CAR_Public/191009.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, October 9, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 202

                            Headlines

15 JOHN CORP: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Murphy FLSA Suit
1859-HISTORIC HOTELS: Covington Worked Breaks, Seeks Overtime Pay
A-1 CLEANING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lawrence Suit Says
ADECCO USA: Ortmann Seeks Premium Pay for Missed Meal/Rest Breaks
AJACCIO INC: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

AKERS BIOSCIENCES: Final Approval Hearing Re-Scheduled for Dec. 20
ALLERGAN PLC: Swei Balks at AbbVie Merger
ALLURA USA: Kenney Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
ARC MARINE: Dickensheets Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
ATLANTIC THEATER: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

AUSABLE CHASM: Murphy Files ADA Suit in New York
BANC OF CALIFORNIA: MOU Reached in California Securities Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Mendoza Labor Suit
BAUSCH HEALTH: Faces Meijer Antitrust Action Over Sale of Glumetza
BOEING COMPANY: Pilot X Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of Illinois

CAL-MAINE FOODS: Kraft Foods Global Antitrust Suit Remanded
CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated New Jersey Suit Pending
CARBON BLACK: Lowinger Files Suit Over Sale to VMware
CENTRAL VALLEY: Drivers' Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
CENTRELAKE MEDICAL: St. Hill Drops Class Suit

CHAIRISH, INC: Faces Morgan Suit in Southern District of New York
CHALLENGE DAIRIES: Faces Cardenas Suit Alleging Discrimination
CONOPCO INC: Been Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
DCX-CHOL: Moreno's Overtime Wages Ongoing
DIANA CONTAINERSHIPS: Bid to Reconsider Named Lead Plaintiff Nixed

DOMETIC CORP: Seeks 11th Circuit Review of Ruling in Cherry Suit
ECO SCIENCE: Bid to Stay Raschke Class Suit Still Pending
EGS FINANCIAL: Jawaid Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
FACILITY CLEANING: Bruce Smalls Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
FCA US: Removes Barrett Case to Northern District of Georgia

FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in McGowan Suit
FIRSTCREDIT INC: Legere-Gordon Sues Over Illegal Automated Calls
FLORIDA HEALTH: Doyle Sues Over Prerecorded Telemarketing Calls
FORSTER & GARBUS: Reed Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
GENESEE & WYOMING: Plaintiffs Agree to Drop Merger-Related Suits

GLOBAL CREDIT: Answer to Ortiz Suit Due Oct. 29
GNC CONTRACTING: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Peters Suit Says
GOOD HEALTH INC: Calle Sues Over Denied OT Pay, Breaks, Pay Slips
GOODFELLA'S PIZZA: Neira Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
HEADWAY TECH: Challapalli Sues Over Hard Drive Spring Price-rigging

HEADWAY TECH: Cimino Sues Over Hard Drive Spring Price-rigging
HESS BAKKEN: White River Files Class Action in North Dakota Ct.
HIBU PLC: Levien & Westhand Sue over Loss of Share Value
HYDRO ENVIRONMENTAL: Bids to Dismiss Galarza Labor Suit Denied
ICONIX BRAND: Stipulation of Settlement Entered in SDNY Class Suit

JAM CITY: Ferry Agrees to Drop Class Suit
JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Ct. Orders Distribution of Class Settlement Fund
KITCHENAID INC: Misrepresented Blenders' Horsepower, Suit Claims
LAKE ARBOR: Discovery on Amount in Controversy in Russell Ordered
LEGENDS OWO: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

LINEQUEST LLC: Technician Files Suit Over Illegal Pay Scheme
LVNV FUNDING: Moore Added as Class Rep in Mitchell FDCPA Suit
M-I LLC: Bid to Sever Claims in Coder FLSA Suit Denied as Moot
MADELYN JORDAN: Mendez Files ADA Class Action
MIDLAND CREDIT: Barbosa Appeals D. Mass. Ruling to First Circuit

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Reed Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
NEW ORIENTAL: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint in "Chan" Pending
NIDEC MOTOR: Pounds Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
NUTANIX INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in Calif.
ORANGE BEACH, AL: Williams Suit Removed to S.D. Alabama

PEGASUS RESIDENTIAL: Court Dismisses UDTPA Claim in Williams Suit
PETRO RIVER: Appeal in Donelson-Friend Class Suit Still Pending
PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Cooper Hits Farce Discount in Collection Letter
PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Oct. 11 Hearing on Lead Plaintiff Bids
RCI HOSPITALITY: Bid to Consolidate Texas Class Suits Pending

RH NY MP F&B: Servers Seek Proper Wages Under FLSA
RIGHT TURN: Horton Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
RIVERPLACE COUNSELING: Faces Zimmerman Class Action in Minnesota
RUHNN HOLDING: Lyu Hits Share Price Drop Following IPO
SCHACHTER PORTNOY: Bid to Dismiss Amended Navon FDCPA Suit Granted

SCORES HOLDING: Discovery in Santos de Oliveira Suit Underway
SCORES HOLDING: Dropped from Munoz Labor Suit
SECTRAN SECURITY: Contile FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
SONOMA RESTAURANT: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOUTH FLORIDA DETAIL: Halawani Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing

SUFFOLK COUNTY: Newkirk Suit Underway in E.D. New York
TWENTY ONES: Murphy Files ADA Class Action in New York
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Rizzuto Files ERISA Class Action in Fla.
VAN RU CREDIT: Rottenstein Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
VEGAS.COM LLC: Traynor Suit Underway in New York Southern Dist.

VERDE ENERGY: Lechuga Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Summary Judgment on Element of Reliance Denied
WRIGHT BROS: Ohio Southern Dist. Refuses to Stay Honaker FLSA Suit

                            *********

15 JOHN CORP: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Murphy FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Nyamka Ayinde, Stephanie Castillo, Nicole Clouse, Ethan
Murphy, Efrain Ramirez, Christopher L. Scott and Logan Scott filed
an appeal from a Court ruling issued in their lawsuit styled
Murphy, et al. v. LaJaunie, et al., Case No. 13-cv-6503, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

The appellate case is captioned as Murphy, et al. v. LaJaunie, et
al., Case No. 19-2872, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 12, 2019,
Defendant Philippe LaJaunie have filed appeals from District Court
judgments issued in the lawsuit on:

-- August 1, 2019, which appellate case is captioned as Murphy, et
al. v. LaJaunie, Case No. 19-2705; and

-- August 10, 2016, which appellate case is styled as Ethan
Murphy, et al. v. Philippe Lajaunie, et al., Case No. 16-3114.

Philip Lajaunie is the president of 15 John Corp.  The Company
sought protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. Case No. 16-12453) on August 25, 2016.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant-Appellant Philippe LaJaunie, of New York City, appears
pro se.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Ethan Murphy, et al., are represented by:

          Denise A. Schulman, Esq.
          JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          32 Broadway
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
          E-mail: denise@jhllp.com


1859-HISTORIC HOTELS: Covington Worked Breaks, Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Covington, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. 1859-Historic Hotels, Ltd., Defendants, Case
No. 19-cv-01058 (W.D. Tex., August 30, 2019), seeks to recover
overtime for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

1859-Historic Hotels operates eleven hotels in Texas, Colorado, and
Kentucky, providing luxury accommodations, event and dining
services. Covington claims to have worked through his rest periods
without overtime premium yet whose hours are deducted the 30-minute
break period. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
      YOUNG & NEWSOM, PC
      1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
      Amarillo, TX 79101
      Tel: (806) 331-1800
      Fax: (806) 398-9095
      Email: jyoung@youngfirm.com


A-1 CLEANING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lawrence Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN LAWRENCE v. A-1 CLEANING & SEPTIC SYSTEMS, LLC and JAMES
SHEPPEARD, Case No. 4:19-cv-03526 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 18, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants uniformly failed to pay overtime to all
day-rate workers, including the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A-1 Cleaning & Septic Systems, LLC ("A-1 Cleaning") is a Texas
limited liability company doing business in the State of Texas.
James Sheppeard is the sole manager and member of A-1 Cleaning.

A-1 Cleaning is septic systems cleaning and repair business.  A-1
Cleaning primarily conducts business within Harris, Montgomery and
Fort Bend, Counties, all within the State of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tran Q. Tran, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM, LLP
          2537 S. Gessner, Suite 104
          Houston, TX 77063
          Telephone: (713) 223-8855
          Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
          E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com

               - and -

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


ADECCO USA: Ortmann Seeks Premium Pay for Missed Meal/Rest Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OLGA ORTMANN, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public v. ADECCO USA, INC., a Delaware corporation;
GOGGLE NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19CV355315 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., Sept. 19, 2019), alleges that the Defendants failed to
provide the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees
with meal periods, rest periods, and premium wages for missed meal
and/or rest periods.

Adecco USA, INC. is a Delaware corporation doing business in the
State of California.

Goggle North America, INC. is a Delaware corporation doing business
in the State of California. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Segal, Esq.
          Farrah Grant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  thomas@setarehlaw.com
                  farrah@setarehlaw.com


AJACCIO INC: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AJACCIO Inc. The case
is styled as James Murphy on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AJACCIO Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09175 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 3, 2019).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zare Khorozian, Esq.
     Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
     1047 Anderson Avenue
     Fort Lee, NJ 07024
     Phone: (201) 957-7269
     Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com


AKERS BIOSCIENCES: Final Approval Hearing Re-Scheduled for Dec. 20
------------------------------------------------------------------
Akers Biosciences, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on September 25, 2019,
that the final settlement approval hearing initially set for
November 8, 2019, has been rescheduled for December 20, 2019.

A hearing to determine whether to approve a proposed class action
settlement concerning certain purchasers of the shares of Akers
Biosciences, Inc. common stock, no par value, originally scheduled
for November 8, 2019 at 2:30 P.M. New York Time, has been
rescheduled.

The hearing will be held on December 20, 2019, at 11 A.M New York
Time, before the Honorable Esther Salas, United States District
Judge of the District of New Jersey, Martin Luther King Building &
U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Courtroom 5A, Newark, New Jersey
07101.

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel or to the Claims Administrator:

THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
South Orange, NJ 07079
Tel: (973) 313-1887
Fax: (973) 833-0399

Akers Biosciences, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205
Media, PA 19063
Tel.: 866-274-4004
Fax: 610-565-7985
info@strategicclaims.net

Akers Biosciences, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, and supplies rapid screening and testing products
designed to deliver healthcare information to healthcare providers
and consumers in the United States, the People's Republic of China,
and internationally. Akers Biosciences, Inc. was founded in 1989
and is headquartered in Thorofare, New Jersey.


ALLERGAN PLC: Swei Balks at AbbVie Merger
-----------------------------------------
The case, YUANLAN SWEI, on Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ALLERGAN PLC, BRENTON L.
SAUNDERS, NESLI BASGOZ, JOSEPH H. BOCCUZI, CHRISTOPHER W. BODINE,
ADRIANE M. BROWN, CHRISTOPHER J. COUGHLIN, CAROL ANTHONY DAVIDSON,
THOMAS C. FREYMAN, MICHAEL E. GREENBERG, ROBERT J. HUGIN, and PETER
J. MCDONNELL, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-18166 (D.N.J., Sept.
20, 2019), seeks to enjoin a shareholder vote on a proposed
transaction pursuant to which Allergan will be acquired by AbbVie
Inc.  The case alleges that Allergan and the members of Allergan's
Board of Directors violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. section 240.14a-9.

On June 25, 2019, Allergan and AbbVie issued a joint press release
announcing they had entered into a Transaction Agreement dated June
25, 2019 to sell Allergan to AbbVie. Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, each Allergan stockholder will be entitled to receive
for each Allergan ordinary share: (i) $120.30 in cash, and (ii)
0.8660 of a newly issued share of AbbVie common stock. Based on the
closing price of AbbVie's common stock of $78.45 on June 24, 2019,
the Proposed Transaction has an equity value of approximately $63
billion.

On September 16, 2019, Allergan filed a Definitive Proxy Statement
on Schedule 14A with the SEC.  The lawsuit contends that the Proxy
Statement, which recommends that Allergan stockholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things:

     (i) Allergan management's estimates for the amount and timing
of cost savings and related expenses and synergies expected to
result from the Proposed Transaction;

    (ii) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation
analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by the
Company's financial advisor J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; and

   (iii) potential conflicts of interest faced by Company
insiders.

The failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act, as Allergan
stockholders need the information to cast a fully-informed vote in
connection with the Proposed Transaction.  In short, unless
remedied, Allergan's public stockholders will be forced to make a
voting decision on the Proposed Transaction without full disclosure
of all material information concerning the Proposed Transaction
being provided to them.

Allergan plc is an Irish pharmaceutical company that acquires,
develops, and markets brand name drugs, and in 2017 generated 80%
net sales from the U.S. healthcare system. Allergan plc was formed
in February 2015 when Irish–registered Actavis plc acquired
U.S.-registered Allergan, Inc., and assumed the Allergan name.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Aaron Rubin, Esq.
          RUBIN & MENDLOWITZ, LLC
          2623 Hooper Avenue
          Brick, NJ 08723
          Telephone: (516) 590-0544
          Facsimile: (516) 506-0832

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010

               - and -

          Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
          E-mail: raymond@bespc.com

ALLURA USA: Kenney Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allura USA LLC,
Plycem USA LLC doing business as: Allura, Plycem USA, Inc.,
Elementia USA, Inc., Elementia, S.A.B. De C.V.  The case is styled
as Karen Kenney on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Allura USA LLC, Plycem USA LLC doing
business as: Allura, Plycem USA, Inc., Elementia USA, Inc.,
Elementia, S.A.B. De C.V., Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-01226-TJM-TWD (N.D. N.Y., Oct. 3, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Allura is a manufacturer and distributer of fiber cement exterior
building products that include lap siding, panels, soffits, shakes,
exterior trim and decking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq.
     The Sultzer Law Group
     85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
     Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
     Phone: (845) 483-7100
     Fax: (888) 749-7747
     Email: gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com

          - and -

     Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
     Gattuso & Ciotoli, PLLC
     7030 East Genesee Street
     Fayetteville, NY 13066
     Phone: (315) 299-6350
     Fax: (315) 446-7521
     Email: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com


ARC MARINE: Dickensheets Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS DICKENSHEETS, TRAVIS DICKENSHEETS, JR., and STEPHEN, MORGAN,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ARC MARINE, LLC, PAUL AYALA, and ALFRED REYES,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00322 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 27, 2019) is a
complaint filed against Defendants, complaining of their violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Throughout their employment, Travis, Travis, Jr., and Morgan were
paid on an hourly basis. None of them received a salary. Each of
them worked for Arc Marine on a full time basis, typically logging
anywhere from 70-90 hours per week. After beginning work at Arc
Marine, Travis was surprised to learn about the company's failure
and refusal to pay overtime compensation. Not only that, but at
first the Defendants paid him as a contractor, even though he met
all the characteristics of being an employee.

As non-exempt employees, each of the Plaintiffs were entitled to
receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week. However, the Defendants willfully suffered or permitted the
Plaintiffs (and other employees) to work more than forty hours per
week without paying any overtime premium as required by law. This
failure constituted a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
it was done willfully, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants to perform work as welders.

Arc Marine is a welding firm that offers welding services in the
maritime, maintenance, and construction industries.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andrew S. Golub, Esq.
     DOW GOLUB REMELS & GILBREATH, PLLC
     2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1750
     Houston, TX 77056
     Phone: (713) 526-3700
     Facsimile: (713) 526-3750
     Email: asgolub@dowgolub.com


ATLANTIC THEATER: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Theater Co.
The case is styled as James Murphy on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Atlantic Theater
Co., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09205 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 4, 2019).

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

Atlantic Theater Company is an Off-Broadway non-profit
theater.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zare Khorozian, Esq.
     Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
     1047 Anderson Avenue
     Fort Lee, NJ 07024
     Phone: (201) 957-7269
     Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com


AUSABLE CHASM: Murphy Files ADA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ausable Chasm
Company. The case is styled as James Murphy on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ausable
Chasm Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09176 (S.D. N.Y., Oct.
3, 2019).

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

Ausable Chasm Co. operated the sandstone gorge and tourist
attraction located near the hamlet of Keeseville, New York, United
States. The gorge is about two miles (3.2 km) long and is a tourist
attraction in the Adirondacks region of Upstate New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zare Khorozian, Esq.
     Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
     1047 Anderson Avenue
     Fort Lee, NJ 07024
     Phone: (201) 957-7269
     Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com


BANC OF CALIFORNIA: MOU Reached in California Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Banc of California, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on September 23, 2019,
that a memorandum of understanding has been entered into by the
parties in the class action suit entitled, In re Banc of California
Securities Litigation, Case No. SACV 17-00118 AG, consolidated with
SACV 17-00138 AG.

On September 16, 2019, Banc of California, Inc. (the "Company")
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with the lead
plaintiff to settle class action lawsuits that were previously
consolidated in the United District Court for the Central District
of California (the "Court") under the caption In re Banc of
California Securities Litigation, Case No. SACV 17-00118 AG,
consolidated with SACV 17-00138 AG. Under the terms of the MOU, the
Company's insurance carriers would pay $19.75 million, which would
be distributed to shareholders who purchased Company stock between
April 15, 2016 and January 20, 2017, after payment of attorney's
fees and costs, to be determined by the Court. The Company would
not be required to contribute any cash to the settlement payments.


Pursuant to the settlement, the action against the Company would be
dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff would also dismiss its claims
against the Company's former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
Steven Sugarman.

