CAR_Public/191024.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, October 24, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 213

                            Headlines

305 SMOKERS: Ziller Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff
AIRPORT RETAIL: Wilson Sues over Tip Pooling
ALLERGAN INC: Zettlemoyer Sues over Misleading BIOCELL Disclosures
ALTRIA GROUP: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
AMERICAN DIRECTIONS: Removes Hender Suit to E.D. California

ANNIE'S HOMEGROWN: Mislabels Vanilla Ice Cream, Housell Suit Says
APEX ENVIRONMENTAL: Sutton Files Class Suit in S.D. Ohio
AT DAVIE LLC: Illegally Sent Unsolicited Text Msgs, Hill Says
AXIOM DEBT: Canfield Sues Over Unauthorized Calls
BAM! PIZZA: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages

BARBEQUE INTEGRATED: Elliot Seeks OT Pay for Hours Worked Over 40
BAUSCH HEALTH COMPANIES: BI-LO Hits Diabetes Meds Price-rigging
BONITA SPRINGS LODGE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Auclair Says
BP WEST: Consultant in Persian Suit May Receive FCO Materials
CADENCE BANCORPORATION: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline

CAPITAL ONE: Faces Mallh Suit in E.D. New York Over Data Breach
CAPITAL ONE: Jacobs Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
CAPITAL ONE: Most Wanted Motorsports Sues Over Data Breach
CAPTAIN GEORGE'S: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Frykenberg Claims
CCS FINANCIAL: Taylor Sues over Robocalls

CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE: Seeks Final OK of $5.4M Raquedan Suit Deal
COASTAL CARPENTRY: Landon Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
COLE MT RIVERVIEW: Sued by Gomes Over Improper Towing of Vehicles
CONN'S INC: Court Grants Leave to File Amended Edwards TCPA Suit
CORECIVIC INC: Court Dismisses Ndambi FLSA Suit with Prejudice

COVETRUS INC: Cops' Fund Hit Stock Drop From Merger Oversight
COVETRUS INC: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
CUYAHOGA, OH: Tarrify Sues over Tax Foreclosure Proceedings
DAVID BRIAN BAILEY: Blair Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
DELTA DENTAL: Faces Simon and Simon Anti-trust Class Action

DESIGNER BRANDS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Austin Suit Claims
DIRECTIONAL PROJECT: Dudley Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bonoan Claims
DRILLING FLUID: West Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
DROPBOX INC: Faces Deinnocentis Suit Alleging IPO-Related Claims

DUTCH GOLD: Faces Wolfe Suit in Eastern District of Pennsylvania
ELDORADO RESORTS: Rosen Reminds Investors of Nov. 22 Deadline
EPSON AMERICA: Sued by Mondigo for Disabling Printers Via Updates
EQUESTRIAN SPORT: Stachurski Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
EZRIRX LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barths Pharmacy Alleges

FAIRLIFE, LLC: Abowd Sues over Mislabeled Milk Products
FARMERS INSURANCE: Herzog Sues over Illegal Service Charge
FCA US: Class of Vehicle Owners Certified in Victorino Suit
FEDEX CORP: Farrell Seeks OT Pay for Package Handlers
FEIZ ELECTRIC: Khalifehzadeth Sues Over Improper Minimum/OT Wages

FORD MOTOR: Collins Sues Over Trucks' Faulty Tire Valves & Wheels
GEICO GENERAL: Interlocutory Appeal in Green Suit Refused
GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION: Certification of W-2 Technicians Class Sought
GLOBAL RADAR: Sanders Seeks Final Approval of $3.65MM Settlement
HEARTHSIDE FOOD: McVay Sues Over Improper Wages

HENRY THAYER: Lisowski Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
HUMMINGBIRD FUNDS: Violates Alabama Usury Laws, Easley Says
HUNGRY MAN INC: Castaneda Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
ILLINOIS: District Court Narrows Claims in Stewart's IDOC Lawsuit
INFORMATICA LLC: Flynn Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay

JEROME GOLDEN: Faces Jones Suit Alleging Violation of WARN Act
JMZ PROPERTIES: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
JOHN DOE: Brandi K. Stokes Files Civil Rights Suit in Texas
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Curry Sues over Talc Baby Powder Health Risks
K1 HVAC INC: Denied Technicians Overtime Pay, Wage Statements

KAAM ENTERPRISES: Morissette Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
LION OIL: Arkansas Ct. Denies Bid to Certify Class in Fuller Suit
LONG ISLAND BAGEL: Guevara Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
LOWE'S HOME: Bid to Dismiss Houtman FLSA Suit Denied as Moot
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Vo Sues over Biometric Data Collection

MASTER GROUP: Does not Properly Pay Drivers, Montemarano Suit Says
MICROSOFT CORP: Khalid Appeals Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
MILACRON HOLDINGS: Krieger Seeks More Info re Hillenbrand Merger
MORGAN STANLEY: Chen Appeals Ruling in Harvey Suit to 9th Circuit
MUHLENBERG COUNTY, KY: Violates FLSA and KWHA, Drake Suit Says

MY FRENCH: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NASHVILLE TENNESSEE VENTURES: Fails to Pay OT Wages, McGill Says
NATIONWIDE EXPRESS: Warfa Labor Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. OK
PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE: Tompkins Sues over Automated Robocalls
PATRIOT CAR: American Country Sues over Biometric Data Collection

PILOT TRAVEL: Fails to Pay OT Wage Under NM Wage Act, Drasal Says
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Newman Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage
PLI CHICAGO: Faces Glon Class Suit Alleging Violation of BIPA
PRAIRIE PIZZA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages to Delivery Drivers
PROTALUS LLC: Saitta Files Class Action in Massachusetts

PURDUE PHARMA: County of Kaua'i Opioid Suit Removed to D. Hawaii
QG PRINTING: Deposition of Corporate Rep in Clark Labor Suit Okayed
QUICK WEIGHT: Wriley Sues over Unwanted Misleading E-mails
QUICKEN LOANS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Ball Suit Claims
QUINONEZ FOODSERVICE: Underpays Servers, Casas Suit Alleges

RED LION HOTELS: Herbert Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Bushansky Sues over Proposed Merger
RUSHMORE SERVICE: Can Compel Arbitration in Jackson FDCPA Suit
SAZON CUBAN: Leal-Rodriguez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SETERUS INC: Mich. Court Narrows Claims in Adams FDCPA Suit

SMS PIPELINE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Luker Says
SOBRATO ORGANIZATION: Fails to Refund Security Deposit, Suit Says
SPARK SPORTS: May Face Class Suit Over Rugby World Cup Coverage
STATE COLLECTION: Thorson's Bid for Class Certification Stayed
STERLING INVESTMENT: Coleman Hits Fund Mismanagement, Shady Sale

SUBARU CORP: $6.2M Deal in Starlink Suit Has Interim Approval
SUMMIT FUNDING: Faces Haug Suit in California Superior Court
SURESCRIPTS: Intergrated Pharma Sues Over Anticompetitive Scheme
SYDNEY OLYMPIC: Opal Developer Ecove Dragged Into Class Action
TEACHERS FEDERAL: Faces Donnelly Suit in E.D. New York

TENCENT MUSIC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Nov. 25 Deadline
THERANOS: Founder's Unpaid Lawyers Quit
THGPP LLC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TOTAL GAS: City of Long Beach Alleges Stock Market Price-Fixing
TOYOTA MOTOR: Muswaya Files Consumer Credit Suit in E.D. Texas

