared unsafe by federal agencies, are deceptively labeled
or are banned by federal regulators—items that big-box retailers'
policies would bar from their shelves."

"Among those items," the Journal reported, "at least 2,000 listings
for toys and medications lacked warnings about health risks to
children."

Edmunson's attorneys said that their client purchased two items "to
his detriment" (Numb-ify Numbing Cream 5% Lidocaine Extra Strength
Anesthetic and Gillette Venus Simply 3 Disposable Razors) from a
third-party seller through Amazon, items that were both recalled by
the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission.

One detail of the Journal story that the lawsuit seems to be taking
advantage of was a July holding in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, which said a Pennsylvania customer could sue
Amazon. Per the Journal:

The court said Amazon could be considered a seller under
Pennsylvania law, in part because the company had no vetting
process to ensure that third-party sellers were accessible and
available for consumers to sue if they were harmed by an item,
leaving consumers with no recourse in many cases. The court also
held Amazon had considerable control over third-party sellers and
could prevent sales of unsafe items. Amazon has asked the appeals
court to review the decision.

The plaintiff claims that Amazon cannot waive the class action
claim because provisions that would allow that do not apply. The
reasons given: "Plaintiff contends that such provisions are not
enforceable as to Plaintiff given AMAZON'S non-compliance with its
own conditions of use and/or are void as against public policy
given AMAZON'S fraudulent and/or deceptive business practices
operating to the detriment of consumers."

The plaintiff/proposed class is seeking a temporary restraining
order and permanent injunction to stop Amazon from selling recalled
products and to make the company remove all such products from its
website. They also want Amazon to put a statement on its website
"regarding their plan to cease and desist sale of recalled
products."

In addition, the plaintiff(s) seek a jury trial, and for the court
to enter a judgment including possible compensatory damages,
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

Law&Crime reached out to Amazon for comment. Amazon declined to
comment at this time. [GN]


AMERICAN ALLIANCE: Faces Cervantes Suit Over Policy Disputes
------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS CERVANTES, JESUS EDUARDO CERVANTES, and DANIELA FLORES v.
JANET L. SYDER and AMERICAN ALLIANCE CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No.
2019L009379 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Aug. 23, 2019), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated seeking
declaratory judgment to resolve a controversy concerning coverage
under an insurance policy issued by American Alliance.

On August 27, 2017, the Plaintiffs were involved in a vehicular
accident when the driver of the vehicle allegedly stolen from
Defendant Janet L. Syder failed to stop, collided into the rear end
of the Plaintiffs' vehicle, causing them injuries.  The driver of
the vehicle allegedly stolen from Defendant Janet L. Syder hit and
ran from the scene.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Janet L. Syder was uninsured
and that the Plaintiffs sought coverage under their insurance,
American Alliance's uninsured motorist policy.  American Alliance
denied relief to the Plaintiffs' claim.

American Alliance is an insurance company with its principal place
of business and corporate headquarters in Cook County, Illinois,
and was duly licensed to underwrite policies of automobile
insurance, and to sell such policies and coverage to members of the
public, in the State of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert A. Langendorf, Esq.
          ROBERT A. LANGENDORF, P.C.
          134 N LaSalle, Suite 1515
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-5933
          E-mail: robert@langendorfpc.com


AMETROS FINANCIAL: Sharp Files Fraud Class Suit in N.D. Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ametros Financial
Corporation. The case is styled as Joshua Sharp on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ametros
Financial Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01440-AKK (N.D.
Ala., Aug. 30, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Ametros Financial Corporation provides medicare set-aside
post-settlement administration services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James Wilson Mitchell, Esq.
     MITCHELL, BURDINE & BERNAUER
     1905 Bruin Drive
     Florence, AL 35630
     Phone: (256) 767-4900
     Fax: (256) 767-4995
     Email: jwm82256@aol.com


BAYBRIDGE SZECHUAN: Worker Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dounfuh Lan, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Baybridge Szechuan Restaurant
Inc. and Joseph Yu-Sing Chan, Defendants, Case No. 713960/2019
(N.Y. Sup., August 13, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime compensation,
unpaid "spread-of-hours" premium, compensation for failure to
provide wage notices at the time of hiring and failure to provide
paystubs, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law including monetary damages and other
relief.

Baybridge Szechuan Restaurant Inc. operates as "Baybridge Szechuan
Restaurant," a restaurant located at 208-06 Cross Island Pkwy,
Bayside, NY 11360 where Lan worked as a cook. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jiajing Fan, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718)353-8588
      Email: jfan@hanglaw.com


BENRUBI GALLERY: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Benrubi Gallery LLC.
The case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Benrubi Gallery LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08134 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 30, 2019).

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

Benrubi Gallery, founded in 1987 by the late Bonni Benrubi, is a
photography gallery in the United States with a focus on 20th
Century and contemporary works.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BIG BISCUIT COMPANY: Gutierrez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO GUTIERREZ, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. THE BIG BISCUIT COMPANY, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-02527 (D. Kan., Aug. 30, 2019) is an action
brought as a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act against Defendant for unpaid minimum wage and overtime
compensation, and related penalties and damages.

The Defendant's practices and policies have resulted in Defendant
willfully failing to properly pay straight time and overtime due
and owing to Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees
in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff previously worked as a server for Defendant from
approximately December 2017 until approximately December 2018.

The Big Biscuit owns and operates The Big Biscuit restaurants in
Kansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Hodgson, Esq.
     THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
     3609 SW Pryor Rd.
     Lee's Summit, MO 64082
     Phone: 816.600.0117
     Facsimile: 816.600.0137
     Email: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com

          - and -

     Heather J. Schlozman, Esq.
     Mark V. Dugan, Esq.
     DUGAN SCHLOZMAN LLC
     8826 Santa Fe Drive, Suite 307
     Overland Park, KS 66212
     Phone: (913) 322-3528
     Facsimile: (913) 904-0213
     Email: heather@duganschlozman.com
            mark@duganschlozman.com


BILL HAMILTON: Padilla Supplements Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
At the Court's behest, the Plaintiffs submitted a supplemental
briefing in the lawsuit styled JUAN PADILLA, an individual, et al.
v. BILL HAMILTON, an individual, BILL HAMILTON ROOFING, INC a
California Corporation, Case No. 5:18-cv-03845-SVK (N.D. Cal.).

In the Declaration of Bill Hamilton submitted as EFC No. 58, he
declared that he had 12 employees sign settlement agreements, the
Plaintiffs note.  All the employees worked at some point as piece
workers for the Defendants between January 1, 2014, and January 1,
2016.  The employees settled all claims they had with the
Defendants on April 19, 2019, for $100 a piece.

The Plaintiffs contend these agreements are void pursuant to
California Labor Code Section 206.5.  The Plaintiffs assert that
the Defendants owed the piece workers wages at the time they paid
the release because they owed them for non productive time under
California Labor Code Section 226.7.  The California Industrial
Commission Wage Orders and California Labor Code Section 226.7
require employers to provide employees with a paid ten minute
period break per fours worked, the Plaintiffs explain.

According to the briefing, in 2013, the California Supreme Court
decided that piece workers must be paid separately at an hourly
rate of pay for all non productive time, citing Bluford v. Safeway
Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 864 [157 Cal. Rptr. 3d 212].  The court
in Blueford certified a class on the basis Safeway did pay truck
drivers because their piece work pay did not separately pay them
for their time during their rest breaks.

Finally, the Plaintiffs also contend that the Defendants have cast
some doubt on the number of piece workers.  The Defendants are
claiming between 20 and 26, however, there is evidence of 41 piece
workers, the Plaintiffs allege.

The Plaintiffs argue that based upon the case law the ascertainable
wages had to paid before a release could be signed.  The Plaintiffs
add that like Bluford the Defendants failed to pay ascertainable
wages and the class should be certified.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Dal Bon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES DAL BON
          606 N. 1st St.
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 466-5845
          E-mail: jdb@wagedefenders.com

               - and -

          Victoria Booke, Esq.
          BOOKE & AJLOUNY
          606 N. 1st St.
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 286-7000
          E-mail: vbooke@bookelaw.com


BITFORMS INC: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bitforms, Inc. The
case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Bitforms, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-08133 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 30, 2019).

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

Bitforms gallery is a gallery in New York City devoted to new media
art practices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CAFE BUON GUSTO: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO PEREZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CAFE BUON GUSTO CORP. and SAFI-G, INC. d/b/a CAFFE
BUON GUSTO and NASSER GHORCHIAN and NICHOLAS MORMANDO,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04936 (E.D. N.Y., Aug.
29, 2019) is a class action brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all
similarly situated dishwashers, bussers, prep cooks, cooks, and
deliverymen to recover unpaid minimum wages, spread of hours and
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The Caffe Buon Gusto Restaurants have been the subject of several
prior wage and hour lawsuits in the Southern District of New York.
Throughout Perez's employment, he always worked over 40 hours per
week. Throughout Perez's employment with Defendants as a non-exempt
employee, he was not paid overtime in compliance with the FLSA and
NYLL. Instead, Plaintiff was only paid for the first 40 hours he
worked each week. The Defendants also did not provide Perez with an
Annual Wage Notice in accordance with the NYLL, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Perez worked as a dishwasher, food prep and deliveryman
at The Caffe Buon Gusto Restaurants' Brooklyn location from
approximately January 1996 through June 2019.

Defendants have operated The Caffe Buon Gusto Restaurants since at
least 1988.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
     225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
     New York, NY 10007
     Phone: (212) 323-6980
     Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com

          - and -

     Vincent Bauer, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT E. BAUER
     475 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 575-1517
     Email: vbauer@vbauerlaw.com


CAPITAL ONE: Faces Tadler Suit in Eastern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Financial
Corporation. The case is captioned as Penelope Tadler individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals,the
Plaintiff, vs. Capital One Financial Corporation; Capital One,
National Association; and Capital One Bank (USA), National
Association, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04782-ENV-PK
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019). The suit seeks $5 million in damages.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Eric N. Vitaliano.

Capital One Financial Corporation 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:

          Brian Phillip Murray, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
          768 Plandome Road
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Telephone: (516) 426-6870
          Facsimile: (212) 658-9685
          E-mail: pcwhalen@gmail.com

CAPITAL ONE: Summer, et al Sue over Consumer Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN SUMMER and KATELYN VITA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. AMAZON WEB SERVICES,
INC. and CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-01304-RAJ (W.D. Wash., Aug. 19, 2019), alleges that
Defendants failed to protect confidential information of Plaintiffs
and millions of other consumers from theft by a malicious hacker.

On July 29, 2019, Capital One announced that the sensitive personal
information ("SPI") of more than 100 million United States citizens
had been stolen from its servers, including names, addresses, zip
codes, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth,
self-reported income, credit scores, credit limits, balances,
payment history, contact information, and some transaction data for
2006-2018, as well as bank account numbers and Social Security
numbers for approximately 220,000 people who applied for credit
card products at Capital One between 2005 and "early" 2019 were
affected.

The Defendants, through their actions and/or failures to act,
unlawfully breached duties to Plaintiffs and the Class by failing
to implement standard industry protocols, to exercise 10 reasonable
care to secure and keep private the SPI entrusted to it, to notify
Plaintiffs and the Class of the breach as soon as Defendant was
made aware of it, and to take any necessary steps to immediately
end the ongoing breach once Defendants became aware of it, the
lawsuit says.

AWS, a subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc., is the second-largest cloud
computing services provider in the United States by revenue. In
2018, it had more than $25 billion in revenue.

Capital One, as of 2017, was the fifth-largest credit card issuer
in the United States. Between them, the two are responsible for the
transmission of millions of peoples' sensitive personal information
each and every day.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are:

          Dan Drachler, Esq.
          Henry Avery, Esq.
          ZWERLING, SCHACHTER &
          ZWERLING, LLP
          1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 223-2053
          Facsimile: (206) 343-9636
          E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com
                  havery@zsz.com

               - and -

          Fred T. Isquith, Esq.
          Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
                  guiney@whafh.com
                  malmstrom@whafh.com

CARBONITE INC: Faces Feng Suit Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM FENG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CARBONITE, INC., MOHAMAD S. ALI, and ANTHONY FOLGER,
Case No. 1:19-cv-11808-LTS (D. Mass., Aug. 23, 2019), is a
securities class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
those who purchased or acquired Carbonite securities between
February 7, 2019, and July 25, 2019, seeking remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Throughout the Class Period, according to the complaint, the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements relating to
Carbonite's Server Backup VM Edition, which was of poor quality and
technologically flawed and was receiving poor reviews and
complaints from customers.

On July 25, 2019, Carbonite announced that it was withdrawing its
Server Backup VM Edition product from the marketplace and
consequently dramatically lowered its financial projections for
fiscal 2019 and 2020, which resulted to the precipitous decline in
the market value of the Company's securities.

Carbonite is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Boston, Massachusetts.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of Carbonite.  Carbonite, a
software company, provides cloud-based backup services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daryl Andrews, Esq.
          Glen DeValerio, Esq.
          ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP
          265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 936-2796
          E-mail: daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com
                  glen@andrewsdevalerio.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


CASO INC: Valentina Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
ILARRETA MORILLA REBECA VALENTINA, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CASO INC. (D/B/A MAMA'S
EMPANADAS), JAVIER GARCIA , and YANIRA POLANCO, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-04962 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 29, 2019) is an action on behalf
of Plaintiff, and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread
of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of
Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff Rebeca worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that she worked, notes the
complaint. Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Rebeca appropriately
for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff Rebeca the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in
which she had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants
maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Rebeca and
other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without
providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by
federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Rebeca was employed as a cashier at the Defendants'
restaurant.

Defendants own, operate, or control a restaurant, located at 32-41
Steinway St. Store B, Astoria, NY 11103 under the name "Mama's
Empanadas".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHICAGO, IL: Santiago Seeks to Certify 2 Classes of Vehicle Owners
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned ANDREA SANTIAGO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY
OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-04652 (N.D.
ILL.), moves the Court to enter an order certifying this case as a
class action, appointing her as class representative and appointing
her lawyers as class counsel.

Ms. Santiago seeks to represent these classes:

   * All individuals and entities who had their vehicle towed by
     the City of Chicago due to it being considered "abandoned"
     by the City (the "Tow Class"); and

   * All individuals and entities who had their vehicle towed by
     or through the Department of Streets and Sanitation pursuant
     to Chapter 9-92 of the Municipal Code of Chicago that were
     disposed of by the City (the "Vehicle Disposal Class").

