CAR_Public/191017.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, October 17, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 208

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Griffin's Defective Earplug Row Removed to E.D Tenn.
3M: Judge Allows PFAS Class Action to Proceed
ACTION PROPERTY: Cal. App. Affirms Class Certification Denial
ACUANT, INC: Kloss Suit Moved to Northern District of Illinois
ALLERGAN PLC: Lowinger Securities Suit Challenges Sale to AbbVie

ALLSTATE VEHICLE: Huey Files Class Suit in N.D. Mississippi
AMBER INDIA: Hinds Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AMERICAN FAMILY: Ferguson Suit Asserts Breach of Contract
AMERICAN FINANCE: St. Clair-Hibbard Appeals Case Dismissal
AMERICOLLECT INC.: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed

AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Ct. Remands MCPA Breach Suit to State Ct.
AMERIMARK DIRECT: Reid Suit Asserts ADA Violation
ANALOGIC CORP: Class Suit Over $1-Bil. Altaris Merger Dismissed
ANIL AMBANI: Shareholders Threaten to File Class Action
AQUASANA GLOBAL: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ARKANSAS: Bid to Certify Class in Laquerre Prisoner Suit Denied
AT&T MOBILITY: Certification of Hourly Employees Class Denied
BARCLAYS BANK: Dismissal of Consolidated Antitrust Suit Appealed
BAUSCH HEALTH: City of Providence Alleges Drug Price-Fixing
BLACK DIAMOND: Faces Reid ADA Suit in New York

BLACKBERRY LTD: Cho & Ulog Claims in Pearlstein Suit Dismissed
BLATT HASENMILLER: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Nettles Suit Denied
BLAZIN WINGS: Faces Alatorre Suit in California Superior Court
BLITZ STUDIO: Fischler Suit Asserts ADA Violation
BLUE DIAMOND: Cosgrove Files AlmondMilk False Labeling Case

BLUECHIP FINANCIAL: Provides Usurious Loans, Gross RICO Suit Says
BREMER FINANCIAL: Crosby Sues for Over Unfair Fees
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Court Dismisses Tung Securities Suit
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
CALIFIA FARMS: Cicciarella Hits Artificial Vanilla Flavor in Drink

CALIFORNIA: Golden Gate Bridge Toll Class Action Can Proceed
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Court Stays Bid for Class Certification
CAPITAL ONE: Berger Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
CAPITAL ONE: Greenstein Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
CAPITAL ONE: Lipskar Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia

CARTER NATIONAL: Sostaita Seeks to Certify Class of Sand Haulers
CBC RESTAURANT: Jones Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
CEMAK TRUCKING: Underpays Drivers, Zabala Suit Alleges
CENTRAL COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION: Averts Oil and Gas Royalty Class Action

CHICAGO, IL: Faces American Council Suit in N.D. Illinois
CLASSIFIEDJOBS INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
COOK COUNTY, IL: Court Nixes Class Certification Bid in "McFields"
COVETRUS INC: Berger Montague Files Class Suit vs. Firm, Execs
COVETRUS INC: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action

CSWS, L.L.C.: Rosebar, et al Seek to Certify Class of Entertainers
DAD'S TOWING: Truck Drivers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
DAVID BLOTT: Class-Action Lawsuit vs Calgary Lawyer to Proceed
DIAMOND CBD: Faces Cannabidiol False Advertising Class Action
DIRECT AUTO: Faces Suit over Improper Release of Insurance Info

DOMETIC CORP: Averts Refrigerator Design Defect Class Action
DOORDASH INC: Uses Tips to Subsidize Drivers' Wage, Customers Say
EBONY: Former Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
FACEBOOK INC: Dist. Ct. Denies Doshier's Bid to Remand Case
FARFETCH LIMITED: City of Coral Sues over 44% Drop in Share Price

FARFETCH LTD: Schall Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
FEDEX GROUND: Issuance of Notice to Delivery Drivers Sought
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Faces Felix Suit in District of Maryland
FIT INTERNATIONAL: Court Decertifies Class in Bolivar RICO Suit
FLAGLER OFFICE: Longhini Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida

FOCUS SERVICES: Pretzsch Seeks to Certify Class of Service Reps
G.O.L.A. INC: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GACO WESTERN: Asks Court to Deny Class Certification
GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Ewalt Suit Moved to Southern District of Ohio
GLOBAL WIDGET: Faces Hemp Bombs False Labeling Class Action

GOLD START: Underpays Laborers, Aviles Suit Alleges
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Daniels Sues for Breach of Contract
HERITAGE SENIOR LIVING: Hoaglan Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
HUDSON CITY SAVINGS: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in Lin FDCPA Suit
HURLEY INTERNATIONAL: Tincher Seeks to Certify Two Classes

IHOUSEWEB INC: Hildre Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Call
ILLINOIS: Hill et al. Sue over Medical Procedures on Newborn
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Disclosure Statement Hearing Moved to Oct. 29
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Removes Bronson Suit to. N.D. Illinois
IQVIA HOLDINGS: Case Likely to Overturn Class Action Precedent

J.P. MORGAN: Faces GAMCO Securities Class Action in Texas
JCK ENTERPRISES: Faces Fischler Suit Under Disabilities Act
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: Court Dismisses Ponzo Suit w/ Leave to Amend
JONES SEPTIC: Court Certifies FLSA Class in Rumph Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Futures Market Price Rigging Class Action Stayed

JUUL: Faces Class Action in B.C. Over Vaping Product Risks
KB HOME: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Adams et al. Suit
KIWICO INC: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LANDMARK RESTAURANT: Underpays Servers, Carrillo Alleges
LAPORTE COUNTY, IN: Cislo Lawsuit Can't Proceed as Class Suit

LOGITECH, INC.: Porath Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
LOREX CORPORATION: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LOUISIANA: Class Certification Bid in Creppel Suit Tossed
MARION COUNTY, FL: Firefighters Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
MARK HELDENBRAND: Collection Letter Violates FDCPA, Says Suit

MARSHALL COUNTY, IN: Miller, et al. Seek to Certify Class
MENASHA PACKAGING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Enriquez Claims
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Stanfield Suit in C.D. California
NINTENDO: Faces Class Action Over "Controller Drift"
NISSAN MOTOR: Bashaw et al. Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee

OCWEN LOAN: Parra Suit Dismissed for Failure to State Claim
OPTUM INC: Robert W. Mauthe Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
OUTERWALL INC: Faces Rudd Suit Over $1.6 Billion Sale to Apollo
PEOPLE'S TRUST: Centiorari Review of Discovery Order in Pesta OK'd
PETROCHEM INSULATION: Must File Brief Supporting Case Dismissal

PHIA GROUP: Weyant Appeals Order and Judgment to 2nd Circuit
PPL ELECTRIC: Faces Mahoney Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pennsylvania
PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed
PROPETRO HOLDING: Brualdi Reminds of Nov. 15 Plaintiff Deadline
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Jan. 28, 2020 Proof of Claim Deadline Set

QES PRESSURE: Approval, Distribution of Class Action Notice Sought
ROCHESTER, NY: DS Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
RURAL KING: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Mahoney Says
RYAN TRANSPORTATION: Underpaid Driver Hits Misclassification
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Ontiveros FLSA Suit Deal Has Final Approval

SALLY HERSHBERGER: Faces Slade Suit Alleging ADA Breach
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Lam Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
SANTA BARBARA TRANS: Shay FCRA Suit Moved to C.D. California
SANTA ROSA CONSULTING: Papadimitropoulos Seeks to Certify Class
SCOPELY, INC: Ackies Sues over Sale of Video Game Virtual Goods

SENCCO, INC: Gomez Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay
SOSORELLA: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Suit Claims
SPORTMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Reid Brings ADA Case v. Outdoor Products Shop
STOCKX, INC: Misappropriated Minor's Personal Data, Suit Claims
SUBURBAN SPINE: Remand of Durnell Medical Malpractice Suit Denied

SURFACE ONCOLOGY: Ang Says Documents on 2018 IPO Misleading
TBD PIZZA: Winsor Seeks Minimum & OT Wage for Delivery Drivers
TODD & KATIE: Fails to Properly Pay Exotic Dancers, Loewe Claims
UNITED BUILDERS: Ct Narrows Claims in Hernandez Discrimination Case
UNITED SIX: Matamoros Seeks Overtime Pay

UNITED STATES: Court Tosses Case Challenging Zero-Tolerance Policy
US CUSTOMS: Certification of Non-Mexican Noncitizens Class Sought
VIRGINIA: Shrader's Prelim. Injunction Bid in Mickens Suit Denied
VOLKSWAGEN: Diesel Car-Owners May Face Uphill Battle in Germany
VOLKSWAGEN: Rejects German Judge's Call for Emissions Settlement

WALMART INC: Haskins Labor Suit Remanded to State Court
WARNER CHILCOTT: Dec. 2 TPP Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
WELL PATH: Hawkins Suit Seeks to Stop Auto-dialed Text Messages
WELLS FARGO: Court Tosses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Lotsoff Case
WEST VIRGINIA: Faces Class Action Over Child Welfare System

WOODBOLT DISTRIBUTION: Faces Clausen Suit in S.D. New York
WOODY'S WING HOUSE: Donnenwirth Hits Illegal Tip Credit
YALE UNIVERSITY: Court Grants Bid for Class Certification

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Griffin's Defective Earplug Row Removed to E.D Tenn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Mark C. Griffin, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 3M Company, 3M
Occupational Safety LLC, Aearo Holdings LLC, Aearo Intermediate
LLC, Aearo LLC, and Aearo Technologies LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2019-CV-157 (Tenn. Cir., July 26, 2019) was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on September
19, 2019, under Case No. 19-cv-00061.

Griffin seeks to recover actual, compensatory, consequential,
incidental and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, legal and equitable relief resulting from
negligence and for breach of implied and express warranty.

Defendants sold dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs to the US Armed
Forces for use as hearing protection for military personnel,
protecting against the disorienting effects of loud impulse noises
such as improvised explosive devices and gun fire, yet still allow
the service member to hear low-level noises critical to mission
safety such as commands, footsteps and encroaching enemies. It,
however, dislodges from the ear in a manner that is imperceptible
to the wearer. 3M settled a False Claims Act lawsuit with the
United States Government for over $9 million but has yet to remedy
the harm it caused to the tens of thousands of service members,
including Vega, a retired United States Army National Guard.

3M Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Paul, Minnesota. Aearo Group is a wholly owned
subsidiary of 3M Company. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Rivera Vélez, Esq.
     P.O. Box 191059
     San Juan, PR 00919
     Telephone: (787) 620-2856
     Fax. (787) 777-1589
     Email: wrvlaw@gmail.com

            - and -

     Gregory F. Cox, Esq.
     Michael A. Burns, Esq.
     Caroline L. Maida, Esq.
     MOSTYN LAW FIRM
     1509 Lopez Landron
     Piso 12, Suite 2
     San Juan, PR 00911
     Tel: (787) 886-2748
     Fax: (844) 270-4288
     Email: gfcdocketefile@mostynlaw.com
            epefile@mostynlaw.com

            - and -

     Bryan Aylstock, Esq.
     AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
     17 E. Main Street, Suite 200
     Pensacola, FL 32502
     Tel. (850) 202-1010
     Fax. (850) 916-7449
     Email: baylstock@awkolaw.com


3M: Judge Allows PFAS Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------
According to The Environmental Working Group, an order issued on
Sept. 30 by a federal judge allows a class action case against 3M,
DowDuPont, Chemours and six other companies to proceed when he
denied every motion to dismiss the case brought by these chemical
corporations responsible for producing toxic fluorinated chemicals
called PFAS.

The lawsuit was initially filed on behalf of Kevin D. Hardwick, of
Glendale, Ohio, who was exposed to PFAS during his 40-year career
as a firefighter. As a class action, it includes every U.S.
resident with detectable levels of PFAS chemicals in their blood
and who have claimed they have been injured as a result of being
exposed.  

"These corporations have knowingly contaminated the blood of
virtually everyone in the country," said EWG President Ken Cook.
"3M and DuPont have hidden knowledge about the toxicity of PFAS
chemicals from their own workers and the public for decades, and
those fateful decisions have come home to roost. The court has put
the chemical industry on notice that we are a big step closer to
the day of reckoning for companies that have pursued profits over
protecting Americans' health."

Rob Bilott, the lead attorney in the case, has represented tens of
thousands of PFAS victims since exposing DuPont's contamination of
the drinking water of communities around the company's Teflon plant
in Parkersburg, W. Va. EWG has worked since 2001 to expose the
decades of deception by DuPont, 3M and other companies that have
contaminated the blood of virtually all Americans with PFAS
chemicals, some of which have been linked to cancer, immune and
reproductive system harm and other health problems.

"All Americans owe a huge debt of gratitude to Rob Bilott and his
team who have led the fight to hold 3M and DuPont accountable,"
said Cook. "[The] decision is a significant victory in the fight
for justice on behalf of everyone in the country that has been
harmed by PFAS and the corporations that make them."

The Environmental Working Group is a non-profit, non-partisan
organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a
healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique
education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action. [GN]


ACTION PROPERTY: Cal. App. Affirms Class Certification Denial
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One
issued an Opinion affirming the District Court’s judgment denying
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
RON MODARAEI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ACTION PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant and Respondent. No. B290247. (Cal.
App.)

Ron Modaraei appeals from an order denying a motion for class
certification in an employee misclassification case he brought
against his former employer, Action Property Management (APM).
  
Modaraei filed this proposed class action against APM, alleging 10
causes of action stemming from APM's alleged misclassification of
CMs and GMs as exempt employees rather than non-exempt employees
under Industrial Welfare Commission wage order No. 5-2001.  

Modaraei moved the trial court for an order certifying two
subclasses of APM employees and former employees. The first
proposed subclass was all current and former salaried CMs employed
by APM within the State of California at any time during the period
from November 2, 2008 until the present.

The trial court heard and denied Modaraei's motion for class
certification.

In its order, the trial court stated that Modaraei had not shown
predominance of common questions and superiority/manageability. The
trial court compared and contrasted evidence Modaraei presented
with evidence APM presented and credited APM's evidence over
Modaraei's to conclude that the trier of fact would have to make
individualized inquiries on a property-by-property basis and
manager-by-manager basis to determine how CMs and GMs actually
spent their time.

According to the trial court, individual questions would
predominate. The trial court also concluded that Modaraei's trial
plan was inadequate because it failed to account for variations in
tasks performed and the time CMs and GMs spent on those tasks
identified in the trial court's predominance analysis and because
Modaraei's expert witness's promise to conduct a statistical
analysis in the future is not a trial plan.

Standard of Review

The Court review the trial court's ruling denying class
certification for abuse of discretion and generally will not
disturb it, unless (1) it is unsupported by substantial evidence
(2) it rests on improper criteria, or (3) it rests on erroneous
legal assumptions.  

Class Certification

The community of interest requirement involves three factors: (1)
predominant common questions of law or fact (2) class
representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class and
(3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.

Here, the inquiries at issue are predominance and superiority.

Predominance of Common Questions

Improper Criteria

Modaraei contends that the trial court abused its discretion by
basing its predominance analysis on improper criteria. Modaraei
argues that he based his theory of recovery on a common core of
non-exempt tasks and that the trial court improperly based its
denial in variations that would have no effect on the core tasks.

Modaraei's argument is based on our opinion in Jaimez v. Daiohs
USA, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1286 (Jaimez). In Jaimez, the
Court concluded that the plaintiff's theory of recovery' involved
uniform policies applicable to a group of employees that were
amenable to class treatment. That the defendant might have
identified individual effects of policies and practices that may
well call for individual damages determinations  did not affect the
amenability of the plaintiff's theory of recovery to class
treatment.

In Jaimez, the court explained that what the trial court must do is
examine all the evidence together in light of the plaintiffs'
theory of recovery. If the plaintiffs choose to pursue their case
on a theory that the defendants' policies and procedures adversely
affected the class as a whole, regardless that some class members
may not have been harmed, then the evidence presented must be
evaluated on that basis.

Modaraei contends that his theory of recovery is similar to the
theory of recovery in Jaimez because GMs and CMs have the same
duties.

The trial court's order lays out in detail the differences between
the parties' evidence: On the one hand, although Modaraei's
declarants acknowledge differences in the properties they managed,
they state that the responsibilities and tasks they performed were
the same' and that there was no relationship between the
differences between the properties and the tasks and duties they
performed on a daily, weekly or monthly basis.

Here, the Court credits APM's evidence that there is a wide
variation in tasks performed by CMs and GMs due to the differences
in properties and the ensuing time demands on managers over
Modaraei's cookie-cutter evidence that tasks performed by CMs and
GMs are exactly the same regardless of the property.

As the Court explained in Jaimez, the California Supreme Court has
set forth the proper legal criterion' for determining whether a
class should be certified as whether plaintiffs established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the class action proceeding is
superior to alternate means for a fair and efficient adjudication
of the litigation. A trial court ruling on a certification motion
determines whether the issues which may be jointly tried, when
compared with those requiring separate adjudication, are so
numerous or substantial that the maintenance of a class action
would be advantageous to the judicial process and to the
litigants.

That the trial court weighed evidence and credited one party's
evidence over conflicting evidence from another party does not
constitute an improper criteria or incorrect legal analysis.
Critically, if the parties' evidence is conflicting on the issue of
whether common or individual questions predominate as it often is
the trial court is permitted to credit one party's evidence over
the other's in determining whether the requirements for class
certification have been met.

Substantial Evidence

Because we have concluded the trial court's ruling does not rest on
improper criteria or erroneous legal assumptions, the Court confine
the remainder of our review to whether substantial evidence
supports the trial court's ruling.

As the Supreme Court has noted, this deferential aspect of the
standard of review means that when an employee has sought to
certify a misclassification class of fellow employees with the same
job title, the Courts of Appeal have `routinely upheld' trial court
orders denying certification, while also upholding other trial
court orders granting certification.

The evidence APM relied on to oppose Modaraei's motion is
sufficient to support the trial court's ruling. APM produced
declarations from more than 30 putative class members describing
the variations in the properties and employees they managed.

Superiority

The trial court determined that Modaraei's proposed trial plan is
inadequate because it did not address APM's defense that there are
variations in the tasks performed and the time spent on those tasks
by CMs and GMs. The trial court also rejected Modaraei's expert
witness's proposal to conduct statistical analysis after class
certification to reach a conclusion about tasks class members
performed and how much time they spent performing those tasks. A
promise to conduct a statistical analysis in the future is not a
trial plan, the trial court said.

The Court agrees with the trial court's analysis. The evidence to
support the trial court's superiority determination is largely the
same as evidence supporting the predominance determination, because
any trial about APM's liability to its CMs and GMs would break down
into individual trials for each GM and CM, the Court finds no abuse
of discretion.

The trial court's orders are affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals’  September 30, 2019
Opinion is available at   https://tinyurl.com/y4weq6yz from
Leagle.com

Parris Law Firm, R. Rex Parris - rrparris@rrexparris.com - Kitty
Szeto - kittyszeto@cuhk.edu.hk - John M. Bickford  -
jbickford@parrislawyers.com - and Ryan A. Crist, 43364 10th Street
West Lancaster, California 93534; Lawyers for Justice, Edwin
Aiwazian - edwin@lfjpc.com - and D. Elliot Gonzalez -
elliot@lfjpc.com - for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Jackson Lewis, Scott C. Lacunza  - Scott.Lacunza@jacksonlewis.com -
and Kyle C. Worrell -  
Kyle.Worrell@jacksonlewis.com - for Defendant and Respondent.


ACUANT, INC: Kloss Suit Moved to Northern District of Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Shanice Kloss individually and
on behalf of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs.
Acuant, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2019-CH-09538, was removed
from the Circuit Court of Cook County to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Sept. 24,
2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:19-cv-06353 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Charles P. Kocoras.

Acuant is an identity verification, document authentication and
fraud prevention technology services provider headquartered in Los
Angeles, with engineering and development centers in New Hampshire
and Israel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan M Meyers, Esq.
          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com
                  jsheikali@mcgpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alvin Young Lee, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 506-5134
          E-mail: alee@orrick.com

ALLERGAN PLC: Lowinger Securities Suit Challenges Sale to AbbVie
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT LOWINGER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ALLERGAN PLC, BRENTON L. SAUNDERS, NESLI BASGOZ, JOSEPH
H. BOCCUZI, CHRISTOPHER W. BODINE, ADRIANE M. BROWN, CHRISTOPHER J.
COUGHLIN, CAROL ANTHONY DAVIDSON, MICHAEL E. GREENBERG, ROBERT J.
HUGIN, and PETER J. MCDONNELL, Case No. 1:19-cv-08987 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 26, 2019), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the
other public holders of the common stock of Allergan for violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the
proposed sale of Allergan to AbbVie Inc.

On June 25, 2019, the Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into a Transaction Agreement with Venice Subsidiary LLC
("Merger Sub"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of AbbVie Inc.  The
Merger Sub will acquire Allergan, which will become a wholly owned
subsidiary of AbbVie.

Under the terms of the Agreement, Allergan shareholders will
receive (i) $120.30 in cash and (ii) 0.8660 of a newly issued share
of AbbVie common stock in exchange for each Allergan ordinary share
held.  The consummation of the Proposed Transaction is subject to
certain closing conditions, including the approval of the
stockholders of Allergan.  The Company expects the Proposed
Transaction to close in early 2020.

On September 16, 2019, in order to convince Allergan's shareholders
to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized
the filing of a Definitive Proxy Statement, which was filed with
the SEC, on Schedule 14A.  The Proxy Statement is materially
incomplete and misleading, in violation of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act, the Plaintiff alleges.  He contends that while the
Defendants, in the Proxy Statement, tout the fairness of the Merger
Consideration to the Company's stockholders, they have failed to
disclose material information that necessary for Allergan's
stockholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, thereby, rendering certain statements in the Proxy
Statement incomplete and misleading.

The Proxy Statement discloses that the Board considered the "the
potential to benefit from the synergies expected to result from the
transaction" and that J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (the Company's
financial advisor) reviewed and considered "the estimated amount
and timing of cost savings and related expenses and synergies
expected to result from the proposed transaction as prepared by the
management of Allergan (the 'Synergies')" but the Proxy Statement
fails to disclose the amount of synergies, timing, and
achievability thereof that are projected to result from the
Proposed Transaction, the Plaintiff contends.

Allergan plc is an Irish public limited company with its principal
executive offices located at Clonshaugh Business and Technology
Park, in Dublin, Ireland.  The Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of the Company.

Allergan is a global pharmaceutical leader focused on developing,
manufacturing and commercializing branded pharmaceutical, device,
biologic, surgical and regenerative medicine products for patients
around the world.  Allergan markets a portfolio of brands and
products primarily focused on four key therapeutic areas including
medical aesthetics, eye care, central nervous system and
gastroenterology.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
          Michael J. Klein, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 279-5050
          Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
          E-mail: jabraham@aflaw.com
                  mklein@aflaw.com


ALLSTATE VEHICLE: Huey Files Class Suit in N.D. Mississippi
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allstate Vehicle and
Property Insurance Company. The case is styled as Fillisa Huey
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00153-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss., Oct. 11,
2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Insurance.

Allstate Corporation is an American insurance company that is in
the United States. Allstate also offers insurance for home,
motorcycle, RV, as well as financial products such as permanent and
term life.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James Brandon McWherter, Esq.
     GILBERT MCWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT, PLC - Franklin
     341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
     Franklin, TN 37067
     Phone: (615) 354-1144
     Fax: (731) 664-1540
     Email: bmcwherter@gilbertfirm.com


AMBER INDIA: Hinds Files Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMBER INDIA
CORPORATION ET AL. The case is styled as DANIEL HINDS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. AMBER
INDIA CORPORATION, DOES 1 TO 100 INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No.
CGC19579944 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 11, 2019).

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

Amber India group of restaurants is a caterer for Indian food in
Norther California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by SCOTT E. COLE, ESQ.


AMERICAN FAMILY: Ferguson Suit Asserts Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Family Home
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Tommie Ferguson
individually and on behalf all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. American Family Home Insurance Company, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00728-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss., Oct. 11, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract.

American Family Insurance, also abbreviated as AmFam, is an
American private mutual company that focuses on property, casualty,
and auto insurance, and also offers commercial insurance, life,
health, and homeowners coverage as well as investment and
retirement-planning products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Brandon McWherter, Esq.
     GILBERT MCWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT, PLC - Franklin
     341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
     Franklin, TN 37067
     Phone: (615) 354-1144
     Fax: (731) 664-1540
     Email: bmcwherter@gilbertfirm.com



AMERICAN FINANCE: St. Clair-Hibbard Appeals Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff – Appellant, vs. American
Finance Trust, Inc.; AG Global Investments, LLC; and Nicholas S.
Schorsch, the Defendant – Appellee, Case No. 19-3078 (2d Cir.) is
an appeal filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit on Sept. 24, 2019, from a lower court decision in
Case No. 18-cv-1148 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2018).

In an order dated Sept. 23, the District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6).

The Second Amended Complaint filed on May 25, 2018, brought
additional factual allegations asserting materially incomplete and
misleading information in the Defendants' Proxy Materials.

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff – Appellant are:

          Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 212-421-6492

Attorneys for the Defendant – Appellees are:

          Matthew Jerome Morris, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212-969-3144

               - and -


          Audra J. Soloway, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone:  212-373-3000

               - and -

          Jeffrey Oliver Newton, Esq.
          KOBRE & KIM LLP
          800 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 212 488-1200

AMERICOLLECT INC.: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CINDY ZURAKOV and MEFAIL
SERIFOSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. AMERICOLLECT, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-1412 (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff ask the Court for an
order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

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

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

Americollect, Inc. provides debt collection services. The company
offers receivables optimization solutions, tracks customers with
bad debts and offers scoring, bankruptcy, credit bureau services,
as well as provides check collecting system that handles returned
checks and charges no fee to the merchants. Americollect serves
customers in the State of Wisconsin.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Ct. Remands MCPA Breach Suit to State Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division issued an Order granting Plaintiff's
Motion for Remand in the case captioned DANA NESSEL, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, ex rel. The People of the State
of Michigan, Plaintiff, v. AMERIGAS PARTNERS, L.P., AMERIGAS
PROPANE, L.P., RURAL GAS & APPLIANCE, SCHULTZ BOTTLE GAS,
Defendants. No. 2:18-CV-13196-TGB. (E.D. Mich.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Remand to State Court.

Plaintiff Bill Schuette, the Attorney General of the State of
Michigan (AG), undertook an investigation of Defendants' (Amerigas)
propane sales in Michigan. The Complaint alleges that Defendants'
pricing practices violated several aspects of the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act.  The case was removed to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  Defendants assert that
federal jurisdiction over this matter is proper under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).

Plaintiff contends that this action was improperly removed from
state court because it is not a class action as defined by CAFA.
This is because the statute pursuant to which Plaintiff's class
action claim was brought, section 445.910 of the MCPA, authorizes a
representative action by the Attorney General, but does not
incorporate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23's requirement that
any class action must meet the criteria of typicality, commonality,
numerosity, and adequacy.  

Plaintiff asserts that the mere fact the MCPA uses the phrase class
action does not control the outcome of this analysis and similar
contentions about the use of that phrase in other state's consumer
laws have been expressly rejected. Plaintiff posits that his
previously filed motion for class certification is immaterial to
the removal inquiry because the Motion did not and could not alter
the nature of the action brought under the MCPA.

Legal Standard

Under CAFA, a federal court has jurisdiction over a class action if
the class has more than 100 members, the parties are minimally
diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.  A party
seeking removal to federal court has the burden of demonstrating
that federal jurisdictional requirements have been met.  

Because Plaintiff brought this action under the MCPA and not
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court must determine as a
threshold matter whether the MCPA, despite its lack of the class
action requirements set out in Rule 23, is a similar State statute
or rule of judicial procedure for the purposes of conferring
federal jurisdiction under CAFA.  

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the People of the State
of Michigan and on behalf of classes of Michigan consumers under
the MCPA. Plaintiff brings class claims under section 445.910,
injunctive relief claims pursuant to the Attorney General's
statutory authority under section 445.905, and invokes the Attorney
General's parens patriae powers to bring claims on behalf of
Michigan residents under section 445.911.  

Plaintiff's section 445.910 class action claims

Section 445.910 of the MCPA provides that the attorney general may
bring a class action on behalf of persons residing in or injured in
this state for actual damages.

Though authorizing the Attorney General to bring a class action,
unlike Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the MCPA does not
require that the Attorney General establish that the action
satisfies the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality
and adequacy, as must be shown under the federal rule to certify a
class.

There is of course a Michigan analog to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 3.501, which mirrors the
adequacy, numerosity, typicality, and commonality requirements of
the federal rule, but the parties disagree about the applicability
of MCR 3.501 to actions brought under the MCPA.

Defendants contend that MCR 3.501 applies to all state class
actions in Michigan, including those brought by the Attorney
General under the MCPA. Defendants contend that the MCPA, applied
in conjunction with MCR 3.501, is sufficiently similar to Rule 23
to confer federal jurisdiction under CAFA.

Plaintiff contends that MCR 3.501 is inapplicable to actions
brought by the Attorney General because MCR 3.501 only applies to
actions brought by one or more members of a class as representative
parties on behalf of all members in a class action. Because the
Attorney General is a representative, but not a member of the
classes for whom damages are sought, Plaintiff contends that MCR
3.501 is inapplicable to suits brought by the Attorney General
under the MCPA.  

Defendants cite no case where a Michigan state court has applied
MCR 3.501 to an action brought by the Attorney General under the
MCPA. The Court finds that a plain reading of the text supports
Plaintiff's position: MCR 3.501 authorizes one or more members of a
class to bring suit on behalf of the class, but the Michigan
Attorney General is quite clearly not a member of the class for
whom he seeks relief when bringing suit under section 445.910 of
the MCPA and thus MCR 3.501 does not apply to actions brought by
the Attorney General under that statute.

Moreover, were the Court to apply MCR 3.501 to an action brought by
the Attorney General, MCR 3.501 would require this Court to perform
inquiries inconsistent with the Attorney General's statutory
prerogative under the MCPA. For example, MCR 3.501(A)(1)(d)'s
adequacy requirement would require that this Court determine
whether the Attorney General an elected state official qualifies as
an adequate representative to bring claims on behalf of the
constituents who elected her.

Further, under MCR 3.501(A)(1)(c), the Court would be required to
determine whether the Attorney General, who does not herself claim
to have purchased any propane from Defendants, has claims typical
of the claims or defenses of the class.

Having determined that MCR 3.501 is inapplicable here, the Court
turns to the text of section 445.910 of the MCPA. The Sixth Circuit
has not yet considered whether this section, standing alone, is a
similar State statute or rule of judicial procedure for the
purposes of CAFA. Though section 445.910 on its face authorizes the
Attorney General to bring a class action on behalf of affected
Michigan residents and contains a provision for shifting the costs
of class notification onto the defendant, section 445.910 lacks the
core requirements of typicality, commonality, adequacy, and
numerosity that are necessary to certify a class under Rule 23.

Plaintiff's parens patriae claims

In addition to class claims under section 445.910 of the MCPA,
Plaintiff invokes the Attorney General's parens patriae powers to
bring tort and individual claims under section 445.911. Section
445.911 authorizes a person to bring a class action under the MCPA
and is substantially identical to section 445.910.  For the reasons
cited in the preceding section, a parens patriae action brought by
the Attorney General is not a class action brought under a similar
state statute for purposes of CAFA, rules the Court.

Defendants have failed to demonstrate that this action is a class
action for purposes of CAFA. Consequently, this Court lacks
jurisdiction over this matter. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is
GRANTED, and the case is remanded to the Circuit Court for the 38th
Judicial Circuit in Monroe County, Michigan, concludes the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y46dcbvo from Leagle.com.

Bill Schuette, Plaintiff, represented by Darrin F. Fowler ,
Michigan Department of Attorney General Corporate Oversight
Division & Katherine J. Bennett, Michigan Department of Attorney
General.

Amerigas Partners, L.P., Amerigas Propane, L.P., also known as
Amerigas Propane, L.P. d/b/a Holton's L.P., Rural Gas & Appliance &
Schultz Bottle Gas, Defendants, represented by Christopher Daniel
Messing - cmessing@harveykruse.com  - Harvey Kruse PC, Jason R.
Mathers  - jmathers@harveykruse.com - Harvey Kruse, Jillian L.
Burstein - jburstein@reedsmith.com - Reed Smith LLP & John R. Prew
- jprew@harveykruse.com - Harvey Kruse.

AMERIMARK DIRECT: Reid Suit Asserts ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amerimark Direct,
LLC. The case is styled as Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Amerimark Direct, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09428 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 11, 2019).

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

AmeriMark Direct is an American privately held mail order and
direct marketing company founded in 1969 and based in Cleveland,
Ohio, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq.
     Stein Saks PLLC
     285 Passaic St., Suite 5
     Hakensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500
     Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com


ANALOGIC CORP: Class Suit Over $1-Bil. Altaris Merger Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Perriello, writing for Mass Device, reports that Analogic
Corp. escaped a class action lawsuit brought over its $1.1 billion
go-private sale to Altaris Capital when a Massachusetts federal
judge dismissed the case with prejudice.

The $84-per-share deal for Peabody, Mass.-based Analogic, which
closed in June 2018, followed an internal review in which the
company contacted approximately 75 potential financial and
strategic buyers and explored options including a sale of the
entire company, separation of its three business units, and
continued operation as a stand-alone firm.

The lawsuit, filed in June 2018 in the U.S. District Court for
Massachusetts, alleged that the company ginned up a rationale to
make the then-below-market offer more palatable to investors.
Analogic moved to dismiss the case last December.

In an Oct. 1, 2019, ruling, Judge Allison Burroughs dismissed the
case with prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs failed to show
that Analogic's communications about Alaris buyout were false and
misleading.  Burroughs also found that the company's statements,
including acknowledgement that the offer was a 12.5% discount to
its share price at the time, were protected by safe harbor
regulations.

