CAR_Public/191010.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, October 10, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 203

                            Headlines

3M CO: Final Judgment in Bhatia Defective Dental Crown Suit Entered
ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES: Court Certifies Class in Foster ERISA Suit
AGRIBANK FCB: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Diverse Suit
ALLERGAN, INC: A.B. et al. Sue over Recalled Breast Implants
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Bid to Dismiss Second Amended MSPA Suit Denied

AMERICAN BOARD: Court Dismisses Kenney's Antitrust Suit
AMERICAN EAGLE: Mullen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
AMERICAN GUARD: Wisner Hits Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks
AMERICAN INT'L: Faces D'Artiste Suit in California
AMY SCHERBER INC: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Wright Suit Says

APPLIED UNDERWRITER: Obtains Summary Judgment in Pet Food Suit
ARGOS INN: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ARS NATIONAL: Chen Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ASTRAZENECA: Monopolized Supply of Seroquel XR, Pipe Trades Asserts
AWH PARTNERS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

BMW FINANCIAL: $2.4M Suit Settlement Over Canceled Leases Approved
CANADA GOOSE: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of Nov. 4 Deadline
CAREERBUILDER LLC: Martin Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duty
CAVALRY SPV: Oh Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
CLEAR VIEW: Former Ebony Employees File Class Action Lawsuit

COMMUNITY BANK: Answer to Kelly's Overdraft Fees Suit Due Oct. 15
COOKWARE COMPANY: Johnson // Becker Files Class Action
CORINDUS VASCULAR: Rauner Files Suit Over Siemens Merger Deal
DASH LUBE: Moreno Moves to Certify Class of Service Technicians
DEFENDERS INC: Illegally Sent Misleading Spam E-Mails, Says Suit

DESIGNER BRANDS: Dargoltz Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
DOORDASH INC: Faces Class Suit After Using Drivers' Tips
ELECTROCORE INC: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
ELECTROCORE INC: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

EXTENDED STAY: Reservation System not ADA-Compliant, Says Mullen
FACEBOOK INC: Investor Plaintiffs Have Until Oct. 26 to Refile Case
FARMERS INSURANCE: Bid to Decertify Class in Deluca FLSA Suit Nixed
FCA US: Garcia Files Suit Over Illegal Marketing Calls
FORD MOTOR: O'Connor Sues over Defective 10R80 Transmissions

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Cadillac Infotainment Screens
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Calderon Labor Suit Underway
GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Zhang Investor Law Files Class Action Suit
HASBROUCK HOUSE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JAMBA JUICE: Sharward Suit Pending in California Superior Court

JUDICIAL CORRECTION: Court Denies Class Certification in Kay Suit
JUUL LABS: Swearingen Suit Underway in N.D. Calif.
KANSAS DEPT. FOR CHILDREN: More Children Added to Class Suit
LA TOURELLE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LOVING CARE NURSING: Does not Properly Pay Nurses, Penn Suit Says

MARC JACOBS: Desalvo Drops ADA Class Suit in Calif.
MDL 2804: Court Certifies Negotiation Class in Opiate Suit
MEREDITH CORPORATION: Nov. 5 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
MIRROR LAKE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MYRIAD GENETICS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action

NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of Oct. 18 Deadline
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Zhang Investor Files Class Action
NETAPP INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 15 Plaintiff Deadline
NEW BAY ROSE: Palaguachi Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
NINTENDO CO: Amended Suit Says Joy-Cons Have Drift Problem

OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Robbins Geller Notes of Nov. 16 Deadline
OVIEDO BEAUTIFUL: Sarno Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
PATIENT BUILDERS: Katz Suit Underway in California Northern Dist.
PAYAM INC: Denied Workers Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay, Says Suit
PERDUE FARMS: Earnest Suit Asserts Sherman Act Breach

PFFA ACQUISITION: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PINNACLE FOOD: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Korte Suit
PROPETRO HOLDING: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline
PROPETRO HOLDING: Nov. 15 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
PURDUE PHARMA: NL Joins British Columbia's Opioid Suit

RICHEMONT NA: Zhang Sues Over Denied OT Pay, Breaks, Reimbursements
SEIU PENNSYLVANIA: Court Dismisses LaSpina 2nd Amended Suit
SHAFER PROJECT: Lewis Seeks Overtime Pay for Coating Inspectors
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Pawar Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
SUNDIAL GROWERS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit

SUNDIAL GROWERS: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
SUNDIAL GROWERS: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
SURFACE ONCOLOGY: Ang Says IPO Registration Statement Misleading
TALAMO FOOD: Rivera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
TAQUERIAS EL FAROLITO: Romero's Overtime Suit Underway

TEESPRING INC: Traynor Suit Underway in New York Southern District
TELEBRANDS CORP: Illegally Charged Monthly Fees, Rosenbloom Claims
TENCENT MUSIC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action
TENCENT MUSIC: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Oct. 18 Conference on 2016 Election-Related Appeal

VALARIS PLC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Oct. 21 Deadline
VIEWRAY INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Nov. 12 Deadline
VIMEO INC: Faces Class Action for Violations of Biometric Law
WALMART INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Fortney Says

                            *********

3M CO: Final Judgment in Bhatia Defective Dental Crown Suit Entered
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Donovan W. Frank of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota has entered final judgment in the case, Vikram Bhatia,
D.D.S., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. 3M Company, Defendant, Civil No. 16-1304
(DWF/DTS) (D. Minn.).

The Parties to the class action entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement dated as of March 25, 2019.  On April 10, 2019, the
Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement.  The
notice of the Settlement was provided to the Class Members in
accordance with the Court's Preliminary Approval Order.

On Sept. 4, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., Judge Frank held the Fairness
Hearing.  Having considered the papers filed and proceedings held
in connection with the Settlement, he finds that the Settlement set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate to the Class.  Accordingly, he authorized and directed the
implementation of all terms and provisions of the Stipulation.

The Judge affirmed the appointment of the Class Representatives and
of the Class Counsel.

Judgment is entered dismissing the Action with prejudice, on the
merits, and without taxation of costs in favor of or against any
Party.

The Plan of Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund as described in
the Notice to Class Members is approved, subject to modification by
further order of the Court, which may, at its discretion, be
entered without further notice to the Class.

The Judge awarded the Class Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount
of $10,725,000, and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses in the
amount of $120,009.54.  Class Representatives Angela Ferrari,
D.D.S. and Dominick Lembo, D.M.D. are granted service awards of
$25,000 each, and the remaining 16 Class Representatives are
granted service awards of $10,000 each.  Such amounts will be paid
from out of the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the
Stipulation.

He directed the Claims Administrator to mail the Supplemental
Notice and the Supplemental Claim Form to the Class Members, in the
same manner as the Notice, during the time period between June 15,
2020 and June 30, 2020.

There being no just reason for delay, the Clerk of Court is
directed to enter final judgment forthwith pursuant to Rule 54(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda M.
Williams -- awilliams@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
Daniel E. Gustafson -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson
Gluek PLLC, Daniel C. Hedlund -- dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com --
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, David A. Goodwin --
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Eric S. Taubel
-- etaubel@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Korey A.
Nelson -- knelson@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest LLP, pro hac
vice, Warren T. Burns -- wburns@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest
LLP, pro hac vice & William B. Thompson --
wthompson@burnscharest.com
-- Burns Charest LLP, pro hac vice.

Plaintiffs' Executive Committee Chairperson, Plaintiff, represented
by James J. Pizzirusso -- jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP,
pro hac vice.

Plaintiff's Executive Committee, Plaintiff, represented by Brian C.
Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed,
PLLP, Charles D. Gabriel -- cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com -- Chalmers
Adams, LLC, pro hac vice, Edward Anthony Wallace, Wexler Wallace
LLP, pro hac vice, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice,
Jordan M. Lewis, Jordan Lewis, P.A., Joseph G. Sauder --
jgs@mccunewright.com -- Sauder Schelkopf LLC, Paul J. Scarlato --
scarlato@lawgsp.com -- Goldman Scarlato & Penny, P.C., pro hac
vice, William M. Audet, Audet & Partners, LLP, pro hac vice &
Yvonne M. Flaherty, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

Vikram Bhatia, D.D.S., Jeffrey Chen, D.D.S., Bruce Sherrill,
D.D.S., Brookhaven Dental Associates, P.C. & Johns Creek Dental
Associates, P.C., Plaintiffs, represented by Alan L. Rosca --
arosca@prwlegal.com -- Rosca Law, pro hac vice, Amanda M. Williams,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Bradley A. Winters -- bwinters@scwstl.com --
The Winters Law Group, LLC, pro hac vice, Bryan L. Bleichner --
bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut Cambronne PA, Bryce
Daniel Riddle , Zimmerman Reed, LLP, Charles D. Gabriel --
cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com -- Chalmers Adams, LLC, pro hac vice,
Daniel H. Charest, Burns Charest LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel E.
Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek
PLLC, David S. Corwin, Corwin Law Group, pro hac vice, David A.
Goodwin, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Edward Anthony Wallace , Wexler
Wallace LLP, pro hac vice, Eric S. Taubel, Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. --g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com --
Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP,
pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. Bores -- jbores@chestnutcambronne.com --
Chestnut Cambronne, PA, John R. Parker, Jr. --
jparker@cutterlaw.com -- Cutter Law, P.C., pro hac vice, Joseph G.
Sauder, Sauder Schelkopf LLC, pro hac vice, Katie Rose Beran,
Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Katrina Carroll --
kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, pro hac
vice, Korey A. Nelson, Burns Charest LLP, pro hac vice, Kyle Alan
Shamberg -- kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg,
LLC, Ling Y. Kuang, Audet & Partners, LLP, pro hac vice, Marc H.
Edelson --  medelson@edelson-law.com -- Edelson & Associates, LLC,
pro hac vice, Michael K. Yarnoff -- myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com --
The Kehoe Law Firm, Paul J. Scarlato, Goldman Scarlato & Penny,
P.C., pro hac vice, Roberta A. Yard -- r.yard@rwblawfirm.com --
Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Warren T. Burns, Burns Charest
LLP, pro hac vice, William M. Audet , Audet & Partners, LLP, pro
hac vice & William B. Thompson, Burns Charest LLP, pro hac vice.

Justin Ebersole, D.D.S., Angela Ferrari, D.D.S., Mike Henrickson,
D.D.S. & Dr. Myron Henrickson, Plaintiffs, represented by Alan L.
Rosca, Rosca Law, pro hac vice, Amanda M. Williams, Gustafson Gluek
PLLC, Bradley A. Winters, The Winters Law Group, LLC, pro hac vice,
Bryan L. Bleichner, Chestnut Cambronne PA, Bryce Daniel Riddle,
Zimmerman Reed, LLP, Charles D. Gabriel, Chalmers Adams, LLC, pro
hac vice, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C.
Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, David S. Corwin, Corwin Law Group,
pro hac vice, David A. Goodwin, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Edward
Anthony Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP, pro
hac vice, Eric S. Taubel, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Garrett D.
Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, James J.
Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. Bores, Chestnut
Cambronne, PA, John R. Parker, Jr., Cutter Law, P.C., pro hac vice,
Joseph G. Sauder, Sauder Schelkopf LLC, pro hac vice, Katie Rose
Beran, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Katrina Carroll, Lite DePalma
Greenberg LLC, pro hac vice, Kyle Alan Shamberg, Lite DePalma
Greenberg, LLC, Marc H. Edelson, Edelson & Associates, LLC, pro hac
vice, Michael K. Yarnoff, The Kehoe Law Firm, Paul J. Scarlato,
Goldman Scarlato & Penny, P.C., pro hac vice & Roberta A. Yard,
Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield.

3M Company, Defendant, represented by Laura Reilly --
laura.reilly@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels, Matthew B. Kilby
-- matthew.kilby@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Tyler A.
Young -- tyler.young@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP &
Wendy J. Wildung -- wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP.


ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES: Court Certifies Class in Foster ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAROL FOSTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ADAMS AND
ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02723-JSC
(N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Plaintiffs Foster and Theo Foreman bring a class action suit under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), on
behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Adams and
Associates Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP").  The Plaintiffs
allege that Adams and Associates, Roy A. Adams, Leslie G. Adams,
Daniel B. Norem, Joy Curry Norem, and The Daniel Norem Revocable
Trust Dated January 9, 2002, breached their fiduciary duty to them,
participated in prohibited transactions, and failed to make
required disclosures.

Adams and Associates purports to be one of the largest private
sector entities involved in the federal Job Corps program.  The
Plaintiffs are participants in the Adams and Associates ESOP from
October 2012 or any time thereafter who vested under the Plan
terms.

The Plaintiffs' claims arise out of a transaction in October 2012
in which Defendants Roy A. Adams, Leslie G. Adams, and The Trust
sold 100% of the stock of Adams and Associates to the Adams ESOP as
well as alleged subsequent breaches by the Adams ESOP fiduciaries.
The Plaintiffs allege that the transaction was not in the best
interests of the ESOP participants, that it was implemented by a
Trustee who was a felon and was later incarcerated for stealing
from other ESOPs and caused the ESOP to pay in excess of fair
market value.  The Director Defendants knew and failed to disclose
that the ESOP Trustee, Alan Weissman, was a felon.  As a result of
the Defendants' fiduciary breaches, the Plaintiffs and the Class
have not received all of the hard-earned retirement benefits or the
loyal and prudent management of the ESOP to which they are
entitled.

Plaintiff Foster was employed as a Security Advisor by Adams and
Associates from February 2015 through March 2018 at the Treasure
Island Job Corps Center in San Francisco, California.  Plaintiff
Foreman is a current employee of Adams and Associates, and has
worked at the Treasure Island Job Corps Center in San Francisco as
a Center Shift Manager since June 2009.

The Plaintiffs filed the action alleging that the Defendants
collectively committed multiple ERISA violations including (1)
prohibited transactions by Roy Adams, Leslie Adams, Daniel Norem,
the Norem Trust, and Weissman under 29 U.S.C. Section 1106(a); (2)
prohibited transactions by Roy Adams, Leslie Adams, Daniel Norem,
and the Norem Trust ("Selling Shareholder Defendants") under 29
U.S.C. Sections 1106(a)-(b); (3) breach of fiduciary duty by
Weissman under 29 U.S.C. Sections 1104(a)(1)(A)-(B); (4) breach of
fiduciary duty by Roy Adams, Leslie Adams and Daniel Norem under 29
U.S.C. Sections 1104(a)(1)(A)-(B), (D); (5) failure to make
required disclosures by Adams and Associates under 29 U.S.C.
Sections 1022, 1024(b)(1), 1104(a)(1)(A)-(B); and (6) that Roy
Adams, Leslie Adams and Daniel Norem created a prohibited
indemnification agreement for Weissman under 29 U.S.C. Section
1110(a).

The Plaintiffs seek to restore losses from the ESOP, disgorge the
Defendants' profits from the ESOP, and other equitable relief.
They also request a long list of additional remedies including: (1)
declaratory relief regarding each of the claims; (2) injunctive
relief; (3) orders requiring disclosures and pertinent information;
(4) monetary damages relating to ESOP losses; (5) equitable relief,
including accountings; (6) attorney fees and costs; and (7) any
further relief the Court finds appropriate.

The Court denied the motion to dismiss of Adams and Associates, Roy
A. Adams, Leslie G. Adams, and Daniel B. Norem for failure to state
a claim and as barred by the statute of limitations.  The
Defendants thereafter answered the complaint. The now pending
motion for class certification followed.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all participants in
the Adams and Associates ESOP from Oct. 25, 2012 or any time
thereafter, who vested under the terms of the ESOP, along with the
participants' beneficiaries.

The Court may certify a class only where "(1) the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there
are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class."  The
Defendants do not dispute that the numerosity, commonality, and
typicality requirements are satisfied.

The Plaintiffs contend that certification is proper under any of
the three prongs of Rule 23(b), but only seek certification under
23(b)(3) should the Court conclude that certification not proper
under 23(b)(1) or 23(b)(2).  The Defendants do not oppose
certification under any prong of Rule 23(b).

Magistrate Judge Corley finds that the allegations concern a single
ESOP transaction and the Defendants' actions.  Determination
regarding the legality of that transaction and the Defendants'
actions will affect the rights of all the other ESOP participants.
Thus, certification under 23(b)(1)(B) is appropriate.

Rule 23(b)(2) applies only when a single injunction or declaratory
judgment would provide relief to each member of the class.  It does
not authorize class certification when each individual class member
would be entitled to a different injunction or declaratory judgment
against the defendant.  These requirements are unquestionably
satisfied when members of a putative class seek uniform injunctive
or declaratory relief from policies or practices that are generally
applicable to the class as a whole.  The Magistrate finds that the
Plaintiffs seek the same relief for all members of the class based
on the Defendants' actions and inactions towards the class as a
whole such that certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is also proper.


Given her conclusion that certification is proper under Rule
23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2), the Magistrate need not consider the
Plaintiffs' alternative theory that certification is proper under
Rule 23(b)(3).

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Corley granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  She certified a class of all
participants in the Adams and Associates ESOP from Oct. 25, 2012 or
any time thereafter who vested under the terms of the ESOP and
their beneficiaries.

The class definition excludes the Defendants and their immediate
family, any fiduciary of the ESOP, the officers and directors of
Adams and Associates, Inc. or of any entity in which a Defendant
has a controlling interest, and legal representatives, successors,
and assigns of any such excluded persons.

Plaintiffs Carol Foster and Theo Foreman are appointed as the Class
Representatives.  Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP and Block
& Leviton LLP are appointed as the Co-Lead Counsel for the Class
pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

Carol Foster, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Theo Foreman, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel Mark
Feinberg -- dan@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg, Jackson,
Worthman & Wasow LLP, R. Joseph Barton -- joe@blockesq.com --
Block & Leviton LLP & Vincent Cheng -- vincent@blockesq.com --
Block & Leviton LLP.

Adams and Associates, Inc., Roy A. Adams, Leslie G. Adams, Daniel
B. Norem, Joy Curry Norem & The Daniel Norem Revocable Trust Dated
January 9, 2002, Defendants, represented by Dominique N. Thomas,
Benjamin Law Group, PC, 1290 B St Ste 314, Hayward, CA
94541, Kartikey Anil Pradhan -- kpradhan@kdvlaw.com -- Kaufman
Dolovich Volukh, Kate Elizabeth Collins, Kaufman Dolowich Voluck &
Tad A. Devlin, Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, 600 Massie Rd, 209
Jaobc, Charlottesvle, VA 22903-1750.


AGRIBANK FCB: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Diverse Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DIVERSE PARTNERS, LP, and TROY BANK & TRUST COMPANY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AGRIBANK, FCB, Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-9526 (VEC)
(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York denied the Plaintiffs' motions to
certify a Plaintiff class; to appoint the Plaintiffs as the
co-representatives of the class; and to appoint the Plaintiffs'
counsel as the class counsel.

In the putative class action, the Plaintiffs have sued the
Defendant for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendant wrongfully redeemed $500 million in subordinate notes
before their stated maturity date, thereby causing them --
allegedly beneficial owners of the Notes -- to lose substantial
interest payments.

The Plaintiffs have moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3)
to certify a Plaintiff class of all beneficial owners of the Notes
when Defendant redeemed them; to appoint the Plaintiffs as the
co-representatives of the class; and to appoint their counsel as
the class counsel.

Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the Plaintiffs seek to
certify a class of all persons who beneficially owned Notes when
the Redemption occurred, excluding (a) Defendant Agribank, (b) any
of Agribank's subsidiaries, (c) current or former officers of
Agribank or any of its subsidiaries, and those officers' immediate
families, (d) any entity in which Agribank has or had a controlling
interest, and (e) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and
assigns of any of these excluded parties.

The case presents two common questions susceptible to generalized,
class-wide proof: whether the Defendant breached the Global
Security by redeeming the Notes on July 15, 2016, rather than on
their stated maturity date of July 15, 2019; and whether, by the
same conduct, it breached the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing.

Because there is no dispute that all of the Notes were governed by
a single Global Security, and because the Defendant does not
dispute that it redeemed the Notes on July 15, 2016, the answers to
these two questions turn on the Court's interpretation of the
Global Security.  That interpretation would resolve both questions
for the entire putative class.  These two common questions having
been identified, the predominance inquiry then turns to whether
adjudicating the case requires resolving any individual questions
and, if so, whether those individual questions are "more
substantial" than the common ones.

The Defendant purports to identify a number of individual
questions, but two of its candidates suffice to defeat
certification: (1) the individualized fact-finding necessary to
identify the putative class' members, and (2) the individualized
inquiry whether any putative class member's acquisition of less
than $250,000 in Notes was a material breach of the Global Security
and thus excused the Defendant's obligations under the Global
Security to such class member.  Each of these individualized
question independently defeats predominance.

Regarding the first of these issues, Judge Caproni holds that it is
well established that individual questions regarding membership in
a putative class may predominate over common questions and
therefore preclude class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
Determining class membership in this case will be a fact-intensive,
individualized inquiry that overwhelms common questions.  The
Plaintiffs' proposed class consists of all beneficial owners of the
Notes when Defendant redeemed them.  But even after extensive fact
discovery, they themselves have been unable to identify those
beneficial owners, and they have failed to offer a source of
generalized proof that can accomplish the task reliably.

The Plaintiffs are not obligated at this stage to identify each and
every member of the putative class, but the shakiness of the
individualized evidence of class membership that they have
submitted and their failure to propose a method for reliably
determining class membership on an administratively feasible (if
not class-wide) basis persuade the Judge that individualized
questions regarding class membership would "overshadow" any common
issues if a class were certified.

Putting aside concerns over proving class membership, there is a
second individualized question that threatens to predominate over
common ones: whether any purported class members materially
breached the Global Security by acquiring less than $250,000 in
Notes and thereby excused the Defendant's alleged breach of the
Global Security with respect to those purported class members.  The
Judge finds that resolving whether a purported class member's
acquisition of Notes below the $250,000 minimum defeats liability
as to that class member is likely to be an individualized question
that predominates over common ones.

At this stage, the Judge is not persuaded that the Plaintiffs are
correct when they assert that the Defendant's material-breach
defense will be susceptible to clean, class-wide resolution.  The
Plaintiffs cite no authority for and barely explain their
contention that the Global Security's prohibition on disposing of
the Notes in amounts less than $250,000 "applies to the transferor,
not the transferee," and thus, as a matter of law, does not apply
to any purported class member.  The materiality inquiry will,
therefore, be fact-sensitive, and given how widely the monetary
value of purported class members' interests in the Notes apparently
varied, the Court is not persuaded that this inquiry will not
overwhelm common questions.

In sum, because Judge Caproni does not find that common questions
predominate, as Rule 23(b)(3) requires, she denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  And although she has discretion to
modify the definition of the proposed class, she declines to do so.
Given the substantial gaps in the evidence of class membership
that the Plaintiffs have adduced so far, along with their failure
to offer an administrable and reliable means of filling those gaps,
the Judge concludes that there is no definable class for which
individualized questions of class membership would not predominate.
For the same reason, her denial of class certification is with
prejudice.

Finally, because the Judge denied class certification with
prejudice, she also denied the Plaintiffs' motions to be appointed
the co-class representatives and to appoint their counsel as the
class counsel.

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

Diverse Partners, LP, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gordon Z. Novod --
gnovod@gelaw.com -- Grant &  Eisenhofer P.A., Caitlin M. Moyna --
cmoyna@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. & Jonathan David Park
-- jpark@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.

Troy Bank & Trust Company, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gordon Z. Novod,
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.

Agribank, FCB, Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Paccione,
Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, Brian Lee Muldrew --
brian.muldrew@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, Jason
A. Nagi, Polsinelli PC, Mark Thomas Ciani , Katten Muchin Rosenman,
LLP & Jason Christopher Vigna -- jason.vigson@kettenlaw.com --
Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP.