The Plaintiff brings this action to challenge the Defendant's
practice of taking vehicles with no warning or opportunity to
contest the claim of abandonment prior to the seizure.  While the
City allegedly sends a notice of impoundment to the owner after it
has already been impounded, it fails to send the required
additional notice when the City intends on disposing of the
vehicle.  As a result, thousands of cars are in effect stolen from
citizens of Chicago and sold without proper notice and due process,
the Plaintiff alleges.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
          Jacie C. Zolna, Esq.
          Benjamin R. Swetland, Esq.
          Jeremiah Nixon, Esq.
          Jessica C. Chavin, Esq.
          MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES LLC
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-2100
          E-mail: mcherry@cherry-law.com
                  jzolna@cherry-law.com
                  bswetland@cherry-law.com
                  jnixon@cherry-law.com
                  jchavin@cherry-law.com


CHICAGO: Thulius et al Seek Turnover of Funds from Uncashed Checks
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Thulis and James Webb, the Plaintiffs, vs. City of Chicago,
the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH09581 (Ill. Cir., Aug. 19, 2019),
seeks to recover damages against the Defendant for knowingly
concealing, or knowingly and improperly avoiding an obligation to
report and transmit money or property to the State under the
State's Unclaimed Property Act, the Illinois Interest Act, and the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices.

The claims are based on the City's failure to report and turn over
to the Illinois State Treasurer money from issued checks that have
gone uncashed for years.  According to the lawsuit, the underlying
purpose of the Unclaimed Property Acts is two fold -- to enable
persons owed money to have a way to learn of it and recover it, and
give the State the benefit of cash float in the period before the
funds are claimed rightfully.  The City received an indefinite
"float" and the payees have virtually no way to learn that they
have money owed them, the lawsuit says.

Chicago, on Lake Michigan in Illinois, is among the largest cities
in the U.S.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

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

D & D MANUFACTURING: Sued over Biometric Data Collection
--------------------------------------------------------
BRUNO DAVID CARDENAS AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D & D MANUFACTURING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH09352  (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Aug. 14,
2019) alleges violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, prior to taking the
Plaintiff's biometric, the Defendant did not inform the Plaintiff
in writing that his biometrics were being collected, stored, used,
or disseminated, or publish any policy specifically about the
collection, retention, use, deletion, or dissemination of
biometrics.

The Defendant did not seek, and the Plaintiff never provided, any
written consent relating to the collection, use, storage, or
dissemination of his biometrics.

D & D Manufacturing Co Inc was founded in 1964. The company's line
of business includes manufacturing turbines and turbine generator
sets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           William P.N. Kingston, Esq.
           Jad Sheikali, Esq.
           MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
           55 Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
           Chicago, IL 60601
           Telephone: (312) 893-7002
           Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
           E-mail: wkingston@mcgpc.com
                   jsheikali@mcgpc.com


DG RETAIL: Flores Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABDIAS FLORES on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. DG RETAIL, LLC D/B/A/
DOLLAR GENERAL AND KAIYAH KING, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No.
1:19-cv-05670 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 23, 2019), is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Cook County
Minimum Wage Ordinance of the Municipal Code of Cook County and the
Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance seeking to recover unpaid back
wages.

DG Retail, LLC, doing business as Dollar General, is a retail store
that sells grocery and other generic consumer goods to customers
and which has various locations in the Chicagoland area and the
Northern District of Illinois.

Kaiyah King is a manager of DGR's location at 4524 S. Ashland
Avenue, in Chicago, Illinois, where the Plaintiff previously
worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450
          E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


DOMETIC CORP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Papasan Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Catherine Papasan and others, Plaintiffs, v. Dometic
Corporation, Defendant, Civil Action No. 16-22482-Civ-Scola (S.D.
Fla.), Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.

The operative complaint is the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class
Action Complaint.  According to the Complaint, Dometic manufactures
gas absorption refrigerators designed for use in recreational
vehicles ("RVs").  The Plaintiffs allege that Dometic's
refrigerators have a design defect that results in excessive
corrosion on the inside of the gas absorption refrigerator's boiler
tubes.  The Plaintiffs allege that the corrosion causes the boiler
tubes to internally "corrode, crack, and ultimately expel flammable
ammonia, hydrogen gas, and carcinogenic sodium chromate at high
pressure."  They allege that the leaked gas can ignite, but even if
it does not ignite, the corrosion eventually ruins the
refrigerator's functionality.  They each own an allegedly defective
Dometic refrigerator.

The Plaintiffs now move for class certification based on the
allegations that they each received an unmerchantable refrigerator
and were damaged by overpaying for a defective product.  In other
words, they are not seeking class certification based on a fire,
damage to property, or a broken refrigerator, but rather on a
theory of economic loss at the point of purchase.  According to the
Plaintiffs, because the Defendant concealed material facts
regarding the defect and continuing safety risk to every class
member, every class member was induced at the point of sale to
purchase their refrigerators at a premium price that they otherwise
would not have paid.

The Complaint asserts claims for violations of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, breaches of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and
various state laws.

The Motion seeks certification of nine subclasses, based on the
various states in which the Plaintiffs purchased their
refrigerators: All persons who purchased in [insert one of nine
states] Dometic Gas Absorption Refrigerator models RM 2620;
RM/DM2652; RM/DM2662; RM/DM2663: RM3762 & DMR/DMC7-Series; RM 2820:
DM2852 & DM2862; RM3862 & RM3863; RM3962: NDM1062; RM 1350:
1350WIM; NDA 1402: and 1402IMS built between Jan. 1, 1997 and the
present.

Given the overlap between a standing and merits analysis in the
case, Judge Scola holds that the Plaintiffs have established
standing.  However, he finds that the proposed classes are not
ascertainable.  The Plaintiffs have failed to proffer any evidence
that Dometic's records, including Dometic's recall efforts, would
be useful to identify class members.  Prior recalls do not provide
a feasible method of identifying potential class members.  Even if
they could rely on Dometic's prior recalls, they would need to
explain to the Court how they are going to use the recall protocol
to identify the class members.  Merely asserting that the
Defendant's prior recalls show that there are feasible ways to
determine class inclusion is insufficient to meet the
ascertainability requirement.  The Plaintiffs have not provided the
Court with any proposals demonstrating how self-identification
would work, much less a plan that would be administratively
feasible and not otherwise problematic.  Therefore, the Judge will
deny the motion, and does not reach the parties' other arguments.

Bases on the foregoing, Judge Scola denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  In light of the Plaintiffs' assertion of
jurisdiction only under CAFA2 and the Order denying class
certification, the Judge further dismissed the case without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Finally,
although the parties' submissions relating to the motion were filed
under seal, the Order contains no confidential information, trade
secrets or other information that justifies sealing of the Order.

The Clerk is directed to close the case.  All pending motions are
denied as moot.

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

Catherine Papasan, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman --
jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Catherine Papasan, Plaintiff, represented by Terrence Allen Beard,
Law Offices of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede --
ashleyb@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com
-- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Nelson Goehle, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of
Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Andrew Young, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of
Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Jimmy Byers, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of
Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Christopher Johnston, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices
of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Richard Vollberg, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices
of Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Leah Vollberg, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Terrence Allen Beard, Law Offices of
Terrence A. Beard, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Sid Garrett, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Marjorie Goehle, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Dometic Corporation, Defendant, represented by Peter Allen Wald --
peter.wald@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Adam L. Rosenbloom --
adam.rosenbloom@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Emily Rose Goebel,
Latham & Watkins LLP, Marcy Christina Priedeman --
marcy.priedeman@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP & Robert Christian
Collins, III -- robert.collins@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP,
pro hac vice.


E.C. RUFF MARINE: Locasio Seeks Proper Overtime Rate
----------------------------------------------------
KRISTEN LOCASCIO and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
E.C. RUFF MARINE, INC., a Florida profit corporation, ED RUFF JR.,
individually, and MARLENE HARDEN, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 0:19-cv-62190-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 30, 2019) is an action
arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover all wages
owed to Plaintiff and those similarly situated to Plaintiff, during
the course of their employment.

During Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants refused to compensate
Plaintiff at the proper overtime rate of time-and-one-half her
regular hourly rate, as required by the FLSA, for hours she worked
in excess of 40 per week, asserts the complaint. The Defendants
have unlawfully deprived Plaintiff, and all other employees
similarly situated, of federal wage compensation during the course
of their employment, it adds.

Plaintiff began working for Defendants in January 2019 as a billing
assistant until approximately April 19, 2019.

E.C., is a Florida profit corporation that specializes in marine
servicing and has been operating in the State of Florida since at
least 2000.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jordan Richards, Esq.
     Mellissa Scott, Esq.
     USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS–JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
     805 East Broward Blvd. Suite 301
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 871-0050
     Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
            melissa@jordanrichadrspllc.com
            jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
            stephanie@jordanrichardspllc.com
            mike@usaemploymentlawyers.com


EL PORTON BAR: Urzua Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELDIGADT URZUA and ANTONIA RAMOS ANASTACIO, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EL PORTON BAR &
RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A EL PORTON), EL PORTON BAR & RESTAURANT NO.
2 CORP. (D/B/A EL PORTON BAR), RAFAEL MERLIN, and MEYLEN ENG,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08090 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 29, 2019) seeks
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law,
and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hour's
compensation for the hours that they worked, says the complaint.
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs
the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to
work over 10 hours a day, adds the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed as waitresses and bartenders at the
Defendants' restaurants.

Defendants own, operate, or control two Mexican restaurants,
located at 3151 Broadway, New York, New York 10027 under the name
"El Porton" and at 576 Southern Blvd, The Bronx, NY 10455 under the
name "El Porton Bar".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FABI INC: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Jaramillo Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
DIEGO JARAMILLO, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. FABI, INC.
d/b/a/ FORNO ROSSO, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05850 (N.D. Ill.,
Aug. 30, 2019) is a lawsuit arising under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Cook County Minimum
Wage Ordinance, for Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages to
Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons for all time worked
in excess of 40 hours in individual work weeks.

In one or more work weeks during his employment by Defendant,
Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours. However, Defendant did not pay
Plaintiff at a rate of one-and-one-half times his regular rate of
pay for all time he worked in excess of 40 hours per week, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a busboy from approximately
November 1, 2018 to May 10, 2019.

Defendant is an Illinois corporation doing business within this
judicial district.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Michael M. Tresnowski, Esq.
     Jaqueline Villanueva, Esq.
     Werman Salas P.C.
     77 West Washington, Suite 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 419-1008
     Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
            mtresnowski@flsalaw.com
            jvillanueva@flsalaw.com



FIRE ISLAND HOTEL: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fire Island Hotel,
LTD. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Fire Island Hotel, LTD,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08130 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 30, 2019).

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

Fire Island Hotel, LTD is a casual hotel in Ocean Bay Park lies 5
miles from Fire Island Lighthouse and 9 miles from Captree State
Park, set in a former lifeboat station dating from the early
1900s.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIRST STUDENT: Does not Pay Split Shift Wages, Lopez Suit Asserts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Norma Lopez, Cindy Mitchell, and Vada Neice, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FIRST
STUDENT, INC., FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, FIRST AMERICA, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1920396 (Super.
Ct., San Bernardino Cty., Aug. 30, 2019) asserts a claim brought on
behalf of Class Members for unpaid split shift wages, damages,
interest wages statement penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs,
under Labor Code Sections 226, 1194, 1194.2, and 1197, and Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1021.5.

First Student requires Attendants to work split shifts. However,
First Student fails to pay Attendants split shift wages as required
by Wage Order 9-2001 and the California Labor Code. First Student
also fails to include split shift wages on Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' wage statements, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are Attendants who have been employed by First Student
at its California facilities.

First Student is a private contractor providing bus transportation
services for students in various school districts throughout
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     HUNTER PYLE, ESQ.
     VINCENT CHEN, ESQ.
     HINTER PYLE LAW
     428 Thirteenth Street, Eleventh Floor
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (510) 444-4400
     Facsimile: (510) 444-4410
     Email: hunter@hunterpylelaw.com
            vchen@hunterpytclaw.com


GALLERIA CA DOOR: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Galleria Ca Door New
York, LLC. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Galleria Ca Door
New York, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08131 (S.D. N.Y., Aug.
30, 2019).

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

Galleria Ca' d'Oro is an international contemporary art gallery
curated and organized by Gloria Porcella.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in
part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned SJUNDE
AP-FONDEN and THE CLEVELAND BAKERS AND TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., Defendants. No.
17-CV-8457 (JMF). (S.D.N.Y.).

In this putative class action, Lead Plaintiff Sjunde AP-Fonden and
Plaintiff the Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund, two
pension funds, bring claims against General Electric Company and
six current or former GE executives. Plaintiffs allege violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.10b-5.

Because Plaintiffs in this case allege securities fraud, they must
also satisfy the heightened pleading requirements of both Rule 9(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that the
circumstances constituting fraud be stated with particularity and
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), which
requires that scienter that is, a defendant's intention to deceive,
manipulate, or defraud also be pleaded with particularity.

The Plaintiffs' principal claims are that GE fraudulently concealed
huge liabilities in its LTC insurance portfolio and weakening
performance in its power division in violation of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

The PSLRA also requires a plaintiff to plead scienter, that is, a
defendant's intention to deceive, manipulate, or defraud with
particularity. To satisfy that requirement, a complaint must, with
respect to each act or omission alleged to constitute securities
fraud, state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong
inference that the defendant acted with the required state of
mind.

Defendants argue that, in light of the foregoing standards, each
set of Plaintiffs' claims fails as a matter of law. They also
contend that any claims that were alleged for the first time in the
Third Amended Complaint and that are premised on misstatements or
omissions made before July 25, 2013, five years before the TAC was
filed are barred by the statute of repose governing securities
fraud violations.  

The Court will begin with the statute of repose issue before
addressing Defendants' other arguments.

The Statute of Repose

Congress has enacted an unqualified bar to securities actions
instituted 5 years after [the] violation forming the basis of the
action, giving defendants total repose after that period. The
statute of repose begins running from the date of each alleged
statement or omission, and is not subject to equitable tolling.
  
Applying those standards here, the Court must dismiss Plaintiffs'
claims that are based on statements or omissions predating July 25,
2013 and were not asserted in one of the seven complaints filed and
consolidated into the operative complaint. That means that the
following claims must be and are dismissed: (1) all claims based on
the table in the Management Discussion & Analysis section of GE's
2012 Form 10-K and Q1 2013 Form 10-Q (2) all claims based on
statements made in GE's April 19, 2013 Form 8-K, all claims based
on statements made at the May 31, 2013 Sanford C. Bernstein
Strategic Decisions Conference and (4) all claims based on
statements made by Defendants Sherin or Hauser before July 25,
2013, including in the 2012 Form 10-K, the Q1 2013 Form 10-Q, and
the July 19, 2013 Form 8-K.