Banc of California said, "While the Company does not believe the
plaintiff's claims are meritorious, the Company believes that
ending the costs and distraction of the litigation is in the best
interests of the Company and its shareholders. The settlement and
the dismissals are subject to approval by the Court and meeting
certain conditions, and there are no assurances that Court approval
will be obtained or that those conditions will be satisfied. If the
Court preliminarily approves the settlement, members of the class
will be provided notice and an opportunity to object or opt out.
Following the notice and opportunity for objections and opt outs,
the Court will schedule a fairness hearing at which the Court will
determine whether the settlement shall be finally approved."

Banc of California, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for
Banc of California, National Association that provides banking
products and services in the United States. The company offers
deposit products, including checking, savings, money market,
retirement, and interest and noninterest-bearing demand accounts,
as well as certificates of deposit. The company was formerly known
as First PacTrust Bancorp, Inc. and changed its name to Banc of
California, Inc. in July 2013. Banc of California, Inc. was founded
in 1941 and is headquartered in Santa Ana, California.


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Mendoza Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, granted in
part and denied in part Bank of America's motion to dismiss
Mendoza's claims in the case MIGUEL MENDOZA, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-02491-LB (N.D.
Cal.).

Mr. Mendoza worked as an operations manager at a Bank of American
branch in California from September 2015 to January 2017.  He
alleges that Bank of America's systematic course of uniform payroll
policies and practices violate the California Labor Code,
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 4, California Code of
Regulations, and California Business and Professions Code section
17200.

The lawsuit specifically alleges that Bank of America intentionally
and wrongfully requires its operations managers to remain on duty
for meal and rest periods by requiring them to remain on the
premises, and often fails to provide its operations managers with
an otherwise off duty, uninterrupted, 30-minute meal period within
the first five hours of their shifts, an uninterrupted 10-minute
rest period for every four hours (or major fraction thereof) of
work, and fails to pay employees the resulting vested one
additional hour of pay at the employees' regular rate of
compensation for each workday that the meal or rest period was not
provided.

The Plaintiff's employment with Bank of America ended on or around
January 2017, and he alleges that because Bank of America owed him
wages due to the paid meal and rest period violations, he was not
paid all his wages upon discharge.

Mr. Mendoza brings the putative class action for wage-and-hour
violations against his former employer Bank of America.  He brings
seven claims: (i) a claim under California Labor Code Sections 512,
226.7, and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 4 Section
11 for failure to provide compliant meal breaks; (ii) a claim under
California Labor Code Sections 226.7, 512, and IWC Wage Order No. 4
Section 12 for failure to provide adequate rest breaks; (iii) a
claim under California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197, and IWC Wage
Order No. 4 Section 4 for failure to pay minimum wage; (iv) a claim
under California Labor Code Sections 510, 1194, 1198, and IWC Wage
Order No. 4 Section 3 for failure to pay overtime; (v) a claim
under California Labor Code Section 203 for failure to pay all
wages due upon discharge; (vi) a claim under California Labor Code
Section 2802 for failure to reimburse for business expenses; and
(vii) a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"),
Business and Professions Code Section 17200) based on his minimum
wage, overtime, meal-break, and rest-period claims.

Bank of America moved to dismiss claims one through seven on the
grounds that Mr. Mendoza does not actually plead any instances when
he was deprived of minimum wage or overtime pay, or where he
requested, and was denied, reimbursement for business expenses.
The Defendant also moved to dismiss because the alleged violations
occurred outside of the relevant statute of limitations.

Magistrate Beeler granted Bank of America's motion to dismiss
claims one through five, and denied the motion to dismiss claims
six and seven.  Among other things, the Judge  finds that the
Plaintiff has specifically identified particular expenses in his
complaint and affirmatively alleges that they were necessary
business expenses.  The Plaintiff alleges that he and others were
required to use their personal cell phones for work-related
purposes such as communicating with other employees and managers
regarding status updates, emergencies, scheduling, pending
documentation, pending training, approving timesheets, and
answering work-related questions.  He states that Bank of America
never reimbursed him or the class for the use of their cell phones
or for the associated data usage.

Furthermore, the Magistrate finds that the Plaintiff plead
sufficient facts to establish a plausible claim for California
Labor Code violations, but the claims were dismissed pursuant to
the statute of limitations on those claims.  The Plaintiff's UCL
claim, being based on these facts, but not barred by the same
statute of limitations, is therefore sufficiently pled.  

The dismissal is without prejudice, and Mr. Mendoza may file an
amended complaint within 21 days of the date of the Order.  If he
files an amended complaint, he must attach a blackline of his new
amended complaint against his First Amended Complaint.  

The Judge dismissed the claim for injunctive relief with prejudice.
The parties stated in their briefs that the Plaintiff has agreed
to dismiss his claim for injunctive relief.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/PjOXfG from Leagle.com.

Miguel Mendoza, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Raymond Fagnani, Marlin
and Saltzman, LLP, Stanley D. Saltzman, Marlin and Saltzman LLP &
Tatiana G. Avakian -- tavakian@marlinsaltzman.com -- Marlin
Saltzman, LLP.

Bank of America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ashley
Robinson Li -- ali@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Sean M.
Sullivan -- sean.sullivan@troutman.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Sylvia
Jihae Kim -- skim@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP & Matthew
C. Kane -- mkane@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Faces Meijer Antitrust Action Over Sale of Glumetza
------------------------------------------------------------------
MEIJER, INC. and MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC. v. BAUSCH HEALTH
COMPANIES INC., SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD., SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., SANTARUS, INC., ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS, INC., LUPIN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and LUPIN LTD., Case No. 3:19-cv-05822 (N.D.
Cal., Sept. 18, 2019), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and
all others similarly situated accusing the Defendants of violating
federal antitrust law relating to the sale of Glumetza.

Fair competition would have limited the price of a 30-day supply of
diabetes prescription drug Glumetza to less than $55, the
Plaintiffs say.  The Defendants instead were able to charge more
than $3,000 for the brand version and more than $2,200 for the
generic version.  The Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of blatantly
violating the federal antitrust law allowing them to charge more
than 50 times the competitive price for Glumetza and steal more
than $2.8 billion from Glumetza purchasers.

The Plaintiffs are corporations organized under the laws of the
state of Michigan, with their principal place of business located
in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  On behalf of themselves and all other
direct purchasers of brand and generic Glumetza, the Plaintiffs
bring this lawsuit to recover damages for overcharges they have
already suffered and obtain equitable relief to put a stop to the
ongoing harm.

Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. is a corporation organized under the
laws of Delaware with its principal place of business located in
Lake Forest, Illinois.  Santarus, Inc. is a corporation organized
under the laws of Delaware and, during much of the relevant time,
had its principal place of business in San Diego, California.  Its
current principal place of business is located in Bridgewater, New
Jersey.

Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a corporation organized under the
laws of California with its principal place of business located in
Bridgewater, New Jersey.  Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.  Salix
Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. is a corporation organized under the laws of
Delaware with its principal place of business located in
Bridgewater.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of British Columbia, Canada, with its U.S.
headquarters located in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a corporation organized under the
laws of Virginia with its principal place of business located in
Baltimore, Maryland.  Lupin Pharmaceuticals is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Defendant Lupin Ltd.  Lupin Ltd. is a company
organized under the laws of India with its principal place of
business located in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 715-3000
          E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
          Lauren Barnes, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
                  lauren@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
          David P. Germaine, Esq.
          Eamon P. Kelly, Esq.
          Alberto Rodriguez, Esq.
          SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
          55 W. Monroe St, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 641-3200
          E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com
                  dgermaine@sperling-law.com
                  ekelly@sperling-law.com
                  arodriguez@sperling-law.com


BOEING COMPANY: Pilot X Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Pilot X, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. The
Boeing Company, a corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 19-CH-07505,
was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July
25, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:19-cv-05008 to the proceeding. The suit demands $75,000
in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Honorable Ruben
Castillo.

The Boeing Company is an American multinational corporation that
designs, manufactures, and sells airplanes, rotorcraft, rockets,
satellites, telecommunications equipment, and missiles worldwide.
The company also provides leasing and product support
services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Patrick M. Jones, Esq.
          PMJ PLLC
          900 S Clark St., Suite 2101
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 255-7976
          E-mail: pmj@patjonesPLLC.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Allison A. Ray, Esq.
          Craig S. Primis, Esq.
          Michael B Slade, Esq.
          Patrick Haney, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS
          300 N Lasalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2518
          E-mail: allison.ray@kirkland.com
                  cprimis@kirkland.com
                  michael.slade@kirkland.com
                  patrick.haney@kirkland.com

CAL-MAINE FOODS: Kraft Foods Global Antitrust Suit Remanded
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2019, that the class action suit
entitled, Kraft Foods Global, Inc. et al v. United Egg Producers,
Inc. et al, No. 1:11-cv-08808, has been remanded.

On September 25, 2008, the Company was named as one of several
defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States
shell egg industry. The cases were consolidated into In re:
Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (the "District Court"), in three groups of cases - the
"Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action", the "Indirect Purchaser
Putative Class Action" and the "Non-Class Cases."

The Company settled all of the Direct Purchaser Putative Class
Action cases and the Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action
cases, and all Non-Class cases except for the claims of certain
plaintiffs who sought substantial damages allegedly arising from
the purchase of egg products (as opposed to shell eggs).

The Company settled all claims brought by one of these plaintiffs,
Conopco, Inc. The Court entered a final judgment dismissing
Conopco's claims against the Company on November 21, 2018.

The remaining plaintiffs are Kraft Food Global, Inc., General
Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The Kellogg Company ("Egg
Products Plaintiffs"). The Egg Products Plaintiffs seek treble
damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and are
attacking certain features of the UEP animal-welfare guidelines and
program used by the Company and many other egg producers.

On July 2, 2019 the Egg Products Plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand, and on September 13, 2019 the case was remanded to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Kraft Foods Global, Inc. et al v. United Egg Producers, Inc. et al,
No. 1:11-cv-08808 (DP), where it was initially filed, for trial.
The Illinois court has not issued a case management order or any
other directive.

The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining case as
vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes
are meritorious and provable.  

Cal-Maine Foods said, "While management believes that the
likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall egg
antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of
the settlements and rulings described above, there is still a
reasonable possibility of a material adverse outcome in the
remaining egg antitrust litigation. At the present time, however,
it is not possible to estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if
any, to the Company because of this remaining case.  Adjustments,
if any, which might result from the resolution of these remaining
legal matters, have not been reflected in the financial
statements."

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., incorporated on September 10, 1969, is a
producer and marketer of shell eggs in the United States. The
Company operates through the segment of production, grading,
packaging, marketing and distribution of shell eggs. The Company
offers shell eggs, including specialty and non-specialty eggs. The
company was founded in 1957 and is based in Jackson, Mississippi.


CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated New Jersey Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Campbell Soup Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 26, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended July 28, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Campbell Soup
Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS, is
pending.

On January 7, 2019, three purported shareholder class action
lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey were consolidated under the caption, In re
Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No.
1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS (the Action).

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System was appointed
lead plaintiff in the Action and, on March 1, 2019, filed an
amended consolidated complaint.

The company, Denise Morrison (the company's former President and
Chief Executive Officer), and Anthony DiSilvestro (the company's
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer) are defendants
in the Action.

The consolidated complaint alleges that, in public statements
between July 19, 2017 and May 17, 2018, the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted material
information about the company's business, operations, customer
relationships, and prospects, specifically with regard to the
Campbell Fresh segment. The consolidated complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

On April 30, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.

Campbell Soup said, "We are vigorously defending against the
Action."

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

Campbell Soup Company, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures
and markets branded food and beverage products. It operates through
three segments: Americas Simple Meals and Beverages, Global
Biscuits and Snacks, and Campbell Fresh. Campbell Soup Company was
founded in 1869 and is headquartered in Camden, New Jersey.


CARBON BLACK: Lowinger Files Suit Over Sale to VMware
-----------------------------------------------------
ROBERT LOWINGER, Individually and on Behalf of all others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. CARBON BLACK, INC., PATRICK MORLEY, JEFFREY
FAGNAN, TOM KILLALEA, RONALD H. NORDIN, VANESSA PEGUEROS, JOSEPH S.
TIBBETTS, JR., JILL A. WARD, ANTHONY ZINGALE, CALISTOGA MERGER
CORP., and VMWARE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05493 (E.D.
N.Y., Sept. 27, 2019) is an action brought on behalf of the public
stockholders of Carbon Black, Inc. against each of the Company's
Directors for their violations of Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the Board's attempt
to sell the Company to VMware, Inc. through Calistoga Merger Corp.,
its wholly-owned subsidiary.

The Defendants violated the Exchange Act by causing a materially
incomplete and misleading Schedule 14D-9 Recommendation Statement
to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") on September 6, 2019, recommending that Carbon
Black shareholders tender their shares in favor of a proposed
transaction whereby Carbon Black is acquired by VMware. The
Proposed Transaction was first publicly disclosed on August 22,
2019 when Carbon Black and VMware announced they had entered into a
definitive merger agreement through which WMware will acquire all
of the outstanding shares of Carbon Black common stock for $26.00
per share. The Proposed Transaction is valued at about $2.1 billion
and according to defendants, expected to close by January 31,
2020.

The Recommendation Statement contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning the sales process, financial
projections prepared by the management of Carbon Black, and
analyses by Carbon Black's financial advisor Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC in violation of Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
asserts the complaint. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from
taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless the
material omitted information is properly disclosed in an amendment
to the Recommendation Statement and disseminated to Carbon Black's
shareholders. If the Proposed Transaction is consummated without
public disclosure of the omissions, Plaintiff will seek to recover
per share damages class-wide caused by Defendants' misleading
statements, says the complaint.

Plaintiff has continuously owned Carbon Black common stock.

Carbon Black provides endpoint security solutions, detecting and
preventing threats, via a cloud-based platform.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Patrick Slyne, Esq.
     Aaron Brody, Esq.
     Howard T. Longman, Esq.
     STULL, STULL & BRODY
     6 East 45th Street
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 687-7230
     Facsimile; (212) 490-2022
     Email: pkslyne@ssbny.com
            abrody@ssbny.com



CENTRAL VALLEY: Drivers' Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Christian Brink and David Maier on behalf of
themselves, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, Plaintiffs, v. Central Valley Auto Transport, Inc.
and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. VCU274266 (Cal. Super., June
6, 2018), was removed to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California on August 30, 2019 under Case No.
19-at-00627.

Christian Brink and David Maier are truck drivers who worked for
Central Valley. They seek unpaid overtime wages and interest,
redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods,
statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, failure to authorize and permit recovery periods,
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 the California Labor Code, Unfair
Competition Law and the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie Kathryn Serb, Esq.
      David Thomas Mara, Esq.
      MARA LAW FIRM PC
      2650 Camino Del Rio, Suite 205
      San Diego, CA 92121
      Tel: (619) 234-2833, (619) 275-7429
      Website: www.maralawfirm.com

Central Valley Auto Transport is represented by:

      David J. Cooper, Esq.
      Vanessa Franco Chavez, Esq.
      Mayra Estrada, Esq.
      KLEIN, DENATALE, GOLDNER, COOPER, ROSENLIEB & KIMBALL, LLP
      4550 California Ave., Second Floor
      Bakersfield, CA 93309
      Telephone: (661) 395-1000
      Facsimile: (661) 326-0418
      Email: dcooper@kleinlaw.com
             vchavez@kleinlaw.com
             mestrada@kleinlaw.com


CENTRELAKE MEDICAL: St. Hill Drops Class Suit
---------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jeanine St. Hill has agreed to drop her class action
lawsuit against Centrelake Medical Group, Inc.

The case is captioned as Jeanine St. Hill also known as: Centrelake
Imaging and Oncology, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Centrelake Medical Group,
Inc., a Professional Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-01391-JFW-SHK (C.D. Cal., July 26, 2019), and sought $9.9
million in damages.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, without prejudice,
on Aug. 30, 2019.  Plaintiff, in an Aug. 29 ruling, was ordered by
Judge John F. Walter to show cause, in writing, no later than Sept.
5, why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Centrelake offers a broad and comprehensive range of radiology
services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Christopher L. Rudd, Esq.
          RUDD LAW FIRM APC
          4650 Sepulveda Boulevard No 205
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (310) 457-4072
          Facsimile: (310) 359-0258
          E-mail: clrudd@ruddlawpc.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON AND MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
                  dperry@wbmllp.com

CHAIRISH, INC: Faces Morgan Suit in Southern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chairish, Inc. The
case is captioned as Jon R. Morgan, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Chairish, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06936-DAB (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 Deborah A. Batts.

Chairish is an online vintage furniture, art and home accessories
sales service. Chairish accepts furniture and decor with listings a
minimum listing price of $25.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CHALLENGE DAIRIES: Faces Cardenas Suit Alleging Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CARDENAS, individually and On behalf of others similarly
situated v. CHALLENGE DAIRIES, INC.; CHALLENGE DAIRY PRODUCTS,
INC.; and DOES 1 to 20, Case No. 19STCV33243 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Sept. 18, 2019), accuses the Defendants of violating
the California Constitution by retaliating against, discriminating,
and terminating the Plaintiff, who they employed as a warehouse man
for almost 17 years.

Mr. Cardenas also alleges, among other things, that the Defendants
violated wage and hour laws by failing to pay correct wages/proper
rate of pay; timely pay wages; pay overtime wage; and keep
records.

