CAR_Public/191011.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, October 11, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 204

                            Headlines

1-800 CONTACTS: Thompson Seeks Approval of $12-MM Deal With WAG/VD
5 STAR NUTRITION: Cranor Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Smith Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
AIX SPECIALTY: MSP Moves to Certify Class of Medicare Part C MAOs
ALDI INC: Mediation Underway in Lacey-Salas Labor Suit

ALLERGAN, INC: A.B. et al. Sue over Recalled Breast Implants
ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit over 35% Drop in Share Price
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Dermody Data Breach Suit Transferred to MDL
ANGMAR MEDICAL: Mayhew Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA
ASTRAZENECA: Conspired to Delay Release of Generic Seroquel XR

BANK OF AMERICA: Tirado's Bid to Dismiss Denied Without Prejudice
BENTON COUNTY, OR: County Urged to Exit Timber Suit
BRIAD RESTAURANT: Andersen's Certification Bid Partly Granted
CAPITAL ONE: Court Stays Zosiak Data Breach Suit
CAPITAL ONE: Heath et al Sue over Data Breach

CAPITAL ONE: Veverka's Data Breach Suit Underway
CITY OF NORWALK: Underpays Administrative Secretaries, Coles Says
COCA COLA BEVERAGES: Conklin Sues over Health Care Coverage
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mosley Suit Says
CVS HEALTH: To Refund Purchasers of Algal-900 Memory Supplements

DANNY'S FURNITURE: Guerrero Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages
DAVE & BUSTER'S: Smith Seeks Overtime Compensation for Employees
DERMSTORE LLC: Parties Settle Reid's ADA Suit
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Wilson Files FCRA Suit in Delaware
ERIC SELLERS: Brooks in Curry Lawsuit Can Amend Complaint

FEDEX CORPORATION: Farrell Files Wage and Hour Suit
GAP, INC: Martinez Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Store Staff
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Gruchacz Suit in District of New Jersey
GENERAL MOTORS: Goldstein, et al. Sue Over Defective Cadillacs
GLOBAL HEALTHCARE: Pilipenko Hits Unpaid Wages, Retaliation

GOOD HEALTH INC: Calle Sues Over Denied OT Pay, Breaks, Pay Slips
GREEN CITY SECURITY: Underpays Guards, Cokley Alleges
GRUBB & ASSOCIATES: Russell's Bid to Certify Employees Class OK'd
GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
HAN DYNASTY: Pan Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA

HEADWAY TECH: IT Worx Sues Over Hard Drive Spring Price-rigging
HENLEY RESTAURANTS: Yepez Seeks OT Pay for Restaurant Staff
HOUZZ, INC: Geenen Seeks OT Wages for Misclassified Employees
IL FORNAIO: Failed to Pay OT Wages for Workers, Correa Says
INVESTORS BANCORP: Elburn Sues Board for Breach of Fiduciary Duty

LANDSKRONER LAW: Bradshaw Sues over Water Bill Refund Claims
LEAZER GROUP: Perez Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
LET'S SHAKE: Perales Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
LION OIL: Court Tosses Class Certification Bid in Fuller Suit
LIQUI-BOX: Zaman Suit Underway in California Superior Court

LORD & TAYLOR: Fails to Pay Wages, Toon Says
MACADO'S INC: Bartenders/Servers Class Certified in Spencer Suit
MAGICK WOODS: Feliciano Biometric Data Suit Underway
MARS PETCARE: Pet Owners Dispute "No Grains" Claim in Dogfood
MCKESSON INC: Chris et al. Suit Underway in S.D. Georgia

MDL 2311: Dealers Seek Ct. OK to Send Notice of $86-MM Settlements
MDL 2905: Hamilton Livery Suit Consolidated
MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Compels Arbitration in Lomeli FDCPA Suit
MIDWEST FOODS: Curtis Hits Illegal Biometrics Data Collection
MILACRON HOLDINGS: Sabatini Files Suit Over Sale to Hillenbrand

MOWI ASA: Portland Hunt-Alpine Asserts Unfair Trade Practices
NADINE WEST: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Appeals Ruling in Domiano Suit to S.C. of Pa.
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Class of Employees Certified in Cowan Suit
NINTENDO CO: Switch Lite Added to Joy-Con Drift Lawsuit

OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Class Suit Survives Dismissal Bid
OCALA, FL: ACLU Accused of Moral Posturing in Homeless Class Suit
OHIO: Gallant's Bid to Withdraw Civil Claim Granted; Case Closed
ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALTY: Fenwick Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
OVATION CREDIT: Inside Sales Reps Class Certified in Diggs Suit

OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Utah
OVERSTOCK.COM: Company, 2 Executives Accused of Securities Fraud
PACKERS SANITATION: Underpays Workers, Elkhouly Claims
PAPA JOHN'S: Class of Delivery Drivers Certified in Thomas Suit
PENN CREDIT: Guidry's TCPA Suit Transferred to M.D. Fla.

PNY TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks More Time to Respond to Geske Suit
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Los Angeles Drops Lawsuit Over DWP System
PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Matke's Bid for Class Certification Stayed
PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Curtis Seeks to Certify Class of Insureds
PYRAMID EXCAVATION: Chesscher Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Carroll et al. Data Breach Suit Moved to NJ
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Robinson Files FDCPA Class Action
RGS FINANCIAL: Weinberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
SAKS FIFTH: Toon's Overtime Suit Underway in Massachusetts
SEA WORLD PARKS: Stewart Suit Asserts Labor Code Violations

SENSA INC: Court Denies Stoke's Bid for Class Certification
SHAFER PROJECT: Lewis Seeks Overtime Pay for Coating Inspectors
SHARP ELECTRONICS: Macone Sues Over Defective Microwaves
SLIDE FIRE: Class Action Lawsuit Allowed to Move Forward
SNOWVIEW MANAGEMENT: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

STARKIST CO: Class-Action Suit Payout Less Than Expected
SUNDAY RILEY: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUNRISE MEDICAL: Whalen Suit Transferred to New Jersey
T & K SUPERMARKET: Grinblat ADA Suit Underway in E.D. New York
TEXTRON INC: Oct. 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline

TRENTON WATER WORKS: Team Yaede Explores Legal Action
TUTCO LLC: Faulty Heaters Lack Safety Backup Switches, Toca Says
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Underpays Drivers, Capriole Suit Alleges
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Medical Society Suit
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Protective Order Entered in Ryan S. Suit

US IMMIGRATION: Court Dismisses Amended Mejia-Mejia Suit
VALARIS PLC: Oct. 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
VIEWRAY INC: Corwin Suit Hits Share Price Drop
VISTAR TRANSPORTATION: Contreras Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
VITAMIN SHOPPE: Rosenblatt Files Suit Over Sale to Liberty Tax

VOLKSWAGEN AG: German Class Suit Over Emissions Cheating to Begin
WAITR HOLDINGS: Kahn Swick Files Class Action Lawsuit
WENDY'S: Court Certifies Class in Tyus MWA Lawsuit
WESCO AIRCRAFT: Kent Sues Over Sale to Wolverine Intermediate
WESTGATE PREMIER: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Pay, Cabuag Says


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Still Pending over $13MM Verdict in Lopez
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bausch Health US Faces Gutierrez Talc Class Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Defends Asbestos Matters
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson Electric Had $324MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan Unit Still Defends Talc Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 5 Suits, Claims for $232K
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l Still Faces PL Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Pays $26MM to Settle EME Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Still Responsible for Cases at June 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Posts $109.1MM Reserves at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Suits at June 29


                            *********

1-800 CONTACTS: Thompson Seeks Approval of $12-MM Deal With WAG/VD
------------------------------------------------------------------
Iysha Abed, Daniel J. Bartolucci, Alexa Bean, William P. Duncanson,
Tyler Nance, Leia Pinto, Jill Schulson, J Thompson, and Edward
Ungvarsky, Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned J THOMPSON, et al.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
1-800 CONTACTS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01183-TC-DBP (D.
Utah), move the Court for entry of an order:

    (i) granting preliminary approval of the Stipulation and
        Agreement of Settlement, dated September 17, 2019
        ("Settlement Agreement" or "SA"), between the Plaintiffs
        and Defendants Vision Direct, Inc. ("Vision Direct"),
        Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. and Walgreen Co.
        ("Walgreens," collectively with Vision Direct referred to
        as "WAG/VD"); and

   (ii) certifying the Settlement Class defined as:

        [A]ll persons in the United States who made at least one
        online purchase of contact lenses from 1-800 Contacts,
        Inc. ("1-800") or WAG/VD from January 1, 2004 to the date
        of execution of the settlement agreement, who do not
        timely exclude himself, herself, or themselves from the
        Class. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants,
        their parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates, any
        alleged Advertising Agreement Counterparties,
        governmental entities and instrumentalities of
        government, states and their subdivisions, agencies and
        instrumentalities.

The Plaintiffs have signed a settlement agreement with WAG/VD,
which provides for a cash payment of $12 million to a class of
online contact lens purchasers, along with WAG/VD's agreement to
provide the Plaintiffs with cooperation.  This is the third
settlement agreement reached in this action.  The Plaintiffs
previously settled with Arlington Contact Lens Service, Inc. and
National Vision (collectively, "AC Lens") and Luxottica of America,
Inc. ("Luxottica"), and the Court granted preliminary approval to
both of those settlements.

With the WAG/VD settlement, six of the seven Defendants named in
this action have agreed to settle for a total of $24.9 million. The
sole remaining Defendant, 1-800 Contacts, had a market share
substantially greater than the Settling Defendants combined, and
orchestrated the challenged conduct at issue in the case.

Other than the monetary component, the key terms of the WAG/VD
settlement are substantially identical to the previously approved
AC Lens and Luxottica settlement agreements.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Heather M. Sneddon, Esq.
          Jared Scott, Esq.
          ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
          50 West Broadway, Suite 700
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Telephone: (801) 534-1700
          Facsimile: (801) 364-7697
          E-mail: hsneddon@aklawfirm.com
                  jscott@aklawfirm.com

               - and -

          David W. Mitchell, Esq.
          Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
          Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com
                  bomara@rgrdlaw.com
                  sjodlowski@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott E. Gant, Esq.
          Melissa F. Zappala, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          1401 New York Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
          E-mail: sgant@bsfllp.com
                  mzappala@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Carl Goldfarb, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 356-0011
          Facsimile: (954) 356-0022
          E-mail: cgoldfarb@bsfllp.com


5 STAR NUTRITION: Cranor Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
--------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Cranor, on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. 5 Star Nutrition, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00908, (W.D. Tex., September 13, 2019), seeks statutory
damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

5-Star Nutrition operates a chain of stores which sell vitamins and
supplements. To promote its services, it engages in unsolicited SMS
ads sent en masse via an auto dialer. Cranor did not give express
consent to receive such texts, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ben Bingham, Esq.
      BINGHAM & LEA, P.C.
      319 Maverick Street
      San Antonio, TX 78212
      Tel: (210) 224-1819
      Fax: (210) 224-0141

             - and -

      Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
      KEOGH LAW, LTD.
      55 W. Monroe St, Suite 3390
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 726-1092
      Fax: (312) 726-1093
      Email: Keith@KeoghLaw.com


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Smith Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
JAMES SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-09114 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 1, 2019) is a class action
Complaint against Defendant regarding Defendant's violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff brings this Complaint to: (1) stop Defendant's practice
of sending text messages using an automatic telephone dialing
system ("ATDS") to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide
without their prior express written consent; (2) stop Defendant's
practice of sending text messages using an artificial or
prerecorded message to the cellular telephones of consumers
nationwide without their prior express written consent; (3) enjoin
Defendant from continuing to send text messages using an ATDS to
consumers who did not provide their prior express written consent
to receive them; and (4) obtain redress for all persons injured by
its conduct, says the complaint.

Plaintiff James Smith is a resident of Bronx, New York, and a
citizen of the State of New York.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. is a corporation organized under the laws
of Delaware, with a principal place of business at 6301 Fitch Path,
New Albany, Ohio 43054.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
     Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (646) 837-7150
     Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
     Email: jmarchese@bursor.com
            pfraietta@bursor.com


AIX SPECIALTY: MSP Moves to Certify Class of Medicare Part C MAOs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware
entity, SERIES 16-05-456, a series of MSP Recovery Claims, Series
LLC, and SERIES 16-11-509, a series of MSP Recovery Claims, Series
LLC v. AIX SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware entity, Case No.
6:18-cv-01456-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
certify this proposed class:

     All Medicare Advantage Organizations, or their assignees,
     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 items and
     services within the last six years from the filing of the
     complaint where Defendant:

     (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 a
         Medicare Advantage plan; and

     (2) failed to pay for the items or services or otherwise
         failed to reimburse Medicare Advantage Organizations, or
         their assignees, for the items and services that were
         provided for medical items and services related to the
         claims on behalf of the Medicare Beneficiaries.

     This class definition excludes (a) Defendant, its officers,
     directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, and
     affiliates; and (b) any judges or justices involved in this
     action and any members of their immediate families.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and to appoint their counsel as class counsel to
represent the interests of the class.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve I. Silverman, Esq.
          KLUGER, KAPLAN, SILVERMAN, KATZEN & LEVINE, P.L.
          Miami Center, 27th Floor
          201 South Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 379 9000
          E-mail: ssilverman@klugerkaplan.com

               - and -

          Frank C. Quesada, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          5000 SW 75 Avenue, Suite 300
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614-2222
          E-mail: fquesada@msprecovery.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Angel A. Cortinas, Esq.
          Jonathan H. Kaskel, Esq.
          GUNSTER
          SunTrust Financial Centre
          401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2500
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (305) 376-6000
          E-mail: acortinas@gunster.com
                  jkaskel@gunster.com


ALDI INC: Mediation Underway in Lacey-Salas Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Settlement talks are ongoing between Jennifer Lacey Salas and Aldi
Inc. et al., to resolve a class action lawsuit.

The case is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The case began in San Diego state court.  ALDI Inc. and AI
California LLC removed the case, as JENNIFER LACEY-SALAS, an
individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of  all persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs ALDI INC., a California
corporation; AI CALIFORNIA LLC, an unknown business entity; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19CV1269
MMA MDD (Filed June 7, 2019), from the Superior Court of California
for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on July 10, 2019.  The Southern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01269
to the proceeding.  The case was later moved to the Central
District, Case No. 2:19-cv-06741, before the Hon. John A
Kronstadt.

The complaint asserts that Defendants violated the California Labor
Code by failing to pay overtime wages, failing to provide required
meal periods, failing to provide required rest periods, failing to
provide accurate itemized statements, failing to reimburse
employees for required expenses, and failing to provide wages when
due.

Judge Kronstadt has approved the Parties' Stipulation to Stay
Discovery and Continue All Hearings and Deadlines Pending
Mediation. The Stipulation provides that:

      (1) On or before Dec. 16, the parties shall file a joint
report asto the procedural status of their settlement discussions.

      (2) The Rule 16(b)/26(f) Conference, scheduled for Sept. 23,
has been continued to Dec. 23 at 11:30 a.m.   The Joint Rule
16(b)/26(f) Report shall be filed on or before Dec. 9.

     (3) The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to state
court, scheduled for Sept. 23, is continued to Jan. 27, 2020, at
8:30 a.m.  Any opposition to the Motion to Remand shall be filed on
or before Dec. 20, and any reply in support of the Motion to Remand
shall be filed on or before Jan. 10.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Laura Wilson Shelby, Esq.
          Leo Q. Li, Esq.
          Jennifer R. Nunez, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: lshelby@seyfarth.com
                  lli@seyfarth.com
                  jnunez@seyfarth.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leo Q Li, Esq.
          Mason R Winters, Esq.
          Seyfarth Shaw LLP
          Telephone: 310-277-7200
          E-mail: lli@seyfarth.com
                  mwinters@seyfarth.com


ALLERGAN, INC: A.B. et al. Sue over Recalled Breast Implants
------------------------------------------------------------
A personal injury lawsuit against Allergan, Inc., over its breast
implant products remains pending.  The case is, 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), and 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


ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit over 35% Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHESTER COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALNYLAM
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JOHN M. MARAGANORE; MICHAEL P. MASON; DENNIS
A. AUSIELLO; MICHAEL W. BONNEY; JOHN K. CLARKE; MARSHA H. FANUCCI;
STEVEN M. PAUL; DAVID E.I. PYOTT; PAUL R. SCHIMMEL; AMY W.
SCHULMAN; PHILLIP A. SHARP; KEVIN P. STARR; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO.
LLC; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; CREDIT
SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; PIPER JAFFRAY & CO.; JMP SECURITIES
LLC; NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC; CHARDAN CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; and B.
RILEY FBR, INC., Defendants, Case No. 655272/2019 (N.Y. Sup., New
York Cty., Sept. 12, 2019) is a securities class action on behalf
of all purchasers of Alnylam common stock in or traceable to
Alnylam's November 14, 2017 follow-on public stock offering,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

According to the complaint, on May 5, 2017, Alnylam filed with the
SEC its registration statement, which would later be utilized for
the Offering. On or about November 13, 2017, Alnylam and the
Underwriter Defendants priced the Offering at $125 per share, filed
with the SEC on November 14, 2017 the final prospectus for the
Offering, which incorporated by reference certain filings the
Company had made with the SEC and formed part of the Registration
Statement, and sold 6.44 million shares of Alnylam common stock to
the investing public.

The Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a
result, contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted to
state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading, and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and
regulations governing its preparation.

The statements were each materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse
facts that existed at the time of the Offering: (a) that Alnylam
overstated the clinical findings regarding the safety of patisiran
in the Phase III clinical study, particularly with regards to use
in patients with cardiac manifestations; (b) that 2.7% of the
patients in the patisiran arm of the Phase III clinical study
experienced AV Block and received a pacemaker versus none in the
placebo arm of the study; (c) that there was an imbalance in deaths
between patients in the patisiran arm and the placebo arm of the
study, with more fatalities in the patisiran arm; (d) that due to
the lack of stronger evidence of safety in patients with cardiac
manifestations, physicians may limit prescriptions of patisiran to
patients with polyneuropathy only, not in patients with cardiac
manifestations and polyneuropathy; (e) that as a result of the
foregoing, patisiran will have a more limited market opportunity
for use patients with cardiac manifestations; (f) that only 20% of
the Phase III clinical study participants were from the U.S., which
has a different genotype mix than other regions, and very few
patients were included with the most common mutation in the U.S.,
Val122Ile, so the Phase III clinical findings may not be
generalizable to the U.S. population; (g) that because liver
transplant recipients and individuals who were currently receiving
treatment with TTR stabilizers (and did not wish to stop such
treatment) were excluded from the Phase III clinical trial, its
findings may not be generalizable to such patients, and the safety
and efficacy of treatment in these patient populations remains
unknown; and (h) that as a result of the foregoing, at the time of
the Offering, the Company's business and financial prospects were
not what defendants had led the market to believe they were in the
Registration Statement.

The Offering was successful for the Company and the Underwriters
Defendants who sold 6.44 million shares of Alnylam common stock to
the investing public, raising $805 million in gross proceeds
($784.5 million net of underwriting fees and Offering costs). The
price of Alnylam common stock has since plummeted and now trades at
approximately $83 per share, a decline of more than 35% below the
$125 per share price the common stock was sold at in the Offering.

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. operates as an early-stage
therapeutics company. The Company discovers and develops drug and
medicines for the treatment of human disease. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, 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
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Dermody Data Breach Suit Transferred to MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DOUGLAS DERMODY, DANIELA GOYER and JOHN DOE, the
Plaintiffs, vs. AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., OPTU360
SERVICES, INC., QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES INC., and
DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01235-HNJ (N.D. Ala.,
Aug. 1, 2019), has been transferred to the District Court for the
District of New Jersey and consolidated under MDL 2904 AMERICAN
MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION.

The case alleges that Defendants failed to protect confidential
information of millions of patients -- including financial
information (e.g., credit card numbers and bank account
information), medical information, personal information (including,
but not limited to, Social Security Numbers), and/or other
protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). the Defendants'
wrongful disclosure has harmed Plaintiffs.

On June 3, 2019, Quest publicly admitted in a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that: "On May 14, 2019, American
Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a billing collections vendor,
notified Quest  and Optum360 LLC, [Quest's] revenue cycle
management provider," of a massive data breach compromising the
Sensitive Information of 11.9 million Quest patients, and most
likely others (the Data Breach).

John Doe appears via pseudonym due to serious privacy concerns.
John Doe was diagnosed with HIV more than 20 years ago and has used
Quest Diagnostics to handle his regular bloodwork examinations.
Such a diagnosis is, inarguably, an incredibly sensitive, private
and personal matter. The data breach made the basis of this lawsuit
now poses the risk that John Doe will be exposed, publicly, as
HIV-positive. Such exposure will cause permanent and irreversible
damage to his reputation and standing in the community and cause
him immeasurable emotional and psychological harm, the lawsuit
says.

Quest is the world's leading provider of medical diagnostic testing
services. It performs medical tests that aid in the diagnosis or
detection of diseases, and that measure the progress of or recovery
from a disease.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs & Putative Classes are:

          Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
          MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
          301 Washington Street, Suite 302
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 532-2222
          Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
          E-mail: artrip@mastandoartrip.com

Quest is represented by:

          Louis Frank Mendez, Esq.
          Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C.
          Telephone: 205-719-0400


ANGMAR MEDICAL: Mayhew Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Lynette Mayhew, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Angmar Medical Holdings, Inc.,
d/b/a Angels Care Home Health, Case No. 2:18-cv-02365-JWL-KGG (D.
Kan.), the Plaintiffs seek conditional class certification pursuant
to the collective action provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The request is not a motion for class certification pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but the Motion is
brought pursuant to the collective action provisions of the FLSA,
the Plaintiffs assert.  Under this statute and the case law
interpreting it, individuals may bring "collective actions" on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of those "similarly situated."
However, in sharp contrast to Rule 23 class cases, collective
actions under this statute are opt-in rather than opt-out.

The proposed class is composed of:

     all current and former LVNs and LPNs, who worked under the
     Angmar umbrella at any time from September 25, 2016 to the
     Present.

The Plaintiffs also seek an order:

   1. requiring the expedited issuance of their proposed notice
      form to the class members, and setting a deadline of 90
      days after the date of the Court's Order granting
      certification, for which putative class members can join
      this matter;

   2. requiring the Defendant to provide to the Plaintiffs'
      counsel a list of all individuals, who meet the class
      description, including their current or last known address,
      phone number, and e-mail address, within 15 days of the
      issuance of the order;

   3. requiring the Defendant to post notices and opt-in forms at
      work stations, and other conspicuous locations (such as
      bulletin boards or bulletin boards where job notices are
      posted) at the Defendant's locations for a period of 90
      days where employees can see such notices;

   4. tolling the statute of limitations period for the putative
      class members from the date of filing of the Plaintiffs'
      Motion for Conditional Class Certification until the close
      of the opt-in period;

   5. designating Lynette Mayhew as class representative for the
      collective class; and

   6. approving the Plaintiffs' counsel to act as class counsel
      in this matter.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Hodgson, Esq.
          THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
          3699 SW Pryor Rd.
          Lee's Summit, MO 64082
          Telephone: (816) 600-0117
          Facsimile: (816) 600-0137
          E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Timothy R. West, Esq.
          BERTRAM & GRAF, L.L.C.
          2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1925
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 523-2205
          Facsimile: (816) 523-8258
          E-mail: tim@bertramgraf.com


ASTRAZENECA: Conspired to Delay Release of Generic Seroquel XR
--------------------------------------------------------------
SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP; ASTRAZENECA LP; ASTRAZENECA UK
LIMITED; HANDA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; and PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09094 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 1, 2019) is a
case arising from Defendants' illegal scheme to delay competition
in the United States and its territories for Seroquel XR, a
prescription medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration for the treatment of: (1) schizophrenia; (2) acute
depressive episodes of bipolar disorder; (3) acute manic or mixed
episodes of bipolar disorder in conjunction with other medications;
(4) long-term bipolar disorder in conjunction with other
medications; and (5) major depressive disorder in conjunction with
other medications for those patients who have not had an adequate
response to antidepressant medications.

Recognizing the huge market for this medication, in 2008, Handa
became the first drug manufacturer to file an Abbreviated New Drug
Application (No. 90-482) with the FDA seeking approval to market
the 50mg, 150mg, 200mg, and 300mg strengths of generic
extended-release quetiapine fumarate tablets, with Seroquel XR as
its Reference Listed Drug. Handa sent AstraZeneca four separate
paragraph IV notice letters between July and November 2008. Accord
sent AstraZeneca two separate paragraph IV notice letters dated
September 5, 2008 and January 23, 2009. In these letters, Handa and
Accord each certified that they would seek final FDA approval to
launch and market their generic extended-release quetiapine
fumarate products prior to the expiration of U.S. Patent No.
5,948,437 (the "'437 Patent"), a follow-on patent, which supposedly
covered Seroquel XR. Handa and Accord both claimed that the '437
Patent was invalid and/or would not be infringed by Handa's and
Accord's respective proposed generic extended-release quetiapine
fumarate products.