ALLERGAN, INC: A.B. et al. Sue over Recalled Breast Implants
------------------------------------------------------------
A.B. and C.D., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALLERGAN, INC. f/k/a INAMED
CORPORATION, ALLERGAN USA, INC., and ALLERGAN plc., the Defendants,
Case No. 8:19-cv-01651 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2019), seeks relief
under the Unfair Competition Law as a result of Plaintiff's
exposure to recalled BIOCELL products.

Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and
silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders. Allergan's
BIOCELL line of implants are a type of textured breast implants and
tissue expanders that were first introduced internationally in the
early 1990s and in the United States beginning in 2006.

The BIOCELL textured implants were originally developed in the
1980s and early 1990s by Santa Barbara-based McGhan Medical
Corporation, which later became Inamed Corporation. In 2006,
Allergan acquired Inamed and its Santa Barbara facilities became
the new national research and development center for Allergan's
"medical aesthetics" division, which included breast implants.

In 2011, the Food and Drug Administration identified a potential
link between textured breast implants and a rare form of lymphoma
called breast-implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, or
BIA-ALCL.

Following a request from the FDA, on July 24, 2019, Allergan
announced it was issuing a worldwide recall of all BIOCELL textured
breast implants and tissue expanders. The FDA made its request
after receiving reports suggesting that BIOCELL implants and
expanders were associated with hundreds of cases of BIA-ALCL around
the world. In its notice to the public, the FDA reported receiving
573 cases of BIA-ALCL worldwide, including 33 deaths.

The FDA further noted that it had seen "significant increase in
known cases of BIA-ALCL since the agency's last update earlier this
year -- an increase of 116 new unique cases and 24 deaths." Of the
573 known cases of BIA-ALCL, 481 (or about 84%) were attributed to
Allergan products, and of the 33 reported deaths, "12 of the 13
patients for which the manufacturer of the implant is known are
confirmed to have an Allergan breast implant."

According to the FDA, the risk of BIA-ALCL is six times higher with
Allergan's textured implants than textured implants from other
manufacturers. BIA-ALCL is not breast cancer but rather a type of
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a cancer of the immune system. BIA-ALCL
typically occurs in the scar tissue surrounding the implant. Left
untreated, it will spread to surrounding tissue such as lymph nodes
near the breast, and may be fatal. BIA-ALCL is typically treated
with surgery meant to remove the implant and surrounding scar
tissue although some patients will require chemotherapy, radiation
therapy, or both.

The main symptoms of BIA-ALCL are persistent swelling or
enlargement of a patient's breast or surrounding tissue that
develops a year or more after surgery (swelling is common
immediately after surgery), lumps in the breast or armpit, pain,
rash or redness, hardening of the breast, or changes in the shape
or size of the breast.

After Allergan's recall, a principal FDA deputy commissioner stated
that: "Based on new data, our team concluded that action is
necessary at this time to protect the public health" and that "once
the evidence indicated that a specific manufacturer's product
appeared to be directly linked to significant patient harm,
including death, the FDA took action."

The products subject to recall (recalled BIOCELL product) include
Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants (formerly called
McGhan RTV Saline-Filled Mammary Implants), Allergan Natrelle
Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants (formerly called Inamed
Silicone-Filled Breast Implants), Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive
Anatomically Shaped Silicone-Filled Breast Implants, and Allergan
tissue expanders for the breast implants that have BIOCELL
texturing.

In a July 30, 2019 letter to "Allergan Plastic Surgery Customers",
Allergan's Senior Vice President, U.S. Medical Aesthetics, Carrie
Strom stated that Allergan is creating a "Replacement Warranty" for
patients "currently implanted" with BIOCELL textured implants that
will provide smooth device replacements. The letter explained that
the warranty program will run until July 24, 2021. The letter also
said that "Allergan will not be providing surgical fee assistance"
to any patients.

On August 9, 2019, Allergan sent a letter informing patients,
including Plaintiffs, that the recall of the BIOCELL products was
due to a "higher occurrence of breast implant-associated anaplastic
large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) in patients who have, or have had,
Allergan BIOCELL textured breast implants." Allergan's "recall" and
"Replacement Warranty" therefore have a glaring shortcoming --
while it has agreed to provide smooth breast implants to replace
the problematic textured breast implants, Allergan has declined to
cover the surgical fees patients must incur to remove the recalled
BIOCELL products.

As a result of Allergan's conduct, including its refusal to pay for
the removal of the recalled BIOCELL products, as well as the
substantially increased risk of BIA-ALCL, Plaintiffs will be forced
to expend substantial sums, such as for surgery to remove their
implants, medical monitoring, and other medical expenses.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          Christina C. Sharp, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Trevor T. Tan, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com
                  apolk@girardsharp.com
                  ttan@girardsharp.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Bid to Dismiss Second Amended MSPA Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-01340 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Andrea
R. Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Defendant's (i) motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), and (ii)
its motion to dismiss or strike the class allegations contained in
the SAC.

Plaintiff MSPA Claims 1 has filed the putative class action against
Defendant Allstate, claiming to be the assignee of legal claims
held by numerous unidentified Medicare Advantage Organizations
("MAOs").  The Plaintiff seeks double recovery under the Medicare
Secondary Payer provisions of the Medicare Act ("MSPA") for
reimbursement of medical expenses that the various MAOs paid on
Allstate's behalf.

According to the Plaintiff, Allstate agreed to serve as the primary
insurer for certain enrollees in its no-fault automobile insurance
policies.  After the enrollees were involved in automobile
accidents that caused them to incur expenses for medical treatment,
the MAOs paid the enrollees' expenses instead of Allstate.  The
MAOs thus had the right under the MSPA provisions to institute
private actions against Allstate for reimbursement and double
damages.  

The Plaintiff claims to have obtained the MAOs' rights through a
series of assignments and now seeks to enforce those rights against
Allstate.  It also asserts a claim for breach of contract via
subrogation of the enrollees' contractual rights, alleging that
Allstate breached its no-fault automobile insurance contracts with
the enrollees by failing to pay their medical expenses.

The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint for failure to plead facts showing that it is indeed the
assignee of the rights at issue.  The Plaintiff then filed a SAC.

Now before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss the SAC,
as well as its motion to dismiss or strike the class allegations
contained in the SAC.

First, Judge Wood declines to dismiss Count I for lack of standing.
She holds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that it
holds valid assignments regarding both the first exemplar ("F.A.")
and second exemplar ("N.M.") claims.  As to the F.A. Claim, the
Judge finds that the agreement between Interamerican Medical Center
Group, LLC ("IMC") and MSP Recovery clearly contemplates an
assignment.  The agreement provides that the parties agree that any
rights conferred to IMC by Medicare Advantage plans either by
statute, contract, and/or any other reason whatsoever will be
administered by MSP Recovery.

The Judge reaches the same conclusion as to the N.M. Claim.  The
agreement between Florida Health Care Plus ("FHCP") and Recovery
Systems, Inc. provides that FHCP appoints, directs and otherwise
assigns all of its rights as it pertains to the rights pursuant to
any plan, State or Federal statute whatsoever directly and/or
indirectly for any its members and/or plan participants.  The
parties agree that any rights conferred to FHCP by Medicare
Advantage plans either by statute, contract and/or any other reason
whatsoever will be administered by La Ley Recovery.

Next, the Judge holds that the factual allegations are adequate for
Allstate to understand that the Plaintiff's claims are based on
Allstate's role as the primary payer of a claim covered by
Medicare.  The Plaintiff has alleged that, in both F.A. and N.M.'s
situations, the medical providers issued bills for payment of
covered medical expenses to the MAOs, which then made conditional
payments in Allstate's stead but did not receive any
reimbursements.  It has also alleged that in both situations,
Allstate was aware of the enrollee's accident and resulting medical
bills.  Based on these allegations, the Judge finds that the
Plaintiff has adequately pleaded Count I and denies Allstate's
motion to dismiss.

In Count II, the Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract
based on Allstate's alleged failure to fulfill its contractual
obligations to enrollees such as F.A. and N.M. pursuant to their
no-fault insurance policies.  It accordingly seeks to hold Allstate
liable for breaching the no-fault insurance agreements held by
enrollees such as F.A. and N.M.

The Judge holds that Section 411.24(e) confers upon MAOs a "direct
right of action to recover from any primary payer."  And Section
422.108(f) provides that MAOs may exercise the same rights to
recover from a primary plan, entity, or individual that the
Secretary exercises under the MSP regulations.  Therefore, based on
the valid assignment of rights from the MAOs to the Plaintiff, it
naturally follows that the Plaintiff may assert the same right of
subrogation as the MAOs.

In a separate motion, Allstate alternately moves to dismiss or
strike the Plaintiff's class allegations.  The Plaintiff defines
its putative class as follows: All Medicare Advantage
Organizations, First Tier Entities, Downstream Entities or their
assignees (MA Plan), that provide benefits under Medicare Part C in
the United States of America and its territories and that made
payments for a Medicare beneficiary's medical expenses, where
Allstate: (1) is the primary payer by virtue of having a
contractual obligation to pay for the items and services that are
required to be covered by the policy of insurance of the same
Medicare Beneficiaries that are also covered by an MA plan; and (2)
failed to pay for the items and services or otherwise failed to
reimburse the MA Plan or its assignees for the medical items and
services related to the claims on behalf of the Medicare
Beneficiaries.

The Judge holds that at this stage of the litigation, she is not
persuaded based on the allegations in the SAC alone that class
certification is inappropriate.  Any further determination of
whether the Plaintiff can establish the basis for class
certification is premature.  For now, she denies Allstate's
alternative motion to dismiss or strike the Plaintiff's class
allegations.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wood denied both Allstate's (i)
motion to dismiss the SAC and (ii) its alternative motion to
dismiss or strike the class action allegations.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/YY9Ce9 from Leagle.com.

MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L. Coffin
-- ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., R.
Brent Wisner -- rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com -- Baum Hedlund Aristei
& Goldman, P.c., pro hac vice, Charles Edward Whorton, Rivero
Mestre LLP, pro hac vice, Courtney Lynn Stidham --
cstidham@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, pro hac
vice, David M. Hundley -- dhundley@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin, LLP, Nicholas R. Rockforte, Pendley, Baudin &
Coffin, L.L.P., pro hac vice, Pedram Esfandiary --
pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com -- Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman,
P.c., Shannon Alicia Shelton, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, pro
hac vice & Tracy Lynn Turner, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, Llp.

Allstate Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Steven M.
Levy -- steven.levy@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Jeffrey P.
Lennard -- jeffrey.lennard@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Kristine
Marie Schanbacher -- kristine.schanbacher@dentons.com -- Dentons US
LLP, Mark L. Hanover -- mark.hanover@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP
& Richard Lee Fenton -- richard.fenton@dentons.com -- Dentons US
LLP.


AMERICAN BOARD: Court Dismisses Kenney's Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert F. Kelley, Sr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint captioned
GERARD KENNEY, ALEXA JOSHUA, GLEN DELA CRUZ MANALO, and KATHERINE
MURRAY LEISURE, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN BOARD OF INTERNAL MEDICINE,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-5260, (E.D. Pa.).

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) offers its own
certification for medical practitioners. Approximately 80% of
internists, and almost all practicing internists, purchase initial
ABIM certifications.  To obtain certification, a physician must
pass an ABIM-administered examination.  In 2006, ABIM imposed
changes to Maintenance of Certification products (MOC). Internists
were now also required to accumulate 100 "MOC points" every ten
years by completing medical knowledge and practice performance
processes, which resulted in substantial additional MOC fees for
ABIM.

Plaintiffs Gerard Kenney, Alexa Joshua, Glen Dela Cruz Manalo and
Katherine Murray Leisure brought the action against ABIM alleging
violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and a claim of
unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs allege that ABIM allegedly created and maintained
unlawful monopoly power for MOC by requiring internists to purchase
MOC or lose their ABIM certification.

ABIM moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

On review, the Court is unconvinced by Plaintiffs' arguments that
ABIM's initial certification and MOC programs are distinct
products. Plaintiffs' failure to establish two products means there
can be no unlawful tying arrangement and we need not continue our
analysis, the Court states.

The Court also opined that the Plaintiffs were unable to establish
any anticompetitive conduct to support a monopolization claim under
the Sherman Act, and the Plaintiffs failed to assert a proper RICO
claim.

As to the Claim for Unjust Enrichment, the Court states that its
analysis is again constrained by Plaintiffs' misunderstanding of
the product they purchased. Clearly, the first two elements of
unjust enrichment are met for Plaintiffs that purchased MOC.
However, the third element is not met because it is not inequitable
for ABIM to keep the benefit since it did not "force" Plaintiffs to
purchase MOC, the Court cites. Plaintiffs were, of course, free to
decide to no longer be certified by ABIM and to, therefore, not
purchase MOC. In fact, it would be inequitable for Plaintiffs to
demand ABIM continue to certify them without proving they are still
able to meet ABIM standards and without paying ABIM for the MOC
program, the Court adds.

Accordingly, Judge Kelley ordered that:

-- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint is
    granted;

-- Plaintiffs' claims of illegal monopolization and monopoly
    maintenance under Section 2 of the Sherman Act in Count II
    and Section 1962(c) violations of the RICO Act in Count III
    are dismissed without prejudice; and

-- Plaintiffs' claims of unlawful tying under Section 1 of the
    Sherman Act in Count I and unjust enrichment in Count IV
    are dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiffs were given fourteen days to file a Second Amended
Complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5wt7npc from
Leagle.com

GERARD KENNEY, ALEXA JOSHUA, GLEN DELA CRUZ MANALO & KATHERINE
MURRAY LEISURE, Plaintiffs, represented by ALAN F. CURLEY -
acurley@robinsoncurley.com - ROBINSON CURLEY P.C., C. PHILIP CURLEY
- pcurley@robinsoncurley.com - ROBINSON CURLEY P.C., CYNTHIA H.
HYNDMAN - chyndman@robinsoncurley.com - ROBINSON CURLEY P.C.,
KATRINA CARROLL - kcarroll@litedepalma.com - LITE DEPALMA
GREENBERG, LLC, MINDEE J. REUBEN  - mreuben@litedepalma.com - LITE
DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC & SAMUEL G. ROYKO , ROBINSON CURLEY P.C.

AMERICAN BOARD OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, Defendant, represented by
JASON A. LECKERMAN -leckermanj@ballardspahr.com - BALLARD SPAHR
ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LESLIE E. JOHN , BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS &
INGERSOLL LLP, ELIZABETH P. WEISSERT , BALLARD SPAHR LLP & MANSI
SHAH , BALLARD SPAHR.


AMERICAN EAGLE: Mullen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMERICAN EAGLE
OUTFITTERS, INC. The case is styled as BARTLEY M. MULLEN, JR.
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS, INC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01278-MPK (W.D. Pa., Oct. 7, 2019).

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

American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., now known as simply American
Eagle, is an American lifestyle clothing and accessories retailer,
headquartered in the Southside Works Neighborhood of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
     Carlson Lynch, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue
     5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: (412) 322-9243
     Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com



AMERICAN GUARD: Wisner Hits Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------
Ennis Ludell Wisner, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Guard Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19STCV32393 (Cal. Super., September 12, 2019),
seeks redress for Defendant's failure to provide meal periods, rest
periods, minimum wages, overtime, complete and accurate wage/leave
statements, waiting time penalties for unpaid wages due upon
termination under the California Labor Code, California Business
and Professions Code, including declaratory relief, damages,
penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

Defendant allegedly rounded off actual hours worked thus failing to
compensate Plaintiffs for the additional hours, and time spent
attending pre-shift and post-shift meetings. Defendant also
required Wisner to work off the clock to clean and maintain their
uniforms as a condition of employment. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darren M. Cohen, Esq.
      KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
      16133 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436
      Tel: (818) 990-8300
      Fax: (818) 990-2903
      Email: dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com


AMERICAN INT'L: Faces D'Artiste Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against insurers American International
Group and Lexington Insurance Company remains pending.  The case
is, MAISON D'ARTISTE, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL
GROUP, INC.; LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1-100, the
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV26391 (Cal. Super., July 29, 2019).  It
seeks declaratory relief, restitution under the Business and
Professions Code for deceptive acts or practices by Defendants,
injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs.

On November 8, 2018, the Plaintiff suffered what was determined by
Defendants to be a covered homeowner's loss. The Defendants and
Plaintiff eventually agreed on a scope and repair cost of the loss.
However, the Defendants depreciated sales tax on materials used in
the repair of Plaintiff's property on the homeowner's claim and
withheld profit and overhead on the claim until it was incurred,
the lawsuit says.

The Defendants are engage in the insurance business.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Evan Selik, Esq.
          Christine Zaouk, Esq.
          McCATHERN LLP
          West Sixth Street, Suite 830
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 225-6150
          Facsimile: (213) 225-6151
          E-mail: eselik@mcccathernlaw.com
                  aouk@mccathemlaw.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

AMY SCHERBER INC: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Wright Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Morris Wright, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Amy Scherber, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
159486/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Sept. 30, 2019) is a
complaint on behalf of Plaintiff and a class of other similarly
situated current and former hourly employees who worked for the
Defendant, under the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

The Plaintiff asserts that he and other former hourly employees of
the Defendant: 1) were employed by Defendant within the State of
New York as manual workers; 2) are entitled to maximum liquidated
damages (for the period after April 9, 2011) and interest for being
paid overtime wages and non-overtime wages later than weekly; and
3) are entitled to costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New
York Labor Law, and the regulations thereunder; as well as an
injunction prohibiting Defendant from continuing to violate the
weekly payment requirement for manual workers set forth in NYLL.

The Defendant failed and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime
compensation at rates of at least 1.5 times his regular rate of pay
for each and all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a work
week, in violation of the New York Minimum Wage Act and its
implementing regulations, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a porter from August 2016 to
August 2019.

Defendant was engaged in the bakery and restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
     Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC
     215-28 Hillside Avenue
     Queens Village, NY 11427
     Phone: 718-740-1000
     Fax: 718-740-2000
     Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


APPLIED UNDERWRITER: Obtains Summary Judgment in Pet Food Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PET FOOD EXPRESS, LTD., Plaintiff, v. APPLIED
UNDERWRITERS, INC., APPLIED UNDERWRITERS CAPTIVE RISK ASSURANCE
COMPANY, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, and APPLIED RISK
SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-CV-01211 WBS AC (E.D. Cal.),
Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California (i) granted the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment, and (ii) denied the Plaintiff's Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment.

Plaintiff Pet Food filed the lawsuit against Applied, alleging that
the Defendants unlawfully marketed and sold workers' compensation
insurance to California employers in violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").  California requires that all
employers purchase workers' compensation insurance to cover
employees' work-related injuries.  The state also requires that all
workers' compensation insurance policy forms, rates, and rating
plans be filed for approval with the California Workers
Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau and approved by the California
Department of Insurance ("CDI").

The Defendants filed a workers' compensation insurance program
known as EquityComp with the Bureau and received approval from the
Department of Insurance.  Thereafter, they marketed and sold the
Program to the Plaintiff.  After the Program's policies took effect
for the Plaintiff, the Defendants required the Plaintiff to enter a
Reinsurance Participation Agreement ("RPA").  Importantly, the
parties agree that the RPA is not a filed retrospective rating
plan.

On June 20, 2016, in an administrative action challenging Applied's
RPA, the California Insurance Commissioner issued a Decision and
Order, holding that the RPA must be filed and approved by the
Commissioner pursuant to Insurance Code Section 11735.  Because the
Defendants did not file the RPA before it took effect, the
Commissioner found that the "RPA is void as a matter of law."

In the wake of that administrative proceeding, the Defendants
developed an agreement that could be sold and marketed with the
CDI's approval.  While there are differences between the unfiled
and the filed RPAs, none of them changes the structure, material
terms, or financial results to the participant.

Pet Food filed a class action complaint against the Defendants
asserting claims for unfair competition, rescission, declaratory
relief, and fraud.  On June 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint asserting additional claims under the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act; under
the UCL, and for quasi-contract.  The Defendants in turn filed a
counterclaim to plaintiff's amended complaint alleging breach of
contract.

The Defendants subsequently moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
The Court dismissed the RICO claims and denied the motion to
dismiss in all other respects.  With respect to the Plaintiff's UCL
claim based on Insurance Code Section 11735, the Court found that
an unfiled rate is not unlawful per se and determined that the
Commissioner did not conduct the requisite formal rate disapproval
hearing.  The Plaintiff then moved to certify the class, which the
Court subsequently denied on superiority grounds.

The claims remaining are Pet Food's UCL claims for unfair
competition and unjust enrichment, and the Defendant's counterclaim
for breach of contract.  The Plaintiff relies on the Commissioner's
administrative decision and two subsequent California Courts of
Appeal cases to argue that the RPA is an illegal program.
According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant's sale of this allegedly
illegal program violates UCL Section 17200.

Pet Food seeks restitution in "the amount of money left in its
segregated cell" account.  This money consists of funds that Pet
Food has paid the Defendants for the EquityComp plans.  It also
seeks a return on investment of these funds.  In contrast, the
Defendants seek to enforce California Insurance's contract with Pet
Food and allege that Pet Food remains liable for premiums, taxes,
and assessments under the purchased policies.

The Defendants now seek summary judgment under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56, on the grounds that the Plaintiff lacks
standing to sue under the UCL.  The Plaintiff seeks partial summary
judgment on the grounds that (1) the unfair competition claim is
valid as a matter of law because the RPA is illegal; (2) the
Defendants are collaterally estopped from litigating that
illegality; (3) the Plaintiff is entitled to restitution as a
matter of law; (4) the restitution must include a return on
investment on those funds; and (5) no contract exists between
California Insurance and Pet Food.

AS for the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Judge Shubb
finds that the undisputed facts in the case are insufficient to
find an economic loss because Pet Food has failed to show that the
price or quality of the insurance coverage differed from the
expectations Pet Food held when entering the contract.  Pet Food
does not allege, nor do the undisputed facts suggest, that Pet Food
was dissatisfied with either the price or the coverage.  With
respect to the price, Pet Food has not shown that it could have
obtained the same insurance at a lower price.  Pet Food also cannot
establish a loss with respect to Applied's policy because Pet Food
received the bargained for insurance at the bargained for price.
The Plaintiff therefore "got exactly what he bargained for" and did
not incur an economic loss.

In addition, the Judge finds that Pet Food's participation in the
RPA alone does not establish a loss because the subject matter of
the agreement -- insurance coverage through a captive reinsurance
cell -- is not illegal.  Absent allegations that the object of the
contract -- insurance coverage through a captive reinsurance cell
-- is illegal, the Court can preserve and enforce any lawful
portion of a parties' contract that feasibly may be severed."  The
alleged illegality of the contract does not taint the lawful object
of the contract, so even if the RPA is void and unlawful, the
service it provides is not.

Because the underlying service of the RPA is not illegal, Pet
Food's transaction under the RPA is not an economic loss per se.
Pet Food therefore bears the burden of showing economic loss
through dissatisfaction with the service or the price.  And Pet
Food has done neither.  Pet Food has not offered any other theory
of loss and therefore lacks standing to sue under the UCL.
Accordingly, the Judge will grant summary judgment to the
Defendants.

Having determined that the RPA is not illegal as a matter of law,
the issues remaining under the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial
Summary judgment are (1) whether it is entitled to restitution, (2)
whether it is entitled to a return on investment of the funds in
the segregated cell account, and (3) whether a contract exists
between Pet Food and California Insurance.  Because Pet Food does
not have standing to sue under the UCL, the Judge need not
determine at this time whether restitution and a return on
investment are the appropriate remedies for the alleged UCL
violation.  Further, Applied pleaded the breach of contract claim
in the alternative, should the RPA be deemed void or unenforceable.
Because the RPA is not void, the Judge also need not decide
whether a contract exists between Pet Food and California
Insurance.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Shubbb granted the Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment, and denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.

