CAR_Public/190916.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, September 16, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 185

                            Headlines

10012 HOLDINGS: Mendez Asserts Breach of ADA
1185 COMEDY: Young Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
1412 BROADWAY: Young Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
21 RECTOR ST: Young Files ADA Class Action in New York
325 THIRNICBAR: Joint Bid for FLSA Class Cert. in Vasil Suit Filed

A.O. SMITH: City of Birmingham Sues over 36% Drop in Share Price
ABSINTHE GROUP: Dos Santos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ADT CORPORATION: Baker Suit Dimissed With Prejudice
AETNA LIFE: Faces Molloy Suit Over Denied Proton Beam Therapy
AMERICAN RENAL: Continues to Defend Vandevar Class Suit in NJ

AVENSO PHOTO: Mendez Alleges Violation under ADA
BELLS APPLIANCES: Underpays Installers, Alzugaray Alleges
BESHAY FOODS: Restaurant Not Accessible to Blind, Licea Alleges
BETTER PRODUCE: Altamirano-Santiago FLSA Class Has Cond. Cert.
BOEING COMPANY: Pilot K Sues Over Lost Wages, Emotional Distress

C & J CLARK: Removes Biddle Suit to C.D. California
CAPITAL ONE: Virginia Court Dismisses S. Dress Suit w/ Prejudice
CARTRIDGE WORLD: Court Certifies Class in Whiteamire JFPA Suit
CASH DEPOT: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in T. Fast FLSA Suit
CAUDILL VENTURES: Kirby Sues Over Unpaid Reimbursements

CENTRAL MAINE POWER: Levesque Questions Billing System
CHALK & VERMILION: Mendez Files ADA Class Suit in New York
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Court Narrows Claims in Zarinebaf Suit
CISCO LOGISTICS: Underpays Silo Supervisors, Dickerson Claims
CLARIS INTERNATIONAL: Overcharge Sales Tax, Florodora Alleges

CLIENT SERVICES: Court Approves Class Notice in Vandehey FDCPA Suit
CLUB DEMONSTRATION: Workstations Lack Seats, Belmonte Claims
CONN APPLIANCES: Discovery Plan & Scheduling Order in Edwards Nixed
D & M CARRIERS: Underpays Truck Drivers, Bromlow et al. Say
DJT FINE ART: Mendez Files Civil Rights Class Suit in New York

DOUBLE DOWN: Summary Judgment Bid in Navigators Partly Granted
DYNCORP INT'L: Denied Workers Wage Statements, Says Del Fierro
EAST VILLAGE: Fischler Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
ELDORADO RESORTS: Alquero Sues over Biometric Data Collection
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Fodera Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.

EXLSERVICE.COM: Underpays Call Center Agents, Collins Alleges
FCA US: Court OKs $1.2MM Attorney's Fees in Granillo
FISHERMAN'S CATCH: Young Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
FITZPATRICK HOTEL: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
FLEETWOOD TRANSPORTATION: Howard Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

FLOWERSCHOOL NEW YORK: Young Suit Asserts ADA Breach
GALERIE EVA: Mendez Files Class Suit in New York
GARDEN PHARMACY: Martinez Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Cashiers
GARTH GREENAN: Mendez Alleges Violation under ADA
GENESEE & WYOMING: Faces Gordon Suit over Proposed Merger

GODDADY.COM LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Drazen Suit Claims
HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Oda Antitrust Suit Over Sale of HDDs
HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES: Kluessendorf Alleges HDD Price-Fixing
HERB CHAMBERS: Tran Seeks Overtime Pay for Associates
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Fonseca Suit Removed to S.D. California

HOSPITALITY CONTROL: King Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
HP INC: Appeal in Jackson Class Action Still Pending
INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS: Cavada Suit Removed to S.D. California
JANKOSSEN CONTEMPORARY: Mendez Suit Asserts Breach of ADA
JB7 LLC: McLaughlin Files Fraud Class Suit in S.D. Florida

JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: Underpays Exotic Dancer, Benton Alleges
KEYES COMPANY: Greenberg Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
KING BIO: Dismissal of Amended Hoffman Consumer Fraud Suit Flipped
KIRKLAND'S INC: Miles Class Action in California Ongoing
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Brooks Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California

KUIFS PETROLEUM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clark Suit Alleges
LABORATORY CORPORATIONS: Gray PI Suit Transferred to N.J. Dist. Ct.
LOBEL'S OF NEW YORK: Cross Summary Judgment Bids in Diaz Denied
LOWE'S HOME: Brunson Sues Over Illegal Face Print Collection
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Gathmann-Landini Suit

MACY'S INC: Court Strikes Count VI in Amended Hawes Suit
MANHATTAN AND BRONX: McFarlane Sues over Loss of Pay & Benefits
MASON COUNTY, WA: Longshore Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
MCNALLY JACKSON: Young Files Class Suit under ADA
MDL 2670: 3 Classes in Packaged Seafood Antitrust Suit Certified

MDL 2795: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss CenturyLink Securities Suit
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Lewis Sues Over Defective Headrests
MID VALLEY COLLECTION: Freed Asserts Breach of FDCPA
MID VALLEY COLLECTION: Mancilla Files Class Suit under FDCPA
MITOUSHI SUSHI: Rotari Files Class Suit Under FLSA

NABIS DELICATESSEN: Damages Awards in Reyes FLSA/NYL Suit Endorsed
NATIONAL CAREER: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Axinn Suit Claims
NCB MANAGEMENT: Weiser Alleges Violation under FDCPA
NEELEY'S SERVICE: Craven Files Class Suit under FLSA
NKLG CAFE: Castelan Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff

NORDSON CORP: Continues to Defend Ortiz Class Suit in California
PAN-O-GOLD BAKING: Court Certifies Class in Hoverson Labor Suit
PATTERSON COS: Appeal in Dental Supplies Suit Pending
PATTERSON COS: Hatchett Class Action Ongoing in S.D. Illinois
PATTERSON COS: Kramer Class Suit Settled for De Minimis Amount

PATTERSON COS: Plymouth County Retirement Suit Pending
PENTAGON FEDERAL: Court Narrows Claims in EFTA Suit
PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Faces 6 IPO-Related Class Suits
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Moses Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
PRENLYN ENTERPRISES: Hooper Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing

R.A. KERLEY: Garcia Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
RALPHS GROCERY: Class Certification Denial in McLeod Suit Affirmed
RAVEL HOTEL: Young Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
REALPAGE INC: Jones Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
RESOLVE GROUP: Edwards Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

SANDERSON FARMS: Class Suit in North Carolina Remains Stayed
SANDERSON FARMS: Discovery in Broiler Chicken Stayed Until Sept. 27
SERVICE BY MEDALLION: Perez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Employees
SIGNET JEWELERS: Request to Appeal Class Cert. Order Pending
SIGNET JEWELERS: Still Awaits Court Decision on Claimants' Appeal

SITO MOBILE: Settlement in Roper Suit Underway
SIXX NOUVEAUXX: Fischler Files Class Suit under ADA
STONE POINT: Spinner Consulting Sues Over Sherman Act Violation
SURETEMPS LLC: Court OKs FLSA Class Settlement in Catherine Suit
T-MOBILE USA: Court Enters Judgment in J. Black Labor Suit

TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Metcalf Claims
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Bolton Files FDCPA Class Suit in S.C.
TRUECAR INC: Milbeck Sues Over 35% Decline in Share Price
TUFTS ASSOCIATED: Drake Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Can Compel Arbitration in Epps-Stowers Suit

UNITED ODD: Faces Basil Labor Class Action in New York
UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA: Class 3 Certification in Knudsen Vacated
WISE BAR & GRILL: Faustov Suit Hits Withheld Tips, Claims Overtime
WOODLAWN MOTOR: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Says Fleet
WYNDHAM VACATION: Timeshare Tenants File Suit Over Onerous Contract

ZF TRW: Car Owners Sue Over Defective Air Bag Control Units

                            *********

10012 HOLDINGS: Mendez Asserts Breach of ADA
--------------------------------------------
10012 Holdings Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Himelda Mendez and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 10012 Holdings Inc, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-08466 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 11, 2019).

10012 Holdings Inc is a full service gallery and art advisory
located in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




1185 COMEDY: Young Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
1185 Comedy Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Lawrence
Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 1185 Comedy Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-08433 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 11, 2019).

1185 Comedy Inc. is a liquor premise licensed in New York
State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
   Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
   100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 317-2453
   Fax: (516) 706-4692
   Email: ds@lawsolo.net


1412 BROADWAY: Young Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------
1412 Broadway Rooftop LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1412 Broadway Rooftop LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08406-JPO (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 10, 2019).

1412 Broadway Rooftop LLC offers progressive mixology and a light
fare menu.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
   Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
   100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 317-2453
   Fax: (516) 706-4692
   Email: ds@lawsolo.net


21 RECTOR ST: Young Files ADA Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------
21 Rector St LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Lawrence
Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 21 Rector St LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-08430 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 11, 2019).

21 Rector St LLC, doing business as Sauce & Barrel, is a domestic
limited liability company, licensed to sell liquor in New York
State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
   Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
   100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 317-2453
   Fax: (516) 706-4692
   Email: ds@lawsolo.net

325 THIRNICBAR: Joint Bid for FLSA Class Cert. in Vasil Suit Filed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit styled ANDREW VASIL, and all others
similarly situated v. 325 THIRNICBAR, LLC, ET AL., Case No.
1:19-cv-00540-LY (W.D. Tex.), file with the Court their agreed
motion for conditional certification of collective action and for
notice to putative class members.

The Parties seek entry of an Agreed Order permitting, under court
supervision, notice to:

     ALL CURRENT OR FORMER EMPLOYEES OF THIRSTY NICKEL, TOULOUSE,
     THE LIBRARY, AND MOOSEKNUCKLE PUB, ON 6TH STREET IN AUSTIN,
     TEXAS, WHO WORKED AT THOSE BARS AS BAR BACKS, BARTENDERS OR
     FRONT DOOR WORKERS AT ANY TIME DURING THE THREE (3) YEARS
     PRECEDING THE DATE THE ORDER FOR CERTIFICATION IS ENTERED
     THROUGH JUNE 1, 2019.

The Plaintiff and the Defendants agree and stipulate that the class
as defined consists of individuals who can be treated as similarly
situated to Plaintiff only for purposes of a conditional
certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and the Defendants reserve all rights.

The Parties also ask the Court to enter the submitted Agreed Order
requiring the Defendants to furnish the Plaintiff's counsel with a
complete and accurate list of the names and last known addresses of
the potential class members within 30 days of entry of the Order by
the Court, and to approve the issuance of notice and consent to
join forms submitted by the Parties herewith.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
          Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
          ROSS SCALISE LAW GROUP
          1104 San Antonio Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474-7677
          Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
          E-mail: charles@rosslawgroup.com
                  dan@rosslawgroup.com

Defendants TWIN BAR MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, JOHN MCIVER, AND MIKE
MCIVER are represented by:

          Christopher C. Wike, Esq.
          HAJJAR PETERS LLP
          3144 Bee Caves Road
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 637-4956
          Facsimile: (512) 637-4958
          E-mail: chris.wike@legalstrategy.com

Defendants 325 THIRNICBAR LLC, 406 BARMOOSE LLC, 409-413 EAST SIXTH
STREET BEVERAGE COMPANY, LLC, 407 BAR, INC., AND 411 FIRST FLOOR,
INC. are represented by:

          Julie A. Springer, Esq.
          Matt C. Wood, Esq.
          WEISBART SPRINGER HAYES LLP
          212 Lavaca Street, Suite 200
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 652-5780
          Facsimile: (512) 682-2074
          E-mail: jspringer@wshllp.com
                  mwood@wshllp.com

Defendant DAVID DESILVA is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Taylor, Esq.
          Pierce P. MacGuire, Esq.
          TAYLOR THUSS, PLLC
          919 Congress Ave., Suite 900
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 368-9186
          Facsimile: (512) 368-9014
          E-mail: jeff@taylorthuss.com


A.O. SMITH: City of Birmingham Sues over 36% Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM RETIREMENT AND RELIEF SYSTEM, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A.O. SMITH
CORPORATION; AJITA RAJENDRA; KEVIN WHEELER; and JOHN KITA,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01198 (E.D. Wis., Aug. 19, 2019) is a
federal securities class action brought on behalf of all persons or
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired A.O. Smith common
stock from July 26, 2016 and May 16, 2019, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants violated the Exchange
Act by publishing false and misleading statements to artificially
inflate the Company's stock price.

According to the complaint, on April 30, 2019, A.O. Smith reported
disappointing financial results for its first fiscal quarter of
2019. Quarterly sales declined 5% to $748.2 million, while net
quarterly earnings declined approximately 7% to $89.3 million. The
primary reasons for the disappointing results were adverse business
trends in China and plummeting Chinese sales, which had been masked
by the Defendants' prior misstatements. Quarterly sales in A.O.
Smith's Rest of World segment fell 21% to $232.1 million, including
an 18% decline in Chinese sales on a local currency basis. Even
more shocking, quarterly earnings for the segment fell more than
65% year-over-year to only $12.3 million.

On this news, the price of A.O. Smith common stock fell 6% to
$52.57 per share on abnormally high volume of over 4.8 million
shares.

However, because investors did not know the full truth about A.O.
Smith's use of an undisclosed distribution partner to inflate its
earnings and sales results in China, the price of A.O. Smith stock
remained artificially inflated. Instead, the Defendants continued
to conceal the scheme, for example -- by playing off, during an
April 30, 2019 earnings call, the weakness in China as temporary
and related to macro events with improvement expected in the second
half of the year.

On May 16, 2019, J Capital Research USA LLC issued a scathing
report on A.O. Smith's China operations and undisclosed
relationship with Jiangsu UTP Supply Chain, a partner in China.
The 66-page report charged A.O. Smith with inflating its sales and
earnings figures and concealing adverse business trends in China
through its undisclosed distributor relationship with UTP. The
report also stated that A.O. Smith's purported $539 million in cash
in China had been tied up in the scheme.

On this news, the price of A.O. Smith common stock fell 6% to
$45.12 per share on abnormally high volume of over 13.5 million
shares.

While A.O. Smith issued a press release purportedly denying the
allegations, in so doing it admitted that the Company did in fact
have substantial business interests in China with UTP. Following
this unsatisfactory response by the Company, the price of A.O.
Smith stock did not recover, but instead continued to fall closing
at $43.26 per share on May 20, 2019, 36% below the Class Period
high of more than $68 per share.

A.O. Smith Corporation manufactures residential and commercial
water heating and water treatment equipment. The Company
distributes its products worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Kaplan, Esq.
          Brandon Marsh, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          12750 High Bluff Drive, Suite 475
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 997-0860
          Facsimile: (858) 369-0096
          E-mail: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com
                  bmarsh@saxenawhite.com

               - and -

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          Dianne M. Pitre, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          150 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  lhooker@saxenawhite.com
                  dpitre@saxenawhite.com

               - and -

          Steven B. Singer, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          10 Bank Street, 8th Floor
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 437-8551
          E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com

               - and -

          Mary C. Flanner, Esq.
          Nola J. Hitchcock Cross, Esq.
          CROSS LAW FIRM, S.C.
          845 N. 11th Street
          Milwaukee, WI 53233
          Telephone: (414) 224-0000
          Facsimile: (414) 273-7055
          E-mail: mflanner@crosslawfirm.com
                  njhcross@crosslawfirm.com


ABSINTHE GROUP: Dos Santos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against THE ABSINTHE GROUP,
INC. The case is styled as JOSUE RODRIGUES DOS SANTOS, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. THE ABSINTHE
GROUP, INC., DOES 1 TO 50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No.
CGC19579094 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Sept. 9, 2019).

The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS".

The Absinthe Group Inc. (trade name Absinthe) is in the Italian
Restaurant business.[BN]


ADT CORPORATION: Baker Suit Dimissed With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Colin S. Bruce issued an order lifting stay and
dismissing action with prejudice in the lawsuit styled DALE BAKER
and STEPHANIE HALLAM DILLARD, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE ADT CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, and ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT SECURITY SERVICES, a Florida
limited liability company, Case No. 2:15-cv-02038-CSB-EIL (C.D.
Ill.).

Plaintiffs Dale Baker and Stephanie Hallam Dillard and Defendants
ADT Corporation and ADT LLC have jointly moved the Court pursuant
to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to lift
the stay of the action by order entered on January 24, 2017.

In the instant Order, Judge Bruce ruled that the action is
dismissed with prejudice, all parties to bear their own costs,
expenses, and fees except as provided under the Settlement
Agreement approved on July 22, 2019, in Michael Edenborough v. ADT,
LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-02233-JST
(N.D. Cal.).  All pending motions are moot and the case is
terminated.[CC]


AETNA LIFE: Faces Molloy Suit Over Denied Proton Beam Therapy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Molloy and Jacqueline Molloy, h/w on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Aetna Life Insurance Company and
Aetna Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-03902-AB (E.D. Pa., Aug. 28, 2019), is
brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 on behalf of members, participants, and beneficiaries of an
employee welfare benefit plan administered by Aetna Life Insurance
Company (through its parent company Aetna Inc.), who were denied
proton beam therapy.

The denial is due to Aetna's uniform application of an arbitrary
medical policy, despite Aetna's statutorily mandated requirement to
act as fiduciaries with respect to the Plan solely in the interest
of the participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose
of: (1) providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries;
and (2) defraying reasonable expenses of administering the Plan,
the Plaintiffs contend.

Aetna Life Insurance Company ("ALIC") is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut, with its
principal place of business located in Hartford, Connecticut.
Aetna Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Aetna
Inc.  ALIC is licensed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Insurance to conduct business as an insurance company
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  ALIC, through its parent
corporation Aetna Inc., is in the business of providing,
administering and insuring health plans to consumers in this
judicial district.

Aetna Inc. is the parent company of ALIC.  It is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business located in
Hartford.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David S. Senoff, Esq.
          Hillary B. Weinstein, Esq.
          FIRST LAW STRATEGY GROUP, LLC
          121 S. Broad Street, Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 258-4700
          E-mail: dsenoff@firstlawstrategy.com
                  hweinstein@firstlawstrategy.com

               - and -

          Richard Ochroch, Esq.
          Brett N. Benton, Esq.
          RICHARD M. OCHROCH & ASSOCIATES
          318 South 16th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 893-4209
          E-mail: bbenton@ochroch-law.com
                  rochroch@ochroch-law.com


AMERICAN RENAL: Continues to Defend Vandevar Class Suit in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019,
that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action
suit captioned Ali Vandevar, et al. v. American Renal Associates
Holdings Inc., et al., No. 19-09074-ES-MA.

On March 28, 2019 and April 19, 2019, putative shareholder class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of
its current and former executive officers.

Both complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder related to the matters disclosed in the March 27 Form
8-K and certain prior filings.

The complaints seek unspecified damages on behalf of the
individuals or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired ARA's
securities from August 10, 2016 to March 27, 2019.

On July 3, 2019, the complaints were consolidated and a lead
plaintiff was appointed for the putative shareholder class action
complaint, captioned Ali Vandevar, et al. v. American Renal
Associates Holdings Inc., et al., No. 19-09074-ES-MA.

The Company, the Board, and its current and former executive
officers could become subject to additional litigation relating to
these matters.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims.

American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. is a national provider of
kidney dialysis services for patients suffering from chronic kidney
failure, also known as end stage renal disease, or ESRD. As of
March 31, 2017, the Company owned and operated 217 dialysis clinics
treating 14,735 patients in 25 states and the District of Columbia.
The Company's operating model is based on shared ownership of its
facilities with physicians, known as nephrologists, who specialize
in treating kidney-related diseases in the local market served by
the clinic. Each clinic is maintained as a separate joint venture,
or JV, in which the Company has a controlling interest and its
local nephrologist partners have noncontrolling interests.


AVENSO PHOTO: Mendez Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------
Avenso Photo Art, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Himelda Mendez and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Avenso Photo Art, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-08468 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 11, 2019).

Avenso Photo Art, Inc. is a privately held company in New York,
categorized under Merchandise Brokers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BELLS APPLIANCES: Underpays Installers, Alzugaray Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK ALZUGARAY JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELL'S APPLIANCES OF CORAL GABLES
INC.; and WILLIAM CABAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-23579-FAM
(S.D. Fla., Aug. 26, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's
failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Alzugaray Jr. was employed by the Defendants as
installer.

Bell's Appliances of Coral Gables Inc. is engaged in the business
of wholesale distribution of electrical appliances, television and
radio sets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Henry Hernandez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF HENRY HERNANDEZ, P.A.
          2655 S. Le Jeune Road, Suite 802
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 771-3374
          E-mail: Henry@hhlawflorida.com

                - and -

          Monica Espino, Esq.
          ESPINO LAW
          2655 S. Le Jeune Road, Suite 802
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 704-3172
          E-mail: me@espino-law.com


BESHAY FOODS: Restaurant Not Accessible to Blind, Licea Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN LICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BESHAY FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
19CV1565JMWVG (S.D. Cal., Aug. 20, 2019) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a legally blind
individual. The Plaintiff regularly has occasion to dine at fast
food restaurants. The Plaintiff was denied full access to the
Defendant's facilities due to its use of inaccessible soda fountain
dispensers and its failure to affirmatively offer or provide
assistance to the Plaintiff with the otherwise inaccessible soda
fountain dispensers. As such, the Plaintiff was denied the full and
equal access to and enjoyment of the Defendant's goods, services,
and facilities in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Beshay Foods, Inc. owns, operates, leases, and maintains 13 fast
food hamburger restaurants under the trade name Jack in the Box in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Eric D. Zard, Esq.
           CARLSON  LYNCH LLP
           1350 Columbia St., Suite 603
           San Diego, CA, 92101
           Telephone: (619) 762-1905
           Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
           E-mail: ezard@carlsonlynch.com

                - and -

           R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
           CARLSON LYNCH LLP
           1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor
           Pittsburgh, PA 15222
           Telephone: (412) 322-9243
           Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
           E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com

                - and -

           Gerald D. Wells III, Esq.
           CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
           101 Lindenwood Drive, Suite 225
           Malvern, PA 19355
           Telephone: (610) 822-3700
           Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
           E-mail: gwells@cwglaw.com


BETTER PRODUCE: Altamirano-Santiago FLSA Class Has Cond. Cert.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MANUEL DE JESUS ALTAMIRANO-SANTIAGO, LUCIO
MENDOZA-CASTRO, FREDI SAUL CANSECO-VASQUEZ, and others similarly
situated Plaintiffs, v. BETTER PRODUCE, INC., RANCHO DEL MAR, INC.,
C.J.J. FARMING, INC., and JUAN CISNEROS, Defendants, Case Case No.
19-cv-3964 DDP (FFMx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify FLSA Collective Action.

Plaintiffs are "agricultural workers imported from Mexico by
Defendants to work in Defendants' strawberry fields."  The
Defendants are Rancho del Mar, Better Produce, Inc., C.J.J.
Farming, Inc., all California corporations with their principal
place of business in Santa Maria, California, and Juan Cisneros,
Chief Executive Officer of all corporate defendants (collectively,
"Defendants"). Defendant Rancho del Mar "functions as a farm labor
contractor for Defendants Better Produce and C.J.J. Farming."

The Plaintiffs were recruited from Oaxaca to work for the
Defendants under the "H-2A program."  Under the H-2A program, an
agricultural employer may import workers to work in agriculture on
a temporary basis.  Employers file a temporary labor certification
with the U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") including a job offer,
known as a "job order."  The job order contains the terms to be
offered to both foreign H-2A workers and domestic workers
throughout the United States.  The terms and conditions of the job
orders, together with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. part 655,
constituted employment contracts for the Plaintiffs, the Opt-in
Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated.

The Plaintiffs completed visa paperwork with an individual from the
office of Defendant Better Produce.  They allege that they were
required to obtain a passport at their own expense without
reimbursement from the Defendants.  Further, they allege that they
were instructed to travel from Oaxaca to the U.S. Consulate and
were required to pay the cost of travel, hotel expenses, the fee to
cross the U.S.-Mexican border, and the subsistence costs on the
travel from the border to Santa Maria, California.  These costs
were necessary to them and others similarly situated and were not
reimbursed by the Defendants.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs allege that each season, a supervisor
for the Defendants collected fees from each Plaintiff and others
similarly situated in the amount of $675.  The supervisor indicated
that this fee was meant to cover some of the Defendants' expenses
in recruiting foreign workers.  The Plaintiffs also allege that
their return travel expenses were the Defendants' contractual
obligation, but the Plaintiffs arranged their own travel, and paid
their own expenses to return to their homes in Oaxaca.

While working for the Defendants, the Plaintiffs allege that they
worked Monday through Saturday, and that the Defendants assigned
work on most Sundays.  For this seventh day of work, the Defendants
compensated the Plaintiffs without the required overtime premium
and used a separate company controlled by them, C.J.J. Farming, to
hide their violations of the law.  They further allege the
Defendants did not compensate their travel and wait time to go to
work, the Plaintiffs did not always receive a timely meal period, a
30-minute meal period, or required rest breaks.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs bring the suit claiming
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), violations of
California's Labor Code, violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, and breach of contract.

The Plaintiffs now move for conditional collective action
certification under FLSA.  Following oral argument on the present
motion, the court ordered the parties to submit a revised proposed
notice reflecting the parties' agreed upon changes and identifying
terms the party seeks to include and terms to which the party
objects.  Accordingly, the parties submitted revised proposed
notices.

Judge Pregerson finds that the allegations that the Defendants' job
orders included the same terms offered to foreign H-2A workers and
domestic workers, and allegations of the Defendants' practice of
failing to reimburse travel expenses, are sufficient to authorize
notice to all the potential opt-in Plaintiffs.  The potential
opt-in Plaintiffs, H-2A and domestic workers, are similarly
situated because they are alleged to be subject to the same job
order terms, including terms that required Defendants to reimburse
travel expenses, had similar job positions, planting and harvesting
positions, and were allegedly subject to the same company-wide
policy.

Whether the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the
potential opt-in Plaintiffs minimum wage as a result of a common
practice of not reimbursing travel expenses is a similar issue of
law material to the disposition of the FLSA claims, regardless of
whether the opt-in Pplaintiffs traveled from Mexico under the H-2A
program, or from other domestic locations.  FLSA's minimum wage
requirements apply to H-2A workers and domestic workers—it is
enforceable by any worker irrespective of status.  Thus, potential
factual dissimilarities here, such as whether a farmworker was an
H-2A worker or domestic worker, does not defeat collective
treatment and notice should be provided to potential opt-in H-2A
workers and domestic workers.

At this stage, the Judge finds that conditional certification for
the purposes of sending notice to the potential opt-in Plaintiffs
is appropriate.  The Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification of FLSA class action is granted.  Further, having
considered the parties' separate proposed notices, he approves the
parties' agreed upon changes and denies the Defendants' proposed
additions to the notice for the reasons discussed.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Pregerson granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification of FLSA class action.  The
conditional collective action will be comprised of all individuals
who performed planting or harvesting for Rancho del Mar, Inc.,
Better Produce, Inc., and/or Juan Cisneros in the years 2016, 2017,
or 2018.

The Defendants provide the Plaintiffs with the names, last known
permanent addresses, email addresses, and WhatsApp account numbers
of all workers who performed planting or harvesting work during the
2016 through 2018 time period within 14 days from the date of the
Order.

The attached notice to the Order is approved.  The Plaintiffs will
have five months from the date on which they receive contact
information to distribute the approved notice.  The approved notice
will be posted at the Defendants' worksites and each housing
location used for current workers.

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

Manuel de Jesus Altamirano-Santiago, and others similarly situated,
Lucio Mendoza-Castro, and others similarly situated & Fredi Saul
Canseco-Vasquez, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Dawson McKinnon Morton --
dawson@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com -- Law Offices of Santos Gomez &
Santos Gomez -- santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com -- Law Offices
of Santos Gomez.

Better Produce, Inc., Rancho del Mar, Inc., C.J.J. Farming, Inc. &
Juan Cisneros, Defendants, represented by Vincent Thomas Martinez,
Twitchell and Rice LLP.


BOEING COMPANY: Pilot K Sues Over Lost Wages, Emotional Distress
----------------------------------------------------------------
PILOT K, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05913 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 4, 2019) is a
Complaint seeking compensation on behalf of the Plaintiff and
approximately 150 other pilots qualified to fly the Boeing 737 MAX
series of aircraft as employees of an international airline.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff's personal and professional
life was disrupted when BOEING and the Federal Aviation
Administration engaged in an unprecedented cover-up of known design
flaws of the MAX, which predictably resulted in the crashes of two
MAX aircraft and grounding of all MAX aircraft worldwide. The
Plaintiff relied on BOEING's representations that the MAX was safe
when the Plaintiff chose to qualify to fly the MAX, and the
Plaintiff suffered significant lost wages, among other economic and
non-economic damages, when the MAX was grounded with no end in
sight, the complaint notes.

Additionally, the Plaintiff suffered severe emotional and mental
distress when the Plaintiff was compelled to fly the MAX--placing
the Plaintiff's life and the lives of the crews and passengers in
danger--despite the growing awareness of the dangerous nature of
the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (the "MCAS")
and other problems that BOEING had previously concealed or failed
to disclose to the Plaintiff.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, requests entry of a judgment against
BOEING in an amount that will make the Plaintiff whole and deter
BOEING and other manufacturers from valuing corporate profits over
human life, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was a Thailand citizen and licensed pilot employed by an
international airline that employed approximately 150 pilots who
are qualified to operate the MAX, and who are citizens of many
different nations, including the United States.

BOEING and Airbus SE maintain a global duopoly of the commercial
aircraft manufacturing industry with the two companies making up
99% of commercial jet orders worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Patrick M. Jones, Esq.
     Sarah M. Beaujour, Esq.
     PMJ PLLC
     100 South State Street
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 255-7976
     Email: pmj@patjonespllc.com
            smb@pa~jonespllc.com

          - and -

     Joseph C. Wheeler, Esq.
     IALPG PTY LTD (t/as International Aerospace Law & Policy
Group)
     ID, 7/139 Junction Road
     Clayfield, Queensland, Australia 4011
     Phone: +61 7 3040 1099
     Email: jwheeler@ialpg.com


C & J CLARK: Removes Biddle Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of MACKENSIE BIDDLE, individually, and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C & J CLARK
RETAIL, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, filed
a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Orange (Case No. 30-2019
01083460-CU-OE-CXC) to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on August 22, 2019. The clerk of court for
the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-01624.
The case is assigned to James V Selna and referred to Magistrate
Autumn D Spaeth.

C & J Clark Retail Inc. operates an online shopping portal. The
Company retails footwear, clothing, and accessories for men, women,
and children. Clark C & J Retail serves in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald P. Sullivan, Esq.
          Mariko Mae Ashley, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          50 California Street, 9th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
          Telephone: (415) 394-9400
          Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
          E-mail: donald.sullivan@jacksonlewis.com
                  mariko.ashley@jacksonlewis.com


CAPITAL ONE: Virginia Court Dismisses S. Dress Suit w/ Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUSAN DRESS, AMY EDWARDS, and STEPHANIE BARNETT, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., Defendant, Civil No. 1:19-cv-00343
(E.D. Va.), Judge Liam O'Grady of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, granted the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

The Plaintiffs each have Capital One credit cards and dispute
Capital One's authority to charge them interest on new purchases
when they pay off their account balance in full by the due date of
their next monthly statement, but had not paid off their account
balance in full by the due date of their previous monthly
statement.