AstraZeneca faced the distinct possibility of an adverse finding
that Handa's proposed generic version of extended-release
quetiapine fumarate did not infringe on the '437 Patent. To avoid
that outcome, AstraZeneca induced Handa to drop its patent
challenge and delay launching its generic version with a large
"reverse payment." AstraZeneca's payment took the form of an
agreement not to launch its own generic version of Seroquel XR
(called an "authorized generic") during Handa's 180-day exclusivity
period. On or about September 29, 2011, AstraZeneca and Handa
entered into a settlement agreement concerning Handa's ANDA. In the
absence of AstraZeneca's large and unjustified payment, Handa and
AstraZeneca would have each launched generic versions of 50mg,
150mg, 200mg, and 300mg strengths of Seroquel XR much earlier, and
in any event, well before Handa's November 1, 2016

Handa subsequently assigned this unlawful agreement to Par. Par
performed the agreement, sold generic extended-release quetiapine
fumarate at supracompetitive prices, and shared the illicit profits
with Handa. By and through the Non-Compete Agreements, AstraZeneca,
Handa/Par, and Accord agreed to divide ill-gotten revenues, both
during the period in which Handa/Par and Accord agreed not to
launch (i.e., prior to November 1, 2016), and during Handa/Par's
and Accord's 180-day exclusivity periods during which AstraZeneca
agreed not to launch an authorized generic version of Seroquel XR
to compete with Handa/Par's and Accord's respective generic
products, all of which resulted in anticompetitive overcharges to
Plaintiff and members of the Class.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants' unlawful conduct has
prevented generic extended-release quetiapine fumarate
manufacturers from entering the market with competing generic
products and has cost Plaintiff and end payor purchasers hundreds
of millions of dollars in overcharge damages.

Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund is located
in New York and was established for the purpose of providing
prescription drug benefits to active and retired New York City
Police Department Sergeants and their dependents.

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP is a Delaware limited partnership
having its principal place of business at 1800 Concord Pike,
Wilmington, Delaware 19803.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Elizabeth Metcalf, Esq.
     Peter Safirstein, Esq.
     SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5960
     New York, NY 10118
     Phone: (212) 201-2845
     Email: EMetcalf@SafirsteinMetcalf.com
            PSafirstein@SafirsteinMetcalf.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Tirado's Bid to Dismiss Denied Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GLORIA A. TIRADO, individually and as the
representative of a call of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff,
v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant. Case No.
18-cv-5677. (N.D. Ill.), the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division issued a Memorandum Opinion
and Order on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.

Plaintiff's complaint asserts two (and in the alternative a third)
claims on behalf of Plaintiff and a nationwide class: common law
breach of contract (Count I), in the alternative, unjust enrichment
(Count II) -- and a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act,
815 ILCS 505/2 ("the ICFA") (Count III).

On October 26, 2010, Plaintiff Tirado entered into a mortgage with
Envoy Mortgage, Ltd for her home in Chicago. The mortgage was
insured through the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which
rendered it subject to certain regulations of the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development.  The mortgage was assigned to
Defendant Bank of America in June 2012.  On May 3, 2017, Defendant
served Plaintiff (through her son) with a complaint of foreclosure
alleging that she had defaulted on her mortgage on November 1,
2016. Throughout the foreclosure proceedings, Plaintiff continued
to live at the mortgaged residence. After foreclosure proceedings
had been initiated, Defendant conducted seven inspections of the
property. Defendant charged Plaintiff for each of these
inspections; altogether Plaintiff was charged $155.00 in inspection
fees.

Upon reviewing the matter, the District Court ruled that
Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in
part:

  1. The motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to
     state a claim is granted and Plaintiff's complaint is
     dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted leave to
     file an amended complaint no later than October 25, 2019.

  2. The motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of
     personal jurisdiction is denied at this time without
     prejudice to raising a similar jurisdictional argument in
     response to any amended complaint.

The case is set for further status on November 6, 2019 at 9:00
a.m.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y67ytvrx from Leagle.com

Gloria A. Tirado, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick J.
Solberg - psolberg@andersonwanca.com - Anderson + Wanca & Jeffrey
Alan Berman - jberman@andersonwanca.com - Anderson Wanca.

Bank of America, National Association, Defendant, represented by
Joseph Laurence Motto – jmotto@winston.com - Winston & Strawn LLP
& Ryan Marc Dunigan – rdunigan@winston.com - Winston & Strawn
LLP.


BENTON COUNTY, OR: County Urged to Exit Timber Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Bennett Hall, writing for Corvallis Gazette-Times, reports that
four former Benton County, Oregon commissioners have formally asked
the current members of the Board of Commissioners to pull out of a
class action lawsuit against the state over timber revenues, but
the action may be purely symbolic at this point.

Ex-Commissioners Bob Speaker, Linda Modrell, Barbara Ross and Kent
Daniels sent a letter to the board on Sept. 17, 2019, urging it to
withdraw from a class action lawsuit filed by Linn County in March
2016 on behalf of 15 counties and more than 100 smaller taxing
districts.  The suit seeks $1.4 billion in damages from the state
and the Oregon Department of Forestry for failing to maximize
logging revenues from 650,000 acres of state forest trust lands.

The lawsuit was highly controversial in Benton County, with
opponents arguing that state forest lands should be managed for
environmental, recreational and other values as well as financial
returns from timber harvesting.

On Jan. 24, 2017, a divided Board of Commissioners voted 2-1 to
stay in the class action lawsuit. But now, with the suit set to go
to trial this month, the ex-commissioners want Benton County to
pull out.

"As former Benton County commissioners who were responsible for
establishing county policies on these issues in the 1980s, 1990s
and 2000s, we feel the county's current position in support of the
Linn County lawsuit does not reflect the historic policy positions
of Benton County with respect to natural resource management and
does not represent the values of current Benton County citizens,"
the letter reads in part.

Speaker, who served on the board from 1996 to 2000, said on
September 27 that two of the current commissioners -- Chair
Annabelle Jaramillo, who cast the lone vote to opt out of the suit
in 2017, and Pat Malone, who was elected to the commission in 2018
-- had expressed a willingness to revisit the issue.

Speaker said he had approached Jaramillo and Malone in early August
and hoped the matter would be put on the board's agenda, but so far
that hasn't happened. He plans to be at the board's noon meeting on
October 1.

"We'll urge them to address the issue in open session," Speaker
said.

But according to Roger Nyquist, chair of the Linn County Board of
Commissioners, the question is academic at this point.

"Just as a practical matter, the time to opt out has long since
passed," Nyquist said.

In fact, the judge in the case set a deadline for class members to
withdraw from the lawsuit by Jan. 25, 2017, the day after the
Benton commissioners voted to stay in.

Benton County Counsel Vance Croney said there might still be some
wiggle room, although he acknowledged that Nyquist is probably
right.

"Technically, any class party can petition the court to be let out
of a class action lawsuit," Croney said. "However, practically,
given that we are within a month of the trial, it's unlikely the
court would grant a request to be let out of the lawsuit."

Speaker said he and his fellow ex-commissioners recognize that time
is running out, but they'd still like to see Benton County express
a dissenting opinion.

"At a minimum, if it's too late to get out of the suit, (we'd like
to) at least get a statement that the current board doesn't support
the suit," Speaker said.

Trial in the $1.4 billion timber lawsuit is scheduled to begin Oct.
24 in Linn County Circuit Court before Judge Daniel Murphy.

If the suit is successful, Benton County could receive an estimated
$30 million in damages, which it would share with seven local
taxing districts.

With or without Benton County's support, Nyquist said he likes Linn
County's odds of prevailing in court.

"Both case law and the dozens of decisions the court has made in
this case would indicate that our chances are good," he said.

"It's still regrettable that it's come to this point, but this is
where we are."[GN]




BRIAD RESTAURANT: Andersen's Certification Bid Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JEFFREY ANDERSEN, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. BRIAD
RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Defendant. Case No. 2:14-cv-00786-GMN-BNW.
(D. Nev.), the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
issued an order:

    (i) denying Defendant's Second Renewed Motion for Summary
        Judgment; and
  
   (ii) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion
        to Certify Class.

The case arises out of the Defendant's alleged violations of
Nevada's Minimum Wage Amendment (MWA). During all relevant times,
Defendant owned and operated eight TGI Friday's restaurants in
Nevada.  Plaintiff Andersen worked as a server at one of
Defendant's restaurants. Plaintiff brings this action individually
and on behalf of other similarly situated employees of the
Restaurants for whom Defendant allegedly failed to offer
MWA-compliant health benefits plans.

In September 2017, the Court granted Defendant's summary judgment
on Plaintiff's wage-violation claim, reasoning that Defendant's
health plan was consistent with the MWA and its regulations.
Plaintiff appealed the decision and during the appeal's pendency,
the Nevada Supreme Court issued its decision in MDC Rests., LLC v.
Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 419 P.3d 148 (Nev. 2018) ("MDC II").  In
light of that holding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit remanded the case for consideration.

At present, the District Court considers Defendant's Second Renewed
Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment presents a purely legal issue: whether the MDC II, MDC
Rests., LLC v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 419 P.3d 148 (Nev. 2018)
(MDC II) decision applies retroactively. Defendant argued that
because MDC II overruled Western Cab, W. Cab Co. v. Eighth Judicial
Dist. Court, 390 P.3d 662, 670-71 (Nev. 2017) (Western Cab), a
decision which Defendant claims it modeled it health benefits
practices after the Nevada Supreme Court would hold that equitable
considerations dictate that MDC II applies only prospectively.
Therefore, Defendant contended that Western Cab supplies the
relevant legal standard, and the Court's prior Order remains on
solid ground.
  
Preliminarily, the District Court is unpersuaded by Defendant's
central premise that MDC II overturned Western Cab. By its express
language, MDC II distinguished rather than overturned Western Cab.


In sum, the District Court predicts that the Nevada Supreme Court
would follow its reasoning in Nevada Yellow Cab Corp. v. Eighth
Jud. Dist. Court, 383 P.3d 246 (Nev. 2016) ("Yellow Cab") and hold
that MDC II clarified what the Nevada Constitution requires and did
not create new law. On this basis, the District Court denies
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

As to the Motion to Certify, the District Court is satisfied that
Plaintiff's proposed class meets the requirements set forth in Rule
23(a) and (b).  As such, the Court grants in part and denies in
part Plaintiff's Motion to Certify.

Plaintiff moved to certify a proposed class encompassing "[a]ll
current and former employees of Defendant at its Nevada locations
who were paid less than $8.25 per hour at any time since May 19,
2012, but were not provided with qualifying health benefits
pursuant to Nev. Const. art. XV, sec. 16."

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Order
is available at available at https://tinyurl.com/y2wn6yx5 from
Leagle.com

Erin Hanks, Plaintiff, represented by  Bradley Scott Schrager -
bschrager@wrslawyers.com - Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman &
Rabkin, Daniel Bravo  - dbravo@wrslawyers.com - Wolf, Rifkin,
Shapiro, Schulman, & Rabkin, LLP & Don Springmeyer  -
dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com - Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and
Rabkin, LLP

Briad Restaurant Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathryn B.
Blakey - kblakey@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, Montgomery Y.
Paek  - mpaek@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, Neil C. Baker-
nbaker@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, Rick D. Roskelley -
rroskelley@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, PC & Roger L.
Grandgenett  - rgrandgenett@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, PC.


CAPITAL ONE: Court Stays Zosiak Data Breach Suit
------------------------------------------------
KEVIN ZOSIAK, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
CAPITAL ONE, N.A., and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02265 (D. Colo., July 30, 2019),
alleges that Defendants failed to protect the confidential
information of millions of consumers and small businesses --
including financial information (e.g., bank account numbers,
fragments of transaction history, self-reported income, and credit
scores), and/or personal information (e.g., Social Security
Numbers, names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and
dates of birth). Defendants' wrongful disclosure harmed Plaintiff
and the Class, believed to include approximately 106 million card
customers and applicants.

Zosiak is an individual residing in Stamford, Connecticut, who has
been a credit card customer for Capital One and whose Sensitive
Information was compromised in the Data Breach, the lawsuit says.

Capital One is a national bank with its principal place of business
in McLean, Virginia.

In an August 29 Order, Judge James E. Boasberg ordered that the
Defendants' Motion to Stay is granted, and the case is stayed until
the Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation rules on
consolidation and transfer.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036-8718
          Telephone: (917) 438-9189
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                  bcohen@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Adam Frankel, Esq.
          GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES, LLC
          881 Lake Avenue
          Greenwich, CT 06831
          Telephone: (203) 622-6001
          E-mail: adam@grwlegal.com

CAPITAL ONE: Heath et al Sue over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------
The case, MARSHALL HEATH, SHERRY BLACKBURN, ISABEL DELEON, ASHLEY
GRANT, and LEANA YANCEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CAPITAL ONE, N.A. and
CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A.,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00555 (E.D. Va., Aug. 2, 2019),
seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory relief from
Defendants arising from a data breach announced to the public on
July 29, 2019.

The sensitive financial and personal data of an unknown number of
customers was compromised as a result of Capital One's failure to
adequately secure individual's personal and financial information
on its systems.

According to Capital One, 106 million people had their personal
information stolen, including 100 million U.S. residents and 6
million Canadian residents who had, or applied for, Capital One
accounts. The breach exposed 40,000 Social Security numbers and
about 80,000 linked bank account numbers. The scope of the breach
is massive. The bank says it became aware of it on July 19, the
lawsuit says.

Capital One is a bank holding company specializing in credit cards,
auto loans, banking, and savings accounts, headquartered in McLean,
Virginia. Capital One is ranked 10th on the list of largest banks
in the United States by assets.[BN]

CAPITAL ONE: Veverka's Data Breach Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------
A case against Capital One and its affiliates remains pending.  The
case is captioned, CHRIS VEVERKA, the Plaintiff, vs. CAPITAL ONE,
N.A. and CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION and CAPITAL ONE BANK
(USA), N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03461-MMB (E.D. Pa.,
July 31, 2019), and seeks monetary damages, restitution and
declaratory relief from Defendants arising from a data breach
announced to the public on July 29, 2019.

From approximately March 12 to July 17 of 2019, the sensitive
financial and personal data of an unknown number of customers was
compromised as a result of Capital One's failure to adequately
secure individual's personal and financial information on its
systems.

According to Capital One, 106 million people had their personal
information stolen, including 100 million U.S. residents and 6
million Canadian residents who had, or applied for, Capital One
accounts. The breach exposed 40,000 Social Security numbers and
about 80,000 linked bank account numbers. The scope of the breach
is massive. The bank says it became aware of it on July 19, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class are:

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169

CITY OF NORWALK: Underpays Administrative Secretaries, Coles Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HOPE COLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF NORWALK; NORWALK BOARD OF EDUCATION;
and NORWALK PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-01437 (D. Conn., Sept. 12, 2019) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Coles was employed by the Defendant as administrative
secretary.

Norwalk is a suburban city in Los Angeles County, California,
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Daughterty, Esq.
          DAUGHTERTY LAW GROUP, LLC
          260 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (646) 859-1647


COCA COLA BEVERAGES: Conklin Sues over Health Care Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY CONKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, vs Plaintiff, vs. COCA COLA BEVERAGES FLORIDA, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 93517814 (Fla. 13th Jud'l Cir, Hillsborough
Cty., Aug. 1, 2019), alleges that Defendant failed to provide
required notices of their right to continued health care coverage
under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
(COBRA).

The Defendant, the plan sponsor of the "Coca Cola Beverages Florida
Employee Benefit Plan" has repeatedly violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by failing to provide
participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as
prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health
coverage upon the occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by
the statute, the lawsuit says.

As a result of these violations, which threaten Class Members'
ability to maintain their health coverage, Plaintiff seeks all
benefits available to him under the Plan and ERISA.

The Plan provides medical benefits to employees and their
beneficiaries, and is an employee welfare benefit plan within the
meaning of 29 U.S.C. section 1002(1) and a group health plan within
the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section 1167(1).

Coca-Cola Beverages Florida in Tampa, Florida, is the third largest
independently owned and operated Coca-Cola bottler in the United
States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813 224-0431
          Facsimile: 813 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  jcornell@wfclaw.com
                  rcooke@wfclaw.com
                  gnichols@wfclaw.com
                  tsoriano@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mosley Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ASIA MOSLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; and DOES 1
through 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-07935 (C.D. Cal., Sept.
12, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Mosley was employed by the Defendants as hourly paid,
non-exempt employee.

Costco Wholesale Corporation operates wholesale membership
warehouses in multiple countries. The Company sells all kinds of
food, automotive supplies, toys, hardware, sporting goods, jewelry,
electronics, apparel, health, and beauty aids, as well as other
goods. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Katherine Odenbreit, Esq.
           Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
           Atoy Wilson, Esq.
           MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
           249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
           Long Beach, CA 90802
           Telephone: (562) 590-5550
           Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
           E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                   kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
                   awilson@mahoney-law.net


CVS HEALTH: To Refund Purchasers of Algal-900 Memory Supplements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cspinet.org reports that CVS will pay refunds to certain consumers
who purchased its Algal-900 DHA supplements, which the company
marketed as memory aids, thereby resolving a federal class action
lawsuit against the company brought on behalf of consumers by the
Center for Science in the Public Interest's litigation unit and two
other law firms in 2016. Marketing for the supplement claimed that
the pills were "clinically shown" to improve memory, even though
the Federal Trade Commission concluded in 2014 that the study that
the company relied upon could not be used to make such claims.

The settlement class consists of all persons and entities that
between November 15, 2008 and September 30, 2016 resided and
purchased any of the products at issue in the United States.
Consumers who are members of the settlement class with proof of
purchase can obtain full refunds, according to the terms of the
settlement approved Thursday by United States Magistrate Judge
Steven M. Gold. Members of the class without proof of purchase, but
with purchases linked to CVS Extra Care accounts, may receive store
credit. And even members of the class without proof of purchase or
purchases linked to Extra Care cards can receive one specified
refund per person upon filing a claim, according to the settlement.
Consumers have until December 12, 2019 to submit a claim at
www.cvsdhasettlement.com. The agreement also bars CVS from making
claims that Algal-900 is "clinically shown to improve memory" or
that it provides "clinically proven memory improvement" for two
years.

High-quality clinical studies have found that taking DHA, the
omega-3 fatty acid in Algal-900, works no better than a placebo at
improving cognitive function, according to CSPI.

"This is a great result for purchasers of CVS's Algal-900 DHA
supplement, many of whom can get all their money back," said CSPI
associate litigation director Matthew Simon, who worked on the
case. "And we hope the resolution of this litigation sends a clear
signal to the rest of the supplement industry, where too many
companies are making promises they can't deliver."

The case was brought in United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. Besides Simon, plaintiffs were
represented by Michael R. Reese, Esq. of Reese LLP, Steven A.
Skalet, Esq. -- sskalet@findjustice.com -- of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC,
Craig L. Briskin, Esq. now at Justice Catalyst Law, and former CSPI
litigation director Maia Kats, Esq. -- mkats@kaplanfox.com -- now
of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLC, who played a primary role in
conceiving, bringing, and litigating this case. [GN]

DANNY'S FURNITURE: Guerrero Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Danny's Furniture Inc et al., is
underway.  The case is, WILIFE VRENA DE GUERRERO, on behalf of
herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, the Plaintiff,
vs. DANNY'S FURNITURE INC. d/b/a DANNY'S FURNITURE, DANNY'S
FURNITURE II INC. d/b/a MADDY'S FURNITURE, DEE & DEE DISCOUNT STORE
INC. d/b/a DEE & DEE DISCOUNT STORE, IN & OUT FURNITURE STORE INC
d/b/a DANNY'S FURNITURE, and MAHMOUD ELBANA, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-07284-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2019), and seeks recover
unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York
Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action on
behalf of all non-exempt employees including but not limited to
stockers, assistants, sales representatives, customer service
workers, and cashiers, employed at each of the Corporate Defendants
in New York State.

Based on Plaintiff's actual experiences at all locations she worked
at and direct observations and conversations with other employees
of Corporate Defendants, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class
members similarly were not paid proper minimum wage or overtime
compensation for all hours worked, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class
are:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: 212-465-1188
          Facsimile: 212-465-1181

DAVE & BUSTER'S: Smith Seeks Overtime Compensation for Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
NYDIAH SMITH and HOLLY SIROTTA, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly aggrieved, the Plaintiffs, vs, DAVE & BUSTER'S
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV27030 (Cal
Super., Aug. 1, 2019), seeks to recover civil penalties and any
other available relief under the Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs and others similarly aggrieved are current and
former employees who worked for Defendants in California as
non-exempt, hourly employees and who received at least one wage
statement during their employment.

The Plaintiffs and aggrieved employees were not paid for all hours
worked, because all hours worked were not recorded. The Defendants
allegedly knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and other
aggrieved employees were entitled to receive certain wages for
overtime compensation and that they were not receiving certain
wages for overtime compensation, the lawsuit says.

Defendants operate a chain of arcade-restaurants that offers to its
patrons a casual dining experience combined with games in
approximately 41 states, including California. Defendants' menu
offers a wide array of food and alcoholic beverages that patrons
may consume while playing arcade games, watching sports, and
attending private parties and events on the premises.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and on behalf of all others similarly
aggrieved, are:

          Carney R. Shegerian, Esq.
          Anthony Nguyen, Esq.
          Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq.
          SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone Number: (310) 860 0770
          Facsimile Number: (310) 860 0771
          E-mail: CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com
                  ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com
                  CKenner@Shegerianlaw.com

DERMSTORE LLC: Parties Settle Reid's ADA Suit
---------------------------------------------
Plaintiff has advised the federal district court that a settlement
has been reached with the defendant in the case, VALENTIN REID, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. DERMSTORE LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07196-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 1, 2019).

On Sept. 26, the Court entered an order of dismissal.  "It having
been reported to this Court that this case has been settled, Dkt.
No. 15, it is hereby ORDERED that the above-captioned action is
discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to
restoring the action to this Court's calendar if the application to
restore the action is made within sixty (60) days. To be clear, any
application to reopen must be filed within thirty days of this
Order; any application to reopen filed thereafter may be denied
solely on that basis. All scheduled conferences are hereby
adjourned. Within the thirty-day period provided for in this Order,
the parties may submit to the Court their own Stipulation of
Dismissal for the Court to So Order. Pursuant to Rule 5.A. of the
Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, the Court will not
retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement unless the
terms of the agreement are made part of the public record," Judge
Alison J. Nathan said.

The Plaintiff brought this civil rights action against Defendant
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's
denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore
denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Founded in 1999, Dermstore is the second largest skin care and
beauty e-commerce site in the United States, carrying a range of
skin care, hair care, and beauty products.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Wilson Files FCRA Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Malika Wilson individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Enhanced
Recovery Company, LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01882-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 7, 2018).

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

Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process outsourcing
services that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research
primarily for Fortune 500 companies in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Antranig Garibian, Esq.
     GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES PC
     1010 Bancroft Parkway, Suite 22
     Wilmington, DE 19805
     Phone: (215) 326-9179
     Email: ag@garibianlaw.com


ERIC SELLERS: Brooks in Curry Lawsuit Can Amend Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned JARMOND CURRY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Warden
ERIC SELLERS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00424-MTT-CHW.
(M.D. Ga.) is a consolidated case composed of nine lawsuits
challenging the conditions of confinement at the Special Management
Unit (SMU) at Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison (GDCP).

The nine suits are Rodriguez v. Chatman (5:15-cv-2); McCoy v.
Chatman (5:15-cv-175); Coleman v. Danforth (5:15-cv-267); Brooks v.
Bryson (5:15-cv-276); Emberson v. Chatman (5:15-cv-331); Diaz v.
Chatman (5:15-cv-338); Ruffin v. McCloud (5:15-cv-384); Connelly v.
Sellers (5:17-cv-416); and Curry v. Sellers (5:17-cv-424).

Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Curry v. Sellers was designated as the lead case, with all other
cases designated as member cases.

The following thirteen motions are currently pending in the action:
Plaintiff Rodriguez's (1) motion for reconsideration of the order
vacating an entry of default (id., Doc. 32), (2) motion for
joinder, class certification, and appointment of class counsel
(id., Doc. 33), (3) motion for a preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order ("TRO") (id., Doc. 34), and (4) motion
to amend the complaint (id., Doc. 35); Plaintiff McCoy's (5) motion
to amend the complaint (id., Doc. 36); Plaintiff Coleman's (6)
motion for appointment of an expert witness (id., Doc. 37) and (7)
motion for a physical and mental examination (id., Doc. 38);
Plaintiff Brooks's (8) motion to amend the complaint (id., Doc.
39), (9) motion for a "liberty deprivation hearing" (id., Doc. 40),
and (10) motion for leave to interview witnesses (id., Doc. 41);
Plaintiff Emberson's (11) motion to appoint counsel (id., Doc. 45)
and (12) renewed motion to appoint counsel (id., Doc. 51); and
Plaintiff Diaz's (13) motion to appoint counsel (id., Doc. 46).