TRAEGER PELLET: Yates Sues over Deceptive Wood Pellet Ads
TWITTER INC: Doshier Suit Venue Moved to Calif. Northern District
TXF LOGISTICS: Underpays Equipment Operators, Joe Alleges
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ashford Says Registration Statement Misleading
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Gouet Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania

VANGUARD CONSTRUCTION: Zollo Seeks Proper Overtime Wages
VIMEO INC: Faces Acaley Suit over Biometric Data Collection
WAITR HOLDINGS: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
WESTERN BEST LLC: Byars Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Discrimination
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC: Musselwhite Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages

WIDOW JANE: Boshnack Sues over Mislabeled Bourbon Whiskey
WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Diaz Hits Misclassification, Denied Overtime Pay

                            *********

305 SMOKERS: Ziller Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN ZILLER, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. 305 SMOKERS LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, MIAMI SMOKERS LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, and ANDRES BARRIENTOS, individually, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-24055-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 1, 2019), seeks unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and others similarly situated are current and former
employees of Defendants who have worked as non-exempt restaurant
and food preparation employees, however variously titled. They
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more work weeks
for Defendants within the three year statute of limitations period
between October 2016 and the present. However, Defendants have
failed to pay time and one-half wages for the overtime hours they
worked.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

AIRPORT RETAIL: Wilson Sues over Tip Pooling
--------------------------------------------
SHARDE WILSON, the Plaintiff, vs. AIRPORT RETAIL MANAGEMENT, LLC,
d/b/a CAFE INTERMEZZO, a Georgia Limited Liability Corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04408-MLB (N.D. Ga., Sept. 30, 2019),
contends that the Defendant required Plaintiff to share her tips
with other workers.  Specifically, the Defendant required Plaintiff
to tip out other "back of house," non-tipped employees such as
dishwashers.  The Defendant's dishwashers do not server or interact
with customers.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a bartender from
approximately October 2018 through the present. As a bartender,
Plaintiff was responsible for crafting and serving beverages,
explaining the menu and taking orders from guests, keeping the bar
stocked and clean, and adhering to company standards for serving
alcoholic beverages.

The Plaintiff was also responsible for performing side work such as
cutting lemons, making servers' drinks, and putting away liquor
that comes in. The Plaintiff's side work accounted for
approximately 50% of her weekly job duties. She typically worked
30-40 hours per week. At times she worked more than 40 hours per
week.

The Defendant paid Plaintiff an hourly wage less than federal
minimum wage (approximately $5.60). In addition, Plaintiff earned
tips as a bartender. The Defendant paid Plaintiff according to what
is commonly referred to as the "tip credit."

The Defendants' common policy violations have caused Plaintiff and
the class members to receive less than minimum wage for all hours
worked. Thus, the class members are similar with regard to their
wages for the same reasons as Plaintiff, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant owns and operates several restaurants known as Cafe
Intermezzo with locations throughout Atlanta, Georgia as well as
Tennessee and Texas. The Defendant employs several servers,
bartenders, hosts, bussers, and runners.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          Carlos Leach, 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

ALLERGAN INC: Zettlemoyer Sues over Misleading BIOCELL Disclosures
------------------------------------------------------------------
DANA ZETTLEMOYER., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. the Plaintiff, vs. ALLERGAN, INC. f/k/a
INAMED CORPORATION, ALLERGAN USA, INC., and ALLERGAN plc., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00866 (M.D. Tenn., Sept. 30, 2019),
alleges that Allergan failed to comply with the conditions of
Premarket Approval Applications (PMAs) and violated federal law by
failing to fulfill its obligations to accurately and promptly
report adverse events and continuing to sell recalled BIOCELL
products.

Allergan also did not report adverse events from its required
post-market approval studies that would have suggested the recalled
BIOCELL products have caused or contributed to deaths or serious
bodily injury.

After the FDA lifted the moratorium in 2006, Allergan continually
received new information showing the connection between its
textured breast implants and BIA-ALCL and that the risk associated
with its BIOCELL breast implants was significantly greater than its
competitors.

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

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

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

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

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

Had Allergan complied with its obligations under federal law, the
disclosure of the connection between BIOCELL breast implants and
BIA-ALCL would have allowed patients including Plaintiff, and her
treating physicians to make an informed decision regarding whether
to use other implants, the lawsuit says.

Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and
silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders. Allergan's
BIOCELL line of implants are a type of textured breast implants and
tissue expanders that were first introduced internationally in the
early 1990s and in the United States beginning in 2006. The BIOCELL
textured implants were originally developed in the 1980s and early
1990s by McGhan Medical Corporation (McGhan), which later became
Inamed Corporation (Inamed). In 2006, Allergan acquired
Inamed.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
          Seth M. Hyatt, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSON MARTIN &
          GARRISON, LLC
          Philips Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (6115) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
                  shyatt@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

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

ALTRIA GROUP: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Altria Group, Inc. (MO) and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
Eastern District of New York, and indexed under 19-cv-05579, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Altria securities
between December 20, 2018 and September 24, 2019, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Altria within the class
period, you have until December 2, 2019, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Altria, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells
cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United States. The
Company sells its tobacco products primarily to wholesalers,
including distributors; large retail organizations, such as chain
stores; and the armed services.

On December 20, 2018, Altria issued a press release announcing that
it had signed and closed a $12.8 billion investment in JUUL Labs,
Inc. ("JUUL"), the purported U.S. leader in electronic vapor
(colloquially called "e-vapor") products, including e-cigarettes
(the "December 2018 Press Release"). According to the December 2018
Press Release, the service agreements related to the transaction
would accelerate JUUL's mission to switch adult smokers to e-vapor
products. Altria's investment represented a 35% economic interest
in JUUL, valuing the company at $38 billion, with JUUL purportedly
remaining fully independent.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Altria had conducted
insufficient due diligence into JUUL prior to the Company's $12.8
billion investment, or 35% stake, in JUUL; (ii) Altria consequently
failed to inform investors, or account for, material risks
associated with JUUL's products and marketing practices, and the
true value of JUUL and its products; (iii) all of the foregoing, as
well as mounting public scrutiny, negative publicity, and
governmental pressure on e-vapor products and JUUL made it
reasonably likely that Altria's investment in JUUL would have a
material negative impact on the Company's reputation and
operations; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Following Altria's multi-billion dollar investment into JUUL,
e-vapor products and JUUL increasingly became the subject of public
and regulatory scrutiny throughout the country. Mounting
skepticism, fear, and negative publicity in the media regarding
e-cigarettes' safety led to increased scrutiny by government
authorities into vaping products, and municipalities throughout the
country began tightening sales practices related to those
products.

For example, on April 3, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") announced its investigation into nearly
three dozen cases of people suffering from seizures after "vaping"
(the act of consuming e-vapor products through inhalation). Between
2010 and 2019, the FDA said it received thirty-five reports of
people, especially children and young adults, experiencing seizures
after using e-cigarettes.

On this news, Altria's stock price fell $2.71 per share, or 4.78%,
to close at $53.98 per share on April 3, 2019.

Then, on August 29, 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported that the
U.S. Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") was investigating whether
JUUL used influencers and other marketing practices to appeal
e-cigarettes to minors.

On this news, Altria's stock price fell $1.60 per share, or 3.49%,
to close at $44.25 per share on August 29, 2019.

Additionally, on August 30, 2019, both the FDA and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC") announced that they were
collaborating to investigate e-cigarette related cases of illnesses
and "working tirelessly to investigate the distressing incidents of
severe respiratory disease associated with use of e-cigarette
products."