"Defendants provided its shareholders with every projection and
financial forecast," Burroughs wrote. "Reasonable shareholders
could therefore appraise the merit of the projections on their
own.

"Considering defendants' transparency concerning the accuracy and
reliability of the assorted provided projections, the disclosed
interests of the defendants, and Defendants' statement that the
final sale price represented a discount as compared to Analogic's
closing stock prices, the statements in the proxy were not
misleading," she wrote. [GN]


ANIL AMBANI: Shareholders Threaten to File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Economic Times reports that massive erosion of wealth due to
poor performance leading to frequent rating downgrades has forced
irate shareholders of the Anil Ambani Group companies to complain
against the management and threaten to file class action suit.

Speaking at the AGM of Reliance Power on Sept. 30, a shareholder
even threatened to make history by filing the country's first class
action suit against the group companies, if the issues he raised
are not addressed in the next two-three months.

The shareholder, who claimed to be a corporate lawyer from the
city, also said he has lost over 90 percent of the value of over
INR3 crore investment in three of the seven Reliance Group
companies.

He was particularly peeved at group chairman Anil Ambani pledging
over 80 percent of his holdings in the company, blaming him for bad
signalling.

The shareholder said he will marshal 10 percent shareholders to
launch the country's maiden class action suit, in which a group of
complainants sues a defendant or a number of defendants on behalf
of a group, or class of absent parties.

The Companies Act 2013 has a section that enables interested
parties to file class action suits. But so far no case has been
filed under this provision. In the West, it is a common practice.

"If I do not get satisfactory replies to my questions, in the next
two-three months I will file a class action suit against RPower,"
the shareholder warned Ambani.

He claimed to have invested over INR3 crore in the three group
companies since 2005 and today the value of his shares is only a
fraction of that.

The shareholder also questioned the rationale for paying 13.9
percent interest on borrowings through bond raising even as one the
company claimed to have reserves of over INR15,300 crore.

On the promoter pledging, he also wondered if any of the money so
raised by the Ambani family has been ploughed into any of the group
companies.

Ambani, chairing the meeting, sat patiently on the dais as the
shareholder launched the scathing attack.

Company officials tried to stop him citing rules that prohibit a
speaker from taking longer, but Ambani allowed him to continue.

The shareholder frequently found support from fellow shareholders
in his 15-minute speech, but was also shouted down by a few.

The shareholder was peeved at the rating downgrades, claiming that
he lost INR37 lakh of his portfolio in a single episode of a
downgrade by Care Ratings recently.

He also wondered how the company could not pay on a borrowing of
INR63 lakh from a bank despite sitting on huge pile of cash, and
instead chose to take the ignominy of recognition as a defaulter.

The angry shareholder found support in two others. The first of his
supporters said Ambani should give a clear picture of the status of
the firm and maintain utmost transparency. The second wondered why
despite taking over RPower's city distribution business in the
financial capital, Adani TranTransmission has a market
capitalisation of INR15,000 crore even as RPower, which is still
holding on to the same business in Delhi, is still valued at under
INR700 crore.

In his reply to the shareholders, Ambani said, "we will look at all
the suggestions made and the issues raised we will deeply think
about the issues and will do our best to address some of them,"
Ambani added.

The Reliance Power AGM was third along the six AGMs held by group
companies on Sept. 30. [GN]


AQUASANA GLOBAL: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aquasana Global, Inc.
The case is styled as Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aquasana Global, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09435 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 11, 2019).

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

Aquasana offers drinking water filters, shower filters & whole
house systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq.
     Stein Saks PLLC
     285 Passaic St., Suite 5
     Hakensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500
     Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com


ARKANSAS: Bid to Certify Class in Laquerre Prisoner Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD LAQUERRE ADC #168642, Plaintiff, v. ARKANSAS
BOARD OF CORRECTION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:19CV00263-JM
(E.D. Ark.), Judge James M. Moody, Jr. of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division, denied
the Plaintiff's (i) Motion for Class Certification, and (ii)
request for injunctive relief.

Mr. Laquerre seeks class certification but was denied the request
-- in part -- because he is not a lawyer.  And when Mr. Laquerre
asked, he was denied a lawyer.

Judge Moody has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended
Disposition submitted by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe and the
objections filed by Mr. Laquerre.  He finds that the magistrate
judge relied largely on Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  The Plaintiff objects and points to Finney v. Arkansas
Board of Correction, where inmates were allowed to proceed by class
action.

The Judge explains that Rule 23(g), a new provision arising from
the 2003 amendments, simply does not contemplate appointing an
attorney for a pro se litigant.  Furthermore, to be certified as a
class, plaintiffs must meet all of the requirements of Rule 23(a)
and must satisfy one of the three subsections of Rule 23(b).  The
cases involving Mr. Laquerre have a wide variety of medical
problems and treatments and would likely require varying injunctive
relief.  

Accordingly, at this very early stage of the litigation, the Judge
finds that the Plaintiff's Motion is premature and he fails to meet
his burden under either Rule 23(a) or (b).  It should be denied at
this time.  The denial is without prejudice and, when the time is
right, the Plaintiff may renew his Motion.  At this time, the
Plaintiff's Motion for counsel is also denied.  He may be appointed
counsel should his case proceed past the dispositive motions stage.
For now, his claims do not appear legally or factually complex,
and it appears he is very capable of prosecuting these claims
without appointed counsel.

Therefore, after carefully considering Mr. Laquerre's timely filed
objections and making a de novo review of the record, Judge Moody
concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition
should be, and is, approved and adopted in its entirety as the
Court's findings in all respects.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/kxuusF from Leagle.com.

Richard Laquerre, Plaintiff, pro se.


AT&T MOBILITY: Certification of Hourly Employees Class Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Natasha Ayala, the Plaintiff,
v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-08809-SVW-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson
entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion to certify a class
consisting of:

   "all current and former non-exempt hourly employees of AT&T who
   worked at call centers in California from August 13, 2014 until

   the date of certification."

The Court said, "Ayala does not meet the requirements of
[Fed.R.Civ.P.] Rule 23(a), we do not continue to evaluate her under
23(b).  Qualifications under Rule 23(b).  Rule 23(b) analysis
requires the district court to determine whether 'questions of law
or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and that a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy.' The predominance inquiry determines
whether the proposed claims will focus on 'common questions over
individual ones.'"

The Court further held that, having been fired on credible (and
uncontested in this action) charges of fraud, Ayala's case requires
an individual factual inquiry into her entitlement to any incentive
compensation.  "Ayala's circumstance is not well-suited for class
representation," the Court said.  "As there is no adequate
plaintiff before us at this time, we do not reach a conclusion as
to the predominance issue or the superiority of a class action on
the underlying wage and hour claims."

The Plaintiff is given leave to amend the Complaint.[CC]


BARCLAYS BANK: Dismissal of Consolidated Antitrust Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit from the District Court's August 16, 2019 Opinion
and Order, and August 16, 2019 Judgment, dismissing their
consolidated cases titled SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., et
al. v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC, et al.; and FRONTPOINT EUROPEAN FUND,
L.P., and RICHARD DENNIS, et al. v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC, et al., Case
No. Case No. 15-cv-3538 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y.), and all other orders
entered in the case that were adverse, either in whole or in part,
to the Plaintiffs.

The appellate case is captioned as Sonterra Capital Master Fund, et
al. v. Barclays Bank PLC, et al., Case No. 19-2979, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 1, 2019, District
Court Judge Vernon S. Broderick (i) denied FrontPoint's motion to
substitute Fund Liquidation Holdings, LLC ("FLH"), individually,
and as assignee of and attorney-in-fact for FrontPoint, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(3); and (ii) granted grant
UBS' request that FrontPoint's claims be dismissed in their
entirety.

Plaintiff FrontPoint brings the putative antitrust class action
lawsuit against Defendant UBS for allegedly conspiring with other
financial institutions to manipulate the London Interbank Offered
Rate ("LIBOR") for British Pound Sterling.  The action arises out
of alleged manipulation and price fixing of the Sterling LIBOR by
numerous financial institutions, which allegedly harmed purchasers
and sellers of financial instruments that were in some way
connected to LIBOR.  In 2007, FrontPoint -- a Delaware limited
partnership -- entered into swap transactions with UBS, the price
of which was allegedly affected by UBS's manipulation of Sterling
LIBOR.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq.
          Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq.
          Margaret C. MacLean, Esq.
          Christian Levis, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
                  ghorn@lowey.com
                  pstphillip@lowey.com
                  mmaclean@lowey.com
                  clevis@lowey.com

               - and -

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          Gary Jacobson, Esq.
          Jody Krisiloff, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2440
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: (212) 608-1900
          Facsimile: (212) 719-4775
          E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com
                  gsjacobson@lshllp.com
                  jkrisiloff@lshllp.com

               - and -

          Jamison A. Diehl, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMISON A. DIEHL LLC
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2440
          New York, NY 10170
          Telephone: (212) 500-5049
          E-mail: jdiehl@jdnylaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Barclays Bank PLC

          Jonathan David Schiller, Esq.
          Leigh Mager Nathanson, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          55 Hudson Yards
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 446−2300
          E-mail: jschiller@bsfllp.com
                  lnathanson@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Amos Emory Friedland, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749−8248
          Facsimile: (914) 749−8300
          E-mail: afriedland@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Melissa Brooke Felder Zappala, Esq.
          Michael Brille, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          1401 New York Ave., N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 237−2727
          Facsimile: (202) 237−6131
          E-mail: mfelder@bsfllp.com
                  mbrille@bsfllp.com


BAUSCH HEALTH: City of Providence Alleges Drug Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF PROVIDENCE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAUSCH HEALTH COMPANIES INC.;
SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.; SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; SANTARUS,
INC.; ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS, INC.; LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
LUPIN LTD.; and PDL BIOPHARMA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-05831-NC (N.D. Cal., Sept. 18, 2019) is an action against
the Defendants' anticompetitive misconduct, which eliminated
generic competition in the U.S. for branded and generic versions of
Glumetza (metformin hydrochloride extended release), a drug used to
treat patients with Type 2 diabetes.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Assertio, Santarus and
Lupin unlawfully closed every pathway to generic competition before
February 2016. Lupin agreed not to enter before then, and the
deterrents eliminated the incentive for other generic manufacturers
to try to enter before then. Moreover, these Defendants extended
the anticompetitive effect beyond February 2016, since Assertio and
Santarus agreed that they would not compete in the generic sector
from February 2016 until at least August 2016 (and in fact did not
launch an authorized generic version of Glumetza until February
2017), and agreed not to grant a license to any other generic to
compete during that time.

In short, Assertio, Santarus and Lupin engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme to monopolize the sale of Glumetza and its
generic equivalents where, under lawful, competitive practices, a
monopoly should not, and would not, have existed.

This monopoly was wildly profitable, Assertio, and Santarus wasted
no time in exploiting it. In October 2013, Assertio sold its
royalties for Glumetza to PDL Biopharma, Inc. as part of a purchase
agreement payment totaling $240.5 million. In November 2013,
Santarus announced that it was being acquired by the Defendant
Salix for $2.6 billion. At the time, Glumetza accounted for just
under half of Santarus' sales. From 2012 to 2015, Glumetza prices
rose by over 40%, far exceeding the 4.2% rise in the Consumer Price
Index.

Then in April 2015, when Glumetza accounted for more than 25% of
its sales, Salix in turn sold the Glumetza monopoly to Valeant
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (now Defendant Bausch). Valeant paid $14.5
billion to acquire Salix. Within just four months of acquiring the
Glumetza monopoly, Valeant raised the price an additional 750%. The
price of a 30-day supply of the 1,000 mg product skyrocketed from
$350 to more than $3,000. In the six months before the price hike,
Salix made $145 million on Glumetza; in the half year after,
Valeant made more than $800 million. Furthermore, the Defendants'
anticompetitive misconduct also resulted in an outrageously high
price for the generic product when Lupin finally entered the market
in February 2016. Valeant complied with the unlawful agreement not
to compete in the generic sector, and Lupin took full advantage.
Without any generic competition, and with branded Glumetza being
sold at an astronomically high price, Lupin sold a 30-day supply of
the 1,000 mg formulation of generic Glumetza for over $2,200. Lupin
made more than $650 million in profits on generic Glumetza in 2016
alone.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops and distributes drugs. The
Company develops drugs for unmet medical needs in central nervous
system disorders, and distributes generic and branded generic drugs
in Latin America and Eastern Europe. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Whitney E. Street, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 968-1852
          E-mail: wstreet@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          E-mail: steti@blockesq.com


BLACK DIAMOND: Faces Reid ADA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Black Diamond
Equipment, Ltd. The case is styled as Valentin Reid, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Black
Diamond Equipment, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09438 (S.D.
N.Y., Oct. 11, 2019).

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

Black Diamond Equipment is a manufacturer of equipment for
climbing, skiing and mountain sports, based in Utah, USA. The
company also has a global office in Innsbruck, Austria.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq.
     Stein Saks PLLC
     285 Passaic St., Suite 5
     Hakensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500
     Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com


BLACKBERRY LTD: Cho & Ulog Claims in Pearlstein Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARVIN PEARLSTEIN, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated Plaintiffs, v. BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
THORSTEN HEINS, BRIAN BIDULKA, and STEVE ZIPPERSTEIN, Defendants,
Case No. 2:13-cv-07060 (CM) (KHP) (S.D. N.Y.), Chief Judge Colleen
McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of Yong
M. Cho and Batuhan Ulug.

The Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) as to two members of the
putative class of Plaintiffs, Cho and Ulug ("Additional
Plaintiffs").  Messrs. Cho and Ulug, represented by David A.P.
Brower, were among those who vied for the position of Lead
Plaintiff in the action pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA").  They were not selected; their
claims were folded into a consolidated amended complaint filed on
behalf of all putative class members by the designated Lead
Plaintiffs.  However, the text of that consolidated amended
complaint identifies Cho and Ulug (and no other party) as
"Additional Plaintiffs;" and the attorney who represented them in
their quest for lead plaintiff status, Brower, appears on the
consolidated amended pleading, as well as many subsequent motion
papers in the district court, as "Counsel for Additional Plaintiffs
Yon M. Cho and Batuhan Ulug and the Class."

The Consolidated Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice by
Judge Thomas P. Griesa, and both reconsideration and leave to amend
were denied.  The Lead Plaintiffs filed an appeal from these
decisions on behalf of themselves "and all others similarly
situated."  The notice of appeal did not specifically mention Cho
and Ulug, and while Brower signed the notice and the appeal briefs,
he did so as "Additional Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs and the
Class."

Although it affirmed dismissal of the consolidated amended
complaint, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated
Judge Griesa's order denying leave to amend and remanded the case
to permit the filing of an amended complaint.  Judge Griesa having
died in the meantime, the matter was reassigned to Judge McMahon;
Judge McMahon denied a motion to dismiss the second consolidated
amended complaint.

Now, the Defendants argue that -- whatever the fate of the rest of
the class -- at least the claims of Cho and Ulug must be dismissed.
They reason that because Cho and Ulug who originally vied for the
position of Lead Plaintiff identified themselves as "additional
plaintiffs" on the Consolidated Amended Complaint, represented by
their own counsel, they were not "represented" by the Lead
Plaintiff and so were required either to file a separate notice of
appeal from Judge Griesa's order of dismissal or to add their names
to the notice filed by the Lead Plaintiffs in some way that
indicated their intent to appeal.

Having failed to do so, the Defendants contend that they are bound
by Judge Griesa's final order of dismissal and are barred, both
from participating in the action as members of the class and from
asserting claims against Zipperstein, who was not a party defendant
during the litigation over the Consolidated Amended Complaint.

The Judge sent the Defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of Chu
and Ulug to Judge Katharine H. Parker for consideration in the
first instance.  The Judge has received and reviewed Judge Parker's
Report and Recommendation, that recommends that the Court grants
the Defendants' motion and dismiss the claims of Cho and Ulug --
essentially, that the Court bars them from participating in the
case as members of the class -- and that, under principles of
former adjudication, the Court extends that bar to claims against
the newly-joined Defendant.  The Judge has also reviewed the
objections filed by Cho and Ulug and the response thereto from the
Defendants.

While it seems that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(3)
should make it an easy question to answer, it turns out to be
anything but.  After thorough review, and with not a few
misgivings, Judge McMahon concludes that the learned Magistrate
Judge is correct.

Judge McMahon explains that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
3(c)(3) provides that a notice of appeal filed by the Lead
Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and "all others similarly
situated" should have protected the claims of all members of the
class from finality -- including, one would think, Cho and Ulug,
who were indubitably members of the class.  However, when an
individual who falls within a putative class definition chooses to
appear in a class action his own name and by his own attorney, he
ceases to be "represented" by the Lead Plaintiffs (in a PSLRA case)
or by a named plaintiff or other designated class representative.
And in such a circumstance, class action status notwithstanding,
the person must either file a notice of appeal or indicate
somewhere in the caption or in the body of the notice of appeal
that they are appealing parties who intend to be bound by the
results of the appeal.

It is indubitable that the Lead Plaintiffs' appeal would have
covered Cho and Ulug's claims if only they had not been
specifically named as Additional Plaintiffs.  Judge McMahon sees no
error in Magistrate Judge Parker's conclusion that the unique
litigation procedures of the PSLRA (1) have no impact on the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and (2) do not prevent others
who are not Lead Plaintiffs from deciding that they prefer to
protect their own interests.  On its face, that is precisely what
Cho and Ulug decided to do.

For these reasons, Judge McMahon overrules the objections of Cho
and Ulug.  She accepts the recommendation in the Report, and grants
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of Ulug and Cho on the
ground that Judge Griesa's order was final as to them,
notwithstanding the fact that all other putative class members were
given permission to file an amended complaint.  So is the motion
seeking a declaration that Cho and Ulug cannot assert claims
against Defendant Zipperstein in the Second Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2019 Memorandum Decision
and Order is available at https://is.gd/RigN7B from Leagle.com.

Todd Cox & Mary Dinzik, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Kim Elaine
Miller -- kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC,
Craig J. Geraci -- craig.geraci@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC, David A.P. Brower -- brower@browerpiven.com -- Brower
Piven, J. Ryan Lopatka -- j.lopatka@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC, Lewis Stephen Kahn -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn
Swick & Foti, LLC & Matthew Patrick Woodard --
matthew.woodard@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC.

Marvin Pearlstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly sitiuated, Plaintiff, represented by Kim Elaine Miller,
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC.

Yong M. Cho & Batuhan Ulug, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel
Kuznicki, Kuznicki Law, PLLC, David A.P. Brower, Brower Piven & Kim
Elaine Miller, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC.

Omar Ahmed, Movant, represented by Peter George Safirstein --
psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com -- Safirstein Metcalf LLP.

The BlackBerry Limited Investor Group, Movant, pro se.

Mark Katz, Movant, represented by Gregory Bradley Linkh --
GLINKH@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

Blackberry Limited, formerly known as Research In Motion Limited,
Thorsten Heins & Brian Bidulka, Defendants, represented by Claire
Gunner -- cgunner@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Joel Charles
Haims -- jhaims@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Dan Edward
Marmalefsky -- dmarmalefsky@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster, James
Joseph Beha, II -- jbeha@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP &
Jordan Eth -- jeth@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Steve Zipperstein, Defendant, represented by Claire Gunner,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, Dan Edward Marmalefsky, Morrison &
Foerster & James Joseph Beha, II, Morrison & Foerster LLP.


BLATT HASENMILLER: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Nettles Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court from the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
denying Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case
captioned ASHLEY NETTLES, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. BLATT, HASENMILLER, LEIBSKER &
MOORE LLC, MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, and MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT,
INC., Defendant, No. 18-cv-7766. (N.D. Ill.).

Ashley Nettles brings this proposed class action against Defendants
Midland Funding LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc., alleging
that they violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when they
failed to properly credit the payments she had made, and when they
tried to collect a larger amount of money than she actually owed.

Midland Funding and Midland Credit moved to compel arbitration,
arguing that Nettles' claim is subject to a valid and enforceable
arbitration agreement that exists between Plaintiff and
Defendants.

Legal Standard

The Federal Arbitration Act requires federal courts to enforce
valid arbitration agreements. Although it is often said that there
is a federal policy in favor of arbitration, federal law places
arbitration clauses on equal footing with other contracts, not
above them. That is, the Act enforces parties' agreements to
arbitrate and puts arbitration on a par with other contracts and
eliminates any vestige of old rules disfavoring arbitration.

The Defendants argue that Nettles' FDCPA claim is subject to the
arbitration provision in the Credit Card Agreement, which also
allegedly bars Nettles from bringing a class action (that is, it
limits account holders to individual-only claims.  

To compel arbitration, the Defendants must show: (1) an agreement
to arbitrate (2) a dispute within the scope of the arbitration
provision and (3) refusal by Nettles to proceed to arbitration.  

In this case, the second element is at issue. Nettles asserts that
the Consent Judgment which does not contain an arbitration
provision is the only contract that governs this dispute, in part
because it is the document that Defendants' collection activity was
based upon. According to Nettles, because the arbitration provision
is limited to claims related to the credit card account, and
because her claim is based instead on the Defendants' attempts to
collect money owed on the Consent Judgment, her lawsuit is not
arbitrable.  

There is a genuine issue of material fact on exactly what it was
the credit card account, the Consent Judgment, or some combination
that the Defendants were trying to collect on via the June 2018
letter.

First, the letter informs Nettles that "Your MCM Midland Credit
Legal Collections account numbers are listed below" and asks
Nettles to refer to that number in any calls with Midland Credit.
The letter then lists the Legal Collections Account Number. The
letter also specifies the identity of the Original Creditor (Credit
One Bank) and the Original Creditor Account Number. When viewed in
Nettles' favor, Midland Credit's use of the term Legal Collections
gives rise to an inference that the Defendants were trying to
collect on the Consent Judgment, which was the product of the prior
legal action filed by Midland Funding.  

With this factual premise in mind, the Court now turns to whether
the Consent Judgment falls within the scope of the arbitration
provision. To determine whether a contract's arbitration clause
applies to a given dispute, federal courts apply state-law
principles of contract formation. In this case, the parties appear
to rely on Michigan law, and this Opinion will do the same.  Under
Michigan law, the primary task is to ascertain the intent of the
parties at the time they entered into the agreement, by examining
the language of the agreement according to its plain and ordinary
meaning.

The Defendants argue that, even if Nettles' FDCPA claim is based
entirely on the consent judgment arising out of the Michigan
action, it would still be subject to arbitration, because Nettles
agreed that any issues arising out of collections matters, such as
a consent judgment, would also be arbitrable.

The first problem with the defense's argument is that it assumes a
factual premise that has not yet been proven, that is, that the
letter was an attempt to collect on the account rather than the
Consent Judgment. If, after discovery, the record evidence shows
that the defense was collecting only on the account without any
reference to the Consent Judgment, then the Defendants will be
entitled to invoke the arbitration provision. But that fact is not
yet established.

If, on the other hand, the record evidence later shows that the
June 2018 letter was an attempt to collect on the Consent Judgment,
then the FDCPA claim is outside the scope of the arbitration
provision. Collection on the Consent Judgment would not qualify as
communications or collections matters relating to the original
credit card account. There is no reason to think that an
arbitration provision dealing with collections matters relating to
the original account, or communications relating to the account, is
so expansive that it deprives a court from deciding disputes over a
court-ordered judgment that resolved a collection lawsuit. So if
the evidence reveals that the June 2018 letter was an attempt to
collect on the Consent Judgment, then the arbitration provision
will not apply.

Against this backdrop, the Court denied the Defendants' motion to
compel arbitration, without prejudice. The status hearing of
December 5, 2019 is accelerated to October 24, 2019 at 10:45 a.m.
The parties shall confer on a discovery plan addressing whether the
June 2018 letter was an attempt to collect on the Consent Judgment.
The results of that conferral shall be reported in a joint status
report, due on October 21, 2019.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6tcwc64 from Leagle.com.

Ashley Nettles, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, represented by Curtis Charles Warner, Warner
Law Firm, LLC, 155 N. MI Ave. Suite 560, Chicago, IL 60601

Midland Funding LLC & Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Heather L. Kramer - hkramer@dykema.com - Dykema
Gossett PLLc & Theodore Wilson Seitz - tseitz@dykema.com - Dykema
Gossett, PLLC.

BLAZIN WINGS: Faces Alatorre Suit in California Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blazin Wings, Inc.
The case is captioned as ALATORRE, HECTOR ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF, ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the PLAINTIFF, vs. BLAZIN WINGS, INC., A
MINNESOTA CORPORATION and DOES 1 TO 50, INCLUSIVE, the DEFENDANTS,
Case No. CGC19579520 (Cal. Super., Sept. 25, 2019).

Blazin Wings is a liquor premise licensed with Colorado Department
of Revenue Liquor Enforcement Division.[BN]

BLITZ STUDIO: Fischler Suit Asserts ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blitz Studios, Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Blitz Studios,
Inc. doing business as: Sleeper Bot, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-05783 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 13, 2019).

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

Blitz Studios, Inc. operates as a software development
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE DIAMOND: Cosgrove Files AlmondMilk False Labeling Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Cosgrove, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Blue Diamond Growers, Case No. 1:19-cv-08993 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 27, 2019), is brought on behalf of consumers arising from the
Defendant's misrepresentation of its almondmilk beverages.

Blue Diamond Growers is a California Cooperative Corporation with a
principal place of business in Sacramento, California.  The Company
manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells almondmilk
beverages purporting to be characterized by vanilla under the
Almond Breeze brand ("Products").

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's representations of the
Products are misleading because the flavor is not only derived from
vanilla and/or the amount of vanilla is insufficient to
independently characterize the Products.  The Plaintiff adds that
because the Products contain flavor not derived from the
characterizing food ingredient of vanilla, their unqualified,
prominent and conspicuous representation as "Vanilla" is false,
deceptive and misleading.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

               - and -

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


BLUECHIP FINANCIAL: Provides Usurious Loans, Gross RICO Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BEVERLY GROSS AND KRISTA BIEHL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BLUECHIP FINANCIAL d/b/a SPOTLOAN,
JAMIE AZURE, CHAIRMAN OF TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS,
in his official capacity; LYNN GOURNEAU, VICE CHAIRMAN OF TURTLE
MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, in his official capacity; STUART
LAFOUNTAIN, SECRETARY OF TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS,
in his official capacity; JIM BAKER, DISTRICT 1 COUNCIL
REPRESENTATIVE FOR TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, in his
official capacity; NATHAN DAVIS, DISTRICT 1 COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
FOR TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, in his official
capacity; RON TROTTIER, DISTRICT 2 COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE FOR
TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, in his official capacity;
LOANN JEROME, DISTRICT 3 COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE FOR TURTLE MOUNTAIN
BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, in her official capacity; CARSON
BELGARDE, DISTRICT 4 COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE FOR TURTLE MOUNTAIN
BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, in his official capacity; CHAD COUNTS,
DISTRICT 4 COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE FOR TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF
CHIPPEWA INDIANS, in his official capacity, Case No. 3:19-cv-01520
(D. Conn., Sept. 26, 2019), alleges violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and usury and licensing
laws of Connecticut and Florida.

The lawsuit arises from a scheme to make online short-term loans
(commonly called "payday loans") that carry triple-digit interest
rates, often exceeding 400%, and that are illegal in many states.
The Plaintiffs contend that non-tribal entities ZestFinance and
Douglas Merrill provided the capital, marketing, underwriting, and
other resources for BlueChip, a purportedly tribal entity in North
Dakota that makes usurious loans to persons located throughout the
United States.

In February 2014, in response to a cease and desist issued to
BlueChip by the Connecticut Department of Banking, BlueChip
represented that it would stop making loans to Connecticut
residents.  The Plaintiffs allege that BlueChip did not stop making
loans to Connecticut residents.  The Plaintiffs, hence, seek to
recover damages against BlueChip for its violations of state and
federal law, and also seek prospective injunctive and declaratory
relief against the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indian's Tribal
Council to prevent their continuous and ongoing violations of state
and federal law.

BlueChip Financial, doing business as Spotloan, is a purportedly
tribal corporation located in Belcourt, North Dakota, and
incorporated under the laws of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa
Indians.  The Individual Defendants are officers or representatives
of the Turtle Mountain's Tribal Council.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel S. Blinn, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          35 Cold Spring Rd., Suite 512
          Rocky Hill, CT 06067
          Telephone: (860) 571-0408
          Facsimile: (860) 571-7457
          E-mail: dblinn@consumerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          John G. Albanese, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 594-5999
          Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
                  jalbanese@bm.net

               - and -

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Adams, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
                  eadams@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Matthew Wessler, Esq.
          GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
          1735 20th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 888-1741
          Facsimile: (202) 888-7792
          E-mail: matt@guptawessler.com

               - and -

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew I. Guzzo, Esq.
          Casey S. Nash, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
                  aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                  casey@kellyguzzo.com

               - and -

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  elizabeth@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com


BREMER FINANCIAL: Crosby Sues for Over Unfair Fees
--------------------------------------------------
KRISTINE CROSBY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. BREMER FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No. 0:19-cv-02609
(D. Minn., Sept. 27, 2019), arises from the Defendant's routine
practice of assessing more than one insufficient funds fee on the
same item and charging both Non-Sufficient Funds(NSF) fees and
overdraft fees on the same item.

These practices breach contractual promises; violate the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing; and/or result in the Bank being
unjustly enriched, Ms. Crosby, who holds a Bremer checking account,
contends.

Bremer Bank is engaged in the business of providing retail banking
services to consumers, including the Plaintiff and members of the
putative Classes.  Bremer has its headquarters in Saint Paul,
Minnesota.  Bremer has more than $12 billion in assets and provides
banking services to customers through bank branches in the states
of Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy Becker, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1804
          Facsimile: (612) 436-4801
          E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

          Lynn Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmald.com


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Court Dismisses Tung Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss claims in the case captioned JENNIFER TUNG et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY et al., Defendants, No.
18-CV-1611 (JPO), (S.D.N.Y.).

Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Company announced a clinical trial
to test the efficacy of one of its newest anticancer drugs. The
trial failed, which precipitated a drop in the company's stock
price. Plaintiffs now bring this putative shareholder class action,
alleging that public statements by Bristol-Myers and its officers
mischaracterized the experimental design of the trial, thereby
overstating the likelihood of the trial's success. The plaintiffs
bring claims under Rule 10b-5 and Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of
the Securities Exchange Act.

Legal Standard

To withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff
must plead sufficient factual allegations to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face. A claim is plausible if the
well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint, presumed true,
permit the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

Securities fraud claims are subject to heightened pleading
requirements that the plaintiff must meet to survive a motion to
dismiss. The heightened pleading requirements are set forth in Rule
9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

A securities fraud complaint based on misrepresentations must (1)
specify the statements that the plaintiff contends were fraudulent
(2) identify the speaker (3) state where and when the statements
were made, and (4) explain why the statements were fraudulent.

Plaintiffs have alleged violations of section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 and sections 20(a) and 20A of
the Act.  

Claims Under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5

To state a claim under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, a plaintiff
must prove (1) a material misrepresentation or omission by the
defendant (2) scienter (3) a connection between the
misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a
security (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission (5)
economic loss and (6) loss causation.

Here, Plaintiffs have not shown either to be true. Thus, Plaintiffs
have failed adequately to plead scienter, which means that their
claims under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 must be dismissed.

Fraudulent Motive and Opportunity

In order to raise a strong inference of scienter under the motive
and opportunity prong, the plaintiffs must allege that
Bristol-Myers or its officers stood to benefit in some concrete and
personal way from the purported fraud.

Plaintiffs adduce two motives to commit fraud, but neither
suffices.

The first is Defendants' motive to protect competitively sensitive
information. But the protection of proprietary information is the
quintessence of a generalized business motive. Plaintiffs allege no
concrete benefits that would accrue to the Defendants beyond
maintaining the appearance of corporate profitability or of the
success of an investment. If scienter could be pleaded on this
basis alone, virtually every company in the United States that
experiences a downturn in stock price could be forced to defend
securities fraud actions.

The second is the Defendants' motive to sell stock while the price
was artificially inflated as a result of their intentional
manipulation of the market. As evidence, the complaint cites stock
sales by Defendants Andreotti, Bancroft, Caforio, and Cuss. Such
allegations, however, can establish fraudulent motive only if
Plaintiffs first demonstrate that the stock sales were unusual or
suspicious. They have not done so. As an initial matter, the
complaint entirely fails to allege that Defendants Giordano or
Namouni sold any shares during the relevant period, which
substantially undermines Plaintiffs' claim that Defendants were
motivated by an intent to engage in insider trading.  

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to adequately
allege a fraudulent motive.

Conscious Misbehavior or Recklessness

Plaintiffs who have failed to demonstrate fraudulent motive may
nonetheless raise a strong inference of scienter under the
conscious misbehavior or recklessness prong, though the strength of
the circumstantial allegations must be correspondingly greater if
there was no underlying motive to commit fraud. In other words, the
pleaded facts must indicate a state of mind approximating actual
intent.

Plaintiffs' allegations fall far short of that demanding standard.
Even if the Court assumes the existence of a fixed usage of strong
that excluded a PD-L1 expression cut-off of 5%, the complaint still
fails to plead facts giving rise to a strong inference that the
fixed usage was either known to the defendants or so obvious that
the defendants must have been aware of it at the time of the
alleged misrepresentations.  

As evidence that the Defendants were aware of the industry usage,
Plaintiffs first cite general facts about Bristol-Myers's leading
position in the immuno-oncology market. These allegations do not
suffice.  Plaintiffs' conclusory allegations of knowledge do not
suffice.

Plaintiffs' claims under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 fail as a matter of law.

Claims Under Sections 20(a) and 20A

Plaintiffs also allege control-person liability under sections
20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act. To establish a prima
facie case of control-person liability, a plaintiff must
successfully allege a primary violation.Plaintiffs have failed to
allege any primary violation; thus, they cannot establish
control-person violation. Their claims under sections 20(a) and 20A
are dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is
GRANTED. Defendants' motion for oral argument on the motion to
dismiss is DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend
their complaint within 30 days of this Opinion and Order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4sxdrzb from Leagle.com.

Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System & Louisiana Sheriffs
Pension & Relief Fund, Lead Plaintiffs, represented by Javier
Bleichmar - jbleichmar@bfalaw.com - Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP,
Jesse Lee Jensen - jesse.jensen@blbglaw.com - Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP, Lauren Amy Ormsbee - laurenm@blbglaw.com -
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Michael Dains Blatchley
, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP & Salvatore Jo Graziano
, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

Jennifer Tung, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II -
ahood@pomlaw.com - Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman -
jalieberman@pomlaw.com - Pomerantz LLP.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Michael Giordano, Fouad Namouni,
Francis M. Cuss, Giovanni Caforio, Lamberto Andreotti & Charles A.
Bancroft, Defendants, represented by Yosef J. Riemer -
yriemer@kirkland.com - Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Matthew Osborn Solum
- matthew.solum@kirkland.com - Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Sept. 30 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of holders of Caesars Entertainment
Corporation ("Caesars") (NASDAQ GS: CZR) common stock in connection
with the proposed acquisition of Caesars by Eldorado Resorts, Inc.
("Eldorado") and Colt Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub") announced on
June 24, 2019 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Caesars,
its Board of Directors (the "Board"), Eldorado, and Merger Sub, is
captioned Palkon v. Caesars Entertainment Corporation, Case No.
1:19-cv-01679 (D. Del.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On June 24, 2019, Caesars entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Eldorado and Merger Sub.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of
Caesars will receive $8.40 in cash and 0.0899 shares of Eldorado
common stock per share (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Form S-4 Registration
Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Complaint alleges
that the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to, among other things, the Company's and Eldorado's
financial projections and the analyses performed by Caesars'
financial advisor. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable
relief and damages on behalf of holders of Caesars common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 29, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware, New York, and
California, has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf
of investors and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms
in numerous cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud
actions, shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative
actions.

Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

CONTACT:                                                           
                                 

  Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
  Seth D. Rigrodsky
  Gina M. Serra
  (888) 969-4242
  (302) 295-5310
  Fax: (302) 654-7530
  info@rl-legal.com
  http://www.rigrodskylong.com
[GN]


CALIFIA FARMS: Cicciarella Hits Artificial Vanilla Flavor in Drink
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Ann Cicciarella, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Califia Farms, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-08785 (S.D. N.Y., September 22, 2019), seeks
restitution and disgorgement of inequitably obtained profits,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, monetary and punitive
damages and interest, costs and expenses, including reasonable fees
for attorneys and experts and such other and further relief
resulting from unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation and
violation of New York general business laws and various state
consumer protection statutes.

Califia Farms, LLC manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells almond milk beverages purporting to be characterized by
vanilla under the Califia Farms brand. Plaintiffs allege that their
vanilla-flavored almond milk contains vanilla flavor or vanilla
extract despite its labelling indicating "natural flavor." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
      SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      891 Northern Blvd., Suite 201
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Tel: (516) 303-0552
      Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

             - and -

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


CALIFORNIA: Golden Gate Bridge Toll Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Gutride Safier LLP on Sept. 30 disclosed that the San Francisco
Superior Court has allowed a class action on behalf of certain
California motorists with Golden Gate Bridge ("GGB") toll
violations. All persons who are members of the Court-defined
"Class" and "Subclass" will be bound by the court's decisions
unless they exclude themselves by November 26, 2019.

WHO IS AFFECTED?

The Class is:

All persons: (i) registered as owners of vehicles with the
California Department of Motor Vehicles that have, since March 27,
2013, crossed southbound on the Golden Gate Bridge; (ii) on whom
Defendants imposed a toll penalty in connection with the crossing
of the Golden Gate Bridge; and (iii) who have not received a full
refund of all pen penalties paid or waiver of all unpaid
penalties.

The Subclass is:

All Class members who were sent a toll invoice and/or violation
notice using an address from which mail so addressed was returned
to any Defendant as undeliverable.

WHAT IS THE LAWSUIT ABOUT?

The lawsuit is against the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and
Transportation District, the Bay Area Toll Authority, and Conduent
State & Local Solutions, Inc. (formerly Xerox State and Local
Solutions, Inc.) (collectively "Defendants").

The lawsuit seeks changes to how Defendants (1) notify motorists of
unpaid GGB tolls and (2) provide administrative review of toll
violations.  It seeks a new chance for Class members to get
administrative review of toll violation penalties.  It also seeks
refunds of penalties paid by Subclass members.

Defendants say they followed the law and that therefore, no relief
is available to the Class or Subclass.

The Court has not determined who is correct.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT?

The case is set for trial on December 19, 2019 in San Francisco
Superior Court. On December 2, 2019, the Court will hold a hearing
to decide whether the case should be decided without a trial.  The
Court could decide the entire case at that time in favor of the
Defendants, or it could decide to allow some or all of the case to
proceed to trial.

HOW CAN PEOPLE EXCLUDE THEMSELVES?

Any Class or Subclass member who wants to be able to sue Defendants
separately for the legal claims in the case must request exclusion
from the lawsuit by November 26, 2019. Once excluded, that person
cannot share in any monetary recovery made in the case.  The
exclusion request form and additional information are available at
www.GGBTollClassAction.com or by calling 1-855-582-2925. [GN]


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Court Stays Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MARLENE KANEHL, the
Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP, the Defendant, Case
No. 19-CV-1381 (E.D. Wis., Sept. 20, 2019), the Hon. Judge William
E. Duffin entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings on the motion for class certification.

On September 20, 2019, the plaintiff filed a class action
complaint.  At the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court
commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class
certification. In the motion, the plaintiff sought certification of
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." "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are
generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class
certification at the beginning of case, the Damasco court suggested
that the parties "ask the district court to delay its ruling to
provide time for additional discovery or investigation."

The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set
forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, 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, the Court Says.[CC]

CAPITAL ONE: Berger Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Paul Berger, David Bienfait, Mark
Bodner, Timothy Davidson, Adam Greenstein, Latoya Jawara, Vicki
Johns, David Rosenthal, Stephen Rosenthal, Marcia Sorin,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One,
National Association, Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02298 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of District of Columbia to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia on Oct. 11, 2019, and assigned
Case No. 1:19-cv-02918-AJT-JFA.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Capital One Financial Corporation is a bank holding company
specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings
accounts, headquartered in McLean, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Esq.
     Nussbaum Law Group P. C.
     1211 Avenue of the Americas
     Floor 40
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (917) 438-9102
     Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     John C. Toro, Esq.
     King & Spalding (GA-NA)
     1180 Peachtree St NE
     Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
     Phone: (404) 572-2806
     Fax: (404) 572-5100
     Email: jtoro@kslaw.com


CAPITAL ONE: Greenstein Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Lara Greenstein, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital One
Financial Corporation, Capital One, National Association, Capital
One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02307 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
District of Columbia to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia on Oct. 11, 2019, and assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02919-AJT-JFA.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Capital One Financial Corporation is a bank holding company
specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings
accounts, headquartered in McLean, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Esq.
     Nussbaum Law Group P. C.
     1211 Avenue of the Americas
     Floor 40
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (917) 438-9102
     Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     John C. Toro, Esq.
     King & Spalding (GA-NA)
     1180 Peachtree St NE
     Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
     Phone: (404) 572-2806
     Fax: (404) 572-5100
     Email: jtoro@kslaw.com


CAPITAL ONE: Lipskar Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Eliyahu Lipskar individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital One
Financial Corporation, Capital One, National Association, Capital
One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02328 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
District of Columbia to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia on Oct. 11, 2019, and assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02920-AJT-JFA.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Capital One Financial Corporation is a bank holding company
specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings
accounts, headquartered in McLean, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Esq.
     Nussbaum Law Group P. C.
     1211 Avenue of the Americas
     Floor 40
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (917) 438-9102
     Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     John C. Toro, Esq.
     King & Spalding (GA-NA)
     1180 Peachtree St NE
     Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
     Phone: (404) 572-2806
     Fax: (404) 572-5100
     Email: jtoro@kslaw.com



CARTER NATIONAL: Sostaita Seeks to Certify Class of Sand Haulers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MARCELO SOSTAITA,
Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
PLAINTIFF, vs. EXPLORE GROUP, LLC, and CARTER NATIONAL LOGISTICS,
LLC, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 7:19-cv-00127-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all Sand Haulers since May 21, 2016"; and

   2. granting approval and distribution of notice and for
      disclosure of contact information.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover overtime wages and other damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Explore Group provides worldwide logistics and supply chain
solutions.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

          James Essman, Esq.
          R. Layne Rouse, Esq.
          SHAFER, DAVIS, O’LEARY & STOKER
          P.O. Drawer 1552
          Odessa, TX 79760-1552
          Telephone: (432) 332-0893
          Facsimile: (432) 333-5002
          E-mail: jessman@shaferfirm.com
                  lrouse@shaferfirm.com

               - and -

          Roy Divin, Esq.
          McDONALD SANDERS,
          a Professional Corporation
          777 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 336-8651
          Facsimile: (817) 334-0271

CBC RESTAURANT: Jones Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Ebony Jones on behalf of all others similarly
situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. CBC Restaurant Corp.
d/b/a Corner Bakery Cafe, Defendant, Case No. 2019-CH-10119 was
removed from the Illinois State Circuit Court of Cook County,
Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Oct. 11, 2019, and assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-06736.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Corner Bakery Cafe is an American chain of cafes that specialize in
pastries, breads, breakfast dishes, gourmet sandwiches, homemade
soups, salads, and pasta.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Craig R. Thorstenson, Esq.
     Becky Lynn Kalas, Esq.
     Ford & Harrison LLP
     180 N Stetson Ave., Suite 1660
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: (312) 960-6116
     Email: CThorstenson@fordharrison.com
            BKalas@fordharrison.com


CEMAK TRUCKING: Underpays Drivers, Zabala Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
ALEX ZABALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CEMAK TRUCKING, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50,
Defendants, Case No. 30-2019-01098484-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super.,
Orange Cty., Sept. 20, 2019) is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Zabala was employed by the Defendants as driver.

Cemak Trucking, Inc. was founded in 1993. The Company's line of
business includes provides trucking transportation services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          Michael Calvo, Esq.
          James Hawkins APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com


CENTRAL COLLECTION: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOROTHY GILLESPIE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL COLLECTION CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-01409 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff ask the Court for an
order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

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

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

Central Collection Corp is a debt collection agency located in
Brookfield, Wisconsin.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION: Averts Oil and Gas Royalty Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Chesapeake
Exploration LLC convinced a federal court in Ohio on Sept. 30 to
throw out a class action alleging it miscalculated oil and gas
royalties.

The certified class included the owners of the mineral rights to
over 400 natural gas wells in the Utica Shale.

The court agreed with Chesapeake's interpretation of how payment of
oil and gas royalties should be calculated and paid to the royalty
owners.

Chesapeake paid one-eighth of the net proceeds realized from the
sale of oil and gas produced and marketed from the wells. "That is
exactly what the parties negotiated for," the court said.[GN]



CHICAGO, IL: Faces American Council Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Chicago et
al. The case is captioned as American Council of The Blind of
Metropolitan Chicago, Maureen Heneghan, and Ray Campbell on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the  Plaintiff,
vs. City of Chicago; Chicago Department of Transportation; Lori
Lightfoot, in her official capacity as Mayor of the City of
Chicago; and Thomas Carney, in his official capacity as Acting
Commissioner of the Chicago Department of Transportation, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06322 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 23, 2019).
The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo.

Chicago, on Lake Michigan in Illinois, is among the largest cities
in the U.S.  Famed for its bold architecture, it has a skyline
punctuated by skyscrapers such as the iconic John Hancock Center,
1,451-ft. Willis Tower (formerly the Sears Tower) and the
neo-Gothic Tribune Tower.

The American Council of the Blind is a nationwide organization
mainly made up of blind and visually impaired people who want to
achieve independence and equality (although there are many sighted
members with common aims).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Nigel F. Telman, Esq.
          Edward Chester Young, Esq.
          Holly Renae Morris, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          Three First National Plaza
          70 W. Madison, Suite 3800
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 962-3548
          E-mail: ntelman@proskauer.com
                  eyoung@proskauer.com
                  hmorris@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Christina Brandt-Young, Esq.
          Jelena Kolic, Esq.
          Michelle Caiola
          DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          655 Third Avenue, 14th floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 644-8644
          E-mail: cbrandt-young@dralegal.org
                  jkolic@dralegal.org
                  mcaiola@dralegal.org


CLASSIFIEDJOBS INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ClassifiedJobs, Inc.
The case is styled as Pedro Martinez individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. ClassifiedJobs, Inc. doing business as: merlinjobs.com,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05754 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 11, 2019).

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

ClassifiedJobs Inc. is an Android developer that currently has 1
app on Google Play, and is active since 2017. The app is available
for job seekers and recruiters on Android and iOS devices, and
accessible online at merlinjobs.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


COOK COUNTY, IL: Court Nixes Class Certification Bid in "McFields"
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Courtney McFields, et al.,
the Plaintiffs, vs. Sheriff of Cook County, et al., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17−cv−07424 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge John Robert
Blakey entered an order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Plaintiffs Courtney McFields, Pierre Brunt, Anthony Dixon, and
Walter
Williams, detainees at the Cook County Jail, filed this putative
class action challenging the way in which the County Jail handles
health service requests from detainees complaining of dental pain.
Plaintiffs claim that its policy fails to provide detainees
complaining of dental pain with a face-to-face assessment by a
registered nurse or higher-level practitioner. As a result,
Plaintiffs claim, the County Jail's policy violates the Fourteenth
Amendment because it is unreasonable and reflects a deliberate
indifference to pain.

Judge Blakey held that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate
commonality and typicality; rather, resolution of Plaintiffs' claim
requires a highly individualized, fact intensive inquiry. Nor have
Plaintiffs demonstrated that common questions predominate over
questions affecting only individual members.

The Cook County Sheriff's Office is the principal law enforcement
agency that serves Cook County, Illinois. It is the second largest
sheriff's department in the United States, with over 6,900 members
when at full operational strength.[CC]

COVETRUS INC: Berger Montague Files Class Suit vs. Firm, Execs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berger Montague announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Covetrus, Inc. ("CVET") and several of its executives
on behalf of those who purchased Covetrus common stock between
February 8, 2019, and August 12, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you wish to discuss the claims against Covetrus or have any
questions concerning your rights or interests, please contact
Barbara A. Podell, Esq. at (215) 875-4690 or Michael Dell'Angelo,
Esq. at (215) 875-3080 or visit www.bergermontague.com  If you
purchased or acquired Covetrus common stock during the Class Period
and suffered damages, you may, no later than November 29, 2019,
request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed
Class. You do not need to be a lead plaintiff to share in any
possible recovery to the Class.

Covetrus was formed through a spin-off and merger of Henry Schein's
Animal Health Business and Vets First Choice ("VFC"), a
privately-held company, to create what Covetrus described to
investors as the "only global animal health technology and services
company." Henry Schein announced the spin-off and merger on April
23, 2018. On February 8, 2019, Covetrus shares began trading on the
NASDAQ Global Market at $42.96 per share.

A class action was filed in the Eastern District of New York on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Covetrus common
stock from February 8, 2019, through August 12, 2019. The Complaint
alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made a series
of false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the
Company's infrastructure and capabilities, as well as the true
costs of becoming independent from Henry Schein.

Specifically, Defendants:

-- Overstated Covetrus' capabilities with regard to inventory
management and supply chain services;

  -- Understated the costs of the integration of Henry Schein's
Animal Health Business and VFC, including the timing and nature of
those costs;

  -- Understated Covetrus' separation costs from Henry Schein; and

  -- Understated the impact on earnings from online competition and
alternative
distribution channels, as well as the impact of the loss of a large
customer in North America just prior to the Company's separation
from Henry Schein.

On August 13, 2019, before the market opened, Covetrus shocked
investors by reporting a net loss of $0.09 per share for the second
quarter of 2019 when the market had been expecting a net income of
$0.17 per share. Covetrus also slashed its 2019 EBITDA guidance
from its recently stated estimates in February and May by as much
as $250 million, to disclose EBITDA guidance of just $200 million.
In doing so, Covetrus admitted that the Company would have to spend
tens of millions of dollars more in infrastructure spending. The
Company also admitted previously undisclosed difficulties
integrating the platforms and disclosed increased spending to
eliminate obligations to Henry Schein as part of the spin-off.
Defendants belatedly acknowledged that they were finally "at a
point where we have detailed plans and understanding of the level
of infrastructure investment we need to make and how these costs
break out." Finally, Covetrus also disclosed on August 13, 2019,
that the "loss of a customer weighed heavily on organic growth in
Q2 by 3%."

In response to these disclosures, Covetrus stock plummeted 40%,
falling from $23.19 per share on August 12, 2019, to close at
$13.89 per share on August 13, 2019. The following day, the shares
dropped another 11% to close at $12.35 per share.

Berger Montague, with offices in Philadelphia, Minneapolis,
Washington, D.C., and San Diego, is a full-service national
plaintiffs' class action law firm specializing in securities,
antitrust, and other complex litigation on behalf of institutional
and individual investors. Berger Montague is one of the most highly
regarded plaintiffs' litigation firms in the country, with nearly
50 years of experience and numerous record-setting recoveries.

Contact:

         Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
         Shareholder
         Berger Montague
         Tel: 215-875-4690
         Email: bpodell@bm.net

         Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
         Managing Shareholder
         Berger Montague
         Tel: 215-875-3080
         Email: mdellangelo@bm.net
[GN]


COVETRUS INC: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on Sept. 30 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York against Covetrus, Inc.
("Covetrus" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CVET), certain of its
executive officers, and Henry Schein Inc. ("Henry Schein")
(collectively, "Defendants") on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Covetrus common stock between
February 8, 2019 and August 12, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you purchased Covetrus common stock during the Class Period and
wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the Court by no later than November 29, 2019. You may
contact David Kaplan (dkaplan@saxenawhite.com), an attorney and
Director at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the class action.
You may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any
action at this time to be a class member.

Covetrus was formed through a spin-off and merger of the Animal
Health Business of Henry Schein with Vets First Choice ("VFC"), a
privately-held company, to create what the Company described to
investors as the "only global animal health technology and services
company."

In the offering documents for the spin-merger and throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made a series of false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning the newly combined companies'
infrastructure and capabilities, as well as the true costs of
becoming independent from Henry Schein.  After the merger,
Defendants assured investors that the integration of the legacy
Henry Schein Animal Health Business and VFC was "on track" to hit
financial targets.    

On August 13, 2019, before the market opened, Covetrus shocked
investors by reporting a net loss of $0.09 per share for the second
quarter of 2019 compared to consensus analyst estimates of $0.17 in
net income per share.  Covetrus also slashed its 2019 EBITDA
guidance to just $200 million, down substantially from its prior
EBITDA guidance of approximately $250 million issued in February
and May 2019, only a few months prior.  In doing so, Covetrus
admitted that the Company would have to spend tens of millions of
dollars more in infrastructure spending and redundant costs.  The
Company also admitted previously undisclosed difficulties
integrating the platforms and disclosed increased spending to
eliminate obligations to Henry Schein as part of the spin-off
agreement.  In response to these and other disclosures, the
Company's stock price plummeted 40%, declining $9.30 per share, to
close at $13.89 per share on August 13, 2019.    

The Complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Covetrus,
Henry Schein and certain of Covetrus' senior executives.  The
action alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants issued a
series of false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about Covetrus' business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants' representations to investors:
(i) overstated Covetrus' capabilities with regard to inventory
management and supply chain services; (ii) understated the costs of
the integration of Henry Schein's Animal Health Business and VFC,
including the timing and nature of those costs; (iii) understated
Covetrus' separation costs from Henry Schein; and (iv) understated
the impact on earnings from online competition and alternative
distribution channels as well as the impact of the loss of a large
customer in North America just prior to the Company's separation
from Henry Schein.

You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively
joining the class action at www.saxenawhite.com.

Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, and
California, concentrates its practice on prosecuting securities
fraud and complex class actions on behalf of institutions and
individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous
securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered
hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and
is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts
throughout the United States.

CONTACT INFORMATION

  David Kaplan, Esq.
  dkaplan@saxenawhite.com
  Saxena White P.A.
  12750 High Bluff Drive, Suite 475
  San Diego, CA 92130
  Tel: (858) 987-0860
  Fax: (858) 369-0096
  www.saxenawhite.com
[GN]


CSWS, L.L.C.: Rosebar, et al Seek to Certify Class of Entertainers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JAMISHA ROSEBAR, BREONA
SMITH, KENYA WILLIAMS-MIX, ADRIEANA POWELL, SHALAYLA LIDDELL, JADA
ADAMS, PRINCESS WELLINGTON and LAQUESHIA MILLER, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CSWS,
L.L.C. d/b/a OCEAN GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, DEBORAH DIAZ and SEIF EL
SHARIF, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18 CV 7081 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all current and former dancers/entertainers who worked or
      have worked at Ocean Gentlemen's Club in Bedford Park,
      Illinois at any time from three years prior to the
      commencement of this action through the date of judgment";

   2. approving distribution of the proposed Notice, via U.S. Mail

      and e-mail as well as the proposed language of the text
      message;

   3. directing the Defendants to identify all putative members of

      the proposed Collective, in order to facilitate timely and
      orderly notice to all potential collective members, by
      providing their names, last known addresses, e-mail
      addresses, telephone numbers (including mobile), dates of
      birth and dates of employment, in an electronic and
      importable format such as an unrestricted Excel spreadsheet;

      and

   4. allowing putative members of the Collective 60 days from the

      date the notice is mailed to join this case by returning
      their written consent forms if they so choose.

The Plaintiffs alleges that Defendants failed to pay minimum and
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Specifically, the Defendants did not pay the workers any money, but
instead levied a host of fines and charges so the workers had to
pay the Club money to work there.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas R. Conlon, Esq.
          Ching-Yuan "Tony" Teng, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          500 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
                  tonyteng@jtblawgroup.com

               - and -

          John C. Ireland, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
          636 Spruce Street
          South Elgin, IL 60177
          Telephone: 630 464-9675
          Facsimile: 630-206-0889
          E-mail: Attorneyireland@gmail.com

               - and -

          David Fish, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 E. 5th Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (331) 425-7083
          Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com

DAD'S TOWING: Truck Drivers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Richard Jackson, Jr. and Aaron Lloyd Wallace, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dad's
Towing Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00824 (M.D. Tenn.,
September 18, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, as well as
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Dad's Towing provides towing and recovery services partner with
various law enforcement agencies to provide towing services as a
result of accidents and abandoned vehicles. Plaintiff worked as
former tow-truck drivers for Dad's. They claim to have worked in
excess of 40 hours per work week, especially when "on-call,"
without being paid overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nina Parsley, Esq.
      PONCE LAW
      400 Professional Park Drive
      Goodlettsville, TN 37072
      Telephone: (615) 851-1776
      Facsimile: (615) 859-7033
      Email: nina@poncelaw.com

             - and -

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      Robert E. Turner, Esq.
      Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 759-1745
      Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
             rturner@jsyc.com
             nbishop@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com


DAVID BLOTT: Class-Action Lawsuit vs Calgary Lawyer to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Calgary Sun reports that a class-action lawsuit will proceed
against a former Calgary lawyer accused of misconduct in his
handling of thousands of settlements awarded to survivors of
residential school abuse.

Court of Queen's Bench Justice Alan Macleod certified the suit in a
written decision issued Tuesday.

The application involves the alleged mishandling of approximately
5,600 residential school claims by David Blott on behalf of
Indigenous clients, mostly from the Blood Tribe in southern
Alberta.

The $5-billion residential schools agreement is believed to be the
largest class-action settlement in Canadian history, designed to
reach out-of-court settlements for claims of abuse at more than 130
residential schools across Canada.

It's alleged Blott received $21 million for his firm's services.

In Macleod's decision, he called the residential school system a
"stain upon Canada's relationship with First Nations," citing the
physical, mental, emotional and sexual abuse that took place at the
schools. Students were also deprived of family and community
contact.

The class-action statement of claim alleges breach of fiduciary
duty, negligence, breach of contract, conspiracy and unjust
enrichment.

The plaintiffs are seeking financial damages for legal fees for
services not rendered, loss of certain compensation available
through the Independent Assessment Process, payment of avoidable
taxes for legal fees and mental distress, among others.

"Rather than provide them with the support to which they were
reasonably entitled as clients, they were preyed upon and
exploited, receiving little service while Blott maximized his
return," Macleod wrote in his decision.

"The experience of being largely ignored and the subsequent
experience of being exploited turned what was supposed to provide
reconciliation and closure into another traumatic experience."

Blott was disbarred from the Law Society of Alberta in 2014.

At the time, a review panel heard Blott's Calgary firm handled
almost 4,600 residential school claims, many from southern Alberta,
between 2006 and 2012. His firm would receive the settlement
cheques and pay the interest and fees owed.

Often, there was very little cash remaining.

Blott's lawyer at the time said although his client acknowledged
there was evidence of wrongdoing, he wasn't admitting guilt to
anything.

Blott told the panel he accepted the statement of facts presented
by the lawyer. [GN]


DIAMOND CBD: Faces Cannabidiol False Advertising Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Florida Cannabidiol (CBD) retailer and its
parent companies have been hit with a proposed class action
claiming their solutions do not include the advertised amounts of
cannabidiol, and that they are cheating consumers with their false
and deceptive labels.

Kathryn Potter, a Miami resident, claims in the Sept. 27 complaint
that solutions bought from Diamond CBD has "substantially reduce"
amounts of CBD than what was stated on their label. [GN]




DIRECT AUTO: Faces Suit over Improper Release of Insurance Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANA TRUJILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GEOVANNI RESINDIS; and DIRECT AUTO INSURANCE
CO., Defendants, Case No. 2019L010264 (Ill., Cir., Cook Cty., Sept.
18, 2019) alleges that Direct Auto Insurance released the
Plaintiff's property damage information without her express written
consent.

According to the complaint, the Defendant participates in and
routinely attempts to release personal injury claims in a property
damage release and engages in a pattern of behavior which goes
against the spirit and letter of Illinois law.  The Defendant sent
the Plaintiff a release of property damage, offering consideration
of $6,579.35, which included a release of all personal injury
claims.

Direct Auto Insurance Company provides automobile insurance, as
well as specializes in bi-lingual claims. Direct Auto Insurance
serves customers in the State of Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A. Langendorf, Esq.
          Robert A. Langendorf, P.C.
          134 N La Salle, Suite 1515
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-5933
          E-mail: Robert@langendorfpc.com


DOMETIC CORP: Averts Refrigerator Design Defect Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Raychel Lean, writing for Law.com, reports that a putative class
action lawsuit against RV refrigerator manufacturer Dometic Corp.
failed before U.S. District Judge Robert Scola, who denied
certification.

Miami attorneys Erica Rutner -- erutner@lashgoldberg.com -- and
Jonathan Williams -- jwilliams@lashgoldberg.com -- of Lash &
Goldberg, and Edward Soto -- edward.soto@weil.com -- of Weil
Gotshal & Manges led a team of attorneys in warding off a putative
class-action lawsuit against the Pompano-based manufacturer over
claims its refrigerators contained a design defect that caused them
to leak flammable gases. [GN]



DOORDASH INC: Uses Tips to Subsidize Drivers' Wage, Customers Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Peter and Karson Theiss, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. DoorDash, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-06098-TSH
(N.D. Cal., Sept. 25, 2019), seeks restitution, monetary damages
and injunctive relief against Defendant for its alleged violation
of the California Unfair Competition Law, the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and
Missouri and Illinois law.

The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a
class and subclasses of similarly situated consumers who used
DoorDash's website or app to place food-delivery orders and who
paid tips through its website or app. Those tips, which were made
by consumers with the intention that the tips benefit the drivers,
were instead used by DoorDash fund its operations by subsidizing
the guaranteed minimum payments that DoorDash promised and owed its
drivers.

As a result of DoorDash's practice of using tips to assist in
funding the guaranteed minimum payments it owes drivers, part or
all of the tips for drivers that consumers paid provided no
financial benefit to the driver.

The result is that the Dasher receives no additional compensation
by the consumer leaving a tip through DoorDash's website or app,
and the consumer is deceived into leaving a tip that merely reduces
the amount that DoorDash has to pay the Dasher to meet the
guaranteed minimum payment, the lawsuit says.

DoorDash is a self-described "technology company" that facilitates
door-to-door food delivery services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

          Mike Arias, Esq.
          Elise R. Sanguinetti, Esq.
          Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 844-9696
          Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
          E-mail: mike@aswtlawyers.com
                  elise@aswtlawyers.com
                  alfredo@aswtlawyers.com

               - and -

          Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
          Daniel Scott Levy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD, LLC
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1645
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-5799
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5788
          E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com
                  dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com

EBONY: Former Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
HipHopWired reports that iconic African-American magazine Ebony is
back in the news after former employees accuse the publication of
unpaid wages and fraud.

According to The Root, the historic publication is once again
headed back to court after former employees claimed that they were
unpaid for work, laid off unfairly and that their 401k was not
company-matched per the employment agreement.

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

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

The lawsuit comes just one week after Linda Johnson-Rice, daughter
of the magazine's founder decided to step down effective
immediately from the magazine's board claiming that the direction
of the magazine did not go according to what she had envisioned.

"When I agreed to continue on with the companies after the sale to
the CVG Group, I did so hopeful that the Ebony and Jet brands would
continue to be a dominant and positive force in the African
American community," Johnson Rice said in the email obtained by the
Chicago Tribune. "Obviously, despite my hopes, the last three years
did not result in what I envisioned when the transition occurred,
and because of that, I have made the decision to move on."

Although the reasoning behind the resignation is unclear, what is
clear is that the publication has been having staffing and legal
issues since the company was bought by Texas investment group CVG
in 2016. As previously reported, in 2017 freelancers and former
employees started the viral hashtag #EbonyOwes before filing a
lawsuit for unpaid wages. The employees were awarded nearly $80,000
in 2018 and Ebony laid off its entire digital staff before going on
a print hiatus in the Spring of this year. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Dist. Ct. Denies Doshier's Bid to Remand Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas, Western Division issued an Order denying Plaintiff's
motion to remand and motion for leave to file reply in support of
their motion to remand in the case captioned WILLIAM F. DOSHIER and
DOTSTRATEGY, CO., Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:18-cv-00628-KGB. (E.D. Ark.).

In their motion to remand and motion for leave to file reply in
support of their motion to remand, Mr. Doshier and dotStrategy
contend that "Facebook's Notice of Removal was not filed within the
time permitted by the removal statue, and, therefore, was
defective." Plaintiffs also filed a motion for default judgment.

Defendant Facebook, Inc. filed an opposition to the motions.

Notice Of Removal And Remand

The statute that governs removal is 28 U.S.C. Section 1446, which
provides:

The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be
filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through
service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting
forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is
based, or within 30 days after the service of summons upon the
defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court and
is not required to be served on the defendant, whichever period is
shorter.

The 30-day time limit for removal is applicable to claims involving
the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1453, and to
claims involving federal question jurisdiction.  Generally, upon a
motion to remand, the removing party has the burden to show that
removal is proper.  

Because this Court concludes that plaintiffs did not effectively
serve Facebook on July 16, 2018, that date did not trigger the
running of a 30-day removal deadline for Facebook. Further, as this
Court observed in its prior Order on jurisdictional discovery, Mr.
Doshier and dotStrategy also suggest in their filings based on this
Court's review that, even without proper service on July 16, 2018,
Facebook's notice of removal may be untimely under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1446.

The United States Supreme Court had the occasion to review the
meaning of the language within 30 days after the receipt by the
defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial
pleading in Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc.,
526 U.S. 344, 352 (1999).

In that case, the Supreme Court held:

That a named defendant's time to remove is triggered by
simultaneous service of the summons and complaint, or receipt of
the complaint, through service or otherwise, after and apart from
service of the summons, but not by mere receipt of the complaint
unattended by any formal service.

In the case, plaintiff Michetti filed a complaint in Alabama state
court against defendant Murphy on January 26, 1996.  Michetti did
not serve Murphy at the time the complaint was filed but three days
later faxed a courtesy copy of the file-stamped complaint to one of
Murphy's vice presidents. The parties engaged in settlement
discussions until February 12, 1996, when Michetti officially
served Murphy under local law by certified mail. On March 13, 1996,
which was 30 days after service but 44 days after receiving the
faxed copy of the complaint, Murphy removed the action to federal
court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441. Michetti moved to remand,
contending the notice of removal had not been timely filed under 28
U.S.C. Section 1446(b).

The district court denied the motion to remand.  

On interlocutory appeal, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the district court and remanded, instructing the district
court to remand and determining that the clock starts to tick upon
the defendant's receipt of a copy of the filed initial pleading.
Because lower courts were divided on the question, the Supreme
Court granted certiorari and resolved the split with its holding
regarding formal service of process.

Since Murphy Brothers, at least one district court in the Eighth
Circuit has limited the holding of Murphy Brothers.  Waddell v.
National Asset Recovery, Inc., Case No. 08-0250-CV-W-HFS, 2009 WL
10705240 (W.D. Mo. 2009). Since the Murphy Brothers decision, at
least one other district court in the Eighth Circuit has been
confronted with, and rejected, the argument that, if removal is
effected prior to service of process, removal may be premature and
ineffective. As this Court stated in its prior Order on
jurisdictional discovery, Mr. Doshier and dotStrategy have not
articulated clearly either of these theories. They do not cite
these cases. Instead, they seem to acknowledge the holding of
Murphy Brothers.

To the extent Mr. Doshier and dotStrategy intend to rely on these
arguments to defeat removal, they cite no controlling authority for
a bad faith exception to Murphy Brothers. To the extent they intend
to argue the holding in Waddell may create one, they have not cited
Waddell or any other authority to this Court as support for, or
even articulated clearly, such an argument.

Further, Mr. Doshier and dotStratey do not cite Miller or any other
authority to this Court as support for, or even articulate clearly,
an intent to pursue a premature removal argument.