Upon review, District Judge Marc T. Treadwell of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division, denied
all the Motions, except Plaintiff Brook's motion to amend.

Plaintiff Brooks has requested the addition of a claim for monetary
damages against Defendants Bryson, Chatman, Jacobs, Logan, McCloud,
Powell, and Ward to his existing Eighth Amendment claim concerning
"systemic food deprivation and malnutrition in the SMU." Brooks
raised the food-service and malnutrition claim for the first time
in his first motion to amend, see Brooks v. Bryson (5:15-cv-276),
Doc. 15, which was granted.  Brooks now claims that he
inadvertently omitted from his amended complaint both the section
articulating the requested relief and the section naming Bryson,
Chatman, Jacobs, Logan, McCloud, Powell, and Ward as the parties
responsible for the alleged violation. Defendants Bryson, Chatman,
Jacobs, Logan, McCloud, Powell, and Ward have already filed an
answer to Brooks's food-service and malnutrition claim, and will
therefore suffer no prejudice from continuing to defend against the
claim for monetary damages.  

Accordingly, the District Court grants Plaintiff Brooks's motion to
amend complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Order
is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y6o3msoq from Leagle.com

JARMOND CURRY, Plaintiff, pro se.
HJALMAR RODRIGUEZ, JR, Plaintiff, pro se.
RICKY BERNARD MCCOY, Plaintiff, pro se.
COREY LEWIS COLEMAN, Plaintiff, pro se.
FRED DALTON BROOKS, Plaintiff, pro se.
BUELL DAVID EMBERSON, Plaintiff, pro se.
VICTOR DIAZ, Plaintiff, pro se.
ANTONIO WELLINGTON RUFFIN, Plaintiff, pro se.
PATRICK LEE CONNELLY, Plaintiff, pro se.

Warden ERIC SELLARS, GDCP, MELINDA DAVIS, Regional Director, GDCP,
SHEPARD, Assistant Regional Director, GDCP, MICHAEL CANNON,
Superintendent, GDCP & J GOODY, Correctional Counselor, GDCP,
Defendants, represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER & AMY L.
MACRINA , Georgia Department of Law.

WILLIAM POWELL, Deputy Warden, GDCP & JUNE BISHOP, Deputy Warden,
GDCP, Defendants, represented by ELIZABETH MCRARY CROWDER , MATTHEW
F. BOYER & AMY L. MACRINA , Georgia Department of Law.


FEDEX CORPORATION: Farrell Files Wage and Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------
SIRKERRA FARRELL, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FEDEX CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
MID-L-006789-19 (N.J. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., Oct. 1, 2019)
seeks redress for Defendant's violations of the New Jersey Wage and
Hour Law.

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to pay her and other
similarly situated individuals at least one and one-half times
their regular rates for all hours worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek due to Defendant's policy of not including time spent in
security screenings as hours worked. As a result of Defendant's
unlawful actions, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated have
suffered damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a package handler for around
three or four months ending in June 2019.

FEDEX is a courier delivery services company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
     Carley A. Doyle, Esq.
     Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
     Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
     SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
     1101 Kings Highway N., Suite 402
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Phone: (856) 685-7420
     Fax: (856) 685-7417


GAP, INC: Martinez Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Store Staff
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Gap, Inc., remains pending.  The
case is, SOLEDAD S. MARTINEZ, an individual; on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GAP, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants,  Case No.
CGC-19-578033 (Cal. Super., July 30, 2019), and alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay minimum wages; failed to pay overtime
wages; failed to provide rest breaks; failed to provide meal
breaks; failed to furnish timely and accurate wage statements; and
failed to pay all wages upon separation under the California Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff was regularly subjected to security checks without
compensation pursuant to the Defendant's unlawful policy and
practice. The Defendant also engages in other unfair practices in
violation of California law, including failing to provide timely
meal and rest breaks, and failing to compensate for any such missed
breaks.  The Defendant's conduct has caused Plaintiff and Class
members damages including, but not limited to, loss of wages and
compensation.

Gap, Inc. operates a chain of clothing stores throughout
California.  The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant for several
years as a non-exempt employee at the Defendant's store located at
Vintage Faire Mall, 3401 Dale Rd, Modesto, CA 95356, until
approximately January 2017.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Grafiam G. Lambert, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2625
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
                  gl@haffnerlavvyers.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Gruchacz Suit in District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors LLC.
The case is captioned as TONYA GRUCHACZ, On Behalf of herself and
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GENERAL
MOTORS LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-16303-BRM-DEA (D.N.J.,
Aug. 2, 2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brian R.
Martinotti.

According to a Stipulation and Order signed by Judge Brian R.
Martinotti:

     -- General Motors' motion to dismiss is to be filed by Oct.
28;

     -- Plaintiff's opposition is to be filed by Dec. 4; and

     -- General Motors' reply is to be filed by Dec. 23.

General Motors is an American multinational corporation
headquartered in Detroit that designs, manufactures, markets, and
distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial
services, with global headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance
Center.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Bruce Daniel Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Joseph Lopiccolo, Esq.
          POULOS LOPICCOLO PC
          1305 South Roller Road
          Ocean, NJ 07757
          Telephone: (732) 757-0165
          E-mail: lopiccolo@pllawfirm.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Goldstein, et al. Sue Over Defective Cadillacs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Goldstein, Percy Sutton, Julian Wilder, Lana Savage, Gladys
Tubbs, Kendra Piazza and Rafael Martinez, individually, and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
General Motors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01778 (S.D. Cal., September 16, 2019),
seeks actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
and such other and further relief resulting from Defendant's unjust
enrichment and breach of implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act and various state consumer protection statutes.

Plaintiffs allege that the 2013-2017 Cadillac ATS, SRX and XTS
vehicles and 2014-2017 Cadillac CTS, ELR and Escalade vehicles are
equipped with a navigation/radio touch screen display that
spontaneously delaminate, bubble or crack, thus, preventing the
driver from accessing climate control, navigation, the back-up
camera and audio/Bluetooth/communications. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
     Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
     Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
     Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
     CAPSTONE LAW APC
     1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 556-6824
     Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
     Email: Mark.Ozzello@capstonelawyers.com
            Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
            Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
            Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com

            - and -

     Russell D. Paul, Esq.
     Amey J. Park, Esq.
     BERGER MONTAGUE PC
     1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 875-3000
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     Email: rpaul@bm.net
            apark@bm.net


GLOBAL HEALTHCARE: Pilipenko Hits Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------
INNA PILIPENKO, and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v.
GLOBAL HEALTHCARE ADVISORS, LLC, an active Delaware limited
liability company; and LAWRENCE CARTER, individually; Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-24054-UU (S.D. Fla., Oct. 1, 2019) is a lawsuit
brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
against Defendants to recover minimum wage and overtime
compensation owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has a policy and practice
of failing to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime compensation for all
hours worked in excess of 40 in a given workweek.  Additionally,
when Plaintiff asked Mr. Carter when she would be paid for hours
worked, he told Plaintiff she was being insubordinate and then
ultimately terminated her. Thus, the Defendant retaliated against
Plaintiff under the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt, Executive
Assistant.

Defendants operate a healthcare consulting/advisory company in
Miami Dade County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael L. Elkins, Esq.
     MLE LAW
     633 S. Andrews Ave., Suite 500
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 3330 I
     Phone: (954) 401-2608
     Email: melkins@mlelawfirm.com

          - and -

     Joshua M. Entin, Esq.
     ENTIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
     633 S. Andrews Ave., Suite 500
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 3330 l
     Phone: (954) 761-7201
     Email: josh@entinlaw.com



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

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GREEN CITY SECURITY: Underpays Guards, Cokley Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
SHANNON COKLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREEN CITY SECURITY LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-03448 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 13, 2019) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Cokley was employed by the Defendant as security
guard.

Green City Security LLC is engaged in providing security services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Neuman, Esq.
          Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (281) 885-8630
          Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
          E-mail: jneuman@smnlawfirm.com
                  bsosamorris@smnlawfirm.com


GRUBB & ASSOCIATES: Russell's Bid to Certify Employees Class OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Pamela Lynn Reeves issued a memorandum and order in the
lawsuit titled JESSICA BROOKE RUSSELL, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. GRUBB & ASSOCIATES, INC., and
JOSEPH GRUBB, Case No. 3:18-cv-00463-PLR-HBG (E.D. Tenn.):

   -- granting the Plaintiff's objections to the Report and
      Recommendation ("R&R") filed by United States Magistrate
      Judge Bruce H. Guyton;

   -- agreeing with and otherwise adopting the R&R after a
      careful review of the record;

   -- granting the Plaintiff's motions for conditional
      certification of collective action and for equitable
      tolling for the reasons stated in the R&R; and

   -- granting the Defendants' motion for leave to file a
      document under seal.

Judge Guyton filed the R&R regarding the disposition of the
Plaintiff's motions for conditional certification of collective
action and equitable tolling.  Judge Guyton recommends that the
Court grant the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification,
Plaintiff's Motion for Equitable Tolling and Defendants' Motion for
Leave to File Document Under Seal.  The Plaintiff filed an
objection to the timing of the equitable tolling period set by the
R&R.

In accordance with the Order, Judge Reeves ruled that:

   (1) the case is conditionally certified for current and former
       companionship employees employed by Defendants from
       January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017;

   (2) the Defendants are ordered to produce the names,
       addresses, and dates of employment for all persons
       potentially covered by the collective action within twenty
       (20) days of entry of this Order;

   (3) if the parties have not yet reached an agreement regarding
       the notice and opt-in forms, the Plaintiff is ordered to
       file their proposed notice and opt-in form within five (5)
       days of this Order, and the Defendants are permitted to
       respond or file a competing notice and opt-in form within
       five (5) days of the Plaintiff's filing;

   (4) the claims of putative opt-in plaintiffs are tolled as of
       April 10, 2018 to a date thirty days after this Court's
       approval of a notice and opt-in form; and

   (5) The Clerk of Court is ordered to seal the submitted
       exhibits so that they may be viewed only by counsel for
       the parties and the Court.[CC]


GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against GTT
Communications, Inc. ("GTT" or "the Company") (NYSE:GTT) for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
26, 2018 and July 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 30, 2019.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. GTT experienced significant delays in
integrating Interoute Communications Holdings S.A.'s ("Interoute")
systems and legacy processes into the Company's client management
database. Interoute had made selling cloud services a strategic
priority, but a considerable percentage of Interoute sales reps
were not able to effectively sell GTT's cloud networking services.
In fact, Interoute had allowed underperforming sales reps to remain
on staff. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
When the market learned the truth about GTT, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         Office: 310-301-3335
         Cell: 424-303-1964
         Email: info@schallfirm.com,
         Website: www.schallfirm.com, brian@schallfirm.com
[GN]



HAN DYNASTY: Pan Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JUNYOU PAN and MAISHENG ZHANG,
Individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly
situated v. HAN DYNASTY OF UNIVERSITY CITY INC d/b/a "Han Dynasty",
NEW HAN DYNASTY INC d/b/a "Han Dynasty", MINHAN JIANG, JING ZHANG
and Angel Doe (Last Name Unknown), Case No. 2:19-cv-02411-GAM (E.D.
Pa.), move the Court for an order for conditional collective action
certification for the purpose of providing notice to putative
collective class members under the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jian Hang, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
          E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


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

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

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
     Alia M. Abdi, Esq.
     Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
     ZIMME1MAN REED, LLP
     1100 IDS Center
     80 South 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Tel: 612-341-0400
     Fax: 612-341-0844
     Email: alia.abdi@zimmreed.com
            david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
            brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com

            - and -

     Joseph DePalma, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Telephone: (973) 623-3000
     E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com

             - and -

     Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
     Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
     1835 Market Street, Suite 2700
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (973) 877-3819
          (267) 314-7980
     Fax: (973) 623-0858
     Email: mreuben@litedepalma.com
            sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com

            - and -

     J. Nathan Duggins III, Esq.
     Scott C. Gayle, Esq.
     TUGGLE DUGGINS P.A.
     100 N. Greene Street, Suite 600
     Greensboro, NC 27401
     Telephone: (336) 271-5232
     Facsimile: (336) 274-6590
     Email: NDuggins@tuggleduggins.com
            SGayle@tuggleduggins.com


HENLEY RESTAURANTS: Yepez Seeks OT Pay for Restaurant Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------
A McDonald's franchisee is facing a class action lawsuit over labor
law violations.  The case is, ANELIZ YEPEZ, an individual and on
behalf of others similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee
under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, the
Plaintiff, vs. HENLEY RESTAURANTS, INC. dba MCDONALD'S, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 19CV352021 (Cal. Super., July 31, 2019), and
alleges that the Defendants failed to provide required meal
periods, failed to provide required rest periods, failed to pay
overtime wages, failed to pay minimum wage, failed to pay all wages
due to discharged and quitting employees, failed to furnish
accurate itemized statements, and failed to indemnify employees for
necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and other persons similarly situated, performed work
for Henley Restaurants in the County of Santa Clara.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' unlawful
actions, the plaintiff and class members have suffered, and
continue to suffer, from loss of earnings, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Aneliz Yepez individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee under the
Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, are:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Dalia Khalili, Esq.
          Andrew J. Sokolowski, Esq.
          Shooka Dadashzadeh, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  dkhali li@maternlawgroup.com
                  asokolowski@maternlawgroup.com
                  shooka@maternlawgroup.com

HOUZZ, INC: Geenen Seeks OT Wages for Misclassified Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
CAITLIN GEENEN, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HOUZZ, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, the Defendants, Case No.
19CV352332 (Cal. Super., Aug. 2, 2019), alleges that Defendants
failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide accurate itemized
wage statements,and failed to reimburse business expenses under the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff and other persons as non-exempt
and misclassified exempt employees. The Defendants employed
Plaintiff from about August 10, 2015 through December 6, 2018.  The
Plaintiff and class members were not paid at least minimum wage for
all hours worked, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff and other current and former employees harm as a
result of their acts and omissions.

Houzz sells home renovation and design products and services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                 atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org

               - and -

          Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq.
          FERRARO EMPLOYMENT LAW, INC.
          2305 Historic Decatur Road, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92106
          Telephone: (619) 693-7727
          Facsimile: (619) 930-5401
          E-mail: nick@ferraroemploymentlaw.com

IL FORNAIO: Failed to Pay OT Wages for Workers, Correa Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
LAZARO CORREA individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. IL FORNAIO (AMERICA) CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 19CV352260 (Cal. Super., Aug. 2, 2019),
alleges that Defendants failed provide required meal periods,
failed to provide required rest periods, failed to pay overtime
wages, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay all wages due to
discharged and quitting employees, and failed to maintain required
records under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and other persons similarly situated, performed work
for Defendants in the County of Santa Clara.

As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of the
Defendants, the Plaintiff and class members have suffered, and
continue to suffer, from loss of earnings, the lawsuit says.

Il Fornaio is a chain of 20 Italian-themed fine dining restaurants
operating primarily in California in the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  mstahle@maternlawgroup.com

INVESTORS BANCORP: Elburn Sues Board for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT ELBURN, derivatively on behalf of INVESTORS BANCORP, INC.
and individually and on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of INVESTORS BANCORP, INC., Plaintiff, v.
INVESTORS BANCORP, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Nominal Defendant,
and ROBERT C. ALBANESE, DENNIS M. BONE, DOREEN R. BYRNES, DOMENICK
A. CAMA, PETER H. CARLIN, WILLIAM V. COSGROVE, KEVIN CUMMINGS,
JAMES J. GARIBALDI, MICHELE N. SIEKERKA, PAUL N. STATHOULOPOULOS,
AND JAMES H. WARD III, Defendants, Case No. 2019-0774 (Chancery
Ct., Del., Sept. 26, 2019) is an action asserting claims for breach
of fiduciary duty against the Company's board of directors and
unjust enrichment against Kevin Cummings, Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman of the Board, and Domenick A. Cama, President and
Chief Operating Officer.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders
of Investors Bancorp, Plaintiff also brings against the Board a
claim for breach of the fiduciary duty of candor.

This action seeks to hold the Board accountable for granting equity
awards to "replace" previously ill-gotten equity awards that were
forfeited in a settlement that resolved a lawsuit against the
Board. These "replacement" awards were not in the best interests of
the Company and its stockholders, the Plaintiff asserts. Rather,
the awards were part of an undisclosed quid pro quo that enabled a
majority of the Board's directors to retain millions of dollars in
equity awards that they were otherwise destined to lose at a
then-impending entire fairness trial. This quid pro quo is not a
matter of speculation. To the contrary, the directors acknowledged
that Cummings and Cama were provided with "assurances" of
"replacement grants" to secure Cummings and Cama's agreement to the
settlement that benefited the majority of the Board, the complaint
relates.

In addition to seeking to recover the "replacement" awards granted
to Cummings and Cama, Plaintiff also seeks to overturn the
Company's most recent director election, in which Defendants Robert
C. Albanese, Cama, James J. Garibaldi, and James H. Ward III were
reelected to the Board at the 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
That election was tainted by Defendants' failure to disclose that
the Board granted Cummings and Cama their "replacement" awards,
notes the Plaintiff. As the directors themselves previously argued
strenuously to this Court, stockholders had a right to know about
Cummings and Cama's replacement grants. Indeed, disclosure of the
"replacement" awards might have caused a reasonable stockholder to
question the independence of the directors standing for reelection
as well as their fitness to continue to serve on the Board, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Robert Elburn is, and has been continuously, a
stockholder of Investors Bancorp since May 7, 2014.

Investors Bancorp is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business at 101 JFK Parkway in Short Hills, New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven J. Purcell, Esq.
     Douglas E. Julie, Esq.
     Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq.
     Kaitlyn T. Devenyns, Esq.
     PURCELL JULIE & LEFKOWITZ LLP
     708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: 212-725-1000

          - and -

     David A. Jenkins, Esq.
     Neal C. Belgam, Esq.
     SMITH KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
     1000 West Street, Suite 1501
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: 302-652-8400
     Email: daj@skjlaw.com
            ncb@skjlaw.com


LANDSKRONER LAW: Bradshaw Sues over Water Bill Refund Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS BRADSHAW, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal
entity; MICHAEL FEUER, in his individual and official capacity;
JAMES CLARK, in his individual and official capacity; THOMAS
PETERS, in his individual and official capacity; THE LANDSKRONER
LAW FIRM, LTD. dba LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC, a limited
liability company; JACK LANDSKRONER, an individual; LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL J LIBMAN APC, a California Professional Corporation;
MICHAEL J. LIBMAN, an individual, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-06661-CAS-PLA (C.D. Cal., July 31, 2019), alleges
professional misconduct "at an almost unfathomable level" by the
Defendants, most of whom are attorneys, or law corporations
involved in the practice of law.

When the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power ("LADWP")
switched to a new billing system, it began billing hundreds of
thousands of ratepayers incorrect amounts. However, rather than
simply refund consumers and resolve the problem, attorneys at the
Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, along with outside counsel,
instead decided to eliminate ratepayers' claims through a class
action.

Bradshaw rents a house in the City of Los Angeles and an LADWP
customer. He is a citizen of the State of Nevada.  The City of Los
Angeles is a public entity organized and existing under the laws of
the State of California.

In September 2013, LADWP implemented a Customer Care and Billing
software platform (CC&B System), which had been developed and
implemented by PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, to bill customers for
water, electricity, and other utility services as well as to
administer solar-power accounts. The CC&B System was inherently and
fundamentally flawed, causing over-billing and other billing
problems for LADWP's customers.

However, the Defendants chose to prophylactically sanitize the
problem and prevent any true legal exposure. Although Los Angeles'
outside counsel initially planned to represent a ratepayer in a
class action against the company that developed the billing system,
PwC, they instead passed the ratepayer off to an attorney so that
he could file a class action against the City of Los Angeles.

The attorneys who were given this ratepayer almost immediately
filed the class action, Jones v. City of Los Angeles, and almost as
quickly settled it with the City. However, at no time did the
attorneys disclose their conflict of interest or that they were
plotting with the City for a quick settlement. As a result, the
ratepayers lost their ability to obtain a fair settlement from the
City and the attorneys went on to obtain tens of millions of
dollars in fees and benefits. The truth only came to light by
happenstance, when the company that developed the billing system,
which is involved in litigation with the City, learned that the
City had originally intended that the plaintiff in the class action
was originally supposed to sue PwC, rather than the City.

As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff and other LADWP
ratepayers who were Jones class members have suffered significant
damages.

In an October 7 docket entry, the case has been randomly reassigned
from Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline
Chooljian for all further proceedings, following Judge Abrams'
recusal.

In an October 4 order, Judge Virginia A. Phillips approved a
Stipulation that extended the Defendants' time to respond to the
initial complaint to November 1.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Filippo Marchino, Esq.
          Damon Rogers, Esq.
          Thomas E. Gray, Esq.
          THE X-LAW GROUP, P.C.
          625 Fair Oaks Ave, Suite 390
          South Pasadena, CA 91030
          Telephone: (213) 599-3380
          Facsimile: (213) 599-3370
          E-mail: FM@xlawx.com
                  DR@xlawx.com
                  TG@xlawx.com

LEAZER GROUP: Perez Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
-------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE LEAZER GROUP, INC. a North Carolina
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-24058-FAM (S.D. Fla., Oct.
1, 2019) is an action brought against the Defendant to secure
redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To gain an advantage over its competitors and increase its revenue,
Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing, with no regard for
consumers' privacy rights. This case arises from Defendant's
transmission of prerecorded messages to the cellular telephones of
Plaintiff and others, promoting Defendant's services and goods. The
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of
himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

Defendant is an insurance agency that specializes in mortgage life
insurance and the senior market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


LET'S SHAKE: Perales Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
MARK PERALES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. LET'S SHAKE, LLC, and SSCP MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01178 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 1, 2019) is an
action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee, as a
result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other hourly
employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week in at least one pay
period while working for Defendants. The Defendants have deprived
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated of a proper overtime
premium for all of the hours they worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants and/or Defendants' predecessor
companies as a cook and was promoted to associate manager during
this tenure with Defendants from June or July of 2015 to June or
July of 2019.

Defendants operate multiple franchise business locations within the
State of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Merideth Q. McEntire, Esq.
     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
     Email: merideth@sanfordlawfirm.com
            josh@sanfordlawfirm.com



LION OIL: Court Tosses Class Certification Bid in Fuller Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Susan O. Hickey adopts a report and recommendation issued
in the lawsuit styled THURMAN FULLER, et al. v. LION OIL TRADING &
TRANSPORTATION, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01020-SOH-BAB (W.D. Ark.).

Accordingly, Judge Hickey denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and motion for extension of time.

On September 9, 2019, the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States
Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, issued the
Report and Recommendation.  Judge Bryant recommends that the Court
deny the Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification.  The
Plaintiffs have not filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation, and the time to object has passed.

On May 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs, seven siblings who are each
representing him or herself pro se, brought this action.  The
Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, to recover unpaid royalties from the
Defendant that were allegedly paid to the Plaintiffs' other
siblings, who are not parties to this case.

On August 14, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, seeming to request that the Court certify a class
consisting of themselves.  On August 28, 2019, the Defendant
responded, indicating that it opposes the motion.  On September 25,
2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a sixty-day extension
of time to respond to the Defendant's opposition to their class
certification motion.

In her order, Judge Hickey notes that Judge Bryant finds that
certification of a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure is appropriate only when the class is so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable, and that the
Plaintiffs' motion concedes that "joinder of all plaintiffs is
practical," which defeats their request.  Thus, Judge Bryant
concludes that the motion should be denied because the Plaintiffs
failed to demonstrate that Rule 23 class certification is proper in
this case.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' conclusory assertions that
Rule 23's requirements are satisfied are insufficient and, with no
other argument or evidence, they have not carried their burden of
affirmatively demonstrating that class certification is
appropriate.  Moreover, Judge Hickey opines, class certification is
likewise inappropriate in this case because the Plaintiffs appear
to seek to certify a class consisting solely of themselves, which
is unnecessary because they are all already named plaintiffs in
this case.  Thus, the Plaintiffs can all currently litigate their
claims against the Defendant without need for class
certification.[CC]


LIQUI-BOX: Zaman Suit Underway in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liqui-Box
Corporation. The case is captioned as Sajida Zaman, on behalf of
all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Does 1-50, and
Liqui-Box Corporation, an Ohio Corporation, the Defendants, Case
No. 34-2019-00262122-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Aug 2, 2019). The case
alleges employment-related issues.

Liqui-Box manufactures bag-in-box flexible packaging and pouches to
serve a wide variety of global industries, including dairy,
beverage, food and non-food markets.[BN]

LORD & TAYLOR: Fails to Pay Wages, Toon Says
--------------------------------------------
TROY TOON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. LORD & TAYLOR LLC; LORD & TAYLOR HOLDINGS LLC;
and JOHN DOES, the Defendants, Case No. 19-2473F (Mass. Super.,
Aug. 2, 2019), seeks damages based on Defendants' failure to pay
wages under the Massachusetts Wage Law.

Lord & Taylor operates high-end retail stores in Massachusetts. The
Plaintiff worked as a salesperson for Lord & Taylor from
approximately October 2015 through October 2016.