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

Pet Food Express Ltd., a California corporation and all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Craig E. Farmer --
cfarmer@farmersmithlaw.com -- Farmer Smith & Lane LLP, Glen L.
Abramson -- gabramson@bm.net -- Berger Montague PC, pro hac vice,
John Douglas Moore -- jmoore@hennetzel.com --  Law Office of John
Douglas Moore, Kevin Page, Cummings & Page, LLP, pro hac vice,
Peter R. Kahana -- pkahana@bm.net -- Berger Montague, pro hac vice,
Steven M. O'Connor -- soconnor@oconnorlawfirm.com -- O'Connor Redd,
LLP, pro hac vice & Yechiel Michael Twersky -- mitwersky@bm.net --
Berger Montague, pro hac vice.

Applied Underwriters, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda L.
Morgan , DLA Piper LLP, Jeanette Barzelay , DLA Piper LLP, Shand
Scott Stephens -- shand.stephens@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP,
Spencer Y. Kook -- skook@mail.hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Travis R. Wall -- twall@mail.hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Shand Scott Stephens, DLA Piper LLP, Spencer Y.
Kook, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP.

California Insurance Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Spencer Y. Kook, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw
& Culbertson LLP.

Applied Risk Services, Inc., Applied Underwriters Captive Risk
Assurance Company, Inc. & California Insurance Company, Defendants,
represented by Amanda L. Morgan , DLA Piper LLP, Jeanette Barzelay
, DLA Piper LLP, Shand Scott Stephens, DLA Piper LLP & Travis R.
Wall, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance, Inc. & California
Insurance Company, Inc., Counter Claimants, represented by Spencer
Y. Kook, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP.

Applied Underwriters, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by
Jeanette Barzelay, DLA Piper LLP, Spencer Y. Kook, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Pet Food Express Ltd., a California corporation and all those
similarly situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Craig E.
Farmer, Farmer Smith & Lane LLP, Glen L. Abramson, Berger Montague
PC, pro hac vice, John Douglas Moore, Law Office of John Douglas
Moore, Kevin Page, Cummings & Page, LLP, pro hac vice, Peter R.
Kahana, Berger Montague, pro hac vice, Steven M. O'Connor, O'Connor
Redd, LLP, pro hac vice & Yechiel Michael Twersky, Berger Montague,
pro hac vice.

Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc. &
California Insurance Company, Counter Claimants, represented by
Travis R. Wall, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.


ARGOS INN: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Argos Inn, Inc. The
case is styled as Lawrence Young Individually And On Behalf Of All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Argos Inn, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09240 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 7 2019).

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

The Argos Inn is a beautifully restored, LEED certified historic
mansion in the heart of Ithaca, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARS NATIONAL: Chen Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services
Inc. The case is styled as Jenjon Chen, June Gonzales, Richard I.
Gonzales individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARS National Services Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-05663 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 7, 2019).

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

ARS National Services, Inc. offers accounts receivable management
services. It caters to financial services organizations; banks; and
credit card companies. The company is based in Escondido,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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


ASTRAZENECA: Monopolized Supply of Seroquel XR, Pipe Trades Asserts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipe Trades Services MN Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all
those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
L.P.; AstraZeneca L.P.; AstraZeneca UK Limited; Handa
Pharmaceuticals, LLC; and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09083 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 30, 2019) is a lawsuit
brought by Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated end-payors
to recover overcharge damages arising from AstraZeneca's
anticompetitive agreements that delayed generic competition for
Seroquel XR, a prescription drug approved to treat depression,
bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and other illnesses.

The complaint relates that U.S. sales for branded Seroquel XR
exceeded $1 billion annually for AstraZeneca prior to the
introduction of generic competition. Handa/Par and Accord
recognized the huge market potential for competing generic versions
of Seroquel XR and each filed an abbreviated new drug application
with the FDA seeking approval to market different strengths of
generic Seroquel XR. In response to the threat of generic
competition, AstraZeneca filed separate patent litigation against
Handa/Par and Accord alleging that their purported generic versions
of Seroquel XR infringed upon AstraZeneca's patents over the drug.


Rather than risk losing the patent litigations and allowing generic
versions of Seroquel XR to reach the market, AstraZeneca induced
Handa/Par and Accord to each settle their respective patent
litigation by entering into anticompetitive agreements whereby (1)
Handa/Par1 and Accord agreed not to compete in the market for
Seroquel XR from approximately September 29, 2011 until November 1,
2016, thereby allocating the entire Seroquel XR market to
AstraZeneca during this roughly 5 year period; (2) AstraZeneca
agreed not to compete in the generic Seroquel XR market from
roughly November 1, 2016 until May 1, 2017 thereby allocating the
entire market for generic versions of Seroquel XR to Handa/Par and
Accord for this six month period; and (3) AstraZeneca made a large
unjustified reverse payment--i.e., payments from the patent holder,
AstraZeneca, to the alleged infringers, Handa/Par and Accord, and
Defendants had no precompetitive justification or other legitimate
explanation for the payments, notes the complaint.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated state antitrust and
consumer protection laws, by entering into the anticompetitive
agreements that allocated markets, restricted output, and
improperly maintained AstraZeneca's market and monopoly power by
(1) delaying competition from lower priced generic Seroquel XR that
would have entered the market earlier; (2) delaying competition
from authorized generic Seroquel XR that would have entered the
market earlier; and (3) fixing, raising, and maintaining the prices
of Seroquel XR and its generic equivalents at supra-competitive
levels.

Plaintiff Pipe Trades Fund is a Taft-Hartley fund authorized under
Section 302 (c)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act and an
employee welfare benefit plan.

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP is a limited partnership organized
under the laws of Delaware, with a principal place of business at
1800 Concord Pike, Wilmington, Delaware 19803.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 545-4600
     Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
     Email: burt@whafh.com

          - and -

     Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
     Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
     Jessica N. Servais, Esq.
     Kailey C. Mrosak, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
     100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Phone: (612) 339-6900
     Fax: (612) 339-0981
     Email: hmsilton@locklaw.com
            khriebel@locklaw.com
            jnservais@locklaw.com
            kcmrosak@locklaw.com

          - and -

     Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
     Justin N. Boley, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: 312-346-2222
     Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
            jnb@wexlerwallace.com


AWH PARTNERS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AWH Partners, LLC.
The case is styled as Lawrence Young Individually And On Behalf Of
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. AWH Partners,
LLC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09245 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 7 2019).

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

AWH Partners is a privately held real estate investment firm formed
by alumni of The Blackstone Group and The Related Companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BMW FINANCIAL: $2.4M Suit Settlement Over Canceled Leases Approved
------------------------------------------------------------------
Suzette Parmley, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a
U.S. District Court judge has entered a final order approving a
class action settlement of $2.4 million for 770 service members who
sued BMW Financial Services, which buys vehicles from auto dealers
to lease out.

The settlement comes in a years-long case where one of two named
plaintiffs, Walter Venneman, is himself an attorney, in addition to
serving in the U.S. Army.

It includes $675,000 in attorney fees and approximately $55,000 in
litigation costs for the plaintiffs in addition to the $2.4
million.

"The Court finds, upon review of the Settlement Agreement and
consideration of the nine factors enunciated in Girsh v. Jepson,
521 F.2d 153, 157 (3d Cir. 1975), that the Settlement and the
proposed payment distribution program provided for in the
Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate," said U.S. District
Judge John Michael Vazquez of the District of New Jersey in the
Sept. 25 order. "The Parties and their counsel are ordered to
implement and to consummate the Settlement Agreement according to
its terms and provisions."

In Venneman v. BMW FS, the plaintiffs alleged that California-based
BMW FS wasn't complying with the law that protects service members
who lease homes or autos by allowing them to cancel leases and
surrender leased vehicles or property without penalty due to
deployment.

That law, known as the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, is a
federal statute which provides that when a service member/soldier
receives orders to go to combat or serve overseas, he or she is
entitled to surrender a leased vehicle back to the manufacturer, as
long as a proof of deployment notice is shown.

Section 535f of the act provides, "Rents or lease amounts paid in
advance for a period after the effective date of the lease shall be
refunded to the lessee by the lessor within 30 days of the
effective date of the termination of the lease."

The plaintiffs won a summary judgment motion from U.S. District
Judge Esther Salas on Dec. 30, 2013, in which the court entered an
opinion holding that capitalized cost reduction is rent paid in
advance that should be refunded, at least in part, when the vehicle
is surrendered due to military orders.

The suit claimed that BMW FS didn't adhere to this practice of
paying back portions of the capitalized cost reduction.

Over the last six years, the plaintiffs have been fighting to stop
BMW FS from continuing this practice, according to Venneman, a
senior trial counsel at Gill & Chamas in Woodbridge, who is also an
Army colonel and was named lead plaintiff in the case with Theodore
Collins, a military service member.

The two first filed their complaint in 2009. Venneman claimed his
issue arose when he was deployed to Afghanistan in 2008.

Under Vazquez's Sept. 25 order, the class consists of those who (a)
terminated their motor vehicle leases from Jan. 1, 2004, until Aug,
23, 2011, pursuant to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, or any
analogous state statute; (b) made a capitalized cost reduction
payment in connection with their leases with BMW FS; and (c) did
not receive a pro rota refund of their capitalized cost reduction
payment.

"The Court finds that the Settlement Class meets all the applicable
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
affirms certification of the Settlement Class for settlement
purposes, and approves the Settlement set forth in the Agreement as
being fair, just reasonable, and adequate," wrote Vazquez.

BMW FS's co-counsel was Ryan DiClemente, Esq. --
ryandiclemente@saul.com -- at Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr in
Princeton. When reached, DiClemente said he had no comment.

Michael Hassen of Walnut Creek, California, who was co-counsel for
BMW FS with DiClemente, said he, too, had no comment.

"It's an excellent settlement and we are very pleased with the
results," said Michael J. DeBenectis, Esq. of DeBenedictis &
DeBenedictis in Haddonfield, Venneman's counsel, in a phone call.
"I am very honored to have been able to assist Mr, Venneman and
other members of the military that deserve this money. It's a 100%
refund to them."

Venneman, also reached by phone, said he was "thrilled by the
outcome."

Venneman said the settlement has been a decade in the making. "It's
a fantastic result that has changed the auto industry and how it
treats service members who turn in their cars to go serve their
nation."

"I am honored to have participated in this case and very glad that
so many service members in this class, and in other classes, will
get refunds and get their hard-earned money back," added Venneman.
[GN]



CANADA GOOSE: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of Nov. 4 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Canada Goose Holdings Inc. (NYSE:  GOOS) and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District Court,
for the Southern District of New York, and indexed under
19-cv-08204, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded Canada Goose securities between March 16, 2017 and
August 1, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Canada Goose securities
during the class period, you have until November 4, 2019, to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Canada Goose operates in two segments—Wholesale and Direct to
Consumer.  The Company offers parkas, jackets, shells, vests,
knitwear, footwear, and accessories for fall, winter, and spring
seasons.  Canada Goose uses, among other materials, animal down and
furs for its winter jackets and other apparel.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Canada Goose sourced the down
and fur used in its clothing products in a way that treated animals
in an unethical and inhumane manner; (ii) Canada Goose was thus
non-compliant with relevant FTC regulations pertaining to false
advertising with respect to its sourcing practices; (iii)
accordingly, Canada Goose was the subject of an ongoing FTC
investigation regarding false advertising; and (iv) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On November 2, 2017, the non-profit organization People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals ("PETA") issued a press release
alleging that Canada Goose suppliers used unethical measures to
obtain the down and fur used in creating the Company's clothing
merchandise (the "PETA Press Release").  The PETA Press Release
also stated that PETA had issued a complaint to the FTC regarding
these practices because the Company represented in communications
and promotional materials that its clothing was produced with down
and fur from sources that treated the animals used in sourcing
those materials ethically and humanely.

On this news, Canada Goose's stock price fell $0.70 per share, or
roughly 3.27%, to close at $20.72 per share on November 2, 2017.

Nevertheless, even after the PETA Press Release, Canada Goose
continued to represent that the down and fur used in producing its
clothing products were collected using humane and ethical
practices.

Then, on June 17, 2019, the United States Federal Trade Commission
("FTC") issued a closing letter to Canada Goose's legal counsel.
The FTC Closing Letter stated that the FTC had investigated Canada
Goose's advertising practices for possible violations of the
Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act"), citing "concern[s] that
Canada Goose may have made false or misleading representations
about the treatment of geese whose down is used in Canada Goose's
apparel."  The FTC further stated that it had not recommended
enforcement action against Canada Goose because the Company had
"remov[ed] the advertising claims at issue from the marketplace and
clarify[ied] its business practices in marketing materials."
However, the FTC expressly stated that "[t]his action is not to be
construed as a determination that a violation of law did not occur"
and "reserve[d] the right to take further action as the public
interest may warrant."  (Emphasis added.)

On this news, Canada Goose's stock price fell $0.50 per share, or
1.36%, to close at $36.17 per share on June 17, 2019.

According to an article published on July 12, 2019 by Truth In
Advertising ("TINA") - a well-known watchdog for deceptive
marketing practices - Canada Goose continued to deny that it had
changed the substance of its prior statements, telling TINA: "We
continuously update language in our marketing materials and in our
communications, and in this instance the substance of our prior
statements has remained the same."  At least in part as a result of
Canada Goose's refusal to admit it had changed the substance of its
prior marketing materials and communications, the Company's
securities continued to trade at artificially inflated prices
throughout the Class Period.

Finally, on August 1, 2019, the New York Post published an article
entitled "Canada Goose pulls claims about its 'ethical' treatment
of animals" (the "New York Post Article").

According to the New York Post Article, Canada Goose had abandoned
its claims of ethical treatment of animals used in making its
winter jackets and clothing in response to the FTC's regulatory
review.  The New York Post Article also reported that Canada Goose
had removed from its website previous claims that the Company
sourced coyote fur from animals in overpopulated areas, as well as
videos purporting to show where Canada Goose obtained down for its
parkas.  The New York Post article also reported PETA's assertion
that its complaint to the FTC in 2017 had precipitated the FTC's
investigation into Canada Goose for potential violations of the FTC
Act.

On this news, Canada Goose's stock price fell $2.21 per share, or
over 4.7%, to close at $44.58 per share on August 1, 2019.

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

Contact:

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


CAREERBUILDER LLC: Martin Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARL MARTIN, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, and on behalf of the CareerBuilder, LLC 401(k)
Plan, Plaintiff, v. CAREERBUILDER, LLC, UNKNOWN 401(k) PLAN
COMMITTEE with each individual committee member identified as JOHN
and JANE DOES 1-20, UNKNOWN MONITORING DEFENDANTS with individual
members of the Unknown Monitoring Defendants identified as JOHN and
JANE DOES 21-31 and UNKNOWN FIDUCIARIES with its individual member
identified as JOHN and JANE DOES 32-42, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-06463 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 30, 2019) is an action brought for
breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, against the Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants, who during the Class
Period are or were fiduciaries of the Plan, have violated their
fiduciary duties owed to the Plan and its participants, including
Plaintiff. The Defendants, during the Class Period, were
responsible for selecting, monitoring, and removing the investments
in the Plan. But instead of acting for the exclusive benefit of the
Plan and its participants and beneficiaries, and with the care,
skill, prudence, and diligence required by ERISA, with respect to
managing the Plan's assets, the Defendants forced the Plan into
investments that charged excessive fees that benefitted the Plan's
recordkeepers and its investment advisor at the expense of the
Plan, says the complaint.

Specifically, the Defendants allowed the Plan's recordkeepers, ADP,
LLC, ADP Broker Dealer and, as of January 1, 2018, the Plan's new
recordkeeper, Empower, and its investment advisor and/or trustee,
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, to receive excessive and unreasonable
compensation through: (1) direct "hard dollar" fees paid by the
Plan to ADP and/or Morgan Stanley; (2) indirect "soft dollar" fees
paid to ADP and/or Morgan Stanley by mutual funds added and
maintained in the Plan to generate fees to ADP and/or Morgan
Stanley; (3) fees collected directly by ADP and/or Morgan Stanley
from mutual funds added and maintained in the Plan to generate fees
to ADP and/or Morgan Stanley; and (4) float interest, access to a
captive market for 401(k) rollover materials to Plan participants,
and other forms of indirect compensation.

In order to provide for these revenue streams, Defendants larded
the Plan with excessively expensive mutual funds--to the exclusion
of superior alternatives--which in turn paid ADP and/or Morgan
Stanley out of the excessive fees they collected from Plan
investments, asserts the complaint. These mutual funds collectively
underperformed superior alternative funds for a variety of reasons,
including the fact that the alternatives charged lower fees by,
among other things, removing the additional payments to ADP and/or
Morgan Stanley.

Plaintiff brings this action by and through their undersigned
attorneys based upon their personal knowledge and information
obtained through counsel's investigation. Plaintiff anticipates
that discovery will uncover further substantial support for the
allegations in this Complaint.

Plaintiff Carl Martin is a former employee of CareerBuilder, LLC,
and was a "participant," in and beneficiary of the Plan as defined
by ERISA.

CareerBuilder, is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of Delaware which is registered to do business in
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
     CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
     2933 North Front Street
     Harrisburg, PA 17110
     Phone: (717) 233-4101
     Fax (717) 233-4103
     Email: donr@capozziadler.com

          - and -

     Aharon S. Kaye, Esq.
     GUTNICKI, LLC
     4711 Golf Road, Suite 200
     Skokie, IL 60076
     Phone: (847) 933-9280
     Fax: (847) 933-928
     Email: akaye@gutnicki.com


CAVALRY SPV: Oh Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CAVALRY SPV I, LLC.
The case is styled as Diana Oh individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAVALRY SPV I, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-18750 (D. N.J., Oct. 7, 2019).

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

Cavalry SPV I LLC is a buyer of charged off debt.[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


CLEAR VIEW: Former Ebony Employees File Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Connor, writing for The Root, reports that in what could be the
final chapter in the tragic #EbonyOwes saga, The Root has learned
that seven former employees have filed a class-action lawsuit
against Ebony Magazine and its parent company, private equity firm
Clear View Group.

The complaint, which was filed on September 25, names Ebony Media
Operations LLC; CVG Group LLC; Michael Gibson, CVG Group co-founder
and chairman; and Elizabeth Burnett, vice president of operations
of CVG Group, as defendants and accuses them of "betraying the
magazine's employees and readers" by "engaging in a consistent
pattern and practice of laying off their staff and failing to pay
them their final wages." Additionally, Ebony is accused of failing
to reimburse employees for work-related expenses or pay out their
unused vacation days.

The lawsuit also alleges that Ebony committed fraud by failing to
match 401(k) contributions, in addition to failing to reimburse
employees for payroll deductions that were never actually invested
into 401(k) accounts.

The complaint, which The Root obtained a copy of, states:
"Defendants failed to reimburse these employees for unlawful
deductions from their wages for purported 401(k) retirement account
contributions that were never actually paid into those accounts."

The tenure of the seven plaintiffs ranged from April 10, 2017, up
until June 14 of this year, when the entire digital staff was laid
off without compensation—as The Root previously reported.

On June 15, 2016, CVG announced that it had acquired Ebony
Media--which includes both Ebony and Jet magazines--and that it
would be managing the operations of both going forward. However,
since doing so, CVG has repeatedly failed to compensate employees
and freelancers after terminating their employment, according to
the complaint.

This culminated in the creation of the #EbonyOwes hashtag, at least
one lawsuit to obtain lost wages, and plenty of vitriol from the
writing community in response.

"Paying people for their work is a matter of basic human dignity,"
the plaintiffs told The Root in a statement. "The practice of
denying employees their wages immediately before firing them is
especially harmful. By filing this lawsuit, we intend to hold Ebony
and CVG Group to account for their actions."

Neither Ebony nor Clear View Group has responded to The Root's
repeated requests for comment.

We'll keep you updated as this story develops. [GN]



COMMUNITY BANK: Answer to Kelly's Overdraft Fees Suit Due Oct. 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Bank, N.A.'s answer to the complaint in the class action
entitled, CHARLES KELLY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. COMMUNITY BANK, N.A., the
Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00919-MAD-CFH (N.D.N.Y., July 26,
2019), is due Oct. 15, pursuant to a stipulation submitted by the
bank and approved by Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory
relief from Defendant arising from unfair and unconscionable
assessment and collection of Overdraft Fees or insufficient funds
fees on accounts that were not actually overdrawn; and the
assessment and collection of OD Fees or NSF Fees on intrabank
payments and transfers.

According to the lawsuit, besides being deceptive, unfair and
unconscionable, these practices breach contract promises made in
Community's adhesion contracts.  In plain, clear, and simple
language, the checking account contract documents discussing OD
Fees promise that Community will only charge OD Fees or NSF Fees on
transactions where there are insufficient funds to "cover" them.  
However, Community charges OD Fees even when there are sufficient
funds to "cover" a debit card transaction, and also charges OD Fees
or NSF Fees on intrabank payments and transfers knowing that there
are insufficient funds in its accountholders' accounts at the time
it attempts the payments and transfers.

Community Bank, N.A., is a commercial bank serving customers in
Upstate New York, Northeastern Pennsylvania, Vermont and
Massachusetts. It is the wholly owned national banking subsidiary
of Community Bank System, Inc. Community Bank is headquartered in
DeWitt, New York, a suburb of Syracuse.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes are:

          James R. Peluso, Esq.
          DREYER BOYAJIAN LaMARCHE SAFRANKO
          75 Columbia Street
          Albany, NY 12210
          Telephone: 518-463-7784
          E-mail: jpeluso@dbls.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Ave. NW 10 th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20009
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielplllc.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          Daniel Tropin, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
          FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  streisfeld@kolawyers.com
                  tropin @kolawyers.com

COOKWARE COMPANY: Johnson // Becker Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Johnson // Becker, PLLC, in connection with Sommers Schwartz, P.C.,
currently represents Anna Saldivar who alleges she and all
California purchasers of GreenPan's products were misled by the
Defendant's advertising of its GreenPan products as "toxin free,"
"healthy ceramic," "good for the environment," and "reinforced with
diamonds." Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's products are not 100%
toxin free, are not, on balance, good for the environment, do not
make meals "healthier" by virtue of using the GreenPan products,
and do not contain material amounts or are otherwise "reinforced"
with diamonds. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant's claims
regarding the PFOA, PFA, lead, and cadmium-free nature of its
products is misleading. The Cookware Company (USA) LLC has
previously been admonished by the National Advertising Division of
the Better Business Bureau for claims related to its GreenPan
cookware products.

New York-based The Cookware Company (USA) LLC manufactures and
markets GreenPan cookware which is made with its patented
"Thermolon(TM)" nonstick ceramic technology. GreenPan products are
sold online on GreenPan's website as well as at major retailers
across the United States. The lawsuit seeks to represent California
purchasers of The Cookware Company (USA) LLC's GreenPan products.
The lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

This suit is filed by Timothy J. Becker and Jennell K. Shannon of
Johnson // Becker, PLLC and Jason Thompson of Sommers Schwartz,
P.C. Timothy J. Becker is a founding partner of Johnson // Becker
and is counsel of record on the case. Timothy J. Becker and Jennell
K. Shannon manage a wide range of product liability cases in
addition to collective and class action wage and hour litigation.
Johnson // Becker, PLLC, is a nationwide plaintiff's law firm with
experience representing consumers who have been misled or injured
by consumer products. To learn more about Johnson // Becker's
product liability cases, or to arrange a free, no obligation case
review, please visit Johnson // Becker at
https://www.johnsonbecker.com/practice-areas/product-liability/, or
contact Johnson // Becker directly at (800) 279-6386. [GN]



CORINDUS VASCULAR: Rauner Files Suit Over Siemens Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL RAUNER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. CORINDUS VASCULAR ROBOTICS, INC., MARK J.
TOLAND, DAVID W. LONG, DOUGLAS TEANY, JEFFREY C. LIGHTCAP, JEFFREY
G. GOLD, CAMPBELL D. ROGERS, M.D., JAMES R. TOBIN, LOUIS A CANNON,
M.D., NATHAN R. HARRINGTON, and DOUGLAS L. BRAUNSTEIN. Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09056 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 30, 2019) is an action
brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the
other public holders of the common stock of Corindus Vascular
Robotics, Inc. against the Company and its Board of Directors for
their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed merger between
Corindus and Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc.