The Capital One Customer Agreement includes relevant provisions
regarding charging interest.  The monthly billing statements sent
to the Plaintiffs, which were incorporated by reference into the
Customer Agreement, included slightly different, yet consistent,
disclosures regarding interest.  

When Plaintiffs Barnett and Edwards contacted Capital One about the
terms of their credit card agreements, Capital One provided them
with a copy of the Capital One Customer Agreement and summarized
the key current terms in a "Current Terms Letter."  In the Current
Terms Letter, Capital One stated that it will not charge interest
on new purchases, provided they have paid theirprevious balance in
full by the due date each month.

The Plaintiffs have raised four claims against Defendant Capital
One Bank on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated:
(I) breach of contract, (II) breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, (III) violation of Massachusetts's unfair
competition and unfair or deceptive practices act, Massachusetts
General Laws, Chapter 93A,1 and (IV) violation of the fraudulent
prong of California's Unfair Competition Law.

Capital One has moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
in its entirety, arguing that Plaintiff Dress lacks standing and
that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim because the
parties' agreements clearly establish that Capital One has the
authority to charge interest on new purchases made after a Capital
One customer failed to pay off his or her full account balance by
the due date of the previous monthly statement.

The matter comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss.  Capital One argues that the Plaintiff Dress lacks
standing to pursue monetary damages because she received a
pre-litigation refund of the $20.83 interest charge she challenges
in the Amended Complaint.

First, Judge O'Grady finds that entitlement to statutory damages,
in and of itself, does not establish the requisite injury-in-fact
for standing.  Second, c]ourts have made clear that the standing
requirement cannot be dispensed with by styling a complaint as a
class action the plaintiff still must allege a distinct and
palpable injury to herself, even if it is an injury shared by a
large class of other possible litigants.  Finally, Dress has failed
to sufficiently plead actual injury for the lost time value of the
roughly $21 that she has since been refunded.  Plaintiff Dress
therefore lacks standing to pursue any of her claims seeking
monetary damages.  

Plaintiff Dress also lacks standing to sue for injunctive relief.
She has failed to show any such certainly impending injury as she
reduced her Capital One account balance to $0 in February 2018 and
has not made a single charge to her account in the almost year and
a half since.

Next, to survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual
information to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.  The Judge finds that the parties' agreements in the case
unambiguously give Capital One the authority to charge interest on
new purchases if the customer failed to pay off the full account
balance by the due date of the previous monthly statement
regardless of whether the customer pays off the full account
balance by the due date of the next monthly statement.  

As the Plaintiffs' claims all rest on a theory that the language in
the customer agreements is ambiguous or misleading, all of their
claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.  As a
result, the Plaintiffs' Massachusetts Chapter 93A claim (Claim III)
and California Unfair Competition Law claim (Claim IV) must also be
dismissed for failure to state a claim.

For the reasons stated, and for good cause shown, Judge O'Grady
granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim.  Finding that amendment would be futile, the Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/4VmNS1 from Leagle.com.

Susan Dress, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Amy Edwards & Stephanie Barnett, Plaintiffs, represented
by Bernard Joseph DiMuro -- bdimuro@dimuro.com -- DiMuroGinsberg
PC, Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel -- admin@kalielpllc.com -- Kaliel PLLC,
pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Migliaccio -- nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
-- Migliaccio & Rathod, LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick J. Sheehan --
psheehan@whatleykallas.com -- Whatley Kallas, LLP, Sophia Goren
Gold -- sgold@kalielpllc.com -- Kaliel PLLC, pro hac vice & Jason
S. Rathod -- jrathod@classlawdc.com -- Migliaccio & Rathod, LLP,
pro hac vice.

Capital One Bank (U.S.A.), N.A., Defendant, represented by Andrew
Soukup -- asoukup@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, pro hac vice,
Jessica Merry Samuels -- jsamuels@cov.com -- Covington & Burling
LLP & Michael M. Maya -- mmaya@cov.com -- Covington & Burling.


CARTRIDGE WORLD: Court Certifies Class in Whiteamire JFPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WHITEAMIRE CLINIC, P.A. INC., Plaintiff, v. CARTRIDGE
WORLD NORTH AMERICA, LLC., ET AL., Defendant, Case No. 1:16CV00226
(N.D. Ohio), Judge Christopher A. Boyko of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

On July 3, 2012, Plaintiff Whiteamire Clinic received a facsimile
("the 7/3 Fax Ad") advertising Defendant Cartridge World's
printers, ink, toner and other products.  On July 16, 2012, the
Plaintiff received an identical facsimile ("the 7/6 Fax Ad")
advertising the Defendant's printers, ink, toner and other
products.  The faxes included marketing inducements such as "30%
savings" and "FREE DELIVERY."  The Plaintiff did not give
permission for the Defendant to send the 7/3 and 7/16 Fax Ads.

The 7/3 Fax Ad and 7/16 Fax Ad were part of a conventional
advertising campaign managed by Thomas McLaughlin, Cartridge
World's Marketing Director at that time.  MComm Group, a design
firm, created the layout for the advertisement and hired USADATA to
compile a list of potential business customers.  MComm then hired
PIP Printing to transmit the 7/3 and 7/16 Fax Ads to the customer
list purchased from USADATA.  

PIP Printing utilized RingCentral, a telecommunication services
provider, for the transmission of the advertisement.  RingCentral
produced PIP Printing's fax log data from the transmissions via an
Excel spreadsheet.  The RingCentral 046 Spreadsheet data shows PIP
Printing transmitted the 7/3 Fax Ad on July 3, 2012 to 9337 fax
numbers, 5623 of which were successful.  The Spreadsheet also shows
that on July 16, 2012, PIP Printing transmitted the 7/16 Fax Ad to
4639 fax numbers, 2963 of which were successful.

On Feb. 1, 2016, the Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and a putative
class, filed the action for injunction, statutory and treble
damages resulting from violations of the Junk Fax Prevention Act
("JFPA").  The JFPA makes the sending of unsolicited advertisements
via facsimile unlawful.

The proposed class is defined as all subscribers of accounts (or
other persons/entities) associated with (1) the fax numbers listed
in the RingCentral 046 Spreadsheet (2) successfully sent a fax with
'start time' of July 3, 2012 or July 16, 2012.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3) made up of entities or person who received the 7/3 Fax Ad
or the 7/16 Fax Ad.

Judge Boyko concludes that the Sixth Circuit will uphold a motion
for class certification when a plaintiff sufficiently sets forth
evidence that: (1) the putative class is sufficiently defined; (2)
the proposed class meets the requirements of numerosity,
commonality, typicality and adequacy of counsel and representation;
and (3) the putative class meets one of the requirements under Rule
23(b), predominance and superiority.  In the present case, he finds
that the Plaintiff sufficiently set forth evidence to meet each
requirement.  For these reasons, he granted the Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/2bHggj from Leagle.com.

Whiteamire Clinic P.A., Inc., individually, and as the
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Wanca --
bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, George D. Jonson --
gjonson@mojolaw.com -- Montgomery, Rennie & Jonson, Matthew Elton
Stubbs -- mstubbs@mojolaw.com -- Montgomery, Rennie & Jonson, Ross
M. Good -- rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca & Ryan M.
Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca.

Cartridge World North America, LLC, Defendant, pro se.


CASH DEPOT: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in T. Fast FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIMOTHY J. FAST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CASH DEPOT,
LTD., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 18-3571 (7th Cir.), Judge
Michael Stephen Kanne of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting Cash Depot's
motion for summary judgment.

Cash Depot underpaid employees for their overtime work.  Fast, a
former employee, filed the action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act on behalf of himself and other Cash Depot employees.  In
response, Cash Depot hired an accountant to investigate the matter
and subsequently issued checks to all underpaid current and former
employees covered by the suit.  The company also issued checks to
Fast for his underpaid wages, an amount for liquidated damages
under the FLSA, and the amount of Fast's disclosed attorney fees to
that point in the litigation.  Fast and his attorney never cashed
their checks.

Cash Depot then moved to dismiss the suit as moot or,
alternatively, for summary judgment.  The district court denied the
motion to dismiss because Fast contested whether Cash Depot
correctly calculated the amount it owed him and other employees.
However, the court granted partial summary judgment for Cash Depot,
to the extent that it correctly calculated what it owed Fast.
Eventually Fast's attorney conceded that Cash Depot correctly paid
the missing wages and urged that only a dispute over additional
attorney fees remained.

After Fast's demand for additional attorney fees went unanswered,
he filed a motion for attorney fees.  Cash Depot responded in kind
with a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, a motion for summary
judgment.  The court determined that because Fast was not a
prevailing party for the purposes of the FLSA, he was not entitled
to attorney fees, and granted Cash Depot's motion for summary
judgment.

Fast appeals, arguing that he was a prevailing party and is
entitled to reasonable attorney fees.  On appeal, Fast argues that
even if Buckhannon guides the case, he is the prevailing party
thanks to the district court's November 2017 summary judgment order
confirming that Cash Depot owed him wages, liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorney fees.   Cash Depot believes that Fast waived
that argument because it departs from his position at summary
judgment.  And even if Fast did not waive his argument, Cash Depot
maintains that Section 216(b) requires parties to obtain a final
judgment in their favor to collect attorney fees.

In light of the statute's text and the Court's precedent, Judge
Kanne agrees and does not consider Cash Depot's other arguments.
Neither the district court, nor the parties up to this point,
identified the Court's precedent that squarely addressed nearly
identical mandatory fee-shifting language in another statute.

The Judge also finds that by the plain language of the statute and
the Court's precedent addressing nearly identical statutory
language, there is no question that the FLSA requires a favorable
judgment before a plaintiff becomes entitled to attorney fees.  And
Franzen v. Ellis Corp. addresses what constitutes a favorable
"judgment" in these contexts.  

In that case, a plaintiff sued his former employer, alleging that
the company interfered with his right to take post-injury leave
under the FMLA.  The district court bifurcated the case into a jury
trial on liability and a bench trial on damages.  At the end of
trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff as to
liability.  However, because the district court determined that the
plaintiff failed to prove he was entitled to damages, it refused to
award him attorney fees.  The plaintiff appealed, and the Court
held that although he received a favorable verdict from the jury,
the district court ultimately issued its judgment in the
defendant's favor, depriving the plaintiff of the right to attorney
fees.

Although the district court's November 2017 summary judgment order
in Cash Depot's favor included language stating, "summary judgment
is granted to the extent that Cash Depot correctly calculated that
it owes Fast the sum of $380.76 in unpaid overtime plus his costs
and reasonable attorneys' fees," the district court never entered a
judgment in Fast's favor.  The judgment simply states "it is hereby
ordered and adjudged that the Plaintiff takes nothing and the case
is dismissed."  As the Court said in Stomper v. Amalgamated Transit
Union, Local 241, "a judgment reading "the Plaintiffs will take
nothing by their complaint' is still a judgment."  But that is not
a judgment awarded to the Plaintiff; it is a judgment suffered by
the Plaintiff.  Without a judgment in his favor, Fast's claim for
fees fails.

Kudge Kanne determines that the Buckhannon "prevailing party"
analysis does not apply to claims under Section 216(b) of the FLSA.
However, because the district court never entered a favorable
judgment for Fast, it correctly declined to award him attorney
fees.  For these reasons, he affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/X8MhCN from Leagle.com.

George Burnett -- GB@lcojlaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

James A. Walcheske -- jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.


CAUDILL VENTURES: Kirby Sues Over Unpaid Reimbursements
-------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS KIRBY, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. CAUDILL VENTURES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
7:19-cv-00170-D (E.D. N.C., Sept. 4, 2019) is a lawsuit brought
Count I as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") to recover unpaid minimum wages owed to himself and all
similarly situated delivery drivers, and he brings Counts II and
III of this lawsuit as a class action under the North Carolina Wage
and Hour Act ("NCWHA"), to recover unpaid earned wages and
unauthorized deductions owed to himself and all similarly situated
delivery drivers employed by Defendant.

The Defendant employs delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizzas and other food items to Defendant's
customers. Instead of reimbursing its delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
Defendant uses a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their net wages to fall below the
federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks (nominal wages
– unreimbursed vehicle costs = subminimum net wages). The
Defendant's practices also result in non-payment of earned wages
and unauthorized deductions in violation of North Carolina law,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Chris Kirby has been employed by Defendant from about
August 2017 to the present, first as a delivery driver and then a
manager/driver, at its Papa John's Pizza store in Shallotte, NC.

Defendant has operated at least three Papa John's Pizza franchise
stores in North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Narendra K. Ghosh, Esq.
     PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP
     100 Europa Dr., Suite 420
     Chapel Hill, NC 27517
     Phone: (919) 942-5200
     Email: nghosh@pathlaw.com

          - and -

     Mark Potashnick, Esq.
     WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
     11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
     St. Louis, MO 63141
     Phone: (314) 997-9150 ext. 2
     Facsimile: (314) 984-810
     Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com

          - and -

     Eli Karsh, Esq.
     LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH
     230 South Bemiston Ave., Suite 1200
     Clayton, MO 63141
     Phone: (314) 862-3333 ext. 13
     Facsimile: (314) 863-0605
     Email: elikarsh@aol.com


CENTRAL MAINE POWER: Levesque Questions Billing System
------------------------------------------------------
The case, MARK LEVESQUE, an adult individual resident of
Scarborough, County of Cumberland, State of Maine, the Plaintiff,
vs. CENTRAL MAINE POWER COMPANY, a Maine corporation with a place
of business in Augusta, County of Kennebec, State of Maine, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00389-NT (Maine Super., Aug. 23, 2019),
contends that hundreds of thousands of Maine residents were harmed
by Central Maine Power Company's attempt to cover up the problems
that resulted from its implementation of new billing software and
malfunctioning meters.

CMP delivers electricity to more than 624,000 customers in an
11,000 square-mile service area in central and southern Maine. On
October 30, 2017, CMP switched from its 27-year-old mainframe
computer to a new electronic billing system. That is when the
trouble began. Indeed, beginning the following month, as a result
of the new billing system and metering issues, approximately 97,000
CMP customers saw their bills increase by 50% or more. Some saw
their bills double or even triple, which was financially
devastating for many customers. Another 200,000 CMP customers have
been overcharged up to 50%.

Despite receiving thousands of customer complaints and knowing from
the get-go that its new billing system was inaccurate and that its
meters were malfunctioning (internal CMP documents show that it
knew about the persistent problems with the new billing system and
that there were metering issues), CMP did little to address the
problems and did not reimburse customers the money that it
improperly collected. In addition to giving customers the cold
shoulder, CMP intentionally misrepresented to customers and the
public that the new billing system and meters were not the cause of
the outrageously high bills.

According to the complaint, shortly after CMP switched to its new
billing software, Levesque and his family began to be overcharged
for their electricity. For example, previous bills were roughly
$300 per month, but the bill for December was $406.35. In January,
Levesque and his family were charged $487.22, almost $200 more than
in previous years. In total, they have been overcharged by at least
$1,000.

Levesque knew that his family was being overcharged because there
was a sudden, drastic increase in the amount of their bill and
recorded kilowatt hours after CMP started using the new billing
system, without a corresponding reason. Indeed, compared to prior
periods, the higher bills especially do not make sense because the
Levesque family recently downsized when two of their children left
home. They also removed their hot tub. Thus, their bills should
have been lower, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          James L. Bellaeau, Esq.
          Trafto Matzen, Belleau & Frenette, LLP
          PO Box 470, 10 Minot Avenue
          Auburn, ME 04212-0470
          207-784-4531
          E-mail: JBelleau@TMBF-law.com

               - and -

          Sumner H. Lipman, Esq.
          Stephen C. Smith, Esq.
          LIPMAN & KATZ
          5 Community Drive, Suite 3
          PO Box 1051
          Augusta, ME 04332-1051
          Telephone: 207-622-3711
          E-mail: SLipman@lipmankatz.com

CHALK & VERMILION: Mendez Files ADA Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Himelda Mendez and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08469 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 11, 2019).

Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc. is an Art gallery in Greenwich,
Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CHAMPION PETFOODS: Court Narrows Claims in Zarinebaf Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part
and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims in
the case, AFSHIN ZARINEBAF and ZACHARY CHERNIK, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
CHAMPION PETFOODS USA INC. and CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, Defendants,
Case No. 18 C 6951 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs Zarinebaf and Chernik filed a class action suit against
the Defendants on behalf of a putative class of Illinois consumers.
The Complaint alleges common law fraud (Count III), violations of
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
(ICFA), 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq. (Count IV), fraudulent omission
(Count V), and unjust enrichment (Count VI).

The Defendants manufacture, market, advertise, label, distribute,
and sell pet food under the brand names Acana and Orijen throughout
the United States, including in the District.  They market the
Acana and Orijen brands as being "Biologically Appropriate" and
free of anything "nature did not intend for your dog to eat."  The
Defendants state that the brands "nourish as nature intended" and
"deliver nutrients naturally."  They also state that the brands are
made with "natural and not synthetic" nutrients and with "fresh and
natural" ingredients "deemed fit for human consumption."  They also
advertise the brands as being "Never Outsourced" and made from
fresh and regional ingredients delivered daily.  The Defendants
charge a premium for this purportedly higher-quality dog food.

Nowhere on the packaging or in any advertising or marketing do the
Defendants disclose that the dog foods contain (or have a high risk
of containing) heavy metals, pentobarbital, toxins, BPA,
non-regional and non-fresh ingredients, or unnatural or other
ingredients that do not conform to the dog foods' packaging or
advertising.   Specifically, the dog foods are known to contain --
presumably based on third-party scientific testing -- levels of
heavy metals and BPA, which are all known to pose health risks to
humans and animals, including dogs.

The EU provides maximum levels for undesirable substances in animal
feed and specifically requires that arsenic must not exceed 2 parts
per million (or 2000 ppb).  The testing results show that some of
the Defendants' products exceed that level.  Exposure to toxins
like arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and lead can cause serious illness
in humans and animals.  

The Clean Label Project found and informed the Defendants that
their cat and dog food products contained higher levels of heavy
metals when compared to other pet foods.  In response to these
findings, they issued a White Paper titled "Orijen and Acana Foods
in Comparison to Pet Food Safety Standards" acknowledging the
presence of heavy metals in their products.  

In the White Paper, the Defendants stated that they "systematically
test" their Orijen and Acana products for heavy metals in
third-party laboratories and reported data from the last three
years of third-party testing that shows heavy metals are present in
their dog food products only at levels lower than the maximum
tolerable limits for animals set by the National Research Council
and/or FDA.  They contend such levels of heavy metals in pet foods
are acceptable and did not change the packaging, labeling,
advertising, or marketing of their Orijen or Acana brands to
disclose the White Paper findings.

The Defendants also sold dog food containing pentobarbital, which
was caused by cross-contamination resulting from one of their
suppliers having accepted euthanized horses in earlier production
runs for other customers.  They were notified in May 2018 that one
of their suppliers sold them beef tallow containing pentobarbital.
There is no safe level of pentobarbital in dog food and ingestion
by a pet can lead to adverse health issues.

Plaintiff Zarinebaf is an Illinois resident who purchased Orijen
and Acana dog foods for his two dogs from his local pet stores
approximately once a month from 2013 through 2018.  Plaintiff
Chernik is an Illinois resident who purchased Orijen and Acana dog
foods for his 19 dogs from his local pet stores approximately once
a week from 2006 through 2017.  Both the Plaintiffs saw the
nutritional claims on the packaging before purchasing the dog food,
relied on those claims in deciding to purchase the dog food, paid a
premium to purchase the dog food, and would not have purchased the
dog food had the Defendants disclosed that it contained heavy
metals, pentobarbital, toxins, BPA, and non-regional and non-fresh
ingredients.

Plaintiffs Zarinebaf and Chernik bring their claims individually
and on behalf of all Illinois residents who purchased the
"contaminated" dog food from July 1, 2013 to the present.

The Defendants moved to dismiss all claims for failure to state a
claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
and all claims sounding in fraud (Counts III, IV, and V) for
failure to state a claim with particularity as required by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).  They first move to dismiss all
claims under Rule 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the Plaintiffs fail
to state sufficient facts to support their contention that the
Defendants' statements were deceptive.  The Defendants then
individually address the unjust enrichment claim under Rule
12(b)(6).  The Defendants also move to dismiss the fraud claims
under Rule 9(b).

Even drawing all inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor, Judge Kendall
holds that the Complaint does not allege that Orijen Regional Red
contains beef tallow, which is the only ingredient alleged to have
contained pentobarbital.  As the Defendants point out, then, there
is an important allegation missing from the Complaint -- that the
Plaintiffs purchased dog food containing pentobarbital.  Without
that allegation, the Plaintiffs claims about the Defendants' dog
food containing pentobarbital are merely speculative and cannot
give rise to a plausible claim.

Next, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not pleaded
sufficient facts to show that the phrase is deceptive.  The
Defendants' packaging, read in full, lists which specific
ingredients are deemed fit for human consumption and clarifies that
those ingredients are "deemed fit for human consumption prior to
inclusion in our foods."  The Plaintiffs have not pleaded any facts
showing that the particular ingredients the Defendants' list as
"fit for human consumption" are adulterated or otherwise unfit to
consume, so the Plaintiffs have failed to show that the phrase is
deceptive.  To summarize, the Plaintiffs may proceed on their
claims based on the Defendants' alleged use of the statements
"Biologically Appropriate," "Fresh Regional Ingredients," and
"Delivering Nutrients Naturally."

Drawing all inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor, the Judge
reasonably assumes the nutritional claims the Plaintiffs saw and
relied upon included those describing the dog food as being
"biologically appropriate," "delivering nutrients naturally," and
made with "fresh regional ingredients."  She finds that the
Plaintiffs fail to establish that the Defendants had a duty to
disclose based on the Defendants' superior knowledge.  They do not
allege enough detail about which of the Defendants' statements were
"passed off as the whole truth," and their allegations on this
point are too vague and conclusory to give rise to a duty to
disclose under this theory.  Because the Plaintiffs fail to allege
that the Defendants owed them a duty to disclose, the Judge
dismisses Count V without prejudice.

Finally, the Judge is not dismissing the fraud claims in their
entirety, and the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim may proceed
to the same extent as the fraud claims.  She finds that the
Defendants argue only that the unjust enrichment claim is based on
the same conduct as the fraud claims, and so should be dismissed
for the same reasons as the fraud claims.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Kendall granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  She dismissed without
prejudice all claims based on allegations that the Defendants' dog
food contained pentobarbital.  She also dismissed without prejudice
all claims based on the Defendants' alleged use of the phrases
"Delivered daily," "Made with Fresh and Natural Ingredients,"
"Never Outsourced," "Nourish as Nature Intended," and "Premium Meat
and Fish Ingredients."  Finally, the Judge dismissed the fraudulent
omission claim (Count V) without prejudice.  The Plaintiffs have
until Aug. 20, 2019 to re-plead these claims, if possible.  The
Judge otherwise denied the Defendants' motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/J4Hbzf from Leagle.com.

Afshin Zarinebaf & Zachary Chernik, Individually And On Behalf Of A
Class Of Similarly Situated Individuals, Plaintiffs, represented by
Rebecca A. Peterson -- rapeterson@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal
Nauen PLLP, pro hac vice, Daniel E. Gustafson --
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac
vice, Kevin A. Seely -- kseely@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo
Llp, Kyle Alan Shamberg -- kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- Lite
DePalma Greenberg, LLC, Raina C. Borrelli --
rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice,
Robert Kinney Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge
Grundal Nauen & Holstein PLLP, pro hac vice & Katrina Carroll --
kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- Carlson Lynch, LLP.

Champion Petfoods USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by David A.
Coulson -- coulsond@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig P.A., Francis A.
Citera -- citeraf@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP. & Brett
Michael Doran -- doranb@gtlaw.com -- Greenbert Traurig LLP.

Champion Petfoods LP, Defendant, represented by David A. Coulson,
Greenberg Traurig P.A. & Francis A. Citera, Greenberg Traurig,
LLP..


CISCO LOGISTICS: Underpays Silo Supervisors, Dickerson Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL DICKERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CISCO LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
7:19-cv-00201 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 21, 2019) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Dickerson was employed by the Defendant as silo
supervisor.

Cisco Logistics, LLC, is the premier logistics company specializing
in Frac sand, Sandbox, Pneumatic, Silo, and Heavy hauls. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Borsellino, Esq.
          Morgan Scott, Esq.
          BORSELLINO, P.C.
          1020 Macon St., Ste. 15
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 908-9861
          Facsimile: (817) 394-2412
          E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com
                  morgan@oilfieldovertime.com


CLARIS INTERNATIONAL: Overcharge Sales Tax, Florodora Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
FLORODORA, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLARIS INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-05617 (N.D. Il., Aug. 21, 2019) alleges violation of
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's products Filemaker and
Filemaker Pro are designed to assist individuals and small
businesses with managing and organizing their day-to-day
operations. These programs can be purchased or licensed in "canned"
format, which is a standard, mass-produced version of the software
where each customer receives an identical product.

When customers license Filemaker software from the Defendant, they
are required to accede to the Defendant's Annual Volume License
Agreement ("AVLA"). The AVLA contains, inter alia, the general
license terms, termination and warranty information, and
restrictions on the use of the software.

Given these terms in the Defendant's AVLA, its licenses of canned
Filemaker software do not constitute taxable retail sales. The
Defendant thus has overcharged, and continues to overcharge,
customers for Illinois sales tax in violation of Illinois tax laws
and regulations. The Defendant knew, or should have known, that its
sales tax assessment practices violated Illinois tax laws, but
represented to the Plaintiff and the Class Members that they were
properly being assessed Illinois sales tax.

As a result of the Defendant's deceptive business practices, the
Plaintiff and the Class Members paid Illinois sales taxes they were
not legally required to pay.

Claris International Inc. computer software development company
formed as a spin-off from Apple Computer in 1987. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
                  kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Spencer J. Marks, Esq.
          Kristi S. Poskus, Esq.
          POKORNY & MARKS, LLC
          6 W. Hubbard St., Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 540-4964
          Facsimile: (312) 540-0610
          E-mail: smarks@pokornymarks.com
                  kposkus@pokornymarks.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Court Approves Class Notice in Vandehey FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACQUELYN A. VANDEHEY, on her own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CLIENT SERVICES,
INC., a Missouri Corporation; and JOHN DOES, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01669-WCG (E.D. Wis.), Judge William C. Griesbach of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Green
Bay Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Form
and Method of Class Notice.

The Class Counsel is authorized to retain the services of a
reputable third-party class action administrator for purposes of
mailing the Court's approved Notice to the Class, receiving any
Class Member requests for exclusion, and establishing a toll-free
telephone number for responding to Class Member requests for
information.

Within 14 days after the entry of the Order, the Class Counsel will
inform the Defendant's counsel of the format of an electronic file
acceptable to the Administrator for supplying the Class Members'
names and addresses.  The Administrator's electronic requested file
format will be one widely used in the industry.

Within 14 days after the Class Counsel provides the Defendant's
counsel with the information set forth, the Defendant will supply
the Class Counsel with an electronic file in the specified format
containing each Class Member's name and last known address.

Within 14 days after the Defendant's counsel provides the Class
Counsel with the information set forth, the Administrator will mail
the Notice to each Class Member via first-class U.S. Mail.

For purposes of the Notice's deadline for a Class Member's request
to be excluded from the Class, the Administrator will use the first
Wednesday which is 60 days after the date on which the Notices are
mailed.

If any Notice is returned to the Administrator as undeliverable,
the Administrator will attempt to obtain an updated address from
recognized sources (e.g., U.S. Post Office's National Change of
Address database and skip tracing databases) and promptly re-mail
the Notice using the updated address.

Within 14 days after the deadline for a Class Member's request to
be excluded from the Class, the Administrator will provide Class
Counsel with a declaration setting forth the number of Notices
mailed, the number of Notices returned, the number of Notices for
which updated addresses were obtained and successfully re-mailed,
and the number of exclusions received.  The Class Counsel will
promptly file that declaration with the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/aT1Db9 from Leagle.com.

Jacquelyn A Vandehey, on her own behalf and on behalf of all
others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew T. Thomasson
-- Andrew@SternThomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP, Philip D.
Stern -- Philip@SternThomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP &
Francis
R. Greene -- Francis@SternThomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP.

Client Services Inc, Defendant, represented by Patrick A. Watts --
pat.watts@wattslawfirmpa.com -- Watts Law Group LLC & Robbie L.
Malone -- rmalone@mamlaw.com -- Malone Frost Martin PLLC.


CLUB DEMONSTRATION: Workstations Lack Seats, Belmonte Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
ANNE BELMONTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CLUB DEMONSTRATION SERVICES, INC.; and
WAREHOUSE DEMO SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
37-2019-00043843-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., Aug. 20, 2019) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to provide suitable seats
to the Plaintiff and the class at their workstations.

The Plaintiff Belmonte was employed by the Defendants as product
demonstrator.

Club Demonstration Services Inc was founded in 1987. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eve H. Cervantez, Esq.
          Corinne F. Johnson, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
          E-mail: ecervantez@altber.com
                  cjohnson@altber.com


CONN APPLIANCES: Discovery Plan & Scheduling Order in Edwards Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANCINE EDWARDS, Plaintiff, v. CONN APPLIANCES, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01998-APG-BNW (D. Nev.),
Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada (i) denied without prejudice the parties'
proposed discovery plan and scheduling order, and (ii) stayed
discovery as stated in the order.

Edwards brings a putative class action against Defendants Conn's,
Inc. and Conn Appliances, Inc. for alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  Specifically, Edwards
alleges that Conn Appliances called her cellular telephone to
collect a debt for a laptop computer via an automatic telephone
dialing system without her consent.  Edwards alleges the debt is
owed to AcceptanceNOW.  cceptanceNOW was not named as a Defendant,
but it intervened in the case.

Conn Appliances has moved to dismiss, arguing the TCPA is an
unconstitutional, contentbased restriction on speech.  It also has
moved to dismiss on the grounds that Edwards does not plausibly
allege that Conn Appliances called her to collect a debt because
Edwards states her account was with AcceptanceNOW, not Conn
Appliances.  It also moves to dismiss the non-Nevada putative class
members' claims for lack of personal jurisdiction.)

Conn Appliances also has moved to strike Edwards' class allegations
definition, arguing it is an improper failsafe class.  As is
relevant to discovery, Conn Appliances argues that permitting the
class to proceed to discovery could "result in a defendant being
required to respond to discovery regarding every call it made
during the class period on the grounds that each call could
potentially be a TCPA violation, even though a class that broad
could never be certified."  Finally, it has moved to stay the case
pending the outcome of decision of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Gallion v. Charter Communications,
appeal docketed No. 18-55667 (9th Cir. May 23, 2018).  It contends
the Ninth Circuit case will determine whether the TCPA is an
unconstitutional, content-based restriction on speech.

