CAR_Public/191022.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, October 22, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 211

                            Headlines

138-SHARP REALTY: Faces Perez Suit Over Unpaid or Underpaid Wages
3M CO: Firefighters Aguon, Et Al. File Class Suit on PFAS Exposure
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Bragar Eagel Investigates Officers, Directors
ADR RESTAURANT: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALDI INC: Gensberg Sues Over Almondmilk's Misleading Labels

ALLERGAN PLC: Kent Files Suit Over Sale to AbbVie Inc.
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces Madlinger Suit in New Jersey
ALLIED ACCOUNT SERVICES: Lopez Files Suit under FDCPA
ALLYN LLC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BAMBI'S DOLL: Smith Seeks Unpaid Wages for Exotic Dancers

BARRIER COMPLIANCE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, Perez Suit Says
BAYER AG: Missouri Roundup Trial Postponed Until February 2020
BLUE & CREAM: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOCNYC INC: Calcano Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Settles DS Workers' Class Action for $620,000

BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ: $900K in Lawyers Fees Awarded in Haas Suit
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Final Approval of Pearlman Suit Deal Appealed
CAPITAL ONE: Tadler Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
CHARDAN HEALTHCARE: Rosenblatt Balks at BiomX Merger
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Removes Labor Case to S.D. Cal.

CLEANER CITY: Workers Seek Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
COLUMBIA GAS: Hearing Set in Merrimack Valley Settlement Payout
CONDE NAST: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COOK COUNTY, IL: Class in McFields Suit Denied Certification
CORINDUS VASCULAR: Docs on Siemens Merger Misleading, Shea Says

CRAFT BREW: Smith Seeks OT Wages for Restaurant Staff
CROWN EQUIPMENT: Faces Brown et al Suit in California Super. Ct.
DPS LAND: Raptis Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
ELECTROCORE INC: Registration Statement Misleading, Turnofsky Says
EPIC GAMES: Faces Class Action Over Fortnite Addiction

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Calif. Court Certifies Reyes FCRA Class Suit
EXTRA BUTTER: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FAIRLIFE LLC: Ngai Sues over Maltreatment of Cows
FIRST CONNECTICUT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Karp Securities Suit
FOREST VIEW: Jovanovic Files Suit Over Illegal Use of Biometrics

FRAMINGHAM AUTO MALL: Pena Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
FROEDTERT HEALTH: Fore Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
GLOBAL RADAR: Faces Job Suit Over Illegally Issued Consumer Report
H&R BLOCK: Hid Free Tax-Filing Program, Swanson Alleges
HANY PANKY: Jane Roe Calls Tip-Splitting Unlawful

HARU INC: Tecuapacho Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay for Cooks
IC SYSTEM: Roldan Alleges Violation under FDCPA
JELLY BELLY: Hoffman Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
JOHNSON'S TREE: Johnson Seeks Proper Overtime Pay
JUUL LABS: King County Files RICO Class Action in Washington

KLLM TRANSPORT: Class in Swales FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
KROGER CO: Pope Sues over Mislabeling of Premium Honey Products
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Machuca Files Labor Class Action in Cal.
LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS: Patel Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
MDL 2642: Wietzema v. Janssen Transferred to District of Minnesota

MDL 2738: 3 Suits v. Johnson & Johnson Moved to Dist. of New Jersey
MDL 2741: 3 Roundup Suits Moved to Northern Dist. of California
MDL 2768: Denninger Suit v. Anderson Moved to D. Mass.
MDL 2797: Transfer Order on Karpowski v. Wells Fargo Vacated
MDL 2800: Johnston Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia

MDL 2804: 24 National Prescription Opiate Suits Moved to N.D. Ohio
MDL 2906: Plaintiffs Withdraw Bid for Centralization of 7 Lawsuits
MDL 2907: Court Denies Motion to Centralize 14 Data Security Suits
MDL 2909: 4 Marketing/Sales Practices Suits Moved to N.D. Illinois
MDL 2911: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 4 Water Pollution Suits

MDL 2912: 13 Palbociclib Patent Suits Moved to Dist. of Delaware
MDL 2913: 10 Product Liability Suits v Juul Labs Sent to N.D. Cal.
MDL 2914: 5 '289 Patent Suits Moved to Southern District of Florida
MDL 2915: 21 Data Security Breach Suits Moved to E.D. Virginia
MDL 2916: Bid to Centralize 3 Skywest FLSA Suits Denied

MDL 2917: Court Denies Bid for Centralization of 4 Air Crash Suits
MDL 2918: 4 Antitrust Lawsuits Transferred to N.D. California
MGM RESORTS: Settles Mandalay Bay Mass Shooting Class Action
MID-CON HOSPITALITY: Trayes Sues over Collection of Biometrics
MIDWEST HOSPITALITY: Turner Seeks Unpaid Wages for Exotic Dancers

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: FPTPA Breaks Amateurism Rules
NATIONAL GENERAL: Bragar Eagel Investigates Officers, Directors
NEUROLOGY CENTER: Nurse Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
NOVO NORDISK: Insulin Drug Prices Inflated, Suit Claims
P.S.J. INC: Lugo Seeks Pay for Hours Worked Over 40

PAREA GROUP: Class in Argudo FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
PENNSYLVANIA: New York AG Files Class Action Against PHEAA
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Will FDCPA Class Suit Dismissed
PR DESIGN: Calcano Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
PRAIRIE OPPORTUNITY: Bonner Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages

PRICESMART INC: Bragar Eagel Investigates Officers, Directors
RADIUS GLOBAL: Bonilla Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
RADIUS GLOBAL: George Files FDCPA Suit in North Carolina
REALTORS NAT'L ASSO: DOJ Probes Missouri Suit on Excessive Fees
RUHNN HOLDING: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims

SHIRE LLC: Mass. Court Certifies Class in Intuniv Antitrust Suit
SKM RECYCLING: Settles Coolaroo Blaze Class Action for $1.2-Mil.
SKYWEST INC: Transfer of Hirst & Tapp Cases to Calif. Court Denied
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Clark-Alonso Suit Moved to N.D. California
SPARK SPORT: Suit Mulled Over Poor Rugby World Cup Streaming

SPECIALTY RETAILERS: Website not Accessible to Blind, Slade Says
SPRINT SAFETY: Lobo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
STRADA SERVICES: Vargas Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT for Electricians
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Settles Starlink Class Action for $6.2 Million
SUNRIDGE NURSERIES: EEOC Sues over Unlawful Employment Practices

SUSQUEHANNA VILLAGE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Knapp FLSA Suit
TARTE, INC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Traynor Says
TRANSUNION INTERACTIVE: Site not Accessible to Blind, Traylor Says
UBER TECH: Shortchanges Drivers' Expense Reimbursements, Says Suit
UNITED STATES: Patent Office Seeks Dismissal of SAWS Class Suit

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: 67 Names in Emissions Scandal to Stay Secret
WAITR HOLDINGS: Docs on Going Public Deal Misleading, Welch Says
WESCO AIRCRAFT: Monteverde & Associates Files Amended Complaint
WILMINGTON TRUST: Henry Files ERISA Class Action in Delaware
WORLD TRAVEL HOLDINGS: Betit Sues Over Illegal Email Ads

XPRESSCAPITALGROUP.COM: Schlesigner Suit Moved to M.D. Florida

                            *********

138-SHARP REALTY: Faces Perez Suit Over Unpaid or Underpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE F. REYNOSO PEREZ, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. 138-SHARP REALTY LLC, Case No.
1:19-cv-09149 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 2, 2019), is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and other employees alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Mr. Perez contends that the Defendant is liable to him and the
class for unpaid or underpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation,
and other relief available by law.

138-Sharp Realty LLC is a limited liability company with its office
located in Kings County.  The Defendant is a real estate management
company doing business as 138-Sharp Realty LLC and located in
Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007-2036
          Telephone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
                  jazeller@zellerlegal.com


3M CO: Firefighters Aguon, Et Al. File Class Suit on PFAS Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Salas Matanane, writing for Kuam News, reports that more
than 20 firefighters, former and current, have joined together to
file a class action complaint in the District Court of Guam
involving their exposure to PFAS chemicals, also known as the
"Forever Toxins."

Raymond Aguon, Johnny Arceo, Benny Baza, William Castro, David
Cepeda, Gregorio Cruz, Michael Cuasito, Francisco Duenas, Delfino
Garcia, Steve Hagen, Alfred Ignacio, James Linnel, Mark Merfalen,
Andrew Mesa, Van Murer, Rudy Paco, Vicente Perez, Michael Roberto,
Randy Sablan, Lewis Santos, Ray Taitague, Edward Terlaje and
Anthony Quinene are seeking medical monitoring and monetary damages
resulting from the exposure to what's called aqueous film forming
foams or "AFFF".

The named Defendants are 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Co.); TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP; CHEMGUARD, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C.  They are manufacturers
who manufactured the aqueous film forming foams.

The foam contains the toxic chemicals we've heard in the headlines
recently PFAS or the forever toxins. Since the foam's creation its
been sold to military and industrial facilities, airports,
firefighting training facilities and fire departments in Guam and
elsewhere.

The foam containing the toxins are used by firefighters to battle
fires involving fuels such as petroleum and other flammable
liquids. Exposure can lead to significant adverse health effects
such as kidney cancer, testicular cancer, high cholesterol, thyroid
disease, ulcerative colitis and pregnancy-induced hypertension.

According to the class action complaint, the plaintiffs represent
numerous firefighters who handled, trained and otherwise used the
foam containing the forever toxins, at Andersen Air Force Base,
Naval Base Guam and the Guam International airport.

Representing the class is attorney Michael Berman, Esq. --
mjberman@pacificlawyers.law -- of Berman O'Connor & Mann.  

In September, the Attorney General's (AG) office and his legal team
filed a separate lawsuit for the exposure and contamination the
forever toxins caused on the island. [GN]


ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Bragar Eagel Investigates Officers, Directors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and
directors of Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. ( ACHC), American
Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. (: ARA), Camping World Holdings,
Inc. (: CWH), and Cardinal Health, Inc. (: CAH) on behalf of
long-term stockholders. More information about each potential case
can be found at the link provided.

Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. ( ACHC)

Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and
directors of Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. following a class
action complaint that was filed against Acadia Healthcare on
October 1, 2018.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding Acadia's
business and operations, including by falsely stating that the
quality of Acadia's U.K. operations gave it a competitive strength
that would drive future growth and profitability, and by issuing
false and misleading guidance regarding the company's actual and
projected 2017 revenue, earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) and earnings per share
(EPS). As a result of defendants' false statements, Acadia stock
traded at artificially inflated prices of more than $52 per share
during the Class Period. While Acadia stock was trading at these
artificially inflated prices, the company's CEO and President sold
706,000 shares of their Acadia stock for proceeds of more than $35
million. Then on October 24, 2017, Acadia announced its financial
results for the third quarter of 2017. The company revealed a
drastic shortfall in EBITDA for its U.K. operations, purportedly
resulting from lower census and higher operating costs, and lowered
its financial guidance for 2017, including lowering its EPS
guidance as much as $0.24 per share. Following these revelations,
the price of Acadia stock price fell 26%, from a close of $44.12
per share on October 24, 2017 to a close of $32.68 per share on
October 25, 2017.

For more information on the firm's investigation into Acadia
Healthcare go to: https://bespc.com/achc

American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. (: ARA)

Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and
directors of American Renal Associates, Inc. following a class
action complaint that was filed against American Renal Associates
on March 28, 2019.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) issues with American Renal's accounting process for
revenue recognition, collections, and related matters would give
rise to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
investigation into the same, and increased regulatory scrutiny by
the SEC; (2) American Renal's financial statements for fiscal years
2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 contained in its Annual Reports for the
years ended December 31, 2016 and 2017, and its condensed
consolidated financial statements in quarterly reports from 2016
through 2018 were false and could not be relied upon; (3) American
Renal had material weaknesses in its internal control over
financial reporting; and (4) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

For more information on the firm's investigation into American
Renal Associates go to: https://bespc.com/ara-2

Camping World Holdings, Inc. (: CWH)

Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and
directors of Camping World Holdings, Inc. following a class action
complaint that was filed against Camping World on October 19,
2018.

The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse
information regarding Camping World's business, operations and
financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges defendants
failed to disclose, among other things, that the company's
disclosure controls and controls over financial reporting suffered
from a host of material weaknesses; that the company's historical
financial results had been materially misstated; that the Gander
stores had encountered integration setbacks, adversely impacting
the company's earnings growth and profit margins; and that the
company's core RV business was experiencing decelerating growth as
the Company lagged industry trends and was losing market share to
competitors. As a result of this information being withheld from
the market, the price of Camping World Class A common stock was
artificially inflated to a high of $47.19 per share during the
Class Period.

For more information on the firm's investigation in to Camping
world go to: https://bespc.com/cwh

Cardinal Health, Inc. (: CAH)

Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and
directors of Cardinal Health, Inc. following a class action
complaint that was filed against Cardinal Health on August 1,
2019.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants
misled investors by stating that Cordis would benefit from
Cardinal's advanced inventory management and supply chain
information technology solutions. Defendants also falsely
represented that the Company properly "reserve[d] for inventory
obsolescence" and that "[i]nventories presented in the consolidated
balance sheets [were] net of reserves for excess and obsolete
inventory." As a result of these misrepresentations, Cardinal
shares traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class
Period.

For more information on the firm's investigation into Cardinal
Health go to: https://bespc.com/cah

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm
concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For
additional information about Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. please go
to www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.

Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com
[GN]


ADR RESTAURANT: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ADR Restaurant Inc.
The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADR Restaurant Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09603 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 17, 2019).

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

ADR RESTAURANT INC is a restaurant based in Kings County, New York,
NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALDI INC: Gensberg Sues Over Almondmilk's Misleading Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Gensberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Aldi Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05745
(E.D. N.Y., Oct. 10, 2019) is a complaint seeking damages under
that State's Consumer Protection Statutes from Defendant's
misleading representations on their products' packaging.

Aldi Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
almondmilk beverages purporting to be characterized by vanilla
under the Simply Nature brand ("Products").

The Products' front labels and/or advertising makes direct
representations with respect to their primary recognizable and
characterizing flavor, by the word "VANILLA" and/or vignette and
states "6g Soy Powered Protein" and "Non-GMO". The front labels
represent the Products' characterizing flavor is vanilla and that
they contain a characterizing food ingredient, vanilla flavoring or
vanilla extract, that is sufficient to independently characterize
the Products.

The complaint asserts that the unqualified, prominent and
conspicuous representations as "Vanilla" is false, deceptive and
misleading because they contain flavors other than vanilla, as
revealed by "Natural Flavors" on the ingredient list. If the
"natural flavors" on the ingredient list only consisted of vanilla
flavoring or vanilla extract, these higher value ingredients would
be declared by their common or usual names instead of the opaque
and ubiquitous "natural flavor." A non-misleading front label
description could be "Natural Vanilla Flavored Almondmilk" or
"Vanilla Flavored Almondmilk" provided the Product does not contain
added vanillin from sources other than vanilla beans, it says.

The proportion of the characterizing component, vanilla, has a
material bearing on price or consumer acceptance of the Products
because it is more expensive and desired by consumers. Had
Plaintiff and Class members known the truth about the Products,
they would not have bought the Products or would have paid less,
says the complaint.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ALLERGAN PLC: Kent Files Suit Over Sale to AbbVie Inc.
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kent, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Allergan PLC, Brenton L. Saunders, Nesli Basgoz,
Joseph H. Boccuzi, Christopher W. Bodine, Adriane M. Brown,
Christopher J. Coughlin, Carol Anthony Davidson, Thomas C. Freyman,
Michael E. Greenberg, Robert J. Hugin, Peter J. Mcdonnell, Abbvie,
Inc. and Venice Subsidiary, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01790
(D. Del., September 24, 2019), seeks to enjoin defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the acquisition of Allergan PLC by AbbVie,
Inc. and Venice Subsidiary, LLC; rescinding it in the event
defendants consummate the merger; plus rescissory damages, costs of
this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's
attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Under the transaction, Allergan's stockholders will receive $120.30
in cash and 0.8660 of a newly issued share of AbbVie, Inc. common
stock for each share of Allergan common stock they own.

The complaint asserts that the Merger Agreement contains a "no
solicitation" provision that prohibits soliciting alternative
proposals and severely constrains their ability to communicate and
negotiate with potential buyers who wish to submit or have
submitted unsolicited alternative proposals. The registration
statement for the merger also failed to include critical financial
analysis performed by its financial advisor, J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC including all line items used to calculate consolidated
EBITDAX, line items used to calculate unlevered free cash flow and
a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics that support the
fairness opinions in order to make a fully informed decision
whether to vote in favor of the proposed transaction or seek
appraisal needed by the shareholders to make an informed decision
on the merger deal.

Allergan is a global pharmaceutical company focused on developing,
manufacturing and commercializing branded pharmaceutical, device,
biologic, surgical and regenerative medicinal products. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800
      Email: rm@maniskas.com


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces Madlinger Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AllianceOne
Receivables Management, Inc. The case is captioned as SCOTT
MADLINGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-18515-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., Sept. 29, 2019).
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael A. Shipp.

AllianceOne provides debt collection services and contact center
solutions.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102b
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507-6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com

ALLIED ACCOUNT SERVICES: Lopez Files Suit under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Account
Services Inc. The case is styled as Welquis R. Lopez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allied
Account Services Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01003 (W.D.
Tex., Oct. 16, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Allied Account Services Inc. is a debt collection agency located in
Bellmore, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLYN LLC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allyn LLC. The case
is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allyn LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-09598 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 17, 2019).

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

Allyn International is a privately-held professional services firm
established in 1992. It is a full-service public relations,
advertising, public affairs, strategic research, grassroots
communications and political media firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BAMBI'S DOLL: Smith Seeks Unpaid Wages for Exotic Dancers
---------------------------------------------------------
KYLAH SMITH, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BAMBI'S DOLL HOUSE, LLC. d/b/a BAMBI'S
DOLL HOUSE, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and RICHARD
WHITSITT, Individually, the Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-00357-RH-MJF (N.D. Fla., Sept. 25, 2019), contends that the
Defendants have a longstanding policy of misclassifying their
employees as independent contractors.

The Defendants required and/or permitted Plaintiff Kylah Smith to
work as an exotic "entertainer" and/or dancer at their adult
entertainment club in excess of 40 hours per week, but refused to
compensate her at the applicable minimum wage and overtime rate.

In fact, the Defendants refused to compensate Plaintiff at all for
the hours she worked. The Plaintiff's only compensation was in the
form of tips from club patrons.

Furthermore, Defendants' practice of failing to pay tipped
employees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 203(m), violates the Fair
Labor Standards Act's minimum wage provision as does Defendants'
practice of siphoning away those tips to distribute to non-tip
eligible employees.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff & Class Members are:

          Warren D. Astbury, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (313) 251-1399
          Facsimile: (313) 739-1976
          E-mail: wastbury@forthepeople.com

BARRIER COMPLIANCE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, Perez Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS PEREZ, Individually, and on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. BARRIER COMPLIANCE SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-02598 (D. Kan., Oct. 2, 2019), accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by not recording employees'
time for all work performed and for not compensating them with
appropriate overtime pay for all work performed in excess of 40
hours in a workweek.

Headquartered in Lenexa, Kansas, Barrier Compliance Services, LLC,
is a Kansas Limited Liability Company, which performs inspections,
assessments, construction and installation, design, assistance, and
code compliance for healthcare facilities and other facilities
across the country.

The Defendant contracts with healthcare facilities, data centers,
education centers, commercial facilities, industrial facilities,
nuclear facilities, and government facilities, among others across
the country to perform inspections, assessments, installation,
design assistance, and code compliance for new construction and
renovation projects.  The Defendant employs technicians, repairmen,
inspectors, surveyors, and installers of firestops, dampers, doors,
and barriers, generally categorized as "field employees" like the
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark V. Dugan, Esq.
          Heather J. Schlozman, Esq.
          DUGAN SCHLOZMAN LLC
          8826 Santa Fe Drive, Suite 307
          Overland Park, KS 66212
          Telephone: (913) 322-3528
          E-mail: mark@duganschlozman.com
                  heather@duganschlozman.com

               - and -

          Courtney L. Graham, Esq.
          Randall S. Strause, Esq.
          STRAUSE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          804 Stone Creek Pkwy., Suite One
          Louisville, KY 40223
          Telephone: (502) 426-1661
          Facsimile: (502) 426-6772
          E-mail: cgraham@strauselawgroup.com
                  rstrause@strauselawgroup.com


BAYER AG: Missouri Roundup Trial Postponed Until February 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Baccardax, writing for TheStreet, reports that Bayer AG said
a key trial linked to its Roundup weedkiller had been postponed
until February of next year.

The case against Monsanto, which Bayer purchased in a $63 billion
takeover last year, was set to resume this month in St. Louis,
Missouri and centers around an allegation by Walter Winston that
the chemical maker's Roundup weedkiller, a herbicide that contains
the active ingredient glyphosate, caused him to contract
non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

"With the change in the trial schedule and no trial dates set
through the rest of the year, the appeals of the three completed
trials will be a significant focus of the litigation in the months
ahead," Bayer said in a statement reported by Reuters.

Bayer shares were marked 2.7% higher in on the Deutsche Boerse in
Frankfurt on Oct. 7, compared to a 0.1% decline for the DAX
performance index benchmark, to change hands at EUR64.10 each.

Earlier this spring, activist investor Elliot Advisors revealed a
$1.1 billion stake in the chemicals group and supported plans to
boost its legal team in the face of thousands of Roundup weedkiller
lawsuits, with a focus on reaching a class-action settlement.

Analysts have estimated Bayer's glyphosate-based products liability
at anywhere between EUR4 billion and EUR15 billion, and the company
has said some 18,400 lawsuits remain outstanding.

Earlier this summer, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria
upheld a March jury verdict that awarded Edwin Hardeman of Santa
Rosa, California $5.27 million in compensatory damages after he
claimed his long-term exposure to Roundup caused his cancer
diagnosis in 2014.

The San Francisco judge, however, cut the level of punitive damages
to $20 million from $75 million, noting he award breached Federal
laws on the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages.

In early June, a jury in Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland,
California which awarded Alva and Alberta Pilliod $2 billion in
punitive damages and $55 million in compensatory relief after the
pair said Roundup killer caused them to contract cancer.

That verdict followed a 2018 decision from San Francisco Superior
Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos, who ruled that said Bayer should pay
$39 million in punitive damages and a further $49 billion in
compensatory damages to Dewayne Johnson, a school district
groundskeeper who argued that Roundup and Ranger Pro weedkillers,
as well as its other glyphosate-based products, did not carry
sufficient warnings for the risks of cancer that they carried.
[GN]


BLUE & CREAM: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue & Cream LLC. The
case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Blue & Cream LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09614 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 17, 2019).

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

BLUE & CREAM (B&C) is a Hamptons based multi-label Mens & Womens
retail clothing store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



BOCNYC INC: Calcano Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------
BOCNYC Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marcos
Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOCNYC Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-09581 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 16, 2019).

BOCNYC is in the women's clothing stores business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BROWN UNIVERSITY: Settles DS Workers' Class Action for $620,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allie Reed, writing for Brown Daily Herald, reports that Brown
University plans to pay $620,000 distributed among more than 100
student Dining Services workers and their lawyers to settle a class
action lawsuit over disputed pay.

The preliminary approval of the settlement was filed Oct. 2 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

The student plaintiffs alleged that the University failed to
appropriately compensate them for their work in violation of the
Rhode Island Payment of Wages Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Students first filed a complaint about unpaid work to Dining
Services and Human Resources about one year ago.

In its current form, the settlement distributes $450,000 to over
100 current and former student employees, including named
plaintiffs Maxwell Kozlov '20 and Benjamin Bosis '19, while the
remaining funds will be distributed to their lawyers, according to
the preliminary agreement.

Each eligible person's settlement amount "is based on the number of
(their) scheduled on-call hours" worked during the almost three
year period between Jan. 24, 2016, and Oct. 18, 2018, with a
minimum settlement amount of $200. The highest settlement amount
totals $24,512 for more than 4,400 total on-call hours worked.

Students eligible for the funds must have worked as student Unit
Managers, Assistant Unit Managers or Supervisors in the Cashiers,
Carts or Blue Room units in the three year time period. These units
included weekly "on-call" shifts, for which the plaintiffs alleged
they were not properly compensated. The "on-call" shifts no longer
exist in the same form.

The settlement agreement may change as it awaits final approval.
Potential plaintiffs have a 180-day opt-in period, which begins
after they are notified of the proposed settlement. The parties
must meet a number of other conditions, including a requirement
that Kozlov "immediately and formally withdraw his complaint" at
the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training. The University
will also be "solely responsible for payment of any fees …
imposed or assessed by the DLT."

In a draft of a joint statement between the plaintiffs and the
defendant, they state that they have "amicably resolved" the
pending legal action. "Brown believes the legal actions have no
merit, while the students maintain they were not appropriately
compensated for the full extent of work performed, including
on-call time," according to the statement. Neither party may
communicate publicly about the settlement.

The parties decided to settle to eliminate the emotional cost and
financial expense of an ongoing lawsuit. The University "denies any
wrongdoing or any violation of federal or state law as alleged in
the Action and maintains that at all times it acted reasonably and
in good faith," the statement read.

"Student workers will remain an essential part of dining operations
at Brown. For those students who seek campus employment, Brown
remains committed to ensuring experiences that enable students to
effectively balance their academic study and other activities with
their employment," according to the statement. [GN]


BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ: $900K in Lawyers Fees Awarded in Haas Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAMMY MARIE HAAS and CONRAD SZCZPANIAK, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. BURLINGTON COUNTY, et al., Defendants, Civil No.
08-1102 (NLH/JS) (D. N.J.), Judge Noel L. Hillman of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and
denied in part the Class Counsels' Motions for Attorneys' Fees and
Costs.

In the long-standing class action, the Plaintiffs allege that their
constitutional rights were violated when they were strip searched
at the Burlington County Jail in or around 2006 and 2008.  After
the Court granted class certification, the parties resolved the
matter by way of settlement, which the Court approved on Jan. 31,
2019.

In addition to the $1,475,000 settlement fund established as part
of the global resolution, the Defendants agreed to pay $900,000 in
attorneys' fees and an additional $25,000 in costs.  Thereafter,
pursuant to Rule 23(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Class Counsel applied to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees
and costs.  In rendering final approval of the settlement, the
Court analyzed the Class Counsel's fee application and determined
that an award of $925,000, inclusive of fees and costs, was
reasonable under the circumstances.

Thereafter, at the urging of the Court, the parties entered into
negotiations about how they would share the fee award.  Due to
disagreements regarding allocation, Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider
mediated with the parties in an effort to facilitate a resolution.
Despite Magistrate Judge Schneider's efforts, the counsel could not
reach an agreement.

On May 3, 2019, Magistrate Judge Schneider issued a non-binding,
comprehensive report recommending to the parties an allocation for
the $925,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.  After meticulously
explaining the basis for his recommendation, Magistrate Judge
Schneider recommended the Poplar Group receive 82.5% of the
$900,000 fee ($742,500) plus $20,068 in costs, while the Novack
Group receive 17.5% of the fee ($157,500) plus $4,931.20 in costs.


