CAR_Public/191008.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, October 8, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 201

                            Headlines

22ND CENTURY: Bull Suit Moved to Western District of New York
44 LAMB LLC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Young Suit Alleges
6001 INC: Rinehart Hits Unpaid Minimum Wages, Confiscated Tips
ALDI INC: Parham Sues Over Misleading Product Labels
ALEXA ENTERPRISES: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Whitehead Alleges

AMAZON.COM INC: Edmundson Files Suit Over Recalled Products
ASSET RECOVERY: Fantacone Suit Moved to N.D. New York
ATHELAS INSTITUTE: Underpays Vocational Instructors, Bowen Says
ATLANTIC HOUSING: Jorge Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ATX INC: McKinnes et al. Seek OT Pay for Delivery Associates

AVM ENTERPRISES: Bid to Certify Class in Gorss TCPA Suit Denied
BAUSCH HEALTH: FWK Sues Over Diabetes Meds Price-fixing
BLACKOUT INVESTIGATIONS: Johnson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
BLUE BOTTLE: Holt Sues over Redemption of Gift Card
BROMLEY FOODS: Miller Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages

C.Q. INSULATION: Underpays Installers, Washington Suit Alleges
CACH LLC: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Sanders FDCPA/FCRA Suit
CALIFORNIA: Ringgold Files Petition for Writ; Reply Due Oct. 18
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
CARRIZO OIL: Faces Barucic Suit over Proposed Merger

CARSON SMITHFIELD: Gruttadauria Sues Over Vague Collection Letter
CASTLE BRANDS: Stursma Class Suit Seeks to Enjoin Sale to Pernod
CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Class Certification Denied in Robinson Case
CLEVELAND COUNTY, NC: 4th Circuit Appeal Filed in Conner Labor Suit
COOK COUNTY, IL: Peoples Suit Asserts Civil Rights Violation

DASH LUBE: Moreno Moves to Certify Two Classes of Technicians
DBTG CHAMBERS: Penate et al. Seek OT Pay for Delivery Workers
DIAL SENIOR: Nordstrom Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection
DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Can't Compel Arbitration in Arnaud TCPA Suit
EAE CORP: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Lucas Claims

EBONY MEDIA: Former Workers Seek Unpaid Final Wages, Reimbursements
EQUIFAX INC: Carpenter Suit Moved to Northern District of Georgia
FEDLOAN SERVICING: Moves to Decertify TCPA Class in Silver Suit
FENSTER-MARTENS: Metro Cardiovascular Sues over Fax Ads
FIELDWORK INC: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data

FLORIDA: Suit vs. Law Enforcement Dept. Moved to N.D. Fla.
GALVESTON COUNTY, TX: Judges Appeal Decision in Booth Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Broadnax Sues over Defective 2011 Chevrolet Cruze
GENOMIC HEALTH: Faces Rice Suit Over Merger With Exact Sciences
GILDAN APPAREL: Traynor ADA Suit Underway in New York

GIORGIO ARMANI: Website not Accessible to Blind, Farr Says
HAYT HAYT: Court Certifies Class in Barenbaum FDCPA Suit
HOME DEPOT: Freeman Illegal Credit Check Row Removed to M.D. Fla.
INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE: Smith Sues Over Unfair Refund Policies
JUUL LABS: Misrepresents Nicotine Content, C.B. Suit Claims

JUUL LABS: N.C. Sues over Sale of Electronic Vaping Devices
KEYSTONE INDUSTRIAL: Redmond Hits Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
KEYSTONE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Wages, Domeich et al. Allege
KIDD COFFEE: Ex-Employees Seek to Recover OT Wages & Withheld Tips
KOHLBERG VENTURES: Asks S.C. to Dismiss Wojciechowski Suit

LAMB WESTON: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Kennard Suit Denied
MESHLOGISTICS INC: Underpays Forklift Operators, Escareno Alleges
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Feist Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pennsylvania
MIDLAND FUNDING: Can Compel Arbitration in Johnson FDCPA/AFDCA Suit
MONSANTO COMPANY: Wise Seeks to Recover Roundup-Related Damages

N.C.W.C., INC: George Sues over Spam e-Mails
NATIONAL TIRE: McGahee Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
NATURCHEM, INC: Underpays Spray Technicians, Breece et al. Say
NCAA: Noiel Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
NELNET DIVERSIFIED: 10th Cir. Appeal Filed in Peterson FLSA Suit

NERIUM INTERNATIONAL: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Jia Suit
NHK SPRING: Zimmerman Alleges HDD Price-Fixing
NOAH RESTAURANT: Moodie Seeks Proper Overtime Wages
NORTHERN LEASING: Chorba Suit Moved to S.D. New York
OHIO: Appellate Court Upholds Denial of Dunlop Summary Judgment Bid

OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Stirling Hits Share Drop Over Supply Chain Issue
OMNOVA SOLUTIONS: Thompson Suit Challenges Sale to Synthomer
PLAZA PATISSERIE: Poulmentis Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages
POOL WATER: Duenas Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
PRESIDIO INC: Rosenblatt Files Suit Over BCEC Merger Deal

REDFIN INC: Cook Labor Suit Hits Non-payment of Overtime Work
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Schwebel Sues Over Violation FDCPA
RMJC, JNC: Filshill Seeks Minimum Wages for Exotic Dancers
SAN ANTONIO, TX: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Faces Goins Suit Alleging FEHA Violation

SANTA CLARA CORRECTIONAL: Allen Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
SENSA PRODUCTS: Renewed Bid to Certify Class in Conde Suit Denied
SOCAL EDISON: Kenny et al. Sue to Recover Overpayments
SOUTHEASTERN LANDSCAPE: Montes Seek OT Pay for Landscapers
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Garay Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.

ST LOUIS, MO: Protesters File Suit Over Illegal Arrests
SUNDIAL GROWERS: Huang Files IPO-Related Class Action
SUNROAD CV AUTO: Fails to Pay Prope Wages, Kyriakides Alleges
TOTAL MERCHANT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Abante Rooter Claims
TRUDO REALTY: Faces Johnson Suit Alleging FLSA and BIPA Violation

TWO RIVERS: Faces Paulson Files Securities Class Action
ULTA SALON: Rowe Appeals Class Cert. Denial to Ninth Circuit
WINCO FOODS: Mitchell Seeks 9th Cir. Review of FCRA Suit Ruling
XEROX CORP: Court Denies Class Certification in Shareholder Suit
YD WINDOW: Richardson Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages


                            *********

22ND CENTURY: Bull Suit Moved to Western District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as MATTHEW BULL, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 22ND
CENTURY GROUP, INC., HENRY SICIGNANO III, and JOHN T. BRODFUEHRER,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00409 (Filed Jan. 21, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the  Eastern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
New York (Buffalo) on Sept. 20, 2019. The Western District of New
York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01285-EAW to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A.
Wolford.

The case is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded 22nd Century
securities between February 18, 2016 and October 25, 2018,
inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

22nd Century is a company that purportedly has the technology and
plant breeding expertise to regulate the level of nicotine (and
other nicotinic alkaloids) in tobacco plants. The Company has
touted how it is able to grow tobacco with |"up to 97% less
nicotine than conventional tobacco."[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

The Defendants are Represented by:

          Jonathan Hale Friedman, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER
          90 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016-1301
          Telephone: (212) 338-3416
          Facsimile: (212) 687-2329
          E-mail: jfriedman@foley.com

44 LAMB LLC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Young Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 44 LAMB LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-08432 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2019) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
website, http://www.thelambsclub.com/is not equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the Americans
with Disabilities Act. The Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

44 Lamb LLC owns and operates a restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN SOLOTOFF PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd, #208
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 695-0052
          Facsimile: (516) 706-4692
          E-mail: ds@lawsolo.net

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, New York 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


6001 INC: Rinehart Hits Unpaid Minimum Wages, Confiscated Tips
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA RINEHART, on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. 6001 INC., d/b/a TD'S SHOWCLUB, JAMES
ZANZUCCHI, TIMOTHY ZANZUCCHI, FRANK ZANZUCCHI, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00898 (D. N.M., Sept. 26, 2019) is an action brought as a
Fair Labor Standards Act collective action for Defendants' practice
of failing to pay Plaintiff any wages which violates the FLSA's
minimum wage provision, and Defendants' practice of charging house
fees and confiscating tips which violates the FLSA because for at
least one workweek in the relevant statutory period, these
practices caused Plaintiff to be paid below the minimum wage.

The Defendants required and/or permitted Plaintiff Christina
Rinehart to work as an exotic Plaintiff at their adult
entertainment club but refused to compensate her at the applicable
minimum wage, says the complaint. In fact, the Defendants refused
to compensate her whatsoever for any hours worked. Plaintiff's only
compensation was in the form of tips from club patrons, and even
tips was partly confiscated by the club. The Defendants took money
from Plaintiff in the form of "house fees" or "rent". Plaintiff was
also required to divide tips with Defendants' managers and
employees who do not customarily receive tips. The Defendants
misclassify Plaintiffs, including Plaintiff, as independent
contractors so that they do not have to compensate her at the
federally mandated minimum wage rate, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff Christina Rinehart is an exotic dancer and a former
employee for Defendants. She resides in Sandoval County.

Defendants operate an adult entertainment club in New Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel M. Faber, Esq.
     4620C Jefferson Lane NE
     Albuquerque, NM 87109
     Phone: (505) 830-0405
     Fax: (505) 830-0405
     Email: dan@danielfaber.com

          - and -

     David Hodges, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
     4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: (713) 523-0001
     Facsimile: (713) 523-1116


ALDI INC: Parham Sues Over Misleading Product Labels
----------------------------------------------------
Eric Parham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Aldi Inc. Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08975
(S.D. N.Y., Sept. 26, 2019) seeks damages under that State's
Consumer Protection Statutes from Defendant's misleading
representations on their products' packaging.

Aldi Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
almondmilk beverages purporting to be characterized by vanilla
under the Friendly Farms brand ("Products"). The Products are sold
in sizes including 64 FL OZ (1.5 L or ½ gallon) in regular and
unsweetened varieties. The Products' front labels and/or
advertising makes direct representations with respect to their
primary recognizable and characterizing flavor, by the word
"VANILLA" and/or vignette.

The complaint alleges that the unqualified, prominent and
conspicuous representations as "Vanilla" is false, deceptive and
misleading because they contain flavors other than vanilla, as
revealed by "Natural Flavors" on the ingredient list. If the
"natural flavors" on the ingredient list only consisted of vanilla
flavoring or vanilla extract, these higher value ingredients would
be declared by their common or usual names instead of the opaque
and ubiquitous "natural flavor." Had Plaintiff and Class members
known the truth about the Products, they would not have bought the
Products or would have paid less, says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Products for personal use,
consumption or application based on the above representations, for
no less than the price indicated.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
     Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
     505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
     Great Neck, NY 11021
     Phone: (516) 303-0552
     Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
     Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

            - and -

     Michael R. Reese, Esq.
     REESE LLP
     100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10025
     Phone: (212) 643-0500
     Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
     Email: mreese@reesellp.com


ALEXA ENTERPRISES: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Whitehead Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN WHITEHEAD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALEXA ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a PAPA
JOHN'S PIZZA-NORTHERN KENTUCKY d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S
PIZZA; ALEXA ENTERPRISES INC. II d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S d/b/a PAPA
JOHN'S PIZZA; and KEVIN ELLIS, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00122-DLB-CJS (E.D. Ky., Sept. 9, 2019) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Whitehead was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.

Alexa Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Papa John's Pizza-Northern Kentucky,
d/b/a Papa John's Pizza, d/b/a Papa John's, is a for-profit
corporation organized under Kentucky law. The Company owns and
operates numerous Papa John's pizza stores in and around Boone
County, Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq.
           BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
           515 Park Avenue
           Louisville, KY 40208
           Telephone: (502) 636-4333
           E-mail: davids@bsjfirm.com

                - and -

           Joey P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
           BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
           223 Rosa L. Parks Ave, Suite 200
           Nashville, TN 37203
           Telephone: (615) 254-8801
           E-mail: joeyl@bsjfirm.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Edmundson Files Suit Over Recalled Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Edmundson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Amazon.com, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-05835 (N.D. Ill., August 29, 2019), seeks statutory damages,
punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Edmundson purchased numbing cream and disposable razors from Amazon
that were previously recalled. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Heather L. Blaise, Esq.
      BLAISE & NITSCHKE, P.C.
      123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 250
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 448-6602
      Fax: (312) 803-1940
      Email: hblaise@blaisenitschkelaw.com


ASSET RECOVERY: Fantacone Suit Moved to N.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Joseph Fantacone, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ASSET
RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 007588/2019, was
removed from the Onondaga Supreme Court to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York - Main
Office (Syracuse) on Sept. 20, 2019. The Northern District of New
York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-01168-FJS-ML to the
proceeding. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Frederick J. Scullin,
Jr.

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full service asset recovery
management company that is committed to establishing unmatched
standards of performance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Simon Goldenberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SIMON GOLDENBERG PLLC
          818 East 16 Street, Ste Ground Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11230
          Telephone: (347) 640-4357
          E-mail: simon@goldenbergfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ellen Silverman, Esq.
          HINSHAW, CULBERTSON LAW FIRM-NY OFFICE
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471-6229
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
          E-mail: esilverman@hinshawlaw.com

ATHELAS INSTITUTE: Underpays Vocational Instructors, Bowen Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN BOWEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ATHELAS INSTITUTE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02628-DKC (D. Md., Sept. 10, 2019) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Bowen was employed by the Defendant as vocational
instructor.

Athena Institute Inc. operates as a non profit organization. The
Organization offers residential, educational, consultation, case
management, and support services. Athena Institute serves
communities in the State of Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
          Kelly A. Burgy, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244-7005
          Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
          E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
                  kaburgy@nicholllaw.com


ATLANTIC HOUSING: Jorge Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Jorge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Atlantic Housing Foundation, Inc., and
Michael Nguyen, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-62152, (E.D. Tex.,
August 28, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid compensation and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Atlantic Housing is a non-profit organization that supports,
acquires, constructs, rehabilitates and operates qualified
affordable housing for low-income persons and families, elderly and
mentally or physically disabled persons where Jorge is currently
employed as a Residential Coordinator. She claims to have worked
more than 40 hours per week without overtime compensation within
the last three years, and without receiving minimum and overtime
wages. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dorotha M. Ocker, Esq.
      OCKER LAW FIRM, PLLC
      P.O. Box 192
      Addison, TX 75001
      Tel. (214) 390-5715
      Facsimile: (469) 277-3365
      Email: dmo@ockerlawfirm.com


ATX INC: McKinnes et al. Seek OT Pay for Delivery Associates
------------------------------------------------------------
DARTISHA MCKINNES and STEVE FLEMMING, individually, and on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ATX INC., a
Michigan corporation, BENSON OGHOUFO, an individual, ANTONIO
GEORGE, an individual, jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-12748-SJM-MJH (E.D. Mich., Sept. 20, 2019), seeks to
recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants employed Plaintiffs as hourly "Delivery Associates"
responsible for delivering packages from an Amazon warehouse in
Romulus, Michigan to Amazon's customers located throughout
Metropolitan Detroit.

The Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours per week but Defendants
maintained a number of illegal compensation policies pursuant to
which they failed and refused to pay Plaintiffs (and their other
Delivery Associates) for all hours worked.

ATX Inc. is a dynamic technology company. The company offers its
services to the Cable Television, Broadcast, Satellite and
Telephone Industries globally.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: 248-355-0300
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com

AVM ENTERPRISES: Bid to Certify Class in Gorss TCPA Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GORSS MOTELS INC., Plaintiff, v. A.V.M. ENTERPRISES,
INC., and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-CV-01078 (KAD)
(D. Conn.), Judge Kari A. Dooley of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut denied Gorss' Motion for Class
Certification.

The case, initiated by Gorss, is one of several putative class
actions brought against product suppliers to Wyndham Hotel Group
and its franchisees by Gorss.  Gorss contended that A.V.M.
Enterprises violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991,
as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 ("TCPA") when it
sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements to Wyndham franchisees.

Gorss is the former corporate owner of a Super 8-branded motel and
Wyndham franchisee.  Since 2009, A.V.M. has been one of only a
handful of approved suppliers of certain goods and products for
some of Wyndham's franchisees, including franchisees of the Super
8-brand.  Like other approved suppliers, Wyndham worked with A.V.M.
to create advertisements for broadcasting to Wyndham franchisees
via fax.

Gorss alleges in its Complaint that A.V.M. sent two fax
advertisements to it and other Wyndham franchisees, one on June 15,
2015 and another on May 16, 2016.  The putative class consists of
Gorss as well as the other persons or entities who purportedly
received the Faxes.  Gorss identifies 3,419 unique fax numbers that
received the June 15, 2015 fax and 2,762 unique fax numbers that
received the May 16, 2016 fax.

Gorss alleges that the sending of the Faxes violated the TCPA
because, inter alia, the Faxes were "unsolicited" advertisements.
It further asserts that the Faxes failed to contain "opt out"
language required under by the so-called "Solicited Fax Rule,"
which was promulgated, and later repealed, by the Federal
Communications Commission.

Pending before the Court is Gorss' Motion for Class Certification.
The issue for the Court is whether the questions identified by
Gorss as common to all the proposed class members and for which
generalized proof is available "predominate" or are "more
substantial" than the questions identified by A.V.M. that would
require proof individualized to each class member.

Judge Dooley agrees with A.V.M. that the question of whether each
class member consented to receive the Faxes at issue must be
examined on an individualized basis and that the question is more
substantial than any questions which might be answered with
generalized proof.  As such, it is the individualized inquiry that
will predominate in the adjudication of Gorss' claims rendering
class certification inappropriate.

Alternatively, Gorss contends that even if the Faxes were not
"unsolicited," they still violated the Solicited Fax Rule,
rendering consent a non-issue.  The Court previously rejected this
argument and held that the decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals in Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. F.C.C., invalidating the
Solicited Fax Rule is binding on the Court.  The Judge does not
revisit that determination.

For these reasons, Judge Dooley denied Gorss' Motion for Class
Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Memorandum of
Decision is available at https://is.gd/eTj19W from Leagle.com.

Gorss Motels Inc., a Connecticut corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, represented by Ryan Michael Kelly --
rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca & Aytan Y. Bellin --
Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com -- Bellin & Associates LLC.

A.V.M. Enterprises, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, Defendant,
represented by Eric L. Samore -- esamore@salawus.com -- Smith
Amundsen, LLC, pro hac vice, Erin A. Walsh, Smith Amundsen, LLC,
pro hac vice, Yesha S. Hoeppner -- ewalsh@salawus.com -- Smith
Amundsen, LLC, pro hac vice, Eric Charles Shinaman --
yhoeppner@salawus.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP & Melicent B.
Thompson -- thompson@litchfieldcavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP.


BAUSCH HEALTH: FWK Sues Over Diabetes Meds Price-fixing
-------------------------------------------------------
FWK Holdings, LLC, Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Bausch Health Companies Inc., Salix
Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Santarus, Inc.,
Assertio Therapeutics, Inc., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Lupin
Ltd., Defendants, Case 19-cv-05426 (N.D. Cal., August 29, 2018)
seeks to recover damages, interest, costs of suit and reasonable
attorneys' fees resulting from anticompetitive foreclosure of
Glumetza in violation of the Sherman Act.

FWK is the assignee of antitrust claims possessed by Frank W. Kerr
Company and brings this action as successor-in-interest to Kerr's
claims arising from its purchase of Glumetza and generic metformin
directly from one or more of the Defendants at supra-competitive
prices.

Defendants are pharmaceutical companies involved in the manufacture
of Glumetza, a diabetes medication used to prevent and control high
blood sugar. Metformin is the generic bio-equivalent of Glumetza.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      A.J. De Bartolomeo, Esq.
      TADLER LAW LLP
      505 14th Street, Suite 1110
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (212) 631-8689
      Facsimile: (212) 273-4375
      Email: ajd@tadlerlaw.com

             - and -

      Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
      HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
      1135 W. 6th Street, Suite 125
      Austin, TX 78703
      Telephone: (855) 344-3298
      Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
      Email: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com


BLACKOUT INVESTIGATIONS: Johnson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Doneika Johnson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Blackout Investigations & Security Services Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-02487, (D. Md., August 28, 2019 ), seeks
to recover unpaid wages and overtime wages under the Maryland Wage
and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collections Law.

Blackout Investigations is a security agency that employed Johnson
as a security guard. Blackout Investigations allegedly failed to
pay Johnson overtime premium compensation for her overtime work.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Markovitz, Esq.
      JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
      6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
      Greenbelt, MD 20770
      Phone: (301) 220-2200
      Email: bmarkovitz@jgllaw.com

             - and -

      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      Twining Office Center, Suite 211
      715 Twining Road
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Phone: (215) 884-2491
      Email: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com


BLUE BOTTLE: Holt Sues over Redemption of Gift Card
---------------------------------------------------
ADAM HOLT, on behalf of himself, General Public, and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs, BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE, INC.,
and DOES through 20, the Defendants, Case No. 19CV355132 (Cal.
Super., Sept. 16, 2019), alleges that Defendant failed to provide
cash to consumers wishing to redeem a gift card with a cash value
less than $10.00, or alternatively, failed to maintain a policy
and/or practice of complying with Civil Code section 1749.5(b)(2).

Over a decade ago, the California Legislature determined that gift
card were increasingly popular as a means of gift-giving, but
consumers were not able to redeem the full value of the gift cards
they received.

In reaction to this inequity, California State Senator Ellen M.
Corbett authored Senate Bill 250, stating consumers with small
values on their gift cards often cannot buy anything sold by the
gift card seller with the remaining value on the card, and they
cannot get change for the value. Senator Corbett indicated that
consumers should be relieved from this, the lawsuit notes.

The Defendant owns and operates cafes in California, and sells
coffee, coffee brewing equipment, and other coffee related
products. In addition to the products it sells, Blue Bottle Coffee
also sells gift cards, which can be used to buy products from
Defendant's stores.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff are:

          Phillip R. Poliner, Esq.
          Neil B. Fineman, Esq
          FINEMAN POLINER LLP
          155 North Riverview Drive
          Anaheim Hills, CA 92808-1225
          Telephone: (714) 620 1125
          Facsimile: (714) 701 0155
          E-mail: Phillip@FinemanPoliner.com
                  Neil@FinemanPoliner.com

BROMLEY FOODS: Miller Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
-------------------------------------------------
SEAN MILLER, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BROMLEY FOODS, INC.; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV34138 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 26, 2019) is a class action
seeking monetary relief against Defendants on behalf of himself and
the putative class to recover, among other things, unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, restitution, interest, attorneys' fees, costs,
and penalties pursuant to the Labor Code.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged in a systematic
pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor
Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and California
Business and Professions Code that have damaged Plaintiff and Class
Members, and contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair
competition. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants fail to pay all
wages (including minimum, regular, and overtime wages); fail to
provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; fail
to authorize or permit rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu
thereof; fail to provide accurate itemized wage statements; fail to
pay all wages due upon separation of employment; and fail to
reimburse business expenses.