On this news, Altria's stock price fell an additional $0.51 per
share, or 1.15%, to close at $43.74 per share on August 30, 2019-a
total loss of $2.11 per share, or 4.6%, since closing at $45.85 per
share two trading days earlier on August 28, 2019.

On September 11, 2019, news sources reported that the
administration of U.S. President Donald Trump was preparing a ban
on flavored e-cigarettes as federal agencies probed an outbreak of
a lung problem that killed at least six people and reportedly led
to the sickness of hundreds of others. President Trump and U.S.
Health Secretary Alex Azar reportedly both confirmed that a ban is
possible after the vaping issues are investigated.

On September 12, 2019, during after-market hours, Reuters reported
that, "[w]ithin weeks, New Jersey could become the latest state to
restrict e-cigarette use, with the governor on Thursday launching a
task force to find ways to curb vaping, linked by U.S. health
officials to hundreds of respiratory illnesses and a half-dozen
deaths." Additionally, that same day, the CDC reported that as of
September 11, 2019, 380 confirmed cases, and probably cases of lung
disease associated with vaping, had been reported by thirty-six
states and the U.S. Virgin Islands, with six total deaths confirmed
in six states.

On this news, Altria's stock price fell $2.45 per share, or 5.51%,
to close at $42.01 per share on September 13, 2019.

On September 23, 2019, during after-market hours, news sources
began reporting that federal prosecutors in California were
conducting a criminal probe into JUUL.

Finally, on September 25, 2019, Altria issued a press release
announcing that Philip Morris had called off discussions of a $200
billion merger with Altria due to scrutiny of the vaping industry
and the Company's 35% stake in market leader JUUL, which had
announced the same day that it was the subject of another federal
investigation. JUUL also announced its CEO would step down and the
firm would stop all advertising in the U.S.

On this news, Altria's stock price fell an additional $0.17 per
share, or 0.42%, to close at $40.56 per share on September 25,
2019-a total loss of $0.32 per share, or 0.78%, since closing at
$40.88 per share two trading days earlier on September 23, 2019.

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



AMERICAN DIRECTIONS: Removes Hender Suit to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of ALEXANDRA HENDER, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN
DIRECTIONS WORKFORCE; AMERICAN DIRECTIONS GROUP, and Does 1 through
100, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Shasta (Case
No. 193030) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on September 24, 2019. The clerk of court for the
Eastern District of California assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-01951-KJM-DMC.

American Directions Workforce is a survey research provider,
serving research consultants, corporations and government to
provide market research survey services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Saman M. Rejali, Esq.
          Christina N. Goodrich, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Eighth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-5000
          Facsimile: (310) 552-5001
          E-mail: christina.goodrich@klgates.com
                  saman.rejali@klgates.com


ANNIE'S HOMEGROWN: Mislabels Vanilla Ice Cream, Housell Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Housell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Annie's Homegrown, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
7:19-cv-09670 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks damages under
consumer protection laws from the Defendant's misleading
representations on their vanilla ice cream products' packaging.

The Defendant sells ice cream products purporting to contain flavor
from their natural characterizing flavor, vanilla, under their
Annie's Homegrown brand ("Products"). The Products are misleading
because they do not contain the amount, type and percentage of
vanilla as a component of the flavoring in the product which is
required and consistent with consumer expectations, the Plaintiff
contends. The front label statements of "Vanilla Ice Cream" and
"Organic Vanilla Ice Cream," shown in the below statement of
identity and on the front label, are understood by consumers to
identify a product where the characterizing flavor is vanilla,
which contains a sufficient amount of vanilla and the flavor is
supplied only from the vanilla plant. The representations of
"vanilla ice cream" are unqualified and the labels and packaging do
not disclose the addition of non-vanilla flavors as part of the
Products. The Product's front label is misleading because it lacks
any indication it is "flavored"--"naturally flavored" or
"artificially flavored"--which gives consumers the impression they
only contain flavor from the natural characterizing flavor of
vanilla.

The Defendant's listing of "natural flavor" is not another way to
refer to the exclusively vanilla flavoring ingredients that
consumers expect, and the law requires. These exclusively vanilla
ingredients--vanilla flavoring, vanilla extract, etc.--differ only
in that the former is at least 35 percent ethyl alcohol while the
latter is less than this amount. If the Products contained any of
the exclusively vanilla ingredients, there would not be a need to
declare or identify "Natural Flavor" in the ingredient list.
Additionally, it would be illogical to use a more expensive and
higher quality ingredient (vanilla extract or vanilla flavoring)
but designate it with a vague term perceived less favorably by
consumers due to its opaque components, lower cost and ubiquity,
the Plaintiff asserts.

Had the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth about the
Products, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid
less for it. The Products contain other representations which are
misleading and deceptive. As a result of the false and misleading
labeling, the Products are sold at premium prices, approximately no
less than $5.89, per 12 units contained in one package, excluding
tax--compared to other similar products represented in a
non-misleading way, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Products for personal
use and consumption.

Annie's Homegrown, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels
and sells ice cream products purporting to contain flavor from
their natural characterizing flavor, vanilla under their Annie's
Homegrown brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


APEX ENVIRONMENTAL: Sutton Files Class Suit in S.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apex Environmental
LLC. The case is styled as James T Sutton on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Apex Environmental LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04652-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 18,
2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property.

Apex Environmental, LLC provides waste management services. The
Company offers landfill, disposal, construction, and demolition of
waste.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel P Petrov, Esq.
     Thorman Petrov Group Co., LPA
     50 E. Washington St.
     Cleveland, OH 44022
     Phone: (216) 621-3500
     Fax: (216) 621-3422
     Email: dpetrov@tpgfirm.com


AT DAVIE LLC: Illegally Sent Unsolicited Text Msgs, Hill Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIANA HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AT DAVIE LLC d/b/a AQUA-TOTS SWIM SCHOOLS DAVIE, Case
No. 0:19-cv-62490-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 6, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent
to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and Class Members, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, causing them
injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.

The Defendant is a Michigan limited liability company, with a
principal address in Davie, Florida.

The Defendant is an organization that specializes in the provision
of swimming instructions and/or coaching to children and young
adults for profit.  To solicit new clients, the Defendant engages
in unsolicited marketing with no regard for privacy rights of the
recipients of those messages, the Plaintiff contends.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com


AXIOM DEBT: Canfield Sues Over Unauthorized Calls
-------------------------------------------------
DANIEL CANFIELD, an individual, REGAN SMITH, an individual,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. AXIOM DEBT LLC, a California limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02015-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal., Oct.
20, 2019), seeks to stop the Defendant's illegal practice of making
unauthorized calls that play prerecorded voice messages to
telephones of consumers nationwide, and to obtain redress for all
persons injured by its conduct.

As a primary part of marketing their products and services, the
Defendant and their agents placed thousands of automated calls
employing a prerecorded voice message to consumers' phones
nationwide. Unfortunately, the Defendant did not obtain prior
express written consent to place these calls and, therefore, are in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The TCPA
targets unauthorized calls exactly like the ones alleged in this
case, based on Defendant's use of a prerecorded voice called to
consumers' cell phones without their consent. By placing the calls
at issue, the Defendant has violated the privacy and statutory
rights of the Plaintiffs and the Class and caused them to suffer
actual and statutorily recognized harm, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs, therefore, seek an injunction requiring the
Defendant to stop clogging consumers' cell phones with unwanted
prerecorded messages, as well as an award of actual and statutory
damages to the Class members, together with costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees.