Plaintiffs' only argument to the contrary is that because an
earlier-filed motion to intervene timely raised claims based on
other statements made in GE's 2012 Form 10-K and Q1 2013 Form 10-Q,
then any claim based on any statement in those filings was timely
made even if asserted for the first time in a later complaint after
the statute of repose had run. Plaintiffs cite no authority for
this position, however, and there is no principled basis to adopt
it. Securities fraud claims arise from, among other things,
specific statements of a material fact and specific material
omissions not from the documents in which those statements are
contained. The statute of repose for such claims begins running
from the time that each allegedly fraudulent statement or omission
is made.  

In sum, the statute of repose bars Plaintiffs' claims based on
statements, omissions, or misrepresentations made before July 25,
2013, and which were not timely raised in an earlier complaint or
motion to intervene. Those claims are therefore DISMISSED with
prejudice.

Statements Relating to GE's LTC Insurance Portfolio

With that, the Court turns to Plaintiffs' claims based on alleged
misrepresentations and omissions relating to GE's LTC insurance
portfolio. Plaintiffs' basic thesis is that GE knew about massive
exposure in its deteriorating LTC insurance portfolio; knew that
its reserves were inadequate for these liabilities and lacked
actuarial models that would allow it to properly assess the
sufficiency of its reserves and concealed these problems from
investors in public statements and regulatory filings.

For the reasons below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs fail to
state a claim for securities fraud based on any LTC-related
statement or omission.

The MD&A Table

Plaintiffs first allege that GE misled investors by excluding its
LTC liabilities from the insurance liabilities line item of a table
in the Management Discussion & Analysis (MD&A) section of its Class
Period 10-Ks, which purported to provide a snapshot of GE's total
contractual liabilities.
   
Viewed in context and together with the rest of the Form 10-K,
however, GE's reported insurance liabilities figures were not
misleading. The table expressly disclosed that it excluded
long-term care, variable annuity and other life insurance contracts
which put readers on notice that some portion of GE's insurance
liabilities were not included in the table figure.  

Plaintiffs are arguably on firmer ground in contending that GE's
failure to include LTC liabilities in its insurance liabilities
line item violated Item 303(a)(5) of Regulation S-K. But even if GE
did violate Item 303, that violation did not give rise to a
securities fraud claim. Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 prohibit
omissions of material fact necessary in order to make the
statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they
were made, not misleading. Here, for the reasons already discussed,
GE's omission of LTC liabilities from its MD&A table was not
misleading because it fully disclosed its total insurance
liabilities in Note 11.

In the alternative, the fact that GE disclosed the entirety of its
insurance liabilities elsewhere in its Form 10-Ks defeats any
finding that GE acted with the requisite scienter in omitting the
liabilities from its tables. That is, the disclosure of those
liabilities and the explicit directions to readers as to how to
find those disclosures  strongly undercuts any inference that GE
had the intention to deceive, manipulate, or defraud investors by
omitting LTC liabilities from its MD&A tables during the Class
Period.

At bottom, Plaintiffs' complaint is that GE should have more
clearly presented its LTC liabilities in its Class Period Form
10-Ks. GE's presentations are certainly not going to win any awards
for clarity. But disclosure of an item of information is not
required simply because it may be relevant or of interest to a
reasonable investor. Instead, disclosure is required only when
necessary to make statements made, in the light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. Because
GE's failure to disclose its LTC liabilities in its Class Period
MD&A table would not be misleading to an ordinary investor.
Plaintiffs' claims predicated on those statements or omissions must
be and are DISMISSED.

LTC Reserves

Next, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' statements about its
insurance reserves assets set aside to cover future claims
payments. There is no dispute that, because there is no objective
standard for setting reserves. Accordingly, they are actionable
only if (1) Defendants did not hold the belief they professed in
the opinion (2) if the opinion contained an embedded statement of
fact that was untrue or (3) if the statement omits material facts
about the issuer's inquiry into or knowledge concerning the opinion
and those facts conflict with what a reasonable investor would take
from the statement itself.

Plaintiffs' arguments about GE's LTC reserves run together
somewhat,  but they ultimately press two distinct theories: first,
that Defendants themselves did not subjectively believe their
statements about LTC reserves were true and second, that the
statements were misleading because they indicated to investors that
GE had an adequate basis to make estimates when, in fact, they did
not rest on a meaningful factual inquiry nor have any reasonable
basis in fact.

Even taken together, however, these facts fall short of satisfying
Plaintiffs' burden to plausibly allege that any Defendant did not
believe their LTC reserve statements were true. That is, even if
Defendants knew that the models used to set the reserves were
fraught with serious issues, given the nature of those issues a
lack of validation caused by insufficient documentation, use of
inappropriate modeling software, subpar actuarial practices, and so
on the facts alleged do not come close to the facts in other cases
where courts have found that a defendant affirmatively disbelieved
(or recklessly credited) a statement of opinion. Instead, this case
is closer to those in which defendants allegedly possess[ed] facts
which should have led them" to make further inquiry, but which,
without more, do not sufficiently allege that the individuals"
disbelieve their stated opinions.  

Compounding this deficiency is the dearth of specific allegations
about both how pervasive these problems were e.g., how many models
there were overall, how many were defective, what roles they played
in modeling GE's insurance reserves, and what issues they were
subject to and which Defendants knew how much about them. The fact
that some Defendants may have known of some issues with respect to
an unspecified number of models in lower-level GE Capital insurance
subsidiaries, as Plaintiffs allege, does not show that any
particular Defendant did not believe in the accuracy of GE's
insurance reserve estimates.

Nor do Plaintiffs adequately plead that GE's statements about its
LTC reserves were misleading because they signaled to investors
that GE had done its homework in arriving at the estimates, when in
reality they did not rest on a meaningful factual inquiry nor have
any reasonable basis in fact. Whether an opinion is misleading by
omission always depends on context, as a reasonable investor does
not expect that every fact known to a defendant supports its
opinion statement. In either case, the alleged deficiencies are
insufficient to establish that the opinion was misleading when
made.

Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege they did not do so the
statements of LTC reserves are not actionable, and Plaintiffs'
claims based on them must be and are DISMISSED.

Violations of GAAP and Regulation S-K

Next, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants violated Item 303 of
Regulation S-K and various GAAP provisions by failing to make
certain disclosures in GE's financial statements.  

Plaintiffs do not attempt to demonstrate scienter by establishing
that Defendants had the motive and opportunity to commit fraud. As
evidence of scienter, Plaintiffs also point to the abrupt
resignations of high-level executives, including Immelt, Bornstein,
Sherin, and Laxer, GE's eventual nine-billion-dollar reserve
adjustment, the suspicious timing of GE's reversion to more
comprehensive disclosures regarding LTC liabilities in its 2017
Form 10-K; and the SEC's investigation into GE's LTC insurance
business.  

But even taken together, these facts do not support a strong
inference that Defendants' failures to disclose   were done with
conscious recklessness. Engaging in the comparative inquiry called
for by the PSLRA, the Court concludes that an alternative inference
that Defendants did not realize the brewing storm in their LTC
portfolio, masked in part by out-of-date actuarial assumptions and
sloppy practices, and then made disclosures and adjustments as they
learned about the scale of the problem is more compelling than the
inference of fraud. This conclusion is principally founded on one
ineluctable fact: GE's annual deficiency testing showed positive
results through and including 2016.  

That conclusion that Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege conscious
misbehavior or recklessness is further reinforced by the timing and
number of disclosures that Defendants did make. As other courts
have observed, a company's incremental strategy of taking
successive write-downs during a class period contradicts an
inference of scienter.

Plaintiffs' remaining, more general allegations based on the size
of the alleged fraud, the changes to GE's reporting practices, the
SEC's investigation, and the resignations of GE executives do not
nudge them across the line. Instead, Plaintiffs' own allegations,
namely, that GE's annual deficiency testing returned positive
results year after year foreclose a strong inference that
Defendants were consciously reckless as to whether their failure to
make disclosures under GAAP and SEC rules would mislead investors.
Indeed, those allegations suggest that Defendants had little reason
to think trends or uncertainties in the LTC industry would have a
material negative impact on GE's financial position. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs' LTC-related GAAP and Regulation S-K claims must be and
are DISMISSED.

GAAP Violations

The next set of claims can be addressed quickly. Plaintiffs argue
that GE's failure to account for its unsound and unsustainable
business practices in recognizing revenue" violated at least five,
but perhaps as many as eight, related GAAP provisions. The
uncertainty regarding exactly how many provisions are at issue
highlights the defect in these claims: They are pled so skeletally
that they do not satisfy even Rule 8's relatively lenient
thresholds,  much less the heightened standards imposed by Rule 9
and the PSLRA. For instance, one paragraph states that GE's
undisclosed, unsustainable and unsound practices, which it did not
account for in recognizing revenue or making cumulative catch-up
adjustments, was a violation of ASC 605-10-S99, yet it does not
bother even to state what ASC-605-10-S99 says. The remaining
allegations recite different accounting standards in some detail or
baldly assert that GE violated those standards, but make no effort
to link the standards to any specific act, practice, statement, or
lapse by GE, or even to any other allegations in the Complaint.

The allegations here fail to state a claim for relief and are,
therefore, DISMISSED.

Item 303 Violations

Next, Plaintiffs allege that GE violated Item 303 of SEC Regulation
S-K by failing to disclose trends or uncertainties known to GE and
likely to have a material impact on GE's financial position. From a
review of the Complaint and Plaintiffs' memorandum of law in
opposition to Defendants' motion, three main allegations of trends,
demands, commitments, events or uncertainties stand out: first,
GE's reliance on unsustainable business practices to renegotiate
LTSAs in order to generate positive cumulative catch-up
adjustments, second, the deteriorating power industry and decreased
GE asset usage at the root of GE's struggles; and third, GE's use
of factoring to generate cash and mask the growing disparity
between revenue and cash flow.

The Court will address each alleged theory of Item 303 liability in
turn.

GE's failure to disclose the first trend does not support Item 303
liability because Plaintiffs' theory of fraud does not ultimately
hang together. Throughout the Complaint, Plaintiffs state that GE
employed a host of unsustainable business practices in order to
trigger positive cumulative catch-up adjustments. But a careful
reading of the Complaint indicates that only one of these practices
de-scoping in which GE eliminated the GE-sourced labor requirement
in LTSAs, thereby raising the profit margin over the life of the
contracts produced cumulative catch-up revenue.  

Nor do GE's failures to disclose two of the unsustainable practices
on their own de-scoping and deferral of payments constitute
violations of Item 303. The Complaint does not allege facts showing
that either of those practices was reasonably likely or that any
Defendant thought them reasonably likely to have a material impact
on GE's financial position, liquidity, or revenues. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs fail to plead a violation of Item 303 based on GE's
unsustainable contract renegotiation practices.

Next, Plaintiffs argue in their memorandum of law that GE failed to
disclose the deteriorating power industry and customers' migration
to sustainable energy sources and resulting decreased asset usage.
As Defendants observe, however, these allegations are not actually
in the Complaint. At most, Paragraph 410 of the Complaint alleges
that GE failed to disclose that it had been relying on
unsustainable business practices to renegotiate LTSAs with
customers to conceal that GE Power was struggling. But that is too
generalized and oblique to give fair notice of much more specific
Item 303 violations concerning trends in the deteriorating power
industry and customers' migration to sustainable energy sources.
The Court therefore declines to consider the argument.  

Finally, Plaintiffs allege that GE failed to disclose that GE Power
generated cash by monetizing receivables through extensive
factoring of LTSAs. Here, Plaintiffs hit the mark. The Complaint
details, through allegations by former employees with firsthand
knowledge among other things, that GE was factoring everything in
its Power and Renewable Divisions, including as many LTSAs as it
could.  

The same allegations support a strong inference that GE and at
least some of the Individual Defendants were at least consciously
reckless regarding whether their failure to provide adequate Item
303 disclosures would mislead investors about material facts. If
credited, the allegations in the Complaint show that, throughout
the Class Period, the management of GE Power and GE Capital were
organizing and, a fortiori, knew about  global efforts to factor as
many LTSAs as they could. If credited, the Complaint shows also
that Bornstein who signed GE's financial statements both knew of
the practice and acknowledged that GE was in deep with regard to
factoring. In short, Plaintiffs plausibly allege that Bornstein and
GE through Bornstein and other executives whose knowledge or intent
may be imputed to it knew facts suggesting that GE's financial
disclosures would be misleading without disclosure of its
widespread use of factoring, amounting to at least a reckless
disregard of a known or obvious duty to disclose.

In sum, Plaintiffs' factoring-based Item 303 claim survives against
GE and Bornstein for GE's 2015 filings and beyond, but is dismissed
as to all other Defendants. The remaining Item 303-based claims are
dismissed in their entirety.

Remaining Claims

Remaining are Plaintiffs' certification claims and its control
person claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. First,
Plaintiffs allege that Immelt, Sherin, and Bornstein falsely
certified that they had reviewed GE's internal controls and found
them effective.Similarly, Plaintiffs allege that those Defendants
made certifications pursuant to Sarbanes-Oxley that falsely stated
that GE's financial statements were prepared in accordance with
GAAP and in all material respects fairly represented the financial
position of the company. As to internal controls, the Complaint
does not allege specific facts concerning the purportedly deficient
internal controls, including how they were deficient, when and why,
so that claim must be dismissed. As for the claims about GAAP, for
the same reasons that Plaintiffs' standalone GAAP-based claims
fail, Plaintiffs either fail to adequately allege that GE violated
GAAP or fail to adequately allege that Immelt, Sherin, or Bornstein
acted with scienter in certifying that the LTC-related information
in GE's financial statements comported with GAAP.

Accordingly, these claims must be and are dismissed.

That leaves Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) control person claims.

To state a claim of control person liability under Section 20(a), a
plaintiff must show (1) a primary violation by the controlled
person (2) control of the primary violator by the defendant and (3)
that the defendant was, in some meaningful sense, a culpable
participant in the controlled person's fraud. For all but two of
their claims, Plaintiffs have failed to plead a primary violation,
and it follows that the corresponding Section 20(a) claims must
also be dismissed. As for Section 20(a) liability with respect to
the two primary violation claims that survive, that is, Plaintiffs'
claims regarding statements about factoring in GE's 2016 Form 10-K
and GE's failure to disclose factoring in its Class Period
financial statements, all Defendants muster is a conclusory
assertion, on the last page of their brief, that Plaintiffs have
not alleged with particularity that any Defendants culpably
participated in the alleged fraud. That may well be right. But
given the parties' paltry briefing on what is required to make out
a Section 20(a) claim, an issue that has vexed even district courts
graced with better briefing, Defendants' motion to dismiss the
surviving Section 20(a) claims is denied.

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted, except
as to (1) Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims
concerning (a) factoring in GE's 2016 Form 10-K and (b) GE's
failure to disclose factoring in its Class Period financial
statements, which survive against GE and Bornstein; and (2) for
now, Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claims against each Individual
Defendant.

The full-text copy of the District Court's August 29, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4b978bj from Leagle.com.