Challenge Dairies, Inc. is a business entity operating within the
county of Los Angeles, California.  Challenge Dairy Products, Inc.
is a business entity operating within the county of Los
Angeles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sandra H. Castro, Esq.
          Kathleen A. Castro, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SANDRA H. CASTRO, INC.
          3200 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite 265
          Ontario, CA 91764
          Telephone: (909) 989-2700
          Facsimile: (909) 989-2733
          E-mail: castro@lawservicesonline.com
                  kathleen@lawservicesonline.com

               - and -

          Kristen Brown, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KRISTEN BROWN
          900 W. 17th Street, Suite C
          Santa Ana, CA 92706
          Telephone: (714) 564-7695
          Facsimile: (714) 766-8440
          E-mail: krisbrownesq@yahoo.com


CONOPCO INC: Been Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Carla Been individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Conopco, Inc. doing
business as: Unilever, Does 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No.
19SL-CC02867 was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on Oct. 4, 2019, and assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-02704.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Conopco, Inc., doing business as Unilever, provides personal care
products. The Company offers perfumes, soaps, and shampoos, as well
as food products. Unilever serves customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

     James Muehlberger, Esq.
     SHOOK AND HARDY, LLP
     2555 Grand Blvd.
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Phone: (816) 474-6550
     Fax: (816) 421-5547
     Email: jmuehlberger@shb.com


DCX-CHOL: Moreno's Overtime Wages Ongoing
-----------------------------------------
A lawsuit against DCX-Chol Enterprises, Inc., is underway.  The
case is captioned, ALFONSO MORENO, individually and on behalf of
other aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, vs. DCX-CHOL ENTERPRISES
INC., and DOES 1 to 50, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV26247 (Cal.
Super., July 26, 2019), and alleges that Defendants failed to pay
overtime wages, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to provide meal
breaks or premium pay, failed to provide rest breaks or premium
pay; and failed to pay/timely pay wages pursuant to California
labor laws.

The Plaintiff was employed by DCX as a non-exempt employee from
approximately August 11, 2008 through October 8, 2018. As a non­
exempt employee of DCX, Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees
were entitled to employment benefits which California law mandated
DCX provide to all of its non-exempt employees, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Alfonso Moreno, individually and on behalf of other
aggrieved employees, are:

          Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
          Haik Hacopian, Esq.
          Andrina G. Hanson, Esq.
          Nanor C. Kamberian, Esq.
          MOORADIAN LAW, APC
          5023 N. Parkway Calabasas
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 876-9627
          Facsimile: (888) 783-1030
          E-mail: zorik@mooradianlaw.com
                  haik@mooradianlaw.com
                  andrina@mooradianlaw.com
                  nanor@mooradianlaw.com

DIANA CONTAINERSHIPS: Bid to Reconsider Named Lead Plaintiff Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JIMMIE O. ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DIANA CONTAINERSHIPS INC.,
SYMEON P. PALIOS, ANDREAS MICHALOPOULOS, ANASTASIOS MARGARONIS,
KALANI INVESTMENTS LIMITED, MURCHINSON LTD., and MARC BISTRICER,
Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-6160 (SJF) (SIL) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge
Sandra J. Feuerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York denied John Novack and Walter Aerts
("Novack-Aerts Group")'s motion for reconsideration of the Court's
April 30, 2018 order granting the motion of Lead Plaintiff Movants
Burcin Ekser, Steven Gerber, and Gianfilippo Mogavero ("Diana
Investor Group") for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and its
selection of Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law LLP and Pomerantz LLP
as the co-lead counsel.

The case is a class action on behalf of all purchasers of Diana
common stock during the Class Period ("Short CP"), which the
complaint alleges begins on Jan. 26, 2017 and runs through Oct. 3,
2017.

On Oct. 25, 2017, a second securities class action litigation,
Little v. Diana Containerships Inc., concerning the allegedly
fraudulent Diana scheme was commenced.  The Little complaint
alleges essentially the same scheme over same time period as in the
Robinson complaint, Jan. 26, 2017 through Oct. 3, 2017, inclusive.

A third securities class action, Austin v. Diana Containerships
Inc., concerning Diana was commenced on Dec. 15, 2017.  The Class
Period ("Long CP") set forth in the Austin complaint runs from June
9, 2016 through Oct. 3, 2017, inclusive.  The Austin complaint
alleges that the first reverse stock split of Diana's common shares
took place on June 9, 2016.

On December 22, 2017, six motions for appointment as lead plaintiff
and as lead counsel were filed. Several of the motions also sought
consolidation of the three cases.  At the close of briefing, two
competing applications for lead plaintiff remained, that of the
Diana Investor Group and that of the Novack-Aerts Group.

On April 30, 2018, the Court issued an oral ruling on the pending
motions.  Consolidation of the three actions was found to be
appropriate and thus the motions to consolidate were granted.  As
to the appointment motions, the Court noted that the two remaining
applications were timely made and satisfied the requirements of
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leaving the sole
issue of which group has the higher financial or most substantial
loss. With reference to factors set forth in In re Olsten Corp.
Sec. Litig., the Court noted that the loss suffered is the most
important appropriate factor.

Turning to the application of the relevant law, the Court
acknowledged the Novack-Aerts Group's contention that it was the
presumptive lead plaintiff group because it suffered the largest
losses within the Short CP, but found that the Diana Investor Group
had the largest financial loss using the Long CP.  The Court
determined that use of the longer, most inclusive class period
identified encompasses more potential class members.  It was
further noted that the Novack-Aerts Group had not shown that the
Diana Investor Group lacked cohesion or the ability to effectively
manage the litigation.

The Court also addressed the Novack-Aerts Group's argument that
allegations in the Austin complaint leading to the use of the Long
CP urged by the Diana Investor Group were, to use its words, both
implausible and obviously frivolous.  The Court expressly
disagreed, finding that reverse stock splitting took place during
the longer period. Additional argument followed on the class period
issue and the sufficiency of the allegations in the Austin
complaint.  After hearing all the argument, the Court appointed the
Diana Investor Group as the lead plaintiff and appointed its choice
of counsel, Scott+Scott and Pomerantz, as the co-lead counsel.

Pending before the Court is the Novack-Aerts Group's motion for
reconsideration of that order.

The Novack-Aerts Group's motion for reconsideration focuses on the
Court's decision to consider losses incurred within the Long CP.
It argues that if only the Short CP is used, it suffered the
greatest financial loss and thus should be appointed lead
plaintiff.  It additionally argues that using the longer class
period will not encompass more potential class members because,
again, there is no relief being sought by the class prior to Jan.
26, 2017.

In response, the Diana Investor Group argues, inter alia, that the
basis for the Novack-Aerts Group's motion is simply a rehashing of
arguments made in the original motions and orally before the
Court.

Judge Feuerstein holds that the motion for reconsideration
constitutes the Novack-Aerts Group's fourth attempt to present the
same arguments on the same issue.  A review of the memoranda
submitted by the Novack-Aerts Group regarding the original motion
shows that it raised these exact issues previously.  The
Novack-Aerts Group is merely attempting to repackage its earlier
arguments or state them in a way that could have been raised in the
earlier motion.  Accordingly, it has stated no basis for
reconsideration of the prior order.

For all the foregoing reasons, Judge Feuerstein denied the
Novack-Aerts Group's motion for reconsideration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/q34JWB from Leagle.com.

Gerald Cohen, Movant, represented by Michael Jason Klein, Abraham,
Fruchter & Twersky, LLP.

Dwayne Barrett & Thomas Cosby, Movants, represented by Phillip Kim
-- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C.

Cary Gathright & John Hyland, Movants, represented by Shannon Lee
Hopkins -- shopkins@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

Marina Azorsky, Movant, represented by Jason A. Zweig --
jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Burcin Ekser, Steven Gerber & Gianfilippo Mogavero, Movants,
represented by Cara Joy David, Pomerantz LLP, Deborah
Clark-Weintraub, Scott & Scott LLP, J. Alexander Hood --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jeffrey Philip Jacobson --
jjacobson@scott-scott.com -- Scott&Scott Attorneys at Law LLP,
Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP,
Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Haudek
Block Grossman & Gross & Thomas Livezey Laughlin --
TLAUGHLIN@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- ScottScott, Attorneys at Law, LLP.

John Novack & Walter Aerts, Movants, represented by David Avi
Rosenfeld -- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd, LLP.

Jimmie O. Robinson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP & Samuel H. Rudman --
srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP.

Emmanuel S. Austin, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander
Hood, Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Joseph
Alexander Hood, II, Pom Erantz LLP & Patrick V. Dahlstrom,
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross.

Logan Little, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood,
Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Joseph
Alexander Hood, II, Pom Erantz LLP, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross & Peretz Bronstein, Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC.

Diana Containerships Inc., Symeon P. Palios, Andreas Michalopoulos
& Anastasios Margaronis, Defendants, represented by Israel David --
israel.david@friedfrank.com -- Fried Frank Harris Shriver &
Jacobson, LLP.

Kalani Investments Limited, Murchinson Ltd. & Marc Bistricer,
Defendants, represented by Peter H. White -- pete.white@srz.com --
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, pro hac vice & Noah Nehemiah Gillespie --
noah.gillespie@srz.com -- Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP.


DOMETIC CORP: Seeks 11th Circuit Review of Ruling in Cherry Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Dometic Corporation filed an appeal from a Court ruling
issued in the lawsuit titled Timothy Cherry, et al. v. Dometic
Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-22482-RNS, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.

The appellate case is captioned as Timothy Cherry, et al. v.
Dometic Corporation, Case No. 19-13478, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 19, 2019,
Plaintiffs Brandy Varner, et al., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is entitled Brandy
Varner, et al. v. Dometic Corporation, Case No. 19-13242.

The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.[BN]


ECO SCIENCE: Bid to Stay Raschke Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Eco Science Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 23, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2019, that the motion to stay
the class action suit initiated by Richard Raschke is still
pending.

On February 1, 2019, the lead plaintiff, Mr. Richard Raschke, a
purported shareholder of the Company, filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint against the Company, the Taylors, and Mr.
Gannon Giguiere in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

The Class Action arises out of alleged materially false and
misleading statements or omissions from the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) filings and/or public statements by or  on  behalf
of Company. The Class Action asserts claims against all defendants
for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Act"), violation of Section 20(a) of the Act against the
Taylors and Giguiere and Violation of Section 20(b) against Mr.
Giguiere.

The Class Action seeks (1) certification of the purported class of
plaintiffs, (2) compensatory damages in favor of the class and (3)
an award of reasonable costs and expenses.

Defendants have moved to stay this action.

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

Eco Science Solutions, Inc., a bio and software technology-focused
company, provides solutions for the health, wellness, and
alternative medicine industry. Its services include business
location, localized communications between consumers and business
operators, social networking, inventory management/selection, and
payment facilitation and delivery. Eco Science Solutions, Inc. was
founded in 2009 and is headquartered in Makawao, Hawaii.


EGS FINANCIAL: Jawaid Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EGS Financial Care,
Inc. The case is styled as Muhammad Jawaid individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EGS Financial
Care, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05616 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 3,
2019).

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

EGS Financial Care, Inc. provides financial services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FACILITY CLEANING: Bruce Smalls Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE SMALLS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. FACILITY CLEANING INTERNATIONAL, INC. and UNITED STATES
BUILDING CLEANING, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-02683 (D. Colo., Sept. 19,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Facility Cleaning International, Inc. is a for profit corporation
registered in Colorado, with its principal office located in
Denver, Colorado.  FCI is a "full service janitorial provider" that
addresses the "standard custodial services problems faced by all
property facility owners and managers."

United States Building Cleaning, LLC is a limited liability company
registered in Colorado, with its principal office located in
Denver, Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FCA US: Removes Barrett Case to Northern District of Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
FCA US LLC removed the case captioned as JOHN BARRETT and GRETTA
BARRETT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly sitauted,
the Plaintiff, vs. FCA US LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 19CV-179-1
(Filed June 26, 2019), from the Georgia Superior Court for Forsyth
County, to the US District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on July 26, 2019. The Northern District of Georgia Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00161-RWS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs bring their claims on behalf of all consumers in the
state of Georgia who own or owned any model-year 2015, 2016, 2017,
or 2018 Jeep Wrangler vehicle.

The Class Vehicles have a "defect" which the lawsuit characterizes
as a "Death Wobble." Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend that all
of the Class Vehicles "have an unreasonable propensity to develop
heavy shaking and dangerous oscillations of the steering components
at highway speeds."[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Kevin E. Epps, Esq.
          Adam L. Hoipkemier, Esq.
          EPPS HOLLOWAY DELOACH & HOIPKEMIER LLC
          1220 Langford Dr., Bldg. 200
          Watkinsville, GA 30677
          Telephone: (706) 508-4000
          Facsimile: (706) 842-6750

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Thomas M. Mitchell, Es
          CAROTHERS & MITCHELL, LLC
          1809 Buford Highway
          Buford, GA 30518
          Telephone: (770) 932-3552
          Facsimile: (770) 932-6348

FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in McGowan Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Derrick McGowan filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Derrick McGowan v. First Acceptance Insurance
Company, Inc., Case No. 8:19-cv-01101-SCB-CPT, in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated insureds, who suffered damages due to
Defendant's practice of refusing to pay full ACV payments to
first-party total loss insureds on physical damage policies
containing comprehensive and collision coverages.  Specifically, as
a matter of policy, Defendant fails to include state and local
title transfer, vehicle registration fees, and sales taxes (FTLP)
in its calculation of ACV when paying full total loss payment to
its insureds.

The ACV of a vehicle equates to the full cost to replace the
vehicle and such cost includes any mandatory regulatory taxes,
costs and fees (Full Total Loss Payments or "FTLP") required to
replace the vehicle. One of the coverages Defendant offers is
comprehensive and collision coverage. Upon information and belief,
Defendant systematically underpaid not just Plaintiff but thousands
of other putative class members ("Class Members") amounts Defendant
owed its insureds for ACV losses for total loss vehicles insured
with comprehensive and collision coverage, says the complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Derrick McGowan v. First
Acceptance Insurance Company, Inc., Case No. 19-13485, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due October 4,
2019, as to Appellee First Acceptance Insurance Company, Inc.[BN]

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

          Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          1945 Biscayne Blvd., #607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Lynch, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. LYNCH, P.A.
          6915 SW 57 Ave., Suite 208
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 443-6200
          E-mail: clynch@hunterlynchlaw.com

               - and -

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          Jacob Phillips, Esq.
          NORMAND, PLLC
          3165 McCrory PL, Suite 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          E-mail: Ed@ednormand.com
                  jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com

               - and -

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com

Defendant-Appellee FIRST ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., a
Texas Corporation, is represented by:

          Alyssa Lynn Cory, Esq.
          Erik R. Matheney, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN, LLP
          4301 W Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 221-3900
          E-mail: acory@shutts.com
                  ematheney@shutts.com

               - and -

          Frank A. Zacherl, III, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN, LLP
          200 S Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100
          Miami, FL 33431
          Telephone: (305) 358-6300
          E-mail: FZacherl@shutts.com


FIRSTCREDIT INC: Legere-Gordon Sues Over Illegal Automated Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
NAOMI LEGERE-GORDON, individually and on behalf all others
similarly situated v. FIRSTCREDIT INCORPORATED, Case No.
1:19-cv-00360-DCN (D. Idaho, Sept. 18, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's illegal conduct in contacting individuals, including
the Plaintiff, through the use of automated calls in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

FirstCredit, Inc. is a professional corporation and citizen of the
State of Ohio.  The Company has its principal place of business
located in Akron, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Swartz, Esq.
          JONES & SWARTZ PLLC
          Landmark Legal GroupTM
          623 West Hays Street
          Boise, ID 83702-5512
          Telephone: (208) 489-8989
          Facsimile: (208) 489-8988
          E-mail: eric@jonesandswartzlaw.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: (312) 283-3814
          Facsimile: (773) 496-8617
          E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

               - and -

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


FLORIDA HEALTH: Doyle Sues Over Prerecorded Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT DOYLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FLORIDA HEALTH SOLUTION, CORP., JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED a Florida Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-24013-DPG (S.D. Fla., Sept. 27, 2019) is a class action
complaint brought for damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal
actions of Defendant in negligently or willfully contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.

The Defendant utilizes prerecorded telemarketing calls to market
and advertise Defendant's business, including at least 24 calls to
Plaintiff. At no time did Plaintiff provide Plaintiff's cellular
number to Defendant through any medium, nor did Plaintiff consent
to receive such unsolicited calls. Plaintiff has never signed-up
for, and has never used, Defendant's services, and has never had
any form of business relationship with Defendant. Through the
unsolicited calls, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone regarding an unsolicited service via an
"automatic telephone dialing system," ("ATDS").

According to the complaint, the Defendant is and was aware that it
is placing unsolicited robocalls to Plaintiff and other consumers
without their prior express consent. Plaintiff was damaged by
Defendant's call. In addition to using Plaintiff's residential
data, his privacy was wrongfully invaded, and Plaintiff has become
understandably aggravated with having to deal with the frustration
of repeated, unwanted calls, forcing him to divert attention away
from his work and other activities, says the complaint.

Plaintiff's domicile is in New Jersey.

Defendant is in the business of selling credit health savings
and/or health insurance policies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.      
     Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
     EGGNATZ PASCUCCI
     7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230
     Davie, FL 33314
     Email: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com
            MPascucci@justiceearned.com



FORSTER & GARBUS: Reed Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP. The case is styled as Cynthia Reed individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus,
LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05613 (E,D. N.Y., Oct. 3, 2019).

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

Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company
specializes in collecting debts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


GENESEE & WYOMING: Plaintiffs Agree to Drop Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genesee & Wyoming Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on September 25, 2019,
that the plaintiffs in the merger-related class action suits have
agreed to voluntarily dismiss their cases.

An Agreement and Plan of Merger, was entered into on July 1, 2019,
by and among Genesee & Wyoming Inc. (G&W), DJP XX, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company ("Parent"), and MKM XXII Corp., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged with
and into G&W (the "merger") with G&W surviving the merger as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

Following the filing of G&W's definitive proxy statement (the
"proxy statement") associated with the merger with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on August 20, 2019, three
lawsuits were filed in connection with the merger, including two
purported class action lawsuits that were filed on August 21, 2019
and September 4, 2019 in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, and one lawsuit filed on behalf of a
purported individual shareholder on September 12, 2019 in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

These lawsuits, Gordon vs Genesee & Wyoming Inc. et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01558-MN, Thompson vs Genesee & Wyoming Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-01650-MN, and Geery vs Genesee & Wyoming Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01438-VLB (collectively, the "Actions"), name G&W
and individual officers and members of the G&W board of directors
as defendants.