Daniel Canfield is a natural person and is a citizen of Hennepin
County, Minnesota. Regan Smith is a natural person and a citizen of
Omaha, Douglas County, Nebraska.

Axiom sells debt refinancing services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
          JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
          480 S. Ellsworth Ave.
          San Mateo, CA 94401
          Telephone: 650-781-8000
          Facsimile: 650-648-0705
          E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com


BAM! PIZZA: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. BAM! PIZZA MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a DOMINO'S
PIZZA, RICHARD HAFNER, JOSEPH ROMANO, and BRIAN BAILEY
individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02473-E (N.D. Tex., Oct.
18, 2019), is brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours
owed to the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers
employed by the Defendants at their Domino's stores.

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

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from February 2018 to
March 2019 as a delivery driver at their Domino's store.

The Defendants operate several Domino's Pizza franchise
stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
          E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com


BARBEQUE INTEGRATED: Elliot Seeks OT Pay for Hours Worked Over 40
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brigida Elliott, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Barbeque Integrated, Inc. and Sun
Capital Partners, Inc., Ryan J. Esko Sr. and Nicole M. Milnthorpe,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-62426 (S.D. Fla.,
September 30, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and all other applicable relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Massachusetts Minimum Wage Act and Massachusetts
common law.

Defendants operate as "Smokey Bones Bar & Fire Grill," where Elliot
worked as a kitchen manager at their 431 Middlesex Rd.,
Tyngsborough, Massachusetts, location.

Florida-based Barbeque Integrated, Inc., is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Sun Capital Partners, Inc. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay N. Michelman, Esq.
      MICHELMAN LAW OFFICES
      1333 East Columbus Avenue
      Springfield, MA 01101
      Telephone: (413) 737-1166
      Facsimile: (413) 736-0429
      Email: michelmanlaw@hotmail.com


BAUSCH HEALTH COMPANIES: BI-LO Hits Diabetes Meds Price-rigging
---------------------------------------------------------------
BI-LO, LLC and Winn-Dixie Logistics, Inc., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bausch Health
Companies Inc., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Santarus, Inc., Assertio Therapeutics, Inc., Lupin
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Lupin Ltd., Defendants, Case 19-cv-06138
(N.D. Cal., September 27, 2019) seeks to recover damages, interest,
costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from
anticompetitive foreclosure of Glumetza in violation of the Sherman
Act.

BI-LO, LLC and Winn-Dixie Logistics, Inc. purchased branded
Glumetza from QK Healthcare, Inc. and is the assignee of the claims
of QK Healthcare, Inc., which, during the class period, purchased
branded Glumetza directly from Santarus, Salix, and/or Valeant
and/or generic Glumetza directly from Lupin.

Defendants are pharmaceutical companies involved in the manufacture
of Glumetza, a diabetes medication used to prevent and control high
blood sugar. Metformin is the generic bio-equivalent of
Glumetza.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
      Berkeley, CA 94710
      Telephone: (510) 725-3000
      Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
      Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com

             - and -

      Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
      Matthew C. Weiner, Esq.
      HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
      1135 W. 6th Street, Suite 125
      Austin, TX 78703
      Telephone: (855) 344-3298
      Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
      Email: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
             matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com

             - and -

      Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
      Lauren G. Barnes, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
      Cambridge, MA 02142
      Telephone: (617) 482-3700
      Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
      Email: lauren@hbsslaw.com
             tom@hbsslaw.com


BONITA SPRINGS LODGE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Auclair Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOANN AUCLAIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BONITA SPRINGS LODGE 2753 BENEVOLENT AND
PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELKS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00697-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla., Sept. 23,
2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Auclair was employed by the Defendant as hourly paid,
non-exempt employee.

Bonita Springs Lodge 2753 Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks
of the United States Of America, Inc. is a Florida non-profit
corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bill B. Berke, Esq.
          BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A.
          4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
          Cape Coral, FL 33904
          Telephone: (239) 549-6689
          E-mail: billbberke@gmail.com


BP WEST: Consultant in Persian Suit May Receive FCO Materials
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PERSIAN GULF INC., Plaintiff, v. BP WEST COAST
PRODUCTS LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01749-L-AGS
(S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California (i) granted the Plaintiff's
motion to reconsider the Magistrate Judge's July 3, 2019 discovery
order, and (ii) ordered the Defendants to permit disclosure to
consultant Cody Rosenfield of discovery materials designated as
"confidential - for counsel only."

The putative class action alleges violation of antitrust laws.
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the discovery
order.  The Defendants filed a joint opposition and the Plaintiff
replied.

The parties entered into a stipulated protective order.  As
relevant to Plaintiff's Motion, the Protective Order allows a party
to designate discovery materials as "confidential - for counsel
only ("FCO")."  The Protective Order was signed prospectively and
without prior review of the discovery materials because materials
to be exchanged throughout the course of the litigation between the
Parties may contain confidential commercial information, among
other things.  Accordingly, the initial FCO designations were left
to the producing party to determine only if, in the good faith
belief of such Producing Party and its counsel, the information is
among that considered to be most sensitive by the designating
party, including but not limited to highly sensitive commercial
information.  If materials were so designated, their sharing was
limited to certain categories of individuals who agreed to be bound
by the Protective Order.

At issue in the dispute is disclosure of certain Defendants'
FCO-designated materials to the Plaintiff's consultant Cody
Rosenfield.  The Plaintiff informed the Defendants it intended to
disclose FCO-designated materials to Mr. Rosenfield.  The
Defendants objected on the grounds that they did not consider Mr.
Rosenfield to be an expert, that for the same reason the Plaintiff
would not be prejudiced by inability to disclose FCO-designated
documents to him, and that he poses an undue risk of public
disclosure of the FCO-designated documents notwithstanding his
signing of Exhibit A to the Protective Order.

On July 3, 2019, the Magistrate Judge held a hearing and denied the
Plaintiff's motion.  The issues raised in the Defendants' May 3
letter were argued before the Magistrate Judge and are raised in
opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion.  

The issue raised by the Plaintiff's Motion is disclosure to its
consultant, Cody Rosenfield, who is not affiliated with the
Defendants' competitors.  The Defendants are concerned that Mr.
Rosenfield will disclose their sensitive business information
because he had previously worked for and continues to have ties
with consumer groups seeking greater transparency and more
government oversight of their operations.  They further contend
that Mr. Rosenfield does not qualify as an expert on the issues of
gasoline pricing because he lacks a graduate degree or any degree
in finance or economics.

Judge Lorenz finds that the Defendants have not shown that Mr.
Rosenfield is more likely than other independent experts to violate
the Protective Order, whether intentionally or inadvertently.  As
is apparent from the Plaintiff's complaint, Mr. Rosenfield has
conducted extensive research into California gasoline market.  His
research and knowledge in this area were deemed sufficient for the
Petroleum Market Advisory Committee of the California Energy
Commission to include his presentation at its Feb. 8, 2016 meeting,
which is relevant time for the action.

Finally, it is apparent from the record that the Plaintiff has
relied on Mr. Rosenfield's research of the California gasoline
market since the inception of the case.  Although it may well be
true that the Plaintiff could locate another consultant regarding
the gasoline market in general, finding one with detailed knowledge
of the California market, the focus of the Plaintiff's claims,
would be a much harder task.  At this stage of litigation, forcing
the Plaintiff to search for a comparable replacement would unduly
impair the prosecution of its case.