The Court grants Mr. Doshier and dotStrategy's motion for leave to
file reply in support of their motion to remand. The Court directs
Mr. Doshier and dotStrategy to file their reply in support of their
motion to remand within 10 days from the entry of the Order. Having
examined the entire record before it, and having reviewed all legal
authorities cited and arguments made, the Court rejects plaintiffs'
argument that Facebook's notice of removal was not timely and
properly filed or that Facebook is in default. The Court also
denies plaintiffs' motion for default judgment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yy2xxm93  from Leagle.com

William F Doshier & dotStrategy Co, Plaintiffs, represented by
David A. Hodges -
David@Hodgeslaw.com - David Hodges Law Office.

Facebook Inc, Defendant, represented by Karen L. Dunn -
kdunn@bsfllp.com - Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice,
Kathleen R. Hartnett - khartnett@bsfllp.com - Boies Schiller
Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Marshall S. Ney –mney@fridayfirm.com -
Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP & Martha L. Goodman  -
mgoodman@bsfllp.com - Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, pro hac vice.

FARFETCH LIMITED: City of Coral Sues over 44% Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF CORAL SPRINGS POLICE OFFICERS' RETIREMENT PLAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FARFETCH LIMITED; JOSE NEVES; ELLIOT JORDAN; FREDERIC
COURT; DANA EVAN; JONATHAN KAMALUDDIN; RICHARD LIU; DAME NATALIE
MASSENET, DBE; JONATHAN NEWHOUSE; DANIEL RIMER; MICHAEL RISMAN;
DAVID ROSENBLATT, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P; MORGAN SECURITIES
LLC;  ALLEN & COMPANY LLC; UBS SECURITIES LLC, CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; WELLS FARGO
SECURITIES, LLC; COWEN and COMPANY, LLC and BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES
CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08720 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19,
2019) is a class action on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or acquired Farfetch Class A ordinary shares between
September 21, 2018, and August 8, 2019, including those who
purchased or acquired Farfetch Class A ordinary shares pursuant or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's September 21, 2018 initial public
offering, asserting violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, on September 21, 2018, the Defendants
conducted the IPO pursuant to the Registration Statement, offering
over 44 million Class A ordinary shares at $20.00 per share. The
Defendants made various statements in the Registration Statement
and throughout the Class Period touting the growth potential and
competitive advantages of the Company's business model.

Beginning on August 8, 2019, shareholders learned that the
Company's growth potential and market advantages had been
overstated. After the market closed, Farfetch announced its second
quarter 2019 financial results, disclosing a loss of $89.6 million.
Additionally, after previously predicting that the Company's
platform gross merchandise value ("Platform GMV") metric would grow
41% year-over—year, the Company announced that it now expected
only 30% to 35% year-over-year Platform GMV growth for third
quarter 2019, and only 37% to 40% year-over-year Platform GMV
growth for full year 2019. The Company blamed the disappointing
results on competitive pressures from increased promotional pricing
and discounting of luxury goods by competitors, despite previous
touting of "barriers to entry" and the Company's allegedly
"superior" platform. On this news, the price of Farfetch Class A
shares declined $8.12 per share, or more than 44%, from a close of
$18.25 per share on August 8, 2019, to close at $10.13 per share on
August 9, 2019.

Farfetch Limited retails apparel products. The Company operates an
online platform that offers bags, coats, dresses, jackets, jewelry,
swim wear, trouser, shoes, knitwear, suits, shorts, watches, and
accessories. Farfetch serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Davidson, Esq.
          Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com
                  dcheck@ktmc.com
                  jrdavidson@ktmc.com
                  rdegnan@ktmc.com


FARFETCH LTD: Schall Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Sept. 30 disclosed that it is investigating claims on behalf of
investors of Farfetch Limited ("Farfetch" or "the Company")
(NYSE:FTCH) 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.

The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. Farfetch reported a loss of $89.6 million
for the second quarter 2019 on August 8, 2019. This larger was
larger than expected by analysts. The Company also announced the
acquisition of New Guards group for $675 million, and the
resignation of its COO. Based on this news, shares of Farfetch fell
by 44% on August 9, 2019.

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

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.

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

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.

CONTACT:

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


FEDEX GROUND: Issuance of Notice to Delivery Drivers Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ADRIAN JOHNSON and RAY
BELARDINO, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00196-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., Sept. 24,
2019), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for approval of notice to:

"all individuals who, at any time in the last three years, have
delivered FedEx's packages but have been employed through a FedEx
ISP in Florida and who worked more than 40 hours in at least one
workweek but were not paid time overtime compensation for such
overtime hours worked."

The case challenges the most recent attempt by FedEx to avoid its
wage responsibilities under the FLSA as the employer of its
delivery drivers. FedEx previously hired delivery drivers directly
pursuant to "independent contractor" agreements.

An operating company of air-express giant FedEx, FedEx Ground
Package System provides ground delivery of small packages
throughout the US and Canada. Deliveries are generally made within
one to five business days, depending on distance.[CC]

Trial Counsel for the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
are:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 16 th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 418-2069
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
                  AFrisch@forthepeople.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Dustin T. Lujan, Esq.
          LUJAN LAW OFFICE
          1603 Capitol Ave, Suite 310 A559
          Cheyenne, WY 82001
          Telephone: (970) 999-4225
          E-mail: wyoadvocate@gmail.com

FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Faces Felix Suit in District of Maryland
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Business
and Consumer Solutions, Inc. The case is captioned as Phillipi
Felix, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc.;
Cavalry SPV I, LLC; and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02796-JMC (D. Md., Sept. 23, 2019). The suit alleges
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge J. Mark Coulson.

Financial Business provides consumer contact solutions for
creditors.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Aryeh E. Stein, Esq.
          MERIDIAN LAW LLC
          600 Reisterstown Road, Suite 700
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (443) 326-6011
          Facsimile: (410) 653-9061
          E-mail: astein@meridianlawfirm.com

FIT INTERNATIONAL: Court Decertifies Class in Bolivar RICO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MANUEL BOLIVAR, ANDRES RUBIO, and JANNETH QUINTERO,
individually and on behalf of all those persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FIT INTERNATIONAL GROUP CORP., FOREX INTERNATIONAL
TEAM INC., JAIRO ENRIQUE SANCHEZ, and DILIA MARGARITA BAEZ,
Defendants, Case No. 12 Civ. 781 (PGG) (DCF) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge
Paul G. Gardephe of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York decertified the Class and awarded damages only
to the named Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs Bolivar, Rubio, and Quintero filed the class action
against the Defendants, alleging violations of commodities law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"),
fraud, common law tort, and a quasi-contract claim.  They allege
that the Defendants fraudulently induced them to invest funds in
their operations, purportedly for trading in foreign currency.  The
Plaintiffs claim that, in reality, the Defendants were operating an
international Ponzi scheme.

On Oct. 9, 2015, the Court entered an Order of Default against the
Defendants and referred the case to Magistrate Judge Freeman for an
inquest into damages.  On March 16, 2016, Judge Freeman issued a
Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court sua
sponte decertifies the Class due to the inadequacy of the Class
Counsel, and award damages only to the named Plaintiffs.

In lieu of the Class damages, Judge Freeman recommends that
Plaintiffs Bolivar, Quintero, and Rubio be awarded $213,539.51,
$394,911.35, and $379,186.96, respectively, constituting treble
damages under RICO, plus prejudgment interest on their
out-of-pocket losses.  She further recommends that the Plaintiffs
be awarded costs in the amount of $350.  Finally, Judge Freeman
recommends that all the Defendants be held jointly and severally
liable for the treble damage awards and costs, and that Defendants
Sanchez, Baez, and FIT New York be held jointly and severally
liable for the prejudgment interest awards.

On Nov. 19, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a letter motion requesting
permission to file an Amended Complaint.

Judge Freeman's R&R recites the requirement that pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the parties will have 14 days from service of the
Report to file written objections.  The R&R further states that
failure to do so would result in a waiver of objection and will
preclude appellate review.

No objections to the R&R were filed by the March 30, 2017 deadline.
The Court ultimately extended the deadline for objections to Nov.
14, 2017.  Despite clear warning that a failure to file objections
would result in a waiver of judicial review, the Plaintiffs never
filed objections to Judge Freeman's R&R.

Because no objections were ever filed to Judge Freeman's R&R, the
parties have waived judicial review.  Gardephe has, however,
reviewed Judge Freeman's 78-page R&R and finds it to be thorough,
well-reasoned, and free of any clear error.  Accordingly, he
adopted Judge Freeman's R&R in its entirety.

Accordingly, Judge Gardephe decertified the Class is decertified.

Plaintiff Bolivar is awarded $168,000 in treble damages, $45,539.51
in pre-judgment interest, and additional pre-judgment interest, on
the principal amount of $56,000, at the rate of 9% per annum from
Oct. 9, 2015 to the date of entry of final judgment.  

Plaintiff Quintero is awarded $323,930.61 in treble damages,
$70,980.74 in pre-judgment interest, and additional pre-judgment
interest, on the principal amount of $107,976.87, at the rate of 9%
per annum from Oct. 9, 2015 to the date of entry of final judgment.


Plaintiff Rubio is awarded $311,032.50 in treble damages,
$68,154.46 in pre-judgment interest, and additional pre-judgment
interest, on the principal amount of $103,677.50, at the rate of 9%
per annum from Oct. 9, 2015 to the date of entry of final
judgment.

The named Plaintiffs are awarded costs in the amount of $350.

All the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the treble
damages and costs awards, but only Defendants Sanchez, Baez, and
FIT New York will be held jointly and severally liable for the
pre-judgment interest awards.

The Judge denies the Plaintiffs' letter motion to file an Amended
Complaint.  The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment,
terminate the motion, and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/oXhWSF from Leagle.com.

Manuel Bolivar, Andres Rubio & Janneth Quintero, Plaintiffs,
represented by Charles Henry Camp -- ccamp@charlescamplaw.com --
Law Offices of Charles H. Camp, P.C., Gaytri D. Kachroo, Kachroo
Legal Services, P.C. & John H. Ray, III --
jray@raylegalconsulting.com -- Kachroo Legal Services P.C.

Hans Robert Blumenthal, Bayta Ltda., Milagros Boo, Bel Air Trading
Ltd., Eduardo Zuluaga, Arturo Boada, Maria Lucia Fernandez, CGC
Inc., Leonor Duran, Cooper Gay Suramerica Ltda., Cranbrook Holdings
Ltd., Jose Gustavo Correa, Andres Fabian Galindo, Tirso Javier
Gomez, German Dario Gomez, Ulla Gomez, Ideraldo Luiz Goulart,
Miguel E. Jaramillo, Inversiones Paal & Cia S. En C., Andres Adolfo
Hernandez, Cesar Augusto Hernandez, Luis Orlando Melo, Javier
Octavio Junca, Dora Elizabeth Josa, Adriana Maria Jimenez,
Kapalejayo Inc., Francisco Antonio Iraheta, Hernando Macias, Emilio
Latorre, Leonardo Mantilla, Francisco Leon Londono, Catalina Maria
Mendoza, Alfonso Linares, Gustavo Hernandez, Jaime Alberto Iraheta,
Saira Carolina Iraheta, Isabel Montes, Hani Ibrahim Mustafa Hassan,
Janette Alcira Mora, Luz Myriam Molano, Margarita Maria Molano,
Juan Carlos Parra, Roberto Naffah, Jose Joaquin Molano, Margarita
Naffah, Quenia Nunez, Jemay Alcione Moyano, Jorge Nelson Ostos,
Martha Cecilia Ortiz, Adriana Paez, Carlos Eduardo Ospina Reyes,
Alexandra Torres, Carlos Alberto Ospina Otalora, Javier Montes,
Miguel Antonio Moreno, Hernan Munoz, Augusto Octavio Junca,
Estrella Quintero, Augusto Penaranda, Bernardo Parra, Lucy Amparo
Patino, Maria Del Pilar Rocha, Nelson Quiroga, Jose Ignacio
Quintero Rozo, Jose Ignacio Quintero Rodriguez, Alberto Recchi,
Clemencia Pinzon, Ciro Enrique Richardson, Nicolas Restrepo, Amparo
Rocha, Victor Rincon, Blanca Rubio, Eduardo Restrepo, Gloria Ines
Pelaez, Clara Stella Pinzon, Maria Cristina Pulido, Mario Rafael
Sojo, Luis Dementrio Santos, Juan Carlos Rubio, Mariela Valderrama,
Flor Alba Talero, Martha Susana Torres, Gonzalo Sepulveda, Alvaro
Trujillo, Hernan Jimenez, Martha Eugenia Urdaneta, Armando
Santamaria, Oscar Salazar, Ricardo Andres Tamayo, Elaine Mary
Steffen, Erica Barbra Tovar, Jairo Alfonso Torres, Juan Jose Sanz,
Juan Camilo Saldarriaga, Edison Silva, Antoine Yamhure, Rene
Fernando Valderrama, Ricardo Zurek, Clara Ines Velasquez, Gino
Eduardo Valderrama, Daniel German Zamora, Daniel Ricardo Vargas,
Julio Cesar Cedeno, Clemencia Pinzon de Rubio, Daniel German Zamora
Avila, Alfonso Linares Porto, Daniel Ricardo Vargas Reyes, Clara
Ines Velasquez de Isaza, Afredo Leon Delbouis Molina, Blanca Rubio
Chavez, Elsa Benedetti Ganda, Dora Elizabeth Josa Montero, Carlos
Garza Hernandez, Luis Fernando Gaviria Velasquez, Adriana Maria
Jimenez Diaz, Hernando Emiliani Rivera, Alexandra Fernandez Ospina,
Richar Jose Bocanegra Rosillo, Emilio Latorre Estrada, Beatriz
Angel de Salazar, Juan Camilo Saldarriaga Tascon, Luis Fernando
Delgado Castano, Gloria Garza Hernandez, Catalina Maria Mendoza
Pereyra, Juan Jose Sanz Adrados, Beatriz Camacho de Duran, Luis
Orlando Melo Castaneda, Francisco Guerrero Bernal, Augusto
Penaranda Sanjuan, Miguel Antonio Moreno Jimenez, Luis Fernando
Cardona Mendez, Jairo Alfonso Torres Lopez, Juan Garcia Chavarria,
Juan Carlos Rubio Pinzon, Francisco Jose Agray Cortes, Augusto
Octavio Junca Laverde, Luis Dementrio Santos Jimenez, Quenia Nunez
Tovar, Leonardo Mantilla Jacome, Maria Fernanda Amaya Martinez,
Ricardo Andres Tamayo Nino, Alberto Gutierrez Bernal, Isabel
Cristina Arango Restrepo, Maria Cristina Luisa Elena Duran, Raul
Eduardo Angulo Carmona, Flor Alba Talero de Valderrama, Mauricio
Herrera Forero, Lilian Cardona de Gomez, Javier Octavio Junca
Pelaez, Sara Maria Aguirre de Chamorro, Hernan Dario Guzman Duarte,
Raul Marcial Chamorro Casanova, Rafael Maria Cruz Villamil, Lucy
Amparo Patino Franco, Rafael Acero Torres, Andres Guerra Martinez,
Alvaro Trujillo Henao, Jemay Alcione Moyano Parra, Hernan Munoz
Orozco, Maria Del Pilar Rocha Jaramillo, Clara Stella Carmen
Guillerm Pinzon de Naranjo, Bernardo Parra Vasquez, Estrella
Quintero Rodriguez, Gino Eduardo Valderrama Talero, Maria Cristina
Pulido de Lhuillier, Martha Eugenia Urdaneta Gutierrez, Ciro
Enrique Richardson Moreno, Dario Gomez Jimenez, Martha Cecilia
Ortiz Torres, Mario Rafael Pancraci Sojo Sanchez, Jairo Alberto
Diaz Perdomo, Jorge Nelson Ostos Lopez, Victor Rafael Beltran
Martinez, Rene Fernando Valderrama Talero, Nicolas Restrepo
Saldarriaga, Jaime Castaneda Borrero, Enrique Alfonso Galvis
Gamboa, Elaine M. Steffen, Armando Santamaria Hermida, Julio Arango
Echeverry, Margarita Maria Molano Naffah, Amparo Rocha de Aragon,
Jose Camilo Cabra Monroy, Eduardo Restrepo Trujillo, Jose Edgar
Betancourt Gomez, Monica Sofia Dimate Castellanos, Adriana Paez
Martinez, Sergio Arango Saldariaga, Martha Susana Torres Acevedo,
Jorge Alfredo Delbouis Fuchs, Oscar Salazar Mejia, Margarita Naffah
de Molano, Gonzalo Sepulveda Lozano, Janette Alcira Mora Castro,
Henry Hernan Bacca Moreno, William Cadena Urrea, Gloria Ines Pelaez
de Junca & Rosa Stella Fleing De Diaz, Plaintiffs, represented by
Charles Henry Camp, Law Offices of Charles H. Camp, P.C..


FLAGLER OFFICE: Longhini Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flagler Office
Building, Inc. The case is styled as Doug Longhini Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Flagler
Office Building, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-24213-KMM (S.D.
Fla., Oct. 11, 2019).

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

Flagler is a commercial real estate company located in Coral
Gables, Florida. Flagler is a direct corporate legacy of the
American businessman Henry M. Flagler.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony Joseph Perez, Esq.
     Garcia-Menocal & Perez, P.L.
     4937 SW 74th Court, No. 3
     Miami, FL 33155
     Phone: (305) 553-3464
     Fax: (305) 553-3031
     Email: ajperezlaw@gmail.com



FOCUS SERVICES: Pretzsch Seeks to Certify Class of Service Reps
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MIKAYLA PRETZSCH,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiffs, vs. FOCUS SERVICES, LLC AND FOCUS SERVICES
ILLINOIS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03599 (N.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an Order:

   1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action
      defined as:

      "all current and former Customer Service Representatives or
      other job titles performing similar job duties employed by
      Focus Services at any time during the last three years";

   2. approving the proposed Court Authorized Notice and Consent
      to Sue form;

   3. compelling the Defendants to produce, within 14 days of the
      Order granting the Motion, the full name, last known
      address, and last known email address (work email address if

      a current employee of Focus Services, personal email address

      if a former employee of Focus Services) to Plaintiffs'
      Counsel;

   4. permitting Plaintiffs' Counsel to send, within 14 days of
      receipt of the Class List from Focus Services, the Court
      Authorized Notice and Consent to Sue form via U.S. Mail and
      Electronic Mail to potential Collective Class members;

   5. permitting Opt-in Plaintiffs to file their Consents to Sue
      using an electronic signature service; and

   6. allowing 60 days for potential Collective Class members to
      return their Consent to Sue form to Plaintiffs' Counsel for
      filing with the Court.

Focus Services is a privately owned call center service provider,
specializing in multi-product telesales and customer relationship
management founded in 1995. It has locations in the United States,
El Salvador, England, Nicaragua, India, China, Brazil and the
Philippines.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jacob R. Rusc, Esq.
          Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
          Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com

               - and -

          Peter J. Flowers, Esq.
          MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
          3 North Second Street, Suite 300
          St. Charles, IL 60174
          Telephone: (630) 232-6333
          Facsimile: (630) 845-8982

G.O.L.A. INC: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against G.O.L.A. INC. The
case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. G.O.L.A. INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-09442 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 11, 2019).

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

GOLA English Tutorial, Inc. is a subsidiary of RareJob Inc., the
leading online English school in Japan. The company aims to acquire
home-based full-time tutors that would conduct classes to their
Japanese students.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GACO WESTERN: Asks Court to Deny Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as SCOTT FEAMSTER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs GACO
WESTERN, LLC, dba GACO WESTERN, A Limited Liability Company, And
Does 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01327-HSG (N.D. Cal.),
Gaco Western asks the Court for an order denying class
certification.

Gaco Western contends that there is no basis to grant class
certification because the only person to have received the
allegedly defective product in California was the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff alleges that there were at least 40 other members of
the class and likely many more who had the defective product
installed in their home or business.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. has extended the Plaintiff's time to
respond to the Defendant's motion until October 28, 2019.  The
Defendant's Reply is due November 11. No further extensions will be
granted.[CC]

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Nicolas P. Martin, Esq.
          Clay A. Coelho, Esq.
          WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ
          EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
          525 Market Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 433 0990
          Facsimile: (415) 434 1370
          E-mail: Nick.martin@wilsonelser.com
                  Clay.Coelho@wilsonelser.com


GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Ewalt Suit Moved to Southern District of Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as John Ewalt, On behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Gatehouse
Media Ohio Holdings II, Inc., d/b/a The Columbus Dispatch and Steve
Wylie, the Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-006859, was removed from the
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio (Columbus) on Sept. 24, 2019. The
Southern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-04262-ALM-KAJ to the proceeding. The suit seeks $50,000 in
damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Algenon L.
Marbley.

GateHouse Media, formerly Liberty Group Publishing, now owned by
New Media Investment Group, is one of the largest publishers of
locally based print and digital media in the United States,
headquartered in Perinton, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr., Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
          200 Public Square, Suite 3500
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 706-3962
          Facsimile: (216) 241-3707
          E-mail: mzbiegien@taftlaw.com


GLOBAL WIDGET: Faces Hemp Bombs False Labeling Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Guite, Esq. -- rguite@sheppardmullin.com -- and Abby
Meyer, Esq. -- ameyer@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter & Hampton LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
report that in what may be the first of its kind, a putative class
of Massachusetts consumers filed a false labeling class action
complaint against Global Widget LLC, d/b/a Hemp Bombs ("Hemp
Bombs") (Ahumada v. Global Widget LLC, D. Mass. Case No.
1:19-cv-12005), challenging the labeling of numerous Hemp Bombs
products, including gummies, lollipops, capsules, syrup, vape and
pet products.

The lawsuit is primarily based on the allegations that Hemp Bombs
makes numerous false and misleading claims on the product labels
and on its website "to illustrate and convey to consumers, the
level of potency associated with benefits that consumers can expect
to receive through their consumption. Specifically, Defendant
misrepresents that the Cannabidiol (CBD) Products have specific
amounts of CBD when, in fact, the Products do not contain the
amount of CBD as advertised and are instead grossly under-dosed."

The complaint also alleges that Hemp Bombs markets certain of its
products as "pure" and "certified pure", allegedly because Hemp
Bombs "knew that consumers would pay more for" products labeled as
such.

All of the claims alleged sound in warranty for delivering lesser
doses of CBD than promised on the labels and/or marketing
materials. The complaint seeks refunds, disgorgement of all of Hemp
Bombs' profits for the sale of the products along with treble or
punitive damages.

Class action litigation regarding label claims has been an on-going
trend in the food industry and has spread into the health, beauty
and cosmetics spaces. Given that CBD products tend to overlap with
these, companies in this space and their marketing personnel should
be aware that this litigation could have some real staying power
and engage with their supply chains accordingly. [GN]

GOLD START: Underpays Laborers, Aviles Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------
HUGO AVILES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOLD START GROUP LLC; ANIBAL VASQUEZ-LOPEZ;
GOLD STAR ROOFING & CONSTRUCTION CORP.; and JOSE MARTINEZ,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-23916-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
Sept. 19, 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 Aviles was employed by the Defendants as laborer.

Gold Start Group LLC owned and operated a roofing and contracting
business in Miami-Dade County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
          80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 901-1379
          E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Daniels Sues for Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------
KELVIN DANIELS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY (Fla. Cir.,
Hillsborough Cty., Sept. 27, 2019), seeks to recover damages for
breach of contract in connection with the Plaintiff's insurance
policy issued by the Defendant.

GEICO insures Daniels and all its Florida individual automobile
insurance policyholders using the identical Form A-70FL (03-11) or
another policy form with identical language in all relevant
provisions (the "Policy").  The Collision and Comprehensive
coverages of the Policy, on their faces and as amended to conform
with Fla. Stat. Section 626.9743(5), allow GEICO to adjust and
settle a first-party motor vehicle total loss via a cash settlement
by paying the "actual cash value" of the total loss vehicle.  The
"actual cash value" is its replacement cost less depreciation,
which is the actual cost to purchase a comparable motor vehicle.
Such "actual cost" may be derived from the retail cost as
determined from a generally recognized used motor vehicle industry
source, including an electronic database.

GEICO purported to adjust and settle his total loss in this manner,
but it does not do so in reality, Mr. Daniels contends.
Specifically, GEICO used the CCC ONE Market Value system (the "CCC
system"), a proprietary electronic database product licensed from
CCC Information Services Inc. ("CCC"), to adjust and settle GEICO's
total loss claims in Florida.

Mr. Daniels argues this violates Florida law and breaches the
Collision and Comprehensive coverages of the Policy in certain
respects, including the fact that the CCC system is not based upon
the "actual cost to purchase a comparable motor vehicle" or "retail
cost" because it uses advertised prices and not sales data.  He
adds that GEICO also breaches the Policy by (a) either requiring
its total loss policyholders to permanently transfer ownership to
it of their total loss vehicles without compensating them for the
salvage values of those vehicles or (b) deducting the salvage
values of the total loss vehicles from their claim payments.

GEICO was in the business of selling automobile insurance and
adjusting and settling automobile insurance claims, including the
sale of Collision and Comprehensive coverages and adjustment and
settlement of first-party total loss claims under those
coverages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott R. Jeeves, Esq.
          THE JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.A.
          954 First Avenue North
          St. Petersburg, FL 33705
          Telephone: (727) 894-2929
          E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Craig E. Rothburd, Esq.
          CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, P.A.
          320 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 251-8800
          E-mail: crothburd@e-rlaw.com

               - and -

          Casim Adam Neff, Esq.
          NEFF INSURANCE LAW, PLLC
          P.O. Box 15063
          St. Petersburg, FL 33733-5063
          Telephone: (727) 342-0617
          E-mail: cneff@neffinsurancelaw.com

               - and -

          Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 210
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          E-mails: ezebersky@zpllp.com
                   mfistos@zpllp.com

               - and -

          Alec H. Schultz, Esq.
          Carly A. Kligler, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE, LLP
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1975
          E-mail: ashultz@leoncosgrove.com
                  ckligler@leoncosgrove.com

               - and -

          John Randall Whaley, Esq.
          WHALEY LAW FIRM
          3112 Valley Creek Drive, Suite D 650
          Baton Rouge, LA 70808
          Telephone: (225) 302-8810
          Facsimile: (225) 302-8814
          E-mail: jrwhaley@whaleylaw.com


HERITAGE SENIOR LIVING: Hoaglan Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Hoaglan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Heritage Senior Living, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-01361 (E.D. Wisc., September 18, 2019), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees,
declaratory and/or injunctive relief and/or any such other relief
pursuant to Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws and the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Heritage Senior Living owns, operates, and manages 15 senior living
facilities in Wisconsin where Hoaglan worked at their facility in
Greenfield. She claims to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per
work week but was not paid the appropriate overtime rate. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      James A. Walcheske, Esq.
      Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
      WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
      15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
      Brookfield, WI 53005
      Phone: (262) 780-1953
      Fax: (262) 565-6469
      Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
             sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com


HUDSON CITY SAVINGS: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in Lin FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jay J. Lin filed an appeal from a Court ruling in his
lawsuit entitled Jay Lin, et al. v. Hudson City Savings Bank, et
al., Case No. 3-18-cv-15387, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 17, 2019, the
District Court issued an Opinion granting the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss in the case.

The Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in which they sought class action
certification against the Defendants asserting causes of action
for: violations of the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. Section
362(a) (Count One), violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) (Count Two), violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA) (Count Three) and unjust enrichment
(Count Four).

The Defendants argue this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this action pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; this
Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction pursuant to the
Colorado River abstention doctrine; Plaintiffs' claims are barred
by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata; and that
notwithstanding these doctrines, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim
for which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs argue this Court should
deny Defendants' Motions to Dismiss because neither Defendant
submitted Corporate Disclosure Statements as required by Rule 7.1
and Defendants' reliance on Rule 12(b)(1) is wholly without merit
in the absence of existing state court judgment[s] subject to
relitigation in federal court.

The appellate case is captioned as Jay Lin, et al. v. Hudson City
Savings Bank, et al., Case No. 19-3171, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant JAY J. LIN, of Edison, New Jersey, appears pro
se.[BN]

Defendants-Appellees HUDSON CITY SAVINGS BANK and M&T BANK are
represented by:

          James P. Berg, Esq.
          Scott W. Parker, Esq.
          PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP
          270 Davidson Avenue, 5th Floor
          Somerset, NJ 08873
          Telephone: (908) 333-6219
          E-mail: james.berg@piblaw.com
                  scott.parker@piblaw.com

               - and -

          Fred W. Hoensch, Esq.
          PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP
          1635 Market Street
          7 Penn Center, 11th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 908-9888
          E-mail: fred.hoensch@piblaw.com

Defendant-Appellee PARKER MCCAY is represented by:

          Andrew C. Sayles, Esq.
          CONNELL FOLEY LLP
          56 Livingston Avenue
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 535-0500
          E-mail: asayles@connellfoley.com


HURLEY INTERNATIONAL: Tincher Seeks to Certify Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JENA N. TINCHER, on behalf of
herself, and all others similarly situated, and as an "aggrieved
employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, the Plaintiff(s), vs.
HURLEY INTERNATIONAL, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company;
NIKE, INC., an Oregon corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04104-R-JC (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying these two Classes:

      Security Check Class:

      "all persons Defendants employed at California Hurley stores
      on a non-exempt, hourly basis at any time between March 14,
      2015 and date that final judgment is entered in this
      action"; and

      Rule of Two Class:

      "all persons Defendants employed at California Hurley stores

      as non-exempt, hourly sales leads, key holders, and
      comparable hourly employees at any time between March 14,
      2015 and the date that final judgment is entered in this
      action";

   2. finding Jena Tincher to be an adequate representative and
      certifying her as the class representative; and

   3. finding Plaintiff's counsel and their respective firms,
      namely David Spivak of The Spivak Law Firm and Walter Haines

      of United Employees Law Group, as adequate class counsel and

      certifying them as class counsel.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Stephanie Greenberg, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste 203
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone (818) 582-3086
          Facsimile (818) 582-2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  stephanie@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256-1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
          E-mail: walter@uelglaw.com

IHOUSEWEB INC: Hildre Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Call
----------------------------------------------------------
Donald Hildre, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. iHouseWeb, Inc. Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-01792 (S.D. Tex., September 18, 2019), seeks statutory
damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

iHouseWeb allegedly called Hildre on his cellular phone offering
its services using an automatic telephone dialing system. Hildre
claims invasion of privacy, additional phone charges and lost
minutes on phone plan due to this call. He said he never granted
permission to iHouseWeb to call him using an auto-dialer. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alex S. Madar, Esq.
      MADAR LAW CORPORATION
      14410 Via Venezia #1404
      San Diego, CA 92129
      Telephone: 858-299-5879
      Fax: 619-354-7281
      Email: alex@madarlaw.net


ILLINOIS: Hill et al. Sue over Medical Procedures on Newborn
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Illinois
Department of Children and Family Services, et al. The case puts a
spotlight on the traumatic consequences to families, which includes
irreparable harm to the sanctity of a family birth, when certain
pediatricians in Illinois, most prominently Dr. Jill Glick --
acting in concert with a professional pediatric medical
association, specifically Illinois Chapter of the American Academy
of Pediatrics, having power and influence over a department of
State government, namely DCFS -- work jointly or in concert with,
and/or form an agreement with State officials employed by DCFS to
permit doctors and hospital staff, acting under color of state law,
to coerce, threaten, and intimidate parents with DCFS
investigations and the potential loss of custody over their
children, without any legal basis, following the parents' refusal
to consent to unnecessary medical procedures being administered to
their perfectly healthy newborns.

According to the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs "are well-informed and
loving parents" who consciously chose, for medical and/or religious
reasons, to refuse certain unnecessary medical procedures for their
newborn babies -- namely the Vitamin K shot, erythromycin eye
ointment, a Hepatitis B shot, and, in the case of James and
Courtney, the newborn screening tests.

In the Defendants' opinion, the parents should have allowed the
prophylactic medical procedures to be administered to their
perfectly healthy newborns, but the parents had reached different
informed medical decisions.  Significantly, none of the
prophylactic medical procedures in question are mandated by any
state or federal law, nor were they required by any demonstrable
and/or urgent medical condition of the newborns.

The lawsuit relates that prior to the birth of their babies, the
parents told their pediatricians, and/or obstetricians, and/or
medical staff at the hospital that they planned on refusing two or
more of the unnecessary medical procedures; and, these physicians
or medical staff had no issue with the parents' informed medical
choices.

The lawsuit says Marc D. Smithy and/or other high-ranking DCFS
officials are aware of this practice in Illinois.

The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services is the code
department of the Illinois state government responsible for child
protective services.