On August 7, 2019, the Board approved the terms of and caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to
which Corpus Merger, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Siemens,
will merge with and into Corindus, with Corindus surviving as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Siemens. Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Corindus common stockholders will have the right to
receive $4.28 in cash for each share of common stock of Corindus
that they own.

In order to convince Corindus' stockholders to vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, on or about September 26, 2019, the Board
authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and false and/or
misleading Schedule 14-A Definitive Proxy Statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, which contains, in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, incomplete and
materially misleading information regarding (a) the financial
projections for Corindus and (b) the inputs for the financial
analyses performed by Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. to support its
fairness opinion. The Proxy contains woefully inadequate disclosure
regarding the assumptions and projections prepared and provided by
management and the financial prospects of Corindus on a standalone
basis, says the complaint.

For these reasons, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking
any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless and until
the material information is disclosed to Corindus stockholders in
advance of the special meeting of the Company's stockholders or, in
the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, recover damages
resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiff is a Corindus shareholder.

Corindus is a developer of precision vascular robotics for use in
interventional procedures.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
     New York, NY 10118
     Phone: 212-971-1341
     Fax: 212-202-7880
     Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

          - and -

     Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
     New Orleans, LA 70163
     Phone: 504-455-1400
     Facsimile: 504-455-1498
     Email: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com


DASH LUBE: Moreno Moves to Certify Class of Service Technicians
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled ROBERTO MORENO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DASH LUBE,
GHARDASH ENTERPRISES, INC., KAYLA CORP, collectively d/b/a as Jiffy
Lube, PAYAM RYAN GHARDASH and POYA PAUL GHARDASH, Case No.
3:18-cv-01922-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal.), seeks an order granting class
certification as to the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth
Causes of Action of the Complaint on behalf of this class:

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

Excluded from the above-defined putative class are: (1) Defendants;
(2) the officers and directors of Defendants and the members of
Defendants' officer's and director's immediate families and their
legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; and (3) any
judge to whom this action is assigned and any members of such
judges' staffs and immediate family members.

Mr. Moreno also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative and to appoint JCL Law Firm, APC and Sommers
Schwartz, P.C. as class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 15, 2019, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


DEFENDERS INC: Illegally Sent Misleading Spam E-Mails, Says Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA GEORGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DEFENDERS, INC., Case No. 6:19-cv-01822-WWB-EJK (M.D.
Fla., Sept. 20, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating Florida's
Electronic Mail Communications Act by sending misleading spam
e-mails with no regard for the rights of the recipients of those
e-mails.

Ms. George alleges that the Defendant caused thousands of
misleading e-mails to be sent to her and Class Members, causing
them injuries, including lost productivity and resources,
annoyance, consumption of valuable digital storage space, and/or
financial costs.

The Defendant is a foreign corporation with its principal place of
business located in Indianapolis, Indiana.  The Defendant sells and
installs home security systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


DESIGNER BRANDS: Dargoltz Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
Simmone Dargoltz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Designer Brands, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-62274 (S.D. Fla., September 12, 2019), seeks
statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Designer Brands is a retailer of designer and brand name shoes and
fashion accessories. To promote its services, it engages in
unsolicited SMS ads sent en masse via an auto dialer. Dargoltz did
not give express consent to receive such texts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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

DOORDASH INC: Faces Class Suit After Using Drivers' Tips
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action was filed on behalf of consumers who paid tips
through the DoorDash app or website alleging the "tips" were
actually used by DoorDash to fund its operations by subsidizing the
guaranteed payment the company promised drivers rather than going
directly to the drivers.

The class action was filed in San Francisco Federal Court and
claims that in the latest bout of Silicon Valley libertarian
business practice DoorDash's use of these tips to assist in funding
the guaranteed minimum payments it owes drivers violates the
consumer protection statute of California and various other
states.

The complaint lays out examples of DoorDash's scheme alleging that
if a guaranteed minimum payment to a Dasher (someone who does
deliveries for DoorDash) for a delivery is $7.00 and the consumer
leaves no tip, DoorDash pays the Dasher this $7.00.  But if the
consumer leaves a $3.00 tip, DoorDash uses this $3.00 toward the
guaranteed $7.00 minimum payment and only pays $4.00 of its own
money. The result is that the Dasher receives no additional
compensation by the consumer leaving a tip through DoorDash's
website or app, and the consumer is deceived into leaving a tip
that merely reduces the amount that DoorDash has to pay the Dasher
to meet the guaranteed minimum payment.

"When a consumer uses an app to order food and chooses to use the
'tip' function, that consumer has a basic expectation that the
delivery person is receiving that tip in addition to what the
company promised to pay," said attorney Alfredo Torrijos. "DoorDash
is using the generosity of consumers to fund their own business
ventures, depriving people who work for them of their due wages."

The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of any consumer who
used DoorDash to place a food-delivery order and who paid a tip.

To read the complaint:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lJjhxD6_Df9kiyxq3VAzGSeZr9sM0CBo/view?usp=sharing

The lawsuit is Jennifer Peter and Karson Theiss et al. v. DoorDash,
Inc., United States District Court Northern District of California,
Case No. 3:19-cv-06098.

      About Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Torrijos, LLP

With offices in Oakland, Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Montreal, Arias
Sanguinetti Wang & Torrijos represents clients in complex
litigation in state and federal courts throughout the United
States. Some of our practice areas include: Class Actions, Mass
Torts, Major Personal Injury, Employment Law, and Intellectual
Property Rights. To learn more about us, go to:
https://aswtlawyers.com/.

      Law Office of Richard S. Cornfeld, LLC

It is the mission of this St. Louis Consumer Protection Class
Action law firm to stop unfair and deceptive practices and obtain
compensation for consumers wherever we can, in St. Louis or St.
Louis County, Missouri, in Southern Illinois and elsewhere. To
learn more, go to: http://www.cornfeldlegal.com/.[GN]


ELECTROCORE INC: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against electroCore, Inc. (Nasdaq: ECOR) in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired the securities of electroCore
between June 22, 2018 and September 25, 2019 (the "Class Period")
and/or pursuant or traceable the company's June 2018 initial public
offering ("IPO").  The claims are brought under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company's lead product, gammaCore, did not
enjoy any advantages over other acute treatments for migraines and
episodic cluster headaches; (2) that, as a result, doctors and
patients were unlikely to adopt gammaCore over existing treatments;
(3) that the Company's voucher program was not effective to
increase adoption of gammaCore; (4) that the Company lacked
sufficient resources to successfully commercialize gammaCore; (5)
that the Company's business plan and strategy was not sustainable
because electroCore lacked sufficient revenue to be profitable; (6)
that the Company's product registry and efforts were ineffective to
initiate reimbursement policies by commercial payors for gammaCore;
(7) that the lack of reimbursement would materially impact adoption
and sales of gammaCore; (8) that the Company lacked sufficient
clinical data demonstrating that gammaCore was effective and safe
for migraine prevention; (9) that, as a result, the Company's
510(k) submission for the use of gammaCore for migraine prevention
was unlikely to be approved by the FDA; and (10) that, as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On May 14, 2019, the Company announced first quarter 2019 financial
results that fell short of investors' expectations, reporting
$410,000 net sales and operating loss of $14.2 million.  On this
news, the Company's share price fell $1.58, nearly 29%, to close at
$3.75 per share on May 15, 2019, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on September 25, 2019, the Company revealed that the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration requested more information and
analysis of clinical data for electroCore's 510(k) submission,
which seeks an expanded indication for the use of gammaCore, the
Company's treatment for pain associated with episodic cluster
headache.  On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.79, over
23%, to close at $2.57 per share on September 25, 2019, thereby
injuring investors further.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the November 25, 2019
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]



ELECTROCORE INC: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of electroCore, Inc. (NASDAQ: ECOR) (a) pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with the Company's June 2018 initial public offering ("IPO" or the
"Offering") and/or (b) between June 22, 2018 and September 25,
2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for electroCore investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the electroCore class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1605.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants in the Registration Statement
and throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's lead
product, gammaCore, did not enjoy any advantages over other acute
treatments for migraines and episodic cluster headaches; (2) as a
result, doctors and patients were unlikely to adopt gammaCore over
existing treatments; (3) the Company's voucher program was not
effective to increase adoption of gammaCore; (4) the Company lacked
sufficient resources to successfully commercialize gammaCore; (5)
the Company's business plan and strategy was not sustainable
because electroCore lacked sufficient revenue to be profitable; (6)
the Company's product registry and efforts were ineffective to
initiate reimbursement policies by commercial payors for gammaCore;
(7) the lack of reimbursement would materially impact adoption and
sales of gammaCore; and (8) as a result, electroCore's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
25, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1605.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, pkim@rosenlegal.com,  
                cases@rosenlegal.com
[GN]




EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exceeding
Expectations, Inc. The case is styled as Lawrence Young
Individually And On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. Exceeding Expectations, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-09244 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 7 2019).

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

Exceeds Expectations, Inc. offers a variety of financial
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EXTENDED STAY: Reservation System not ADA-Compliant, Says Mullen
----------------------------------------------------------------
BARTLEY M. MULLEN, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EXTENDED STAY AMERICA, INC. and
ESH HOSPITALITY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01254-NR (W.D.
Pa., Sept. 30, 2019) is a class action against Defendants, alleging
violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
its implementing regulations, for declaratory and injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees, expenses and costs.

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants fail to provide individuals
with disabilities with an ADA-compliant reservation service that
would permit individuals with disabilities to reasonably and
independently assess whether Defendants' guest rooms meet his or
her needs in the same manner as individuals who do not need
accessible rooms.

In failing to provide accessible rooms with the same options and
amenities offered to guests without disabilities and ADA-compliant
reservation services, Defendants have engaged in illegal
discrimination, excluded and deterred individuals with disabilities
from patronizing Defendants' hotels, and denied individuals with
disabilities full and equal access to the goods services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations that
Defendants offer to individuals without disabilities, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is a person with double, above-the-knee leg amputations,
who uses a wheelchair for mobility.

Defendants own, operate, franchise and have the right to control a
network of economy, extended-stay hotels under the trade names of
"Extended Stay America".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
     Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
     Bryan A. Fox, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: (412) 322-9243
     Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
            kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
            bfox@carlsonlynch.com



FACEBOOK INC: Investor Plaintiffs Have Until Oct. 26 to Refile Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Fernandez, writing for Bizjournals.com, reports that the
plaintiffs in an investor lawsuit against Facebook Inc.(NASDAQ: FB)
failed to make their case, a federal judge ruled April 26 in San
Jose.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila dismissed a class-action lawsuit
brought against Menlo Park-based Facebook and CEO Mark Zuckerberg,
according to a report in Reuters.  The lawsuit, which also named
Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg and Chief Financial Officer
David Wehner, accused Facebook of making "dozens of statements"
downplaying the impact that its issues with privacy would have on
the company's stock price.

Judge Davila said the plaintiffs "failed to identify specific
instances of the company or its executives knowingly making false
statements."  Davila also noted that some of the statements
generally couldn't be considered the basis for a securities fraud
lawsuit, as they were simply "forward-looking predictions" and
"general expressions of optimism."

All is not lost, however, for the plaintiffs: According to Reuters,
Davila said it was "possible plaintiffs can cure their allegations
by alleging, among other things, more particular facts as to why
statements by the individual defendants were false when made," and
gave them until Oct. 26, 2019, to refile their complaint.

The original lawsuit focused on statements made in the wake of the
Cambridge Analytica scandal first reported in December 2015, where
it was revealed that the British political consulting firm had
accessed the data of about 85 million Facebook users.  Facebook's
stock then dropped sharply through 2018 on later news regarding the
fallout from Cambridge Analytica and disappointing quarterly
reports.

While this investor lawsuit may be over for now, another lawsuit is
proceeding against Facebook, brought by plaintiffs who allege that
the company deceived users into thinking they could maintain
control over their personal information, even as Facebook allowed
outside companies like Lyft and Airbnb access to that data.

In the case of "In re Facebook Inc Consumer Privacy User Profile
Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
No. 18-md-02843," U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San
Francisco dismissed some of the plaintiffs' complaints, but allowed
the lawsuit to proceed to trial.

Chhabria wrote in his decision that Facebook's motion to dismiss
was rooted in flawed assumptions regarding user privacy, stating
that Facebook's problem is that it treats "treats privacy as an
all-or-nothing proposition -- either you retain a full privacy
interest by not sharing information with anyone, or you have no
privacy interest whatsoever by virtue of sharing it even in a
limited fashion." [GN]




FARMERS INSURANCE: Bid to Decertify Class in Deluca FLSA Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California denied the Defendant's
motion to decertify the class in the case, DAVID DELUCA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendant, Case No.
17-cv-00034-EDL (N.D. Cal.).

The Defendant moved to decertify the class, arguing that the trial
plan proposed by Plaintiffs DeLuca and Barry Francis, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, is flawed.   The Court
held a hearing on the Defendant's motion on Aug. 27, 2019.

The Plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime wages for themselves and a
group of current and former special investigators.  On Jan. 4,
2017, the Plaintiffs filed the class and collective action in the
Northern District of California alleging wage-related claims
against the Defendant. The lawsuit was styled as a Rule 23 class
action on behalf of California investigators and a nationwide
collective action under the FLSA on behalf of special investigators
throughout the United States.  The Plaintiffs challenge their
status as "exempt" administrative employees under the FLSA and
California state law and contend they should have been compensated
for all overtime hours worked.

The case covers a total of 78 individuals.  On Feb. 27, 2018, the
Court certified the California Rule 23 class for unpaid overtime
and second meal period violations.  The California Rule 23 Class
consists of 57 individuals, 17 of whom also affirmatively opted
into the FLSA collective action part of the litigation.  In total,
there are 38 Named and Opt-in Plaintiffs who are part of the FLSA
collective, leaving 40 absent California Class Members who did not
opt into the FLSA collective action.  Of the total of 78
investigators, 43 remain employed by the Defendant and 35
investigators have ended their employment.

On May 15, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment on the administrative exemption, finding the
Defendant had misclassified special investigators under both the
FLSA and California state law during the relevant time period.
However, it declined to grant summary judgment in favor of either
party on the Plaintiffs' claims for willfulness, liquidated
damages, waiting time penalties, and second meal period violations.


In response to the Defendant's request that the Plaintiffs set
forth a trial plan explaining how the remaining disputed issues can
be tried manageably with collective evidence, the Court ordered the
Plaintiffs to propose their trial plan for the remaining issues and
required the Defendant to provide its response to the Plaintiffs'
proposal in the parties' joint statement prior to the July 2, 2019
case management conference

On June 19, 2019, Plaintiffs' counsel provided the Defendant with
their proposed trial plan.  The Plaintiffs propose using two groups
of testifying Opt-in Plaintiffs from the same sample of 20 trial
witnesses: a) testimony from approximately eight of the 57
California Class Members to establish the average number of second
meal periods missed per workweek, and b) testimony from
approximately 12 Opt-in Plaintiffs.

The Defendant complained that no explanation was provided of the
methodology behind these samples, other than the Plaintiffs'
cursory description that class counsel selected the witnesses to
represent a range of geographic areas and levels of experience.

In connection with the prior case management conference, the
Defendant filed a response to the Plaintiffs' proposed trial plan
along with the declaration of its expert Daniel Slottje, arguing
the plan is based on the non-random, cherry-picked testimony of
only Named or Opt-in Plaintiffs, ignoring the 40 absent class
members who make up over half of the population. Although the
matter was set for trial, trial dates have been vacated pending the
anticipated reassignment. Accordingly, discovery is continuing and
there is no current deadline for submission of trial exhibits or
trial witnesses.

At the time of filing its motion to decertify, the Defendant had
deposed nine Opt-in Plaintiffs, of whom five are Rule 23 California
Class members (Francis, Deluca, Daszco, O'Brien, Stewart), and four
of whom are not (Reyes, Ritzema, Mitchell, Grimes).  The parties
were working to schedule additional opt-in depositions.  The
Defendant conveyed its intention to take the five depositions of
the absent class members as permitted by the Court, likely followed
by additional opt-in class member depositions.

Magistrate Judge Laporte concludes that trial courts are encouraged
to be "procedurally innovative" in managing class actions.
Although the Plaintiffs' trial plan, in its current state, may not
strike the appropriate balance, this does not warrant decertifying
the class.  Rather, the parties are ordered to meet and confer
regarding reasonable modifications to the Plaintiffs' trial plan
after Defendant has completed the additional opt-in depositions and
absent class member depositions permitted by the Court, with the
understanding that the law does not require the application of
statistical principles to ensure representativity.  The Plaintiffs
should be prepared to identify exactly which individual witnesses
they intend to call at trial.  Additionally, since the case only
covers 78 individuals, the parties should consider whether a survey
may be feasible as the Defendant's expert suggests.

The Magistrate granted the Plaintiffs' request to depose the
Defendant's expert Slottje in light of his new declaration
submitted with the Defendant's reply in support of the motion to
decertify.  She further ordered the parties to meet and confer
regarding the Plaintiffs' trial plan as it relates to the second
meal break claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/1fIwkh from Leagle.com.

David Deluca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and on behalf of the general public, Barry Francis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on
behalf of the general public & Melissa Laughlin, individually,
Plaintiffs, represented by Matthew C. Helland -- helland@nka.com --
Nichols Kaster, LLP, Daniel S. Brome -- dbrome@nka.com -- Nichols
Kaster, LLP, Matthew H. Morgan -- morgan@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster
& Anderson, PLLP, pro hac vice & Reena Ishver Desai --
rdesai@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, LLP, pro hac vice.

Farmers Insurance Exchange, Defendant, represented by Andrew Marc
Paley -- apaley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Ryan Ashley
McCoy -- rmccoy@Seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


FCA US: Garcia Files Suit Over Illegal Marketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------
RICK-VINCENT GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 2:19-cv-12750-SJM-MJH (E.D. Mich., Sept. 20,
2019), alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
arising from the Defendant's transmission of prerecorded calls to
the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and others, promoting its
services and goods.

FCA US is a Michigan corporation whose principal office is located
in Auburn Hills, Michigan.

FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.  The
Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans, trucks
and commercial vans, as well as distributes automotive service
parts and accessories.  The Company designs, manufactures, and
sells or distributes vehicles under the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram,
FIAT and Alfa Romeo brands, as well as the SRT performance
designation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          Stephen Cohen, Esq.
          BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
          1644 Bracken Rd.
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Telephone: (313) 303-3472
          E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com
                  Stephencohen@bmslawyers.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          2875 NE 191st St., Suite 703
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          Post Office Box 1400036
          Orlando, FL 32814-0036
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          E-mail: ed@ednormand.com
                  jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com


FORD MOTOR: O'Connor Sues over Defective 10R80 Transmissions
------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co. is defending against a product liability suit in
Illinois.

The case is captioned, JUSTIN O'CONNOR, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05045 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 8,
2019), and alleges that Defendant knew or should have known that
Ford F-150 Vehicles contain one or more design and/or manufacturing
defects, including but not limited to defects contained in the
Vehicles' 10R80, a 10-speed automatic transmission that can shift
harshly and erratically, causing the vehicle to jerk, lunge, and
hesitate between gears.

The Plaintiff brings this case individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons who purchased or leased Model Year
2017-2019 Ford F-150 vehicles that were designed, manufactured,
distributed, marketed, sold, and leased by Defendant or Defendant's
parent, subsidiary, or affiliates.

An automatic transmission is essentially an automatic gear shifter.
Instead of manually shifting the gears with a clutch, the automatic
transmission does it on its own. The transmission acts as a
powertrain to convert the vehicle engine’s force into a
controlled source of power. Accordingly, drivers need a properly
functioning automatic transmission in order to safely and reliably
accelerate and decelerate their Vehicles.

A common design and/or manufacturing defect in Ford's 10R80
transmissions is a potentially life-threatening safety issue and
Ford has refused to recall or replace the defective Transmissions,
the lawsuit says.

Defendant designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold, and
leased Model Year 2017-2019 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with the
10R80, a 10-speed automatic transmission (“Transmission”)
designed and manufactured by Ford.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  adam@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          John R. Fabry, Esq.
          THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1717 N. Interstate Highway 35, Suite 305
          Round Rock, TX 78664
          Telephone: (512) 671-7277
          Facsimile: (512) 238-0275
          E-mail: JFabry@carlsonattorneys.com

               - and -

          Sidney F. Robert, Esq.
          BRENT COON AND ASSOCIATES
          300 Fannin, Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: 713-225-1682
          Facsimile: 713-225-1785
          E-mail: sidney.robert@bcoonlaw.com

Ford is represented by:

          Cindy Caranella Kelly, Esq.
          Constantine Z Pamphilis, Esq.
          Hector Torres, Esq.
          Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP
          Telephone: 212-506-1737
          E-mail: ckelly@kasowitz.com
                  dpamphilis@kasowitz.com
                  htorres@kasowitz.com

               - and -

          Bradley Edward Puklin, Esq.
          Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth
          Telephone: 312-422-0980
          E-mail: puklin@dbmslaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Cadillac Infotainment Screens
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Chin, writing for The Drive, reports that plaintiffs recently
filed a class-action lawsuit against General Motors for faulty
Cadillac CUE infotainment screens. Cadillac owners claim there are
physical issues with the system, such as delamination of the screen
along with peeling and bubbling that essentially render the
touchscreen interface inoperable and in need of expensive repairs.
If this sounds somewhat familiar, it's because Ford's early-gen
MyFord and MyLincoln Touch infotainment systems were recently
involved in a $17 million class-action lawsuit too.

Like with the Ford systems, Cadillac CUE immediately gained a
reputation for being slow and unstable. General Motors eventually
filed a service bulletin officially through the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which allegedly only
notified dealers of the issue instead of owners of affected cars.

The lawsuit alleges that GM knew about the problem, but refused to
recall the system for a widespread fix, despite multiple reports of
failure. The company also still continued to falsely advertise the
"high quality" characteristic of its CUE system and its "Integrated
Center Stack." More so, the suit says that many of the owners who
experienced issues were forced to pay hundreds of dollars to repair
the malfunctioning CUE system when it was defective from the
factory.

The cars affected include the following:

    * 2013-2017 Cadillac ATS
    * 2013-2017 Cadillac SRX
    * 2013-2017 Cadillac XTS
    * 2014-2017 Cadillac CTS Vin A
    * 2014-2017 Cadillac ELR
    * 2014-2017 Cadillac Escalade

The lawsuit was initiated by Tonya Gruchacz of Flemington, New
Jersey, represented by the law office of Lite DePalma Greenberg,
LLC, out of Newark and Poulous LoPiccolo PC in Ocean.

Documents revealed that Gruchacz was charged $1,053.58 to replace
the CUE head unit on her 2014 Cadillac ATS, but the issue wasn't
just isolated to her vehicle. The filing also included testimonies
from a plethora of owners who took to CadillacForum.com to voice
their CUE grievances as well.