Plaintiff is a California citizen and resides in Los Angeles
County, California who was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt
employee during the Class Period.

Defendants operate and are doing business as Jack In The Box fast
food franchises throughout California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jose R. Garay, Esq.
     JOSE GARAY, APLC
     249 E. Ocean Blvd. #814
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Phone: (949) 208-3400
     Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
     Email: jose@garaylaw.com

          - and -

     Daniel J. Hyun, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL J. HYUN
     1100 West Town and Country Road, Suite 1250
     Orange, California 92868
     Phone: (949) 596-4782
     Facsimile: (949) 528-2596
     Email: dh@danielhyunlaw.com


C.Q. INSULATION: Underpays Installers, Washington Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR WASHINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situate, Plaintiff v. C.Q. INSULATION, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 8:19-cv-02245-VMC-SPF (M.D. Fla., Sept. 9, 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 Washington was employed by the Defendant as
installer.

C.Q. Insulation Inc was founded in 1997. The company's line of
business includes providing plastering, drywall, and insulation
services and installation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CACH LLC: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Sanders FDCPA/FCRA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Lara M. Sanders v. CACH, LLC, et al., Civil
Action No. 19-996 (SDW) (JAD) (D. N.J.), Judge Susan D. Wigenton of
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in
part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff
Lara M. Sanders' Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6).

In July 2017, Defendant CACH commenced a debt-collection action
against the Plaintiff in the Superior Court of New Jersey, alleging
that the Plaintiff had incurred credit card debt in the amount of
$15,372.  On Dec. 4, 2017, they allegedly settled the state-court
action for $1,000, and the parties executed a stipulation of
discontinuance with prejudice.  On Dec. 6, 2017, CACH accepted the
settlement check as a complete resolution of any further collection
activities.  In a letter dated Jan. 30, 2018, Defendant Resurgent
Capital notified the Plaintiff that her account with CACH "was
settled in full on 12/06/2017."  

Despite the parties' settlement agreement, the Plaintiff alleges
that between Jan. 10, 2018 and Feb. 7, 2018, the Defendants
continued to report that she owed a debt.  She further alleges that
the Defendants failed to disclose that at all relevant times, CACH
was in bankruptcy and that Resurgent Capital and Resurgent Holdings
were the actual creditors and collectors of the debt at issue.

On Jan. 23, 2019, the Plaintiff brought the instant suit against
the Defendants as a putative-class action.  On May 30, 2019, she
filed an Amended Complaint alleging violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, and breach of contract.

On June 13, 2019, the Defendants filed the instant Motion to
Dismiss.  The Plaintiff opposed the motion.

The Defendants argue that any alleged violations of 15 U.S.C.
Sections 1692e(10) and (14) that occurred in October 2017 or on
Jan. 10, 2018 are barred by the FDCPA's one-year statute of
limitations.  Judge Wigenton finds that it does not appear to be in
dispute as the Plaintiff clarifies in her opposition brief that the
essential dates for liability are Feb. 7, 2018 and Feb. 13, 2018.
Therefore, inasmuch as they relate to CACH's reports from February
2018, the Plaintiff may proceed with her Section 1692e claims.

The Judge finds, however, that the Plaintiff has not pled
sufficient facts to suggest that Resurgent Holdings made any
representations in connection with the debt at issue. Resurgent
Holding's relationship to CACH and the debt at issue is unclear
from the pleadings.  As such, the Plaintiff has failed to state a
claim against Resurgent Holdings. Should discovery show that
Resurgent Holdings should be named in the action, the Amended
Complaint may be amended again thereafter.

The Plaintiff does not allege that the Defendants sent any
communications that would trigger FDCPA's notice requirements.  The
Defendants' only alleged communication "with the consumer" was
Resurgent Capital's Jan. 30, 2018 letter, which verified that the
debt at issue had been settled.  Therefore, the Plaintiff's Section
1692g(a) claim will be dismissed.

Finally, because the Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled cognizable
damages, the Judge dismissed her breach of contract claim.  The
Judge opines that the Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged any
actual damages that are causally related to the breach.  There is
no indication that her credit score was damaged or that she
suffered economic loss associated with counsel fees from defending
against the Defendants' allegedly erroneous collection actions.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Wigenton granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  Specifically, she
granted the motion as to the Plaintiff's Section 1692g(a) claims,
breach of contract claim, and claims against Resurgent Holdings.  

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Letter Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/yFlDud from Leagle.com.

LARA M. SANDERS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers, Plaintiff, represented by LAWRENCE KATZ, LAW
OFFICES OF LAWRENCE KATZ.

CACH, LLC, RESURGENT HOLDINGS, LLC & RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES,
L.P., Defendants, represented by MONICA M. LITTMAN --
mlittman@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN, KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, PC &
RICHARD J. PERR -- rperr@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN KREKSTEIN &
HARRIS, PC.


CALIFORNIA: Ringgold Files Petition for Writ; Reply Due Oct. 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nina Ringgold filed with the Supreme Court of United States a
petition for a writ of mandamus in the matter entitled In re THE
LAW OFFICES OF NINA RINGGOLD AND ALL CURRENT CLIENTS THEREOF on
their own behalves and all similarly situated persons, Petitioners,
Case No. 19-359.

Response is due on October 18, 2019.

According to Ms. Ringgold, the filing is on petition for writ of
mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit and to a lower court judge acting as a single-judge
district court.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 16, 2019, Ms.
Ringgold filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of United States
from a lower court decision in NINA RINGGOLD; et al., the
Petitioners, v. JERRY BROWN, in his Individual and Official
Capacity as Governor of the State of California and in his
Individual and Official Capacity as Former Attorney General of the
State of California et al., the Respondents, Case No. 17-16269 (9th
Cir.).

The Hon. Elena Kagan, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States and Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit, has
granted the Petitioners' application for more time to file a
petition for a writ of certiorari from July 29, 2019 to August 28,
2019.

Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2101 (c) and
Rules 13 (5), 22, and 30 (3) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of
the United States, the Petitioners requested an extension of 30
days to file a petition for writ of certiorari to August 28, 2019.
Absent an extension of time, the petition would be due on July 29,
2019.

The judgment sought to be reviewed is that of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dated April 30, 2019.

The Petitioners argued that an extension is needed because multiple
parties and entities will be proceeding under Rule 12.4 with
respect to identical or closely related questions that arise from a
federal class action appeal involving the Voting Rights Act, as
reauthorized by the Voting Rights Reauthorization and Amendments
Act of 2006.

The case seeks a special judicial election in the State of
California during the 2020 General Election.  Some of the same
persons involved in the federal voting rights case have pending
cases in the state court.[BN]

Petitioners The Law Offices of Nina Ringgold, et al., are
represented by:

          Nina R. Ringgold, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NINA R. RINGGOLD
          17901 Malden St., No. 361
          Northridge, CA 91325-3817
          Telephone: (818) 773-2409
          E-mail: nrringgold@aol.com

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

          Catherine Woodbridge, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
          1300 I Street, Suite 125
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 210-7526
          Facsimile: (916) 322-8288
          E-mail: catherine.woodbridge@doj.ca.gov

               - and -

          Landon D. Bailey, Esq.
          BAILEY PLC
          980 9th Street, 16th Floor
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 713-2580
          E-mail: landon@baileyplc.com


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLENE KANEHL,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-01381-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff ask the Court for
an order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff furthers ask that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir.
2017).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

CARRIZO OIL: Faces Barucic Suit over Proposed Merger
----------------------------------------------------
The case, ERTAN BARUCIC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARRIZO OIL & GAS, INC.; S.P.
JOHNSON IV; STEVEN A. WEBSTER; F. GARDNER PARKER; FRANCES ALDRICH
SEVILLA-SACASA; THOMAS L. CARTER, JR.; ROBERT F. FULTON; ROGER A.
RAMSEY; and FRANK A. WOJTEK, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-03405
(S.D. Tex., Sept. 10, 2019), alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. will be
acquired by Callon Petroleum Company.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants filed a
materially incomplete and misleading Registration Statement with
the Securities and Exchange Commission and disseminated it to
Carrizo's stockholders. The Registration Statement misrepresents or
omits material information that is necessary for the Company's
stockholders to make an informed decision whether to vote in favor
of the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement omits
material information regarding the Company's and Callon's financial
projections provided by each of Carrizo's and Callon's management
and relied upon by the Company's financial advisors, RBC Capital
Markets, LLC and Lazard Frères & Co. LLC, for their analyses, as
well as the analyses performed by RBC and Lazard.

The Registration Statement fails to disclose Carrizo's and Callon's
unlevered free cash flows and/or after-tax free cash flows over the
projection period and the underlying line items utilized by RBC and
Lazard in their analyses. The Registration Statement further fails
to disclose the Post-Merger Projections for the combined company,
prepared by Carrizo management and utilized by RBC for purposes of
its fairness opinion.

Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. explores for and produces natural gas and
crude oil. The Company develops and exploits onshore properties.
Carrizo Oil & Gas serves customers in the State of Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com


CARSON SMITHFIELD: Gruttadauria Sues Over Vague Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Gruttadauria, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers, Plaintiff, v. Carson Smithfield, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-04922 (E.D. N.Y., August 28, 2019), seeks
redress for violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Carson Smithfield operates a debt collection agency. It attempted
to collect a debt owed to Merrick Bank Corporation via a collection
letter that vaguely describes a conflicting dispute process, the
complaint asserts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
      775 Park Avenue, Suite 255
      Huntington, NY 11743
      Tel: (631) 335-1107


CASTLE BRANDS: Stursma Class Suit Seeks to Enjoin Sale to Pernod
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIKE STURSMA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CASTLE BRANDS INC., MARK ANDREWS III, JOHN F.
BEAUDETTE, HENRY C. BEINSTEIN, PHILLIP FROST, RICHARD M. KRASNO,
RICHARD J. LAMPEN, STEVEN D. RUBIN, and MARK ZEITCHICK, Case No.
1:19-cv-08649 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2019), seeks to enjoin the
expiration of a tender offer on a proposed transaction, pursuant to
which Castle Brands will be acquired by Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.
through its wholly-owned subsidiary Rook Merger Sub, Inc.

Austin Nichols is the United States holding company of Pernod
Ricard S.A. ("Pernod").  Austin Nichols is a Delaware corporation
and affiliate of Pernod.  Merger Sub is a Florida corporation and
wholly owned subsidiary of Austin Nichols.  Pernod is the number
two worldwide producer of wines and spirits with consolidated sales
of EUR8,987 million in FY18.  Created in 1975 by the merger of
Ricard and Pernod, Pernod, which owns 16 of the Top 100 Spirits
Brands, holds one of the most prestigious and comprehensive brand
portfolios in the industry, including Absolut Vodka, Ricard pastis,
Ballantine's, Chivas Regal, Royal Salute, and The Glenlivet Scotch
whiskies.

On August 28, 2019, Castle Brands and Pernod issued a joint press
release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") to sell Castle Brands to Pernod.
Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Pernod will acquire all
outstanding shares of Castle Brands for $1.27 in cash per share of
Castle Brands' common stock (the "Offer Price").  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, Austin Nichols, through Merger Sub, commenced the
Tender Offer on September 11, 2019.  The Tender Offer is scheduled
to expire at 12:00 midnight, New York City time, today, October 8,
2019.  The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $223
million.

The Plaintiff, a stockholder of Castle Brands, asserts that the
filed Recommendation Statement, which recommends that Castle Brands
stockholders tender their shares in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) Castle Brands management's
projections, utilized by the Company's financial advisors, Perella
Weinberg Partners L.P. ("Perella") and Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc.
("Houlihan") in their financial analyses; (ii) the data and inputs
underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinions provided by Perella and Houlihan; (iii) the
background leading to the Proposed Transaction; and (iv) potential
conflicts of interest faced by the Company's financial advisors,
Perella and Houlihan.  The failure to adequately disclose such
material information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(d),
14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as Castle
Brands stockholders need such information in order to make a fully
informed decision, the Plaintiff contends.

Castle Brands is a Florida corporation with its principal executive
offices located in New York City.  Castle Brands is a developer and
international marketer of premium and super-premium brands,
including Jefferson's, Jefferson's Presidential Select, Jefferson's
Reserve, Jefferson's Ocean Aged at Sea Bourbon, Jefferson's Wine
Finish Collection and Jefferson's Wood Experiments, Goslings Rums,
Goslings Stormy Ginger Beer, Knappogue Castle Whiskey, Clontarf
Irish Whiskey, Pallini Limoncello, Boru Vodka, Brady's Irish Cream,
The Arran Malt Single Malt Scotch Whisky, The Robert Burns Scotch
Whisky and Machrie Moor Scotch Whisky.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
          E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com


CHEFS' WAREHOUSE: Class Certification Denied in Robinson Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAON ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-05421-RS (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (i) granted CW's motion for partial summary
judgment against Saul Prado, (ii) denied CW's motion for partial
summary judgment against James Roberts, and (iii) denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

CW describes itself as a "premier distributor of specialty food
products" catering to chefs in restaurants, hotels, culinary
schools, bakeries, and other food establishments.  It employs
delivery drivers operating from each facility.  CW asserts that
except during training, drivers typically drive by themselves with
very little management oversight, and they generally spend no less
than 90-95% of their work day on the road.

CW has a written meal and rest break policy that complies with the
law.  The complaint is premised however on the theory that, in
actual practice, drivers are put under such time pressures to
complete their deliveries within certain windows that they are
effectively precluded, or at least strongly discouraged, from
taking meal and rest breaks.

CW denies that its drivers cannot or do not take the requisite
breaks.  It explains that while it provides its drivers with meal
and rest breaks in compliance with California law, the timing of
breaks varies from day-to-day and employee-to-employee depending on
the delivery routes, daily activities (i.e. traffic, problems with
the truck, etc.) and most of all, individual preferences.  CW also
asserts the practices in Southern California and Northern
California for ensuring compliance with the meal and rest break
policy differ in certain respects.

The putative class action was originally filed by Shaon Robinson,
who sought to represent a class of delivery drivers employed by
Defendant CW.  Sean Clark subsequently joined as a named Plaintiff.
Thereafter, a motion for class certification brought by Robinson
and Clark was denied because, among other reasons, they both had
signed declarations in a prior action stating they understood CW's
policies regarding meal and rest breaks, accurate timekeeping, and
reporting any violations of those policies.  Although theoretically
Robinson and Clark might have been able to offer explanations as to
why those declarations did not foreclose their claims in this
action, the declarations at a minimum presented CW a potentially
compelling basis to defend.  As such, neither Robinson nor Clark
were similarly-situated to putative class members who did not sign
declarations in the prior action, requiring denial of the motion to
certify.

It is not the first time CW has been sued for an alleged failure to
provide meal and rest breaks.  In 2012, an action filed in Los
Angeles County Superior Court entitled Gustavo Chicas v. The Chefs'
Warehouse West Coast, LLC advanced the same categories of wage and
hour claims as alleged in the instant case, except for failure to
reimburse business expenses.  Named Plaintiffs Robinson and Clark
were members of the Chicas class, and the declarations they signed
in that action precluded them from serving as named plaintiffs as
to the claims advanced.  The class representative Plaintiffs now
proposed in the action are Roberts, a former driver in Northern
California and Prado, a southern California diver.  

CW seeks summary judgment against both Prado and Roberts, based on
separate motions and arguments.  The Plaintiffs, in turn, seek
class certification.

CW seeks partial summary judgment against Roberts on the First,
Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fifteenth claims
for relief in the operative Fifth Amended Complaint.  Those are all
the claims asserted by Roberts except the Seventh claim for relief,
"Failure to Reimburse Expenses," which apparently relates to cell
phone usage, and which CW does not seek to adjudicate at this
time.

Judge Seeborg holds that CW's insistence that to survive summary
judgment Roberts was required to identify from memory specific
dates on which he allegedly missed meal and/or rest breaks is not
tenable.  While the evidence to which CW points may be offered to
impeach Roberts and to undermine his credibility, it is not
sufficient to warrant entry of judgment in CW's favor as a matter
of law.  From this, the Judge finds that CW would have the court
conclude as a matter of law that Roberts' managers simply told him
to complete and submit his timesheets and never told Roberts to
falsify them.  A trier of fact, however, could conclude that an
instruction to just put something in there was tantamount to
directing Roberts to submit false time sheets, and it certainly
could support an inference that the timesheets are not completely
reliable.  CW is not entitled to summary judgment against Roberts.

CW seeks partial summary judgment as to Plaintiff Prado's meal and
rest period claims, and the claims that derive therefrom, on the
grounds that California's meal and rest period laws are preempted
by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, and its
Regulations ("MCSA"), with respect to drivers in Prado's
circumstances.  Specifically, in December 2018, the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration ("FMCSA") issued a final order
stating that the federal regulations governing the hours of service
of drivers of commercial motor vehicles ("HOS") preempts
California's meal and rest break laws and these laws may not be
applied to drivers subject to the HOS regulations.

The Judge finds that the claims of the putative class members are
not subject to the pending motion for summary judgment against
Prado is not controversial.  What the Plaintiffs appear not to
recognize, however, is that if the claims against Prado are
dismissed, that is fatal to class certification of those claims,
unless Roberts can serve as an adequate representative of Southern
California class members as well as those in Northern California.
CW has also shown that his rest and meal period claims are
preempted.  And the Plaintiffs have not explained why permitting
recovery on any such theories would not impermissibly render the
preemption a nullity.  Accordingly, the motion will be granted.

As to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Judge
finds that the class certification does not appear appropriate for
a number of interrelated reasons.  First, Prado's claims are
preempted, which both eliminates him as a viable class
representative and supports an inference that the claims of many of
the other putative class members may also be preempted.  That, in
turn, implicates both commonality and numerosity.  Second, although
the Plaintiffs question the enforceability of the class action
waivers, litigating that issue likely will also require individual
inquiries.  Finally, while CW's opposition to class certification
arguably goes too far in attempting to defeat the merits of the
Plaintiffs' claims, the Plaintiffs appear to have, at best,
individualized and anecdotal evidence that drivers did not always
get their rest and meal breaks, despite clear company policy to the
contrary, and the implementation of a number of procedures designed
to ensure compliance.

Accordingly, Judge Seeborg denies the motion for partial summary
judgment against Roberts and the motion for class certification.
The Judge however granted the motion for partial summary judgment
against Prado.  A further case management conference will be held
on Oct. 10, 2019, with a joint case management conference statement
to be filed one week in advance.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/T6wEeu from Leagle.com.

Shaon Robinson, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by Cody
Thomas Stroman, Hoffman Employment Lawyers, PC, Leonard Thomas Emma
-- lemma@employment-lawyers.com -- -- Emma Law, P.C. & Stephen Noel
Ilg -- silg@employment-lawyers.com -- ILG Legal Office, PC.

The Chefs' Warehouse, Inc., A Delaware Corporation & Chefs'
Warehouse West Coast, LLC, a California limited liability company,
Defendants, represented by Julia Yenha Trankiem --
jtrankiem@reedsmith.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Michele Jane
Beilke -- mbeilke@reedsmith.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Sonya
Devorah Goodwin -- sgoodwin@reedsmith.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth
LLP & Susan S. Joo, Hunton Andrews & Kurth LLP.


CLEVELAND COUNTY, NC: 4th Circuit Appeal Filed in Conner Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sara B. Conner filed an appeal from a Court ruling in her
lawsuit styled Sara Conner v. Cleveland County, NC, Case No.
1:18-cv-00002-MR-WCM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina at Asheville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks conditional certification of this collective action and
authorization to send an initial and a reminder Court-supervised
Notice to all current and former full-time EMS personnel, who work
or have worked a 24-hours on/48-hours off hour schedule for
Defendant anytime during the period of January 2, 2015, to December
31, 2017.

Ms. Conner also seeks certification of a class of similarly
situated "24-hours on/48-hours off" personnel for a North Carolina
state law breach of contract claim under Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellate case is captioned as Sara Conner v. Cleveland County,
NC, Case No. 19-2012, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SARA B. CONNER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

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

Defendant-Appellee CLEVELAND COUNTY, a/k/a Cleveland County
Emergency Medical Services, is represented by:

          Grant B. Osborne, Esq.
          WARD & SMITH, PA
          P. O. Box 2020
          Asheville, NC 28802-2020
          Telephone: (828) 348-6017
          E-mail: gbo@wardandsmith.com


COOK COUNTY, IL: Peoples Suit Asserts Civil Rights Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN PEOPLES, individually and on behalf of a class of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS J. DART, SHERIFF OF
COOK COUNTY, and COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, Defendants, Case No.
2019CH11197 (Circuit Ct. Cook Cty., Ill., Sept. 26, 2019) seeks
relief for Defendants' violation of Plaintiff's rights and
privileges secured under United States and Illinois law. The named
Plaintiff also seeks an award of attorneys' fees and costs, and
such other relief as this Court deems equitable and just.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class were
unlawfully detained and incarcerated without legal authority under
Defendants' policy, custom, or practice. The Defendants have a
policy and practice of detaining and re-incarcerating people after
they are sentenced to time served without any legal justification
to do so. As a direct and proximate result of such policy, custom,
or practice, hundreds or thousands of free people have been wrongly
incarcerated for extended periods of time in Cook County Jail and
the Illinois Department of Corrections' Stateville Correctional
Center. This exhibits deliberate indifference to fundamental civil
rights and liberty interests, and is violative of the United States
Constitution, the Illinois Constitution, Section 1983 of the United
States Code, and Illinois common law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Jonathan was unlawfully detained and re-incarcerated by
Defendants after pleading guilty and being sentenced to time
served, from February 15, 2019 to February 19, 2019, despite there
being no legal justification for his detention.