For the stated reasons, Judge Lorenz granted the Plaintiff's
motion.  The Court ruled that upon proof that Mr. Rosenfield signed
Exhibit A to the Protective Order and on the terms provided in
Paragraph 8(d) of the Protective Order, the Defendants will permit
disclosure to Mr. Rosenfield of discovery materials designated as
"confidential - for counsel only."

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/7cQiqG from Leagle.com.

Persian Gulf Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra S. Bernay
-- xanb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Armen
Zohrabian, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Carissa J. Dolan,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Carmen A. Medici --
cmedici@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David
William Mitchell -- davidm@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Jennifer N. Caringal -- jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Lonnie A. Browne, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd, Patrick J. Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Steven Wayne Pepich, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd & Jason S. Hartley, Hartley LLP.

BP West Coast Products LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael P.
Murtagh, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Robert Andrew Sacks , Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP, Diane Lee McGimsey, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP,
Jackson Samuel Trugman, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP & Robert M.W.
Smith, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.

Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Glen Swanson
-- dswanson@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, David S.
Han -- dhan@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Steven
Eugene Sletten -- ssletten@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and
Crutcher & Abiel Garcia, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.

Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC, Defendant, represented by
Cheryl L. O'Connor, Jones Day, David Craig Kiernan --
dkiernan@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Eric Patrick Enson, Jones Day,
Rasha Gerges Shields, c/o Jones Day & Robert A. Mittelstaedt --
ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.

Equilon Enterprises LLC, doing business as Shell Oil Products US,
Defendant, represented by Colin Charles West --
colin.west@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Kent Michael
Roger -- kroger@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Susan J. Welch -- susan.welch@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Brian Ming Hom, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Minna Lo
Naranjo, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius & Rishi Pankaj Satia, Morgan Lewis
& Bockius.

ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company, Defendant, represented by
Charles Coleman Lifland -- clifland@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers,
Dawn Sestito -- dsestito@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, Frederick
William Kosmo, Jr. -- fkosmo@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner
Kosmo LLP, Hubert Kim, Wilson Petty Kosmo and Turner, Michelle
Kaemmerling, Wright Lindsey & Jennings, pro hac vice & Robin Assaf
Wofford -- rwofford@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo
LLP.

Alon USA Energy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carl W. Hittinger
, Baker & Hostetler, pro hac vice, Jeanne-Michele Mariani, Baker
Hostetler, pro hac vice, Jeffry William Duffy, Baker & Hostetler,
pro hac vice, Michael R. Matthias, Baker & Hostetler LLP & Tyson
Herrold, Baker & Hostetler, pro hac vice.

Valero Marketing and Supply Company, Defendant, represented by
Gerald E. Hawxhurst, Arya Towfighi, Hawxhurst Harris LLP & Kyle
Foltyn-Smith, Crone Hawxhurst LLP.

Phillips 66, Defendant, represented by Joshua D. Lichtman, Norton
Rose Fulbright US LLP, Layne E. Kruse --
layne.kruse@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, pro hac vice & Michelle L. Mello, Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP.


CADENCE BANCORPORATION: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming November 15, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Cadence Bancorporation
(NYSE: CADE) investors who purchased securities between July 23,
2018 and July 22, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

On July 22, 2019, the Company disclosed that "higher credit costs
including net charge-offs of $18.6 million and loan provisions of
$28.9 million" negatively impacted its second quarter 2019
financial results.

On this news, shares of Cadence fell $3.75 per share, or over 19%,
to close at $15.86 per share on July 22, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls
to assess credit risk; (2) that, as a result, certain of the
Company’s loans posed an increased risk of loss; (3) that, as a
result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur significant
losses for certain loans; (4) that the Company’s financial
results would suffer a material adverse impact; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about
the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

Contact:

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



CAPITAL ONE: Faces Mallh Suit in E.D. New York Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR MALLH and JONATHAN QUINTEVIS, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE, N.A., CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A.,
AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02932-AJT-JFA (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2019), is a
nationwide class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all persons
whose personal identifying financial information was provided to
Capital One and was compromised as a result of a data breach
disclosed on July 29, 2019.

Social security numbers, as well as the other identifying
information that was taken from the Defendants' databases, are
among the most highly sensitive information that consumers possess.
The theft of this information may allow a thief to impersonate a
consumer and obtain access to nearly every account that consumer
owns. The Plaintiffs and the Class are now subject to serious and
real risk that highly confidential information they shared with
Capital One, in reliance on Capital One's assurances of security,
will be used to their detriment, the Plaintiffs assert.

Although the Defendants knew about the data breach, they did not
disclose the breach to the public until July 29, 2019, ten days
after their investigation. As a result, the Plaintiffs and the
Class remained ignorant that their sensitive information was
compromised and were unable to take any actions to protect
themselves. Despite a similar breach in 2014, when an employee
gained unauthorized access to consumer accounts, the Defendants
claimed they did not know about the breach, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs provided sensitive information to the Defendants and
have been a credit card customer for Capital One.

Capital One Financial Corporation, through its subsidiaries,
including Capital One, N.A., and Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., is
one of the largest credit card issuers in the United States.
Capital One is also one of the top 10 largest banks based on
deposits, serving approximately 45 million customer accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Orin Kurtz, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          Tower 56
          126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 905-0509
          Facsimile: (212) 905-0508
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
                  okurtz@gardylaw.com



CAPITAL ONE: Jacobs Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Jeffrey Jacobs individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital One
Financial Corporation, Capital One, N.A., Capital One Bank (USA),
N.A., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03217 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on Oct.
18, 2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02942-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:

     Lisa Marie La Fornara, Esq.
     Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
     Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
     COHEN & MALAD
     One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Phone: (317) 636-6481
     Fax: (317) 636-2593
     Email: llafornara@cohenandmalad.com
            ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
            rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     James J. Morrissey, Esq.
     Jeffrey D. Pilgrim, Esq.
     PILGRIM CHRISTAKIS
     321 N. Clark St.
     26th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: (312) 280-0441
     Email: jmorrissey@pilgrimchristakis.com
            jpilgrim@pilgrimchristakis.com


CAPITAL ONE: Most Wanted Motorsports Sues Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
MOST WANTED MOTORSPORTS LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION; AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.; PAIGE A. THOMPSON, and DOES
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02936-AJT-JFA (W.D. Wash., Oct.
19, 2019), is a class action lawsuit brought against the Defendants
due to their failure to protect, or the theft of, the confidential
information of the Plaintiff and many millions of other individuals
and business entities.

On July 29, 2019, it was revealed that AWS's and Capital One's
failure to protect Capital One's customers' personal information
resulted in the exposure of over 100 million individuals' Personal
Information. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to
provide the level of data protection that they expressly promised,
thus, exposing millions of individuals' Personal Information to an
increased risk of misuse by unauthorized third parties.

In order to apply for Capital One's banking services, an applicant
must provide certain personal information. Capital One evidently
stores this information indefinitely, on the "cloud," using AWS's
cloud computing services. Defendant Ms. Thompson was able to
exploit glaring vulnerabilities in AWS's systems to perpetrate the
Data Breach at issue. Capital One expressly promises it is
"committed to protecting your personal and financial information.
If we collect identifying information from you, we will protect
that information with controls based upon internationally
recognized security standards, regulations, and industry-based best
practices."