The lawsuit is seeking monetary compensation for those who paid to
have their CUE systems replaced or were forced to purchase a new
car from an irreparable system. [GN]


GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Calderon Labor Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------
A employment class action is underway against Goodwill Industries
of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin Counties, Inc.  The case is
captioned as, EVA CALDERON, as an aggrieved employee pursuant to
the Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA"), on behalf of the State on California and
other aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, vs. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES
OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN MATEO, AND MARIN COUNTIES, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. CGC-19-577994 (Cal. Super., July 29, 2019), and seeks civil
penalties for Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff as an hourly paid, non-exempt
Sales Associate from approximately June 18, 2018 to September 17,
2018. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants at their Bay Street
Pop-Up location in San Francisco, California.

During her employment, the Plaintiff typically worked eight or more
hours or more per day and 3-5 days per week.

At the time Plaintiffs employment with Defendants ended; she earned
approximately $14.00 per hour. Her job duties included, without
limitation, operating cash registers, processing customer
purchases, organizing and stocking merchandise, and cleaning store
windows and floors.

The Defendants required some employees, including Plaintiff, to
execute a dispute resolution policy and/or arbitration agreement at
the time of their hire or during their employment. Defendants'
dispute resolution policy and/or arbitration agreement was and is
both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, the lawsuit
says.

Goodwill Industries operates as a non-profit organization. The
organization offers job training and life skills.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
          Orlando Villalba, Esq.
          Joseph Hakakian, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite I 000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
                  Orlando.Villalba@capstonelawyers.com
                  Joseph.Hakakian@capstonelawyers.com

GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Zhang Investor Law Files Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Greenlane Holdings, Inc. (GNLN)
pursuant or traceable to the April 2019 IPO, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 12, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=greenlane-holdings-inc&id=2014
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit,  throughout the Class Period, defendants
and its senior executives presented false and misleading financial
statements or omitted to disclose: (1) the City of San Francisco
had introduced a major initiative to ban the sale of e-cigarette
products across three major cities and prohibit the manufacture of
products at the headquarters of Greenlane's key partner, JUUL Labs;
(2) if approved, the initiative would materially and adversely
impact the Company's financial results and prospects; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about
Greenlane's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damage

A class has not been certified.  You may retain counsel of your
choice.  You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member.  Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff.  

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide.

Contact:

         Zhang Investor Law P.C.
         99 Wall Street, Suite 232
         New York, New York 10005
         tel: (800) 991-3756
         Email: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com [GN]


HASBROUCK HOUSE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hasbrouck House, LLC.
The case is styled as Lawrence Young Individually And On Behalf Of
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Hasbrouck House,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09242 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 7 2019).

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

Hasbrouck House, LLC is a hotel 12 miles from the city of Kingston
and 19 miles from the town of Woodstock and set in a restored
18th-century stone Dutch Colonial mansion with a stable and a
carriage house.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JAMBA JUICE: Sharward Suit Pending in California Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Jamba Juice Company is pending.  The
case is captioned as Keith Sharward, on behalf of himself the
General Public and all others similarly situated, vs. Jamba Juice
Company and Does 1-500, the Defendants, Case No.
34-2019-00261775-CU-BT-GDS (Cal. Super., July 29, 2019).

Jamba Juice is a company producing blended fruit and vegetable
juices, smoothies and similar products. It has more than 800
locations and franchises in various countries.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Phillip R Poliner, Esq.
          FINEMAN POLINER LLP
          Telephone: 714 620-1125
          Facsimile: 714.701-0155
          E-mail: Phillip@FinemanPoliner.com


JUDICIAL CORRECTION: Court Denies Class Certification in Kay Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, Southern Division issued a Memorandum Opinion denying
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
GINA KAY RAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JUDICIAL CORRECTION SERVICES,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:12-cv-02819-RDP. (N.D. Ala.)

Defendant Judicial Correction Services Inc (JCS)  marketed its
private probation services to cities and towns throughout Alabama
and, in doing so, presented them as "offender paid" services. JCS
did not charge a City or Municipal Court for its services, but
instead collected a "$35.00 per month flat fee" and an additional
"[o]ne time probationer set-up fee of $10.00" from "probationers."

The named Plaintiffs in this action were ticketed for various
traffic offences and sentenced to probation by the City of
Childersburg Municipal Court because they did not pay the fines or
court costs imposed by the Municipal Court on the date of their
sentencings. Individuals who were unable to immediately pay all
fines and costs imposed by the court were placed on probation under
the supervision of Judicial Correction Services (JCS). While on
probation, Plaintiffs were required to pay an additional $35 to $45
a month to JCS, on top of their fines and court costs.

Plaintiffs asserted that this was routinely done with no
investigation into the indigency of the individual or the reasons
for their inability to pay the fine and costs. Plaintiffs further
alleged that these practices violated their constitutional rights.


Plaintiffs sought to certify certain Rule 23(b)(3) damages classes.
They define a statewide class as follows: Statewide Due Process
Class -- All individuals who, as of August 28, 2010 or thereafter,
were assigned by Alabama municipal courts to JCS probation for the
collection of court debt and who served more than 24 months on any
single probation sentence.  Plaintiffs also sought to certify a
narrower class, which advances two different claims: Childersburg
Jail Class -- (i) All individuals who, as of August 28, 2010 or
thereafter, were assigned by the Childersburg Municipal Court to
JCS probation for the collection of court debt and jailed after an
alleged probation violation, and (ii) All individuals who, after
being assigned to JCS by August 28, 2010 or thereafter, were
incarcerated, or may be subject to incarceration, without
consideration of their indigency for failure to pay fines, fees and
costs. A subclass of this class which would include those
individuals within the above class who received such treatment in
Childersburg.

JSC has opposed class certification.

On review, District Judge R. David Proctor concludes that
Plaintiffs have failed to show that the classes they propose are
clearly ascertainable. "In addition, they have not shown that
common questions predominate over individual issues with respect to
any of the proposed classes. Finally, they have not established
this as an appropriate case to certify a Rule 23(c)(4) issue
class," the Court opines.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is due to
be denied, the Court states.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2mmcokv
from Leagle.com

Gina Kay Ray, individually and for a class of similarly situated
persons or entities, Deuante T Jews, individually and for a class
of similarly situated persons or entities & Timothy Fugatt,
Plaintiffs, represented by Maurine C. Evans , THE EVANS LAW FIRM
PC, Alexandria Parrish , THE EVANS LAW FIRM, Daniel P. Evans , THE
EVANS LAW FIRM PC, Erwin Chemerinsky , G. Daniel Evans , THE EVANS
LAW FIRM, P.C., 1736 Oxmoor Road, Birmingham, Alabama 35209, Leslie
A. Bailey , PUBLIC JUSTICE, West Coast Office,  475 14th Street,
Suite 610, Oakland, CA 94612  & Robert L. Wiggins, Jr. , WIGGINS
CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS LLC, The Kress Building, 301 19th Street
North, Birmingham, AL 35203

Kristy Fugatt, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Hardingham , PUBLIC
JUSTICE, Leslie A. Bailey , PUBLIC JUSTICE, Maurine C. Evans , THE
EVANS LAW FIRM PC, Alexandria Parrish , THE EVANS LAW FIRM, Daniel
P. Evans , THE EVANS LAW FIRM PC, 475 14th Street, Suite 610,
Oakland, CA 94612,  Erwin Chemerinsky , Robert L. Wiggins, Jr. ,
WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS LLC & G. Daniel Evans , THE EVANS
LAW FIRM, P.C.

Judicial Corrections Services Inc, a corporation, Defendant,
represented by Larry S. Logsdon , WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF & BRANDT,
LLC, Michael L. Jackson , WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF & BRANDT, LLC,
Wesley Kyle Winborn , WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF & BRANDT, Synovus
Center, 800 Shades Creek Parkway, Suite 400, Birmingham, Alabama
35209 & Wilson F. Green - wgreen@fleenorgreen.com - FLEENOR & GREEN
LLP.

Correctional Healthcare Companies Inc, a corporation, Defendant,
represented by Larry S. Logsdon , WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF & BRANDT,
LLC, Michael L. Jackson , WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF & BRANDT, LLC &
Wesley Kyle Winborn , WALLACE JORDAN RATLIFF & BRANDT.


JUUL LABS: Swearingen Suit Underway in N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH ANN SWEARINGEN and JOHN THOMAS VIA PEAVY, the Plaintiffs,
vs. JUUL LABS, INC., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., and PHILIP MORRIS USA,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-00779-LSC (N.D. Ala., July
29, 2019), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (Case No. 4:19-cv-04424) on August
3, 2019, and assigned to Judge William Alsup.

Juul Labs sought a transfer of the case.

The lawsuit claims Elizabeth Ann Swearingen became addicted to
JUUL, an e-cigarette, at 18 years old. John Thomas Via Peavy became
addicted to JUUL, an e-cigarette, at 17 years old. Both Plaintiffs
suffer from complications related to nicotine ingestion from their
JUUL products.

Health authorities consider youth e-cigarette use an epidemic.
Defendants are to blame. Mimicking Big Tobacco's past marketing
practices, Defendants prey on youth to recruit replacement smokers
for financial gain.

The Defendants use the very same fraudulent and deceptive youth
marketing business practices adjudged to violate federal
racketeering laws. They exploit themes that resonate with teenagers
while falsely denying doing so.

JUUL e-cigarettes and JUUL pods deliver dangerous toxins and
carcinogens to users, especially teenage users. Nicotine itself is
a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with
cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems, the
lawsuit says.

Before the case was transferred, Judge L. Scott Coogler in Alabama
granted Plaintiffs' Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Plaintiff
Elizabeth Ann Swearingen's claims without prejudice.  Accordingly,
the claims of Swearingen were dismissed without prejudice. The
claims of Peavy remain pending.

Following the transfer of the case, the California court entered an
Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case
Management Statement is due by October 23.  Initial Case Management
Conference is set for October 30 at 1:30 p.m. in Oakland, Courtroom
4, 3rd Floor.

Juul Labs, Inc. is an electronic cigarette company which spun off
from Pax Labs in 2017. It makes the Juul e-cigarette, which
packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use
cartridges. Juul Labs was co-founded by Adam Bowen and James
Monsees.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Robert G. Methvin, Jr.
          James M. Terrell
          Patrick C. Marshall
          Courtney C. Gipson
          METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: rgm@mtattorneys.com
                  jterrell@mtattorneys.com
                  pmarshall@mtattorneys.com
                  cgipson@mtattorneys.com

               - and -

          Christy Crow, Esq.
          Mahaley McInnes, Esq.
          JINKS, CROW & DICKSON
          219 North Prairie St.
          Union Springs, AL 36089
          Telephone: (334) 738-4225
          Facsimile: (334) 738-4229
          E-mail: ccrow@jinkslaw.com
                  mmcInnes@jinkslaw.com

               - and -

          David J. Hodge, Esq.
          MORRIS, KING & HODGE, P.C.
          200 Pratt Avenue NE
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 536-0588
          Facsimile: (256) 533-1504
          E-mail: dhodge@mkhlawyers.com

Defendants Altria Group Inc. and Phillip Morris USA, Inc. are
represented by:

          R Bruce Barze, Jr., Esq.
          Lisa Jane McCrary, Esq.
          Barze Taylor Noles Lowther LLC
          Telephone: 205-872-1015
          E-mail: bbarze@btnllaw.com
                  lmccrary@btnllaw.com

               - and -

          Sean Andrew McCormick, Esq.
          Arnold And Porter LLP
          Telephone: 213-243-4262
          E-mail: sean.mccormick@arnoldporter.com

Defendant Juul Labs, Inc. is represented by:

          Jeffrey P Doss, Esq.
          Lana Alcorn Olson, Esq.
          Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC
          Telephone: 205-581-0700
          E-mail: jdoss@lightfootlaw.com
                  lolson@lightfootlaw.com

               - and -

          Austin Van Schwing, Esq.
          Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
          Telephone: 415-393-8210
          E-mail: aschwing@gibsondunn.com


KANSAS DEPT. FOR CHILDREN: More Children Added to Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Annette Lawless, writing for KTEN, reports that a class-action
lawsuit intensifies against the Kansas Department for Children and
Families.

Advocacy group Kansas Appleseed filed a lawsuit in the fall of
2018.  Recently, it has amended its lawsuit, saying kids continue
to be neglected by the state.

"It's really amazingly bad," said Teresa Woody, Esq., an attorney
for Kansas Appleseed. She's one of 10 attorneys guiding this case.
"I think the night-to-night placements haven't changed. The kids,
who are not going to school, who are being housed in offices during
the day — that's still continuing."

NEW CHILDREN ADDED TO LAWSUIT

Advocates say kids in state custody are victims of extreme housing
disruption. Four children have been added to the lawsuit:

A child, known as E.B., is 7 years old. Kansas Appleseed said he
"has been subjected to extreme housing disruption, moved 35 times
since April 2018, and often forced to spend his days in the KVC
contract agency offices between night-to-night placements. He is
not receiving adequate services to meet identified mental health
treatment needs."

A 17-year-old girl, R.R., has been moved to more than 100
placements in nearly three years in DCF custody. The amendment to
the suit said she's had night-to-night and short-term placements
and overnight stays at a KVC office. "While placed in a group home
in which she was the only girl, R.R. was subjected to unwanted
sexual intercourse when left unattended in the TV room, resulting
in an extreme deterioration in her mental health," Kansas Appleseed
claims.

M.A., a 12-year-old boy, has been in foster care for six years.
"From January 2017 to the present, M.A. has been moved at least 62
times, including 16 placements since March 2019," Kansas Appleseed
states. "Though diagnosed with ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder,
disruptive mood regulation disorder and anxiety, M.A. has not
received adequate or consistent mental health services while in
care."

J.P. is 10 years old and has not lived in a single home for more
than six months since entering care in 2016. The girl has been
moved through 21 placements. The suit shows that she's changed
schools several times and, at times, has not attended school at
all.

PLACEMENT, MENTAL HEALTH INSTABILITY

"These kids have so much instability in their lives. They're not
going to school. They're not getting mental health treatment that
they need," Woody said. "It's very sad."

Several people and organizations are working on this case,
including Children's Rights, the National Center for Youth Law, DLA
Piper LLP and Lori Burns-Bucklew, Esq., an attorney and certified
child welfare specialist.  Kansas Appleseed fears the constant
moving and lack care will only fuel the challenges for the 7,500
children in Kansas foster care. Woody said it can be traumatic for
kids' mental health, especially if they move frequently.

From July 2018 to June 2019, the advocacy group claims children are
in a new placement every three months for more than 2.5 years — a
rate that's more than double the recommended maximum.

"If they move constantly, what's happening is they're then going
back to the back of the line," Woody said. "Kids who have serious
problems are not having them addressed. They're not even, you know,
getting assessed, let alone treated. So, it's a big problem of a
very big problem with the lack of mental health treatment and
assessment."

Larry Rute, Esq., a lawyer for Kansas Appleseed, said he'd like to
see multiple improvements to the system, including more foster care
facilities, better training for foster parents, more social workers
and more staff to track children who run way. The National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children claims one in seven endangered
runaways ends in the hands of a sex trafficker.

"When kids run away, they're subject to all sorts of abuses,
including human trafficking, it's extremely difficult problem,"
Rute said. "We want to want the state to get its arms around —
the state has the responsibility here, the state has the regulatory
administrative, statutory constitutional authority to fix this
problem, and the state can and should do so."

STATE'S RESPONSE TO SUIT

KAKE News reached out to Gov. Laura Kelly's office for comment and
have not heard back. It also reached out to DCF for comment on the
case. They shared this statement:

"The Kansas Department for Children and Families does not comment
on pending litigation. However, the agency is committed to
improving outcomes including strengthening families, reducing the
length of stay in foster care and implementing evidence-based
practices to engage families and placement stability."

"Among other initiatives, during the past eight months the agency
has worked to transition to new family preservation and foster care
grants, institute the Family First Prevention Act and establish new
practice models like Team Decision Making," DCF continued. "DCF
believes these improvements can endure at a systemic level and we
are confident that these changes put the agency on a trajectory
toward a stronger system for Kansas children and families."

This year, DCF launched a Youth Recovery Report. It documents a
current list of verified runaways, recovered youth, what agency
they're associated with and the child's age. As of this September,
460 youth have been recovered in 2019 - some of those may be the
same child, multiple times. At least 22 were recovered in
September.

Also, as shared in a prior report at KAKE News, the department has
staff members designated to track kids in the system. If a child
runs away, they work with law enforcement agencies to help track
the children.

A LOOK AT THE FUTURE

"We're hopeful that this administration will be more focused on
that on improving the system," Woody said. "Unfortunately, we
haven't seen any real improvement for these kids on a day-to-day
basis at this point in time."

"Well, the proof will be in the pudding," Rute echoed. "If we can
have quality foster care placements, with quality foster parents
properly trained to cut down on this incredible problem of insecure
placements for the kids, and the lack of medical and mental health
treatment for kids — that will go a long way."

Kansas Appleseed and the state plan to have a mediation session
this October. [GN]


LA TOURELLE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against La Tourelle Inc. The
case is styled as Lawrence Young Individually And On Behalf Of All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. La Tourelle Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09247 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 7 2019).

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

La Tourelle Inc. is a hotel and spa located at 1150 Danby Rd Route
96B, Ithaca, NY 14850-9406.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOVING CARE NURSING: Does not Properly Pay Nurses, Penn Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JANELLE PENN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. LOVING CARE NURSING SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02873-BPG (N.D. Md., Sept. 30, 2019) is
an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, brought by Plaintiff
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated individuals
against Defendant, for failing to pay them overtime wages.

Plaintiff was not paid the correct amount of overtime compensation
for hours she worked in excess of 40 in a workweek even though she
regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, notes the
complaint.  Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs,
and all other relief to which she and similarly situated employees
are entitled to, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Janelle Penn works as a Nurse for Defendant.

Defendant owns and operates the nursing service company in
Maryland, where Plaintiff was employed.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
     LEMBERG LAW, LLC
     43 Danbury Road 3rd Floor
     Wilton, CT 06897
     Phone: (203)653-2250
     Fax: (203) 653-3424
     Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


MARC JACOBS: Desalvo Drops ADA Class Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Marc Jacobs International, LLC, has
been voluntarily dismissed.  The case is captioned as Brett
Desalvo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Marc Jacobs International, LLC, a
Delaware corporation, and Does 1-10, inclusive , the Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-06560-DSF-RAO (C.D. Cal., July 29, 2019). The suit
alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer.

On October 4, Judge Fischer entered an order to show cause.
According to the Court, "In this case, Marc Jacobs International,
LLC failed to plead or otherwise defend within the relevant time.
The Court orders plaintiff to show cause in writing on or before
October 18, 2019 why the claims against the non-appearing
defendant(s) should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Failure to respond to this Order may result in sanctions, including
dismissal for failure to prosecute."

That same day, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal,
with prejudice.

Marc Jacobs's line of business includes owning or leasing
franchises, patents, and copyrights which they in turn license
others to use.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
          Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com

MDL 2804: Court Certifies Negotiation Class in Opiate Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION, THIS
DOCUMENT RELATES TO: All Cases, and The County of Summit, Ohio, et
al., v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., Case No. 18-op-45090, Case No.
1:17-MD-2804 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Dan Aaron Polster of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
granted in part the Plaintiffs' Renewed and Amended Motion for
Certification of Rule 23(b)(3) Cities/Counties Negotiation Class.

On Dec. 12, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred all opioid-related litigation pending in federal courts
throughout the United States to the forum for consolidated pretrial
proceedings.  At present, the MDL encompasses more than 2,000
individual actions.  Most of these constituent cases have been
filed by cities and counties throughout the United States seeking,
inter alia, reimbursement for monies they have expended -- and
continue to spend -- addressing the opioid crisis.  The Defendants
include numerous manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies.
Beyond the thousands of cases pending, many other municipalities
are litigating similar opioid-related lawsuits in state courts
throughout the United States.

From the outset of the MDL, the Court has encouraged the parties to
settle the case as it would expedite relief to communities so they
can better address the devastating national health crisis.  A
Court-appointed Special Master (Prof. Francis McGovern) has
overseen extensive settlement negotiations.  The Special Master, in
conjunction with experts and the parties in the case, developed an
innovative solution: a new form of class action entitled
"negotiation class certification."

The idea is to undertake the class certification and opt-out
process prior to a settlement being reached, as is done in a normal
class action geared toward trial.  It will fix a class size and
provide the Defendants a sense of the precise scope of the group
with whom they are negotiating.

By motion dated June 14, 2019, the Plaintiffs' leadership team in
the MDL filed a motion on behalf of 51 cities and counties
entitled, Motion for Certification of Rule 23(b)(3) Cities/Counties
Negotiation Class.  The Court held a hearing on the initial motion
on June 25, 2019, and at that time adopted a briefing schedule
enabling the Plaintiffs to re-brief the motion in light of the
filed oppositions.  Accordingly, on July 9, 2019, the Plaintiffs
filed a Renewed and Amended Motion for Certification of Rule
23(b)(3) Cities/Counties Negotiation Class.  On Aug. 6, 2019, the
Court held a hearing on the motion.

The negotiation class certification process unfolds in five
stages:

     1. Allocation/Voting: The Class members first develop a plan
for allocating a lump sum settlement among the class and a plan for
voting on the reasonableness of any lump sum settlement that is
achieved.  This enables each class member to know its settlement
share and franchise prior to the opt-out deadline.  The MDL
Plaintiffs' leadership has met with numerous groups of the
Plaintiffs and the public health experts to create the allocation
plan.  The plan proposes distributing 75% of the lump sum to
counties, with each county's share calculated according to three
equally-weighted public health factors.  The county's share is then
divided among the county and its constituent cities, ideally
through negotiated agreement.  Of the remaining 25%, 10% is set
aside for a "Private Attorneys' Fee Fund," from which private
attorneys -- defined as any counsel with representation agreements
with one or more Class members executed as of June 14, 2019 --
could seek fees in lieu of enforcement of private contingency fee
contracts with their clients.  Finally, 15% is set aside for a
"Class Members' Special Needs Fund," to cover the special needs and
expenditures of any Class member that are not addressed by the
class-wide allocation formula, including expenses associated with
litigation.  All of these amounts are subject to Court approval and
any of the 25% (the Private Attorneys' Fee Fund and the Class
Members' Special Needs Fund) not so distributed is then
re-distributed across the class according to the allocation plan.

        The voting model is both simple and complex.  If a lump sum
settlement is reached with a Defendant, each class member will be
given the opportunity to cast a single, simple, yes/no vote as to
whether the size of the lump sum settlement is sufficient. The
votes will then be counted to ensure the settlement is accepted by
75% of all voting entities by number, 75% of all voting entities by
population, and 75% of all voting entities by allocation; each of
those three types of votes will be counted twice, once among
jurisdictions that had filed lawsuits as of June 14, 2019 and once
among jurisdictions that had not.  The various counts ensure that:
(1) the plethora of smaller counties cannot alone control an
outcome (the population vote guards against that); (2) the plethora
of small-recovery counties cannot alone control an outcome (the
allocation vote guards against that); and that (3) neither the
litigating nor non-litigating entities alone can control an
outcome.

     2. Class Certification: With the allocation and voting plans
in place, the Plaintiffs move for certification of the negotiation
class, as have the present movants.

     3. Notice and Opt-Out Period: If the Court approves the
motion, the class members are given notice of class certification
and an opportunity to opt out.  The Movants propose a 60day opt-out
period.  During that time, the class members can assess their share
of a lump sum settlement and the proposed voting structure at the
class website to determine whether they want to be part of the
negotiating group.

     4. Lump Sum Settlement Negotiation: At the conclusion of the
opt-out period, with the size of the class set, the class is ready
to negotiate a settlement with one or more defendants.  No
Defendant is required to negotiate with the class and the
underlying litigation activities continue unabated.