Edwards has moved to amend her class action complaint to add
factual allegations regarding the telephone calls.  The motion to
amend precipitated two motions for sanctions by Conn Appliances.
Depending on the outcome of the motion to amend, the United States
of America may decide to intervene in the matter.

AcceptanceNOW filed a motion to compel arbitration and to stay the
case, arguing Edwards entered into an arbitration agreement when
she purchased the laptop that governs the claims at issue and that
requires Edward to arbitrate on an individual, non-class basis.
All of these motions will be addressed by the court in due course.

Edwards seeks to conduct discovery on all claims on an individual
and class basis and she presents a proposed timeline for that
discovery.  Conn Appliances seeks to stay discovery, arguing that
Edwards was never its customer and that it therefore is implausible
that it made any calls to Edwards.  It further argues that if any
calls were made, they were made by AcceptanceNOW -- the company
from which Edwards purchased her laptop -- and that those claims
are subject to arbitration on an individual basis.  Conn Appliances
further argues that the outcome of Edwards' pending motion to amend
the complaint will impact the topics of discovery.  If the court
declines to stay discovery, Conn Appliances requests a tiered
discovery plan.  Conn Appliances proposes that the first phase
should allow limited discovery on whether Edwards' claim is subject
to arbitration and whether she has a meritorious claim and standing
to represent the putative class.  As to class discovery, Conn
Appliances proposes bifurcating merits and class discovery.

Judge Weksler has considered the parties' proposals regarding
discovery in the context of the various pending motions and the
complex procedural posture of the case.  He finds that it appears
that the outcome of each of the pending motions will impact the
scope and topics of permissible discovery in the case.

For instance, Conn Appliances' motion to dismiss is potentially
dispositive of its participation in the case.  Conn Appliances'
motion to dismiss the non-Nevada putative class members' claims and
to strike the class allegations each bear on the scope of
discovery.  Edwards' motion to amend her complaint bears on the
permissible topics of discovery.  AcceptanceNOW's motion to compel
arbitration is also potentially dispositive.  Finally, if the
United States district judge grants Conn Appliances' motion to stay
the case and/or AcceptanceNOW's motion to stay the case, discovery
necessarily would be stayed.

Given these various contingencies, the Judge holds that the Court
is not in a position to evaluate what discovery is necessary and
proportional to the needs of the case.  Given the case's complex
procedural posture, the various contingencies addressed in the
Order, and for the sake of efficiency, the Judge in her discretion
will stay discovery pending the Court's order on the motions to
dismiss, to strike, to stay the case, to compel arbitration, and to
amend the complaint.

Accordingly, Judge Weksler denied without prejudice the parties'
proposed discovery plan and scheduling order.  She stayed discovery
as stated in her Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/epFC6v from Leagle.com.

Francine Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by William Craft Hughes,
HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP, pro hac vice, Jarrett L. Ellzey, Hughes Ellzey,
LLP, pro hac vice & Nicholas M. Porras -- info@porraslegal.com --
Law Offices of Nicholas M Porras.

Conn Appliances, Inc. & Conn's, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Eric J. Troutman -- eric.troutman@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton
Boggs (US) LLP, pro hac vice & Jennifer L. Braster --
jbraster@naylorandbrasterlaw.com -- Naylor & Braster.

United States of America, Intervenor, represented by Joshua Charles
Abbuhl, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch.

RAC Acceptance East, LLC, doing business as Acceptance Now,
Intervenor, represented by Alisa Marie Taormina, Stroock & Stroock
& Lavan, LLP, pro hac vice, Brian Frontino, Stroock & Stroock &
Lavan LLP, pro hac vice & Robert R. McCoy, Kaempfer Crowell.


D & M CARRIERS: Underpays Truck Drivers, Bromlow et al. Say
-----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW BROMLOW, and JOHNNY WALTERS, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. D & M CARRIERS, LLC dba
FREYMILLER; and DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-05358-SK (N.D. Cal., Aug. 26, 2019) is an action against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as truck drivers.

D & M Carriers, LLC dba Freymiller provides trucking transportation
services. The Company specializes in the transportation of
temperature controlled, time-sensitive products. D & M Carriers
offers refrigerated truck load, dry truck load, logistics, and used
truck sales services. D & M Carriers serves customers throughout
the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 277-7235
          Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
          E-mail: Helland@nka.com
                  dbrome@nka.com

               - and -

          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          Lotus Cannon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: Esq.nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
                  lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com


DJT FINE ART: Mendez Files Civil Rights Class Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DJT Fine Art
International LLC. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DJT
Fine Art International LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08470 (S.D.
N.Y., Sept. 11, 2019).

The case type is stated as Civil Rights: Education.

DJT Fine Art International LLC is a contemporary art gallery with
locations in New York, Toronto, Paris and Palm Beach.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOUBLE DOWN: Summary Judgment Bid in Navigators Partly Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.
DOUBLE DOWN INTERACTIVE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01514-BJR
(W.D. Wash.), Judge Barbara J. Rothstein of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington granted in part the
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and (ii) denied in part
the Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment.

In the action, Plaintiff Navigators seeks relief from the Court as
to whether it has a duty to defend Defendant Double Down in a
putative class action lawsuit.

Double Down operates Double Down Casino, an online game where
players are initially given one million free digital chips to play
casino-like games on an interactive platform.  After players use
their initial chips, Double Down offers to sell them additional
chips starting at $2.99 for 300,000 chips so that they can continue
playing the game.

Currently, Double Down is the Defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit on behalf of Adrienne Benson, Mary Simonson, and all others
similarly situated.  Benson began playing Double Down Casino on
Facebook in 2013, and since 2016 she has allegedly lost over $1,000
playing the game.  The complaint for the Benson action alleges
unjust enrichment; violations of Washington's gambling statute; and
violations of Washington's Consumer Protection Act.

In 2017, DoubleU Games bought Double Down.  Around that time,
Double Down purchased two claims-made liability insurance policies
from Navigators.  The first is SmartPolicy No. CH17DOL331672IC
("2017-2018 Policy"), which provides coverage for claims made
between June 2017 and June 2018.  The second is SmartPolicy No.
CH17DOL331675IC ("Runoff Policy"), which provides coverage for
claims made between June 2017 and June 2023, but contains an
endorsement that excludes from coverage claims based upon, arising
from, or in any way related to any Wrongful Act committed or
allegedly committed on or after June 1, 2017.  The Runoff Policy
contains several other exclusions from coverage, including an
interrelationship of claims provision and a professional services
exclusion.

In another court, Navigators is currently defending Double Down in
the Benson action under a reservation of rights.  In the Court,
Navigators alleges that it has no duty to defend or indemnify
Double Down in the Benson action under either insurance policy.

The parties have brought cross-motions for summary judgment.  There
are three main contested issues about whether the Runoff Policy
provides coverage: (1) whether the Runoff Policy's
interrelationship of claims provision applies; (2) whether the
policy period provisions of the Runoff Policy preclude coverage for
the Benson action; and (3) whether the professional services
exclusion applies.

Judge Rothstein holds that the Runoff Policy presents an
unambiguous definition of "Related Wrongful Acts" that includes
"any common fact, circumstance, situation, transaction, event or
decision."   When interpreting an insurance policy, the language in
the policy must be given its ordinary meaning.  As applied, the
Benson action and the Phillips action have striking similarities:
the facts that arose to each complaint were nearly
indistinguishable and the complaints themselves are facially
identical in many areas. Therefore, the Court finds that the Benson
action and the Phillips action are interrelated.

The Judge is unpersuaded by Double Down's assertion that the
language of the 2017-2018 Policy injects ambiguity into the runoff
endorsement.  She concludes that Navigators' reading of the runoff
endorsement is reasonable, that the terms at issue are unambiguous,
and that an ordinary reading of the policy language bars coverage.

Finally, the Judge does not find persuasive the assertion that
playing a game such as Double Down Casino is a professional
service.  Construing the policy language in favor of the insured,
she concludes that Navigators' professional services exclusion in
the Runoff Policy does not apply to the Benson action.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rothstein granted in part the
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and (ii) denied in part
the Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, consistent with
the following declarations: (1) Navigators does not have a duty to
defend Double Down in the Benson action under the 2017-2018 policy;
(2) Navigators does not have a duty to defend Double Down in the
Benson action under the Runoff Policy because the Interrelationship
of Claims Exclusion bars coverage; and (3) Navigators does not have
a duty to defend Double Down in the Benson action under the Runoff
Policy because the Runoff Endorsement bars coverage.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/nViC9f from Leagle.com.

Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Angelo G. Savino -- asavino@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR, pro hac
vice & Jonathan Toren -- jtoren@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR.

Double Down Interactive LLC, Defendant, represented by Franklin
Dennis Cordell -- fcordell@gordontilden.com -- GORDON TILDEN THOMAS
& CORDELL LLP & Guinevere Becker Bogusz -- gbogusz@gordontilden.com
-- GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP.

Double Down Interactive LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by
Franklin Dennis Cordell, GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP &
Guinevere Becker Bogusz, GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP.

Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, Counter Defendant,
represented by Angelo G. Savino, COZEN O'CONNOR, pro hac vice &
Jonathan Toren, COZEN O'CONNOR.


DYNCORP INT'L: Denied Workers Wage Statements, Says Del Fierro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Del Fierro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dyncorp International LLC and
Does 1 through  50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07091,
(C.D. Cal., August 14, 2019), seeks damages, remedies, attorneys'
fees and costs of suit for failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements pursuant to the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code.

Dyncorp supplied services at Point Mugu Naval Air Station where Del
Fierro worked as a non-exempt employee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry W. Lee, Esq.
      DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 488-6555
      Fax: (213) 488-6554
      Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

             - and -

      Edward W. Choi, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
      515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 381-1515
      Facsimile: (213) 465-4885
      Email: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com

             - and -

      Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
      HYUN LEGAL, APC
      515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 488-6555
      Fax: (213) 488-6554
      Email: dhyun@hyunlegal.com

             - and -

      William L. Marder, Esq.
      POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
      501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
      Hollister, CA 95023
      Tel: (831) 531-4214
      Fax: (831) 634-0333
      Email: bill@polarislawgroup.com


EAST VILLAGE: Fischler Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
East Village Hotel T LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. East Village Hotel T LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08383 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 10, 2019).

East Village Hotel T LLC is a romantic hotel close to New York
University.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
   New York, NY 10170
   Tel: (212) 764-7171
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


ELDORADO RESORTS: Alquero Sues over Biometric Data Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
RONNIE ALQUERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELDORADO RESORTS, INC.; and ELGIN RIVERBOAT
RESORT-RIVERBOAT CASINO d/b/a GRAND VICTORIA RIVERBOAT CASINO,
Defendants, Case No. 2019CH09603 (Il. Cir., Cook Cty., Aug. 20,
2019) is an action to redress and curtail the Defendants' unlawful
collection, use, storage and disposal of the Plaintiff's sensitive
and proprietary biometric data.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
disregarded the Plaintiff and the class's statutorily protected
privacy rights and unlawfully collect, store, disseminate and use
the biometric data in violation of the Biometric Information
Privacy Act. Specifically, the Defendants failed to properly inform
the Plaintiff and the class in writing of the specific purpose and
length of time for which their fingerprints were being collected,
stored and used. The Defendant also failed to provide a publicly
available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
destroying the Plaintiff and the class's fingerprints.

Eldorado Resorts Inc. owns and operates as a chain of resorts. The
Company offers casino, poker, roulette, and other games, as well as
provides food and beverages services. Eldorado Resorts serves
customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  tbecvar@stephanzouras.com


EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Fodera Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Frank J. Fodera, Jr. and Michael M. Bonella,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Equinox Holdings, Inc. and Does 1-50, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-05072 (Cal. Super., May 23, 2019), was
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on August 16, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-06997.

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

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
     Samuel David Almon, Esq.
     MAKAREM AND ASSOCIATES APLC
     11601 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2440
     Los Angeles, CA, 90025
     Phone: (310) 312-0299
     Fax: (310) 312-0296
     Email: info@makaremlaw.com
            makarem@law-rm.com

Defendant is represented by:

     Mia Farber, Esq.
     Nima Daroulan, Esq.
     JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
     725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
     Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
     Telephone: (213) 689-0404
     Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
     Email: mia.farber@jacksonlewis.com
            nima.darouian@jacksonlewis.com


EXLSERVICE.COM: Underpays Call Center Agents, Collins Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEZLIE COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXLSERVICE.COM, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00660-JTM (W.D. Mo., Aug. 22, 2019) is an action against
the Defendant for failure to pay earned wages and overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Collins was employed by the Defendant as call center
agent.

Exlservice.Com, Inc. provides offshore business process outsourcing
solutions. The Company offers back office processes, call center
operations, and web based customer care services. Exlservice.Com
serves in the areas of corporate finance, accounting, collections,
payroll, administration, research and analysis, general
administration, and transaction processing services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Hodgson, Esq.
          THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
          3609 SW Pryor Rd
          Lee's Summit, MO 64082
          Telephone: (816) 600-0117
          E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
          Courtney Stout, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 945-7110
          Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
          E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com
                  cstout@williamsdirks.com


FCA US: Court OKs $1.2MM Attorney's Fees in Granillo
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees
in the case captioned DOLORES GRANILLO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FCA
US LLC, Defendant. Civil Action No. 16-153 (FLW) (DEA). (D.N.J.).

This class action lawsuit was initially filed by Plaintiffs in
California state court, stemming from alleged defects in the
automatic transmissions manufactured by Defendant and utilized in
Plaintiffs' vehicles.

This Court preliminarily approved the settlement. The amount of
compensation is to be determined based on the number of
transmission related complaints made by the class member, with the
maximum amount capped at $2,000 in cash or a trade-in voucher
valued at $4,000. The final settlement agreement also provides for
an attorney fee award, totaling no more than $1,260,000, including
a $5,000 incentive award to the named Plaintiffs.

In a certified class action, the court may award reasonable
attorney's fees and nontaxable costs that are authorized by law or
by the parties' agreement. The awarding of fees is left to the
discretion of the Court., however, the Court must apply the proper
legal standard and follow the proper procedures in making the
determination.

Here, Plaintiffs seek to recover attorneys' fees and costs/expenses
of $1,255,000 on behalf of Class Counsel Capstone Law APC (Capstone
Law) and co-Class Counsel the Law Offices of Howard A. Gutman
(Gutman Law) (Class Counsel).

In this case, the lodestar method is the appropriate method for
awarding fees. The lodestar method has appeal where the nature of
the settlement evades the precise evaluation needed for the
percentage of recovery method.

Here, the settlement benefits are not derived from a set pool of
funds, and no specific monetary figure has been set aside to
provide relief to the Class Members. Instead, the total amount of
the settlement will be determined by whether individual members of
the class elect to receive a cash payment or a trade-in voucher
from Defendant, and the number of transmission related events
suffered by each claimant. Because the benefits, like those offered
in other class action settlements against automobile manufacturers,
are not derived from a common fund and, at this juncture, cannot be
calculated precisely, the Court finds that a lodestar method is
appropriate.  

Lodestar

Under the lodestar analysis, attorneys' fees are determined by
multiplying the number of hours reasonably spent litigating the
matter by counsel's hourly rate. This yields the presumptively
reasonable fee. The first step is to determine the appropriate
hourly rate, based on the attorneys' usual billing rate and the
prevailing market rates in the relevant community.

Reasonability of Counsel's Rates

A court determines the lodestar by multiplying the number of hours
counsel reasonably worked on a client's case by a reasonable hourly
billing rate for such services in a given geographical area
provided by a lawyer of comparable experience. The burden of
establishing the reasonableness of the requested rate is on the
applicant, and an attorney's usual billing rate is a good starting
point for assessing reasonableness, though it is not dispositive.


Class Counsel billed their time at their current billing rates
charged to their clients. Counsel's hourly rates are as follows:

        Lawyer          Hourly Rate
        ------          -----------
      Jordan Lurie          $725
      Raul Perez            $725
      Robert Friedl         $695
      Ryau Wu               $625
      Tarek Zohdy           $525
      Eduardo Santos        $495
      Karen Wallace         $395
      Cody Padgett          $370
      Trisha Monesi         $295
      Jordan Carlson        $295
      Brooke Waldrop        $245
      Howard A. Gutman      $525

In support of the fee application, Class Counsel submitted
affidavits referencing other cases in which courts of this district
have approved their billing rates, and cases in which comparable
billing rates have been accepted by courts in this District.

The Court finds counsel's rates, ranging from $245 to $725, to fall
on the outer end of reasonableness for this geographic area.
Furthermore, at least two other courts within this district have
approved class action settlements and fee awards where Capstone
charged identical rates. Additionally, these rates are generally
within the range of hourly rates approved in this District in
similar class actions.  

Since Plaintiffs' proffered rates are comparable to those charged
by other firms in similar cases in this District, and Defendant has
not lodged an objection to the requested rates, I find them to be
reasonable.

Reasonability of Counsel's Hours

After determining that the billing rate is reasonable, the Court
must decide whether the amount of billable time was reasonably
expended. The time expended by counsel is reasonable if it is
attributable to work that is useful and of a type ordinarily
necessary' in pursuing the litigation.

At the time of filing their initial motion, in January 2019, Class
Counsel had expended a combined total of 2,053.30 hours (304.1
hours by Mr. Gutman of Gutman Law and 1,749.2 hours by the 11
attorneys from Capstone Law) litigating this action, for a total
base lodestar of $1,002,008.50. Defendant raises two areas of
concern involving the factual assertions underlying the supporting
certifications and the reasonableness of the hours expended by
Class Counsel.  

First, Defendant notes that Jordan Lurie, Esq., from Capstone Law,
who was admitted to this Court pro hac vice, was temporarily
suspended from the practice of law between July 3, 2018 and
September 5, 2018, and Class Counsel failed to apprise the Court of
his suspension, as required by the Order granting Mr. Lurie's pro
hac vice admission.  

Second, Defendant noted that Howard Gutman's certification
suggested that Mr. Gutman may have incorporated hours expended in
litigating the Oquendo matter into the instant fee application.  
At the Court's request, Plaintiffs provided supplemental briefing
regarding the hours expended, the reasonableness of counsel's
hourly rates, the hours billed to the litigation along with a
summary of the tasks performed, the requested contingent risk
multiplier; and the costs/expenses incurred. Plaintiffs' revised
fee application wrote off certain hours included in the initial fee
application, but also incorporated additional time billed after
filing the initial fee motion. The additional time was billed
between January 9, 2019 and February 22, 2019, in connection with
preparing for the final settlement approval hearing and drafting
the supplemental briefing regarding the fee application. The
inclusion of the additional time resulted in a net increase of
billed hours which, in turn, gave rise to a $98,904 increase in
Plaintiffs' base lodestar.

Class Counsel eliminated a total of 110.9 hours from its fee
application: approximately 35 hours of time purportedly to minimize
billing inefficiencies (i.e., billing for administrative or
ministerial tasks that might otherwise have been performed by
staff) and redundancies, 2.2 hours of time billed by Mr. Lurie
between July and September 2018, and 73.7 hours relating to work
performed by Mr. Gutman regarding the Oquendo matter.  

The additional time billed between January 9, 2019 and February 22,
2019, totaled 291.8 hours (37.5 hours by Mr. Gutman of Gutman Law
and 254.3 hours by the 11 attorneys from Capstone Law), which
resulted in attorneys' fees of $198,13250.  

Thus, the cumulative hours expended by Class Counsel at the time of
submitting the supplemental briefing on the fee application totals
2,236.6 hours, resulting in a total base lodestar of $1,100,912.5.


Plaintiffs have identified the hours billed at each phase of the
litigation as follows: 134 hours investigating the claims and
defenses in preparation for drafting and filing the complaint,
including conducting initial interviews of class members and
researching Defendant's awareness of the transmission related
issues, 122.1 hours drafting pleadings and miscellaneous court
filings, 83.4 hours drafting and responding to written discovery
requests and reviewing 5,000 pages of discovery produced to
Defendant, 594.2 hours communicating with the 300,000 Class Members
before and during the pendency of the case, 90 hours on case
analysis, management, and strategy, including communications with
co-counsel; 175 hours engaging in pre-settlement motion practice to
oppose the motion to dismiss, 688 hours engaging in mediation,
settlement, and settlement administration supervision, 349 hours on
post-settlement motion practice, including, inter alia, drafting
the motions for preliminary and final approval, reviewing the
motion to intervene filed by the LaRoes and Defendant's opposition,
reviewing billing and cost records, and attending the final
settlement approval hearing.

After accounting for the reduction in time spent on the
supplemental fee briefing, the Court finds that the overall total
hours expended by counsel appear to be consistent with comparable
cases. Although Class Counsel has not provided the Court with its
billing records, a review of the hours expended by counsel at each
phase of the litigation does not suggest that counsel spent an
inordinate or disproportionate amount of time on any particular
phase. Additionally, Plaintiffs have provided an analysis of the
hours expended by counsel in thirteen automobile defect cases of
similar duration. The hours expended by Class Counsel in the
instant matter fall below the average of approximately 4,800 hours
billed by counsel in similar cases.

Ultimately, the total hours billed by Class Counsel are
reasonable.

Lodestar Multiplier

A lodestar multiplier attempts to account for the contingent nature
or risk involved in a particular case and the quality of the
attorneys' work. The multiplier is the quotient of the proposed fee
award divided by the lodestar amount.  

Here, Plaintiffs seek to use a 1.11 multiplier7 to reach the total
amount of attorney's fees requested. This multiplier is generally
in the reasonable range for complex class action cases.  
The base lodestar of $1,081,099.28 multiplied by 1.11 results in
attorneys' fees of $1,200,020.00. Thus, Class Counsel is entitled
those reasonable attorney's fees.

Gunter/Prudential Factors

A district court should consider seven factors when analyzing the
reasonableness of a fee award in a percentage of recovery case: (1)
the size of the fund created and the number of persons benefitted
(2) the presence or absence of substantial objections by members of
the class to the settlement terms and/or fees requested by counsel
(3) the skill and efficiency of the attorneys involved (4) the
complexity and duration of the litigation (5) the risk of
nonpayment;(6) the amount of time devoted to the case by
plaintiffs' counsel  and (7) the awards in similar cases.

The Fund Is Substantial and Confers a Benefit Upon the Class
Members

The first Gunter factor considers the size of the settlement fund
created and the number of class members benefitted.

The settlement, in this case, did not create a monetary fund for
the class members. Although the settlement provides some monetary
benefit to the Class Members, the total amount paid to each class
member will depend on the number of transmission related events
suffered by the individual, and whether the individual elects to
receive a trade-in voucher or a cash payment. Furthermore, the
settlement agreement provides qualifying class members with
non-monetary benefits such as an extension of their vehicle
warranties. Thus, estimating an approximate value for the
settlement proves difficult.

However, other courts have determined the potential value of a
settlement involving non-monetary benefits such as automotive
warranties by multiplying the total number of vehicles at issue, in
this case 314,303, times the estimated value of the extended
warranty.  

While neither party has provided a true calculation of the value of
the proffered extended warranty, Plaintiff notes that even if the
value of the warranty were estimated at a modest cost of $258, the
total value of the settlement, excluding the trade-in voucher or
cash funds offered to class members, would be approximately
$7,857,575. Using that figure as a rough estimate for the value of
the settlement, Class Counsel's fee of $1,200,020 represents
approximately 15% of the settlement fund. The Third Circuit has
recognized that fee percentage-of-recovery fee awards commonly
range from 19 percent to 45 percent of the settlement fund.   

Thus, the Court finds that the settlement conferred a substantial
benefit on the settling Class Members, which includes both direct
monetary payments or trade in vouchers and an extended warranty.
Given the combined value of the extended warranty, the trade-in
vouchers and cash payments, and the settlement's benefit was
substantial and weighs in favor of approval of the attorneys' fee
award.

Absence of Objections to the Fee Request

Here, Class Counsel has received objections totaling approximately
.02% of the total Class Members. As numerous district courts have
held, the dearth of objections strongly supports approval of the
requested fee.

Of the 19 objections to settlement, only one explicitly referenced
fees. The lack of negative feedback after notice suggests that the
Class generally and overwhelmingly approved of the settlement.

Thus, this factor weighs in favor of awarding the requested
attorneys' fees.

Class Counsel Prosecuted This Action With Skill And Efficiency

Class Counsel's skill and efficiency is measured by the quality of
the result achieved, the difficulties faced, the speed and
efficiency of the recovery, the standing, experience and expertise
of the counsel, the skill and professionalism with which counsel
prosecuted the case and the performance and quality of opposing
counsel.

The Settlement obtained for the Class Members would not have been
achieved without the skill and experience of Class Counsel. Class
Counsel are experienced and well versed in consumer class action
litigation, and specifically class actions involving automobile
defects. Capstone is one of California's largest plaintiff-only
labor and consumer law firms and has successfully obtained final
approval of settlements in 13 automobile defect class actions in
the past 5 years. Mr. Gutman is similarly well-versed in litigation
of this nature and has "successfully resolved over 500 automobile
warranty or consumer fraud claims.

In prosecuting this lawsuit, Class Counsel engaged in motion
practice, discovery, and multiple mediation sessions. The success
of the settlement itself speaks to the skill and efficiency of
Class Counsel.  

Moreover, the quality and vigor of opposing counsel is also
important in evaluating the services rendered by Class Counsel.
Here, Defendant was represented by able counsel in McElroy,
Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP. Thus, the fact that Class
Counsel achieved this Settlement for the Class in the face of
formidable legal opposition further evidences the quality of their
work, which weighs in favor of approval of the attorneys' fee
award.

The Complexity, Expense, and Likely Duration of Litigation Weigh in
Favor of the Court's Award
The fourth Gunter factor is intended to capture the probable costs,
in both time and money, of continued litigation and favors the
requested fee.  

This complex class action litigation has lasted nearly four years
and has required extensive work by Class Counsel (including motion
practice, discovery, and multiple mediation sessions) to result in
a successful conclusion. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of
approval of the attorneys' fee award.

Class Counsel Undertook the Risk of Non-Payment

Class Counsel faced considerable risk in litigating this case,
having advanced all attorney work and costs without any assurance
that they will be paid. The uncertainty of this action including
the risk of losing class certification presents a high contingent
risk for Class Counsel, justifying the fee award. Courts across the
country have consistently recognized that the risk of receiving
little or no recovery is a major factor in considering an award of
attorneys' fees.  

Accordingly, this factor also weighs in favor of the requested fee
award.

Class Counsel Spent Significant Time Investigating and Litigating
the Case

The sixth Gunter factor looks at the time counsel devoted to the
litigation. This factor is usually considered with the lodestar to
look at the reasonableness of counsel's requested fee. The Court
has reviewed the affidavits in this case and finds the over 2,000
hours spent pursuing this lawsuit on behalf of the Settlement Class
to be significant. The hours spent were devoted to work that was
necessary to ultimately settle this matter, including conducting
research into the transmission-related issues, investigating
Plaintiffs' individual claims, engaging in multiple days of
mediation and significant motion practice.

The number of hours devoted by Class Counsel supports the requested
fee award.

The Court's Award Is Consistent with Awards in Similar Cases

In reviewing awards in similar cases, the Court must (1) compare
the actual award requested to other awards in comparable
settlements and (2) ensure that the award is consistent with what
an attorney would have received if the fee were negotiated on the
open market.

An attorney fee award of $1,200,020 falls within the range of fees
approved in other consumer class actions in this District.  

Thus, this factor weighs in favor of approving the fee award.

The Court therefore grants Class Counsel's fee request in the
amount of $1,200,020.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 27, 2019 Opinion is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/yytrbclw from Leagle.com.

Dolores Granillo, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Albert Granillo, individually, and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals & Desiree
Nava, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, represented by HOWARD A. GUTMAN, Law
Office of Howard A. Gutman, 230 Route 206, Suite 307, Flanders, New
Jersey 07836

FCA US LLC., a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant,
represented by KATHLEEN N. FENNELLY -- KFENNELLY@MDMC-LAW.COM --
MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER LLP.

Center for Auto Safety & Public Citizen, Inc., Amicuss, represented
by CARY L. FLITTER, FLITTER MILZ, P.C. & JODY THOMAS LOPEZ-JACOBS,
FLITTER MILZ, P.C., 450 N. Narberth Ave, Ste 101, Narberth, PA
19072-1822


FISHERMAN'S CATCH: Young Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fisherman's Catch Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fisherman's Catch Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08427 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 11, 2019).

Fisherman's Catch Restaurant has been serving fresh Maine seafood,
off the beaten path, for more than 35 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
   Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
   100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 317-2453
   Fax: (516) 706-4692
   Email: ds@lawsolo.net


FITZPATRICK HOTEL: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fitzpatrick Hotel Group Inc. (USA) is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fitzpatrick Hotel Group
Inc. (USA), Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08382 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 10,
2019).

The Fitzpatrick Hotel Group is a privately owned group of boutique
hotels in New York City and Dublin, Ireland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
   New York, NY 10170
   Tel: (212) 764-7171
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com



FLEETWOOD TRANSPORTATION: Howard Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
HARRELL HOWARD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated Plaintiff, v. FLEETWOOD TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01155 (W.D. La., Sept. 4, 2019) is a
collective action seeking to recover unpaid wages, liquidated
damages and other damages owed to drivers, together with attorneys'
fees, interest and costs of these proceedings.

The Defendant employs truck drivers to pick up wood chips from
mills to deliver to local paper mills. Although these drivers
regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek, Defendant does not
pay them overtime, the complaint asserts.

The Defendant's policy of not paying these employees overtime wages
violates the Fair Labor Standards Act, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Harrell Howard was employed by Defendant as a truck
driver and was paid a piece-rate.

Defendant is in the business of hauling forest products, including
wood chips, from various mills and delivering them to local paper
mills.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLOWERSCHOOL NEW YORK: Young Suit Asserts ADA Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Flowerschool New York, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Flowerschool New York, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08434 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 11, 2019).

FlowerSchool is the worlds most famous and prestigious center for
floral arts, design and expertise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
   Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
   100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 317-2453
   Fax: (516) 706-4692
   Email: ds@lawsolo.net



GALERIE EVA: Mendez Files Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Galerie Eva
Presenhuber Corp. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, ADR Provider v.
Galerie Eva Presenhuber Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08463
(S.D. N.Y., Sept. 11, 2019).

The case type is stated as Civil Rights: Education.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GARDEN PHARMACY: Martinez Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Cashiers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANYENY M. MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GARDEN
PHARMACY, INC., d/b/a EXPRESS PHARMACY, and SAFEWAY PHARMACY, INC.,
and GERARD PHARMACY, INC., and RAY'S PHARMACY, INC., d/b/a CENTRAL
PHARMACY & SURGICALS, and 145th STREET PHARMACY, INC., and SAGNIA
BALBUENA, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08195
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2019), seeks to recover damages and equitable
relief based upon violations that Defendants committed of
Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to her by: the overtime and minimum
wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a cashier from on or about
June 4, 2018 until on or about February 11, 2019. Throughout her
employment, the Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the
overtime wages lawfully due to her under the FLSA and the NYLL or
the minimum hourly rate due under the NYLL.