Tampa Maritime Association-International Longshoremen's Association
Pension Plan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Keller --
ckeller@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow, LLP & Francis Paul
McConville -- fmcconville@labaton.com -- Labaton & Sucharow LLP.

Deka International S.A., Deka Investment GmbH & International Fund
Management S.A., Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel Lawrence Berger
-- DBERGER@GELAW.COM -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. & Caitlin M. Moyna
-- cmoyna@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.

Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Sharan Nirmul -- snirmul@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP.

Jeffrey R. Immelt, Jeffrey S. Bornstein, John L. Flannery, General
Electric Company, Jamie Miller, Keith S. Sherin, Jan R Hauser &
Richard A Laxer, Defendants, represented by Blake Thomas Denton --
blake.denton@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Miles Norman Ruthberg
-- miles.ruthberg@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Sean M. Berkowitz
-- sean.berkowitz@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP & William J. Trach
-- william.trach@lw.com --  Latham & Watkins LLP.

The Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund, Intervenor
Plaintiff, represented byDaniel Lawrence Berger, Grant & Eisenhofer
P.A.

Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Interested Party, represented by
Thomas Livezey Laughlin, IV -- tlaughlin@scott-scott.com -- Scott
Scott, L.L.P.


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

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

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

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

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


GOOGLE LLC: LGBTQ Plaintiffs Sue for Censorship, Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Divino Group LLC, Chris Knight, Celso Dulay, Cameron Stiehl,
Briaandchrissy LLC, Bria Kam, Chrissy Chambers, Chase Ross, Brett
Somers and Lindsay Amer, and individual, Plaintiffs, v. Google LLC,
YouTube, LLC and Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04749 (N.D.
Cal., August 13, 2019), seeks damages and equitable and declaratory
relief on behalf of all persons similarly situated and to seek
redress for unlawful restraint of speech, breach of consumer
contract rights and for violation of the freedom of speech and
association of the California Constitution, and California's Unruh
Civil Rights Act.

Plaintiffs are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual or
queer (LGBTQ) content creators, viewers, users, and/or online
consumers of YouTube who accuse the latter of censoring of the
LGBTQ content based on its sexual orientation and political
identity and viewpoint.

YouTube is a streaming video site owned by Google LLC. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Obstler, Esq.
      BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP
      101 California Street, Suite 1225
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 391-7100
      Facsimile: (415) 391-7198
      Email: pobstler@bgrfirm.com

             - and -

      Eric M. George, Esq.
      Debi A. Ramos, Esq.
      2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 274-7100
      Facsimile: (310) 275-5697
      Email: egeorge@bgrfirm.com
             dramos@bgrfirm.com


GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Greene Hits Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------
Douglas Greene, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Granite Construction Incorporated, James H.
Roberts and Jigisha Desai, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04744, (N.D.
Cal., August 13, 2019) seeks to recover compensatory damages,
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including
counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further relief
under the Exchange Act.

Granite focuses on heavy-civil infrastructure projects and
power-related facilities. Greene alleges that Granite failed to
disclose that it had assumed certain risks in connection with its
heavy civil joint venture projects bid between 2012 and 2014 and
was reasonably likely to incur additional costs in connection with
certain project disputes. In July 29, 2019, after the market
closed, Granite disclosed that second quarter 2019 financial
results were negatively impacted by non-cash charges related to
four legacy, unconsolidated heavy civil joint venture projects. On
this news, its stock price fell $7.98 per share, or nearly 18%, to
close at $36.49 per share on July 30, 2019. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      Email: info@glancylaw.com


GREENPORTER LAND: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greenporter Land LLC.
The case is styled as Eugene Duncan AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Greenporter Land LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08126 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 30, 2019).

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

The Greenporter is a 3-star, privately owned boutique hotel located
in the heart of the North Fork's wine country, in Greenport, Long
Island.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HAT CLUB: Website not Accessible to Blind Persons, Nixon Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD NIXON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HAT CLUB, L.L.C., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-07806-PGG (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2019), alleges that
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website at www.hatclub.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal
access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired"
to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal
definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who
meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.1 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC.
          124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 971-9474
          E-mail: Jshalom@JonathanShalomLaw.com

HEALTHPLANONE LLC: $448K Quintana FLSA Suit Settlement Has Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Peggy Quintana, Plaintiff, v. HealthPlanOne LLC,
Defendant, Case No. CV-18-02169-PHX-RM (D. Ariz.), Judge Rosemary
Marquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (i)
granted in part the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion and Memorandum for
Approval of the Parties' FLSA Collective Action Settlement, (ii)
granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorneys'
Fees, Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses, and Award of Collective
Representative Service Payments; and (iii) denied the Defendants'
Stipulated Request for a Telephonic Status Conference.

Plaintiff Quintana filed the operative Collective Action Complaint
on Jan. 2, 2019.  The Plaintiff, who was the Defendant's employee,
alleges on behalf of herself and a collective of 1,117 similarly
situated persons that the Defendant failed to pay overtime in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that she and other employees at
the Defendant's call centers were required to perform work before
and after scheduled shift times, for which they were not paid.
Specifically, the Plaintiff estimates that she and other similarly
situated employees performed between 10 and 15 minutes of unpaid
overtime work each day.  Throughout the pendency of the action,
seven additional Plaintiffs have consented to join the lawsuit.
The Parties engaged in a full-day mediation but were unsuccessful
at settling their claims at that time.

On Jan. 31, 2019, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting
deadlines for the first phase of FLSA discovery.  Meanwhile, the
Defendant sought to compel arbitration of the dispute, but on Feb.
2, 2019, before the Motion to Compel was fully briefed, the Parties
notified the Court that a settlement had been reached.

The instant motions followed.  Pending before the Court is the
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion and Memorandum for Approval of the
Parties' FLSA Collective Action Settlement, and the Plaintiff's
Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Costs and
Expenses, and Award of Collective Representative Service Payments.
Also before the Court is the Defendant's Stipulated Request for a
Telephonic Status Conference.

The unopposed motion seeks (1) approval of the proposed settlement
agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff and a collective, (2)
certification of a collective action for settlement purposes only,
(3) approval of the notice of collective action settlement, and (4)
appointment of (a) the Plaintiff's attorneys as the collective
action counsel, (b) the Plaintiff as collective representative, and
(c) Analytics, LLC as the third-party administrator.

The Parties agreed to settle this matter for $447,500, which
includes settlement payments to eligible claimants; attorneys' fees
and costs directly related to the case; and individual service
payments to the Plaintiff and the seven Opt-in Plaintiffs.  The
settlement, which the Parties characterize as an outstanding
recovery for the Collective Members, was reached after some
discovery and a full day of mediation.  

From this gross total, the parties indicate that there are $196,819
in fees, incentives, and administrative costs.  Once those costs
are subtracted out, each collective member is to receive a pro rata
share of the award based upon their fraction of the total overtime
workweeks by all collective members.  Third-party administrator
Analytics is to be responsible for contacting settlement plaintiffs
with information regarding the settlement and joining the
settlement collective, and then distributing the award amongst the
members.

The Settlement Agreement provided for $134,250 in attorneys' fees
as well as reimbursement to the Plaintiff's attorneys for costs up
to $18,000, requested separately in the concurrently pending Motion
for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

The Plaintiff's motion indicates that the Parties have agreed to
give Plaintiff Quintana $9,000, and each of the seven Opt-in
Plaintiffs $3,000, to acknowledge their involvement in the matter.


Because Judge Marquez does not find that a telephonic status
conference would assist in the resolution of the pending motions,
she will deny the request for a telephonic status conference.

The Judge granted in part (i) the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion and
Memorandum for Approval of the Parties' FLSA Collective Action
Settlement, and (ii) the Plaintiff's Motion For Award of Attorneys'
Fees, Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses, and Award of Collective
Representative Service Payments.  She denied the Defendants'
Stipulated Request for a Telephonic Status Conference.

The Settlement Agreement creating a settlement fund of $447,500 is
approved, with the following particulars:

     (1) Service awards totaling $20,000 are to be distributed from
the settlement fund as follows: (a) $6,000 to Plaintiff Quintana;
(b) $2,000 to Plaintiff Angela Dunaway; (c) $2,000 to Plaintiff D
Force; (d) $2,000 to Plaintiff Karl Kurtz; (e) $2,000 to Plaintiff
Robyn Brooks; (f) $2,000 to Plaintiff Robert Espinoza; (g) $2,000
to Plaintiff Jeremy Parker; and (h) $2,000 to Plaintiff Aaron
Nelson;

     (2) Attorneys' Fees are awarded in the amount of $134,250, to
be paid from the settlement fund.

     (3) Costs are awarded in the amount of $14,356.73, to be paid
from the settlement fund.

     (4) Plaintiff Peggy Quintana is appointed the Collective
Action Representative.

     (5) The Plaintiff's counsel, Attorneys Ryan and Bormes, are
appointed the Collective Action Counsel.

     (6) Analytics, LLC is appointed the Third Party Claims
Administrator and will administer the settlement funds as detailed
in the Settlement Agreement.

     (7) The Jugde approved the settlement payments to be made to
each Collective Member who submits a timely and valid Claim Form.
The Collective Members will have 60 days after the date of mailing
of the Notice and Claim Forms to submit their Claim Form and to
participate in the settlement.

     (8) Except as provided herein, the settling Parties are to
bear their own attorneys' fees and costs.

The  action and all claims contained therein -- including, without
limitation, all class claims and all settled claims against
Released parties, are dismissed with prejudice.  However, the Order
will not impact the rights of any persons who do not participate in
this settlement.  The Clerk of Court is directed to close this
case.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/xkq1ue from Leagle.com.

Peggy Quintana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine Patricia Sons, Law
Office of James X Bormes PC, James X. Bormes, Law Office of James
X. Bormes PC, Michelle Ray Matheson -- mmatheson@mathesonlegal.com
-- Matheson & Matheson PLC & Thomas M. Ryan, Law Office of Thomas
M. Ryan PC.

HealthPlanOne LLC, Defendant, represented by Annelise Mari
Dominguez -- khoskins@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP
& Kami Marie Hoskins -- adominguez@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully
Mansukhani LLP.


HEWLETT PACKARD: McLees Sues over Issuance of DXC Shares
--------------------------------------------------------
JASON MCLEES, Individually and 0n Behalf 0f All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY;
DXC TECHNOLOGY COMPANY; RISHI VARNA; TIMOTHY C. STONESIFER; JEREMY
K. COX; MUKESH AGHI; AMY E. ALVING; DAVID HERZOG; SACHIN LAWANDE;
J. MICHAEL LAWRIE; JULIO A. PORTALATIN; PETER RUTLAND; MANOJ P.
SINGH; WHITMAN; and MARGARET C. ROBERT F. WOODS, the Defendants,
Case No. 19-CV-353132 (Cal. Super., Aug. 20, 2019), is a securities
class action on behalf of all persons who acquired DXC common stock
pursuant to a Form S-4 registration statement, a Form 424B3
prospectus, and additional materials, incorporated by reference
issued in connection with the April 2017 transaction by which HPE's
Enterprise Services business segment was spun off and merged with
CSC to form DXC.

HPE is a technology company based in San Paulo, California. In
April 2017, HPE conducted the merger spinning off its Enterprise
Services business segment, merging it with CSC, and forming the
company now known as DXC. DCX performs information technology
consulting services for business nationwide.

In connection with the Merger, DXC -- then known as Everett SpinCo,
Inc. -- issued over 140 million new shares of DXC common stock to
former CSC shareholders. Each former shareholder of CSC common
stock received one share of new DXC common stock in exhange for
each share of CSC common stock held immediately prior to Merger.
Through this exchange, former CSC shareholders received 141, 298,
797 shares of DXC common stock, representing 49.9% of outstanding
DXC common stock shares. All of these new shares of DXC common
stocks were registered, issued, and solicited pursuant to the
Offering Materials.

The Offering Materials contained untrue statements of material fact
and omitted material facts both required by governing regulations
and necessary to make the statements made not misleading. The
Offering Materials are replete with reference to purported "net
synergies" and other "strategic and financial benefits" from the
Merger, claiming more than $1 billion in immediate "synergies as a
result of the incoming management team's detailed "workforce
optimization" plan.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 766-3534
          Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
          E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415)981-4846
          E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com
                  apolk@girardsharp.com

               - and -

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Davis Stein, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94162
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  ds@classlawgroup.com

HOMELAND SECURITY: Valladares Suit over Alien Detention Terminated
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey denied, without prejudice, the application
of plaintiff Margarito Hernandez Valladares to proceed in forma
pauperis in his lawsuit captioned as, MARGARITO HERNANDEZ
VALLADARES, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
v. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) et al,
Case No. 2:19-cv-13029-BRM (D.N.J., May 28, 2019).

The case was terminated, effective June 11, 2019, following the
Court's order.

The case is a petition for writ of habeas corpus.  The Plaintiff
appeared pro se, asserting claims for alien detention.

"It is further Ordered that the Clerk shall administrative
terminate this case, without filing the complaint or assessing a
filing fee; Plaintiff is informed that administrative termination
is not a 'dismissal' for purposes of the statute of limitations,
and that if the case is reopened, it is not subject to the Statute
of limitations time bar if it was originally filed timely, etc.,"
the Court said.

The Department of Homeland Security includes customs, border, and
immigration enforcement, emergency response to natural and manmade
disasters, anti-terrorism work and cybersecurity. [BN]


INCASE DESIGNS CORP: Mallh Sues over Consumer Product Warranty
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against InCase Designs
Corp. for alleged violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The
case is captioned Victor Mallh, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. InCase Designs Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06414-DSF-SK (C.D. Cal., July 24,
2019). This lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer.

Based in Chino, California, InCase Designs Corp. designs,
manufactures, and distributes bags. Its products include shoulder
bags, laptop backpacks, messengers, duffels, and travel rollers.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John M Kennedy, Esq.
     FORTIS LLP
     650 Town Center Drive Suite 1530
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Telephone: (714) 839-3800
     Facsimile: (714) 795-2995
     E-mail: jkennedy@fortislaw.com

             - and –

     Catherine E Anderson, Esq.
     GISKAN SOLOTARAFF ANDERSON AND STEWART LLP
     11 Broadway Suite 2150
     New York, NY 10004
     Telephone: (212) 847-8315
     Facsimile: (626) 520-3237
     E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com

             - and -

     Peter E Garrell, Esq.
     FORTIS LLP
     650 Town Center Drive Suite 1530
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Telephone: (714) 839-3800
     Facsimile: (714) 795-2995
     E-mail: pgarrell@fortislaw.com


JUST BRANDS: Hit With Class Suit Over Amount of CBD in Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Bradon, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a New York
man alleges the makers of a CBD oil brand overstate the amount of
CBD in their products.