With the benefit of Judge Schneider's written analysis, on May 15,
2019, the Court held a settlement conference in a further attempt
to resolve the disputes plaguing the Class Counsel.  While progress
was made towards a resolution, no settlement was ever reached.

After it was clear the parties were unable to mediate or otherwise
resolve their disagreements, on Aug. 27, 2019, the Court ordered
that the May 3, 2019 report be reissued as a report and
recommendation consistent with the Federal and Local Civil Rules.
The formal Report and Recommendation was filed by Judge Schneider
on Sept. 3, 2019.

On Sept. 17, 2019, Carl Poplar filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation.  No other objections have been lodged.

After conducting a de novo review of the record, the applicable
law, and the portions of the Report and Recommendation Mr. Poplar
objects to, Judge Hillman reaches the same conclusions as Judge
Schneider.  Judge Hillman agrees with the Report and Recommendation
in its entirety and adopts by reference the factual and legal
findings contained in it.  Likewise, in conducting his de novo
review, Judge Hillman reaches the same decision regarding
allocation as the Report and Recommendation.  As to fees, the Judge
will award $742,500 to the Poplar Group and $157,500 to the Novack
Group.  As to costs, the Judge will award $20,068.80 to the Poplar
Group and $4,931.20 to the Novack Group.

By way of separate motion, Mr. Poplar asks the Court to revoke
Attorney's Lask's pro hac vice admission.  Related to that
application, Mr. Poplar argues in his objections to the Report and
Recommendation that the Motion to Terminate Attorney's Lask's pro
hac vice admission should be decided prior to issuance of the
decision.

Judge Hillman disagrees.  He holds that it was Judge Schneider who
granted Ms. Lask's pro hac vice application, and therefore, it
should be Judge Schneider who adjudicates whether to revoke it.
Moreover, Judge Hillman notes that Mr. Novak is the Novack Group
lawyer appointed counsel for Plaintiff Haas, not Ms. Lask.  He
finds that the status of Ms. Lask's admission to practice before
the Court has no direct effect on what portion of the negotiated
fee the Novak Group is entitled to.

The troubling findings of Judge Loretta A. Preska of the Southern
District of New York regarding Ms. Lask and litigation ongoing in
that district which form the primary basis for Mr. Poplar's
application to vacate Ms. Lask's admission notwithstanding, the
Court previously determined that Mr. Novak could seek such
assistance in the matter as he felt was necessary to litigate the
case appropriately.  The Judge has no reason to question his
judgment in that regard, especially in light of the benefits
ultimately conferred on the class through the efforts of the Novak
Group as a whole.  As such, there is no need to resolve Mr.
Poplar's Motion to Vacate before resolving his objections to the
Report and Recommendation or the pending fee applications.

Mr. Poplar's objections to the Report and Recommendation are
rejected for the reasons stated above, and the Court adopts the
Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

As such, Judge Hillman will issue an order approving and adopting
Judge Schneider's Report and Recommendation.  In so doing, Judge
Hillman granted in part and denied in part the Class Counsels'
Motions for Attorneys' Fees.  Judge Hillman granted the fee
applications but apportioned the fee awarded to each group of the
counsel in a manner consistent with the Report and Recommendation:
$742,500 to the Poplar Group and $157,500 to the Novack Group.
Costs are also apportioned consistent with the Report and
Recommendation: $20,068.80 to the Poplar Group and $4,931.20 to the
Novack Group.  

A full-text copy of Judge Hillman's Sept. 24, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/46KGQy from Leagle.com.

TAMMY MARIE HAAS, Individually and on behalf of a Class of
Similarly Situated Individuals, Plaintiff, represented by CARL D.
POPLAR -- cpoplar@poplarlaw.com -- DAVID J. NOVACK --
dnovack@budd-larner.com -- MARIN GOODMAN, JAMIE BETH GOLDMAN,
ROBERT BRUCE WOODRUFF, SCHILLER & PITTENGER, P.C., SETH RICHARD
LESSER, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP, WILLIAM A. RIBACK, WILLIAM
RIBACK, LLC, SONYA M. LONGO, BUDD LARNER, PC & TERENCE W. CAMP,
BUDD, LARNER, P.C.

CONRAD SZCZPANIAK, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by CARL D.
POPLAR, FRAN L. RUDICH -- frudich@klafterolsen.com -- KLAFTER OLSEN
& LESSER LLP, SETH RICHARD LESSER, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP &
WILLIAM A. RIBACK, WILLIAM RIBACK, LLC.

BURLINGTON COUNTY, Defendant, represented by BETSY G. RAMOS,
CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, EVAN H.C. CROOK, MALAMUT AND ASSOCIATES, LLC,
MICHELLE L. COREA -- mcorea@capehart.com -- CAPEHART AND SCATCHARD,
P.A. & LAURA DANKS -- ldanks@capehart.com -- CAPEHART & SCATCHARD
PA.

BURLINGTON COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY & RONALD COX, both in his
individual and Representive capacity as Warden of the Burlington
County Jail, Defendant Consolidated, represented by MICHELLE L.
COREA, CAPEHART AND SCATCHARD, P.A. & LAURA DANKS, CAPEHART &
SCATCHARD PA.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Final Approval of Pearlman Suit Deal Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Objectors Arnold H. Belgraier, Christine Bezer and Simon Bezer
filed an appeal from the District Court's Aug. 21, 2019 Final
Approval Order and Judgment issued in the lawsuit titled Pearlman,
et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation, et al., Case No.
10-cv-4992, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.

The appellate case is captioned as Pearlman, et al. v. Cablevision
Systems Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-3059, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson entered Final Approval
Order and Judgment approving the parties' Class Action Settlement
Agreement dated June 27, 2018, as reported in the Class Action
Reporter on Oct. 3, 2019.

The Magistrate Judge held that final certification of the
Settlement Class (including its Sub-Classes) is appropriate and
that the Settlement Class Counsel and the Plaintiffs adequately
represented the Settlement Class (including its Sub-Classes) for
the purpose of entering into and implementing the settlement.

The Magistrate Judge approved the payment of attorneys' fees to the
Settlement Class Counsel in the amount of $4.75 million, plus an
award of $264,479.64 in costs and expenses, for a total Attorneys'
Fee Award of $5,014,479.64.  The Attorneys' Fee Award will be paid
to Ralph M. Stone of Stone Bonner & Rocco, LLP as designee of the
Settlement Class Counsel in accordance with the terms of the
Agreement.[BN]

Objectors-Appellants Arnold H. Belgraier, Simon Bezer and Christine
Bezer are represented by:

          Donovan Bezer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DONOVAN BEZER
          30 Park Avenue
          Lyndhurst, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 677-8693
          Facsimile: (201) 706-7644

Defendant-Appellee Cablevision Systems Corporation is represented
by:

          Jonathan F. Putnam, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4800
          E-mail: jonathan.putnam@kirkland.com


CAPITAL ONE: Tadler Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Penelope Tadler individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v.
Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, National
Association, Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-04782 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on Oct. 17, 2019, and assigned Case
No. 1:19-cv-02931-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:

     Brian Phillip Murray, Esq.
     Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
     230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
     New York, NY 10169
     Phone: (212) 682-5340
     Fax: (212) 884-0988
     Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com

          - and -

     Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
     Law Office of Paul C. Whalen, P.C.
     768 Plandome Road
     Manhasset, NY 11030
     Phone: (516) 426-6870
     Fax: (212) 658-9685
     Email: pcwhalen@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Peter Joseph Isajiw, Esq.
     Robert Warren Gray , Jr., Esq.
     King & Spalding LLP
     1185 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: 556-2235
     Fax: (212) 556-2222
     Email: pisajiw@kslaw.com
            bgray@kslaw.com


CHARDAN HEALTHCARE: Rosenblatt Balks at BiomX Merger
----------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHARDAN HEALTHCARE
ACQUISITION CORP., GBOLA AMUSA, JONAS GROSSMAN, GEORGE KAUFMAN,
MICHAEL RICE, RICHARD GIROUX, MATTHEW ROSSEN, and ERIC KUSSELUK,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01801-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 25,
2019), alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a
proxy statement related to its merger deal.

On July 16, 2019, Chardan Healthcare Acquisition Corp.'s Board of
Directors caused Chardan to enter into an agreement and plan of
merger with BiomX Ltd., Shareholder Representative Services LLC,
and CHAC Merger Sub Ltd. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, BiomX's securityholders will receive an aggregate of
16,625,000 Chardan shares.

As a result of the Proposed Transaction, Chardan's public
stockholders will only own approximately 20% of Chardan's stock.

On September 13, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which
recommends that Chardan's stockholders vote to approve the Proposed
Transaction at a special meeting of stockholders scheduled for
October 23, 2019.

The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading.  The Proxy Statement fails to disclose:

-- the terms of the nondisclosure agreement executed by Chardan
and Candidate Four.

-- the terms of the nondisclosure agreement executed by Chardan
and BiomX.

-- the reasons that, "as discussions with BiomX advanced, the
frequency of interaction with Candidate Four decreased and no
further interaction regarding the proposal took place."; and

-- whether Candidate Eight responded to the "initial presentation
containing an overview of SPACs and background on CHAC [that] was
sent to Candidate Eight.

CHAC is a special purpose acquisition company formed for the
purpose of effecting a merger, acquisition, or similar business
combination. CHAC raised $70.0 million in December 2018 for the
purpose of combining with a public or privately-held operating
business. CHAC was founded and sponsored by affiliates of Chardan
Capital Markets LLC. CHAC is Chardan's fifth publicly traded
acquisition vehicle.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Removes Labor Case to S.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS et al removed the case captioned as JUSTIN
M. SONICO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, CHARTER COMMUNICATION, INC.,
dba CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS (CCI), INC., a Delaware Corporation, and
DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 37-2019-00044218-CU-OE-CTL (Filed
Aug. 21, 2019), from San Diego Superior Court to the US District
Court for the Southern District of California on Sept. 25, 2019.
The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01842-BEN-LL to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay wages including
overtime; failed to provide meal periods; failed to provide rest
periods; failed to pay timely wages; and failed to provide accurate
itemized wage statements pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass
media company.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants are

          Max Fischer, Esq.
          Aimee Mackay, Esq.
          Megan McDonough, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: 213 612 2500
          Facsimile: 213 612 2501
          E-mail: max.fischer@morganlewis.com
                  aimee.mackay@morganlewis.com
                  megan.mcdonough@morganlewis.com

CLEANER CITY: Workers Seek Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Young Sang Kim, Jin Hee Kim, In Jun Bang and Ok Hwan Bang,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. A Cleaner City Livingston LLC, A Cleaner City Millburn
LLC, A Cleaner City Springfield LLC, A Cleaner City West Caldwell
LLC, A Cleaner City Westwood LLC, Young Sun Lee (a/k/a Tom Lee) and
Estelle Lee, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-18299, (D. N.J., September
24, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and
redress for failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, New Jersey Wage Payment Law,
New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the New Jersey Wage and Hour
Regulations, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants offer dry cleaning services. In Jun Bang and Ok Hwan
Bang were hired by Defendants as dry cleaner workers. They claim to
have worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage, spread-of-hours and overtime compensation for the
hours that they worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of their hours worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
      RYAN KIM LAW
      163-10 Northern Blvd. Suite 205
      Flushing, NY 11358
      Tel: (847) 905-6262
      Email: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com


COLUMBIA GAS: Hearing Set in Merrimack Valley Settlement Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Loncich, writing for WCVB5, reports that the first hearing
regarding the payout of a class action lawsuit representing 175,000
Merrimack Valley residents and business owners was set to begin on
Oct. 7.

The proposed settlement of $143 million from Columbia Gas covers
victims in Lawrence, Andover and North Andover who were affected by
the 2018 gas line disaster.

The lawsuit calls for six categories of payouts, ranging from $50
to $15,000. The highest payout of $28 million is set aside for
attorney fees.

Lawrence Mayor Dan Rivera and two local lawmakers oppose the
details of the settlement, including the amount paid to attorneys
-- which experts say could affect the case.

"I think the court is going to hear it and whether the court says
to itself, 'You know, look, I have concerns about the initial
onset, whether this is a fair and reasonable disposition, and I'm
not even going to let it go to the community,'" said NewsCenter 5
legal analyst Vince DeMore of West Hill Associates. "I'm not so
sure that will be the result. I think it will go to the community,
but among the members of the community are Mayor Rivera and members
of the delegation."

Rivera and other are asking that $20 million of the settlement be
set aside to improve public safety infrastructure in the three
Merrimack Valley communities affected by the explosions.

Just in late September 2019, a second gas leak in Lawrence forced
residents to evacuate their homes.

The hearing was set for 2 p.m. on Oct. 7 in Salem. [GN]


CONDE NAST: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conde Nast
Entertainment LLC. The case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios
Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Conde Nast Entertainment LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-09621 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 17, 2019).

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

Conde Nast is a global media company that produces some of the
world's leading print, digital, video and social brands. These
include Vogue, GQ, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Wired and
Architectural Digest (AD), Conde Nast Traveler and La Cucina
Italiana, among others.[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


COOK COUNTY, IL: Class in McFields Suit Denied Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, COURTNEY McFIELDS et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHERIFF OF
COOK COUNTY and COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, Defendant, Case No. 17 C
7424 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John Robert Blakey of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Plaintiffs McFields, Pierre Brunt, Anthony Dixon, and Walter
Williams, detainees at the Cook County Jail ("CCJ") filed the
putative class action challenging the way in which CCJ handles
health service requests from detainees complaining of dental pain.
The Plaintiffs claim that CCJ's 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, they
claim, CCJ's policy violates the Fourteenth Amendment because it is
unreasonable and reflects a deliberate indifference to pain.

The Plaintiffs' complaint names as the Defendants the Sheriff of
Cook County and Cook County.  The Sheriff operates CCJ and is
charged, together with Cook County, with providing medical care,
including dental care, to CCJ detainees.

In their amended complaint, the Plaintiffs state that they planned
to assert the claim on behalf of all persons confined at the Cook
County Jail from Oct. 31, 2013 to the date of entry of judgment in
the case who, having submitted a written complaint of dental pain,
were not examined by a registered nurse or higher level
practitioner within 48 hours of submission of the written
complaint.

Subsequently, they moved to certify a slightly different class: All
persons who, while detained at the Cook County Jail between Nov. 1,
2013 and April 30, 2018, submitted a written Health Service Request
Form complaining of dental pain and did not receive a face-to-face
assessment by a registered nurse or higher-level practitioner after
submitting the request.

The Plaintiffs, who seek only damages, seek to certify the case
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).

The Defendants oppose class certification.

To prevail on their motion, the Plaintiffs initially must
demonstrate numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation, as well as predominance and superiority.  The
Defendants do not dispute numerosity or adequacy of representation.


Judge Blakey finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate
commonality and typicality; rather, resolution of the Plaintiffs'
claim requires a highly individualized, fact intensive inquiry.
Nor have they demonstrated that common questions predominate over
questions affecting only individual members.  Accordingly, the
Court opines that class certification is not appropriate and,
accordingly, denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 24, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/ajVLhA from
Leagle.com.

Courtney McFields, individually and for a class, Pierre Brunt,
individually and for a class & Anthony Dixon, individually and for
a class, Plaintiffs, represented by Joel A. Flaxman , Kenneth N.
Flaxman P.C. & Kenneth N. Flaxman -- knf@kenlaw.com -- Kenneth N.
Flaxman, P.C.

Walter Williams, individually and for a class, Plaintiff,
represented by Kenneth N. Flaxman, Kenneth N. Flaxman, P.C.

Sheriff of Cook County, Defendant, represented by  Elaine Cindy
Davenport -- EDavenport@SanchezDH.com -- Sanchez Daniels & Hoffman
LLP, Gerald Michael Dombrowski -- GDombrowski@SanchezDH.com --
Sanchez & Daniels, Meghan Domenica White -- MWhite@SanchezDH.com --
Sanchez Daniels & Hoffman & Yifan Xu Sanchez --
YSanchez@SanchezDH.com -- Sanchez Daniels & Hoffman.

Cook County, Illinois, Defendant, represented by Ahmed A. Kosoko ,
Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Andrea Lynn Huff , Sears Holdings Management
Corporation, Anthony E. Zecchin , Hale Law LLC, Brian Patrick
Gainer -- gainerb@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Jack E.
Bentley, Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Lisa Marie Mcelroy, Johnson & Bell,
Ltd., Michael Richard Sherer, Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Monica Burkoth
-- gutowskim@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell, Ltd. & Zachary Adam
Pestine, JOHNSON & BELL.


CORINDUS VASCULAR: Docs on Siemens Merger Misleading, Shea Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEC SHEA, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. CORINDUS VASCULAR ROBOTICS, INC., MARK J.
TOLAND, JEFFREY C. LIGHTCAP, JEFFREY G. GOLD, CAMPBELL D. ROGERS,
JAMES R. TOBIN, LOUIS A. CANNON, NATHAN R. HARRINGTON, and DOUGLAS
L. BRAUNSTEIN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08918 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 25, 2019), alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, and seeks to enjoin a vote on a
proposed transaction, pursuant to which Corindus will be acquired
by Siemens Healthineers AG through its primary U.S. operating
subsidiary Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. and Siemens' wholly
owned subsidiary Corpus Merger, Inc.

The case is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on
behalf of himself and all other public stockholders of Corindus
Vascular Robotics, Inc. against Corindus and the members of
Corindus' Board of Directors.

On August 8, 2019, Corindus issued a press release announcing that
it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated August 7,
2019 to sell Corindus to Healthineers. Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, each Corindus stockholder will receive $4.28 in
cash for each share of Corindus common stock they own. The Proposed
Transaction is valued at approximately $1.1 billion.

On August 30, 2019, Corindus filed a Schedule 14A Preliminary Proxy
Statement with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that
Corindus stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
omits or misrepresents material
information concerning:

-- Corindus' financial projections, relied upon by
the Company's financial advisor, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., in
its financial analyses;

-- the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses
that support the fairness opinion provided by Citi; and

-- Company insiders' and Citi's potential conflicts of interest.
Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading
Proxy Statement in violation of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, unless remedied, Corindus' public
stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Proxy
Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them
from making a sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on
the Proposed Transaction.

Corindus Vascular was founded in 2002 by Rafael Beyar, an
interventional cardiologist, and Tal Wenderow. Its goal is to use
remote control and robotics to move coronary guidewires and
balloon/stent catheters. Corindus, Inc. is based in Waltham,
Massachusetts.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

          Alexandra B. Raymond
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (646) 860-9158
          Facsimile: (212) 214-0506
          E-mail: raymond@bespc.com

CRAFT BREW: Smith Seeks OT Wages for Restaurant Staff
-----------------------------------------------------
ANDREW SMITH, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, THE Plaintiff, v. CRAFT BREW COMPANY, INC. and PATRICK
POTOPSKY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02239-BYP (N.D. Ohio,
Sept. 26, 2019), challenges policies and practices of Defendants
that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants have employed at least one hundred hourly workers
during the relevant period. The Plaintiff Smith was employed by
Defendants from about July 2019 to the present as a cook at the
Strongsville, Ohio Brew Garden location.

The Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Collective and Ohio
Class frequently worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek.
However, instead of compensating, the Defendants them paid straight
time hourly rates for all hours worked, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants are owners and operators of two Brew Garden
restaurant locations operating at 16555 South Park Center,
Strongsville, Ohio 44136, and 18590 Bagley Road, Middleburg
Heights, Ohio 44130.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Caxton Building
          812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 912-2221
          Facsimile: (216) 350-6313
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com

CROWN EQUIPMENT: Faces Brown et al Suit in California Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crown Equipment
Corporation. The case is captioned as Joshua Brown, Martin
Castaneda, Bryan Krenk, and Michael Layman, On behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of
other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private
Attorneys General Act, the Plaintiffs, vs. Crown Equipment
Corporation and Does 1-100, the Defendants, Case No.
34-2019-00265878-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sept. 27, 2019). The suit
alleges employment-related issues.

Crown Equipment is a privately held, family-owned U.S. company. It
is the fifth largest manufacturer of powered industrial forklift
trucks in the world. Crown had $3.48 billion in worldwide sales
revenue for fiscal year 2018.[BN]

DPS LAND: Raptis Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
PETER RAPTIS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DPS LAND SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01262-JFC
(W.D. Pa., Oct. 2, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

DPS describes itself as a "full-service land company that is
dedicated to the Appalachian Basin."  DPS operates throughout the
United States, including Pennsylvania and Ohio. DPS describes its
work as "a diverse range of assignments including obtaining ROW
[Right of Way] for a gathering system in a complex urban
environment and managing multifaceted, large scale title and land
projects."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766-1455
          Facsimile: (412)766-0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


ELECTROCORE INC: Registration Statement Misleading, Turnofsky Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALLYN TURNOFSKY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ELECTROCORE, INC., FRANCIS R. AMATO,
GLENN S. VRANIAK, BRIAN POSNER, CARRIE S. COX, MICHAEL G. ATIEH,
JOSEPH P. ERRICO, NICHOLAS COLUCCI, THOMAS J. ERRICO, TREVOR J.
MOODY, MICHAEL W. ROSS, DAVID M. RUBIN, JAMES L.L.TULLIS, EVERCORE
GROUP L.L.C., CANTOR FITZGERALD & CO., JMP SECURITIES LLC, and
BTIG, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-18400 (D.N.J., Sept.
26, 2019), is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired electroCore common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
(Registration Statement) issued in connection with the Company's
June 2018 initial public offering purchased or otherwise acquired
ElectroCore securities between June 22, 2018 and September 25,
2019, inclusive.

On June 25, 2018, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4
with the SEC, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In
the IPO, the Company sold 5,980,000 shares of common stock at a
price of $15.00 per share. The Company received proceeds of $79.5
million from the Offering, net of underwriting discounts and
commissions.

The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly to be used to
commercialize of gammaCore products, expand its clinical program
into additional indications in headache and rheumatology, build its
specialty distribution channel for the anticipated launch of
gammaCore Sapphire, and working capital and other corporate
purposes.

On May 14, 2019, the Company announced first quarter 2019 financial
results that fell short of investors' expectations, reporting
$410,000 net sales and operating loss of $14.2 million.  On this
news, the Company's share price fell $1.58, nearly 30%, to close at
$3.75 per share on May 15, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On September 25, 2019, the Company revealed that the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration requested more information and analysis of
clinical data for electroCore's 510(k) submission, which seeks an
expanded indication for the use of gammaCore.  On this news, the
Company's share price fell $0.79, over 23%, to close at $2.57 per
share that same day on unusually heavy trading volume.

By the commencement of this action, electroCore stock was trading
as low as $1.25 per share, a nearly 92% decline from the $15 per
share IPO price.

The Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to
state material adverse facts. Throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that:

     (1) the Company's lead product, gammaCore, did not enjoy any
advantages over other acute treatments for migraines and episodic
cluster headaches;

     (2) as a result, doctors and patients were unlikely to adopt
gammaCore over existing treatments;

     (3) the Company's voucher program was not effective to
increase adoption of gammaCore;

     (4) the Company lacked sufficient resources to successfully
commercialize gammaCore;

     (5) the Company's business plan and strategy was not
sustainable because electroCore lacked sufficient revenue to be
profitable;

     (6) the Company's product registry and efforts were
ineffective to initiate reimbursement policies by commercial payors
for gammaCore;

     (7) the lack of reimbursement would materially impact adoption
and sales of gammaCore;

     (8) the Company lacked sufficient clinical data demonstrating
that gammaCore was effective and safe for migraine prevention;

     (9) as a result, the Company's 510(k) submission for the use
of gammaCore for migraine prevention was unlikely to be approved by
the FDA; and

    (10) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.

ElectroCore is a bioelectronic medicine company with a non-invasive
vagus nerve stimulation therapy. Its lead product gammaCore is used
for the acute treatment of pain associated with migraine and
episodic cluster headache in adults.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
             OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150

EPIC GAMES: Faces Class Action Over Fortnite Addiction
------------------------------------------------------
George Geddes, writing for Dot Esports, reports that Epic Games'
Fortnite is under fire after a Montreal law firm has requested
authorization to launch a class-action lawsuit against the
developer with claims it did not warn its users about the
possibility of addiction, according to a report from CBC.

The filing follows the basis of the 2015 Quebec Superior Court
ruling, which stated that tobacco companies failed to warn their
customers about the harmful effects of smoking. Similarly, Epic
Games is accused of failing to disclose the possibility of
addiction.

The case is being taken on behalf of two parents, both of whom have
children that have played Fortnite extensively. The parents claim
the game shares similarities to cocaine, saying that Fortnite
releases dopamine into the minds of children.

The UK's National Health Service found that "Gaming Addiction" can
be treated on its current plan after it was declared as a medical
disorder by the World Health Organization earlier in the year. This
addiction was classified as a disorder after a 15-year old boy was
hospitalized for eight weeks after playing video-games extensively,
eventually losing confidence to go outside, according to The
Telegraph.

The law firm has also claimed that Fortnite can be classed as
addictive. Epic Games hired psychologists to make it as addictive
as possible, according to Alessandra Esposito Chartrand, an
attorney with Calex Légal.

This case suggests that Epic hasn't disclosed the effects of the
video game in the terms and conditions. It's the company's
responsibility to inform its customers of these dangers, according
to Chartrand.

Epic told Dot Esports that it doesn't comment on ongoing litigation
and the parental controls are outlined on its website. [GN]


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Calif. Court Certifies Reyes FCRA Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Hawk, Esq. -- john.hawk@wbd-us.com -- of Womble Bond
Dickinson, in an article for the law firm's FCRAland, reports that
in a case originally filed in March 2016, and following the
successful appeal of a grant of summary judgment in favor of
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. ("Experian"), Judge Andrew
Guilford of the United Stated District Court for the Central
District of California certified a class of consumers whose
reporting by Experian was allegedly "misleading" after a loan
servicer went out of business.

Delbert Services Corporation ("Delbert") was a servicer for
internet loans issued by Western Sky Financial, LLC. In January
2015, Delbert went out of business and told Experian that it wanted
to "discontinue use of any and all services provided by Experian."
Experian responded that it had deleted all Delbert loans from its
database. In reality, however, Experian continued to report the
loans until April 2016.

In the Complaint, plaintiff Demeta Reyes alleged a single claim for
relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 ("FCRA"), 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq. Specifically, she asserted that Experian
willfully failed to "follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum
possible accuracy of the information" contained in her credit
report. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681e(b), 1681n(a).

Experian filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was
entitled to summary judgment because (1) its "reporting of
[Plaintiff's] loan was at all times indisputably accurate."; and
(2) even assuming a prima facie case of inaccuracy, there was no
evidence of a "willful" violation. Judge Guilford agreed, finding
that Experian's reporting of plaintiff's loan was "neither patently
inaccurate nor unduly misleading." He granted summary judgment on
October 13, 2017.

The Ninth Circuit, however, reversed Judge Guilford.  In an
unreported opinion, it found that plaintiff raised a genuine issue
of material fact as to whether Experian's continued reporting of
plaintiff's loan was "misleading in such a way and to such an
extent that it can be expected to adversely affect credit
decisions." It found that when Experian was reporting an account
from the defunct Delbert, it was reporting an account that was no
longer verifiable and that plaintiff could not make current since
Delbert was no longer in business.  Also, Experian continued to
report plaintiff's past-due history, but had deleted her positive
payment history.  The Ninth Circuit found that a reasonable jury
could conclude that Experian's continued reporting of plaintiff's
account, "either on its own, or coupled with the deletion of
portions of [plaintiff]'s positive payment history on the same
loan, was materially misleading."