The Defendants consist of five nominally distinct entities that
together operate a single enterprise of pharmacies in the Bronx and
the individual who is an owner and/or chief executive that operates
and supervises the enterprise and its employees on a day-to-day
basis.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Caitlin Duffy, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 0017
          Telephone: (212) 679-5000
          Facsimile. (212) 679-5005

GARTH GREENAN: Mendez Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------
Garth Greenan Gallery, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Himelda Mendez and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Garth Greenan Gallery, Inc, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-08465 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 11, 2019).

Garth Greenan Gallery, Inc is an Art gallery in New York City, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENESEE & WYOMING: Faces Gordon Suit over Proposed Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
DAVID GORDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENESEE & WYOMING INC.; JOHN C. HELLMANN;
OIVIND LORENTZEN III; GEORGE R. OLIVER; ANN N. REESE; JOSEPH H.
PYNE; MARK A. SCUDDER; ALBERT J. NEUPAVER; RICHARD H. BOTT; HUNTER
C. SMITH; BRUCE J. CARTER; and CYNTHIA L. HOSTETLER, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01558-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 21, 2019) is an action by
the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public holders of
the common stock of Genesee & Wyoming Inc. against the Company and
the members of the Company's board of directors for their
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with the proposed merger between G&W and Brookfield Infrastructure,
GIC, and Brookfield Infrastructure's institutional partners.

According to the complaint, on July 1, 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 $112 in cash for
each share of G&W stock they own.

On August 5, 2019, in order to convince G&W shareholders to vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing
of a materially incomplete and misleading Form PREM14A Preliminary
Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC"), in violation of the Exchange Act. The materially
incomplete and misleading Proxy violates the Exchange Act. On
August 20, 2019, the Company filed a Form DEFM14A Definitive Proxy
Statement that did not correct the materially incomplete and
misleading nature of the Proxy.

The Board has scheduled a special meeting of the Company's
shareholders on October 3, 2019 to vote on the Proposed
Transaction.

The Proxy 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 G&W shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction;
and (ii) the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by
G&W's financial advisors, BofA Securities, Inc. ("BofA") and Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC ("Morgan Stanley") in support of their opinions
that the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the
Board relied.

Genesee & Wyoming Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and operates
short line and regional freight railroads and provides related rail
services. The Company also offers railroad switching and related
services to the United States industries with extensive railroad
facilities within their complexes. Genesee & Wyoming operates in
the United States and Australia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                 jwilson@faruqilaw.com


GODDADY.COM LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Drazen Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN DRAZEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GODADDY.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-563
(S.D. Ala., Aug. 21, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of making unsolicited calls.

GoDaddy.com, LLC provides web hosting and domain registration
services. The Company offers email management, web development,
website security, and other business solutions. GoDaddy.com serves
an e-commerce, media, e-marketing, and entertainment industries.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Earl P. Underwood, Jr., Esq.
          UNDERWOOD & RIEMER, P.C.
          21 South Section Street
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Telephone: (251) 990-5558
          Facsimile: (251) 990-0626
          E-mail: epunderwood@alalaw.com


HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Oda Antitrust Suit Over Sale of HDDs
----------------------------------------------------------------
HARLEY ODA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC.,
MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL
(DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING
CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO.,
LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS
(H.K.) LTD., and TDK CORPORATION, Case No. 0:19-cv-02372-PJS-BRT
(D. Minn., Aug. 28, 2019), is an antitrust action directed at the
Defendants' anticompetitive conduct and global conspiracy to fix
prices and allocate market shares in the market for hard disk drive
suspension assemblies.

Hard disk drives or HDDs are sold either as standalone products or
integrated in products, such as computers.  An HDD suspension
assembly is a component that is incorporated into internal and
external HDDs, which store information electronically using
magnetism.

The Defendants manufactured HDD suspension assemblies and sold them
in, or for delivery to, the United States.

TDK Corporation ("TDK") is a Japanese corporation with its
principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan.  Magnecomp Precision
Technology Public Co. Ltd. ("MPT") is Hara Thai corporation with
its principal place of business in Ayutthaya, Thailand.  It is an
affiliate of and is wholly controlled by Defendant TDK
Corporation.

Headway Technologies, Inc. ("Headway") is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business in Milpitas, California. It is
an affiliate of and is wholly controlled by TDK Corporation.

Hutchinson Technology Inc. ("HTI") is a Minnesota Corporation with
its principal place of business in Hutchinson, Minnesota. TDK
Corporation acquired HTI on October 6, 2016.

SAE Magnetics (H.K.) Ltd. ("SAE") is a Chinese corporation with its
principal place of business in Hong Kong, China.

NHK Spring Co., Ltd. ("NHK") is a Japanese corporation with its
principal place of business in Yokohama, Japan.  NHK International
Corporation is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of
business in Novi, Michigan. It is an affiliate of and is wholly
controlled by NHK Spring Co., Ltd.

NHK Spring (Thailand) Co., Ltd. is a Thai corporation with its
principal place of business in Samutprakarn, Thailand.  It is an
affiliate of and is wholly controlled by NHK Spring Co., Ltd.  NHK
Spring Precision (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. is a Chinese corporation
with its principal place of business in Guangzhou, China.  It is an
affiliate of and is wholly owned and/or controlled by NHK Spring
Co., Ltd.

NAT Peripheral (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd. is a Chinese corporation with
its principal place of business in Guangdong, China.  It is an
affiliate of and is wholly owned and/or controlled by NHK Spring
Co., Ltd.  NAT Peripheral (H.K.) Co., Ltd. is a Chinese corporation
with its principal place of business in Hong Kong, China. It is an
affiliate of and is wholly controlled by NHK Spring Co., Ltd.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Catherine K. Smith, Esq.
          Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  csmith@gustafsongluek.com
                  dnordin@gustafsongluek.com


HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES: Kluessendorf Alleges HDD Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA KLUESSENDORF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC
CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL
(H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION
(GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK
CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-02419 (D. Minn.,
Sept. 3, 2019), seeks for damages, injunctive relief and other
relief pursuant to federal antitrust laws, state antitrust, unfair
competition, consumer protection laws, and the laws of unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiff contends that beginning no later than May 2008,
Defendants and their co-conspirators knowingly entered into a
conspiracy to fix prices of and allocate market shares for hard
disk drive suspension assemblies.  HDD suspension assemblies are a
component of hard disk drives, which are used to store information
electronically and may be incorporated into computers, gaming
systems, printers, and copy machines or sold as stand-alone
electronic storage devices.

HDDs use magnetic recording heads to read from and write onto
rapidly spinning disks. HDD suspension assemblies hold the
recording heads close to the disks and provide the electrical
connection from the recording heads to the hard disk drives'
circuitry.

The Defendants were the leading manufactures and sellers of HDD
suspension assemblies in the United States. In fact, as of 2016,
the Defendants held a combined worldwide market share of
approximately 90%.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Indirect Purchaser
Classes, are:

          Mark Reinhardt, Esq.
          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
          Brant D. Penney, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF &
          BLANCHFIELD
          E-1250 First National Bank Building
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          E-mail: m.reinhardt@rwblawfirm.com
                  g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                  b.penney@rwblawfirm.com

HERB CHAMBERS: Tran Seeks Overtime Pay for Associates
-----------------------------------------------------
Sakiroh Tran, individually and on behalf of Others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HERB CHAMBERS 1168, INC., JENNINGS
ROAD MANAGEMENT CORP., HERBERT CHAMBERS, JAMES DUCHESNEAU, ALAN
MCLAREN, the Defendants, Case No. 19-2690A (Mass. Super., Suffolk
County, Aug. 23, 2019), seeks to recover overtime pay under the
Massachusetts General Laws.

The class action complaint is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff,
Sakiroh Tran and other individuals who have worked for The Herb
Chambers Companies, its dealerships subsidiaries and related
companies in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during the statutory
period, in their service and parts departments and were paid in
whole or in part on a commission basis.

During the course of their employ with the Defendants, they worked
hours in excess of 40 during a seven day work week without
receiving an overtime premium. In addition, the Plaintiffs and
others were obligated to work on Sundays without receiving Sunday
premium pay. In this action, the Plaintiffs and others seek to
recover compensation for these Wage Act violations, statutory
trebling of wage related damages, and attorney’s fees and costs
as provided for by law.

The Plaintiff and others work and/or worked as service and parts
associates.

Herb Chambers 1168, Inc., doing business as Herb Chambers Toyota of
Boston, retails automobiles.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          James W. Simpson, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES W. SIMPSON, JR. P.C.
          100 Concord Street, Suite 3B
          Framingham, MA 01702
          Telephone: (508) 872-0002

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Fonseca Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned BRYANT FONSECA, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, Plaintiffs, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation; HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; HP, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2017-00045630-CU-WT-CTL
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on Sept. 11, 2019, and assigned
Case No. 3:19-cv-01748-GPC-MSB.

The Complaint contained seven counts: (1) Disparate Treatment; (2)
Disparate Impact; (3) Wrongful Termination In Violation Of Public
Policy; (4) Failure To Prevent Discrimination; (5) Violation of the
Cartwright Act; (6) Violation of California Bus. & Prof. Code
16600; and (7) Unfair Competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     CLAUDETTE G. WILSON, ESQ.
     MERYL C. MANEKER, ESQ.
     CHRISTINA C.K. SEMMER, ESQ.
     MARK A. REIN, ESQ.
     VALERIE PHAN, ESQ.
     WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP
     402 West Broadway, Suite 1600
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 236-9600
     Facsimile: (619) 236-9669
     Email: cwilson@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
            mmaneker@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
            csemmer@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
            mrein@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
            vphan@wilsonturnerkosmo.com

          - and -

     JODY A. LANDRY, ESQ.
     KHATEREH S. FAHIMI, ESQ.
     CHRISTINA HAYES, ESQ.
     LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
     501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
     San Diego, CA 92101.3577
     Phone: 619.232.0441
     Facsimile: 619.232.4302
     Email: jlandry@littler.com
            sfahimi@littler.com
            chayes@littler.com



HOSPITALITY CONTROL: King Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
RANDY KING, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated
v. HOSPITALITY CONTROL SOLUTIONS LLC, JOSEPH STALER, NANCY
BADALAMENTI, and ANDREW KEIM, Case No. 3:19-cv-00760 (M.D. Tenn.,
Aug. 28, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid straight-time pay and
overtime compensation owed to the Plaintiff and other employees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Hospitality Control Systems, LLC, is a limited liability company
and maintains its principal place of business in Nashville,
Tennessee.  The Individual Defendants are owners, managers,
officers or employees of the Company.

The Company is an NCR/Aloha point-of-sale provider and reseller
serving over 1,000 restaurant clients in Tennessee, Mississippi,
and elsewhere.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trevor Howell, Esq.
          HOWELL LAW, PLLC
          P.O. Box 158511
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 406-1416
          E-mail: Trevor@howelllawfirmllc.com

               - and -

          Peter F. Klett, Esq.
          Joshua Burgener, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          Fifth Third Center
          424 Church Street, Suite 800
          Nashville, TN 37219-2392
          Telephone: (615) 244-6538
          E-mail: pklett@dickinsonwright.com
                  jburgener@dickinsonwright.com


HP INC: Appeal in Jackson Class Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 29, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended July 31, 2019, that the appeal from a court ruling in the
case, Jackson, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, is
still pending.

This putative nationwide class action was filed on July 24, 2017 in
federal district court in San Jose, California. The plaintiffs
purport to bring the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated African-Americans and individuals over the age
of forty.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a pattern and
practice of racial and age discrimination in lay-offs and
promotions. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September
29, 2017.

On January 12, 2018, the defendants moved to transfer the matter to
the federal district court in the Northern District of Georgia. The
defendants also moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds and
to strike certain aspects of the proposed class definition.

The Court dismissed the action on the basis of improper venue.  

On July 23, 2018, the plaintiffs refiled the case in the Northern
District of Georgia. On August 9, 2018, the plaintiffs also filed a
notice of appeal of the dismissal order with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On October 1, 2018, the Georgia court granted the plaintiffs'
unopposed motion to stay and administratively close the Georgia
action until the Ninth Circuit appeal is decided.

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

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


INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS: Cavada Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants removed on Sept. 3, 2019, the lawsuit entitled
MALLORY CAVADA, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated v. INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS
GROUP, INC., a Corporation; IHG MANAGEMENT MARYLAND LLC, a Limited
Liability Company; INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, INC., a
Corporation; INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, LLC, a
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 37-2019-00039279-CU-OE-CTL, from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01675-GPC-BLM to
the proceeding.

This action was filed before the Superior Court on July 29, 2019.
In her Complaint, Mallory Cavada purports to assert eight claims
for relief stemming from her employment at the Staybridge Suites
hotel in Rancho Bernardo, California.  She alleges that the
Defendants failed to observe, as to herself and all non-exempt
employees of the Defendants in California, from July 29, 2015 to
present, the requirements set forth in, among other things,
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.
(unfair competition law), and California Labor Code Sections 1194,
1197, and 1197.1 (regarding the payment of minimum wages).[BN]

Defendants IHG MANAGEMENT (MARYLAND) LLC; INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS
GROUP RESOURCES, INC.; INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES are
represented by:

          Michael J. Burns, Esq.
          Eric E. Hill, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          E-mail: mburns@seyfarth.com
                  ehill@seyfarth.com


JANKOSSEN CONTEMPORARY: Mendez Suit Asserts Breach of ADA
---------------------------------------------------------
Jankossen Contemporary Art Gallery LLC is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Himelda Mendez and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jankossen Contemporary Art Gallery
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08467-LGS (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 11,
2019).

JanKossen is a contemporary art gallery representing emerging and
seasoned international talents, focused primarily in abstract and
expressionist art.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JB7 LLC: McLaughlin Files Fraud Class Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JB7, LLC. The case is
styled as Katrina McLaughlin, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JB7, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-23748-RNS (S.D. Fla., Sept. 9, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Jb7, which also operates under the name Physician's Choice, is
located in Westminster, Colorado. This organization primarily
operates in the Vitamin Preparations business/industry within the
Chemicals and Allied Products sector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Franklin Cash, III, Esq.
     Matthew David Schultz, Esq.
     Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty, Proctor, PA
     316 S. Baylen Street #600
     Pensacola, FL 32502
     Phone: (850) 435-7059
     Fax: 436-6140
     Email: bcash@levinlaw.com
            mschultz@levinlaw.com



JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: Underpays Exotic Dancer, Benton Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
STACY BENTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN d/b/a/ PATTY'S SHOWCLUB,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-3522RIX-MPB (S.D. Ind., Aug. 19, 2019)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintff Benton was employed by the Defendant as exotic
dancer.

Joseph Chamberlain d/b/a/ Patty's Showclub operates as an adult
entertainment club. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel K. Stein, Esq.
          LYNN AND STEIN, P.C.
          102 South Wabash Street
          Wabash, IN 46992
          Telephone: (260) 563-8020
          E-mail: jstein@lynnandstein.com

               - and -

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          E-mail: GGgreenberg@ZAGFirm.com


KEYES COMPANY: Greenberg Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES GREENBERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE KEYES COMPANY, a Florida
Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-62208-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., Sept. 4, 2019) is an action brought against Defendant to
secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, notes the
complaint. As a result, Defendant caused thousands of text messages
to be sent to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class
Members who either never provided Defendant with consent to contact
them or who had revoked any prior express consent. The Defendant
caused Plaintiff and Class Members injuries, including invasion of
their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion,
trespass, and conversion, says the complaint.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     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 -

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

          - and -

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


KING BIO: Dismissal of Amended Hoffman Consumer Fraud Suit Flipped
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HAROLD M. HOFFMAN, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KING BIO, INC.,
Defendant-Respondent, Case No. A-2055-17T1 ( N.J. Super. App.
Div.), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division,
reversed the final order dismissing with prejudice Hoffman's
amended consumer fraud complaint against King Bio for failure to
state a claim and a subsequent order assessing sanctions against
him for frivolous litigation.

Hoffman alleged King Bio's claims that its "Multi-Strain Flu
Relief" provides temporary relief from symptoms of the flu is
demonstrably false because its homeopathic formulation is medically
incapable of delivering any therapeutic benefit against the flu or
any other medical condition.

The Plaintiff's initial six-count complaint alleging violations of
the Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"), and common law fraud was dismissed
without prejudice for failure to state a claim under Rule 4:6-2(e).
The judge hearing that motion determined the Plaintiff failed to
plead any of the three elements of a CFA claim: 1) unlawful
conduct; 2) ascertainable loss; and 3) a causal relationship
between the alleged unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss.

In his amended complaint, the Plaintiff repeated his allegations
regarding the basic principles of homeopathy, explaining the
extreme dilution of the active ingredients of Flu Relief at the
levels listed on the packaging results in the formulation
containing "not even microscopically detectable components of the
original active ingredient."  He also included his original
citation to a 2015 assessment by Australia's National Health and
Medical Research Council concluding "there is no evidence that
homeopathy is effective for any health conditions," and added a
recent statement by the Federal Trade Commission.

The Plaintiff abandoned his claim that the extreme dilution of the
listed ingredients, to the point of them being non-existent,
amounted to a misrepresentation that the product contained anything
other than water. He further took pains to clarify he was not
attempting to plead a prior substantiation claim, as he was not
asserting that the Defendant lacked proof of the efficacy of Flu
Relief, but was instead alleging defendant's claims about the
product's efficacy for relieving flu symptoms are false.

The Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure
to state a claim was heard by a different judge.  After hearing
argument, the judge entered an order granting the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice.  The order
provides only that the motion was granted essentially for the
reasons set forth in the Aug. 11, 2017 opinion" of the first judge.
The court denied the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and
granted the Defendant's motion for attorney's fees pursuant to Rule
1:4-8 and N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1, the New Jersey Frivolous Claims
Act.

As instructed by the state Supreme Court, the Court's task is to
consider allegations in the complaint, exhibits attached to the
complaint, matters of public record, and documents that form the
basis of a claim with the understanding that it is the existence of
the fundament of a cause of action in those documents that is
pivotal at this preliminary stage of the proceedings, not the
ability of the Plaintiff to prove what he has alleged.
Consequently, dismissal motions for failure to state a claim should
be granted in only the rarest of instances.

The Court holds that applying those standards makes clear the order
dismissing the amended complaint must be reversed, leaving aside
that the reasons expressed for its entry are wholly inadequate.
Although improperly parceled out across five counts of his amended
complaint, it finds that the Plaintiff has clearly alleged that
King Bio's claims for the efficacy of its Flu Relief product are
false, thus constituting an unlawful practice in connection with
its sale or advertisement.  

Because the Plaintiff further alleged he purchased the product for
$14.99 in reliance on King Bio's representations of the therapeutic
value of the product, and instead received a product with no
therapeutic value, worth much less than what he paid, he has
plainly stated a cause of action under the CFA.

The Plaintiff's failure to allege he used the product, or that he
demanded a refund, does not bar his cause of action under
established case law.  Further, that the studies the Plaintiff
referenced in his complaint asserting the lack of any scientific
proof to support the therapeutic value of any homeopathic product
do not specifically reference Flu Relief is not an impediment to
the suit proceeding.  

Although the Plaintiff could not prove his cause of action based
only on those studies, he has no obligation to prove his
allegations today.  Instead, the service of an expert report
meeting the admissibility requirements of N.J.R.E. 702 can await
the normal processes of pretrial discovery.  Likewise, whether the
Plaintiff can prove he purchased Flu Relief in reliance on King
Bio's claims for the product, or whether it can show he had no hope
the product would work as described and thus any loss he suffered
was self-inflicted are issues for another day.

The Court, of course, expresses no opinion on the likelihood of the
Plaintiff recovering a judgment against King Bio or the merit, or
lack thereof, of his CFA claim.  It holds only that it was
dismissed improperly at the pleading stage.  In light of its
disposition of the appeal, the Court need not address the order for
sanctions beyond noting that it is necessarily reversed as the
Plaintiff's amended complaint is reinstated.

The Court reversed.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/yQu7Z3 from Leagle.com.

Harold M. Hoffman, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Daniel S. Tyler -- daniel@amintalati.com -- (Amin Talati Upadhye,
LLP) of the Illinois bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause
for respondent (Law Offices of Krima D. Shah, LLC and Daniel S.
Tyler, attorneys; Krima D. Shah, Ryan M. Kaiser (Amin Talati
Upadhye, LLP) of the Illinois bar, admitted pro hac vice, and
Daniel S. Tyler, on the brief).


KIRKLAND'S INC: Miles Class Action in California Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended August 3, 2019, that Kirkland's Stores, Inc.
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Miles v.
Kirkland's Stores, Inc.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a putative class
action filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California, Miles
v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc.

The case has been removed to Federal Court, Central District of
California, and trial is not yet set.

The complaint alleges, on behalf of Miles and all other hourly
Kirkland's employees in California, various wage and hour
violations.

Kirkland's denies the material allegations in the complaint and
believes that its employment policies are generally compliant with
California law. To date, the parties have exchanged the court
mandated initial disclosures.

The Company believes the case is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against the allegations.

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

Kirkland's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of home decor in
the United States.  The company's stores provide various
merchandise, including holiday decor, framed arts,
furniture,ornamental wall decor, fragrance and accessories,
mirrors, lamps, decorative accessories, textiles, housewares,
gifts, artificial floral products, frames, clocks, and outdoor
living items. Kirkland's, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is based in
Brentwood, Tennessee.


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Brooks Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., removed on Sept. 3, 2019,
the class action lawsuit titled GLENDALE BROOKS, as an individual,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT
STORES, INC., a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 110, inclusive,
Case No. CIVDS1922092, from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-01681 to the
proceeding.

Ms. Brooks brings the lawsuit on behalf of herself and the class of
all other similarly situated current and former employees of the
Defendants for alleged failure to correctly calculate the regular
rate and overtime rates of pay, as well as waiting time penalties,
and penalties or damages for failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, penalties under California Labor Code statutes,
and for restitution and injunctive relief.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Nick Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
          E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com

               - and -

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL, APC
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com

               - and -

          Edward W. Choi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 381-1515
          Facsimile: (213) 465-4885
          E-mail: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com


KUIFS PETROLEUM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clark Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KUIFS PETROLEUM, L.P.; and QUALITY FUELS,
L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-03137 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 21,
2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Clark was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee.

Kuifs Petroleum, L.P. own, operate and control multiple gasoline
stations, convenience stores in the Houston and surrounding areas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
          ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
          7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
          Houston, TX 77074
          Telephone: (713) 223-1300
          Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
          E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


LABORATORY CORPORATIONS: Gray PI Suit Transferred to N.J. Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as ERIN THERESA GRAY on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LABORATORY
CORPORATIONS OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED,
OPTUM360 LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00139 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Sept. 9,
2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-17788.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J BENJAMIN FINLEY, ESQ.
     200 13th Street
     Columbus, GA 31901
     Phone: (706) 322-6226
     Fax: (706) 322-6221

          - and -

     MARYBETH V GIBSON, ESQ.
     3535 PIEDMONT RD BLDG 14 STE 230
     ATLANTA, GA 30305
     Phone: (404) 320-9979


LOBEL'S OF NEW YORK: Cross Summary Judgment Bids in Diaz Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTHIAN DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOBEL'S OF NEW YORK, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-6349 (NGG) (SMG) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge
Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York denid both (i) the Defendant's motion to
dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment, and (ii) the
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

Diaz brings the putative class action against Lobel's, alleging
that its website is inaccessible to blind customers in violation of
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").  Diaz is
blind and uses screen-reading software, named JAWS and NVDA, to
access the internet and read website content.  

The Defendant owns and operates the website www.lobels.com.  It
uses the website to market and sell more than 400 different
products, including fresh meats, other food products, merchandise,
and gift packages.  The Defendant also uses its website to post
recipes and information about its business.  The Website consists
of nearly 1,000 separate pages.

Beginning in December 2016, the Plaintiff attempted to make a
purchase on the Website at least five times. He could not purchase
products on the Website using JAWS or NVDA because the website was
not accessible via keyboard access.  

The Defendant states that as of the date of its motion -- Dec. 22,
2017 -- it had "recently completed" an update of the Website to
make it conform with guidelines regarding accessibility for
visually impaired persons.  It began updating its website in the
spring of 2017 using a "comprehensive plan" to improve
accessibility.  Its updates were guided by the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG") 2.0 Level AA standard.  Both
parties agree that the WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA standards are the
appropriate guidelines to satisfy the ADA's accessibility
requirement.

The Defendant contends that as of the date of the 56.1 statement,
the Website was in conformance with WCAG 2.0 Level AA standard.  In
addition, it promised to remedy within five business days "a few
minor exceptions" that were revealed by the Siteimprove scan
performed on Dec. 22, 2017.  The Plaintiff counters that the
Website was still "not accessible" to blind individuals as of Jan.
17, 2018.  The Defendant added an ADA policy with a feedback form
to their website, but the Plaintiff stated that he could not read
that policy using screen-reading software.

The Defendant entered into a subscription agreement with
Siteimprove, Inc. and its employees will run scans of the Website
at least monthly using the WCAG 2.0 Level AA standard to detect any
accessibility issues.  It will "promptly rectify" any issues
revealed by those scans.  The Defendant also commits to checking
that any new content added to the Website is also in conformance.

The Plaintiff filed the action on Nov. 15, 2016, alleging
violations of Title III of the ADA, New York State Human Rights
Law, New York State Civil rights Law, and New York City Human
Rights Law.  As relief under the ADA, the complaint sought
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  In separate claims under
state and local laws, the complaint also sought compensatory
damages.

The parties' respective motions to dismiss and for summary judgment
were fully briefed on March 5, 2018.  The Defendant argues that the
Plaintiff's claim under the ADA is moot, because the Defendant has
voluntarily remedied the accessibility barriers of the Website so
that it is now accessible to blind users according to the standards
commonly used to assess such accessibility.  In contrast, the
Plaintiff asks the court to grant summary judgment in his favor
because, he argues, the Website is not accessible to blind users,
in violation of the ADA.

Judge Garaufis cannot conclude, based on the evidence before it,
that the Defendant has fully rectified all access barriers in the
Website or that it is "absolutely clear the Defendant cannot resume
the allegedly offending conduct."  He thus finds that the
Plaintiff's ADA claim is not moot, and denies the Defendant's
motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

The Defendant sets forth no additional arguments with respect to
its motion in the alternative for summary judgment.  Having found
that the Plaintiff's ADA claim is not moot, the Judge also denies
the Defendant's motion for summary judgment because there is a
triable issue as to whether the Website violates the ADA.

As for the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, the Judge finds
that the Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden in proving that
McCaffrey's opinions are sufficiently reliable under Rule 702 and
Daubert.  He thus declines to consider the McCaffrey declaration
and appended audit reports.

Leaving aside the McCaffrey declaration, the Judge considers
whether the record indicates that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.  He finds that the declarations submitted by the
parties demonstrate that genuine issues of material fact exist as
to whether the upgraded website -- which is apparently being
regularly reviewed and tweaked to address accessibility concerns --
currently contains barriers to access that rise to the level of an
ADA violation.  Because there is a triable issue as to whether the
Website violates the ADA, summary judgment would be inappropriate.

For these reasons, Judge Garaufis denied (i) the Defendant's motion
to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, and (ii) the Plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/Yb3VDM from Leagle.com.

Cristhian Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Seelig --
anne@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee --
cklee@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC.

Lobel's of New York, LLC, Defendant, represented by James R. Denlea
-- jdenlea@denleacarton.com -- Denlea & Carton LLP & Peter Newton
Freiberg -- PFreiberg@jonesswanson.com -- Jones Swanson Huddell &
Garrison LLC.


LOWE'S HOME: Brunson Sues Over Illegal Face Print Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
GLORIA BRUNSON, KEVIN DAHLBERG, and SA'DONNA DICKERSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, a North Carolina limited
liability company, and JOHN DOES 1-99, Defendants, Case No.
2019CH10251 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., Sept. 4, 2019) is a
class action complaint against Defendants for violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Lowe's has augmented its in-store security cameras with software
that tracks individuals' movements throughout the store using a
unique scan of face geometry. The complaint alleges that the
Defendants surreptitiously attempt to collect the faceprint of
every person who appears in front of one of their
facial-recognition cameras. The Defendants actively conceal their
faceprinting practices from the public. When privacy-minded
customers consult the U.S. Privacy Statement on www.lowes.com, they
find no mention whatsoever of biometric information or face print
collection, nor does Lowe's inform visitors on-site when it
collects their faceprints, the complaint adds.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants' systemic and covert
privacy intrusion is plainly unlawful in Illinois. Plaintiffs bring
this Complaint seeking an order (i) declaring that Defendants'
conduct violates BIPA, (ii) requiring that Defendants cease the
unlawful activities described herein and destroy the biometric data
they unlawfully collected, and (iii) awarding Plaintiffs and the
Class statutory damages of $5,000 per violation, plus their
attorneys' fees and costs, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Brunson is a natural person and a citizen of the State of
Illinois residing in Cook County.

Lowe's is one of the country's largest home-improvement
retailers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ashley Keller, Esq.
     Travis D. Lenkner, Esq.
     J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
     KELLER LENKNER LLC
     150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: 312.741.5220
     Email: ack@kellerlenkner.com
            tdl@kellerlenkner.com
            nl@kellerlenkner.com


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Gathmann-Landini Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 5, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended August 4, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Rebecca
Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA inc.

On October 9, 2015, certain current and former hourly employees of
the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of
New York entitled Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA
inc.

On December 2, 2015, the case was moved to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various New York
labor codes by failing to pay all earned wages, including overtime
compensation.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.

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

lululemon athletica inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
distributes, and retails athletic apparel and accessories for
women, men, and female youth. It operates through two segments,
Company-Operated Stores and Direct to Consumer. lululemon athletica
inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in Vancouver, Canada.


MACY'S INC: Court Strikes Count VI in Amended Hawes Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SARA HAWES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MACY'S INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-754 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Timothy S.
Black of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division, granted Macy's' Motion to Strike Count Six of the
Amended Class Action Complaint.

On April 29, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint.  On June 12,
2019, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint,
purportedly pursuant to the Court's leave.  Inexplicably, and
without leave of Court, the Plaintiffs presented a Count Six
alleging a CLRA claim.

In response to Macy's Motion to Strike Count Six, the Plaintiffs
assert that the Court denied leave to file the CLRA claim because
Hawes failed to provide the requisite presuit notice.  However,
they argue that the pre-suit notice requirement only pertains to
claims for damages, not injunctive relief.  Thus, the Plaintiffs
argue the CLRA claim in the amended complaint should proceed,
because it seeks injunctive relief.  However, in the Second Amended
Complaint there is no mention of "injunctive relief" and the
Plaintiffs continue to allege pre-suit notice which the Court has
ruled was insufficient as a matter of law.

Regardless of the Plaintiffs' characterization of their latest
version of Count Six, Macy's moves to strike Count Six of the
amended complaint, because the Plaintiffs did not seek leave and
were not granted leave of Court to file that CLRA claim.