Jesse S. Gaddis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint on Aug. 16, 2019, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida against Just Brands USA
Inc., Just Brands FL LLC and SSGI Financial Services Inc., alleging
breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, unjust enrichment, fraud and other counts.

The plaintiff alleges in November 2018, he purchased JustCBD Liquid
Honey Tincture and Rainbow Ribbons Gummies. He alleges the Liquid
Honey Tincture is advertised as containing 100 milligrams of CBD,
but independent testing determined the product only contains 48.92
milligrams. He also alleges some of the defendants' products
contain a non-detectable quantity of CBD when they are advertised
as containing the ingredient.

"By misrepresenting the true quantity of CBD in their CBD products,
defendants are able to charge a substantial price premium on
account of these fictitious CBD quantity claims," the suit states.

The plaintiff is seeking a trial by jury, attorneys' fees and just
enrichment, all amounts awarded and just relief. The plaintiff is
represented by Scott A. Bursor of Bursor & Fisher P.A. in Miami and
Neal J. Deckant and Frederick J. Klorczyk III of Bursor & Fisher
P.A. in Walnut Creek, California. [GN]


KAY & JAMES INC: Ventura Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay
---------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Kay & James, Inc.
for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code. The case is captioned
OSMAN VENTURA, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. KAY & JAMES, INC., a California
corporation, dba J & S MACHINE WORKS.; and DOES 1 through 100,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV25743 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
July 24, 2019). Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay
all minimum, regular and overtime wages, as well as meal and rest
period premium wages. Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendants
maintained inaccurate payroll records and issued inaccurate wage
statements to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees.

Kay & James, Inc. is engaged in the business of manufacturing
cooking equipment. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul K. Haines, Esq.
     Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
     Stacey M. Shim, Esq.
     HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
     222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
     El Segundo, CA 90245
     Telephone: (424) 292-2350
     Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
     E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
             tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
             sshim@haineslawgroup.com


KSE RETAIL SALES: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KSE RETAIL SALES LLC.
The case is styled as Eugene Duncan AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. KSE RETAIL SALES LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08129 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 30, 2019).

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

Kse Retail Sales LLC (trade name Harrows) is in the Outdoor and
Garden Furniture business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



L'OREAL USA: Consumers Appeal Dismissed Faulty Dispenser Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case docketed as Mary Tullie Critcher, Twoana
Clark-Sheppard, Victoria Marynovsky, Patricia Belbot, Jessica
Petrie, Linda Feiges, Georgette C. Fournier and Sarah McQueary,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, vs. L'Oreal USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-5639
(S.D. N.Y., June 21, 2019), Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on
August 12, 2019 under Case No. 19-2474. Said case was dismissed on
July 12, 2019.

Case is a consumer class action claiming that L'Oréal's packaging
of it products prevents consumers from completely consuming its
contents due to a design flaw of its bottle design and dispenser in
violation of various state consumer protection laws and common
law.

L'Oréal USA is a manufacturer and seller of cosmetic products
offered for sale to consumers throughout the United States through
various large retailers and pharmacies. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence D. King, Esq.
      Matthew B. George, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 772-4700
      Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
      Email: lking@kaplanfox.com
             mgeorge@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

      Ralph E. Labaton, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 687-1980
      Fax: (212) 687-7714
      Email: rlabaton@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

      Karen E. Snyder, Esq.
      Paul D. Snyder, Esq.
      SNYDER LAW FIRM LLC
      13401 Mission Road, Suite 207
      Leawood, KS 66209
      Telephone: (913) 685-3900
      Facsimile: (913) 440-0724
      Email: ksnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com
             psnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com

             - and -

      Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
      Amy R. Jackson, Esq.
      WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
      1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Tel: (816) 945-7110
      Fax: (816) 945-7118
      Email: matt@williamsdirks.com
             amy@williamsdirks.com

L'Oreal USA, Inc. is represented by

      Joanna Marie Doherty, Esq.
      GORDON & REES LLP
      18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite/Floor 220
      Florham Park, NJ 07932
      Tel: (973) 549−2500
      Fax: (973) 377−1911
      Email: jmdoherty@gordonrees.com

             - and -

      Justin Daniel Lewis, Esq.
      GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP (CA)
      101 West Broadway, Suite 2000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 696−6700
      Fax: (619) 696−7124
      Email: jlewis@grsm.com

             - and -

      Michael D. Scully, Esq.
      GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP (SAN DIEGO)
      101 West Broadway, Suite 2000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619)−696−6700
      Fax: (619)−696−7124
      Email: mscully@grsm.com

             - and -

      Peter George Siachos, Esq.
      GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
      18 Columbia Turnpike
      N. Florham Park, NJ 07932
      Tel: (973) 549−2500
      Fax: (973) 377−1911
      Email: psiachos@gordonrees.com


LABORATORY CORP: Appeal in Davis Class Action Still 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
appeal in the class action suit entitled, atty Davis v. Laboratory
Corporation of America, et al., is still pending.

On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America,
et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida.

The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were
collecting benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory
damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses.


In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings.

The Plaintiff has appealed the Circuit Court's ruling to the
Florida Second District Court of Appeal.

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: Bid to Dismiss North Carolina Suit Still 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
company's motion to dismiss the consolidated Bouffard and Anderson
class action suit, is still pending.

On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.

The complaint alleges that the Company's patient list prices
unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same services with
private and public health insurers in violation of various state
consumer protection laws. The lawsuit also alleges breach of
implied contract or quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud.

The lawsuit seeks statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

In May 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Complaint and Strike Class Allegations; the Motion to Dismiss was
granted in March 2018 without prejudice.

On October 10, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, Sheryl
Anderson, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina.

The complaint contained similar allegations and sought similar
relief to the Bouffard complaint, and added additional counts
regarding state consumer protection laws.

On August 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint,
which consolidated the Bouffard and Anderson actions.

On September 10, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Strike Class Allegations, which
remains pending.

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: Bid to Nix Sequenom Merger-Related 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 the consolidated class action suit entitled, In
re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No.
16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, is pending.

Prior to the Company's acquisition of Sequenom, Inc. (Sequenom)
between August 15, 2016, and August 24, 2016, six putative
class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purported Sequenom
stockholders (captioned Malkoff v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02054- JAH-BLM, Gupta v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02084-JAH-KSC, Fruchter v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02101- WQH-KSC, Asiatrade Development Ltd. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
et al., No. 16-cv-02113-AJB-JMA, Nunes v. Sequenom, Inc., et al.,
No. 16-cv-02128-AJB-MDD, and Cusumano v. Sequenom, Inc., et al.,
No. 16-cv-02134-LAB-JMA) in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California challenging the acquisition
transaction.

The complaints asserted claims against Sequenom and members of its
board of directors (the Individual Defendants).

The Nunes action also named the Company and Savoy Acquisition Corp.
(Savoy), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, as defendants.

The complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 14(e),
14(d)(4) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing
to disclose certain allegedly material information.

In addition, the complaints in the Malkoff action, Asiatrade
action, and the Cusumano action alleged that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Sequenom
shareholders.

The actions sought, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining
the merger. On August 30, 2016, the parties entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in each of the above-referenced
actions.

On September 6, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating for
all pre-trial purposes the six individual actions described above
under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead
Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, and designating the complaint from
the Malkoff action as the operative complaint for the consolidated
action.

On November 11, 2016, two competing motions were filed by two
separate stockholders (James Reilly and Shikha Gupta) seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff under the terms of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

On June 7, 2017, the Court entered an order declaring Mr. Reilly as
the lead plaintiff and approving Mr. Reilly's selection of lead
counsel. The parties agree that the MOU has been terminated.

The Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
on July 24, 2017, and the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss,
which remains pending.

On March 13, 2019, the Court stayed the action in its entirety
pending the U.S. Supreme Court's anticipated decision in Emulex
Corp. v. Varjabedian. On April 23, 2019, however, the U.S. Supreme
Court dismissed the writ of certiorari in Emulex as improvidently
granted.

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: Continues to Defend Haro Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
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, Alma Haro
v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al.

On September 21, 2018, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Alma Haro v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et
al., which was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles.

Plaintiff alleges that employees were not properly paid overtime
compensation, minimum wages, meal and rest break premiums, did not
receive compliant wage statements, and were not properly paid wages
upon termination of employment.

Plaintiff asserts these actions violate various California Labor
Code provisions and constitute an unfair competition practice under
California law.

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

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: Settlement Reached in Sealock Suit
---------------------------------------------------
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 a
settlement has been reached in the class action suit entitled, John
Sealock, et al. v. Covance Market Access Services, Inc.

On September 7, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, John Sealock, et al. v. Covance Market Access
Services, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The complaint alleged that Covance Market Access Services, Inc.
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor laws by
failing to provide overtime wages, failing to pay for all hours
worked, and failing to provide accurate wage statements.

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

In November 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Strike Class
Allegations, which was denied.

In December 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional
Certification of a Collective Action, which was granted in May
2018. In December 2018, Plaintiff filed, and the Court granted, a
second motion to conditionally certify an expanded class to a
nationwide class action.

This matter has been settled in principle and the settlement is
subject to judicial review and approval.

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.


LYFT INC: Mackintosh Alleges Economic Espionage
-----------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Lyft, Inc. et al.
for alleged violations of several federal and state laws including
the Consumer Protection Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and
the California Business and Professional Code, and for economic
espionage and for unjust enrichment in trade secret
misappropriation. The case is captioned Adam John Mackintosh,
Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. Lyft, Inc., Uber Technologies Inc., Uber Health,
LLC., AH Capital Management, LLC AKA Andreesen Horowitz
Corporations, Ben Horowitz, John Zimmer, Logan Green, Josef Arvin
Acebedo, Louis Darnell Pritchett, Jerry Wang, and Potential Does
10-500, Individuals, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00261236 (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., July 24, 2019).

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have misappropriated
Plaintiff's corporate secrets, who have used it to grow improperly
in healthcare causing more harm than good.  This class action
complaint is seeking for an injunction, treble damages, punitive
damages, pain and suffering, and disgorgement of unjust enrichment,
obtained by Defendants without legal entitlement, who are
synonymously monopolizing transportation, creating a duopoly,
fueled by an insurance scheme, using investor cash that unlawfully
suppresses competition. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
wrongfully targeted Plaintiff's company, iHug -- the pioneer of the
first ever, "Rideshare for Healthcare" in the United States.

iHug has claimed to be the safest transportation option that was
CPR and Basic Life Support Certified for the healthcare system, a
world-class operation that was in its infancy.  According to the
lawsuit, the Plaintiff executed on his "$1,200,000,000,000
trillion-dollar healthcare opportunity", so he could one day deploy
a new digital Ai healthcare system. The lawsuit claims "the new
digital Ai healthcare system is calculated to be worth over
$25,800,000,000,000 Trillion-Dollars" and this "immediately placed
a target on Plaintiff's back after Defendants were provided
intelligence on such valuable intellectual property."  iHug was
silently infiltrated by Defendants in a covert, militaristic
operation, as similarly described in a written letter by Richard
Jacobs, a former Uber employee and United States Defense
Intelligence Agency Officer. Jacobs disclosed Defendants internal
departments, including but not limited to Threat Operations, Global
Intelligence, and Strategic Services Groups, where they were
instructed to infiltrate and suppress competition. Defendants
allegedly manipulate and incentivize its Drivers, who have "common
motive to collude," to infiltrate iHug through deceptive business
practices and fraud, tortiously interfering with iHug's contractual
relations.

Lyft, Inc., Uber Technologies, Inc., and Uber Health, LLC are
Delaware corporations with corporate headquarters and primary place
of business in the San Francisco, California. Uber is a major
rideshare operator, transporting fifteen-million passengers a day
world-wide, offering services in over 600 cities. AH Capital
Management, LLC also known as, Andreessen Horowitz, is a Delaware
corporation with corporate headquarters and primary place of
business in Menlo Park. It is a world-renowned investment venture
firm who's invested in Lyft. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

     Adam John Mackintosh
     10923 Progress Court
     Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
     E-mail: legal@ihughealth.com


LYFT INC: Underpays Drivers, Brunner Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------
D. BRUNNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LYFT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-04808 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2019) is an action against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Brunner was employed by the Defendant as driver.

Lyft, Inc. operates a peer-to-peer marketplace for on-demand
ridesharing in the United States and Canada. The company was
formerly known as Zimride, Inc. and changed its name to Lyft, Inc.
in 2013. Lyft, Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          Laura Iris Mattes, Esq.
          Adam Koshkin, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One California St, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
                  imattes@outtengolden.com
                  akormb@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Rachel Bien, Esq.
          601 S Figueroa St., Suite 4050
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (323) 673-9900
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2058
          E-mail: shkin@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Katharine Chao, Esq.
          Christian Schreiber, Esq.
          SCHREIBER & CHAO LLP
          201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 484-0980
          Facsimile: (415) 658-7758
          E-mail: kathy@osclegal.com
                  christian@osclegal.com


MCNEIL GROUP: Harbour's Joint Bid for Class Certification Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., granted the Parties' Joint
Stipulation to Pre-Discovery Conditional Class Certification and
Court-Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs Pursuant to
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) in the lawsuit entitled WILLIAM HARBOUR,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MCNEIL
GROUP, INC DBA PINNACLE METAL PRODUCTS, Case No.
2:19-cv-01545-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio).

The Court approves the Notice of Unpaid Overtime Wages Lawsuit and
Consent to Join attached to the Parties' Joint Stipulation.[CC]


METLIFE INC: Gavitt Seeks Return of Insurance Premiums Collected
----------------------------------------------------------------
George Gavitt, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-01516, (S.D. N.Y., August 13, 2017), seeks injunctive
relief, restitution and disgorgement of all premiums collected by
Metropolitan Life in the form of insurance premiums pursuant to
California's Business & Professions Code.

Gavitt purchased disability insurance coverage from Met Life under
the terms of group disability policies offered through their
private sector employers for certain Short-Term Disability
coverage. He claims that they were sold a product, and payed
premiums, for an insurance product which provided essentially no
increased value despite employees choosing to opt out of a State
Disability Insurance Program coverage since it is duplicative of
the state's Short-Term Disability policy and paid for through state
taxes.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Keith Greer, Esq.
      GREER & ASSOCIATES, A.P.C.
      16855 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 255
      San Diego, CA 92128
      Tel: (858) 613-6677
      Fax: (858) 613-6680
      Email: Keith.Greer@greerlaw.biz

             - and -

      Lisa J. Damiani, Esq.
      DAMIANI LAW GROUP APC
      1059 Tenth Avenue
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 239-0170
      Fax: (619) 239-0216
      Email: ljdamiani@damianilawgroup.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Castle Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Bonnie Castle individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05855
(N.D. Ill., Aug. 30, 2019).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. was founded in 1953. The company's
line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises
for relatively short periods.[BN]

The Plaintiff 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


MIDWAY RENT: Cal. App. Affirms Judgment in Adhav Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, ASHISH ADHAV et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
MIDWAY RENT A CAR, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case
No. B285586 (Cal. App.), Judge Gregory J. Weingart of the U.S.
Court of Appeals of California for the Second District, Division
One, affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the
Defendants.