Defendant Dart is the chief executive of the Cook County Sheriffs
Office.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven A. Hart, Esq.
     Brian Eldridge, Esq.
     Kyle Pozan, Esq.
     HART MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE, LLC
     22 W. Washington Street, Suite 1600
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 955-0545
     Fax: (312) 971-9243
     Email: shart@hmelegal.com
            beldridge@hmelegal.com
            kpozan@hmelegal.com

          - and -

     Daniel M. Kotin, Esq.
     TOMASIK KOTIN KASSERMAN, LLC
     161 N. Clark Street, Suite 3050
     Chicago, Illinois 60601
     Phone: (312) 605-8800
     Fax: (312) 605-8808
     Email: dan@tkklaw.com

          - and -

     Jeffrey M. Moskowitz, Esq.
     J. MOSKOWITZ LAW LLC
     53 W. Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1401
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (847) 630-6363
     Email: jmoskowitzlaw@gmail.com


DASH LUBE: Moreno Moves to Certify Two Classes of Technicians
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROBERTO MORENO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DASH LUBE, GHARDASH ENTERPRISES,
INC., KAYLA CORP, collectively d/b/a as Jiffy Lube, PAYAM RYAN
GHARDASH and POYA PAUL GHARDASH, Case No. 3:18-cv-01922-DMS-AHG
(S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff moves for an order granting class
certification as to:

   * the Fifth Cause of Action of the Complaint, on behalf of
     this class:

     All current and former hourly service technicians who worked
     for Defendants at any of their Jiffy Lube automotive oil
     change shops at any time from August 17, 2017 through
     judgment; and

   * the Second, Third, Sixth and Eighth Cause of Action of the
     Complaint, on behalf of this class:

     All current and former hourly service technicians who worked
     for Defendants at any of their Jiffy Lube automotive oil
     change shops at any time from August 17, 2014 through
     judgment

Mr. Moreno also asks the Court to appoint him Roberto Moreno as
class representative, to appoint JCL Law Firm, APC and Sommers
Schwartz, P.C. as class counsel, and to authorize the issuance of
class notice with the opportunity to opt out in the form of a
notice to be supplied to the Court.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
          JCL LAW FIRM, APC
          10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 150
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (619) 599-8292
          Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
          E-mail: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          Facsimile: (248) 436-8453
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  rjohnston@sommerspc.com


DBTG CHAMBERS: Penate et al. Seek OT Pay for Delivery Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO A. PENATE, JOSE SANTIAGO SANTIAGO, MIGUEL ANGEL PLACIDO
BAZAN, and RODOLFO MACEDA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. DBTG CHAMBERS LLC
(D/B/A DIRTY BIRD TO GO) and JOSEPH CIRIELLO, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-08767 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2019), alleges that
Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage compensation for the hours that
they worked.

The Plaintiffs were ostensibly employed as delivery workers.
However, they were required to spend a considerable part of their
work day performing non-tipped duties up until approximately July
2017. Their daily non-tipped duties included but was not limited to
dishwashing, mopping, sweeping, taking out trash, carrying down and
stocking delivered items in the basement, bringing up food and
ingredients from the basement for the cooks, cleaning the cooks
work area, cleaning tables, cleaning the kitchen, preparing
seasonings and sauces for the cooks and cutting vegetables, the
lawsuit says.

The Defendants own, operate, or control two fried chicken
restaurants, one located at 155 Chambers Street, New York, NY 10007
and the other at 204 W. 14 th Street, New York, NY 10011.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

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

DIAL SENIOR: Nordstrom Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER NORDSTROM, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DIAL SENIOR MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH11108 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty. Ill., Sept.
25, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint pursuant to the Illinois Code
of Civil Procedure against Defendants, its subsidiaries and
affiliates, to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collection,
use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs sensitive biometric
data.

While many employers use conventional methods for tracking time
worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Defendant's and
its affiliated facilities' employees are required to have their
fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device.  Unlike ID
badges or time cards - which can be changed or replaced if stolen
or compromised - fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendant's
employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Janice Johnson is a natural person and a resident of the
State of Illinois.

Dial is a retirement community management corporation that manages
independent living, assisted living, and memory care facilities in
five states, including Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: (312) 233-1550
     Fax: (312) 233-1560
     Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
            jzouras@stephanzouras.com
            aficzko@stephanzouras.com


DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES: Can't Compel Arbitration in Arnaud TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUIS ARNAUD, Plaintiff, v. DOCTOR'S ASSOCIATES INC.,
d/b/a SUBWAY, Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-3703 (NGG) (SJB) (E.D.
N.Y.), Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York denied the Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's claim and stay proceedings in
the action pending completion of the arbitration.

Plaintiff is a resident of Bronx Country who made a purchase in a
Subway restaurant. He was informed that he can avail of a free item
if he took an electronic survey following his restaurant visit.  He
took the survey, which asked personal info like his telephone
number.

The Plaintiff brought the class action in June 2018 on behalf of
himself and all Subway consumers in the U.S. who have allegedly
received unsolicited and unconsented-to commercial text messages to
their mobile phones from Defendant Subway.  He claims that the
Defendant has violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") by using an automated telephone texting system to send
unsolicited and unauthorized marketing text messages to the
cellular phones of the Plaintiff and the class members.  He find
the messages unwanted and a nuisance. He seeks an order certifying
the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, declaring that
the Defendant's conduct violates the TCPA, and awarding statutory
and treble damages for each violation of the TCPA.

The Defendant sought to compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's claim
and stay proceedings pending completion of the arbitration.  They
argued that the Plaintiff is bound by the arbitration provision in
the Terms of Use because notice was provided to him and he
manifested his assent to the Terms of Use.  

On review, the Court finds that an agreement to arbitrate does not
exist between the parties.

Judge Garaufis denies the Defendant's motion for arbitration.  The
parties are directed to contact Magistrate Judge Sanket J.
Bulsara's chambers to discuss next steps in the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://is.gd/zGBGpI from Leagle.com.

Luis Arnaud, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Seelig --
anne@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, William M.
Brown -- will@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC &
C.K. Lee -- cklee@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC.

Doctor's Associates Inc., doing business as Subway, Defendant,
represented by Ian Charles Ballon -- Ballon@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig, LLP, Justin Albano MacLean -- macleanj@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Lori Chang -- changl@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig, pro hac vice & William Andrew Wargo -- wargow@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, LLP.


EAE CORP: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Lucas Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO JULIAN LUCAS, MARTIN CANDELARIO TEPEPA, RICARDO RAMOS LUNA,
and SEBASTIAN CALEL ZAPETA, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. EAE CORP. d/b/a SIDEWALK
BAR & RESTAURANT, 94-96 AVENUE A REALTY CORP., PINCHAS MILSTEIN,
JONA SZAPIRO, and AMNON LUCY KEHATI, Jointly and Severally,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08920 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime premium pay owed
to the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs also bring claims for unpaid spread-of-hours
premiums, and failure to provide proper wage notices and wage
statements pursuant to NYLL and the supporting regulations.

For their work, throughout the relevant time period, the Plaintiffs
allege they were not paid minimum wages for all hours worked and
were not paid overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a given
workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are former line cooks, food preps, dishwashers, and
porters at Defendants' bar and restaurant located in Manhattan, New
York.

EAE Corp. is an active New York Corporation doing business as
"Sidewalk Bar & Restaurant" with its principal place of business at
94 Avenue A, in New York City.BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0800


EBONY MEDIA: Former Workers Seek Unpaid Final Wages, Reimbursements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA DAVID MARDICE, JASMINE WASHINGTON, JUAN MIRANDA, PRESTON
NORMAN, CHRISTINA SANTI, SANDEEP SINGH and RICKEY TURNER, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EBONY
MEDIA OPERATIONS, LLC, CVG GROUP, LLC, MICHAEL GIBSON, in his
individual and professional capacities, and ELIZABETH BURNETT, in
her individual and professional capacities, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-08910 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 25, 2019) is an action brought to
redress Defendants' wrongs against Defendants pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, California Labor Code,
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and Illinois Minimum Wage
Law, as well as all applicable regulations thereunder.

Defendants own and operate Ebony and Jet Magazine, two of the most
prominent publications covering the Black perspective on societal
issues over the last approximately 70 years.

According to the complaint, since both magazines were acquired by
CVG, a private equity firm, Defendants have betrayed the magazines'
employees and readers--many of whom are Black and have long revered
the magazines for giving them a voice when much of the mainstream
media failed to do so--through the inequitable treatment of their
employees. Specifically, following CVG's June 2016 acquisition,
Defendants have engaged in a consistent pattern and practice of
laying off their staff and failing to pay them their final wages,
which has resulted in prior litigation, public vitriol, and the
viral social media hashtag, "#EbonyOwes."

Plaintiffs are merely the latest victims of this pattern and
practice, notes the complaint. From approximately May 19, 2019
through June 14, 2019, Defendants laid off much of their staff and
predictably failed to pay them anywhere from one to four weeks'
worth of earned wages. Further, Defendants failed to reimburse
these employees for unlawful deductions from their wages for
purported 401(k) retirement account contributions that were never
actually paid into those accounts. Additionally, upon terminating
the employees, Defendants failed to honor their contractual
promises (and, in some cases, statutory obligations) to reimburse
the employees for work-related expenses and pay out their unused
accrued vacation days, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants from January 2, 2018 through
June 14, 2019.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Innessa Melamed Huot, Esq.
     Alex J. Hartzband, Esq.
     Patrick J. Collopy, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Fax: (212) 983-9331
     Email: ihuot@faruqilaw.com
            ahartzband@faruqilaw.com
            pcollopy@faruqilaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Carpenter Suit Moved to Northern District of Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Dustin Carpenter and Jasmine
Dennis all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
Equifax Information Services LLC and Equifax Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 0:19-cv-02218, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on Sept. 20, 2019.  The
Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-04242-TWT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.

Equifax Information Services LLC provides data solutions. The
company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and
analytical solutions.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Christopher J. Haugen, Esq.
          Joseph W. Lawver, Esq.
          MESSERLI & KRAMER, P.A.
          100 South Fifth Street
          1400 Fifth Street Towers
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 672-3730
          Facsimile: (612) 672-3777

FEDLOAN SERVICING: Moves to Decertify TCPA Class in Silver Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the lawsuit titled NEIL SILVER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Pennsylvania Higher
Education Assistance Agency, dba FedLoan Servicing, Case No.
4:14-cv-00652-PJH (N.D. Cal.), moves to decertify the Plaintiff's
proposed class.

The Plaintiff has proposed a class under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, defined as "All persons within the United States
who received any calls from Defendant, or its agent(s) and/or
employee(s), to said person's cellular telephone, through the use
of any automatic telephone dialing system and/or prerecorded or
artificial voice, within the four years prior to the filling [sic]
of the Complaint."

PHEAA is one of the organizations approved by the U.S. Department
of Education to service federal student loans.

PHEAA contends that it moves to decertify the proposed class
because the Plaintiff cannot satisfy any of the four requirements
of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nor can
Plaintiff satisfy one of the requirements of Rule 23(b).

In this putative TCPA class action, Plaintiff Neil Silver claims
PHEAA called his cell phone multiple times both with an Automated
Telephone Dialing System ("ATDS") and with a recorded voice,
without his consent.  However, discovery thus far in the case
demonstrates that the Plaintiff has no evidence that PHEAA dialed
him with an ATDS or a recorded voice, and in fact the Plaintiff
consented to any such contacts in any event, the Defendant asserts.
More importantly for purposes of the instant motion, PHEAA says it
can conclusively demonstrate that its consumer communication
processes painstakingly confirm the consent of borrowers to be
contacted by an auto dialer or recorded voice before any such
contact is initiated.

The Court will commence a hearing on December 4, 2019, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          324 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  ml@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

Defendant PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY, DBA
FEDLOAN SERVICING is represented by:

          Donald E. Bradley, Esq.
          MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1200
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925
          Telephone: (714) 668-2400
          Facsimile: (714) 668-2490
          E-mail: d.bradley@musickpeeler.com


FENSTER-MARTENS: Metro Cardiovascular Sues over Fax Ads
-------------------------------------------------------
METRO CARDIOVASCULAR CONSULTANTS, LTD., individually and as the
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons and
entities, the Plaintiff, vs. FENSTER-MARTENS HOLDING COMPANY,
ENTERPRISE MEDICAL RECRUITING and KEN WARSHAW; the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-06295 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 20, 2019), contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited facsimile advertisement, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

On March 12, 2019, Defendants sent or caused to be sent an
unsolicited facsimile advertisement to Plaintiff's Facsimile
Number. The Plaintiff did not consent to, request or otherwise
solicit the Facsimile, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD
          2500 South Highland Avenue #200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 581-5456
          E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com

FIELDWORK INC: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
JANICE JOHNSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIELDWORK, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2019CH11092 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Sept. 25, 2019), seeks to
redress and curtail the Defendant's unlawful collection, use,
storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive and
proprietary biometric data, in violation of the Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

When the Defendant hires an employee, including the Plaintiff, he
or she is enrolled in its employee databases using a scan of his or
her fingerprint.  The Defendant uses the employee databases to
monitor the time worked by its employees. Unlike ID badges or time
cards--which can be changed or replaced if stolen or
compromised--fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each employee. The Plaintiff contends
this exposes the Defendant's employees to serious and irreversible
privacy risks.

Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law,
the Defendant has disregarded the Plaintiff's and other
similarly-situated employees' statutorily protected privacy rights
and unlawfully collected, stored, disseminated, and used
Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated employees' biometric data,
in violation of BIPA, the Plaintiff asserts. The Defendant
improperly discloses the Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated
employees' fingerprint data to other, currently unknown, third
parties, including third parties that host biometric data in their
data center(s).  The Defendant lacks retention schedules and
guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff's and other
similarly-situated employees' biometric data and has not and will
not destroy their biometric data as required by BIPA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Janice Johnson is a natural person and a resident of the
State of Illinois.

Fieldwork is a market research firm headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois that operates focus group facilities within Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLORIDA: Suit vs. Law Enforcement Dept. Moved to N.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as JOHN DOES No. 1-69 on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, the Petitioner, vs. RICK
SWEARINGEN, Commissioner of the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement, in official capacity, the Defendant, Case No.
6:18-cv-01731, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Florida (Tallahassee) on Sept. 20, 2019. The
Northern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-00467-RH-MJF to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Robert L Hinkle.

The Plaintiffs seek to permanently enjoin the Defendants from
enforcement of Florida's Sexual Offender Registration and
Notification Act.[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

          Shon J. Douctre, Esq.
          PRIVATE COUNSEL, LLC
          733 W Colonial Dr
          Orlando, FL 32804
          Telephone: (407) 849-2949
          Facsimile: (407) 849-2951
          E-mail: sdouctre@gmail.com

               - and -

          Terence Estes-Hightower, Esq.
          ESTES-HIGHTOWER, PLLC
          16770 Imperial Valley Dr., Suite 235
          Houston, TX 77060
          Telephone: (214) 334-2260
          Facsimile: (832) 916-2410
          E-mail: teri.ehpllc@gmail.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Karen Ann Brodeen, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL-TALLAHASSEE FL
          400 S Monroe St.
          Tallahassee, FL 32399
          Telephone: (850) 414-3665
          Facsimile: (850) 488-4872
          E-mail: karen.brodeen@myfloridalegal.com

GALVESTON COUNTY, TX: Judges Appeal Decision in Booth Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Lonnie Cox, Anne B. Darring, John Ellisor, Patricia
Grady, Kerry Neves and Jared Robinson filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Aaron Booth v. Galveston County, et
al., Case No. 3:18-CV-104, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Galveston.

The Appellants are Judicial District Court Judges in Galveston
County.  The appellate case is captioned as Aaron Booth v.
Galveston County, et al., Case No. 19-40785, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Galveston
County also filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit.
That appellate case is styled Aaron Booth v. Galveston County, Case
No. 19-90009.

The lawsuit concerns Galveston County's pretrial detention system.
Mr. Booth was arrested and charged with felony drug possession in
Galveston County in April 2018.  After his arrest, Booth claims his
bail was set at $20,000 in accordance with the County's standard
operating procedures.  Mr. Booth was dissatisfied with this bail
determination because he believed that the County's standard
operating procedure resulted in arrestees being routinely detained
before trial solely due to their inability to pay bail in violation
of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United
States Constitution.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee AARON BOOTH, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Andrew David Bergman, Esq.
          Christopher Odell, Esq.
          Hannah DeMarco Sibiski, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER, L.L.P.
          700 Louisiana Street
          Houston, TX 77002-2755
          Telephone: (713) 576-2430
          E-mail: andrew.bergman@arnoldporter.com
                  christopher.odell@arnoldporter.com
                  hannah.sibiski@arnoldporter.com

               - and -

          Brandon Buskey, Esq.
          Twyla Jeanette Carter, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004-2400
          Telephone: (212) 284-7364
          E-mail: bbuskey@aclu.org
                  tcarter@aclu.org

               - and -

          Andre Segura, Esq.
          Trisha Trigilio, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF TEXAS
          5225 Katy Freeway
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: (713) 942-8146
          E-mail: asegura@aclu.org
                  ttrigilio@aclutx.org

The Defendants-Appellants are represented by:

          Adam Arthur Biggs, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          300 W. 15th Street
          William P. Clements Building
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 463-2120
          E-mail: adam.biggs@oag.texas.gov

               - and -

          Francesca Andrea Di Troia, Esq.
          Dominique G. Stafford, Esq.
          Enrique Manuel Varela, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 12548
          Austin, TX 78711-2548
          Telephone: (512) 475-2468
          E-mail: enrique.varela@oag.texas.gov


GENERAL MOTORS: Broadnax Sues over Defective 2011 Chevrolet Cruze
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELIQUE BROADNAX, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and DOES 1
THROUGH 10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV32036 (Cal.
Super., Sept. 10, 2019) contends that the Defendants' 2011
Chevrolet Cruze contained or developed defects, including but not
limited to, cooling system defects; engine defects; defects causing
the illumination of the check engine light ("CEL"); defects causing
the RPMs to race, surge, and/or rev on acceleration; defect causing
storage of Fault Code P0171; defects causing fuel trim lean; defect
causing Fault Code P0496; defects requiring the performance of TSB
#03-06-04-030h; defects causing the purge valve to be stuck open;
defects requiring replacement of the purge valve; defects causing a
muffled rattle noise from the right side on start-up; defects
causing loss of coolant; defects causing water pump leak(s);
defects causing oil to accumulate at the back of the engine around
the bellhousing; defects causing cooling system leaks; defects
causing overheating; defects requiring replacement of water pump;
defects causing Vehicle's hesitation on start up; defects causing
engine shut down when coming to a stop; defects causing stalling;
defects causing engine fluid leaks; defects causing the Vehicle to
not turn over, crank, and/or start; defects causing oil leak(s);
and/or any other defects enumerated in the Vehicle's repair
history.  The defects substantially impair the use, value, or
safety of the Vehicle.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENOMIC HEALTH: Faces Rice Suit Over Merger With Exact Sciences
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH RICE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. GENOMIC HEALTH, INC., KIMBERLY J. POPOVITS,
JULIAN C. BAKER, GINGER L. GRAHAM, DR. HENRY J. FUCHS, DR. FELIX J.
BAKER, GEOFFREY M. PARKER, and DR. FRED E. COHN, Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-05929 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 23, 2019), is brought as a
class action on behalf of public holders of the common stock of
Genomic Health, Inc. against the Defendants for their violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the
proposed merger between Genomic and Exact Sciences Corporation.

On July 28, 2019, the Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the
Company's shareholders stand to receive (a) $27.50 in cash, without
interest, plus (b) a fraction of a share of Exact Sciences common
stock equal to the quotient obtained by dividing $44.50 by the
average of the volume weighted average prices per share of Exact
Sciences common stock on The Nasdaq Stock Market on each of the 15
consecutive trading days ending immediately prior to the closing of
the merger, for each share of Genomic stock they own (the "Merger
Consideration"). If the Exact Sciences stock price is equal to or
less than $98.79 or equal to or greater than $120.75, a two-way
collar mechanism will apply, pursuant to which (i) if the Exact
Sciences stock price is equal to or greater than $120.75, the
exchange ratio will be fixed at 0.36854 and (ii) if the Exact
Sciences stock price is equal to or less than $98.79, the exchange
ratio will be fixed at 0.45043. Upon completion of the merger,
Genomic shareholders will own approximately 8.7% to 10.4% and Exact
Science shareholders will own approximately 89.6% to 91.3% of the
combined company.

On August 30, 2019, in order to convince Genomic shareholders to
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4
Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission
in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. While
touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's
shareholders in the S-4, the Defendants have failed to disclose
certain material information that is necessary for shareholders to
properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Transaction, thereby,
violating SEC rules and regulations and rendering certain
statements in the S-4 materially incomplete and misleading.

In particular, the S-4 contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) the financial projections
for the Company that were prepared by the Company and relied on by
the Defendants in recommending that Genomic shareholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain
valuation analyses conducted by Genomic's financial advisor,
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC in support of its opinion that the Merger
Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the Board relied.
It is imperative that the material information that has been
omitted from the S-4 is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to
allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision
regarding the Proposed Transaction, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a holder of Genomic common stock.

Genomic is a global provider of genomic based diagnostic tests that
address both the overtreatment and optimal treatment of early and
late stage cancer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com


GILDAN APPAREL: Traynor ADA Suit Underway in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gildan Apparel USA
Inc. The case is captioned as Yaseen Traynor, the Plaintiff, vs.
Gildan Apparel USA Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06939-KPF
(S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2019). The suit alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla.

Defendant's time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint
has been extended to October 16, 2019, according to a ruling by
Judge Failla.

Judge Failla also has directed the counsel for all parties to
appear for an initial pretrial conference with the Court on
November 14, 2019, at 4:00 p.m., in Courtroom 618 of the Thurgood
Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York.

Gildan Activewear Inc. is a Canadian manufacturer of branded
clothing.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          David Paul Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com

GIORGIO ARMANI: Website not Accessible to Blind, Farr Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andre Birotte, Jr. has approved a Stipulation extending to
October 28, 2019, Giorgio Armani Corporation's time to answer the
complaint captioned as, JAMES FARR, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GIORGIO ARMANI
CORPORATION., a New York corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06446-AB-SS (C.D. Cal., July 25,
2019).

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website at
https://www.armani.com/us/armanicom to be fully and equally
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired"
to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal
definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who
meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision.

The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiffs' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.  The the Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Proposed Class are:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989

HAYT HAYT: Court Certifies Class in Barenbaum FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL BARENBAUM, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HAYT, HAYT & LANDAU, LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-4120 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Berle M.
Schiller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (i) denied HHL's motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction; (ii) granted Barenbaum's motion for summary
judgment with respect to Count II of the Complaint; (iii) granted
HHL's motion for summary judgment with respect to Counts I and III;
and (iv) granted Barenbaum's motion for class certification.

In 2014, Barenbaum failed to make payments on his Credit One credit
card, and after several months, Credit One charged off his account
with a balance of $1,011.39.  Credit One then sold the charged off
account to Sherman Originator III, LLC; Sherman, in turn, sold the
account to Midland Funding, LLC.  Midland retained the law firm
Hayt, Hayt, & Landau (HHL) to help collect Barenbaum's debt.  HHL
obtained a default judgment against Barenbaum on behalf of Midland
in the Court of Common Pleas in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
Seeking to recover the judgment, HHL mailed post-judgment
interrogatories to Barenbaum in June 2016 which included an offer
to resolve the judgment through installment payments in lieu of
responding to the questions.

In June 2018, after Barenbaum failed to respond to the written
discovery request, HHL sent Barenbaum a "Notice of Deposition in
Aid of Execution."  At the top of the Notice was the name and
address of the "Law Offices of Hayt, Hayt, & Landau, LLC" and the
caption "Midland Funding LLC, Plaintiff vs. Daniel Barenbaum,
Defendant(s)."  The Notice directed Barenbaum to appear and testify
at a deposition on July 6, 2018 at the Bucks County Bar Association
and to produce documents to assist in the discovery of his income,
assets, and property that could satisfy Midland's judgment.