Judge Black holds that Macy's is correct.  And when a court grants
a party leave to amend a complaint, subsequent amendments that
exceed the scope of the leave granted may be stricken under Rule
12(f).

Accordingly, he struck the Plaintiffs' Count Six of the Second
Amended Complaint.  Nonetheless, the Plaintiffs are granted leave
to file a Third Amended Complaint with a CLRA claim expressly
seeking injunctive relief only.  Moreover, because the Plaintiffs
have named the wrong Macy's entity as the Defendant, the Second
Amended Complaint is struck in its entirety, and in the "Third
Amended Class Action Complaint," the Plaintiffs will also name the
proper Defendant.  The Plaintiffs will file their Third Amended
Complaint within 30 days of entry of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Kyrm7a from Leagle.com.

Sara Hawes, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Amy Hill, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles E. Schaffer
-- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Sedran & Berman, pro hac vice,
Drew T. Legando -- drew@lgmlegal.com -- Landskroner Grieco
Merriman, LLC, Brendan S. Thompson, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP,
David L. Black, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, pro hac vice, Stuart
L. Cochran -- stuart@stecklerlaw.com -- Steckler Gresham Cochran
PLLC, pro hac vice & Jack Landskroner -- jack@lgmlegal.com --
Landskroner Grieco Merriman, LLC.

Macy's, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew L. Rodenbough --
arodenbough@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce, pro hac vice, Beth
A. Bryan -- bryan@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister,
Jennifer K. Van Zant -- jvanzant@brookspierce.com -- Brooks
Pierce,
pro hac vice, Reid L. Phillips -- rphillips@brookspierce.com --
Brooks Pierce, pro hac vice & Ryan C. Fairchild --
rfairchild@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce, pro hac vice.


MANHATTAN AND BRONX: McFarlane Sues over Loss of Pay & Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
LATOYA McFARLANE, on her own behalf and on behalf of a class
similarly situated, the  Plaintiff, vs. MANHATTAN AND BRONX SURFACE
TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY, and the NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT
AUTHORITY, the Defendants, Case No. 158568/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Aug. 3,
2019), alleges that Plaintiff was not reasonably accommodated by
the Defendants during her pregnancy, causing her a loss of pay and
benefits, in violation of Section 296(16) of the New York Executive
Law and Section 8-107(11)(a) of the New York City Human Rights Law.


The Plaintiff, a bus driver, brings this action as a class action
on behalf of other pregnant bus drivers who have in the past and
who will in the future seek reasonable accommodation, without
success, from MABSTOA and the NYCTA.

On May 3, 2019, when she was 26 weeks pregnant, Plaintiff's
obstetrician recommended that she stop driving a bus because she
was suffering from lower back pain, leg swelling, and pelvic
pressure, and needed to use a restroom frequently. His note
emphasized that he recommended light duty for the sake of the
unborn child, the lawsuit says.

MABSTOA is an Authority created pursuant to the Public Authorities
Law as a subsidiary of the NYCTA, which operates and maintains the
public bus system in Manhattan and the Bronx. It is headquartered
at 2 Broadway, New York, New York.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Arthur Schwartz, Esq.
          Laine Armstrong, Esq.
          225 Broadway Suite 1902
          New York, New York 10007
          Telephone: (212) 285-1400

MASON COUNTY, WA: Longshore Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mason County. The
case is styled as Charles S Longshore, an individual plaintiff and
purposed class representative on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. Mason County, Casey Salisbury, Kevin
Hanson, Albert Hernandez, Randy Newell, John and Jane Does 1-10,
Mason County employees, John Doe, Washington State Department of
Social and Health Services (DSHS) Secretary, John and Jane Does
1-10, DSHS employees, Shelton Police Department and Mason County
Sheriff's Office, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-04115-SOH (W.D.
Wash., Sept. 11, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Prisoner
Petitions (Prison Condition) filed pursuant to Prisoner Civil
Rights.

Mason County is a county located in the U.S. state of
Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



MCNALLY JACKSON: Young Files Class Suit under ADA
-------------------------------------------------
McNally Jackson Books, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. McNally Jackson Books, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08435 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 11, 2019).

McNally Jackson Books is an independent book retailer in
Manhattan's Prince St.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
   Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
   100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 317-2453
   Fax: (516) 706-4692
   Email: ds@lawsolo.net


MDL 2670: 3 Classes in Packaged Seafood Antitrust Suit Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Case No. 15-MD-2670 JLS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Janis L.
Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California granted the Motions for Class Certification filed by the
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPPs"), Commercial Food Preparer
Plaintiffs ("CFPs"), and End Payer Plaintiffs ("EPPs").

The Plaintiffs initiated the action in 2015, alleging an antitrust
conspiracy by the Defendants to fix and maintain prices above
competitive levels in violation of state and federal anti-trust
laws.  The various civil actions relating to this conspiracy were
consolidated in a multidistrict litigation for centralized pretrial
proceedings before this Court on Dec. 9, 2015.

Early in the multidistrict litigation, the Court divided the
Plaintiffs into four tracks: (1) Direct Action Plaintiffs ("DAPs"),
who are direct purchasers proceeding individually against the
Defendants; (2) DPPs, who are direct purchasers proceeding on
behalf of a putative class; (3) CFPs, who are indirect purchasers
proceeding on behalf of a putative class; and (4) EPPs, who are
indirect purchasers proceeding on behalf of a putative class.  The
latter three tracks bring the current Motions.

The Defendants comprise the three largest domestic producers of
packaged tuna products—Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Tri-Union Seafoods
LLC, doing business as Chicken of the Sea ("COSI")5, and StarKist
Company—and their parent companies -- Lion Capital LLP, Lion
Capital (Americas), Inc., and Big Catch Cayman LP, owners of Bumble
Bee; Dongwon Industries Co. Ltd, owner of StarKist; and Thai Union
Group Co. Ltd, owner of COSI.

The Class Plaintiffs bring claims under federal and state antitrust
laws, alleging that the Defendants took part in various forms of
anti-competitive conduct, including agreeing to fix certain net and
list prices for packaged tuna, agreeing to limit promotional
activity for packaged tuna, and agreeing to exchange sensitive or
confidential business information for the purpose of facilitating
the object of the conspiracy.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
conspiracy began at least by November of 2010 and lasted until at
least Dec. 31, 2016.  The Plaintiffs felt the effects of this
conspiracy in the form of supracompetitive prices paid for packaged
tuna products.

Shortly after the commencement of the action, the U.S. Department
of Justice ("DOJ") noticed the Court of pending investigations of
the Defendants. Since that time, the Defendants and the individual
employees have pled guilty and the DOJ has entered multiple
indictments.  As of the filing of the Order, Bumble Bee has pled
guilty to price-fixing of packaged tuna products and been
criminally fined.  Two of Bumble Bee's senior executives have also
pled guilty and its CEO has been indicted in the Northern District
of California.  StarKist has pled guilty and will be criminally
fined, and one of its senior executives has also pled guilty.
Chicken of the Sea has admitted to price fixing and is cooperating
with the DOJ investigation.

The Plaintiffs filed the current Motions in April 2018.  To support
their Motions and to prove impact to the Class members, the Class
Plaintiff groups each enlisted econometric experts, each of whom
submitted an expert report.  The reports detail the canned tuna
market characteristics and state the experts' findings regarding
whether there is evidence to support that a conspiracy occurred;
whether all, or nearly all, of the Class members suffered impact;
and whether damages can reasonably be calculated.  To make these
findings, the experts each put forth regression models to show the
impact to the Class members; it is these models that have become
the main focus of Defendants' Oppositions to certification.

The DPPs seek to certify the following class: Direct Purchaser
Plaintiff Class - All persons and entities that directly purchased
packaged tuna products within the United States, its territories
and the District of Columbia from any Defendant at any time between
June 1, 2011 and July 1, 2015.

The CFPs request that the Court certifies under California's
Cartwright Act the following proposed class: Commercial Food
Service Product Class - All persons and entities in 27 named states
and D.C.,12 that indirectly purchased packaged tuna products
produced in packages of 40 ounces or more that were manufactured by
any Defendant (or any current or former subsidiary or any affiliate
thereof) and that were purchased directly from DOT Foods, Sysco, US
Foods, Sam's Club, Wal-Mart, or Costco13 (other than inter-company
purchases among these distributors) from June 2011 through December
2016.

The EPPs request that the Court certifies the following proposed
class under California's Cartwright Act: Cartwright Act Class - All
persons and entities who resided in one of the States described in
paragraphs 113(b) to 113(gg) of the Fourth Consolidated Amended
Complaint, specifically Arizona, Arkansas, California, the District
of Columbia, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin, who indirectly purchased Packaged Tuna in cans or
pouches smaller than forty ounces for end consumption and not for
resale, produced by any Defendant or any current or former
subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator, during the
period June 1, 2011 through July 1, 2015.

The Court heard testimony from the experts and counsels' oral
arguments over a three-day period on Jan. 14 through 16, 2019.
Recognizing the importance of the experts' role in certifying the
classes, the Court focused the hearing on the models each expert
put forward to prove that common evidence could show impact to the
Class members.  Each day, both sides' experts offered direct
testimony to explain and defend their respective findings
concerning the antitrust violations, injury, and damages, and each
opposing side cross-examined those witnesses to expose any
deficiencies that arguably render their findings unreliable.

Judge Sammartino determines that the DPPs have met the Rule 23(a)
and Rule 23(b) requirements, showing that a class action is
superior to individual proceedings for the most prevalent questions
of conspiracy, impact, and the fact of damages.  She therefore
grants the DPPs' Motion for Class Certification.

She also determines that the CFPs and the EPPs have met the Rule
23(a) and Rule 23(b) requirements and therefore grants their
respective Motion for Class Certification.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Sammartino granted the DPPs', the
CFPs', and the EPPs' Motions for Class Certification.  Previously,
the Court appointed interim counsel for each tract.  Their work in
prosecuting this action has been effective and efficient and the
Court believes they will fairly and adequately represent the
Classes.  

Therefore, pursuant to Rule 23(g), the Judge appointed Hausfeld LLP
as the Class counsel for the DPPs; Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP as
the Class counsel for the CFPs; and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLP as the Class counsel for the EPPs.  The Counsel for each
tract is ordered to submit a proposed plan for dissemination to the
Classes within 30 days of the electronic docketing of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/w1JYCu from Leagle.com.

Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc.,  on behalf of itself
and
all others similarly, Plaintiff, represented by Bonny E. Sweeney
--
bsweeney@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Christopher L. Lebsock --
clebsock@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Emily Catherine Aldridge --
ealdridge@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Irving Scher
--
ischer@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Lesley E.
Weaver
-- lweaver@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Samantha
Stein
-- sstein@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP & Michael Lehmann --
mlehmann@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP.

Beverly Youngblood, Plaintiff, represented by Susan Rogers
Schwaiger -- sschwaiger@nussbaumpc.com -- Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.
& Whitney E. Street -- whitney@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton
LLP.

Pacific Groservice Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Barbara J. Hart
-- bhart@lowey.com -- Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., Bonny E. Sweeney,
Hausfeld LLP, Mark I. Labaton -- hello@cypressllp.com -- Motley
Rice LLP & Sung-Min Lee -- SLee@lowey.com -- Lowey Dannenberg,
P.C..

Capitol Hill Supermarket, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Davidow
--
Joel@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, pro hac vice,
John
H. Donboli, Del Mar Law Group, LLP, John Barton Goplerud,
Shindler,
Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, P.C., pro hac vice, Jonathan W. Cuneo
-- jonc@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro hac vice,
Maxwell M. Blecher -- mblecher@blechercollins.com -- Blecher and
Collins, Michael James Flannery -- mflannery@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca LLP & Peter Gil-Montllor --
pgil-montllor@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP.

Louise Ann Davis Matthews, Plaintiff, represented by Kimberly A.
Kralowec -- kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com -- The Kralowec Law Group.

James Walnum, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T. Micheletti
-- cmicheletti@zelle.com -- Zelle LLP, Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Zelle
LLP & Judith A. Zahid -- jzahid@zelle.com -- Zelle LLP.

Colin Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Chad Saunders --
csaunders@kraloweclaw.com -- Sundeen Salinas & Pyle, Kathleen
Styles Rogers -- krogers@kraloweclaw.com -- The Kralowec Law Group
& Kimberly A. Kralowec, The Kralowec Law Group.

Jennifer A. Nelson, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold
-- manifold@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz,
Brittany Nicole DeJong -- dejong@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz, Carl Malmstrom -- malmstrom@whafh.com --
Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Fred T. Isquith, Jr. --
FIsquith@lshllp.com -- Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP,
Michelle L. Kranz, Zoll & Kranz, LLC, Nancy A. Kulesa --
nkulesa@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Rachele R. Rickert --
rickert@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz,
Theodore Bell, One South Dearborn St. & Thomas H. Burt --
burt@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz.

Elizabeth Davis-Berg, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy Carol
Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Brittany Nicole
DeJong, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Carl Malmstrom,
Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Fred T. Isquith, Jr., Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Michelle L. Kranz, Zoll & Kranz,
LLC, Nancy A. Kulesa, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Rachele R. Rickert,
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Theodore Bell, One South
Dearborn St. & Thomas H. Burt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and
Herz.

Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Defendant, represented by Kenneth A. Gallo
--
kgallo@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
LLP, Michelle Parikh -- mparikh@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & William Baly Michael --
wmichael@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
LLP.

Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, Defendant, represented by Erik
Raven-Hansen
-- erik.raven-hansen@allenovery.com -- Allen & Overy LLP, pro hac
vice, John Roberti -- john.roberti@allenovery.com -- Allen & Overy
LLP, pro hac vice, John Terzaken, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP,
pro hac vice, Keith R. Solar, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney LLP,
William E. White -- william.white@allenovery.com -- Allen & Overy
LLP & Robert J. Parks, Parks & Solar LLP.

Starkist Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Lee --
andrew.j.lee@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, J. Robert
Robertson -- robby.robertson@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS US
LLP, Justin W. Bernick -- justin.bernick@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP & Jeffrey Michael Goldman -- goldmanj@pepperlaw.com
-- Pepper Hamilton LLP.

Tri Marine International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Shylah
Renee Alfonso -- SAlfonso@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, pro
hac vice.

King Oscar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Erik Raven-Hansen --
erik.raven-hansen@allenovery.com -- Allen & Overy LLP, pro hac
vice, John Roberti -- john.roberti@allenovery.com -- Allen & Overy
LLP, pro hac vice, John Terzaken -- john.terzaken@stblaw.com --
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice, Keith R. Solar,
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney LLP, William E. White --
william.white@allenovery.com -- Allen & Overy LLP & Robert J.
Parks, Parks & Solar LLP.

Del Monte Foods Company, Defendant, represented by Barak Bassman
--
bassmanb@pepperlaw.com -- pro hac vice, Barbara Sicalides --
sicalidesb@pepperlaw.com -- Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey Michael Goldman, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Barak Bassman, pro
hac

vice, Barbara Sicalides, Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey
Michael Goldman, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Barak Bassman, pro hac vice,
Barbara Sicalides, Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice & Jeffrey
Michael Goldman, Pepper Hamilton LLP.

Thai Union Group Public Company, Defendant, represented by Robert
J. Parks, Parks & Solar LLP.

Thai Union Group Public Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Robert J. Parks, Parks & Solar LLP & Robert J. Parks, Parks &
Solar
LLP.

Dongwon Industries Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Andrew J.
Lee, Hogan Lovells US LLP, J. Robert Robertson, HOGAN LOVELLS US
LLP, Justin W. Bernick, Hogan Lovells US LLP & Jeffrey Michael
Goldman, Pepper Hamilton LLP.

Del Monte Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Michael
Goldman, Pepper Hamilton LLP.


MDL 2795: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss CenturyLink Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: CENTURYLINK SALES PRACTICES AND SECURITIES
LITIGATION. This Document Relates to Civil File No. 18-296
(MJD/KMM), MDL No. 17-2795 (MJD/KMM) (D. Minn.), Judge Michael J.
Davis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

The Class Period runs from March 1, 2013 to July 12, 2017.
According to the Plaintiffs, for a number of years, CenturyLink
engaged in systemic "cramming" of customer accounts, by adding
services to customers' accounts without authorization, deceiving
customers about the prices they would be charged, and misquoting
prices by failing to disclose that "bundles" included fees for
optional services that the customers did not need or authorize.  It
potentially overbilled 3.5 million customers, representing over
half of its broadband subscribers and one-third of its 12 million
wireline subscribers.

CenturyLink imposed unachievable quotas on sales employees (from
sales representatives to call center supervisors, managers, and
directors) and terminated sales employees who did not meet them.
The pressure from these quotas caused customer service employees to
engage in widespread cramming.

CenturyLink's cramming practices were documented and monitored by
the Executive Defendants through monthly reports detailing
thousands of complaints by the FCC, state agencies, and others.
The reports showed that cramming complaints were "very common and
widespread," and Post, Puckett, and Victory complained that the
number of complaints was "too high" and thought that the team
compiling the data had overstated the numbers.  When the team
verified the numbers and provided recommendations on how to reduce
cramming, the Executive Defendants ignored them because they were
not willing to sacrifice revenues

During the Class Period, the Defendants told investors that
CenturyLink's sales practices were aboveboard and represented that
it would never place or record an order for their products and
services for a customer without that customer's authorization.
They claimed that CenturyLink's revenue growth in its consumer and
small business segments was due to its focus on customer needs
through its call centers, bundling service packages, and other
strategies.  These representations were important to investors
because investors were concerned with CenturyLink's ability to
generate dependable cash flows in the face of customers abandoning
traditional wireline telephone services that were the historical
core of CenturyLink's business.  The representations were false
because, in fact, CenturyLink's revenues were materially increased
by cramming.

Many of the allegations in the Complaint are based on statements
from twenty anonymous former employees ("FEs"), including former
call center representatives, a financial analyst, managers, a human
resources director, and a regional president.

In October 2017, CenturyLink entered into a stipulated consent
order with the Minnesota Attorney General in which it agreed to
reform its sales practices in Minnesota.

In December 2017, CenturyLink announced the results of an internal
investigation, which found, among other things, that its promotions
misled customers who did not receive discounts that they were
offered.

On March 6, 2018, Post, who had previously announced his intention
to remain CEO until Jan. 1, 2019, announced that he would retire in
May 2018.

On June 25, 2018, Lead Plaintiff Oregon and Plaintiff Vildosola
filed a Consolidated Securities Class Action Complaint against
Defendants CenturyLink and the Executive Defendants.  The Complaint
alleges: Count 1: Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 Promulgated Thereunder (against Defendants
CenturyLink, Post, Ewing, Cole, Puckett and Douglas); and Count 2:
Violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act (against Defendants
Post, Ewing, Cole, Puckett, Douglas and Bailey).

The Defendants have now filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint.
The Court heard oral argument on June 7, 2019.

Judge Davis finds that at this early stage, the Plaintiffs have
alleged sufficient facts to support all of the claims in their
Complaint.  

As to whether the Plaintiffs, have pled fasity, the Judge finds
that (i) the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled falsity with
particularity; (ii) Complaint adequately alleges that CenturyLink's
statements regarding its strategies and policies were false
because, in fact, cramming was widespread, systemic and knowingly
encouraged by CenturyLink's impossible-to-meet quota system, that
management instructed sales representatives to use deceptive sales
tactics, and that the Defendants knew CenturyLink's sales were
materially dependent on cramming; (iii) the Complaint adequately
alleges that CenturyLink's attempt to reduce cramming, in 2014,
negatively impacted sales, which caused CenturyLink to reinstate
its previous quota policy and encourage cramming to flourish; and
(iv) the Defendants have failed to show that the statements in the
Complaint are inactionable as Defendants' subjective beliefs.

As to scienter, the Judge finds that at the motion to dismiss
stage, the Plaintiffs have provided ample evidence to support a
strong inference of scienter by the Defendants.  One classic fact
pattern giving rise to a strong inference of scienter is that the
Defendants made statements when they knew or had access to
information suggesting these public statements to be materially
inaccurate.  Viewing the allegations as a whole, the Complaint
establishes this classic fact pattern.

The Plaintiffs have adequately pled loss causation.  They assert
that the Defendants' false statements artificially inflated the
price of CenturyLink stock.  Then, they explicitly plead that when
the falsity of the Defendants' statements was revealed, through
news reports on the lawsuits alleging systemic cramming at
CenturyLink, CenturyLink's share price fell significantly and that
analysts attributed the decline to the cramming revelations.

Assuming that Janus applies to the liability of corporate officers
working together for the same entity, the Judge finds that the
Plaintiffs have adequately pled that Puckett was "personally
involved" in preparing revenue projections and sales quotas,
oversaw CenturyLink's sales apparatus, was regularly informed of
the incidences of cramming, and was responsible for addressing
CenturyLink's sales apparatus in CenturyLink's investor
presentations.  Thus, at this stage, the most plausible reading of
the Complaint is that Puckett and Douglass drafted, reviewed, or
approved the prepared remarks that were given in joint
presentations.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have successfully pled
Section 10(b) primary violations against all the Defendants against
whom such a claim is asserted.  Thus, the Plaintiffs have
successfully pled a predicate violation of Section 10(b).  The
Plaintiffs have alleged that he exercised control over
CenturyLink's general operations and had power to determine the
acts on which the underlying violation is predicated in that he
oversaw efforts to address cramming, was CenturyLink's spokesperson
before investors and regulatory authorities, and was Treasurer.

Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings, Judge
Davis denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6).

A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2019 Memorandum of Law and
Order is available at https://is.gd/7a6Lvi from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by
Benjamin Jared Meiselas -- meiselas@geragos.com -- GERAGOS &
GERAGOS, pro hac vice, Brian C. Gudmundson --
brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Carolyn G.
Anderson -- carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP,
Daniel C. Hedlund , Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Francois Michel Blaudeau
-- Francois@southermedlaw.com  -- Southern Institute for Medical
&Legal Affairs LLC, Hart L. Robinovitch --
hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, James
McDonough, III -- Jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger Garrison
Davis, LLC, Lori G. Feldman -- lfeldman@zlk.com -- Geragos &
Geragos, pro hac vice, Mark J. Geragos -- mark@geragos.com --
GERAGOS & GERAGOS, pro hac vice, Mark M. O'Mara , O'Mara Law
Group,
Michelle J. Looby , Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Richard M. Hagstrom --
rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth & Johnson, Roxanne Barton
Conlin , Roxanne Conlin & Associates, P.C., & Timothy R. Langley,
Hodge & Langley Law Firm, PC.

Defendant's Primary Outside Counsel, Defendant, represented by
David M. Aafedt -- daafedt@winthrop.com -- Winthrop & Weinstine,
PA, David A. Vogel -- dvogel@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, pro hac
vice, Douglas P. Lobel -- dlobel@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, pro hac
vice, Jeffrey M. Gutkin -- jgutkin@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP --
Library, Joseph M. Windler -- jwindler@winthrop.com -- Winthrop &
Weinstine, PA & William A. McNab -- wmcnab@winthrop.com –
Winthrop & Weinstine, PA.


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Lewis Sues Over Defective Headrests
------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY LEWIS, TERESA MASSA, LINDA GAZIE, STEVEN WALLACH, ANA
SCHWARTZ, JOSEPH MONOPOLI, JAMES FITZPATRICK, and SYNTHIA PRAGLIN
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, DAIMLER AG, and GRAMMER AG,
Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-81220-RAR (S.D. Fla., Aug. 30, 2019)
is a lawsuit intending to compel Defendants to notify owners of all
affected vehicles of the defect in the AHR; to issue a recall so
that defective and dangerous headrests are replaced with headrests
containing a non-defective AHR; and to compensate Mercedes owners
for their losses arising from the defect. There are no differences
in the NECK-PRO headrests installed in any particular Mercedes
vehicle model. The Mercedes vehicles equipped with headrests
containing the defective NECK-PRO are referred to herein as the
"Class Vehicles."

For more than a decade, Mercedes has been manufacturing,
advertising, selling, and leasing cars with headrests containing a
defect which threatens occupants' safety. Embedded in the headrest
is a mechanism, known as an "active head restraint" ("AHR"), which
is designed to spring forward upon a rear-end collision and rapidly
push the headrest out to catch the occupant's head and prevent
whiplash. The headrest and AHR is manufactured by Grammer and
installed in Mercedes vehicles. Mercedes has branded the AHR in its
vehicles as "NECK-PRO." All NECK-PRO active head restraints share a
common, uniform defect. Under normal conditions, the NECK-PRO
restraint can deploy without warning or external force from a
collision, and forcefully strike the back of the occupant's head.
The force of the impact not only causes serious bodily harm to the
head and neck, but also creates a risk of collision when the
headrest deploys—suddenly and without warning—while the vehicle
is being driven.

The AHR spontaneously deploys when, under normal operating
conditions, a cheap plastic component inside the device prematurely
fails. The AHR contains a plastic bracket that acts as the
triggering mechanism and holds the spring-loaded release in place
until a sensor alerts signaling a rear-end collision. As a
cost-saving measure, Defendants designed this bracket with an
inferior and inexpensive form of plastic which cracks and breaks
down prematurely under the constant pressure exerted by the springs
in the AHR. The vehicles equipped with the defective NECK-PRO in
the United States number at least in the hundreds of thousands, and
there is no way for a vehicle owner to predict when the AHR in the
headrest will deploy. The defective AHR is a "safety-related
defect," as defined by the National Highway and Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA).

The Defendants became aware of this safety defect through the
investigations of spontaneously deployed headrests brought into
Mercedes service dealerships by customers, as well as from consumer
complaints to the National Highway Transportation Administration,
if not sooner. Further, Defendants were intimately involved in the
design and testing of the AHR systems and were aware that they were
designed with an inferior, inexpensive plastic that cannot
withstand the constant force applied by the springs. Despite this
knowledge, Mercedes nevertheless approved the defective AHRs for
use in its vehicles and denies that this defect exists, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs own and purchased models of Mercedes that are equipped
with headrests containing the defective AHR.

MBUSA, directly or through its agents, manufactured, distributed,
warranted, sold, and leased the Class Vehicles throughout the
United States and in this District.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Benjamin Widlanski, Esq.
     Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
     Gail McQuilkin, Esq.
     Rachel Sullivan, Esq.
     Robert J. Neary, Esq.
     KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
     2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 372-1800
     Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
     Email: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com
            hst@kttlaw.com
            gam@kttlaw.com
            rs@kttlaw.com
            rn@kttlaw.com

          - and -

     Jack Scarola, Esq.
     SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY PA
     2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
     West Palm Beach, FL 33409
     Phone: (561) 686-6300
     Fax: (561) 383-9451
     Email: jsx@searcylaw.com

          - and -

     George Franjola, Esq.
     GILLIGAN, GOODING, FRANJOLA & BATSEL, P.A.
     1531 SE 36th Ave.
     Ocala, FL 34471
     Phone: (352) 867-7707
     Facsimile: (352) 867-0237
     Email: gfranjola@ocalalaw.com

          - and -

     Michael Burger, Esq.
     SANTIAGO BURGER LLP
     1250 Pittsford Victor Road
     Bldg. 100 Suite 190
     Pittsford, NY 14534
     Phone: (585) 563-2400
     Facsimile: (585) 563-7526
     Email: mike@litgrp.com


MID VALLEY COLLECTION: Freed Asserts Breach of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mid Valley Collection
Bureau. The case is styled as Michael Freed, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mid Valley
Collection Bureau, Law Offices of Clark Garen, The Best Service
Company, Inc., Todd Shields, Donald Hopp and DOES 1 through 10
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01723 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 10,
2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Mid Valley Collection Bureau is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amir J Goldstein, Esq.
   Amir J Goldstein Law Offices
   7304 Beverly Blvd., Suite #212
   Los Angeles, CA 90036
   Tel: (323) 937-0400
   Fax: (866) 288-9194
   Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com


MID VALLEY COLLECTION: Mancilla Files Class Suit under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mid Valley Collection
Bureau. The case is styled as Romaldo Mancilla, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mid Valley
Collection Bureau, Law Offices of Clark Garen, The Best Service
Company, Inc., Todd Shields, Donald Hopp and Does 1 through 10
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-07820 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 10,
2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act.

Mid Valley Collection Bureau is engaged in collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amir J Goldstein, Esq.
   Amir J Goldstein Law Offices
   7304 Beverly Blvd., Suite #212
   Los Angeles, CA 90036
   Tel: (323) 937-0400
   Fax: (866) 288-9194
   Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com




MITOUSHI SUSHI: Rotari Files Class Suit Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mitoushi Sushi, Inc.
The case is styled as Evghenia Rotari and Zin Zhi Lou, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Mitoushi Sushi, Inc., Hai Loon Mak and Jasmine Law, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-05182 (E.D. N.Y., Sept. 11, 2019).

The case type is stated as Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mitoushi located on Grand Ave, Maspeth Queens, offers Japanese and
Thai food, fused with western flavors.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.




NABIS DELICATESSEN: Damages Awards in Reyes FLSA/NYL Suit Endorsed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NELSON SOTO REYES, AUGUSTO SESAM IBOY, ALVARO SESAM
IBOY and RENE MALLOQUIN, individually on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NABIS DELICATESSEN, INC. d/b/a
Burnside Deli and HURMUT HOTAKI a/k/a Hurmat Hotaki, Defendants,
Case No. CV 18-1211 (SJF) (ARL) (E.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge
Arlene R. Lindsay of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York recommended that the  Plaintiffs be awarded
damages in the following amounts: (1) $98,890.75 in unpaid minimum
and overtime wages; (2) $98,890.75 in liquidated damages; (3)
$20,000 for wage notice violations and $20,000 for wage statement
violations; and (4) $7,607.50 in attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs commenced the putative collective and class action
against Defendants Nabis, doing business as Burnside Deli, and
Hurmut Hotaki, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law Sections 190 et seq. ("NYLL").

Nabis is a counter service restaurant located in Lawrence, New
York.  Defendant Hotaki is the owner and an officer of Nabis who
participated in the day-to-day operations of the restaurant.  Both
Nabis and Hotaki are employers within the meaning of the FLSA and
the NYLL.  In addition, the gross annual volume of sales or
business done by Nabis during the years 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017
was not less than $500,000 each year.

All four Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants and all
worked as grill cooks and/or counter men.  As such, the Plaintiffs'
primary duties never consisted of performing managerial work or
required the exercise of discretion.

The Complaint sets forth specific allegations as to the number of
hours worked by each Plaintiff for specified dates.  Essentially,
each Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week and was not paid
overtime compensation for hours worked past 40.  In addition,
Plaintiff Marroquin was not paid the applicable statutory minimum
wage.  Each of the named Plaintiffs also claim that they were not
provided with a statement of wages as required by NYLL Section
195(3) or a notice of their rate of pay and such other information
as required by NYLL Section 195(1).

Based on the foregoing allegations, the Plaintiffs commenced the
action on Feb. 23, 2018 seeking to recover unpaid wages pursuant to
the FLSA and the NYLL.  Additionally, they seek to recover for the
Defendants' violation of the wage statement and notice provisions
of the NYLL.