Plaintiffs Adhav and Cullen Dickson rented cars from defendant
Midway and opted to purchase insurance coverage in connection with
those rentals.  Because Midway is not an insurance company, Midway
purchased master insurance policies from Defendants KnightBrook
Insurance Co. and National Specialty Insurance Co. to make such
optional insurance coverage available to its customers.

Midway was the insured but was authorized to extend coverage to its
customers under the policies.  These policies, and the rates they
charged Midway, were approved by the California Department of
Insurance ("DOI") as required by California law.  Many of the
policies were structured to include a $25,000 per claim
self-insured retention (essentially, a deductible) for which Midway
was responsible in case of a customer loss.  KnightBrook and
National Specialty became liable only if the loss exceeded the
self-insured retention. Shifting some of the risk of loss to Midway
in this manner lowered the premium Midway paid to the insurers.  In
light of the self-insured retention, administrative costs in
connection with adjusting claims (for which it was responsible),
and other factors including presumably some profit margin, Midway
charged customers purchasing optional insurance more than the
premium it paid to KnightBrook and National Specialty.

The Plaintiffs chose to rent cars from Midway based on convenience,
location, and overall cost—not based on anything insurance
related.  They understood they were not obligated to purchase
insurance from Midway. The insurance rates Midway charged customers
were set forth in the rental agreement and known to Plaintiffs
before they opted to purchase the coverage.  The insurance rates
paid by Plaintiffs were comparable to rates charged by other rental
car companies, and in some instances lower.  The Plaintiffs
received the benefit of the coverage they purchased, did not
experience any covered losses, and there is no dispute concerning
any adjustment of a claimed loss.

The Plaintiffs nevertheless brought a class action against Midway,
asserting they were economically harmed by unlawful and fraudulent
business practices.  They also named as Defendants KnightBrook,
National Specialty and their managing general agent Knight
Management Insurance Services ("KMIS").  How did the Defendants
injure the Plaintiffs, one might ask.  The Plaintiffs assert
various Insurance Code provisions required Midway to disclose to
them what rate Midway was paying the Insurer Defendants, and
further to charge the Plaintiffs that same rate (despite this
meaning Midway would offer insurance at a loss given the
self-insured retention).  

The Plaintiffs contend the Insurer Defendants were liable because,
although they never received anything beyond the premium owed by
Midway, the Insurance Code required funds collected by Midway from
customers purchasing insurance be imputed to the Insurer
Defendants.  The Plaintiffs argue the result of this imputation was
that the Insurer Defendants constructively "received" a premium in
excess of that authorized by the DOI.

The Plaintiffs claimed these business practices caused them harm
because they paid more than what Midway paid its insurers, despite
the fact they received the benefit of coverage based not only on
the premium paid to the Insurer Defendants, but also on Midway's
self-insured retention.  They further sought an injunction to
prohibit these alleged unlawful and fraudulent practices.

The trial court disagreed with the Plaintiffs' arguments, finding
their claims were based on Insurance Code provisions inapplicable
to Plaintiffs' interactions with Midway.  It further found the
Plaintiffs failed to establish any illegal or fraudulent business
practice, or any economic injury.  Following a bench trial, it
entered judgment in favor of the Defendants.   

The Plaintiffs timely appealed.  The Plaintiffs assert that section
381, subdivision (f) required Midway and the Insurer Defendants
disclose to them the premium Midway paid to the Insurer Defendants,
and the failure to do so was a fraudulent omission under the UCL.

Given the specific disclosure provisions in the Rental Car Agents
Act, Judge Weingart rejects the Plaintiffs' argument that Troyke v.
Farmers Group, Inc. mandated disclosure to them of the premium
amount.  Troyke addresses a classic insurer-insured scenario, in
which the insurer is statutorily obligated to provide the insured a
policy which states the premium.  The Insurer Defendants complied
with this statutory mandate by providing their insured Midway with
a policy stating the premium.  The Judge also perceives no conflict
between Proposition 103 and the Rental Car Agents Act requiring the
Court declares the licensing or disclosure regime set forth in the
Rental Car Agents Act unconstitutional.  Proposition 103 addresses
the obligations of insurers, including general agents of insurers.
The Rental Car Agents Act, in contrast, addresses the obligations
of limited rental car agents offering only specific types of
insurance in connection with car rentals.

The Plaintiffs next argue rental car customer payments to Midway
for insurance coverage should be imputed to the Insurer Defendants,
meaning the Insurer Defendants thus charged and collected more than
the statutorily approved rate.  Neither the Insurance Code nor case
law supports the argument, the Judge holds.  First, the facts do
not support the Plaintiffs' contention that Midway's agency was
sufficiently robust to make Midway a general agent and therefore
impute the funds received by Midway to the Insurer Defendants as
premium.  Second, the true economic substance in the case did not
involve the Insurer Defendants acting in a way that would make
amounts paid to Midway properly attributable to the Insurer
Defendants.  The trial court did not find the Insurer Defendants
were involved with or directed how Midway paid claims, or find
facts suggesting the operations of Midway and the Insurer
defendants were highly tangled or inextricably intertwined.

Moving beyond the Insurer Defendants, the Plaintiffs' final
argument is Midway was required to charge no more than the premium
it paid to the Insurer Defendants.  The Judge finds no support in
the record for this claim.  Midway did not charge in excess of the
approved rate, because what the Plaintiffs identify as the approved
rate related to the insurance relationship between Midway and the
Insurer Defendants, not the relationship between Midway and its
rental car customers.

Finally, the Judge finds that nothing before the trial court
suggested Midway was charging disproportionately high or deceptive
rates for insurance.  Midway disclosed its fees for insurance
coverage to its customers and charged prices comparable to what its
competitors charged.  The Rental Car Agents Act gives the DOI
authority to promulgate regulations regarding disclosure, including
concerning price as well as any limitations of the insurance
purchased from a rental car agent.  The trial court noted, as does
the Court, that the Commissioner has not prescribed any regulations
concerning the price for insurance coverage charged by car rental
agents.  To the extent the DOI wants to mandate disclosure of the
underlying rate paid by the rental car company to its insurer (as
the Plaintiffs suggest), or impose other regulation pursuant to
section 1758.86, subdivision (b)(3), nothing in the Court's opinion
restricts the DOI's authority to do so.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Weingart affirmed the judgment.  The
Respondents are to recover their costs on appeal.

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

Kearney Littlefield, Thomas A. Kearney --
tak@kearneylittlefield.com -- Prescott W. Littlefield --
pwl@kearneylittlefield.com; Catherine Burke Schmidt; Ringler Law
Corporation, Jerome L. Ringler; Esner, Chang & Boyer, Stuart B.
Esner and Shea S. Murphy , for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Molino & Berardino, Steven R. Berardino --
sberardino@molinolawfirm.com -- and Michelle Cooper --
mcooper@molinolawfirm.com -- for Defendant and Respondent Midway
Rent A Car, Inc.

Michelman & Robinson, Mona Z. Hanna and Jennifer A. Mauri, for
Defendants and Respondents National Specialty Insurance Company,
KnightBrook Insurance Company and Knight Management Services, LLC.


MIRAK CHEVROLET: Leverone Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARET LEVERONE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MIRAK CHEVROLET, INC., EDWARD MIRAK, and
MARY LOUISE LONGO, Defendants, Case No. 19-2538 (Commonwealth of
Mass., Aug. 29, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint against
Defendants seeking damages based on the failure to pay wages.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' company-wade
compensation structure for salespeople was based on a
commission/draw model. Employees' pay each week was based on a
percentage of each sale made by the employee. To the extent an
employee s pay for any given week fell below a certain threshold,
Defendants would advance the employee a "draw" on future
commissions. Pursuant to this pay policy, draws and commissions
were ostensibly applied to hours worked over 40 hours per week, and
to hours worked on Sundays and holidays. However, the Defendants
did not pay any additional compensation for such work beyond the
draws and commissions.

Specifically, Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in at least one
week during the class period. Plaintiff worked on at least one
Sunday or covered holiday during the class period. Yet, the
Defendants did not base their pay to Plaintiff, or members of the
Class, on the amount of overtime hours, or the amount of hours
worked on Sundays and holidays, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked as a salesperson for Defendants from approximately
March 2018 through March 2019.

Defendants operate a car dealership located in Arlington.
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josh Gardner, Esq.
     Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq.
     GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C
     One State Street, Fourth Floor
     Boston, MA 02109
     Phone: 617-390-7570
     Email: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com



MODERNIZE INCORPORATED: Fisher Files TCPA Suit in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Modernize
Incorporated. The case is styled as Nick Fisher individually and on
behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. Modernize Incorporated, Unknown Parties, John Doe Home
Improvement Providers, Nos. 1-10; and John Doe Defendant
Lead-Generators, Nos. 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05070-DGC
(D. Ariz., Aug. 30, 2019).

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

Modernize Incorporated provides educational content to inspire
ideas and connect customers with their network of contractors to
get projects done.[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


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Class Certification Sought in Allende Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Allende moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit styled GINA ALLENDE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NATIONWIDE CREDIT &
COLLECTION INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01251 (E.D. Wisc.), and further
asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification
and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the
Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NETAPP INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, reminds that an
investor securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed
against NetApp, Inc. (NASDAQ:NTAP) ("NetApp") on behalf of those
who purchased or otherwise acquired NetApp securities between May
22, 2019 and August 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

NetApp investors who purchased securities during the Class Period
may, no later than October 15, 2019, seek to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff representative of the class.

Investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class action
lawsuit or request additional information about this litigation are
encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check attorneys James
Maro, Jr. or Adrienne Bell at (844) 887-9500 (toll free) or online
at: www.ktmc.com/netapp-inc-securities-class-action

According to the complaint, NetApp provides a range of hybrid cloud
data services that simplify management of applications and data
across cloud and on-premises environments to accelerate digital
transformation.

The Class Period commences on May 22, 2019, when NetApp announced
fourth quarter and full year 2019 financial results.

According to the complaint, on August 1, 2019, after the market
closed, NetApp reported preliminary first quarter 2020 net revenue
between $1.22 and $1.23 billion, below previous guidance between
$1.315 to $1.465 billion, and earnings per share between $0.30 and
$0.35, below previous guidance between $0.56 and $0.64.
Additionally, NetApp lowered its 2020 outlook and expected net
revenue to decline between 5% and 10% year-over-year.

Following this news, NetApp's share price fell as much as $11.67,
or over 20%, to close at $46.04 per share on August 2, 2019.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) NetApp was
unable to close large deals within the quarter and that the deals
were pushed out to subsequent quarters or downsized; (2) as a
result, NetApp's revenue would be materially impacted; (3) as a
result, NetApp would lower its fiscal 2020 guidance; and (4) as a
result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about
NetApp's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

NetApp investors may, no later than October 15, 2019, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was
not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.
[GN]


NEWREZ LLC: Best Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------
DAWUD J. BEST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NEWREZ LLC; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCATION, a/k/a Fannie Mae; and BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC, Defendants,
Case No. 8:19-cv-02331 (D. Md., Aug. 14, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Newrez LLC New Penn Financial, LLC provides financial services. The
Company offers originating and selling mortgage loans and homes on
buying, lending, and rental basis. New Penn Financial serves in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey W. Styles, Esq.
          Dawud J. Best, Esq.
          WASHINGTON LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          1666 K Street, NW, Suite #440
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 503-1708
          E-mail: jstyles@washlegal.com


PALL CORPORATION: Lundy Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALVIN LUNDY, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PALL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 8:19-cv-02202 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 30, 2019) is an action for
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for
Defendant's illegal, intentional, and systematic scheme to deprive
its hourly workers of straight time and overtime compensation for
all of the hours that they worked in violation of state and federal
law.

Although Defendant knew, by virtue of its time-keeping system, the
exact amount of hours that Plaintiff and the other
similarly-situated employees worked, Defendant altered its
time-keeping system to reflect an inaccurate summary of the amount
of hours that Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees
actually worked in an attempt to evade paying them all of the
compensation that Defendant owes to them, asserts the complaint.

The Defendant has willfully engaged in a pattern of violating the
FLSA, by failing to pay employees proper overtime compensation for
all hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek, according to the
complaint. Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees are
victims of Defendant's widespread, repeated, and systematic illegal
policies and practices that have resulted in violations of their
rights under the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a Machinist in January
2019, and he continues to work in this capacity.

Defendant is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of New
York and operates a manufacturing facility in Pasco County,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     PATRICK K. ELLIOTT, ESQ.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK K. ELLIOTT, PLLC
     100 S. Ashley Drive, Suite 600
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Direct Dial: (813) 379-3090
     Facsimile: (813) 433-5126
     Email: elliottp@employmentandconsumerlaw.com
            assistant@employmentandconsumerlaw.com



PAYLESS CAR WASH: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Garcia Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PAYLESS CAR WASH, INC. d/b/a STATE STREET HAND CAR WASH
& DETAIL CENTER, and SAJJAD AHMED, Case No. 1:19-cv-05692 (N.D.
Ill., Aug. 23, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by failing to
pay the Plaintiff one and one-half times his regular rate of pay
for hours worked in excess of 40 per individual workweek, as well
as minimum wage for all hours worked.

Payless is an Illinois corporation doing business in the State of
Illinois.  The Defendant is located in Chicago, Illinois.  The
Individual Defendant is the President and Secretary of Payless.

The Defendants previously employed the Plaintiff as a car wash
attendant at their facility located at 1701 S. State Street, in
Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
          Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
          224 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 763-6880
          E-mail: acaffarelli@caffarelli.com
                  amartin@caffarelli.com


PIONEER CREDIT: Council Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Council, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-03743-SCJ (N.D. Ga., Aug. 20, 2019), contends that
the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by
placing unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff informed Defendant that it was calling the wrong
number and that Ms. Smith could not be reached at Plaintiff's
number. Despite informing Defendant on more than one occasion that
it was calling the wrong number and to stop calling, Defendant's
calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number continued.