Had Defendant Capital One informed its customers that it would use
inadequate security measures, consumers (such as Plaintiff and
members of the Class) would not have applied for credit cards with
Capital One, says the complaint. Capital One's and AWS's failure to
implement adequate security protocols jeopardized millions of
consumers' Personal Information, fell well short of its promises,
and diminished the value of the services provided. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff brings suit on behalf of itself and all other similarly
situated business entities, to seek redress for the Defendants'
unlawful conduct.

Most Wanted Motorsports LLC, a Kansas Limited Liability Company,
applied for a Capital One Card in April of 2019, and was approved.

Capital One is one of the largest banks in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          T. David Copley, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
                  lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  dcopley@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Christopher Springer, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          801 Garden Street, Suite 301
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456-1496
          Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
          E-mail: cspringer@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
          ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY
          320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 588-3400
          Facsimile: (800) 969-6570
          E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com


CAPTAIN GEORGE'S: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Frykenberg Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dianna Frykenberg, On behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Captain George's of South Carolina, LP;
Captain George's of South Carolina, Inc.; Pitsilides Management,
LLC; George Pitsilides; Sharon Pitsilides; and Doe Corporations
1-4; Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02971-MGL (D.S.C, Oct. 18, 2019),
seeks monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief arising from the
Defendants' failure to compensate the Plaintiff and other employees
with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Frykenberg typically worked 40 hours per week for the
Defendants. She was required to work some of the time off the
clock. When she was approaching 40 hours, the Defendants' managers
instructed her and others to "manage their hours," which meant to
clock out and keep working, she alleges.

Ms. Frykenberg also contends that she tipped out 3% of her sales to
the restaurant on each shift as "house tip out," and the Defendants
distributed some or all of her tips to non-tipped employees, and/or
employees not permitted to participate in the tip pool. She also
alleges that unbeknownst to her, the Defendants also retained some
of her tips themselves.

Dianna Frykenberg worked as a server at the Myrtle Beach Captain
George's restaurant from April 2013 to September 2018.

The Defendants have operated the Myrtle Beach Captain George's
restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glenn V. Ohanesian, Esq.
          OHANESIAN & OHANESIAN
          504 North Kings Highway
          P. O. Box 2433
          Myrtle Beach, SC 29578
          Telephone: 843-626-7193
          Facsimile: 843-492-5164
          E-mail: OhanesianLawFirm@cs.com

               - and -

          Andrew Biller, Esq.
          Andrew Kimble, Esq.
          Philip Krzeski, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: 513-715-8711
          Facsimile: 614-340-4620
          E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
                  lroselle@billerkimble.com
                  pkrzeski@billerkimble.com

               - and -

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Andrew Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324-1311
          Telephone: 954-318-0268
          Facsimile: 954-327-3013
          E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


CCS FINANCIAL: Taylor Sues over Robocalls
-----------------------------------------
The case captioned as ERICKA TAYLOR, individually and on behalf all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CCS FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-12045-JGD (D.
Mass., Oct. 1, 2019), involves activities conducted by Defendant in
contacting individuals believed to be its debtors through use of
pre-recorded messages and automated calls in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff brings the action for injunctive relief and statutory
damages arising from the illegal activities of Defendant, who
contacted the putative class members despite the fact that they had
no relationship with Defendant, the lawsuit says.

Ericka Taylor is an individual citizen of the State of Ohio
residing in the City of Cleveland. Credit Collection Services,
known as CCS for short, is one of the largest debt collection
agencies in the US.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:

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

               - and -

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

CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE: Seeks Final OK of $5.4M Raquedan Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Monique Raquedan and Ronald Martinez and Defendant
Centerplate of Delaware, Inc., jointly move the Court for final
approval of the Parties' Third Amended Settlement Agreement filed
in the lawsuit entitled RODRIGO RAQUEDAN, et al. v. CENTERPLATE OF
DELAWARE, INC., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-03828-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

Among other things, the Settlement provides for a Maximum
Settlement Amount of $5,450,000; a Class Representative Service
Payment of $5,000 for each Plaintiff; a Class Counsel's Fees and
Expenses Payment of up to $ 1,851,667; and an expected per-Class
Member Settlement Share of $ 291.78.

Pursuant to the Settlement terms and the Court's order granting
preliminary approval, this Class was certified:

     All non-exempt employees of Centerplate who worked for
     Centerplate in the State of California at any time from
     May 24, 2013, to the earlier of (i) the date that the
     District Court grants preliminary approval of the
     Settlement, or (ii) March 31, 2019, excluding those
     individuals who already have resolved all the claims
     asserted in the Action, whether by settlement or
     adjudication.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 21, 2019 at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

Plaintiffs Rodrigo Raquedan, Monique Raquedan and Ronald Martinez
are represented by:

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

Defendant Centerplate of Delaware, Inc., is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
          Zina Deldar, Esq.
          Jana B. Fitzgerald, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          101 California Street, 48th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
                  zinadeldar@paulhastings.com
                  janafitzgerald@paulhastings.com


COASTAL CARPENTRY: Landon Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LAGRASSA, THOMAS J.
The case is styled as LANDON, ALLISON O/B/O HERSELF AND OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. LAGRASSA, THOMAS J. DBA COASTAL
CARPENTRY, Defendant, Case No. 616800/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk
Cty., Oct. 18, 2019).

The case type is stated as "E-FILED CONTRACT CASE".

COASTAL CARPENTRY is a privately held company in San Diego, CA
doing business for 12 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     FORCHELLI DEEGAN TARRANA, LLP
     333 EARLE OVINGTON BLVD, #1010
     UNIONDALE, NY 11553
     Phone: (516) 248-1700

COLE MT RIVERVIEW: Sued by Gomes Over Improper Towing of Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRED GOMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COLE MT RIVERVIEW FL LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 97522767 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty.,  Oct. 18, 2019), arises
from the Defendant's non-consensual towing of the Plaintiff's
vehicles.

The Plaintiff, as the owner of SFV LOGISTICS LLC, was the
registered owner and/or lessee of a 2004 Volvo ("Vehicle 1"), VIN
No. 4V4NC9TK24N348216 and of a Hyundai Steel Industrial Trailer
("Vehicle 2"), VIN No. 3H3V532C0DT20540.

COLE MT RIVERVIEW FL LLC operated, managed, and/or was responsible
for managing, the shopping center commonly known as Summerfield
Crossing, located in Riverview, Hillsborough County, Florida
("Property"). Florida Statutes Section 715.07 governs
non-consensual tows from private property throughout Florida, and
the tow of the Plaintiff's vehicle is subject to the conditions and
requirements of the statute.  Prior to August 18, 2019, COLE MT
entered into a towing agreement with TARGET RECOVERY TOWING
authorizing TARGET R/T to non-consensually remove vehicles from the
Property.

On August 18, 2019, the Plaintiff parked Vehicle 1 with Vehicle 2
attached to Vehicle 1, at the Property. On August 18, 2019, TARGET
R/T towed Vehicle 1 and Vehicle 2 from the Property to the TARGET
R/T storage facility located at 11954 US Hwy 41 S, in Gibsonton,
Florida. TARGET R/T non-consensually towed GOMES' vehicle from the
Property pursuant to a contract and/or at the request, direction
and/or with the prior consent of COLE MT. Prior to the
non-consensual tow of the Vehicle, COLE MT failed to display Tow
Away signs within 5 feet of any public right-of-way line at the
Property. Additionally, COLE MT failed to display a Tow Away sign
including the required notice language.