According to the complaint, employees are entitled to overtime pay
for all hours worked above 40 hours in one week. Retail employees
are entitled to premium pay for work performed on Sundays and
certain holidays.

Lord & Taylor's company-wide compensation structure for salespeople
was based on a 100% commission/draw model. Employees' pay each week
was based on a percentage of the goods sold by each salesperson.
To the extent an employee's pay for any given week fell below a
certain threshold, Lord & Taylor would advance the employee a
"draw" on future commissions.

Pursuant to this pay policy, draws and commissions were ostensibly
applied to hours worked over 40 hours per week, and to hours worked
on Sundays and holidays. Lord & Taylor did not pay any additional
compensation for such work beyond the draws and commissions, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

MACADO'S INC: Bartenders/Servers Class Certified in Spencer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Norman K. Moon grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional class certification with notice to potential plaintiffs
in the lawsuit captioned JEFFREY SPENCER, JR., et al. v. MACADO'S,
INC., et al., Case No. 6:18-cv-00005-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va.).

The class is defined as:

     All current and former hourly-paid tipped employees,
     classified as bartenders or servers, of Defendants in the
     United States who work (or have worked) at Defendants'
     restaurants at any time within the last three years of the
     date of this order up to and including the date of final
     judgment in this matter.

The Plaintiffs also asked the Court to facilitate notice to
putative opt-in plaintiffs.  The Court, hence, orders these:

   1. Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with the names, last
      known residential addresses, phone numbers, and dates of
      employment by Defendants within the last three years of any
      potential class member;

   2. Defendants shall also post notice, once approved by the
      Court, to putative class members at all Defendants'
      locations, enclose such notices in paystubs, and mail such
      notice to all putative class members;

   3. Defendants shall place such notice, once approved by the
      Court, immediately adjacent to the time clock used by
      tipped employees at each of Macado's restaurant locations.
      If placement in this fashion causes the text of the notice
      to be visible to and readable by customers, then Defendants
      may instead post such notice in an employee-only area of
      each Macado's restaurant in a location frequented by both
      servers and bartenders. In such instances, Defendants shall
      provide notice to the Court and to Plaintiffs of its
      deviation from placing notice by its time clock; and

   4. Defendants may submit for the Court's consideration their
      own proposed notice or objections to Plaintiffs' proposal
      within 14 days of this order.

The Plaintiffs' motion insofar as it asks the Court to equitably
toll the FLSA's statute of limitations as it applies to putative
opt-in plaintiffs is granted.  The statute of limitations for any
putative opt-in plaintiff shall be tolled from February 8, 2019,
until September 27, 2019.

The Plaintiffs' motion insofar as it asks the Court to deem opt-in
forms filed on the day they are postmarked is denied.  The Clerk of
the Court is directed to send a certified copy of this order to all
counsel of record.[CC]


MAGICK WOODS: Feliciano Biometric Data Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Magick Woods, Inc., remains pending.
The case is captioned, GABRIEL FELICIANO individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MAGICK
WOODS, INC., A Delaware Corporation, the Case No. 2019CH08873 (Ill.
Cir., July 30, 2019), and seeks to put a stop to its unlawful
collection, use, and storage of Plaintiffs and the putative Class
members' sensitive biometric data.

When employees first begin their jobs at Magick, they are required
to scan their fingerprint in its biometric time tracking system as
a means of authentication, instead of using onlykey fobs or other
identification cards.

While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks
in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or
identification cards-which can be changed or replaced if stolen or
compromised-fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes employees to
serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a
fingerprint database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed,
employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft and
unauthorized tracking.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois
citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints.

Despite this law, Magick disregarded its employees' statutorily
protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses
their biometric data in violation of the BIPA, the lawsuit says.

Magick is a manufacturer of bath vanities and kitchen cabinets.
Magick Woods Export Private Limited, in Chennai, India is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Magick Woods Ltd., Canada and both are
affiliated with the Defendant.[BNS]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C .
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: 630 355 7590
          Facsimile: 630 778 0400
          E-mail: admin@fishlawfirm.com
                  dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  jkunze@fishlawfirm.com

MARS PETCARE: Pet Owners Dispute "No Grains" Claim in Dogfood
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold Fishon, Lilly Perez and Tana Parker, individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff, v.
Mars Petcare US, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00816 (M.D. Tenn.,
September 16, 2019), seeks damages and equitable relief resulting
from breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, unjust enrichment and for violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the New York Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.

Mars Petcare manufactures, distributes, markets and sells IAMS
Proactive Health Sensitive Skin and Stomach Grain-Free Recipe with
Chicken and Peas dogfood. Defendant represents that IAMS Food is
"grain free" and contains "no soy." However, Plaintiffs claim that
independent testing has revealed that IAMS Food does in fact
contain both corn and soy. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
      Lisa A. White, Esq.
      Justin G. Day, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Telephone: (865) 247-0080
      Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
      Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
             adam@gregcolemanlaw.com
             lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
             justin@gregcolemanlaw.co

             - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
      John Hunter Bryson, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON &MASON LLP
      900 W. Morgan Street
      Raleigh, NC 27603
      Tel: (919) 600-5000
      Fax: (919) 600-5035
      Email: gmason@wbmllp.com
             dperry@wbmllp.com
             hunter@wbmllp.com

             - and -

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
      1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 238-1700
      Email: jshub@kohnswift.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
      GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
      One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
      Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
      Phone: (513) 345-8291
      Fax: (513) 345-8294
      Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

             - and -

      Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
      LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 592-1500
      Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

             - and-

      Philip Friedman, Esq.
      FRIEDMAN LAW OFFICES
      2001 L Street NW, Suite 400
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: (202)-293-4175


MCKESSON INC: Chris et al. Suit Underway in S.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against McKesson, Inc., et al., is ongoing.
The case is captioned as Chris, Nathan, and John Doe, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
McKesson, Inc. and  David Cifu, the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00189-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., Aug. 1, 2019). The suit alleges
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge R. Stan Baker.

McKesson is the oldest and largest healthcare company in the
nation, serving more than 50% of U.S. hospitals and 20% of
physicians. The company delivers one-third of all medications used
daily in North America with operations in more than 16
countries.[BN]

Attorneys the Plaintiffs are:

          Shannon Dyer Challender, Esq.
          504 Oxford Dr.
          Richmond Hill, GA 31324
          Telephone: (636) 357-9809
          E-mail: shannonchallender@gmail.com

MDL 2311: Dealers Seek Ct. OK to Send Notice of $86-MM Settlements
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Automobile Dealership Plaintiffs in the multidistrict
litigation styled IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Master File No. 12-md-02311 (E.D. Mich.), move the Court for
approval to disseminate class notice for a series of preliminarily
approved settlements in their lawsuits and to conduct a hearing for
final approval of the Settlements, and application for an interim
award of expenses, attorneys' fees, and class representative
service awards.

The motion is filed under Case No. 2:13-cv-02202-MOB.

The Settlements constitute the fourth round ("Round Four") of
Dealership Plaintiffs settlements in this MDL.  The Round Four
Settlements at issue in this Motion total more than $86 million.
The Automobile Dealership Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants do
not request a hearing for this Motion.  The Settling Defendants do
not oppose this Motion.

The Settlements provide cash benefits to automobile dealerships
that purchased certain parts and/or purchased new vehicles
containing those parts in jurisdictions that the Dealership
Plaintiffs contend allow antitrust indirect purchasers to seek
money damages: Arizona, Arkansas, California, District of Columbia,
Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,
Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin (the "Included States").

The Dealership Plaintiffs move the Court to approve the form and
plan for dissemination of notice to the Dealership Plaintiff
settlement classes.  At a final approval hearing, the Dealership
Plaintiffs will ask the Court to consider: (1) the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlements; (2) a request for
a reimbursement of incurred litigation expenses; (3) a request for
an award of attorneys' fees; and (4) a request for service awards
for the named Dealership Plaintiffs.

The Dealership Plaintiffs propose this schedule:

   * Mailing of Postal Notice and Email Notice, Establishment of
     Settlement Website--15 days from Order allowing
     dissemination of notice;

   * Commence Placement of Publication Notice--As soon as
     possible after Order allowing dissemination of notice;

   * Deadline for filing Opt-Outs or objections to
     Settlements--November 22, 2019;

   * Deadline for appearance of Counsel regarding
     objections--November 29, 2019;

   * Deadline for Counsel to file notice of intent to appear at
     Final Approval Hearing--November 29, 2019;

   * Final Approval Hearing--December 10, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.; and

   * Proof of Claim deadline--April 17, 2020.[CC]

The Dealership Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200
          E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          2800 Wells Fargo Place
          30 East Seventh Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          Facsimile: (651) 312-6618
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          CUNEO, GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          404 Court Square
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          Facsimile: (662)834-2628
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com


MDL 2905: Hamilton Livery Suit Consolidated
-------------------------------------------
The case, HAMILTON LIVERY LEASING LLC on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. KIA MOTORS AMERICA,
INC., a California corporation; HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a California
corporation; FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
MITSUBISHI MOTORS AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMERICAN
HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a California corporation; TOYOTA MOTOR
SALES, U.S.A., Inc., a California Corporation; ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE
HOLDINGS CORP., a Delaware corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-01459-JAK-FFM (C.D. Cal., July 30, 2019), has been
transferred to MDL No. 2905: In Re: ZF-TRW Airbag Control Units
Products Liability Litigation.

The Plaintiff sues over defective airbag control units ("ACUs")
designed and supplied by Defendant ZF-TRW, which are part of airbag
systems equipped in vehicles manufactured by Defendants Kia,
Hyundai, FCA, Mitsubishi, Honda, and Toyota.

ACUs are designed and manufactured to sense a vehicle crash,
determine whether airbag deployment is necessary, and deploy
appropriate airbags and other supplemental restraints where
needed.

ACUs contain an electronic component -- an application specific
integrated circuit ("ASIC") -- which monitors signals from other
crash sensors in vehicles. When the ASIC functions properly, the
ACU detects the severity of a crash, deploys the airbag, if
necessary, and engages seatbelt pretensioners.

The defect in the ACU occurs because the ACIS becomes over stressed
by excess electrical energy generated during the crash. As a result
of this electrical overstress ("EOS") condition that causes the
malfunction of the ASIC in the ACUs, the airbags equipped in the
Class Vehicles do not properly deploy during a crash ("ACU
Defect"). Rather than deploying airbags, which protect vehicle
occupants from bodily harm during accidents, the defective ACUs may
fail to send a signal to deploy airbags. ACU malfunctions greatly
increase the risk of serious injury and death to vehicle occupants
in the event of a collision.

The Defendants became aware of the ACU Defect as early as 2011,
however, they failed to disclose and actively concealed Class the
dangers and risks posed by the Vehicles or the ACU Defect, exposing
millions of consumers to serious and life-threatening safety
risks.

The ACU Defect creates a dangerous condition that gives rise to a
clear, substantial, and unreasonable danger of injury or death.
The Defendants put profits ahead of safety by continuing to
manufacture and equip vehicles with the defective ACUs year after
year, even though they knew or should have known that the ACUs were
defective.

The car manufacturers that purchased ZF-TRW's defective ACU's knew
or should have known of the common uniform design defect of the
ZF-TRW ACUs.

The Plaintiff and Class members were harmed and suffered actual
damages. The Plaintiff and Class members did not receive the
benefit of their bargain. Rather, they purchased or leased vehicles
that are of a lesser standard, grade, and quality than represented,
and they did not receive vehicles that met the ordinary and
reasonable customer expectations regarding safety.

Purchasers and lessees of the Class Vehicles paid more, either
through a higher purchase price or higher lease payments, than they
would have had the ACU Defect been disclosed. Plaintiff and Class
members were deprived of a safe, defect-free ACU installed in their
vehicles, and Defendants unjustly benefitted from their delay in
recalling their defective products, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 373-1671
          Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
          E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com
                  rmah@zlk.com

MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Compels Arbitration in Lomeli FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Jose Division issued an Order granting
Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned
JAIME PRIETO LOMELI, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, et al.,
Defendants. Case No. 19-CV-01141-LHK. (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Jamie Lomeli brought the putative class action against
Midland Funding, LLC (Midland), Midland Credit Management, Inc.
(MCM), Hunt & Henriques (H&H), Michael Scott Hunt, and Janalie Ann
Henriques, alleging that Defendants committed violations of the
federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), in connection
with Defendants' efforts to collect a consumer debt from
Plaintiff.

In 2004, Plaintiff opened a Shell credit card with Citibank, N.A.
Defendants aver that the card was subject to a written card
agreement, which set forth the terms and conditions for the credit
card account. According to Defendants, it is Citibank's regular
business practice to send the applicable card agreement to the
customer when the account is opened. The Card Agreement contains
three provisions relevant to the instant motions: (1) an
arbitration agreement, (2) a choice of law provision, and (3) an
assignment clause.

At some point, Plaintiff allegedly incurred a debt on his credit
card. He subsequently defaulted on the debt. On May 25, 2016,
Midland Funding, LLC ("Midland Funding"), purchased Plaintiff's
debt from Citibank. Defendants proffer what they assert is the
Purchase and Sale Agreement (the "Purchase Agreement") assigning
Plaintiff's account to Midland Funding and containing the terms of
the transaction. The Purchase Agreement states that Citibank
"agrees to sell, assign and transfer" to Midland Funding "all
right, title and interest of Bank in and to the Accounts."
According to Defendants, Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("MCM") is
"the servicer and authorized agent for Midland Funding and manages
debts that Midland Funding purchases," which Plaintiff does not
dispute.

H&H is a company "engaged in the collection of outstanding
financial obligations." At some point after Plaintiff defaulted,
H&H was retained by Midland Funding for the purpose of collecting
Plaintiff's outstanding credit card debt. On or about October 16,
2017, Midland Funding filed suit against Plaintiff in Santa Clara
Superior Court in order to collect Plaintiff's debt. Defendants
state that H&H filed the suit on Midland Funding's behalf. In
connection with that suit, Emily Walker executed a Declaration in
Lieu of Testimony as an officer for Midland Funding, where she
indicated that her business address is 16 McLeland Road Suite 101,
St. Cloud, Minnesota.

Defendants now seek to enforce the arbitration agreement contained
in the Card Agreement, which they claim covers Plaintiff's account.
In response, Plaintiff makes three principle arguments against
arbitration. First, Plaintiff challenges the authenticity of the
document that Defendants have proffered as the Card Agreement, as
well as its connection to Plaintiff's account.  Second, Plaintiff
argues that Midland Funding and the H&H Defendants are not entitled
to enforce the arbitration provision.  
Third, Plaintiff contends Defendants have constructively waived any
rights they had under the arbitration agreement.

On review, the Court finds that Defendants have satisfactorily
established the authenticity of the Card Agreement as the terms
governing Plaintiff's account. The Court therefore concludes that
the arbitration provision contained therein the validity of which
Plaintiff does not dispute is a valid agreement to arbitrate.

Moreover, the Court finds that South Dakota has a substantial
relationship to this dispute and application of South Dakota law
would not be contrary to any fundamental policy of California.
South Dakota law provides the substantive contract law principles.

Lastly, the Court therefore finds that Midland Funding has the
right to compel arbitration under the Card Agreement.

The Court also has little problem finding that the inquiries in the
matter are intertwined when arbitration of Plaintiff's claims
against the Midland Defendants will be determinative of Plaintiff's
claims against the H&H Defendants.  The Court holds that the H&H
Defendants, like Midland Funding, are entitled to invoke the
arbitration clause.

Like the H&H Defendants, MCM is neither a signatory nor an
assignee. The Court is satisfied that its analysis regarding the
parties' intent and the applicability of equitable estoppel as to
the H&H Defendants has equal force here, and confirms MCM's right
to compel arbitration.

Plaintiff contended that Defendants waived their right to arbitrate
the instant case by bringing the debt collection action in
California Superior Court rather than arbitrating that action. In
response, Defendants convincingly argued that the act of filing the
debt collection action in state court was not inconsistent with the
right to arbitrate, the Court opined.  The Court finds that the
Plaintiff has not met the heavy burden of proving waiver.

Accordingly, the District Court grants Defendants' motions to
compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Order
is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y5h62uer from Leagle.com

Jaime Prieto Lomeli, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew C. Salmonsen
- matthew.salmonsen@sjconsumerlaw.com - Consumer Law Center, Inc.,
Raeon Rodrigo Roulston  - raeon.roulston@sjconsumerlaw.com -
Consumer Law Center, Inc. & Fred W. Schwinn -
fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com - Consumer Law Center, Inc.

Midland Funding, LLC & Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Ethan Geoffrey Ostroff  - ethan.ostroff@troutman.com
- Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice & Jessica Rose Ellis Lohr -
jessica.lohr@troutman.com - Troutman Sanders LLP.

Hunt & Henriques, Michael Scott Hunt & Janalie Ann Henriques,
Defendants, represented by Kurt Darrow Bridgman  -
kbridgman@vmbllp.com - Vogl, Meredith, and Burke, Eunji Cho , Low,
Ball & Lynch, 55 Montgomery St., San Francisco, CA & Michael
Shannon Burke - mburke@vmbllp.com - Vogl Meredith & Burke LLP.


MIDWEST FOODS: Curtis Hits Illegal Biometrics Data Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Armand Curtis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Midwest Foods Manufacturing, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH10621 (Ill. Cir., September 13, 2019),
seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful
activity related to the capture, collection, storage and use of
biometrics, as well as  statutory damages together with costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

Curtis worked for Midwest at its Illinois facility. Plaintiff was
required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a timeclock that
scanned fingerprints. Plaintiffs alleges that Midwest improperly
collected and stored employees' fingerprint data without informed
consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Fish, Esq.
      Kim Hilton, Esq.
      John Kunze, Esq.
      THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      200 E. 5th Ave., Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60563
      Tel: (630) 355-7590
      Fax: (630) 778-0400
      Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
             kunze@fishlawfirm.com
             jkunze@fishlawfirm.com


MILACRON HOLDINGS: Sabatini Files Suit Over Sale to Hillenbrand
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. MILACRON HOLDINGS CORP., IRA G. BOOTS,
TIMOTHY M. CROW, WATERS S. DAVIS, JAMES F. GENTILCORE, GREGORY J.
GULCHOWSKI, JR., THOMAS J. GOEKE, JAMES M. KRATOCHVIL, DAVID W.
REEDER, REBECCA LEE STEINFORT, HILLENBRAND, INC., and BENGAL
DELAWARE HOLDING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01846-UNA
(D. Del., Oct. 1, 2019) is an action stemming from a proposed
transaction announced on July 12, 2019, pursuant to which Milacron
Holdings Corp. will be acquired by Hillenbrand, Inc. and Bengal
Delaware Holding Corporation.

On July 12, 2019, Milacron's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Hillenbrand.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Milacron's
stockholders will receive $11.80 in cash and 0.1612 shares of
Parent common stock for each share of Milacron common stock they
own. On September 10, 2019, defendants filed a Form S-4
Registration Statement with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading.

First, says the complaint, the Registration Statement omits
material information regarding the Company's and Hillenbrand's
financial projections. With respect to the Company's financial
projections, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) all
line items used to calculate EBIT and EBITDA; (ii) the Other EBITDA
Adjustments; (iii) projections for year 2024; and (iv) a
reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. Second, the
Registration Statement omits material information regarding the
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor in connection
with the Proposed Transaction, Barclays Capital Inc. With respect
to Barclays' Discounted Cash Flow Analysis of Milacron, the
Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) unlevered free cash
flow for year 2024 and all underlying line items; (ii) the range of
terminal values for Milacron; (iii) the individual inputs and
assumptions underlying the range of after-tax discount rates of
10.0% to 12.0% and the perpetuity growth rates ranging from 1.5% to
2.5%; (iv) Milacron's net debt; and (v) the fully diluted number of
shares of Milacron common stock. Third, the Registration Statement
omits material information regarding potential conflicts of
interest of Barclays. The Registration Statement fails to disclose
the amount of compensation Barclays received for the past services
it provided to Milacron.

The omission of all these material information renders the
Registration Statement false and misleading, including, these
sections of the Registration Statement: (i) Background of the
Merger; (ii) Milacron Board of Directors' Recommendation and
Reasons for the Merger; (iii) Opinion of Milacron's Financial
Advisor; and (iv) Certain Unaudited Prospective Financial
Information, says the complaint.

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

Plaintiff is the owner of Milacron common stock.

Milacron is engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and service
of highly engineered and customized systems within the plastic
technology and processing industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


MOWI ASA: Portland Hunt-Alpine Asserts Unfair Trade Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Portland Hunt-Alpine Club, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mowi ASA (fka Marine Harvest
ASA), Marine Harvest USA, LLC, Marine Harvest Canada, Inc.,
Ducktrap River of Maine LLC, Grieg Seafood ASA, Grieg Seafood BC
Ltd., Ocean Quality AS, Ocean Quality North America Inc., Ocean
Quality USA Inc., Ocean Quality Premium Brands, Inc., SalMar ASA,
Leroy Seafood Group ASA, Leroy Seafood USA Inc., and Scottish Sea
Farms Ltd. Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00446-JAW (D. Me., Oct. 1,
2019) is a lawsuit arising from the unlawful coordination of the
price of farm-raised Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and salmon
products which were sold by Defendants between July 1, 2015 and the
present in violation of federal antitrust law and various state
antitrust and unfair competition, consumer protection and unfair
trade practices, and unjust enrichment laws.

The salmon market is susceptible to manipulation by the major
salmon producers in Norway. Salmon is sold on the spot market and
through annual contracts. Only one percent of Norway's salmon
production is sold on the spot market, but those spot prices set
the baseline for the longer term contract prices. Since 2015,
salmon buyers in Europe have complained that Norway's salmon
producers, including Mowi, have been rigging the spot market by
using subsidiary companies, including Mowi's Polish subsidiary,
Morpol (which is a fish processor and distributor and the world's
leading producer of smoked salmon products) to drive up the spot
price.

As a result of the conspiracy, Defendants' prices--and profits--for
salmon have been increased since mid-2015. The Defendants
frequently and falsely asserted that cost increases justified their
price increases, but their own data disproves their purported
justification, notes the complaint.

These price increases, and the Defendants' coordinated behavior
that caused them, have come at the expense of Plaintiff and the
Class, who have paid more for farm-raised salmon than they
otherwise would have in the absence of Defendants' collusion, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Portland Hunt-Alpine Club, LLC is a business located at
75 Market Street Portland ME 04101 that purchased Farm-Raised
Salmon, once or more, other than directly from Defendants.

Mowi ASA (f/k/a Marine Harvest ASA) touts itself as a "global
corporate brand" of one of the largest seafood companies in the
world and the largest producer of Atlantic salmon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Taylor Asen, Esq.
     BERMAN & SIMMONS
     129 Lisbon Street
     Lewiston, ME 04240
     Phone: 207-560-0692
     Email: tasen@bermansimmons.com

          - and -

     Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
     COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
     840 Malcolm Road
     Burlingame, CA 94010
     Phone: (650) 697-6000
     Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
     Email: azapala@cpmlegal.com

          - and -

     Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
     Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 333-8844
     Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
     Email: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
            mlooby@gustafsongluek.com

          - and -

     Don Barrett, Esq.
     Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq.
     David McMullan, Esq.
     BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
     P.O. Box 927
     404 Court Square
     Lexington, MS 39095
     Phone: (662) 834-2488
     Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
            kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com
            dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

          - and -

     Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
     LARSON  KING, LLP
     2800 Wells Fargo Place
     30 East Seventh Street
     St. Paul, MN 55101
     Phone: (651) 312-6518
     Email: sraiter@larsonking.com

          - and -

     Samuel J. Dubbin, P.A., Esq.
     DUBBIN & KRAVETZ, LLP
     1200 Anastasia A venue
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 371-4700
     Email: sdubbin@dubbinkravetz.com

          - and -

     Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
     Daniel Cohen, Esq.
     Jennifer Kelly, Esq.
     Blaine Finley, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200
     Washington, DC 20016
     Phone: (202) 789-3960
     Email: jonc@cuneolaw.com
            danielc@cuneolaw.com
            jkelly@cuneolaw.com
            bfinley@cuneolaw.com


NADINE WEST: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nadine West, Inc. The
case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nadine West,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09283 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 7, 2019).

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

Nadine West is a monthly or bi-weekly clothing subscription company
that caters to women of all clothing sizes.[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



NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Appeals Ruling in Domiano Suit to S.C. of Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, et al., filed with
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania a petition for allowance of
appeal in the matter styled as Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company,
et al. v. Tony Domiano Auto Dealerships, Inc., et al., Case No. 527
MAL 2019.