On remand, plaintiff requested certification of the following
class, "All persons whose Experian consumer report contained an
account from Delbert Services Corp. reflecting delinquency on a
loan originated by Western Sky Financial, LLC after January 21,
2015 . . . ."  Judge Guilford certified the class on October 3,
2019.

The case is Demeta Reyes v. Experian Information Solutions Inc.,
case number 8:16-cv-00563, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. [GN]


EXTRA BUTTER: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Extra Butter LLC et
al. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Extra Butter
LLC, Extra Butter NYC, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09606
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 17, 2019).

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

Extra Butter LLC is minimalist boutique featuring on-trend men's &
women's streetwear, sneakers & accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FAIRLIFE LLC: Ngai Sues over Maltreatment of Cows
-------------------------------------------------
KEVIN NGAI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FAIRLIFE, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-08148-AB-SK (C.D. Cal., Sept. 19, 2019), alleges that
Defendants violated Cal. Bus & Prof. Code as a result of
intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and
false or misleading advertising in connection with the Fairlife
Milk Products.

The packaging of Fairlife Milk Products feature various
representations that lead reasonable consumers to believe that the
cows from which Fairlife Milk Products are sourced are treated in a
humane and ethical way. Unfortunately, nothing could be further
from the truth.

Defendants' representations of humane treatment were false because
their employees subjected their cows to deplorable conditions and
physical abuse Defendants made the representations recklessly and
without regard for their truth because they did not have sufficient
policies or practices in place, including but not limited to
effective monitoring or supervising of their animal-facing
employees, to ensure that their representations of humane treatment
of their cows were true.

Fairlife, LLC is the manufacturer, advertiser, and seller of
Fairlife brand "ultrafiltered" milk products.  Fairlife, stylized
as fa!rlife, is distributed in Canada and the United States by The
Coca-Cola Company.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff are:

          Graham B. LippSmith, Esq.
          Celene Chan Andrews, Esq.
          KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP
          360 East 2nd Street, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: 213-254-4800
          Facsimile: 213-254-4801
          E-mail: glippsmith@klwtlaw.com
                  candrews@klwtlaw.com


FIRST CONNECTICUT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Karp Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SELWYN KARP, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated Plaintiff, v. FIRST CONNECTICUT BANCORP, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. RDB-18-2496 (D. Md.), Judge
Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Lead Plaintiff Karp brings the purported class action on behalf of
himself and other former public shareholders of First Connecticut
against First Connecticut and the former members of the Company's
board of directors: John J. Patrick, Jr.; Robald A. Bucchi; John A.
Green; James T. Healey Jr.; Patience P. McDowell; Kevin S. Ray; and
Michael A. Ziebka, alleging violations of federal securities laws.
The Plaintiffs bring the federal class action for violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15
U.S.C. Sections 78n(a), and 78t(a) respectively, and United States
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.14a-9, in connection with the acquisition of First
Connecticut by People's United Financial, Inc.

On June 18, 2018, First Connecticut and People's United entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which First
Connecticut shareholders would receive 1,725 shares of People's
United common stock for each share of First Connecticut common
stock they owned, leaving People's United as the surviving
corporation.  Although First Connecticut reported good 2017
financial results and a strong first quarter of 2018, the Board
determined to sell the company and responded eagerly to People's
United's initial outreach in April 2018.  The sales process was
finalized in only two months.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Board
rushed the sale and accepted consideration for the merger that
undervalued First Connecticut shareholders' shares.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants negligently
allowed a Proxy to be disseminated to the Company's shareholders
that omitted material information -- Cash Flow Projections -- that
would have alerted the shareholders to the fact that the
consideration being offered for the merger was inadequate.
According to them, the missing free cash flow projections were the
single most important financial metric for valuing a company and
its stock in connection with a merger and are generally a staple in
proxy statements related to corporate mergers.  The lack of these
cash flow projections thus resulted in the Proxy containing a
materially incomplete and misleading picture of First Connecticut's
valuation and financial prospects.  The Proxy, which was filed with
the SEC, recommended that the shareholders vote in favor of the
merger, but because it lacked material information about the
intrinsic value of the Company, the shareholders were unable to
make an informed decision.

The Defendants initially authorized the filing of the Proxy on July
25, 2018.  Karp filed his Complaint for Violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on Aug. 14, 2018, initially seeking to enjoin
the merger.  The allegedly misleading Proxy was filed with the SEC
on Aug. 22, 2018.

On Sept. 25, 2018, a special meeting of First Connecticut's
shareholders was held to vote on the merger.  The meeting having
taken place, the parties entered into a Stipulation on Sept. 27,
2018, under which Karp agreed to withdraw the Injunction Motion as
moot, file an Amended Complaint, and the parties set a briefing
schedule for the Defendants' intended motion to dismiss.  The
merger was consummated on Ocy. 1, 2018.  Karp filed a Consolidation
Motion, under which he would be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff,
which the Court granted on Nov. 7, 2018, consolidating the two
cases.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on Dec. 17, 2018
alleging two causes of action: Count I, Against all the Defendants
for Violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
Promulgated Thereunder; and Count II, Against the Individual
Defendants for Violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The pending Motion to Dismiss was filed on Jan. 29, 2019.

First, Judge Bennett finds that the Plaintiffs have provided
detailed allegations explaining why the omissions made other
statements misleading.  The materiality standard contemplates a
showing of a substantial likelihood that, under all the
circumstances, the omitted fact would have assumed actual
significance in the deliberations of the reasonable shareholder.
The Plaintiffs have alleged a plausible claim that the missing cash
flow information was important to a reasonable shareholder when
deciding how to vote on the merger, the summary information
provided was inadequate and misleading, and the reasons why were
articulated sufficiently to survive this dismissal motion.  The
Judge will not engage the Court in a fact-intensive test at the
pleadings stage.

Next, the Judge finds that the  Plaintiffs have adequately alleged
the requisite elements of a Section 14(a) claim.  The Plaintiffs
alleged that the materially incomplete and misleading Proxy was an
essential link in the consummation of the Merger, as the Merger
could not have been consummated without shareholder approval, which
in turn could not have been obtained without the misleading Proxy.
The Pro xy contained a material omission causing it to be
misleading, so the causal relation between violation and injury is
sufficiently established since the Proxy was an essential link in
the accomplishment of the transaction.

Finally, the Judge holds that the Section 20(a) claim related to
the Section 14(a) violation also survives the dismissal motion.
The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs have failed to
adequately allege a claim under Section 14(a), and therefore, the
control person claims must be dismissed.  As he described, however,
the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged a Section 14(a) claim
against the Defendants.  Further, the Plaintiffs have alleged that
the Individual Defendants held positions of authority as First
Connecticut directors and had the ability to control the issuance
and contents of the Proxy that was disseminated to shareholders.
As discussed, the  Plaintiffs have also adequately alleged
negligence on the part of each Individual Defendant.

For the reasons stated, Judge Bennett denied the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss.  The Clerk of the Court transmit copies of the
Memorandum Order to the counsel for both parties.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 24, 2019 Memorandum
Order is available at https://is.gd/hVqJXB from Leagle.com.

Selwyn Karp, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Joseph Minton --
tminton@charmcitylegal.com -- Goldman and Minton PC & Juan E.
Monteverde -- jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com -- Monteverde and
Associates PC, pro hac vice.

Constance Lagace, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Donald J.
Enright -- denright@zlk.com -- Levi and Korsinsky LLP.

First Connecticut Bancorp, Inc., John J. Patrick, Jr., Ronald A.
Bucchi, John A. Green, James T. Healey, Jr., Patience P. McDowell,
Kevin S. Ray & Michael A. Ziebka, Defendants, represented by
Elizabeth Gingold Clark -- elizabeth.clark@alston.com -- Alston and
Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Emily Seymour Costin --
emily.costin@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, LLP & Robert R. Long --
robert.long@alston.com -- Alston and Bird LLP, pro hac vice.


FOREST VIEW: Jovanovic Files Suit Over Illegal Use of Biometrics
----------------------------------------------------------------
SABINA JOVANOVIC and DARWIN THOMAS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. FOREST VIEW REHABILITATION AND
NURSING CENTER, LLC, Case No. 2019L001106 (Ill. Cir. Ct., DuPage
Cty., Oct. 2, 2019), alleges violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiffs want to put a stop to the Defendant's unlawful
collection, use, and storage of their and other former or current
employees' sensitive biometric data.  The Plaintiffs contend that
Forest View never informed them of the specific limited purposes or
length of time for which it collected, stored, or used handprints.
They argue that they never signed a written release allowing Forest
View to collect or store their handprints.

Forest View is an Illinois limited liability company headquartered
in Itasca, Illinois.  The Company operates in the rehabilitation
and nursing center industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


FRAMINGHAM AUTO MALL: Pena Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
Carlos Pena, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Framingham Auto Mall, Inc., Soulhborough
Auto Mall, LLC and Marcio Vasconcelos, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-18299, (D. N.J., September 24, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages for hours rendered in excess of 40 hours per work
week under Massachusetts general wage laws.

Defendants operate a car dealership located in Framingham,
Massachusetts where Pena worked as a salesperson in 2012. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua W. Gardner, Esq.
      GARDNER & ROSENBERG, P.C.
      One State Street, Fourth Floor
      Boston, MA 02109
      Tel: (617) 390−7570
      Fax: (617) 972−7983
      Email: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com


FROEDTERT HEALTH: Fore Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Tony Fore, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Froedtert Health Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01488-NJ (E.D. Wis., Oct. 10, 2019) is a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and an individual and class
action under Wisconsin law by Plaintiffs, current and former
employees of Defendant to seek redress for Froedtert's failure to
pay to them straight time and overtime pay required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin law.

Plaintiff regularly worked for more than 40 hours per week. Because
Plaintiff was ordinarily paid for at least 40 hours per week,
counting her time spent turning on her computer would increase her
work time to beyond 40 hours per week, thus entitling her to
additional overtime pay that she did not receive, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is an adult resident of the State of Wisconsin who worked
for Froedtert as a Patient Access Service Representative at the
Sargeant Health Center.

Defendant Froedtert is a Wisconsin corporation operating numerous
hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare related facilities and
business in Southeastern Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yingtao Ho, Esq.
     Joe Sexauer, Esq.
     The Previant Law Firm S.C.
     310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
     Milwaukee, WI 53203
     Phone: 414-271-4500
     Fax: 414-271-6308
     Email: vh@previant.com
            jms@previant.com


GLOBAL RADAR: Faces Job Suit Over Illegally Issued Consumer Report
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN JOB, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL RADAR ACQUISITION, LLC, d.b.a. GLOBAL HR
RESEARCH, a foreign limited liability company, f.k.a. RADAR POST
CLOSING HOLDING COMPANY, INC. f.k.a., GLOBAL HR RESEARCH, INC. and
DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-06525
(N.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2019) is a class action asserting violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act for furnishing consumer reports
without receiving required certifications.

Herman Integration Services, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability, was
one of the many customers that procured pre-employment background
checks regarding their job applicants from Global HR Research. On
December 22, 2017, Plaintiff submitted an application for
employment with Herman for work as a "systems integrator." Herman
communicated to Plaintiff that he would be hired subject to
completion of a successful background check. Herman "procured"
(ordered) a background check regarding Plaintiff from Global HR
Research. Global HR Research furnished an investigative consumer
report regarding Plaintiff to Herman. After receiving the report
from Global HR Research, Herman withdrew the job offer and did not
hire Plaintiff.

According to the complaint, it is illegal for an investigative
consumer reporting agency such as Global HR Research to furnish an
investigative consumer report for employment purposes without first
receiving assurances ("certifications") that the employer has
complied with certain requirements. In violation of the FCRA,
Global transmitted the report to Herman without receiving a
certification that Herman complied with the FCRA. Accordingly, the
transmission of the report to Herman was illegal. Global HR
Research violated Plaintiff's right to privacy by compiling his
personal, private, and sensitive information into a consumer
report, and transmitting the report to Plaintiff's prospective
employer illegally, in violation of the requirements imposed by the
FCRA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is an individual, who resided in San Francisco,
California.

Global HR Research is a consumer reporting agency that provides
human resources support for hundreds of businesses nationwide and
in the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
     Michael D. Singer, Esq.
     Jeff Geraci, Esq.
     COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
     605 C Street, Suite 200
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 595-3001
     Fax: (619) 595-3000
     Email: ikhoury@ckslaw.com
            msinger@ckslaw.com
            jgeraci@ckslaw.com

          - and -

     Ian Pancer, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF IAN PANCER
     105 West F St. 4th Floor
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 955-6644
     Facsimile: (619) 374-7410
     Email: ian@sandiegolegal.net


H&R BLOCK: Hid Free Tax-Filing Program, Swanson Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
AARICKA SWANSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. H&R BLOCK, INC., HRB TAX GROUP, INC.,
HRB DIGITAL, LLC, and FREE FILE, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00788-GAF (W.D. Mo., Sept. 26, 2019), alleges that H&R
Block is engaged in a campaign that intentionally divert and
deceive lower-income taxpayers who are eligible to receive free tax
preparation and filing services under the United States Internal
Revenue Service's (IRS) Free File program to their paid tax-filing
products.

According to the complaint, pursuant to a contract agreement
between Defendant Free File, Inc. (formerly known as Free File
Alliance, LLC) and the IRS, H&R Block and other tax preparation
providers are required to cumulatively offer 70% of U.S. taxpayers
based on Adjusted Gross Income (currently anyone with an AGI of
$66,000 or less) the option to file their taxes for free.

H&R Block and a consortium of other online tax-preparation
providers formed the entity Free File, Inc., which purports to be a
nonprofit coalition of industry-leading tax software companies
partnered with the IRS to provide free electronic tax services. The
Alliance operates "Free File" -- a service dedicated to helping 70%
of American taxpayers prepare and e-file their federal tax returns.
As such, each member of Free File, including H&R Block, agreed to
offer free online tax-filing services to lower income taxpayers.

The agreement was specifically designed so that the IRS would not
need to create its own free online filing system. According to the
government, the goal of the Free File Program was to implement the
IRS's public policy of "extending the benefits of online federal
tax preparation and electronic filing to economically disadvantaged
and underserved populations at no cost to either the individual
user or to the public treasury."[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Eric D. Barton, Esq.
          Sarah A. Ruane, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
          4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 701-1100
          Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
          E-mail: ebarton@wcllp.com
                  sruane@wcllp.com

               - and -

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Andrew Obergfell, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-Mail: ykopel@bursor.com

HANY PANKY: Jane Roe Calls Tip-Splitting Unlawful
-------------------------------------------------
JANE ROE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. JOSE TORRES L.D. LATIN CLUB BAR, INC.; HANY
PANKY CLUB; and DOES 1-200, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06088
(Cal. Super., Sept. 25, 2019), alleges that the Defendants have
failed to pay the Plaintiff and class members the minimum wages and
other benefits to which they were entitled under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the California Labor Code.

The Defendants also have engaged in unlawful tip-splitting by
requiring the Plaintiff and class members, who receive gratuities
from costumers, to tip and/or split and share gratuities with
Defendants and/or its workers.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as an exotic dancer.
She seeks to represent classes of individuals who have worked as
exotic dancers for the Defendants.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Steven G. Tidrick, Esq.
          Joel B. Young, Esq.
          THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM LLP
          1300 Clay Street, Suit 600
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 788 5100
          Facsimile: (510) 291 3226
          E-mail: sgt@tidricklaw.com
                  jby@tidricklaw.com

HARU INC: Tecuapacho Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay for Cooks
--------------------------------------------------------
JUAN TECUAPACHO and ALFREDO TEXIS, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HARU INC. d/b/a
TAKAHACHI, NATSU INC. d/b/a TAKAHACI, and HIROYUKI TAKAHACHI, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08947 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law,
and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff to work as a cook from in or
about June 2014 until on or about August 31, 2019.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with
a policy of not paying Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
employees a "spread of hours" premium for each day that their work
shift exceeded 10 hours in a single day, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Peter II. Cooper, Esq.
          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44 111 Street - 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com

IC SYSTEM: Roldan Alleges Violation under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IC System, Inc. The
case is styled as Juan Roldan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IC System, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-05857 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 16, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

IC System, Inc. is a debt collection agency in Vadnais Heights,
Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David M. Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com

     - and -

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




JELLY BELLY: Hoffman Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
-------------------------------------------------------
Howard Hoffman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Jelly Belly Candy Company, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 19-at-00923 (E.D. Cal., September 24, 2019), seeks
statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Jelly Belly Candy Company manufactures Jelly Belly jellybeans and
other candy. To promote its services, it engages in unsolicited SMS
ads sent en masse via an auto dialer. Hoffman did not give express
consent to receive such texts, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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

             - and -

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

             - and -

      Annick Persinger, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 254-6808
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com


JOHNSON'S TREE: Johnson Seeks Proper Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
TYKWAN JOHNSON f/k/a TYKWAN WRIGHT; and TAVARIS MCCARTER, for
themselves and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. JOHNSON'S TREE SERVICE AND STUMP GRINDING, INC. a Florida Profit
Corporation; DAVID JOHNSON, Individually; and DAYNA JOHNSON,
Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00741 (M.D. Fla., Oct.
10, 2019) is a Complaint against Defendants to recover overtime pay
as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours within a workweek. Despite working numerous
overtime hours for Defendants, Plaintiffs were not paid an overtime
premium for their overtime hours. The Defendants used two separate
payroll companies to avoid compensating Plaintiffs for their
overtime hours worked. The Defendants failed and/or refused to
properly compensate Plaintiffs, and other drivers and/ operators,
at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek as required
by the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were hired by Defendants as non-exempt foreman and a
truck driver/operator for Defendants' business.

JOHNSON'S TREE SERVICE is a tree and stump removal service company,
which operates in Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Angeli Murthy, Esq.
     Morgan & Morgan, P.A.
     8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone: (954) 327-5369
     Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
     Email: amurthy@forthepeople.com


JUUL LABS: King County Files RICO Class Action in Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Juul Labs, Inc.  The
case is styled as King County, on behalf of itself and other
similarly situated counties, Plaintiff v. Juul Labs, Inc. f/k/a PAX
Labs, Inc., PAX Labs, Inc., Altria Group, Inc., Altria Client
Services, Altria Group Distribution Company, Nu Mark LLC and Nu
Mark Innovations, Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01664 (W.D.
Wash., Oct. 16, 2019).

The docket of the case states that the lawsuit was filed pursuant
to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
Act.

Pax Labs is an American electronic vaporizer company founded in
2007 that markets the Pax vaporizers. The company developed the
Juul e-cigarette; Juul Labs was spun out as a separate company in
2017.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Derek W Loeser, Esq.
   KELLER ROHRBACK LLP (WA)
   1201 3RD AVE, STE 3200
   SEATTLE, WA 98101-3052
   Tel: (206) 623-1900
   Email: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com

KLLM TRANSPORT: Class in Swales FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HARRY SWALES, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. KLLM TRANSPORT
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, MARCUS BRENT JOWERS, Plaintiff, v. KLLM
TRANSPORT SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No.
3:17-CV-490-DPJ-FKB, Consolidated With Civil Action No.
3:17-CV-517-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss.), Judge Daniel P. Jordan III of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi,
Northern Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for
Conditional Certification.

Defendant KLLM is a motor carrier that is authorized by the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration to provide transportation of
property for hire to the public.  Plaintiffs Corey Lilly, Kyle
Shettles, John McGee, and Marcus Brent Jowers all worked as truck
drivers for KLLM under Independent Contractor Agreements ("ICAs")
between October 2015 and January 2017.  The Plaintiffs say KLLM
misclassified them and similarly situated truck drivers as
independent contractors when, under Mississippi law and the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), they were employees entitled to
payment of the federal minimum wage.

Plaintiffs Lilly, Shettles, and McGee filed the lead case against
KLLM on June 21, 2017; Jowers filed the member case on June 28,
2017.  The Plaintiffs seek relief for themselves and on behalf of
similarly situated KLLM drivers under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
The cases were consolidated for purposes of discovery on March 29,
2018, and the parties engaged in discovery limited to the issue of
Section 216(b) certification.

Now that the initial phase of discovery is closed, the Plaintiffs
seek conditional certification of a class of all individual persons
and/or entities who entered into ICAs and Tractor Lease/Purchase
Agreements with KLLM.

In sum, Judge Jordan finds that the Plaintiffs have provided
evidence that they are similarly situated to other drivers in terms
of their relationship to the Defendant, the skill required to
perform their positions, the extent of their investments and the
Defendant's investments, and the degree to which their opportunity
for profit and loss is determined by the alleged employer.  The
Plaintiffs have established a basis for conditional certification
under Section 216(b).

That does not, however, mean the conditional class should be as
broad as the Plaintiffs want.  Judge Jordan finds that KLLM
correctly points out that the Plaintiffs' request for conditional
certification contains no temporal limitations.  Courts within the
Fifth Circuit have repeatedly recognized that based on the statute
of limitations, class certification is appropriately limited to
workers employed by the defendant up to three years before notice
is approved by the court.  The Plaintiffs offer no response to the
argument, and Judge Jordan agrees with KLLM that the class should
be limited to those employed within three years of the date the
Order is entered.

KLLM also asserts that any class should exclude drivers who first
signed an ICA on Sept. 25, 2017, because, as of that date, KLLM's
master ICA was revised to include a waiver of the driver's right to
file, bring, join, consent to, or participate in any lawsuit or
arbitration purporting to form, or seeking to form, a class, class
action, collective action or mass action.  Again, the Plaintiffs
did not respond to the argument, and the Judge agrees that the
class should be so limited.

Finally, the parties disagree as to how much information about
potential opt-ins KLLM should be required to provide the
Plaintiffs, with KLLM objecting to having to provide phone numbers,
e-mail addresses, or social security numbers.  The Plaintiffs
respond that they are willing to address the issue by meeting and
conferring after conditional certification is granted.  In the
event KLLM declines to petition for interlocutory appeal or the
Fifth Circuit denies its petition, the parties should meet and
confer about the procedure for notice and contact the chambers of
United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball to set a status
conference to discuss the timing and logistics of notice and
further discovery and to enter new case-management deadlines as
appropriate.

Judge Jordan certifies the decision for interlocutory appeal.  To
begin, the Order involves controlling questions of law as to which
there is substantial ground for difference of opinion.  As noted,
there are open questions regarding the applicable standards,
especially when some discovery has occurred.  And assuming the
Court should have applied the ultimate standard for certification,
that too is unclear.

Also, an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate
termination of the litigation.  KLLM presented thoughtful arguments
for denying certification under a more exacting standard.  If it is
correct, the Court need not participate in the notice process,
allow an opt-in period, oversee discovery as to possibly thousands
of drivers' claims, and then face the certification issue again at
the decertification stage.

Finally, applying a different test for conditional certification --
or for the ultimate decision whether to certify -- could materially
impact the trial of this matter; the case will either be a
collective action or involve individual claims.  The case is
therefore certified for interlocutory appeal and stayed until the
appeal is concluded or the parties indicate that no appeal will be
filed and request a status conference to plan the logistics of
issuing notice.

Judge Jordan has considered all arguments.  Those not addressed
would not have changed the outcome.  For the foregoing reasons,
Judge Jordan granted the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Conditional
Certification.

The following class is conditionally approved: Those individual
persons and/or entities who entered into Independent Contractor
Agreements and Tractor Lease/Purchase Agreements with KLLM
Transport Services, LLC, at any time on or after Sept. 24, 2016,
but excluding any individual persons and/or entities who first
executed Independent Contractor Agreements or Tractor
Lease/Purchase Agreements with KLLM Transport Services, LLC, on or
after Sept. 25, 2017.

A full-text copy of Judge Jordan's Sept. 24, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/grCnZu from Leagle.com.

Corey Lilly, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated & Kyle Shettles, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Danielle L. Perry --
dperry@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP, pro hac vice,
Gary E. Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON,
LLP, pro hac vice, John Dudley Butler, BUTLER FARM AND RANCH LAW
GROUP, PLLC & Michael Aschenbrener -- contact@kamberlaw.com --
KAMBER LAW, LLC, pro hac vice.

John McGee, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle L. Perry, WHITFIELD
BRYSON & MASON, LLP, pro hac vice.

Marcus Brent Jowers, and Others Similarly Situated, Consol
Plaintiff, represented by Graham G. Lambert --
gl@haffnerlawyers.com -- HAFFNER LAW, PC, pro hac vice, J. Brad
Pigott -- bpigott@pjlawyers.com -- PIGOTT & JOHNSON, P.A. & Joshua
H. Haffner -- jhh@haffnerlawyers.com -- HAFFNER LAW, PC, pro hac
vice.

KLLM Transport Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Clark
Monroe, II -- gcmonroe@dunbarmonroe.com -- DUNBARMONROE, PLLC &
Christopher G. Dunnells -- cdunnells@dunbarmonroe.com --
DUNBARMONROE, PLLC.

Charles Hallmark, James Johnson, Colton Miller & Donald Tillman,
Interested Partys, represented by Danielle L. Perry, WHITFIELD
BRYSON & MASON, LLP, pro hac vice.


KROGER CO: Pope Sues over Mislabeling of Premium Honey Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN POPE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE KROGER CO., a domestic
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-817 (S.D. Ohio, Sept.
25, 2019), alleges that Kroger's labeling of its premium honey
products -- "Private Selection Raw and Unfiltered Wildflower Honey"
and "Simple Truth Organic Raw and Unfiltered Honey" -- is
inaccurate, incorrect, deceptive, and misleading because the honey
sold under these labels is not actually raw.

Kroger describes its premium honey products as "Raw and
Unfiltered".  According to the complaint, the Raw Honey Products
are not, in fact, raw because Kroger heats the so-called Raw Honey
Products to a temperature greater than 105 degrees Fahrenheit when
it bottles them to make it easier to bottle and package the honey.
When raw honey is heated to more than 105 degrees Fahrenheit, the
enzymes in the honey that are prized by consumers become denatured.
That is to say, the enzymes begin to break down and are lost, the
lawsuit says.

Kroger is a large, publicly traded, national grocery store chain
with more than 3,000 locations and more than 440,000 employees.
Kroger operates stores under the Kroger name and also under the
Mariano's name which Kroger acquired in 2015. Kroger sells food
products produced by other suppliers and, in addition, sells at
least two propriety lines of goods under its own labels: Private
Selection and Simple Truth.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Richard S. Wayne, Esq.
          William K. Flynn, Esq.
          Stephen E. Schilling, Esq
          STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA
          150 E. Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Telephone: (513) 621-2120
          Facsimile: (513) 629-9426
          E-mail: rswayne@strausstroy.com
                  wkflynn@strausstroy.com
                  seschilling@st5rausstroy.com

               - and -

          Kent A. Heitzinger, Esq.
          KENT A. HEITZINGER & ASSOCIATES
          1056 Gage St., No. 200
          Winnetka, IL 60093
          Telephone: (847) 446-2430
          E-mail: heitzinger.law@gmail.com

               - and -

          Terrence Buehler, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER
          1 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3140
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 371-4385
          E-mail: tbuehler@tbuehlerlaw.com

LOCKHEED MARTIN: Machuca Files Labor Class Action in Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN MACHUCA, in a Representative capacity only, on behalf of all
aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN GLOBAL, INC., a
Florida Corporation; LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, a Maryland
Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2019-00053881-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Oct.
10, 2019) is an action in a representative capacity on behalf of
all current and former nonexempt employees of Defendants.