COLE MT's failure to strictly comply with Florida Statutes Section
715.07 renders the tow of the Vehicles, and the tow of the vehicles
belonging to the proposed members of the class improper, the
Plaintiff alleges. Therefore, because COLE MT improperly caused
GOMES' vehicle to be towed, COLE MT violated Florida Statutes
Section 715.07 and is, therefore, liable to GOMES and the other
signage class members for the cost of removal, transportation, and
storage of their respective vehicles; any damages resulting from
the removal, transportation, or storage of their vehicles;
attorney's fees; and court costs, says the complaint.

COLE MT is a Foreign Profit Corporation operating and/or managing
the Summerfield Crossing Shopping Center located in Riverview,
Hillsborough County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Felipe B. Fulgencio, Esq.
          Courtney A. Umberger, Esq.
          Iasia B. Ward, Esq.
          FULGENCIO LAW, PLLC
          105 S. Edison Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: 813.463.0123
          Facsimile: 813.670.1288
          E-mail: Felipe@FulgencioLaw.com
                  CU@FulgencioLaw.com
                  IWard@FulgencioLaw.com


CONN'S INC: Court Grants Leave to File Amended Edwards TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANCINE EDWARDS, Plaintiff, v. CONN'S, INC. and CONN
APPLIANCES, INC., Defendants. RAC ACCEPTANCE EAST, LLC d/b/a
ACCEPTANCENOW, Intervenor, Case No. 2:18-cv-01998-APG-BNW (D.
Nev.), Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada (i) denied as moot Intervenor AcceptanceNOW's
motion to compel arbitration; (ii) granted Edwards' motion for
leave to file an amended complaint; and (iii) denied Conn
Appliances' motions to dismiss, motion to stay, and motion to
strike.

Plaintiff Edwards brings a putative class action against Conn's and
Conn Appliances for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").  Edwards contends that Conn Appliances
called her cellular phone on numerous occasions without her consent
seeking payment for a laptop computer that she rented from
AcceptanceNOW in one of Conn Appliances' stores.

Conn Appliances moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that (1)
the TCPA is an unconstitutional content-based restriction on
speech, and (2) Edwards has not plausibly alleged Conn Appliances
called her to collect a debt given that the debt is owed to
AcceptanceNOW, not Conn Appliances.

Conn Appliances also moved to dismiss the non-Nevada putative class
members' claims for lack of personal jurisdiction.  It moves to
strike Edwards' proposed class definition as an improper failsafe
that would overburden discovery proceedings, as well as paragraphs
76 through 81 of her complaint as irrelevant and prejudicial.  And
it moves to stay the case pending the outcome of the Ninth Circuit
decision in Gallion v. Charter Communications, arguing the decision
will determine the TCPA's constitutionality.

Thereafter, Edwards moved to amend her complaint, arguing that the
amendment would clarify her TCPA claims and add more factual
detail.

The United States may intervene in the case, depending on Judge
Gordon's decision regarding the motion to amend.  AcceptanceNOW
(through RAC Acceptance East, LLC) moved to intervene in the case,
which the Judge granted as unopposed.  AcceptanceNOW then moved to
compel arbitration, arguing it has a valid arbitration agreement
with Edwards that covers the claims at issue.

First, Judge Gordon finds no evidence that the proposed amended
complaint was made in bad faith in an attempt to prolong litigation
by adding new baseless theories.  The proposed amended complaint
asserts plausible claims of TCPA violations based on Edwards'
allegations that Conn Appliances continued to call her without her
consent and after she expressly told it to stop calling.

Next, Judge Gordon finds that Edwards has plausibly alleged that
Conn Appliances violated the TCPA.  While Conn Appliances adamantly
denies calling her, that is a question of fact that the Judge does
not resolve at this stage of the proceedings.

It is Edwards' first request to amend.  Because discovery is
stayed, the proposed amended complaint does not cause any undue
delay.  And Conn Appliances does not identify any prejudice.
Accordingly, Judge Gordon granted Edwards' motion for leave to file
an amended complaint.

Conn Appliances moved to strike Edwards' proposed class definition
as an improper failsafe that would overburden discovery
proceedings.  Because he granted Edwards' motion to amend her
complaint, which includes new proposed class definitions, Judge
Gordon denied this part of the motion as moot.

Conn Appliances also moved to strike paragraphs 76 through 81 of
the complaint, arguing that the material is impertinent and
prejudicial.  Those paragraphs are now reflected in the proposed
amended complaint at paragraphs 121 through 126.  

Judge Gordon holds that the paragraphs provide information on the
type of telephone dialer system Conn Appliances uses or at least
has used in the past.  The information strengthens the veracity of
Edwards' claim that Conn Appliances called her using an ATDS.
Determining whether an ATDS was used is relevant to whether a TCPA
violation occurred.  And while Conn Appliances argues that the
information is prejudicial, it is doubtful that the amended
complaint would be read to the jury.  To the extent Conn Appliances
argues prejudice unless the quote is attributed to the claimant's
counsel, it will not be difficult to determine where the language
came from: Edwards includes the transcript of the arbitration
proceeding as an exhibit to her proposed amended complaint.  Judge
Gordon denied the motion because there is no basis to strike the
allegations.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jqGjs6 from Leagle.com.

Francine Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by William Craft Hughes
-- firm@hughesellzey.com -- HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP, pro hac vice,
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Hughes Ellzey, LLP, pro hac vice & Nicholas M.
Porras, Law Offices of Nicholas M Porras.

Conn Appliances, Inc. & Conn's, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Eric J. Troutman -- eric.troutman@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton
Boggs (US) LLP, pro hac vice & Jennifer L. Braster --
jbraster@naylorandbrasterlaw.com -- Naylor & Braster.

United States of America, Intervenor, represented by Joshua Charles
Abbuhl, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch U.S. Department of
Justice.


CORECIVIC INC: Court Dismisses Ndambi FLSA Suit with Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DESMOND NDAMBI et al., Plaintiff, v.
CORECIVIC, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. RDB-18-3521 (D. Md.),
Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland (i) granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss,
and (ii) denied as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Certification and Issuance of Notice.

The Plaintiffs are former Immigration and Customs Enforcement
("ICE") detainees who were held at the Cibola County Correctional
Facility in New Mexico while awaiting civil immigration
proceedings.  They bring the purported class action against
CoreCivic, who owns and operates the detention facility where
Plaintiffs were held pursuant to an Intergovernmental Service
Agreement between ICE and Cibola County.

The Defendant operates a work program at Cibola where detainees are
permitted to voluntarily perform work duties in the facility.  The
Plaintiffs participated in this work program at Cibola.  They filed
a complaint in the Court based on federal question, diversity, and
supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 13311,
13322, and 13673.  They allege they were employees of CoreCivic
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New Mexico Minimum
Wage Act ("NMMWA") and were paid at a rate below that which is
required by the FLSA and NMMWA and that the Defendant was unjustly
enriched by these alleged violations.

The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) arguing that the
Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed as the Plaintiffs were not
"employees" under the FLSA and NMMWA and, thus, not required to be
paid minimum wage.

The District Court considered the Defendant's dismissal motion, and
the Plaintiffs' motion for certification.

Judge Bennett finds that the Plaintiffs cannot be considered
"employees" as defined by the FLSA or NMMWA.  CoreCivic, under the
Intergovernmental Service Agreement, was required to offer a
voluntary work program for ICE detainees at Cibola.  They were
incarcerated detainees in the facility awaiting civil immigration
proceedings and engaged in work offered by the Defendant on an
entirely voluntary basis through the program.  The economic reality
of the Plaintiffs' situation is almost identical to a prison inmate
and does not share commonality with that of a traditional
employer-employee relationship.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs were
not "employees" of the Defendant during their detention, the Judge
maintains.