The Appellate Court case is caption: Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Company, Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company, and Harleysville
Preferred Insurance Company, Petitioners v. Tony Domiano Auto
Dealerships, Inc., Jill Sparks, Anne Trapper, Anthony J. Brown,
Richard E. Wallace, and John Tanis Administrator of the Estate of
Eleanor Tanis, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, and Dennis Ross Jessica Leonard, Clyde Brzenski, Anna
Gerhard and Joseph Skorets, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Respondents, Case No. 776 MDA 2019, in
the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The civil case is from the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas,
Civil Division.[BN]


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Class of Employees Certified in Cowan Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sarah D. Morrison issued an opinion and order in the
lawsuit titled MYRA COWAN v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Case
No. 2:19-cv-01225-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio):

   -- denying the Defendant's motion to strike and dismiss all
      "Consent to Join Wage Claim" forms without prejudice; and

   -- granting in part and denying in part, the Plaintiffs'
      Motion for Conditional Class Certification and
      Court-Supervised Notice to Putative Class Members Pursuant
      to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) (Fair Labor Standards Act).

The Court conditionally certifies this FLSA class:

     All non-exempt employees who worked at one of Nationwide's
     call centers or service centers anywhere in the United
     States and/or worked from home and provided direct customer
     support and assistance through phone or e-mail systems, at
     any time three years prior to the date of this Court's Order
     through the final disposition of this matter.

The Court denies the Plaintiff's Motion to the extent it seeks
approval of her proposed Notice and Consent form.  Within 14 days,
counsel shall confer and submit a joint draft of a revised proposed
notice to potential plaintiffs about this collective action and a
proposed opt-in consent form with modifications to
morrison_chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov. The Court will resolve any new
disputes noted in the draft in an order granting final approval of
the notice and opt-in consent form.

Within 30 days of the issuance of this Opinion and Order, the
Defendant shall identify all putative class members by providing a
list in electronic and importable format of the full names, dates
of employment, positions of employment, locations of employment,
last known mailing addresses, and e-mail addresses of all current
and former employees fitting the class description to the
Plaintiff's counsel.

After receiving the putative class members' contact information
from the Defendant and upon final approval of a notice and consent
form by the Court, the Plaintiff shall send the Notices and Consent
forms via U.S. mail and e-mail within 21 days.  The putative class
members shall then have 60 days from the date that the Plaintiff
sends the Notices to join this litigation.[CC]


NINTENDO CO: Switch Lite Added to Joy-Con Drift Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Owen S. Good, writing for Polygon.com, reports that the Joy-Con
drift lawsuit brought against Nintendo has added the Nintendo
Switch Lite -- barely a week old -- to its claims that defective
design ruined the thumbsticks for the consoles.

The lawsuit now includes allegations culled from social media,
YouTube and Reddit that says the thumbsticks on the Switch Lite are
drifting after 20 hours of play. The suit, originally filed in
federal court in July, seeks class action status.

"I beat Link's Awakening over the weekend on my original Switch
Lite system, I had only put like 20 something hours on it, and it
started to show joy-con drift," wrote one player cited in the
complaint, on September 24. "Why is this happening earlier on than
with the earlier Switch?"

"I can't believe it, my Nintendo Switch Lite is already drifting,"
said another. "I was playing BOTW and the camera kept moving
without touching the analogue stick. I tried to calibrate and
update the controllers but it was still the same."

The firm of Chimicles Shwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith brought the
lawsuit, which lists 18 plaintiffs in 16 different states, after a
brief investigation this summer. That followed complaints and
anecdotes about Joy-Con drift almost since the console's launch in
March 2017.

Joy-Con drift is when a thumbstick for the Switch's stock
controller continues to register input even though it isn't being
moved. This can cause significant gameplay problems. The lawsuit
asserts federal claims of fraud and breach of warranty, as well as
violations of state consumer protection laws.

Nintendo's brief public response doesn't address any specific
claims in the lawsuit but does acknowledge the company is aware
that "some Joy-Con controllers are not responding correctly." The
company has asked anyone affected by this to get in touch with its
support department.

At the end of July, Nintendo was offering free repairs with no
questions asked, according to an internal memo obtained and
published by Vice.[GN]



OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Class Suit Survives Dismissal Bid
------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of
Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: OBLN) against certain of its
officers and directors.

Specifically, a class action lawsuit pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California against
Obalon and certain of its officers and directors recently survived,
in part, despite Defendants' attempts to have the case dismissed.
The case arises from certain allegedly materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition
and adherence to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

If you are a current, long-term shareholder of Obalon, you may have
standing to hold Obalon harmless from the alleged harm caused by
the officers and directors of the Company by making them personally
responsible. You may also be able to assist in reforming the
Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing.

If you are interested in learning more about your legal rights and
remedies, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number.

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes.

         Contact:
         Jim Baker, Esq.
         Johnson Fistel, LLP
         Tel: 619-814-4471
         Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com
[GN]



OCALA, FL: ACLU Accused of Moral Posturing in Homeless Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ocala-News reports that the city attorney accused the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Southern Legal Counsel of "moral
posturing" during September 24's Ocala City Council meeting.

City attorney Patrick Gilligan, Esq. made the remarks at the end of
the meeting reference to a recent class action lawsuit filed
against the city of Ocala.

Gilligan spoke at length against what he suggested was an attempt
at "usurpation of council's legislative prerogative."

The named plaintiffs (Patrick McArdle, Courtney Ramsey, and Anthony
Cummings) filed the complaint on September 19 "on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated," alleging that
specific policies and initiatives of the city of Ocala and Mayor
Kent Guinn have been an effort to "force homeless people to leave
town."

"I take this personally, because it was a usurpation of council's
legislative prerogative. There's a moral posturing to it," said
Gilligan. He described the complaint as being filled with "vitriol"
for the mayor and accused the organizations of trying to attack the
mayor's reputation.

"They don't politic council to say here's what we need to do,
here's the money we need to spend. Do it the old fashioned way.
They don't do that. They don't put up candidates to go run against
you guys, and the various city council members, because that's
their agenda. They don't do that. They issue press releases that
impugn the character of our mayor, and I think impugn the character
of our council," said Gilligan.

He went on to suggest that the situation was akin to the growth of
homeless communities in Los Angeles, using a doctor's
characterization of the issue as "slow motion manslaughter."

"What they're suggesting to us through the lawsuit is, you fund all
of this, they don't know what the price tag is, you fund all this,
you do all this, and if you don't do it, you simply let these
people do whatever they want out in public wherever they want to
be, and then you have Los Angeles. Then you have the slow-moving
manslaughter. I don't see that as moral. I don't see that as caring
for your fellow human being," added Gilligan.

His concerns were ultimately echoed by the mayor.

"We need to really fight this suit, because if we don't, then what
Pat described is exactly what's going to happen. We can't be
another Los Angeles or San Francisco. We've spent millions and
millions of dollars, and the public has spent millions and millions
of dollars to do a lot of great things in this city. And we can't
let it turn into that," said Mayor Guinn.

Both Gilligan and Guinn indicated that although they could not
offer an adequate alternative solution, the complaint did not do so
either.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the "lack of adequate
alternatives" are creating situations where the homeless have no
choice but to sleep in the woods, on streets, sidewalks, parks, or
other outdoor areas around Ocala.

According to the complaint, the three plaintiffs have cumulatively
spent 210 days in jail and been assessed over $9,000 in fines,
fees, and costs due to the City's enforcement of its "'open
lodging' ordinance and practice of trespassing homeless people from
public places."

The complaint additionally attacks the mayor's "broken windows"
policy and suggests it is a method of "driving homeless people out
of the city." It accuses the city of issuing trespass warnings to
ban homeless individuals from public places (including public
parks) in "circumstances when the individual committed no criminal
violation."

"Is there a solution? Yeah, I think there is. That's why when I got
elected one of the first things we did was create Open Arms
Village," said Guinn. Open Arms Village is a community that
provides services to homeless individuals in the community. The
program currently offers 20 beds for single men facing
homelessness.

"The answer is not to just allow them to sleep anywhere they want
to, out on Citizens Circle, out on City Hall, and anywhere else in
town that they want," added Guinn. [GN]



OHIO: Gallant's Bid to Withdraw Civil Claim Granted; Case Closed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Jeremy P. Gallant v. Ronald Erdos, et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00039-MRB-SKB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Michael R.
Barrett grants the Petition to Withdraw the Civil Claim filed by
Plaintiff Jeremy P. Gallant.

The Plaintiff states that his civil claim has been rendered moot by
virtue of his transfer from the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
(SOCF) to the Toledo Correctional Facility (TOCI), and he includes
a declaration given pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1746.

Accordingly, Judge Barrett rules, the Plaintiff's Petition for
Class Certifications, Petition for Legal Representation and Request
for Judicial Corrections are all denied as moot and the Clerk is
directed to terminate this case from the active docket of the
Court.[CC]


ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALTY: Fenwick Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jaline Fenwick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Orthopedic Specialty Institute, PLLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-62290 (S.D. Fla., September 16, 2019),
seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Orthopedic Specialty Institute offers rehabilitation services
including Platelet-Rich-Plasma and Adult Mesenchymal Stem cell
therapies.

It engaged in unsolicited telemarketing directed towards
prospective customers and transmitted multiple text messages with
intent to encourage its recipients to avail of its services,
asserts the complaint. At no point in time did Fenwick provide them
with his express written consent to be contacted using an automated
dialer. [BN]

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
      Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

             - and -

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


OVATION CREDIT: Inside Sales Reps Class Certified in Diggs Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Marcia Morales Howard granted the Plaintiff's expedited
motion to conditionally certify collective action in the lawsuit
captioned VERNON DIGGS, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated v. OVATION CREDIT SERVICES, INC., TERRY D.
CORDELL, and AMY MYERS, Case No. 3:18-cv-00367-MMH-MCR (M.D.
Fla.).

Judge Howard granted the Plaintiff's expedited Motion to
Conditionally Certify Collective Action and Facilitate Notice to
Potential Class Members to the extent the Plaintiff seeks
conditional certification of the putative class identified in the
Motion.  In particular, Mr. Diggs sought an order "conditionally
certifying a class of current and [former] [inside sales
representatives] or Credit Analysts who worked for Defendants for
the three year period prior to the filing of the Complaint in this
case to the present."

The Court directs the parties to meaningfully confer, by Oct. 25,
2019, either in person or by extensive telephone conference, and to
file a joint proposed class notice form for distribution to
putative class members.  By that same date, if the parties have not
been able to resolve all of the Defendants' objections, then the
parties shall file a joint brief to the Court stating each side's
positions regarding any remaining objections still in dispute.

The Court defers ruling on Mr. Diggs' request for Court approval of
the Proposed Notice until after the parties have meaningfully
conferred on the issue.

Mr. Diggs initiated this putative collective action on March 16,
2018, by filing a two-count Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial
against the Defendants.  In the Complaint, he alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
compensate him and other similarly situated employees for their
overtime hours (Count One) and by failing to pay him and other
similarly situated employees a minimum wage (Count Two).[CC]


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN HA, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. OVERSTOCK.COM INC., GREGORY J. IVERSON and
PATRIC BYRNE, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00709-DAK (D. Utah,
Sept. 27, 2019) is a federal class action on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of Overstock.com Inc. between May 9, 2019, and
September 23, 2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants published a series of
materially false and misleading statements which defendants knew
and/or deliberately disregarded were false and materially
misleading at the time of such publication, and which omitted to
reveal material information necessary to make defendants'
statements, in light of such material omissions, not materially
false and misleading.

The Company had been on a long streak of losing money, and had not
reported a net quarterly profit since 4Q:16, the complaint relates.
In part, the Company was locked in a hopeless struggle for market
share against a competitor, Wayfair.com, that had committed to
losing billions of dollars to gain control over the market.
Realizing the market dynamics made it nearly impossible for
Overstock to return to profitability, Overstock embarked on a
blockchain strategy several years ago that was designed to profit
on new markets for crypto currency. In fact, it was recently
reported that, for the last several years, defendant Byrne spent no
fewer than 220 days a year on the road, "spreading his blockchain
gospel, despite the fact that Overstock was hemorrhaging cash."

The complaint notes that Defendants issued a series of press
releases and made statements in SEC filings and during Conference
Calls for analysts and investors that promoted the Company's
transition to crypto currency exchange service provider, and
extolled the benefits that this would purport to provide to
investors. What defendants did not disclose, however, were the
extreme risks and foreseeable volatility that was likely to result
if and when Defendants' true intentions behind their "tZERO
Dividend Offering" were ever discovered. In fact, as investors
belatedly discovered beginning on September 16, 2019, defendants
had engineered the tZERO offering as revenge upon short sellers and
tried to create a short squeeze by offering a digital token
dividend that would not be registered and could not be resold for
at least 6 months. The lock-up period created by the issuance of an
unregistered security effectively resulted in the inability of
short sellers to deliver the security upon the surrender of their
shares.

Thus, the Defendants were motivated to, and did conceal, the true
operational and financial condition of Overstock, and materially
misrepresented and failed to disclose the conditions that were
adversely affecting the Company throughout the Class Period,
because it (i) enabled them to deceive the investing public
regarding Overstock's business, operations, management and the
intrinsic value of Overstock common stock; (ii) enabled defendants
to artificially inflate the price of Overstock common stock; (iii)
enabled defendant Byrne to sell over $100 million of his privately
held Overstock shares while in possession of material adverse
non-public information about the Company; (iv) enabled defendants
to sell additional shares of Overstock in the market to create a
cash fund necessary to support its crypto projects (in the face of
them being abandoned by investment partners); and (v) caused
Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase Overstock
common stock at artificially inflated prices, says the complaint.

Plaintiff BENJAMIN HA purchased the common stock of Overstock at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

Overstock operated an internet website selling household furniture
and accessories, such as bed and bath and kitchen products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Heather M. Sneddon, Esq.
     Jared D. Scott, Esq.
     Jason E. Greene, Esq.
     ANDERSON & KARRENBERG, P.C.
     50 West Broadway, Suite 700
     Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2035
     Phone: (801) 534-1700
     Facsimile: (801) 364-7697
     Email: hsneddon@aklawfirm.com
            jscott@aklawfirm.com
            jgreene@aklawfirm.com

          - and -

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



OVERSTOCK.COM: Company, 2 Executives Accused of Securities Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kollen Post, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that a new
complaint filed in Utah accuses Overstock.com, former CEO Patrick
Byrne and former CFO Greg Iverson of securities fraud.

Filed on Friday, Sept. 27, 2019, the complaint requests a trial by
jury, alleging that Byrne designed Overstock.com's digital
asset-based dividend as a means of punishing short sellers, which
other outlets have alleged previously. On the subject, and in
language more dramatic than many legal filings, the complaint
reads:

"While defendant Byrne had previously, at different times, launched
into public tirades over short selling and naked short selling, the
tZERO Dividend was his secret plot to finally obtain hegemony over
them -- and it almost worked."

Punishing short sellers

In July, Overstock.com began offering a special dividend called
"Digital Voting Series A-1 Preferred Stock," which would trade on
the company's own blockchain platform. However, and unusually,
investors would not be able to trade the dividend at all for six
months. The complaint explains the mechanism of tampering with
Overstock.com's stock price:

"While shares traded to a Class Period high of $26.89 each on
September 13, 2019, they traded to as low as $15.50 by September
18, 2019, three trading days later, after investors learned that
the tZERO dividend was designed to be a short squeeze."

As Cointelegraph reported at the time, Byrne managed to sell his
13% share in Overstock.com for $90 million in the days leading up
to Sept. 18.

The complaint claims that Overstock.com, Byrne and Iverson violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act governing antifraud
provisions of securities swaps, and that Byrne alone violated
Section 20(a) of the same act by virtue of his status as
controlling person.

Both Byrne and Iverson resigned from their positions at
Overstock.com recently, Byrne on Aug. 22 and Iverson on Sept. 17.
Byrne's resignation was particularly dramatic, with him claiming
that it was due to scandal surrounding a relationship with alleged
spy Maria Butina and involvement with federal agencies.

News of Byrne's resignation came as a shock to the crypto
community, given his long history of support for Bitcoin and
blockchain technologies. Indeed, September 27's complaint reads
that:

"In fact, it was recently reported that, for the last several
years, defendant Byrne spent no fewer than 220 days a year on the
road, 'spreading his blockchain gospel, despite the fact that
Overstock was hemorrhaging cash.'" [GN]



PACKERS SANITATION: Underpays Workers, Elkhouly Claims
------------------------------------------------------
ABDELRAHMAN ELKHOULY, on behalf of all other similarly situated
aggrieved employees, the Plaintiffs, vs. PACKERS SANITATION
SERVICES, LTD., LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV27396 (Cal. Super., Aug. 5, 2019),
alleges that Defendants failed to pay all wages due to illegal
rounding; failed to provide all meal periods; and failed to
authorize and permit all paid rest periods.

The Defendants were joint employers of Plaintiffs in that they were
operating as joint enterprises and both suffered and permitted
Plaintiffs to work for each and both of them.

According to the Industrial Welfare Commission Order, the
Defendants are required to pay all aggrieved employees for all
hours worked, meaning the time during which an employee is subject
to the control of an employer including all the time the employee
is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do
so.

Packers Sanitation Services provides contract cleaning and night
sanitation services. The company offers meat and poultry contract
cleaning, as well as written food sanitation procedures, training
and technical assistance, and safety management services. Packers
Sanitation Services serves customers in the United States and
Canada.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff Abdelrahman Elkhouly, on behalf of all
other similarly situated aggrieved employees, are:

          Bruce Kokozian, Esq.
          KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC
          9440 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 510
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone (323) 857-5900

PAPA JOHN'S: Class of Delivery Drivers Certified in Thomas Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael R. Barrett grants the Plaintiff's Motion to
Conditionally Certify an FLSA Collective Action and to Authorize
Notice in the lawsuit entitled Derrick Thomas v. Papa John's
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00411-MRB (S.D.
Ohio).

The FLSA collective class is defined as:

     All non-owner, non-employer delivery drivers who worked for
     Defendants at any "It's Only" Papa John's Pizza location
     from June 16, 2014 to present.

Judge Barrett directs the Plaintiff to file an amended notice
consistent with the court's findings herein within 14 days of entry
of this Order.  The Franchisee Defendants shall provide to the
Plaintiff's counsel a computer-readable list of the names and
contact information of all putative collective members within 14
days of entry of this Order.  The Plaintiff's counsel may transmit,
at the Plaintiff's cost, notice of the lawsuit to putative
collective members via electronic mail and first-class U.S. mail or
equivalent means.

The Putative collective members may opt-in to the lawsuit within 45
days after mailing.

Plaintiff Derrick Thomas brought this lawsuit on behalf of himself
and other delivery drivers at nine Papa John's stores located in
Cincinnati owned and operated by It's Only Downtown Pizza, Inc.,
It's Only Pizza, Inc., It's Only Papa's Pizza LLC, and/or Michael
Hutmier (the "Franchisee Defendants").  The Plaintiff also brings
claims against the franchisor of the Papa John's restaurants, Papa
John's International, Inc. ("PJI"), under a theory of
joint-employer liability.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants maintained policies and
practices which caused Plaintiff's and similarly situated delivery
drivers' wages to fall below minimum wage in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Ohio law.[CC]


PENN CREDIT: Guidry's TCPA Suit Transferred to M.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, TERRANCE GUIDRY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PENN CREDIT CORPORATION, the
Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-00997-MJJ-CBW (W.D. La., July 31,
2019), has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.

The lawsuit contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff brings this class action for damages and other
equitable and legal remedies resulting from the unlawful conduct of
Defendant in negligently or knowingly and/or willfully placing
calls to the cellular telephones belonging to Plaintiff and
putative Class Members for non-emergency purposes, using an
automatic telephone-dialing system without their prior express
consent, in violation of the TCPA.

The Plaintiff has been a Metro PCS subscriber since at least
December 2017 and holder of cellular telephone number 337-XXX-4748
since that time. Plaintiff was the called party and recipient of
Defendant's calls.

Between August 2018 and October 2018, Defendant placed, or caused
to be placed, at least two telephone calls to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing system or
pre-recorded or artificial voice, the lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, Defendant's robocalls, as received by
Plaintiff, did not provide him an opportunity to opt out of, or
request the cessation of Defendant’s calls.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Rene F. Rocha III, Esq.
          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          909 Poydras Street, Suite 1625
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: 305 989-8688
          E-mail: rrocha@forthepeople.com
                  jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  jcohen@forthepeople.com

Defendant Penn Credit is represented by:

         Blake Edward Oakes, Esq.
         Oakes Law Firm
         Telephone: 504-367-3479
         E-mail: blake@oakeslaw.com

PNY TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks More Time to Respond to Geske Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PNY Technologies,
Inc. The case is captioned as Cassandra Geske on behalf of herself
and a ll others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PNY
Technologies, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05170 (N.D.
Ill., July 31, 2019). The suit alleges fraud and seeks $9.9 million
in damages.  The case is assigned to the Hon. Ronald A. Guzman, but
later reassigned to the Hon. Steven C. Seeger.

PNY Technologies is an American manufacturer of flash memory cards,
USB flash drives, solid state drives, memory upgrade modules,
portable battery chargers, computer locks, cables, chargers,
adapters, as well as consumer and professional graphics cards.

                            *     *     *

A Standing Order dated Sept. 23 was entered in the case docket.
The Standing Order applies to all civil cases reassigned to the
calendar of District Judge Steven C. Seeger.  All previously-set
status or motion hearing dates are vacated.  Any trials set for
September 23, 2019 through October 31, 2019 are cancelled and will
be re-set by the Court.

Unless otherwise ordered, all other previously-set deadlines and
schedules remain intact. The Court will set a date for a
reassignment status conference after the parties have filed the
joint status report. The Court will address already-pending motions
at that conference.

The parties are directed not to notice or re-notice any motions,
with the exception of emergency motions, before appearing at the
reassignment status conference. All emergency motions arising
before September 30, 2019 should be noticed before the emergency
judge.

For all emergency motions arising after September 30, 2019, but
before the date of the reassignment conference, the parties are
directed to contact chambers at (312) 435-5588. Emergency matters
must be true emergencies, meaning that a delay in hearing them
would cause serious and irreparable harm to one or more of the
parties. To help the Court learn about the case, counsel shall
confer, prepare, and file a joint status report by October 1, 2019.
If defense counsel has not yet filed an appearance, plaintiff's
counsel should prepare the status report. The report shall contain
the information requested in the Initial Status Report For
Reassigned Case.

PNY had asked the Court for more time to file its answer.  A
hearing on that request was initially set for Sept. 25.  Following
the Court's Standing Order, the hearing date was stricken.  This
matter will be set for hearing at a later date.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Brenton Jeremy Goodman, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS
          MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A
          316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7170
          E-mail: bgoodman@levinlaw.com

               - and -

          D. Gregory Blankinship, Esq.
          Matthew D. Schultz, Esq.
          William F. Cash, III, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP
             FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3290
          E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                  mschultz@levinlaw.com
                  bcash@levinlaw.com

Defendant PNY Technologies, Inc. is represented by:

          Ronald Y Rothstein, Esq.
          Amelia Rose Garza-mattia, Esq.
          Sean H. Suber, Esq.
          Winston & Strawn LLP
          Telephone: 312-558-5600
          E-mail: rrothstein@winston.com
                  agarzamattia@winston.com
                  ssuber@winston.com


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Los Angeles Drops Lawsuit Over DWP System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Daily News reports that dogged by an FBI probe leading
to witnesses unwilling to testify in the case, the city of Los
Angeles is dropping its lawsuit against consulting firm
PricewaterhouseCoopers over the botched rollout of a Department of
Water and Power billing system that caused many customers to
receive wildly inflated bills.

In a statement first reported by the Los Angeles Times, city
attorney spokesman Rob Wilcox said key witnesses in the city's case
-- David Wright, the former head of DWP, and Paul Paradis, an
attorney who formerly did consulting work for the City Attorney's
Office on the issue -- invoked their 5th Amendment right against
self-incrimination, impairing the city's ability to proceed with
its lawsuit.

"In 2015, the city alleged fraud against PwC in procuring the
significant billing system contract from DWP, and, in 2018,
withstood PwC's attempt to dismiss the case through the summary
judgment when the court agreed the case could move forward," Wilcox
said.

Wilcox said the city's claims were set for trial early next year,
but DWP's ability to prove damages "has been severely undermined by
the unavailability of key witnesses who have invoked their 5th
Amendment right against self-incrimination."

Wright and Paradis are also key figures in an ongoing FBI
investigation of the city's handling of the DWP billing rollout and
the ensuing legal battles.

"Unable to overcome the current circumstances, the city is
dismissing its case," Wilcox stated.

The city was trying through the legal action to recoup potentially
hundreds of millions of dollars resulting from the 2013 overbilling
fiasco. Dismissing the lawsuit could leave the city, and DWP
ratepayers, on the hook for those costs and other litigation
stemming from the billing rollout.

A 2018 DWP document estimated that the associated costs to comply
with the settlement could be as much as $300 million, The Times
reported.

Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court told The Times that the
decision to dismiss the case is an effort to "silence" the
investigation. He also questioned whether it was politically
motivated, given that City Attorney Mike Feuer has publicly said he
is considering running for mayor in 2022.

"The city shouldn't be allowed to dismiss this case before there's
full disclosure. Ratepayer money is being left on the table," Court
said, according to The Times.