The case is captioned as JAMES F. HOLDERMAN III and ERIN COURTNEY
HILL, individually and on behalf of their minor daughter, Baby H;
PASTOR BRIAN BOUGHER and ANGELA BOUGHER, individually and on behalf
of their minor daughter, Baby B; DR. JASON KOSEK and SARAH KOSEK,
individually and on behalf of their minor daughter, Baby K; BRANDON
LEITSCHUH and EMILY VUCKOVICH-LEITSCHUH, individually and on behalf
of their minor daughter, Baby L; DANIELLE ANDERSON, individually
and on behalf of her minor daughter, Baby G; KELLY METKE,
individually and on behalf of her future Baby boy, Baby M, the
Plaintiffs, v. B.J. WALKER, Former Acting Director of the Illinois
Department of Children and Family Services, sued in her individual
capacity; NORA HARMS-PAVELSKI, Former DCFS Deputy Director of Child
Protection, sued in her individual Capacity; DR. JILL GLICK, sued
in her individual capacity; THE ILLINOIS CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN
ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, an Illinois non-profit corporation; SILVER
CROSS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, an Illinois non-profit
corporation; ADVOCATE CHRIST HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, an
Illinois non-profit corporation; UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL
CENTER, an Illinois non-profit corporation; DR. SUZANNE G. SCHULTE,
sued in her individual capacity; DR. MIROSLAW SKALSKI, sued in his
individual capacity; DR. JOHN DOE (Silver Cross Hospital and
Medical Center), sued in his individual capacity; DR. POJ
LYSOUVAKON, sued in his individual capacity; MONIKA KOZUCH, a
Silver Cross Hospital and Medical Center nurse, sued in her
individual capacity; CASEWORKER GINA KITAKIS, a DCFS Caseworker,
sued in her individual capacity; CASEWORKER SHEKEILA WILLIAMS, a
DCFS Caseworker, sued in her individual capacity; CASEWORKER
LYNETTE ALLEN, a DCFS Caseworker, sued in her individual capacity;
CASEWORKER SHERINA, a DCFS Caseworker, sued in her individual
capacity; MARC D. SMITH, DCFS Director, sued in his official
capacity, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06324 (N.D. Ill., Sept.
23, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Richard Dvorak, Esq.
          DVORAK LAW OFFICES, LLC
          6262 Kingery Highway, Suite 305
          Willowbrook, IL 60527
          Telephone: (630) 568-3190
          Facsimile: (312) 873-3869
          E-mail: richard.dvorak@civilrightsdefenders.com

INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Disclosure Statement Hearing Moved to Oct. 29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, Inc.'s counsel served a notice disclosing that
the hearing on Insys' Disclosure Statement for its Chapter 11 Plan
of Liquidation has been continued from Oct. 22 to Oct. 29 at 9:30
a.m. (prevailing Eastern Time) at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware, 6th Floor, Courtroom 2.  The Oct. 15 deadline
to submit objections to the adequacy of the Disclosure Statement
has also been extended to Oct. 22.

                    About Insys Therapeutics

Headquartered in Chandler, Ariz., Insys Therapeutics, Inc. --
http://www.insysrx.com/-- is a specialty pharmaceutical company
that develops and commercializes innovative drugs and novel drug
delivery systems of therapeutic molecules that improve patients'
quality of life. Using proprietary spray technology and
capabilities to develop pharmaceutical cannabinoids, Insys is
developing a pipeline of products intended to address unmet medical
needs and the clinical shortcomings of existing commercial
products.  Insys is committed to developing medications for
potentially treating anaphylaxis, epilepsy, Prader-Willi syndrome,
opioid addiction and overdose, and other disease areas with a
significant unmet need.

As of March 31, 2019, Insys had $172.6 million in total assets,
$336.3 million in total liabilities, and a total stockholders'
deficit of $163.7 million.

On June 10, 2019, Insys Therapeutics and six affiliated companies
filed petitions seeking relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy
Code (D. Del. Lead Case No. 19-11292).  Insys intends to conduct
the asset sales in accordance with Section 363 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code.

The Debtors' cases are assigned to Judge Kevin Gross.

The Debtors tapped Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP and Richards, Layton
& Finger, P.A., as legal counsel; Lazard Freres & Co. LLC as
investment banker; FTI Consulting, Inc. as financial advisor; and
Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC as claims agent.

Andrew Vara, acting U.S. trustee for Region 3, on June 20, 2019,
appointed nine creditors to serve on an official committee of
unsecured creditors in the Chapter 11 cases.  Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld LLP, and Bayard, P.A., serve as the Committee's
attorneys; and Province, Inc., is the financial advisor.



INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Removes Bronson Suit to. N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of MARK BRONSON, and MEAGAN LAMON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP, INC.; INTERCONTINENTAL
HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, LLC; SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS, INC.; JOLIET HI
HOTELS, LLC d/b/a HOLIDAY INN & SUITES – JOLIET SOUTHWEST; and
ADP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06241 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 18,
2019), filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court
of the State of Illinois, County of Cook (Case No. 2019-CH-09294)
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
September 18, 2019. The clerk of court for the Northern District of
Illinois assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-06241.

Intercontinental Hotels Group, Inc. operates hotels in countries
and territories all over the world. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Cockroft, Esq.
          Michael J. Burns, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549

               - and -

          Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 8000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: mburns@seyfarth.com
                  tahlering@seyfarth.com
                  acockroft@seyfarth.com


IQVIA HOLDINGS: Case Likely to Overturn Class Action Precedent
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that numerous times,
Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Diane Wood and Judge Amy Barrett, a
Trump appointee, remarked that the defendant, IQVIA Holdings Inc.,
appeared to be overturning more than 50 years of class action
precedent.

In a case of first impression, a federal appeals court appeared
unlikely to apply the U.S. Supreme Court's jurisdictional holding
in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California to a
class action. [GN]


J.P. MORGAN: Faces GAMCO Securities Class Action in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
GAMCO ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MARK MCCOLLUM, CHRISTOPH BAUSCH,
KARL BLANCHARD, WILLIAM MACAULAY, MOHAME AWAD, ROXANNE DECYK, JOHN
GASS, EMYR PARRY, FRANCIS KALMAN, DAVID KING, GUILLERMO ORTIZ,
ANGELA MINAS, BERNARD DUROC-DANNER, KRISHNA SHIVRAM, DAVID BUTTERS,
ROBERT MOSES, ROBERT RAYNES and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-03363 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 6, 2019) is a
class action for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933  on behalf of itself and all persons or
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of
Weatherford International plc: (a) During the period October 26,
2016 through May 10, 2019, inclusive; or (b) Pursuant or traceable
to Weatherford's secondary offering of common stock that closed on
or about November 21, 2016, underwritten by defendant J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC.

Weatherford has pending bankruptcy proceedings in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. For purposes
of this complaint, Defendants Duroc-Danner, McCollum, Bausch and
Blanchard are referred to as the "Management Defendants."
Defendants McCollum, Macaulay, Awad, Decyk, Gass, Parry, Kalman,
King, Ortiz and Minas are referred to as the "Board Defendants."
And Defendant Butters, Moses, Raynes, Awad, Gass, Kalman, Macaulay,
Ortiz, and Parry are referred to as the "2016 Director
Defendants."

This case arises from a pattern of misrepresentations and omissions
by Weatherford and the Management Defendants, Board Defendants and
2016 Director Defendants, starting in October 2016 and ending when
the Company announced in May 2019 that it intended to initiate the
Chapter 11 Proceedings, designed to prop up the stock price of the
failing Company, an international oil services giant. This scheme,
and the material misstatements and omissions that facilitated it,
allowed the Company, through certain of the Management Defendants
and the 2016 Director Defendants, to complete a $456 million Equity
Offering to Class members in November 2016. It also allowed
Weatherford to stay afloat until management was able to negotiate a
sweetheart deal with creditors in advance of Weatherford's July 1,
2019 Chapter 11 Proceedings under which management will receive up
to 5% ownership in the reorganized company, while existing equity
holders will receive less than 1%.

The complaint notes that the scheme was thematically simple. The
Company and Management Defendants repeatedly touted Weatherford's
financial prospects based on its purported recovery and ostensible
Transformation Plan, when, in reality, the Company--which as of the
end of the third quarter of 2016 had $6.9 billion in debt--had
virtually no prospects of managing its debt or continuing as a
going concern. Despite these foregoing facts that Management
Defendants knew or should have known, and Weatherford's
progressively worsening debt (the Company's debt reached $7.4
billion by year-end 2016, $7.5 billion by year-end 2017, and $7.6
billion by year-end 2018), the misleading statements concerning the
Transformation Plan continued into 2018. As before, the Management
Defendants made these statements in 2018 despite the fact they
knew, or should have known, among other things, that: (i)
Weatherford's debt would necessitate massive restructuring; (ii)
the Transformation Plan could only hope to postpone the Company's
insolvency; and (iii) Chapter 11 protection would ultimately be
necessary absent substantial concessions by Weatherford's
creditors. Nevertheless, the scheme continued into 2019, despite
the Management and Board Defendants' realization the Company would
not make it through year-end, says the complaint.

Plaintiff GAMCO Asset Management, Inc. is an investment manager
located in Rye, New York. GAMCO purchased Weatherford common stock
during the Class Period and was damaged thereby.

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC is an investment management company
headquartered in New York, New York. J.P. Morgan served as the sole
underwriter for Weatherford's Equity Offering.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
     ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
     500 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1900-16
     Austin, TX 78701
     Phone: (512) 710-5960
     Email: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com

         - and -

     Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.
     Joshua K. Porter, Esq.
     Andrew M. Sher, Esq.
     ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
     299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10171
     Phone: (212) 894-7200
     Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
     Email: vcappucci@entwistle-law.com
            jporter@entwistle-law.com
            asher@entwistle-law.com


JCK ENTERPRISES: Faces Fischler Suit Under Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JCK Enterprises
L.L.C. The case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JCK
Enterprises L.L.C. doing business as: Pristine Auction, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-05782 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 13, 2019).

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

JCK Enterprises LLC, was founded in 2000. The Company's line of
business includes manufacturing fabricated structural metal and
steel or other metal products for structural purposes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: Court Dismisses Ponzo Suit w/ Leave to Amend
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICK PONZO, on behalf of the Inmates of Jefferson
County, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, Defendant, Case No.
5:19-CV-1013 (LEK/TWD) (N.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley
Dancks of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New
York dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and with
leave to amend.

Plaintiff Ponzo filed a putative class action against the County of
Jefferson, alleging the Defendant violated his and all Jefferson
County inmates' constitutional rights.  He alleges he has been
denied the opportunity to attend court conferences.  According to
him, he has told his lawyer he wants to be at court conferences,
but his lawyer told him the judge only transports people to court
for plea deals.  He states he missed two court conferences and one
motion date.

The Plaintiff alleges multiple people on his housing unit are also
missing court conferences and are often unaware when their court
conferences take place.  He posits inmates in County jail have not
been transported to their conferences for 20 years. According to
him, the inmates' inability to attend important conferences has led
to an increase in the overall conviction rate in Jefferson County.
He further alleges the County intentionally holds back discovery
material from the Defendants.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff brings the following
claims against the County pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983: (1)
denial of due process rights; and (2) conspiring to interfere with
civil rights.  Furthermore, he indicated he intends his complaint
to be a class action.

Currently before the Court is the Plaintiff's application to
proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP Application").  A court may grant
in forma pauperis status if a party "is unable to pay" the standard
fee for commencing an action.  After reviewing the Plaintiff's IFP
Application, Magistrate Judge Dancks finds that the Plaintiff meets
this standard.

As a threshold matter, the Plaintiff names only a single Defendant
in the suit: the County of Jefferson.  While amenable to suit under
Section 1983, the County may not be held liable under that section
for the acts of its employees based on a theory of respondeat
superior.  Rather, to sustain a Section 1983 claim against a
municipality, such as the County, a plaintiff must show that he
suffered a constitutional violation, and the violation resulted
from an "official policy or custom."

With these standards in mind, Magistrate Judge Dancks turns to
whether the Plaintiff's allegations against the County state a
claim for relief.

As to the Plaintiff's first claim, the Judge finds that the
Plaintiff's complaint does not describe the court conferences he
was allegedly not allowed to attend.  Without these crucial factual
allegations, his complaint fails to state a constitutional
violation and instead complains of conduct that is facially
constitutional.  Accordingly, the Magistrate recommends this claim
be dismissed with leave to replead to provide additional details
regarding the court conferences he allegedly missed.

As to the Plaintiff's second claim, the Magistrate also finds that
the Plaintiff's conspiracy claim lacks specifics and fails to
allege any overt act done in furtherance of an alleged conspiracy
to deprive him of his constitutional rights.  He has not provided
any details of time and place or the actors involved or any other
facts that could enable the court to infer a valid conspiracy
claim.  Accordingly, the Magistrate finds that the Plaintiff's
conspiracy claim would not survive a motion to dismiss even if
properly pleaded against the correct individuals.  Thus, she
recommends this claim be dismissed with leave to replead.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Dancks grants the Plaintiff's
IFP application but recommended that the Plaintiff's complaint be
dismissed with leave to replead.  Accordingly, the Judge dismisses
without prejudice and with leave to amend the Complaint.  The Clerk
will serve a copy of the Order and Report-Recommendation on the
Plaintiff.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1), the parties had 14 days
within which to file written objections to the foregoing report
with the Clerk of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/hBKkTc from Leagle.com.

Patrick Ponzo, Inmates of Jefferson County, Plaintiff, pro se.


JONES SEPTIC: Court Certifies FLSA Class in Rumph Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KENNETH RUMPH, the Plaintiff,
v. JONES SEPTIC TANK, INC., RODERICK B. JONES, and RODERICK H.
JONES, the Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-00085-HL (M.D. Ga.), the
Hon. Judge Hugh Lawson entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of potential opt-in
      plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act:

      "each person who worked as an hourly employee of Jones
      Septic Tank, Inc., at any time during the previous three
      years"

   2. directing the Defendants to provide Plaintiff's counsel the
      name and last-known home address found in Defendants'
      records for each member of the class;

   3. directing Plaintiff's counsel to mail the Notice attached to

      Parties' Consent Motion to each member of the class;

   4. directing eligible class members to have 45 days to join the

      lawsuit. The 45-day opt-in period will begin Saturday,
      September 28, 2019 and end Tuesday, November 12, 2019;

   5. directing the Parties to begin their mediated settlement
      conference immediately following the expiration of the class

      opt-in period, and Parties must complete mediation within 45

      days;

   6. not considering Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss pending
      Parties' mediated settlement conference;

   7. staying discovery period pending the Parties' mediated
      settlement conference, as are any subsequent deadlines; and

   8. directing the Parties to file a status report regarding the
      results of their efforts to settle the dispute within seven
      days immediately following the conclusion of their mediated
      settlement conference.[CC]

JPMORGAN CHASE: Futures Market Price Rigging Class Action Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clint Siegner, writing for GoldSeek, reports that gold and silver
investors have been watching the Department of Justice
investigation of criminal price rigging at JPMorgan Chase and other
bullion banks carefully. Several crooked traders have pled guilty
to "spoofing" the markets and more have been indicted.

The DOJ has even suggested the banks have been engaged in
racketeering. Prosecutors may use RICO laws designed for taking
down organized crime syndicates to prosecute these shady Wall
Street firms.

The banks' problems go beyond the prospect of prison time for the
perpetrators and criminal fines, however.

Another of the troubles with running a years-long, well-organized
and widespread scheme in which banks cooperated with one another to
stick it to their clients and other naive people speculating in the
futures market is that it creates a large class of victims.

Now they eagerly await their opportunity to seek justice in civil
court. And they will be able to present citizen juries with
numerous criminal convictions and mountains of evidence procured by
the Justice Department. The civil liability for the banks involved
could be enormous, particularly if punitive damages are involved.

There are multiple class action suits underway.

London Silver Fixing: A handful of major banks were involved in a
scheme to rig the London Silver "Fix"--a key benchmark price. This
class action will likely include any person who purchased or sold
silver during the class period which was from 2009-2015
approximately.

This includes people who invested in physical silver coins, rounds,
and bars during that time.

Deutsche Bank already settled and agreed to pay $38 million.
However, none of these funds are being dispersed yet. The
litigation against a group of other bullion banks is ongoing.

The case against these other banks is still in the discovery stage,
which means it could be some time--perhaps a few years--before a
verdict (or settlement) is reached and damages are awarded.

The remaining banks could wind up getting hit harder than Deutsche
Bank because Deutsche was the first to settle and agree to
cooperate.

Price Spoofing - JPMorgan: Plaintiffs are suing JPMorgan Chase
specifically for rigging metals prices in the futures markets, but
their suit is currently "stayed." The Justice Department has asked
the court to delay the civil proceedings while the bank remains
under criminal investigation.

The delay may frustrate some investors, but it definitely has a
silver lining. The evidence and results of the DOJ criminal
prosecution will be very helpful to plaintiffs.

At the moment, it looks like this class will be limited to people
who were hurt trading precious metals future contracts (gold,
silver, platinum and palladium), not physical metal but the case
may be expanded in the future.

Price Spoofing - Bank of America: This suit is follows BofA's $25
million settlement with the Justice Department.

Like the JPMorgan litigation, the class also appears as if it will
be limited to futures market participants only at this time.

While the conclusion of these cases may be years away, metals
investors with a potential claim should gather and hang on to
transaction records of any purchase and sales during the past
decade. Those would be needed later to demonstrate you are a member
of the class and file a claim in any settlement.

Down the road (probably years), we expect there will be websites
and procedures set up to help people join the class and receive any
settlements due.

Money Metals Exchange remains committed to following this story
closely and keeping our readers posted. [GN]


JUUL: Faces Class Action in B.C. Over Vaping Product Risks
----------------------------------------------------------
Ash Kelly, writing for News1130, reports that saying the company
mislead the public about the risks associated with vaping, a group
is hoping to have a class action suit against vaping mogul, Juul,
certified in B.C. Supreme Court.

The claim says Juul mislead consumers when it advertised its vaping
products as healthier than cigarettes.

Shortness of breath, chest pain, coughing, and an increased
addiction to nicotine are just some of the symptoms doctors have
associated with vaping -- and these are also the ailments detailed
in the civil notice.

Owen Mann-Campbell, 19, says he stopped vaping just before he
signed his name to the suit a few days ago.

"Probably earlier this year, I got an infection in my lungs. It
really just shocked the system, and I know that was because of the
vaping, because I've never had a problem ever before that."

The Langely teen says he wants the government to respond with
legislation and he wants the company to answer for health issues he
says he's been dealing with.

"My body's constantly shaking, and my chest, and lungs and heart,
they just feel like they're about to explode"

Mann-Campbell says he's spent most of the last four days in bed
feeling sick and socially anxious.

"I just thought it was probably the right thing to do, because lots
of people were getting sick from it, right? I just quit. I'm on my
four day, just getting out of all the symptoms right now."

While the allegations haven't been proven in court, a growing
number of doctors in the U.S. and Canada are linking serious side
effects to vaping products. [GN]


KB HOME: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Adams et al. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit against KB Home Orlando, LLC, et al.,
the Hon. Judge Carlos Mendoza entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   2. denying the Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Report and
      Testimony of Felix Martin;

   3. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Opinion
      Testimony of Jamie McClave Baldwin.

The Court said, "Because Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to
establish predominance as to the claims of negligence and breach of
the Florida building code, and because Plaintiffs failed to meet
their burden as to any element with regard to the Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claims, the Motion for
Class Certification will be denied."

The case is captioned as DAWN ADAMS, LUIS ALBELO, ADALINA ALBELO,
JASON BELL, KIMBERLY DANIELS, JOHN BETROS, MICHELLE BETROS, CRAIG
BROWN, CASEY BROWN, MICHAEL BROWN, NATHAN BURHANS, MICHELLE
BURHANS, PAUL CAIRNS, JENNIFER CARON, PAMELA COTE, TODD KOEHLER,
SANDRA CONGER, KENNY CORBIN, LISA CORBIN, MATTHEW COVINGTON, GLENAE
COVINGTON, JOSEPH DUNN, JOHN DURO-EMANUEL, OLADUNNI DURO-EMANUEL,
THOMAS FOGLIO, AMANDA FOGLIO, RANDALL FRANK, IRINA GEIDEL, LOUIS
GILL, ERWIN GREENE, LATESHA HUNTLEY, RICHARD GREGO, TERESA GREGO,
RODNEY HAIGLER, PETER HELLINGER, VIRGINIA HEWETT, JEFFREY JACOBSON,
TINA JACOBSON, SHARON JAMES, MAREK JURACEK, CAROLINA JURACEK,
WILLIAM KAMER, ERNEST OMAR-KASHIF, PAMELA LIPPELT, LOLITA LIPPELT,
ANTHONY MADDOX, DONNA MADDOX, STEPHANIE MILLER, ANGELA MOBLEY, MIKE
MOORE, CELAYNE MOORE, FREDERIC NDIAYE, JONATHAN NEMERGUT, SAMANTHA
NEMERGUT, THO NGUYEN, THUAN NGUYEN, JOAN ORTAGUS, DHAVAL PATEL,
DHANIAXMI PATEL, GARY PELHAM, ANNETTE PELHAM, KATHLEEN RIDALL,
MICHAEL RIDALL, MATTHEW SPROUSE, NORMAN STUART, GWEN STUART, EDWARD
THOMAS, ROBERT TROWBRIDGE, KEVIN TUCKER, HELEN TUCKER, HARRISON
WAITHAKA, HELEN WAITHAKA, RYAN WILL, KEVIN ZAHNEN, SABRINA
FALLETTA, THOMAS ZAHNEN, ED ZAPKA, JANICE ZAPKA, MICHAEL SINGLETON,
JILL SINGLETON, AMAL FANOUS, MARK GEALLIS, ANDREINA GEALLIS and
ERNEST OMAR KASHIF, the Plaintiffs, vs. GERALD BOENEMAN, GEORGE
GLANCE, III , MICHAEL HOLDER, KB HOME GOLD COAST, LLC, KB HOME
JACKSONVILLE, LLC, KB HOME ORLANDO, LLC and JOSHUA SPALTEN, the
Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-72-Orl-41GJK (M.D. Fla.).[CC]

KIWICO INC: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KiwiCo, Inc. The case
is styled as Kareem Nisbett Individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KiwiCo, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-05781 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 13, 2019).

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

KiwiCo is a monthly subscription service that offers kid's
educational projects, crafts, and activities on different
themes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LANDMARK RESTAURANT: Underpays Servers, Carrillo Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
CARINA CARRILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LANDMARK RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.; J. ANTHONY
KOUBA; TORRAHOP, INC.; MARINAHOP, INC., and DOES 1 through 50,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV33360 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Sept. 19, 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 Carrillo was employed by the Defendants as server.

Landmark Restaurant Group, Inc. provides foods and drinking
facilities. The Company located in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. E. Kimberly Lind, Esq.
          KO LEGAL, INC.
          100 W Broadway, Suite 250
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 317-3999
          Facsimile: (714) 242-1590
          Email: Kim@KO-Legal.com


LAPORTE COUNTY, IN: Cislo Lawsuit Can't Proceed as Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONNIE BEE CISLO, KEVIN RYAN, BRYAN LUMPP, BRANDON
SUMMERLIN, BLAKE AMOR, BLAKE BROWN, KEVIN CRABB, BRAD ELDRIDGE,
MICHAEL UDROW, BRANDON BERNACCHI, ROBERT WISNIEWSKI, BEN HEIMANN,
MARTY TINDLE, JEREMY HENSTROM, KEVIN COBURN, TYLAR WEBBER, DANIEL
BOUSH, CHARLES SCOTT, BRYCE BERNACCHI, GREGORY GILMORE, CODY
BRYANT, GYLE DELRIO, ALEXA MARIE MURPHY, ANGELA ODAY, SEVEN ALBIN,
TIFFANY COATES, ODESSA CAMPBELL, ASHLEY WYSE, ASHLEY ARNDT,
MICHELLE FLORES, JOY NAOMI FEARE, DAWN REED, MADISON KLABINSKI,
BRIGHTON KLABINSKI, ASHLEY MARSHALL, JUDY WILKE, MADISON KOBOLT,
TARA SMITH, PAIGE FINDLEY, SAM FORD, BRITTANY LAWSON, PRE-TRIAL
DETAINEES OF LAPORTE COUNTY JAIL, Plaintiffs, v. LAPORTE COUNTY
JAIL, QUALITY CORRECTIONAL CARE LLC, DR. TCHETTCHAT, Defendants,
Cause No. 3:19-CV-765-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind.), Judge Jon E. DeGuilio of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South
Bend Division, denied Cislo's request to proceed as a class
action.

Cislo, a prisoner, filed the case without a lawyer asking to
proceed as a class action on behalf of all past, present, and
future pre-trial detainees at the LaPorte County Jail.  However,
Judge DeGuilio opines that it would be plain error to permit this
imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his
fellow inmates in a class action.  Under Rule 23(a)(4), a class
representative must fairly and adequately protect the interests of
the class.  A litigant may bring his own claims to federal court
without counsel, but not the claims of others.  This is so because
the competence of a layman is clearly too limited to allow him to
risk the rights of others.  Therefore, the Judge must deny the
request to proceed as a class action.

In addition, Cislo signed the complaint under penalty of perjury
declaring that he would prepay the full filing fee or seek leave to
proceed in forma pauperis; that he would keep a copy of the
complaint for his records; that he would notify the court of any
change of address; and that the statements in the complaint were
true.  Forty other inmates signed a separate page that was filed
with the complaint.  

It is unclear whether any of them understood that they were joining
a federal lawsuit; that each of them are separately representing
themselves individually because Cislo is not an attorney and cannot
represent them; that they must each sign every future filing
submitted to the court; and that they are each individually
required to pay the full filing fee without regard to how much any
of the other inmate plaintiffs may have paid.  None of the
plaintiffs are lawyers and none of them may represent any of the
others.  When the Plaintiffs are no longer housed together in the
same unit, it may be impossible obtain each other's signatures.
Therefore, the Judge holds that it would be fundamentally unfair
for the case to proceed with multiple unrepresented, prisoner
Plaintiffs.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge DeGuilio denied the the request to
proceed as a class action.  

He dismissed Kevin Ryan, Bryan Lumpp, Brandon Summerlin, Blake
Amor, Blake Brown, Kevin Crabb, Brad Eldridge, Michael Udrow,
Brandon Bernacchi, Robert Wisniewski, Ben Heimann, Marty Tindle,
Jeremy Henstrom, Kevin Coburn, Tylar Webber, Daniel Boush, Charles
Scott, Bryce Bernacchi, Gregory Gilmore, Cody Bryant, Gyle DelRio,
Alexa Marie Murphy, Angela Oday, Seven Albin, Tiffany Coates,
Odessa Campbell, Ashley Wyse, Ashley Arndt, Michelle Flores, Joy
Naomi Feare, Dawn Reed, Madison Klabinski, Brighton Klabinski,
Ashley Marshall, Judy Wilke, Madison Kobolt, Tara Smith, Paige
Findley, Sam Ford, Brittany Lawson, and Pre-trial Detainees of
LaPorte County Jail.

The Judge directs the clerk to open a separate case for Kevin Ryan,
Bryan Lumpp, Brandon Summerlin, Blake Amor, Blake Brown, Kevin
Crabb, Brad Eldridge, Michael Udrow, Brandon Bernacchi, Robert
Wisniewski, Ben Heimann, Marty Tindle, Jeremy Henstrom, Kevin
Coburn, Tylar Webber, Daniel Boush, Charles Scott, Bryce Bernacchi,
Gregory Gilmore, Cody Bryant, Gyle DelRio, Alexa Marie Murphy,
Angela Oday, Seven Albin, Tiffany Coates, Odessa Campbell, Ashley
Wyse, Ashley Arndt, Michelle Flores, Joy Naomi Feare, Dawn Reed,
Madison Klabinski, Brighton Klabinski, Ashley Marshall, Judy Wilke,
Madison Kobolt, Tara Smith, Paige Findley, Sam Ford, and Brittany
Lawson, with the complaint from the case and a copy of the order.

Finally, the Judge directs the clerk to directly assign these
related, newly opened cases pursuant to N.D. Ind. L.R. 40-1(e).

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/WJxIwX from Leagle.com.

Brandon Bernacchi, Plaintiff, pro se.


LOGITECH, INC.: Porath Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JAMES PORATH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
LOGITECH, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-03091-WHA (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on Nov. 14, 2019, for an
order:

   1. certifying these class and subclass:

      Class:

      "all United States persons who purchased Logitech's z200
      stereo sound system  prior to May 23, 2018, either in person

      or from website page containing any of the following phrases

      (or derivations therof): "Two drivers per speaker", "Two
      drivers per  satellite", "Two 2.5 drivers per satellite",
      "Two 2.5-inch drivers per satellite", "Four high quality
      2.5-inch drivers", "Two 2.50 drivers", and "Two 2.5 (6.3 cm)

      driver per satellite"; and

      Subclass:

      "all class members domiciled in the State of California";

   2. appointing James Porath to represent the class; and

   3. appointing Edelson PC as class counsel.

The Plaintiff contends that Logitech's decision to advertise the
Z200 speaker set as having two drivers per speaker was fraudulent.
The Plaintiff alleges claims under California's Unfair Competition
and False Advertising Laws and for common law fraud.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Todd Logan, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: 415.212.9300
          Facsimile: 415.373.9495
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  tlogan@edelson.com

LOREX CORPORATION: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lorex Corporation.
The case is styled as Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lorex Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09440 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 11, 2019).

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

Lorex Technology Inc. is a Canadian operated video surveillance
company that distributes video security systems through retail and
online channels. Lorex Corporation retails electronic devices. The
Company sells and distributes electronic security and surveillance
equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq.
     Stein Saks PLLC
     285 Passaic St., Suite 5
     Hakensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500
     Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com


LOUISIANA: Class Certification Bid in Creppel Suit Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as A.J., a minor child by and
through his mother, DONNELL CREPPEL, ET AL, the Plaintiffs, vs.
REBEKAH GEE, in her official capacity as secretary of the Louisiana
Department of Health, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00324-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Brian Jackson
entered an order denying as moot Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The Louisiana Department of Health, formerly known as the Louisiana
Department of Health and Hospitals, is a state agency of Louisiana,
headquartered in Baton Rouge. It is Louisiana's largest state
agency with a budget of $14 billion and approximately 6,300
personnel.[CC]

MARION COUNTY, FL: Firefighters Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel D. Garcia, Joseph L. Amigliore, Scott H. Chappell, Chris
Cooksey, Pamela Driggers, Scott M. Gragen, Justin W. Harrington,
Christopher Hayes, Todd Hime, Murrel Liverman, David C. Mills, John
M. Nowery, Thomas Reeves, Joseph Rinaudo, II, Miguel Rioseco and
Chris Trubelhorn, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff, v. Marion County, Florida,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00458 (M.D. Fla., September 18, 2019),
seeks overtime compensation, damages, equitable and other relief
available under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs are firefighters employed by Marion County FL. Due to
the nature of their jobs, they render 48-72 hours of work weekly
but are not paid overtime for hours in excess of 40 per work week,
says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Paul Donnelly, Esq.
      DONNELLY & GROSS
      2421 NW 41st Street, Suite A-1
      Gainesville, FL 32606
      Tel: (352)374-4001
      Fax: (352)374-4046
      Email: paul@donnellygross.com

             - and -

      Sara L. Faulman, Esq.
      John W. Stewart, Esq.
      MCGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
      1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20005
      Phone: (202) 833-8855
      Email: slf@mselaborlaw.com
             jws@mselaborlaw.com


MARK HELDENBRAND: Collection Letter Violates FDCPA, Says Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
April Carrico-Hardegree, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Law Office J. Mark Heldenbrand, PC, an
Arizona law firm, Case No. 1:19-cv-04053-JPH-DML (S.D. Ind., Sept.
27, 2019), seeks to recover damages alleging that the Defendant's
form debt collection letter violates the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Law Office J. Mark Heldenbrand, PC, is an Arizona professional
corporation and law firm that acts as a debt collector.  The
Defendant regularly uses the mails and/or the telephone to collect,
or attempt to collect, defaulted consumer debts.

Heldenbrand operates a debt collection business and attempts to
collect debts from consumers in several states, including consumers
in the state of Indiana.  Heldenbrand was acting as a debt
collector as to the defaulted consumer debt it attempted to collect
from the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com
                  angie@philippslegal.com

               - and -

          John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
          JOHN T. STEINKAMP & ASSOCIATES
          5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
          Indianapolis, IN 46227
          Telephone: (317) 780-8300
          Facsimile: (317) 217-1320
          E-mail: john@johnsteinkampandassociates.com


MARSHALL COUNTY, IN: Miller, et al. Seek to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JAMES MILLER, CODY DEERY,
TRAVIS GIBSON, JAMES RODGERS, and JOSEPH RICKETTS, on behalf of
themselves and a class of those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. MARSHALL COUNTY, INDIANA; and the MARSHALL COUNTY SHERIFF, in
his official capacity, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00842 (N.D.
Ind.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of:

   "all persons currently confined, or who will in the future be
   confined, in the Marshall County Jail."

The jail is believed to regularly house more than 250 persons and
the membership of the proposed class is constantly changing as
prisoners enter and leave the facility, the lawsuit says.

The Marshall County Sheriff's Office, located in Guntersville, Al,
is a full service law enforcement agency serving the citizens of
Marshall County.[CC]

Attorneys for the aPlaintiffs and the putative class are:

          Gavin M. Rose, Esq.
          Stevie J. Pactor, Esq.
          ACLU OF INDIANA
          1031 E. Washington St.
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Telephone: 317 635-4059
          Facsimile: 317 635-4105
          E-mail: grose@aclu-in.org
                  spactor@aclu-in.org

MENASHA PACKAGING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Enriquez Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEONARD ENRIQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MENASHA PACKAGING COMPANY, LLC;
MENASHA CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV26807 (Cal. Super., Sept. 18, 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 Enriquez was employed by the Defendants as hourly
paid, non-exempt employee.

Menasha Packaging Company LLC produces paper and paper related
products for various industries. The Company offers the
manufacturing of paper for packaging, printing, brand management,
and service groups. Menasha Packaging Company offers their products
throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553-3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553-3603


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Stanfield Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is captioned as Richard Stanfield
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. Midland Credit Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 5:19-cv-01813-PSG-SP (C.D. Cal., Sept. 20, 2019). The suit
alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez.

Midland Credit is a company that helps consumers resolve past-due
financial obligations.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

NINTENDO: Faces Class Action Over "Controller Drift"
----------------------------------------------------
Lisa Marie Segarra, writing for Fortune, reports that it's been
just over a week since the new handheld Switch Lite console was
released, and it was already added to a class action lawsuit filed
against Nintendo.

The lawsuit alleges that Nintendo was made aware that its Joy-Con
controllers included a defect known as controller drift and
continued to sell them. The Switch Lite features built-in Joy-Con
controllers which cannot be detached as they can on the original
Switch console.

Nintendo did not respond to Fortune's request for comment on the
lawsuit.

What is controller drift?
The jargon filled root of the lawsuit is actually quite simple.
Controller drift is a phenomenon that occurs with some controllers
and devices (even beyond Nintendo) where the analog sticks start
detecting non-existent movement. The character a player is
controlling or the camera of a game will begin slowly moving
despite the player not actually touching the controls at all.