The Actions allege, among other things, that the defendants failed
to disclose certain information relating to G&W’s financial
projections set forth in the proxy statement.

G&W believes that the Actions are without merit and that no further
disclosure is required to supplement the proxy statement under
applicable law; however, to eliminate the burden, expense, and
uncertainties inherent in such litigation, and without admitting
any liability or wrongdoing, G&W has agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures to the proxy statement. Nothing in the
supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal
necessity or materiality under applicable law of any of the
disclosures set forth. The defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue vigorously to deny, that they have committed any violation
of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in
the Actions. In consideration for such supplemental disclosures by
G&W, plaintiffs in the Actions have agreed to voluntarily dismiss
the Actions.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/2nitQ8Q

Genesee & Wyoming Inc. owns or leases 121 freight railroads
worldwide that are organized in 10 operating regions with
approximately 7,200 employees and more than 2,800 customers. The
company is based in Darien, Connecticut.


GLOBAL CREDIT: Answer to Ortiz Suit Due Oct. 29
-----------------------------------------------
Global Credit & Collection Corp. has until Oct. 29, 2019, to answer
the complaint, MELINDA ORTIZ, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GLOBAL CREDIT & COLLECTION
CORP. and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-03271-JHS (E.D. Pa., July 25, 2019).

The case alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in
abusive, deceptive and unfair practices.

The Plaintiff brings this action as a class action, pursuant to
Rule 23 of the FRCP, on behalf of herself and all Pennsylvania
consumers and their successors in interest, who were sent debt
collection letters and/or notices from the Defendant, in violation
of the FDCPA.

The letter is deceptive because the instructions can be read to
have two or more different meanings one of which is inaccurate,
that is that Plaintiff could have disputed the debt by making a
telephone call, the lawsuit says.

Global credit maintains a location at 5440 N Cumberland A venue,
Suite 300, Chicago, Illinois 60656.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff are:

          Michael P. Forbes, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL P FORBES, PC
          200 Eagle Road, Suite 50
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 293-9399
          E-mail: michael@mforbeslaw.com

GNC CONTRACTING: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Peters Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN PETERS, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees,
Plaintiffs, v. GNC CONTRACTING d/b/a G AND C CONTRACTING, JERRY
CONKLIN, an individual, and CRYSTAL ZAWINSKI, an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-1239 (W.D. Pa., Sept. 27, 2019) is a
collective action against Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

During his employment, Plaintiff Peters held the position of
laborer. The complain alleges that Defendants do not maintain
accurate records of the hours that Plaintiff and the Classes worked
each workday and total hours worked each workweek as required by
the FLSA. The Defendants, by altering or manipulating the
employee's hours, failed to compensate employees for their hours
worked. Additionally, Defendants failed to properly compensate
employees for overtime hours worked. The Defendants failed to
maintain a regular pay date, often paying Plaintiffs well after the
date they should have been paid. The Defendants have acted
willfully and with reckless disregard of clearly applicable FLSA
and state law provisions by failing to compensate Plaintiffs and
the Classes for hours worked in excess of forty per week, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Ryan Peters is a resident of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania and formerly worked for Defendants as an hourly,
non-exempt employee.

Defendants are in the business of construction and remodeling
services including kitchens and baths, game rooms and home
improvements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth J. Hardin II, Esq.
     HARDIN THOMPSON, P.C.
     The Frick Building
     437 Grant Street, Suite 620
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Phone: 412-315-7195
     Email: kenhardin@hardinlawpc.net


GOOD HEALTH INC: Calle Sues Over Denied OT Pay, Breaks, Pay Slips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erika Calle, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Good Health, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19STCV30055, (Cal. Super., August 27, 2019),
seeks monetary damages and restitution, penalties/premium pay for
missed meal and rest periods, restitution and restoration of sums
owed and property unlawfully withheld, reimbursement of
business-related expenses, payment of final wages upon termination,
statutory penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs under California labor code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Orders.

Good Health, Inc. operates as Premier Pharmacy Services where Calle
worked as a non-exempt employee. Good Health allegedly failed to
compensate them for all hours worked, missed meal periods and/or
rest breaks. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Han, Esq.
      Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
      Daniel J. Park, Esq.
      JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
      411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (818) 230-7502
      Fax: (818) 230-7259


GOODFELLA'S PIZZA: Neira Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MEGHAN MARIE NEIRA, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. GOODFELLA'S PIZZA, INC. and AARON
FOX Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00489 (W.D. N.C., Sept. 27, 2019)
is a lawsuit brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours
owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed
by Defendants at its Domino's stores.

The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants beginning in approximately
April 2019 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's store
located within this District.

Defendants operate numerous Domino's franchise stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jacob J. Modla, Esq.
     The Law Offices of Jason E. Taylor P.C.
     454 South Anderson Rd., Suite 303
     Rock Hill, SC 29730
     Phone: 803-328-0898
     Email: jmodla@jasonetaylor.com

          - and -

     J. Forester, Esq.
     Matthew Haynie, Esq.
     FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
     400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 210-2100
     Fax: (214) 346-5909
     Web: www.foresterhaynie.com


HEADWAY TECH: Challapalli Sues Over Hard Drive Spring Price-rigging
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mamatha Challapalli, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Headway Technologies, Inc.,
Hutchinson Technology Inc., Magnecomp Precision Technology Public
Co., Ltd., NAT Peripheral (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., NAT Peripheral
(H.K.) Co., Ltd, NHK Spring Co. Ltd., NHK International
Corporation, NHK Spring (Thailand) Co., Ltd., NHK Spring Precision
(Guangzhou) Co., Ltd., SAE Magnetics (H.K.) Ltd. and TDK
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02399, (D. Minn., August
30, 2019), seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief
pursuant to the Sherman Act, federal antitrust laws, state
antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection laws and the
laws of unjust enrichment.

Defendants are manufacturers of hard disk drive suspension
assemblies. Challapalli purchased at least one HDD suspension
assembly indirectly from at least one Defendant and claims that
they conspired to fix prices of and allocate market shares for
these suspension assemblies.

Suspension assemblies are a component of hard disk drives and are
installed in a variety of electronic products. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
     HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC
     8050 West 78th Street,
     Minneapolis, MN 55439
     Tel: (952) 941-4005
     Fax: (952) 941-2337
     Email: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com

            - and -

     Timothy D. Battin, Esq.
     Nathan M. Cihlar, Esq.
     Christopher V. Le, Esq.
     Shinae Kim-Helms, Esq.
     STRAUS & BOIES, LLP
     4041 University Drive, Fifth Floor
     Fairfax, VA 22201
     Telephone: (703) 764-8700
     Facsimile: (703) 764-8704
     Email: tbattin@straus-boies.com
            ncihlar@straus-boies.com
            cle@straus-boies.com
            skimhelms@straus-boies.com


HEADWAY TECH: Cimino Sues Over Hard Drive Spring Price-rigging
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vinny Cimino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Headway Technologies, Inc., Hutchinson
Technology Inc., Magnecomp Precision Technology Public Co., Ltd.,
NAT Peripheral (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., NAT Peripheral (H.K.) Co.,
Ltd, NHK Spring Co. Ltd., NHK International Corporation, NHK Spring
(Thailand) Co., Ltd., NHK Spring Precision (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.,
SAE Magnetics (H.K.) Ltd. and TDK Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-02406, (D. Minn., August 30, 2019), seeks damages, injunctive
relief and other relief pursuant to the Sherman Act, federal
antitrust laws, state antitrust, unfair competition, consumer
protection laws and the laws of unjust enrichment.

Defendants are manufacturers of hard disk drive suspension
assemblies. Cimino purchased at least one HDD suspension assembly
indirectly from at least one Defendant and claims that they
conspired to fix prices of and allocate market shares for these
suspension assemblies.

Suspension assemblies are a component of hard disk drives and are
installed in a variety of electronic products. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Vildan A. Teske, Esq.
     Marisa C. Katz, Esq.
     TESKE, MICKO, KATZ, KITZER & ROCHEL, PLLP
     222 South Ninth Street, Suite 4050
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Tel: (612) 746-1558
     Fax: (651) 846-5339
     Email: teske@teskemicko.com
            katz@teskemicko.com

            - and -

     George F. Farah, Esq.
     HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON
     81 Prospect Street
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (212) 477-8090
     Fax: (804)-300-1952
     Email: gfarah@hfajustice.com

            - and -

     Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
     Raymond J. Farrow, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101-3052
     Telephone: (206) 623-1900
     Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
     Email: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
            rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com


HESS BAKKEN: White River Files Class Action in North Dakota Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hess Bakken
Investments II, LLC. The case is styled as White River Royalties,
LLC, Sara Cammack on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs v. Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00218-CRH (D. N.D., Oct. 3, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC is in the Crude Petroleum
Production business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joshua A. Swanson, Esq.
     Robert James Pathroff, Esq.
     Vogel Law Firm (Fargo)
     218 NP Avenue
     PO Box 1389
     Fargo, ND 58107-1389
     Phone: (701) 237-6983
     Email: jswanson@vogellaw.com
            rpathroff@vogellaw.com

          - and -

     George A Barton, Esq.
     Law Offices of George A. Barton
     7227 Metcalf Ave., Suite 301
     Overland Park, KS 66204
     Phone: (913) 563-6254
     Email: gab@georgebartonlaw.com


HIBU PLC: Levien & Westhand Sue over Loss of Share Value
--------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS LEVIEN and JAMES WESTHAND, Individually and on Behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HIBU PLC; HIBU GROUP
LIMITED; HIBU (UK) LIMITED; YH LIMITED; HIBU INC.; HIBU (USA) LLC;
HIBU HOLDINGS (USA) INC.; HIBU OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., ESTATE OF
JOHN MICHAEL POCOCK; ANTONY JEFFREY BATES; ROBERT CHARLES MICHAEL
WIGLEY; ELIZABETH GRACE CHAMBERS; JOHN BERNARD COGHLAN; TOBY RUFUS
COPPEL; CARLOS ESPINOSA DE LOS MONTEROS; ESTATE OF KATHLEEN
FLAHERTY; AND RICHARD HOOPER, the Defendants, Case
2:19-cv-03239-MMB (E.D. Pa., July 25, 2019), alleges that Levien
and Westhead, and all other similarly situated shareholders, were
deprived of the opportunity to sell their shares before the company
extinguished their rights, and suffered losses when the company
shares became worthless.

In 2012, Yell Group was renamed hibu plc and was deeply in debt.
The officers and Board of Directors conducted a campaign of
disinformation and knowing false statements about the company's
financial well-being and future prospects that culminated, from the
shareholders' perspective, in the delisting of the company's traded
shares on or about July 25, 2013, effectively reducing the value of
the shareholders' investment to zero.

The Yell/hibu shareholders including Plaintiffs, and all other
similarly situated shareholders, reasonably relied on the
fraudulent and deceitful misrepresentation and omission by the
company officers and directors and were therefore deprived of the
right to make decisions regarding the holding or selling of their
stock based on accurate information.

The conspiracy culminated when, in secret cooperation with its
lenders, the company effectively divested itself of assets so as to
qualify for "administration" (the British analogue to Chapter 11
bankruptcy) and extinguished the rights of all of its shareholders,
with no compensation.

In administration, hibu was created as a private company, hibu
Group Limited, now owned, on information and belief, by former
lenders to the company.

Yell Group owned publication known as Yellowbook, a print and
online advertising publication for medium and small businesses,
which for many years was published in the United States, the United
Kingdom, Spain, and Latin America.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Clifford E. Haines, Esq.
          Danielle M. Weiss, Esq.
          Linda J. Karpel, Esq.
          HAINES & ASSOCIATES
          The Widener Building, 5th Floor
          1339 Chestnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 246 2200
          Facsimile: (215) 246 2211

               - and -

          Aaron J. Freiwald, Esq.
          Zachary S. Feinberg, Esq.
          FREIWALD LAW PC
          1500 Walnut Street, 18th floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 875-8000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-8575

HYDRO ENVIRONMENTAL: Bids to Dismiss Galarza Labor Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JULIO GALARZA, VICTOR CONTRERAS, SILVESTRE CASTILLO,
GILBERTO UBILLUZ, JOSE RAMIREZ, MIGUEL VASQUEZ, and RODOLFO
CUADROS, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. HYDRO ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRACTING CORP.
d/b/a ENVIRO DRILLING & CONTRACTING INC., HYDRO TECH ENVIRONMENTAL
CORP., HYDRO TECH ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGY, D.P.C.,
MOSTAFA EL SEHAMY, MARK E. ROBBINS, TAREK Z. KHOURI, HAKS
ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS AND LAND SURVEYORS, D.P.C. and LANGAN
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-1380 (ADS) (ARL) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied
with leave to renew (i) Defendants Langan' and Haks' motions to
dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6); (ii) the Plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave to amend the
complaint pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 15.

On June 12, 2018, the named Plaintiffs, acting on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, brought a putative
class action against the Defendants.  They brought the action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and common
law.

Defendants Langan and Haks filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
The Plaintiffs cross-moved for leave to amend the complaint.  On
Sept. 14, 2019, the Court referred the motions to Magistrate Judge
Arlene R. Lindsay for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") as to
whether the motions should be granted, and if so, what relief
should be afforded.  

On July 25, 2019, Judge Lindsay issued her R&R.  She finds that by
letter dated June 10, 2019, the Plaintiffs advised the Court that
the parties have reached a settlement in principle.  During a
Conference held, the parties indicated that they intend to submit a
motion for approval of the settlement pursuant to Cheeks v.
Freeport Pancake House, Inc., with respect to the Plaintiffs' FLSA
claims by Aug. 16, 2019.  They also advised that they do not object
to having the motions denied with leave to renew should the
settlement agreement not be finalized.  Accordingly, the Magistrate
respectfully recommends that the motions identified in the report
be denied with leave to renew.

It has been more than 14 days since the service of the R&R.  The
parties have not filed objections.  They've yet to settle the case,
though they have recently been given an extension of the deadline
to submit the settlement agreement.  As such, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72, Judge Spatt has reviewed the
R&R for clear error, and, finding none, now concurs in both its
reasoning and its result.  Accordingly, he adopted the R&R in its
entirety.  The noted motions are denied with leave to renew.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Adoption Order is
available at https://is.gd/Tk00RS from Leagle.com.

Julio Galarza, Victor Contreras, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, Miguel Vasquez, Rodolfo Cuadros,
Jose Ramirez, Silvestre Castillo & Gilberto Ubilluz, Plaintiffs,
represented by Peter Arcadio Romero -- promero@romerolawny.com --
Suite B & David Donald Barnhorn -- dbarnhorn@romerolawny.com -- Law
Office of Peter A. Romero PLLC.

Hydro Environmental Contracting Corp., doing business as Enviro
Drilling & Contracting Inc., Hyrdro Tech Environmental, Corp.,
Hydro Tech Environmental Engineering And Geology, D.P.C., Mark E.
Robbins & Tarek Z. Khouri, Defendants, represented by Andrew Kyle
Martingale -- martingale@hmylaw.com -- Hamburger, Maxson, Yaffe &
McNally LLP & Lane T. Maxson -- lmaxson@hmylaw.com -- Hamburger,
Maxson, Yaffe & McNally, LLP.

Mostafa El Sehamy, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Ettenger --
jse@selawny.com -- Schwartz Ettenger, PLLC.

Haks Engineers, Architects and Land Surveyors, D.P.C., Defendant,
represented by Andrew Kyle Martingale, Hamburger, Maxson, Yaffe &
McNally LLP, Lane T. Maxson, Hamburger, Maxson, Yaffe & McNally,
LLP & Meryle A. Kaleda, HAKS Engineers.

Mostafa El Sehamy, Cross Claimant, represented by Jeffrey S.
Ettenger, Schwartz Ettenger, PLLC.

Hydro Environmental Contracting Corp., Hydro Tech Environmental
Engineering And Geology, D.P.C., Hyrdro Tech Environmental, Corp.,
Tarek Z. Khouri & Mark E. Robbins, Cross Defendants, represented by
Andrew Kyle Martingale, Hamburger, Maxson, Yaffe & McNally LLP &
Lane T. Maxson, Hamburger, Maxson, Yaffe & McNally, LLP.

Hydro Tech Environmental Engineering And Geology, D.P.C., Hydro
Environmental Contracting Corp., Tarek Z. Khouri, Hyrdro Tech
Environmental, Corp. & Mark E. Robbins, Cross Claimants,
represented by Andrew Kyle Martingale, Hamburger, Maxson, Yaffe &
McNally LLP & Lane T. Maxson, Hamburger, Maxson, Yaffe & McNally,
LLP.

Mostafa El Sehamy, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S.
Ettenger, Schwartz Ettenger, PLLC.

Haks Engineers, Architects and Land Surveyors, D.P.C., Cross
Defendant, represented by Andrew Kyle Martingale, Hamburger,
Maxson, Yaffe & McNally LLP & Lane T. Maxson, Hamburger, Maxson,
Yaffe & McNally, LLP.


ICONIX BRAND: Stipulation of Settlement Entered in SDNY Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on September 18, 2019,
that the company has entered into a Stipulation of Settlement in
the securities class action suit entitled, In re Iconix Brand
Group, Inc., et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-04860.

On September 16, 2019, Iconix Brand Group, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement (the "Stipulation") with the lead plaintiff in the
securities class action lawsuit pending against it in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, In re
Iconix Brand Group, Inc., et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-04860 (the
"Class Action").