Nabis was served with the summons and complaint on March 14, 2018,
and Hotaki was served on April 3, 2018.  The Defendants have not
interposed an Answer or otherwise responded to the Complaint.  The
Plaintiffs moved for entry of default and on Aug. 15, 2018 and the
Clerk of the Court certified the Defendants' default based upon
their failure to answer or otherwise appear in the action.

On Feb. 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for a
default judgment.  By Order dated Feb. 26, 2019, Judge Bianco
granted the Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment and referred
the motion for damages to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and
Recommendation to address the issue of damages and other relief
sought by the Plaintiffs.  The Defendants have not opposed the
motion for default judgment nor responded in any way.

In support of the Plaintiffs' request for damages, they submit the
affidavit of Reyes, dated Jan. 23, 2019, the affidavit of Augusto
Sesam Iboy, dated Jan. 23, 2019, the affidavit of Alvaro Sesam
Iboy, dated Jan. 23, 2019 , the affidavit of Marroquin, dated Jan.
23, 2019, and the Affirmation in Support of Damage Calculation and
Reasonable Attorneys' Fees of Arthur Forman, dated Feb. 1, 2019.

According to Plaintiff Marroquin's affidavit he worked for the
Defendants as a grill cook and counter person from Oct. 1, 2015
through Feb. 1, 2017.  For the period Oct. 1, 2015 through Dec. 31,
2015, he was paid $7 per hour, which was below the prevailing
minimum wage of $8.75.  In addition, for the period Jan. 1, 2017
through Feb. 1, 2017, his hourly rate of $9 per hour once again
dipped below the New York minimum wage of $10.50.  Accordingly,
Magistrate Judge Lindsay respectfully recommended that Plaintiff
Marroquin be awarded unpaid minimum wages of $910 for the period
Oct. 1, 2015 through Dec. 31, 2015 and $300 for the period Jan. 1,
2017 through Feb. 1, 2017.

Under both federal and state law, the  Plaintiffs are entitled to
overtime wages at a rate of 150% of their regular wages for any
week in which they worked more than 40 hours.  According to
Plaintiff Reyes' affidavit, he worked for the Defendants a grill
cook and counter person from November 2013 through November 2016.
A balance of $18,750 in overtime pay is owed to Plaintiff Reyes.
According to Augusto Sesam Iboy he worked 10 hours a day for seven
days a week for the entire period of his employment.  He is
entitled to $53,225.40 in overtime wages.  Alvaro Sesam Iboy also
worked for the Defendants as grill cook and counter person from
March 2012 through March 2013.  He Iboy is entitled to $20,595 in
overtime wages.  Marroquin worked for the Defendants as a grill
cook and counter person from Oct. 1, 2015 through Feb. 1, 2017.  He
is owed $5,110.35 in overtime pay.

Accordingly, the Magistrate respectfully recommended that Plaintiff
Reyes be awarded $18,750 in overtime wages, Plaintiff Augusto Sesam
Iboy be awarded $53,225.40 in overtime wages, Plaintiff Alvaro
Sesam Iboy be awarded $20,595 in overtime wages and Plaintiff
Marroquin be awarded $5,110.35 in overtime wages.

As for the liquidated damages, the Plaintiff seeks two discrete
liquidated damages awards: one under the FLSA and one under the
NYLL.  The Magistrate respectfully recommended that Plaintiff Reyes
be awarded $18,750 in liquidated damages, Plaintiff Augusto Sesam
Iboy be awarded $53,225.40 in liquidated damages, Plaintiff Alvaro
Sesam Iboy be awarded $20,595 in liquidated damages, and Plaintiff
Marroquin be awarded $6,320.55 in liquidated damages.

The Plaintiffs claim that they never received wage notices from the
Defendants at any point throughout the course of their employment.
The Magistrate finds that given the length of time each of the
Plaintiffs were in the employ of the Defendants the statutory
maximum with respect to wage notice statutory penalties has been
reached.  Accordingly, she respectfully recommended that each
Plaintiff be awarded $5,000, for total damages of $20,000.

Finally, the record reflects that counsel spent a total of 18.9
hours on this matter.  The time records submitted describe what
tasks were performed on behalf of the Plaintiffs, the dates on
which such tasks were performed, and the amount of time expended.
The Magistarte finds this time reasonable.  Accordingly, she
recommended that the Plaintiffs be awarded $7,087.50 in fees,
derived as follows: 18.9 hours at $375 per hour.

The Plaintiffs also seek costs in the amount of $520, representing
the fee for filing this action and service upon the Defendants.
The Magistrate finds that such costs are reasonable and recommended
that the Plaintiffs be awarded $520 in costs.

A copy of the Report and Recommendation is being electronically
filed on the date below.  The counsel for the Plaintiffs will serve
a copy of the Report and Recommendation on the Defendants upon
receipt and will file proof of service with the Court.  Any
objections must be filed with the Clerk of the Court with a
courtesy copy to the undersigned within 14 days of service.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/4Ld3k8 from Leagle.com.

Nelson Soto Reyes, Augusto Sesam Iboy, Alvaro Sesam Iboy & Rene
Malloquin, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Arthur H. Forman -- ahf@ahforman.com --
Attorney at Law.


NATIONAL CAREER: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Axinn Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM AXINN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL CAREER FAIRS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 0:19-cv-62096-RAR (S.D. Fla., Aug. 20, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

National Career Fairs, Inc. was founded in 2000. The company's line
of business includes providing various business services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NCB MANAGEMENT: Weiser Alleges Violation under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NCB Management
Services Inc. The case is styled as Joel Weiser, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NCB
Management Services Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-08412-VB
(S.D. N.Y., Sept. 10, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act.

NCB Management Services, Inc. provides business process outsourcing
(BPO) solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Michael Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza
   Ste 5th Floor
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com

     - and -

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



NEELEY'S SERVICE: Craven Files Class Suit under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Neeley's Service
Center, Inc. The case is styled as Justin Craven, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Neeley's
Service Center, Inc. and Alfred Neeley, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-04115-SOH (W.D. Ark., Sept. 11, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Fair Labor
Standard Act filed for the collection of unpaid wages.

Neely's Service Center Inc provides automotive towing service,
roadside assistance in Nashville and also offer a complete line of
towing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Josh Sanford, Esq.
   Sanford Law Firm PLLC
   One Financial Center
   650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
   Little Rock, AR 72211
   Tel: (501) 221-0088
   Fax: (888) 787-2040
   Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


NKLG CAFE: Castelan Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------
Luis Javier Castelan, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NKLG Cafe Corp.
d/b/a Aliada, Loizos Loizou, and Georgios Theodorou, the
Defendants, Case No. 715177/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Sept. 3, 2019),
alleges that Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the New York Labor Law and New York Codes,
Rules and Regulations by engaging in a pattern and practice of
failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, 1)
compensation for all hours worked, 2) overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 hours each week, 3) failure to provide wage
notice at the time of hiring and failure to provide wage statement,
and 4) the spread of hours compensation.

From January 2016 to March 31, 2019, the Plaintiff was hired by
Defendants to work as a kitchen helper and later as a cook for
Defendants' restaurant business located at 29-19 Broadway, Astoria,
NY 11106.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jiajing Fan, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 1354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8522
          Facsimiles: (718) 353-6288
          E-mail: jfan@hanglaw.com

NORDSON CORP: Continues to Defend Ortiz Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 5, 2019, for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action
suit in the San Diego County Superior Court, California, initiated
by a former employee of the company.

On February 22, 2019, a former employee, a Mr. Ortiz, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior
Court, California, against Nordson Asymtek, Inc. and Nordson
Corporation, alleging various violations of the California Labor
Code.  

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount for
unpaid wages, actual, consequential and incidental losses,
penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.  

Nordson said, "Management believes, based on currently available
information, that the ultimate outcome of the proceeding described
above will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition or results of operations."

Nordson Corporation engineers, manufactures, and markets products
and systems to dispense, apply, and control adhesives, coatings,
polymers, sealants, biomaterials, and other fluids worldwide.
Nordson Corporation was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in
Westlake, Ohio.


PAN-O-GOLD BAKING: Court Certifies Class in Hoverson Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK HOVERSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PAN-O-GOLD BAKING COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-817-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D.
Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin granted both (i) Hoverson's unopposed motion for class
certification, and (ii) the parties' joint motion for class
certification.

Hoverson filed a proposed class action alleging that Defendant
Pan-O-Gold owes its employees unpaid wages for the time they spent
donning and doffing sanitary uniforms.  Now before the Court is
Hoverson's unopposed motion for class certification, and the
parties' joint motion for class certification.

The parties say that they are negotiating a settlement, and they
ask the Court to stay notice to the class until they reach a
settlement or notify the Court that they intend to proceed to
trial.  The Court will defer approval of the class notice and give
the parties until Aug. 27, 2019, to submit their proposed class
settlement and motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.
If the parties are unable to reach a settlement, the Plaintiff has
until Aug. 27, 2019, to submit a motion for approval of the class
notice.

The parties propose the following class definition: All persons who
have been or are employed by Pan-O-Gold Baking Co. at its Sun
Prairie, Wisconsin facility as FLSA-non-exempt production
supervisors, operators, sanitation employees, and/or maintenance
employees at any time from Oct. 3, 2016 to the present, and who
were required to don and doff protective sanitary uniforms without
compensation.

Because the parties have shown that the proposed class satisfies
all requirements for class certification, Judge Peterson will
certify the class, appoint Hoverson as the class representative,
and appoint Hoverson's lawyers as the class counsel.  The Judge
will wait to approve notice to the class until after the parties
reach a settlement, or Hoverson moves for issue of notice without a
settlement.

Accordingly, he granted both (i) Hoverson's motion for class
certification, and (ii) the parties' joint motion for class
certification.

He certified the class of all persons who have been or are employed
by Pan-O-Gold Baking Co. at its Sun Prairie, Wisconsin facility as
FLSA-nonexempt production supervisors, operators, sanitation
employees, and/or maintenance employees at any time from October 3,
2016, to the present, and who were required to don and doff
protective sanitary uniforms without compensation.

Mark Hoverson is appointed the class representative.

Caitlin Marie Madden, David C. Zoeller, and Vanessa Ann Kuettel of
Hawks Quindel SC are appointed the class counsel.

The parties have until Aug. 27, 2019, to either (1) submit their
proposed class settlement and motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement; or (2) submit a motion for approval of the class
notice.

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

Mark Hoverson, Plaintiff, represented by Caitlin Marie Madden,
Hawks Quindel, S.C., David C. Zoeller, Hawks Quindel, S.C. &
Vanessa Ann Kuettel, Hawks Quindel SC.

Pan-O-Gold Baking Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher L.
Nickels -- christopher.nickels@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP &
Fred Gants -- fred.gants@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady.


PATTERSON COS: Appeal in Dental Supplies Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended July 27, 2019, that are appeal by
William Roe to contest the amount of attorneys' fees awarded to
class counsel in the class action suit entitled entitled In re
Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB, is pending.

Beginning in January 2016, purported antitrust class action
complaints were filed against defendants Henry Schein, Inc., Benco
Dental Supply Company and Patterson Companies, Inc. Although there
were factual and legal variations among these complaints, each
alleged that defendants conspired to foreclose and exclude
competitors by boycotting manufacturers, state dental associations,
and others that deal with defendants' competitors.

On February 9, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York ordered all of these actions, and all other
actions filed thereafter asserting substantially similar claims
against defendants, consolidated for pre-trial purposes.

On February 26, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was
filed by Arnell Prato, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., d/b/a Down to Earth
Dental, Evolution Dental Sciences, LLC, Howard M. May, DDS, P.C.,
Casey Nelson, D.D.S., Jim Peck, D.D.S., Bernard W. Kurek, D.M.D.,
Larchmont Dental Associates, P.C., and Keith Schwartz, D.M.D., P.A.
(collectively, "putative class representatives") in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled In re
Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB. Subject to certain exclusions, the putative
class representatives seek to represent all private dental
practices and laboratories who purchased dental supplies or
equipment in the U.S. directly from any of the defendants, during
the period beginning August 31, 2008 until March 31, 2016.

In the consolidated class action complaint, putative class
representatives allege a nationwide agreement among Henry Schein,
Benco, Patterson and non-party Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc.
not to compete on price. The consolidated class action complaint
asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and
seeks equitable relief, compensatory and treble damages, jointly
and severally, interest, and reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees.

On September 28, 2018, the parties executed a settlement agreement
that proposes, subject to court approval, a full and final
settlement of the lawsuit on a class-wide basis. Subject to certain
exceptions, the settlement class consists of all persons or
entities that purchased dental products directly from Henry Schein,
Patterson, Benco and Burkhart, or any combination thereof, during
the period August 31, 2008 through and including March 31, 2016.

Under the terms of the settlement, the company paid $28,263 into
escrow upon preliminary court approval. Such funds are to be
released to the settlement fund administrator upon final court
approval of the settlement, which was granted at the fairness
hearing held on June 24, 2019. The company recorded a pre-tax
reserve of $28,263 in its first quarter 2019 results in its
Corporate segment to account for the settlement of this matter.

On July 16, 2019, objector William Roe filed a notice of appeal of
the final order, contesting the amount of attorneys' fees awarded
to class counsel out of the settlement fund. The appeal is
currently pending, but the company do not anticipate the appeal
will affect the finality of the settlement as it relates to
Patterson.

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The
company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed
its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson
Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St.
Paul, Minnesota.


PATTERSON COS: Hatchett Class Action Ongoing in S.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended July 27, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a purported class action complaint filed by R.
Lawrence Hatchett, M.D.

On January 29, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed
by R. Lawrence Hatchett, M.D. against Patterson Companies, Inc.,
Henry Schein, Inc., Benco Dental Supply Company, and unnamed
co-conspirators in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges that members of the proposed class suffered
antitrust injury due to an unlawful boycott, price-fixing or
otherwise anticompetitive conspiracy among Schein, Benco and
Patterson.

The complaint alleges that the alleged conspiracy overcharged
Illinois dental practices, orthodontic practices and dental
laboratories on their purchase of dental supplies, which in turn
passed on some or all of such overcharges to members of the class.
Subject to certain exclusions, the complaint defines the class as
all persons residing in Illinois purchasing and/or reimbursing for
dental care provided by independent Illinois dental practices
purchasing dental supplies from the defendants, or purchasing from
buying groups purchasing these supplies from the defendants, on or
after January 29, 2015.

The complaint alleges violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act, 740
Ill. Comp. Stat. Sections 10/3(2), 10/7(2), and seeks a permanent
injunction, actual damages to be determined at trial, trebled,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment
interest.

Patterson said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain, we believe that the indirect purchaser action is without
merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this
litigation."

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

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The
company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed
its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson
Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St.
Paul, Minnesota.


PATTERSON COS: Kramer Class Suit Settled for De Minimis Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended July 27, 2019, that the parties in the
class action suit initiated by Nathaniel Kramer have stipulated to
the dismissal of the action with prejudice, pursuant to a
settlement in which Patterson has agreed to pay the individual
named plaintiff a de minimis amount.

On October 9, 2018, Nathaniel Kramer filed indirect purchaser
litigation against Patterson Companies, Inc., Henry Schein, Inc.
and Benco Dental Supply Company in the United States District Court
for the District of Northern District of California. The purported
class action complaint asserts violations of the California
Cartwright Act and the California Unfair Competition Act based on
an alleged agreement between Schein, Benco, and Patterson (and
unnamed co-conspirators) not to compete as to price and margins.
Plaintiff alleges that the agreement allowed the defendants to
charge higher prices to dental practices for dental supplies and
that the dental practices passed on all, or part of, the increased
prices to the consumers of dental services.

Subject to certain exclusions, the complaint defines the class as
all persons residing in California purchasing and/or reimbursing
for dental services from California dental practices.

The complaint seeks a permanent injunction, actual damages to be
determined at trial, trebled, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
and pre- and post-judgment interest.

On December 7, 2018, an amended complaint was filed asserting the
same claims against the same parties. On June 28, 2019, the court
granted Defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to amend.

The parties have stipulated to dismissal of the action with
prejudice, pursuant to a settlement in which Patterson has agreed
to pay the individual named plaintiff a de minimis amount.

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The
company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed
its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson
Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St.
Paul, Minnesota.


PATTERSON COS: Plymouth County Retirement Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended July 27, 2019, that the company is
challenging the report and recommendation made by the U.S.
Magistrated Judge, granting in part and denying in part, the motion
to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Plymouth County
Retirement System v. Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson
and Ann B. Gugino, Case No. 0:18-CV-00871 MJD/SER.

On March 28, 2018, Plymouth County Retirement System ("Plymouth")
filed a federal securities class action complaint against Patterson
Companies, Inc. and its former CEO Scott P. Anderson and former CFO
Ann B. Gugino in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota in a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v.
Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson and Ann B. Gugino,
Case No. 0:18-CV-00871 MJD/SER.

On November 9, 2018, the complaint was amended to add former CEO
James W. Wiltz and former CFO R. Stephen Armstrong as individual
defendants. Under the amended complaint, on behalf of all persons
or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Patterson's common
stock between June 26, 2013 and February 28, 2018, Plymouth alleges
that Patterson violated federal securities laws by failing to
disclose that Patterson's revenue and earnings were "artificially
inflated by Defendants' illicit, anti-competitive scheme with its
purported competitors, Benco and Schein, to prevent the formation
of buying groups that would allow its customers who were
office-based practitioners to take advantage of pricing
arrangements identical or comparable to those enjoyed by
large-group customers."

In its class action complaint, Plymouth asserts one count against
Patterson for violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and a second,
related count against the individual defendants for violating
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

Plymouth seeks compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest and reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' witness fees
and costs.  

On August 30, 2018, Gwinnett County Public Employees Retirement
System and Plymouth County Retirement System, Pembroke Pines
Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers, Central Laborers
Pension Fund were appointed lead plaintiffs.  

On January 18, 2019, Patterson and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 25, 2019, the
United States Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation
that the motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part.

The report and recommendation, among other things, recommends the
dismissal of all claims against individuals defendants Ann B.
Gugino, R. Stephen Armstrong and James W. Wiltz. On August 8, 2019,
Patterson filed an objection to the report and recommendation.

Patterson said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain, we believe that the class action complaint is without
merit, and we are vigorously defending ourselves in this
litigation. We do not anticipate that this matter will have a
material adverse effect on our financial statements. Patterson has
also received, and responded to, requests under Minnesota Business
Corporation Act Section 302A.461 to inspect corporate books and
records relating to the issues raised in the securities class
action and the antitrust matters."

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The
company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed
its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson
Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St.
Paul, Minnesota.


PENTAGON FEDERAL: Court Narrows Claims in EFTA Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
issued an Opinion granting in part and denying in part Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned TIFFANY NEAL,
Plaintiff, v. PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant. Civil
Action No. ELH-18-451. (D. Md.).

Now pending is PenFed's pre-discovery motion for summary judgment,
filed with respect to plaintiffs' claims in Counts II and IX, and
as to Counts I through III of the Counterclaim.

Plaintiff Tiffany Neal, a disabled veteran, filed a class action
suit against Pentagon Federal Credit Union   defendant.  In a First
Amended Class Action Complaint, Neal alleges that PenFed unlawfully
withdrew disability benefits from her PenFed account to offset
Neal's overdue loan payments. The Amended Complaint contains eleven
causes of action, of which two remain: Breach of Contract under
Maryland law (Count II), and Violation of the Electronic Funds
Transfers Act (EFTA) (Count IX).

PenFed moves for summary judgment as to Neal's breach of contract
claim (Count II) and her EFTA claim (Count IX). PenFed also moves
for summary judgment as to its breach of contract claims in Counts
I, II, and III of its Counterclaim.  

Plaintiff's Breach of Contract Claim (Count II)

In Count II, Neal contends that the Promissory Note, or PenFed's
loan agreement, constituted an enforceable contract between PenFed
and plaintiff. She asserts that PenFed wrongfully withdrew funds
from her deposit accounts, and that there was no disclosure by
PenFed that plaintiff's future disability benefits would be taken
from her deposit account to pay any delinquencies accounts.

In her Declaration, plaintiff avers that if she knew at the time of
signing the Promissory Note that her veterans disability benefits
would be taken out and applied to satisfy any loan delinquencies,
she would not have agreed to enter into any loan or credit card
agreements with PenFed and would have taken her business to another
bank.

In a breach of contract claim, a plaintiff must prove that the
defendant owed the plaintiff a contractual obligation and that the
defendant breached that obligation. Neal has not identified any
contractual obligation allegedly breached by PenFed. Rather, she
argues that the Promissory Note is vague, and is thus an invalid
contract. Plaintiff cannot assert this new claim by raising it in
her Opposition.  

Maryland Code, Section 4-103(a) of the Commercial Law Article
(C.L.) allows parties to a banking contract, to some extent, to
vary, by agreement, the Bank Deposits and Collections provisions.
But, a party cannot disclaim a bank's responsibility for its lack
of good faith or failure to exercise ordinary care or limit the
measure of damages for the lack or failure. Therefore, a depositor
may sue in an action for breach of contract to enforce the bank's
contractual obligation to use ordinary care in disbursing the
depositor's funds.  

Under Maryland law, PenFed owes a duty of ordinary care to its
customers.  

Other than her own Declaration, Neal has failed to proffer any
evidence establishing PenFed's breach of such a duty. She maintains
that she did not agree to have her veterans disability benefits
taken by PenFed to satisfy any loan delinquencies and it was not
made known to her in the loan agreement.

Neal contends that, without being provided a copy of her loan
agreements, she does not recall if it was the actual agreement that
she signed. She also asserts that the Promissory Note is ambiguous
as to whether the provision applies to veteran's disability
benefits because the term statutorily protected funds could include
anything type of statutorily protected funds.
However, language is not ambiguous simply because it is general in
nature or undefined by the policy. In fact, ambiguity arises only
if the language is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning
by a reasonably prudent layperson. The language is not ambiguous.

It is undisputed that Neal was in default on her obligations to
defendant. And, in accordance with 12 C.F.R. Section 701.39(c), the
Promissory Note signed by Neal provided notice to plaintiff that
PenFed may transfer funds out of her accounts to cover debts she
owed to PenFed.  

Neal's inability to recall if the content of the Promissory Note
submitted by PenFed corresponds to the content of the one she
signed is not sufficient to defeat summary judgment.In Jeandron v.
Board of Regents of University System of Maryland, 510 F. App'x
223, 228 (4th Cir. 2013), the Court said: A self-serving affidavit,
without more, is not sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as to plaintiff's breach
of contract claim.

Plaintiff's Count IX: Violation of EFTA

In Count IX of the Amended Complaint, Neal insists that PenFed
violated the EFTA because Neal was never provided a copy of any
authorization that stated PenFed would take her veterans disability
benefits incase of a default in loan repayment.

PenFed contends that plaintiff's EFTA claim fails for three
reasons: (i) Neal lacks standing under Article III of the U.S.
Constitution because she did not suffer an injury-in-fact (ii)
PenFed did not violate EFTA; and (iii) the safe harbor provision of
EFTA applies.

The EFTA

Standing

The Defendant argues that Neal lacks standing under Article III to
assert a violation of the EFTA.

To establish standing under Article III of the Constitution, a
plaintiff must satisfy three elements.  

First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact, an
invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and
particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical.

Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and
the conduct complained of, the injury has to be fairly traceable to
the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the
independent action of some third party not before the court.

Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that
the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

PenFed argues that Neal lacks standing as she did not suffer an
injury-in-fact because she owed the money at issue. In support,
PenFed relies on Aikens v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, 716 F.
App'x 37 (2d Cir. 2017) (unpublished). There, the Second Circuit
considered the question of whether a plaintiff had alleged a
concrete injury for purposes of standing under the EFTA.  

The plaintiff, Aikens, and a debt collector, PRA, entered into an
oral agreement over the telephone, whereby Aikens permitted PRA
automatically to debit her checking account each month until her
debt was satisfied. After PRA debited her account for nearly a
year, Aikens filed suit under the EFTA, asserting that PRA failed
to obtain her consent for the automated transfers in writing and
failed to provide her with a copy of her signed, written
authorization. PRA moved to dismiss the plaintiff's allegations,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  

The district court found, under Spokeo, 136 S.Ct. 1540, that Aikens
lacked standing and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court
concluded:

There is no concrete injury here. Plaintiff authorized PRA to
withdraw money from her account to repay the debt she owed. PRA did
not take more money than was agreed to. Nor did they withdraw the
money from any other account than that which Plaintiff authorized.
The Court fails to see how Plaintiff suffered any injury here
whatsoever.

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, but remanded the case with
instructions that the district court amend its judgment as a
dismissal without prejudice. The Aikens Court noted that although
the EFTA limits consumer liability for unauthorized electronic fund
transfers, it treats a transfer as 'unauthorized' only if the
consumer receives no benefit. The Second Circuit reasoned that
PRA's withdrawals provided Aikens the decided benefit of reducing
her debt. Moreover, a transfer is not unauthorized' under the EFTA
when the consumer herself furnished the means of access' to her
bank account and never asked her bank to stop the transfers.

PenFed contends that, like the plaintiff in Aikens, Neal did not
suffer any actual harm. As the Second Circuit recognized, the EFTA
treats a transfer as unauthorized only if the consumer receives no
benefit.  And, PenFed asserts that Neal received a benefit because
PenFed's transfer of funds was applied to reduce Neal's debts,
which she admits she owed.  

In response, Neal argues that Aikens is distinguishable, because
she objected to the transfer of her veterans benefits when they
were made. In plaintiff's Declaration, she avers that in early July
2017, she was informed by PenFed that it had transferred veterans
disability benefits from her deposit account to cover for loan
delinquencies that she had with PenFed. Thereafter, she objected to
any further transfer of her veterans disability benefits by PenFed
to cover for the loan delinquencies and PenFed told her there is
nothing that [it] could do to stop it because she owed the money.

The Court is persuaded that Neal has standing to assert a claim
under the EFTA. Unlike the plaintiff in Aikens, Neal maintains that
she objected to the transfers. And, if her claim is meritorious,
she will have suffered an injury. To have standing, it is not
required that plaintiff prevail on the merits of her claim.

EFTA Violation

PenFed argues that plaintiff's EFTA claim fails because she cannot
prove PenFed violated EFTA for two reasons. Defendant contends that
the EFTA does not apply to the transactions at issue.  

PenFed contends that the transactions at issue fall within the
foregoing exception because they were made between a consumer's
accounts within the financial institution, between Neal's deposit
accounts and her loan accounts, pursuant to the Membership
Application and the Promissory Note. As a result, the transactions
are not covered by the relevant provisions of EFTA.

In response, Neal argues that the transactions at issue were not
made pursuant to an agreement between a consumer and a financial
institution which provides that the institution will initiate
individual transfers without a specific request from the customer.
This argument is unavailing. As discussed, in the Promissory Note
signed by Neal, she consented to PenFed's transfer of otherwise
statutorily protected funds out of any of her PenFed accounts to
cover debts she owed to PenFed.  

The Court agrees with defendant that the EFTA does not apply to the
transactions at issue in this case. Therefore, PenFed is entitled
to summary judgment as to Count IX.

Defendant's Counterclaims - Counts I, II, and III

As indicated, PenFed asserts three breach of contract claims.

In Count I, PenFed asserts that it extended credit to Neal in the
form of overdraft protection, referred to as Thrifty Credit
Service, in connection with two checking accounts she opened with
PenFed. PenFed claims that Neal defaulted on her contractual
obligation to repay the amounts loaned to her through the Thrifty
Credit Service. With respect to Neal's checking account ending in
account number 5775, PenFed states it has suffered damages in the
amount of $1,956.39 as of November 20, 2018, with interest accruing
on a daily basis in the amount of $.67115. As to Neal's checking
account ending in account number 2652, PenFed has suffered damages
in the amount of $2,652.56 as of November 20, 2018, with interest
accruing on a daily basis in the amount of $.810136.

As to Count II, PenFed asserts that on May 6, 2015, Neal submitted
a credit card application to PenFed. It approved the credit card
application and issued a credit card to Neal and Neal authorized
charges to be made on the credit card. PenFed claims that Neal
defaulted on her obligation to repay the amounts charged to the
credit card. As a result, it has suffered damages in the amount of
$23,193.16 as of November 20, 2018, with interest accruing on the
second day of each month in the amount of $287.35.

In Count III, PenFed states that on July 7, 2015, it extended a
personal loan to Neal. And, Neal defaulted on her repayment
obligations. PenFed claims that as a result of Neal's default, it
has suffered damages in the amount of $17,300.56 as of November 20,
2018, with interest accruing on a daily basis in the amount of
$4,223.293.

In support of these claims, PenFed has submitted the Declaration of
John Dorn, a Vice President of Collections. He avers that Neal
defaulted on her repayment obligations in connection with her
personal loan, credit card, and Thrifty Credit Service lines, and
owes the specified amounts, plus interest.  

In plaintiff's Declaration, she admits that she has defaulted on
her repayment obligations and owes money to PenFed. However, she
disputes the total amount that she owes.

Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of PenFed is appropriate on
the issue of plaintiff's liability alone. But, the parties'
competing affidavits demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact
as to the amount owed by plaintiff to PenFed.  

The Motion is GRANTED as to plaintiff's claims in Counts II and IX.
And, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as to
defendant's counterclaims in Counts I, II, and III.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 27, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6tou8zz from
Leagle.com.

Tiffany Neal, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Nyombi, KNA PEARL,
8701 Georgia Avenue, Suite 606, Silver Spring, MD 20910

Pentagon Federal Credit Union, Defendant, represented by Michael A.
Graziano -- mgraziano@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin
and Mellott LLC.

Pentagon Federal Credit Union, Counter Claimant, represented by
Michael A. Graziano, Eckert Seamans Cherin and Mellott LLC.

Tiffany Neal, Counter Defendant, represented by Andrew Nyombi, KNA
PEARL.


PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Faces 6 IPO-Related Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------
Pivotal Software, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended August 2, 2019, that the company is
defending against six putative class action suits related to its
initial public offering (IPO).

Between June 14, 2019 and June 27, 2019, six complaints were filed
against the company in state and federal court in San Francisco:
Hill v. Pivotal Software, Inc., No. CGC-19-576750 (S.F. Super Ct.
Jun. 14, 2019); Tran v. Pivotal Software, Inc., No. CGC-19-576806
(S.F. Super Ct. Jun. 18, 2019); Abera v. Pivotal Software, Inc.,
No. 4:19-cv-03601 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 20, 2019); Doherty v. Pivotal
Software, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-03589 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 20, 2019);
Kleinman v. Pivotal Software, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-03605 (N.D. Cal.
Jun. 21, 2019) and Mothorpe v. Pivotal Software, Inc., No.
CGC-19-577110 (S.F. Super Ct. Jun. 27, 2019).

All of the complaints are putative class actions brought by
shareholders against the company and other defendants alleging
violations of the securities laws in connection with disclosures
made in connection with the company's initial public offering (IPO)
and thereafter.

The plaintiffs in those cases are seeking to have the cases
certified as class actions, and also seek damages and legal fees.