Before the Court were several motions: HHL's motion to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction; cross-motions for summary
judgment; and Daniel Barenbaum's motion for class certification.

Judge Schiller finds that HHL's argument in its Motion to Dismiss
overlooks the fact that Barenbaum has brought a class action claim.
While the FDCPA limits statutory damages available in individual
actions to $1,000, a plaintiff asserting claims on behalf of a
class has the opportunity for greater financial recovery than he
would otherwise obtain in an individual action.  That is because
the FDCPA specifically permits a named class plaintiff to recover
not only the statutory damages available to him in an individual
action but also, a pro-rata share of the common fund that is
generated for the benefit of the class.  Because Barenbaum still
has the prospect of recovering additional funds as a named class
Plaintiff, he has not reached his maximum recovery and thus, still
has a personal stake in the outcome of the case.  Barenbaum's
claims are not moot and thus, Judge Schiller denies HHL's Motion to
Dismiss.

Turning to the cross-motions for summary judgment, Barenbaum
claimed that HHL has violated several provisions of the FDCPA:
first 15 U.S.C. Section 1692d, which prohibits debt collectors from
engaging in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to
harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the
collection of a debt; second Section 1692e, which prohibits debt
collectors from using false, deceptive, or misleading
representation or means in connection with the collection of any
debt; and finally Section 1692f, which provides that debt
collectors may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or
attempt to collect any debt.

Both Barenbaum and HHL have now moved for summary judgment.  

Judge Schiller finds that the natural consequence of HHL's conduct
was not to harass, oppress, or annoy; and thus summary judgment
will be granted in favor of HHL on the Section 1692d claim.
Similarly, Barenbaum failed to provide additional evidence of HHL's
conduct in violation of the FDCPA beyond that which supports his
claim under Section 1692e.  As a result, the Judge will grant
summary judgment to HHL on Barenbaum's Section 1692f claim.
However, he will grant summary judgment in favor of Barenbaum on
his Section 1692e claim.  Viewed from the perspective of the least
sophisticated debtor, HHL's Notice was false, deceptive, and
misleading.

Finally, examining the Motion for Class Certification, Barenbaum
sought to certify a class consisting of (1) all consumers residing
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2) who received a 'Notice of
Deposition In Aid Of Execution' from the Defendant (3) on an
obligation owed or allegedly owed to Midland Funding, LLC, (4)
during the time period of Sept. 25, 2017 to Sept. 24, 2018, and (5)
who thereafter appeared as directed at the date, time and location
noticed for the Deposition.

As for the Rule 23(a) requirements, the Judge finds that (i) a
class consisting of 328 individuals is numerous enough to make
joinder of all members impracticable; (ii) the unique defenses HHL
posits do not suggest Barenbaum's individual circumstances or
operative legal theories are atypical of the proposed class; (iii)
Barenbaum is an adequate class representative; and (iv) Barenbaum's
attorneys have the experience and qualifications to handle the
litigation.

The Judge further finds that ascertainability and predominance Rule
23(b)(3) Requirements are met.  As to superiority requirement, the
Judge finds that the class action is the superior means by which to
adjudicate the controversy.  First, the class members do not have a
significant interest in individually controlling the prosecution of
separate actions.  Second, the Court is not aware of any similar
pending litigation.  Third, concentrating the litigation in a class
action is desirable.  Finally, the case presents no likely
difficulties in managing a class action.

For these reasons, Judge Schiller denies HHL's motion to dismiss.
He grants Barenbaum's motion for summary judgment with respect to
Count II of the Complaint, alleging that HHL violated 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692e, and denied with respect to Counts I and III alleging
HHL violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692d and Section 1692f
respectively.  The Judge grants HHL's motion for summary judgment
with respect to Counts I and III of the Complaint and denied with
respect to Count II.  Finally, he grantes Barenbaum's motion for
class certification.  

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/1Atwc8 from Leagle.com.

DANIEL BARENBAUM, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by ARI H. MARCUS --
Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC & YITZCHAK ZELMAN --
Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN LLC.

HAYT, HAYT & LANDAU, LLC, Defendant, represented by SHANNON P.
MILLER -- smiller@MauriceWutscher.com -- Maurice Wutscher LLP.


HOME DEPOT: Freeman Illegal Credit Check Row Removed to M.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Tina Freeman, on behalf of herself and all
similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Home Depot USA, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 93731586, filed in the 13th Judicial Circuit
Hillsborough on August 27, 2019, was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida under Case No.
19-cv-02170.

Freeman seeks redress for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act of 1970, claiming that Home Depot secured a consumer report
and/or background check without her consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 N Florida Ave., Ste. 300
      Tampa, FL 33602-3343
      Tel: (813) 224-0431
      Fax: (813) 229-8712
      Email: bhill@wfclaw.com

Home Depot is represented by:

      Allison Wiggins, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
      111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1750
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Tel: (407) 393-2948
      Email: awiggins@littler.com


INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE: Smith Sues Over Unfair Refund Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SMITH, as appointed Personal Representative for JANE DOE, and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERMOUNTAIN
HEALTHCARE, INC. and SELECTHEALTH, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00670-EJF (D. Utah, Sept. 23, 2019), is seeking relief
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 on behalf
of the Plaintiff's daughter and all other similarly situated
individuals, who were subjected to the Defendants' discriminatory
reimbursement policies for covered mental health services.

Up until April 18, 2019, when she tragically took her own life, the
Plaintiff's daughter, Jane Doe, suffered from chronic and severe
mental illnesses. From December 30, 2016, through April 8, 2017,
Jane was psychiatrically hospitalized at the Menninger Clinic
Professionals in Crisis Unit due to severe mental illnesses.
Thereafter, Jane received residential mental health treatment at
The Austen Riggs Center from April 10, 2017, through August 7,
2017, and from September 13, 2017, through April 27, 2018. Up until
April 15, 2017, Jane worked for Defendant Intermountain Healthcare.
Jane was insured under the Intermountain Life and Health Benefit
Plan, which Intermountain Healthcare, in its capacity as Plan
Sponsor, established for its employees and the employees of its
affiliates, including Defendant SelectHealth, Inc. Jane remained
covered by the Plan through July 31, 2018.

Among the various coverage options available, Jane chose the Select
Med Plus Medical Plan. The Plan expressly covers mental health
treatment for Jane's psychiatric conditions. The Plan also
expressly covers residential mental health treatment rendered by
non- participating (also referred to as "out-of-network")
facilities, both in- and outside of Utah. Both the Menninger Clinic
and Austen Riggs are non-participating facilities. The Plan is a
non-grandfathered, large-group, self-funded health plan governed by
the ERISA and the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health
Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. The Federal Parity Act
also amended ERISA to require health plans to disclose, upon
request, the treatment limitations imposed on mental health
benefits and to analyze their compliance with the parity
provision.

The Defendants failed to update their own out-of-network fee
schedule to account for increases in their in-network rates, such
that they systematically underpaid out-of-network mental health
services. The Defendants only admitted to this systematic failure
after Jane discovered it during the course of her internal appeals
of the Defendants' under-reimbursements.

SelectHealth interpreted the Plan definition of "Allowed Amount"
for claims as permitting it to set reimbursement rates for
out-of-network mental health services by "generally" matching them
to "target" rates paid for in-network mental health services.
However, after granting itself broad discretion in setting
reimbursement rates, SelectHealth proceeded to exercise that
self-granted discretion unreasonably, by reimbursing
out-of-network, inpatient mental health services policy far less
than in-network rates for those same services. In setting
reimbursement rates, the Defendants applied discriminatory
methodologies for mental health benefits that were incomparable to
and more stringent than those for medical/surgical benefits, the
Plaintiff contends. Thus, the Defendants reimbursed inpatient
mental health services, which are provided at an acute level of
care, at the same rate they paid for skilled nursing facilities, an
intermediate level of care for medical/surgical services, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is the court-appointed Personal Representative of the
late Jane Doe, who tragically took her own life on April 18, 2019.

Intermountain Healthcare is the largest private employer in
Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew W. Stavros, Esq.
          Austin B. Egan, Esq.
          STAVROS LAW P.C.
          8915 South 700 East, Suite 202
          Sandy, UT 84070
          Telephone: 801.758.7604
          Facsimile: 801.893.3573
          E-mail: andy@stavroslaw.com
                  austin@stavroslaw.com

               - and -

          Meiram Bendat, Esq.
          PSYCH-APPEAL, INC.
          8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 598-3690
          Facsimile: (888) 975-1957
          E-mail: mbendat@psych-appeal.com

               - and -

          D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
          Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          485 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 704-9600
          Facsimile: (212) 704-4256
          E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com
                  jcowart@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          Andrew N. Goldfarb, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          1800 M Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 778-1800
          Facsimile: (202) 822-8106
          E-mail: agoldfarb@zuckerman.com


JUUL LABS: Misrepresents Nicotine Content, C.B. Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
C.B. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00600-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.,
Sept. 11, 2019) contends that despite making numerous revisions to
its packaging since 2015, the Defendants did not add nicotine
warnings until forced to do so in August of 2018. The original JUUL
product labels had a California Proposition 65 warning indicating
that the product contains a substance known to cause cancer, and a
warning to keep JUULpods away from children and pets, but contained
no warnings specifically about the known effects, or unknown
long-term effects, of nicotine or vaping/inhaling nicotine salts.
Many of the Defendants' advertisements, particularly prior to
November 2017, also lacked a nicotine warning.

Furthermore, the Defendants misrepresent the nicotine content of
JUULpods by representing it as 5% strength when the JUUL products
contain more by volume. The Defendants's "5% strength" statement
misrepresents the most material feature of its product -- the
nicotine content -- and has misled consumers to their detriment.

If the Defendants did not know when it released JUULpods in 2015
that its "5% strength" representation was misleading, it quickly
learned that there was widespread confusion about the pods'
nicotine content. The Defendants did nothing to stop or correct
this confusion about the nicotine content of its JUULpods. The
Defendants "5% strength" statement is also misleading because
JUULpods routinely contain more than even the 59mg/mL the Defendant
claims on its website. At least two independent studies testing
multiple varieties of JUULpods have found significantly higher
concentrations of nicotine than the Defendants' label represents.

JUUL Labs, Inc. manufactures electronic cigarettes. The Company
offers products such as device kits, JUULpods, and accessories in
different flavors. JUUL Labs serves customers in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy Dylan Moore, Esq.
          MOORE & OGLETREE, PLLC
          1640 Lelia Drive, Ste. 105
          Jackson, MS 39216
          Telephone: (601) 345-2900
          Facsimile: (601) 300-3131
          E-mail: tmoore@mooreandogletree.com


JUUL LABS: N.C. Sues over Sale of Electronic Vaping Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
N.C., a Minor, by his Father and Natural Guardian Thomas Carcone,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
JUUL LABS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08779-JMF
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2019), alleges that JUUL Labs intended that
its concealment and/or omission of the material facts concerning
the harmful and dangerous nature of its products be relied on so
that Plaintiff and the members of the proposed class and other
consumers would buy JUUL Labs' products.

Through its marketing and promotional efforts, including a strong
social media presence on platforms popular with young people, JUUL
vaping devices and JUULpods were N.C.'s first real and consistent
exposure to nicotine.

N.C. understood from JUUL Labs' marketing and promotional efforts
that the JUULpods he was using would not be harmful to his health
and were not addictive. At no time has he understood or appreciated
the amount of nicotine he was taking in. And he is not alone:
"Two-thirds of JUUL users ages 15 through 24 "do not know that JUUL
always contains nicotine."

Beginning at the age of 15, N.C. began "JUULing." JUULing refers to
the use of specific electronic vaping devices made by Defendant
JUUL Labs. The user loads a "JUULpod," filled with a flavored
liquid containing nicotine and other chemicals, into the JUUL
vaping device. Powered by a battery that is charged through a USB
port, the JUUL vaping device heats the liquid, converting the
liquid into a vapor that the user breathes in through the mouth
like someone smoking a cigarette.

The Surgeon General and other governmental and health authorities
have "singled out" JUUL Labs and its products for fueling the
"epidemic" of "youth vaping," they being largely responsible for
driving the "largest ever recorded [increase in substance abuse] in
the past 43 years for any adolescent substance use outcome in the
U.S."

As a direct and proximate result of JUUL Labs' conduct, N.C. (i) is
addicted to nicotine; (ii) has been exposed to toxic chemicals like
formaldehyde and propylene glycol, among others; (iii) has
experienced adverse physiological, emotional, and mental changes;
and (iv) has sustained economic harm that would not have resulted
had JUUL Labs informed him of the consequences of using its
products. JUUL Labs,the lawsuiyt says.

Since its launch in 2015, JUUL Labs has become the dominant
manufacturer in the electronic nicotine delivery system market in
the United States. In 2018, JUUL Labs amassed more than $1 billion
in revenue, up 700% from 2017. Also in late 2018, leading U.S.
cigarette manufacturer Altria bought a 35% stake in JUUL Labs for
$12.8 billion.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq.
          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          Kristine K. Kraft, Esq.
          Scott H. Morgan, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
          100 South 4th Street, Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63012
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621-6151
          E-mail: aschlichter@uselaws.com
                  jschlichter@uselaws.com
                  kkraft@uselaws.com
                  smorgan@uselaws.com

KEYSTONE INDUSTRIAL: Redmond Hits Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
BEN REDMOND, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. KEYSTONE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH11150 (Circuit Ct. Cook Cty., Ill., Sept.
26, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated against Defendant to stop Defendant's
unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's
and the proposed Class's sensitive, private, and personal biometric
data.

Unlike ID badges or time cards, which can be changed or replaced if
stolen or compromised , biometrics are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendant's
employees, including Plaintiff, to serious and irreversible privacy
risks. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations
like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois
citizens' biometrics. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal
requirements of the law, Defendant disregards employees'
statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects,
stores, and uses employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA,
asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff and the Class members may be aggrieved because Defendant
may have improperly disclosed employees' biometrics to third-party
vendors in violation of BIPA. Plaintiff and the putative Class are
aggrieved by Defendant's failure to destroy their biometric data
when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such data has
been satisfied or within three years of employees' last
interactions with the company, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Illinois.

Keystone Industrial Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with
places of business in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
     Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
     PEIFFER WOLFCARR & KANE, APLC
     818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
     St. Louis, MO 63104
     Phone: 314-833-4825
     Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com
            plesko@pwcklegal.com


KEYSTONE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Wages, Domeich et al. Allege
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS DOMENICH, and VICTOR VALVERDE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEYSTONE MANAGEMENT,
INC.; and BELMONT VENTURES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08353
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 9, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff Domenich was employed by the Defendants as building
superintendent. The Plaintiff Valverde was employed as handyman.

Keystone Management, Inc. is engaged in the business of renting,
buying, selling and appraising real estate. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central,
          155 East 44th Street-6th Floor
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


KIDD COFFEE: Ex-Employees Seek to Recover OT Wages & Withheld Tips
------------------------------------------------------------------
JEANNE SANBORN, KATIE BARNETT, AND BRITTANY MORTON, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated v. THE KIDD COFFEE
COMPANY, LTD, and KIDD COFFEE CINCINNATI LLC and KIDD COFFEE, LTD,
and SMOOTH KIDD COFFEE LLC and LANE KIDD, Case No.
1:19-cv-00792-SJD (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 17, 2019), seeks to recover
overtime compensation and unlawfully withheld tips pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants.  Plaintiff
Jeanne Sanborn also brings an individual action to recover damages
for her wrongful termination by the Defendants, which termination
was in retaliation for her opposition to their illegal pay
practices.

The Kidd Coffee Company, LTD, Kidd Coffee Cincinnati LLC, Kidd
Coffee, LTD, and Smooth Kidd Coffee LLC are Ohio limited liability
companies.  Lane Kidd is the owner and manager of the Kidd Coffee
Defendants.

The Defendants operate coffee shops located in several marquee
downtown office buildings in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen E. Imm, Esq.
          Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq.
          FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
          Cincinnati, OH 45245
          Telephone: (513) 943-6650
          Facsimile: (513) 943-6669
          E-mail: stephen@finneylawfirm.com
                  matt@finneylawfirm.com


KOHLBERG VENTURES: Asks S.C. to Dismiss Wojciechowski Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Kohlberg Ventures, LLC, filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled KOHLBERG VENTURES, LLC, Petitioner v. PETER WOJCIECHOWSKI,
on behalf of himself and purported on behalf of all others
similarly situated (putative class not certified), Respondent, Case
No. 19-355.

Response is due on October 17, 2019.

The question presented is: Under federal rules of res judicata,
when a lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice by agreement, should a
term of the agreement that purports to allow the plaintiff to file
a subsequent lawsuit against non-parties be sufficient, standing
alone and without express court authorization, to permit the
plaintiff to bring the same settled and dismissed claim in a
separate lawsuit against new defendants based on the liability
theory that all defendants had acted as a "single employer," or
otherwise acted as a "single enterprise"?

Kohlberg prays for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Kohlberg
contends that the Supreme Court should reverse the Ninth Circuit
and affirm the District Court's dismissal of the lawsuit based on
res judicata.

The appellate case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit was styled as Wojciechowski v. Kohlberg Ventures, LLC, No.
17-15966, .

The District Court case was titled Wojciechowski v. Kohlberg
Ventures, LLC, Case No. 16-cv-06775, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.  The Order granting
motion to dismiss was entered on April 11, 2017.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Ronald
M. Gould of the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's
dismissal of the case. Opinion reversing dismissal was entered on
May 8, 2019.

The Appeals Court considered whether a prior action brought by
Plaintiff-Appellant Wojciechowski against nonparties to the case
bars the action against Defendant-Appellee Kohlberg, under the
doctrine of claim preclusion.  Wojciechowski was formerly employed
by ClearEdge Power, LLC.  He was terminated without notice.  Six
days later, ClearEdge Power, LLC -- along with its owner, ClearEdge
Power, Inc. -- filed for bankruptcy.

Mr. Wojciechowski filed an adversary class action against the
ClearEdge entities in the bankruptcy court.  He alleged that the
two ClearEdge entities were a "single employer" under the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, and that the entities
violated that act when they fired him and other employees without
60 days' advance notice.  Wojciechowski settled that action.

Per the settlement agreement, the class released all claims it had
against "(i) Defendants ClearEdge, Power, Inc. and ClearEdge Power,
LLC and their respective estates," and "(ii) each of the
Defendants' current and former shareholders, officers, directors,
employees, accountants, attorneys, representatives and other
agents, and all of their respective predecessors, successors and
assigns, excluding any third parties which may or may not be
affiliated with Defendants ClearEdge Power, Inc. and ClearEdge
Power LLC, including, but not limited to Kohlberg Ventures, LLC."
Kohlberg was not involved in the bankruptcy proceedings or in
settlement negotiations.  The bankruptcy court approved the
settlement agreement and closed the case soon after. The ClearEdge
estates paid a portion of the class members' WARN Act wages and
benefits.

Mr. Wojciechowski then filed the putative class action.  He alleged
that Kohlberg, as a "single employer" with the ClearEdge entities,
violated the WARN Act when it fired him without advance notice.  He
sought an award for the balance of the Class' WARN Act wages and
benefits, that is, what the class is owed under the Act less the
amount received from the ClearEdge estates.

Kohlberg moved to dismiss Mr. Wojciechowski's claim on the basis of
claim preclusion.  The district court granted Kohlberg's motion.
Relevant in the appeal, the district court held that Kohlberg could
not be bound by the settlement agreement--and the provision
preserving the class' claims against Kohlberg--because Kohlberg was
not a party to the adversary proceeding and did not agree to allow
Wojciechowski to split his claim.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner Kohlberg Ventures, LLC is represented by:

          George J. Tichy, II, Esq.
          Michael F. McCabe, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          E-mail: gtichy@littler.com
                  mmccabe@littler.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Thieme, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          600 University Street, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-3300
          E-mail: dthieme@littler.com


LAMB WESTON: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Kennard Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANGELA KENNARD, Plaintiff, v. LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04665-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the Defendant's motion for judgment
on the pleadings.

Under the putative class action, Kennard alleges that the Defendant
unlawfully and unfairly packaged its Alexia brand sweet potato
fries with sea salt product in opaque containers that contain more
than 50% empty space.

In January 2019, the Defendant moved to dismiss Kennard's Second
Amended Complaint ("SAC").  The Court granted in part and denied in
part the Motion to Dismiss, noting that the SAC was based on two
theories of liability: (1) consumer deception, namely, that the
Alexia product packages were misleading because consumers expected
more sweet potato fries than were actually included, and (2) slack
fill, namely that the Alexia product packaging was unlawful because
it violated the California Fair Packaging and Labeling Act's
("CFPLA") regulation against nonfunctional slack fill, specifically
Business & Professions Code section 12606.2.  The Court analyzed
the Plaintiff's claims based on both theories.  Specifically:

  -- The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice
     to the extent they were based on a consumer deception theory.


  -- The Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss to the
     extent the Plaintiff's claims were based on a nonfunctional
     slack fill theory of liability.

The Defendant now asserted that it is entitled to judgment on the
pleadings on the ground that the Plaintiff has not and cannot
establish Article III or statutory standing on the remaining Unfair
Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claims
because the Second Amended Complaint's  injury allegations rely on
a consumer deception theory that this Court previously rejected.

As an initial matter, Judge Rogers notes that the Defendant's
motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's order granting in part and denying
in part its motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, filed
absent leave of Court.  The Judge cautions the Defendant that
appropriate procedures must be used to seek relief from the Court.

Taking the allegations as true, the Judge holds that the Plaintiff
spent money she otherwise would have saved but for the Defendant's
act of including nonfunctional slack fill in its product packaging.
Whether the Plaintiff actually suffered an economic loss as a
result of the nonfunctional slack fill is a factual inquiry to be
resolved at a later stage in the litigation.  At this junction,
however, the Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to withstand
defendant's motion, the Court opines.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rogers denies the Defendant's
motion for judgment on the pleadings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/FrUSH8 from Leagle.com.

Angela Kennard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Hidehito Hikida, Esq.,
Pacific Trial Attorney, APC & Scott J. Ferrell --
sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com -- Pacific Trial Attorneys.

Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Amanda L. Groves -- agroves@winston.com -- Winston
&
Strawn LLP & Shawn R. Obi -- sobi@winston.com -- Winston Strawn
LLP.


MESHLOGISTICS INC: Underpays Forklift Operators, Escareno Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN ESCARENO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MESHLOGISTICS, INC.; DECTON, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 250, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV32274 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles, Sept. 11, 2019) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs

The Plaintiff Escareno was employed by the Defendants as forklift
operator.

Meshlogistics, Inc. provides warehouse management services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          Claudette H. Villicana, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
          301 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1550
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432-8933
          Facsimile: (562) 435-1656
          E-mail: claudette@carlinbuchsbaum.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Feist Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is captioned as LINDSEY FEIST
INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED CONSUMERS,
the Plaintiff, vs. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., the  Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-03266-JS (E.D. Pa., July 25, 2019). The suit
alleges violation of Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is assigned
to the Hon. JUDGE Juan R. Sanchez.