The proposed settlement releases all claims asserted against the
Company and the other named defendants party to the Stipulation in
the Class Action without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to
them.

The proposed settlement provides for a total settlement payment of
$6.0 million, inclusive of administrative fees and fees for lead
plaintiff’s counsel. The Company expects that substantially all
of the settlement will be covered by the Company's directors and
officers liability insurance. The proposed settlement remains
subject to court approval and other customary conditions.

Iconix Brand Group, Inc., a brand management company, owns,
licenses, and markets a portfolio of consumer brands across the
women's, men's, and home industries in the United States and
internationally. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. was founded in 1978 and
is based in New York, New York.


JAM CITY: Ferry Agrees to Drop Class Suit
-----------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Jam City, Inc., has
agreed to dismiss the case captioned as Casey Ferry on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Jam
City, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06501-DDP-RAO (C.D.
Cal., July 26, 2019). The suit asserts consumer credit-related
issues. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dean D. Pregerson.

In a Sept. 25 Order, the Court held that it has reviewed Jam City,
Inc.s and Plaintiff Casey Ferrys Local Rule 7-3 Joint Statement
filed Sept. 24 and concludes that counsel have not conducted a
proper Local Rule 7-3 conference based on their failure to
meaningfully describe their respective positions. If the Defendant
wishes to file a motion to dismiss, lead counsel shall meet and
confer in person by Sept. 30.  Within 3 days of the meet and
confer, each party shall file a declaration setting forth the
issues resolved at the conference and those issues that were not
resolved with a detailed explanation of why those issues could not
be resolved. If a motion remain necessary, parties shall not file
the motions until 2 days after each party files the declaration
required by this Order.

Following the Sept. 25 Order, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal, with prejudice, on Sept. 30.

Jam City is an American video game developer. The company was
founded in 2010 by MySpace co-founders Chris DeWolfe, Colin Digiaro
and Aber Whitcomb, and former 20th Century Fox executive Josh
Yguado.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are

          Kristy M. Arevalo, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          3281 East Guasti Road Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 335-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: kma@mccunewright.com

JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Ct. Orders Distribution of Class Settlement Fund
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, has issued an order for
the distribution of the class Settlement fund in the case, IN RE:
JUNO THERAPEUTICS INC, Case No. C16-1069 RSM (W.D. Wash.).

He finds that the administration of the Settlement and proposed
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund comply with the terms of
the Stipulation and the Plan of Allocation.

The funds that are currently in the Net Settlement Fund (less any
necessary amounts to be withheld for payment of potential tax
liabilities and related fees and expenses) will be distributed on a
pro rata basis to the Authorized Claimants identified in Exhibits D
and E to the Declaration of Eric Schachter In Support of Class
Representatives' Application For Authorization To Distribute Net
Settlement Fund, at the direction of Pomerantz LLP, pursuant to the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated July 31, 2018 and the
Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund set forth in the
Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action that was
distributed pursuant to the Court's prior Order.

Any person asserting any rejected or subsequently filed claims
after July 18, 2019 are finally and forever barred.

The checks for distribution to Authorized Claimants will bear the
notation "DEPOSIT PROMPTLY.  VOID AND SUBJECT TO REDISTRIBUTION IF
NOT NEGOTIATED WITHIN 120 DAYS OF DISTRIBUTION."  The Class Counsel
and the court-appointed Claims Administrator, A.B. Data, are
authorized to locate and/or contact any Authorized Claimant who has
not cashed his, her or its check within said time.

To the extent that any amount of the Settlement Fund remains after
the Claims Administrator has caused distributions to be made to all
the Authorized Claimants whether by reason of uncashed
distributions or otherwise, then, after the Claims Administrator
has made reasonable and diligent efforts to have Authorized
Claimants cash their distributions, any balance remaining in the
Settlement Fund nine months after the initial distribution of such
funds will be re-distributed to the Authorized Claimants who have
cashed their initial distributions, after payment of any unpaid
Taxes and Tax Expenses or any unpaid costs or fees incurred in
administering the Settlement Fund for such re-distribution if the
Class Counsel, in consultation with the Claims Administrator,
determines that additional re-distributions, after the deduction of
any additional fees and expenses that would be incurred with
respect to such re-distributions, would be cost-effective.

Further re-distributions to the Authorized Claimants who have
cashed their prior distribution checks may occur thereafter if
Class Counsel, in consultation with the Claims Administrator,
determines that further re-distributions, after the deduction of
any additional fees and expenses that would be incurred with
respect to such re-distributions, would be cost effective.  At such
time as it is determined that the re-distribution of funds
remaining in the Settlement Fund is not cost-effective, the
remaining balance in the Settlement Fund will be contributed to the
501(c)(3) non-profit organization Recovery Café, located at 2022
Boren Avenue Seattle, WA 98121.

The Judge directed and authorized the payment from the Settlement
Fund of the $55,532.78 to the Claims Administrator.

Following distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, A.B. Data is
ordered to maintain the completed Proofs of Claims on file for one
year after the final distribution date.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/OJQLkl from Leagle.com.

Goce Veljanoski, Plaintiff, represented by Janissa Ann Strabuk --
jstrabuk@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Jeffrey C. Block
--
jeff@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, pro hac vice, Joel
Fleming -- joel@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, pro hac vice
&
Kim D. Stephens -- kstephens@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN
STEPHENS.

Liberata Paradisco, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Duncan Calvert
Turner -- duncanturner@badgleymullins.com -- BADGLEY MULLINS
TURNER
PLLC.

Gilbert Hoang Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick V.
Dahlstrom -pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP, pro hac vice &
Clifford A. Cantor.

Susan Tan, Plaintiff, pro se.

Juno Therapeutics Inc, Hans E Bishop, individually and on behalf
of
the marital community, Steven D. Harr & Mark J. Gilbert,
Defendants, represented by Daniel Slifkin -- dslifkin@cravath.com
-- CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro hac vice, Drew Liming --
dliming@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, pro hac
vice,
Ignacio E. Salceda -- Isalcedo@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH
& ROSATI, pro hac vice, Joni Ostler -- jostler@wsgr.com -- WILSON
SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, pro hac vice, Karin A. DeMasi --
kdemasi@cravath.com -- CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro hac vice,
Lauren
M. Rosenberg -- lrosenberg@cravath.com -- CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE,
pro hac vice, Morgan J. Cohen, CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE, pro hac
vice, Nina F. Locker -- NLocker@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI
GOODRICH
& ROSATI, pro hac vice & Gregory Lewis Watts -- Gwatts@wsgr.com --
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI.

Man Nguyen, Movant, represented by Clifford A. Cantor.

Gilbert Hoang Nguyen, Movant, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman
--
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANATZ LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph
Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP, pro hac
vice, Leigh Handelman Smollar -- lsmollar@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ
LLP, pro hac vice, Omar Jafri -- ojafri@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ
LLP, pro hac vice & Clifford A. Cantor.


KITCHENAID INC: Misrepresented Blenders' Horsepower, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ERIC NATHAN, CHRIS SMITH, WILLIAM JOHNSON,
RICHARD TSCHERNJAWSKI, and JUDITH ANDERSON, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. KITCHENAID,
INC.; WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION; and WHIRLPOOL PROPERTIES, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00226-WHR (S.D. Ohio, July 25, 2019),
targets Defendants' conduct in the marketing and sale of two series
of blenders, KitchenAid Pro Line Series Blenders and High
Performance Series Blenders which are intended for household use
only. The Blenders, according to the lawsuit, are incapable of
reaching Whirlpool's horsepower representations for the Blenders at
any time during household use. The Plaintiffs seek damages and
equitable relief on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated.

Whirlpool, doing business as and using the trade name KitchenAid,
manufactures, markets, and sells a variety of blenders, including
the Blenders. Defendants charge a premium for the Blenders based on
the misrepresented horsepower capabilities during household usage.

Whirlpool represents on its website -- www.kitchenaid.com -- in its
marketing materials, and on its product packaging that the Blenders
have a specific power output, quantified in horsepower, when in
fact it is impossible to reach even close to that horsepower during
household usage, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          W.B. Markovits, Esq.
          Paul M. De Marco, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DE MARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com
                  pdemarco@msdlegal.com
                  tcoates@msdlegal.com

               - and -

          Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
          HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
          8050 West 78th Street
          Edina. MN 55439
          Telephone: (952) 941-4005
          Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
          E-mail: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Mark J. Schirmer, Esq.
          STRAUS & BOIES, LLP
          1355 Lynnfield Road, Suite 245
          Memphis, TN 38119
          Telephone: (901) 683-4522
          E-mail: mschirmer@straus-boies.com

LAKE ARBOR: Discovery on Amount in Controversy in Russell Ordered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SERITA RUSSELL and DORETHA JOHNSON, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LAKE ARBOR
80M TIC, LLC, d/b/a LAKE ARBOR APARTMENTS; LAKE ARBOR DEAN TIC,
LLC, d/b/a LAKE ARBOR APARTMENTS; BROAD MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC.; and
WELLINGTON ADVISORS, LLC, Defendants, Docket No.
3:19-cv-00338-FDW-DSC (W.D. N.C.), Judge Frank D. Whitney of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
ordered limited jurisdictional discovery as to the amount in
controversy in this matter.

The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand
and the Defendants' response in opposition to the motion.  

Judge Whitney ordered that each side shall have seven days from the
date of the Order to serve no more than 10 interrogatories, five
requests for production of documents, and notice of five hours of
depositions.  The discovery is limited to the jurisdictional
question of whether the amount in controversy under Class Action
Fairness Act is satisfied.  All responses shall be due no more than
21 days following service of the same.

Following the limited discovery, each side may submit supplemental
briefing limited to addressing the threshold amount in controversy
under CAFA and such briefing shall not exceed 1,500 words.  Both
parties are ordered to file any supplemental briefing no later than
Oct. 18, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/tw08Io from Leagle.com.

Serita Russell & Doretha Johnson, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jack Holtzman
-- jack@ncjustice.org -- North Carolina Justice Center, Julian Hugh
Wright, Jr. -- jwright@robinsonbradshaw.com -- Robinson, Bradshaw &
Hinson, P. A., Sharon S. Dove, Mullen Holland & Cooper & Natalia
Maria Botella, Charlotte Center for Legal Advocacy.

Lake Arbor 80M TIC, LLC, doing business as Lake Arbor Apartments,
Lake Arbor Dean TIC, LLC, doing business as Lake Arbor Apartments,
Broad Management Group, LLC & Wellington Advisors, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Erik M. Rosenwood -- Erik@rosenwoodrose.com --
Hamilton Stephens Steele Martin, PLLC, Jennifer K. Van Zant --
jvanzant@brookspierce.com -- Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey &
Leonard, LLP, Whitaker Boykin Rose -- wrose@rosenwoodrose.com --
Baucom, Claytor, Benton, Morgan & Wood & D.J. O'Brien, III --
dobrien@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey &
Leonard.


LEGENDS OWO: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Legends OWO, LLC. The
case is styled as James Murphy on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Legends OWO, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09215 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 4, 2019).

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

Legends Owo LLC is a privately held company in Albany, NY and is a
Single Location business, categorized under Testing Services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zare Khorozian, Esq.
     Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
     1047 Anderson Avenue
     Fort Lee, NJ 07024
     Phone: (201) 957-7269
     Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com


LINEQUEST LLC: Technician Files Suit Over Illegal Pay Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN MONDECK, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. LINEQUEST, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00221
(W.D. Tex., Sept. 27, 2019) is a collective action brought to
recover the unpaid overtime and other damages owed to workers who
worked for LineQuest as Line Locators and a Right of Way
Technicians.

The complaint asserts that LineQuest does not pay its Line Locators
nor its Right of Way Technicians overtime as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act. Instead, they are paid a maximum amount per
workweek (which it calls a "salary"). LineQuest's pay plan violates
the FLSA because it does not pay Line Locators nor its Right of Way
Technicians overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Shawn Mondeck was a Line Locator and a Right of Way
Technician for LineQuest from May to September 2019.

LineQuest is a damage prevention company specializing in line
locating, mapping, and hydro-excavation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 877-8788
     Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

          - and -

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: 713-352-1100
     Facsimile: 713-352-3300
     Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
            adunlap@mybackwages.com


LVNV FUNDING: Moore Added as Class Rep in Mitchell FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY MITCHELL, on behalf of herself and all other
class members, Plaintiff, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC; RESURGENT CAPITAL
SERVICES, L.P.; and ALEGIS GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Cause No.
2:12-CV-523-TLS (N.D. Ind.), Judge Theresa L. Springmann of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana granted
the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Add Plaintiff as Additional
Class Representative, filed on July 31, 2019.

On July 11, 2019, Plaintiff Mitchell filed a Motion requesting that
the Court excuse her appearance as the Class Representative at the
upcoming Fairness Hearing due to her critical health condition.
The Court subsequently granted the Plaintiff's Motion, and the
Fairness Hearing was held as scheduled on July 25, 2019, for the
purpose of discussing the Settlement Agreement.  Sometime prior to
the Fairness Hearing, Mitchell had succumbed to her illness.  The
Court, the Plaintiff's counsel, and the Defendants' counsel were
not aware of Mitchell's passing at the time of the Fairness
Hearing.

The Order granting the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class, and
thus establishing Mitchell as the Class Representative, was entered
on Nov. 12, 2015.  In light of Mitchell's passing, the Plaintiff's
counsel has requested that the Court name Kimberly Moore as the new
class representative.  The Plaintiff's counsel has informed the
Court that Moore has retained the class counsel and, if the Court
were to appoint her, is willing to serve as the class
representative.

Judge Springmann finds several factors that lead her to believe
that Moore would be an adequate representative for the existing
class.  First and foremost, Moore is a member of the class and has
suffered the same injury as her fellow class members.  Because she
has suffered the same injury and is similarly situated, the claims
Moore has asserted in the proceeding are identical to, and do not
conflict with, the claims of the other class members.  Further, the
Judge has no reason to believe that Moore's substitution will
impact the interests of the class, as she has been assured that the
change of the class representative will not result in the
alteration of the relief sought through this claim or the terms of
the Settlement Agreement that has been presented to the Court.
Finally, the Defendant's counsel has expressed no objection to
adding Moore as the new class representative.

There being ample evidence that Moore will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the existing class, the requirements
outlined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a)(4) are
satisfied, thus making Moore an adequate candidate for the class
representative and an appropriate substitute for Class
Representative Mitchell in light of her unexpected passing.

For these reasons, Judge Springmann granted the Unopposed Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/sbotl8 from Leagle.com.

Mary Mitchell, on behalf of plaintiffs and the class defined,
Plaintiff, represented by Cathleen M. Combs, Edelman Combs
Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Daniel A. Edelman, Edelman Combs Latturner
& Goodwin LLC, James O. Latturner, Edelman Combs Latturner &
Goodwin LLC, Tiffany N. Hardy, Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin
LLC & Cassandra P. Miller, Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC.

Kimberly Moore, on behalf of plaintiffs and the class defined,
Plaintiff, pro se.

LVNV Funding LLC, Resurgent Capital Services LP & Alegis Group LLC,
Defendants, represented by David M. Schultz --
dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Nabil G.
Foster -- nfoster@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,
Patrick P. Devine, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Jennifer W. Weller --
jweller@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.


M-I LLC: Bid to Sever Claims in Coder FLSA Suit Denied as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT CODER, ET AL., v. M-I, LLC, SECTION: D(1),
Civil Action No. 17-15074-WBV-JVM (E.D. La.), Judge Wendy B. Vitter
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
denied as moot the Defendant's Motion to Sever.

On Dec. 6, 2017, Coder, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Murray Alford, Craig Dawson, Michael Maloy,
Robert Theiss and Cory Veuleman, filed a Complaint in the Court,
styled as a collective action, seeking to recover unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), from the
Defendant.  The parties agree, however, that the Plaintiffs have
not moved for conditional certification of a class.  

Nonetheless, the Defendant filed the instant Motion to Sever,
seeking an Order severing the claims of nine Plaintiffs and/or
purported opt-ins: Coder, Alford, Dawson, Maloy, Theiss, Vueleman,
William Green, William McBee, and James Slack, who have alleged
violations of the FLSA.  According to the Defendant, the
Plaintiffs' claims should be severed into independent, separate
lawsuits and adjudicated separately at trial.  It notes, however,
that, while they've styled the matter as a Collective Action, the
Plaintiffs have not moved for conditional certification.  Green,
McBee, and Slack have purported to opt-in.

The Plaintiffs and the purported opt-in Plaintiffs, Green, McBee
and Slack, oppose the Motion, asserting that the Defendant's
argument lacks merit and that the Motion should be denied.  They
assert that their claims are sufficiently related to support
joinder in a single proceeding and that they are similarly situated
for the purposes of conditional certification as a collective
action.  They readily admit, however, that they've not yet filed a
motion for conditional class certification.

Although styled as a purported collective action for unpaid
overtime wages under the FLSA, Judge Vitter holds that there is no
dispute in the case that the Plaintiffs have neither filed a motion
for conditional class certification nor moved for an extension of
the time period in which to do so under the Local Rules.  Thus,
there is no purported class in which Green, McBee and Slack could
have opted into in the matter.  Accordingly, McBee, Green and Slack
were never properly added as Plaintiffs in the case.  The
Defendant's Motion to Sever is, therefore, denied as moot with
respect to McBee, Green and Slack.

Additionally, the parties recently filed joint stipulations of
dismissal with respect to Dawson, Alford, Maloy, Theiss and
Veuleman, who have been dismissed without prejudice from the case.
Thus, the only remaining Plaintiff in the action is Coder.  The
Judge, therefore, finds that the Motion to Sever must be denied as
moot.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Vitter denied as moot the
Defendant's Motion to Sever.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Order and Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/PMQY46 from Leagle.com.