The Defendant also left multiple prerecorded voice messages on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone voicemail, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant states that it "handles billions of dollars in
portfolios, recovering a broad spectrum of debt for multiple levels
of government." Defendant has a public Utility Commission of Texas
Automatic Dial Announcing Device permit, no. 040302, which it last
renewed in October 2018.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:

          Shireen Hormozdi, Esq.
          CROSS LAW FIRM
          1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road, Suite 175
          Norcross, GA 30093
          Telephone: 678-395-7795
          Facsimile: 866-929-2434
          E-mail: shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
          Chicago, Illinois 60630
          Telephone: 312.283.3814
          Facsimile: 773.496.8617
          E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, Florida 33487
          Telephone: 561.826.5477
          Facsimile: 561.961.5684
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com

PODESTA PACKING: Sepulveda Sues over Time Rounding System
---------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN SEPULVEDA, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiif, vs. PODESTA PACKING LLC, a
California limited liability company; FRED PODESTA FARMS, LP, a
California liability partnership; CALIFORNIA CHERRIES, a business
entity, form unknown; CALIFORNIA CHERRY GOWERS AND INDUSTRIES
FOUNDATION, a domestic non-profit; FRED PODESTA, an individual; and
DOES 1-50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. STK-VOE-2019-10758
(Cal. Super., Aug. 19, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay
earned wages including minimum and overtime wages under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant implemented a time
rounding system that systematically deprived the Plaintiff and the
class members of compensable hours worked because it resulted in
understating hours worked due to the rounding.

Fred Podesta is the owner, operator and/o manager of Podesta
Packing LLC.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Zachary Crosner, Esq.
          Michael Crosner, Esq.
          David Wastson, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
          433 N. Camden Dr.,  Suite 400
          Beverley Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 496 5818
          Facsimile: (818) 700 9973

PREMIUM MERCHANT: Hardin Sues Over TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
TENLEY HARDIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PREMIUM MERCHANT FUNDING ONE, LLC, and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-07552 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 30, 2019) is a Class Action
Complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendants, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), thereby invading
Plaintiff' privacy.

On October of 2018, Plaintiff received a text message from
Defendants on her cellular telephone. During this time, Defendants
began to use Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the purpose of
sending Plaintiff spam advertisements and/or promotional offers,
via text messages, including a text message sent to and received by
Plaintiff on October 11, 2018. These text messages placed to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone were placed via an "automatic
telephone dialing system," as defined by the TCPA as prohibited by
the TCPA.

Plaintiff was never a customer of Defendants and never provided his
cellular telephone number Defendants for any reason whatsoever.
Accordingly, Defendants and their agents never received Plaintiffs
prior express consent to receive unsolicited text messages, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff TENLEY HARDIN is a citizen and resident of the city of
Venice, State of California.

QUICK CAPITAL FUNDING, LLC is a finance lender company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (323) 306-4234
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com



RAZBAN ENTERPRISES: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Day Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY DAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. RAZBAN ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01170 (W.D. Tenn., Aug. 14, 2019) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Day was employed by the Defendant as delivery
driver.

Razban Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates Domino's franchises in
Western Tennessee. The Company offers and sells pizza. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
           MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
           20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
           Orlando, FL 32802-4979
           Telephone: (407) 420-1414
           Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
           E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com

                - and -

           Brian C. Winfrey, Esq.
           MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
           810 Broadway, Suite 105
           Nashville, TN 37203
           Telephone: (615) 928-9890
           Facsimile: (615) 928-9917
           Email:bwinfrey@forthepeople.com


REGAL AUTOMOTIVE: Grant Moves for Certification of TCPA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MONIFA GRANT, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. REGAL AUTOMOTIVE GROUP,
INC., Case No. 8:19-cv-00363-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla.), moves to certify
this class:

     The 5,997 persons within the United States who, on
     October 4, 2017 and/or October 5, 2017, were delivered the
     following prerecorded voicemail to their cellular telephone:

     Hi my name is Ken Halworth, General Manager with Regal
     Honda.  I'm sorry I missed you and didn't get a chance to
     speak to you personally. I'm calling with some great news.
     Your approved for a loan up to $40,000 and an interest rate
     as low as 1.9%.  Because of your preferred credit status,
     were going to give you a free smartwatch or a free three-day
     two-night cruise for two with five-star dining included
     aboard a Carnival or Royal Caribbean cruise line absolutely
     free.  Just for coming in this Friday or Saturday
     October 6th and 7th.  Please feel free to call me back, my
     names Ken and make an appointment to see me.  You can reach
     me at area code 863-588-4020.  That number again is
     863-588-4020.  Thanks so much, I look forward to speaking to
     you, my names Ken and I look forward to seeing you on the
     showroom floor.  Have a great day.

Monifa Grant moves to (1) certify the class with respect to the
claims for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act; (2)
to designate the Plaintiff as class representative; and (3) to
designate the law firms of Shamis & Gentile, P.A., IJH Law, Hiraldo
P.A., Edelsberg Law, P.A., and Eisenband Law P.A. as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (786) 496-4469
          E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 533-4092
          E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


RUDOLPH TECHNOLOGIES: Stein Files Suit Over Nano Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM STEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. RUDOLPH TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DAVID B.
MILLER, MICHAEL P. PLISINSKI, JOHN R. WHITTEN, DANIEL H. BERRY,
THOMAS G. GREIG, LEO BERLINGHIERI, VITA A. CASSESE, and JEFFREY A.
AUKERMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01615-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 29,
2019) is an action brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf
of himself and the other public holders of the common stock of
Rudolph Technologies, Inc. against the Company and the members of
the Company's board of directors for their violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,  in
connection with the proposed merger between Rudolph and Nanometrics
Incorporated ("Nano").

On June 23, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's
shareholders stand to receive 0.8042 shares of Nano common stock
for each share of Rudolph stock they own. Upon completion of the
merger, Rudolph shareholders will own approximately 50% and Nano
shareholders will own approximately 50% of the combined company.

On August 15, 2019, in order to convince Rudolph shareholders to
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4
Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
asserts the complaint. The materially incomplete and misleading S-4
violates both Regulation G and SEC Rule 14a-9, each of which
constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, it adds.

While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the S-4, Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and
rendering certain statements in the S-4 materially incomplete and
misleading. In particular, the S-4 contains materially incomplete
and misleading information concerning: (i) the financial
projections for the Company that were prepared by the Company and
relied on by Defendants in recommending that Rudolph shareholders
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of
certain valuation analyses conducted by Rudolph's financial
advisor, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC in support of its opinion that
the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the
Board relied, notes the complaint.

It is imperative that the material information that has been
omitted from the S-4 is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to
allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision
regarding the Proposed Transaction. For these reasons, Plaintiff
asserts claims against Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiff is a holder of Rudolph common stock.

Rudolph designs, develops, manufactures and supports process
control tools that perform macro defect inspections and metrology,
lithography systems, and process control analytical software used
by semiconductor and advanced packaging device manufacturers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 482-3182
     Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

          - and -

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Fax: (212) 983-9331
     Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
            jwilson@faruqilaw.com


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:SRPT) and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District Court,
for the Southern District of New York, and indexed under
19-cv-08122, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired
publicly traded Sarepta securities between September 6, 2017 and
August 19, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Sarepta securities during
the class period, you have until October 29, 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.

Sarepta purports to focus on the discovery and development of
ribonucleic acid ("RNA")-based therapeutics, gene therapy, and
other genetic medicine approaches for the treatment of rare
diseases.  Sarepta's products pipeline includes, among other drug
candidates, golodirsen for the treatment of duchenne muscular
dystrophy ("DMD").  Golodirsen purportedly binds to exon 53 of
dystrophin pre-mRNA, which results in exclusion or skipping of exon
during mRNA processing in patients with genetic mutations.

On September 6, 2017, pre-market, Sarepta announced positive muscle
biopsy results from its 4053-101 study, a Phase 1/2 first-in-human
study conducted in Europe to assess the safety, tolerability,
pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of golodirsen in twenty-five male
subjects with confirmed deletions of the DMD gene amenable to
skipping exon 53 (the "4053-101 Study").

According to Sarepta, the 4053-101 Study comprised two parts.  In
Part 1, twelve patients were randomized to receive a dose titration
of golodirsen (eight patients) or placebo (four patients).  At the
end of Part 1 (dose titration), all twelve patients continued on
golodirsen and an additional thirteen patients started golodirsen
(Part 2).  In Part 2, all twenty-five patients were treated for an
additional forty-eight weeks at the time of muscle biopsy.  The
analysis included biopsies of the bicep muscle at baseline and
on-treatment at the Part 2 Week 48 time point.

On February 14, 2019, Sarepta announced that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's ("FDA") Division of Neurology (the "FDA Neurology
Division") had accepted the Company's New Drug Application ("NDA")
"seeking accelerated approval for golodirsen (SRP-4053) and
provided a regulatory action date of August 19, 2019."  According
to Sarepta, the Company completed its NDA at the end of 2018 as
part of a rolling submission and requested priority review, which
was granted.  Additionally, the NDA included data from the 4053-101
Study.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding Sarepta's
business, operational and compliance policies.  Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) golodirsen posed significant safety risks to
patients; (ii) consequently, the NDA package for golodirsen's
accelerated approval was unlikely to receive FDA approval; and
(iii) as a result, Sarepta's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 19, 2019, post-market, Sarepta announced receipt of a
Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA regarding the
Company's NDA seeking accelerated approval of golodirsen for the
treatment of DMD.  Sarepta disclosed that "[t]he CRL generally
cites two concerns: the risk of infections related to intravenous
infusion ports and renal toxicity seen in pre-clinical models of
golodirsen and observed following administration of other antisense
oligonucleotides."

On this news, Sarepta's stock price fell $18.24 per share, or
15.16%, to close at $102.07 per share on August 20, 2019.

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

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


SCION GROUP: Cristales Sues Over SMS Ad Blasts
----------------------------------------------
Janelle Cristales and Marianna Carvajal, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Scion Group,
LLC, Case No. 19-cv-04950, (D. Ariz., August 13, 2019), Defendants,
seeks damages and remedies pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Scion Group operates residential communities in 53 campus
markets across the country, including in Tempe, Arizona where
Plaintiffs resided in the Cottages of Tempe. They claim to have
received advertising and marketing text messages on their cellular
telephone number despite opting out. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
      Austin, TX 78701
      Tel: (512) 803-1578
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


SELLSTATE RESULTS: Mailhot Files Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MAILHOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SELLSTATE RESULTS REALTY, INC. d/b/a
SELLSTATE PARTNERS REALTY, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-62184-RS
(S.D. Fla., Aug. 30, 2019) is a putative class action under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, arising from Defendant's
violations of the TCPA.

To solicit new clients, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing
with no regard for privacy rights of the recipients of those
messages, asserts the complaint. The Defendant caused thousands of
unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of
Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries, including
invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's illegal conduct. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages
on behalf of himself and Class Members, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant.

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

Defendant is a real estate brokerage based in Coral Springs,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
     HIRALDO P.A.
     401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954.400.4713
     Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

          - and -

     Michael Eisenband, Esq.
     EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
     515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954.533.4092
     Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com


SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in Class Suit vs. Directors Reached
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Entities who purchased or otherwise acquired SFX Entertainment,
Inc. common stock are being notified that a proposed settlement has
been reached in the case GUEVOURA FUND LTD., On Behalf of Itself
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT F.X.
SILLERMAN, D. GEOFFREY ARMSTRONG, JOHN MILLER and MICHAEL JOHN
MEYER, Defendants (S.D.N.Y. Case Nos. 1:15-cv-07192-CM and
1:18-cv-09784-CM).

The notice is for all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired SFX Entertainment, Inc. ("SFX") common stock
during the period between February 25, 2015 and November 17, 2015,
inclusive ("Class Period").

"The purpose of this Summary Publication Notice is to inform you of
the proposed Settlement of the above-entitled actions (the
"Action") against defendants D. Geoffrey Armstrong, John Miller,
Michael John Meyer, and Robert F.X. Sillerman ("Sillerman")
(collectively, "Director Defendants")," according to the notice.

A Settlement hearing will be held before the Honorable Colleen
McMahon, Chief United States District Judge, at the Daniel Patrick
Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY
10007, at 10:00 o'clock a.m. on December 13, 2019 in order:

    (1) to determine whether the proposed Settlement consisting of
$6,750,000.00 (U.S.) in cash to be caused by the Director
Defendants to be paid by their directors' and officers' insurance
carriers ("Director Defendants' Contribution") and from Defendant
Sillerman an allowed general unsecured dischargeable claim in the
amount of $750,000.00, not subject to objection, reduction or
setoff, in favor of Lead Plaintiff and the Class Members, in
Defendant Sillerman's bankruptcy proceeding ("Sillerman
Contribution") should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate
to the Class and the proposed Final Judgment entered;

    (2) to determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for
the proceeds of the Settlement is fair and reasonable, and should
be approved by the Court;

    (3) to determine whether the application by Lead Counsel for an
award of attorneys' fees not to exceed, in the aggregate,
thirty-three and one third percent (33 1/3%) of the Director
Defendants' Contribution and thirty-three and one third percent (33
1/3%) of the Sillerman Contribution, or portion(s) of the Sillerman
Contribution paid, if and/or when paid into the Settlement Fund,
plus reimbursement of Lead Counsel's reasonable out-of-pocket
litigation and notice and settlement administration expenses should
be approved;

    (4) to determine whether an award of reasonable costs and
expenses to Lead Plaintiff directly relating to its representation
of the Class should be approved; and

    (5) to rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem
appropriate.

"If you purchased or otherwise acquired SFX common stock from
February 25, 2015 through and including November 17, 2015, and are
not otherwise excluded from the Class, you are a Class Member."

"Excluded from the Class are the officers and directors of SFX
during the Class Period (including the Director Defendants,
Mitchell Slater, Andrew Bazos, Joseph Rascoff, Edward Simon,
Pasquale Manocchia, Howard Tytel, and Sheldon Finkel), members of
their immediate families, any entity in which they have or had a
controlling interest, and their respective legal representatives,
heirs, successors or assigns; the named plaintiffs in the Action
denominated: Altimeo Invesissement, Altimeo Optimum, et al. v.
Robert F.X. Sillerman, et al., Index No. 651084/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.
N.Y. Co.); and any Class Members who do not timely and properly
request exclusion from the Class. Class Members who do not timely
and properly request exclusion from the Class will be bound by the
Final Judgment of the District Court. If you are a Class Member, in
order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you
must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked no later than December 27,
2019, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. A Proof of
Claim is being sent with this Notice. If you are a Class Member and
need an additional Proof of Claim, copies may be obtained by
telephoning the Claims Administrator at 1-844-961-0313 or by
downloading the form on the internet at
www.SFXSecuritiesLitigation.com "

"If you do not wish to be included in the Class, you do not wish to
participate in the Settlement and you do not wish to receive a
distribution from the Net Settlement Fund, you may request to be
excluded, in the manner set forth in the full Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses, and Final Settlement Hearing ("Notice"), no later than
November 12, 2019. If you are a Class Member and do not timely and
validly request exclusion from the Class, and you wish to object to
the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Lead Counsel's application
for an award of attorneys' fees and/or reimbursement of expenses,
and/or Lead Plaintiff's request for an award of reasonable costs
and expenses, you may submit a written objection. If you are a
Class Member and do not timely and validly request exclusion from
the Class, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this
litigation, including the release and extinguishment of claims you
may possess relating to your purchase or acquisition of SFX common
stock during the Class Period.  You also may, but are not required
to, appear at the Settlement Hearing. You must file and serve your
written objection, in the manner specifically set forth in the
Notice, no later than November 12, 2019. "

A copy of the full Notice may be accessed at
http://www.SFXSecuritiesLitigation.com/and for additional
information, you may contact JND Legal Administration, the Claims
Administrator, at the following address or email:

     Guevoura Fund Ltd. v. Sillerman, et al.
     c/o JND Legal Administration
     PO Box 91202
     Seattle, WA 98111-9302
     Email: info@SFXSecuritiesLitigation.com


SHENANDOAH VALLEY: Doe Appeals W.D. Va. Decision to 4th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff John Doe, by and through his next friend, Nelson Lopez,
filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled John Doe,
et al. v. Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center Commission, Case No.
5:17-cv-00097-EKD-JCH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Virginia at Harrisonburg.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court issued a Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in
part the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Plaintiff John Doe 1 filed suit for declaratory and injunctive
relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, seeking to protect the
rights and interests of himself and a putative class of
unaccompanied alien children (UACs) detained at the juvenile
detention center (Center) operated by Defendant Shenandoah Valley
Juvenile Detention Center Commission (Commission).