Midland Credit was founded in 1953. The company's line of business
includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively
short periods.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Nicholas J. Linker, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          1373 Broad St., Suite 203-C
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com

MIDLAND FUNDING: Can Compel Arbitration in Johnson FDCPA/AFDCA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAURA K. CAMPBELL, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL A. JACOB, II; JACOB LAW
GROUP, PLLC; JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendants. JEANNETTE
WELCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL A. JACOB, II; JACOB LAW GROUP, PLLC; MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. Defendants. LILLIE
BROWNLEE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL A. JACOB, II; JACOB LAW GROUP, PLLC; MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. Defendants. BETTY
JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL A. JACOB, II; JACOB LAW GROUP, PLLC; MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. Defendants,
Consolidated Case Nos. 4:19-cv-179-JM, 5:19-cv-105, 4:19-cv-208,
4:19-cv-267 (E.D. Ark.), Judge James M. Moody, Jr. of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western
Division, granted Midland's motion to compel arbitration and to
strike class allegations of Plaintiff Betty Johnson.

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

On July 30, 2014, Plaintiff Johnson opened a Citibank Sears credit
card account with an account number ending in 876.  In 2016, the
card agreement governing the Plaintiff's account was amended and a
copy was mailed to her.  She failed to make the required payments
on the Account and on Feb. 6, 2017, the account was charged-off.
The Cardholder Agreement is governed by South Dakota law and
contains arbitration provision.

In April 2017, Midland Funding purchased the Account from Citibank
as part of a portfolio of charged-off debts.  Citibank sold and
Midland acquired all rights title and interest of the Bank in and
to the Account.  The Defendants argue that the assignment of
Citibank's right, title, and interest in the Account was expressly
contemplated by the Cardholder Agreement.  They argue the
assignment included the assignment of the right to arbitration.

Berfore the Court is the motion to compel arbitration and to strike
class allegations of Johnson filed on behalf of Midland.  JLG
joined the motion and filed a supporting brief.

The Plaintiff does not claim to have rejected the Arbitration
Provision.  However, she argues that the 2016 Cardholder Agreement
is more narrowly written than the 2012 Cardholder Agreement and
specifically excludes the references to claims made by
predecessors, successors or assignees in the definition of claims
subject to arbitration.  The Plaintiff contends that the omission
of assignees, successors and their agents from the arbitration
provision precludes those persons from enforcing the arbitration
agreement.

Relying in large part on Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, the Plaintiff
argues that the right to enforce the arbitration provision was not
assigned to Midland and neither Midland or JLG have the right to
require arbitration.  In Lamps Plus, the Supreme Court held that
the FAA bars a court order compelling class arbitration if the
arbitration agreement is ambiguous about the availability of class
arbitration Emphasizing the difference between class wide
arbitration and individual arbitration the Court concluded that the
statute requires more than ambiguity to ensure that the parties
"actually agreed to arbitrate on a classwide basis."

Judge Moody disagrees, as argued by Plaintiff, that the holding in
Lamps Plus precludes the assignment of the agreement to arbitrate
in the case.  The Court states that Citibank sold and transferred
its rights under the agreement to Midland Funding, and that
included the right to arbitration.  Furthermore, Citibank sold and
Midland Funding bought all right, title and interest of the Bank in
and to the Account.

Because Citibank sold all of its rights under the agreement to
Midland, this caused Midland to substitute for Citibank in the
arbitration provision, accordingly, the omission of successors or
assigns in the 2016 cardholder agreement is not a legal bar to
Midland's enforcement of the arbitration provision, the Court
opines.

JLG may also compel arbitration, the Judge confers.  Midland
Funding, its affiliate, MCM and JLG as an agent of Midland in the
collection of the debt are all entitled to enforce the terms of the
Arbitration Provision.  These Defendants' right to enforce the
terms of the Arbitration Provision includes the right to enforce
the Class Action prohibition.

For these reasons, Judge Moody granted the Defendants' motion to
compel arbitration and to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations.
The Court will administratively terminate Plaintiff Johnson's
cause of action in the consolidated case and in her individual case
No. 4:19CV00267, pending the arbitration of the claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/YYYbfr from Leagle.com.

Betty Johnson, On Behalf of Herself and all Others Similarly
Situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Cathleen M. Combs,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice, Corey
Darnell McGaha , Crowder McGaha, LLP, Daniel A. Edelman, Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice & William Thomas
Crowder -- crowdermcgaha.com -- Crowder McGaha, LLP.

Michael A Jacob, II & Jacob Law Group PLLC, Defendants, represented
by Elizabeth Fletcher -- elizabeth.fletcher@mrmblaw.com -- Munson,
Rowlett, Moore & Boone, P.A.

Jefferson Capital Systems LLC, Defendant, represented by Bryan C.
Shartle -- bshartle@sessions.legal -- Sessions, Fishman, Nathan &
Israel LLC, pro hac vice, Spencer M. Schulz, Sessions, Fishman,
Nathan & Israel LLC, pro hac vice & Keith Martin McPherson, Watts,
Donovan & Tilley, P.A.

Midland Credit Management Inc & Midland Funding LLC, Consol
Defendants, represented by Aria B. Allan, Balch & Bingham LLP, pro
hac vice, Jason B. Tompkins, Balch & Bingham LLP, pro hac vice &
Michael Norris Shannon -- mshannon@qgtlaw.com -- Quattlebaum,
Grooms & Tull PLLC.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Wise Seeks to Recover Roundup-Related Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tanja Wise acting on behalf of the estate of John Fleck (deceased),
a California consumer; Amy Stickley acting on behalf of the estate
of John Stickley (deceased), a New Jersey consumer; Anna Rice
acting on behalf of the estate of Harold Rice (deceased),a Florida
consumer; Antonio Martinez Jr. acting on behalf of Antonio Martinez
(incapacitated), a California consumer; Barbara Childers acting on
behalf of the estate of Twila June Angelo (deceased), a Texas
consumer; Barbara Embry acting on behalf of the estate of Bobby Joe
Embry (deceased), a Alabama consumer; Barbara Hughes acting on
behalf of the estate of David Hughes (deceased), a Wisconsin
consumer; Beatriz Velasquez acting on behalf of the estate of Ramon
Velasquez (deceased), a Texas consumer; Beth Wisener acting on
behalf of the estate of Michael Wisener (deceased), a New Jersey
consumer; Betty Ketner acting on behalf of the estate of Landis
Ketner (deceased), a Florida consumer; Brenda Bates-Gross acting on
behalf of the estate of Lester Gross (deceased), a Indiana
consumer; Brenda Price acting on behalf of Dexter Price
(incapacitated), a Utah consumer; Carol Pearce acting on behalf of
the estate of Jim Pearce (deceased), a Kansas consumer; Carolyn
Rackley acting on behalf of Sammie Rackley (incapacitated), a North
Carolina consumer; Charles Chainey acting on behalf of the estate
of Anita Chainey (Deceased), a Illinois consumer; Cheryl Smeal
acting on behalf of the estate of Richard Smeal (deceased), a New
York consumer; Christine Pesce acting on behalf of the estate of
Joseph Grippo (deceased), a New Jersey consumer; Ciera Gore acting
on behalf of the estate of John Griffin (deceased), a South
Carolina consumer; Cynthia Floyd acting on behalf of the estate of
Kenneth Rhea (deceased), a Georgia consumer; David Klingelhoefer
acting on behalf of Chase Klingelhoefer (incapacitated), a Texas
consumer; Diane Grabemeyer acting on behalf of the estate of Harold
Grabemeyer (deceased), a Michigan consumer; Donna Kiewel acting on
behalf of the estate of Kenneth D. Kiewel (deceased), a South
Dakota consumer; Elena Iglesias Patrizio acting on behalf of the
estate of Julia Iglesias (deceased), a Florida consumer; Elizabeth
Mauro acting on behalf of the estate of Cindy Malzan (deceased), a
New York consumer; Evelyn Edwards acting on behalf of the estate of
Eddie Haynes (deceased), a Louisiana consumer; George Eghinis
acting on behalf of the estate of Ekaterini Eghinis (deceased), a
Maryland consumer; Gloria Stewart acting on behalf of the estate of
Wilson Stewart Jr. (deceased), a Texas consumer; Jacqueline Huff
acting on behalf of the estate of Lawrence Huff (deceased), a
California consumer; Joan Trombetti acting on behalf of the estate
of Louis Trombetti (deceased), a New York consumer; John Hink
acting on behalf of the estate of Richard Hink (deceased), a
Minnesota consumer; Joyce McIntire acting on behalf of the estate
of Fredrick McIntire (deceased), a Ohio consumer; Kathy Haynes
acting on behalf of the estate of Kathleen Beaudry (deceased), a
Michigan consumer; Laurie Gemma acting on behalf of the estate of
Michael Petrarca, a Rhode Island consumer; Lillie Russell acting on
behalf of the estate of Willie Floyd Russell (deceased), a Georgia
consumer; Linda Louden acting on behalf of the estate of James
Louden (Deceased), a Kentucky consumer; Louis Bonus acting on
behalf of Jean Bonus (incapacitated), a New Jersey consumer; Marie
Foster acting on behalf of the estate of James Bruce Foster
(deceased), a Georgia consumer; Mary Fleming acting on behalf of
the estate of Blake Fleming, a Georgia consumer; Maureen York
acting on behalf of the estate of Donald Jerie (deceased), a New
Jersey consumer; Patricia Coulson acting on behalf of the estate of
Danny Coulson (deceased), a Oklahoma consumer; Patsy Shears acting
on behalf of the estate of Ileene Shears (deceased), a Texas
consumer; Reba Debacker acting on behalf of the estate of Jeffrey
Allan Debacker (deceased), a Michigan consumer; Ruth Graber acting
on behalf of the estate of James H. Graber (deceased), a Indiana
consumer; Sharon Bohl acting on behalf of the estate of Louis Bohl
(deceased), a Minnesota consumer; Shirley Smith acting on behalf of
the estate of Cora Lee Stephens, a Tennessee consumer; Stephanie
Black acting on behalf of the estate of Charisse Allison, a
Louisiana consumer; Sylvia Walton acting on behalf of the estate of
Alan R Walton (deceased), a North Carolina consumer; Sylvia Woods
acting on behalf of the estate of David Woods (deceased), a
Minnesota consumer; Thomas Yoder acting on behalf of the estate of
Brian Yoder (deceased), a Texas consumer; Todd Wubbenhorst acting
on behalf of the estate of Betty Mae Wubbenhorst (deceased), a
California consumer;Valerie Esser acting on behalf of the estate of
James Kurtz (deceased), a Florida consumer; Ernie Leal acting on
behalf of Janice Yost (incapacitated), a Oregon consumer; Sharon
DeMore acting on behalf of the estate of Charles DeMore, a
Pennsylvania consumer; Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-05942 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 24, 2019), seeks to
recover damages for the injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs as the
direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct and negligence
of the Defendant in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distributing, labeling, and selling of the herbicide Roundup,
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup. Glyphosate is a
broad spectrum herbicide used to kill weeds and grasses known to
compete with commercial crops grown around the globe. Glyphosate is
a "non-selective" herbicide, meaning it kills indiscriminately
based only on whether a given organism produces a specific enzyme,
5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid-3-phosphate synthase, known as EPSP
synthase. Monsanto claims on its website that "regulatory
authorities and independent experts around the world have reviewed
numerous long-term/carcinogenicity and genotoxicity studies and
agree that there is no evidence that glyphosate, the active
ingredient in Roundup brand herbicides and other glyphosate-based
herbicides, causes cancer, even at very high doses, and that it is
not genotoxic."

The Defendant's statements proclaiming the safety of Roundup and
disregarding its dangers misled the Plaintiffs, according to the
complaint. Despite the Defendant's knowledge that Roundup was
associated with an elevated risk of developing cancer, the
Defendant's promotional campaigns focused on Roundup's purported
"safety profile." The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup and/or
glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and
unsustainable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper
warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use.
The Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of
similarly situated victims across the country, were unavoidable,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are citizens and residents in states other than
Missouri and Delaware, who sustained personal injuries by their
exposure to Roundup.

The Defendant designs, researches, manufactures, tests, advertises,
promotes, markets, sells, distributes the herbicide Roundup.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel C. Burke, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD, LLP.
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-779-1414
          Facsimile: 212-779-3218
          E-mail: dburke@bernlieb.com
                  dweck@bernlieb.com


N.C.W.C., INC: George Sues over Spam e-Mails
--------------------------------------------
MONICA GEORGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. N.C.W.C., INC. and PALMER
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC., the Case No. 6:19-cv-01828-RBD-EJK
(M.D. Fla., Sept. 20, 2019), contends that, to solicit new
customers, Defendants engage in spam e-mail marketing with no
regard for the rights of the recipients of those e-mails.

The Defendants caused thousands of misleading e-mails to be sent to
Florida causing injuries to the Plaintiff and Class Members,
including lost productivity and resources, annoyance, consumption
of valuable digital storage space and/or financial costs, the
lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendants' illegal
conduct, and statutory damages on behalf of herself and Class
Members any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting
from the illegal actions of Defendants under Florida's Electronic
Mail Communications Act.

NCWC markets auto service warranties on behalf of Palmer and Palmer
provides warranty coverage to policies sold by NCWC. NCWC has
operated under various names including Dealer Services, Got
Warranty, Warranty World, Liberty Automotive Protection, and Dealer
Service Marketing Co. Palmer has operated under carious names
including Liberty Administrative Services and Heritage
Administrative Services. Both NCWC and Palmer share the same
President, Michael Shaftel, and operate jointly and under the
direction and control of Shaftel.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

NATIONAL TIRE: McGahee Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
----------------------------------------------------
SCOTT MCGAHEE, MARK PIERSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL TIRE & BATTERY;
TBC CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02289-X (N.D. Tex.,
Sept. 25, 2019) is a collective/class action brought by Plaintiffs
challenging acts committed by Defendants against Plaintiffs, and
those similarly situated, which amounts to violations of federal
and state wage and hour laws under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
and for violations of Title Two of the Texas Labor Code.

The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated, with an overtime premium for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per workweek; failed to pay the statutorily required
overtime rate of time-and-a-half for hours worked beyond 40 in a
workweek; and failed to pay for off-the-clock work during their
meal break periods in violation of the FLSA and the TLC, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff McGahee is a person who was employed by Defendants as a
Service Manager. Plaintiff Pierson is a person who was employed by
Defendants as a Lead Technician and Mechanic.

Defendant NTB is a for-profit corporation, which operates,
maintains, and manages approximately 96 service properties within
the state of Texas and 700 service properties throughout the
country.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jay D. Ellwanger, Esq.
     David W. Henderson, Esq.
     Esha Rajendran, Esq.
     Ellwanger Law LLLP
     400 South Zang Blvd., Suite 1015
     Dallas, TX 75208
     Phone: (737) 808-2260
     Email: jellwanger@equalrights.law
            dhenderson@equalrights.law
            erajendran@equalrights.law


NATURCHEM, INC: Underpays Spray Technicians, Breece et al. Say
--------------------------------------------------------------
RONNIE BREECE; GERALD CHAPPELL; PATRICK MAY, and GARY MORAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. NATURCHEM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-02552-JMC (D.S.C., Sept. 10, 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 Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as spray
technicians.

NaturChem, Inc. provides vegetation management services. The
Company offers aquatic weed and brush control, invasive exotic weed
control, industrial vegetation management, and storm water
management solutions. NaturChem serves customers in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth M. Suggs, Esq.
          Gerald D. Jowers, Jr., Esq.
          JANET JANET & SUGGS, LLC
          500 Taylor Street, Suite 301
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 726-0050
          Facsimile: (803) 727-1059
          E-mail: ksuggs@jjsjustice.com
                  gjowers@jjsjustice.com

               - and -

          Tim J. Becker, Esq.
          Jennell K. Shannon, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
                  jshannon@johnsonbecker.com


NCAA: Noiel Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
------------------------------------------------------------
CARY NOIEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04043-JRS-DML (S.D. Ind., Sept. 26,
2019) seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of
Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of East Texas State University (now known as Texas A&M
- Commerce) student-athletes.

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

Plaintiff Cary Noiel is a natural person and citizen of the State
of Texas.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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

          - and -

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


NELNET DIVERSIFIED: 10th Cir. Appeal Filed in Peterson FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Andrew Peterson filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Peterson v. Nelnet Diversified Solutions, Case
No. 1:17-CV-01064-NYW, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado - Denver.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 25, 2019, the
District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case.

Plaintiff Andrew Peterson initiated this action by filing a
Complaint asserting a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), for unpaid overtime wages on behalf of
himself and all current and former Account Managers and Call Center
Representatives.  Mr. Peterson alleged that Nelnet violated the
FLSA by failing to pay him and other call center representatives
premium overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty
hours in a workweek.

In his original Complaint, Mr. Peterson asserted claims for: (1)
violation of the FLSA on behalf of himself and the collective (2)
violation of Colorado Minimum Wage Order on behalf of himself and a
Rule 23 class of individuals (Second Cause of Action) and (3)
violation of the Colorado Wage Act on behalf of himself and a Rule
23 class of individuals (Third Cause of Action).

The appellate case is captioned as Peterson v. Nelnet Diversified
Solutions, Case No. 19-1348, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ANDREW PETERSON, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated persons, is represented by:

          Brian Gonzales, Esq.
          BRIAN D. GONZALES LAW OFFICES
          2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
          Fort Collins, CO 80528
          Telephone: (970) 214-0562
          E-mail: Bgonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com

               - and -

          Dustin Thomas Lujan, Esq.
          1603 Capitol Avenue, Suite 310 A559
          Cheyenne, WY 82001
          Telephone: (402) 420-1400

               - and -

          Brody J. Ockander, Esq.
          Jonathan V. Rehm, Esq.
          REHM, BENNETT, MOORE, REHM & OCKANDER PC
          9202 West Dodge Road, Suite 203
          Omaha, NE 68116
          Telephone: (800) 736-5503
          E-mail: bockander@rehmlaw.com
                  jrehm@rehmlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          800 Third Avenue, Suite 2800
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 616-4000
          E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Logan Pardell, Esq.
          Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
          Gregg Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          E-mail: lpardell@shavitzlaw.com
                  aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
                  gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee NELNET DIVERSIFIED SOLUTIONS, LLC is represented
by:

          Richard Benenson, Esq.
          Anna-Liisa Mullis, Esq.
          Nicholas Robert Santucci, Esq.
          Martine Tariot Wells, Esq.
          BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK PC
          410 17th Street, Suite 2200
          Denver, CO 80202-4437
          Telephone: (303) 223-1100
          E-mail: rbenenson@bhfs.com
                  amullis@bhfs.com
                  nsantucci@bhfs.com
                  mwells@bhfs.com

               - and -

          Charles F. Kaplan, Esq.
          PERRY & NEBLETT PA
          2550 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 11
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 856-8408

               - and -

          Daniel F. Kaplan, Esq.
          PERRY GUTHERY HAASE AND GESSFORD, PC, LLO
          233 South 13th Street, Suite 1400
          Lincoln, NE 68508
          Telephone: (402) 476-9200
          E-mail: dkaplan@perrylawfirm.com


NERIUM INTERNATIONAL: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Jia Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Helen Jia and Sarah Sormillon filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in their lawsuit styled Helen Jia, et al. v. Nerium
International, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 3:17-CV-3057-S, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The appellate case is captioned as HELEN JIA, as individual, SARAH
SORMILLON, an individual and all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. NERIUM INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C., a Texas
Limited Liability Company, NERIUM SKINCARE, INCORPORATED, a Texas
Corporation, NERIUM BIOTECHNOLOGY, INCORPORATEDDEF, NATURAL
TECHNOLOGY, INCORPORATED, doing business as Naturtech, JEFF OLSON,
an individual, RENEE OLSON, an individual, AMBER OLSON ROURKE, an
individual, MICHAEL SHOUHED, an individual, DOES 1-10,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-11048, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 3,
2019, District Court Judge Karen Gren Scholer granted in part and
denied in part Defendants Nerium, Jeff Olson, Renee Olson, and
Amber Olson Rourke's Motion to Reopen Case and for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Staying Class
Arbitration.

On Dec. 19, 2017, the Defendants moved for an order compelling
Plaintiffs Jia and Sormillon to arbitrate their claims on an
individual basis in the arbitration proceedings which are already
underway before the American Arbitration Association ("AAA").  On
Sept. 18, 2018, the Court granted the motion to compel arbitration
and provided that the arbitrator will decide whether a given claim
must be arbitrated and that any challenges to the enforceability or
scope of the Arbitration Policy must be decided by the arbitrator.
After the Court administratively closed the case pending
arbitration, the Plaintiffs allegedly filed three arbitrations
before the AAA.  Their third demand was for, among other things, a
determination as to the arbitrability of the claims on a class
basis.

In the first two arbitrations, the Defendants moved for a summary
adjudication of the class waiver provision, seeking a determination
that the Plaintiffs' claims needed to be arbitrated individually.
On June 24, 2019, Arbitrator James J. Juneau entered an order in
the first of the two cases denying the Defendants' motion for a
summary adjudication of the class waiver provision as moot, because
Jia was no longer asserting any claims in the arbitration
proceeding on a class-wide, class action or multiple
complaining-party basis. The Arbitrator did not overrule the
Defendants' objections to class arbitration, instead finding that
these should more properly be raised and adjudicated separately in
the proceeding where the Plaintiffs were asserting class action
claims.

As to the Plaintiffs' third demand for arbitration, the Defendants
objected to the filing of the class arbitration as administratively
improper on April 26, 2019.  The AAA responded to the Defendants'
argument by letter on July 9, 2019, stating that the Plaintiffs met
the filing requirements by filing a demand for class arbitration
but that the parties' contentions have been made a part of the file
and will be forwarded to the arbitrator upon appointment, at which
time the parties may submit their jurisdictional or arbitrability
arguments to the arbitrator for determination.  Thereafter on Aug.
8, 2019, the AAA reaffirmed the positions articulated in its July
9, 2019, letter, and the Defendants filed the present Motion .

The Defendants ask the Court to reopen the case to either (1)
clarify the Court's Sept. 18, 2018, order granting the Defendants'
motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis, or, in the
alternative, (2) issue a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction staying the class arbitration.