According to the complaint, throughout the term of his employment,
Plaintiff was denied the benefits and protections of the Labor Code
due to Defendants' institutionalized pay practices, standard as to
all of Defendants California-based, nonexempt employees.
Specifically, Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees were
denied the protections and benefits of the Labor Code and
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order(s) due to Defendants'
standard practices. Throughout their employment, Plaintiff and all
other aggrieved employees were and are denied full and accurate
compensation, including overtime compensation; meal and rest
periods and meal and rest period payments, in violation of IWC Wage
Order 5 and Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512; accurate itemized
wage statements in violation of Labor Code section 226; and
reimbursements for necessary business expenditures, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff MACHUCA was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt
employee from December 2010 through September of 2019.

LOCKHEED MARTIN GLOBAL, INC. is a Florida Corporation doing
business in (among others) the County of San Diego.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS: Patel Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Meher Patel, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, Plaintiff, v. LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Corporation; RIDE PLUS, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Corporation, doing business as Provado Mobile
Health; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CV
62205, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Tuolumne, to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California on Oct. 17, 2019, and
assigned Case No. 1:19-at-00749.

The nature of suit is stated as a Labor class action.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Michael S. Kun, Esq.
     Adriana Galindo, Esq.
     EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506
     Phone: 310.556.8861
     Facsimile: 310.553.2165
     Email: mkun@ebglaw.com
            agalindo@ebglaw.com

          - and -

     Kevin R. Vozzo, Esq.
     EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
     250 Park Avenue
     New York, NY 10177
     Phone: 212.351.4500
     Facsimile: 212.878.8600
     Email: kvozzo@ebglaw.com


MDL 2642: Wietzema v. Janssen Transferred to District of Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FLUOROQUINOLONE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION,
MDL No. 2642, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the
action styled, WIETZEMA v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:19-00067, from the District of North Dakota to the
District of Minnesota and, with the consent of that court, assigned
it to the Honorable John R. Tunheim for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiff in the Wietzema action, proceeding pro se, moves under
Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally
transferring his action to MDL No. 2642.  Defendant Janssen
Pharmaceuticals Inc., opposes the motion to vacate and supports
transfer.

After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Vance finds that
this action shares questions of fact with the actions transferred
to MDL No. 2642, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.  Like many of
the centralized actions, Wietzema involves factual questions
arising from allegations that fluoroquinolone antibiotics (here,
Levaquin) cause or substantially contribute to the development of
irreversible peripheral neuropathy and that the warnings provided
by defendant concerning that risk were inadequate.

In opposition to transfer, plaintiff argues that he would like the
venue to stay in North Dakota where he resides.  He asserts that he
has had previous dealings with a law firm involved in class action
litigation against defendant, the firm engaged in
misrepresentations, and he has decided to represent himself in his
individual action in North Dakota.  But plaintiff's personal
preference to keep his action in the district where he resides does
not justify denial of transfer.

The Panel looked to "the overall convenience of the parties and
witnesses, not just those of a single plaintiff or defendant in
isolation."  The overall convenience will be served by transfer of
Wietzema, given the factual issues the case shares with other MDL
cases, the Panel held.  Moreover, the Panel noted that "since
Section 1407 transfer is for pretrial proceedings only, there is
usually no need for the parties and witnesses to travel to the
transferee district for depositions or otherwise."

Plaintiff objects to transfer on the ground that his action is
"unique." But he fails to identify any case-specific issues in his
action that would weigh against transfer, the Panel said.  In any
event, "the presence of additional facts or differing legal
theories" does not prevent the transfer of an action that shares
significant factual issues with those in the MDL.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/cEej9x


MDL 2738: 3 Suits v. Johnson & Johnson Moved to Dist. of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2738, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring three
actions to the District of New Jersey and, with the consent of that
court, assigned them to the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

   * Northern District of California -- SAMBI v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-03715

   * Southern District of California -- WAINSCOTT v. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-01160

   * Northern District of Illinois -- PALMER, ET AL. v. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-03731

Plaintiffs in the three actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate
the Panel's orders that conditionally transferred these actions to
the District of New Jersey for inclusion in MDL No. 2738.
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.,
oppose the motions.

In support of their motions to vacate, plaintiffs in all three
actions argue that federal subject matter jurisdiction over their
respective actions is lacking, and that plaintiffs' pending or
anticipated motions for remand to state court should be decided
before transfer.  The Panel has held that such jurisdictional
issues generally do not present an impediment to transfer.
Plaintiffs can present their remand arguments to the transferee
judge.

In addition, plaintiffs in the Northern District of Illinois Palmer
action argue that transfer is not appropriate because they assert
claims against a unique defendant -- Walgreen Company. Plaintiffs'
arguments are not persuasive. Transfer under Section 1407 does not
require a complete identity of factual issues or parties when the
actions arise from a common factual core. Plaintiffs' claims, like
those of plaintiffs in the MDL, arise from a common factual core --
that plaintiffs' decedents allegedly developed ovarian cancer
following perineal application of Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder
products. Moreover, the Panel has transferred numerous actions
involving claims against retailers and other defendants to the MDL,
including several actions involving claims against Walgreen
Company.

Therefore, after considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance
held that the three actions involve common questions of fact with
the actions transferred to MDL No. 2738, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the
Judge held that the District of New Jersey was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising
from allegations that plaintiffs or their decedents developed
ovarian cancer following perineal application of Johnson &
Johnson's talcum powder products (namely, Johnson's Baby Powder and
Shower to Shower body powder). Plaintiffs' actions here share
multiple questions of fact with the actions already in the MDL.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/yEJg88


MDL 2741: 3 Roundup Suits Moved to Northern Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No.
2741, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring three
actions to the Northern District of California and, with the
consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Vince
Chhabria for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

District of Hawaii
   * OKAMOTO, ET AL. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:19-00330
   * MAYER, ET AL. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:19-00331

Eastern District of Louisiana
   * TROSCLAIR v. MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-10689

Plaintiffs in the three actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate
the Panel's orders that conditionally transferred these actions to
the Northern District of California for inclusion in MDL No. 2741.
Defendant Monsanto Company opposes the motions.

In support of his motion, plaintiff in the Eastern District of
Louisiana Trosclair action argues that federal subject matter
jurisdiction over Trosclair is lacking, and that his motion for
remand to state court should be decided prior to transfer.  The
Panel has held that such jurisdictional issues generally do not
present an impediment to transfer.  Plaintiff can present his
remand arguments to the transferee judge.

In addition, plaintiff argues that transfer of Trosclair is not
appropriate because he alleges unique facts regarding how he
obtained undiluted concentrated Roundup from a Monsanto plant and
asserts claims against unique defendants involved in that
transaction.  This argument is not persuasive.  Transfer under
Section 1407 does not require a complete identity of factual issues
or parties when the actions arise from a common factual core.
Plaintiff's claims, like those of plaintiffs in the MDL, arise from
a common factual core—that plaintiff allegedly developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma following exposure to Monsanto's Roundup
herbicide.  That plaintiff's claims entail additional factual
questions does not weigh against transfer.

Plaintiffs in all three actions argue that transfer is not
appropriate because the MDL has reached an advanced stage.  This
characterization is inaccurate.  While much of the general
discovery of Monsanto has been completed, the transferee court is
now organizing the actions for completion of case-specific
discovery and disposition of case-specific dispositive and Daubert
motions on a state-by-state basis before remanding those actions to
their transferor courts.  

The transferee court has yet to rule on any such motions and has
not suggested remand of any action to its transferor court.
Further, while the transferee court has conducted one bellwether
trial, it has scheduled a second trial to begin in February 2020.
Actions originating from both the District of Hawaii and the
Eastern District of Louisiana are pending in the MDL.  Thus,
significant efficiency and convenience benefits remain to be
achieved through the continued transfer of tag-along actions to MDL
No. 2741.

Finally, plaintiffs in the two Hawaii actions argue that transfer
will be inconvenient for them, as they and their fact witnesses
reside in Hawaii.  While it might inconvenience some parties,
transfer of a particular action often is necessary to further the
expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole.  Here,
the benefits of coordinating these two actions with others in the
MDL, particularly other actions filed in the District of Hawaii,
outweigh any potential inconvenience to plaintiffs.

Therefore, after considering the parties' arguments, Judge Vance
finds that the three actions involve common questions of fact with
the actions transferred to MDL No. 2741, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  In the Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the
Judge held that the Northern District of California was an
appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual
questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup
herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.  All of the three actions share multiple
factual issues with the cases already in the MDL.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/rwvkno


MDL 2768: Denninger Suit v. Anderson Moved to D. Mass.
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: STRYKER LFIT V40 FEMORAL HEAD PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2768, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an
order transferring the case styled, DENNINGER, ET AL. v. ANDERSON,
ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-665,from the Southern District of Illinois to
the District of Massachusetts and, with the consent of that court,
assigned it to the Honorable Indira Talwani for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in the Lakeland Regional action move under Panel Rule
7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring the
action to MDL No. 2768.  Defendant Howmedica Ostenonics Corp.
opposes the motion.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance held that
this action involves common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2768, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  Transfer is warranted for reasons set out in the
Panel's order centralizing this litigation.  In that order, the
Panel held that the District of Massachusetts was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising
from alleged defects in Stryker-branded LFIT Anatomic CoCR V40
femoral heads, a prosthetic hip replacement device.  This action
involves injuries arising from the implantation of a Stryker LFIT
V40 femoral head and clearly falls within the MDL's ambit.

In opposing transfer, plaintiffs argue that federal jurisdiction is
lacking over their action and that their case is unique because it
involves claims against a treating physician and a
metal-on-polyurethane hip implant.  These arguments do not persuade
the Panel that transfer is inappropriate.  Arguments concerning the
propriety of federal jurisdiction are insufficient to warrant
vacatur.  Many medical device product liability actions include
claims against treating surgeons and physicians.  Where, as here,
"common factual issues exist,...  the presence of different legal
theories among the subject actions is not a bar to centralization."
Moreover, plaintiffs' attempt to distinguish their case as
involving a metal-on-polyurethane device (i.e., a metal femoral
head that articulates within a polyurethane acetabular cup) misses
the mark, as the MDL allegations involving the Stryker LFIT V40
femoral head focus on corrosion at the taper junction when paired
with femoral stems that are made from different alloys.  Indeed, as
defendants note (and plaintiffs do not rebut), many MDL actions
involve the LFIT V40 head paired with the same type of Accolade
femoral stem that plaintiff received.  Should the need arise, the
transferee judge can accommodate any unique discovery needs that
this case presents or remand any claims that, in her judgment,
deserve separate treatment.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/7eOA9l


MDL 2797: Transfer Order on Karpowski v. Wells Fargo Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: WELLS FARGO AUTO INSURANCE MARKETING AND SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 2797, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation vacated the Panel's
conditional transfer order designated as "CTO-3" as it relates to
the action styled, KARPOWSKI v. WELLS FARGO DEALER SERVICES, C.A.
No. 1:19-00363 (W.D. Mich.).

Pursuant to Panel Rule 7.1, plaintiff in the Karpowski action,
proceeding pro se, moves to vacate the Panel's order conditionally
transferring this action to the Central District of California for
inclusion in MDL No. 2797.  Defendant agrees to the relief sought,
and withdrew its notice of a potential tag-along action.

After considering the arguments of counsel, the Court granted this
unopposed motion to vacate, explaining that the actions originally
centralized in this MDL involve factual questions arising out of
allegations that Wells Fargo and National General Insurance Company
engaged in a nationwide scheme to place unwanted  and  unnecessary
insurance  on  automobiles, and that defendants caused plaintiffs
and putative class members harm by charging them for this unneeded
insurance and, in some cases, reporting them to credit agencies and
repossessing their vehicles.  Plaintiff has opted out of the
proposed settlement in MDL No. 2797, and no party disputes that
exclusion of this particular action from centralized proceedings
would lead to its more efficient resolution.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/VIaTF0


MDL 2800: Johnston Suit v. Equifax Moved to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: EQUIFAX, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2800, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring
the action styled, JOHNSTON v. EQUIFAX, C.A. No. 2:19-00485, from
the District of New Mexico to the Northern District of Georgia and,
with the consent of that court, assigned it to the Honorable Thomas
W. Thrash for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

Plaintiff in the Johnston action, proceeding pro se, moves under
Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally
transferring his action to MDL No. 2800.  Defendant Equifax opposes
the motion to vacate.

After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Vance held that
this action involves common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2800, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. The actions in MDL No. 2800 arise from a 2017
cybersecurity incident involving Equifax in which the personally
identifiable information of more than 145 million consumers
allegedly was compromised. Johnston involves allegations, similar
to those in the MDL No. 2800 actions, that Equifax failed to
adequately safeguard plaintiff's personally identifiable
information, which was compromised during the Equifax data breach.

Plaintiff does not dispute that his action arises out of the 2017
Equifax data breach or that it shares questions of fact and law
with the MDL No. 2800 actions.  Instead, he argues that he was
harmed in New Mexico and that federal question jurisdiction is
lacking.  Neither argument persuades us to exclude this action from
MDL No. 2800.  The Panel has held that jurisdictional issues
generally do not present an impediment to transfer.  Plaintiff can
present his remand arguments to the transferee judge.  The Panel
also has held that, while it might inconvenience some parties,
transfer of a particular action often is necessary to further the
expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/LKUMxo


MDL 2804: 24 National Prescription Opiate Suits Moved to N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2804, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring 24
actions to the Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of
that court, assigned to the Honorable Dan A. Polster for inclusion
in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in 24 actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the
orders conditionally transferring their respective actions to MDL
No. 2804.  Various defendants oppose the motions.

After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Vance held that
these actions 7involve common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2804, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons set
forth in the Panel's order directing centralization.  In that
order, the Panel held that the Northern District of Ohio was an
appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual
questions regarding the allegedly improper marketing and
distribution of various prescription opiate medications into
states, cities, and towns across the country.

Despite some variances among the actions before the Panel, they
share a factual core with the MDL actions: the manufacturer and
distributor defendants' alleged knowledge of and conduct regarding
the diversion of these prescription opiates, as well as the
manufacturers' allegedly improper marketing of the drugs.

The parties opposing transfer in 24 actions argue principally that
federal jurisdiction is lacking over their cases.  But opposition
to transfer based on a jurisdictional challenge is insufficient to
warrant vacating conditional transfer orders covering otherwise
factually related cases.  Several parties also argue that including
their actions in this large MDL will cause them inconvenience and
delay the progress of their actions.  Given the undisputed factual
overlap with the MDL proceedings, transfer is justified in order to
facilitate the efficient conduct of the litigation as a whole.
Additionally, plaintiff in the District of New Jersey County of
Burlington action argues that the recent bankruptcy of the Purdue
defendants prevents transfer, but the Panel has long rejected that
argument.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/ezL1yF


MDL 2906: Plaintiffs Withdraw Bid for Centralization of 7 Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: BIG PICTURE LOANS, LLC, LITIGATION, MDL No.
2906, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
ordered that the motion by plaintiffs Lula Williams, et al., for
transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 of seven lawsuits is deemed
withdrawn.

The Panel further ordered that the Hearing Session Order and the
cases listed in Schedule A filed on August 15, 2019, are vacated
insofar as they relate to this matter.

In their motion, plaintiffs seek centralization of the actions in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.  The
only responding parties supporting centralization were the Northern
District of California plaintiffs, but they have since dismissed
their action.  Thus, no remaining responding party supports
centralization.  Two other actions on the motion, pending in the
Northern District of Georgia and the Central District of
California, also were dismissed.  Movants now seek to withdraw
their Section 1407 motion.  Movants state that all plaintiffs in
the remaining actions support the withdrawal.  

A full-text copy of the Court's September 20, 2019 Order, including
a list of the lawsuits, is available at https://is.gd/LhooTY


MDL 2907: Court Denies Motion to Centralize 14 Data Security Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION CUSTOMER
DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, MDL No. 2907, Judge Sarah S. Vance
of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied
the Plaintiffs' motion to centralize pretrial proceedings of 14
actions pending in the Central District of California and the
Eastern District of Michigan to the Southern Division of the
Central District of California.

The parties also have notified the Panel of seven potential
tag-along actions, which were filed in the Central District of
California (six actions) and the Western District of Washington
(one action).

Plaintiffs in the Central District of California Barajas action
move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial
proceedings in this litigation in the Southern Division of the
Central District of California.

Plaintiffs in seven actions and two potential tag-along actions
support the motion.  Plaintiff in Central District of California
Sindaghatta action does not oppose the motion.  Responding
plaintiffs in the Central District of California McPherson
potential tag-along action support centralization in the Central
District of California but do not specify a preferred division.
Plaintiff in the Central District of California Resendiz action
opposes centralization in favor of Section 1404 transfer but, if
centralization occurs, suggests the Southern Division of the
Central District of California.  The First American defendants
oppose centralization and suggest, if transfer is ordered,
centralization in the Western Division of the Central District of
California is appropriate.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Vance concluded that centralization will not serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation.  These actions share factual
questions arising from an alleged data breach of First American,
which was announced on May 24, 2019 and resulted in the exposure of
approximately 885 million records related to mortgage deals dating
back 16 years.  Many of the exposed files are records of wire
transactions with bank account numbers and other personally
identifiable information from property buyers and sellers.
Plaintiffs allege that the First American defendants failed to
protect the confidential information of millions of consumers
nationwide -- including their names, bank account numbers, bank
account statements, mortgage records, tax records, Social Security
numbers, wire transaction receipts, drivers' license images, and
other personal financial information.

There are a relatively small number of actions in this controversy,
and most are pending in a single district.  The Panel has held that
"centralization under Section 1407 should be the last solution
after considered review of all other options." Here, there is a
reasonable prospect that defendants' pending motion to transfer the
Eastern District of Michigan action to the Central District of
California could eliminate the multidistrict character of this
litigation.  Indeed, while this motion was pending, two courts
presiding over an action and a potential tag-along granted similar
motions to transfer under the first-to-file rule.  The Judge thinks
transferring these cases for all purposes, as opposed to the
limited pretrial transfer under Section 1407, is preferable to
centralization in these circumstances.  Even if the pending
transfer motion does not eliminate the multidistrict character of
this litigation, voluntary cooperation and coordination among the
small number of involved courts appears eminently feasible.  The
Judge encourages the parties to employ the various alternatives to
transfer that exist to minimize any potential for duplicative
discovery and inconsistent pretrial rulings in this litigation.

Additionally, the parties' primary dispute was which division of
the Central District of California should be selected to preside
over these cases.  Plaintiffs contend that the Panel should select
a judge who sits in the Southern Division (Santa Ana), where First
American's headquarters are located.  The first-filed action was
assigned to a judge who sits in the Western Division (Los Angeles)
under the Central District of California's internal operating
procedures.  Later cases were related to the initial case in the
Western Division.  Given the Panel's decision to deny transfer in
light of viable alternatives to centralization, these arguments are
moot.  Regardless, the Judge does not view the resolution of a
disagreement about an intra-district case assignment as a proper
use of Section 1407.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/pTa6nR


MDL 2909: 4 Marketing/Sales Practices Suits Moved to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FAIRLIFE MILK PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 2909, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an
order transferring four actions to the Northern District of
Illinois and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the
Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr., for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

Northern District of Georgia
   * SALZHAUER v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No.
1:19-02709

Northern District of Illinois
   * MICHAEL v. FAIRLIFE, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-03924
   * SCHWARTZ, ET AL. v. FAIRLIFE, LLC, C.A. No. 1:19-03929

Northern District of Indiana
   * SABEEHULLAH, ET AL. v. FAIRLIFE LLC, ET AL., C.A. No.
2:19-00222

This litigation consists of four putative class actions, two of
which are pending in the Northern District of Illinois and one each
in the Northern District of Georgia and the Northern District of
Indiana.  Additionally, the parties have notified the Panel of four
potentially related actions pending in the Central District of
California, the Southern District of Indiana, and the District of
Massachusetts.

Plaintiff in the Northern District of Georgia Salzhauer action
moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial
proceedings in the actions in the Northern District of Georgia or,
alternatively, the Northern District of Illinois.

Plaintiffs in the Indiana action support centralization, but in the
Northern District of Indiana.  Defendants fairlife, LLC, Mike
McCloskey, and Sue McCloskey support centralization in either the
Northern District of Illinois or the Northern District of Georgia,
while Defendant Coca-Cola Company supports centralization only in
the Northern District of Illinois.  Plaintiffs in the two Illinois
actions initially opposed centralization but at oral argument
expressed support for centralization in the Northern District of
Illinois.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, Judge
Vance held that the four actions involve common questions of fact,
and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation.  These actions share
factual questions arising from allegations of animal cruelty at a
farm in northern Indiana that provides milk used in fairlife's milk
products.  Plaintiffs in each action allege that they purchased
fairlife milk products based on defendants' marketing and labeling,
which emphasized fairlife's humane treatment of its dairy cows.
Plaintiffs in each action assert similar claims for fraud, unjust
enrichment, and violation of state consumer protection laws, and
plaintiffs seek to represent overlapping national and state classes
of purchasers of fairlife milk products.  Centralization thus will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings, particularly with respect to class certification; and
conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the
judiciary.

The Northern District of Illinois is an appropriate transferee
district for this litigation, the MDL court said, as the district
has a strong connection to these cases.  Defendant fairlife is
headquartered in Chicago, and its marketing decisions for the
subject milk products likely were conceived and executed there.
Moreover, Chicago is less than one hundred miles from Fair Oaks,
Indiana, where the farm at which the alleged animal abuse occurred
is located.  Two of the four actions on this motion are pending in
the Northern District of Illinois, which is supported by a majority
of the parties as either their primary or secondary choice for
transferee district.  The Northern District of Illinois thus
presents a convenient and accessible forum for this litigation.
Both of the actions in this district are assigned to the Honorable
Robert M. Dow, Jr., a jurist with significant multidistrict
litigation experience.  Judge Vance is confident that Judge Dow
will steer this litigation on an efficient and prudent course.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/XJpGg9


MDL 2911: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 4 Water Pollution Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA, WATER
CONTAMINATION LITIGATION (NO. II), MDL No. 2911, Judge Sarah S.
Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
denied the Defendant's motion for centralization of six actions in
the Northern District of Georgia.

Northern District of Georgia
   * CARTER, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, C.A. No.
1:19-02787

District of New Hampshire
   * PHILLIPS v. US GOVERNMENT, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-00128

Eastern District of North Carolina
   * COUNCIL v. U.S. NAVY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:19-00097
   * BUNTING v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, ET AL., C.A. No.
7:19-00067
   * WASHINGTON v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, C.A. No. 7:19-00112
   * HURDLE v. CAMP LEJEUNE, USMC, ET AL., C.A. No. 7:19-00115

The United States, as defendant, moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407
to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the
Northern District of Georgia.  This litigation consists of six
actions pending in three districts.  The Panel also has been
notified of five potentially-related actions filed in three
districts.  Plaintiff in the Eastern District of North Carolina
Washington action opposes centralization or, alternatively,
suggests centralization in the Eastern District of North Carolina
or exclusion of his action from centralized proceedings.  Of the
three pro se plaintiffs who responded to the motion, two appear to
oppose centralization, although the position of one is not entirely
clear.  The third supports centralization in the Northern District
of Georgia or the Eastern District of North Carolina but states she
is "in favor of what is best for all parties involved be it
centralization or decentralizing."

Like the actions centralized in MDL No. 2218 – In re Camp
Lejeune, North Carolina Water Contamination Litigation, these
actions share factual questions arising out of alleged deaths or
injuries due to contaminated drinking water on the Marine Corps
Base at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.  That litigation was closed
in December 2016 following the grant of defendant's motion to
dismiss.

Opponents of centralization variously argue that centralization
would cause them inconvenience.  Additionally, the Washington
plaintiff argues that defendant seeks centralization in the
Northern District of Georgia so that Eleventh Circuit rulings made
as to MDL No. 2218 and favorable to defendant will be applied to
these newly-filed cases.  Fourth Circuit law, he argues, is more
favorable to plaintiffs' claims.  He also argues that his action is
unique from the remaining actions on the motion.  

After considering all arguments, Judge Vance concludes that
centralization is not necessary for the convenience of the parties
and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation.  The Panel is presented with just eleven cases at this
time.  More than half of these cases already are pending in the
same district, and most are brought by pro se plaintiffs.  The
Judge is not persuaded that the potential benefits of
centralization outweigh the inconvenience transfer would pose to
these individuals or the judicial burden of managing centralized
litigation involving numerous unrepresented parties.  The Judge
considers voluntary coordination among the parties and the involved
courts of these relatively few actions to be a preferable
alternative to centralization.  

Defendant represents that approximately 900 Federal Tort Claims Act
(FTCA) claimants have requested that the United States Navy
reconsider the denial of their claims, and that some of these
claimants may file cases in federal courts.  Additional related
cases, therefore, may materialize.  But the possible universe of
claims soon will be limited by the FTCA's statute of limitations,
and it is not certain that these claimants will file suit if
reconsideration is denied.  The Panel has held that the mere
possibility of additional actions does not justify centralization.

Further weighing against centralization, counsel for the Washington
plaintiff represented at oral argument that plaintiffs in the
Northern District of Georgia and District of New Hampshire cases
have agreed they will move to transfer their actions to the Eastern
District of North Carolina under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).  If
these motions are successful, just one action would remain outside
the state of North Carolina.  

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/gb7myd


MDL 2912: 13 Palbociclib Patent Suits Moved to Dist. of Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: PALBOCICLIB PATENT LITIGATION, MDL No. 2912,
Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has entered an order transferring 13 actions of Pfizer,
Inc., et al. to the District of Delaware and, with the consent of
that court, assigned them to the Honorable Colm F. Connolly for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Pfizer plaintiffs move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize
this litigation in the District of Delaware.  The litigation
consists of 12 lawsuits in the District of Delaware and one in the
Northern District of West Virginia.  Only Mylan Pharmaceuticals
Inc., which is the sole defendant in the West Virginia action,
responded to the motion.  Mylan supports centralization in the
District of Delaware.

The Pfizer plaintiffs filed these actions after the various generic
drug manufacturer defendants submitted Abbreviated New Drug
Applications (ANDAs) seeking approval by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to make and sell generic versions of IBRANCE
(Palbociclib) capsules, 75 mg, 100 mg, and 125 mg.  All the actions
are Hatch-Waxman patent infringement lawsuits in which the Pfizer
plaintiffs allege that each defendant has infringed one or more of
three U.S. Patents by filing ANDAs seeking FDA approval to market
generic IBRANCE in the United5States.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Vance said these actions involve common questions of fact,
and that centralization in the District of Delaware will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation.  These actions involve
substantially similar claims that defendants infringed one or more
of the IBRANCE patents.  Centralization will eliminate duplicative
discovery and other pretrial proceedings, avoid the possibility of
inconsistent pretrial rulings (particularly with respect to claim
construction and issues of patent validity), and conserve judicial
and party resources.