The city sued PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2015 over the company's
handling of the DWP billing system rollout. The botched rollout led
to many customers receiving over-inflated bills, prompting a
class-action lawsuit and a $67 million settlement.

But the city's lawsuit against PricewaterhouseCoopers was eclipsed
by more recent allegations of fraud and double-dealing by attorneys
hired by Feuer to sue the consulting firm, The Times reported. The
allegations culminated with a July FBI raid of the DWP's
headquarters and the city attorney's office.

PricewaterhouseCoopers' attorney, Daniel Thomasch, Esq. told The
Times on September 26 that the consulting firm intends to pursue
monetary sanctions against the city for litigation misconduct.

The firm's "defense has revealed that the DWP perpetrated a fraud
on the court, on (PricewaterhouseCoopers), and on the DWP's own
customers, in its attempt to cover up its own failures," Thomasch
said.

Also on September 26, the city filed court documents seeking to
freeze legal fees given to two attorneys who worked on the
class-action lawsuit brought against the DWP over the billing
errors, The Times reported. The filing marks the first time that
the city moved to recoup money following revelations about the
alleged misconduct by attorneys.

Wilcox said in his statement, "As the first step toward returning
to the ratepayers' attorney fees paid to Jack Landskroner, former
class counsel in the DWP billing cases, the city, in conjunction
with current class counsel, took legal action to freeze those fees
and compel Mr. Landskroner to establish what, if any, amounts he
should be entitled to retain."

According to Los Angeles Superior Court documents, the next status
hearing related to Landskroner and other matters has been scheduled
at 11 a.m. Nov. 26. [GN]



PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Matke's Bid for Class Certification Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin granted the Plaintiff's
motion to stay further proceedings on the motion for class
certification in the lawsuit entitled DEBORAH MATKE v. PROFESSIONAL
ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01408-WED (E.D. Wisc.).

On September 27, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a class action
complaint.  At the same time, she filed what the court commonly
refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification.  In
this motion the plaintiff moved to certify the class described in
the complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings
on that motion.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint."  Id.
"The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from
attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."  Id.  However, because
parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class
certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation."
Id.

Hence, Judge Duffin granted the Plaintiff's motion to stay further
proceedings on the motion for class certification.  The parties are
relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil
Local Rule 7(b) and (c).

Moreover, Judge Duffin noted, for administrative purposes, it is
necessary that the Clerk terminate the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  However, this motion will be regarded as pending to
serve its protective purpose under Damasco.[CC]


PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Curtis Seeks to Certify Class of Insureds
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled RACHEL CURTIS, Individually
and on Behalf of Persons Similarly Situated v. PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:17-cv-01076-PRW (W.D. Okla.), asks
the Court to certify this class:

     All entities and adult persons domiciled or residing in the
     State of Oklahoma who were covered by an automobile policy
     from Defendant containing collision and/or comprehensive
     coverage which resulted in a total loss utilizing the
     Mitchell Workcenter Total Loss (WCTL) system from July 1,
     2010 to the date of notice of class certification.

Ms. Curtis also asks the Court to appoint her as Class
Representative, and to appoint Brad West, Esq., and Shawn Spencer,
Esq., of The West Law Firm and Jason Waddell, Esq., of Jason
Waddell, PLLC as Class Counsel.

Progressive uniformly uses an automated computer program from
Mitchell International called Work Center Total Loss (WCTL) to
value first party total loss vehicle claims, according to the
Motion.

Progressive's use of WCTL routinely provides lower base values than
those from generally recognized industry sources, such as National
Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), Ms. Curtis alleges.  She
contends that Progressive's use of WCTL violates Oklahoma law,
breaches her contract with Progressive, and amounts to a breach of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing, for which she seeks
recovery.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Waddell, Esq.
          JASON WADDELL, PLLC
          222 NW 13th St.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73103
          Telephone: (405) 232-5291
          Facsimile: (405) 708-7871
          E-mail: Jason@JasonWaddellLaw.com

               - and -

          Terry W. West, Esq.
          Bradley D. West, Esq.
          J. Shawn Spencer, Esq.
          THE WEST LAW FIRM
          124 W. Highland - P.O. Box 698
          Shawnee, OK 74802-0698
          Telephone: (405) 275-0040
          Facsimile: (405) 275-0052
          E-mail: brad@thewestlawfirm.com
                  shawn@thewestlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brad L. Roberson, Esq.
          ROBERSON, KOLKER, COOPER & GOERES, P.C.
          119 N Robinson Ave., 11th Floor
          Renaissance Bldg.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102-4620
          Telephone: (405) 606-3333

               - and -

          Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
          Julia C. Barrett, Esq.
          Matt Brigman, Esq.
          Fisher K. Law, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          E-mail: zmcentyre@kslaw.com
                  jbarrett@kslaw.com
                  mbrigman@kslaw.com
                  fklaw@kslaw.com


PYRAMID EXCAVATION: Chesscher Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Chesscher, on his own behalf and on behalf of other
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Pyramid Excavation and
Construction, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00749 (W.D. Mo.,
September 13, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime compensation and related
penalties, costs and attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Pyramid predominantly provides construction services in the region,
and across the country where Chesscher worked as a laborer. He
claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek but was
not compensated for his overtime hours. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq.
     HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
     1501 Westport Road
     Kansas City, MO 64111
     Tel: (816) 875-3332
     Email: jziegelmeyer@hkm.com
     Website: www.hkm.com

            - and -

     Michael Hodgson, Esq.
     THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
     3699 SW Pryor Rd.
     Lee's Summit, MO 64082
     Tel: (816) 600-0117
     Email: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Carroll et al. Data Breach Suit Moved to NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned JOHN CARROLL, GABRIEL MOLINA, and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs. vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
INCORPORATED, dba QUEST HEALTH, INC., THE QUEST COMPANIES, AMERICA
MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, OPTUM OPTUM360, OPTUM, INC. AND UNITED
HEALTH GROUP, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07100 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 30, 2019), has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants failed to:

     -- properly secure and safeguard protected health information,
as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act ("HIPAA"), medical information, and other personally
identifiable information (collectively, "PII");

     -- provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff
and other Class Members that the integrity of their PII had been
compromised; and

     -- provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff
and other Class Members of the nature and scope of the PII that was
exposed.

On June 3, 2019, Quest publicly announced that approximately two
weeks earlier on May 14, its billing collections vendor AMCA
advised Quest of "unauthorized activity on AMCA's web payment page"
which compromised the PII of approximately 11.9 million Quest
patients. The exposed PII included "financial information (e.g.,
credit card numbers and bank account information), medical
information and other personal information (e.g., Social Security 3
Numbers)" ("Data Breach"). Quest further revealed that the exposure
occurred between August 1, 2018, and March 30, 2019.

Despite the breadth and sensitivity of the PII that was exposed and
the attendant consequences to patients as a result thereof,
Defendants failed to disclose the Data Breach for nearly two months
from the time it was first discovered, further exacerbating harm to
patients. Moreover, to date, Defendants have not disclosed the full
extent and nature of the Data Breach, nor offered anything to its
patients to address and compensate the harm they have suffered.

The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect Patient PII. The Defendants
disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by
intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems
were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose
that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and
security practices to safeguard Patient PII; failing to take
standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach;
failing to monitor and timely detect the Data Breach; and failing
to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice
of the Data Breach.

As a result of Defendants' failure to implement and follow basic
security procedures, Patient PII is now in the hands of thieves.
Plaintiff and Class Members have had to spend, and will continue to
spend, significant amounts of time and money in an effort to
protect themselves from the adverse ramifications of the Data
Breach and will forever be at a heightened risk of identity theft
and fraud, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leigh Smith, Esq.
          MILBERG PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
          One Pennsylvaia Plaza, Suite 1920
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Telephone: (212) 894 5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868 1229
          E-mail: lsmith@milberg.com

RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Robinson Files FDCPA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RECEIVABLES
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT LLC. The case is styled as Tyisha N.
Robinson individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-18751 (D. N.J., Oct. 7, 2019).

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

Receivables Performance Management or RPM is a collections agency
founded in 2002, and is headquartered in Lynnwood, Washington. This
debt collector operates in virtually every industry, including
bankcards, utilities, telecommunications, healthcare, and
retail.[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


RGS FINANCIAL: Weinberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RGS Financial, Inc.
The case is styled as Alexander J. Weinberg individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RGS
Financial, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05661 (E.D. N.Y., Oct.
7, 2019).

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

RGS Financial, Inc. provides financial services. The Company offers
business process outsourcing, third party debt collection, asset
location, consulting, and data security services.[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


SAKS FIFTH: Toon's Overtime Suit Underway in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Saks Fifth Avenue is ongoing in
Massachusetts.  The case is captioned, TROY TOON, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, the
Plaintiff, v. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE LLC, and JOHN DOES, the Defendants,
Case No. 19-2447H (Mass. Super., July 31, 2019), and seeks damages
based Defendants' failure to pay wages pursuant to the
Massachusetts Wage Law.

Saks operates a high-end clothing retail store on Boylston Street
in Boston. The Plaintiff worked as a salesperson for Saks from
approximately February 2017 through January 2019.

Saks's company-wide compensation structure for salespeople was
based on a 100% commission/draw model. Employees' pay each week was
based on a percentage of the goods sold by each salesperson. To the
extent an employee's pay for any given week fell below a certain
threshold, Saks would advance the employee a "draw" on future
commissions.

Pursuant to this pay policy, draws and commissions were ostensibly
applied to hours worked over 40 hours per week, and to hours worked
on Sundays and holidays.

Saks did not pay any additional compensation for such work beyond
the draws and commissions. The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours
in a at least one week during the class. The Plaintiff worked on at
least one Sunday or covered holiday during the period.

Saks did not base its pay to Plaintiff, or members of the Class, on
the amount of overtime hours, or the amount of hours worked on
Sundays and holidays, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Josh Gardner, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq.
          GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C.
          One State Street, Fourth Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: 617-390-7570
          E-mail: iosh@gardnerrosenbera.com

SEA WORLD PARKS: Stewart Suit Asserts Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON STEWART, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. SEA WORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; SEA WORLD LLC; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00052073-CU-OE-CTL (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Oct. 1, 2019) is a class action brought
by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of current and former
employees of Defendants for violations of the California Labor
Code.

The complaint relates that Defendants have failed to comply with
California's strict wage and hour laws and regulations.
Specifically, Plaintiff and Defendants' other non-exempt employees
in California have been subjected to unlawful rounding off of their
work time. The Defendants' policies and practices required
Plaintiff and the Class members to round down their time to their
detriment. Rather than paying Plaintiff and the Class members for
all hours and minutes they actually worked, Sea World has
maintained a timekeeping system whereby if an employee clocks in up
to seven minutes early or clocks out up to seven minutes late, the
employee has been paid for only their scheduled work time.

The Defendants' willful actions have resulted in the systematic
underpayment of wages to Plaintiff and Defendants' other non-exempt
employees, including underpayment of overtime pay to Plaintiff and
non-exempt employees, over the relevant time period, says the
complaint. The Defendants' unlawful, unfair and deceptive
employment and wage practices cheat Plaintiff and other members of
the proposed Classes out of their lawful compensation, as required
by California law.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an animal trainer and
animal keeper from approximately 2006 to June 2019.

SEAWORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC. is theme park and
entertainment company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David C. Hawkes, Esq.
     BLANCHARD, KRASNER & FRENCH
     800 Silverado St., 2nd Floor
     La Jolla, CA 9203 7
     Phone: (858) 551-2440
     Facsimile: (858) 614-7008
     Email: dhawkes@bkflaw.com

          - and -

     David A. Huch, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DA YID A. HUCH
     3281 E. Guasti Rd., Ste. 700
     Ontario, CA 91761
     Phone: (909) 212-7945
     Facsimile: (909) 614-7008
     Email: david.a.huch@gmail.com



SENSA INC: Court Denies Stoke's Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JOSE CONDE, et al., the
Plaintiffs, vs. SENSA, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-51
JLS (S.D. Cal.)(WVG), the Court entered an order denying Plaintiff
Susan Grace Stokes' renewed motion for class certification of:

   "all persons in the United States who purchased the Sensa
   Weight-Loss System on or after August 22, 2012 excluding
   purchases made directly from Sensa, Inc. and Sensa
   Products, LLC."

Alternatively, Stokes seeks to certify a Florida class comprising
"all persons who purchased the Sensa Weight-Loss System in Florida
on or after August 22, 2012 excluding purchases made directly from
Sensa, Inc. and Sensa Products, LLC."

The Court said, "Although the Ninth Circuit previously had
intimated that certification is improper where there is 'no
definable class,' Lozano, 504 F.3d at 730, it recently declined to
interpret Rule 23 to require a showing of ascertainability.
Consequently, despite the Court's previous conclusion that Ms.
Stokes had failed to demonstrate that her proposed class was
ascertainable, and Defendants' renewed contention to that effect,
the Court concludes that Ms. Stokes need not make a showing as to
ascertainability."

The Defendants contend that the proposed Florida class cannot be
certified because it "suffers from all the defects detailed above
that apply to the proposed nationwide class, except for the 'state
law differences' predominance issue."  Having concluded that Ms.
Stokes has failed to meet the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements, the Court
agrees with the Defendants. Further, "the desirability of
concentrating this litigation in the [Southern] District of
California is unclear because the purported class members are not
residents of this state."  The Court therefore denied Stokes'
Renewed motion as to the alternative Florida class.[CC]

SHAFER PROJECT: Lewis Seeks Overtime Pay for Coating Inspectors
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Shafer Project Resources, Inc.,
remains pending.  The case is, 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.D., Sept. 3, 2019), and seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Shafer Project
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

SHARP ELECTRONICS: Macone Sues Over Defective Microwaves
--------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS MACONE, individually and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-12021 (D. Mass., Sept. 25, 2019) is an
action brought to remedy Sharp's unlawful conduct in connection
with the design, manufacture, marketing, advertising, selling,
warranting and servicing of defective microwaves.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sold the Microwaves
without warning consumers that the Microwaves are likely to
overheat and could result in buzzing, overheating of the magnetron,
scorching of the waveguide, smoking, and ultimate failure. The
damage to the Microwaves, resulting from the Defect, is not a
result of misuse of any kind, such as overcooking or prolonged
heating by the owner because it takes less than 30 seconds for the
magnetron tube to overheat, notes the complaint.

As a direct and proximate result of Sharp's concealment of the
Defect, its failure to warn customers about the Defect before their
purchase of the Microwaves, its inability or refusal to replace the
defective Microwaves with non-defective Microwaves, and its failure
to recall the Product or remedy the Defect, Plaintiff and other
similarly situated customers purchased and used Sharp's defective
Microwaves when they otherwise would not have made such purchases
or would not have paid as much for the defective Microwaves, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Stoneham, Middlesex County,
Massachusetts who purchased the Microwave based on the drawer
feature, but also based on Sharp's reputable name and
representations that the Microwaves were of high quality.

Sharp is one of the largest technology companies in the world. It
designs, manufactures and sells a variety of technological
products, including kitchen appliances such as microwaves.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Katherine Aizpuru, Esq.
     Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
     Andrea Gold, Esq.
     TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
     1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20036
     Phone: (202) 973-0900
     Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
     Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
            kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
            agold@tzlegal.com

          - and –

     Harper T. Segui, Esq.
     Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
     WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
     900 W. Morgan Street
     Raleigh, NC 27603
     Phone: 919-600-5000
     Email: dan@wbmllp.com
            harper@wbmllp.com

          - and -

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


SLIDE FIRE: Class Action Lawsuit Allowed to Move Forward
--------------------------------------------------------
Gabriella Benavidez, writing for Fox 5 Vegas News, reports that a
Las Vegas judge has allowed a class-action lawsuit against Slide
Fire Solutions, LP to move forward in Nevada District Court on
behalf of a 1 October shooting victim, according to court
documents.

The suit was initially filed on Oct. 6, 2017, but on Sept. 17,
2018, the court granted Slide Fire's motion to dismiss without
prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.

According to court documents, the amended complaint was filed in
District Court on Sept. 26.

The suit alleges that Slide Fire unlawfully marketed and sold bump
stocks to Stephen Paddock before he committed the largest mass
shooting in modern U.S. history. Slide Fire filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit, which was granted and denied in part.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs had "plausibly alleged a claim
for negligence against Slide Fire," court documents said. The claim
was allowed to proceed.

The plaintiffs alleged that Slide Fire had violated the Nevada
Deceptive Trade Practices Act by falsely representing the safety
and nature of its products, such as suggesting that bump stocks
were approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Explosive,
court documents said.

The court held that Slide Fire knowingly broke the law applicable
to the sale or marketing of firearms and the shooting by proxy,
based on the plaintiffs' allegations, according to court
documents.

Slide Fire was provided no defense under the Lawful Commerce in
Arms Act against the plaintiffs' claims, court documents showed.

The company claimed there was no legal basis to establish that it
"had a legal duty to market a bump stock solely as a device to help
individuals with limited mobility," court documents said. The
plaintiffs allege in their claim that Slide Fire had obtained a
favorable evaluation from the ATF by representing bump stocks as a
way to help a person with limited mobility in their hands.

In 2010, Slide Fire said it sent a letter to the ATF, explaining
how bump stocks can assist with mobility. According to court
documents, when ATF reviewed the device, it concluded the device
did not need to be regulated as a firearm under the National
Firearms or Gun Control acts.

Under the misrepresentation to the ATF claim, the plaintiffs allege
that Slide Fire "represented the true purpose behind bump stocks --
to convert a semi-automatic weapon into one with the capability of
a fully automatic weapon," court documents said. If that claim had
been expressed in Slide Fire's letter to the ATF, the plaintiffs
said the agency would have enacted stricter regulations for bump
stocks.

Slide Fire retorted that its marketing of bump stocks wasn't a
considering in its 2010 letter to the ATF approving the sale and
manufacturing, according to court documents.

However, the court ruled there was no plausible argument against
Slide Fire on negligent affliction of emotional distress (NIED),
distress under a theory of bystander liability, negligent products
liability, strict products liability, false advertising under the
Lanham Act, deceptive trade practices under Nevada law, private
nuisance and negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrument
claims.

According to court documents, these claims against Slide Fire were
dismissed without prejudice.

Under the NIED claim, the court determined the plaintiffs did not
allege a relationship "between the victims and themselves," court
documents said. Nevada law imposes strict limitations on
relationships that may give rise to claim of NIED bystander
liability.

The court said it also concluded that the direct victim needed to
be able to assert a negligence claim that includes emotional
distress as part of the damage suffered, as well as intentional
wrongdoing.

According to court documents, while the claim was dismissed, it did
not "foreclose recovery of emotional distress with plaintiff's
negligence claim." [GN]



SNOWVIEW MANAGEMENT: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snowview Management
Corporation. The case is styled as Lawrence Young Individually And
On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
Snowview Management Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09246
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 7 2019).

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

Snowview Management Corp was founded in 1989. The company's line of
business includes operating public hotels and motels.[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


STARKIST CO: Class-Action Suit Payout Less Than Expected
--------------------------------------------------------
Christine Blank, writing for Seafoodsource.com, reports that
consumers who are part of a class-action lawsuit that Starkist Co.
agreed to settle in 2015 will get less than the tuna supplier
originally agreed to pay.

The lawsuit, which claimed that StarKist was underfilling its
five-ounce cans by a few tenths of an ounce, was settled out of
court, with Starkist admitting no fault. As a result of the suit,
residents of the United States who bought certain tuna products
could obtain either USD 25.00 (EUR 22.84) in cash or USD 50.00 (EUR
45.68) worth of coupons for Starkist tuna.

However, payouts have been reduced to USD 2.38 (EUR 2.18) in cash
per individual or USD 5.03 (EUR 4.60) in StarKist coupons, ABC 11
reported. The significantly lower payout is due to the fact that
more than 2.5 million people signed up for payment, which is 12
times more than Starkist anticipated, according to the news
station.

The distribution of settlement proceedings occurred on September
20, according to the Hendricks versus Starkist website.

"The appeals have been resolved, and the settlement is now final,"
the site said.

Earlier this month, StarKist was ordered to pay a criminal fine of
USD 100 million (EUR 90.3 million) for its role in a separate
lawsuit involving tuna price-fixing.

StarKist's attorneys had been pushing to have the fine lowered to
USD 50 million (EUR 45.1 million), calling the decision "life or
death" for the company, while prosecutors had been pushing for a
full fine based on the company's recent investment in TechPack
Solutions, an India-based can and bottle technology firm. [GN]




SUNDAY RILEY: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunday Riley Modern
Skincare, LLC. The case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios
Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Sunday Riley Modern Skincare, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-09285 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 7, 2019).

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

Sunday Riley Modern Skincare, LLC is in the Cosmetics, Perfumes,
and Hair Products business.[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



SUNRISE MEDICAL: Whalen Suit Transferred to New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Sunrise Medical Laboratories, Inc.,
is proceeding in New Jersey federal district court.  The case was
originally captioned as, Kelley Whalen, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated,  the Plaintiff, vs. Sunrise Medical
Laboratories, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04378-PKC-RLM
(E.D.N.Y., July 30, 2019), and assigned to the Hon. Judge Pamela K.
Chen in New York.

The case was transferred pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of
Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.

Sunrise Medical Laboratories Inc. was founded in 1972. The
company's line of business includes providing professional analytic
or diagnostic services for the medical profession.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

T & K SUPERMARKET: Grinblat ADA Suit Underway in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit remains pending against T & K Supermarket
LLC.  The case is captioned as Semyon Grinblat individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. T & K
Supermarket LLC, Average Realty LLC, and John Doe 1-X, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04472-AMD-RER (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 3,
2019). The suit alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ann M
Donnelly.

Summons were served on August 14 against the Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Grinblat, Esq.
     817 Broadway, Fourth Fl.
     New York, NY 10003
     Telephone: (347) 796-0712
     Facsimile: (212) 202-5130
     E-mail: michael.grinblatesq@gmail.com

TEXTRON INC: Oct. 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Textron Inc. (TXT)
Class Period: 1/31/2018 - 10/17/2018
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 21, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-textron-inc-securities-litigation-2
  

Valaris plc (f/k/a Ensco Rowan plc) (VAL)
Class Period: 4/11/2019 - 7/31/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 21, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-valaris-plc-securities-litigation

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]



TRENTON WATER WORKS: Team Yaede Explores Legal Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Sulaiman Abdur-Rahman, writing for the Trentonian, reports that a
former Hamilton Township councilman wants his town to sue Trenton
Water Works following the utility's latest boil water advisory and
equipment malfunction.

"I want to see a class-action lawsuit against this facility,"
Vinnie Capodanno, a Hamilton Republican, said September 27 of TWW.
"I'm sick and tired of their excuses."

Wracked by a recent history of problems, Trenton Water Works
experienced an equipment failure on Sept. 27 impacting its routine
disinfection process and forcing the city to issue a boil-water
advisory.

"Please continue to boil your water or use bottled water until you
are notified that the water quality is satisfactory," TWW advised
the five-municipality customer base in Trenton, Hamilton, Ewing,
Lawrence, and Hopewell Township. "This advisory will remain in
effect until repairs are completed and testing shows the water
quality to be safe."

Central pumping station equipment malfunctioned at TWW Friday
morning, but the problem "was fixed in about a half-hour," Mayor
Reed Gusciora said September 27 afternoon in an interview with The
Trentonian. "I am hopeful we can lift the advisory. I am just
waiting for the results to come back. We want to give all of our
customers the full transparency."

Boil advisories are issued whenever a public water system
experiences problems in chlorination or water treatment. Boiling
kills bacteria and other organisms in the water. TWW was expected
to lift its boil-water advisory on September 28 pending lab test
results.

Capodanno, a former Democrat who served on Hamilton's governing
body from 2000 to 2004, is now running for town council as a
Republican aligned with Hamilton's GOP incumbent Mayor Kelly Yaede,
who hopes to win re-election this November.

After Capodanno demanded a class-action lawsuit, Yaede's office
issued a news release September 27 afternoon saying she "has asked
Hamilton Township's Municipal Attorney to begin the process of
providing her with possible legal actions that the Municipal
Government can consider to take against Trenton Water Works and/or
the State of New Jersey, which regulates Trenton Water Works and
drinking water quality."

Yaede also sent a letter to Catherine McCabe, commissioner of New
Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection, "requesting that
the NJ DEP does its due diligence in investigating" whether there
was a causal link between TWW's chlorination levels and the
Legionnaires' disease outbreak associated with Hamilton's Alvin E.
Gershen senior housing complex.

When informed about Capodanno's lawsuit threat, Gusciora defended
TWW's public water system.

"I don't know what he would be suing for," Gusciora said September
27, adding the boil-water advisory "has demonstrated that the
actual system works."

"The system worked as it is supposed to," Gusciora said in a
separate press statement. "There was an equipment malfunction and
TWW detected lower than usual levels of chlorine in the water
during the early morning. The issue was addressed within minutes
and we notified NJ DEP. DEP wanted us to be precautious and send
out the advisory until testing is finished, and we get the green
light. We will be keeping everyone informed as we remediate the
situation to maintain our full transparency."