Nerium International sells consumer goods. The Company sells its
products through a network of independent business owners.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, L.L.P.
          3811 Turtle Creek
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: 214-744-3000
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Jonathan Robert Mureen, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS, L.L.P.
          2000 McKinney Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: 214-758-1515
          E-mail: jon.mureen@squirepb.com

               - and -

          Joshua A. Huber, Esq.
          BLANK ROME, L.L.P.
          717 Texas Avenue
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: 713-632-8640
          E-mail: jhuber@blankrome.com


NHK SPRING: Zimmerman Alleges HDD Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------
PAUL THOMAS ZIMMERMAN, individually and on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NHK SPRING CO. LTD.;
NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; TDK CORPORATION; NAT PERIPHERAL
(HONG KONG) CO., LTD.; NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD.; NHK
SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD.; MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC
CO. LTD.; SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD; HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC.; and
JOHN DOES 1-10 Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-12636-DML-EAS (E.D.
Mich., Sept. 9, 2019) is an action alleging that the Defendants'
unlawful agreement to eliminate competition, fix prices, and
allocate markets for hard disk drive suspension assemblies ("HDD
Suspension Assemblies") sold in the U.S.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants,
manufacturers, and suppliers of HDD Suspension Assemblies, engaged
in a years-long conspiracy to unlawfully raise the prices of HDD
Suspension Assemblies to artificial levels and allocate markets for
such products.

The conspiracy engaged in by Defendants and their co-conspirators
was an unreasonable restraint of interstate and foreign trade and
commerce in violation of state antitrust, unfair competition, and
consumer protection laws. As a direct result of the anticompetitive
and unlawful conduct alleged herein, Plaintiff and members of the
Class paid artificially inflated prices for HDD Suspension
Assemblies and have been injured in their business and  property
for the period beginning at least as early as May 2008 and
continuing until at least April 2016.

NHK SPRING CO., LTD. manufactures springs for automobiles and
electronic equipment. The Company's products are used for
suspension, engine valves, seats, and hard disk drives(HDD). [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul F. Novak, Esq.
          Diana Gjonaj, Esq.
          Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq.
          Tiffany Ellis, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
          3011 West Grand Blvd., Suite 2150
          Detroit, MI 48202
          Telephone: (313) 800-4170
          E-mail: pnovak@weitzlux.com
                  dgjonaj@weitzlux.com
                  gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com
                  tellis@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Penny, Esq.
          Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C.
          161 Washington Street, Suite 1025
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (484) 342-0700
          E-mail: penny@lawgsp.com
                  scarlato@lawgsp.com


NOAH RESTAURANT: Moodie Seeks Proper Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
PAULINA B. MOODIE, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. NOAH RESTAURANT LLC, d/b/a SANTORINI GREEK RESTAURANT
and CHRISTOS MAMMAS, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-23991-KMM (S.D. Fla., Sept. 26, 2019) is an action to
recover money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages under
the laws of the United States pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

During her time of employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked
regularly in excess of 40 hours every week. She worked a minimum of
42.5 hours in low season and a minimum of 50 hours in high season.
However, in many weeks, Plaintiff was paid less than 40 regular
hours and she was not paid for all her overtime hours. Sometimes
Plaintiff was paid only a fraction of her overtime hours, notes the
complaint.  Moreover, when the Defendant paid some overtime hours
to Plaintiff, they unlawfully calculated Plaintiff's overtime rate
on the direct minimum cash wage, not on the full minimum wage as
provided by the FLSA, the complaint adds.

Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempted, full time, hourly bartender
from September 24, 2018, to June 19, 2019, or 38 weeks.

NOAH RESTAURANT LLC is a retail business operating as a Greek
restaurant. Defendant operates under the name of SANTORINI GREEK
RESTAURANT located at 101 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach 33139.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORTHERN LEASING: Chorba Suit Moved to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Stephen L. Chorba, the
Plaintiff, vs. Northern Leasing Systems Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 0:19-cv-60452, was transferred from U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for  the
Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on Sept. 20, 2019. The
Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-08731-GBD to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge George B. Daniels.

Northern Leasing provides credit card processing equipment leasing
services to merchants.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Etan Mark, Esq.
          George Thomas Breur, Esq.
          Joshua Adam Migdal, Esq.
          MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
          80 SW 8th Street, Suite 1999
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 374-0440
          E-mail: etan@markmigdal.com
                  george@markmigdal.com
                  josh@markmigdal.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Scott E. Silberfein, Esq.
          MOSES & SINGER LLP
          The Chrysler Building
          405 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 554-7845
          E-mail: ssilberfein@mosessinger.com

               - and -

          Daniel P. Dietrich, Esq.
          GUNSTER, YOAKLEY & STEWART, P.A
          401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 2500
          TAMPA, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 739-6970
          E-mail: ddietrich@gunster.com

OHIO: Appellate Court Upholds Denial of Dunlop Summary Judgment Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the appellate case captioned Matthew J. Dunlop,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ohio Department of Job and Family Services,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19AP-58 (Ohio App.), Judge Lisa L.
Sadler of the Court of Appeals of Ohio for the Tenth District,
Franklin County, affirmed the judgment of the Franklin County Court
of Common Pleas denying Dunlop's motion for summary judgment and
granting Ohio Department of Job and Family Services' ("ODJFS")
motion for summary judgment.

It is Dunlop's third appeal before the Ohio Appeals Court arising
from his complaint against ODJFS in regard to child support
payments that were withheld by his employer in an amount in excess
of the wage garnishment order.

In May 2011, Dunlop sued ODJFS in the Court of Claims of Ohio with
a complaint nearly identical to the instant case.  The Court of
Claims dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, finding
Dunlop's claims equitable in nature.  The Court affirmed that
decision in Dunlop I, and the Supreme Court of Ohio declined to
take further review of the matter.

Just after filing his complaint in the Court of Claims, Dunlop
filed the instant class action complaint, on behalf of himself and
similarly situated individuals he estimates to number in excess of
100,000, alleging claims of conversion, equitable restitution,
constructive trust, breach of fiduciary duty and wrongful
disposition against ODJFS and 300 John Doe Defendants, and seeking
actual money damages, equitable restitution and/or disgorgement of
improperly obtained funds, a constructive trust over all funds
improperly obtained by ODJFS, injunction, and declaratory relief.

Dunlop alleges that each John Doe Defendant is a joint venture,
partner, subsidiary, parent, agent, representative, franchisee or
alter ego of ODJFS, has a unity of interest with ODJFS, and is
legally, equitably or otherwise responsible in some manner for the
damages alleged.  The complaint alleges that ODJFS knowingly
collects more money than he, and persons like him, have been
ordered to pay in child support and then passes that money on to
others (such as ex-spouses and/or the federal government in certain
public assistance cases) and/or retains the over-collected funds.
The complaint states under current ODJFS policies, overpaid child
support may not be recouped while an active child support order is
in place and that greater than 114,000 open child support accounts
with ODJFS show a credit balance.  Dunlop alleges that Ohio's
system of recoupment does not comport with federal regulations
requiring prompt refund of amounts improperly withheld.

On June 25, 2012, ODJFS filed a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), which the trial court
initially denied on April 15, 2014.  On April 20, 2016, ODJFS asked
the trial court to reconsider its decision based on new authority,
Cullinan v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.  On July 13, 2016,
the trial court granted ODJFS' motion for reconsideration and
dismissed the complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6).

Dunlop appealed and in Dunlop II, the Court concluded that
considering its limited standard of review and the distinctions
between the appeal and Cullinan v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family
Servs., it agrees with Dunlop that the trial court erred in
determining appellant's complaint was not sufficient to state a
claim for wrongful collection or retention of funds to survive
ODJFS's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss.

On remand, the parties each filed motions for summary judgment on
all claims.  On Dec. 31, 2018, the trial court granted ODJFS'
motion for summary judgment and denied Dunlop's motion for summary
judgment.  In doing so, the trial court found that similarly to
Cullinan, ODJFS did not act wrongfully in receiving and remitting
appellant's child support payments, and, therefore, Dunlop could
not establish a claim for equitable restitution.

Dunlop filed a timely appeal.  He assigns the following as trial
court error:

     a. The Court of Common Pleas does not have original subject
matter jurisdiction over his claims against Defendant-Appellee
ODJFS.  Thus, the trial court's ruling on the parties' summary
judgment motions are void.

     b. Assuming arguendo the common pleas court has subject matter
jurisdiction over Mr. Dunlop's claims, the trial court erred by
denying Dunlop's  Motion for Summary Judgment.

     c. Assuming arguendo the common pleas court has subject matter
jurisdiction over Mr. Dunlop's claims, the trial court erred by
granting ODJFS' Motion for Summary Judgment.

As for Dunlop's first assignment of error, Judge Sadler finds it
without merit because res judicata bars relitigation of the issue
within the procedural posture of the case.  The Court had authority
in Dunlop I to pass on whether the Court of Claims erred in finding
it lacked jurisdiction over appellant's claims.  Dunlop appealed
its decision, and the Supreme Court declined jurisdictional review.
Dunlop does not dispute the present complaint contains essentially
the same claims and the same parties as the case he brought in the
Court of Claims.   Therefore, the Judge finds res judicata applies
to bar Dunlop from attempting to relitigate subject-matter
jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the Judge overruled Dunlop's first
assignment of error.

The Judge disagrees with Dunlop's contention in his third
assignment of error that the trial court erred in granting summary
judgment in favor of ODJFS.  The Judge finds on independent review
and viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of Dunlop that no
evidence shows ODJFS acted in violation of a duty or otherwise
acted wrongfully in collecting and remitting the child support
payments in this case.  Accordingly, the Judge overrrules Dunlop's
third assignment of error.

Moreover, the Judge disagrees with Dunlop's contention in his
second assignment of error that the trial court erred in denying
his motion for summary judgment.  The Judge finds that  Dunlop did
not meet his burden in moving for summary judgment pursuant to
Civ.R. 56(C).  Accordingly, the Judge also overrules Dunlop's
second assignment of error.

Having overruled the Appellant's three assignments of error, Judge
Sadler affirms the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common
Pleas.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Decision is
available at https://is.gd/PTskME from Leagle.com.

On brief: The Tyack Law Firm Co., L.P.A., Jonathan T. Tyack --
jon@tyacklaw.com -- and Holly B. Cline -- holly@tyacklaw.com -- for
appellant. Argued: Holly B. Cline.

On brief: Carpenter Lipps & Leland LLP, Michael H. Carpenter --
carpenter@carpenterlipps.com -- and Jennifer A.L. Battle --
battle@carpenterlipps.com -- for appellee.


OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Stirling Hits Share Drop Over Supply Chain Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT STIRLING, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. OLLIE'S BARGAIN OUTLET HOLDINGS, INC., MARK BUTLER, JAY
STASZ, and JOHN SWYGERT, Case No. 1:19-cv-08647 (S.D.N.Y., Sept.
17, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose to investors, including
the Plaintiff, that the Company suffered a supply chain issue that
impacted the initial inventory available at new stores, and that,
as a result, the Company lacked sufficient inventory to meet demand
at certain store locations.

On August 28, 2019, Ollie's reported that comparable store sales
decreased 1.7% during second quarter 2019.  In addition, Ollie's
disclosed that a "bottleneck issue" had existed in its supply chain
"for most all of Q2" and was not corrected until "the last week of
the quarter."  On this news, shares of Ollie's fell $21.41, or over
27%, to close at $56.36 on August 29, 2019, on unusually high
trading volume, according to the complaint.

Ollie's is incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its
principal executive offices located in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

Ollie's is an extreme value retailer that offers brand name
merchandise at dramatically reduced prices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

               - and -

          Ira M. Press, Esq.
          Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
          KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
          250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
          New York, NY 10177
          Telephone: (212) 371-6600
          Facsimile: (212) 751-2540
          E-mail: ipress@kmllp.com
                  telrod@kmllp.com


OMNOVA SOLUTIONS: Thompson Suit Challenges Sale to Synthomer
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN THOMPSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. OMNOVA SOLUTIONS INC., DAVID J. D'ANTONI, JOSEPH M.
GINGO, JANET PLAUT GIESSELMAN, MICHAEL J. MERRIMAN, JAMES A.
MITAROTONDA, ANNE P. NOONAN, STEVEN W. PERCY, LARRY B. PORCELLATO,
ALLAN R. ROTHWELL, WILLIAM R. SEELBACH, SYNTHOMER PLC, SPIRIT USA
HOLDINGS INC., and SYNTHOMER USA LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01748-UNA
(D. Del., Sept. 18, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which OMNOVA will be acquired by Synthomer plc, Spirit
USA Holdings Inc., and Synthomer USA LLC, a Delaware corporation.

On July 3, 2019, OMNOVA's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger  with Synthomer.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, OMNOVA's
stockholders will receive $10.15 in cash for each share of OMNOVA
common stock they own.

The Plaintiff, an owner of OMNOVA common stock, alleges that the
Proxy Statement filed in connection with the Proposed Transaction
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading
under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The Plaintiff contends that the Proxy Statement fails to
disclose: (i) all line items used to calculate EBITDA; (ii)
unlevered free cash flow for all sets of projections and all
underlying line items; and (iii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP
to GAAP metrics.

OMNOVA is an Ohio corporation and maintains its principal executive
offices in Beachwood, Ohio.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

OMNOVA is a global innovator of performance-enhancing chemistries
and surfaces used in products for a variety of commercial,
industrial, and residential applications.

Synthomer plc ("Parent") is a public limited company incorporated
under the Laws of England and Wales and a party to the Merger
Agreement.  Synthomer USA LLC, a Delaware corporation ("Parent US
Sub") is a Delaware limited liability company, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.
Spirit USA Holdings Inc. ("Merger Sub") is an Ohio corporation, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Parent, and a party to the Merger
Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


PLAZA PATISSERIE: Poulmentis Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS POULMENTIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. PLAZA PATISSERIE, INC. (D/B/A AKROTIRI SEA FOOD
TAVERNA), CHRISTOS KOUVAROS, and TATIANA DIMAKIS, Case No.
1:19-cv-05284 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

Plaza Patisserie, Inc. (d/b/a Akrotiri Sea Food Taverna) is a
domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of New York.  The Individual Defendants serve or served as
owners, managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant
Corporation.

The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a Greek Restaurant,
located at 29-20 30th Ave., in Astoria, New York, under the name
"Akrotiri Sea Food Taverna," where the Plaintiff worked. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


POOL WATER: Duenas Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------
MARIO DUENAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. POOL WATER PRODUCTS, a corporation;
and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV33470
(Cal. Super., Sept. 20, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to
pay minimum wage; failed to pay overtime wages; failed to provide
meal periods; failed to provide rest periods; failed to furnish
accurate wage statements; failed to maintain required records;
failed to pay ah wages due to discharged and quitting employees;
and unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at its facility in Van
Nuys, California as a driver from approximately February 2019 to
July 7, 2019. The Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee, paid in
whole or in part on an hourly basis.

Pool Water Products is a water products vendor to businesses
throughout the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
          Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
          KJT LAW GROUP LLP
          230 North Maryland Avenue, Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 91206
          Telephone: 818 507-8525
          E-mail: vache@kjliavvgroup.com
                  caspar@kjliawgroup.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Adams, esq.
          ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
          4740 Calle Carga
          Camarillo, CA 93012
          Telephone: 818 425-1437
          E-mail: ca@AdamsEmploymentCounsel.com


PRESIDIO INC: Rosenblatt Files Suit Over BCEC Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PRESIDIO, INC., BOB CAGNAZZI,
HEATHER BERGER, CHRISTOPHER L. EDSON, SALIM HIRJI, STEVEN LERNER,
MATTHEW H. NORD, PANKAJ PATEL, MICHAEL REISS, and TODD H. SIEGEL,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01811-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 26, 2019) is
an action stemming from a proposed transaction announced on August
14, 2019, pursuant to which Presidio, Inc. will be acquired by BCEC
-- Port Holdings (Delaware) LP ("Parent") and Port Merger Sub, Inc.
Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of funds advised by BC
Partners Advisors L.P.

On August 14, 2019, Presidio's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with BCEC,
which was amended on September 25, 2019. Pursuant to the terms of
the Merger Agreement, Presidio's stockholders will receive $16.60
in cash for each share of Presidio common stock they own. On
September 10, 2019, defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the Proposed Transaction. However, the Proxy Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading, says the
complaint.

First, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the
Company's financial projections. The Proxy Statement fails to
disclose: (i) for each set of projections, all line items used to
calculate (a) total adjusted EBITDA, (b) pro forma adjusted net
income, (c) pro forma diluted earnings per share, and (d) unlevered
free cash flow; (ii) unlevered free cash flow for the "Budget
Projections"; and (iii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP
metrics.

Second, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding
the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, LionTree Advisors LLC.
With respect to LionTree's Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the Proxy
Statement fails to disclose: (i) all line items used to calculate
unlevered free cash flow; (ii) LionTree's basis for applying a
range of exit multiples of 7.0x to 9.0x; (iii) the individual
inputs and assumptions underlying the discount rates ranging from
8.2% to 10.2%; (iv) the terminal values for the Company; and (v)
the number of fully diluted outstanding shares of Company common
stock.

Third, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose the timing and nature
of all communications regarding future employment and directorship
of the Company's officers and directors, including who participated
in all such communications.

Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Proxy Statement.

Plaintiff is the owner of Presidio common stock.

Presidio is a North American IT solutions provider focused on
Digital Infrastructure, Cloud, and Security solutions to create
secure infrastructure platforms for commercial and public sector
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


REDFIN INC: Cook Labor Suit Hits Non-payment of Overtime Work
-------------------------------------------------------------
Devin Cook, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Redfin, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-578774 (Cal. Super., August 28, 2019),
seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon, redress for
failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory
penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting
time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to
timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment,
reimbursement of business-related expenses, injunctive relief and
other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
interest under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law and
the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Redfin operates as an online real estate brokerage company handling
tours, pricing analysis, negotiations, inspections and closings and
features listings directly from broker databases as well as
for-sale-by-owner and foreclosure properties. Cook worked for
Redfin as an Associate Agent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Edward Quintilone, II, Esq.
      Andrew H. Haas, Esq.
      Alejandro Quinones, Esq.
      QUINTILONE AND ASSOCIATES
      22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
      Lake Forest, CA 92630−4961
      Tel: (949) 458−9675
      Fax: (949) 458−9679
      Email: req@quintlaw.com
             ahh@quintlaw.com
             axq@quintlaw.com


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Schwebel Sues Over Violation FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------
Avrohom Schwebel, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Resurgent Capital Services, LP,
LVNV Funding, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendant, Case No.
7:19-cv-08821 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2019), is a class action brought
on behalf of a class of consumers alleging violation of the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act.

Prior to April 5, 2019, an obligation was allegedly incurred to
Credit One Bank, N.A. Defendant LVNV, a debt collector and the
subsequent owner of the Credit One Bank, N.A. debt, contracted the
Defendant Resurgent to collect the alleged debt. On April 5, 2019,
Defendant Resurgent sent the Plaintiff an initial contact notice
regarding the alleged debt owed to Defendant LVNV. The first
paragraph states that the Defendant Resurgent has "initiated a
review of the inquiry we recently received." This implies that the
account is already under review, yet the bottom paragraph says that
the consumer can dispute the debt within 30 days. The Plaintiff
contends that the language is misleading and confusing to the
consumer because one paragraph leads him to believe that their
account is already under review and that he does not need to
dispute the debt and another paragraph says he has thirty days to
dispute his debt.

The Plaintiff alleges he incurred an informational injury because
the Defendants falsely describe the requirements for a dispute,
thus leaving the consumer confused as to the proper procedures to
dispute his debt.  The Defendants' false statement overshadowed
Plaintiff's right to have the debt validated since it misleads him
to believe that his account is under review and is no further
dispute is needed. As a result of the Defendants' deceptive,
misleading and unfair debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has
been damaged, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of
Rockland.

Resurgent is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile
and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is
to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


RMJC, JNC: Filshill Seeks Minimum Wages for Exotic Dancers
----------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA FILSHILL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RMJC, JNC. D/B/A SHOW AND
TEL SHOWBAR; KEVIN STONE, and RAYMOND MILES, Individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03252-HB (E.D. Pa., July 25, 2019),
alleges that Defendants misclassified dancers as independent
contractors and failed to compensate Plaintiff at the federally
mandated minimum wage rate, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage.

The Defendants required Plaintiff to work as an exotic dancer at
its adult entertainment club, but refused to compensate her at the
applicable minimum wage.  In fact, Defendants refused to compensate
Plaintiff whatsoever for any hours worked. The Plaintiff's only
compensation was in the form of tips from club patrons. Moreover,
Plaintiff was required to divide her tips with Defendants and other
employees who do not customarily receive tips, the lawsuit
adds.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jonathan W. Chase, Esq.
          RUPPERT MANES NARAHARI
          1628 JFK Blvd, Suite 1650
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 475 3504
          Facsimile: (215) 734 2466
          E-mail: jc@rmn-law.com

               - and -

          Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: gassaad@kennedyhodges.com

SAN ANTONIO, TX: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER M. RAMIREZ ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, Defendant, Case
No. 5:19-cv-01166 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 26, 2019) is a lawsuit seeking
damages against Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as amended. Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated employees, seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
statutory liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

RAMIREZ and other similarly situated employees worked more than 40
hours in at least one workweek during the 3 years before this
Complaint was filed. The Defendant did not pay RAMIREZ one and
one-half her regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff RAMIREZ has been employed by the Defendnat since November
13, 2006. In 2010, RAMIREZ began serving in a GIS Analyst
position.

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS is a municipality and may be served
through its City Clerk, Leticia Vacek, at City Hall, 100 Military
Plaza, San Antonio, Texas 78205.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Melissa Morales Fletcher, Esq.
     THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
     6243 W. Interstate 10, Suite 132
     San Antonio, TX 78201
     Phone: (210) 225-0811
     Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
     Email: Melissa@themoralesfirm.com


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Faces Goins Suit Alleging FEHA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
RAPHAEL GOINS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, Case No.
CGC-19-579505 (Cal. Super., Sept. 24, 2019), alleges violations of
the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Mr. Goins accuses the City of violating FEHA based on his physical
disabilities and engagement in protected activities, namely his
requests for reasonable accommodation.  He seeks damages for
himself and injunctive relief for himself and others similarly
situated arising from the Defendant's failure to establish and
maintain procedures designed to ensure prompt and appropriate
responses to requests for reasonable accommodation and failure to
train staff to proficiency regarding an employee's rights and an
employer's responsibilities under the FEHA.

On June 5, 2012, the Plaintiff injured his left shoulder while
opening the Garden Gate at the de Young Museum, resulting in
limitations at various times in working, lifting, pushing, and
pulling.  At all relevant times, the Plaintiff was an individual
with physical disabilities that at various times limited his
ability to engage in the major life activities of working, lifting,
pushing, and pulling, as defined in Government Code Section 12926.
The Defendant knew of the Plaintiff's physical disabilities through
his disclosures, his health care providers' notes and/or
certifications, and workers compensation documentation. The
Plaintiff is an individual with mental disabilities that at various
times limited his ability to engage in the major life activities of
working, sleeping, social interactions, and coping with stressful
situations, as defined in Government Code Section 12926, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a part-time Class 8226
Museum Guard at the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco on November
1, 2003.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO is a public entity, and the entity
named as the Plaintiff's employer on his W2s.