The problem interferes with gameplay as the player no longer has
complete control and the issue is not easily solved without the
need for repairs or a replacement of the device.

Why was the lawsuit filed against Nintendo?
The problem, according to the lawsuit, is that the controls not
only exhibit a defect but Nintendo also knowingly continued selling
the defective products.

"This defect affects the video game play on the device and thus
compromises the Switch and Joy-Con controller's core
functionality," the lawsuit reads.

It continues by explaining that Nintendo has caused consumers to
spend additional money to replace or repair the devices due to the
controller drift defect and is asking for compensation.

Why was the Switch Lite added to the Nintendo lawsuit?
The Switch Lite's non-detachable controllers means replacing or
fixing the controller drift issue is now a heavier lift. Repairs
mean sending the entire device out rather than swapping out
controllers. Replacement means purchasing an entirely new
device—one that retails for $199.

The original case was filed back in July, but the amended suit,
which includes the Switch Lite, was filed on Sept. 27. However,
there do not yet appear to be any Switch Lite-specific complaints
listed in the lawsuit. [GN]


NISSAN MOTOR: Bashaw et al. Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Cathy Bashaw, Robert Garneau,
Nancy Housell, Jeffrey Olkowski, Courtney Johnson, Lisa
Hendrickson, Rhonda Perry, Jane Reeves, and Vaughn Kerkorian, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. Nissan North America, Inc. and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-07292, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville) on
Sept. 24, 2019. The Middle District of Tennessee Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00843 to the proceeding. The suit alleges
fraud. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William L. Campbell,
Jr.

Nissan North America, Inc., doing business as Nissan USA, is the
North American headquarters, and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Nissan Motor Company of Japan.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Joel Dashiell Smith, Esq.
          Frederick J. Klorczyk, III, Esq.
          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com
                  fklorczyk@bursor.com
                  ltfisher@bursor.com

               - and -

          Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Boggs, Esq.
          Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
          BAILEY GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com
                  jboggs@baileyglasser.com
                  mmurphy@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq.
          SCHLANGER LAW GROUP LLP
          9 East 40th Street, Suite 1300
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 250-6114
          E-mail: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net

               - and -

          H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
          W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW
          METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          P O Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com
                  dee.miles@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Jaimie Mak, Esq.
          RICHMAN LAW GROUP
          81 Prospect Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (718) 705-4579
          Facsimile: (718) 228-8522
          E-mail: jmak@richmanlawgroup.com

               - and -

          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street
          Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: jtangren@dlcfirm.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          E. Paul Cauley, Jr., Esq.
          DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
          1717 Main Street, Suite 5400
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (469) 357-2500
          Facsimile: (469) 327-0860
          E-mail: paul.cauley@dbr.com

               - and -

          Matthew Jacob Adler, Esq.
          Paul Jeffrey Riehle, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE REATH LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-7500
          Facsimile: (415) 591-7510
          E-mail: matthew.adler@dbr.com
                  paul.riehle@dbr.com

OCWEN LOAN: Parra Suit Dismissed for Failure to State Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned JOSE L.
PARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant. No.
18-cv-05936. (N.D. Ill.)

Ocwen moved to dismiss the case, primarily because the complaint
fails to adequately state a claim.

Jose Parra initially filed this class-action complaint against
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
advancing a number of state law claims based on Ocwen's alleged
failure to apply $773.05 in unapplied funds to the outstanding
principal balance on Parra's mortgage prior to filing for
foreclosure.

Legal Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint
generally need only include a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. This short
and plain statement must give the defendant fair notice of what the
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.

A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the
complaint to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. The
allegations that are entitled to the assumption of truth are those
that are factual, rather than mere legal conclusions.  

In the first count of Parra's complaint, he alleges that Ocwen
breached the Mortgage Contract by not complying with the servicing
requirement which requires that unapplied funds be applied to the
outstanding principal balance under the Mortgage immediately prior
to foreclosure, or that the unapplied funds be returned to the
borrower.

Under Illinois law, a plaintiff must establish four elements to
make out a breach of contract claim: (1) the existence of a valid
and enforceable contract (2) performance by the plaintiff (3)
breach by the defendant and (4) resulting injury to the plaintiff.


Ocwen argues that Parra failed to adequately allege a valid claim
because he confuses the concept of a foreclosure lawsuit with the
foreclosure itself, which is the outcome of that lawsuit.

Here, the key provision is in Section 1 of the Uniform Covenants.
The section requires that if not applied earlier, unapplied funds
will be applied to the outstanding principal balance under the Note
immediately prior to foreclosure. Parra relies on two Northern
District of Illinois cases, Moore v. Loma Mortg. USA, Inc., 814
F.Supp. 741 (N.D. Ill. 1993) and Lomas & Nettleton Co. v.
Humphries, 703 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1989), to argue that the word
foreclosure' refers to the proceeding itself, an action for
foreclosure, and not to its resolution.

Here, the Court must interpret the word foreclosure in the Mortgage
Contract when it comes to applying unapplied funds to the
outstanding principal.

To aid in that interpretative task, the Court looks to the context
of foreclosure in Section 1 of the Uniform Covenants. When there is
a question of ambiguity in a contract, Illinois law requires that
the Court do not look at the contested language in isolation. The
Court examines the contract as a whole, giving effect, to the
extent possible, to all contractual provisions.When viewed in
context, it is plain that the parties distinguished between a
judicial foreclosure proceeding and the end result of that
proceeding, that is, entry of a judgment of foreclosure.  

The use of foreclosure and foreclosure proceeding as distinct terms
in the Mortgage Contract is a strong textual clue that filing the
foreclosure proceeding is different from the ultimate foreclosure.

Reading Sections 5 and 22 together leads to the same conclusion.
Under Section 5, a lender is entitled to a homeowner's insurance
payout in certain circumstances, including if the Lender acquires
the Property under Section 22. As previously discussed, Section 22
provides that failure to cure a default may result in foreclosure
by judicial proceeding and sale of the Property. As a defense, a
borrower may assert in the foreclosure proceeding the non-existence
of a default or any other defense.  

Because a foreclosure proceeding, in its pendency, comes before the
lender's acquisition of the property, Section 5 necessarily implies
a distinction between the final act of foreclosure and the earlier
institution of judicial foreclosure proceedings.
   
So Sections 5 and 22 use the term foreclosure in a way that must
mean the end-result of the foreclosure proceeding. Applying that
definition to Section 1, the section only requires Ocwen to apply
"unapplied funds to the outstanding principal balance before it
obtains the foreclosure judgment, not before it starts the
foreclosure proceeding.

There is no valid breach of contract claim here, rules the Court.

Ocwen's motion to dismiss is granted and the complaint is
dismissed.  The dismissal is with prejudice because Parra does not
suggest that there is a way to salvage it by way of amendment, and
indeed, the circumstances--a straightforward interpretation of a
contractual provision--also suggest that there is no way an
amendment can fix the problem in Parra's theory of liability. The
status hearing of October 8, 2019 is vacated.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6hl249a from Leagle.com

Jose L. Parra, individually and on behalf of all others similary
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Larry D. Drury, Larry D. Drury,
Ltd, 100 North La Salle StreetSuite 2200Chicago, IL 60606- 2409

Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jena M. Valdetero
- jena.valdetero@bclplaw.com - Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP &
Robert Brunner  - robert.brunner@bclplaw.com - Bryan Cave Leighton
Paisner LLP.

OPTUM INC: Robert W. Mauthe Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Robert W. Mauthe, M.D., P.C., files with the Supreme
Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari to
review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit in the matter styled ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C.,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. OPTUM, INC., and OPTUMINSIGHT, INC.,
Case No. 19-413.

Response is due on October 28, 2019.

The Plaintiff wants the Supreme Court to determine whether the
Third Circuit erred by holding that a commercial fax cannot be an
"advertisement" as defined by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
unless it promotes a direct sale of the sender's goods or services
to the recipient where the Sixth Circuit held the opposite in
Matthew N. Fulton, DDS, P.C. v. Enclarity, Inc., 907 F.2d 948 (6th
Cir. 2018), reh'g denied, 2018 U.S. App LEXIS 36638 (Dec. 27,
2018), pet. for cert. filed, Enclarity Inc. v. Matthew N. Fulton
DDS, P.C., No. 18-1258 (U.S. March 27, 2019).

The judgment of the Court of Appeals was entered on May 28, 2019,
and 14 days later, the Plaintiff filed a timely Petition for
Rehearing or for Rehearing en Banc on June 12, 2019.  The Court of
Appeals denied the Plaintiff's petition on June 25, 2019.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants sent the Plaintiff at
least one advertisement by facsimile.  The Plaintiff did not
expressly consent to receive Defendants' advertisement by fax and
does not have an established business relationship with the
Defendants.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert Mauthe, M.D., v. Optum,
Inc. and Optuminsight, Inc., Case No. 18-2894, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The District Court case is titled Robert Mauthe, M.D., v. Optum,
Inc. and Optuminsight, Inc., Case No. 17-1643, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner Robert W. Mauthe, M.D., P.C., is represented
by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com


OUTERWALL INC: Faces Rudd Suit Over $1.6 Billion Sale to Apollo
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK RUDD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. JEFFREY J. BROWN, NELSON C. CHAN, NORA M. DENZEL, DAVID
M. ESKENAZY, ROSS G. LANDSBAUM, ERIK E. PRUSCH, GALEN C. SMITH, and
ROBERT D. SZNEWAJS, Case No. 2019-0775- (Del. Ch., Sept. 26, 2019),
arises out of the $1.6 billion acquisition of Outerwall Inc. by
Apollo Global Management, pursuant to which Outerwall stockholders
received $52 per share in cash pursuant to a tender offer and
subsequent short-form merger that was completed in September 2016.

The Plaintiff, who was an Outerwall stockholder at all relevant
times, brings the lawsuit on behalf of himself and all persons who
owned shares of Outerwall common stock immediately prior to the
completion of the Acquisition on September 27, 2019, exclusive
Defendants and their affiliates (the "Class").

The Defendants were the Company's directors and officers.

Prior to the Acquisition, non-party Outerwall was a Delaware
corporation that, as of the Acquisition, was based in Bellevue,
Washington.  Outerwall was originally incorporated in 1993 as
Coinstar, Inc., which changed its name to Outerwall in 2013.
Outerwall ran three distinct automated businesses: Redbox, the
movie and video game rental kiosks; Coinstar, where consumers can
deposit loose change for cash or similar rewards; and ecoATM, where
people can deposit used electronics (such as smartphones) for cash.
Outerwall spread its potpourri of automation in stores across the
country, and the businesses generated heaps of cash.  Moreover,
Outerwall had growth plans, expanding to Europe and beyond and
continuing to explore new business lines featuring an automated,
self-service experience for consumers.

Mr. Rudd alleges that the Defendants have violated their fiduciary
duties owed to the public stockholders of Outerwall and have acted
to put their personal interests ahead of the interests of the
Company's public stockholders, or acquiesced in those actions by
fellow defendants.  He adds that the Defendants failed to take
adequate measures to ensure that the interests of Outerwall's
stockholders were properly protected.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by filing a Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which
misrepresented and omitted material information.  Among other
things, although the Company consistently treated its three
segments as distinct entities and consistently reported and
discussed the financial results separately (e.g., by hailing growth
potential in one area while emphasizing fiscal responsibility in
others), the 14D-9 contains only enterprise-level financial
projections for the Company, thus, obscuring Outerwall's complete
and complex prospects for growth, the Plaintiff asserts.  He adds
that the financial projections in the 14D-9 portrayed as the
likeliest case did not account for business initiatives that were
already underway, including a new digital service offered by Redbox
and international expansion of Outerwall's Coinstar and ecoATM
segments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Nemours Building
          1107 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3800
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

               - and -

          Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
          W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
          Garam Choe, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 602-1592
          E-mail: eagel@bespc.com
                  holleman@bespc.com
                  choe@bespc.com


PEOPLE'S TRUST: Centiorari Review of Discovery Order in Pesta OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PEOPLE'S TRUST MGA, LLC, Petitioner, v. JOSEF
PESTA, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Respondent, Case No. 4D19-825 (Fla. Dist. App.), Judge Martha C.
Warner of the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Fourth
District granted PTMGA' motion for centiorari review of an order
compelling discovery.

Pesta filed a class action suit against his insurer, and its
managing general agent, PTMGA, alleging that his premium improperly
included a $25 per policy fee for PTMGA (Pesta I).  He contended
that fee should not have been included because PTMGA did not place
the policy with the insurer and was not acting as a legitimate
managing general agent.

The insurer moved to dismiss the complaint for failing to exhaust
an available administrative remedy with the Florida Office of
Insurance Regulation ("OIR").  The trial court denied the motion.
The insurer petitioned for certiorari review, and the Court granted
the petition.  It concluded that whether an MGA fee can be charged
for each policy, regardless of whether the insurer's MGA actually
placed the policy with the insurer, is a regulatory issue that the
agency should resolve.

Subsequently, Pesta filed a second amended complaint against PTMGA
(the insurer's agent) requesting relief in the form of a class
action against only PTMGA.  However, the claims were essentially
the same as against the insurer in that it sought a declaratory
judgment and damages, contending that the inclusion of the MGA fee
on each policy violated the law.  It alleged that PTMGA is not a
managing general agent for purposes of the insurance policy, and
the insurance company or MGA is not entitled to charge or collect
for the fees.

PTMGA filed a petition for certiorari as to the second amended
complaint, alleging that the Court's prior opinion controlled.  The
Court denied certiorari relief, but its denial was not a
determination on the merits and therefore did not prevent the issue
from being raised in further proceedings.  

Thereafter, discovery ensued.  It shows that the issues which Pesta
is attempting to litigate are within the purview of the OIR and its
rate approval.  PTMGA then filed the certiorari petition contending
both that the Court lacked jurisdiction, because of the failure to
exhaust administrative remedies, and that the discovery was
improper.

Warner holds that if it was not clear when the second amended
complaint was filed, it is clear now that Pesta is simply seeking
to do an "end-run" around the Court's opinion which held that the
MGA fee on the policy must first be presented to the OIR, which the
legislature has charged with responsibility to supervise insurance
rate-setting.  The courts must not usurp the administrative
responsibilities of that entity.

The Court has stated that failure to exhaust administrative
remedies goes to the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction to
hear a matter.  If it is subject matter jurisdiction, then the
trial court is without power to proceed.  If it is a prudential
doctrine, then the trial court departs from the essential
requirements of law in proceeding with the determination of issues
that the legislature expressly authorized the administrative agency
to decide.

As the case involves the propriety of what is included in the
insurance company's rate charges, the Judge holds that it is for
the OIR to determine in the first instance, as the Court expressly
stated in Pesta I.  She therefore granted the petition and directed
that the action be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 18, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/71Ullb from Leagle.com.

Stephen W. Bazinsky and Catherine Galvis, of Bazinsky, Korman &
Baker, P.A., Plantation, for petitioner.

Edward H. Zebersky ezebersky@zpllp.com -- of Zebersky & Payne, LLP,
Fort Lauderdale, Candise L. Shanbron, of Cernitz & Shanbron, P.A.,
Coral Gables, Bard D. Rockenbach -- bdr@flappellatelaw.com -- and
Jeffrey V. Mansell -- jvm@flappellatelaw.com -- of Burlington &
Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

PETROCHEM INSULATION: Must File Brief Supporting Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AFRIKAA HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff, v. PETROCHEM INSULATION,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01483-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward
M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs and/or
evidence regarding the Diaz factors.

Plaintiff Holloway initiated the FCRA suit against Petrochem on
March 21, 2019, asserting the action on her own behalf and on
behalf of a putative class.  On Sept. 24, 2019, the parties
submitted a stipulation of dismissal to the Court.  More
specifically, they stipulated to a dismissal of Ms. Holloway's
individual claims with prejudice and the putative class claims
without prejudice.  No class action has been certified in the
case.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(e) requires the Court to
review and approve a proposed voluntary dismissal, settlement, or
other compromise of a certified class's claims.  In, Diaz v. Trust
Territory of Pac. Islands, the Ninth Circuit has held that Rule
23(e) also applies to settlements before certification, but in a
much lighter form that does not entail the kind of substantive
oversight required when reviewing a settlement binding upon the
class.  Although there has been some uncertainty about whether this
holding applies in the wake of the 2003 amendments to Rule 23(e),
courts in the district continue to follow Diaz to evaluate the
proposed settlement and dismissal of putative class claims.

Under Diaz, a court inquires into possible prejudice from (1) the
class members' possible reliance on the filing of the action if
they are likely to know of it either because of publicity or other
circumstances, (2) lack of adequate time for the class members to
file other actions, because of a rapidly approaching statute of
limitations, and (3) any settlement or concession of class
interests made by the class representative or counsel in order to
further their own interests.

Therefore, Judge Chen ordered the parties to file supplemental
briefs and/or evidence regarding the Diaz factors.  The briefs will
include a description of all publicity concerning the case and its
filing.  Either cross-briefs or a joint brief will be filed within
a week of the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/R5ebjP from Leagle.com.

Afrikaa Holloway, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similary situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eric B. Kingsley --
eric@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley & Kingsley, APC, Justin M.
Aufdehar, Kingsley & Kingsley, APC, Walter Lewis Haines --
whaines@uelglaw.com -- United Employees Law Group, P.C., Liane
Katzenstein Ly, Kingsley & Kingsley, APC & Kelsey M. Szamet,
Kingsley and Kingsley, APC.

Petrochem Insulation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kent Joseph
Sprinkle -- ksprinkle@cdflaborlaw.com -- Carothers DiSante &
Freudenberger LLP & Robin Elaine Largent --
rlargent@cdflaborlaw.com -- Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP.


PHIA GROUP: Weyant Appeals Order and Judgment to 2nd Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jessica Weyant filed an appeal from the District Court's
opinion and order dated September 26, 2019, and judgment dated
September 27, 2019, in her lawsuit entitled Weyant v. The Phia
Group LLC, et al., Case No. 17-cv-8230, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

The nature of suit is stated as contract-overpayment recovery.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Jessica Weyant brings this putative class action against Defendants
Phia Group, LLC (Phia) and INDECS Corporation (INDECS) on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated, alleging violations of New
York General Obligations Law (GOL), the terms of a health benefits
plan, the duty of good faith and fair dealing, New York General
Business Law (GBL).

The appellate case is captioned as Weyant v. The Phia Group LLC, et
al., Case No. 19-3117, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

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

          Charles Thomas Kannebecker, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES KANNEBECKER
          104 West High Street
          Milford, PA 18337
          Telephone: (570) 296-6471
          E-mail: kannebecker@wsklawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees The Phia Group LLC and INDECS Corporation are
represented by:

          Thomas J. Luz, Esq.
          KLG LUZ & GREENBERG LLP
          211 East 43rd Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 681-8313
          E-mail: tluz@karalaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan L. Woody, Esq.
          MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C.
          1111 East Sunmer Street
          P.O. Box 270670
          Hartford, WI 53027
          Telephone: (262) 673-7850
          E-mail: rwoody@mwl-law.com


PPL ELECTRIC: Faces Mahoney Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PPL Electric
Utilities Corporation. The case is captioned as JOHN MAHONEY ON
BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff,
vs. PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-04424-JLS (E.D. Pa., Sept. 24, 2019). The suit alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl.

PPL Corporation is an energy company headquartered in Allentown,
Pennsylvania, United States. It currently controls about 8,000
megawatts of regulated electric generating capacity in the United
States and delivers electricity to 10.5 million customers in
Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Great Britain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
          GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
          123 S. Broad Street Suite 1640
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (215) 981-5400
          E-mail: dglanzberg@aol.com

PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH MATKE,
Individually and on Behalf  of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-1408 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff ask the Court for an
order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

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

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

PAM is a third-party collection agency.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

PROPETRO HOLDING: Brualdi Reminds of Nov. 15 Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. reminds shareholders of these recently
commenced class action lawsuits on behalf of investors of Capital
One Financial Corp. (COF) and ProPetro Holding Corp. (PUMP). If you
purchased shares in any of these companies during the class periods
below, and suffered losses in excess of $50,000, please contact The
Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. at (212) 952-0602 to learn how you can
request to be appointed lead plaintiff.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. In general, the lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from its
investments during the Class Period. You do not need to seek
appointment as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.

Capital One Financial Corp. (COF)

Class period: February 2, 2018 and June 29, 2019, inclusive

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company did not
maintain robust information security protections, and its
protection did not shield personal information against security
breaches; (2) such deficiencies heightened the Company's exposure
to a cyber-attack; and (3) as a result, Capital One's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the complaint
alleges that investors suffered damages.

ProPetro Holding Corp. (PUMP)

Class period: March 17, 2017 through August 8, 2019, inclusive

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 15, 2019

The complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. The complaint alleges that, as a result, the purported
class purchased ProPetro's securities at artificially inflated
prices and was damaged thereby.

If you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact The Brualdi
Law Firm, P.C. at the contact information below.

Attorney Advertising. Prior Results Do Not Guarantee A Similar
Outcome.

Contact:

         Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
         Gaitri Boodhoo, Esq.
         David Titus, Esq.
         The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 952-0602
         Website: www.brualdilawfirm.com
         Email: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com,
                gboodhoo@brualdlawfirm.com,
                dtitus@brualdilawfirm.com
[GN]


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Jan. 28, 2020 Proof of Claim Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
This is a court-approved notice by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
regarding a trial verdict in favor of persons who purchased or
acquired Puma Biotechnology, Inc. common stock during the period
July 22, 2014 to May 13, 2015:

Important Notice from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California

In the case of HsingChing Hsu v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., et al.,
No. 8:15-cv-00865, a two week trial began on January 15, 2019 in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Southern Division.

On February 4, 2019, the jury returned a verdict.

The jury found that defendants Puma Biotechnology, Inc. and Alan H.
Auerbach violated the federal securities laws by making false and
misleading statements about the efficacy of Puma's drug, neratinib,
in a clinical trial and that defendants did so in knowing violation
of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

As a result of this fraudulent conduct, the jury determined that
Puma's stock price was artificially inflated by $4.50 per share
between July 22, 2014 and May 13, 2015.

The jury verdict will result in the payment of damages, plus
interest and minus certain deductions, to eligible Class Members
who file a timely and valid Proof of Claim form.

Class Members whose claims are approved will be entitled to receive
all of their damages, plus interest, less their proportionate share
of any fees and expenses awarded by the Court.

To recover damages, you must submit a valid Proof of Claim form no
later than January 28, 2020.

Late filed claims will only be accepted with the approval of the
Court.

To file a claim for damages, review court documents from the case,
and learn more about the claims process and your rights as a class
member, please visit the case website below:

               www.pumabiosecuritieslitigation.com
[GN]


QES PRESSURE: Approval, Distribution of Class Action Notice Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JOHN NEWSOME, JR.,
Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs. QES
PRESSURE CONTROL, LLC, the DEFENDANT, Case No. 7:19-cv-00150-DC-RCG
(W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to, upon granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification, enter an order:

   1. directing the Defendant to produce the contact information
      of the putative class members no later than one week after
      the date of the entry of the Order granting the current
      motion;

   2. approving a Notice and Consent to Join;

   3. approving circulation of the Notice and Consent, and
Plaintiff's
      Original Complaint and Defendant's Answer;

   4. approving notice through U.S. Mail, email, and text message;

      and

   5. granting counsel a period of 90 days from the date Defendant

      fully and completely releases the class members' contact
      information during which to distribute the Notice and to
      file Consent forms.

The Plaintiff brought the lawsuit on behalf of all salaried Field
Supervisors of QES Pressure Control, LLC to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

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

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Michael J. Muskat, Esq.
          R. John Grubb II, Esq.
          MUSKAT, MAHONY & DEVINE, LLP
          E-mail: MMuskat@m2dlaw.com
                  JGrubb@m2dlaw.com

ROCHESTER, NY: DS Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CITY OF ROCHESTER.
The case is styled as DS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioner v. CITY OF ROCHESTER, CITY OF
ROCHESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent, Case No. E2019009617 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Monroe Cty., Oct. 11, 2019).

The case type is stated as SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer).

Rochester is a city on Lake Ontario, in New York State. Old
industrial buildings cluster near the Genesee River's High
Falls.[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

     Kristen Heather Porpora, Esq.
     1 W Main St Ste 800
     Rochester, NY 14614-1426

The Respondents are represented by:

     CITY OF ROCHESTER
     CITY OF ROCHESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT
     N/A
     Rochester, NY 14614


RURAL KING: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Mahoney Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MAHONEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. RURAL KING, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-04422-CMR (E.D. Pa., Sept. 24, 2019), seeks to enforce
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires,
among other things, that a public accommodation:

  (1) not deny persons with disabilities the benefits of its
services, facilities, privileges and advantages;

  (2) provide those persons with benefits that are equal to those
provided to nondisabled persons;

  (3) provide auxiliary aids and services -- including electronic
services for use with a computer screen reading program  -- where
necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with a
visual disability, and to ensure that such persons are not
excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated
differently than sighted individuals; and

  (4) utilize administrative methods, practices, and policies that
provide persons with disabilities equal access to online content.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.1 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2016 report, approximately 300,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and
a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA

The Plaintiff requires screen-reading software to read website
content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.

By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Rural King, a public
accommodation subject to Title III, deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among these Americans that Title III was meant to redress.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
          GLANZBERG TOBIA LAW, P.C.
          123 South Broad Street, Suite 1640
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (215) 981-5400
          Facsimile: (267) 319-1993
          E-mail: david.glanzberg@gtlawpc.com

RYAN TRANSPORTATION: Underpaid Driver Hits Misclassification
------------------------------------------------------------
Istvan Farkas, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ryan Transportation, Inc. and
Quality Carriers, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00459 (S.D.
Fla., September 18, 2019), seeks damages for failure to pay a
minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Quality Carriers are family of companies that operate the largest
bulk tank trucking fleet, including over 2,500 trucks and 6,400
trailers in North America. Ryan Transportation is an affiliate of
Quality Carriers. Farkas worked as a carrier/truck driver from July
to September 2018. He claims to have been misclassified as an
independent contractor, thus denied the mandatory minimum wages.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
      1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
      Tampa, Florida 33602
      Tel: (813) 337-7992, 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      Email: bhill@wfclaw.com


SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Ontiveros FLSA Suit Deal Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, YADIR ONTIVEROS, et al., as an individual, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAFELITE
FULFILLMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; SAFELITE GROUP, INC., a
Delaware corporation; SAFELITE GLASS CORP., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. CV 15-7118-DMG (RAOx)
(C.D. Cal.), Judge Dolly M. Gee of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California has issued Final Judgment and Order
Granting Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement.

The matter came on for hearing on Sept. 20, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.

The Settlement Classes in the case are:

     a. Class 1a (PPP Incentive Plan Class - Unpaid Rest Periods):
All current and former non-exempt employees of Safelite who worked
in California as a Technician, and who were paid pursuant to
Safelite's PPP Incentive Plan, during the time period September 9,
2011 through April 9, 2017.

     b. Class 1b (PPP Incentive Plan Class - Unpaid Non-Productive
Time): All current and former non-exempt employees of Safelite who
worked in California as a Technician, and who were paid pursuant to
Safelite's PPP Incentive Plan, during the time period June 4, 2013
through April 9, 2017.

     c. Class 1c (PPP Incentive Plan Class - Wage Statements): All
current and former non-exempt employees of Safelite who worked in
California as a Technician, and who were paid pursuant to
Safelite's PPP Incentive Plan, during the time period Sept. 9, 2014
through April 9, 2017.

     d. Class 2a (Wage Statement Class - Meal Period Premium): All
current and former non-exempt employees of Safelite who worked in
California, and were paid a meal period premium payment, during the
time period Sept. 9, 2014 through Oct. 16, 2017.

     e. Class 2b (Wage Statement Class - Installation Bonus): All
current and former non-exempt employees of Safelite who worked in
California, earned an Installation Bonus and worked overtime hours
during the corresponding time period that the Installation Bonus
was earned, during the time period Sept. 9, 2014 through Oct. 16,
2017.

     f. Class 3a (Unpaid Overtime Class - Artificial Dilution of
Regular Rate): All current and former non-exempt employees of
Safelite who worked in California, and who in the same time period:
(i) were paid a meal period premium payment as regular hours
worked; and (ii) earned any form of incentive pay; and (iii) worked
overtime hours, during the time period Sept. 9, 2011 to Oct. 16,
2017 (but limited to the time period of June 4, 2013 through Oct.
16, 2017 for those individuals who worked as Technicians or
Windshield Repair Specialists).

     g. Class 3b (Unpaid Overtime Class - Underpaid Double-time
Premium): All current and former non-exempt employees of Safelite
who worked in California, and who, in the same time period: (i)
earned any form of incentive pay; and (ii) worked double-time
hours, during the time period Sept. 9, 2011 to Oct. 16, 2017 (but
limited to the time period of June 4, 2013 through Oct. 16, 2017
for those individuals who worked as Technicians or Windshield
Repair Specialists).

     h. Class 4 (Waiting Time Penalty Class): All members of
Classes 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b who separated their employment
from Safelite at any point in time between March 2, 2014 through
Jan. 18, 2019.

     i. Class 5 (PAGA Settlement Class): All members of Classes 1a,
1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b who worked for Safelite during the time
period Sept. 10, 2014 through Jan. 18, 2019.

Judge Gee granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement
because it meets the criteria for final settlement approval.  She
also finds that the Settlement Classes satisfy the applicable
standards for certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(a) and 23(b)(3).  Accordingly, solely for purposes of
effectuating the Settlement, the Judge certified the Settlement
Classes, as defined.

By the Judgment, and after the fulfillment of Safelite's
obligations under the Settlement Agreement, the Class
Representatives and all Settlement Class Members will release the
Released Parties from all Released Claims, pursuant to the terms of
the Settlement Agreement, for the duration of the Class Period.

For the purposes of the Settlement, the Judge confirmed the
appointment of (i) Yadir Ontiveros and Francisco Curiel as the
Class Representatives for Settlement Classes 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b,
3a, 3b, and 5; (ii) Francisco Curiel as the Class Representative of
Settlement Class 4; and (iii) Paul K. Haines, Fletcher W. Schmidt,
Tuvia Korobkin, Sean M. Blakely, Andrew J. Rowbotham, and Matthew
K. Moen of Haines Law Group, APC as the Class Counsel.

The Judge approved the payment from the Settlement Amount of (i)
the settlement administration costs in the amount of $22,000 to CPT
Group, Inc., the Settlement Administrator; (ii) the Class
Representative Enhancement Payments to the Class Representatives in
the amount of $10,000 to Yadir Ontiveros and $5,000 to Francisco
Curiel; and (iii) $150,000 to the California Labor & Workforce
Development Agency for its share of penalties under the Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act.  She awarded to the Class Counsel
the amount of $2,733,833.33 for attorney's fees, and the amount of
$109,456.98 for costs.  The Settlement Administrator is ordered to
make these payments in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2019 Final Judgment and
Order is available at https://is.gd/Saofns from Leagle.com.

Yadir A. Ontiveros, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Sean M. Blakely --
sblakely@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group APC, Tuvia Korobkin
-- tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group APC, Fletcher
W.H. Schmidt -- fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group
APC, Jamin Xu -- jxu@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group & Paul
Keith Haines -- phaines@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group
APC.

Francisco J Curiel, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Tuvia Korobkin,
Haines Law Group APC, Fletcher W.H. Schmidt, Haines Law Group APC &
Paul Keith Haines, Haines Law Group APC.

Safelite Fulfillment, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Maria Z. Stearns, Rutan and Tucker LLP, Daniel J.
Clark -- djclark@vorys.com -- Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP,
pro hac vice, Kenneth James Zielinski -- kzielinski@rutan.com --
Rutan and Tucker LLP & Robert A. Harris -- raharris@vorys.com --
Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP, pro hac vice.

Safelite Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Maria Z. Stearns, Rutan and Tucker LLP, Daniel J.
Clark, Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP & Robert A. Harris, Vorys
Sater Seymour and Pease LLP, pro hac vice.

Safelite Glass Corp, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Daniel J. Clark, Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP & Robert A.
Harris, Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP, pro hac vice.


SALLY HERSHBERGER: Faces Slade Suit Alleging ADA Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sally Hershberger
Professional Hair Care, LLC. The case is styled as Linda Slade
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. Sally Hershberger Professional Hair
Care, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09429 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 11,
2019).

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

Sally Hershberger Professional Hair Care, LLC is a Salon that
offers a full range of hairstyling, color and treatment services,
including waxing, makeup application and bridal.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Lam Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Alfred Lam and Paula Leiato filed with the Supreme Court
of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
entitled Alfred Lam, et al., Petitioners vs. City and County of San
Francisco, California, et al., Case No. 19-378.

Response is due on October 21, 2019.

The Lower Court case is styled ALFRED LAM, on behalf of themselves
and of Asian Pacific American employees and representative of the
class of the same or similarly situated CCSF employees; PAULA
LEIATO, on behalf of themselves and of Asian Pacific American
employees and representative of the class of the same or similarly
situated CCSF employees, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CITY AND COUNTY
OF SAN FRANCISCO; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-16559,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In
this Appeal, Lam and Leiato challenge the district court's order
denying their second motion to reconsider the district court's
costs award.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Justice Elena
Kagan extended until September 1, 2019, the time for filing a
petition for a writ of certiorari.

Alfred Lam, on Behalf of Himself and of Asian Pacific American
Employees and Representative of the Class of the Same or Similarly
Situated CCSF Employees, et al., on June 28, 2019, sought review by
the Supreme Court of United States from the decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in his class action lawsuit
against San Francisco.

In that Ninth Circuit case, titled ALFRED LAM; PAULA LEIATO,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-15208, Lam and Paula Leiato
appeal pro se from the district court's summary judgment in their
action alleging employment discrimination; from the district
court's award of costs to the defendants; and from the district
court's denial of their motion to reconsider a prior summary
judgment.  In a March 2019 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

Plaintiffs are employed by San Francisco's Juvenile Probation
Department ("JPD"), and bring suit against the City and County of
San Francisco ("CCSF") and various individual defendants for
alleged violations of section 1983, section 1981, Title VII, and
the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA").  The
Plaintiffs identify as Asian Pacific Americans ("APAs"), and argue
that they were discriminated against, especially as compared to
African American employees.