Robert Coder, Individually and on Behalf of All others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen N. Elliott --
elliotts@bcedlaw.com -- Bernard, Cassisa, Elliott & Davis, APLC &
Kenneth Joseph DeRoche, Jr. -- kderoche@bcedlaw.com -- Bernard,
Cassisa, Elliott & Davis, APLC.

M-I, LLC, doing business as M-I SWACO, Defendant, represented by
Sam Zurik, III -- sz@kullmanlaw.com -- Kullman Firm, MaryJo L.
Roberts -- mlr@kullmanlaw.com -- Kullman Firm & Robert P. Lombardi
-- rpl@kullmanlaw.com -- Kullman Firm.


MADELYN JORDAN: Mendez Files ADA Class Action
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Madelyn Jordan Fine
Art, LLC. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Madelyn Jordan Fine
Art, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09178 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 3,
2019).

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

Madelyn Jordon Fine Art specializes in American and European works
of art, from the 20th century to the contemporary.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



MIDLAND CREDIT: Barbosa Appeals D. Mass. Ruling to First Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jackeline Barbosa filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Barbosa, et al. v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-11997-NMG, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 26, 2019,
District Court Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an order accepting
and adopting the Report and Recommendation on the Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss and/or Compel Arbitration.

The case is a putative class action suit pertaining to debt
collection litigation pursued in state court.  The Named Plaintiffs
allegedly incurred credit card debt on accounts held with Barclays
Bank Delaware.  Midland Funding, LLC later acquired the Plaintiffs'
accounts from Barclays, for whom Defendant Midland Credit
Management ("MCM") is a servicer and agent.

The Plaintiffs were subsequently sued by Midland Funding, allegedly
at the direction of MCM, to collect outstanding credit card debt.
Lawyer Defendants Schreiber and Lustig are the law firms that were
retained by Midland Funding to sue the Plaintiffs for the
outstanding debts.

The appellate case is captioned as Barbosa, et al. v. Midland
Credit Mgmt., Inc., et al., Case No. 19-1896, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JACKELINE BARBOSA, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Matthew Brooks, Esq.
          Jade Brown, Esq.
          Nadine M. Cohen, Esq.
          GREATER BOSTON LEGAL SERVICES
          197 Friend St.
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 603-1542
          E-mail: mbrooks@gbls.org
                  ncohen@gbls.org

               - and -

          Charles M. Delbaum, Esq.
          NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
          7 Winthrop Sq., 4th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110-1245
          Telephone: (617) 542-8010
          E-mail: cdelbaum@nclc.org

Plaintiff-Appellant JACKELINE BARBOSA, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, and Plaintiffs MARK ANDERSON,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and
DOUGLASS BAKER are represented by:

          Alexa L. Rosenbloom, Esq.
          GREATER BOSTON LEGAL SERVICES
          197 Friend St.
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 603-1542
          E-mail: ARosenbloom@gbls.org

               - and -

          Kenneth David Quat, Esq.
          QUAT LAW OFFICES
          929 Worcester Rd.
          Framingham, MA 01701
          Telephone: (508) 872-1261
          E-mail: kquat@quatlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. is represented
by:

          Cory W. Eichhorn, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          701 Bricknell Ave., Suite 3300
          Miami, FL 33131-0000
          Telephone: (305) 374-8500
          E-mail: cory.eichhorn@hklaw.com

               - and -

          Gordon P. Katz, Esq.
          Benjamin M. McGovern, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          10 Saint James Ave., 11th Floor
          Boston, MA 02116-0000
          Telephone: (617) 573-5839
          E-mail: gordon.katz@hklaw.com
                  benjamin.mcgovern@hklaw.com

Defendants-Appellees SCHREIBER/COHEN, LLC and LUSTIG GLASER &
WILSON, P.C. are represented by:

          Alyssa Ann Aquino, Esq.
          Andrew M. Schneiderman, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          53 State St., 27th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 213-7000
          E-mail: AAquino@hinshawlaw.com
                  aschneiderman@hinshawlaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Reed Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
PAUL A. REED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-05846
(N.D. Cal., Sept. 19, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in connection with its sending
of deceptive collection letter to the Plaintiff.

MCM is incorporated in the State of Kansas and maintains its
principal place of business in San Diego, California 92108.  MCM is
a debt collector as defined by the FDCPA because MCM routinely uses
the United States Postal Service for the collection of consumer
debts and MCM's principal purpose is the purchase of and collection
of consumer debts.  MCM purchases defaulted debts from original
creditors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas M. Wajda, Esq.
          WAJDA LAW GROUP, APC
          6167 Bristol Parkway, Suite 200
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (310) 997-0471
          Facsimile: (866) 286-8433
          E-mail: nick@wajdalawgroup.com

               - and -

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 581-5456
          Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
          E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


NEW ORIENTAL: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint in "Chan" Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. said in its Form
20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on September 26, 2019, for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2019, that
the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the class
action suit entitled, Amy Chan v. New Oriental Education &
Technology Group Inc., et al., is still pending.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors have been
named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey:
Amy Chan v. New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 16-cv-9279-KSH-CLW (filed on December 15, 2016).
On March 30, 2017, the court entered an order appointing lead
plaintiffs of this action. On May 30, 2017, the lead plaintiffs
filed a first amended complaint.

The pending action was purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading
in our ADSs between September 28, 2016 and December 1, 2016. The
first amended complaint alleges that the Company's public filings
contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of the
federal securities laws.

On July 31, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint. On July 3, 2019, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in its entirety for
failure to state a claim.

On August 19, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint advancing similar allegations against defendants as the
first amended complaint. On September 3, 2019, the company Company
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint which motion
is currently pending before the court.

The action remains in its preliminary stages, with the court still
to rule on New Oriental's motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.

New Oriental said, "We believe the case is without merit and intend
to defend the action vigorously."

New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. provides private
educational services under the New Oriental brand in the People's
Republic of China. It operates through Language Training and Test
Preparation Courses, and Others segments. The Company was founded
in 1993 and is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of
China.


NIDEC MOTOR: Pounds Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California has entered Final Approval Order and Final
Judgment in the case, GURTHA POUNDS, on behalf of herself, and all
others similarly situated and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf
of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, Plaintiff(s), v. NIDEC MOTOR
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:17-cv-02527-JAM-KJN (E.D.
Cal.).

The matter has come before the Court for hearing pursuant to the
Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement dated June
10, 2019, for final approval of the Settlement as set forth in the
Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release Between Plaintiff and
Defendant.  Judge Mendez finds that the Settlement offers
significant monetary recovery to all the Settlement Class Members
and finds that such recovery is fair, adequate, and reasonable when
balanced against further litigation related to liability and
damages issues.   Accordingly, he approved the Settlement set forth
in the Settlement and directed the Parties to effectuate the
Settlement according to its terms.

The Claims Administrator will distribute the Settlement Awards to
the Settlement Class Members in accordance with the provisions of
the Settlement.

For purposes of the Final Approval Order and Final Judgment and for
the Settlement only, the Judge certified the Settlement Class, as
defined in the Settlement.  He confirmed the appointment of
Plaintiff Gurtha Pounds as the Class Representative for the
Settlement Class, and approved an Incentive Award to the Plaintiff
in the amount of $30,000.  He ordered the Claims Administrator to
distribute the Incentive Award to the Plaintiff in accordance with
the provisions of the Settlement.

He also confirmed the appointment of David Spivak of The Spivak Law
Firm and Walter Haines of the United Employees Law Group, as the
Class Counsel.  Further, he finally approved attorneys' fees, as
fair and reasonable, not to exceed $558,278, and finally approved
litigation costs in the amount of $13,007.80, as fair and
reasonable.  The attorneys' fees and litigation costs will be for
all claims for the Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and litigation
costs past, present and future incurred in the prosecution and
resolution of the claims.  He ordered the Claims Administrator to
distribute the attorneys' fees and litigation costs to the Class
Counsel in accordance with the provisions of the Settlement.

For purposes of the Final Approval Order and Final Judgment and the
Settlement only, the Jude finally approved the Claims
Administration Costs of $9,000 to CPT Group, Inc. as fair and
reasonable.

As of the Effective Date, every Settlement Class Member will have
conclusively released the Class Released Claims against the
Released Parties.  Pursuant to the Settlement, the Plaintiff agreed
to provide a Personal Release and waived the benefits of California
Civil Code Section 1542 to the Released Parties, as defined and set
forth fully in the Settlement.

The Final Judgment is entered based on the parties' class action
Settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/VvKM4l from Leagle.com.

Gurtha Pounds, on behalf of herself, and others similarly
situated,
and as an aggrieved employee on behalf of other aggrieved
employees", Plaintiff, represented by Caroline Tahmassian --
caroline@spivaklaw.com -- The Spivak Law Firm, David Glenn Spivak
-- david@spivaklaw.com -- The Spivak Law Firm & Walter L. Haines
--
whaines@uelglaw.com -- United Employees Law Group, PC.

Nidec Motor Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Kenneth Dawson Sulzer -- ksulzer@constangy.com --
Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete LLP, Sayaka Karitani --
skaritani@constangy.com -- Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete, LLP
&
Kimberly T. Bernstein -- kbernstein@constangy.com -- Constangy,
Brooks, Smith, & Prophete LLP.


NUTANIX INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutanix, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 24, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended July 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit in California.

Beginning on March 29, 2019, several purported securities class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against us and two of our officers.


The initial complaints generally alleged that the defendants made
false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. In July 2019, the
court consolidated the actions into a single action, and appointed
a lead plaintiff who, per the court-approved schedule, filed a
consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2019.

The action is brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's stock between November 30, 2017 and May 30,
2019, inclusive. The consolidated amended complaint seeks monetary
damages in an unspecified amount.

Nutanix said, "This case is in the very early stages and we are not
able to determine what, if any, liabilities will attach to these
complaints."

Nutanix, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and
provides an enterprise cloud platform in North America, Europe, the
Asia Pacific, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. The
company was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


ORANGE BEACH, AL: Williams Suit Removed to S.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Destin Willliams, Kim Williams, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The City
of Orange Beach, Alabama a Municipal Corporation, The City Council
of the City of Orange Beach, Alabama, Jerry Johnson, Joni
Blalock-Costo, Annette Mitchell, Jeffrey Boyd, Jeff Silvers, in
their representative capacity as Member of the City Council of the
City of Orange Beach, Alabama, Tony Kennon in his capacity as Mayor
of the City of Orange Beach, Alabama, Defendants, Case No.
CV-2019-901267 was removed from the Circuit Court of Baldwin
County, Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama on Oct. 4, 2019, and assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-00739-KD-C.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Orange Beach is a small city on Alabama's Gulf Coast. It's known as
a water sports hub. Located on Wolf Bay, Waterfront Park has a
fishing pier and picnic areas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kristopher O. Anderson, Esq.
     Clark Partington
     4725 Main St., Suite F-222
     Orange Beach, AL 36561
     Phone: (251) 245-8595
     Fax: (251) 271-0445
     Email: kanderson@clarkpartington.com

          - and -

     Daniel E. Harrell, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500
     Atlanta, GA 30309-3962
     Phone: (404) 885-1500
     Email: dharrell@cphlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     Andrew John Rutens, Esq.
     Lawrence M. Wettermark, Esq.
     Galloway, Wettermark, Everest, Rutens & Gaillard, LLP
     3263 Cottage Hill Road (36606)
     P.O. Box 16629
     Mobile, AL 36616-0629
     Phone: (251) 476-4493
     Fax: (251) 479-5566
     Email: arutens@gallowayllp.com
            lwettermark@gallowayllp.com

          - and -

     Moshae Elise Donald, Esq.
     Law Office of Moshae Donald, LLC
     P. O. Box 161461
     Mobile, AL 36616
     Phone: (251) 581-5066
     Email: moshae.donald@gmail.com


PEGASUS RESIDENTIAL: Court Dismisses UDTPA Claim in Williams Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VALERIE WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PEGASUS RESIDENTIAL, LLC; INWOOD
HOLDINGS, LLC; and MP BRIDGES AT SOUTHPOINT, LLC d/b/a BRIDGES AT
SOUTHPOINT, Defendants, Case No. 1:18CV1030 (M.D. N.C.), Judge
Loretta C. Biggs of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina granted the Defendants' partial motions to
dismiss the Plaintiff's North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act ("UDTPA") claim.

The Plaintiff initiated the putative class action on Nov. 6, 2018,
against the Defendants in Durham County Superior Court.  She
alleges violations of the North Carolina Residential Rental
Agreements Act, the North Carolina Debt Collection Act ("NCDCA"),
and the UDTPA.

The Plaintiff entered into a lease with the Defendants for the
period from Sept. 30, 2017 through Sept. 25, 2018.  Her lease
stated that if the Defendants filed a summary ejectment action
against her, she would be liable for certain administrative fees,
in addition to late fees, court costs, attorney's fees, and any
other monetary damages or costs arising under the terms of the
Agreement.

In March, April, and June of 2018, the Plaintiff was late making
her rental payments.  On the twelfth day of each of those months,
she received an Initial Collection Letter which stated that she was
responsible for damages in connection with her default under the
rental agreement.  

On March 19, April 17, and June 22, 2018, the Defendants placed
charges of $201, labeled "Attorney Or Legal Charges" ("Eviction
Fees"), on the Plaintiff's account ledger.  The Plaintiff paid all
three charges within days of their being placed on her ledger.  She
alleges in her complaint that the RRAA prohibited the Defendants
from charging her these Eviction Fees and that attempting to
collect these debts through the Initial Collection Letters violated
the DCA as well.

On Dec. 18, 2018, the Defendants removed the case to the Court.

Before the Court are the Defendants' substantively identical
partial motions to dismiss, specifically requesting dismissal of
the Plaintiff's UDTPA claim on the grounds that it is preempted as
a matter of law by the DCA.  They argue that all of the Plaintiff's
claims arise within the context of debt collection and that,
therefore, her UDTPA claim is preempted by the DCA.

The Plaintiff concedes that if the abusive conduct alleged pertains
only to debt collection, the DCA provides a claimant's exclusive
remedy.  However, she argues that dismissal of her UDTPA claim is
"premature," because she has alleged violations of the UDTPA which
are separate and apart from her NCDCA claim.

Judge Biggs holds that the only harm that resulted from that
allegedly unfair conduct, however, was connected to the Defendants'
demand for the Eviction Fees.  Such harm is properly viewed as
within "the realm of debt collection."  Therefore, the Plaintiff's
claim alleging that the Defendants included unlawful terms in the
Plaintiff's lease agreement is preempted by the DCA.

The Judge further holds that the Plaintiff cannot point to, and she
cannot find, any allegations that would support a UDTPA claim that
does not likewise involve debt collection.  The DCA, therefore,
provides the exclusive remedy for the Plaintiff's UDTPA cause of
action.  Accordingly, the Defendants' motions to dismiss the
Plaintiff's UDTPA claim will be granted.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Biggs granted the Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss, and dismissed the Plaintiff's Third Cause of
Action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/8H4TiU from Leagle.com.

VALERIE WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by EDWARD H. MAGINNIS --
info@maginnislaw.com -- MAGINNIS LAW, PLLC, PATRICK M. WALLACE --
pat@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP, KARL S. GWALTNEY,
MAGINNIS LAW, PLLC & SCOTT C. HARRIS -- scott@wbmllp.com -- LEWIS &
ROBERTS, PLLC.

PEGASUS RESIDENTIAL, LLC, Defendant, represented by MATTHEW R.
ROSENKOFF -- mrosenkoff@taylorenglish.com -- TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA
LLP, MICHAEL ERIC ROSS -- mross@taylorenglish.com -- TAYLOR ENGLISH
DUMA LLP & DEBORAH A. AUSBURN -- dausburn@taylorenglish.com --
TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA, LLP.

MP BRIDGES AT SOUTHPOINT, LLC, doing business as BRIDGES AT
SOUTHPOINT, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL T. MEDFORD --
medford@manningfulton.com -- MANNING FULTON & SKINNER & WILLIAM
SUTTON CHERRY, III -- cherry@manningfulton.com -- MANNING, FULTON &
SKINNER, P. A..


PETRO RIVER: Appeal in Donelson-Friend Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Petro River Oil Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 23, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2019, that the appeal filed by the
plaintiffs in the case entitled, Martha Donelson and John Friend,
et al. v. United States of America, Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al.,
remains pending.

On August 11, 2014, Martha Donelson and John Friend amended their
complaint in an existing lawsuit by filing a class action complaint
styled: Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v. United States of
America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs and
Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No. 14-CV-316-JHP-TLW,
United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
(the "Proceeding").

The plaintiffs added as defendants twenty-seven (27) specifically
named operators, including Spyglass, as well as all Osage County
lessees and operators who have obtained a concession agreement,
lease or drilling permit approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
("BIA") in Osage County allegedly in violation of National
Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA").

Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the BIA improperly
approved oil and gas leases, concession agreements and drilling
permits prior to August 12, 2014, without satisfying the BIA’s
obligations under federal regulations or NEPA, and seek a
determination that such oil and gas leases, concession agreements
and drilling permits are void ab initio. Plaintiffs are seeking
damages against the defendants for alleged nuisance, trespass,
negligence and unjust enrichment. The potential consequences of
such complaint could jeopardize the corresponding leases.  

On October 7, 2014, Spyglass, along with other defendants, filed a
Motion to Dismiss the August 11, 2014 Amended Complaint on various
procedural and legal grounds. Following the significant briefing,
the Court, on March 31, 2016, granted the Motion to Dismiss as to
all defendants and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants
against the plaintiffs. On April 14, 2016, Spyglass with the other
defendants, filed a Motion seeking its attorneys' fees and costs.
The motion remains pending.