     5. Judicial Approval, Including Class Vote: If a settlement is
reached, the parties move for judicial approval, as required by
Rule 23(e).  That process encompasses three parts: (a) the Court
must preliminarily approve the settlement; (b) the class members
are then given their opportunity to vote on the settlement, and
they may file objections with the Court; and (c) if the Class votes
to accept the settlement, the class counsel moves for final
approval.  The Court would then make the same determination as to
the settlement's reasonableness as Rule 23 requires it to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(e)(2).in any class action.

Judge Polster finds that the class members' rights are protected in
several critical ways.  At the front end, before having to make the
opt-out decision, the class members can calculate their share of
any future settlement; the groups of the Plaintiffs and their
attorneys have worked together to establish a public health-based
settlement allocation plan, the details of which are all made
available to the Class and public at a case website,
www.opioidsnegotiationclass.info.  At the back end, each class
member will be entitled to vote (yes or no) on whether a proposed
settlement amount is sufficient, and no settlement will be deemed
accepted unless it garners a supermajority (75%) of those voting; a
proposal will need to secure approval from six separate
supermajority vote counts, reflecting different slices of the
class.  Additionally, of course, the Court protects the absent
class members: Rule 23 requires that the Court make specific
determinations before permitting a class action to go forward, Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(3), (c), (g), and similarly requires that the
Court -- independent of the class's vote — approves any proposed
settlement and attorney's fees.

The Judge is mindful of the fact that it is a novel procedure and
one opposed by the vast majority of State Attorneys General, who
themselves are actively pursuing important State opioid litigation.
He has determined that the procedure is a legitimate one, that
certification is warranted based on the facts of the case, and that
the whole process is more likely to promote global settlement than
it is, as the Attorneys General argue, to impede it.

Regardless, there is nothing coercive about the process: no
Defendant has to employ it.  There is nothing exclusive about it:
it does not interfere with the States settling their own cases any
way they want, and it does not stop parties in the MDL from
settling in other ways.  And there is nothing intrusive about the
process: it does not stop any litigation from continuing and in no
way interferes with the upcoming bellwether trials in the MDL.  The
process simply provides an option -- and in the Court's opinion, it
is a powerful, creative, and helpful one.  

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Polster certified a Negotiation
Class on the claims and issues identified, against the Defendants
identified, and appointed the Class Counsel.  The Negotiation Class
is authorized to negotiate settlements with any of the 13 sets of
Defendants identified, on any of the claims or issues identified,
or those arising out of a common factual predicate.

If the Class Counsel seek to utilize the Negotiation Class to
negotiate against any other Defendants, they may later make a
formal motion to amend the class certification order accordingly.
As set forth in an accompanying Order, the Judge does not authorize
the Negotiation Class to negotiate on behalf of cities and counties
against their State governments, as its proponents suggested.  This
puts to rest a concern raised by the Attorneys General.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/8F9U5d from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Peter H.
Weinberger, Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber, Steven J. Skikos, Skikos
Crawford Skikos & Joseph, Troy A. Rafferty, Levin Papantonio Thomas
Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor, Bonnie A. Kendrick, Dugan Law Firm,
Celeste Brustowicz, Cooper Law Firm, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Frank L. Gallucci, III --
fgallucci@pglawyer.com -- Plevin & Gallucci, James R. Dugan, II,
Dugan Law Firm, Linda J. Singer, Motley Rice, Michael J. Fuller,
Jr., McHugh Fuller Law Group, Paul T. Farrell, Jr., Greene Ketchum
Farrell Bailey & Tweel & Peter James Mougey, Levin Papantonio
Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor.

Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph F. Rice
-- jrice@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice, Paul T. Farrell, Jr.,
Greene Ketchum Farrell Bailey & Tweel, Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Simmons
Hanly Conroy, Amy M. Carter, Simon Greenstone Panatier, Bonnie A.
Kendrick, Dugan Law Firm, Celeste Brustowicz, Cooper Law Firm,
Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Frank
L. Gallucci, III, Plevin & Gallucci, James R. Dugan, II, Dugan Law
Firm, Linda J. Singer, Motley Rice, Peter James Mougey, Levin
Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor, Peter H. Weinberger,
Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber & Steven J. Skikos, Skikos Crawford
Skikos & Joseph.

Plaintiffs' Executive Committee, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Ellen Relkin, Weitz & Luxenberg,
Erin K. Dickinson, Crueger Dicksonson, Hunter J. Shkolnik --
hunter@napolilaw.com -- Napoli Shkolnik, James E. Cecchi, Carella,
Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, James R. Dugan, II, Dugan
Law Firm, James Dennis Young, Morgan & Morgan, Lynn L. Sarko,
Keller Rohrback, Michael J. Fuller, Jr., McHugh Fuller Law Group,
Peter James Mougey, Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty &
Proctor, R. Eric Kennedy, Weisman, Kennedy & Berris, Roland K.
Tellis, Baron & Budd, W. Mark Lanier, Lanier Law Firm, Aelish Marie
Baig, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Anthony D. Irpino, Irpino Avin
Hawkins, Anthony J. Majestro, Powell & Majestro, Bonnie A.
Kendrick, Dugan Law Firm, Celeste Brustowicz, Cooper Law Firm, Evan
M. Janush, Lanier Law Firm, Frank L. Gallucci, III, Plevin &
Gallucci, Linda J. Singer, Motley Rice, Mark P. Chalos, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Mark P. Pifko, Baron & Budd, Paul T.
Farrell, Jr., Greene Ketchum Farrell Bailey & Tweel, Paul J.
Geller, Law Office of Robert J. Hunt, Paulina Do Amaral, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Peter H. Weinberger, Spangenberg,
Shibley & Liber, Salvatore C. Badala -- sbadala@napolilaw.com --
Napoli Shkolnik & Steven J. Skikos, Skikos Crawford Skikos &
Joseph.

Melissa Ambrosio, Erin Doyle, Darren and Elena Flanagan, James and
Teri Holland, Shannon Hunt, Tyler M Roach, Walter and Virginia
Salmons, Ms. Rachel Wood & Amanda M. Hanlon, Plaintiffs,
represented by Celeste Brustowicz, Cooper Law Firm & Theresa A.
Richthammer, Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman.

Derric and Ceonda Rees, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste
Brustowicz, Cooper Law Firm, Scott R. Bickford, Martzell & Bickford
& Theresa A. Richthammer, Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman.

Purdue Pharma L.P., Defendant, represented by Andrew W. Durland,
Blair Graffeo Mattei, Frazer Greene Upchurch & Baker, Booker T.
Shaw, Thompson Coburn, Colin H. Hunter, Angeli Law Group, Donna M.
Welch, Kirkland & Ellis, Eric A. Riegner, Locke, Reynolds, Boyd &
Wiesell, Hannah E. Tokerud, Holland & Hart, Hayden A. Coleman,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Jenai M.
Brackett, FROST BROWN TODD LLC, Judy L. Leone, Dechert, Noelle M.
Reed, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Robert S. Hoff, Wiggin and
Dana LLP, pro hac vice, Ronald J. Friedman, Karr Tuttle Campbell,
Samuel E. Masur, Gordon Arata Montgomery Barnett, Stephanie R.
Lakinski, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Stephen C. Matthews, DLA Piper,
Thomas Dean Adams, Karr Tuttle Campbell, William W. Mercer, Holland
& Hart, Christopher Boisvert, Copo Strategies, Daniel J. Buckley,
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Elizabeth Y. Ryan, Lynn Pinker Cox &
Hurst, Gretchen Maria Wolf, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP,
John T. Cox, III, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, John D. Volney, Lynn
Pinker Cox & Hurst, Kevin James Minnick, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom, Lisa Michelle Gilford, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom, Mark S. Cheffo, Dechert, Patrick J. Fitzgerald,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Paul Byrd Simon, Gordon
Arata, R. Ryan Stoll, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Sean O.
Morris, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Sheila L. Birnbaum , Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Troy A. Bozarth, HeplerBroom, Victor
A. Walton, Jr., Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & W. Jason Rankin,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Purdue Pharma Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew W. Durland --
adurland@karrtuttle.com -- Blair Graffeo Mattei, Frazer Greene
Upchurch & Baker, Booker T. Shaw, Thompson Coburn, Colin H. Hunter,
Angeli Law Group, David H. Angeli, Angeli Law Group, Donna M.
Welch, Kirkland & Ellis, Eric A. Riegner, Locke, Reynolds, Boyd &
Wiesell, Hannah E. Tokerud, Holland & Hart, Hayden A. Coleman,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Jenai M.
Brackett, FROST BROWN TODD LLC, Judy L. Leone, Dechert, Noelle M.
Reed, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Robert S. Hoff, Wiggin and
Dana LLP, pro hac vice, Ronald J. Friedman, Karr Tuttle Campbell,
Samuel E. Masur, Gordon Arata Montgomery Barnett, Stephanie R.
Lakinski, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Stephen C. Matthews, DLA Piper,
Thomas Dean Adams, Karr Tuttle Campbell, William W. Mercer, Holland
& Hart, Christopher Boisvert, Copo Strategies, Daniel J. Buckley,
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Elizabeth Y. Ryan, Lynn Pinker Cox &
Hurst, Gretchen Maria Wolf, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP,
John T. Cox, III, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, John D. Volney, Lynn
Pinker Cox & Hurst, Kevin James Minnick, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher &  
Flom, Lisa Michelle Gilford, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom,
Mark S. Cheffo, Dechert, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom, Paul Byrd Simon, Gordon Arata, R. Ryan
Stoll, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Sean O. Morris, Arnold
& Porter Kaye Scholer, Sheila L. Birnbaum, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom, Troy A. Bozarth, HeplerBroom, Victor A. Walton,
Jr., Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & W. Jason Rankin, HeplerBroom
LLC.

Purdue Frederick Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew W.
Durland, Booker T. Shaw, Thompson Coburn, Colin H. Hunter, Angeli
Law Group, David H. Angeli, Angeli Law Group, Donna M. Welch,
Kirkland & Ellis, Eric A. Riegner, Locke, Reynolds, Boyd & Wiesell,
Hannah E. Tokerud, Holland & Hart, Jenai M. Brackett, FROST BROWN
TODD LLC, Judy L. Leone, Dechert, Noelle M. Reed, Skadden Arps
Slate Meagher & Flom, Ronald J. Friedman, Karr Tuttle Campbell,
Samuel E. Masur, Gordon Arata Montgomery Barnett, Stephanie R.
Lakinski, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Stephen C. Matthews, DLA Piper,
Thomas Dean Adams, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Christopher Boisvert, Copo
Strategies, Daniel J. Buckley, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease,
Elizabeth Y. Ryan, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, John T. Cox, III, Lynn
Pinker Cox & Hurst, John D. Volney, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, Kevin
James Minnick, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Lisa Michelle
Gilford, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Mark S. Cheffo,
Dechert, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom, Paul Byrd Simon, Gordon Arata, R. Ryan Stoll, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom, Sean O. Morris, Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer, Troy A. Bozarth, HeplerBroom, Victor A. Walton, Jr.,
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & W. Jason Rankin, HeplerBroom LLC.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig
Andrew Stanfield, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Donna M. Welch,
Kirkland & Ellis, Harvey Bartle, IV, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
Leland G. Horton, Bradley Murchison, Matthew Ambrose Martin, Haar &
Woods, Mitchell G. Blair, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Richard S.
Crisler, Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, Robert T. Haar, Haar &
Woods, Thomas F. Hurka, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, pro hac vice,
Thomas E. Rice, Jr., Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, Adam M.
Hammoud, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Albert J. Lucas, Calfee, Halter &
Griswold, Alison Tanchyk, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Brian M. Ercole,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Collie Fitch James, IV, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, Eric W. Sitarchuk, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Eric M. Sommer
, Sommer Udall Hardwick & Jones, Georgia K.E. Yanchar, Calfee,
Halter & Griswold, Jason J. Blake, Calfee, Halter & Griswold,
Jeremy A. Menkowitz, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Jonathan L. Stern,
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Mark S. Cheffo, Dechert, Mark Fiore,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Michael C. Mims, Bradley Murchison et al,
Nancy Patterson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Nathan J. Andrisani,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Rebecca J. Hillyer, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, Richard G. Shephard, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Sean O.
Morris, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Stacey Anne Mahoney, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius, Steven A. Reed, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Tinos
Diamantatos, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius & Wendy West Feinstein,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

Cephalon, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Andrew Stanfield,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Donna M. Welch,  
Kirkland & Ellis, Harvey Bartle, IV, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
Leland G. Horton, Bradley Murchison, Matthew Ambrose Martin, Haar &
Woods, Mitchell G. Blair, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Richard S.
Crisler, Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, Robert T. Haar, Haar &
Woods, Thomas F. Hurka, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, pro hac vice,
Thomas E. Rice, Jr., Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, Adam M.
Hammoud, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Albert J. Lucas, Calfee, Halter &
Griswold, Alison Tanchyk, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Brian M. Ercole,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Collie Fitch James, IV, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, Eric W. Sitarchuk, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Eric M. Sommer
, Sommer Udall Hardwick & Jones, Georgia K.E. Yanchar, Calfee,
Halter & Griswold, Jason J. Blake, Calfee, Halter & Griswold,
Jeremy A. Menkowitz, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Jonathan L. Stern,
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Mark S. Cheffo, Dechert, Mark Fiore,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Michael C. Mims, Bradley Murchison et al,
Nancy Patterson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Nathan J. Andrisani,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Rebecca J. Hillyer, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, Richard G. Shephard, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Sean O.
Morris, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Stacey Anne Mahoney, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius, Steven A. Reed, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Tinos
Diamantatos, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius & Wendy West Feinstein,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.


MEREDITH CORPORATION: Nov. 5 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Meredith Corporation (MDP)
Class Period: 5/10/2018-9/4/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 5, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-mdp

ProPetro Holding Corp. (PUMP)
Class Period: 3/17/2017 - 8/8/2019 or purchase of securities issued
either in or after the March 2017 Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 15, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-pump

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                    About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]




MIRROR LAKE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mirror Lake Inn, Inc.
The case is styled as Lawrence Young Individually And On Behalf Of
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Mirror Lake Inn,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09241 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 7 2019).

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

Mirror Lake Inn, Inc. operates a lakefront resort in the Adirondack
Mountains.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



MYRIAD GENETICS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Myriad Genetics, Inc. ("Myriad" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
MYGN) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in
United States District Court, for the District of Utah, and indexed
under 19-cv-00707, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Myriad securities between September 2, 2016 and
August 13, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Myriad within the class
period, you have until November 26, 2019, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Myriad is a molecular diagnostic company that develops and markets
predictive, personalized, and prognostic medicine tests worldwide.
Myriad offers, among other products, GeneSight, a DNA genotyping
test to aid psychotropic drug selection for depressed patients; and
Foresight, a prenatal test in the expanded carrier screening market
for future parents to assess their risk of passing on a recessive
genetic condition to their offspring. GeneSight is offered as both
a psychotropic1 test ("GeneSight Psychotropic") and MTHFR (an
enzyme required to convert folic acid and dietary folate into its
active form, which is called l-methylfolate) test.

On September 1, 2016, Myriad announced the completion of its
acquisition of Assurex Health, Inc. ("Assurex"). Myriad acquired
GeneSight through this acquisition.

On July 31, 2018, Myriad announced that it had closed its
acquisition of Counsyl, Inc. ("Counsyl"). The acquisition of
Counsyl provided Myriad with two new products—ForeSight and
Prelude—in the expanded carrier screening and non-invasive
prenatal testing markets, respectively. The Company estimated that
these markets would grow to approximately three million tests
performed in the U.S. and $1.5 billion over the next five years.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) GeneSight lacked evidence or
information sufficient to support the tests in their current form,
including their purported benefits; (ii) the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") had requested changes to GeneSight and
questioned the validity of the test's purported benefits; (iii)
Myriad had been in ongoing discussions with the FDA regarding the
FDA's requested changes to GeneSight; (iv) Myriad's acquisition of
Counsyl—and thereby, Foresight—caused the Company to incur the
risk of suffering from lower reimbursement for its expanded carrier
screening tests, which had the potential to, and actually did,
materialize into a material negative impact on the Company's
revenue; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 13, 2019, during after-market hours, Myriad issued an
earnings release, filed as an exhibit to a Current Report on Form
8-K with the SEC, wherein the Company reported its fiscal fourth
quarter and full year 2019 financial results. Therein, Mark C.
Capone, Myriad's President and Chief Executive Officer, disclosed
that "[u]nfortunately, revenue in the fourth quarter was two
percent below expectations largely due to lower reimbursement for
[the Company's] expanded carrier screening test"--i.e., Foresight.

Later that day, in an earnings conference call with investors and
analysts, R. Bryan Riggsbee, Myriad's Chief Financial Officer,
revealed that "the FDA requested changes to the GeneSight test
offering" after Myriad had provided the FDA with clinical evidence
and other information to support GeneSight Psychotropic, and that
the Company has "been in ongoing discussions with the FDA regarding
its request." Riggsbee continued by stating that "[a]lthough
[Defendants] continue to disagree the changes to the tests are
required, on August 10, 2019, [Defendants] submitted a proposal
regarding the reporting of GeneSight test results to healthcare
providers that we believe address the FDA's principal concerns."

Also later that day, Myriad filed an Annual Report on Form 10-K
with the SEC, reporting the Company's financial and operating
results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019 (the "2019 10-K").
In the 2019 10-K, Defendants disclosed that the FDA had questioned
whether the validity of GeneSight's purported benefits had been
established. The 2019 10-K also revealed that, since at least late
2018, the FDA had increasingly questioned the claims of marketed
genetics tests, such as GeneSight.

On this news, Myriad's stock price fell $19.05 per share, or
42.76%—nearly half of the Company's total stock value—to close
at $25.50 per share on August 14, 2019.

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

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



NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of Oct. 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff in a securities class action on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
Nektar Therapeutics ("Nektar" or the "Company") (NKTR) between
February 15, 2019 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased Nektar securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options, please visit Nektar Shareholder
Class Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company did not comply with current good
manufacturing practices; (2) that, as a result, batches of NKTR-214
were not produced consistently and differed meaningfully; (3) that
clinical results from PIVOT-02 differed based on the batch of
NKTR-214 used in the study; (4) that, as a result, the PIVOT-02
study did not produce statistically significant results to support
a finding of clinical benefit; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 8, 2019, after the market closed, the Company revealed
that a manufacturing issue caused two batches of bempegaldesleukin
to differ from the other 20 batches that were produced. Moreover,
these batches resulted in variable clinical benefit than other
batches used in the Company's PIVOT-02 clinical trial .

On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.65, or nearly 30%
to close at $20.92 per share on August 9, 2019.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 18, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Nektar securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/nektartherapeutics-nktr-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-177/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact:

         Matthew E. Guarnero,Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: https://www.bernlieb.com
         Tel: (877) 779-1414
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Zhang Investor Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces the filing of a class action lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Nektar Therapeutics
(NKTR) between February 15, 2019 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 18, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff. If you wish to join the case go:
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=nektar-therapeutics&id=1997
or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Sophie Zhang, Esq. or Spencer Lee toll-free at
800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com,
slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

According to the case, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) that the Company did
not comply with current good manufacturing practices; (ii) as a
result, batches of NKTR-214 were not produced consistently and
differed meaningfully; (iii) clinical results from PIVOT-02
differed based on the batch of NKTR-214 used in the study; and (iv)
as a result, the PIVOT-02 study did not produce statistically
significant results to support a finding of clinical benefit.

A class has not been certified.  You may retain counsel of your
choice.  You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff.

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide.  

Contact:

         Zhang Investor Law P.C.
         99 Wall Street, Suite 232
         New York, New York 10005
         tel: (800) 991-3756
         Email: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com [GN]


NETAPP INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 15 Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming October 15, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of NetApp, Inc. ("NetApp" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: NTAP) investors who purchased securities
between May 22, 2019 and August 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.

On August 1, 2019, after the market closed, the Company reported
preliminary first quarter 2019 adjusted earnings per share of $0.55
to $0.60, below the average estimate of $0.83, and net revenue of
$1.22 billion to $1.23 billion, below the average estimate of $1.39
billion. Additionally, the Company lowered its 2020 outlook and
expected net revenue to decline between 5% and 10% year-over-year.

On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as $11.67, or
over 20%, to close at $46.04 per share on August 2, 2019, thereby
injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was unable to close
large deals within the quarter and that the deals were pushed out
to subsequent quarters or downsized; (2) that, as a result, the
Company's revenue would be materially impacted; (3) that, as a
result, the Company would lower its fiscal 2020 guidance; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired NetApp securities during the
Class Period you may move the Court no later than October 15, 2019
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please
contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

Contact:

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com, LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM
[GN]


NEW BAY ROSE: Palaguachi Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Rosa Salto Palaguachi, individually and on behalf of all
other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. New Bay Rose
Nails Spa Inc. d/b/a New Bay Rose Nails Spa, Weiming Liu a/k/a Amy,
Defendants, Case No. 716693/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., Sept.
30, 2019) is an action brought by Plaintiff on her own behalf and
on behalf of similarly situated and non-exempt employees of the
Defendants, alleging violations of the New York Labor Law and New
York Codes, Rules and Regulations, arising from Defendants' various
willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the NYLL and NYCRR by engaging in a
pattern and practice of failing to: pay their employees, including
Plaintiff, unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 hours each week; provide wage notice at the
time of hiring; provide wage statements; and provide accurate pay
stubs, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Maria Rosa Salto Palaguachi was employed by the Defendant
as a nail technician, from 2010 to January 1, 2014 and from March
2015 to July 20, 2019.

New Bay Rose Nails Spa Inc., is a domestic corporation organized
under the laws of the New York State with a principal business
address at 329 City Island Ave., Bronx, NY 10464.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zindzi Baugh Corbett, Esq.
     HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
     136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Phone: (718) 353-8522
     Fax: (718) 353-6288
     Email: zbaughcorbett@hanglaw.com


NINTENDO CO: Amended Suit Says Joy-Cons Have Drift Problem
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Kim, writing for IGN, reports that the law firm of Chimicles
Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith have amended its class-action
lawsuit on behalf of anyone who purchased a Nintendo Switch, Switch
Lite, and separate Nintendo Switch Joy-Con.

"The Amended Complaint alleges that the Joy-Con controllers are
defective, leading to a phenomenon known as 'drift.'" The Amended
Complaint also claims that Joy-Cons are in breach of warranty,
fraud, and "violations of numerous state consumer protection
statutes."

Original story follows:
Nintendo could find itself the target of a class action lawsuit
over the drift problem found in its Nintendo Switch Joy-Cons.

The law firm of Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith (CSK&D)
has filed a class action lawsuit against Nintendo in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington. CSK&D
allege that Nintendo's Joy-Cons violate "various consumer
protection statutes as well as various warranty and common law
claims."

The law firm asserts that the Joy-Con controllers are "defective"
as a result of drifting, or where the Joy-Cons "automatically
register movement when the joystick is not being controlled by the
user and interfere with gameplay."

CSK&D currently has a form on its website asking users affected by
the Nintendo Joy-Con drift to submit their information for the
class action lawsuit.

What is Joy-Con Drift and Is There a Fix?

CSK&D already defined drift as the Joy-Cons registering input where
there is none. In practical terms, this could manifest when you're
playing a game and suddenly the reticle or character moves towards
one direction without your input.

This is a very annoying problem, and one that's appeared early on
in the Nintendo Switch life cycle. There's also seemingly no
permanent solution.

One Joy-Con teardown published on Reddit by user u/rainbopython
back in April claims that the drift problem could be caused by
wear-and-tear over time. Though it's still not clear what actually
causes the controllers to drift.

What Has Nintendo Said About Joy-Con Drift?

We've reached out to Nintendo to ask about the Joy-Con drifting
issue, and the company has issued the following statement:

"At Nintendo, we take great pride in creating quality products and
we are continuously making improvements to them. We are aware of
recent reports that some Joy-Con controllers are not responding
correctly. We want our consumers to have fun with Nintendo Switch,
and if anything falls short of this goal we always encourage them
to visit https://support.nintendo.com so we can help."