The Panel recently has centralized similar litigations, citing "the
complexity of the allegations and regulatory framework governing
Hatch-Waxman cases, as well as the need for swift progress in
litigation involving the potential entry of generic drugs into the
market."  The Panel is persuaded that centralization of these cases
similarly will lead to their efficient resolution.

Judge Vance selected the District of Delaware as the transferee
district for these actions.  All but one of the thirteen related
actions are pending in the District of Delaware.  Judge Colm F.
Connolly, to whom Judge Vance assigned this litigation, already is
presiding over those 12 actions.  Judge Vance expressed confidence
that he will steer this litigation on a prudent course.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/Iigymt


MDL 2913: 10 Product Liability Suits v Juul Labs Sent to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2913, Judge Sarah S.
Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
entered an order transferring ten actions to the Northern District
of California, and, with the consent of that court, assigned them
to the Honorable William H. Orrick III for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Common defendant Juul Labs, Inc. (JLI) moves under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Northern District
of California or the District of New Jersey.  The litigation
consists of five lawsuits in the Northern District of California,
two in the Middle District of Alabama, and one each in the Middle
District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, and the
Southern District of New York.  The Panel has been notified of more
than 40 potentially-related actions.

The actions in this litigation involve allegations that JLI has
marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed
to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that
JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that
JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their
attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine addiction.
The actions include both putative class actions and individual
personal injury cases.  In the briefing to the Panel, a number of
responding plaintiffs argued that the Panel should create two MDLs
-- one for the putative class actions in the Northern District of
California, and a second for the individual actions in the District
of New Jersey.  The plaintiffs who first advocated that position
stated at oral argument that they now support centralization of all
actions in a single MDL.  None of the other plaintiffs who filed
briefs in favor of a two-MDL approach presented oral argument.  All
other responding parties support centralization of all related
actions in one MDL, but they disagree on an appropriate transferee
district.  Suggested districts include the Northern District of
California, the Eastern District of Louisiana, the District of
Maryland, and the District of New Jersey.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Vance held that these actions involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization -- of all actions -- in the Northern
District of California will serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation.  These actions share multiple factual issues concerning
the development, manufacture, labeling, and marketing of JUUL
products, and the alleged risks posed by use of those products.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, the
possibility of inconsistent rulings on class certification, Daubert
motions, and other pretrial matters, and conserve judicial and
party resources.

The proposal to create two MDLs is not well-taken.  Given the
substantial overlap in the core factual issues, parties, and
claims, a single MDL will best achieve Section 1407's purposes.
The Panel frequently centralizes dockets comprising both class
actions and individual cases.  As with those dockets, the
transferee judge can use separate tracks or other appropriate
pretrial techniques to accommodate any differences among the
actions.

The Judge selects the Northern District of California as the
transferee district.  JLI is headquartered in that district, and it
represents that most of the key evidence and witnesses are located
there.  Five constituent actions, including the first-filed case,
are pending in the Northern District of California, as are several
tag-alongs.  Judge William H.  Orrick III, to whom the Panel
assigns the litigation, is an experienced transferee judge.  He has
been presiding over most of the California actions since they were
filed and already has ruled on two motions to dismiss.  Judge Vance
is confident that he will steer this litigation on a prudent
course.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/1hyZNL


MDL 2914: 5 '289 Patent Suits Moved to Southern District of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ERMI LLC ('289) PATENT LITIGATION, MDL No.
2914, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring five
actions to the Southern District of Florida and, with the consent
of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Roy K. Altman for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Patentholder ERMI LLC moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to
centralize pretrial proceedings in the actions in the Southern
District of Florida.  This litigation consists of four patent
infringement actions and one declaratory judgment action, each
pending in a different district.

OneDirect Health Network, Inc., the plaintiff in the declaratory
judgment action and a defendant in one of the infringement actions,
opposes the motion.  OneDirect states that the other defendants in
the infringement actions join its opposition (all are represented
by the same counsel).  Alternatively, should the Panel centralize
this litigation, OneDirect suggests the Northern District of
Georgia as the transferee district.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, Judge
Vance found that the actions involve common questions of fact, and
that centralization in the Southern District of Florida will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation.  These actions share
essentially identical factual questions arising from allegations
that a shoulder rehabilitation device manufactured by OneDirect
infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,547,289 (the '289 Patent), which is
entitled "Shoulder Extension Control Device."

Defendants in the patent infringement actions allegedly are
distributors of the OneDirect product.  Most of these defendants
have moved to dismiss, or alternatively to stay, the infringement
actions until OneDirect's declaratory judgment action is resolved.
Centralization, the Court said, will create significant judicial
efficiencies by allowing a single judge to preside over all
pretrial proceedings, including the pending requests to stay the
infringement actions against the alleged distributors and claim
construction hearings (if necessary).

OneDirect argues that the Panel should allow the transferor courts
to dismiss or stay the infringement actions pending resolution of
OneDirect's declaratory judgment action, pursuant to the customer
suit exception to the first-to-file rule.  As Panel previously have
acknowledged, there may be circumstances where dismissals or stays
under the customer suit exception offer an appropriate alternative
to centralization.  In this instance, though, the Panel is not
persuaded that centralization should be denied.  No court has
granted (or denied) a stay under the customer suit exception, and
the Panel express no opinion on the appropriateness of such stays
here.  Further, it is unclear that, even if all the pending
customer suit exception motions were granted, the multidistrict
character of this litigation would be eliminated.  The action
pending in the Southern District of Florida includes claims against
the original inventor and manufacturer of the accused device.
Those defendants seek dismissal on different grounds, and the Panel
declines to speculate as to the outcome of those motions.  But it
is clear that numerous motions will have to be decided in
OneDirect's and defendants' favor before the multidistrict
character of this litigation can be eliminated.  Centralization, on
the other hand, will deliver concrete benefits to the parties and
the courts.  It will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to the
pending customer suit exception motions and claim construction; and
conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the
judiciary.

The Southern District of Florida is an appropriate transferee
district for this litigation.  The inventor and original
distributor of the accused product is located in this district.
The Southern District of Florida is a convenient and accessible
district, particularly for ERMI and OneDirect -- the two main
adversaries in this litigation -- which are located in an adjacent
state (Georgia).  The action pending in the Southern District of
Florida is assigned to the Honorable Roy K. Altman.  Centralization
in the Southern District of Florida therefore allows the Panel to
assign this litigation to a jurist who has not yet had the
opportunity to preside over an MDL.  Judge Vance is confident that
Judge Altman will steer this litigation on an efficient and prudent
course.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/33c8hY


MDL 2915: 21 Data Security Breach Suits Moved to E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: CAPITAL ONE CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2915, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring
21 actions pending in 12 districts to the Eastern District of
Virginia, and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the
Honorable Anthony J. Trenga for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

Judge Vance further ordered that, consistent with Panel docket
naming conventions, MDL No. 2915 is renamed, In re Capital One
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation.

Plaintiffs in two actions move separately under 28 U.S.C. Section
1407 to centralize this litigation.  Movant in one action seeks
centralization in the Western District of Washington or,
alternatively, the District of District of Columbia.  Movants in
five actions seek centralization in the District of District of
Columbia.  Plaintiffs' motions include 21 actions pending in 12
districts.  The Panel also has been notified of 40 potentially
related actions filed in 13 districts.

The responding parties generally support centralization, though
plaintiffs in one potential tag-along action oppose inclusion of
their action in centralized proceedings.  The remaining responding
plaintiffs variously support centralization in the Western District
of Washington, the District of District of Columbia, the Eastern
District of Virginia, and/or the Northern District of California.
Defendant GitHub, Inc. (GitHub) does not oppose centralization and
does not have a preference as to transferee district.  The Capital
One defendants and the AWS defendants support centralization in the
Eastern District of Virginia.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, Judge Vance
held that centralization under Section 1407 of all actions in the
Eastern District of Virginia will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation.  These actions share factual issues concerning a
recently-announced incident in which an individual gained
unauthorized access to the personal information, maintained on
cloud-based systems, of more than 100 million Capital One credit
card customers and individuals who applied for Capital One credit
card products.  All actions arise from the same data security
breach, and they all allege that Capital One failed to put into
place reasonable data protections.  Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on
class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of
the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

The Judge selects the Eastern District of Virginia as the
transferee district for this litigation.  Common defendant Capital
One is headquartered within this district in McLean, Virginia, and
represents that relevant documents and witnesses will be found
there.  Moreover, the AWS defendants maintain that relevant
witnesses and evidence are located in an AWS facility located in
Northern Virginia.  Judge Anthony J. Trenga is an able jurist with
MDL experience, and Judge Vance is confident he will steer these
proceedings on a prudent course.
  
A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/MkeNRk


MDL 2916: Bid to Centralize 3 Skywest FLSA Suits Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., FLIGHT ATTENDANT FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION, MDL No.
2916, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has denied the Defendant SkyWest Airlines,
Inc.'s motion for centralization of three actions:

  Northern District of California
  -------------------------------
   * WILSON, ET AL. v. SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No.
3:19-01491

  Northern District of Illinois
  -----------------------------
   * HIRST, ET AL. v. SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No.
1:15-02036
   * TAPP, ET AL., v. SKYWEST INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:15-11117

Defendant SkyWest Airlines, Inc., moves under 28 U.S.C. Section
1407 to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of
Illinois.  The litigation consists of three actions pending in two
districts.  Plaintiffs in the Hirst and Tapp actions support
centralization, but only in the Northern District of California.
Plaintiffs in the Wilson action oppose centralization and,
alternatively, propose the Northern District of California as the
transferee district.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Vance concluded that centralization is not necessary for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation.  The actions undoubtedly share
factual questions arising out of allegations that defendant
SkyWest's compensation system for flight attendants results in a
failure to pay flight attendants for all hours worked in violation
of state and local labor laws.  But where only a few actions are
involved, the proponent of centralization bears a heavier burden to
demonstrate that centralization is appropriate.  Moving defendant
has failed to do so in these circumstances.

The three actions before the Panel are not complex, and there are
few involved counsel.  Plaintiffs are represented by two groups of
counsel.  And the sole defendants, SkyWest Airlines, Inc., and its
parent company SkyWest, Inc., are represented by the same counsel
in all actions.  Moreover, plaintiffs' counsel represent that they
are willing to informally coordinate any overlapping discovery and
other pretrial proceedings.  In these circumstances, informal
coordination is a practicable alternative to centralization.
Additionally, informal coordination is preferable in this
litigation given significant differences in three of the four
proposed state classes and in the asserted state law claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/GBliN6


MDL 2917: Court Denies Bid for Centralization of 4 Air Crash Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: AIR CRASH NEAR ELLABELL, GEORGIA, ON AUGUST 28,
2017, MDL No. 2917, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
centralization of four cases:

  Southern District of Georgia
  ----------------------------
   * COCKE, ET AL. v. CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No.
4:19-00169
   * HUNTER, ET AL. v. CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No.
4:19-00174

  District of Nebraska
  --------------------
   * COCKE, ET AL. v. WHISLER AVIATION, INC., ET AL., C.A. No.
8:19-00335
   * HUNTER, ET AL. v. WHISLER AVIATION, INC., ET AL., C.A. No.
8:19-00339

Plaintiffs in two actions (Cocke plaintiffs) move under 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1407to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in
the Southern District of Georgia.

The parties' positions on centralization vary.  Plaintiffs in the
two other actions (Hunter plaintiffs) support centralization in the
Southern District of Georgia,  as  do defendants  Aviation
Development  Group,  LLC,  and  Thomas  Huff.  Defendants
Continental Motors, Inc., Whisler Aviation, Inc., and Central
Cylinder Service, Inc., oppose centralization.

However, Judge Vance concluded that centralization is not necessary
for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, or to further the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation.  The actions share
factual issues arising out of the August 28, 2017, crash of a
Beechcraft Bonanza A36 model aircraft shortly after take-off from
Savannah/Hilton  Head International  Airport.  But there are only
four actions, brought by two plaintiff groups, in two districts,
with no indication of more to come.  The Panel has denied
centralization of air crash litigation in similar circumstances.  
The small number of involved actions, minimal number of districts,
and relatively few parties suggest that informal coordination and
cooperative efforts by the involved courts and parties are
practicable and preferable to formal centralization under Section
1407.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/xe58fN


MDL 2918: 4 Antitrust Lawsuits Transferred to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: HARD DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2918, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring
four actions to the Northern District of California and, with the
consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Maxine M.
Chesney for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

  Eastern District of Michigan
  ----------------------------
   * ELMAZI v. TDK CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-12244
   * INTEGRITY FINANCIAL SERVICES OF TAMPA BAY, INC., ET AL. v. NHK
SPRING CO. LTD., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-12258
   * CMP CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. v. NHK SPRING CO. LTD., ET
AL.,C.A. No. 3:19-12337

  Southern District of New York
  -----------------------------
   * CIMINO, ET AL. v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No.
1:19-07428

Plaintiff in one action in the Eastern District of Michigan moves
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this litigation in that
district or, alternatively, the Southern District of New York.
This litigation currently consists of four actions pending in two
districts.  Since the filing of the motion, the Panel has been
notified of 19 related federal actions.

All responding parties support centralization, but disagree on the
transferee district.  The responding defendants support
centralization in the Eastern District of Michigan.  Plaintiffs in
two actions on the motion (Integrity Financial and CMP Consulting)
and four potential tag-along actions also support the Eastern
District of Michigan.  Plaintiffs in the other action on the motion
(Cimino) and seven potential tag-along actions support the District
of Minnesota.  And plaintiffs in four potential tag-along actions
support the Northern District of California or, alternatively, the
District of Minnesota.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Vance held that these actions involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation.  All actions share complex factual questions
arising from allegations that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to
fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive
suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May
2008 through at least April 2016.  The record indicates that
discovery is likely to3be international in scope and will include a
significant number of nonparties.  Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings,
especially with respect to class certification and Daubert motions;
and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the
judiciary.

The Judge concludes that the Northern District of California is an
appropriate transferee forum.  Defendant Headway Technologies,
Inc., has its headquarters in this district, and third-party
discovery is expected to take place from two hard disk drive
manufacturers headquartered there.  Thus, common documents and
witnesses likely will be located in this district.  Plaintiffs in
four potential tag-along actions support this district.  Judge
Maxine M.  Chesney, who presides over those actions, is an
experienced transferee judge with the ability and willingness to
manage this litigation efficiently.  Judge Vance is confident Judge
Chesney will steer this matter on a prudent course.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 8, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://is.gd/AQOzRS


MGM RESORTS: Settles Mandalay Bay Mass Shooting Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Mahadevan, writing for Complex, reports that MGM Resorts
International came to an agreement with the victims of a mass
shooting that took place around one of their hotels two years ago.
In October 2017, a gunman opened fire on a Las Vegas country music
festival from the 32nd floor of MGM's Mandalay Bay resort, killing
59 people and wounding 422 more. According to lawyers for victims
of the shooting, the hotel has agreed to pay between $735 and $800
million to settle several class action lawsuits. [GN]


MID-CON HOSPITALITY: Trayes Sues over Collection of Biometrics
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN TRAYES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MID-CON HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, &
TINLEY PARK HOTEL & CONVENTION CENTER, LLC, the Defendants,  Case
No. 2019CH11117 (Ill. Cir., Sept. 25, 2019), seeks to redress and
curtail Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of Plaintiffs sensitive biometric data.

When Defendants or one of their affiliated facilities hire an
employee, including Plaintiff, he or she is enrolled in an employee
database shared and maintained by and between Defendants and the
affiliate facilities to monitor the time worked by hourly
employees.

While many employers use conventional methods for tracking time
worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Defendants' and
their affiliated facilities' employees are required to have their
fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device.

Many businesses -- such as Defendants -- and financial institutions
have incorporated biometric applications into their workplace in
the form of biometric timeclocks, and into consumer products,
including such ubiquitous consumer products as checking accounts
and cell phones.

Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced
if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes
Defendants' employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks.

For example, if a database containing fingerprints or other
sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed - like in the recent Yahoo, eBay, Equifax, Uber,
Home Depot, MyFitnessPal, Panera, Whole Foods, Chipotle, Omni
Hotels & Resorts, Trump Hotels, Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, and
Suprema data breaches or misuses -- employees have no means by
which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other
unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and private
information, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant Mid-Con Hospitality Group, LLC is a hotel development
and management company that manages multiple hotels in Illinois
including Holiday Inn Chicago-Tinley Park Convention Center,
located at 18501 Convention Center Drive, Tinley Park, Illinois,
60477.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com

MIDWEST HOSPITALITY: Turner Seeks Unpaid Wages for Exotic Dancers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CIERRA TURNER on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff(s), vs. MIDWEST HOSPITALITY, LLC
D/B/A LUMBERYARD 1 (DES MOINES), LUMBERYARD 2 (CEDAR RAPIDS), the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00306-JAJ-RAW (S.D. Iowa, Sept. 25,
2019), alleges that Defendants misclassify dancers, including
Plaintiffs, as independent contractors so that they do not have to
compensate them at the federally mandated minimum wage rate or the
overtime rate.

According to the complaint, the Defendants who own and operate two
exotic dance clubs in Iowa, required and/or permitted Cierra Turner
and others similarly situated to work as exotic dancers at their
adult entertainment club but refused to compensate them at the
applicable minimum wage.

In fact, the Defendants refused to compensate them whatsoever for
any hours worked. Plaintiffs' only compensation was in the form of
tips from club patrons, and even those were partly confiscated by
the club. The Defendants also violated the FLSA by failing to pay
time and a half to their employees when they worked more than 40
hours a week.

The Defendants took money from Plaintiffs in the form of "house
fees" or "rent". The Plaintiffs were also required to divide tips
with Defendants' managers and employees who do not customarily
receive tips.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Paige Fiedler, Esq.
          Madison Fiedler-Carlson, Esq.
          FIEDLER LAW FIRM, P.L.C
          8831 Windsor Parkway
          Johnston, IA 50131
          Telephone: (515) 254-1999
          Facsimile: (515) 254-9923
          E-mail: paige@employmentlawiowa.com
                  madison@employmentlawiowa.com

               - and -

          Ved Chitale, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: vchitale@kennedyhodges.com

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: FPTPA Breaks Amateurism Rules
--------------------------------------------------
Timothy Z. LaComb, Esq. -- tlacomb@moginrubin.com -- and Jennifer
M. Oliver, Esq. -- joliver@moginrubin.com -- of MoginRubin, in an
article for The National Law Review, report that Sept. 30, 2019,
was a big day for college athletics. Alongside Lakers' star LeBron
James (who ironically skipped college), California Governor Gavin
Newsom signed the Fair Pay to Play Act (FPTPA), which permits
collegiate athletes in California to profit from the use of their
names, images and likenesses (NILs) beginning in 2023. The governor
said "colleges and universities reap billions from these student
athletes' sacrifices and success but block them from earning a
single dollar. That's a bankrupt model -- one that puts
institutions ahead of the students they are supposed to serve."

By enacting the FPTPA, California is knowingly breaking the
amateurism rules set by the National Collegiate Athletics
Association (NCAA), which preclude athletes from receiving
compensation for their NILs beyond the cost of college attendance.
The NCAA responded to the bill by threatening to ban all California
member colleges from competing in NCAA championship events. The
stage is now set for legal challenges from both sides.

For context, the NCAA's rules restricting students from receiving
compensation for their NILs beyond the cost of attendance have been
upheld by courts. In O'Bannon v. NCAA, the Ninth Circuit held in an
antitrust class action that the NCAA's rules were an unreasonable
restraint of trade without procompetitive justifications to the
extent they prevented schools from compensating players "up to the
cost of attendance." Alternatively, the court held the NCAA had
procompetitive justifications for restricting compensation beyond
that level because an essential element of the "collegiate sports"
product is the amateur status of its participants, and that once
athletes "have captured the full value of their NIL [name, image,
and likeness] . . . the NCAA will have surrendered its amateurism
principles entirely and transitioned from its 'particular brand of
football' to minor league status."

Whether the NCAA's proposed ban of California member colleges
violates antitrust laws is a different story. Arguably, by enacting
ban, the NCAA is a monopolist association excluding certain members
for refusing to both violate state law and impose a restraint on
competition (albeit a restraint that courts have found reasonable).
The NCAA could therefore find itself subject to a claim for group
boycott in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as a group of
competitors with market power generally cannot agree to not do
business with targeted entities.

Critics of the NCAA's proposed ban could also argue it is an
attempt by a private association to seize legislative power from a
state government – a practice condemned by early Supreme Court
antitrust decisions.

In sum, while there are legal hurdles for parties challenging the
ban (e.g., defining a relevant market or proving market power),
these plaintiffs may have a viable antitrust claim.

Legal scholars agree. Marc Edelman, a sports business expert and
Professor of Law at the Zicklin School of Business, believes
parties challenging the ban would have a very strong antitrust
case, contending that "the fact pattern of such a litigation would
parallel NCAA v. Bd. of Regents very closely, as both would involve
plaintiff-members of the NCAA challenging a boycott by the
monopolist trade association against certain member schools for
seeking to engage in free market economic competition." Likewise,
California state Sen. Nancy Skinner, author of the FPTPA, stated
that "[n]umerous legal scholars assert that SB 206 is
constitutional and that an NCAA ban of California colleges from
championship competition is a clear violation of federal antitrust
law."

The NCAA, on the other hand, will likely challenge the
constitutionality of the FPTPA, arguing that it violates the
dormant commerce clause. Put simply, the dormant commerce clause
prohibits states from enacting legislation that discriminates
against interstate commerce. The NCAA will argue the FPTPA does
exactly this and will point to interstate commercial activities
that could be negatively affected by the bill, such as interstate
game broadcasting, sales and shipping of collegiate apparel across
state lines, and interstate travel of collegiate players and
coaches.

And the NCAA has had success challenging state laws under the
dormant commerce clause. In NCAA v. Miller, the NCAA blocked a
Nevada law that required additional due process protections for
Nevada students and employees accused of an NCAA rules infraction.
While the present situation is distinguishable (e.g., the FPTPA
pertains to relationships between athletes and third parties -- it
does not impose an affirmative obligation on the NCAA), it is
unclear whether these differences are enough to defeat the NCAA's
constitutional arguments.

It is also possible that the NCAA chooses to not enforce its ban or
amends its rules to permit students to be paid for their NILs, as
the ban could have significant economic and competitive
consequences. California is not only the fifth largest economy in
the world, but it also includes the 2nd, 6th, 20th, and 28th
largest television markets in the country. California is also home
to many of the most decorated collegiate sports programs in the
country. Stanford University has won the Directors' Cup -- awarded
to the school with the most success in various NCAA sponsored
championships -- 25 years in a row. And UCLA and USC have finished
in the top-10 a combined 38 times during that period.

Additionally, by the time the FPTPA becomes effective in 2023, many
more states will likely have passed similar legislation. Florida,
Illinois, New York, and South Carolina have introduced comparable
bills. A bill was introduced in Washington State in February 2019
and is currently with the Senate Ways & Means Committee. The
Tennessee Senate passed a resolution in May 2019 calling on the
state's universities to oppose the NCAA's ban on compensation for
athletes as a violation of the free-market principle of economic
freedom. North Carolina's legislature set up a committee to study
the issue and has drafted a report and proposed legislation. Other
states, including Ohio, are considering bills.

If multiple states pass bills that mirror the FPTPA, then the
NCAA's hands may be tied. It will be hard for the NCAA to ban
several states from competing and also retain its legitimacy.

While difficult to predict the impact of the FPTPA, unless the NCAA
successfully quashes it and other similar legislation, we can be
fairly certain that the collegiate sports landscape will look much
different in the not-too-distant future. [GN]


NATIONAL GENERAL: Bragar Eagel Investigates Officers, Directors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and
directors of National General Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: NGHC),
Natural Health Trends Corp. (NASDAQ: NHTC), Omnicell, Inc. (NASDAQ:
OMCL), and PolarityTE, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTE) on behalf of long-term
stockholders.  More information about each potential case can be
found at the link provided.

National General Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: NGHC)

Bragar Eagel and Squire is investigating certain officers and
directors of National General Holdings Corp. following a class
action complaint that was filed against National General on July
25, 2019.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse
information regarding National General's business and operations.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose that National General, together with banking giant Wells
Fargo, had engaged in a massive insurance scheme to bilk Wells
Fargo customers out of millions of dollars. Through this scheme,
National General forced thousands of customers to pay for auto
insurance commonly known as Collateral Protection Insurance ("CPI")
that they did not need or want. National General served as Wells
Fargo's CPI vendor for all aspects of the program from July 2015
until the program was discreetly terminated in September 2016.
Defendants possessed information showing that these customers
already had their own insurance, but forced them to be subject to
redundant, unnecessary, and overly expensive CPI policies anyway.
In addition, while defendants were concealing their participation
in the fraudulent CPI scheme from investors, they were reporting
revenues and earnings results that had been artificially inflated
by the illegitimate proceeds from the scheme. As a result of this
information being withheld from the market, National General common
stock traded at artificially inflated prices of more than $25 per
share during the Class Period.

For more information on our investigation into National General
Holdings go to: https://bespc.com/nghc

Natural Health Trends Corp. (NASDAQ: NHTC)

Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and
directors of National Health Trends Corp. following a complaint
that was filed against Natural Health Trends on January 8, 2019.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Natural Health
Trends was operating as a pyramid scheme in China, which is
contrary to Chinese law; (2) consequently, Natural Health Trends
was not in compliance with applicable Chinese law; and (3) as a
result, defendants' statements about Natural Health Trends'
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

For more information on our investigation into Natural Health
Trends go to: https://bespc.com/nhtc

Omnicell, Inc. (NASDAQ: OMCL)

Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and
directors of Omnicell, Inc. following a class action complaint that
was filed against Omnicell on July 18, 2019.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company recognized
revenue for certain transactions before fulfilling its performance
obligations; (2) that the Company engaged in improper accounting
practices to meet revenue targets; (3) that the Company experienced
weaker demand for new product lines than it had previously
projected; (4) that, as a result, the Company would be required to
write-off certain inventory; (5) that the Company misclassified
certain expenses as capitalized expenditures; and (6) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

For more information on our investigation into Omnicell go to:
https://bespc.com/omcl

PolarityTE, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTE)

Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and
directors of PolarityTE, Inc. following a class action complaint
filed against PolarityTE on June 26, 2018.

The complaint alleges that on June 25, 2018, Citron Research
("Citron") issued a report in which Citron detailed the company's
track record of material misrepresentations, misstatements, and
omissions pertaining to the status of a key patent application. The
Citron report noted that as far back as March 31, 2017, the USPTO
notified the company of its non-final rejection of patent
#14/954,335. Citron's report continued to highlight the company's
subsequent failure to disclose the patent's non-final rejection
status and its continued behavior of representing the technology
linked to the patent in a positive light. The report also pointed
to the USPTO's final rejection of the patent on June 4, 2018
information that the company also failed to disclose. On this news,
PolarityTE stock plunged more than 34%.

For more information on our investigation into PolarityTE go to:
https://bespc.com/pte

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm
concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For
additional information about Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. please go
to www.bespc.com.  Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.

Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com
[GN]


NEUROLOGY CENTER: Nurse Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Patricia Case, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Neurology Center of Excellence, PLLC and Sheri
Brisby, individually, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00486 (M.D. Fla.,
September 25, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and all other applicable relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants operate a neurology clinic in Lady Lake where Case
worked as a licensed nurse. She claims to have rendered in excess
of 40 hours per workweek without being paid overtime for hours over
40. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew R. Gunter, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA.
      20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
      PO. Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
      Email: mgunter@forthepeople.com


NOVO NORDISK: Insulin Drug Prices Inflated, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
PROFESSIONAL DRUG COMPANY, INC. and  FWK HOLDINGS, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. NOVO NORDISK INC., ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,
SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-18326
(D.N.J., Sept. 25, 2019), seek to recover damages incurred by
themselves and the members of the Class due to the scheme that
Defendants and their co-conspirators perpetrated to artificially
inflate the prices of analog insulin drugs that Class Members
directly
purchased from Defendants.

The Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of themselves and a class of
pharmaceutical distributors that directly purchased the analog
insulin drugs NovoLog (TM), Humalog (TM), Lantus (TM), and Levemir
(TM) from the Defendants during the period January 1, 2009 through
the present.

During the Class Period, PDC purchased Lantus directly from
Defendant Sanofi on February 10, 2009 and May 15, 2009 and
purchased Levemir directly from Defendant Novo on June 16, 2010.
Based on information currently available, during the Class Period,
FWK purchased approximately $113,143,774.13 of Lantus directly from
Defendant Sanofi, approximately $25,455,136.10 of Levemir and
$64,418,385.92 of NovoLog directly from Defendant Novo, and
approximately $45,419,536.95 of Humalog directly from Defendant
Lilly. All of those purchases came at prices dictated by the
Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants conducted their Price
Inflation Scheme through repeated acts of mail and wire fraud that
amounted to a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and New
Jersey's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Defendants' false representations concerned the distributor and
retail prices of Humalog, NovoLog, Lantus, and Levemir. To ensure
the success of the Price Inflation Scheme, Defendants conspired and
formed RICO enterprises with the three largest pharmacy benefit
managers (the PBM Conspirators) -- CVS Health Corporation, Express
Scripts, Inc., and OptumRx, Inc.

The PBM Conspirators were responsible for managing the prescription
medication benefits maintained by roughly 180 million Americans, or
80% of the insured public, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

           Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
           Daniel N. Gallucci, Esq.
           Michael Tarringer, Esq.
           NASTLAW LLC
           1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
           Philadelphia, PA 19107
           Telephone: (215) 923 9300
           Facsimile: (215) 923 9302
           E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
           dgalluccii@nastlaw.com
           mtarringer@nastlaw.com

                - and -

           Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
           Debra G. Josephson, Esq.
           Karen S. Halbert, Esq.
           Stephane E. Smith, Esq.
           Sarah Deloach, Esq.
           ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
           20 Rahling Circle
           Little Rock, AR 72223
           Telephone: (501) 821 5575
           Facsimile: (501) 821 4474
           E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
                   debrajosephson@robertslawfirm.us
                   karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us
                   sarahdeloach@robertslawfirm.us

                - and -

           Don Barett, Esq.
           Richard R. Barrett, Esq.
           BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
           P.O. Box 927
           404 Court Square North
           Lexington, MS 39095-0927
           Telephone: (662) 834 2488
           Facsimile: (662) 834 2628
           E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                   rrb@rrblawfirm.net

                - and -

           Phil Elbert, Esq.
           Ben Aaron, Esq.
           Charles Barrett, Esq.
           NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
           1201 Demonbreum St., Suite 1000
           Nashville, TN 37203
           Telephone: (615) 244 1713
           Facsimile: (615) 726 0573
           E-mail: pelbert@nealharwell.com
                   baaron@nealharwell.com
                   cbarrett@nealharwell.com

P.S.J. INC: Lugo Seeks Pay for Hours Worked Over 40
---------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH LUGO, MARILY LUGO, and similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. P.S.J., INC. d/b/a LUCKY MEATS II, a Florida
corporation, HUGO RAMIREZ, an individual and ISIDRO PEREZ, an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-24193-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
Oct. 10, 2019) is an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, to recover unpaid back wages, and an additional equal
amount as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs.

Plaintiffs often worked more than 40 hours per week but were not
paid time and half for those hours worked over 40 hours in
violation of the statutory overtime rate as required by the laws of
the United States, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employees of LUCKY MEATS from September 2, 2017
through June 19, 2019.

LUCKY MEATS is a Florida corporation doing business in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gary A. Costales, Esq.
     GARY A. COSTALES, P.A.
     1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1440
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (305) 375-9510
     Facsimile: (305) 375-9511



PAREA GROUP: Class in Argudo FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HENRY ARGUDO et al., Plaintiffs, v. PAREA GROUP LLC
d/b/a TRATTORIA IL MULINO et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-0678
(JMF) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York and (i) denied Katzoff's
motion summary judgment as to the claims against him; and (ii)
granted the Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of an
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action and a Rule 23
class action.

Plaintiffs Argudo and Diego Sanay bring the action on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, alleging violations of
the FLSA and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").  The Plaintiffs were
employed as servers at restaurants owned and operated by the
Defendants under the "Il Mulino" brand name.  They allege that the
Defendants failed to properly notify them that the Defendants were
claiming a "tip credit" for the tips that they earned, forced them
to share their tips with employees who do not ordinarily earn tips,
and failed to pay them the minimum wage and overtime.

Sanay and Argudo worked as servers at three of five New York City
restaurants operating under the name "Il Mulino."  Four of these
restaurants -- "Il Mulino Uptown," "Il Mulino Downtown," "Il Mulino
60th Street," and "Il Mulino Prime" -- are owned by Galligan and
Katzoff through a holding company, Il Mulino USA LLC.  The fifth,
"Trattoria Il Mulino," was owned by Parea Group LLC and operated
pursuant to licensing and management agreements with Galligan and
Katzoff, through their companies IM Franchise, LLC, and K.G. IM
Management LLC.

The Plaintiffs move for conditional certification of an FLSA
collective action for all tipped employees who worked at any of the
five Il Mulino restaurants from Jan. 26, 2015, to the present.
They also move for certification of a class action under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for all Il Mulino tipped
employees who worked from Jan. 26, 2012, to the present, and for a
subclass of tipped employees who worked at Trattoria Il Mulino from
Jan. 26, 2012, to the present.  In addition, Katzoff moves for
summary judgment, arguing that he cannot be held liable because he
does not qualify as an "employer" of the Plaintiffs.

Judge Furman begins with Katzoff's summary judgment motion.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs,
the Judge concludes that a reasonable jury could conclude that
Katzoff possessed "operational control" over the Plaintiffs'
employment.  Among other things, the Defendants' own depositions
indicate that, as in Irizarry, Katzoff satisfied two Carter factors
in ways that the Second Circuit has particularly emphasized that
the hiring of managerial employees,such as CFO William Minner, and
overall financial control of the company.  More broadly, there is
evidence that Katzoff possessed authority over decisions that would
affect the conditions of the Plaintiffs' employment, including the
ultimate power to open and close restaurants, as well as the power
to make operational adjustments.  Given this evidence and the
inherently "fact-intensive character" of the inquiry, summary
judgment is inappropriate and thus denied.

With that, Judge Furman turns to the Plaintiffs' motion for
certification of an FLSA collective action and a Rule 23 class
action.  Judge Furman grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
certification of an FLSA collective action.  The Judge finds that
the Plaintiffs present evidence that they and other servers at the
Il Mulino restaurants were "tipped employees" and that the
Defendants claimed a tip credit for their wages; that they were
"never informed" that the Defendants would be claiming a tip
credit, the amount thereof, or the other information required by
the FLSA; and that the lack of notice was the result of a common
policy at the five Il Mulino restaurants.  Moreover, they establish
that they and other tipped employees at Trattoria Il Mulino were
forced to pool their tips with employees who did not provide direct
customer service, such as dishwashers and expeditors.

The Judge turns, then, to the Plaintiffs' motion for certification
of a Rule 23 class action with respect to their NYLL claims.  With
respect to the overall class, the Defendants' sole argument is that
the Plaintiffs do not establish commonality and typicality because
"each location was separately managed."  As discussed, however, the
evidence shows that tipped employees across all five Il Mulino
restaurants received information about their wages pursuant to a
uniform policy promulgated by the Defendants.  Thus, the proposed
class' claims plainly depend upon a common contention whose truth
or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of
each one of the claims, and their alleged injuries plainly "arise
from the same allegedly unlawful practices and policies.  The fact
that damages would have to be calculated on an individualized basis
does not alter those conclusions.

The Defendants' arguments have even less purchase with respect to
the Plaintiffs' request for certification of a subclass of
employees of Trattoria Il Mulino since, by definition, the subclass
is composed of employees in only one restaurant.  Perhaps not
surprisingly, therefore, the Defendants do not even bother to
address that request.  In any event, the Judge finds that
certification of the subclass is warranted, for largely the same
reasons.

Accordingly, Judge Furman grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
certification of the Rule 23 class and subclass.  Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP is named as class counsel.  The firm is an obvious
choice for the class counsel, and is qualified and experienced in
wage and hour class actions.  Further, it has invested considerable
time investigating and litigating the case, and it has demonstrated
to the Court's satisfaction that it will fairly and adequately
represent the class and the subclass.

Finally, Judge Furman approves the Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and
Consent to Join form, except that (1) Section 16 of the Notice will
be modified to make clear that the opt-in Plaintiffs are entitled
to retain their own counsel (or represent themselves) in connection
with their claims under the FLSA; (2) putative members of the
collective action and class will be given 60 days (rather than 30)
to opt in to the collective action and to opt out of the class; and
(3) the Consent to Join form will be revised to make clearer that
the Plaintiffs are free to retain counsel of their choosing (or to
represent themselves) and are not required to have the Plaintiffs'
counsel represent them with respect to their FLSA claims.  The
Judge denies as meritless the Defendants' request to omit Katzoff's
and Galligan's names from the Notice, for which they cite no
authority.

Without delay, the Defendants are tasked to produce to the
Plaintiffs a list, in Microsoft Excel format, of all persons
employed by the Defendants as captains, waiters, bussers, runners,
bartenders, and barbacks, from Jan. 26, 2012, to the present,
including the employee's name, last known address, alternate
address(es) (if any), all known telephone numbers, all known e-mail
addresses, social security numbers, dates of employment, and job
titles.  The parties will confer and submit an agreed-upon proposed
order (or competing proposed orders), consistent with the Opinion
and Order, regarding the procedures to be used in connection with
the mailing of the Notice and Consent to Join forms.  And finally,
the parties will submit a joint letter setting forth their views on
the need for discovery following the conclusion of the opt-in and
opt-out period and whether the Court should hold a conference to
discuss those issues or anything else.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 24, 2019 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/eSLEyX from Leagle.com.

Henry Argudo, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Diego Sanay, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Luis Gonzalez, Jaime Rivera, Victor Rivera & Marco
Morales, Plaintiffs, represented by Lucas Colin Buzzard, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP, Yosef Nussbaum -- jnussbaum@jhllp.com -- Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP & Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum -- maimon@jhllp.com
-- Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum.

Miljan Zecevic & Trim Qorkadiu, Plaintiffs, represented by Lucas
Colin Buzzard, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP.

Liviu Movileanu, Plaintiff, represented by Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP.

Parea Group LLC, doing business as Trattoria IL Mulino, Defendant,
represented by Randi Weller Kochman -- rkochman@coleschotz.com --
Cole Schotz P.C., Lauren Michelle Manduke --
lmanduke@coleschotz.com -- Cole Schotz P.C. & Peter Hatzipetros --
info@petroslawgroup.com -- Petros Law Group, P.C.

IMNY GS LLC, doing business as IL Mulino Tribeca, GFB Restaurant
Corp., doing business as IL Mulino Downtown, Wonderful Restaurant
LLC, doing business as IL Mulino Uptown, Brian Galligan, Gerald
Katzoff, K.G. IM Management, LLC, IM 60 Street LLC, Il Mulino USA
LLC & IM LLC-I, Defendants, represented by Mark Krassner --
mkrassner@borahgoldstein.com -- Law Office of Mark Krassner.

GFB Restaurant Corp., Brian Galligan, IMNY GS LLC, K.G. IM
Management, LLC, Gerald Katzoff & Wonderful Restaurant LLC, Cross
Defendants, represented by Mark Krassner, Law Office of Mark
Krassner.

K.G. IM Management, LLC, Wonderful Restaurant LLC, Brian Galligan,
Gerald Katzoff, IMNY GS LLC & GFB Restaurant Corp., Cross
Claimants, represented by Mark Krassner, Law Office of Mark
Krassner.


PENNSYLVANIA: New York AG Files Class Action Against PHEAA
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that New York's attorney general filed
a lawsuit on Oct. 3 against a loan servicer that handles a student
loan forgiveness program for public service workers over how the
program has been managed.

Attorney General Letitia James' suit filed in federal court in
Manhattan against the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance
Agency said it has "failed miserably" in how it administers the
program.

In her lawsuit, James said PHEAA, which operates under FedLoan
Servicing, hasn't accurately kept track of borrowers' payments or
adequately explained how it makes its tracking determinations.

FedLoan is the only loan servicer for the Public Service Loan
Forgiveness program, created by the federal government in 2007.
That program allows certain borrowers to ask for loan forgiveness
after 10 years, provided they have made the right amount of
qualifying payments and are working in public service jobs.

By not administering the program effectively, James said in her
suit against PHEAA that the effects on borrowers include longer
repayment periods and being denied when they apply for loan
forgiveness.

"PHEAA's failures as the PSLF servicer," James said, "have
undermined the goals of the PSLF program and created financial
hardship for many."

Keith New, a spokesman for the loan servicer, said in an email
statement, "Over the years, PHEAA has cooperatively worked with the
NY AG's Office, along with many other regulators throughout the
nation, to review specific borrower concerns and to identify and
implement appropriate resolutions as they arise."

He said James' allegations are "without merit" and PHEAA "intends
to vigorously defend itself in this suit."

PHEAA is facing other lawsuits, one filed by Massachusetts in state
court, as well as some class-action lawsuits. [GN]


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Will FDCPA Class Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN P. WILL, Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-cv-02790-MSK-KMT
(D. Colo.), Judge Marcia S. Krieger of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint.

At some point in time, John Will defaulted on his debt in the
amount of $7,084.52 to Bank of America.  Bank of America sold Mr.
Will's debt to Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates ("PRA").

In an attempt to collect the debt, on March 13, 2018, PRA sent Mr.
Will a letter.  The Collection Letter stated that PRA is a debt
collector and that Mr. Will owed a debt in the amount of $7,084.52.
The Collection Letter offered several options for Mr. Will to
repay the debt including a 1-Month, a 12-Month, or a 24-Month
payment plan.  Due to the age of the debt and the fact that it is
was beyond the applicable statute of limitations for any debt
collection lawsuit, PRA's Collection Letter provided the following
disclosure, "the law limits how long you can be sued on a debt.
Because of the age of your debt, we will not sue you for it."  Mr.
Will did not make any payments to PRA, and instead, he sued them
for sending the Collection Letter.

The Complaint alleges that the State of Colorado has a statute of
limitations that applies to prohibit the filing of lawsuits more
than six years after the last payment made by a person, and that
when the Collection Letter was sent to Mr. Will, the applicable
statute of limitations had expired on the subject debt.  Mr. Will
alleges that because his last payment on the subject debt was more
than six years from the date of the Collection Letter, he had "no
legal responsibility" to repay the debt.

In addition, the Complaint alleges that the Collection Letter's
disclosure language violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA") because it falsely represents the character and legal
status of the Subject Time-Barred Debt, and unfairly fails to
inform Mr. Will that choosing any of the repayment options would
restart the statutory period for another creditor or debt collector
if the debt were to be sold.  The Complaint further alleges that
the Collection Letter is intentionally deceptive and confusing to
consumers and is designed to induce payment on debts that are
time-barred.

Mr. Will brought the following claims against PRA on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated based on the March 13, 2018
Collection Letter: (1) an individual claim for a violation of
sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA and (2) the same claim for a
violation of sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA on behalf of a
putative class of Colorado residents.

PRA moved to dismiss all of Mr. Will's FDCPA claims, arguing they
are legally insufficient on two grounds: (1) the section 1692e
claim fails as a matter of law because the disclosure language set
forth in the Collection Letter is accurate, unequivocal, and
conveys that Mr. Will will not be sued on the timebarred subject
debt; and (2) the section 1692f claim fails as a matter of law
because under Colorado law, a timebarred debt cannot be revived
based on making a partial debt payment, thus, Mr. Will could not
have been misled by the omission of language in the Collection
Letter regarding the potential reviving of the statute of
limitations.

Judge Krieger finds that the Complaint contains no factual
allegations suggesting that the debt was invalid, had no legal
basis or was not owed by Mr. Will.  In addition, there is no
showing that the Collection Letter threatened litigation or any
other legally-precluded remedy.  Indeed, quite the opposite is true
-- it expressly states that no legal action would be taken.  Taking
Mr. Will's allegations as true, the District Court finds that as a
matter of law, even a "least sophisticated consumer" would not find
PRA's Collection Letter deceptive, false, or misleading.
Accordingly, the Complaint's allegations fail to state a plausible
claim that PRA violated  Sectio692e of the FDCPA, and the claim
must be dismissed.

PRA contends Mr. Will's claim under Section 1692f fails because it
does not accurately state Colorado law.  Again, the Judge opines
that PRA is correct.  Mr. Will's fear is misplaced.  His or any
debtor's payment without evidence of a clear and unequivocal
intention to revive the debt has no effect upon a fully satisfied
statute of limitation.  Because there was no risk to the statute of
limitations might be revived by Mr. Will's payment, PRA could not
have violated Section 1692f of the FDCPA.  Even a "least
sophisticated consumer" would not find PRA's Collection Letter used
unfair or unconscionable means to collect the debt.  The Complaint
fails to state a claim for a violation of Section 1692f of the
FDCPA, and the claim is dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Krieger granted the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.  All the claims in the action are dismissed.
There being no representation by Mr. Will that the deficiencies in
the Complaint can be remedied by amendment, no period for same will
be reflexively granted.  Any request to amend will be made by
Motion filed within 14 days from the date of the Order, failing
which the Clerk of the Court will close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 24, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/zYhz50 from Leagle.com.

John P. Will, Plaintiff, represented by Marwan Rocco Daher,
Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd., Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Sulaiman Law
Group, Ltd. & James Constantine Vlahakis, Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amy
S. Gilbert -- agilbert@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods, LLP, David
L. Hartsell -- dhartsell@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods, LLP &
Sarah Ann Zielinski -- szielinski@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP.


PR DESIGN: Calcano Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------
PR Design Co., Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PR Design Co., Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09583 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 16, 2019).

PR DESIGN CO INC is in the Men's and Boys' Clothing and Furnishings
industry in New York, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRAIRIE OPPORTUNITY: Bonner Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Bonner on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Prairie Opportunity, Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00171
(N.D. Miss., September 25, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Bonner worked for Prairie Opportunity as a bookkeeper. She claims
to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per workweek without being
paid overtime for hours over 40. She claims that she was
misclassified as exempt from overtime and full minimum wage exempt.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. Howard Gunn, Esq.
      310 South Hickory Street
      Post Office Box 157
      Aberdeen, MS 39730
      Telephone: (662) 369-8533
      Facsimile: (662) 369-9844
      Email: whgunn@bellsouth.net


PRICESMART INC: Bragar Eagel Investigates Officers, Directors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and
directors of PriceSmart, Inc. (PSMT), Pyxus International, Inc.
(PYX), Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. (ACRS), and Zimmer Biomet
Holdings, Inc. (ZBH) on behalf of long-term stockholders.  

PriceSmart, Inc. (PSMT)

Bragar Eagel and Squire is investigating certain officers and
directors of PriceSmart, Inc. following a class action complaint
that was filed against PriceSmart May 22, 2019.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the class period,
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the company's
omni-channel business strategy had failed to reach key operating
goals; (2) that the company's South America distribution strategy
had failed to realize key cost saving goals; (3) that the company
had invested Trinidad and Tobago dollars into certificates of
deposits with financial institutions; (4) that these investments
had been improperly classified as cash and cash equivalents; (5)
that the relevant corrections would materially impact financial
statements; (6) that there was a material weakness in the company's
internal controls over financial reporting; (7) that increasing
competition negatively impacted the company's revenue and
profitability; and (8) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants positive statements about the company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

For more information on the firm's investigation into PriceSmart,
go to: https://bespc.com/PSMT

Pyxus International, Inc. (PYX)

Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating Pyxus International, Inc.
following a class action complaint that was filed against Pyxus on
June 7, 2019.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the company was
experiencing longer shipping cycles; (2) that, as a result, the
company's financial results would be materially affected; (3) that
the company lacked adequate internal control over financial
reporting; (4) that the company's accounting policies were
reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (5) that, as
a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about
the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

For more information on the firm's investigation into Pyxus go to:
https://bespc.com/pyx

Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. (ACRS)

Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and
directors of Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. following a class action
complaint that was filed against Aclaris on July 30, 2019.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the company's advertising
materials minimized the risks and overstated the efficacy of ESKATA
to generate sales; (2) that, as a result, the company was
reasonably likely to face regulatory scrutiny; and (3) that, as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the
company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

For more information on the firm's investigation into Aclaris go
to: https://bespc.com/acrs

Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (ZBH)

Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and
directors of Zimmer Biomet Holdings following an amended class
action complaint that was filed on March 21, 2019.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of material
misstatements and omissions to investors regarding, among other
things, (1) Zimmer's discovery of wide-ranging "systemic issues"
with the quality system at the primary Legacy Biomet manufacturing
facility in Warsaw; (2) Zimmer's failure to take prompt and
necessary actions to remediate these issues fully; and (3) Zimmer's
inability to simultaneously satisfy the demand for its products
while remediating these issues.

For more information on the firm's investigation into Zimmer go to:
https://bespc.com/zbh

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm
concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For
additional information about Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. please go
to www.bespc.com.  Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.

Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com
[GN]


RADIUS GLOBAL: Bonilla Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Andrea Bonilla, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Radius
Global Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05837 (E.D.
N.Y., Oct. 16, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Radius Global Solutions is a collection agency providing accounts
receivable services and customer relationship management
outsourcing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David M. Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com

     - and -

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


RADIUS GLOBAL: George Files FDCPA Suit in North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Bernard L. George,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Radius Global Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00540 (W.D. N.C., Oct. 16, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Radius Global Solutions is a collections agency providing accounts
receivable services and customer relationship management
outsourcing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Arthur H. Piervincenti, Esq.
   Arthur H. Piervincenti, P.A.
   631-200B Brawley School Road, Box 225
   Mooresville, NC 28117
   Tel: (704) 997-9529
   Fax: (704) 230-0413
   Email: arthur@lawahp.com


REALTORS NAT'L ASSO: DOJ Probes Missouri Suit on Excessive Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the U.S. Department of Justice is
looking into a Missouri class-action lawsuit accusing national real
estate brokers of conspiring to charge excessive fees.

Attorneys in the department's antitrust division noted in a recent
court filing that it is investigating the matter, The Kansas City
Star reported.

A pair of Kansas City law firms sued major residential real estate
brokerage companies this year on behalf of Missouri residents who
sold a house since April 2015, contending the real estate agents'
common practices stifle competition and harm owners.

The suit took aim at mandates that sellers pay the buyer's broker a
commission, regularly an amount at or around 6% of the sale price
of a house. It also alleges brokerage firms regularly charge
inflated commissions. The lawsuit also challenges numerous listing
services, which are databases of houses that are purchased and sold
and only accessible to buyers and sellers represented by real
estate agents. Those agents must follow the National Association of
Realtors' rules, including the agreement that sellers pay
commissions of a purchaser's agent.

The association, a trade group for real estate brokers, and other
brokerage houses, has filed a motion seeking to have the lawsuit
dismissed. The group alleges, in part, that the Justice Department
had given its approval to the rules that limit access to multiple
listing services when the two parties resolved a dispute in 2008.

The Justice Department, in an unusual filing of its type in a civil
case, said the association erroneously portrayed the 2008
settlement.

"It cannot be overstated how damaging this is to the NAR's
credibility with the court," said Brandon Boulware, a Kansas City
attorney representing plaintiffs against the real estate group.

A footnote in the Justice Department's filing acknowledged that the
agency had issued a civil investigative demand - an official
request for records or information in an investigation — related
to a probe into residential real estate brokerages.

A spokesperson for the National Association of Realtors didn't
return a message from the newspaper seeking comment.

The Missouri suit is comparable to one filed in Illinois that some
spectators have said could put the business model of residential
real estate brokerages in jeopardy. [GN]


RUHNN HOLDING: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to
investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of Ruhnn Holding Limited (NASDAQ:RUHN) resulting from allegations
that Ruhnn may have issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public.

On or about April 3, 2019, Ruhnn announced the pricing of its
initial public offering ("IPO") at $12.50 per share. However, since
the IPO, Ruhnn stock has declined. As of market close on September
30, 2019 the stock price was $7.28 per share.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered Ruhnn investors. If you purchased shares of Ruhnn
please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1686.htmlto join the
class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

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


SHIRE LLC: Mass. Court Certifies Class in Intuniv Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts granted in part and denied in part
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. (RDC) and FWK Holdings LLC's
motion for class certification in the INTUNIV ANTITRUST LITIGATION
(Direct purchaser), Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-12653-ADB (D. Mass.)

The "pay-for-delay" or "reverse settlement" case concerns an
allegedly anticompetitive settlement of patent litigation related
to the ADHD drug Intuniv.  Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs)
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. ("RDC") and FWK Holdings LLC
brought  antitrust claims on behalf of a putative class comprised
of entities that purchased Intuniv (the brand name for extended
release guanfacine hydrochloride) from brand Intuniv manufacturer
Shire LLC and Shire U.S., Inc. or generic Intuniv manufacturer
Actavis Elizabeth LLC, Actavis Holdco US, Inc., and Actavis LLC.
The DPPs allege that the Defendants improperly delayed competition
for both brand Intuniv and generic Intuniv in violation of Sections
1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, causing the DPPs to pay an inflated
price for Intuniv.

Shire manufactures and sells Intuniv, which is generally prescribed
to treat ADHD.  On Sept. 2, 2009, the Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") approved Shire's New Drug Application ("NDA") for Intuniv
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Section 355.  During the relevant time
period, Shire held three patents that covered Intuniv.  Under the
Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984,
commonly known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, a generic manufacturer may
file an Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") to seek approval
of a proposed generic version of a brand drug.  On Dec. 29, 2009,
Actavis became the first company to file an ANDA for a generic
version of Intuniv.

FWK filed the case on Dec. 30, 2016 and RDC filed similar claims on
Jan. 11, 2017.  The Court granted a joint motion to consolidate the
two actions in March 2017.  RDC is a regional distributor of
pharmaceuticals and FWK holds, by assignment, the antitrust claims
of Frank W. Kerr Co., a former pharmaceutical wholesaler that
entered bankruptcy and subsequently closed.

The consolidated action has proceeded in coordination with claims
brought on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers of
Intuniv.  In November 2018, DPPs sought a certification of a class
of entities that purchased Intuniv from Shire or Actavis from 212
to 2015.