Pivotal Software said, "At this time, it is not reasonably possible
to determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability
related to, these matters."

Pivotal Software, Inc. provides platform-as-a-service solutions.
The Company offers cloud-based platform to build, deploy, and
operate software including enterprises in the automotive, financial
services, industrial, insurance, media, retail, technology, and
telecommunications sectors. Pivotal Software serves customers in
the United States, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. The company
is based in San Francisco, California.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Moses Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC. The case is styled as TIFFANY MOSES on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-04117-AB (E.D. Pa., Sept. 9, 2019).

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

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC provides debt recovery and
collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     NICHOLAS J. LINKER, ESQ.
     ZEMEL LAW LLC
     1373 Broad St., SUITE 203-C
     Clifton, NJ 07013
     Phone: (862) 227-3106
     Email: nl@zemellawllc.com


PRENLYN ENTERPRISES: Hooper Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------
GRAHAM HOOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PRENLYN ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a MIDAS
ROXBOROUGH, a Pennsylvania Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-04036-CDJ (S.D. Fla., Sept. 4, 2019) is an action brought
against Defendant to secure redress for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Through
this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's
illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of
thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on
behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Philadelphia
County and citizen of Pennsylvania.

Defendant is an automobile service and repair shop.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
     Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
     DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
     1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Phone: 215-564-1721
     Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
            rschmierer@denittislaw.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

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


R.A. KERLEY: Garcia Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
------------------------------------------------
Luis Aguilar Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. R.A. Kerley Ink Engineers, Inc.
and ADP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2019-CH-09350 (Ill. Cir., August
14, 2019), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all
unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and
use of biometrics, as well as statutory damages together with costs
and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

R.A. Kerley Ink Engineers, Inc. markets its ink and coating
products and services throughout Illinois.  R.A. Kerley employs ADP
as their provider of human resources management software and
services.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required Luis Alguilar
Garcia to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned
fingerprints.  The Plaintiff alleges that R.A. Kerley improperly
disclosed employees' fingerprint data without informed
consent.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William P.N. Kingston, Esq.
      Jad Sheikali, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 893-7002
      Fax: (312) 275-7895
      Email: wkingston@mcgpc.com
             jsheikali@mcgpc.com


RALPHS GROCERY: Class Certification Denial in McLeod Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONALD N. McLEOD et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B283865,
B290482 (Cal. App.), Judge Victoria M. Chavez of the Court of
Appeals of California for the Second District, Division Two,
affirmed the trial court's order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

Ralphs is a supermarket chain headquartered in Compton, California.
During the relevant time period, Ralphs operated more than 320
retail grocery stores, ranging in size from smaller than 10,000
square feet to larger than 85,000 square feet.

Champagne is a former Ralphs store manager.  McLeod, Miner, and
Mock are former Ralphs co-managers.  The Plaintiffs filed the
putative class action on behalf of store managers and co-managers
who were employed by Ralphs from Sept. 17, 2000 to the present,
claiming that Ralphs misclassifies store managers and co-managers
as exempt from overtime wage laws.  Plaintiffs Champagne and
Swanson also asserted individual and representative claims for
civil penalties under PAGA "on behalf of all current and former
aggrieved employees."

In the consolidated appeal, Plaintiffs and Appellants Randy
Champagne, McLeod, Miner, and Mock challenge the trial court's
order denying their motion for class certification in their action
against Defendant and Respondent Ralphs for unpaid overtime,
violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200, and
civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act
of 2004 ("PAGA").  

The Plaintiffs sought to certify two classes -- a store manager
class represented by Champagne, and a co-manager class represented
by McLeod, Miner, and Mock.  Champagne appeals the denial of the
store managers' class claims.  McLeod, Miner, and Mock appeal the
denial of the co-managers' class claims.  The two appeals were
consolidated on July 27, 2018.

Judge Chavez holds that the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider
Champagne's challenge to the order denying class certification.  At
the time Champagne filed his notice of appeal, a PAGA cause of
action was still pending.  The death knell doctrine does not apply
in these circumstances, which results in Champagne's appellate
challenge to be to a non-appealable order.  She will dismiss his
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Her review of the order denying class certification is accordingly
limited to the claims of the co-manager plaintiffs.  The Judge
finds that substantial evidence supports the trial court's
conclusion that individualized issues, not common ones, would
predominate in determining Ralphs's liability.  the Phe evidence,
which included plaintiffs' own deposition testimony, declarations
and deposition testimony by Ralphs's corporate managers, and
declarations by 58 Ralphs co-managers and store managers, show that
Ralphs managers perform myriad tasks that vary from store to store,
time of day, time of year, and numerous other variables.  Hence,
the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion
for class certification.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Chavez dismissed Champagne's appeal.
She affirmed the order denying class certification.  Ralphs will
recover its costs on appeal.

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

Herzog Yuhas Ehrlich & Ardel, Ian Herzog and Susan Abitanta; Law
Offices of Stephen Glick and Stephen Glick --
sglick@glicklegal.com; Schonbuch & Lebovits, Paul Fine and Daniels
Fine Israel, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Morrison & Foerster, Miriam A. Vogel -- mvogel@mofo.com -- David P.
Zins -- dzins@mofo.com -- and Karen J. Kubin -- kkubin@mofo.com --
for Defendant and Respondent.


RAVEL HOTEL: Young Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ravel Hotel LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Lawrence
Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Ravel Hotel LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-08429 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 11, 2019).

Ravel Hotel, is a boutique, luxury hotel in Long Island City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
   Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
   100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 317-2453
   Fax: (516) 706-4692
   Email: ds@lawsolo.net


REALPAGE INC: Jones Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RealPage Inc. The
case is captioned as Diane D. Jones and James Arnold, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
RealPage Inc., doing business as: LeasingDesk Screening, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00501 (Filed Mar. 6, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas (Dallas) on Sept 3, 2019. The Northern District of Texas
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02087-B to the proceeding.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jane J. Boyle.

RealPage is an American multinational corporation that provides
property management software solutions for the multifamily,
commercial, single-family and vacation rental housing
industries.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Matthew A. Dooley, Esq.
          O'TOOLE MCLAUGHLIN
          DOOLEY & PECORA CO LPA
          5455 Detroit Road
          Sheffield Village, OH 44054
          Telephone: (440) 930-4001
          Facsimile: (440) 934-7208
          E-mail: mdooley@omdplaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Cohen, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          507 C Street NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI-BROOKLYN
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: edward@cml.legal

               - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN
          1600 Market Street, Ste. 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Stephen M. Bosak, Esq,
          O'TOOLE MCLAUGHLIN DOOLEY & PECORA
          5455 Detroit Road
          Sheffield Village, OH 44054
          Telephone: (440) 930-4001
          Facsimile: (440) 937-7208
          E-mail: sbosak@omdplaw.com

Attorneys for RealPage Inc. are:

          Jessica Rose Ellis Lohr, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 509-6044
          Facsimile: (858) 509-6000
          E-mail: jessica.lohr@troutman.com

               - and -

          Ronald I. Raether, Jr., Esq.
          Timothy James St George, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS - IRVINE
          5 Park Plaza, Ste. 1400
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 622-2722
          Facsimile: (949) 622-2739
          E-mail: ron.raether@troutman.com
                  Timothy.St.George@troutman.com

RESOLVE GROUP: Edwards Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against THE RESOLVE GROUP,
LLC. The case is styled as CURTIS EDWARDS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. THE
RESOLVE GROUP, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DOES 1 TO 50,
INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. CGC19579095 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Sept. 9, 2019).

The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS".

Resolve Group is a commercial collection agency firm.[BN]


SANDERSON FARMS: Class Suit in North Carolina Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc.said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2019, that the class action suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
remains stayed pending resolution of the action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On January 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its  subsidiaries
were named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers
and certain of their affiliated companies, in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On March 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries were
named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers and
certain of their affiliated companies, in a second putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma.

The Court ordered the suits consolidated into one proceeding, and
on July 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the
defendants unlawfully conspired by sharing data on compensation
paid to broiler farmers, with the purpose and effect of suppressing
the farmers' compensation below competitive levels. The
consolidated amended complaint also alleges that the defendants
unlawfully conspired to not solicit or hire the broiler farmers who
were providing services to other defendants.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks treble damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.

On September 8, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, on October 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their
response, and on November 22, 2017, the defendants filed a reply.

On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the Sanderson Farms
defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The motion to dismiss the complaint filed in the Eastern District
of Oklahoma on its merits is pending as to the remaining
defendants.

On February 21, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a substantially similar
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina against Sanderson Farms and our
subsidiaries and another poultry producer.

The plaintiffs subsequently moved to consolidate this action with
the Eastern District of Oklahoma action in the Eastern District of
Oklahoma for pre-trial proceedings, with the defendants in support
thereof. That motion was denied.

On July 13, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit in
the Eastern District of North Carolina.

On January 15, 2019, the Court granted in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss and stayed the action in the Eastern District of
North Carolina pending resolution of the action in the Eastern
District of Oklahoma.

Sanderson said, "We intend to defend this case vigorously; however,
the Company cannot predict the outcome of this action. If the
plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for
damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our
financial position and results of operations."

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

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.


SANDERSON FARMS: Discovery in Broiler Chicken Stayed Until Sept. 27
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc.said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2019, that discovery in the class
action suit entitled, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation,
has been stayed until September 27, 2019.

Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, Sanderson Farms,
Inc. and its subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with 13
other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies,
in multiple putative class action lawsuits filed by direct and
indirect purchasers of broiler chickens in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to unlawfully
fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens,
thereby violating federal and certain states' antitrust laws, and
also allege certain related state-law claims. The complaints also
allege that the defendants fraudulently concealed the alleged
anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The complaints seek damages, including treble damages for the
antitrust claims, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees. As
detailed below, the Court has consolidated all of the direct
purchaser complaints into one case, and the indirect purchaser
complaints into two cases, one on behalf of commercial and
institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs and one on behalf of
end-user consumer plaintiffs.

On October 28, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated, amended complaints, and on November 23, 2016,
the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed second amended
complaints. On December 16, 2016, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs
separated into two cases.

On that date, the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and the end-user
consumer plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On January 27,
2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaints in all of the cases, and on November 20, 2017, the
motions to dismiss were denied.

On February 7, 2018, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their
third amended complaint, adding three additional poultry producers
as defendants. On February 12, 2018, the end-user consumer
plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, in which they also
added three additional poultry producers as defendants, along with
Agri Stats. On February 20, 2018, the commercial and institutional
indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint,
adding three additional poultry producers as defendants.

On November 13, 2018, the commercial and institutional indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed their fifth amended complaint. On
November 28, 2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their
third amended complaint.

On January 15, 2019, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their
fourth amended complaint, and the commercial and institutional
indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their sixth amended complaint.


Both the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the commercial and
institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs added two new poultry
producers as defendants, as well as Agri Stats. On April 29, 2019,
the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their fourth amended
complaint. The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

Between December 8, 2017 and August 23, 2019, additional purported
direct-purchaser entities individually brought thirty-one separate
suits against nineteen poultry producers, including Sanderson
Farms, and Agri Stats in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas, the United States District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas, and the United States District Court
for the District of Puerto Rico.

These suits allege substantially similar claims to the direct
purchaser class complaint described above; certain of the suits
additionally allege related state-law and common law claims, and
related claims under federal and Georgia RICO statutes. All but one
of the cases filed in the Northern District of Illinois are now
pending in front of the same judge as the putative class action
lawsuits. On June 26, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to
transfer the case filed in the District of Kansas to the Northern
District of Illinois, and that motion was granted on September 13,
2018.

On June 7, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion to transfer the case
filed in the Western District of Arkansas to the Northern District
of Illinois, and that motion was granted on June 11, 2019. On July
24, 2019, one of the defendants filed a motion to transfer the case
filed in the District of Puerto Rico to the Northern District of
Illinois, and that motion was granted on July 25, 2019.

On July 22, 2019, the Company moved to dismiss in part those
complaints that allege claims under federal and Georgia RICO
statutes against it. The motion will be fully briefed on September
20, 2019. The parties are currently engaged in discovery, subject
to the limited stay discussed below. It is possible additional
individual actions may be filed.

The Company is aware that certain plaintiffs’ counsel in In re
Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation received from the United
States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, a subpoena that
included a request to produce all discovery in the case to a grand
jury. The Company has not been subpoenaed in connection with the
Department of Justice investigation. On June 28, 2019, the Court in
In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation permitted the United
States Department of Justice to intervene in the case, as well as
ordered certain discovery stayed until September 27, 2019.

Sanderson said, "We intend to continue to defend the lawsuits
vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of
these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could
be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect
on our financial position and results of operations."

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.


SERVICE BY MEDALLION: Perez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Employees
------------------------------------------------------------
HERMAN MORALES PEREZ individually, and 0n behalf of others
similarly aggrieved,the Plaintiff, vs. SERVICE BY MEDALLION, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, the Defendants, Case
No. 19CV353407 (Cal. Super., Aug. 23, 2019), seeks to recover from
the Defendant penalties arising from unpaid wages earned and due
including but not limited to, unpaid and illegally calculated
overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies,
failure to pay all wages due to discharge or quitting employees
under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees are current and former
non-exempt employees of the Defendants.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Matthew Matern, Esq.
          Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
          SARA B. TOSDAL, Esq.
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatem@matemlawgroup.com
                  jboxer@matemlawgroup.com
                  stosdal@maternlawgroup.com

SIGNET JEWELERS: Request to Appeal Class Cert. Order Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended August 3, 2019, that the defendants'
petition for permission to appeal a District Court's class
certification decision remains pending.

In August 2016, two alleged Company shareholders each filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its
then-current Chief Executive Officer and current Chief Financial
Officer (Nos. 16-cv-6728 and 16-cv-6861, the "S.D.N.Y. cases").

On September 16, 2016, the Court consolidated the S.D.N.Y. cases
under case number 16-cv-6728. On April 3, 2017, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of persons
that acquired the Company's securities on or between August 29,
2013, and February 27, 2017, naming as defendants the Company, its
then-current and former Chief Executive Officers, and its current
and former Chief Financial Officers.

The second amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by,
among other things, misrepresenting the Company's business and
earnings by (i) failing to disclose that the Company was allegedly
having issues ensuring the safety of customers' jewelry while in
the Company's custody for repairs, which allegedly damaged customer
confidence; (ii) making misleading statements about the Company’s
credit portfolio; and (iii) failing to disclose reports of sexual
harassment allegations that were raised by claimants in an ongoing
pay and promotion gender discrimination class arbitration (the
"Arbitration").

The second amended complaint alleged that the Company's share price
was artificially inflated as a result of the alleged
misrepresentations and sought unspecified compensatory damages and
costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

In March 2017, two other alleged Company shareholders each filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas against the Company and its
then-current and former Chief Executive Officers (Nos. 17-cv-875
and 17-cv-923, the "N.D. Tex. cases").

Those complaints were nearly identical to each other and alleged
that the defendants’ statements concerning the Arbitration
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The N.D. Tex. cases were subsequently transferred to the
Southern District of New York and consolidated with the S.D.N.Y.
cases (the "Consolidated Action").

On July 27, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel in the Consolidated Action. On August 3, 2017,
the Court ordered the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action to
file a third amended complaint by September 29, 2017.

On September 29, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended
complaint that covered a putative class period of August 29, 2013,
through May 24, 2017, and that asserted substantially similar
claims to the second amended complaint, except that it omitted the
claim based on defendants' alleged misstatements concerning the
security of customers' jewelry while in the Company's custody for
repairs.

The defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on
December 1, 2017. On December 4, 2017, the Court entered an order
permitting the lead plaintiff to amend its complaint as of right by
December 22, 2017, and providing that the lead plaintiff would not
be given any further opportunity to amend its complaint to address
the issues raised in the defendants' motion to dismiss.

On December 15, 2017, another alleged Company shareholder filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its
current Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (No.
17-cv-9853).

This complaint alleged that the defendants made misleading
statements regarding the Company's credit portfolio between August
24, 2017, and November 21, 2017, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sought
unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including
attorneys' and experts' fees.

On January 7, 2018, this case was consolidated into the
Consolidated Action.

On December 22, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action
filed its fourth amended complaint, which asserted substantially
the same claims as its third amended complaint for an expanded
class period of August 28, 2013, through December 1, 2017.

On January 26, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint. This motion was fully briefed as of March 9,
2018.

On March 20, 2018, the Court granted the lead plaintiff leave to
file a fifth amended complaint. On March 22, 2018, the lead
plaintiff in the Consolidated Action filed its fifth amended
complaint which asserts substantially the same claims as its fourth
amended complaint for an expanded class period of August 29, 2013,
through March 13, 2018. The prior motion to dismiss was denied as
moot.

On March 30, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the fifth
amended complaint. On November 26, 2018, the Court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

On March 15, 2019, the lead plaintiff moved for appointment of a
class representative and class counsel and for certification of a
class period of August 29, 2013, through March 13, 2018.

On July 10, 2019, the Court granted the motion and certified a
class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Signet common stock from August 29, 2013 to May 25, 2017.
The Court also appointed a class representative and class counsel.

On May 9, 2019, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings
with respect to certain alleged misstatements. On June 11, 2019,
the Court denied the defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings. The defendants moved for reconsideration on June 18,
2019. The Court denied that motion on June 20, 2019.

On July 24, 2019, the defendants filed with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit a petition for permission to
appeal the District Court's class certification decision.

On August 5, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed its opposition to that
petition. On August 12, 2019, the defendants moved for leave to
file a reply in support of the petition.

On August 22, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to
defendants' motion for leave.  

On August 28, 2019, the defendants filed a reply in support of
their motion for leave.

Discovery is ongoing in this action.

Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond
jewelry, watches, and other products. Signet Jewelers Limited was
founded in 1950 and is based in Hamilton, Bermuda.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Still Awaits Court Decision on Claimants' Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended August 3, 2019, that Signet Jewelers, Inc.
(SJI), a company subsidiary, still awaits the decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on claimants' class action
appeal.

on March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants")
filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI,
a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging that US store-level employment
practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional
activities with respect to gender.

In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private
arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide
basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI
opposed the motion.  

On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination
Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants'
disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim
under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date
of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7,
2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims.

The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a
disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a
disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII,
and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay
Act.

On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To
Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective
Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' emergency motion on
February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015.
Claimants' motion was granted in part and denied in part in an
order issued on March 16, 2015.

Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII
Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11,
2015, which SJI opposed. April 27, 2015, the arbitrator issued an
order denying the Claimants' Motion.

SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification
Award on March 3, 2015, which Claimants opposed. On November 16,
2015, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted SJI's Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification
Award in part and denied it in part.

On December 3, 2015, SJI filed with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit SJI's Notice of Appeal of the
District Court's November 16, 2015 Opinion and Order.

On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA
Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District Court
for the Southern District of New York to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, which Claimants opposed. The
arbitrator issued an order denying SJI's Motion to Stay on February
22, 2016.

SJI filed its Brief and Special Appendix with the Second Circuit on
March 16, 2016. The matter was fully briefed, and oral argument was
heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on
November 2, 2016.

On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed in the AAA Claimants' Motion for
Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect
of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional
Discrimination Claims, which SJI opposed.

On June 15, 2015, the arbitrator granted the Claimants' motion. On
March 6, 2017, Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional
Certification of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization
of Notice, which SJI opposed The arbitrator heard oral argument on
Claimants' Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on February 29, 2016,
issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification
Award and Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations
Period, conditionally certifying Claimants’ Equal Pay Act claims
as a collective action, and tolling the statute of limitations on
EPA claims to October 16, 2003 to ninety days after notice issues
to the putative members of the collective action.

SJI filed in the American Arbitration Association (AAA) a Motion To
Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court's Consideration Of
Respondent's Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective
Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants'
Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March 10, 2016.

SJI filed in the AAA a Renewed Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending
The District Court's Resolution Of Sterling's Motion To Vacate
Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional
Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of
EPA Limitations Period on March 31, 2016, which Claimants opposed.
On April 5, 2016, the arbitrator denied SJI's Motion.

On March 23, 2016 SJI filed with the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator's
Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And
Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period,
which Claimants opposed. SJI's Motion was denied on May 22, 2016.

On May 31, 2016, SJI filed a Notice Of Appeal of Judge Rakoff's
opinion and order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which
Claimant's opposed. On June 1, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals dismissed SJ's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Claimants filed a Motion For Amended Class Determination Award on
November 18, 2015, and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator entered an
order amending the Title VII class certification award to preclude
class members from requesting exclusion from the injunctive and
declaratory relief class certified in the arbitration.

The arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April 5,
2016 and ordered into effect the parties' Stipulation Regarding
Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related Notice
Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a
Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016, which Claimants
opposed.

The matter was fully briefed, and oral argument was heard on July
22, 2016. The motion was granted in part on January 27, 2017.

Notice to EPA collective action members was issued on May 3, 2016,
and the opt-in period for these notice recipients closed on August
1, 2016.

Approximately, 10,314 current and former employees submitted
consent forms to opt in to the collective action; however, some
have withdrawn their consents. The number of valid consents is
disputed and yet to be determined.

SJI believes the number of valid consents to be approximately
9,124. On July 24, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit issued its unanimous Summary Order that held that
the absent class members "never consented" to the Arbitrator
determining the permissibility of class arbitration under the
agreements, and remanded the matter to the District Court to
determine whether the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by
certifying the Title VII class that contained absent class members
who had not opted in the litigation.

On August 7, 2017, SJI filed its Renewed Motion to Vacate the Class
Determination Award relative to absent class members with the
District Court.

The matter was fully briefed, and an oral argument was heard on
October 16, 2017. On January 15, 2018, District Court granted SJI's
Motion finding that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by
binding non-parties (absent class members) to the Title VII claim.


The District Court further held that the RESOLVE Agreement does not
permit class action procedures, thereby, reducing the Claimants in
the Title VII matter from 70,000 to potentially 254. Claimants
dispute that the number of claimants in the Title VII is 254.

On January 18, 2018, the Claimants filed a Notice of Appeal with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The
appeal was fully briefed and oral argument before the Second
Circuit occurred on May 7, 2018. On May 17, 2019, SJI submitted a
Rule 28(j) letter to the Second Circuit addressing the effects of
the Supreme Court's ruling in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No.
17-988 (S. Ct. Apr. 24, 2019), on the pending appeal.

The Second Circuit then issued an order directing the parties to
submit additional arguments on that issue, which have been
submitted. SJI currently awaits the Second Circuit’s decision on
this appeal.

On November 10, 2017, SJI filed in the arbitration motions for
summary judgment, and for decertification, of Claimants
Equal Pay Act and Title VII promotions claims. On January 30,
2018, oral argument on SJI's motions was heard. On January 26,
2018, SJI filed a Motion to Vacate The Equal Pay Act Collective
Action Award And Tolling Order asserting that the Arbitrator
exceeded her authority by conditionally certifying the Equal Pay
Act claim and allowing the absent claimants to opt-in the
litigation.

On March 12, 2018, the Arbitrator denied SJI's Motion to Vacate The
Equal Pay Act Collective Action Award and Tolling Order. SJI still
has a pending motion seeking decertification of the EPA Collective
Action before the Arbitrator.

On March 19, 2018, the Arbitrator issued an Order partially
granting SJI's Motion to Amend the Arbitrator's November 2, 2017,
Bifurcated Seventh Amended Case Management Plan resulting in a
continuance of the May 14, 2018 trial date.

A new trial date has not been set.

Signet Jewelers said, "SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants
and has been defending the case vigorously. At this point, no
outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from
the litigation is able to be estimated."

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

Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond
jewelry, watches, and other products. Signet Jewelers Limited was
founded in 1950 and is based in Hamilton, Bermuda.


SITO MOBILE: Settlement in Roper Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------
SITO Mobile, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion for approval
of the proposed settlement in the class action suit initiated by
Sandi Roper remains is pending.

On February 17, 2017, plaintiff Sandi Roper commenced a purported
securities class action against the Company and certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned
Roper v. SITO Mobile, Ltd., Case No. 17-cv-1106-ES-MAH (D.N.J.
filed Feb. 17, 2017) (the "Securities Complaint").

On May 8, 2017, Red Oak Fund, LP, Red Oak Long Fund LP, Red Oak
Institutional Founders Long Fund, LP and Pinnacle Opportunities
Fund, LP (collectively, "Red Oak") were appointed lead plaintiffs
in this class action.

On June 22, 2017, Red Oak filed an amended complaint, purporting to
represent a class of stockholders who purchased our common stock
between August 15, 2016 and January 2, 2017 (the "Class Period").

On January 30, 2019, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey dismissed without prejudice all causes of
action with the exception of claims against a former officer, a
former officer/director, and the Company, arising out of statements
made from November 2016 to January 2017 regarding media placement
revenues.

The remaining claims are brought under section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and seek to hold the executives responsible as controlling persons.
The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages.

The parties participated in mediation on April 30, 2019.

As a result of the mediation, discussions, and negotiations taking
place thereafter, plaintiffs and defendants agreed to settle the
matter for payment of $1.25 million.

By a document dated July 31, 2019, the parties executed a
stipulation that reflects the settlement. The entire settlement is
covered by insurance and is subject to court approval.

On August 6, lead plaintiffs moved for approval of the proposed
settlement. That motion is pending.

SITO Mobile, Ltd. provides advertisement delivery, measurement and
attribution, and consumer insights using its proprietary
location-based marketing intelligence platform in the United States
and Canada. The company was formerly known as Single Touch Systems,
Inc. and changed its name to SITO Mobile, Ltd. in September 2014.
SITO Mobile, Ltd. was incorporated in 2000 and is based in Jersey
City, New Jersey.


SIXX NOUVEAUXX: Fischler Files Class Suit under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
Sixx Nouveauxx Design Services LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sixx Nouveauxx Design
Services LLC doing business as: The Novogratz, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-05136 (E.D. N.Y., Sept. 10, 2019).

NOVOGRATZ is a trademark of Sixx Nouveauxx Design Services LLC
offering a line of home products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
   New York, NY 10170
   Tel: (212) 764-7171
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com

STONE POINT: Spinner Consulting Sues Over Sherman Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
SPINNER CONSULTING LLC, on behalf of itself and a class of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STONE POINT CAPITAL LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01341-JBA (D. Conn., Aug. 29, 2019)
asserts that Stone Point, an affiliate of Bankruptcy Management
Solutions, Inc. ("BMS"), has participated in a conspiracy with BMS
and BMS's two largest competitors, in violation of the Sherman Act
to fix the manner of charging Chapter 7 bankruptcy estates for
bankruptcy support services.

This conspiracy, which one bankruptcy trustee has termed "a train
robbery," has unlawfully reduced competition and extracted
excessive, if not exorbitant, fees from Estates, notes the
complaint.

Prior to the financial crisis beginning in 2008, BMS did not charge
fees directly to an Estate. Rather, BMS would direct the Estate to
deposit its funds in a selected bank. The bank would earn money
from these deposits, and, upon information and belief, the bank
would pay a fee to BMS and interest to the Estate. After the
financial crisis, interest rates declined. As a result of this
decline in interest rates, the amount of money that the bank could
earn from the deposits of Estates also declined, as did the bank's
ability to pay BMS a fee. Before November 26, 2010, to increase its
profits without providing any additional services, BMS considered
the idea of directly charging Estates a fee for bankruptcy support
services.

BMS preferred this non-traditional manner of charging fees over the
other methods it had identified. This non-traditional manner of
charging fees would not allow Estates to determine the extent to
which BMS, as opposed to its partner bank, received the fee. This
non-traditional manner of charging fees would also make it more
difficult for the Estates to determine whether the fee for
bankruptcy support services was modest, reasonable, or excessive.
Before November 26, 2010, BMS proposed to Epiq and, upon
information and belief, to TrusteSolutions that they, inter alia,
sell bankruptcy support services only as Combined Services, and
charge no fee to an Estate for those Combined Services other than a
percentage of the amount in the bank account of the Estate.

On or about April 12, 2017, Stone Point caused one of the funds
that it manages and controls, Trident, to acquire a controlling
ownership interest in BMS.

As a proximate result of the anti-competitive activities of Stone
Point in violation of the Sherman Act, Spinner has sustained
damages to its business and property in an amount to be determined
by the trier of fact in this action. Spinner has not suffered any
injury asserted in this action based upon any: (i) conduct of the
government, (ii) conduct of any conspirator that the government
compels, or (iii) conduct of any conspirator in petitioning the
government, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Spinner, a limited liability company organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its
principal place of business in New Jersey.

Stone Point is a limited liability company organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Frederic S. Ury, Esq.
     Ury & Moskow, LLC
     883 Black Rock Turnpike
     Fairfield, CT 06925
     Phone: (203) 610-6393
     Email: fred@urymoskow.com

          - and –

     William Dunnegan, Esq.
     Laura Scileppi, Esq.
     Dunnegan & Scileppi LLC
     350 Fifth Avenue
     New York, NY 10118
     Phone: (212) 332-8300
     Email: wd@dunnegan.com
            ls@dunnegan.com


SURETEMPS LLC: Court OKs FLSA Class Settlement in Catherine Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons granting Parties' Joint
Motion to Approve Settlement in the case captioned TERRY CATHERINE,
ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. SURETEMPS, LLC, ET AL., Defendants, SECTION:
"E." (1). Civil Action No. 17-7561. (E.D. La.).

Plaintiffs Terry Catherine and Jamil Lee brought this collective
action against Defendants SureTemps, LLC, Full Force Staffing, LLC
and Metro Service Group, Inc., pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 (FLSA). Plaintiffs allege they were paid a flat daily
rate for their employment, regardless of the number of hours they
worked. Plaintiff Terry Catherine alleges he worked between 11 and
14 hours a day for 4 to 6 days a week, but was not paid time and a
half for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, in
violation of the FLSA.

The Settlement is the Product of a Bona Fide Dispute

When deciding whether a bona fide dispute exists, the Court
considers whether there is a genuine dispute as to the Defendant's
liability under the FLSA, as without a bona fide dispute, no
settlement could be fair and reasonable. This is particularly true
in an FLSA action because its provisions are mandatory, and not
subject to negotiation and bargaining between employers and
employees.

The Court finds a bona fide dispute exists between Plaintiffs and
Defendants with regard to whether Defendants violated the FLSA.
Plaintiffs allege they were not paid overtime wages or minimum wage
as required by the FLSA. Defendants continue to deny these
allegations and raise affirmative defenses.

The Court finds this sufficient to conclude that, in this case,
there was aggressive prosecution and strenuous defense to prove a
bona fide dispute.

The Settlement is Fair and Reasonable

There are six factors for the Court to consider: (1) the existence
of fraud or collusion behind the settlement (2) the complexity,
expense, and likely duration of the litigation (3) the stage of the
proceedings and the amount of discovery completed (4) the
probability of the plaintiffs' success on the merits (5) the range
of possible recovery and (6) the opinions of class counsel, class
representatives, and absent class members.