Plaintiff Raphael Goins, of San Francisco, California, appears pro
se.[BN]


SANTA CLARA CORRECTIONAL: Allen Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SEAN ALLEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY
CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-02230-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge Morrison C. England,
Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District California
granted the Defendants' two Motions to Dismiss filed pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Through the present class action, the Plaintiffs seek to recover
so-called "fair share" fees on behalf of themselves and on behalf
of a putative class of all former and current public employees
represented by Defendant Santa Clara County Correctional Peace
Officers Association.  According to the Plaintiffs, those fees were
involuntarily collected under Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, to pay
for collective bargaining activities in violation of the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution.  In addition,
Plaintiff Allen contends his constitutional rights were further
violated when, post-Janus, the Union deducted membership dues from
two of his paychecks.  Finally, the Plaintiffs contend that
California's exclusive representation laws further violate their
constitutional rights.

The Defendants lodged two Motions to Dismiss the Allen action.

On review, Judge England holds that the Plaintiffs' first cause of
action for refund of unconstitutionally compelled payments fails
because the Defendants are entitled to a good faith defense.  The
thoughtful analysis in Hernandez v. AFSCME California is directly
on point.  The Ninth Circuit has held that private parties may be
entitled to a good-faith defense to a claim under Section 1983
where they did their best follow the law and had no reason to
suspect that there would be a constitutional challenge to their
actions.  Thus, the union is entitled to the good-faith defense as
a matter of law.

Faced with this good-faith defense, the Plaintiffs seek to avoid it
by characterizing their demand for a refund as an equitable claim
for restitution rather than a legal claim for damages. Even if this
distinction is well taken, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs'
refund claim fails for two independent reasons.  First, they cannot
simply plead around defenses by labeling the proposed remedy as
equitable rather than legal.  Instead, the Court must look to the
substance of the remedy sought rather than the label placed on that
remedy.  Second, the Court would reach the same conclusion in a
suit in equity.  The essence of equity jurisdiction is that federal
courts have the flexibility to mould each decree to the necessities
of the particular case.

The Plaintiffs has argued that a defendant is never allowed to
enrich itself by keeping property it took in violation of another's
constitutional rights.  The Judge finds that the union Defendants
are private parties who were not responsible for passing the
legislation that is now unconstitutional.  Instead, they relied on
the type of statute the Supreme Court explicitly approved of in
Abood [v. Detroit Bd. of Educ.], 431 U.S. [209,] 222-23 [(1977)].

Accordingly, the Judge dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims.

Nor is Plaintiff Allen entitled to relief on the second cause of
action for violation of California Government Code Section
1157.12(b).  It is unclear to the Judge how the union's de minimis
deduction and return of funds from two paychecks -- funds that were
apparently not expended toward the union's collective bargaining
purposes in any event -- give rise to a constitutional violation.
Regardless, those funds were returned, and Mr. Allen's claim is
thus moot, the Court finds.

Judge England grants the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss with leave
to amend.  Not later than 20 days following the date his Memorandum
and Order is electronically filed, the Plaintiffs may (but are not
required to) file an amended complaint.  If no amended complaint is
timely filed, the action will be deemed dismissed with prejudice
upon no further notice to the parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/S7Btjm from Leagle.com.

Sean Allen, Stanley Graham, Bradley Taylor, Juanita Wiggins, James
Kirkland, Eric Liddle & Antonio Richardson, Plaintiffs, represented
by Bradley A. Benbrook -- brad@benbrooklawgroup.com -- Benbrook Law
Group, Jonathan F. Mitchell, Mitchell Law, PLLC, pro hac vice &
Talcott J. Franklin -- tal@talcottfranklin.com -- Talcott Franklin
P.C., pro hac vice.

Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers Association,
Defendant, represented by Isaac Sean Stevens --
istevens@mastagni.com -- Mastagni Holstedt, APC.

County of Santa Clara, Defendant, represented by Nancy J. Clark,
Office of the County Counsel.

Xavier Becerra, Defendant, represented by Anthony Paul O'Brien,
Attorney General's Office for the State of California.

William D. Brice, Movant, represented by Steven R. Burlingham,
Gary, Till, Burlingham & Lynch.


SENSA PRODUCTS: Renewed Bid to Certify Class in Conde Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE CONDE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SENSA, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-51 JLS (WVG) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Janis L.
Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California denied Stokes' Renewed Motion for Class Certification.

On January 7, 2014, several complaints were filed against Sensa
Products LLC regarding its marketing of a line of weight loss
products that consumers were instructed would result in weight loss
if sprinkled on their food.

A first complaint was filed by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC")
against Sensa, Adam Goldenberg, and Dr. Hirsch, alleging unfair or
deceptive practices and false advertisements.  The FTC and the FTC
Defendants entered into a stipulated judgment for $46.5 million,
later reduced to $26.5 million because of Sensa's deteriorating
financial condition.  As part of the settlement, the FTC Defendants
also were restrained from, among other things, falsely representing
that any product causes weight loss. Following extensive
publicization of the FTC settlement, the FTC mailed over 477,000
refund checks totaling over $26 million to consumers who had bought
Sensa's products.

A second complaint, filed on the same date of the FTC complaint,
was commenced by Jose Conde in the instant putative class action
against Sensa, alleging causes of action for violation of
California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and violation of the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").  

Two related cases were filed subsequently -- Delaney et al. v.
Sensa, filed Sept. 8, 2014, and Stokes v. Sensa, filed Oct. 1,
2014.

On Oct. 17, 2014, Sensa filed for bankruptcy.  Nonetheless, on Nov.
3, 2014, the Delaney Plaintiffs moved the Court for an order
consolidating the three cases, which the Court granted the motion
on April 13, 2015.

After consolidation, on May 13, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint against Sensa; Dr. Alan Hirsh; and General
Nutrition Corp. and General Nutrition Centers, Inc. ("GNC"),
alleging causes of action for violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act; breach of express warranty; breach of implied
warranties; violation of the CLRA; violation of the FAL; violation
of the unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent/deceptive prongs of the
UCL; violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act; violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law; and negligent misrepresentation.  On Sept.
11, 2015, the Delaney Plaintiffs and GNC settled, and Ms. Delaney
dismissed without prejudice the class claims against GNC.

Following the settlement and dismissal of GNC, only Ms. Stokes
moved on Nov. 16, 2015, to file an amended complaint.  The Court
granted the request on Dec. 28, 2015, and, on Jan. 14, 2016, Ms.
Stokes filed an amended complaint against Sensa and various other
companies and individuals, dropping the cause of action under
Pennsylvania law and adding a cause of action for alter ego/veil
piercing to hold the other Defendants liable for the conduct of
Sensa.  

On Nov. 1, 2016, Ms. Stokes filed the operative Third Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint against Sensa.  Generally, she
alleges that Sensa produced various weight-loss products, which
were "tastant crystals" or "sprinkles" that users would sprinkle on
their food.  Originally, as marketed by Sensa, the products would
allow users to "lose up to 30lbs or more in just 6 months" without
requiring the user to diet or exercise.  In connection with the FTC
action, in late 2013 or early 2014, Sensa Products changed the
'lose up to 30lbs or more in just 6 months' statement to '9.5
pounds in 6 months' and/or '10 pounds in 3+ months.'

The Plaintiff stated she relied on the labeling for the Class
Products and alleges the Products are ineffective, the Products
have not been "clinically shown" to cause weight loss, and the
system is not "supported by impressive clinical results."  Ms.
Stokes further alleged that Sensa, IBH, and TSI operated as a
single enterprise.  She therefore sought to recover against IBH and
TSI, who remain solvent.

On Feb. 9, 2018, Ms. Stokes sought certification of a nationwide
class defined as all persons in the United States who purchased
Defendants' Sensa Weight-Loss System on or after Aug. 22, 2012.
After a September 2018 hearing, the Court denied without prejudice
Ms. Stokes' motion, finding that Ms. Stokes had not met her burden
in establishing that: (1) the class is ascertainable, (2) common
issues predominate over individual issues, and (3) the class action
is superior to other methods.  Concluding that the identified
deficiencies might be curable, the Court granted Ms. Stokes leave
to file a renewed motion.

Ms. Stokes filed the instant motion on Feb. 21, 2019.  She now
seeks to certify a nationwide class defined as all persons in the
United States who purchased the Sensa Weight-Loss System on or
after Aug. 22, 2012 excluding purchases made directly from Sensa,
Inc. and Sensa Products, LLC.  Alternatively, Ms. Stokes seeks to
certify a Florida class comprised of all persons who purchased the
Sensa Weight-Loss System in Florida on or after August 22, 2012
excluding purchases made directly from Sensa, Inc. and Sensa
Products, LLC.

Judge Sammartino again finds that Plaintiff Stokes has not met her
burden in establishing that common issues predominate over
individual issues and the class action is superior to other
methods.  The Judge therefore denies Ms. Stokes' Renewed Motion for
Class Certification.  The parties are ordered to meet and confer
and, within seven days of the electronic docketing of the Order to
file a joint status report.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/2EuUGc from Leagle.com.

Mollie Delaney et al. are represented by Julia A. Luster, Esq. --
jaluster@seyfarth.com -- Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. --
ltfisher@bursor.com -- and Annick Marie Persinger, Esq. --
apersinger@bursor.com -- BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.

Susan Grace Stokes is represented by Brian Philip Murray, Esq. --
BMurray@glancylaw.com -- Lee Albert, Esq. -- LAlbert@glancylaw.com
-- Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. -- LGlancy@glancylaw.com -- and Mark
Samuel Greenstone, Esq. -- MGreenstone@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY
BINKOW AND GOLDBERG LLP -- Julia A. Luster, Esq. --
jaluster@seyfarth.com -- Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. --
ltfisher@bursor.com -- and Annick Marie Persinger, Esq. --
apersinger@bursor.com -- BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. -- Edmond E.
Koester, Esq. -- ekoester@cyklawfirm.com -- COLEMAN YOVANOVICH AND
KOESTER PA.

Don Ressler, Adam Goldenberg, Kristen Chadwick, Scott Whittier,
Stacey Kivel, Elizabeth Francis, Jeff Campbell, Jason Morano,
Katelyn O'Reilly, Michael Shay, Cody Congleton, IB Holding, LLC,
also known as Intelligent Beauty Holding, LLC & TechStyle, Inc.,
formerly known as JustFab, Inc. formerly known as Just Fabulous,
Inc., Defendants, represented by Valentine Antonavich Shalamitski
-- vas@msk.com -- Mitchell Silberberg Knupp LLP.

John Drew, Defendant, represented by Stephen Hibbard --
sdhibbard@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.


SOCAL EDISON: Kenny et al. Sue to Recover Overpayments
------------------------------------------------------
BLAIR KENNY, and JAVAD VALLEIE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV32263 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Sept. 11, 2019) seeks to recover overpayments improperly
collected by the Defendant.

The Plaintiffs alleges in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to accurately assign customers to Baseline Regions based on maps
submitted to and approved by the California Public Utilities
Commission. The Defendant has improperly shifted customers living
within the borders of zones with higher energy allotments into
adjacent zones with lower energy allotments. As a result of the
Defendant's conduct, numerous consumers in Southern California have
been locked in a cycle of overpayment for electricity.

Southern California Edison Company provides energy production and
distribution services. The Company generates electricity through
its hydroelectric, coal, and nuclear power plants, as well as
distributes electricity. Southern California Edison serves
customers in the United States and Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rafey Balabanian, Esq.
          Lily Hough, Esq.
          Daniel Schneider, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend St, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  lhough@edelson.com
                  dschneider@edelson.com


SOUTHEASTERN LANDSCAPE: Montes Seek OT Pay for Landscapers
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MONTES, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SOUTHEASTERN LANDSCAPE CORP. and
DAVID M. CSUKA, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00215-RWS (N.D. Ga., Sept. 22, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime premium pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants employ landscapers such as Plaintiff to install
grass, arrange plants, and clean debris from worksites.

The Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages, despite working in
excess of 40 hours per week throughout his employment.

The exact number of employees who have suffered the same unpaid
overtime wage injury as Plaintiff, and have yet to receive redress
is unknown at this time, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants operate a landscaping company called Southeastern
Landscaping Corp., based out of Hoschton, Georgia.[BN]

          Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
          1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (678) 330-2909
          Facsimile: (678) 638-6201
          E-mail: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Garay Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Marco Garay, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Southwest Airlines Corp. and Does
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG18926106 (Cal.
Super., October 25, 2018), was removed to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on August
29, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-05452.

Garay seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest, redress for failure
to authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory penalties
for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time
penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely
pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment,
reimbursement of business-related expenses, injunctive relief and
other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
interest under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law and
the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shaun Setareh, Esq.
      William M. Pao, Esq.
      SETAREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 888-7771
      Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
      Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
             william@setarehlaw.com

Southwest is represented by:

      Richard H. Rahm, Esq.
      Angela J. Rafoth, Esq.
      C. Robert Harrington, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
      333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 433-1940
      Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
      Email: rrahm@littler.com
             arafoth@littler.com
             rharrington@littler.com


ST LOUIS, MO: Protesters File Suit Over Illegal Arrests
-------------------------------------------------------
ALICIA STREET, RONALD HARRIS, FUDAIL MCCAIN, ASHLEY THEIS, and
NICOLE WARRINGTON, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly
situated persons v. LT. COL. LAWRENCE O'TOOLE, et al., in their
individual capacities and CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, Case No.
4:19-cv-02590 (E.D. Mo., Sept. 17, 2019), arises from arrests made
relating to protests after the 2017 Stockley Verdict.

The other Officer Defendants are LT. COL. GERALD LEYSHOCK, MAJ.
KENNETH KEGEL, CAPTAIN ERIC LARSON, CAPTAIN STEVEN MUELLER, LT.
KIMBERLY ALLEN, LT. SCOTT BOYHER, LT. DANIEL CHITWOOD, LT. DONNA
GARRETT, LT. DARLA GRAY, LT. BILL KIPHART, LT. CHRISTI MARKS, LT.
MICHAEL MAYO, LT. TIMOTHY SACHS, SGT. CHRISTY ALLEN, SGT. KEITH
BARRETT, SGT. RONALD BERGMANN, SGT. MICHAEL BINZ, SGT. MICHAEL
BOLL, SGT. JAMES BUCKERIDGE, SGT. JOE CARRETERO, SGT. ANTHONY
CARUSO, SGT. JAMES CLARK, SGT. JAMES CLARK, SGT. ADAM DUKE, SGT.
KELLY FISHER, SGT. BRANDT FLOWERS, SGT. NICOLE GENTILINI, SGT.
SAMUEL GILMAN, SGT. PATRICK HAUG, SGT. RICHARD HELLMEIER, SGT.
RODNEY HICKMAN, SGT. RANDY JEMERSON, SGT. JUSTIN JOHNSON, SGT.
MATTHEW KARNOWSKI, SGT. ROBERT LAMMERT, SGT. JOE LANKFORD, SGT.
ROBERT LASCHOBER, SGT. TOM LONG, SGT. KYLE MACK, SGT. MIKE MANDLE,
SGT. MICHAEL MARKS, SGT. ORLANDO MORRISON, SGT. JAMES MURPHY, SGT.
DENNIS NEAL, SGT. PATRICIA NIJKAMP, SGT. KENNETH NIZICK, SGT.
DONALD RE, SGT. BRIAN ROSSOMANNO, SGT. BRADLEY ROY, SGT. JOHN
SABIN, SGT. DANIEL SCHULTE, SGT. BRIAN SEPPI, SGT. TIMOTHY TURNER,
SGT. SCOTT VALENTINE, SGT. DONNELL WALTERS, SGT. SCOTT WEIDLER,
SGT. NICHOLAS WEITE, SGT. CAROLYN WIENER, SGT. ANTHONY WOZNIAK,
DET. JAMES BAIN, DET. KEVIN BENTLY, DET. JASON BRANDHORST, DET.
MATTHEW BURLE, DET. DANIEL CHAMBLIN, DET. MICKEY CHRIST, DET. TRACY
COLE , DET. GASTON COLEMAN, DET. DEANDRE DAVIS, DET. JESSE DYSON,
DET. BRUCE EDMOND, DET. RICHARD EDWARDS, DET. AMON FIGGS, DET.
SHAVISTE GRANDBERRY, DET. TRACY HALLQUIST, DET. GEORGE HENRY, DET.
JANIKA HUMPHREY, DET. MARILYN JOHNSON, DET. DENEANE JONES, DET.
PAUL KOSEDNAR, DET. DOUGLAS MCCLEAN, DET. TERRON MURPHY, DET.
MICHAEL SHAW, DET. JAMES STAGGE, DET. THOMAS STRODE, DET. KEATON
STRONG, DET. KELLI SWINTON, DET. JARRED THACKER, DET. STEPHEN WALSH
IV, DET. BRANDON WEBB, DET. NIJAUH WOODARD, DET. MARQUISE WREN,
DET. BRANDON WYMS, OFF. GERALD ADAMS, OFF. ALFRED ALLMON, OFF. JON
AMESQUITA, OFF. JOHN ANDERSON, OFF. ERICA ANDERSON, OFF. KEVIN
BAMBRICK, OFF. JERMAINE BANKS, OFF. BRYAN BARTON, OFF. BENJAMIN
BAYLESS, OFF. MATTHEW BEDELL, OFF. JACOB BIAS, OFF. MARCUS BIGGINS,
OFF. JAMES BINDER, OFF. ANNA BIONDOLILLO, OFF. TIMOTHY BOCKSKOPF,
OFF. MATTHEW BOESTER, OFF. TAMARRIS BOHANNON, OFF. DUSTIN BOONE,
OFF. CHRISTOPHER BRAMLEY, OFF. BRIAN BREWER-MOORE, OFF. LUCAS
BROCKMEYER, OFF. RYAN BUSCEMI, OFF. MICHAEL CALCATERRA, OFF.
BENJAMIN CEHIC, OFF. MICHAEL CHELI, OFF. BRIAN B CHELI, OFF.
KRISTIN CHELUCCI, OFF. PAUL CHESTER, OFF. RUSSELL CHRISTIAN, OFF.
MARCO CHRISTLIEB, OFF. BRANDON CLARK, OFF. DANIEL CLAUSS, OFF.
THEARN CLEMENTS, OFF. KANISHA COLEMAN, OFF. ANTHONY COLL, OFF.
BAILEY COLLETTA, OFF. JULIUS CONNER, OFF. ROBERT COOPER, OFF. DAVID
CROCKER, OFF. IAN CSAPO, OFF. NADJA CURT, OFF. KEVIN DANG, OFF.
STEVEN DAUGHERTY, OFF. PATRICK DAUT, OFF. JEREMY DAVIS, OFF. EMILY
DAVIS, OFF. ROLAND DEGREGORIO, OFF. BRIAN DEMATTEIS, OFF. WILLIAM
DOUGLAS, OFF. NATHAN DRESCH, OFF. JODIE EATON, OFF. RICHARD EAVES,
OFF. SAM EDWARDS, OFF. MATTHEW EERNISSE, OFF. STEVEN FANZ, OFF.
BRENT FINCHER, OFF. STEVEN FISCHER, OFF. ZACHARIAH FOLTZ, OFF. SEAN
FORTUNE, OFF. GLENNON FRIGERIO, OFF. GREGORY FROST, OFF. AARON
GADDIS, OFF. LUIS GARIBAY, OFF. ADAM GARIBAY, OFF. JAZMON DOMINIQUE
GARRETT, OFF. JOHN GENTILINI, OFF. RYAN GIBBONS, OFF. EDWARD
GONZALES, OFF. BRIAN GONZALES, OFF. DERECK GREEN, OFF. SHAWN
GRIGGS, OFF. KATHLEEN GUTJAHR, OFF. JONATHAN HAIRE, OFF. TOM
HALFHILL, OFF. JOSHUA HALL, OFF. NICHOLAS HARBAUGH, OFF. THOMAS
HARGER, OFF. JAMES HARRIS III, OFF. ZEME'Z HARRIS, OFF. BENJAMIN
HAWKINS, OFF. AMBER HAWKINS, OFF. HENRY HAYDEN, OFF. NICHOLAS
HAYDEN, OFF. BRIAN HAYES, OFF. RANDY HAYS, OFF. ANDREW HEIMBERGER,
OFF. ERIN HEIN, OFF. NICK HENDERSON, OFF. ERIC HENRY, OFF. MICHAEL
HINES, OFF. TIMOTHY HOLLMAN, OFF. NICHOLAS HOLT, OFF. DUSTIN
HOSKINS, OFF. TAYLOR HOSNA, OFF. CARLUS INGRAM, OFF. MATTHEW JAMES,
OFF. JEREMY JOHNSON, OFF. REGINALD JONES, OFF. COURTNEY JORDAN,
OFF. MICHAEL JOYNER, OFF. JOSH KAMPER, OFF. JOSEPH KERTH, OFF.
ZOHAIB KHAN, OFF. DANIEL KIM, OFF. DAVID KING, OFF. AUSTIN KING,
OFF. JEREMIAH KOERPER, OFF. STEVE KORTE, OFF. RYAN KOTASKA, OFF.
FRANCIS KOZIACKI, OFF. DAVID KRAPF, OFF. ABBY KRULL, OFF. JARED
KRUMM, OFF. STEVEN LANDERS, OFF. AMY LAZ, OFF. LAWRENCE LAZEWSKI,
OFF. TRENTON LEE, OFF. NICHOLAS LEE, OFF. BRIAN LEMONS, OFF. RYAN
LINDHORST, OFF. JEFFREY LONG, OFF. RONALD LUDWIG, OFF. ALAN MALONE,
OFF. JOSEPH MARCANTANO, OFF. JOSHUA MARTIN, OFF. SEAN MARTINI, OFF.
NICHOLAS MARTORANO, OFF. KEVIN MATAYA, OFF. DAMON MAXWELL, OFF.
COLLIN MCANANY, OFF. JOSHUA MCBEE, OFF. MATTHEW MCCOMY, OFF. LUKE
MCDONNELL, OFF. JANE MCKIBBEN, OFF. TIMOTHY MCNAMARA, OFF.
ALEXANDER MESNAGE, OFF. MICHAEL MISSEL, OFF. JOSEPH MORRELL, OFF.
JOSHUA MORRISON, OFF. JOHN MOTON, OFF. NICHOLAS MUEHLHEAUSLER, OFF.
AARON MUENDLEIN, OFF. SEAN MURPHY, OFF. RYAN MURPHY, OFF. BRIAN
MURPHY, OFF. BIANCA MYERS, OFF. CHRISTOPHER MYERS, OFF. EDWARD
NAPIER, OFF. CHRISTOPHER NAREZ, OFF. COURTNEY NASH, OFF. PERRIN
NEWMAN, OFF. MICHAEL NIETHE, OFF. CARIANNE NOGA, OFF. JOHN O'BRIEN,
OFF. MICHAEL O'CALLAGHAN, OFF. UZOMA ONWUMERE, OFF. NICOLA ORLANDO,
OFF. STEPHE ORTINAU, OFF. DANIEL OSORIO, OFF. ERIC PARRISH, OFF.
JAMIE PARTEE, OFF. AUSTIN PATTON, OFF. KEITH PAULITSCH, OFF. MARK
PFIEFFER, OFF. JOSEPH PIERCE, OFF. LAQUAN PIERCE, OFF. JAIMIE
PITTERLE, OFF. OLIVER POGGIOLI, OFF. CHRISTINA POWDERLY, OFF. JACK
RANDOLPH, OFF. AHMAN RASOOL, OFF. PATRICK RIORDAN, OFF. CORNELL
ROBINSON, OFF. MEGAN RODGERS, OFF. JOSEPH RODRIGUEZ, OFF. STEPHANIE
ROGERS, OFF. ROSA ROJAS, OFF. MICHAEL RONZIO, OFF. GEOFFREY ROSE,
OFF. MICHAEL ROSS, OFF. JOSEPH ROSS , OFF. DAVID RUDOLPH, OFF. GARY
RUFFIN, OFF. TERRENCE RUFFIN, OFF. TREVOR RUSSELL, OFF. RONALD
RUST, OFF. STEVEN SAITO, OFF. OHMED SAMIH, OFF. KYLE SANTA, OFF.
JOSEPH SCALZO, OFF. GREGORY SCHAFFER, OFF. RICHARD SCHICKER, OFF.
ANDREW SCHMICK, OFF. JOSEPH SCHMITT, OFF. APRIL SCHNETZER, OFF.
STEPHEN IV SCHROEDER, OFF. CHRISTOPHER SEGER, OFF. JONATHAN
SELBERT, OFF. JONATHAN SENF, OFF. MATTHEW SHAW, OFF. KEITH SHELTON,
OFF. MATTHEW SHOULTS, OFF. QUINCY SILVER, OFF. TAWANNA SIMMS, OFF.
KORI SIMON, OFF. MITCHEL SIMPHER, OFF. ELIJAH SIMPSON, OFF.
SISAVATH SINGHARATH, OFF. ASHLEY SMITH, OFF. QUINCY SMITH, OFF.
JACOB STEIN, OFF. WILLIAM STEVENSON, OFF. SAMUEL STEWART, OFF.
JOSLYN STONE, OFF. THOMAS STRECKFUSS, OFF. BRIAN STREHL, OFF.
NATHAN STRICKLAND, OFF. STEVEN STROHMEYER, OFF. ROBERT STUART, OFF.
JOSEPH TATE, OFF. SOLOMON THURMAN, OFF. ANTON TREIS, OFF. ROBERT
TRIM, OFF. WILLIAM TRIPLETT, OFF. CHAD TULLOCK, OFF. ANTHONY
VALENZA, OFF. JONATHAN VANARSDALE, OFF. PHILIP VONDERHEYDT, OFF.
ERICH VONNIDA, OFF. NHONG VORACHACK, OFF. PAUL WACTOR, OFF. CHARLES
WALL, OFF. RAMELLE WALLACE, OFF. MARTINOUS VASHON III WALLS III,
OFF. BRADLEY WALWORTH, OFF. JEANINE WATERS, OFF. MATTHEW WELLE,
OFF. DUANE WELLS, OFF. RANDALL WELSCH, OFF. LINDSEY WETHINGTON,
OFF. ANDRE WHITE, OFF. CRISTINA WIDBIN, OFF. JOANN WILLIAMS , OFF.
DARNELL WILLIS, OFF. LOUIS WILSON, OFF. ANDREW WISMAR, OFF. JAMES
WOOD, OFF. JAMES WOOTEN, OFF. SAMUEL ZOUGLAS, OFF. RICHARD
ZURMUEHLEN, and OFF. JAMES ZWILLING.