The Defendants filed their opposition to class certification on
Feb. 12, 2019.

Judge Burroughs finds that pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, (i) joinder of all the class members is
impracticable; (ii) there are questions of law and fact common to
the class; and (iii)the DPPs' claims and the potential defenses are
typical of the putative class.  

As for adequacy, Judge Burroughs opines that the personal,
financial, and business relationship between FWK, FWK-associated
individuals, and the class counsel is simply too entangled and that
FWK must be dismissed as a class representative, particularly
considering that it is not engaged in meaningful supervision of the
litigation and another class representative is available.

Judge Burroughs concludes that RDC is an adequate Plaintiff.  Given
the history of RDC, the Judge accepts RDC as an adequate
representative.  RDC is under new management, its conduct in the
case to date seems conscientious, and there is no obvious
credibility issue that will impinge on its ability to adequately
represent the class.  Additionally, there does not appear to be any
conflict among the class as a result of the allegations against
RDC, and there is no indication that RDC has been anything but
forthright with the Court or will otherwise fail to supervise and
participate in the litigation.

Finally, the Judge concludes that questions of law or fact common
to the class members predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members and that a class action is superior to other
available methods for adjudicating the controversy.

Accordingly, Judge Burroughs granted in part and denied in part the
Motion for Class Certification.  

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the following class
is certified: All persons or entities in the United States and its
territories, or subsets thereof, that purchased Intuniv and/or
generic Intuniv in any form directly from Shire or Actavis,
including any predecessor or successor of Shire or Actavis, from
Oct. 19, 2012 through June 1, 2015.

Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. is appointed as class
representative.  

FWK Holdings LLC is dismissed as class representative.  

Thomas M. Sobol and Lauren Guth Barnes of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP are appointed as class counsel counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 24, 2019 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://is.gd/BP6udf from Leagle.com.

Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., Consolidated Plaintiff,
represented by Caitlin G. Coslett , Berger Montague PC, pro hac
vice, David F. Sorensen -- dsorensen@bm.net -- Berger Montague PC,
pro hac vice, Joseph T. Lukens, FARUQI & FARUQI, pro hac vice,
Peter Kohn -- pkohn@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, pro hac
vice, Thomas M. Sobol -- tom@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Kristie A. LaSalle -- kristiel@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Lauren G. Barnes, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

FWK Holdings LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by April D. Lambert, Radice Law
Firm, pro hac vice, Bart D. Cohen, NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C., pro
hac vice, Bradley J. Demuth, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice,
Clark Craddock, Radice Law Firm, pro hac vice, David P. Germaine,
Sperling & Slater, P.C., pro hac vice, Hannah W. Brennan, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jessica Weiner, Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, John P. Bjork, Sperling & Slater, P.C.,
pro hac vice, John Quinn Kerrigan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
pro hac vice, John D. Radice, Radice Law Firm, PC, pro hac vice,
Joseph H. Meltzer, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac
vice, Joseph M. Vanek, SPERLING & SLATER, P.C., pro hac vice,
Kenneth Pickle, Radice Law Firm, P.C, pro hac vice, Linda P.
Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., pro hac vice, Sharon K.
Robertson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice,
TERENCE S. ZIEGLER, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Thomas M.
Sobol, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Donna M. Evans, Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll PLLC, Kiersten Taylor, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Kristie A. LaSalle, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Lauren G.
Barnes, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Shire PLC, Defendant, represented by Nicholas F. Giove --
ngiove@haugpartners.com -- Haug Partners LLP, pro hac vice & Joshua
S. Barlow -- jbarlow@haugpartners.com -- Haug Partners LLP.

Shire, LLC & Shire U.S., Inc., Defendants, represented by David S.
Shotlander, Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLLP, pro hac vice, David A.
Zwally, Haug Partners LLLP, pro hac vice, Michael F. Brockmeyer,
Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas F. Giove, Haug
Partners LLP, pro hac vice, Fred A. Kelly, Jr., Haug Partners,
Joshua S. Barlow, Haug Partners LLP & Tarae L. Howell, Nixon &
Peabody, LLP.

Actavis Elizabeth LLC, Actavis Holdco US, Inc. & Actavis LLC,
Defendants, represented by Aviv A. Zalcenstein --
azalcenstein@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice,
Alicia Rubio-Spring, Goodwin Procter LLP, Christopher T. Holding --
cholding@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter, LLP, Sarah K.
Frederick, Goodwin Procter LLP & Srikanth K. Reddy, Goodwin
Procter, LLP.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Intervenor, represented by
Christopher T. Holding, Goodwin Procter, LLP.


SKM RECYCLING: Settles Coolaroo Blaze Class Action for $1.2-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clay Lucas and Noel Towell, writing for The Age, report that
Melbourne residents who were forced to evacuate when SKM
Recycling's Coolaroo plant went up in flames will receive about
$2,000 each from a $1.2 million settlement with the failed
recycler.

More than 200 claimants joined the class action, and will now share
in the $475,000 SKM has been ordered to pay. The law firm that led
the class action, Maddens, will get $725,000.

The ruling in the class action was released on Oct. 7.

It detailed the impacts of the massive fire that burnt out of
control for two days in July 2017, and then smouldered for more
than a week.

Residents in Coolaroo and Dallas in Melbourne's north were forced
to leave their homes for days, and businesses had to shut their
doors, after the fire broke out at the Coolaroo plant cloaking the
northern suburbs in acrid smoke.

Lead claimant Castor Murillo, who was forced to sleep in his
family's car with his pregnant wife and four children for two
nights after they could not get emergency accommodation, was
awarded $5,000 by Supreme Court Judge John Dixon.

The payment to Mr. Murillo was to cover expenses including $520 for
four nights accommodation at the Hume Villa Motor Inn, $165 for a
replacement couch for one ruined by smoke, and almost $400 for
medical expenses.

As a result of the fire, Justice Dixon wrote, Mr Murillo was also
forced to spend "many hours of physically cleaning the
discomforting effect of the emissions from his home".

Other residents would get similar small payments for ruined
clothing, couches and soft furnishings that Justice Dixon said had
been "effectively destroyed by the emissions because of the smell
taint".

For most of this year SKM, which previously had contracts to
process waste for around 30 Victorian councils, has been at the
centre of a recycling crisis.

In July, it abruptly told councils it would not accept recycling,
forcing most to send their waste to landfill.

After being placed into receivership in August, SKM is now for sale
and has begun taking waste again for Melbourne, Moonee Valley,
Brimbank, Hobsons Bay, Port Phillip, Hume and Nillumbik councils.

The judge said the fire came after a series of smaller fires in
2017 at the Coolaroo plant had made a large blaze clearly
foreseeable.

SKM "should have known that a failure to properly store the waste .
. . would increase the risk of a fire starting and significantly
increase the risk that [it] would spread uncontrollably," Justice
Dixon wrote.

News of payouts over the 2017 fire came as a council in Melbourne's
inner-west secured an injunction against an owner of a warehouse
stacked with thousands of tonnes of SKM's unwanted waste.

Maribyrnong Council took action in the Sunshine Magistrate's Court
against 85 Ashley Pty Ltd, a company that owns a warehouse in
Ashley Street, Braybrook.

The company was left with about 2000 tonnes of recycling by SKM.

The owner of the warehouse is one of five companies left with
unwanted waste by SKM Corporate, which was put into liquidation in
August.

One of the warehouse's owners said they were unaware of the order
obtained by the council and that the stored material was not a fire
risk.

Environment Minister Lily D'Ambrosio, in Tottenham in Melbourne's
west on Oct. 7 to announce $1.6 million in grants for technological
solutions to reuse or recycle waste, said discussions with
warehouse managers continued.

Ms D'Ambrosio said SKM's receivers, KordaMentha, had received a
"very enthusiastic response" from potential buyers of the recycling
business, but did not provide further details.

An order for the property owner to meet these measures has been
made by the Magistrates Court. [GN]


SKYWEST INC: Transfer of Hirst & Tapp Cases to Calif. Court Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the
Plaintiffs' motions to transfer the cases ANDREA HIRST, MOLLY
STOVER, and EMILY STROBLE SZE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SKYWEST, INC. and SKYWEST
AIRLINES, INC., Defendants; and CHERYL TAPP, RENEE SITAVICH, SARAH
HUDSON, BRANDON COLSON, and BRUNO LOZANO, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SKYWEST, INC. and
SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., Defendants, Case Nos. 15 C 02036, 15 C
11117 (N.D. Ill.), to the Northern District of California.

The Plaintiffs commenced the lawsuits in 2015, challenging
SkyWest's "block-time" compensation structure for flight attendants
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and wage and hour laws of
several states (Arizona, California, Illinois, and Washington).
Initially, the Hirst case was filed in the Northern District of
Illinois and the Tapp case in the Northern District of California.
The Plaintiffs stipulated to transfer the Tapp case to the Illinois
District Court.  The Tapp case was assigned to the Illinois
District Court as related to Hirst, and the two cases have
thereafter moved in tandem.

After first dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice and
permitting repleading, the Illinois Court ultimately dismissed all
FLSA claims in both cases and held that the Dormant Commerce Clause
precluded their state law wage claims.  It entered final judgment
on behalf of SkyWest in November 2017, and the Plaintiffs appealed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims but reinstated their state
law claims.  The parties filed petitions for writs of certiorari to
the U.S. Supreme Court and requested to stay proceedings pending
the Illinois Court's ruling on those petitions.  Both petitions
were denied, and the Illinois Court lifted the stay on June 27,
2019.

Meanwhile, in February 2019, another action by SkyWest flight
attendants, asserting wage claims under California law, was filed
in the Superior Court of San Francisco.  SkyWest removed to the
Northern District of California the case captioned Wilson et al. v.
SkyWest et al., No. 3:19-CV-01491-VC, and then filed a motion to
transfer the Wilson case to the Northern District of Illinois.
SkyWest withdrew that transfer motion, however, in light of the
Ninth Circuit's authority prohibiting courts from considering the
claims of the putative class members for purposes of determining
venue prior to class certification.

Shortly after the Illinois Court lifted the stay of proceedings in
the Hirst and Tapp cases, SkyWest filed a motion with the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML"), seeking to
establish a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") proceeding comprising
of the three cases and to transfer the Wilson case to the Illinois
Court for coordinated pretrial proceedings.  Three weeks later, the
Plaintiffs in both the Hirst and Tapp cases filed the instant
motion to transfer their cases to the Northern District of
California, where the Wilson case is pending, for consolidated
proceedings in that District.

The premise of SkyWest's MDL motion is that consolidation of these
three cases in a single forum is necessary because the cases
involve similar legal claims arising from a common factual context
(the operation of SkyWest's "block-time" compensation structure).
It would be inconvenient and manifestly unfair, SkyWest maintains,
to require it to defend itself against similar claims, brought on
behalf of the same employees, on the same theory, in different
jurisdictions, potentially resulting in conflicting results.
SkyWest also posits that consolidating the three cases would cure
the inconvenience to the witnesses -- on both sides -- who would
have to repeatedly pause their lives to testify in depositions in
multiple jurisdictions 2,000 miles apart.

For their part, the Hirst and Tapp Plaintiffs acknowledge that
consolidation in a single location is in the interest of judicial
economy and cross-district consistency.  There is, then, no dispute
between the parties about whether consolidating these cases in a
single court is appropriate.  The parties agree that these cases
should be litigated in one forum -- they just disagree about
whether that forum should be the Northern District of Illinois or
the Northern District of California.  And as to that dispute, each
side accuses the other of forum shopping.

On review, Judge Tharp concludes that the Plaintiffs have not shown
that California is clearly more convenient than Illinois to
adjudicate the claims in the Tapp case.  And because neither the
Hirst case nor the Wilson case can be transferred pursuant to
Section 1404(a), transferring the Tapp case will not significantly
change the circumstances under which SkyWest's compensation
structure is litigated; substantial efficiencies and decisional
consistency are most likely to be achieved if all three cases are
handled in the same forum.  As noted at the outset, on this the
parties, and the Judge, agree.  As that end cannot be achieved by
means of Section 1404(a), however, the decision as to whether to
consolidate these cases and, if so, where, is for the JPML, Judge
Tharp opines.

To be clear, however, Judge Tharp views consolidation of these
cases to be of greater moment than the location of a consolidated
proceeding.  Consolidation, whether in the District or the Northern
District of California, is preferable to proceeding in both, the
Judge says.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Tharp denied the Plaintiffs'
motions to transfer.  The Parties are directed to proceed with the
briefing schedules set for the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file
an amended operative complaint and the Defendants' consolidated
motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Illinois District Court's Sept. 24, 2019
Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/58FoPP
from Leagle.com.

Cheryl Tapp, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Renee Sitavich, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Sarah Hudson, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Brandon Colson, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated & Bruno Lozano, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Dylan S. Hughes -- dsh@classlawgroup.com -- Girard
Gibbs LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory F. Coleman --
greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, Steven Augustine
Lopez -- sal@classlawgroup.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP, Edward A.
Wallace , Wexler Wallace LLP, Lisa Anne White --
lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, pro hac vice, Tyler
J. Story, Wexler Wallace LLP & Eric H. Gibbs --
ehg@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP.

Skywest, Inc. & Skywest Airlines, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Michael D. Ray -- michael.ray@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Jones Day,
Colleen Grace DeRosa -- colleen.derosa@ogletree.com -- Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Daniel Oscar Canales,
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Rodney A. Harrison
-- rodney.harrison@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart PC.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Clark-Alonso Suit Moved to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Mike Clark-Alonso, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, vs. Southwest Airlines Co., and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 0971-13740213, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County
of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (Oakland) on Sept. 26, 2019. The Northern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case no. 4:19-cv-06113-KAW. To the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kandis A.
Westmore.

Southwest Airlines is a major American airline headquartered in
Dallas, Texas, and is the world's largest low-cost carrier.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew D. Pearson, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 820-8800
          Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
          E-mail: mpearson@bakerlaw.com

SPARK SPORT: Suit Mulled Over Poor Rugby World Cup Streaming
------------------------------------------------------------
Anuja Nadkarni, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that one
frustrated Spark Sport viewer has threatened to file class action
proceedings against the company for poor streaming of the Rugby
World Cup.

The creator of the People versus Spark Sport Facebook page has
threatened Spark Sport with legal action for not providing a
simulcast option for all world cup matches following numerous
complaints of glitches, freezing and mixed audio feeds.

The woman behind the page has refused to have her identity
disclosed because of concerns it could damage her professional
interests.

She alleged the company had breached the Consumer Guarantees Act
and Fair Trading Act by offering a product that was not fit for
purpose.

"I followed all of [Spark Sport's] steps on their app, we went out
and bought a brand new, 2019 LG TV to make sure it would be
compatible. We're big rugby fans and didn't want to miss this," she
said.

"[Taking legal action] is not something anyone wants to do, but
they have the ability to simulcast and said they would if there
were issues and they're not doing that."

She said the class action represented all Spark Sport customers,
and those who did not support it, could opt out.

Have you been affected? Email anuja.nadkarni@stuff.co.nz

The night of the All Blacks versus Springboks game the rugby fan
said she had to help troubleshoot the streaming service for her
father.

"I started ringing around, Spark Sport admitted straight away they
were having issues and directed us to watching the game on TVNZ
Duke."

"I feel terrible for the older people out there who are having
troubles, my dad told me he wouldn't have known what to do if I
wasn't there."

The woman's threatened litigation had garnered numerous comments of
support on Facebook.

One supporter of the class action on Facebook said Spark Sport had
broken its promise.

"They promised to make it possible for anyone who paid the
appropriate fee able to watch all the games. When that wasn't
possible for many they downplayed the numbers of affected, cast
aspersions on the IT equipment that those people had and instructed
their 'Help Team' to obfuscate by offering ways for people to check
their equipment.

"In fact, it wasn't the equipment at fault."

Another commenter said he would support the lawsuit financially.

"I love this, I love that you want to hold Spark accountable. The
atmosphere and hype for this world cup in my eyes has been ruined
by the delivery and for so many Kiwis to miss out is just
absolutely shit. I wish you all the best, I saw a comment
suggesting to crowdfund, I'd be happy to donate and share your
page."

A Spark Sport spokeswoman said it was aware of the proposed
lawsuit, but had not yet been provided with any information as to
the basis of the claims to be alleged.

"Spark is comfortable that we have satisfied our legal
obligations," she said.

The spokeswoman said Spark Sport could only use its contingency
plan if it had noticed a significant breakdown of the platform, as
had happened on September 21, during the pool match between the All
Blacks and South Africa."

"Since that date, we have not had a significant failure or
widespread breakdown of streaming availability, so we will not be
simulcasting on TVNZ."

Following the All Blacks vs Springboks match, Spark Sport has
repeatedly said it had not had any streaming problems and that
games had been streamed successfully.

Yet numerous people have complained of issues on social media.

Spark Sport introduced additional customer service measures for
viewers who were still experiencing technological issues with the
Spark Sport live streaming app.

These measures included providing a Freeview SmartVu streaming
device free of charge, and visits to a small number of customers so
that technicians could perform advanced diagnostics and tests.

The Spark Sports spokeswoman said the number of its viewer
complaints had declined by 80 per cent between September 21 and
September 28 and further since then.

"However, we recognise there are still some customers, albeit a
small minority, who continue to have issues watching Spark Sport.
The best way for these customers to ensure that they can swiftly
improve their experience of Spark Sport for the rest of the RWC is
to engage directly with us."

"So far, the measures that we have put in place have been very
successful – while we're not sharing numbers today, 96 per cent
of home visits have solved the issue the customer was experiencing
(and the remaining 4 per cent were due to the issues being related
to broadband infrastructure that need to be resolved by an
alternative provider)."

She said home visits found the root cause of most problems was poor
wi-fi strength and older or underpowered device that Spark Sport
did not perform well on.

The People versus Spark Sport Facebook page was set up after its
founder was blocked from commenting on Spark Sport's Facebook page
because she made more than 50 comments over the course of two
days.

The Spark Sports spokeswoman said she was blocked because she was
"inhibiting other customers from receiving help from the Spark
Sport team".

"This is against our house rules and clearly not in the best
interests of customers who had visited the page seeking a
resolution."

On Oct. 3, the Commerce Commission said it had received 31
complaints about Spark Sport's coverage of the 2019 Rugby World
Cup, up from 19 on Oct. 7.

Spark Sport said it would keep the watchdog in the loop on the
steps it was taking to provide a good service.

Consumer New Zealand head of research Jessica Wilson said Spark
Sport had a legal obligation under the Consumer Guarantees Act to
provide its services with reasonable care and skill, and to ensure
those services are fit for purpose.

"If you're not getting the streaming service promised, and the
problem isn't with your set-up, then Spark needs to put things
right. We'd expect it to be offering compensation to affected
customers where the problems are clearly the result of failures in
its service delivery," Wilson said.

"If the company doesn't succeed in fixing problems, customers would
be entitled to cancel the contract and request a refund." [GN]


SPECIALTY RETAILERS: Website not Accessible to Blind, Slade Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SLADE, Individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. SPECIALTY RETAILERS,
INC. d/b/a Stage.com, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08935
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 2019), alleges that Specialty Retailers failed
to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, Stage.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Specialty Retailers provides to
non-disabled customers. The Defendants' denial of full and equal
access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and
services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations,
is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class are:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Telephone: (917) 373-9128
          E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com

SPRINT SAFETY: Lobo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL LOBO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. SPRINT SAFETY, INC and TOTAL SAFETY U.S.,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-03934 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 10, 2019)
is a claim arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendants violated the FLSA by employing Lobo and other
similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than
forty hours but refusing to compensate them for their employment in
excess of forty hours at a rate not less than one and one half
times the regular rate at which they are or were employed."
Moreover, the Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to maintain
accurate time and pay records for Lobo and other similarly situated
nonexempt employees as required by the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Lobo was employed by Defendants as a Safety Technician
from approximately January 2016 until June 2018.

Defendants provides industrial safety services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Melissa Moore, Esq.
     Curt Hesse, Esq.
     MOORE & ASSOCIATES
     Lyric Centre
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 222-6775
     Facsimile: (713) 222-6739

          - and -

     Samantha Martinez, Esq.
     MARTINEZ FIRM, PLLC
     325 Heights Blvd.
     Houston, TX 77007
     Phone: (713) 333-3270
     Facsimile: (713) 333-3275



STRADA SERVICES: Vargas Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT for Electricians
----------------------------------------------------------------
FREDDIE VARGAS, on his own behalf and on behalf of all
electricians, the Plaintiff, vs. STRADA SERVICES, INC., a Florida
Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-01842 (M.D.
Fla., Sept. 25, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Vargas worked as an "electrician" for Defendant in Florida from
August 7, 2018 through November 9, 2018. The action is intended to
include all "electricians" who worked for the Defendant at any time
within the past three years. However, the Defendant did not pay
Plaintiff time and one half for all hours worked over 40 per week.

Estrada Electric is a full service electrical contracting company
servicing residential, commercial and industrial customers in
Florida for over 20 years.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          Louis Montone, Esq.
          THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
          1950 Lee Road, Suite 213
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Telephone: (407) 574-4999
          Facsimile: (833) 423-5864
          E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com
                  lmontone@theleachfirm.com

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Settles Starlink Class Action for $6.2 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for Cherry Hill Courier-Post, reports that
Subaru of America could pay more than to $6.2 million to its
customers to settle a lawsuit over an allegedly defective dashboard
component.

The class action suit targets the Starlink infotainment system,
which includes a video screen for a vehicle's back-up camera.

It contends "a range of technical glitches" caused the system "to
freeze, become non-responsive or otherwise malfunction" in six 2018
Subaru models and one 2017 model.

The settlement, which has received preliminary approval from a
federal judge in Camden, would offer extended warranty protection,
cash and coupons to qualifying motorists.

The lawsuit describes the Starlink system as "a touchscreen
multimedia and video interface" in the vehicle's center console
that "controls the audio and radio system, cellphone connectivity,
weather information, navigation and more."

In promotional materials, Subaru claims the Starlink system "helps
make every drive more entertaining, confident and enjoyable," the
lawsuit says.

But the suit contends the system frequently "causes extreme
headaches (for operators of affected vehicles) and poses a safety
risk to operators, passengers and other drivers."

The proposed deal would cover 2017-18 Impreza vehicles, as well as
2018 Outback, Forester, Crosstrek, Legacy and BRZ models, with
Generation 3.0 Starlink systems made by Harman International
Industries.

Subaru admits no wrongdoing under the proposed settlement, which
was reached after mediation sessions before a retired judge.

The deal would extend warranties for the Starlink system to five
years or 100,000 miles, according to the Oct. 3 decision from U.S.
District Judge Robert Kugler.

Camden-based Subaru would offer "monetary compensation" to
motorists who previously purchased extended warranty coverage.

The auto distributor and its Japanese parent firm, Subaru Corp.,
also would provide cash or coupon compensation to drivers "who made
multiple trips to authorized Subaru dealers complaining of Starlink
malfunctions."

Drivers could be reimbursed if they had to wait more than one full
day to receive a replacement Starlink unit, and "for certain
repair-related expenses, including rental car and ride-hailing
expenses," according to Kugler's ruling.

The lawsuit, filed in November 2018, acknowledged Subaru "has taken
several steps to try and fix the defects in the infotainment
system, such as issuing software updates."

But it said these efforts "have failed to remedy the defect."

Some drivers seeking to replace an allegedly defective part in
their Starlink system, called the head unit, were told that
component was "on backorder for up to six months or even
indefinitely," Kugler's ruling said.

A spokesperson for Subaru and attorneys for the company's customers
could not be reached for immediate comment.

The proposed agreement would automatically extend warranties for
qualifying motorists.

Subaru customers would need to submit claim forms and supporting
records to receive monetary compensation.

"The parties estimate that the value of these forms of relief will
exceed $6,250,000," Kugler's ruling says.

The judge will decide on final approval for the proposed deal at a
future hearing. [GN]


SUNRIDGE NURSERIES: EEOC Sues over Unlawful Employment Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, the Plaintiff, vs.
SUNRIDGE NURSERIES, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1-25
10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-at-00691 (E.D. Cal.
Sept. 26, 2019), seeks to correct unlawful retaliation and to
provide appropriate relief to a group of workers including
Marcelino Cadiz, Jerold Cadiz, Melicio Cadiz, Anabelle Cadiz, Aleli
Cadiz and a class of similarly situated employees under the Civil
Rights Act.

The case asserts that Defendant subjected the claimants to
retaliation in violation of Title VII for internally opposing
discrimination by complaining verbally and in writing to Sunridge
and externally opposing discrimination by filing charges with the
Commission.

Since at least 2014, Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment
practices, including refusing to hire or rehire the Claimants
because they engaged in protected activities.

Cadiz et al. were all employed by Defendant continuously during the
rootstock and vinestock harvesting seasons:

     a. Marcelino Cadiz began working for Sunridge in 1982;

     b. Aleli Cadiz began working for Sunridge in 1987;

     c. Melecio Cadiz began working for Sunridge in 1987;

     d. Annabelle Cadiz began working for Sunridge in 2012; and

     e. Jerold Cadiz began working for Sunridge in 2012.

According to the complaint, the Defendant Sunridge's ordinary
practice was to contact one or more of Cadiz et al. every year at
the start of a season to rehire all of them for seasonal
employment.  Cadiz et al. each only applied for a position when
they were initially hired. Thereafter, Sunridge initiated the
contact each season for rehire.

Starting in December of 2011 and continuing until Spring of 2014,
Cadiz et al. collectively verbally complained of racial
discrimination on a continuous basis.  They verbally complained to
Joaquin Perez, Hugo Gomez, and others.

The verbal complaints of racial discrimination related to the
treatment of Filipino employees being treated differently from
non-Filipino workers in pay, assignments, and working conditions,
among other things.

The Claimants continued to be given the worst rows, continued to be
the first to be dismissed, continued not to be recalled to work
after stoppages, and continued to be given lower-paying assignment
than non-Filipino workers.

Cadiz et al. submitted a written complaint to Sunridge in February
or March of 2014, complaining of the working conditions faced by
the Filipino employees, the lawsuit says.

Sunridge is primarily in the business of propagating and grafting
grape nursery stock. the company is based in Bakersfield and
operates more than 600 acres of rootstock, scionwood increase
blocks, and outdoor nursery blocks. Sunridge has continuously been
a California corporation doing business in Kern County, State of
California, and has  continuously had at least fifteen employees.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is an agency of the
United States of America charged with the administration,
interpretation and enforcement of Title VII.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Anna Y. Park, Esq.
          Sue J. Noh, Esq.
          James R. Mugridge, Esq.
          U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
          255 East Temple Street, Fourth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 894-1083
          Facsimile: (213) 894-1301
          E-Mail: lado.legal@eeoc.gov

SUSQUEHANNA VILLAGE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Knapp FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert D. Mariani of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's complaint in WILMA KNAPP, Plaintiff, v. SUSQUEHANNA
VILLAGE FACILITY OPERATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-CV-1941
(M.D. Pa.).