Gusciora had "a couple conversations" with Hamilton's mayor, he
said, describing those conversations as "cordial."

"I just told her in the end don't beat us up too bad; she laughed,"
he said of Yaede. "I understand area mayors and the concerns of
their residents."

Troubled history
Trenton Water Works is a city-owned asset that provides drinking
water to the capital city and parts of Ewing, Lawrence, Hamilton
and Hopewell townships. The public water system in recent years has
come under fire for accruing record levels of water quality
violations stemming from staffing shortages and years of
mismanagement.

TWW generated 13 violations last year and 11 violations in 2017,
the worst performing years on record for the public water system.

Mayor Yaede has been particularly critical of Trenton's public
water system after the city slowly issued a boil water advisory on
Jan. 15, 2018, a date when the water became temporarily unsafe to
drink under the tenure of then-Mayor Eric Jackson.

Gusciora, who took office in July 2018, has vowed to improve the
operations and maintenance of TWW, but the utility this year has
netted at least eight violations, according to DEP's Drinking Water
Watch database.

TWW experienced an equipment failure earlier this year and then
subsequently failed to conduct grab samples of the water supply as
required by state law, resulting in two violations of
noncompliance. In that incident, the monitoring equipment failed at
12:40 a.m. May 4 and continued for about 17 hours, according to
DEP.

TWW treats and delivers potable drinking water as a public utility
and therefore is required by the New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act
to conduct continuous monitoring of turbidity for each individual
filter site. In other words, Trenton is legally obligated to keep a
watchful eye on TWW's water clarity.

But TWW was so troubled when Gusciora took office that he willingly
signed an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) with the state DEP
requiring the city to pay a $13,000 fine for not providing
documents regarding lead service line replacement.

The cause of September 27's equipment malfunction is under
investigation, but the chlorination snafu resulted from a
"mechanical error, not a human error," Gusciora said. "It is
unfortunate, but there are times when glitches happen in any
system."

After overseeing numerous system upgrades, Dr. Shing-Fu Hsueh
resigned as Trenton's water director effective Sept. 13 and was
succeeded by interim director Steven Picco.

"Over the course of this last year under Dr. Hsueh," Gusciora said,
"we have made many system upgrades and we continue to make
improvements. We strive to deliver a better product and from time
to time these things (boil-water advisories) are going to happen.
We hope to make them minimal in the future." [GN]




TUTCO LLC: Faulty Heaters Lack Safety Backup Switches, Toca Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO TOCA, on behalf of himself and all others Similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. TUTCO, LLC, RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY and WATSCO,
INC. Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-23949-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 23,
2019), arises from the Defendants' failure to include a safety
backup switch on electric heat kits, manufactured and/or sold
individually or as an integrated part of a heating, ventilation,
and air condition system.

The action seeks to remedy violations of applicable law in
connection with the Defendants' marketing, advertising,
manufacture, sale, and servicing of the Heaters, which are
component heating devices used to generate heat in HVAC systems.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have knowingly concealed
material facts regarding the Heaters, including the failure to
include safety backup switches--known as a non-self-resetting
thermal cutoff ("NSRTs"), an inexpensive backup safety device that
accounts for foreseeable conditions that often lead to the Heaters
overheating and catching fire and/or igniting adjacent material,
rendering them unusable in the manner, to the extent, and for the
purpose for which the Heaters were advertised, marketed, and sold
as a result of the defect.

The Defendants knew and were aware, prior to marketing and selling
the Heaters, that the Heaters were inherently defective in that
they did not include NSRTs and, hence, were a safety hazard, the
Plaintiff alleges. As a result of the design defects that afflict
the Heaters, the Plaintiff and other class members have overpaid
for the Heaters because the value of the Heaters was diminished at
the time they were sold to consumers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased for installation at his business property a
RHEEM manufactured HVAC system, which incorporated a
TUTCO-manufactured Heater in or about 2015.

The Defendant designs, manufactures, and distributes Heaters
throughout the United States, including the state of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Patrick A. Barthle, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  pbarthle@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
          Christopher B. Barbour, Esq.
          RHINE LAW FIRM, PC
          1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300
          Wilmington, NC 28403
          Telephone: (910) 772-9960
          Facsimile: (910) 772-9062
          E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com
                  cbb@rhinelawfirm.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Underpays Drivers, Capriole Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN CAPRIOLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES; and DARA KHOSROWSHAHI,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11914-IT (D. Mass., Sept. 12, 2019) is
an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and
the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.  The Plaintiff Capriole was employed by the
Defendants as driver.

On Oct. 4, Judge Indira Talwan granted a Joint Motion for Extension
of Time, providing that:

     -- Defendants' deadline to file their Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunction Motion: Thursday, October 17,
2019.

     -- Defendants' deadline to file their Motion to Compel
Arbitration: Thursday, October 17, 2019.

     -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file his Reply in support of his
Preliminary Injunction Motion: Thursday, October 31, 2019.

     -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file his Opposition to Defendants'
Motion to Compel Arbitration: Thursday, October 31, 2019.

     -- Defendants' deadline to file their Reply in support of
their Motion to Compel Arbitration: Thursday, November 7, 2019.

     -- Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Motion and Motion to
Compel Arbitration set for 12/4/2019 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 9
before Judge Talwani.

Uber Technologies, Inc. provides ride hailing services. The Company
develops applications for road transportation, navigation, ride
sharing, and payment processing solutions. Uber Technologies serves
customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq.
          Anne Kramer, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mails: sliss@llrlaw.com
                   apagano@llrlaw.com
                   akramer@llrlaw.com


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Medical Society Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THE MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, on
behalf of its members, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-5265 (JPO) (S.D. N.Y.),
Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23.

Plaintiffs Medical Society of the State of New York, the Society of
New York Office Based Surgery Facilities, and Columbia East Side
Surgery, P.C. bring the putative class action under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), against
Defendants UnitedHealth Group, United HealthCare Services, Inc.,
United HealthCare Insurance Company, United HealthCare Service,
LLC, Optum Group, LLC, Optum, Inc., and Oxford Health Plans, LLC.

United is an insurer and administrator of employer-sponsored health
benefit plans, which are governed by ERISA.  For all of its plans,
United serves as the claims administrator, whereby it is
responsible for determining whether any given claim is covered by
the corresponding United Plan and effectuating any resulting
benefit payment.  The case involves the benefits provided under
United's plans for outpatient surgery.

In New York State, outpatient surgical procedures can legally be
performed in three kinds of settings: hospitals, ambulatory
surgical centers ("ASC"), and office-based surgery ("OBS")
practices.  In general, health insurers reimburse healthcare
providers for two types of fees in connection with outpatient
surgical services: a "professional fee" to compensate for the
medical provider's "time and expertise," and a "facility fee" to
compensate for the expense of using the location where the service
was performed.

In sum and substance, the Plaintiffs allege that United refuses to
pay facility fees to out-of-network office-based surgery providers,
which the Plaintiffs contends is contrary to the terms of United's
health benefits plans and the requirements of ERISA.

Plaintiff Columbia East Side Surgery, P.C. operated as an OBS
practice from 2013 to 2016, and is solely owned by Dr. Darrick
Antell.  Columbia was properly accredited as an OBS practice under
New York law during that time, and it provided out-of-network
outpatient surgeries to patients covered by United's plans.  Often
these patients assigned to Columbia their benefits claims for these
surgeries, authorizing Columbia to seek reimbursement from United
through legal recourse if necessary.

Columbia alleges that United's denial of its claims for facility
fees is not an isolated practice, but rather the result of a policy
that affects the proposed class of United plan beneficiaries and
assignees.  Indeed, as United's representatives admit, United's
standard reimbursement policy, absent plan language to the
contrary, is to treat providers of outpatient surgical services in
New York State that lack an Article 28 license as non-facilities
that are not eligible to charge facility fees for which
United-administered plans provide benefits.

The Plaintiffs contend that this policy is unlawful under ERISA
because it was implemented for financial concerns and is unrelated
to plan language.  Moreover, they allege that the policy is
inequitably applied to out-of-network OBS providers, but not those
that are in-network.

Looking to the language of the United plans at issue, the
Plaintiffs allege that they should be interpreted to include OBS
providers within the definition of the "facilities" that are
entitled to provide outpatient surgical services and receive
facility fees for such services.  Consequently, they assert that by
applying a blanket policy that fails to interpret these plan terms
at all -- much less interpret them correctly -- United has violated
ERISA in denying the claims of all the proposed class members.

Plaintiff Columbia brings a claim on behalf of its four patients
and the proposed class for United's failure to pay benefits in
violation of ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(a)(1)(B).

The other Associational Plaintiffs -- the Medical Society of the
State of New York ("MSSNY") and the Society of New York Office
Based Surgery Facilities ("NYOBS") -- are organizations that
represent the interests of health care providers, and whose members
include Dr. Antell and other physicians who own out-of-network OBS
practices.  Together, Columbia, MSSNY, and NYOBS, on behalf of
themselves and the proposed class, bring a second claim for
injunctive and declaratory relief from United's refusal-to-pay
policy under ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B) or Section 502(a)(3), 29
U.S.C. Sections 1132(a)(1)(B), (a)(3).

The Plaintiffs have moved for certification of a class under Rule
23(b)(1) or Rule 23(b)(2) and under Rule 23(b)(3).  The proposed
class seeks a declaratory judgment, an injunction prohibiting
United from continuing to deny all facility fee claims from OBS
practices, and either an order directing United to reprocess the
denied claims or an award of benefits for those claims.

The proposed class consists of any United Plan member, or member's
valid assignee, whose claim for facility fees for services rendered
by an out-of-network OBS provider accredited under Section 230-d
was denied, where such claim was (1) submitted under a Plan
governed by ERISA; (2) denied during the applicable statute of
limitations; and (3) denied on the basis that the OBS provider was
not certified under Article 28 of the New York Public Health Law.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Columbia, MSSNY, and
NYOBS as the class representatives and to appoint Zuckerman Spaeder
LLP and Buttaci Leardi & Werner LLC as the co-lead class counsel.

United opposes the class certification in its entirety, challenging
the Plaintiffs' ability to certify a class under three of the
requirements of Rule 23(a), and each subsection of Rule 23(b).

Judge Oetken concludes that the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class
under Rule 23(b)(3) so that the Court has the ability to award the
class members benefits in the event that their facility fee claims
were unlawfully denied.  But the Court can only award benefits that
are covered by the class members' respective plans, and to
determine whether benefits are covered the Court must interpret the
language of those plans.  In the circumstances of the case, this
interpretative exercise would necessarily devolve into "a series of
mini-trials" to establish each class member's entitlement to
benefits.

Given the centrality of issues of plan interpretation to
determining liability for the class's benefit claims, the Judge
concludes that these individualized questions would predominate at
trial.  Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs have not adequately
demonstrated that the predominance requirement is satisfied, their
request to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3) is denied.

However, Judge Oetken ruled that a class composed of "any United
Plan member, or member's valid assignee, whose claim for facility
fees for services rendered by an out-of-network OBS provider
accredited under Section 230-d was denied," is certified for
purposes of seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.  He
appointed Columbia, MSSNY, and NYOBS as the representatives of the
certified class, and appointed Zuckerman Spaeder LLP and Buttaci
Leardi & Werner LLC as the co-lead class counsel.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Docket Number
142.

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

The Medical Society of the State of New York, on behalf of its
members & Society of New York Office Based Surgery Facilities, on
behalf of its members, Plaintiffs, represented by Anant Kumar --
akumar@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, Cyril V. Smith --
csmith@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Jason Samuel
Cowart -- jcowart@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, John
William Leardi -- jwleardi@buttacilaw.com -- Buttaci & Leardi,
LLC, Nell Peyser -- npeyser@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman, Spaeder
LLP & Donn Brian Hufford -- dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP.

Columbia East Side Surgery, P.C., both directly and as the
representative of PATIENTS C, D, E and F, Plaintiff, represented
by Anant Kumar, Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, Cyril V. Smith, Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP, Nell Peyser, Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP & Donn Brian
Hufford, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP.

UnitedHealth Group Inc., United HealthCare Services, Inc., United
HealthCare Insurance Company, United HealthCare Service LLC,
Optum Group, LLC, Optum, Inc. & Oxford Health Plans LLC,
Defendants, represented by Anton Metlitsky -- ametlitsky@omm.com
-- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Brian David Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com --
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Danielle Carim Gray, O'Melveny & Myers,
LLP, Gregory Frederick Jacob -- gjacob@omm.com -- O'Melveny &
Myers LLP & Sloane Ackerman -- sackerman@omm.com -- O'Melveny &
Myers LLP.

United HealthCare Service LLC, United HealthCare Insurance
Company, Optum, Inc., Optum Group, LLC, UnitedHealth Group Inc.,
Oxford Health Plans LLC & United HealthCare Services, Inc., Counter

Claimants, represented by Anton Metlitsky, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP,

Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Danielle Carim Gray,
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Gregory Frederick Jacob, O'Melveny & Myers

LLP & Sloane Ackerman, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Columbia East Side Surgery, P.C., both directly and as the
representative of PATIENTS C, D, E and F, Counter Defendant,
represented by Anant Kumar, Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, Cyril V.
Smith, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, John William Leardi, Buttaci
Leardi & Werner LLC, Nell Peyser, Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, Paul
Donald Werner, Buttaci & Leardi, LLC & Donn Brian Hufford,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP.

Society of New York Office Based Surgery Facilities, on behalf of
its members & The Medical Society of the State of New York, on
behalf
of its members, Counter Defendants, represented by Anant Kumar,
Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, Cyril V. Smith, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP,
Jason
Samuel Cowart, Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, John William Leardi, Buttaci

Leardi & Werner LLC, Nell Peyser, Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP, Paul
Donald Werner, Buttaci & Leardi, LLC & Donn Brian Hufford,
Zuckerman
Spaeder LLP.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Protective Order Entered in Ryan S. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Karen Scott of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Southern Division entered a
Stipulated Protective Order in the case captioned RYAN S.,
individually on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, et al., Defendants. Case No.
8:19-cv-01363-JVS-KES. (C.D. Cal.)

The case involves individual and putative class allegations by
Plaintiff Ryan S. that Defendants UnitedHealth Group, Inc., United
HealthCare Services, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, UHC
of California, United HealthCare Services, LLC, and United
Behavioral Health, OptumInsight, Inc., Optum Services, Inc., and
Optum, Inc.,  violated ERISA and the terms of the ERISA-governed
health benefit plans in which Plaintiff and putative class members
were enrolled in various ways in connection with the processing,
adjudication, and payment of requests for mental health and
substance use benefits under the terms of Plaintiff's and putative
class members' benefit plans.

The parties agree that discovery in the action action is likely to
involve the disclosure of protected health information ("PHI")
under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996 ("HIPAA"), including Substance Abuse Information under 42
C.F.R. Part 2, by reference to other publicly available
information, or through verification of such identification by
another person ("Protected Substance Abuse Information"), as well
as information that may not constitute PHI or Substance Abuse
Information but is nonetheless confidential, proprietary, trade
secret, sensitive, or private.

The Stipulated Protective Order provides that the parties agree
that Defendants will redact personally identifying information
about the absent putative class members prior to producing
Protected Substance Abuse Information to the extent practicable,
including member names, addresses, dates of birth, social security
numbers, and member or subscriber ID numbers. The parties recognize
that the name of the members' health plan; the date(s) and location
of treatment; and date(s) of benefit coverage determination(s) may
be relevant to the parties' assessment of this case, and therefore
agree that such information will not be redacted prior to
production.

The parties believe that, as redacted, this discovery no longer
constitutes Protected Substance Abuse Information, and reflects
reasonable efforts to limit disclosure of PHI to the minimum
necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of such disclosure in
this litigation.

However, nothing in this Stipulated Protective Order shall be
construed as prohibiting the disclosure of other PHI to the extent
that the parties agree such disclosure is reasonably necessary for
the purpose of the litigation.

In the event that Protected Substance Abuse Information or other
PHI is disclosed within the unredacted portions of the discovery
information, individual notice to the putative class members is
deemed to be impractical and inadvisable and good cause for the
order exists. The parties hereby request, and the Court hereby
enters, an order authorizing disclosure of such information subject
to the criteria and procedures specified in 42 C.F.R. Sec. 2.64.
The parties further agree, and the Court finds, that this Order is
a Qualified Protective Order within the meaning of 45 C.F.R. Sec.
164.512(e). To further protect such Protected Substance Abuse
Information and other PHI, any disclosure of this information shall
be designated as "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY"
with the associated protections and restrictions set forth in the
Stipulated Protective Order.

Any party wishing to attach or reference individually-identifying
information obtained from such Protected Substance Abuse
Information (including but not limited to a member's health plan
name, treatment facility or program name, and/or dates of
treatment) in connection with any motion or other paper filed with
the Court must file such information under seal.

Any willful violation of the Order may be punished by civil or
criminal contempt proceedings, financial or evidentiary sanctions,
reference to disciplinary authorities, or other appropriate action
at the discretion of the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyzabaf4 from Leagle.com

Ryan S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Damon D. Eisenbrey -
deisenbrey@callahan-law.com - Callahan and Blaine APLC, Daniel J.
Callahan - dan@callahan-law.com - Callahan and Blaine APLC, Edward
Susolik - es@callahan-law.com - Callahan and Blaine APLC, Elizabeth
Hopkins - ehopkins@kantorlaw.net - Kantor and Kantor LLP, Lisa S.
Kantor - lkantor@kantorlaw.net - Kantor and Kantor LLP & Richard T.
Collins - rcollins@callahan-law.com - Callahan and Blaine APLC.

UnitedHealth Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, United HealthCare
Services, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, United Healthcare
Insurance Company, a Connecticut corporation, UHC of California, a
California corporation, United Healthcare Services, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company & United Behavioral Health, Inc., a
California corporation, Defendants, represented by Jennifer S.
Romano - jromano@crowell.com - Crowell and Moring LLP, Mana Elihu
Lombardo - melombardo@crowell.com - Crowell and Moring LLP & Andrew
John William Holmer - AHolmer@crowell.com - Crowell and Moring
LLP.

Optuminsight, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Optum Services, Inc., a
Delaware corporation & Optum, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants, represented by Andrew John William Holmer , Crowell and
Moring LLP.


US IMMIGRATION: Court Dismisses Amended Mejia-Mejia Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia issued an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss the Amended Complaint captioned BEATA MARIANA DE JESUS
MEJIA-MEJIA, Plaintiff, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, et al. Defendants. Civil Action No. 18-1445 (PLF).
(D.D.C.)

Plaintiff Beata Mariana De Jesus Mejia-Mejia and her seven-year-old
son, D.M., are citizens of Guatemala who entered the United States
to seek asylum on May 19, 2018. U.S. Customs and Border Protection
agents immediately detained them. Several days later, officials
separated the pair and took D.M. to a shelter for unaccompanied
minors. Ms. Mejia-Mejia passed her credible fear interview, an
early stage in the asylum process, and was released from detention
on June 15, 2018. On June 19, Ms. Mejia-Mejia filed both a civil
complaint and a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking
immediate reunification with D.M. On June 22, 2018, the Office of
Refugee Resettlement voluntarily released D.M. to Ms. Mejia-Mejia.


Ms. Mejia-Mejia asserts nine causes of action arising from
defendants' decision to forcibly separate her from D.M. during
their pre-asylum detention. Ms. Mejia-Mejia seeks the following
relief:

      (i) a declaratory judgment that defendants' conduct violated
         the Administrative Procedure Act's prohibition against
         arbitrary and capricious final agency actions (2), and
         that the conduct violated Ms. Mejia-Mejia's right to due
         process and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution
         (Counts I, II, III, and IV)

    (ii) a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants sued in
         their official capacities from separating Ms. Mejia-Mejia
         and her son where there is no court finding of danger to
         D.M. in Ms. M.'s custody (Count V)

   (iii) compensatory and punitive damages from Jeff Sessions and
         Scott Lloyd in their individual capacities for violating
         Ms. Mejia-Mejia's constitutional rights (Counts VI, VII,
         and VIII) and

    (iv) attorneys' fees (Count IX).

The two defendants sued in their individual capacities -- former
Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Scott Lloyd, former director of
the Office of Refugee Resettlement -- filed their motion to dismiss
in November 2018.  The also asserted absolute and qualified
immunity.

On review, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim
against the Defendants sued in their individual capacities.

Furthermore, the Court notes that it lacks jurisdiction over claims
against Defendants in their official capacities.

As to Ms. Mejia-Mejia's request for a permanent injunction, the
Court notes that Ms. Mejia-Mejia's claims against the defendants
sued in their official capacities have become moot.  Conditions
have changed materially since Ms. Mejia-Mejia initiated this case
-- defendants have reunited Ms. Mejia-Mejia with her son.

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Counts I, II, III, IV, and V
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the Court is also
dismissing Counts VI, VII, and VIII against the defendants sued in
their individual capacities, Ms. Mejia-Mejia has not prevailed on
any of her substantive claims and is not entitled to attorneys'
fees. Count IX, therefore, will also be dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6yr5jhq from Leagle.com

BEATA MARIANA DE JESUS MEJIA-MEJIA, Plaintiff, represented by John
M. Shoreman , MCFADDEN & SHOREMAN, LLC, 1050 Connecticut Ave NW Ste
1000, Washington, DC, 20036-5334, Andrew Tate - atate@ndh-law.com -
NEXUS DERECHOS HUMANOS ATTORNEYS, INC., pro hac vice, Dallas S.
LePierre - Dlepierre@Ndh-Law.Com - NEXUS DERECHOS HUMANOS
ATTORNEYS, INC., pro hac vice & Mario B. Williams , NEXUS DERECHOS
HUMANOS ATTORNEYS, INC., pro hac vice.

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S.
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES & U.S. OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT, Defendants,
represented by Jeremy S. Simon , U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA & Sarah B. Fabian , U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation.

THOMAS HOMAN, Acting Director of ICE, KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary
of DHS, L. FRANCIS CISSNA, Director of USCIS, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN,
Acting Commissioner of CBP & ALEX M. AZAR, II, Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services, Defendants, represented by
Sarah B. Fabian , U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of Immigration
Litigation.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States &
SCOTT LLOYD, Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement,
Defendants, represented by Paul Christopher Quast , DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Torts Branch, Civil Division & Sarah B. Fabian , U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation.


VALARIS PLC: Oct. 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Textron Inc. (TXT)
Class Period: 1/31/2018 - 10/17/2018
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 21, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-textron-inc-securities-litigation-2
  

Valaris plc (f/k/a Ensco Rowan plc) (VAL)
Class Period: 4/11/2019 - 7/31/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 21, 2019
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-valaris-plc-securities-litigation

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]



VIEWRAY INC: Corwin Suit Hits Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------
Cort Corwin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Viewray, Inc., Scott Drake, Ajay Bansal and
James F. Dempsey, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02115 (N.D. Ohio,
September 13, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

ViewRay designs, manufactures, and markets radiation therapy
systems sold in the United States and internationally, in-house and
through distributors. It allegedly failed to disclose to its
investors, including Corwin, that that demand for ViewRay systems
had declined due in part to changes being made to Medicare
reimbursement approaches for purchases of new ViewRay systems and
that ViewRay's reported backlog was overstated due to the inclusion
of orders with insufficient surety as to permit for their inclusion
in the reported backlog.

On August 8, 2019, after the close of trading, ViewRay disclosed
operational issues and slashed its previously-issued full fiscal
year 2019 financial guidance. In response to this news, the price
of ViewRay common stock price declined by more than 50%, or $3.64
per share, to close down at $3.10 per share on August 9, 2019, on
unusually high trading volume of more than 26.6 million shares
trading, or nearly 16 times the average volume over the preceding
ten trading days. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph F. Murray, Esq.
      MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
      1114 Dublin Road
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 488-0400
      Fax: (614) 488-0401
      Email: murray@mmmb.com

             - and -

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
             mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

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


VISTAR TRANSPORTATION: Contreras Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Edward A. Contreras, individually, and on behalf
of others similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff, v. Vistar
Transportation, LLC, Performance Transportation, LLC and Does 1
through 50, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV26949 (Cal. Super., August
2, 2019), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on September 13, 2019 under Case No.
19-cv-07972.

Contreras seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest thereon, redress
for failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory
penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting
time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to
timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment,
reimbursement of business-related expenses, failure to maintain
time-keeping records, injunctive relief and other equitable relief,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California
Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage Orders. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Launa Adolph, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
      E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
              ladolph@maternlawgroup.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Matthew Charles Kane, Esq.
      MCGUIREWOODS LLP
      1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
      Tel: (310) 315-8200
           (310) 315-8210
      E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com


VITAMIN SHOPPE: Rosenblatt Files Suit Over Sale to Liberty Tax
--------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. VITAMIN SHOPPE, INC., ALEXANDER
W. SMITH, DEBORAH M. DERBY, DAVID H. EDWAB, MELVIN L. KEATING,
GUILLERMO MARMOL, HIMANSHU H. SHAH, TIMOTHY J. THERIAULT, SING
WANG, and SHARON M. LEITE, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01848-UNA
(D. Del., Oct. 1, 2019) is an action stemming from a proposed
transaction announced on August 8, 2019, pursuant to which Vitamin
Shoppe, Inc. will be acquired by Liberty Tax, Inc. and Valor
Acquisition, LLC.