The appellate case is captioned as John Doe, et al. v. Shenandoah
Valley Juvenile Center Commission, Case No. 19-1910, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN DOE, by and through his next friend,
NELSON LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Theodore A. Howard, Esq.
          WILEY REIN, LLP
          1776 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-0000
          Telephone: (202) 719-7120
          Facsimile: (202) 719-7049
          E-mail: thoward@wileyrein.com

               - and -

          Hannah E.M. Lieberman, Esq.
          WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE
          700 14th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036-0000
          Telephone: (202) 319-1000
          Facsimile: (202) 319-1010
          E-mail: Hannah_Lieberman@washlaw.org

Defendant-Appellee SHENANDOAH VALLEY JUVENILE CENTER COMMISSION is
represented by:

          Jason Alan Botkins, Esq.
          LITTEN & SIPE LLP
          410 Neff Avenue
          Harrisonburg, VA 22801-0000
          Telephone: (540) 434-5353
          E-mail: jason.botkins@littensipe.com

               - and -

          Harold Edward Johnson, Esq.
          WILLIAMS MULLEN
          P. O. Box 1320
          Richmond, VA 23218-1320
          Telephone: (804) 420-6447
          E-mail: hjohnson@williamsmullen.com


SHOP MA: Faces Nixon ADA Suit in Southern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shop Ma, Inc. The
case is captioned as Donald Nixon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff vs. Shop Ma, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07809-GBD (S.D.N.Y, Aug 20, 2019). The
suit alleges violation of Americans with Disabilities Act. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge George B. Daniels.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Buford Files PI Suit in E.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smitty's Supply Inc.
The case is styled as Sean Buford, On Behalf of Himself and all
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Smitty's Supply Inc.,
Tractor Supply Company, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00082-BRW
(E.D. Ark., Aug. 30, 2019).

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

Smitty's Supply, Inc. manufactures and distributes lubricants and
related products. The Company offers antifreeze, brake fluids,
chemicals, gear oils, greases, heavy duty engine oils, power
steering fluids, and synthetic oils.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bryan T. White, Esq.
     William Carr, Esq.
     White, Graham, Buckley, & Carr, L.L.C.
     19049 East Valley View Parkway
     Independence, MO 64055
     Phone: (816) 373-9080
     Fax: (816) 373-9319
     Email: bwhite@wagblaw.com
            bcarr@wagblaw.com

          - and -

     Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
     Johnson Firm
     610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Phone: 372-1300
     Email: chris@yourattorney.com

          - and -

     Dirk Hubbard, Esq.
     Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
     Horn Aylward & Bandy, LLC
     2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Phone: (816) 421-0700
     Fax: (816) 421-0899
     Email: dhubbard@hab-law.com
            tbender@hab-law.com

          - and -

     John G. Emerson, Jr., Esq.
     Emerson Scott LLP
     830 Apollo Lane
     Houston, TX 77058
     Phone: (281) 488-8854
     Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com


TRUMP CORP: Court Narrows Claims in RICO Suit
---------------------------------------------
In the case, JANE DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE TRUMP
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18 Civ. 9936 (LGS) (S.D.
N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court of the
Southern District of New York granted in part Defendants Donald J.
Trump, The Trump Corp., Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka
Trump's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

The case concerns an alleged fraudulent scheme to promote certain
third-party companies offering multi-level marketing and training
programs.  The Complaint asserts racketeering and conspiracy claims
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO").  It also asserts various state law claims.

For over a decade, the Defendants operated a complex enterprise
through which they promoted third-party companies offering
consumer-facing business opportunities and training programs.  The
companies included two "multi-level marketing" programs, ACN
Opportunity, LLC ("ACN") and TTN, LLC (doing business as "The Trump
Network"), and a "live-seminar program," Business Strategies Group,
LLC (doing business as "The Trump Institute").

In 2005, the Defendants agreed to promote and endorse ACN.  ACN is
a company offering products and services through independent
salespeople known as "Independent Business Owners," or "IBOs."  In
order to sell these products and services, IBOs must pay an initial
sign-up fee and an annual renewal fee.  From 2013 until 2016, these
fees were $499 and $149, respectively.  IBOs can earn commissions
for selling ACN products and services, and can receive additional
bonuses when they meet certain sales targets.  IBOs can also earn
money by recruiting others to sign up as IBOs.  When an existing
IBO recruits a new IBO, the recruit becomes part of the existing
IBO's "downline," and the existing IBO becomes part of the
recruit's "upline."  IBOs can receive a commission on the sales
generated by members of their downline.

Key to ACN's recruiting operation are small group events hosted by
IBOs in their own homes or at local hotels and event spaces.  These
meetings are the primary mechanism through which consumers are
recruited to become IBOs.  ACN also stages ticketed multi-day
events, often billed as "Training Events" or "International
Conventions."  These events function as motivational rallies and
are a substantial source of revenue for ACN.

In exchange for financial inducements that were never disclosed to
the public, the Defendants promoted and endorsed ACN in promotional
videos, in print and online media, at ACN events and in episodes of
The Celebrity Apprentice, a television program hosted by Trump that
featured Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump, Jr.  Through these
channels, the Defendants deliberately misled consumers regarding
the nature of ACN's business.

First, the Defendants misled consumers into believing that ACN
offered a reasonable probability of commercial success.  They
accomplished this by misrepresenting (a) the risk inherent in the
ACN business opportunity, (b) the profitability to consumers of the
ACN business opportunity and multi-level marketing programs in
general and (c) the market for ACN's products and services.
Second, Trump falsely represented that the reason he supported ACN
was because it offered a reasonable probability of commercial
success.  He never disclosed that he was being paid millions of
dollars for his endorsement.  Third, the Defendants falsely
represented that Trump's endorsement was predicated on appropriate
due diligence, inside information and personal experience with
ACN.

ACN's association with Trump and the Trump brand was "extremely
powerful in the minds of investors."  In published testimonials,
"IBOs attributed their decision to join ACN to Trump's
endorsement."

ACN was not the only third-party company to be promoted and
endorsed by the Defendants.  In the mid-2000s, a company affiliated
with Defendants, Trump University, LLC, entered into a licensing
agreement with Business Strategies Group, LLC to form "The Trump
Institute."  The Trump Institute was a live-seminar program that
purported to teach Trump's "secrets to success" in the real estate
industry.  In 2009, the Defendants entered into a licensing
agreement with Ideal Health, a multi-level marketing company.

Pursuant to this agreement, Ideal Health was officially rebranded
"The Trump Network."  As they had done with ACN, the Defendants
disseminated a series of knowingly false statements regarding The
Trump Institute and The Trump Network: (1) that the programs
offered consumers a reasonable probability of commercial success,
(2) that Trump endorsed the programs because they offered a
reasonable probability of commercial success and (3) that Trump's
endorsements were predicated on extensive due diligence, inside
information and personal experience.

Defendants Trump, The Trump Corp., Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump
and Ivanka Trump move to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state
a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Judge Schofield granted in in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted with respect
to the RICO claims (Counts I and II), and their motion is denied
with respect to the state law claims (Counts III through VIII).  

The RICO claims are dismissed because the Complaint does not
sufficiently plead that the Defendants' conduct was the proximate
cause of the Plaintiffs' losses.  Accordingly, the substantive RICO
and RICO conspiracy claims, Counts I and II, are dismissed.  

The Defendants' motion to dismiss the state law claims is denied
because the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  Among other things, the amount in
controversy element is satisfied because the Complaint asserts that
the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and the Defendants
have not demonstrated to a legal certainty that the Plaintiff could
not recover the amount alleged or that the damages alleged were
feigned to satisfy jurisdictional minimums.  The Complaint alleges
that there are at least tens of thousands of putative class
members, each of whom, like the Plaintiffs, suffered at least $500
in damages.  Moreover, Plaintiff Doe asserts actual damages of
approximately $5,500.  If only 910 class members asserted similar
damages (out of approximately 200,000 IBOs), the jurisdictional
amount would be met.  

The Judge denied as moot (i) the Plaintiffs' motion to strike, and
(ii) the Defendants' motion for oral argument.  The Clerk of Court
is respectfully directed to close the motion at Docket Nos. 83 and
87.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/JwCqA3 from Leagle.com.

Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Luke Loe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Richard Roe, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated & Mary Moe, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexander
J. Rodney -- arodney@kaplanhecker.com -- Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP,
Andrew G. Celli -- acelli@ecbalaw.com -- Emery Celli Brinckerhoff &
Abady, LLP, David Benjamin Berman, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady
LLP, Emily Carrie Cole, Kaplan & Company, LLP, John Charles Quinn,
Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, Joshua Adam Matz, Kaplan Hecker & Fink
LLP, Katherine R. Rosenfeld, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP,
Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP,
Matthew J. Craig, Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, Ogilvie Andrew Fraser
Wilson, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP & Roberta Ann Kaplan
-- rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com -- Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP.

The Trump Corporation, Donald J. Trump, in his personal capacity,
Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump & Ivanka Trump, Defendants,
represented by Joanna Calne Hendon -- jhendon@spearsimes.com --
Spears & Imes LLP, Andrew Lawrence Kincaid, U.S. District Court,
District of Mexico & Cynthia Chen -- cchen@spearsimes.com -- Spears
& Imes LLP.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Class Suit Over Gas Fuel Economy Claims Settled
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Butler, writing for TFL Car, reports that while Dieselgate
still lingers in our collective minds, as does the massive fine
implications, Volkswagen just announced a settlement of a class
action lawsuit surrounding fuel economy claims for its gasoline
engines. Approximately 98,000 of these 2013-2017 model year cars
were sold or leased in the United States, had a discrepancy of one
mile per gallon in their fuel economy ratings.

As part of the settlement, Volkswagen will compensate class members
who file a claim. Eligible owners will receive payments ranging
from $5.40 to $24.30 for each month they've owned or leased the
vehicle. Volkswagen says it will also adjust its Greenhouse Gas
credits to account for any excess credits it received from the fuel
economy discrepancy.

The adjustment is subject to approval from the Environmental
Protection Agency. The court also has to give its preliminary
approval, and Volkswagen will not admit any wrongdoing or liability
under the terms of the settlement. [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Vehicle Owners Get $98MM Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
Nathan Bomey, writing for USA Today, reports that owners of nearly
100,000 Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche and Bentley vehicles will get
almost $100 million after their parent company agreed to compensate
them for overstating the fuel economy performance of their
vehicles.

Each vehicle will qualify for a maximum of $518.40 to $2,332.80,
according to plaintiffs attorneys involved in the class-action
settlement.

It's difficult to say how much the settlement is worth for each
individual owner. That's because anyone who owned each qualifying
vehicle at any point is eligible for the settlement.

"We are very pleased to reach a settlement that provides owners and
lessees full compensation for having driven vehicles that did not
obtain the represented fuel economy," said David Stellings, Esq., a
Lieff Cabraser lawyer who represented the plaintiffs, in a
statement. "This is a great resolution for the class."

The Environmental Protection Agency said that Volkswagen Group,
which controls the four brands, had overstated the average fuel
economy on involved vehicles by an average of 1 mile per gallon.

The settlement involves a wide range of models from the 2013
through 2017 model years, most of which were Porsche, Audi and
Bentley vehicles, including the Porsche Cayenne and Audi A8L.

Payouts will range from $5.40 to $24.30 for every month someone
owned or leased the vehicle. Owners will be required to file a
claim to receive compensation after a court signs off.

The settlement comes after the EPA reached similar settlements in
recent years with several other automakers that overstated average
gas mileage, including BMW, Ford and Hyundai.

As a consequence of an EPA investigation, Volkswagen will forfeit
certain federal emissions credits. But the company did not admit
liability as a result of the settlement.

"Volkswagen is committed to providing customers with transparent
fuel economy data for our vehicles, in line with U.S. labeling
requirements," Pietro Zollino, Volkswagen spokesman, said in a
statement.

The EPA said it discovered during its investigation into
Volkswagen's diesel emissions scandal that the automaker had
installed software that enabled gasoline vehicles to perform better
during federal tests than in real life.

The software was used on about 1 million vehicles. Of those, 98,000
are included in the settlement after the EPA found that they had
incorrect fuel economy ratings due to the software.

The full list of vehicles getting their fuel economy performance
restated can be found at
http://epa.gov/recalls/fuel-economy-label-updates[GN]


WEST KENDALL: Gomez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
---------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES GOMEZ v. WEST KENDALL IMPORTS, LLC, Case No.
1:19-cv-23555-CMA (S.D. Fla., Aug. 23, 2019), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Gomez, a blind individual, brings this civil rights class
action against the Defendant for offering and maintaining an
Internet Web site that is not fully accessible and independently
usable by visually impaired individuals.

West Kendall Imports, LLC, is Florida Profit Limited Liability
Company, with its principal place in Miami Lakes, Florida.  The
Defendant either directly or through its subsidiaries and/or
partners and affiliates, owns, operates and/or maintains a vehicle
dealership located in Miami, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
          Beverly Virues, Esq.
          GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.
          4937 S.W. 74th Court
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 553-3464
          Facsimile: (305) 553-3031
          E-mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com
                  bvirues@lawgmp.com


YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Young Living
Essential Oils, LC. The case is styled as Linda Slade individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Young Living Essential Oils, LC, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-08116 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 30, 2019).

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

Young Living is a multi-level marketing company based in Lehi, Utah
that sells essential oils and other related products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



                            *********

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 ***