On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed three motions: a Motion to
Amend or Alter the Judgment; a Motion to Amend the Complaint; and a
Motion to Vacate Order. On November 23, 2016, the Court denied all
three of Plaintiffs' motions. On December 6, 2016, the Plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
That appeal is pending as of the filing date of these financial
statements. There is no specific timeline by which the Court of
Appeals must render a ruling. Spyglass intends to continue to
vigorously defend its interest in this matter.

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

Petro River Oil Corp., an independent energy company, focuses on
the exploration and development of conventional oil and gas assets.
It primarily holds interests in the Mid-Continent Region in
Oklahoma, including Osage County and Kay County, Oklahoma. The
company is based in New York, New York.


PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Cooper Hits Farce Discount in Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerald Cooper, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Phoenix Financial Services, LLC, Case No.
19-cv-03725, (S.D. Ind., August 30, 2019), seeks redress for
violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Phoenix Financial Services operates a debt collection agency. It
attempted to collect a $738.00 debt that Cooper owed to
PMH/Hamilton Emergency Physicians that went into default because
Cooper disputed said debt.

Phoenix Financial stated that it was providing a "discount" to
Cooper for him to settled his account. Cooper claims that the
"discounted" amount just matched the original bill provided by
PMB/Hamilton Emergency Physicians. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard J. Shea, Esq.
      SAWIN & SHEA, LLC.
      6100 N. Keystone Avenue, Suite 620
      Indianapolis, IN 46220
      Telephone: (317) 255-2600
      Facsimile: (317) 255-2905
      E-mail: rshea@sawinlaw.com


PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Oct. 11 Hearing on Lead Plaintiff Bids
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer will hold a hearing October 11, 2019 in San
Francisco to consider motions to consolidate securities class
action lawsuits against Pivotal Software, Inc., and for appointment
of lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

The Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Police Retirement
System of St. Louis are seeking appointment as lead plaintiff.
They are represented by James M. Wagstaffe, Esq. --
wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com -- at Wagstaffe, von Loewenfeldt Busch &
Radwick, LLP.

The Tech Trader Fund LP and Steven Doherty are also seeking
appointment as lead counsel.  They are represented by Jennifer
Pafiti, Esq. -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz LLP.

The case is, Doherty v. Pivotal Software, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-03589 (N.D. Cal., June 20, 2019).

Pivotal is also a defendant in a state court class action
captioned, JASON HILL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plantiff, vs. PIVOTAL SOFTWARE, INC.;
ROBERT MEE; CYNTHIA GAYLOR; PAUL MARITZ; MICHAELS. DELL; ZANE ROWE;
EGON DURBAN; WILLIAM D. GREEN; MARCY S. KLEVORN; KHOZEMA Z.
SHIPCHANDLER; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC;
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER &
SMITH INC.; BARCLA YS CAPITAL INC.; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA)
LLC; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; UBS SECURITIES LLC; WELLS FARGO
SECURITIES LLC; KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INS:.; WILLIAM BLAIR& CO.,
LLC; MISCHLER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.; SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & CO., INC.;
SIEBERT CISNEROS SHANK & CO., LLC; WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P.,
the Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-576750 (Cal. Super., June 14,
2019).  The Hill lawsuit asserts strict liability claims under
section 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against
Pivotal, certain of Pivotal officers and directors, and the
underwriters of an April 2018 initial public offering.

Hill brought the securities class action on behalf of all who
purchased or otherwise acquired Pivotal common stock pursuant or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with Pivotal's April 2018 initial public offering.

In April 2018, the Defendants commenced the IPO, issuing over 42
million shares of Pivotal common stock to the investing public at
$15.00 per share, all pursuant to the Registration Statement.

The Registration Statement contained untrue statements of material
fact and omitted to state material facts both required by governing
regulations and necessary to make the statements made therein not
misleading. Principally, the Registration Statement failed to
disclose that the Company was suffering from deferred sales,
lengthening sales cycles, and diminished growth as its customers
and the industry's sentiment shifted away from Pivotal's principal,
yet outdated and inadequate; offering because it was incompatible
with the industry-standard platform.

With the benefit of these misrepresentations and omissions, the IPO
was extremely lucrative for Defendants, who raised more than $638
million in gross proceeds.

But when the truth of Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions
became known, the price of Pivotal shares declined sharply. By the
commencement of this action, Pivotal shares had traded below $11.00
per share, an over 27% decline from the Offering price. As a
result, investors suffered tens of millions of dollars in losses,
according to the Hill lawsuit.

Pivotal is a cloud platform technology company headquartered in San
Francisco, California. Pivotal is incorporated under the laws of
Delaware, and its common stock trades on the NYSE exchange undrr
the ticker "PVTL.[BN]

Counsel for the Hill Plaintiff are:

          John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-233-4565
          Facsimile: 619-233-0508
          E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com

               - and -

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

RCI HOSPITALITY: Bid to Consolidate Texas Class Suits Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 24, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended August 3, 2019, that the motion to
consolidate the class action suits entitled, Hoffman v. RCI
Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed May 21, 2019, naming the
Company and Eric Langan); Gu v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et
al. (filed May 28, 2019, naming the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil
Marshall); and Grossman v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al.
(filed June 28, 2019, naming the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil
Marshall), is pending.

In May and June 2019, three putative securities class action
complaints were filed against RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. and
certain of its officers in the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division.

The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
based on alleged materially false and misleading statements made in
the Company's SEC filings and disclosures as they relate to various
alleged transactions by the Company and management. The complaints
seek unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The plaintiffs in all three cases have moved to consolidate the
purported class actions.

RCI Hospitality said, "The Company anticipates a consolidated class
action complaint will be filed in the next few months. The Company
intends to vigorously defend against these actions. These actions
are in their preliminary phases, and a potential loss cannot yet be
estimated."

RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates night clubs offering adult entertainment, restaurants, and
bar operations in Texas and other locations in the United States.
The Company, through its subsidiaries, also owns and operates media
and websites related to their operations. The company is based in
Houston, Texas.


RH NY MP F&B: Servers Seek Proper Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------
Jordan Frey and Justine Hidalgo, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RH NY MP F&B, LLC, and
RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09018 (S.D.
N.Y., Sept. 27, 2019) is a case brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs typically work 4-6 lunch
and/or dinner shifts per week as servers. For much of the time,
Defendants were not entitled to use state tip to pay Plaintiffs
less than the minimum wage, because they did not always give
Plaintiffs proper notices of the tip credit and because Plaintiffs
spent more than 20% of their shifts or more than 2 hours performing
sidework. The Defendants required all servers to pool their tips
with each other and other individuals that did not perform customer
service. The Defendants also required servers to share tips with
baristas that pour coffee and wine from the kitchen. These
individuals worked in the kitchen, and they did not interact with
customers or work in the view of the customers. Thus, the
Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs the full New York minimum wage,
says the complaint.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as servers.

RH NY MP F&B, LLC is a New York Corporation that operates RH
Rooftop Restaurant in the Meatpacking District in Manhattan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
     Denise Schulman, Esq.
     JOSEPH KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
     32 Broadway, Suite 601
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 688-5640
     Fax: (212) 688-2548


RIGHT TURN: Horton Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RIGHT TURN SUPPLY,
LLC. The case is styled as CHANEY HORTON Individually and For
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. RIGHT TURN SUPPLY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01271-NR (W.D. Pa., Oct. 3, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Right Turn Supply LLC is a privately held company in Spring, TX,
categorized under Wholesale Oil Well Drilling Mud and
Additives.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: 713-352-1100
     Facsimile: 713-352-3300
     Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com
            mjosephson@mybackwages.com
            tjones@mybackwages.com

          - and -

     Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
     Goodrich & Geist, P.C.
     3634 California Ave
     Pittsburgh, PA 15212
     Phone: (412) 766-1455
     Fax: (412) 766-0300
     Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

          - and -

     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 877-8788
     Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com



RIVERPLACE COUNSELING: Faces Zimmerman Class Action in Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Riverplace Counseling
Center, Inc. The case is styled as Jason Zimmerman on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Riverplace
Counseling Center, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-02645-PJS-BRT
(D. Minn., Oct. 3, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Riverplace Counseling Center, Inc. provides primary chemical
dependency therapy programs and related services in Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
     Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
     Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP
     100 Washington Ave S, Ste 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
     Phone: (612) 339-6900
     Fax: (612) 339-0981
     Email: khriebel@locklaw.com
            kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com


RUHNN HOLDING: Lyu Hits Share Price Drop Following IPO
------------------------------------------------------
JIANMING LYU, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. RUHNN HOLDING LIMITED, MIN FENG, LEI SUN, CHAO SHEN,
ZHENBO CHI, KE CHENG, SHEK YUEN TING, FENGCHUN JIN, SHANGZHEN LI,
ZHENXING SHAO, PEN HUNG TUNG, JUNHONG QI, XIAOCAO XU, CITIGROUP
GLOBAL MARKETS INC., UBS SECURITIES LLC and TOP CAPITAL PARTNERS
LIMITED, Case No. 655420/2019 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Sept. 18,
2019), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and those who
purchased Ruhnn American Depositary Shares in or traceable to the
Company's April 3, 2019 initial public offering, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement filed in
connection with the IPO was negligently prepared and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted material
facts, and failed to make adequate disclosures required under the
rules and regulations governing the preparation of such documents.
The Plaintiff contends that the Registration Statement highlighted
the dramatic growth in Ruhnn's net revenues derived from its
full-service model, but failed to disclose that it had already
shuttered almost 40% of its online stores in the fourth quarter of
2019, which ended March 31, 2019, and preceded the IPO.

On August 8, 2019, Ruhnn ADSs closed at $3.42 per ADS, which price
represented a 73% decline from the price at which Ruhnn ADSs had
been sold to the investing public only four months earlier in the
IPO.  Plaintiff Jianming Lyu purchased Ruhnn ADSs directly in the
IPO and has been damaged thereby, according to the complaint.

Ruhnn describes itself as an e-commerce retailer and so-called "key
opinion leader" facilitator based in Hangzhou, China.  Ruhnn
conducted the IPO in New York and the ADSs sold in the IPO trade in
New York.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of
the Company.

Citigroup Global, UBS Securities, and Top Capital served as
underwriter of the IPO.  The Underwriter Defendants are investment
banking houses that specialize in, inter alia, underwriting public
offerings of securities.  They served as the underwriters of the
IPO and shared roughly $8.75 million in fees collectively for their
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 674-4674
          Facsimile: (312) 674-4676
          E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth J. Black, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: kblack@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          40 Powder Springs Street
          Marietta, GA 30064
          Telephone: (470) 632-6000
          Facsimile: (770) 200-3101
          E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com


SCHACHTER PORTNOY: Bid to Dismiss Amended Navon FDCPA Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL NAVON, on behalf of Plaintiff and a class,
Plaintiff, v. SCHACHTER PORTNOY, L.L.C., and CAVALRY PORTFOLIO
SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-63 (PKC) (CLP) (E.D.
N.Y.), Judge Pamela K. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York granted Schachter's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).

On Jan. 4, 2019, Plaintiff Navon filed the putative class action
against two debt collectors, Defendants Schachter and Cavalry, for
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by
mailing debt collection letters that allegedly (1) misrepresented
information to create a "false record" that "could" later be used
to extend the statute of limitations for debt collection
litigation, and (2) failed to effectively state the amount of the
alleged debt.

Prior to filing the action, the Plaintiff incurred an unspecified
amount of personal credit card debt to Citibank, N.A.  On June 29,
2018, Citibank notified the Plaintiff that it had sold his debt to
Cavalry SPV I, LLC, and that the balance of the debt was $6,257.68.
Also on June 29, 2018, Cavalry sent the Plaintiff a debt
collection letter informing him that it would service his account
on behalf of Cavalry SPV.  The Cavalry letter stated that the "debt
due as of charge-off" was $6,331.07, that the "total amount of
debt" owed to Cavalry SPV was $6,257.68, and that "any difference"
between the two amounts was "due to the application of credits to
the account prior to the date of the letter.

Subsequently, Schachter sent the Plaintiff yet another debt
collection letter on Nov. 19, 2018, stating that Cavalry SPV had
retained Schachter to collect the debt that he owed to it.
Schachter's letter confirmed the amounts listed in the earlier
letter from Cavalry and further stated that the total amount of
payments and/or credits made on the debt since charge-off was
$73.39.

The Plaintiff was confused by the reference to "payments and/or
credits," and he did not understand what the $73.39 payment and/or
credit amount was attributable to, so he called Schachter on Dec.
12, 2018.  On this call, he was told that Cavalry had credited back
interest that had been added post-charge-off.  On Dec. 28, 2018,
Schachter sent a follow-up letter confirming the amounts previously
stated in the November 19 letter.  The action followed.

Schachter has moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  

The Plaintiff asserts that Schachter violated the FDCPA by lumping
together 'payments and/or credits' without explaining that it was
not done with the involvement of the Plaintiff, because it creates
a false record with respect to events that might (a) restart the
statute of limitations and (b) constitute an admission of debt.  He
also argues that Schachter's November 19 letter failed to clearly
and effectively state the amount of the debt owed.  Schachter
responds that the Plaintiff's idiosyncratic and illogical
interpretation of its letters cannot support a valid claim under
the FDCPA.

Judge Cohen agrees with Schachter.  He dismissed the Plaintiff's
claim under Section 1692e(2).  He finds that the Plaintiff has not
alleged--indeed, cannot allege--that Schachter's letters falsely or
inaccurately represented the legal status of the Plaintiff's debt.
Thus, there is no factual allegation in the Plaintiff's complaint
that supports his theory that Schachter's letters created a "false
record" regarding the legal status of his debt.

Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that the Schachter letters
erroneously represented, intentionally misrepresented, or
misleadingly suggested that the Plaintiff had made a partial
payment on the debt that was credited against the charge-off
amount, there is no legal support for the Plaintiff's convoluted
theory that this conduct constitutes a material violation of
Section 1692e(2).

The Judge also dismissed the Plaintiff's claim for relief under
Section 1692e(10).  He finds the Plaintiff's claim under Section
1692e(10) to be similarly meritless.  It cannot plausibly be
inferred that, by sending letters informing Plaintiff of credits
applied to his debt amount, Schachter had engaged in a deceptive
means of debt collection.  Rather, the allegations in the complaint
establish that Schachter simply conveyed information about the
amount due on the debt and the manner in which that amount was
calculated.  Viewed most charitably, the Plaintiff's Section
1692e(10) claim is a premature and speculative attack on a
deceptive debt collection practice that might arise in a future
debt collection action, rather than a viable claim for relief based
on a past means of debt collection that is false or deceptive on
its face.

The Plaintiff also seeks relief under 15 U.S.C. Section
1692g(a)(1).  He claims that Schachter's November 19 letter
violated the provision because its reference to a $73.39 "payment
and/or credit" was confusing, causing the letter to "fail to
clearly and effectively state the amount of the debt."  

The Judge finds the Plaintiff's claim to be without merit.  Though
the Plaintiff claims that the inclusion of these amounts was
"confusing," the FDCPA does not impose liability based on
unreasonable misinterpretations of collection notices.  As even the
least sophisticated consumer is capable of "making basic,
reasonable, and logical deductions and inferences," the Plaintiff's
claim under Section 1692g(a) fails.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Cohen granted Schachter's motion
to dismiss.  Schachter is terminated as a party to the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/8zKWrz from Leagle.com.

Daniel Navon, on behalf of plaintiff and a class, Plaintiff,
represented by Daniel C. Cohen -- dan@cml.legal -- Cohen & Mizrahi
LLP, Cassandra P. Miller, Edelman, Combs, Latturner and Goodwin,
LLC & Tiffany N. Hardy, Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC.

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Donald
S. Maurice, Jr. -- dmaurice@MauriceWutscher.com -- Maurice Wutscher
LLP & Thomas R. Dominczyk -- tdominczyk@MauriceWutscher.com --
Maurice Wutscher LLP.


SCORES HOLDING: Discovery in Santos de Oliveira Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 26, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that discovery is
ongoing in the class action suit initiated by Luisa Santos de
Oliveira.

The Company was served with a Summons and Complaint in the action
entitled Luisa Santos de Oliveira v. Scores Holding Company, Inc.;
Club Azure, LLC; Robert Gans; Mark S. Yackow; Howard Rosenbluth,
Docket No. 1:18-cv-06769-GBD, in the United States District Court
of the Southern District.

Plaintiff claims that the Defendants violated the minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA");
violated the New York Minimum Wage Act and the overtime provisions
of the New York State Labor Law ("NYLL"); violated the Spread of
Hours Wage Order of the New York Commissioner of Labor; violated
the Notice and Recordkeeping requirements of the NYLL; violated the
wage statement provisions of the NYLL; recovery of equipment costs
in violation of the FLSA and NYLL; and unlawful deductions from
tips in violation of the NYLL. Plaintiff brought this action as a
class action and seeks certification of this action as a collective
action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
employees and former employees of Defendants.

The Company has submitted an Answer to Plaintiff's claims and the
case is currently in the discovery phase. The Company, along with
the Co-defendants, intends to vigorously defend itself against the
claims asserted against it in this lawsuit. The likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome is remote because the Company's records show,
inter alia, that the Plaintiff never worked more than 25 hours per
week.

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

Scores Holding Company, Inc. is an adult entertainment company. The
company is engaged in the business of licensing the Scores brand
name and other intellectual property to gentlemen's nightclubs with
adult entertainment in the United States. The company was formerly
known as Adonis Energy, Inc. and in adopted its current name in
July 2002. The company is based in New York.


SCORES HOLDING: Dropped from Munoz Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 26, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that Dislenia Munoz
has brought her claims in the class action lawsuit in another forum
against the defendants, other than the Company, which is no longer
a subject of Plaintiff's claims.