There was no fraud or collusion behind the settlement

With respect to the fraud or collusion factor, there are several
presumptions that guide a court's determination of whether a
settlement is fair and reasonable. There is a strong presumption in
favor of finding a settlement fair and, absent evidence to the
contrary, there is a presumption that no fraud or collusion
occurred between counsel. In light of these presumptions, however,
it is clear that the court should not give rubber-stamp approval.

Under the Settlement Agreement in this case, Plaintiffs will
receive money in accordance with the shifts they worked, and
Plaintiffs' counsel will receive significant attorneys' fees and
costs. As explained herein, the Court finds the settlement amount
reasonable in light of Plaintiffs' factual allegations. The Court
has found no indication of fraud or collusion, and the parties have
engaged in discovery, motions practice, and negotiations to resolve
this matter.

Accordingly, the Court finds this factor indicates the settlement
is fair and reasonable.

The litigation will likely be complex, expensive, and lengthy

The instant case has been pending for more than two years. Prior to
dismissal, the Court had scheduled a five-day bench trial to begin
on May 20, 2019. In this collective action, there would be numerous
issues of fact, such as the alleged joint employer status of the
Defendants, that would contribute to the complexity, expense, and
duration of the litigation. The Court finds the unresolved issues
and the complexity of the litigation indicate the settlement is
fair and reasonable.

Significant discovery has been completed

A court will consider how much formal discovery has been completed
for two reasons: (1) extensive discovery by the parties indicates a
good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their
respective cases and hence that the settlement's value is based
upon such adequate information and (2) full discovery demonstrates
that the parties have litigated the case in an adversarial manner
and settlement is not collusive but arms-length. The lack of much
formal discovery is not necessarily fatal, however, and a court may
look to informal avenues of gathering information or may approve a
settlement with no formal discovery conducted.

In this case, the parties represent Defendants have provided
Plaintiffs with extensive data and documents concerning the
Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Action Members and their claims,
engaged in settlement negotiations over a period of months, and
have now reached an agreement. At this stage of the proceedings,
the parties completed discovery and submitted witness and exhibit
lists. Given this sufficient opportunity to engage in discovery and
reach a good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their
respective cases, the Court finds the parties have litigated the
case in an adversarial manner and are sufficiently familiar with
the facts of this case to reach a fair settlement.

This factor weighs in favor of finding the settlement fair and
reasonable.

Plaintiffs' probability of success on the merits is uncertain

It is uncertain at this point whether Plaintiffs would be
successful. Defendants deny Plaintiffs' allegations and provide a
series of affirmative defenses such as the untimeliness of the
suit, the impropriety of a collective action in this case, and a
statutory bar to recovery.

Given the unresolved disputes between the parties and the stage at
which this litigation remains, the Court finds it is unclear
whether and to what extent Plaintiffs would be meritorious. This
factor indicates the settlement is fair and reasonable.

The settlement award falls within a range of possible recovery

Under the Settlement Agreement, Defendants will pay individual
plaintiffs according to the harm they allegedly suffered as a
result of unpaid overtime wages or wages below minimum wage. As
noted, the amounts are based on a calculation that considers the
work history of each plaintiff. Furthermore, the agreement awards
Plaintiffs substantial attorneys' fees and gives incentive bonuses
to the named plaintiffs. The Court finds the agreed-upon recovery
is within a range of possible recovery and indicates the settlement
is fair and reasonable.

Opinions of class counsel, class representatives, and absent class
members all favor discovery
The parties in this case jointly seek judicial approval of a
settlement agreement that addresses a bona fide dispute and was
negotiated in good faith. All parties are represented by counsel,
and the parties negotiated the Settlement Agreement before the
magistrate judge and submitted their proposed agreement for in
camera review by the Court. The Court finds the final factor
indicates the settlement is fair and reasonable.

All six of the forgoing factors indicate the settlement in this
case is fair and reasonable.

Accordingly, the Court finds the settlement is fair and
reasonable.

The Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and for Dismissal is granted
and that the Parties' Settlement Agreement is approved.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 27, 2019  Order and
Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyp77c7a from
Leagle.com.

Terry Catherine, Jamil Lee, Alexander Morris, Cyril Williams,
Darcelle Jackson, David Williams, Devin Charlot, Eddie Boykins,
Eddie Copelin, Ernest Augustus, Gentry O. Dixon, Harry Badon, Henry
Simmons, James Harris, Jamie Early, Ja'Nard Brister, Kelvin
McKenzie, Leonard Polk, Leroy Murray, Marvin Collins, Milton Guss,
Nazarius Reed, Pershing Gilmore, Rickey Anderson, Sr., Ronell
Boudreaux, Shane Cavalier, Terrance Williams, Travis Clements,
Dwaine Bennett, Carlius M. Joseph, Ernest Lewis, III, Harold
Thompson Jefferson, Ira Keith Williams, Jason Donald Logan, Jeremy
Harris, Jerome Galmore, Justin Edward, Kendrick Young, Kenyon
Funches, Nathan Masor, Nathan Winn, Rogers Youngblood, Alvin
Christopher Venille, Clarenda M. Nunez, Darnell Randall, Darrell
Fields, Gerald Wiltz, Marshall G. Sam, Ryan Allen, Tyrone Banks,
Tyrone Brooks, Allen Harris, Alvin Anderson, Booker T. Sanders,
Bret Isaac, Bruce Meade, Calvin Armstrong, Courney Fountain, Donald
Bush, Donald E. Smith, Emanuel Stringer, Emanuel Lewis, Ivan
Brooks, Johnell Williams, Johnerson Jones, Kenneth Denney, Kenyon
Brown, Larry L. Vineyard, Leevan Jasmine, Perry Thompson, Robert K
Harris, Roland Green, Jr, Simon Hoyd, Terrell Scott, Tyrone Carey,
Walter Phillips, Alvin Price, Kendall Thomas, Kenneth R.
Whittington, Larry Raymond Benoit, Lloyd Vernell Lewis, Wesley D.
Dillon, Ashley Atkinson, Harold Peters, Javalle Hunter, Jermaine
Cole, Darius Jackson, Darren Lawrence, Donald Validery, Leonard
Ward, Michael Walker, Thomas Jackson, Torey Carey, Darnell Harris,
Christopher Senette, Damian M Pichon, Sr, Earnest Taylor, Freddie
Handy, Isaac Brooks, LaJon L Butler, Landrius Cooley, Mocchanan
Gundy, Quintis J Williams, Rashad Jarrell, Renzall Marrero, Shoman
Chapman, Christopher Jones, Jernard Taylor, Lance White, Ken
Anthony Nettles, Sedrick Johnson, TaJee Donaldson, Julius Thompson,
Travis A Walker, Bryson Tuesno, Clayton Shields, DeRoy McNeal,
Ronald Washington, Jerome Myers, Keith White, Kendric Ruffin, Lamar
Jackson, Leroy Bates, Clayton Elliot Jones, Sr., Cleve Newman,
David Duran Williams, Dion Hebert, Larry Henderson, Nas Gorden,
Tywong Garner, Charles D. Donald, Graylin Daniels, Calvin R.
Travis, Jr., Andre D. Bender & Shane Dwayne Gray, Plaintiffs,
represented by Mary Bubbett Jackson, Jackson & Jackson & Jody
Forester Jackson, Jackson & Jackson.

SureTemps, LLC, Full Force Staffing, LLC, TSM Enterprises, LLC,
Troy Bailey, Steve Arnold & Maurice Robichaux, Defendants,
represented by Ike Spears, Spears & Spears & Diedre Pierce Kelly,
Spears & Spears, 1631 Elysian Fields Ave., New Orleans, LA, 70117

Metro Service Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer F.
Kogos -- jkogos@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker & David K. Theard
-- dtheard@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker.

Exclusive Temporaries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ike Spears,
Spears & Spears.


T-MOBILE USA: Court Enters Judgment in J. Black Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California has entered Judgment in the case,
JESSE BLACK, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE USA,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-04151-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

Judgment in the matter is entered in accordance with, and
incorporates by reference the findings of, the Court's Order
Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Granting in
Part and Denying in Part Motion for Attorneys' Fees and the
Parties' Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release.


With the exception of the single Class Member who opted out of the
Settlement Class, all the Class Members are bound by the Judgment
and are barred from pursuing, or seeking to reopen, any of the
Released Claims, as defined in the Settlement Agreement.

Funds represented by Individual Settlement Payment checks returned
as undeliverable and Individual Settlement Payment checks remaining
un-cashed for more than 180 calendar days after issuance will be
tendered to the State Controller's Office, Unclaimed Property
Division.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2019 Stipulated Judgment is
available at https://is.gd/b1cg96 from Leagle.com.

Jesse Black, Plaintiff, represented by Arnab Banerjee --
Arnab.Banerjee@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

T-Mobile USA, Inc, Defendant, represented by Gregory G. Iskander
--
giskander@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Keith Adam
Jacoby
-- kjacoby@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Sophia Behnia --
sbehnia@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Perry Kim Miska
--
pmiska@littler.com -- Jr., Littler Mendelson, P.C.


TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Metcalf Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELE METCALF, for herself and all others similarly situated v.
TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL INC., Case No. 8:19-cv-01653 (C.D. Cal., Aug.
28, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating the New York Labor
Law by failing to pay the Plaintiff and the other Class Members
one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40.

TransPerfect Global, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws
of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business in
New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan M. Smith, Esq.
          Nona Yegazarian, Esq.
          BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN LLP
          11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2080
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 593-9890
          E-mail: nate@bnsklaw.com
                  nona@bnkslaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          Jean M. Sedlak, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Ave., Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3290
          E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
                  tgarber@fbfglaw.com
                  jsedlak@fbfglaw.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Bolton Files FDCPA Class Suit in S.C.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc. The case is styled as Anitra Bolton, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Transworld
Systems Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-02553-CMC (D. S.C., Sept. 10, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act.

Transworld Systems Inc. is engaged in collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kenneth Edward Norsworthy , Jr, Esq.
   Norsworthy Law Ltd Co
   505 Pettigru Street
   Greenville, SC 29601
   Tel: (864) 804-0581
   Fax: (864) 756-1153
   Email: kenorsworthy@me.com




TRUECAR INC: Milbeck Sues Over 35% Decline in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------
LEON D. MILBECK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. TRUECAR, INC.; MICHAEL GUTHRIE; VICTOR
("CHIP") PERRY; JOHN PIERANTONI; ABHISEK AGRAWAL; ROBERT BRUCE;
CHRISTOPHER CLAUS; STEVEN DIETZ; JOHN KRAFCIK; ERIN LANTZ; WESLEY
NICHOLS; ION YARDIGAROGLU; GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO.; J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; JMP SECURITIES LLC; B.
RILEY & CO., LLC; CRAIG-HALLUM CAPITAL GROUP LLC; STEPHENS, INC.;
and LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-02612-SVW-AGR (C.D. Cal., Aug. 24, 2019) is a securities
class action on behalf of all other persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired any of the publicly traded common
stock of TrueCar, Inc. from February 16, 2017 through November 6,
2017, and the common stock of TrueCar pursuant and traceable to the
secondary offering of TrueCar common stock conducted on or about
April 26, 2017. The Plaintiff and the class seek remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, TrueCar made clear in its SEC filings,
the most significant of the affinity partners was the United States
Automobile Association ("USAA"), which generated nearly one-third
of the Company's annual units and therefore its revenues. In fact,
USAA was so critical to the Company's success that the Company's
SEC filings contained a risk factor devoted solely to USAA, warning
that "USAA has a significant influence on our operating results."
USAA was also TrueCar's largest shareholder, and a former senior
executive of USAA, Defendant Christopher Claus, served as Chairman
of TrueCar's Board throughout the Class Period.

During the Class Period, the Defendants continued to deceptively
warn investors in the Company's SEC filings of the mere "risk" that
USAA might change its car buying website with TrueCar at some point
"in the future"—giving investors the distinct impression that no
such risk had yet materialized, when, in fact, it already had.

By June 2017, and while investors remained unaware of USAA's
material redesign of the co-branded car buying website, TrueCar
implemented USAA's changes to the site, which almost immediately
resulted in what Defendants knew would occur, a significant decline
in sales traffic. Former TrueCar employees confirmed that the
Defendants were aware of this decline, as they were able to witness
these declining metrics in "real time" via multiple internal
Company databases. Additionally, all USAA member complaints were
routed internally to the Company's "Escalation Department," located
at TrueCar's headquarters in Santa Monica, California.

On July 17, 2017, TrueCar's stock price climbed to its peak of
$21.75 per share, over 60% higher than its price at the beginning
of the Class Period. One week later, on July 26, 2017, just one day
after the Lock-Up Period expired, the Defendants Guthrie and
Pierantoni and other Company insiders began selling enormous
amounts of their TrueCar stock. Specifically, within a week of the
Lock-Up Period's expiration, these insiders collectively sold
nearly 1 million TrueCar shares, realizing $19 million in gross
proceeds.

On November 6, 2017, when the Company released its earnings for the
third quarter ended September 30, 2017, the Defendants were forced
to reveal the truth. TrueCar reported that, rather than
experiencing record unit growth in excess of 20%, the Company's
sales units attributable to USAA had declined by 5%, meaning the
Company could not meet the guidance it had issued only three months
prior. To the astonishment of investors, the Defendant Chip Perry,
admitted for the first time that this shortfall was solely
attributable to substantial changes USAA had made to the co-branded
car buying website with TrueCar months ago, which the Defendant
Perry stated were so extensive they amounted to a "significant
website redesign," causing "a decline in traffic, prospects, and
units on USAA."

On this news, the Company's stock dropped precipitously, falling
over 35%, or $5.76 per share, in a single day, to close at $10.58
per share on November 7, 2017 on heavy trading volume.

TrueCar, Inc. develops and publishes an online automotive
information and communication platform. The Company provides data
and price reports for cars both online and over the phone for
consumers and a communications platform for automobile dealers to
communicate with consumers. TrueCar serves customers throughout the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maya Saxena, Esq.
          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          150 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
          E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
                  jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  lhooker@saxenawhite.com

               - and -

          Steven B. Singer, Esq.
          10 Bank Street, 8th Floor
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 437-8551
          Facsimile: (888) 631-3611
          E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com

               - and -

          Justin B. Farar, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 820
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 575-8604
          Facsimile: (310) 444-1913
          E-mail: jfarar@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Mario M. Choi, Esq.
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                  mchoi@kaplanfox.com


TUFTS ASSOCIATED: Drake Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
SALLY DRAKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TUFTS ASSOCIATED HEALTH MAINTENANCE
ORGANIZATION, INC. AND TUFTS HEALTH PUBLIC PLANS, INC. Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-11876 (D. Mass., Sept. 4, 2019) is an action
brought on behalf of Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees, who, due to Defendants' misclassification scheme, were
not paid all earned overtime pay for time they worked in excess of
40 hours in individual work weeks in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"). Plaintiff also brings individual and class
action claims under Massachusetts state law under the Massachusetts
Minimum Fair Wage Law ("MAWL").

The Defendants employed Plaintiff and other non-management
employees as Clinical Outpatient Nurse Reviewers, Clinical
Reviewers, RN Inpatient Reviewers, RN Outpatient Reviewers,
Utilization Review Nurses, Clinical RN Reviewers, and in other
similar job titles, whose primary job was to perform utilization
reviews ("Utilization Review Employees"). The Defendants'
Utilization Review Employees regularly worked over 40 hours per
week. The Defendants classified Utilization Review Employees as
exempt from state and federal overtime laws and did not pay them
overtime for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants from May 2017 to June 2019.

Defendants are Massachusetts-licensed health maintenance
organizations that both do business as Tufts Health Plan and Tufts
Associated Health Plan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edward F. Haber, Esq.
     Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
     Patrick J. Vallely, Esq.
     SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
     Seaport East Two Seaport Lane
     Boston, MA 02210
     Phone: (617) 439-3939
     Email: ehaber@shulaw.com
            astewart@shulaw.com
            pvallely@shulaw.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

     TRAVIS M. HEDGPETH, ESQ.
     THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
     3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
     Houston, TX 77056
     Phone: (281) 572-0727
     Facsimile: (281) 572-0728
     Email: travis@hedgpethlaw.com

          - and -

     JACK SIEGEL, ESQ.
     Siegel Law Group PLLC
     2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Phone: (214) 790-4454
     Email: www.4overtimelawyer.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Can Compel Arbitration in Epps-Stowers Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLOTTE EPPS-STOWERS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-06652-RS (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted Uber's motion to compel
arbitration.

Defendant Uber operates what it first marketed as a "ride sharing"
service, where persons seeking transportation could utilize Uber's
application through the internet to find persons willing to drive
them to their destinations.  The service has become widely known,
and now competes with traditional taxi cab services, in that Uber
drivers are not typically simply looking to "share" rides, but to
earn substantial income through their use of the Uber app.
Customers likewise are usually looking for what a traditional taxi
cab would provide, but with service level and price advantages.

The Plaintiffs in the putative class action contend Uber wrongfully
charges would-be riders cancellation fees under certain
circumstances.  Uber moved to compel arbitration as to the original
named Plaintiff, Julian Metter.  Although the motion was initially
denied, in light of direction from the Court of Appeal, it became
apparent that Uber was entitled to a "mini trial" under section 4
of the Federal Arbitration Act to determine whether Metter
consented to the purported arbitration agreement.

Metter subsequently withdrew from the action as a Plaintiff before
the evidentiary hearing went forward, due to health issues.  The
new named Plaintiffs are Charlotte Epps-Stowers and Robert Verklas.


Uber contends Epps-Stowers and Verklas both effectively consented
to the arbitration provision (1) when they signed up for Uber, and
(2) when they continued using Uber after being sent an email with
updated terms and conditions.  The prior motion practice involving
Metter did not include the second issue.  As to the first issue,
however, the prior order was explicit.

In November 2016, Uber emailed all its riders.  The subject of the
email read: "We've Updated Our Terms of Use."  Uber offered
evidence it sent the email to Epps-Stowers on Nov. 16, 2016 and to
Verklas on Nov. 19, 2016.  There is no dispute that Epps-Stowers
and Verklas both used Uber numerous times after the email was
sent.

Judge Seeborg finds that the evidence supports a conclusion that
whether Epps-Stowers signed up on a computer or a phone, she did
not do so through the mobile app.  Additionally, Uber presented
uncontradicted evidence that even the mobile app did not present
the keypad obstruction issue at the time Epps-Stowers registered.
Her testimony that she does not recall seeing the terms of service
link is insufficient.

The evidence regarding Verklas likewise supports a conclusion that
he adequately expressed consent to the terms of service, including
the arbitration provision.  First, even assuming Verklas only
signed up in 2014, Uber has presented sufficient evidence that the
terms of service link would have been displayed to Verklas, without
obstruction.  Again, his testimony that he does not recall seeing
it, however honest, does not support a different result.
Furthermore, whether Verklas engaged in a new registration process
in 2105 as opposed merely to "updating" his account, Uber's
evidence demonstrates that he consented to the terms of service at
that juncture, when there was no issue of keyboard obstruction.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Seeborg granted the motion to compel
arbitration.  The action is stayed pending completion of the
arbitration proceedings.  For administrative purposes, the Clerk is
directed to close the file.  Any party may move to reopen upon
completion of the arbitration or for other good cause shown.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/F5MynE from Leagle.com.

Charlotte Epps-Stowers, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals & Robert Verklas, individually, and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
represented by Trisha Kathleen Monesi --
trisha.monesi@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Cody Robert
Padgett -- Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law, APC,
Francis J. Flynn, Jr. -- casey@lawofficeflynn.com -- Law Offices of
Francis J. Flynn, Jr., Mark A. Ozzello --
mark.ozzello@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law, APC, Robert
Kenneth Friedl -- robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law
APC & Tarek H. Zohdy -- Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone
Lawyers, APC.

Uber Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Claudia Maria Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- Morrison
& Foerster LLP, Lucia X. Roibal -- lroibal@mofo.com -- Morrison
Foerster LLP & Tiffany Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster LLP.


UNITED ODD: Faces Basil Labor Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Odd Fellow and
Rebekah Home. The case is styled as Kamlawatie Basil and Andrea
Williams, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. United Odd Fellow and Rebekah Home,
Defendant, Case No. 27148/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Sept. 10, 2019).

The case type is stated as Labor Law violation.

United Odd Fellow & Rebekah Home provides many programs including
New Horizons, a "Buffet Style" food service delivery system.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Law Offices of Louis Ginsberg, P.C.
   233 Broadway Suite 2220
   New York, NY 10279
   Tel: (516) 625-0105

The Defendant is represented by:

   KAUFMAN BORGEEST & RYAN, LLP
   120 Broadway, 14th Floor
   New York, NY 10271
   Tel 212-980-9600   
   Fax 212-980-9291


UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA: Class 3 Certification in Knudsen Vacated
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL P. KNUDSEN, ROSE E. AYERS, ERIC DENNISON, LANCE
FRENCH, ERIK FARNHAM and KAILA JACOBSON, Plaintiffs and Appellees,
v. THE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA, a unit of the Montana University
System, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. DA 18-0552 (Mont.), Judge
Beth Baker of the Supreme Court of Montana reversed in part and
affirmed in part the order of the Fourth Judicial District Court,
Missoula County, certifying three classes to proceed in a lawsuit
against the University.

The suit alleges that the University breached its fiduciary duty to
students by entering into a contract with Higher One, Inc., to
process student loan refunds through non-competitive financial
accounts and by providing students' personal information to Higher
One.

Prior to 2010, the University processed student loan disbursements
by issuing paper checks to each student receiving a reimbursement.
That year, the University entered into a service agreement with
Higher One to process student loan disbursements to enrolled
students.  Under the contract, Higher One disbursed the student
loan funds.  Students receiving student loan reimbursements were
given the option to have the funds directly deposited into an
account with Higher One or electronically transferred into a
third-party bank account of the student's choosing.  If a student
did not select one of those two options, Higher One issued the
student a paper check by default.  The contract expired on June 30,
2015, and was not renewed.

The University transferred to Higher One the following personal
information regarding more than 38,000 students: the student's
name, address, e-mail address, University ID number, birthdate,
gender, telephone number, and the last four digits of the student's
social security number.  Higher One sent each student a debit card
branded with the University's logo, along with information
directing the students to a Higher One website to select the method
for their loan disbursement.  

If students selected the "Easy Refund" method, Higher One opened an
account -- called a OneAccount -- for the student with its partner
bank and activated the debit card.  Students also could select to
have the funds electronically transferred to a bank account of
their choosing, but a student who selected this option was directed
to fill out a separate paper form and send it to Higher One to
complete the transfer.  Students who did not select an option on
the website were sent a paper check to the mailing address on
file.

The fee schedule that would be charged to students selecting to
open OneAccounts was attached as Exhibit B to the University's
contract with Higher One.  Fees included a $0.50 fee for each debit
card transaction, fees for use of Non-Higher One ATMs, fees for
insufficient funds, and abandoned account fees.  The fee schedule
was available to students through Higher One's website.

Current and former students Knudsen, Ayers,  Dennison, French,
Farnham, and Jacobson filed the lawsuit against the University in
November 2016 as a class action complaint.  The Students alleged
that the University's agreement with Higher One subjected them to
excessive bank fees and that the University disclosed personal
information to Higher One without their consent.  The Students
alleged breach of the University's fiduciary duty, negligent
entrustment, statutory and constitutional privacy right violations,
and unjust enrichment.  The complaint sought compensatory damages,
as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

In two orders, the District Court certified three classes to
proceed in the lawsuit:

     a. Class 1: Past or present students of Defendant University
who paid fees to Higher One Holdings, as a consequence of opening
an account with Higher One to receive student loan refunds.

     b. Class 2: Past or present students of Defendant University
whose personal information was transmitted to Higher One Holdings.

     c. Class 3: Past or present students of Defendant University
whose personal information has been or may be transmitted to a
third-party vendor or third-party contractor without prior written
consent in circumstances other than where transmission is necessary
for completion of a task having a legitimate educational interest.

The University appeals the Order Granting Motion for Certification
of Classes and the Supplemental Order Granting Motion for
Certification of Classes.

Judge Baker holds that the District Court abused its discretion to
the extent that it certified any classes under Rule 23(b)(1).  The
Students provide no argument in support of classification under
Rule 23(b)(1) for any of the certified classes and thus concede the
University's argument that certification under Rule 23(b)(1) for
any of the classes was an abuse of discretion.

The District Court's certification of Class 3 under Rule 23(b)(2)
was also an abuse of discretion.  The Students again provide no
argument that the District Court properly could have certified
Class 3 under any other section of Rule 23(b).  Thus, the Judge
holds that the District Court abused its discretion in certifying
Class 3.

Finally, the Judge finds that the District Court properly certified
Class 1 and Class 2 under Rule 23(b)(3).  If the University is
found liable either for allowing excessive fees or for transmitting
personal information, individual determinations of damages will
need to be made.  This does not overcome predominance of the
class-wide liability determination.  Whether the University is
liable to Class 1 for excessive fees charged by Higher One or to
Class 2 for the release of personal information to Higher One will
move the litigation forward and be answered the same for all class
members.

The University will be liable to all members of Class 1 or to no
members of Class 1 and liable to all members of Class 2 or to no
members of Class 2.  Whether individual class members have any
recoverable damages is a separate question that does not defeat
class certification to answer the predominant questions regarding
the University's liability to the two classes.

For these reasons, Judge Baker reversed and vacated the District
Court's certification of Class 3.  She reversed the District
Court's certification of Class 1 and Class 2 under Rule 23(b)(1)
and (b)(2) and affirmed its certification of Class 1 and Class 2
under Rule 23(b)(3).  The case is remanded for further
proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 1, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/jDyn9i from Leagle.com.

Maxon R. Davis -- max.davis@dhhtlaw.com -- Davis, Hatley, Haffeman
& Tighe, P.C., Great Falls, Montana Lucy T. France, University of
Montana Office of Legal Counsel, Missoula, Montana Christopher D.
Abbott, Assistant Attorney General, Agency Legal Services Bureau,
Helena, Montana, for Appellant.

John L. Amsden, Justin P. Stalpes , Michael G. Black, Beck, Amsden
& Stalpes, Bozeman, Montana Quentin M. Rhoades --
qmr@montanalawyer.com -- Nicole L. Siefert --
nicole@montanalawyer.com -- Rhoades, Siefert & Erickson, Missoula,
Montana, for Appellees.


WISE BAR & GRILL: Faustov Suit Hits Withheld Tips, Claims Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vladimir Faustov, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wise Bar & Grill, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-04698 (E.D. N.Y., August 14, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, spread-of-hours
compensation, redress for unlawful retention of gratuities and
unlawful deductions from wages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor law.

Wise Bar and Grill operates a restaurant located at 35 Neptune
Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11235, where Faustov worked as a waiter
from May 23, 2019 to June 9, 2019, working in excess of 40 hours
per week.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
      Sara J. Isaacson, Esq.
      LIPSKY LOWE LLP
      420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 180
      New York, NY 10170-1830
      Tel: (212) 392-4772
      Fax: (212) 444-1030
      Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
             sara@lipskylowe.com


WOODLAWN MOTOR: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Says Fleet
-------------------------------------------------------
Harold Fleet and Dottice Jukes, On behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Woodlawn Motor Coach,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02559-SAG (D. Md., Sept. 4, 2019)
is a collective action for unpaid wages, damages, and relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, and supplemental state law claims
under the Maryland's Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage
Payment and Collection Law in addition to the actual sums owed in
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pursuant
to FLSA, MWHL, and MWCPL, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs
as provided under the FLSA, MWHL, and MWCPL.

During several weeks in 2015-2019, Plaintiffs worked more than 40
hours but was not paid time and half for the hours they've worked
overtime, notes the complaint. This failure and refusal to pay
compensation as required by the FLSA was willful and intentional,
and not in good faith, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as Commercial Drivers.

Woodlawn Motor Coach, Inc., is incorporated in the state of
Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ejike H. Obineche, Esq.
     Obineche Law Firm, LLC
     6305 Ivy Lane, Suite 640
     Greenbelt, MD 20770
     Phone 301-479-1222
     Fax 301-479-1232
     Email: ejike.obineche@obinechelaw.com


WYNDHAM VACATION: Timeshare Tenants File Suit Over Onerous Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Annamarie Deneen, Michael J. Deneen, Erin Munoz, Paul Munoz and
Nazret Z. Gebremeskel individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wyndham Vacation
Resorts, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-05499 (N.D. Ill., August
14, 2019), seeks to declare a Purchase and Sale Agreement that they
went into void ab initio; rescission of all contracts with Wyndham;
restitution of all monies paid to Wyndham; compensatory, treble and
punitive damages under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act
and the consumer protection statutes of other States with similar
acts; and attorneys' fees and such further and other relief.

Wyndham operates a timeshare ownership program with a portfolio of
over 220 resorts throughout the world with 25,000 individual units.
It markets and sells vacation ownership interests in the form of
"points," provides consumer financing in connection with the sale
of points, provides property management services to the purchasers,
and develops and acquires vacation ownership resorts.

Plaintiffs bought time shares with Wyndham facilities and claim
that, contrary to their contract and their sales pitch prior to the
sale, Wyndham had problems with availability of units once they
purchased; that points would expire if not used; maintenance fees
were increasing; and that they need to book one year in advance to
be able to avail of a room, among other things. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Howard B. Prossnitz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD B. PROSSNITZ
      1014 Ontario Street
      Oak Park, IL 60302
      Tel: (708) 203-5747
      Email: prossnitzlaw@gmail.com

             - and -

      Adam Szulczewksi, Esq.
      225 West Washington Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 201-9300
      Email: szulcze@outlook.com


ZF TRW: Car Owners Sue Over Defective Air Bag Control Units
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Fuller, Sr., Tina Fuller, Carolyn Nelson, Gaylynn Sanchez
and John Seward, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., Hyundai
Motor America, Inc., Kia Motors America, Inc., American Honda Motor
Co., Inc., Honda of America Meg. Inc., Honda R&D Americas, Inc.,
Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.,
Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. and
Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-01566 (C.D. Cal. August 14, 2019), seeks compensatory,
exemplary and punitive remedies and damages and statutory
penalties, including interest, injunctive and equitable relief in
the form of a recall and program to repair, modify, and/or buy back
all defective vehicles and to fully reimburse all costs and
economic losses, disgorgement of all or part of the ill-gotten
profits they received from their sale or lease of the concerned
vehicles, all applicable statutory and civil penalties, award of
costs and attorneys' fees and such other or further relief for
breach of warranty and for violation of various state consumer
protection acts.

Plaintiffs are car owners with defective Airbag Control Units that
only manifests itself only when an accident occurs. An integrated
circuit defect prevents deployment of the airbags and seatbelt
pre-tensioners, says the complaint.

ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. is a major automotive parts
supplier. Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Kia Motors America, Inc.,
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda of America Meg. Inc., Honda
R&D Americas, Inc., Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor
Sales, USA, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North
America, Inc. and Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. are global
car manufacturers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael F. Ram, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100
      Mountain View, CA 94040
      Telephone: (650) 784-4007
      Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
      Email: Mram@robinskaplan.com

             - and -

      Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq.
      ROBINS PLAN LLP
      800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 349-8500
      Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
      Email: Sslaughter@robinskaplan.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 ***