On Oct. 8, 2018, Plaintiff Knapp, on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated Plaintiffs, filed the class action lawsuit
against Defendant Susquehanna, alleging that the Defendant breached
its contractual obligation when it unilaterally eliminated its
employees' accumulated sick and vacation leave (Count I), and that,
by breaching its contractual obligation, the Defendant violated the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL") (Count II).
Pled in the alternative, Knapp's Complaint also alleges, based on
the Defendant's elimination of its employees' accumulated sick and
vacation leave, promissory estoppel (Count III) and unjust
enrichment (Count IV).

Defendant Susquehanna operates nursing, assisted living, and
rehabilitation facilitates throughout several states.  It operated
a nursing home in Millersburg, PA, which employed over 50
individuals.  Plaintiff Knapp worked as a nurse at the Millersburg,
PA Facility at an hourly pay rate of $26.66.

The Defendant distributed an "Employee Guidebook" to all employees
that provided employees with an overview of the Defendant's
policies.  The Guidebook states sick leave is accrued at a rate
equal to 10 days per year, there is no maximum cap for the number
of sick days employees may carry-over and earn.  It also states
employees may carry over unused vacation days up to a maximum of
two times their annual accrual amount.  Each pay period, the
Susquehanna Village Facility Operations employees' pay stubs
reflected the aggregate number of sick leave and vacation leave
hours earned by and available to each employee.

Knapp and other employees received the Guidebook and earned,
accumulated, and used sick leave and vacation leave pursuant to the
policies enumerated in the Guidebook throughout their employment
with Susquehanna Village Facilities Operations.  By mid-September
2017, Knapp had accumulated 1,019 hours of sick leave and 120 hours
of vacation leave.  Knapp alleges that these hours carry a monetary
value of approximately $30,365.74.

Throughout her employment, Knapp understood that she was
accumulating sick and vacation time pursuant to the policy
articulated in the Guidebook based on the tally of aggregate earned
leave time appearing on Knapp's pay stubs and by the Defendant's
actual course of conduct in administering the leave program.  She
relied on the understanding and, as a result, did not pursue other
employment opportunities because changing employers would result in
the loss of many years of earned leave time that she understood
would be available to her in her time of need.

In 2017, the Defendant informed Knapp and other employees that
their earned and accumulated leave time was being eliminated in
order to facilitate its sale of the Millersburg Facility to a
nursing home company called Priority Healthcare Group.  Thereafter,
each employee's accrued sick leave and vacation was summarily and
unilaterally wiped-out and no consideration was offered or paid.
Knapp alleges that the Defendant's unilateral elimination of its
employees' earned and accumulated vacation and sick leave time
enabled the Defendant to sell the facility for a higher purchase
price than the price that would have been realized had the
Defendant's leave time liabilities been honored.

Susquehanna thereafter filed a Motion to Dismiss.  It moves to
dismiss all four Counts of Knapp's Complaint, asserting a failure
to meet the pleading standard of Ashcroft v. Iqbal.  It further
contends that the dismissal of Knapp's claims also requires
dismissal of the underlying class action suit.

Judge Mariani denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with respect
to Count I.  He concludes that, taking the allegations in Knapp's
Complaint as true and drawing every inference in Knapp's favor, it
is plausible that a contract with respect to the accrued sick leave
and vacation time existed, and that the contract was breached when
the Defendant summarily eliminated the accrued sick leave and
vacation time.  The Defendant has not met its burden to show that
no claim has been stated.

Because the Court has concluded that Knapp has sufficiently pled a
breach of contract claim, Judge Mariani also concludes that Knapp
has sufficiently pled a WPCL claim.  The Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss with respect to Count II is therefore denied.

Judge Mariani also denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with
respect to Count III.  He concludes that Knapp has sufficiently
pled a promissory estoppel claim.  Because the Defendant's promise
with respect to sick leave and vacation time may be collateral to
Knapp's at-will status, her at-will status does not necessarily
preclude a claim for promissory estoppel.  Additionally, the
Defendant's argument that Knapp failed to plead detrimental
reliance is unfounded, the Court opines.  Knapp reasonably alleges
that she relied on Defendant's promise, given the circumstances
that gave rise to the claimed reliance.

The Judge further denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss with
respect to Count IV.  He concludes that the Plaintiff has
sufficiently pled facts to sustain an unjust enrichment claim.
Knapp's Complaint sets forth the necessary allegations to plead a
claim for unjust enrichment.  If taken as true, the allegations in
Knapp's Complaint suggest that Knapp conferred a benefit on
Susquehanna by working and foregoing other employment
opportunities, which Knapp was rewarded with accrued vacation and
sick leave.

The Defendant argued that a finding that the Plaintiff's Complaint
fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) disqualifies her as a
proper class representative, and without a class representative who
has standing to bring an action against the Defendant, there can be
no class action.  Because the Court concludes that the Plaintiff's
Complaint did not fail to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), Judge
Mariani rejects the Defendant's argument that the class action must
be dismissed and denied they Defendant's motion on this basis.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Mariani denied the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 24, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/TrcPh5 from Leagle.com.

Wilma Knapp, Plaintiff, represented by Mark J. Gottesfeld --
mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, Peter
Winebrake -- pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake & Santillo,
LLC & R. Andrew Santillo -- asantillo@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake
& Santillo, LLC.

Susquehanna Village Facility Operations, LLC, Defendant,
represented by Adam Michael Barnes -- abarnes@walshlegal.net --
Walsh Barnes Collis & Zumpella, P.C..


TARTE, INC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Traynor Says
---------------------------------------------------------
YASEEN TRAYNOR A/K/A YASEEN TRAYLOR, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TARTE, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08879 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 25, 2019),
alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people;
and that Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered
thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
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.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind’s 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

Because Defendant's website, www.tartecosmetics.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Russel Weinrib, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com

TRANSUNION INTERACTIVE: Site not Accessible to Blind, Traylor Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
YASEEN TRAYNOR A/K/A YASEEN TRAYLOR, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TRANSUNION
INTERACTIVE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-08961 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 26, 2019), seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

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

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

UBER TECH: Shortchanges Drivers' Expense Reimbursements, Says Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
James Calabrese, Gregory Cabanillas and Matthew Mechanic,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-18371 (D. N.J., September 25, 2019), seeks all
available relief for unpaid minimum wages unpaid overtime wages and
unreimbursed business expenses pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, New Jersey Wage and Hour
Regulations, the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York
State Department of Labor Regulations.

Uber Technologies, Inc. is a transportation services company that
provides drivers who can be hailed and dispatched through a mobile
phone application. Raiser, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber
and handles and processes all payments to Uber drivers.

Plaintiffs are Uber drivers who provide on-demand transportation
services for Uber. Defendant allegedly under-reimbursed its drivers
for vehicular wear and tear, gas, tolls, airport fees, and other
driving-related expenses, thereby reducing their net pay below the
minimum wage rate. [BN].

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH LLC
      363 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 2C
      Montclair, NJ 07042
      Tel: (973) 259-6990
      Fax: (866) 848-1368
      Email: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Patent Office Seeks Dismissal of SAWS Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Brachmann, writing for IPWatchdog, reports that on Sept. 26,
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office filed a motion to dismiss a
class action complaint filed by two inventors alleging violations
of the Privacy Act created by the agency's handling of its
Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS). The USPTO is seeking a
Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim, arguing that
application flags under the SAWS program don't concern individual
patent applicants and that omission of those flags from patent
application files isn't the proximate cause of adverse
determinations such as increased scrutiny holding up patent
grants.

The case was first filed this June in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia by Paul Morinville and Gil Hyatt, two
inventors who allege that they have filed patent applications on
inventions that they believe to have been flagged by the SAWS
program. Morinville is an inventor on nine patents who has had 26
patent applications pending at the USPTO since February 2000. Hyatt
is listed as an inventor on 70 patent applications and has had
patent applications pending at the agency since 1990. Hyatt was
first informed that he had patent applications flagged by the SAWS
system in June 2017, more than two years after the USPTO officially
retired the SAWS program.

SAWS Flags: A Scarlet Letter Worn by Patent Applications

"A SAWS flag served as a scarlet letter for patent applications,
alerting PTO personnel that a flagged application was considered to
be an abusive 'submarine' application or otherwise objectionable,'"
the original complaint reads. Scrutiny under the SAWS program has
led to delays in the issuance of patent grants on purported bases
that have never been disclosed to patent applicants, rendering
applicants unable to dispute the grounds on which their
applications have been included in the SAWS program. By withholding
documents pertaining to SAWS flags and reports from application
files, plaintiffs allege that the USPTO has violated the Privacy
Act's mandate that federal agencies maintain records related to
determinations made about individuals that are required to assure
fairness to those individuals. Plaintiffs Morinville and Hyatt are
representing the class of all patent applicants whose applications
have been flagged by SAWS at any time since the program was
developed in 1994 until it was retired in March 2015.

Inventors who have encountered the SAWS program's impacts on their
own patent applications have understandably been vexed by the
situation. One inventor's account published on this website in
December 2014 explained that he was told by his patent examiner
that a patent couldn't be granted on his patent application because
it was flagged by the SAWS program. Despite being told by USPTO
officials that the flag only meant that his examiner was receiving
help for applying examination standards on the flagged patent
application, his patent examiner was receiving no such help. In
fact, despite the examiner granting an allowance that was approved
by that examiner's supervisor, the USPTO rejected the patent
application because of its inclusion in the SAWS program. Further
digging into the reasons behind the SAWS flag indicated that the
patent application was rejected because the claimed invention read
on Apple's iTunes Store despite the fact that the patent
application claimed a priority filing date in 1999, several years
before Apple introduced the iTunes Store service.

USPTO Refutes Inventors' Privacy Act Claims

In its recent motion to dismiss, the USPTO noted that patent
applications could be deemed "sensitive" under SAWS if they claimed
subject matter that could be considered politically or ethically
controversial. Reasons for shuttering the SAWS program included the
facts that the SAWS program had only been "marginally utilized and
provide[d] minimal benefit," said the USPTO. The Office contends
that Morinville and Hyatt have failed to state a claim because SAWS
flags and reports provide information on the substance of patent
applications, not the individual inventors themselves, and that the
SAWS information itself, and not the omission of that information
from patent applicant files, is what plaintiffs allege have caused
the adverse determinations of patent grant delay and inability to
receive patent grants.

The USPTO's arguments that the SAWS flags and reports aren't
"record[s] concerning an individual" are premised on two previous
cases: Tobey v. NLRB, decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in December 1994; and Fisher v.
National Institutes of Health, decided by the District Court for
the District of Columbia in August 1996. Under Tobey, the USPTO
argues that "records" under the Privacy Act must be about an
individual and contain that individual's name "or other identifying
particular." Fisher further limited determinations regarding
information "about an individual" when it held that annotations in
medical literature databases maintained by the NIH were about the
articles themselves and not their authors, even when those
annotations indicated information about the authors themselves.
Following this precedent, the USPTO alleged that patent application
files are about the inventions and not the inventors themselves,
thus they don't constitute "records" under the Privacy Act.
Although the USPTO includes a Privacy Act notice in the patent
application files, the agency contends that the notice primarily
relates to the inventor's oath and excludes the scope of the other
parts of the files that describe the claimed invention. Because the
SAWS flags were issued due to the identity of the invention and not
the inventor, the USPTO argues that the plaintiffs don't have a
Privacy Act claim, regardless if the reasons for an invention being
flagged could be seen as pejorative to inventors.

The USPTO further alleges that, to make a claim for damages under
the Privacy Act, a plaintiff must show that agency reliance on
inaccurate records "was the proximate cause of an adverse
determination;" the agency claims that the harm shown by Morinville
and Hyatt neither amounts to the adverse determination nor was it
caused by reliance on the patent application file without the SAWS
flags and reports. Although the plaintiffs have numerous claims
about how the SAWS program prejudiced the prosecution of their
patent applications, the USPTO contends that they haven't claimed
that the lack of adequate records was itself the cause of an
adverse determination. The agency notes that it's plausible that
plaintiffs could claim that the omission of SAWS information from
the patent application files prevented them from contesting their
classification as "sensitive," but that the plaintiffs didn't
allege such determinations in their complaint but rather delays and
procedural burdens in the prosecution process.

"Even assuming the confidential nature of the SAWS program may have
prevented Plaintiffs from disputing the classification of their
patent applications and pretermitting the delay and additional
layers of review attendant to SAWS review, prosecution delay and
additional quality checks are not 'adverse determinations.' At
most, they are 'adverse effects' of SAWS materials remaining
confidential."

How Can an Inventor Adequately Challenge a Secret Determination?

That a SAWS flag creates serious adverse effects on a patentee is a
fact that is little in doubt. Keeping such information confidential
from prospective patentees renders them unable to challenge the
SAWS determination, which can be fatal to their case if that
determination is the reason why their patent application has been
rejected. Morinville appealed the rejection of one of his patent
applications that was likely targeted by SAWS to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In July 2018, he filed an opening
brief in which he noted that the patent at issue, first filed in
December 2004, had survived nine prior rejections: once under
Section 101; twice under Section 102; four times under Section 103;
and twice under Section 112. Morinville appealed another Section
101 rejection, arguing that the patent examiner had already found
an inventive concept to survive the earlier 101 rejection and that
the invention logically couldn't cover a "well-established business
practice" if it survived Section 102 novelty and Section 103
obviousness challenges. This April, the Federal Circuit affirmed
the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's rejection of Morinville's
patent claims. Although it's not confirmed that this particular
patent application has been flagged by SAWS, the long delay in
examination and questionable basis for rejection would seem to fit
the fact pattern.

If the inability to challenge a SAWS determination is a detriment
to patent owners, that issue is greatly exacerbated by the
incredible delays caused by a process that becomes ever more
expensive just to maintain a patent application that the USPTO
doesn't want to grant, as Morinville's July 2018 opening brief at
the Federal Circuit makes clear:

"To put this long and tortured prosecution history into real-world
perspective, when I filed the '557 Application, my daughter had
just started kindergarten. As of the date of this brief, my
daughter has completed her first year as a freshman at Baylor
University. I have spent more money on the prosecution and appeals
of this patent application than I will spend on my daughter's
entire college education."

Of course, in the USPTO's view, an interminable delay in the issue
of a patent grant is a reality that any patent applicant must be
prepared to handle. "There is no legal right to a decision on
patentability within a certain time frame, or to a particular set
of PTO procedures in the review of patent applications," the USPTO
argued in its motion to dismiss. The agency noted that Hyatt
himself had previously failed on similar arguments in a separate
case on unreasonable examination delays that was brought under the
Administrative Procedures Act. "The Court explained that 'PTO is
under no legal obligation to cause an expeditious -- or even an
efficient -- examination of a patent application,'" the USPTO's
motion reads. [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: 67 Names in Emissions Scandal to Stay Secret
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Bonyhady, writing for The Age, reports that the identities of
67 people allegedly involved in the Volkswagen emissions cheating
scandal that rocked the car industry will remain secret after their
names were suppressed by an Australian judge.

Federal Court Justice Lindsay Foster warned "very serious" criminal
trials in the United States and Germany could be prejudiced if the
identities of the 67, who worked for or were connected to
Volkswagen, were revealed.

Justice Foster's decision means consumers will have to wait until
more proceedings are launched overseas to learn the identities of
many of those allegedly involved in one of the world's largest
corporate scandals in recent years.

The global car company was forced to tell the court the names as
part of five class-action lawsuits it faced in Australia over the
so-called "Dieselgate" scandal, in which some Volkswagen cars were
fitted with a software "defeat device" between 2009 and 2015.

Volkswagen settled the class actions, brought by law firms
Bannister Law and Maurice Blackburn, in mid-September for a figure
that could rise to as high as $127 million, but did not admit
liability.

Cars with the defeat device produced artificially low emissions
readings when tested by authorities compared with their real-world
performance.

Volkswagen, which owns other car makers including Audi, Porsche and
Skoda, has already paid out about EUR30 billion ($48 billion)
globally in fines, compensation and legal costs as a result of the
scandal.

It disclosed in the Australian court documents that the 67 people
were "involved in some way in the development, installation,
modification or approval of the switching or 2-mode software
installed in . . . [the] affected vehicles".

Of those, Justice Foster found, five had already been indicted in
Germany with indictments of a further 27 likely. Others are formal
suspects in ongoing investigations.

The judge found that, if those people were publicly named as among
those Volkswagen believed were "involved in the development of the
impugned software", lay judges in Germany or jury members in the US
"would find it difficult to place that fact out of ... mind" when
deciding their cases.

The class actions alleged Volkswagen and its other brands
misleadingly claimed their vehicles complied with emissions
standards when some cars did not. Among other remedies, the
class-action members wanted damages to make up for the drop in the
value of their vehicles they say they have experienced as a result
of the scandal.

Volkswagen and the other defendants denied those claims on various
grounds, but settled the cases with a payout of $1400 a car.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and a group of
other claimants also filed claims against the company.

Some of Volkswagen's most senior executives, including its
chairman, chief executive and a former chief executive have been
charged overseas in relation to the scandal and more than 400,000
people have signed up to a class action in Germany. The executives
deny the charges against them and Volkswagen is defending the
German claim. [GN]


WAITR HOLDINGS: Docs on Going Public Deal Misleading, Welch Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
WALTER WELCH, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHRISTOPHER MEAUX, DAVID PRINGLE, JEFF
YURECKO, TILMAN J. FERTITTA, RICHARD HANDLER, WAITR HOLDINGS, INC.
f/k/a LANDCADIA HOLDINGS, INC., JEFFERIES FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.,
and JEFFERIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01260 (W.D.
La., Sept. 26, 2019), alleges that Defendants violated Sections 11,
12 and 15 of the 1933 Securities Act, and/or Sections 10(b), 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection
with Old-Waitr's going public transaction and business combination
on November 15, 2018, with Landcadia Holdings, Inc., and the
follow-on secondary offering on May 16, 2019 of Waitr securities.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements that were published into the market from May
17, 2018 to August 8.  As investors ultimately learned following
the end of the Class Period, the statements contained in or
incorporated in the May 17, 2018 Proxy Statement and the November
19, 2018 Registration Statement -- Going Public Transaction
Proxy/Prospectus Filings -- issued in connection with the Going
Public Transaction, were each materially false and misleading for
these reasons, among others:

     -- At the time Waitr began trading publicly it was not true
that the Company was on the verge of profitability, because
Defendants had artificially bolstered profits and revenues by
unilaterally raising prices in breach of customer contracts and by
failing to properly reimburse drivers for mileage expenses;

     -- At the time Waitr began trading publicly it was not true
that it was providing its services at a sustainable low take rate
established at 15%;

     -- At the time Waitr began trading publicly it was not true
that Waitr was able to extract efficiencies from its full time
fixed-rate labor force that was purported to allow the Company to
offer its services at a lower rate than competitors;

     -- At the time Waitr began trading publicly, it was not true
that its financial statements and SEC reports or its Sarbanes Oxley
certifications were true, accurate or reliable;

     -- At the time Waitr began trading publicly, contrary to
Defendants' representations, its software provided little or no
competitive advantages and what first-mover advantage the Company
claimed existed, was quickly squandered by the inability to obtain
sophisticated high-level programmers and software engineers who
could enable Waitr to refine and develop the software necessary to
stay competitive in its market; and

     -- As a result of the aforementioned adverse conditions that
Defendants failed to disclose, at the time Waitr began trading,
Defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that Waitr was
operating according to plan, or that Waitr could achieve guidance
sponsored and/or endorsed by Defendants. Nor was it true that Waitr
maintained an adequate system of internal controls so as to report
and eliminate material conflicts of interest.

Desperate to create revenues, as soon as a public market for Waitr
shares existed, the Defendants immediately announced plans to
acquire Bite Squad using $100 million of stock as currency in the
transaction. The Bite Squad acquisition was conducted with little
or no due diligence and with disregard for the fact that Bite
Squad's haphazard structure, caused as a result of it being cobbled
together through 17 other acquisitions, was not consistent with
Waitr's "contiguous growth" model, whereby the Company grew in an
orderly, regional contiguous expansion. The Bite Squad acquisition
also meant digesting a company of equal size -- a difficult task
under ideal circumstances for even experienced management.

As investors would also soon discover, the Defendants were entirely
unable to integrate Bite Squad and now have to run two poorly
managed, money losing operations with little regional overlap and
few "synergies." The first full quarter of Bite Squad's operating
results revealed the weakness in its operations. Also, as a result
of its operational problems and increased costs and disruptions
caused by the Bite Squad merger, Waitr was burning through cash at
an alarming rate. The Company had approximately $123 million of
debt and was operating with significantly negative EBITDA.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Matthew E. Lundy, Esq.
          LUNDY, LUNDY, SOILEAU & SOUTH, LLP
          501 Broad Street
          Lake Charles, LA 70601
          Telephone: (337) 439-0707
          Facsimile: (337) 439-1029
          E-mail: mlundy@lundylawllp.com

               - and -

          Melinda A. Nicholson, Esq.
          Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
          Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 455-1400
          Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
          Email: Melinda.Nicholson@ksfcounsel.com
                 Lewis.Kahn@ksfcounsel.com
                 Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com

WESCO AIRCRAFT: Monteverde & Associates Files Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC on Oct. 5 disclosed that it has filed an
amended complaint lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:19-cv-08528, on
behalf of public common shareholders of Wesco Aircraft Holdings,
Inc., ("Wesco" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: WAIR) who held Wesco
securities as of the record date on September 9, 2019 (the "Class
Period"), and have been harmed by Wesco's and its board of
directors' (the "Board) alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
in regarding its acquisition by indirect subsidiaries of funds
managed and advised by Platinum Equity Advisors, LLC ("Platinum").

Under the terms of the transaction, each share of Wesco common
stock will be converted into the right to receive $11.05 in cash.
The complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration is inadequate
and that the Proxy Statement provided shareholders with materially
incomplete and misleading information about the Company's
financials and the Merger, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act. In particular, the complaint alleges that the
Proxy Statement contained materially incomplete and misleading
information concerning: (i) the sales process leading up to the
Proposed Transaction; (ii) the valuation analyses performed by
Wesco's financial advisors, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("Morgan
Stanley") and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC ("J.P. Morgan") regarding
the Proposed Transaction; and (iii) the nature of the work Morgan
Stanley provided Platinum and its affiliates in the two years prior
to the date of its fairness opinion for Wesco. The special meeting
of Wesco stockholders to vote on the Merger will be October 24,
2019.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 4, 2019. Any member of the putative 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

Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/wesco-aircraft-holdings-inc. It
is free and three is no cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of
dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers
from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr.
Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017- 2019 an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017- 2019 Top Rated Lawyer.

Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
[GN]


WILMINGTON TRUST: Henry Files ERISA Class Action in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
MARLOW HENRY, on behalf of the BSC Ventures Holdings, Inc. Employee
Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., BRIAN C.
SASS, and E. STOCKTON CROFT IV, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01925-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 10, 2019) is a suit against
Wilmington Trust, N.A., the trustee for the BSC Ventures Holdings,
Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan when the Plan acquired shares of
BSC Ventures Holdings, Inc. in 2016, and against selling
shareholders Brian C. Sass and E. Stockton Croft IV.

This action is brought under Sections 404, 406, 409, 410, and
502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, for
losses suffered by the Plan and its participants caused by
Wilmington Trust when it caused the Plan to buy shares of BSC for
more than fair market value in 2016 and other relief. The Plan has
been injured and its participants have been deprived of hard-earned
retirement benefits resulting from Defendants' violations of ERISA,
asserts the complaint.

BSC was a privately held company and a party in interest to the
Plan. On January 14, 2016, the Plan purchased 809,892 shares of
BSC's common stock, representing 100% of the outstanding shares,
for $50 million, which was financed by $3.45 million cash and a
note payable to BSC of $46.55 million bearing a 2.65% interest rate
with a final payment due December 2045. At that time, BSC became
100% employee owned. Wilmington Trust represented the Plan and its
participants as Trustee in the ESOP Transaction. It had sole and
exclusive authority to negotiate the terms of the ESOP Transaction
on the Plan's behalf.

The ESOP Transaction allowed the Selling Shareholders to unload
their interests in BSC above fair market value and saddle the Plan
with tens of millions of dollars of debt over a 30- year repayment
period to finance the Transaction, the complaint asserts.
Wilmington Trust failed to fulfill its ERISA duties, as Trustee and
fiduciary, to the Plan and its participants, including Plaintiff.
Brian C. Sass and E. Stockton Croft IV, the Selling Shareholders,
are parties in interest who sold shares in the ESOP Transaction.
The Selling Shareholders are liable under ERISA for participating
in the prohibited transactions and in Wilmington Trust's breaches
of fiduciary duty, the complaint says.

Plaintiff brings this action to recover the losses incurred by the
Plan, and thus by each individual account in the Plan held by
Plaintiff and similarly situated participants, resulting from
Wilmington Trust's engaging in, and causing the Plan to engage in,
prohibited transactions under ERISA, and breaching its fiduciary
duties under ERISA, and the Selling Shareholders' participation in
these violations.

Plaintiff is a participant in the Plan, as defined by ERISA.

Wilmington Trust is a trust company chartered in Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
     Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
     BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
     1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 463-2101
     Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
     Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com
            rjenny@baileyglasser.com

          - and -

     Daniel Feinberg, Esq.
     Todd Jackson, Esq.
     FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP
     2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
     Berkeley, CA 94704
     Phone: (510) 269-7998
     Facsimile: (510) 269-7994
     Email: dan@feinbergjackson.com
            todd@feinbergjackson.com

          - and -

     David A. Felice, Esq.
     BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
     Red Clay Center at Little Falls
     2961 Centerville Road, Suite 302
     Wilmington, DE 19808
     Phone: (302) 504-6333
     Facsimile: (302) 504-6334
     Email: dfelice@baileyglasser.com


WORLD TRAVEL HOLDINGS: Betit Sues Over Illegal Email Ads
--------------------------------------------------------
Amy Betit, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. World Travel Holdings, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-62394 (S.D. Fla., September 25, 2019), seeks
injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other available legal
or equitable remedies resulting from violations of Florida's
Electronic Mail Communications Act.

World Travel offers package tours and cruise line tickets. Betit
has never provided them with her email address. Yet, in September
24, 2019, World Travel sent her an e-mail offering a discounted
tour package. [BN]

American Directions is represented by:

      Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
      Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
      110 SE 6th Street
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 907-1136
      Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
      Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
             tom@jibraellaw.com


XPRESSCAPITALGROUP.COM: Schlesigner Suit Moved to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as BRIAN SCHLESINGER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
JOSHUA COLLINS, an individual, d/b/a/ XPRESSCAPITALGROUP.COM, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-03483 (Filed June 18, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District  of
Northern California, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Tampa) on Sept. 26, 2019. The Middle District
of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-02392-VMC-TGW to
the proceeding. The suit:demands $5 million in damages. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Virginia M. Hernandez.

The Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to stop its
unconsented calling, as well as an award of actual and statutory
fines to the Class members, together with costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees.

Collins sells business capital loans. As a primary part of his
marketing efforts, the Defendant and his agents placed thousands of
automated calls employing a prerecorded voice message to consumers'
cell phones nationwide.

Unfortunately, the Defendant did not obtain consent prior to
placing these calls and, therefore, are in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Mark Louis Javitch, Esq.
          JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
          480 S. Ellsworth Avenue
          San Mateo, CA 94401
          Telephone: (650) 781-8000
          Facsimile: (650) 648-0705
          E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***