We also reached out to Nintendo about the class action lawsuit, but
the company responded: "We have nothing to announce on this
topic."

Will the Switch Lite Joy-Cons Also Drift?

One of the major worries of the Joy-Con drift issue actually
pertains to the upcoming Nintendo Switch Lite. Unlike the current
Nintendo Switch, which has removable and replaceable Joy-Cons, the
controllers on the Switch Lite are permanently attached.

So if the thumbsticks on the Switch Lite begin to drift, users
might have no choice but to send their entire Switch consoles in
for repairs. When we asked Nintendo about the possibility of drift
on the Switch Lite or any of the new Joy-Con colors, the company
offered this short statement: "We expect our hardware to perform as
designed."

Nintendo Switch Joy Con Colors updated

Nintendo is at least aware of the Joy-Con drift issue, but it seems
customers aren't satisfied with that response. CSK&D has also seen
enough complaints over the Joy-Con to open a class action lawsuit
in the first place. We will have more info on the developing case
as details emerge, so check back with IGN for more on the Joy-Con
drift controversy. [GN]



OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Robbins Geller Notes of Nov. 16 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that the Ollie's Bargain
Outlet Holdings, Inc. class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of
purchasers of Ollie's (NASDAQ: OLLI) securities between June 6,
2019 and August 28, 2019 (the "Class Period") in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is captioned
Stirling v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc., No.
1:19-cv-08647, and is assigned to Judge Oetken. The Ollie's class
action lawsuit charges Ollie's and three of its executive officers
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Ollie's securities during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Ollie's class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members
in directing the Ollie's class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff
can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Ollie's class
action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential
future recovery of the Ollie's class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff of the Ollie's class action lawsuit or have
questions concerning your rights regarding the Ollie's class action
lawsuit, please visit our website by clicking here or contact Brian
Cochran at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Ollie's class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than November
16, 2019.

Ollie's is an extreme value retailer that offers brand name
merchandise at dramatically reduced prices. The Ollie's class
action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Ollie's had suffered a
supply chain issue that impacted the initial inventory available at
new stores; (2) consequently, Ollie's lacked sufficient inventory
to meet demand at certain store locations; (3) as such, Ollie's
comparable-store sales were likely to decrease quarter over
quarter; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about Ollie's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result
of this information being withheld from the market, Ollie's
securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period, with its stock price reaching a high of more than $97 per
share.

On August 28, 2019, Ollie's reported that its comparable-store
sales had decreased 1.7% during the second quarter of 2019 and
lowered its fiscal 2019 guidance. During a conference call held the
same day to discuss the financial results, Ollie's Chief
Operational Officer, defendant John Swygert, disclosed that a
"bottleneck issue" had existed in the supply chain "for most all of
Q2" and was not corrected until "the last week of the quarter." On
this news, the price of Ollie's shares fell more than 27% to close
at $56.36 per share on August 29, 2019.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For six
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations, and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more
information.

https://www.linkedin.com/company/rgrdlaw
https://twitter.com/rgrdlaw
https://www.facebook.com/rgrdlaw

Contact:

         Brian Cochran, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Tel: 800-449-4900
         Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
[GN]



OVIEDO BEAUTIFUL: Sarno Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN SARNO on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. OVIEDO BEAUTIFUL FLOWERS AND GIFTS, INC., JUANA I.
LORA and LORENZO LORA, Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-01873 (M.D.
Fla., Sept. 30, 2019) is an action brought against Defendants to
recover unpaid wages, compensation and damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a floral delivery driver
from approximately November 14, 2017 until June 18, 2019. The
Defendants did not pay Plaintiff full minimum wage in violation of
the FLSA, says the complaint.

OVIEDO BEAUTIFUL FLOWERS AND GIFTS, INC., was Plaintiff's employer
as defined by law and a corporation conducting business in this
judicial district.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd W. Shulby, Esq.
     TODD W. SHULBY, P.A.
     1792 Bell Tower Lane
     Weston, FL 33326
     Phone: (954) 530-2236
     Facsimile No.: (954) 530-6628
     Email: tshulby@shulbylaw.com


PATIENT BUILDERS: Katz Suit Underway in California Northern Dist.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Patient Builders, Inc. is underway.
The case is captioned as Jeffrey Katz individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Patient Builders,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-04339-SK (N.D. Cal., July 29,
2019). The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sallie Kim.

An ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options
was lodged on the Court docket on October 8.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Todd Michael Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                   abacon@toddflaw.com

PAYAM INC: Denied Workers Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay, Says Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hevelio Reyes Espinoza, on behalf of himself, and other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Payam, Inc., Pejman Toobian and
John Does 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-8492, (S.D. N.Y.,
September 12, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, unpaid "spread of hours" pay and attorneys'
fees and costs, pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act
and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate as "Colbeh Restauarant," a Glatt kosher
Mediterranean restaurant located at 32 West 39th Street, New York,
NY 10018 where Espinoza worked as a dishwasher, general helper,
kitchen preparation assistant, cleaner and cook. He generally works
over 40 hours per week without the appropriate overtime premium,
says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      10 Grand Central
      155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 209-3933
      Fax: (212) 209-7102
      Email: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


PERDUE FARMS: Earnest Suit Asserts Sherman Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
Emily Earnest, individually and on behalf of a class of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Perdue Farms, Inc., Perdue Foods
LLC, Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc., The Hillshire
Brands Company, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., Tyson Processing Services,
Inc., Tyson Refrigerated Processed Meats, Inc., Keystone Foods,
LLC, Equity Group Eufaula Division LLC, Equity Group—Georgia
Division LLC, Equity Group Kentucky Division LLC, Pilgrim’s Pride
Corporation, Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation of West Virginia, Inc.,
Sanderson Farms, Inc., Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Foods Division),
Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Processing Division), Koch Foods, Inc., JCG
Foods of Alabama LLC, JCG Foods of Georgia LLC, JCG Industries,
Inc., Koch Foods LLC, Koch Foods of Alabama LLC, Koch Foods of
Ashland LLC, Koch Foods of Gadsden LLC, Koch Foods of Cumming LLC,
Koch Foods of Gainesville LLC, Koch Foods of Mississippi LLC, Wayne
Farms, LLC, WFSP Foods, LLC, Mountaire Farms, Inc., Mountaire Farms
of Delaware, Inc., Peco Foods Inc., Simmons Foods, Inc., Simmons
Prepared Foods, Inc., Fieldale Farms Corporation, George’s, Inc.,
Ozark Mountain Poultry, Inc., George’s Chicken, LLC, George’s
Foods, LLC, George’s Processing, Inc., House of Raeford Farms,
Inc., House of Raeford Farms of Louisiana, LLC, O.K. Foods, Inc.,
Harrison Poultry, Inc., Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc., Mar-Jac Poultry MS,
LLC, Mar-Jac Poultry AL, LLC, Mar-Jac Poultry, LLC, Mar-Jac
Holdings, Inc., Amick Farms, LLC, Case Foods, Inc., Case Farms
Processing, Inc., Allen Harim Foods, LLC, Agri Stats, Inc., and
Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-02680 (D. Md., September 12, 2019), seeks redress for
Defendants' attempts to fix and depress wages and benefits
unreasonably restraining trade in violation of the Sherman Act.

Defendants own and operate approximately 180 chicken processing
plants in the continental United States and employ workers involved
in processing live chicken, including slaughtering birds and
preparing the poultry for sale to retailers and consumers. Earnest
alleges that the Defendants conspired to unreasonably restrain
competition for all persons employed by Defendants as
non-supervisory production and maintenance workers at their chicken
processing plants, in effect depressing wages and benefits paid to
its employees.

Earnest was employed as a deboner at a chicken processing plant
operated by Pilgrim's Pride Corporation in Russellville, Alabama.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul Mark Sandler, Esq.
      Eric Harlan, Esq.
      SHAPIRO SHER GUINOT & SANDLER
      250 West Pratt Street, Suite 2000
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Tel.: (410) 385-0202
      Fax: (410) 539-7611
      Email: pms@shapirosher.com
             erh@shapirosher.com

             - and -

      Hollis Salzman, Esq.
      Kellie Lerner, Esq.
      Noni J. Nelson, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 980-7400
      Fax: (212) 980-7499
      Email: hsalzman@robinskaplan.com
             klerner@robinskaplan.com
             nnelson@robinskaplan.com

             - and -

      M. Stephen Dampier, Esq.
      THE DAMPIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      55 North Section Street
      Fairhope, AL 36532
      Tel: (251) 929-0900
      Fax: (251) 929-0800
      Email: stevedampier@dampierlaw.com


PFFA ACQUISITION: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PFFA Acquisition,
LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PFFA
Acquisition, LLC doing business as: PFF, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-05658 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 7, 2019).

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

Pffa Acquisition, LLC is a privately held company in Cincinnati,
OH.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


PINNACLE FOOD: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Korte Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARRON KORTE, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PINNACLE FOOD GROUPS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-199-SMY-MAB (S.D. Ill.), Judge Staci M.
Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois (i) denied without prejudice the Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment, (ii) denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify
Class, and (iii) denied as moot the Defendant's Motion to Strike
Allegations in the Complaint Regarding the Proposed Missouri Class
for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.

Korte, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, filed a three-count class action complaint against
Pinnacle, asserting violations of Illinois' Consumer Fraud Act
("ICFA"), and Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), with
respect to the sale of Wish-Bone branded salad dressing labeled
"E.V.O.O. - Dressing Made with Extra Virgin Olive Oil."

Pinnacle developed, produced, marketed, and sold salad dressings
under the Wish-Bone label.  In January 2016, it launched a new type
of salad dressing that contained extra virgin olive oil ("EVOO") in
five different flavors including Caesar Vinaigrette.  The label on
the front of the dressing bottle states: "Wish-Bone E.V.O.O.
Dressing made with Extra Virgin Olive Oil Caesar Vinaigrette with
flavors of Parmesan & Romano Cheese, Garlic, & Cracked Black
Pepper."  The words "made with" are in a comparatively smaller font
and written vertically.

According to Kristen Thompson, Marketing Director for Pinnacle, the
label was changed in June 2017 to indicate that the dressing was
"Made With Extra Virgin Olive Oil Based Blend of Oils."  By
December 2017, dressings with the original label no longer appeared
on store shelves.  In January 2018, Pinnacle changed the shape and
volume of the bottle from a 12-ounce cylindrical glass container to
a 15-ounce "paddle-shaped" glass container.

In the Fall of 2016, Korte purchased a bottle of Wish-Bone's EVOO
Caesar Vinaigrette from a Schnucks Supermarket in Belleville,
Illinois.  At the time of purchase, based on the information on the
front label, he believed the dressing contained EVOO, seasonings,
and vinegar, but not any other oils or water.  Not until he used
the dressing and looked at the back label did he realize the
dressing contained soybean oil and water.

Korte doesn't recall how much he paid for the dressing or whether
it was on sale.  It was the only Wish-Bone branded dressing he ever
purchased.  Korte doesn't know anyone personally who has a similar
opinion about the salad dressing's label.  He has known Class
Counsel Sean Cronin since high school and Cronin has been his
friend and "legal counsel for many years."

Korte moves for class certification under Rules 23(a), 23(b)((2),
and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and seeks
certification of the class of all persons who purchased the
Products in the state of Illinois or Missouri during the period of
Feb. 4, 2016, to present.  Korte, who is a Missouri citizen, is the
sole representative of the class.

Judge Yandle explains that Rule 23(b)(3) permits class
certification only if the questions of law or fact common to the
class members 'predominate' over questions that are individual to
members of the class.  Rule 23(b)(3) requirements are "far more
demanding" than the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule
23(a).  Because Korte has failed to demonstrate typicality, he
obviously cannot meet Rule 23(b)(3)'s more rigorous standard.  For
these foregoing reasons, the Judge denied the Plaintiff's Motion to
Certify Class.  In light of this conclusion, he denied as moot
Pinnacle's Motion to Strike.

The Judge now turns to the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
In the case, the parties and the Scheduling Order anticipated that
class discovery would be completed and class certification decided
prior to the commencement of merits discovery.  In his response to
the Motion for Summary Judgment, Korte outlines in detail
Pinnacle's objections to merits discovery based on the Court's
Order and Local Rule 23.1(a)'s requirement that "priority will be
given to discovery on class certification issues."  Therefore, the
Judge holds that Pinnacle's Motion for Summary Judgment is
premature and denied it without prejudice.  The matter is referred
to the Magistrate Judge for entry of a supplemental Scheduling and
Discovery Order, including a timeline for merits discovery and a
dispositive motion deadline.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/aSKK8D from Leagle.com.

Arron Korte, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian T. Kreisler --
briankreisler@wwkinsurance.com -- Kreisler Law Firm, LLC, George
Volney Granade, II, Reese LLP, Michael R. Reese, Reese Richman
LLP & Sean K. Cronin, Donovan Rose Nester PC.

Pinnacle Foods Group LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas B.
Maddock, Jr. -- dmaddock@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy et al., pro hac
vice & James P. Muehlberger -- jmuehlberger@shb.com -- Shook,
Hardy et al., pro hac vice.


PROPETRO HOLDING: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
November 15, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased ProPetro
Holding Corp. ("ProPetro" or the "Company") (NYSE: PUMP)
securities: a) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with the Company's March 2017
initial public offering ("IPO or the "Offering"); and/or b) between
March 17, 2017 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors suffering losses on their ProPetro investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

In March 2017, the Company completed its initial public offering,
in which it sold 25 million shares of common stock at $14.00 per
share.

On August 8, 2019, after the market closed, the Company issued a
press release delaying its second quarter earnings conference call
and quarterly report, citing an ongoing review by its audit
committee. In a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on the same day, the
Company stated that the review concerned, among other things,
expense reimbursements and certain transactions involving related
parties or potential conflicts of interest. The Form 8-K also
stated that approximately $370,000 had been improperly reimbursed
to members of senior management since the IPO. Moreover, the
Company expected to report a material weakness in its internal
control over disclosure.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.59 per share, or
over 26%, to close at $12.75 per share on August 9, 2019, thereby
injuring investors.

By the commencement of this action, ProPetro stock was trading as
low as $11.44 per share, a nearly 18% decline from the $14 per
share IPO price.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company's executive officers were
improperly reimbursed for certain expenses; (2) that the Company
had engaged in certain undisclosed transactions with related
parties; (3) that the Company lacked adequate disclosure controls
and procedures; (4) that the Company lacked effective internal
control over financial reporting; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of ProPetro pursuant to the Registration
Statement and/or during the Class Period, you may move the Court no
later than November 15, 2019 to ask the Court to appoint you as
lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a
member of the class action you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn
more about this class action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact:

       Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
       Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
       3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
       Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
       Telephone: (215) 638-4847
       Toll-free: (888) 638-4847
       E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
       Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/[GN]


PROPETRO HOLDING: Nov. 15 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Meredith Corporation (MDP)
Class Period: 5/10/2018-9/4/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 5, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-mdp

ProPetro Holding Corp. (PUMP)
Class Period: 3/17/2017 - 8/8/2019 or purchase of securities issued
either in or after the March 2017 Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 15, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/new-york-se-pump

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]




PURDUE PHARMA: NL Joins British Columbia's Opioid Suit
------------------------------------------------------
VOCM Local News reports that Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada
has joined British Columbia's class action against opioid
manufacturers and wholesalers.

Justice Minister Andrew Parsons says they have been monitoring the
various recent developments in the United States. This includes the
recently-reported $3-billion "tentative agreement" that would
propose to resolve the claims against Purdue entities and Sackler
family members.

British Columbia's lawsuit, of which Newfoundland and Labrador is a
part, aims to recover government health care and other direct costs
incurred due to opioid-related disease, injury or illness.

Parsons says NL is ready and willing to participate in the effort
to achieve "global" resolution, but if they are not included in the
process, government will go after Purdue and members of the Sackler
family to the fullest extent permitted by law. [GN]


RICHEMONT NA: Zhang Sues Over Denied OT Pay, Breaks, Reimbursements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Faye Zhang, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Richemont North America, Inc. and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV32396
(Cal. Super., September 12, 2019), seeks redress for Defendant's
failure to provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages,
overtime, complete and accurate wage/leave statements, waiting time
penalties for unpaid wages due upon termination and in violation of
the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions
Code, including declaratory relief, damages, penalties, equitable
relief, costs and attorneys' fees resulting from violations of Wage
Orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission.

Zhang worked for Richemont as a sales associate from July 2015 to
February 2019. She claims to have been misclassified as non-exempt
from overtime, often working more than 8 hours in a workday and
more than 40 hours in a workweek without being paid for all hours
worked (including minimum wage, straight time, and overtime wages).
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bobby Saadian, Esq.
     Thiago Coelho, Esq.
     Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
     Nicol E. Hajjar, Esq.
     Robert Dart, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
     3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Tel: (213) 381-9988
     Fax: (213) 381-9989
     Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com
           thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
           RDart@wilshirelawfirm.com
           nicol@wilshirelawfirm.com
           justin@wilshirelawfirm.com


SEIU PENNSYLVANIA: Court Dismisses LaSpina 2nd Amended Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BETHANY LASPINA, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SEIU PENNSYLVANIA STATE COUNCIL,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-2018 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Malachy E.
Mannion of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania granted the State Council's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's second amended complaint ("SAC").

The Plaintiff claims that she was unconstitutionally required to
pay union dues.  In Counts 1, 2 and 3 of her SAC, she raises
federal claims against all the Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.  In particular, the Plaintiff alleges that her First
Amendment rights were violated when Local 668 continued to take
dues from her paycheck after she resigned her membership in the
union, based on the Janus v. American Federation of State, County,
and Municipal Employees, Council 31 decision, and after she told
her employer (i.e., Scranton Public Library) to halt the payroll
deduction of union-related fees.  

With respect to the union Defendants other than Local 668, the
Plaintiff alleges that they enforced unconstitutional agency shops
before the Supreme Court's ruling in Janus and violated the
constitutional rights of the Plaintiff class members by tapping
their paychecks against their will.

Further, the Plaintiff seeks relief under the Declaratory Judgment
Act, requesting a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendants
from accepting dues or fees unless the employees have given their
consent to join the unions.  She also raises state law claims
against all the Defendants for conversion, trespass to chattels,
replevin, restitution, and unjust enrichment.

In addition to the State Council, the remaining Defendants in the
case are Local 668, Lackawanna County Public Library System, and
Scranton Public Library.  The Plaintiff alleges that State Council
coordinates and unifies the collective political, administrative,
and communication structures of all SEIU locals and districts
throughout Pennsylvania.  She also alleges that the other four
union Defendants were "affiliated with" State Council.  

Additionally, she purports to bring claims on behalf of public
employee members and former members of the Defendant union
affiliates of State Council alleging that they were
unconstitutionally required to pay union dues and fair share fees.
She seeks to raise First Amendment claims and state law claims on
behalf of public employees who were allegedly forced to pay dues
and fair share fees to the defendant union affiliates of State
Council.

The Plaintiff further purports to bring claims on behalf of all
employees in bargaining units represented by affiliates of State
Council who were subjected to union-related payroll deductions to
which they did not knowingly consent.

As relief, the Plaintiff seeks (i) a refund of all of the dues she
paid to Local 668; (ii) to require the Defendant unions to refund
all dues and fees they received from her; (ii) punitive damages for
herself and for members of all the Defendant unions who resigned
from the unions or requested that the unions stop taking dues or
fees after the Janus decision and who continued to have dues or
fees withdrawn from their pay; and (iii) injunctive relief on her
own behalf and behalf of class members who were subjected to
union-related payroll deductions without their consent, and she
requests the court to enjoin the State Council and its affiliates
from taking money from any public employee until the union obtains
a freely given and fully informed waiver of the employee's
constitutional rights under Janus.

The Plaintiff is proceeding on her SAC filed Jan. 28, 2019.  On
Jan. 14, 2019, the State Council filed its original motion to
dismiss.

Pending before the Court is the State Council's motion to dismiss
the SAC for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) since she was not a
member of the union and, for failure to have Article III standing
to pursue class action claims on behalf of members and former
members of the union pursuant to 12(b)(1).  The State Council also
contends that its affiliation with the union Defendant to which she
paid fees is not sufficient to confer on the Plaintiff standing to
sue it or to state a claim against it.

Judge Mannion finds that the Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to
show that State Council controlled, was involved in, or had
knowledge of the alleged unlawful activities of the Local Union
668, nor does the Plaintiff allege that State Council controlled,
authorized or ratified the alleged improper conduct of Local 668.
Thus, the Plaintiff has failed to plausibly state that there was an
agency relationship between State Council and Local 668.

The Judge does not find the Plaintiff's reliance on the State
Council's website persuasive.  Clearly, since the constitutional
provision which the Third Circuit considered in Brenner v. Local
514, was not sufficient to impose liability on the parent union for
the alleged wrongful conduct of the local union, the broader
language in the State Council's website does not show, under the
principles of common law agency, that it participated in, ratified,
encouraged, or affirmed any alleged wrongful conduct of Local 668.


As such, the State Council's motion to dismiss will be granted.
The Plaintiff's federal claims against the State Council will be
dismissed with prejudice since the Plaintiff has already filed
three complaints and, it would be futile and unduly prejudicial to
State Council to allow her to file a fourth pleading against it.

Finally, considering judicial economy, convenience and fairness to
the litigants, the district court in its discretion is permitted to
decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over state law
claims if the court has dismissed all of the claims over which it
had original jurisdiction.  Since the Plaintiff's federal claims
over which the Court had original jurisdiction will not be
permitted to proceed to trial against State Council, the Judge, in
his discretion, declines to exercise the Court's supplemental
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state law claims against the
union Defendants.

Additionally, since the Plaintiff lacks standing to assert federal
claims against the State Council, the absence of federal
jurisdiction over her federal claims deprives the Court from
exercising supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims
against the Defendant.  As such, the Plaintiff's state law claims
against State the Council will be dismissed without prejudice.

Against this backdrop, Judge Mannion granted the State Council's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's SAC, with respect to her federal
claims against it.  He accordingly dismissed with prejudice the
Plaintiff's federal claims against the State Council.  He also
dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's state laws claims against
the State Council.  An appropriate order will issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 11, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/gWXM8y from Leagle.com.

Bethany LaSpina, on behalf of herself and all othr similarly
siutated, Plaintiff, represented by Edmond R. Shinn --
eshinn@erslawfirm.com -- Law Offices of Edmond R. Shinn, Esq.,
Ltd., Jonathan F. Mitchell -- stephen@mitchellatlaw.com --
Mitchell
Law PLLC, Shannon W. Conway -- sconway@talcottfranklin.com --
Talcott Franklin P.C., Talcott J. Franklin --
tal@talcottfranklin.com -- Talcott Franklin P.C. & Walter S.
Zimolong, Zimolong LLC.

SEIU Pennsylvania State Council, Defendant, represented by Martin
W. Milz -- mmilz@spearwilderman.com -- SPEAR WILDERMAN, P.C. &
Samuel L. Spear, Spear, Wilderman, Borish, Endy, Spear & Runckel.

SEIU Local 668, Defendant, represented by Lauren M. Hoye --
lhoye@wwdlaw.com -- Willig, Williams & Davidson, P. Casey Pitts --
cpitts@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP & Scott A.
Kronland -- skronland@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP.

Lackawanna County Public Library System, Defendant, pro se.

Scranton Public Library, Defendant, represented by J. Timothy
Hinton, Haggerty Hiinton & Cosgrove LLP.