On September 15, 2017, after a four-day bench trial, a Missouri
circuit court judge acquitted Officer Jason Stockley of the
first-degree murder of Anthony Lamar Smith.  This acquittal shocked
many in the St. Louis community as an audio recording submitted
into evidence in the trial captured Officer Stockley saying "we're
killing this motherfucker, don't you know" in reference to Mr.
Smith.

Following the announcement of the Stockley Verdict, public protests
began at multiple locations in St. Louis and surrounding
communities.  To many in the St. Louis community, Officer
Stockley's acquittal was yet another example of white St.
Louis-area police officers killing African-American citizens with
impunity, the Plaintiffs assert.  They add that in the view of the
protestors, the acquittal further supported their view that the
American criminal justice system does not believe that Black lives
matter.

On September 17, 2017, officers from the St. Louis Metropolitan
Police Department ("SLMPD") illegally seized and subjected the
Named Plaintiffs and other protesters to violence without probable
cause and in contravention of the U.S. Constitution and Missouri
law, according to the complaint.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendant Officers either directly violated the Named Plaintiffs
and the putative class's civil rights or conspired to do the same.
They add that the Defendant Officers unlawfully battered, arrested,
prosecuted, and inflicted emotional distress on the Named
Plaintiffs and the putative class and/or conspired to do the same.

Defendant the City of St. Louis, Missouri, is a first-class city,
and a political subdivision of the State of Missouri duly organized
under the Constitution of Missouri.

SLMPD is an instrumentality of the City of St. Louis, Missouri,
organized and controlled pursuant to the Statutes of the State of
Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Javad M. Khazaeli, Esq.
          James R. Wyrsch, Esq.
          Kiara N. Drake, Esq.
          KHAZAELI WYRSCH LLC
          911 Washington Avenue, Suite 211
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 288-0777
          Facsimile: (314) 400-7701
          E-mail: james.wyrsch@kwlawstl.com
                  javad.khazaeli@kwlawstl.com
                  kiara.drake@kwlawstl.com


SUNDIAL GROWERS: Huang Files IPO-Related Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
YIMIN HUANG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. SUNDIAL GROWERS INC., TORSTEN KUENZLEN,
JAMES KEOUGH, EDWARD HELLARD, GREG MILLS, GREGORY TURNBULL, LEE
TAMKEE, ELIZABETH CANNON, COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, BMO NESBITT BURNS
INC., RBC DOMINION SECURITIES INC., BARCLAYS CAPITAL CANADA INC.,
CIBC WORLD MARKETS INC., and SCOTIA CAPITAL INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-08913 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2019), is a securities class
action brought on behalf of persons, who purchased or otherwise
acquired Sundial securities pursuant and/or traceable to Sundial's
Registration Statement issued in connection with Sundial's August
1, 2019 initial public stock offering, seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.

On or about July 30, 2019, Sundial filed with the SEC an amended
registration statement on Form F-1 (Registration No. 333-232573),
which was signed by the Individual Defendants and was declared
effective on August 1, 2019. On August 1, 2019, Sundial filed with
the SEC the final prospectus for the IPO of common stock on Form
424B4 (the "Prospectus"), which forms part of the Registration
Statement, and sold 11 million shares of Sundial common stock to
the investing public at $13 per share for gross proceeds of
approximately $134.4 million, excluding $8.58 million in
commissions paid to the Underwriter Defendants.

The Registration Statement represented that Sundial was a producer
of "high-quality cannabis in small batches" and that "we produce
high-quality, consistent cannabis" and that the Company's operating
model results in "strong customer loyalty." These representations
were untrue statements of material fact because, before the IPO,
due to material quality issues, Zenabis Global Inc., a Sundial
customer, had returned or rejected a total of 554 kg of cannabis
(approximately 1,221 pounds) to Sundial, according to the
complaint.

Indeed, the cannabis shipped by Sundial to Zenabis was low quality
and was returned to Sundial because it contained visible mold,
parts of rubber gloves and other non-cannabis material. Moreover,
the Registration Statement purported to warn investors about risks
of failure of Sundial's quality control systems, contamination of,
or damage to, its cannabis inventory, while failing to disclose
that a material failure had already occurred. These representations
in the Registration Statement contained untrue statements of
material fact because, before the IPO, Sundial's quality control
systems had already been negatively impacted as Sundial had already
experienced a material failure or deterioration of such quality
control systems, and Sundial's quality control systems failed to
operate effectively and successfully.

Indeed, at the time of the IPO, Sundial failed to disclose that:
(1) Sundial failed to supply saleable cannabis in line with
contractual obligations to Zenabis; and (2) due to material quality
issues, Zenabis had to return or reject a total of 554 kg of
cannabis from Sundial, valued at approximately U.S. $1.9 million
(C$2.5 million). Since the IPO, and as a result of the disclosure
of material adverse facts omitted from Sundial's Registration
Statement, Sundial's stock price has fallen substantially below its
IPO price, damaging Plaintiff and Class members, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Sundial shares pursuant and/or traceable to
the IPO and was damaged thereby.

Sundial purports to be a producer and marketer of premium cannabis
for the adult-use market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUNROAD CV AUTO: Fails to Pay Prope Wages, Kyriakides Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL KYRIAKIDES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNROAD CV AUTO, INC. dba TOYOTA
CHULA VISTA; SUNROAD DEALERSHIPS CORPORATION; SUNROAD HOLDING
CORPORATION; SUNROAD CV MOTORS, LLC; SUNROAD AUTO, LLC; and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00047879-CU-OE-CTL
(Cal. Super., Sept. 10, 2019) is an action against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize
and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements,
and reimburse necessary business expenses.

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

Sunroad CV Auto, Inc. dba Toyota Chula Vista is engaged in car
delearship. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Sullivan, Esq.
          Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
          Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq.
          Andrea J. Torres-Figueroa, Esq.
          SULLIVAN LAW GROUP, APC
          2330 Third Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 702-6760
          Facsimile: (619) 702-6761
          E-mail: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                  yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                  ryan@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                  atorres@sullivanlawgroupapc.com


TOTAL MERCHANT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Abante Rooter Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOTAL MERCHANT SERVICES,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-05711 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 11, 2019)
seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited
calls.

Total Merchant Services LLC provides a full service credit card
merchant account and processing services. The Company offers
terminal equipment, competitive processing rates, cash advances,
check processing services, and gift card programs. Total Merchant
Services serves customers in the United States and Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard T. Drury, Esq.
          Rebecca Davis, Esq.
          LOZEAU DRURY LLP
          410 12th Street, Suite 250
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 836-4200
          Facsimile: (510) 836-4205
          E-mail: richard@lozeaudrury.com
                  rebecca@lozeaudrury.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com


TRUDO REALTY: Faces Johnson Suit Alleging FLSA and BIPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAZJANAE JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUDO REALTY, LLC and CHRISTOPHER
CATON Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06371 (N.D., Ill., Sept. 25,
2019), accuses the Defendants of failing to pay overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
and the Chicago Ordinance on Minimum Wage.

To avoid paying workers minimum wage and overtime, the Defendants
misclassify workers, including Plaintiff, as independent
contractors, according to the complaint.  The workers, however, are
not independent contractors, the Plaintiff argues. The Defendants
intentionally did not pay Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees proper overtime wages of one and one-half time their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked above forty hours in a
work week and also failed to pay them their minimum wages.

The Plaintiff also brings individual and class claims under the
Biometric Information Privacy Act. She contends that the Defendants
continue to collect, store, and use workers biometric data in
violation of the BIPA. Trudo similarly failed to provide employees
with a written, publicly available policy identifying its retention
schedule, and guidelines for permanently destroying employees'
fingerprints when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining
the fingerprints is no longer relevant, as required by the BIPA. An
employee who leaves their job does so without any knowledge of when
their biometric identifiers will be removed from Trudo's
databases--or if they ever will be, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants within the past three years as
an employee, although they attempted to misclassify her as an
independent contractor.

Trudo is a Chicago-based real estate firm with approximately 50
employees who work for it.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          Thalia Pacheco, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563


TWO RIVERS: Faces Paulson Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
JOHN PAULSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TWO RIVERS WATER AND FARMING COMPANY, a
Colorado corporation; JOHN R. MCKOWEN, an individual; WAYNE
HARDING, an individual; and TIMOTHY BEALL, an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02639 (D. Colo., Sept. 16, 2019) is a
class action under the Colorado Securities Act and Colorado common
law on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of GrowCo, a Colorado corporation, from January
2015 until March 2017.

Two Rivers is a Colorado corporation with its business beginning in
the development of irrigated farmland, associated water rights, and
infrastructure. In 2014, Two Rivers formed GrowCo, as a wholly
owned subsidiary, to capitalize on Colorado's burgeoning marijuana
industry.

GrowCo, Inc. constructs and leases state of the art, computer
controlled, greenhouses that enables licensed marijuana growers
with the ability to grow a higher quality more natural product at
lower costs than can be produced in the artificial growing
environment created in converted warehouses.  GrowCo is not a
licensed marijuana grower or retailer.  GrowCo does not "touch the
plant" and only provides growing infrastructure for licensed
marijuana tenants.

On May 11, 2015, GrowCo filed a Notice of Exempt Offering with the
SEC, for a securities offering of $5 million in debt securities and
warrants. Sales of securities in this offering by GrowCo and
Defendants began on March 16, 2015. On September, 7, 2016, GrowCo
amended its previous filing to change the acting CEO from Defendant
McKowen to Defendant Harding. At the same day, GrowCo, filed a
Notice of Exempt Offering with the SEC to offer $7 million in
senior exchange notes due July 1, 2021. Sales of securities in this
offering by GrowCo and Defendants began on March 16, 2016. On March
9, 2017, GrowCo filed an amendment to the previous notice stating
that the offering had been terminated as of March 9, 2017.

As part of the Securities Offerings, GrowCo and Defendants prepared
and distributed to prospective investors documents including sales
presentations, memoranda of terms, exchange note purchase
agreements, exchange agreements, investor questionnaires, and other
documents ("the Offering Documents") which purported to make
material disclosures to investors about GrowCo and the Securities
Offerings. The purpose of the GrowCo Securities Offerings was to
raise money from investors across the country to support the
operations of Defendant Two Rivers, GrowCo, a GrowCo affiliate.

However, the GrowCo Securities Offerings' Offering Documents
contained material omissions regarding McKowen, the founder of
GrowCo and Two Rivers and the key driving force behind the two
entities and the Securities Offerings, notes the complaint.

The Defendants were aware of, or recklessly disregarded, the
omissions and were aware of their materially false and misleading
nature. The Defendants had a duty to conduct adequate due diligence
as to the information in the Offering Documents before offering and
selling the GrowCo securities to investors and were reckless in
offering and selling the GrowCo securities to investors without
disclosing the facts surrounding Defendant McKowen's background,
the complaint asserts.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' material omissions,
Plaintiff and the class members purchased GrowCo securities from
Defendants and suffered losses. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff
and the class members for damages as a result of their misconduct
in an amount to be determined at the hearing of this case, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff John Paulson is an investor in GrowCo, and purchased
securities in GrowCo during the Class Period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steve A. Miller, Esq.
     Steve A. Miller, P.C.
     1625 Larimer Street, Suite 2906
     Denver, CO 80202
     Phone: (303) 892-9933
     Fax: (303) 892-8925
     Email: Sampc01@gmail.com

          - and -

     Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
     Christian A. Pfeiffer, Esq.
     GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY P.C.
     8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
     161 Washington Street
     Conshohocken, PA 19428
     Phone: (484) 342-0700
     Email: scarlato@lawgsp.com
            pfeiffer@lawgsp.com

          - and -

     Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
     GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, PC
     23250 Chagrin Blvd. Suite 100
     Beachwood, OH 44122
     Phone: (484) 342-0700
     Email: rosca@lawgsp.com

          - and -

     J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
     Brian O. Marty, Esq.
     SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE PC
     5015 Grand Ridge Dr, Ste 100
     West Des Moines, IA 50265
     Phone: (515) 223-4567
     Fax: (515) 223-8887
     Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
            marty@sagwlaw.com


ULTA SALON: Rowe Appeals Class Cert. Denial to Ninth Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Victoria Rowe and Paulina Scarpino filed an appeal from
a Court ruling entered in their lawsuit titled Victoria Rowe, et
al. v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Frag., et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-01074-PA-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 18, 2019, the
Hon. Judge Percy Anderson entered an order on Aug. 30, 2019,
denying certification of a class defined as:

    "all brand representatives that have worked in Ulta stores in
     the state of California from four years prior to the filing
     of the complaint to the date of preliminary approval or
     judgment, whichever is earlier."

The Plaintiffs have failed to establish, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that they can meet Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance
requirement, according to the order.  The Court, therefore, denies
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

The appellate case is captioned as  Victoria Rowe, et al. v. Ulta
Salon, Cosmetics & Frag., et al., Case No. 19-80125, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners VICTORIA ROWE and PAULINA SCARPINO,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals,
are represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Anne Kramer, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  akramer@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Adam M. Rose, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT STARR
          23901 Calabasas Road
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 225-9040
          E-mail: adam@starrlaw.com

Defendant-Respondent, ULTA SALON COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC. is
represented by:

          David D. Jacobson, Esq.
          David D. Kadue, Esq.
          Jinouth Desiree Vasquez Santos, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: djacobson@seyfarth.com
                  dkadue@seyfarth.com
                  jvasquezsantos@seyfarth.com


WINCO FOODS: Mitchell Seeks 9th Cir. Review of FCRA Suit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Gloria Mitchell filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Gloria Mitchell v. Winco Foods, LLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-00076-BLW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho, Boise.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks redress for, and to put an end to, the Defendant's alleged
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically its
failure to provide proper notices and disclosures to its job
applicants and employees.

WinCo is a privately-held supermarket chain based in Boise, Idaho.
The Company was founded in 1967 and now has over 100 store
locations in Idaho, Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Texas,
Utah, and Washington.  WinCo also operates at least 5 distribution
centers throughout the United States.

The appellate case is captioned as Gloria Mitchell v. Winco Foods,
LLC, Case No. 19-35802, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 18, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on November 18, 2019;

   -- Appellant Gloria Mitchell's opening brief is due on
      December 30, 2019;

   -- Appellee Winco Foods, LLC's answering brief is due on
      January 30, 2020; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant, GLORIA MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Patrick Harry Peluso, Esq.
          Steven Lezell Woodrow, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0676
          E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
                  swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com

               - and -

          Eric B. Swartz, Esq.
          JONES & SWARTZ PLLC
          623 W Hays Street
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 489-8989
          E-mail: eric@jonesandswartzlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee, WINCO FOODS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, is represented by:

          Kaitlyn Burke, Esq.
          Rick D. Roskelley, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          3960 Howard Hughes Parkway
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 862-8800
          E-mail: rroskelley@littler.com


XEROX CORP: Court Denies Class Certification in Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barry R. Ostrager of the New York County Supreme Court denied
the Plaintiffs' (i) motion for class certification, (ii) motion for
approval of the settlement, and (iii) motion for an award of
attorney's fees to their counsel in the XEROX CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION, Docket No. 650766/2018, Motion
Seq. No. 017/018/022 (N.Y. Sup.).

On Jan. 31, 2018, the Boards of Directors of Fujifilm and Xerox
unanimously agreed to a transaction that would, among other things,
make Fujifilm a 50.1% owner of Xerox.  On Feb. 13, 2018, Darwin
Deason, the second largest individual shareholder of Xerox,
initiated an action to enjoin the Transaction.  

On March 2, 2018, Deason filed a second suit to enjoin Xerox from
enforcing the Advance Notice Bylaw deadline for the nomination of
directors to be elected at the 2018 Annual Meeting.  At or about
this same period of time, four purported class actions were filed
on behalf of Pension Funds for the Asbestos Workers, the Iron
Workers, and Carpenters, as well as by Robert Lowinger, each of
which also sought to enjoin the Transaction on the ground that, by
approving the Transaction, the Xerox Board of Directors had
breached its fiduciary duties to the Xerox shareholders.  On March
9, 2018, these four putative class actions were consolidated under
the caption In Re Xerox Corporation Consolidated Shareholder
Litigation, Index No. 650766/18.

On May 13, 2018, the counsel for the purported class resubmitted
the Memorandum of Understanding pursuant to which the counsel for
the purported class agreed to the releases for all the directors in
exchange for no consideration other than the terms of the private
Deason settlement.  The release contemplated by the Memorandum of
Understanding would release the resigning and continuing directors
from any liability relating to the change in control of the Xerox
Board and any liability arising out of the termination of the Fuji
Transaction.  The Memorandum of Understanding recited that neither
Xerox nor Deason would oppose, and Xerox would fund, an award of
counsel fees of $7.5 million to the counsel for the class
Plaintiffs, provided the Court approved the class settlement.

Before the Court were three motions filed by the counsel for the
purported class in the consolidated shareholder action.  The
motions sought certification of a class and appointment of class
representatives, approval of a class settlement, and an award of
attorneys' fees of $7.5 million.  The motions were opposed by Xerox
shareholder Carmen Ribbe, and comments from some of the 34
prospective class members who opted out of the settlement were read
into the record when the motions were heard on Sept. 6, 2019.

After careful consideration of the competing arguments, Judge
Ostrager declines to certify the class or approve the proposed
settlement and the award of attorney's fees.  He declines to
certify the class, as he cannot find on the record presented that
"the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class as CPLR 901(a)(4) requires for class
certification."   

Moreover, the Judge concludes that the proposed settlement is not
in the best interests of the shareholders as it achieves no
material benefit for shareholders other than Icahn and Deason.  On
the contrary, the proposed settlement releases any claims
shareholders may have concerning the change of control orchestrated
by Deason and Icahn and any liability for the subsequently filed
Fuji case.  The benefit to Xerox as a company is also questionable
in light of the $1 billion lawsuit by Fuji that remains pending.
The settlement is thus disapproved, the Court rules

The Judge further finds that purported class representatives are
inadequate representatives for the class, and the purported class
counsel have not rendered any benefit to the purported class to
justify the $7.5 million fee they seek.  Since the purported class
counsel conferred no benefit on the Xerox shareholders, there is no
basis for any award of counsel fees, the Court states.

Accordingly, Judge Ostarger denied the Plaintiffs' motions for
class certification and settlement approval. The counsel will
appear before the Court in the action and the related derivative
action, Ribbe v. Jacobson, on Nov. 19, 2019 at 11:30 a.m. for a
conference to determine how to proceed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 10, 2019 Decision and Order
is available at https://is.gd/JnuXHw from Leagle.com.


YD WINDOW: Richardson Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned HOLLY RICHARDSON, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. YD WINDOW, INC., a
California Corporation and DOES 1-10 inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. STK-CV-VOE-2019-9664 (Cal. Super., July 25, 2019), alleges
that Defendants failed to pay overtime and minimum wages pursuant
to the California Labor Code.

During her employment, the Plaintiff worked more than 8 hours per
day and 40 hours per week. Specifically Defendants employed an
impermissible rounding policy when recording Plaintiff's and its
other non-exempt employees' time worked, the lawsuit says.

Yd Window, Inc. is in the jalousies business.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          William J. Gorham III, Esq.
          Nicholas f. dcardigli, Esq.
          Vladimir J. Kozina, Esq.
          MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
          2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
          Stockton, CA 95207-8253
          Telephone: (209) 477 3833
          Facsimile: (209) 473 4818
          E-mail: wgorham@mayallaw.com
                  nscarding@mayallaw.com
                  vjkozin@mayallaw.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 ***