On July 25, 2017, plaintiff Dislenia Munoz, who formerly performed
as an adult entertainer at Scores New York, owned in its entirety
by I.M. Operating LLC, commenced a putative class action lawsuit
against the Company, I.M. Operating LLC, Robert Gans and Mark
Yackow in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New
York.  

Plaintiff alleged that she and other similarly situated
entertainers at Scores New York were misclassified as independent
contractors, that they should have been classified as employees,
and as a result, the Defendants violated, among other things,
applicable state wage and hour laws. The Lawsuit sought unspecified
compensatory damages, liquidated damages, as well as attorneys'
fees and costs. On June 22, 2018 Plaintiff (1) amended her
complaint in the Lawsuit to excise her class allegations, and (2)
discontinued the Lawsuit, without prejudice.

Plaintiff has brought her claims in the Lawsuit in another forum
against the Defendants, other than the Company, which is no longer
a subject of Plaintiff's claims.

Scores Holding Company, Inc. is an adult entertainment company. The
company is engaged in the business of licensing the Scores brand
name and other intellectual property to gentlemen's nightclubs with
adult entertainment in the United States. The company was formerly
known as Adonis Energy, Inc. and in adopted its current name in
July 2002. The company is based in New York.


SECTRAN SECURITY: Contile FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sectran Security
Incorporated. The case is styled as Matthew Contile as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Sectran Security Incorporated, a California
Corporation, Does 1-50 inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV30235
was removed from the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on Oct. 4, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-08575.

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Sectran Security provides armored transportation services to
thousands of customers in California and Nevada.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

     Keith Joseph Rasher, Esq.
     Thompson Coburn LLP
     2029 Century Park East 19th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 282-2536
     Fax: (310) 282-2501
     Email: krasher@thompsoncoburn.com


SONOMA RESTAURANT: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sonoma Restaurant
Group Inc. The case is styled as James Murphy on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sonoma
Restaurant Group Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09216 (S.D.
N.Y., Oct. 4, 2019).

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

Sonoma Restaurant Group Inc. is the restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zare Khorozian, Esq.
     Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
     1047 Anderson Avenue
     Fort Lee, NJ 07024
     Phone: (201) 957-7269
     Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com


SOUTH FLORIDA DETAIL: Halawani Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHLOMY HALAWANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SOUTH FLORIDA DETAIL GARAGE 1, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-62420-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 28, 2019)
is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, arising from Defendant's violations of the TCPA.

To solicit new clients, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing
with no regard for privacy rights of the recipients of those
messages, asserts the complaint. The Defendant caused thousands of
unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of
Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries, including
invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Through this action, Plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct.
Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and
Class Members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant.

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

Defendant is a national auto detailing supply company, offering its
products and services to consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     JIBRAEL S. HINDI, ESQ.
     THOMAS J. PATTI, ESQ.
     The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi
     110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954-907-1136
     Fax: 855-529-9540
     Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
            tom@jibraellaw.com


SUFFOLK COUNTY: Newkirk Suit Underway in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frances Pierre. The
case is captioned as Lance Newkirk, Dorothy Wendel, and Christopher
G. on behalf of themselves, and all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiff vs. Frances Pierre, Commissioner of the Suffolk County
Department of Social Services, in her official capacity, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04283-NGG-SMG (E.D.N.Y., July 25,
2019). The suit alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Nicholas
G. Garaufis.

By order dated Sept. 26, Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold extended
Defendant's time to answer, move or otherwise respond to the
amended complaint and amended motion to certify class action by
Oct. 11.

The Suffolk County Department of Social Services provides financial
assistance and support services to eligible Suffolk County
residents.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Gregory Lee Bass, Esq.
          National Center For Law of Economic Justice
          275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 633-6967
          E-mail: bass@nclej.org

               - and -

          Linda Hassberg, Esq.
          EMPIRE JUSTICE CENTER
          Touro Law Center PAC
          225 Eastview Dr, Rm 222
          Central Islip, NY 11722
          Telephone: (631) 650-2305
          Facsimile: (631) 348-3571
          E-mail: lhassberg@empirejustice.org

               - and -

          Marc Cohan, Esq.
          National Center for Law and Economic Justice
          275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 633-6967
          Facsimile: (212) 633-6371
          E-mail: cohan@nclej.org

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Alyssa Garone, Esq.
          7 Avdon Lane
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (516) 509-9576
          E-mail: Alyssa.Garone@suffolkcountyny.gov

               - and -

          Drew W. Schirmer, Esq.
          Dennis M. Brown, Esq.
          PO Box 6100
          100 Veterans Memorial Highway
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 853-4804
          Facsimile: (631) 853-5306
          E-mail: drew.schirmer@suffolkcountyny.gov

TWENTY ONES: Murphy Files ADA Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Twenty Ones
Incorporated. The case is styled as James Murphy on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Twenty Ones Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09174 (S.D.
N.Y., Oct. 3, 2019).

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

Twenty One Inc. is a development and preproduction studio focused
on front-end vision shaping. It is a story, design and production
studio co-producing high-quality animation for film and television
in collaboration with international partners.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zare Khorozian, Esq.
     Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
     1047 Anderson Avenue
     Fort Lee, NJ 07024
     Phone: (201) 957-7269
     Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Rizzuto Files ERISA Class Action in Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY RIZZUTO v. UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., and THE HERTZ CUSTOM BENEFIT PROGRAM,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00691 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 19, 2019), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Mr. Rizzuto, a participant in The Hertz Custom Benefit Program
("the Plan"), a group health plan governed by ERISA that was
provided and funded by his employer, brings this action for himself
and those similarly situated to challenge UnitedHealthcare's
deceptive and fraudulent misrepresentations to its ERISA plan
participants and beneficiaries that it would deliver access to
covered, medically necessary healthcare for the treatment of
cancer.  He also wants to challenge UnitedHealthcare's deceptive
and unfair administration of its ERISA plans, including its prior
authorization and utilization review process for plan members
seeking proton beam therapy, and its adjudication and
administration of claims for proton beam therapy made under ERISA
plans underwritten and administered by UnitedHealthcare, which
skews the determination of coverage for medically necessary
services towards denial.

UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company is a corporation duly organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut, with its
principal place of business located in Connecticut.
UnitedHealthcare is authorized to conduct business as a health care
plan provider and insurer, and transacts the business of providing,
administering and insuring health plans to consumers in this
judicial district.

UnitedHealthcare Services, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its
principal place of business located in Wilmington, Delaware.
UnitedHealthcare Services is authorized to conduct business as a
health care plan provider and insurer, and transacts, and is
transacting, and is in the business of providing, administering and
insuring health plans to consumers in this judicial district.

The Hertz Custom Benefit Program ("the Plan") is a self-funded
group health plan organized and regulated under ERISA.  The Plan
Administrator is located in Estero, Florida.  UnitedHealthcare is
an ERISA fiduciary with respect to Mr. Rizzuto's Plan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Dabdoub, Esq.
          DABDOUB LAW FIRM
          1600 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1205
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 754-2000
          Facsimile: (305) 754-2007
          E-mail: eddie@longtermdisability.net

               - and -

          Richard T. Collins, Esq.
          Damon D. Eisenbrey, Esq.
          CALLAHAN & BLAINE, APLC
          3 Hutton Centre Drive, Ninth Floor
          Santa Ana, CA 92707
          Telephone: (714) 241-4444
          Facsimile: (714) 241-4445
          E-mail: rcollins@callahan-law.com
                  deisenbrey@callahan-law.com

               - and -

          Lisa S. Kantor, Esq.
          KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
          19839 Nordhoff Street
          Northridge, CA 91324
          Telephone: (818) 886-2525
          Facsimile: (818) 350-6272
          E-mail: lkantor@kantorlaw.net


VAN RU CREDIT: Rottenstein Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Van Ru Credit
Corporation. The case is styled as Esther Rottenstein individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Van Ru
Credit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-09212 (S.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 4, 2019).

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

Van Ru Credit Corporation provides account receivable solutions.
The Company offers account receivable management and customized
solutions to the education, energy, financial services, government,
telecommunications, and healthcare industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



VEGAS.COM LLC: Traynor Suit Underway in New York Southern Dist.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Vegas.com, LLC, is underway.  The
case is captioned as Yaseen Traynor also known as: Yaseen Traynor
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. Vegas.com, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-06944-ALC (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2019), and alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr.

VEGAS.com, LLC is a destination-specific Online Travel Agency
founded in 1998 and headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.[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


VERDE ENERGY: Lechuga Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE LECHUGA, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VERDE ENERGY USA ILLINOIS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06449 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 27, 2019) is an
action seeking damages as well as injunctive relief for the
Defendant's violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant utilizes third party vendors to market its services.
The Defendant's outbound telemarketing efforts include the use of
an automated telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to solicit consumers
nationwide.

The Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing phone calls resulted in
aggravation that accompanies unsolicited telephone calls, anxiety,
diminished value and utility of telephone equipment and telephone
subscription services, emotional distress, increased risk of
personal injury resulting from the distraction caused by the phone
calls, intrusion upon and occupation of Plaintiff's cellular
telephone capacity, invasion of privacy, loss of battery charge,
loss of concentration, mental anguish, nuisance, the per-kilowatt
electricity costs required to recharge her cellular telephone as a
result of increased usage of her telephone services, and wasting
Plaintiff's time, says the complaint.

Plaintiff MICHELLE LECHUGA is a natural person, over
18-years-of-age, who resided in Chicago, Illinois.

Defendant develops marketing campaigns using a combination of sales
channels, with an emphasis on outbound telemarketing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph S. Davidson, Esq.
     Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
     Victor T. Metroff, Esq.
     Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
     2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: +1 630-575-8181
     Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com
            mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
            vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Summary Judgment on Element of Reliance Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying Volkswagen's Motion for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL"
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, No.
2672 CRB (JSC). (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff, a public pension fund, purchased Volkswagen bonds. One
month after Volkswagen's diesel scandal became front-page news,
Plaintiff sold those bonds for a loss. Plaintiff then filed a
proposed class action against Volkswagen for violations of the
federal securities laws. In that action, Plaintiff maintained that
Volkswagen was required but failed to disclose in its 2014 bond
offering memorandum that the company was using defeat devices in
millions of diesel cars worldwide to cheat on emissions tests and
was at risk of losing billions of dollars as a result. Without that
information, Plaintiff asserted,  the offering memorandum was
misleading and led investors to purchase the company's bonds at
artificially inflated prices.

Volkswagen moved for summary judgment exclusively on the element of
reliance, asserting that Plaintiff lacks the evidence needed to
prove reliance, which is one of the elements of its claims.

Specifically, Volkswagen urged that the evidence is insufficient to
support that Plaintiff's investment manager, who bought the bonds
on Plaintiff's behalf and had complete discretion to do so, read
the offering memorandum before executing the trade. And without
such proof, Volkswagen insisted that Plaintiff cannot prove that
its investment manager would have acted differently and foregone
purchasing the bonds if additional disclosures had been made in the
offering memorandum.

Having reviewed the record and once more the relevant caselaw,
District Judge Charles Breyer concludes that the case is best
characterized as "primarily a nondisclosure case," as opposed to a
"positive misrepresentation case."   As a result, Plaintiff is
entitled to a presumption of reliance under Affiliated Ute Citizens
v. United States, 406 U.S. 128, 153-54 (1972) and need not prove
that it or its investment manager actually relied on the statements
made in the bond offering memorandum.  

Having determined that a presumption of reliance applies, the Court
turns to whether Volkswagen has sufficiently rebutted that
presumption.

Assuming that Volkswagen's evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff's
investment manager did not read the offering memorandum prior to
purchasing the bonds, that evidence alone is insufficient to
establish beyond controversy that Plaintiff's investment manager
would not have attached significance to the omitted facts about
Volkswagen's emissions fraud if those facts had been disclosed in
the offering memorandum. As a result, Volkswagen has not rebutted
Affiliated Ute's presumption of reliance.

Accordingly Volkswagen moved for summary judgment exclusively on
the element of reliance.

Accordingly, because Volkswagen failed to rebut Affiliated Ute's
presumption of reliance, summary judgment is not warranted and the
Court denies Volkswagen's motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's  September 26, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxfqrn9y from Leagle.com

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey  -
rcarey@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman - steve@hbsslaw.com - Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser - toml@hbsslaw.com - Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart -
astewart@shulaw.com - Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro
- tshapiro@shulaw.com - Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.
Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro ,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.
Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer,
Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac
Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by
Caleb Marker- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro
hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman - csz@zimmreed.com - Zimmerman
Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague  - Lightfoot Franklin &
White, Casey Erin Lucier - clucier@mcguirewoods.com -  McGuireWoods
LLP, Charles J. Baker, III - chuck.baker@wbd-us.com - Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker  -
chtucker@rhodesokla.com - Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable,
Dana Woodrum Lang , Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg -eisenberg@bscr-law.com - Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice,
LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr.  - henry.smythe@wbd-us.com - Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller -
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com - McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer ,
Conrad and Scherer, LLP633 South Federal Highway, Eighth Floor,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.


WRIGHT BROS: Ohio Southern Dist. Refuses to Stay Honaker FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SCOTT HONAKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WRIGHT BROS.
PIZZA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-1528 (S.D. Ohio),
Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio (i) denied the Defendants' Motion to Stay
the Complaint, and (ii) denied as moot their Motion to Stay
Certification of the Collective Action.

The suit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), Article II, Section 34a of the Ohio Constitution, the
Ohio Minimum Wage Fairness Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
Thomas Wright owns and operates Wright Bros, which operates five
Domino's franchise locations in Ohio.

Plaintiff Rhonda Honaker worked for Wright Bros. as a delivery
driver from July 2017 to Nov. 8, 2018, mostly at the Pickerington
location.  Scott Honaker worked at the Defendants' Dominos
locations from August 2013 to Nov. 8, 2018.  Like Rhonda, he
primarily worked at the Pickerington location but sometimes worked
at other of the Defendants' locations.  In addition to working as a
delivery driver, Scott Honaker also worked as an assistant manager.


The Honakers primarily dispute the way the Defendants compensate
their delivery drivers.  The Plaintiffs allege that, since 2014,
delivery drivers have been paid two rates: an hourly rate that is
"minimum wage or slightly above minimum wage" for the time they
work in the store and another rate for their deliveries, that is
"minimum wage minus a tip credit."  

They allege that delivery drivers are not reimbursed at a
reasonable approximation of the delivery drivers' expenses,
including expenses for cell phone and data charges and receive a
per-delivery reimbursement payment that amounts to less than the
IRS standard business mileage rate for each mile they drive while
completing deliveries for Wright Bros.  The Plaintiffs also allege
that the Defendants did not comply with the FLSA provisions for
taking a tip credit from their wages.

The Honakers sued Wright Bros. and Thomas Wright on behalf of
themselves and as a collective action under the FLSA and class
action under Ohio law.  They moved for conditional certification of
the collective action on Jan. 11, 2019.  

The Defendants then moved to stay the case pending the outcome of a
related case against Domino's, Clark v. Pizza Baker, Inc.  That
case seeks a nationwide collective action and Ohio class and is
being litigated against two franchisees and Domino's corporate.
That case is also pending in the Court, and the Honakers have opted
into the Clark suit.  

The Defendants have moved to stay the Honaker's case against Wright
Bros. Pizza until Clark v. Pizza Baker is resolved.  They argue a
stay is appropriate under the first-to-file rule.  The Defendants
have also moved to Stay briefing on the class certification issue
until the Court decides the Motion to Stay the Complaint.

Judge Marbley finds that Clark and Honaker both challenge the use
of the PULSE pay system -- a system that, Clark alleges, Domino's
requires franchisees to use. But the extent to which Domino's
corporate controlled the franchisees is likely to be litigated in
Clark.  And, unlike in Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc., the allegations in
the instant case are not about the assignment of legal rights such
that the franchisee's liability depends upon the rights of the
franchisor.  Rather, both cases focus on whether each Defendant is
liable independently.  Thus, the franchisee and franchisor
Defendants do not substantially overlap.

Even were they to find that the parties substantially overlap, the
issues or claims at stake do not.  Although both Clark and Honaker
seek to recover damages for alleged FLSA violations, the issue of
joint employer liability precludes a finding that the two cases
involve a substantial overlap in issues.  Thus, the first-to-file
rule should not apply.  And although the Hart court additionally
considered whether any judicial efficiency could be gained by
transferring the case to the first-filed jurisdiction in light of
the fact that the defendant in the second case likely could not be
joined in the first, that is not a consideration in the instant
case, where the cases are already pending in the same district
before the same judge.

In addition to those factors, courts consider whether there are
extraordinary circumstances, inequitable conduct, bad faith, or
forum shopping that counsel against apply the first-to-file rule.
Because the Judge finds that the first-to-file rule is
inapplicable, he need not address these equitable considerations.

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Marbley denied the Defendants'
Motion to Stay the Complaint, and denied as moot their Motion to
Stay the Motion for Conditional Certification.  The Defendants have
21 days to file a Response to the Motion for Conditional
Certification.  The Plaintiffs will then have 14 days to file their
Reply.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/PymnG2 from Leagle.com.

Scott Honaker & Rhonda Honaker, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew
Biller -- abiller@billerkimble.com -- Biller & Kimble, LLC, Andrew
P. Kimble -- akimble@billerkimble.com -- Biller & Kimble, LLC Of
Counsel & Philip J. Krzeski -- pkrzeski@billerkimble.com -- Biller
& Kimble, LLC Of Counsel.

Wright Bros. Pizza, Inc. & Thomas Wright, Defendants, represented
by Michael B. Mattingly -- michael.mattingly@dinsmore.com --
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***