SHAFER PROJECT: Lewis Seeks Overtime Pay for Coating Inspectors
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SHAFER PROJECT RESOURCES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00183-DLH-CRH (D. N.Dak., Sept. 3,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
from Shafer Project Resources, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Shafer employs workers, like Lewis, to carry out its work. Lewis,
and the other workers like him, were typically scheduled for 10-12
hour shifts, 6-7 days a week. From approximately November 2017
until July 2019, Lewis worked for Defendant as a Pipeline and
Coating Inspector.

But Shafer does not pay all of these workers overtime for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of
paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Defendant pays these
workers a day-rate, the lawsuit says.

Shafer is an energy services support company specializing in
providing project managers, designers, inspectors, safety
consultants and administrative personnel to the energy industry.
Shafer operates throughout the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          William R. Liles, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          William R. Liles, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  wliles@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-877-8788
          Facsimile: 713-877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Pawar Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares Slack
Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: WORK) from pursuant or traceable to the
June 2019 IPO, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Slack Technologies, Inc. investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the class action, go
http://pawarlawgroup.com/cases/slack-technologies-inc/or call Vik
Pawar, Esq. toll-free at 888-589-9804 or email
info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that(1) that the Company's Slack Platform was susceptible to
recurring service-level disruptions; (2) that such disruptions were
increasingly likely to occur as the Company scaled its services to
a larger user base; (3) that the Company provides credits even if a
customer was not specifically affected by service-level
disruptions; (4) that, as a result, any service-level disruptions
would have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial
results; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
18, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

No class has been certified.  Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one.  You may hire
counsel of your choice.  You may also do nothing at this time and
be an absent member of the class.  Your ability to share in any
future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.

Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

Contact:

         Vik Pawar, Esq.  
         Pawar Law Group  
         20 Vesey Street, Suite 1210  
         New York, NY 10007  
         Tel: (917) 261-2277  
         Fax: (212) 571-0938  
         Email: info@pawarlawgroup.com, vik@pawarlawgroup.com
[GN]



SUNDIAL GROWERS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Sundial Growers Inc.
(NASDAQ: SNDL) resulting from allegations that Sundial issued
materially misleading information to the investing public.

If you purchased Sundial securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Sundial Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

On August 1, 2019, Sundial closed its initial public offering
("IPO"), in which it sold 11 million shares at $13.00 per share for
gross proceeds of $143 million. In the Registration Statement for
the IPO, Sundial represented to shareholders that it produces
"high-quality, consistent cannabis."

The Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Sundial failed to supply saleable cannabis in
line with contractual obligations to Zenabis Global Inc.; (2) due
to material quality issues, Zenabis had to return or reject a total
of 554 kg of cannabis to Sundial, valued at approximately U.S. $1.9
million (C$2.5 million); and (3) as a result, defendants statements
about Sundials business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

Just eighteen days later, on August 19, 2019, MarketWatch reported
that  Zenabis Global Inc., a cannabis producer, had rejected a
shipment of 554 kg of cannabis from Sundial "because it contained
visible mold, parts of rubber gloves and other non-cannabis
material, according to people familiar with the matter."

Since the IPO Sundial's stock price has fallen substantially below
its IPO price, damaging investors.

If you purchased Sundial securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/sundialgrowersinc-sndl-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-178/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 25, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact:

         Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: http://www.bernlieb.com
         Tel: (877) 779-1414
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


SUNDIAL GROWERS: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all investors that purchased
Sundial Growers, Inc. (NASDAQ: SNDL) securities pursuant to and/or
traceable to the company's August 1, 2019 initial public offering
("IPO"). Investors have until November 25, 2019 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On August 1, 2019, Sundial closed its initial public offering
("IPO"), in which it sold 11 million shares at $13.00 per share,
yielding $143 million in proceeds. In the Registration Statement
for the IPO, the company stated that it produces "high-quality,
consistent cannabis."

On August 14, 2019, cannabis producer Zenabis Global Inc. revealed
that "[c]ertain third-party producers failed to supply saleable
cannabis in line with contractual obligations. Due to quality
issues, Zenabis had to return or reject a total of 554 kg of
cannabis from a third-party."

On August 19, 2019, MarketWatch published an article stating that
Sundial had sold the cannabis to Zenabis. The article also stated
that the cannabis was returned "because it contained visible mold,
parts of rubber gloves and other non-cannabis material, according
to people familiar with the matter."

On this same day, the company confirmed that it was resolving an
"isolated immaterial matter between Sundial and [a] Licensed
Producer."

The complaint, filed on September 25, 2019, alleges that in the IPO
and afterwards defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sundial failed to supply
saleable cannabis in line with contractual obligations to Zenabis
Global Inc.; (2) due to material quality issues, Zenabis had to
return or reject a total of 554 kg of cannabis to Sundial, valued
at approximately U.S. $1.9 million (C$2.5 million); and (3) as a
result, defendants' statements about Sundial's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Sundial's stock is currently trading at $4.45 per share, a 65%
decrease from the $13.00 IPO price.

If you purchased Sundial securities during the pursuant to the IPO,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa
Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at
(212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.  There is no
cost or obligation to you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm
concentrating in commercial and securities litigation.  For
additional information concerning the Sundial lawsuit, please go to
https://bespc.com/sndl.  For additional information about Bragar
Eagel & Squire, P.C. please go to www.bespc.com.  Attorney
advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
[GN]


SUNDIAL GROWERS: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Sundial Growers Inc. (NASDAQ: SNDL) pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with Sundial's August 1, 2019 initial public stock offering (the
"IPO" or the "Offering"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Sundial investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Sundial class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1669.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Sundial failed to supply saleable cannabis in line with
contractual obligations to Zenabis Global Inc.; (2) due to material
quality issues, Zenabis had to return or reject a total of 554 kg
of cannabis to Sundial, valued at approximately U.S. $1.9 million
(C$2.5 million); and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about
Sundial's business, operations, and prospects were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
25, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1669.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, pkim@rosenlegal.com,  
                cases@rosenlegal.com
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
[GN]



SURFACE ONCOLOGY: Ang Says IPO Registration Statement Misleading
----------------------------------------------------------------
GINO ANG, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. SURFACE ONCOLOGY, INC., J. JEFFERY GOATER,
DANIEL S. LYNCH, DAVID S. GRAYZEL, ARMEN B. SHANAFELT, GEOFFREY
MCDONOUGH, ELLIOTT SIGAL, LAURIE D. STELZER, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO.
LLC, COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, and EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C., the
Defendants, Case No. 655304/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Sept. 13, 2019), is a
securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Surface
common stock in and/or traceable to the Company's April 19, 2018
initial public stock offering.  

Before drugs can be sold to the American public, they must go
through a long and expensive testing process and eventually submit
the results of these tests in an application for approval to the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. At the time of its IPO, the
Company's "lead product candidate," the drug furthest along in the
testing process, was SRF231. SRF231 inhibits CD47, a protein that
is often overexpressed in tumor cells.

IPO documents show Surface had completed toxicology studies of
SRF231 and had significantly progressed through Phase 1 testing,
which had begun in February 2018, at the time of the IPO. One of
the key purposes of the IPO was to raise enough money "to advance
SRF231 through [the rest of the] initial Phase 1 clinical trial
results."

Pursuant to the Registration Statement, the Company sold 7.2
million ordinary shares to the public. The Company raised roughly
$108 million in the IPO. The Registration Statement, however, was
negligently prepared, and, as a result, contained untrue statements
of material fact and omitted to state material facts required to be
stated therein, both under governing regulations and in order to
make the statements contained therein not misleading.

The Registration Statement stated that SRF231 had shown no
hematologic toxicities and, in particular, no signs of
hemagglutination. These statements, however, were materially false
and misleading because at the time of the IPO, defendants had
access to preclinical and Phase 1 data that showed SRF231 caused
hematologic toxicities at low doses, which made continued testing
at the Company's planned amounts likely to lead to unsafe
toxicology levels. The Registration Statement purported to warn
about certain risks, including safety risks that "could" arise in
the future that "may" impact the Company's business and financial
results.

These statements, however, were themselves materially misleading
because they failed to disclose that hematological toxicities had
already been observed with respect to SRF231 in preclinical and
clinical data. The Defendants were required to disclose this
material information in the Registration Statement.

First, the statements in the Registration Statement regarding the
Company's preclinical trials and ongoing Phase 1 trial for SRF231
were materially misleading because of defendants' failure to
disclose observed hematological toxicities while misrepresenting
observed safety data.

Second, SEC Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 229.303 ("Item 303"),
required disclosure of any known events or uncertainties that at
the time of the IPO had impacted or were reasonably likely to
materially impact Surface's future operating results and prospects.
The undisclosed, materially negative data was likely to (and in
fact did) materially and adversely affect Surface's results and
prospects and therefore were required to be disclosed in the
Registration Statement but were not.

Lastly, SEC Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R. section 229.105, required, in
the "Risk Factors" section of the Registration Statement, a
discussion of the most significant factors that made the IPO risky
or speculative and that each risk factor adequately describe the
risk. While the Registration Statement's discussion of risk factors
did include the potential that the Company's drugs could cause
toxicities or side effects, these purported warnings were
themselves materially misleading because they failed to disclose
that toxicities regarding SRF231 had already been observed in
clinical data and the consequent materially adverse effects of this
undisclosed data on the Company's future results, share price, and
prospects. In addition, observed adverse toxicities from the
Company's lead product candidate were among the most significant
factors making an investment in Surface speculative and risky, and
thus these risks were required to be adequately disclosed in the
Registration Statement.

On December 18, 2018, the Company announced that it was making a
"significant reduction of investment in and scope of its SRF231
program." Surface explained that it observed "two hematologic
dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) at a lower dose (12 mg/kg) than
anticipated." The stock of Surface sold in the IPO now trades for
around $2 per share, $13 below its IPO price of $15 per share. As a
result, investors have suffered tens of millions of dollars in
losses, the lawsuit says.

Surface is a clinical-stage immuno-oncology company that engages in
the development of cancer therapies. The Company has no products
for sale and will not have any for the near term. Instead, the
little revenue Surface receives comes from its drug development
partners as its drugs reach certain development milestones.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Brian E. Cochran, 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
                  bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Bobak, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          5040 Shoreham Place
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: 619 525-3990
          Facsimile: 619/525-3991
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
                  soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
                  jbobak@robbinsarroyo.com

TALAMO FOOD: Rivera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Porfirio Rivera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TALAMO FOOD SERICE, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 19CV355856 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., Sept. 30, 2019)
is a class action pursuant to Section 382 of the California Code of
Civil Procedure.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants have a policy or practice
of failing to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees in the State of California with overtime wages.

The Defendant required employees to work more than 8 hours per
workday, 12 hours per workday, 40 hours per workweek, and 7
straight workdays without properly being paid overtime wages, says
the complaint.  The Defendants also failed to accurately track
and/or pay for all hours worked, and manipulated time entries to
the detriment of Plaintiff and other similarly situated.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee from
approximately June 2017 through October of 2018.

Talamo is a company that specializes in importing, distributing,
and processing cheeses for food service retailers and commercial
businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
     Diego Aviles, Esq.
     BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
     1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 438-5555
     Facsimile: (310)300-1705
     Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
            diego@tomorrowlaw.com


TAQUERIAS EL FAROLITO: Romero's Overtime Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Taquerias El Farolito, Inc. is defending against a class action
lawsuit over employee compensation.  The case is captioned, MIRNA
ROMERO and MARIANA ACEVEDO, as individuals and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TAQUERIAS EL FAROLITO, INC.
dba as Taquerias El Farolito, El Farolito Bar, El Farolito,
Taquerias El Favorito, Las Brisas and Mission Kitchen, and DOES
1-20, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-577957 (Cal. Super., July 26,
2019), and alleges that Defendants failed to pay minimum wage,
failed to pay overtime compensation, failed to provide meal period
compensation, failed to provide rest period compensation, and
failed to indemnify necessary business expenditures under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs are current and former hourly or non-exempt
employees of Taquerias El Farolito, Inc. who worked in the State of
California at any time from 4 years preceding the date of filing of
the action.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Arlo Garcia Uriarte, Esq.
          Un Kei Wu, Esq.
          LIBERATION LAW GROUP, P.C:
          2760 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94110
          Telephone: (415) 695-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 695-1006

TEESPRING INC: Traynor Suit Underway in New York Southern District
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Teespring, Inc., remains pending.
The case is captioned as Yaseen Traynor also known as: Yaseen
Traylor on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. Teespring, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-06942-JPO (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 J. Paul Oetken.

Teespring is a platform for custom merchandise. The company was
founded by Walker Williams and Evan Stites-Clayton in 2011 in
Providence, Rhode Island. Teespring's platform aims to make selling
custom T-shirts easier.[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

TELEBRANDS CORP: Illegally Charged Monthly Fees, Rosenbloom Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA ROSENBLOOM,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. TELEBRANDS CORP., the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-17872 (D.N.J., Sept. 11, 2019), contends that individuals
nationwide are being improperly charged monthly fees for purported
services by a New Jersey corporation for which they did not enroll.


In April 2018, Rosenbloom called Telebrands to purchase a
"Hurricane Spin Scrubber," she had seen advertised on television.
Rosenbloom provided the Telebrands representative her credit card
information by telephone to purchase the "Hurricane Spin Scrubber"
in April 2018. Rosenbloom did not agree Telebrands could place
charges on her credit card account for any additional products or
services.

According to the complaint, Rosenbloom did not request to become
part of the Telebrands "Everyday Savings" program nor did she
authorize Defendant to enroll her in that program.  Rosenbloom did
not agree that Telebrands could charge her credit card account for
any amounts for enrollment in the "Everyday Savings" program.

Telebrands, however, charged additional amounts to Rosenbloom’s
credit card for its "Everyday Savings" program. Specifically,
Telebrands charged Rosenbloom an additional $1.00 on April 17,
2019, $14.99 on June 10, 2019 and $14.99 on July 8, 2019, the
lawsuit says.

Telebrands describes itself as "the oldest existing direct response
marketing company and the original creator of the 'As Seen on TV'
logo and category of trade." Telebrands also provides a service it
refers to as its "Everyday Savings" program. Telebrands describes
the "Everyday Savings" program as a "premier savings club that
makes it easy to find great deals on the things you love. Everyday
Savings club members receive instant access to over 200,000
money-saving deals including Restaurant Discounts, Shopping
Discounts, Entertainment Discounts, Travel Discounts, and
Automotive Discounts.".[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
          COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
          Park 80 West – Plaza One
          250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Telephone: (201) 845-9600
          Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
          E-mail: psp@njlawfirm.com

               - and -

          David T. Butsch, Esq.
          Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
          BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
          231 S. Bemiston, Suite 260
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863-5700
          Facsimile: (314) 863-5711
          E-mail: dbutsch@butschroberts.com
                  croberts@butschroberts.com

TENCENT MUSIC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
Tencent Music Entertainment Group (NYSE: TME) between December 12,
2018 and August 26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

If you purchased Tencent securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Tencent Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Tencent's exclusive licensing arrangements with major
record labels were anticompetitive; (2) consequently, sublicensing
such content from Tencent was unreasonably expensive, in violation
of Chinese antimonopoly laws; (3) these anticompetitive efforts
were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (4) as a
result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

On August 27, 2019, Bloomberg reported that China's antitrust
authority, the State Administration of Market Regulation, was
investigating the exclusive licensing deals between Tencent and
major record labels including Universal Music Group, Sony Music
Entertainment, and Warner Music Group.

On this news, Tencent American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") fell
$0.92 per share or 6.8% to close at $12.57 per share on August 27,
2019.

If you purchased Tencent securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/tencentmusicentertainmentgroup-tme-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-189/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 25, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact:

         Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: https://www.bernlieb.com
         Tel: (877) 779-1414
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
[GN]




TENCENT MUSIC: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Tencent Music Entertainment Group (NYSE: TME) from
December 12, 2018 through August 26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Tencent Music
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Tencent Music class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1672.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Tencent Music's exclusive licensing arrangements with
major record labels were anticompetitive; (2) consequently,
sublicensing such content from Tencent Music was unreasonably
expensive, in violation of Chinese antimonopoly laws; (3) these
anticompetitive efforts were reasonably likely to lead to
regulatory scrutiny; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
25, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1672.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY  10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
[GN]


UNITED STATES: Oct. 18 Conference on 2016 Election-Related Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER APPEL AND SALLY JANE GELLERT (AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED
PERSONS), the Petitioners, vs. THE UNITED STATES, AND DONALD J.
TRUMP AS PRESIDENT AND MIKE PENCE AS VICE PRESIDENT, the
Respondents, and HILLARY CLINTON AND TIM KAINE, Interested Persons,
Case No. 19-338 (U.S.), is an appeal filed in the Supreme Court of
United States on Sept. 13, 2019.

The Petitioners have filed petition for a writ of mandamus.

According to their Petition, the Appel et al. assert legal standing
to request leave for direct review from the congressional
certification (1a-29a) that directly caused their
disenfranchisement in the "blue" state of New Jersey and the "red"
state of Pennsylvania (24a-26a).  The Petitioners contend that the
current president was elected by a minority of the nationwide
voters because Congress certified only the tally of the electors,
in contravention of prior judicial precedents and the import of the
suffrage amendments. The Petitioners request exceptional leave for
extraordinary review from the congressional certification as a
judicial order that discarded their votes ultra vires.

The Questions presented to the Supreme Court are:

     1. Whether the Supreme Court has the "other jurisdiction"
(pursuant to Rule 20 of Part 4 of the Supreme Court rules) to grant
the within petition for an appeal writ of mandamus, pursuant to the
All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. sec. 1651(a)), in order to review the
declaration of constitutional law by the Congress, dated January 6,
2017, that had declared the electoral tally as legally decisive of
the 2016 presidential election.

     2. Whether the petitioners have standing to appeal from the
congressional certification when their votes for the Democratic
ticket were discarded in the "red" state of Pennsylvania and in the
"blue" state of New Jersey.

     3. Whether voter injury may be legally presumed when the
petitioners' disenfranchisement directly resulted from the
electoral certification by Congress.

     4. Whether the electoral provisions of the Constitution before
the Civil War have been implicitly superseded by the 24th and the
26th amendments.

     5. Whether the electoral provisions of Title 3 remain valid
and effective.

     6. Whether the Congress had any subject matter jurisdiction to
render the electoral certification sought to be reviewed.

     7. Whether the 2016 and/or 2020 presidential elections are
justiciable and capable of repetition while evading timely review.

     8. Whether the doctrine of in pari materia applies to Title 28
(including sec. 1651(a) & 1291 & 2201(a)) to permit direct review
of the certification under Rule 20.

     9. Whether the Supreme Court has legally declared that the
electoral college is historically obsolete such that the
certification violated the doctrine of stare decisis.

The case is on behalf of other similarly situated persons include
other adult citizens who also voted for the interested candidates
(Hillary Clinton for president and Tim Kaine for vice president) in
their respective "blue" and "red" states (24a-26a).

The U.S. government has waived its right to respond.

The matter is set for conference for Oct. 18.[BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:

          William D. Russiello, Esq.
          45 Essex Street, Suite 3 West
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 342-0696
          E-mail: wrussiello@cs.com

VALARIS PLC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Oct. 21 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming October 21, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Valaris plc ("Valaris" or
the "Company") (NYSE: VAL) investors who purchased securities
between April 11, 2019 and July 31, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.

On April 11, 2019, Ensco plc and Rowan Companies plc combined to
form Ensco Rowan plc, which was later renamed Valaris plc.

On July 31, 2019, the Company announced its second quarter 2019
financial results, its first earnings report since the merger,
which missed market expectations. As noted by Seeking Alpha in an
article published on August 2, 2019, Valaris' results "shock[ed]
investors with massive cash usage [and] . . . surprisingly weak
outlook for the ultra-deepwater segment with further dayrate
recovery likely delayed until at least the second half of next
year."

On this news, Valaris' stock price fell $1.50, or over 18%, to
close at $6.77 on August 1, 2019, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Valaris was plagued by a weak ultra-deepwater
segment, massive cash usage, and significant negative cash flow;
(2) that the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material
negative impact on Valaris' second quarter 2019 results; (3) that
the merger leading to Valaris' establishment could not deliver on
its touted benefits; and (4) that as a result, Valaris' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Valaris plc securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
October 21, 2019 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

Contact:

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com, LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM

[GN]



VIEWRAY INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Nov. 12 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming November 12, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of ViewRay, Inc. ("ViewRay" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: VRAY) investors who purchased common stock
between March 15, 2019 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.

On August 8, 2019, after the market closed, ViewRay reported a net
loss of $30.8 million, or $0.32 per share, for second quarter 2019
and that backlog declined to $219.3 million.

On this news, the Company's stock fell $3.64, or 54%, to close at
$3.10 per share on August 9, 2019, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that demand for ViewRay systems had declined due in
part to changes being made to Medicare reimbursement approaches
first announced in November 2019 that could make purchases of new
ViewRay systems less profitable for customers; (2) that the
Company's reported backlog was overstated due to the inclusion of
orders with insufficient surety as to permit for their inclusion in
reported backlog; and (3) that as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired ViewRay common stock during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than November 12,
2019 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

Contact:

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
                LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM
[GN]


VIMEO INC: Faces Class Action for Violations of Biometric Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lin F. Freedman, writing for The National Law Review, reports that
Vimeo, Inc. was sued in a class action case alleging that it
violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by
"collecting, storing and using Plaintiff's and other similarly
situated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric
information…without informed written consent."

According to the Complaint, Vimeo "has created, collected and
stored, in conjunction with its cloud-based Magisto service,
thousands of "face templates" (or "face prints")-highly detailed
geometric maps of the face—from thousands of Magisto users." The
suit alleges that Vimeo creates these templates using facial
recognition technology and "[E]ach face template that Vimeo
extracts is unique to a particular individual, in the same way that
a fingerprint or voiceprint uniquely identifies one and only one
person." The plaintiffs are trying to liken an image captured by
facial recognition technology to a fingerprint by calling it a
"faceprint." Very creative in the wake of mixed reactions to the
use of facial recognition technology in the Facebook and Shutterfly
cases.

The suit alleges "users of Magisto upload millions of videos and/or
photos per day, making videos and photographs a vital part of the
Magisto experience . . . . Users can download and connect any
mobile device to Magistoto upload and access videos and photos to
produce and edit their own videos . . . . Unbeknownst to the
average consumer, and in direct violation of . . . BIPA, Plaintiff
. . . believes that Magisto's facial recognition technology scans
each and every video and photo uploaded to Magisto for faces,
extracts geometric data relating to the unique points and contours
(i.e., biometric identifiers) of each face, and then uses that data
to create and store a template of each face—all without ever
informing anyone of this practice."

The suit further alleges that when a user uploads a photo, the
Magisto service creates a template for each face depicted in the
photo, and compares that face with others in its face database to
see if there is a match. According to the Complaint, the templates
are also able to recognize gender, age and location and are able to
collect biometric information from non-users. All of this is done
without consent of the individuals, and in alleged violation of
BIPA.

Although we previously have seen some facial recognition cases
alleging violation of BIPA, and there are numerous cases alleging
violation of BIPA for collection of fingerprints in the employment
setting, this case is a little different from those, and it will be
interesting to watch. [GN]



WALMART INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Fortney Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID FORTNEY and ELI TRIPLETT individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. WALMART, INC., Case No.
2:19-cv-04209-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 21, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant regularly, uniformly, and systematically required Walmart
Tire & Auto location employees, including the Plaintiffs, to work
more than 40 hours in a single workweek, but did not pay them
overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Walmart, Inc. is headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, and
maintains a retail outlet in Cambridge, Ohio.  Walmart owns and
operates over 3,000 store locations in the United States.

Many of the Defendant's store locations also offer automotive
maintenance and mechanic services.  These automotive service
locations are known as "Walmart Tire & Auto" locations, "Walmart
Tire & Lube Express" locations, and other names.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
          8401 Crawford Ave., Suite 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847) 986-5889
          Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***