On August 7, 2019, Vitamin Shoppe's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Liberty
Tax. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Vitamin
Shoppe's stockholders will receive $6.50 in cash for each share of
Vitamin Shoppe common stock they own. On September 30, 2019,
Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.

The complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading. First, the Proxy
Statement omits material information regarding the Company's
financial projections. The Proxy Statement fails to disclose, for
each set of projections: (i) all line items used to calculate (a)
adjusted gross profits, (b) adjusted SG&A, (c) EBIT, and (d)
EBITDA; and (ii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics.
Second, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding
the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, BofA Merrill Lynch. With
respect to BofA's Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the Proxy
Statement fails to disclose: (i) the terminal values for the
Company; (ii) BofA's basis for applying exit adjusted EBITDA
multiples of 2.5x to 4.0x; (iii) the individual inputs and
assumptions underlying the discount rates ranging from 8.50% to
10.50%; and (iv) net debt. Third, the Proxy Statement fails to
disclose the Individual Defendants' basis for determining to cease
negotiations with "Party H" on September 23, 2019, as opposed to
providing Party H with additional time to obtain financing, in
light of Party H's substantial offer to acquire the Company for
$7.25 per share.

The Company's stockholders are entitled to an accurate description
of the process leading up to the Proposed Transaction, says the
complaint. The omission of the above-referenced material
information renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading,
including, inter alia, the following sections of the Proxy
Statement: (i) Background of the Merger; (ii) Recommendation of the
Board of Directors and Reasons for the Merger; (iii) Certain
Unaudited Prospective Financial Information; and (iv) Opinion of
Vitamin Shoppe's Financial Advisor.

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

Plaintiff is the owner of Vitamin Shoppe common stock.

Vitamin Shoppe is an omni-channel, specialty retailer of
nutritional products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN AG: German Class Suit Over Emissions Cheating to Begin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Uwe Hessler, writing for DW, reports that four years after
Volkswagen's Dieselgate scandal broke, more than 400,000 Germans
are part of a fresh legal action against the carmaker. But some
lawyers warn against joining Germany's first-ever class action
lawsuit.

According to the German Justice Ministry, some 446,000 plaintiffs
have joined the class action lawsuit, which is jointly organized by
the Federation of German Consumer Organizations (vzbv) and the
country's largest motoring club, ADAC.

In November 2018, Parliament paved the way for the introduction of
the American-style legal framework into German law by adopting the
so-called Musterfeststellungsklage, which translates into Model
Declaratory Proceedings.

The decision was prompted by Volkswagen's diesel emissions
manipulations unveiled in 2015 which are said to affect around 11
million cars around the world, 2.4 million of which were bought by
Germans. But while consumers for example in the United States and
Australia were able to pursue their claims of compensation
collectively, affected VW customers here had been barred from this
until 2018, and had to pursue their claims on an individual basis.

VW has been in hot water since US regulators showed in 2015 that
the company had installed so-called defeat devices in its cars,
enabling them to perform within emissions guidelines during
testing, even if they emitted much higher levels of hazardous
exhausts during normal driving conditions.

New law

On Monday (September 30) the Braunschweig Higher Regional Court
[was to] begin hearing first VW customers, who are seeking refunds
on the full purchase price of their car, in the best-case scenario.
The cars they bought range from Volkswagen's key brand VW to
subsidiaries Audi, Seat and Skoda, and were all equipped with
exhaust-gas manipulated diesel motors of the EA 189 type.

VW has rejected the aim of the lawsuit, arguing that customers have
no such claim because the cars remained perfectly functional. The
carmaker has also repeatedly stressed that the software fixes it
has offered have removed the problem of illegal emissions levels.

In a statement released on September 20, the vzbv consumer group
said the sheer number of people signing up shows that the suit is
important to them. It noted that the legal action has halted the
statute of limitations for the claims of hundreds of thousands of
VW diesel car owners.

As a matter of fact, the new law allows people to be heard in
court, who might otherwise have been afraid to do so due to
financial concerns. Nevertheless, some lawyers are advising VW
diesel owners to withdraw from the lawsuit and take individual
action against the carmaker.

The risk of losing out

Law firms, including Dr Hoffman and Partners in Nuremberg, warned
this summer that the Braunschweig court will only determine whether
Volkswagen owes consumers damages, in principle. This was, however
"of little use to the individual plaintiff," the lawyers said in a
statement.

"At best, they will only see their preliminary questions on
consumer-related matters clarified ... and will not receive any
money for a long time," Dr. Hoffman and Partners warned.

Even if the lawsuit were to be successful in court, the lawyers
added, the plaintiffs would then have to take their individual
damage claims to court by themselves.  In the event of a legal
defeat, however, claims can no longer be asserted before another,
possibly more "consumer-friendly" court, they said.

More than 26,000 German VW customers so far have taken their own
course of action, with most of the cases ending in a settlement.
There are however signs that German courts increasingly back
customers' claims for full compensation.

Two weeks ago, judges at the Higher Regional Court in Frankfurt
said that the buyer of a VW car with an illegal defeat device was
deliberately and "contra bonos mores" damaged by the carmaker,
which subsequently required full reimbursement of the car's
purchase price.

Framed as "preliminary legal view," which is not binding on lower
courts but could guide their deliberations, the opinion came after
an owner of a VW car appealed a ruling in favor of the auto giant.

Since admitting to Dieselgate in 2015, the scandal has cost VW some
EUR30 billion (32.8 billion) for fines, compensation, buybacks and
refits, Frank Witter, VW Group board member responsible for
finance, said recently. Much of that sum has poured out to 500,000
customers in the US. But the carmaker has "provisionally" booked
another EUR1 billion for legal risks, saying additional costs
"could not be ruled out." [GN]



WAITR HOLDINGS: Kahn Swick Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., have filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
acquired and/or otherwise held securities of Waitr Holdings Inc.
f/k/a Landcadia Holdings, Inc. (NasdaqGS: WTRH) between May 17,
2018 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
including, but not limited to, those who acquired Waitr shares in
connection with its November 2018 going public transaction with
Landcadia or in its May 2019 Secondary Offering.

What You May Do

If you purchased, acquired or held securities of Waitr and would
like to discuss your legal rights you may, without obligation or
cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-wtrh/to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court no later than 60 days from today.

               About the Lawsuit

Waitr, an online food ordering and delivery services company was
formed through a going public transaction by Waitr Inc. and
Landcadia Holdings, Inc. on November 15, 2018, after which time its
shares began publicly trading on the Nasdaq under the symbol
"WTRH."

On August 8, 2019, after market close, the Company revealed abysmal
financial and operational results for the second quarter of 2019,
including the resignation of its CEO, co-Founder Christopher Meaux;
that its integration of BiteSquad.com, LLC, acquired in January
2019, was not proceeding according to plan; that the Company was
laying off personnel; and that losses were running far ahead of
plan and at a rate that eclipsed historical growth trends.

Following this news, the price of Waitr shares fell 50%. Waitr's
market capitalization was $134 million, down from $910 million on
March 13, 2019.

               About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients --
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors -- in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.

Contact:

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]


WENDY'S: Court Certifies Class in Tyus MWA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order granting Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Certify Class in
the case captioned LATONYA TYUS, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated individuals, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. WENDY'S OF LAS VEGAS, INC.; CEDAR ENTERPRISES, INC. Defendants.
Case No. 2:14-cv-00729-GMN-VCF. (D. Nev.)

The case arises out of Defendants' alleged violations of Nevada's
Minimum Wage Amendment (MWA). During all relevant times, Defendants
owned and operated approximately 30 Wendy's Restaurants in Nevada
and Plaintiffs are either current or former employees of
Defendants' Restaurants.

Plaintiffs move to certify a proposed class encompassing of all
current and former employees of Defendants at their Nevada
locations who were paid less than $8.25 per hour but were not
provided with qualifying health benefits pursuant to Nev. Const.
art. XV, sec. 16, at any time since May 9, 2012.

Defendants oppose the certification bid.

Numerosity

In the case, based upon Defendants' answers to Plaintiffs'
interrogatories, Plaintiffs state that the number of employees
allegedly paid at an unlawful rate is at the very least
approximately 3,153 employees between May 9, 2012, and March 10,
2016. The Court can safely conclude that the potential class is
sufficiently numerous such that joinder of each member would be
impracticable.

Commonality

The Court finds that the commonality element is satisfied because
this case involves both common legal and factual questions
affecting all class members. First, the class members share the
common facts of being paid below the upper-tier minimum hourly wage
of $8.25 and subject to a common insurance benefits policy.
Defendants' pleadings and answers to interrogatories reveal that
these facts pervade the class, not just certain individuals,
because Defendants admit to paying employees the lower-tier wage of
less than $8.25 based on the same health benefits plan offered
throughout the coverage years. Because of the evidence that
Defendants had a uniform policy, and that Plaintiffs' proposed
class is tailored to including only those employees who were
allegedly damaged by this uniform policy, commonality sufficiently
exists.  

Typicality

Here, Plaintiffs allege an injury that emanates from Defendants'
uniform policy impacting all class members. Defendants' responses
to Plaintiffs' interrogatories reveal this uniformity, stating that
Defendants employed a total of 3,153 employees that were paid less
than $8.25 per hour and that the reason for this pay amount was
that Defendant offered such employees qualifying health insurance
benefits. This evidence not only shows how Plaintiffs' injuries are
typical of that with the class members, but also how Defendants
appear to advance a defense that is equally typical to Plaintiffs
and the class, the Court notes. Further, in conjunction with the
commonality analysis above, the fact that each class member would
be subject to individualized damage awards does not defeat
typicality.  

Adequacy of Representation

The Court need only find one class representative to be adequate
and the Court finds it to be met through Latonya Tyus. First,
nothing in the record suggests a conflict of interest between Tyus
or any named Plaintiff and counsel. Second, Defendants present no
evidence that Tyus lacks a willingness to prosecute this case. Tyus
has a basic understanding about the claim here, as shown in her
testimony on the wage tiers under the MWA and the requirement that
employers pay $8.25 unless there is qualifying health insurance.
Though Defendants point to several misstatements by Tyus about when
her claim arose, those misstatements do not reveal her to be
startlingly unfamiliar with this case or blindly relying on
counsel.  

The Court further finds that class counsel, having thirty-five
years of legal experience and overseeing class action and complex
high damages litigation for his firm, will competently and
vigorously prosecute the instant case with the assistance of Tyus
and other named Plaintiffs.  
Therefore, the adequacy of representation requirement is
satisfied.

Predominance

Defendants first argue that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the
predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) because the proposed
class definition is improperly fail-safe. The Court is not
persuaded that Plaintiffs' proposed definition is impermissibly
fail-safe and should preclude certification.

Accordingly, the common factual circumstances, common wage policy,
and common benefits plans at issue here guide the Court to find
that common issues predominate over the individualized inquiries in
this matter.  

Superiority

Plaintiffs first argue that a class is the superior method to
litigate this case because of the relatively small amount of
damages at stake for each individual, Indeed, since the claim here
seeks recovery for minimum wage violations, the potential recovery
for each claimant would be greatly disproportionate to litigation
costs if each employee were to bring their claim individually, the
Court notes.  The Court thus finds that the superiority element
satisfied here.  

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that class certification
is warranted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4vmv58w from Leagle.com

Latonya Tyus, David Hunsicker, Collins Kwayisi, Lee Jones, Raissa
Burton, Jeremy McKinney & Florence Edjeou, Plaintiffs, represented
by Bradley Scott Schrager - bschrager@wrslawyers.com - Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Daniel Bravo  -
dbravo@wrslawyers.com - Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman, & Rabkin,
LLP & Don Springmeyer  - dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com - Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP

Terron Sharp, Plaintiff, pro se.

Linda Davis, Plaintiff, pro se.

Wendy's of Las Vegas, Inc. & Cedar Enterprises, Inc., Defendants,
represented by - Kathryn B. Blakey  - kblakey@littler.com-  Littler
Mendelson, Montgomery Y. Paek - mpaek@littler.com - Littler
Mendelson, Neil C. Baker  - nbaker@littler.com - Littler Mendelson,
Rick D. Roskelley - rroskelley@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, PC
& Roger L. Grandgenett - rgrandgenett@littler.com -, Littler
Mendelson, PC.


WESCO AIRCRAFT: Kent Sues Over Sale to Wolverine Intermediate
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. WESCO AIRCRAFT HOLDINGS, INC., RANDY J.
SNYDER, DAYNE A. BAIRD, THOMAS M. BANCROFT III, PAUL E. FULCHINO,
JAY L. HABERLAND, SCOTT E. KUECHLE, ADAM J. PALMER, ROBERT D.
PAULSON, JENNIFER M. POLLINO, TODD RENEHAN, and NORTON A. SCHWARTZ,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01750-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 17, 2019) is
an action stemming from a proposed transaction announced on August
9, 2019, pursuant to which Wesco Aircraft Holdings, Inc. will be
acquired by Wolverine Intermediate Holding II Corporation and
Wolverine Merger Corporation. Parent and Merger Sub are indirect
subsidiaries of funds managed and advised by Platinum Equity
Advisors, LLC.

On August 8, 2019, Wesco's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Wolverine. Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Wesco's stockholders will
receive $11.05 in cash for each share of Wesco common stock they
own. On September 13, 2019, defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction, which scheduled a stockholder vote
on the Proposed Transaction for October 24, 2019.

The complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading. First, the Proxy
Statement omits material information regarding the Company's
financial projections. The Proxy Statement fails to disclose, for
each set of projections: (i) all line items used to calculate (a)
adjusted net income, (b) adjusted EBITDA, (c) free cash flow, and
(d) unlevered free cash flow; and (ii) a reconciliation of all
non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. Second, the Proxy Statement omits
material information regarding the analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisors in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC. With respect to MS's Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the Proxy
Statement fails to disclose: (i) all line items used to calculate
unlevered free cash flow; (ii) the value of the tax benefit from
the amortization of intangible assets for the life of such assets;
(iii) the individual inputs and assumptions underlying the discount
rates ranging from 6.9% to 8.4% and the perpetual growth rate of
1.5%; (iv) the terminal values of the Company; and (v) the
outstanding shares of Wesco common stock on a fully diluted basis.
Third, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding
potential conflicts of interest of MS and JPM.

The omission of these material information renders the Proxy
Statement false and misleading, including, inter alia, the
following sections of the Proxy Statement: (i) Background of the
Merger; (ii) Recommendation of the Board of Directors and Reasons
for the Merger; (iii) Fairness Opinion of Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC;
(iv) Fairness Opinion of J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; and (v)
Certain Financial Projections. The Proxy Statement also fails to
disclose the timing and nature of the past services MS provided to
the Company, Platinum, and their affiliates. Lastly, the
Registration Statement fails to disclose whether the Company
entered into any non-disclosure agreements that contained "don't
ask, don't waive" provisions that are or were preventing other
potential acquirors from requesting waivers of standstill
provisions to submit offers to acquire the Company, says the
complaint.

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

Plaintiff is the owner of Wesco common stock.

Wesco is one of the world's leading distributors and providers of
comprehensive supply chain management services to the global
aerospace industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


WESTGATE PREMIER: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Pay, Cabuag Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DARLENE CABUAG, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WESTGATE
PREMIER HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a California corporation;
AMBERWOOD GARDENS, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19CV352173 (Cal. Super.,
Aug. 1, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime, meal
period premiums, rest period premiums, minimum wages, and final
wages under the California Labor Code.

The Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other class members,
classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and failed
to compensate them for all hours worked and missed meal periods
and/or rest breaks.

The Defendants directly hired and paid wages and benefits to
Plaintiff and the other Plaintiff and the other class members
worked over eight hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during
their employment with the Defendants, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden A venue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Still Pending over $13MM Verdict in Lopez
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. is still awaiting the Court's ruling on an appeal
from a US$13 million verdict in an asbestos-related case against a
subsidiary, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 29, 2019.

The Company states, "The Hillshire Brands Company was named as a
defendant in an asbestos exposure case filed by Mark Lopez in May
2014 in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California.  Mr.
Lopez was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2014 and is now
deceased.  Mr. Lopez's family members asserted negligence, premises
liability and strict liability claims related to Mr. Lopez's
alleged asbestos exposure from 1954-1986 from the Union Sugar plant
in Betteravia, California.  The plant, which was sold in 1986, was
owned by entities that were predecessors-in-interest to The
Hillshire Brands Company.

"In August 2017, the jury returned a verdict of approximately US$13
million in favor of the plaintiffs, and a judgment was entered.  We
have appealed the judgment and all briefing has been completed."

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

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/oJAN4z


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bausch Health US Faces Gutierrez Talc Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019, that its subsidiary Bausch Health US,
LLC, is defending itself against a proposed class action in
California state court styled, Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson &
Johnson, et al., Case No. 37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL, related to
talcum powder products allegedly violating the California Safe
Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65).


The Company states, "On February 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a
pre-suit notice letter with the California Attorney General
notifying the Attorney General's office of their intent to file
suit after 60 days against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries, alleging they committed violations of the California
Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition
65) by manufacturing and distributing Shower to Shower(R) that they
allege contained talc contaminated with asbestos, a listed
carcinogen.  That notice letter was served on the Company on
February 22, 2019.  By statute, a private lawsuit may not be filed
until at least 60 days have passed following service of this
pre-suit notice letter.

"In April 2019, rather than filing a lawsuit against Bausch Health
US, the plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint in a
pending Proposition 65 lawsuit (Luna, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson,
et al., case 2:18-cv-04830-GW-KS) against Johnson & Johnson in
federal court in California to add Bausch Health US as a defendant.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit
without prejudice.  The court has ordered that the case be
dismissed without prejudice.

"On April 15, 2019, a plaintiff filed a pre-suit notice letter with
the California Attorney General notifying the Attorney General's
office of their intent to file suit after 60 days against the
Company and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging they committed
violations of Proposition 65 by manufacturing and distributing
Shower to Shower(R) that they allege contained silica, arsenic,
lead and chromium (hexavalent compounds), which they allege are
known to cause cancer and/or reproductive toxicity.  That notice
letter was served on the Company on April 18, 2019.  While the
statutory 60 days have passed before a private lawsuit may be
filed, no lawsuit has been filed to date.

"On June 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in
California state court against Bausch Health US and Johnson &
Johnson (Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No.
37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL), asserting claims for purported
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False
Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law in connection with their
sale of talcum powder products that the plaintiffs allege violated
Proposition 65.  This lawsuit was served on Bausch Health US on
June 28, 2019.  Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement of profits,
injunctive relief, and reimbursement/restitution.  The Company and
Bausch Health US intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ClUY3R


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Defends Asbestos Matters
------------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the Company, CenterPoint Energy Houston
Electric, LLC, and CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. are from time
to time named, along with numerous others, as defendants in
lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to
exposure to asbestos.

The Company states, "Some facilities owned by the Registrants or
their predecessors contain or have contained asbestos insulation
and other asbestos-containing materials.  The Registrants are from
time to time named, along with numerous others, as defendants in
lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to
exposure to asbestos, and the Registrants anticipate that
additional claims may be asserted in the future.  Although their
ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, the Registrants
do not expect these matters, either individually or in the
aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on their financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/f4eDxo


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson Electric Had $324MM Liability at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Electric Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that it has liabilities of US$324 million for
asbestos litigation, included in other liabilities, at June 30,
2019.

The Company also recorded US$117 million for asbestos-related
insurance receivables, which was included in other assets, at June
30, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/9eEj8b


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan Unit Still Defends Talc Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (FCX) disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019, that its indirect wholly owned
subsidiary is still a target in cases related to asbestos
contamination matters.

The Company states, "...[T]here has been a significant increase in
the number of cases alleging the presence of asbestos contamination
in talc-based personal care products and in cases alleging exposure
to talc products that are not alleged to be contaminated with
asbestos.  The primary targets have been the producers of those
products, but defendants in many of these cases also include talc
miners.  Cyprus Amax Minerals Company (CAMC), an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of FCX, and Cyprus Mines Corporation (Cyprus
Mines), a wholly owned subsidiary of CAMC, are among those targets.
Cyprus Mines was engaged in talc mining from 1964 until 1992 when
it exited its talc business by conveying it to a third party in two
related transactions.  Those transactions involved (i) a transfer
by Cyprus Mines of the assets of its talc business to a newly
formed subsidiary that assumed all pre-sale and post-sale talc
liabilities, subject to limited reservations, and (ii) a sale of
the stock of that subsidiary to the third party.  In 2011, the
third party sold that subsidiary to Imerys Talc America (Imerys),
an affiliate of Imerys S.A."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/MTfNga


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 5 Suits, Claims for $232K
--------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company reported that for the nine months ended August
31, 2019, five asbestos-related lawsuits and claims were settled
for US$232,000, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended August 31, 2019.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 30 years ago.  The plaintiffs
generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek
damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts.  In many
cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered
any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the
result of exposure to products manufactured by us.  We are
typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment.
If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable
injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case
is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of
the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to
products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other
defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has
been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party.  Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage
for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs.  Historically,
insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and
settlements in asbestos-related litigation.  However, certain of
our insurers are insolvent.  We have entered into cost-sharing
agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of
defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related
lawsuits.  These agreements require, among other things, that we
fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in
which the responsible insurer is insolvent.

"We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of
lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the plaintiff.
To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of our
probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we
establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for
insurance recoveries.  

"Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/i6Y16q



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l Still Faces PL Suits at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc. remains a defendant in several
multi-defendant asbestos-related product liability lawsuits,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

Manitex states, "In certain instances, the Company is indemnified
by a former owner of the product line in question.  In the
remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to
establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products.
The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes
that it will not incur any material liability with respect to these
claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/D3xH4u


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Pays $26MM to Settle EME Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that it has settled its
asbestos liabilities as a result of its acquisition of Edison
Mission Energy (EME).

NRG Energy states, "The Company, through certain of its
subsidiaries, has settled the indemnification claims brought by
Commonwealth Edison Company and Exelon Generation Company LLC
(collectively, "ComEd") as a result of the Company's acquisition of
EME.  Pursuant to a settlement agreement dated as of May 29, 2019,
the Company paid US$26 million to ComEd, which was previously
accrued.  In addition, ComEd released all claims that were or could
have been asserted in its claims in the EME bankruptcy case and
certain of the Company's subsidiaries released all permissive and
compulsory counter claims they could have asserted in response to
the ComEd claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/YQbKvm


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Still Responsible for Cases at June 29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OfficeMax retains its responsibility for all pending and future
asbestos-related proceedings related to a former operation,
according to Office Depot, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 29, 2019.

The Company states, "OfficeMax is named as a defendant in a number
of lawsuits, claims, and proceedings arising out of the operation
of certain paper and forest products assets prior to those assets
being sold in 2004, for which OfficeMax agreed to retain
responsibility.  Also, as part of that sale, OfficeMax agreed to
retain responsibility for all pending or threatened proceedings and
future proceedings alleging asbestos-related injuries arising out
of the operation of the paper and forest products assets prior to
the closing of the sale.  The Company has made provision for losses
with respect to the pending proceedings.

"Additionally, as of June 29, 2019, the Company has made provision
for environmental liabilities with respect to certain sites where
hazardous substances or other contaminants are or may be located.
For these liabilities, our estimated range of reasonably possible
losses was approximately US$10 million to US$20 million.

"The Company regularly monitors its estimated exposure to these
liabilities.  As additional information becomes known, these
estimates may change, however, the Company does not believe any of
these OfficeMax retained proceedings are material to the Company's
financial position, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/g6qJps


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Posts $109.1MM Reserves at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation recorded gross asbestosis
and environmental claim reserves of US$109.1 million as of June 30,
2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

The Company's net asbestosis and environmental claim reserves
amounted to US$76.0 million as of June 30, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3S0BO4


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Suits at June 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company said in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 29, 2019, that it is "vigorously defending"
against claims related to asbestos-containing products.

Scotts Miracle-Gro states, "The Company has been named as a
defendant in a number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits
claim resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products,
apparently based on the Company's historic use of vermiculite in
certain of its products.  In many of these cases, the complaints
are not specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or
its products.  The cases vary, but complaints in these cases
generally seek unspecified monetary damages (actual, compensatory,
consequential and punitive) from multiple defendants.

"The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit
and is vigorously defending against them.  No accruals have been
recorded in the Company's consolidated financial statements as the
likelihood of a loss is not probable at this time; and the Company
does not believe a reasonably possible loss would be material to,
nor the ultimate resolution of these cases will have a material
adverse effect on, the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

"There can be no assurance that future developments related to
pending claims or claims filed in the future, whether as a result
of adverse outcomes or as a result of significant defense costs,
will not have a material effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/9qackc



                            *********

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 ***