The Ninth Circuit held that the district court properly granted
summary judgment on Lam's and Leiato's discrimination claims
because Lam and Leiato failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether defendants took adverse action against
plaintiffs, and whether defendants had legitimate,
non-discriminatory motives for their actions.  The district court
properly concluded that Lam and Leiato, as pro se litigants, lacked
the authority to represent a class.

The District Court case is captioned ALFRED LAM, on behalf of
themself and of Asian Pacific American employees and representative
of the class of the same or similarly situated CCSF employees and
PAULA LEIATO, on behalf of themselves and of Asian Pacific American
employees and representative of the class of the same or similarly
situated CCSF employees v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; et
al., Case No. 4:10-cv-04641-PJH, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]

SANTA BARBARA TRANS: Shay FCRA Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Krystle Shay as an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
Santa Barbara Transportation Corporation, a California Corporation,
and Does 1-50, Inclusive,  the Defendants, Case No. 19CV04446, was
removed from the Santa Barbara County Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles) on Sept. 23, 2019. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-08272-CAS-KS to
the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Christina A.
Snyder.

Santa Barbara Transportation Corporation was founded in 1983. The
company's line of business includes operating school buses.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          David Michael Watson, Esq.
          Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
          Zachary Crosner, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL PC
          433 North Camden Drive Suite 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 496-5818
          Facsimile: (818) 700-9973
          E-mail: david@crosnerlegal.com
                  zach@crosnerlegal.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Kristin N. Kovacich, Esq.
          Kathleen J Choi, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          400 South Hope Street Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-9800
          Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
          E-mail: kristin.kovacich@ogletree.com
                  kathleen.choi@ogletreedeakins.com

SANTA ROSA CONSULTING: Papadimitropoulos Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CONSTANTINO
PAPADIMITROPOULOS, MARVIN MENDOZA, and JOYCE VALLONE, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
SANTA ROSA CONSULTING, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-11779-AJT-SDD (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "similarly situated current and former hourly-paid, non-
      exempt, W-2 "at-the-elbow" employees (ATEs) of Defendant
      Santa Rosa Consulting, Inc.";

   2. authorizing Court-supervised notice to above individuals, in

      accordance with Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
      Act, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   3. directing the Defendant to immediately provide Plaintiffs'
      counsel a computer-readable file containing the names (last
      names first), last known physical addresses, last known
      email addresses, social security numbers, dates of
      employment, and last known telephone numbers of all putative

      class members during the last three years;

   4. providing that Court-approved notice be enclosed with
      Defendant's currently-employed putative class members' next
      regularly-scheduled paychecks/stubs, and be mailed and
      emailed to Defendant's ATEs employed in the past three years

      so they can timely assert their claims as part of this
      litigation;

   5. authorizing a reminder postcard to be issued mid-way through

      the 90-day notice period;

   6. tolling the putative class' statute of limitations as of the

      date this Motion is filed; and

   7. deeming Opt-in Plaintiffs' Consent Forms "filed" on the
      dates they are postmarked (excluding those who opted in
      prior to Court-supervised Notice being sent).

The Plaintiffs allege that they and other ATEs were subjected to
the Defendant's practice of requiring ATEs to travel out-of-town
during normal business hours without compensation, including (1)
proper minimum wage compensation for out-of-town travel during
normal business hours wherein those hours were only hours worked in
the given workweek; and/or (2) proper overtime compensation for
such travel hours that are/were in excess of 40 hours per week.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated workers
were required to work "off-the-clock" without any compensation for
certain "on-boarding" and training activities.

The Defendant does not concur or consent to the above motion.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current
and Former Employees are:

          Jennifer McManus, Esq.
          FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C.
          25892 Woodward Avenue
          Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910
          Telephone: (248) 542-6300
          Facsimile: (248) 542-6301
          E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com

               - and -

          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com

               - and -

          David C. Linder, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          30 E. 7th St., Suite 2800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          Facsimile: (651) 312-6618
          E-mail: dlinder@larsonking.com

SCOPELY, INC: Ackies Sues over Sale of Video Game Virtual Goods
---------------------------------------------------------------
VERNON ACKIES INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED,
the Plaintiff, vs. SCOPELY, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
ESX-L-006946-19 (N.J. Super, Sept. 23, 2019), seeks compensatory,
punitive, actual and treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
among other relief.

Scopely is the publisher of the online video game "Star Trek Fleet
Command." STFC is a role-playing video game available on
smartphones and other mobile devices. STFC is based on the Star
Trek movie franchise in which players explore star systems, build
spaceships, complete missions and battle other players. STFC is
available on Android and Apple iOS platforms.

STFC is free to play but players can purchase virtual goods in
exchange for real-world money to access additional content. The
virtual economy allows players to pay real-world money to upgrade
and improve their spaceships, space stations and characters, among
other things.

By spending real money on these "virtual goods," players improve
their abilities to defeat other players and to advance further in
the game.

However, Scopely fraudulently exploited this virtual economy for
its benefit and to the detriment of its players. Scopely engaged in
a fraudulent and deceptive scheme by decreasing the value and
effectiveness of virtual goods after their purchase by players,
misrepresenting the capabilities and benefits of virtual goods, and
allowing players to lose virtual goods they paid for through no
fault of the player. Simply stated, Scopely took advantage of, and
defrauded, its players through numerous unconscionable commercial
practices and fraudulent acts to extract as much money as possible
from them, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Bob Kasolas, Esq.
          Mark E. Critchley, Esq.
          BRACH EICHLER LLC
          101 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: 973-228-5700

SENCCO, INC: Gomez Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
NORMA GOMEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, vs.
SENCCO, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES  1 through 10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. GCG-19-579627 (Cal. Super.,
Sept. 24, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay all final
wages due at termination or within 72 hours after separation to all
employees in California; and failed to provide employees with
accurately itemized wage statements in violation of the California
Labor Code. The Defendant further failed to pay premium wages to
the Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees who were denied
their meal and rest breaks.

Specifically, the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees were
instructed by the Defendants to work 15-30 minutes after they had
clocked out to finish their assignments. These excess hours were
not recorded on the Plaintiff's and Defendant's California
employees' wage statements. The employees should have been
compensated for that time, but they were not. As a result, the
Plaintiff were not paid for all hours worked.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff are:

          Roman Otkupman, Esq.
          Meghan Maertz, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM
          28632 Roadside Dr., Suite 203
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 293 5623
          Facsimile: (818) 850 1310
          E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com
                  Meghan@OLFLA.com


SOSORELLA: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOSORELLA; and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-at-00895 (E.D. Cal., Sept. 18, 2019) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
website, https://www.sosorella.com/ is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendants
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Sosorella is a California corporation, with its headquarters in
California. The Company is an online women's fashion and streetwear
apparel store in Los Angeles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPORTMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Reid Brings ADA Case v. Outdoor Products Shop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sportsman's
Warehouse, Inc. The case is styled as Valentin Reid, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sportsman's
Warehouse, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09441 (S.D. N.Y., Oct.
11, 2019).

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

Sportsman's Warehouse, Inc. owns and operates outdoor products
stores. The Company offers hunting, fishing, archery, camping,
optics and electronics, knives, tools, and boating products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq.
     Stein Saks PLLC
     285 Passaic St., Suite 5
     Hakensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500
     Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com


STOCKX, INC: Misappropriated Minor's Personal Data, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
M.S., a minor, by and through his natural parent, SHULI SHAKARCHI,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. STOCKX, INC., and STOCKX, LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-12761-BAF-MJH (E.D. Mich., Sept. 20, 2019), alleges
that Defendants failed to use reasonable care to secure and
safeguard consumers' personal information, and to timely and
accurately disclose to its customers that its information systems
were breached.

The compromised data include names, email and physical addresses,
scrambled passwords (believed to be hashed with the MD5 algorithm
and salted), and other profile information -- such as shoe size and
trading currency.

Most at risk are Plaintiff and persons like him: minors who
entrusted their Personal Data to StockX under the mistaken
assumption that StockX would protect their Personal Data as
promised, and who are now at risk of identity theft because their
Personal Data was stolen during the StockX data breach.

On August 1, 2019, StockX suddenly and without warning emailed its
customers and claimed that following "recently completed system
updates on the StockX platform," it would require users to reset
their account passwords in order to access their accounts. Class
members were befuddled -- many suspected the email they received
was fraudulent -- and sought additional information from StockX
both by email and via social media platforms.

More critically, StockX failed to promptly notify its customers
that a breach had occurred, and thereby provide them an opportunity
to safeguard not only their StockX accounts, but also any other
online accounts that utilized identical email and password
combinations.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action for monetary,
injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of himself and the
proposed Class, all of whom have had their Personal Data
misappropriated, and now are subject to a heightened risk of data
loss, credit harm and identity theft as a direct and proximate
result of StockX's intentional, reckless and/or negligent
misconduct.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Patrick Cafferty, Esq.
          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          220 Collingwood Drive, Suite 130
          Ann Arbor, MH 48103
          Telephone: (734) 769-2144
          Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
          E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com
                  dherrera@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Esq.
          COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN
          HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
          Park 80 West-Plaza One
          250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Telephone: (201) 845-9600
          Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
          E-mail: JWH@NJLAWFIRM.COM


SUBURBAN SPINE: Remand of Durnell Medical Malpractice Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Berle M. Schiller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania denied the Plaintiffs' motion for remand
the case captioned SHEILA DURNELL, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GERARD FOTI, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-2972 (E.D. Pa.), to the Court
of Common Pleas for Delaware County, Pennsylvania.

On April 26, 2019, Durnell and Charles D. Opdenaker -- both
residents of Pennsylvania -- commenced the class-action lawsuit
against Gerald Foti, D.O., Suburban Spine, Main Line, and
Crozer-Keystone in the Court of Common Pleas for Delaware County,
Pennsylvania.  According to the Complaint, Dr. Foti practices
medicine in Pennsylvania, and Suburban Spine, Main Line, and
Crozer-Keystone are each Pennsylvania corporations.  The Complaint
further alleges that Dr. Foti practiced medicine at three locations
in Pennsylvania: Suburban Spine, Bryn Mawr Hospital (allegedly
owned, operated, or managed by Main Line), and Crozer Chester
Medical Center (allegedly owned, operated, or managed by
Crozer-Keystone).

The Plaintiffs bring 10 causes of action under Pennsylvania law,
seeking to hold all the Defendants liable for Dr. Foti's alleged
malpractice.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all
individuals who were subjected to medically unnecessary or
unindicated procedures, surgery and/or injections performed by Dr.
Gerard Foti between 2011 to the present, at Suburban Spine and
Orthopedic Center, Main Line Hospitals, Inc., Crozer-Keystone
Health System and/or John Doe health System, and who, because of
negligence, suffered injury; and loss of consortium claims filed on
behalf of their spouses.

On July 9, 2019, Dr. Foti and Suburban Spine removed the case to
federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
("CAFA").  According to the Defendants, the case meets the
requirements for federal jurisdiction under CAFA because the
putative class is minimally diverse from the Defendants, consists
of over 100 members, and, if successful, could receive an award in
excess of $5 million.

The Plaintiffs moved to remand.  They argue that federal
jurisdiction is improper for two reasons: (1) the Defendants'
notice of removal was untimely, and (2) the case falls into the
home state and local controversies exception to CAFA's grant of
jurisdiction.

Initially, Judge Schiller finds that the Defendants timely removed
the case to federal court.  The Defendants have met the burden of
showing they were not served with the Complaint on or before June
8, 2019.  The docket contains no indication that the Defendants
were served on or before June 8, 2019.  In fact the only reference
to service of Dr. Foti and Suburban Spine indicates that service
did not take place on June 4, 2019.

Next, the Judge finds that the case meets the prerequisites for
federal jurisdiction under CAFA.  First, the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million because the class includes "individuals who were
subject to unnecessary or unindicated procedures, surgery and/or
injections performed by Dr. Foti between 2011 to present" and the
size of the class is large enough that the amount in controversy
will exceed the $5 million threshold.  Second, the case is
minimally diverse because Dr. Foti has performed spinal fusion
surgeries on patients from the State of New Jersey and Delaware at
Crozer Chester Medical Center since 2001.  Third, the class
consists of at least 100 members because upon information and
belief, Dr. Foti has performed more than 100 procedures, surgeries
and/or injections since 2011 at Suburban Spine and Orthopedic
Center, Main Line Hospitals, Inc., and Crozer-Keystone Health
System.  None of the Defendants' claims are wrong "to a legal
certainty."

Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not shown that
any exception to CAFA applies.  Given the preference for federal
jurisdiction embodied in CAFA, a party invoking a CAFA exception
must do more than simply note that the non-moving party has failed
to respond to a discovery request.  The Plaintiffs have not met
their burden of showing that either the home state exception or the
local controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction apply to the case.


For the forgoing reasons, Judge Schiller denied the motion to
remand.  

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/AqkAzb from Leagle.com.

SHEILA DURNELL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED & CHARLES D. OPDENAKER, AN INCAPACITATED PERSON, BY AND
THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, CHARLES M. OPDENAKER, Plaintiffs,
represented by CATHERINE DAMAVANDI, NURICK LAW GROUP LLC & TODD B.
NURICK, NURICK LAW GROUP.

JANE DOE, TRUE IDENTITY UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF
AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED & JOHN DOE, TRUE IDENTITY UNKNOWN
AT THIS TIME, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs, represented by CATHERINE DAMAVANDI, NURICK
LAW GROUP LLC.

GERARD FOTI, D.O. & SUBURBAN SPINE AND ORTHOPEDIC CENTER, LLC,
Defendants, represented by CHILTON G. GOEBEL, III --
goebelc@ggmfirm.com -- GERMAN GALLAGHER & MURTAGH, JOHN P. SHUSTED
-- shustedj@ggmfirm.com -- GERMAN GALLAGHER & MURTAGH & LAUREN
ALEXA GREEN -- greenl@ggmfirm.com -- GERMAN GALLAGHER & MURTAGH.

MAIN LINE HOSPITALS, INC., doing business as BRYN MAWR HOSPITAL,
Defendant, represented by ANDREA MERYL KIRSHENBAUM --
akirshenbaum@postschell.com -- POST & SCHELL PC, KATHLEEN CHANCLER
-- kchancler@postschell.com -- POST & SCHELL, P.C. & JOSEPH V.
CONROY, IV -- jconroy@postschell.com -- POST & SCHELL, P.C.

CROZER-KEYSTONE HEALTH SYSTEM, doing business as CROZER-CHESTER
MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, represented by JOSEPH L. HOYNOSKI, III
-- jlhoynoski@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN &
GOGGIN.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

TBD PIZZA: Winsor Seeks Minimum & OT Wage for Delivery Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Winsor, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. TBD Pizza, Inc., Eric DeLorenzo, Robert P.
Rivard, John Doe Corporation 1-10, John Doe 1-10, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00992 (D.N.H., Sept. 23, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Hampshire
law by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their
delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers
the legally mandated minimum wage wages for all hours worked.

All delivery drivers at the TBD Pizza stores, including Plaintiff,
have been subject to the same or similar employment policies and
practices, including policies and practices with respect to wages
and reimbursement for delivery-related expenses, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants operate or have operated at least six Domino's Pizza
franchises in Massachusetts and New Hampshire since 2009.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Biron L. Bedard, Esq.
          Ransmeier & Spellman P.C.
          1 Capitol Street, P.O. Box 600
          Concord, NH 03302-0600
          Telephone: (603) 228-0477
          E-mail: bbedard@ranspell.com

               - and -

          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Phillip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          325 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
                  pkrzeski@billerkimble.com

               - and -

          Frank V. Raimond, Esq.
          RAIMOND & STAINES, LLC
          305 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 884-9636
          E-mail: frank@raimondstaines.com

TODD & KATIE: Fails to Properly Pay Exotic Dancers, Loewe Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MAYA LOEWE, an individual, on behalf of herself and all those
similarly situated v. LONG KIM HUOT, an individual, RONALD LEE
MCKINNEY, JR., an individual; TAWNY HOUT, and individual, TODD &
KATIE, INC. dba PARADISE SHOWGIRLS, a California business entity;
DISCOVER ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; SOUTHBAY ENTERTAINMENT, LLC dba SATIN
GENTLEMAN'S CLUB; FIGUEROA GROUP, INC. dba RIO's GENTLEMAN'S CLUB;
DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-08346
(C.D. Cal., Sept. 26, 2019), alleges that the Defendants fail to
pay their exotic dancers the applicable minimum wage and overtime
rates under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Loewe also alleges that the Defendants violated the Tip Income
Protection Act by unlawfully seizing a portion of her and other
dancers' tips.

The Defendants operate adult entertainment clubs in Los Angeles
County, California under the name of "Satin Gentlemen's Club,"
"Paradise Showgirls" and "Rio's Gentleman's Club."  The Individual
Defendants are the owners, operators, and/or managers of the
Defendant Corporations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
          Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Telephone: (310) 507-7924
          Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
          E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
                  jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
                  jacob@kristensenlaw.com


UNITED BUILDERS: Ct Narrows Claims in Hernandez Discrimination Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned CARMEN HERNANDEZ, on her
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. UNITED BUILDERS SERVICE, INC., and EDGAR SAMUEL
MONTOYA MARTINEZ d/b/a MASTERS DRYWALL INSTALLERS, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 18-cv-02019-RM-SKC. (D. Colo.).

This matter came before the Court on the "Recommendation re:
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss" to grant in part and deny in part
Defendant Edgar Samuel Montoya Martinez's d/b/a Masters Drywall
Installers ("MDI") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff's objection followed, to which MDI filed a response.

Plaintiff alleges that she was employed on a project at the
Colorado Mills Mall for approximately two months  was subjected to
harassment and retaliated for complaining of harassment and because
Defendants failed to report employees' chargeable wages and
employment to the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment
(CDLE) and failed to pay required unemployment insurance premiums,
Plaintiff was not credited for base period wages necessary for
unemployment insurance benefits and therefore did not satisfy
eligibility requirements for unemployment insurance benefits.

Based on such alleged conduct, Plaintiff raises seven claims for
relief: unlawful discrimination/hostile work environment under
Title VII (first claim), retaliation under Title VII (second
claim); unlawful discrimination/hostile work environment under the
Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (third claim); retaliation under
the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (fourth claim), Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) (fifth claim),
Colorado Organized Crime Control Act (COCCA) (sixth claim); and
violation of the Colorado Wage Claim Act (CWCA) (seventh claim)
based on unpaid unemployment insurance premiums.

Rule 12(b)(1) motions.  A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1)
tests whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction to properly
hear the case before it. The party invoking the court's
jurisdiction bears the burden to establish that federal
jurisdiction exists, and since the courts of the United States are
courts of limited jurisdiction, there is a presumption against its
existence.

Recommendations to which no objection has been raised

First through Fourth Claims for Relief

The Motion based on exhaustion was brought under Rule 12(b)(1) and
the recommendation to deny the Motion was based on Rule 12(b)(1).
As the Magistrate Judge correctly found, the failure to exhaust
administrative remedies under Title VII and CADA is not
jurisdictional but is an affirmative defense.  As such, it is not
subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1). For this reason alone,
the Court may and does accept the recommendation to deny the Motion
as to the first, second, third, and fourth claims for relief.

But, the recommendation did more than that it construed the Motion
as if MDI's argument was raised as an affirmative defense and
recommended denial on that basis under Rule 12(b)(1). Such an
argument, however, should be analyzed under Rule 12(b)(6), which
the recommendation's analysis apparently did although it stated
otherwise. As no party objects to the Magistrate Judge's analysis,
the Court also agrees that, albeit construed as a Rule 12(b)(6)
argument, the Motion is also subject to denial as to the first
through fourth claims for relief.

Fifth through Seventh Claim and the Colorado Employment Security
Act (CESA)

The Magistrate Judge recommended denial of any argument by MDI that
Plaintiff lacks prudential standing on her RICO, COCCA, and CWCA
claims, i.e., that Plaintiff need not have a right to sue under
CESA in order to bring her RICO, COCCA, and CWCA claims. No party
objects and, finding, no clear error, the Court accepts the
recommendation to deny the Motion on this issue based on prudential
standing.

However, to the extent that such denial is based on Rule 12(b)(1),
the Court declines to accept such recommendation as any prudential
standing argument by MDI, e.g., that Plaintiff is attempting to
enforce the rights of the CDLE, is not jurisdictional.

Thus, the denial should be based on Rule 12(b)(6).

Class Claims

Recommendations to which objections has been raised

Jurisdiction and Standing

Because there is a significant difference among the types of
standing raised in the papers, not all of which are jurisdictional,
the Court begins by addressing standing.

To have Article III, constitutional standing, the plaintiff must
show that the conduct of which he complains has caused him to
suffer an injury in fact that a favorable judgment will redress. In
other words, a plaintiff must plausibly allege 1) injury in fact 2)
fairly traceable to defendant's conduct 3) that is redressable by a
favorable judicial decision.  

RICO and COCCA Standing

The Recommendation framed the issue as to whether Plaintiff has a
property interest in the unemployment benefits she never applied
for, to which no party objects. The Recommendation found that to
have a property interest in the benefits, Plaintiff (1) must be the
recipient of benefits or (2) if she did not receive benefits, must
show she applied for benefits and point to some policy, law, or
other mutually explicit understanding that both confers the
benefits and limits the discretion of the [other party] to rescind
the benefit. The Recommendation found Plaintiff did not plausibly
allege that she was the recipient of benefits, that she applied for
benefits, or that any entitlement to benefits was not
discretionary.

In her objection, Plaintiff contends MDI caused her injury by
precluding her ability to access unemployment benefits in which she
has a property interest. Plaintiff does not challenge the
requirements articulated in the Recommendation. Instead, Plaintiff
contends any application for benefits would be futile because, due
to MDI's alleged conduct of failing to report information about her
base wages and to pay unemployment insurance premiums, she would
have been facially ineligible for such benefits. Further, Plaintiff
argues, the CESA confers the benefit and confers no discretion to
CDLE to deny such benefits because ifan individual is eligible,
they are entitled to benefits.

The Court starts with and rejects the argument of futility. This
argument fails as Plaintiff first raised it in her objection.  

Plaintiff's second argument fares no better. First, the Court is
not persuaded by Cottrell Clothing Co. v. Teets, 342 P.2d 1016
(1959). As Plaintiff concedes, the Colorado Supreme Court there
assumed without deciding that the employer has a property interest
in the unemployment insurance fund.

Next, to have a property interest in a benefit, a person must . . .
have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it. Here, as Plaintiff
acknowledges if she qualifies, she may obtain benefits. But whether
she qualifies requires the CDLE to make certain findings and
resolve any disputes or challenges by her employer.  

In other words, a claimant does not, simply by following certain
procedures, e.g., submitting a claim, bind the CDLE to provide him
or her unemployment benefits. In summary, the Court agrees with the
Recommendation that Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged the
existence of a property interest under RICO and COCCA.

Statutory Standing under CWCA

The Magistrate Judge recommended granting MDI's Motion based on
Plaintiff's lack of statutory standing because she is not within
the class of persons the General Assembly authorized to sue under
the CWCA. The Recommendation was made under Rule 12(b)(1) but,
again, the Court's review shows the analysis did not rely on
Article III standing but, rather, as stated, statutory standing
which is not jurisdictional. Thus, the Court considers the
objection and the Recommendation's analysis under Rule 12(b)(6).

The Court rejects any dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1).

The Recommendation found Plaintiff's allegations concerning an
employer's failure to pay unemployment insurance premiums do not
constitute wages or compensation due and owing to Plaintiff and the
putative class under the CWCA. Plaintiff objects, arguing the
unpaid premiums which MDI should have paid to CDLE on her behalf
which she seeks here are within the scope of the CWCA. The Court is
not persuaded by Plaintiff's arguments or the cases she relies
upon.

Specifically, for example, Plaintiff asserts the unpaid
unemployment insurance premiums should somehow be paid to her.
However, as the Recommendation recognized, such premiums are to be
paid to a third-party, i.e., the CDLE. Further, Plaintiff's
argument that such premiums constitutes wages or compensation under
the CWCA hinges on the premiums being owed and paid to her, but the
Court finds are not.  Accordingly, the Court agrees with the
Recommendation's analysis and overrules Plaintiff's objection. The
Court accepts the Recommendation to dismiss, but orders dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6).

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's objections are overruled, and
the Court accepts the recommendation to dismiss claims five through
seven. The Court's inquiry, however, does not end here as there is
the issue of whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice.
The parties addressed the prudential dismissals as if they were
jurisdictional; therefore, their arguments were based on a
dismissal without prejudice. The Court's research fails to disclose
whether the Tenth Circuit has decided this issue. On this record,
the Court finds the dismissal should be without prejudice. It is
therefore ORDERED:

-- That Plaintiff's Objections to Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge to Grant in Part Defendant Edgar Samuel Montoya Martinez's
Motion to Dismiss is overruled;

-- That the Recommendation re: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is
accepted in part and rejected in part;

-- That Defendant Edgar Samuel Montoya Martinez's d/b/a Masters
Drywall Installers (MDI) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint is granted in part and denied in part; and

-- That the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Claims are dismissed without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyhvrdyb  from Leagle.com.

Carmen Hernandez, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew H. Turner,
Kelman Buescher Law Firm, Ashley Kathryn Boothby, Kelman Buescher
Firm & M. Jeanette Fedele, Kelman Buescher Firm, 600 Grant Street
Suite 450 Denver, CO 80203

United Builders Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kimberly
Lynn Koehler, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP & Ryan
A. Williams, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 1225
17th Street27th FloorDenver, CO 80202

Edgar Samuel Montoya Martinez, doing business as Masters Drywall
Installers, Defendant, represented by Alan Leonard McLaughlin -
amclaughlin@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, PC & Stephen E.
Baumann II - sbaumann@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, PC.

UNITED SIX: Matamoros Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------
HELIBERTO MATAMOROS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. UNITED SIX, CORP. d/b/a HUB
SPRING & FLEET SERVICE and ANTHONY PANTALEO, as individuals, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05376-MKB-LB (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 20,
2019), seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an
amount exceeding $100,000.00. The Plaintiff also seeks interest,
attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies
the Court deems appropriate.

The  Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from in or around
November 1993 until in or around October 2018.

The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours
worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions
contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff are:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: 718 263-9591

UNITED STATES: Court Tosses Case Challenging Zero-Tolerance Policy
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Columbia issued an
Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned
CLAUDIA ARELY MOLINA DE RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-1516 (PLF), (D.D.C.).

Plaintiff Claudia Arely Molina de Ramirez filed a civil complaint
challenging the Trump Administration's Zero-Tolerance Policy of
separating certain immigrant parents from their children at the
United States-Mexico border. Ms. Ramirez is a citizen of El
Salvador and the mother of three minor children who would like to
seek asylum in the United States; she and her children have not
been separated under the challenged Zero-Tolerance Policy.

The defendants advance two grounds for dismissing this suit.

First, they move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that this Court lacks the subject
matter jurisdiction to resolve this suit because Ms. Ramirez has
not established an actual or imminent injury-in-fact that is
sufficient to establish her constitutional standing.

Second, the government moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that Ms. Ramirez has
failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted with
respect to either her Fifth Amendment claim or her Administrative
Procedure Act claim.

LEGAL STANDARD

Motions to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure

The plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that the Court has
jurisdiction. In determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court must construe
the complaint in plaintiffs' favor and treat all well-pleaded
factual allegations as true. Although the Court must grant
plaintiffs the benefit of all reasonable inferences, it need not
accept factual inferences drawn by plaintiffs if those inferences
are not supported by facts alleged in the complaint and the Court
need not accept plaintiffs' legal conclusions.  

Constitutional Standing

Plaintiffs must establish (1) a concrete injury-in-fact, the
invasion of a legally protected interest that is particular to
plaintiffs and that is actual or imminent, as opposed to
conjectural or hypothetical (2) that the injury is fairly traceable
to the defendant's conduct that is, a causal connection exists
between the injury and the defendants and (3) that it is likely,
and not merely speculative, that a favorable decision on the merits
will redress plaintiff's injury.  

On the facts before the Court, the possibility that Ms. Ramirez's
children will be separated from her if she one day brings them to
the United States is not an injury sufficient to establish her
standing to challenge the Zero-Tolerance Policy. The Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction to resolve Ms. Ramirez's claims and
will therefore grant the motion to dismiss.

The central facts of this case are undisputed. Ms. Ramirez's
children have not entered the United States.  Their previous
attempt to travel to the United States terminated far from the
border. And Ms. Ramirez and her children have never been separated
by the United States government, either under the Zero-Tolerance
Policy challenged by this suit or otherwise.  

Instead, Ms. Ramirez's challenge to the Zero-Tolerance Policy
depends on an injury that she can only anticipate: she is afraid to
bring her children to the U.S. to seek asylum, fearing that they
would be taken from her, too.

Ms. Ramirez relies on the doctrine of pre-enforcement standing to
argue that this anticipated separation is an imminent injury that
is sufficient to establish standing to challenge the Zero-Tolerance
Policy. Pre-enforcement standing is one means of demonstrating that
a future injury is certainly impending, as Article III standing
requires.   

Under this doctrine, a plaintiff who challenges a statute must
demonstrate a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a
result of the statute's operation or enforcement. Pre-enforcement
standing requires a plaintiff to establish (1) an intention to
engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a
constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute and (2) that
there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder.  

Ms. Ramirez meets neither of the two requirements for
pre-enforcement standing in this circuit, rules the Court.

First, the mere desire to do something does not, without more,
establish the intention to engage in a course of conduct that would
provoke enforcement of the challenged Zero-Tolerance Policy.   

Similarly, Ms. Ramirez's complaint alleges little more than a some
day intention, to travel to El Salvador and bring her children to
the United States.

Ms. Ramirez's counsel attempts to distinguish Lujan and satisfy
pre-enforcement standing, claiming that Ms. Ramirez has asserted an
intention to seek asylum with her children now. This account is
unpersuasive, if not misleading: whatever Ms. Ramirez's actual
plans may be, the complaint itself contains no such directly
asserted intention. Rather, it presents Ms. Ramirez's vague
aspirations to seek asylum for her children without any details of
when and how she plans to do so.   

At best, Ms. Ramirez must resort to arguing that it is a reasonable
inference, based on her extreme fear, that she intends to seek
asylum immediately. On the bare facts of the complaint, and in the
context of the especially rigorous standing inquiry required in
claims of unconstitutional government action, this immediacy is far
from a reasonable inference.

Second, even if the Court were to assume that Ms. Ramirez does have
concrete plans to immediately attempt to bring her children to the
United States, she has failed to establish the credible and
imminent threat of prosecution and separation that pre-enforcement
standing requires in this circuit. As an initial matter, Ms.
Ramirez does not provide facts establishing that she has been or
will be singled out or uniquely targeted by the government for
prosecution. Among other gaps, the complaint lacks information on
whether Ms. Ramirez intends to enter the United States at a port of
entry or elsewhere, which has substantial implications for whether
Ms. Ramirez will be prosecuted.  

The injury Ms. Ramirez forecasts would require at least six things
to happen in sequence: (1) Ms. Ramirez travels from the United
States to El Salvador (2) Ms. Ramirez and her children successfully
make it from El Salvador to the border of the United States (3) Ms.
Ramirez and her children cross the border(4) the United States
government detects Ms. Ramirez (5) the government detains Ms.
Ramirez; and (6) the government decides to separate Ms. Ramirez
from her children without lawful justification. This is precisely
the kind of highly attenuated chain of possibilities that is
insufficient to establish standing.   

The possibility that the government would separate Ms. Ramirez from
her children is particularly speculative. Before Ms. Ramirez filed
her complaint, President Trump issued an Executive Order rescinding
and clarifying the Zero-Tolerance Policy. The Order states a new
policy of housing families together, subject to certain
limitations. Although the modified policy does not strictly
prohibit separations in all circumstances, it allows for discretion
and case-to-case variance, which vitiates the claim that separation
is certainly impending for any Central American who crosses the
border.

In short, the separation that Ms. Ramirez fears is not a credible
and imminent threat, as required for pre-enforcement standing; nor
is it so certainly impending that it otherwise amounts to an
injury-in-fact, rules the Court.

Upon careful consideration of the briefs, the relevant legal
authorities, and the entire record in this case, the Court will
grant defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court concludes that Ms.
Ramirez does not have constitutional standing to challenge a policy
under which she has suffered no injury. Accordingly, the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction to resolve her claims.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ypskpw from Leagle.com

CLAUDIA ARELY MOLINA DE RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, represented by Dallas
S. LePierre - dlepierre@ndh-law.com - NEXUS DERECHOS HUMANOS
ATTORNEYS, INC., pro hac vice, John M. Shoreman , MCFADDEN &
SHOREMAN, LLC, 1050 Connecticut Ave NW Ste 1000, Washington, DC,
20036-5334, Julie J. Oinonen , WILLIAMS OINONEN, LLC, 44 Broad
Street NW, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30303, pro hac vice & Mario B.
Williams - mwilliams@nexuscaridades.com - NEXUS DERECHOS HUMANOS
ATTORNEYS, INC., pro hac vice.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, in his official capacity as Attorney
General of the United States, KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, in her official
capacity as Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security
("DHS"), KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, in his official capacity as Acting
Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"), ALEX M.
AZAR, II, in his official capacity as Secretary of U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services ("HHS") & SCOTT LLOYD, In his official
capacity as Director of Office of Refugee Resettlement ("ORR"),
Defendants, represented by Nicole Newcomb Murley, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE.


US CUSTOMS: Certification of Non-Mexican Noncitizens Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Al Otro Lado, Inc., et al.,
the Plaintiffs, vs. Kevin K. McAleenan, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court on Oct. 28, 2019, for an order certifying a provisional class
of:

   "all non-Mexican noncitizens who were denied access to the U.S.
   asylum process before July 16, 2019 as a result of the
   Government's metering policy and continue to seek access to the

   U.S. asylum process."

Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit, said that since at least
2016, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials "used lies,
threats, coercion and verbal and physical abuse to deny migrants
access to the asylum process at ports of entry along the southern
border."

The SPLC joined the class action lawsuit in 2018 as co-counsel to
"stop this unlawful conduct, which violates the rights of asylum
seekers and imperils their lives and safety."

McAleenan acted as United States Secretary of Homeland Security and
as the U.S. Customs and Border Protection commissioner.  On October
4, 2019, he announced his resignation.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Matthew H. Marmolejo, Esq.
          Ori Lev, Esq.
          Stephen M. Medlock, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 S. Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          E-mail: mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com
                  olev@mayerbrown.com
                  smedlock@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Baher Azmy, Esq.
          Ghita Schwarz, Esq.
          Angelo Guisado, Esq.
          CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
          666 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: +1.212 614 6464
          Facsimile: +1.212 614 6499
          E-mail: bazmy@ccrjustice.org
                  gschwarz@ccrjustice.org
                  aguisado@ccrjustice.org

               - and -

          Mary Bauer, Esq.
          Sarah Rich, Esq.
          Rebecca Cassler, Esq
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
                    1000 Preston Ave.
          Charlottesville, VA
          E-mail: sarah.rich@splcenter.org
                  rebecca.cassler@splcenter.org
                  mary.bauer@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Karolina Walters, Esq.
          AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
          150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 340
          Decatur, GA 30030
          1331 G St. NW, Suite 200
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: +1.202.507.7523
          Facsimile: +1.202.742.5619
          E-mail: kwalters@immcouncil.org

               - and -

          Melissa Crow, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          1101 17th Street, N.W., Suite 705
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: +1.202.355.4471
          Facsimile: +1.404.221.5857
          E-mail: melissa.crow@splcenter.org


VIRGINIA: Shrader's Prelim. Injunction Bid in Mickens Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CRAIG MICKENS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STEVEN CLEAR, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 7:19-cv-00052 (W.D. Va.), Judge
Elizabeth K. Dillon of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, Roanoke Division, (a) denied as moot (i)
Charles Mickens' motion to amend or correct the complaint, and (ii)
Jackson's motion for class certification; and (b) denied Plaintiff
Robert Shrader's motion for a preliminary injunction.

The Plaintiffs, 13 Virginia inmates proceeding pro se, filed a
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 challenging
actions taken by the Defendants at the Southwest Virginia Regional
Jail in Haysi, where the Plaintiffs were confined at the time of
the challenged actions.  

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that on Jan. 17, 2019,
Defendant C/O Corporal Patterson announced that everyone in Pod 2B,
which is an "open dorm," was going to be moved because he had been
having problems with the dorm and he wanted to move them.  They
allege that the pod they were in was a "low level A custody" dorm
and that the transfer resulted in them being in a higher custody
dorm.  This housing change meant that, instead of being out all
day, they were on lockdown 20 hours per day and allowed out only
four hours each day.  The move also took away the Plaintiffs' good
conduct time and/or the ability to earn it.

In a section titled "legal claims," the complaint references
violations of due process and "collective punishment" violating the
Eighth Amendment.  It also alleges racial discrimination under the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The Plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.
All of the named Plaintiffs signed the complaint.

The Court conditionally filed the action and assessed a filing fee
against each Plaintiff, directing each Plaintiff either to pay the
filing fee or to comply with certain requirements to request to
proceed in forma pauperis.  Since that time, nine of the Plaintiffs
have failed to file the requested forms, and the Court dismissed
their claims without prejudice, terminating them from the case.

Of the remaining four Plaintiffs, three of them (Terry Kiser, Bobby
Vandyke, and Charles Mickens) failed to file a consent-to-fee form
as ordered.  Their claims will therefore be dismissed without
prejudice, and they will be stricken from the active docket of the
court.  Each of those Plaintiffs may refile his claims in a
separate action once he is prepared to comply with the noted
conditions.  In light of those dismissals, the only remaining
Plaintiff is Shrader.

Turning to the pending motions in the case, two of them were filed
by now-dismissed Plaintiffs.  The first is a motion to amend or
correct the complaint, filed and signed only by Mickens, in which
he seeks to add a retaliation claim.  The second is a motion for
the case to be deemed a class action, filed and signed only by
Jackson.  Because neither Mickens nor Jackson complied with the
filing requirements to be a part of the action and have now been
dismissed from the case, Judge Dillon denied as moot those motions.


Moreover, no pro se prisoner plaintiff can prosecute a case on
behalf of another plaintiff, and so all the plaintiffs must sign
any filing submitted to the court.  Thus, the Judge cannot consider
Jackson's motion to amend as having been filed on behalf of any
other Plaintiff.  Nor can the case go forward as a class action.
Pro se Plaintiffs may not represent one another, and pro se class
actions are not permissible.

The only other pending motion was filed by Shrader, who is the sole
remaining Plaintiff.  In that motion, he seeks a preliminary
injunction.  

The Judge finds that Shrader has not demonstrated that he is likely
to suffer "actual and imminent" irreparable harm in the absence of
the preliminary injunctive relief he seeks.  Instead, his motion
references a vague concern that he might be injured and an
assertion that he does not "feel safe."  Such speculative
allegations of possible harm do not come close to a "clear showing"
that he will suffer irreparable harm and so do not warrant
preliminary injunctive relief.  Accordingly, the Judge denied
Shrader's motion for a preliminary injunction.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 20, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/1cR0xM from Leagle.com.

Robert Shrader, Plaintiff, pro se.


VOLKSWAGEN: Diesel Car-Owners May Face Uphill Battle in Germany
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karin Matussek, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that the
470,000 diesel-car owners who signed up for a case against
Volkswagen Group may face an uphill struggle after a German court
questioned whether they really lost anything because of the
emissions-cheating software in their cars.

Drivers have been able to use their cars, leaving "the central
issue" of what they actually lost, Presiding Judge Michael Neef
said on Sept. 30, the first day of hearings.

The court will also review whether any loss in value was solely
linked to vehicle bans that came only two years after the diesel
scandal broke. Even if the court finds damages, claims may be
lowered because of drivers' continued use of their cars over time,
he said.

"It doesn't make sense to us that drivers should be granted the
right to use cars for free," said Neef, who spoke for all three
judges hearing the case. "Otherwise, we would have to grant
punitive damages that do not exist under German law."

Almost four years after the company's use of illegal software that
cheated on emissions tests was disclosed in the U.S., many Audi,
VW, Seat and Skoda owners in Germany are still waiting for a
payout.

Officials passed a law last year that allows consumer groups to
bring sample suits on behalf of buyers, giving them a simpler way
to sue.

The diesel-emissions scandal haunted VW since September 2015, when
it admitted using the software in 11 million diesel vehicles.

When the diesel scandal broke 2.4 million cars with defeat devices
were on German roads. Since then, 99 percent have received a
software update.

The toll has so far reached 30 billion euros ($33 billion) in fines
and other expenses for VW. The consumer suit is likely to drag on
during a period when the company is facing a shift to electric cars
and slower sales in some key markets.

[The] comments are preliminary and may still change, Neef said. The
court will review the issues and discuss them further at a Nov. 18
hearing in Brunswick, a venue close to VW's Wolfsburg
headquarters.

The judges are pondering whether to join other German tribunals
that have granted the lawsuits because owners faced the risk that
their cars could be banned from roads by transport authorities and
suffered losses in resale values. Any ruling in the mass case is
likely to influence similar suits and claims worldwide.

Volkswagen Group rejected a call from the presiding judge to settle
the customer class action lawsuit, saying there was no case to
answer. "The vehicles are driven by hundreds of thousands of
customers every day, which is why we believe there is no damage and
therefore no cause for complaint," the automaker said.

However, state-financed consumer protection organization vzbv has
expressed confidence in being able to win or settle the case,
pointing to the fact that a majority of local and higher regional
courts have so far ruled in favor of motorists.

Vzbv has said it aimed to show that owners of VW, Audi, Skoda and
Seat cars with so-called type EA 189 diesel engines have been
intentionally harmed by VW's use of software that was used to cheat
emissions tests.

VW has said that there was no legal basis for consumers in Germany
to seek compensation due to differences in law.

Nearly all U.S. owners of affected cars agreed to take part in a
$25 billion settlement in 2016 in the United States that addressed
claims from them, environmental regulators, U.S. states and dealers
and included buyback offers and additional compensation for about
500,000 owners.

VW had rejected criticism that the compensation for U.S. car owners
was not extended to other jurisdictions.

Consumers have also brought lawsuits in countries including
Switzerland, Australia and Belgium.

Reuters contributed to this report.[GN]


VOLKSWAGEN: Rejects German Judge's Call for Emissions Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Schwartz, writing for Reuters, reports that Volkswagen on Sept.
30 rejected a German judge's call to settle a customer class action
lawsuit over its rigging of diesel emissions tests, saying there
was no case to answer.

VW admitted using illegal software to cheat U.S. diesel engine
tests in 2015, a scandal which has cost it more than $30 billion in
vehicle refits, fines and provisions.

"The vehicles are driven by hundreds of thousands of customers
every day, which is why we believe there is no damage and therefore
no cause for complaint," the German carmaker said.

It was responding to a call by the judge of the Higher Regional
Court of Brunswick, which is near the carmaker's headquarters, on
the first day of hearings in the case.

About 470,000 car owners have registered to participate in the
lawsuit and the Brunswick court booked the local town hall to allow
for large numbers of observers.

When the diesel scandal broke, 2.4 million cars with defeat devices
were on German roads. In the meanwhile, 99 percent have received a
software update.

The scandal still casts a shadow over VW, with prosecutors accusing
its Chief Executive Herbert Diess of holding back market-moving
information on the rigged tests.

The VW board has backed Diess, who is leading the carmaker's
efforts to reinvent itself as a champion of cleaner driving.

The German class action was made possible after the cabinet
approved a draft law last year allowing consumer protection
organizations to litigate on behalf of consumers, avoiding the high
legal costs that might put people off legal action.

Negotiations were unlikely to be easy but the court would want to
support and not impede them, judge Michael Neef said.

State-financed consumer protection organization vzbv has expressed
confidence in being able to win or settle the case, pointing to the
fact that a majority of local and higher regional courts have so
far ruled in favor of motorists.

Vzbv has said it aimed to show that owners of VW, Audi, Skoda and
Seat cars with so-called type EA 189 diesel engines have been
intentionally harmed by VW's use of software that was used to cheat
emissions tests.

VW has said that there was no legal basis for consumers in Germany
to seek compensation due to differences in law.

Nearly all U.S. owners of affected cars agreed to take part in a
$25 billion settlement in 2016 in the United States that addressed
claims from them, environmental regulators, U.S. states and dealers
and included buyback offers and additional compensation for about
500,000 owners.

VW had rejected criticism that the compensation for U.S. car owners
was not extended to other jurisdictions. Consumers have also
brought lawsuits in countries including Switzerland, Australia and
Belgium. [GN]


WALMART INC: Haskins Labor Suit Remanded to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSTIN HASKINS, Plaintiff, v. WALMART INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 19cv0943-JAH (LL) (S.D. Cal.), Judge John A.
Houston of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State
Court.

The Plaintiff's class action complaint alleges (1) failure to pay
vested vacation at time of termination in violation of Labor Code
Section 227.3; (2) failure to pay unpaid wages at time of
separation in violation of Labor Code Sections 201 and 202; and (3)
violation of Business Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq.

The case was removed to the Court on May 20, 2019.  On June 17,
2019, the Plaintiff filed the Motion to Remand.  The Defendant
filed its response in opposition to the Motion on July 29, 2019.

The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant provides no evidence or
facts in support of removal to the Court. He contends that the
Defendants fail to meet its burden of showing that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million.  He asserts that the complaint does
not plead a specific amount or seek a specific amount of damages,
and the Defendant has not made an attempt to satisfy its burden of
proof in showing the amount in controversy.

In response, the Defendant asserts that, as of April 30, 2019,
there were 1,910 known putative class members from California.  It
also asserts that the state minimum wage on April 18, 2015 was $9
per hour, $10 per hour on Jan. 1, 2016, $10.50 on Jan. 1, 2017, $11
on Jan. 11, 2018, and $12 on Jan. 1, 2019.  The Defendant posits
that the average of these figures is $10.66 per hour.  It contends
that applying a $10.66 per hour minimum wage, assuming an
eight-hour work day, to the 1,910 person putative class, would
generate a total of $4,866,544.  It argues that attorneys' fees can
be included to determine whether the $5 million CAFA threshold is
met, and assuming each putative class member had a total of $59.40
in attorneys' fees, the $5 million requirement is easily satisfied.


In his reply, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendant improperly
relied on unreasonable assumptions to establish the amount in
controversy.  He asserts that the Defendant bears the burden of
proof, and it still has not produced sufficient evidence to meet
this burden.  He contends that it has not presented any sort of
calculation for attorneys' fees.

Judge Houston agrees with the Plaintiff, finding that the Defendant
has not met its burden of establishing that a $5 million amount in
controversy exists.  When trying to establish Labor Code section
203 penalties, the Defendant does not offer any specifics as to
which putative class members were employed during what period of
time.  It also does not specify which putative class members were
employed at what wage level or offer a reasonable method of
calculation in attempting to demonstrate the amount in controversy.
Instead, the Defendant uses an average state minimum wage of
$10.66, derived from wage figures from a four-year timespan, and
assumes that each putative class member worked eight-hour work
days.  The Court finds that the Defendant has not sufficiently
demonstrated that the putative class accumulated $4,886,544 in
Labor Code section 203 penalties.

For these reasons, there is a lack of competent proof supporting
the Defendant's jurisdictional allegations.  Judge Houston
concludes that the Defendant has not demonstrated with competent
proof federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Based on the foregoing reasons, Judge Houston granted the
Plaintiff's Motion to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 25, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/5BLDMh from Leagle.com.

Justin Haskins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron C. Gundzik --
agundzik@gghslaw.com -- Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton LLP & Rebecca G.
Gundzik -- rgundzik@gghslaw.com -- Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton &
Selden LLP.

Walmart Inc., a Delaware corporation & Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Jennifer A. Kearns
-- JKearns@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP.

WARNER CHILCOTT: Dec. 2 TPP Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
If You Purchased Loestrin 24 Fe, Minastrin 24 Fe and/or Their
Generic Equivalent(s) a Class Action Lawsuit May Affect Your
Rights

A class action lawsuit involving the oral contraceptives Loestrin
24 Fe and Minastrin 24 Fe is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Rhode Island. The lawsuit claims that
Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, Warner Chilcott Sales (US), LLC, Warner
Chilcott Company, LLC, Warner Chilcott plc, and Warner Chilcott
Limited; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Watson Laboratories, Inc;
and Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Defendants")
harmed competition and violated state antitrust, consumer
protection and unjust enrichment laws in the United States and its
territories by unlawfully preventing, delaying, or impairing the
availability of less-expensive generic versions of Loestrin 24 Fe
and Minastrin 24 Fe. The Defendants deny this. No one is claiming
that Loestrin 24 Fe or Minastrin 24 Fe is unsafe or ineffective.

On September 17, 2019, the Court determined that this case can
proceed as a class action with respect to Third-Party Payors
("TPPs").

The Court has not decided whether the Defendants did anything
wrong.  There is no monetary recovery available now, and no
guarantee there will be.  However, your legal rights are affected,
and you have a choice to make now.

WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE CLASS?

Generally, you are included in the TPP Class if you are a
third-party payor that purchased, paid and/or provided
reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of Loestrin 24
Fe, Minastrin 24 Fe and/or their generic equivalents, other than
for resale in the United States and its territories, from September
1, 2009 through September 17, 2019.

You are NOT a member of the Class if you: (i) are one of the
Defendants or their subsidiaries, or affiliates; (ii) are a federal
or state governmental entity, excluding cities, towns or
municipalities with self-funded prescription drug plans; (iii)
purchased Loestrin 24 Fe or its AB-rated generic equivalent, and/or
Minastrin 24 Fe or its AB-rated generic equivalent, for purposes of
resale or directly from Defendants or their affiliates; (iv) are a
fully insured health plan (i.e., Plans that purchased insurance
from another third-party payor covering 100% of the Plan's
reimbursement obligations to its members); or (v) are a Pharmacy
Benefits Manager.

YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS

DO NOTHING: By doing nothing, you keep the possibility of getting
money or benefits that may come from a trial or a settlement.  But
you give up any rights to sue the Defendants separately about the
same legal claims in this lawsuit.

ASK TO BE EXCLUDED: If you are a TPP Class member, you have the
right to exclude yourself (to opt out) from the TPP Class no later
than December 2, 2019. If you ask to be excluded and money or
benefits are later awarded in this class action lawsuit, you will
not share in those.  But you would keep any rights to sue the
Defendants separately about the claims in this lawsuit.  Details on
how to request exclusion are at
www.InReLoestrin24FeAntitrustLitigation.com.

Jury selection will commence December 16, 2019, and the trial for
this lawsuit is scheduled to commence on January 6, 2020.

These dates may be amended by Court Order.  Please check the
website noted below for updated information.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Visit www.InReLoestrin24FeAntitrustLitigation.com        
Call 1-877-324-038
[GN]


WELL PATH: Hawkins Suit Seeks to Stop Auto-dialed Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JANIE HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WELL PATH, LLC, Case No. 7:19-cv-08969 (S.D.N.Y., Sept.
26, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Ms. Hawkins brings this Complaint to: (1) stop the Defendant's
practice of placing calls and sending text messages using an
automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to the landline
telephones and cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without
their prior express written consent; (2) stop the Defendant's
practice of placing calls and sending text messages using an
artificial or prerecorded voice or message to the landline
telephones and cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without
their prior express written consent; (3) enjoin the Defendant from
continuing to place calls or 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.

Well Path, LLC is a corporation organized under the laws of
Tennessee, with a principal place of business in Nashville,
Tennessee.  Well Path conducts business in this District and
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave.
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (646) 837-7142
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
                  pfraietta@bursor.com


WELLS FARGO: Court Tosses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Lotsoff Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order denying Defendant Wells Fargo's Motion
to Compel Individual Arbitration in the case captioned HELEN
LOTSOFF and ASHLEIGH HARTMAN, on behalf of other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., FCTI, INC., and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02033-AJB-JLB,
(S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Helen Lotsoff and Ashleigh Hartman bring this action on
behalf of themselves and a class of all similarly situated Wells
Fargo customers against Defendants. Plaintiffs hold checking
accounts with Defendant Wells Fargo Bank and challenge Defendant
Wells Fargo's practice of charging overdraft fees (OD Fee) on
"Authorize Positive, Purportedly Settle Negative Transactions".
Specifically, Plaintiffs allege Defendant Wells Fargo routinely
assesses OD Fees on transactions that did not overdraw the account
and charges both a non-sufficient funds fee and an OD Fee on a
single transaction, though the Defendant's contractual agreement
with its customers states otherwise.

Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (FAC) in Superior
Court on July 13, 2018, alleging causes of action for (1) breach of
contract; (2) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (3)
violation of the unfair competition law; and (4) conversion. This
case was then removed on August 30, 2018. Defendant Wells Fargo
subsequently filed this motion to compel arbitration. Defendant
FCTI filed its motion to dismiss. Plaintiff also filed its motion
for leave to file its second amended complaint.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Motion to Compel Arbitration

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governs the enforcement of
arbitration agreements involving interstate commerce.  Pursuant to
Sectin 2 of the FAA, an arbitration agreement is valid,
irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at
law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. The FAA
permits a party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or
refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for
arbitration to petition any United States district court for an
order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner
provided for in the agreement.

Defendant Wells Fargo asserts Plaintiffs accepted the Consumer
Account Agreement by declining to opt-out of their Wells Fargo
service. Because they agreed to the Consumer Account Agreement,
Defendant Wells Fargo argues they also agreed to the Arbitration
Agreement that Defendant Wells Fargo now invokes. Defendant asserts
the Court should compel Plaintiffs to honor the mutual agreements
to arbitrate their individual claims.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue the Arbitration Agreement is
illegal because it improperly bars plaintiffs from seeking public
injunctive relief in any forum. Thus, there is no reason to compel
this case to arbitration.

Plaintiffs assert Defendant Wells Fargo is precluded from enforcing
the Arbitration Agreement because a California court has held the
same clause to be unenforceable. The Court will address the
requests for judicial notice and each argument in turn.

Requests for Judicial Notice

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 states that a court may judicially
notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it:
(1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial
jurisdiction or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.  

Here, Defendant Wells Fargo requests judicial notice of two
documents: (1) American Arbitration Association's (AAA) Consumer
Arbitration Rules and (2) Wells Fargo Consumer and Business Account
Fees.  

Judicial notice of the AAA's Consumer Arbitration Rules is proper
because the contents of the rules are not reasonably subject to
dispute and can be accurately and readily determined from sources
whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant Wells Fargo's request for
judicial notice of the AAA's Consumer Arbitration Rules.

Judicial notice of Wells Fargo Consumer and Business Account Fees
is proper because Plaintiffs refer to out-of-network inquiry fees
in their FAC. Accordingly, the court may consider documents and
filings described in the complaint under the incorporation by
reference doctrine. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant Wells
Fargo's request for judicial notice of Wells Fargo Consumer and
Business Account Fees.

Issue Preclusion by Wallace v. Wells Fargo & Co.

Collateral estoppel bars the relitigation of issues that have been
argued and decided in previous proceedings. This doctrine is
applied only after several requirements are fulfilled: (1) the
issue sought to be precluded is identical to the issue decided in a
former proceeding (2) the issue was actually litigated in the
former proceeding (3) the issue was necessarily decided in the
former proceeding (4) the decision in the former proceeding was
final and on the merits and (5) the party against whom preclusion
is sought is the same as, or in privity with, the party to the
former proceeding.

Plaintiffs contend Defendant Wells Fargo is collaterally estopped
from compelling arbitration because a California court has
previously held the Arbitration Agreement at issue is
unenforceable.

However, Defendant Wells Fargo's argument against collateral
estoppel is compelling. Defendant Wells Fargo points to Pearson v.
P.F. Chang's China Bistro, which noted that a decision on a motion
to compel arbitration is not a final judgment on the merits that
gives rise to collateral estoppel. This Court agrees. Accordingly,
collateral estoppel does not prevent Defendant Wells Fargo from
compelling arbitration.

Applicability of McGill

Relief that has the primary purpose or effect of redressing or
preventing injury to an individual plaintiff or to a group of
individuals similarly situated to the plaintiff does not constitute
public injunctive relief. McGill, 2 Cal. 5th at 955. Defendant
Wells Fargo argues Plaintiffs are not seeking public injunctive
relief, but rather that they seek private injunctive relief on
behalf of a narrow subset of Wells Fargo checking account holders.

However, the Court need not decide this issue for the purposes of
this motion because Defendant Wells Fargo's Arbitration Agreement
indeed bars public injunctive relief. The Arbitration Agreement
states "Wells Fargo and you each agrees to waive the right to a
jury trial or a trial in front of a judge in a public court. This
Arbitration Agreement has only one exception: Either Wells Fargo or
you may still take any dispute to small claims court.

Here, the Arbitration Agreement states that the consumer or Wells
Fargo is allowed to submit a dispute to binding arbitration at any
time, regardless of whether a lawsuit or other proceeding has
previously begun, but neither Wells Fargo nor you will be entitled
to join or consolidate disputes by or against others as a
representative or member of a class, to act in any arbitration in
the interests of the general public.

Thus, Defendant Wells Fargo has discretion to send any dispute to
arbitration and the consumer is prohibited from acting in any
arbitration in the interests of the general public. Accordingly,
this arbitration agreement precludes consumers ability to seek
public injunctive relief in any forum. Thus, this agreement is
unenforceable under McGill.

Defendant Wells Fargo argues that this Arbitration Agreement only
prevents Plaintiffs from seeking public injunctive relief in
arbitration. However, the Arbitration Agreement allows Defendant
Wells Fargo to send to any dispute to arbitration with only one
exception for small claims court. Thus, it effectively deprives
consumers of seeking public injunctive relief. Accordingly, this
arbitration agreement violates the law.

The entire Arbitration Agreement is unenforceable.

Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant Wells
Fargo's motion to compel arbitration, GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file its second amended complaint and DENIES Defendant
FTCI's motion to dismiss as moot and without prejudice. The Court
ordered the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint on or before
October 11, 2019.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y497llpe from Leagle.com.

Helen Lotsoff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated & Ashleigh Hartman, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Todd D. Carpenter -
tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com - Carlson Lynch LLP, Jeffrey Douglas
Kaliel - jdkaliel@gmail.com - Kaliel PLLC & Sophia Goren Gold -
sgold@kalielpllc.com - Kaliel PLLC.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Alejandro E.
Moreno - amoreno@sheppardmullin.com - Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton, LLP & Edward D. Vogel  - evogel@sheppardmullin.com -
Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP.

FCTI, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin Taliaferro Morton -
bmorton@gordonrees.com - Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Kristen
Sweaney McLeod – kmcleod@grsm.com - Gordon Rees Scully
Mansukhani, Scott Lam , FCTI, Inc., 11766 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 1100,
Los Angeles, CA 90025-6561& Shelby Poteet - spoteet@grsm.com -
Gordon & Rees LLC.

WEST VIRGINIA: Faces Class Action Over Child Welfare System
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Kelly, writing for The Chronicle of Social Change, reports
that West Virginia, the third poorest state in the nation with the
highest rate of foster care removals in the country, is handing
children off to unsupported and unverified relatives and dooming
hundreds to age out of foster care from institutions and group
homes.

Those are the topline allegations in a lengthy class-action lawsuit
filed against the state's child welfare system by A Better
Childhood (ABC), a New York-based nonprofit litigator that has
taken action against four child welfare systems in just the past
six months.

"Children in West Virginia's foster care system, have been abused
and neglected, put in inadequate and dangerous placements,
institutionalized and segregated from the outside world, left
without necessary services, and forced to unnecessarily languish in
foster care for years," said the lawsuit, which was filed on Sept.
30 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia.

"Defendants, well aware of these problems, have answered with empty
promises and unfulfilled initiatives. Today, West Virginia
continues to infringe upon the rights of its foster children,
jeopardizing their most basic needs."

Named in the lawsuit are Gov. Jim Justice (R); Bill Crouch,
secretary of the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR);
his deputy, Jeremiah Samples; and Linda Watts, commission of the
Bureau for Children and Families (BCF).

Crouch released a statement that suggests the state was blindsided
by the lawsuit.

"The company that filed this lawsuit . . . has not reached out to
me or any member of our leadership team to ask questions regarding
what we are doing in this state or to even engage in a conversation
regarding these issues," he said. "It appears that their 12 a.m.
embargoed lawsuit was aimed to gain attention in the press, as they
have done in several other states."

Crouch's statement argues that the state has been proactive under
Gov. Justice in improving the child welfare system. He asserted
several developments in the statement:

  -- Creating 50 new child protective services positions, and
raising salaries for those workers by 20 percent

  -- A Title IV-E waiver that allowed the state to build wraparound
services

  -- The state's early implementation of the Family First
Prevention Services Act, a new law aimed at reducing the use of
foster care and congregate care in particular

-- A planned Medicaid waiver to improve services to children with
serious emotional disorders

The lawsuit leans on the stories of 12 different children in West
Virginia's custody. ABC hopes to have a general class status
approved, along with three subclasses of children in the system:

   -- Those living with relatives or fictive kin, which ABC
estimates in its brief is about half of all children in care.

   -- Approximately 1,600 children who are 14 or older, and are
thus likely candidates to "age out" of the system into adulthood.

   -- About 1,700 children with disabilities, more than half of
which are living in group homes, institutions and other "congregate
care" settings. About a third of the kids in group care are placed
outside the state, ABC said.

The plaintiffs list includes Anastasia, an 11-year-old with an IQ
of 130 that has experienced 10 placement disruptions and a failed
adoption. She has spent time in a juvenile detention facility and
is now living in an institution in Georgia. It also includes
Garrett, who as a child was moved from New York to West Virginia to
live with relatives after his mother died of an overdose. Garrett
has lived most of his life in congregate care and is set to age out
of the system next year.

Seven-year-old Theo bounced around relative and non-relative homes
before being hospitalized for acute developmental disabilities. He
has since been moved to a Virginia treatment facility, and ABC
states that he is currently prescribed five different mental health
drugs.

"Children are being sent to institutions, placed in foster homes
without any services, and abandoned by the state," said Marcia
Robinson Lowry, executive director of A Better Childhood. "West
Virginia has some of the worst child welfare statistics in the
country, and the state can no longer use the opioid epidemic as an
excuse to avoid responsibility for this shameful system."

DHHR is the legal guardian of children in West Virginia foster
care, and BCF manages the state's mostly-privatized network of
foster care and adoption services. The state recently also moved
all foster care health and residential services into a contract
with a managed care organization (MCO), a move opposed by child
welfare advocates at the time and criticized in the lawsuit.

"The MCO will cost the state $200 million per year; money which
could have been spent to improve the existing system," it states in
the lawsuit.

Nearly 18 out of every 1,000 children in West Virginia were in
foster care in 2017, according to federal data, the highest of any
state in the country and more than three times the national rate of
5.8 per 1,000.

The state's system "fails to maintain an adequate number of
appropriate placements for youth entering foster care in West
Virginia," it states in the lawsuit. "As a result, they resort to
quickly placing children into kinship placements that are not
sufficiently vetted, supported or monitored to ensure children's
safety and well-being while in those placements, or
institutionalizing them."

According to foster care capacity data recently collected from
every state by The Chronicle of Social Change, West Virginia
currently has 3,066 total licensed foster homes. About half of
those--1,492--are non-relatives, and the rest are kin licensed to
care for children in their family.

According to the state, the number of relatives with an active,
ongoing placement increased from 2,466 in 2018 to 2,849 this year.

The lawsuit asserts that 13 percent of West Virginia foster youth
live in congregate care, though the most recent federal data from
2017 had it at 18 percent. But that belies an extremely heavy
reliance on that option for older youth, ABC asserts: 71 percent of
youth between 12 and 17 are in congregate care. And as of June
2019, the lawsuit states, 327 of those youth were living in
institutions outside the state.

ABC lists a long slate of requests for relief that mostly aim to
require the agencies to fill open social and caseworker positions,
train and support kinship caregivers, and develop a serious and
better-resourced protocol for case planning.

It also asks the court to "prohibit DHHR from refusing to place a
young person in a foster care placement because the child is 14 or
older."

West Virginia was investigated in 2014 by the Justice Department
over compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, a probe
that focused on state services for children with mental illness.
The state entered into a memorandum of understanding with the
Justice Department in May of 2019.

"The lawsuit that was filed today will cost the State of West
Virginia millions of dollars and was filed by a company that has
never contacted us to ask the question: 'What are you doing to fix
these problems?'," Crouch said in his statement. "We welcome the
opportunity to make our case in court."

ABC is joined in the lawsuit by the West Virginia law firm Shaffer
and Shaffer, and Disability Rights West Virginia.

"The foster care crisis in West Virginia is not an issue that just
arose in the last four to five years, it's a systemic problem that
has festered in the state for almost 20 years," said Jeremiah
Underhill, the legal director of Disability Rights West Virginia,
in a statement released on Sept. 30. "The children of West Virginia
deserve a system that works."

Lowry started A Better Childhood in 2014, after leaving another
nonprofit litigation firm she helped start, Children's Rights. The
organization has filed class-action litigation against four systems
since April: Oregon, Indiana, New York City and now West Virginia.

In 2018, the organization received an anonymous donation from a
Tulsa-based foundation that Lowry said would enable her to double
ABC's staff.

This story was updated with the state's response to the lawsuit on
October 1. [GN]


WOODBOLT DISTRIBUTION: Faces Clausen Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Woodbolt
Distribution, LLC. The case is captioned as Dale Clausen and
Timothy Duncan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Woodbolt Distribution, LLC doing
business as: Nutrabol, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08837-LGS
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2019). The suit seeks $5 million in damages
and alleges fraud. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lorna G.
Schofield.

Woodbolt Distribution, doing business as Nutrabolt, provides health
supplements. The Company offers pre-workout, post-workout, amino
acids, protein, testosterone boosters, and weight loss supplements,
as well as training session and apparel products for men and
women.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com

WOODY'S WING HOUSE: Donnenwirth Hits Illegal Tip Credit
-------------------------------------------------------
Maria Donnenwirth, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Woody's Wing House, LLC, Scott Walker and
Jiechun Liu, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04168 (S.D. Ohio, September
20, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act, Ohio Prompt Pay Act and the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act.

Defendants operate a restaurant where Donnenwirth worked as a
waitress from around late December 2018 to around late February
2019. Woody's allegedly takes out an illegal tip credit from
Donnenwirth thus rendering her tipped pay below minimum wage rates.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
      8401 Crawford Avenue, Suite 104
      Skokie, IL 60076
      Phone: (847) 644-3425
      Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
      Email: mike@fradinlaw.com


YALE UNIVERSITY: Court Grants Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JOSEPH VELLALI, NANCY S.
LOWERS, JAN M. TASCHNER, and JAMES MANCINI, individually and as
representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on
behalf of the Yale University Retirement Account Plan, the
Plaintiffs, vs. YALE UNIVERSITY, MICHAEL A. PEEL, and THE
RETIREMENT PLAN FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE, the Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-01345-AWT (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Alvin W. Thompson
entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:

      "all participants and beneficiaries of the Yale University
      Retirement Account Plan from August 9, 2010, through the
      date of judgment, excluding the Defendants";

   2. apponting Joseph Vellali, Nancy S. Lowers, Jan M. Taschner,
      and James Mancini as representatives of the class; and

   3. appointing Schlichter, Bogard & Denton LLP as class counsel.

The Court says the plaintiffs' claims satisfy the commonality
requirement: the class members' claims arise from the same events
and course of conduct -- inter alia, the Defendants' "failures to
monitor and control the Plan's recordkeeping fees and to monitor
the Plan's investment options on an ongoing basis and remove
imprudent ones."[CC]



                            *********

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 ***