As Plaintiffs cannot show that they were employees of Corecivic,
they are not entitled to bring a claim against the Defendant under
the FLSA or the NMMWA.  As a result, the Plaintiffs' claims under
the FLSA and NMMWA will be dismissed with prejudice, the Court
rules.

The Plaintiffs' claim of unjust enrichemnt against CoreCivic is
entirely dependent on CoreCivic's alleged violation of the FLSA and
NMMWA.  As the Defendant's actions in the case were not in
violation of the FLSA or NMMWA since the Plaintiffs were not
"employees", the Plaintiffs' claim of unjust enrichment is not
cognizable and will be dismissed with prejudice as well, the Court
adds.

As the Plaintiffs have no cognizable claims, it is not necessary
for the Court to analyze the issue of conditional certification.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification
and Issuance of Notice will be denied as moot, Judge Bennett
rules.

For the stated reasons, Judge Bennett granted the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's
Complaint.  

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Memorandum Order is
available at https://is.gd/ZTOb3o from Leagle.com.

Desmond Ndambi, Mbah Emmanuel Abi & Nkemtoh Moses Awombang,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Joseph M. Sellers --
jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC,
Matthew Owens -- mowens@lawmbg.com -- Miner Barnhill and Galland
PC, pro hac vice, Benjamin J. Blustein -- bblustein@lawmbg.com --
Miner Barnhill and Galland PC, pro hac vice, Deanna N. Pihos --
dpihos@lawmbg.com -- Miner Barnhill and Galland PC, pro hac vice,
Michael Hancock -- mhancoc@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Nancy L. Maldonado --
nmaldonado@lawmbg.com -- Miner Barnhill and Galland PC, pro hac
vice, Robert Andrew Free, Law Office of R. Andrew Free, pro hac
vice, Robert S. Libman -- rlibman@lawmbg.com -- Miner Barnhill and
Galland PC, pro hac vice & Stacy N. Cammarano --
scammarano@cohenmilstein.com
-- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice.

Ivan Chacon Chacon, Prudencio Ramirez, Javier Recinos, Honore
Otayema Lomenoje & Bokole Umba Dieu, Plaintiffs, represented by
Joseph M. Sellers, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC & Robert
Andrew Free, Law Office of R. Andrew Free, pro hac vice.

CoreCivic, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Struck --
dstruck@strucklove.com -- Struck Love Bojanowski and Acedo PLC, pro
hac vice, Jacob B. Lee -- jlee@strucklove.com -- Struck Love
Bojanowski and Acedo PLC, pro hac vice, Kenneth M. Bernas --
maxwell.bernas@carrmaloney.com -- Carr Maloney P.C., Matthew D.
Berkowitz -- matthew.berkowitz@carrmaloney.com -- Carr Maloney PC &
Rachel N. Love -- rlove@strucklove.com -- Struck Love Bojanowski
and Acedo PLC, pro hac vice.


COVETRUS INC: Cops' Fund Hit Stock Drop From Merger Oversight
-------------------------------------------------------------
City of Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement System, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Henry
Schein, Inc., Covetrus, Inc., Benjamin Shaw and Christine T.
Komola, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-05530 (E.D. N.Y., September 30,
2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of
federal securities laws.

Covetrus is a global, technology-enabled animal health business
that provides a service and technology platform and supply chain
infrastructure for the veterinary markets. It was formed through a
spin-off and merger of the Animal Health Business of Henry Schein,
Inc. with Vets First Choice, a privately-held company. Covetrus
common stock trades on the NASDAQ.

Covetrus allegedly overstated its capabilities with regard to
inventory management and supply chain services, understated the
costs of the integration of Henry Schein's Animal Health Business
and VFC, including the timing and nature of those costs,
understated Covetrus' separation costs from Henry Schein, and
understated the impact on earnings from online competition and
alternative distribution channels as well as the impact of the loss
of a large customer in North America just prior to it separation
from Henry Schein.

In response to these disclosures, the Covetrus' stock price
plummeted 40%, declining $9.30 per share, from $23.19 per share on
August 12, 2019, to close at $13.89 per share on August 13, 2019
and dropped another 11%, to close at $12.35 per share in August 14,
2019.

City of Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement System purchased and
acquired Covetrus common stock and suffered damages as a result of
these disclosures. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven B. Singer, Esq.
      SAXENA WHITE PA
      10 Bank Street, 8th Floor
      White Plains, NY 10606
      Tel: (914) 437-8551
      Fax: (888) 631-3611
      Email: ssinger@saxenawhite.com

             - and -

      Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
      SAXENA WHITE PA
      150 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Tel: (561) 394-3399
      Fax: (561) 394-3382
      Email: jwhite@saxenawhite.com

             - and -

      David R. Kaplan, Esq.
      12750 High Bluff Drive, Suite 475
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Telephone: (858) 997-0860
      Facsimile: (858) 369-0096
      Email: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com

             - and -

      Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
      KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON
      7080 Northwest 4th Street
      Plantation, FL 33317
      Telephone: (954) 916-1202
      Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
      Email: bob@robertdklausner.com  


COVETRUS INC: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Covetrus,
Inc. (NASDAQ:CVET) for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
8, 2019 and August 12, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before November 29, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Covetrus overstated its skills and
abilities in inventory management and supply chain services. The
Company understated the costs associated with the integration of
Henry Schein's Animal Health Business and VFC. The Company also
downplayed the impact of online competition and alternate
distribution channels on earnings performance. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Covetrus, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

Contact:

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



CUYAHOGA, OH: Tarrify Sues over Tax Foreclosure Proceedings
-----------------------------------------------------------
TARRIFY PROPERTIES, LLC, and DENISE GUTTA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02293 (N.D.
Ohio, Oct. 1, 2019), contends that the County, acting within its
governmental capacity and under color of state law, terminated and
seized Plaintiffs' ownership interest in real estate under the
auspices of tax foreclosure proceedings authorized by R.C. 323.65,
et seq., but in doing so denied Plaintiffs and Class members their
constitutional right to just compensation.

The lawsuit contends that none of the property directly transferred
by Defendant pursuant to R.C. 323.78 was taken in time of war or
for any other public exigency imperatively requiring its immediate
seizure, or for the purpose of making or repairing roads.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiffs
and the Class have been damaged in the amount by which the value of
each property so transferred exceeded the total amount of the
impositions attributable to that property.

In 2006, the Ohio General Assembly enacted R.C. section 323.65, et
seq. which created an alternative means for county boards of
revision to foreclose on real property with outstanding property
tax liens if that real property is "abandoned," as defined by R.C.
323.65(A).

Unlike traditional tax foreclosure proceedings, a board of revision
tax foreclosure conducted pursuant to the Statute does not need to
be instituted in court and is instead conducted by the board of
revision itself. R.C. 323.66.

Denise Gutta is a natural person who owned property located in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

The County is a body politic and corporate organized pursuant to,
and possessed of such powers, rights, and privileges as are granted
by the Charter of Cuyahoga County and the general law of the State
of Ohio.

The Cuyahoga County Board of Revision is an administrative board of
the County, originally created pursuant to R.C. 5715.01(B) and
Section 6.02 of the Cuyahoga County Charter to hear complaints and
revise assessments of real property for taxation. Under the
Charter, the members of the Board of Revision are (1) the County
Executive, (2) the County executive's choice of either the county
fiscal office or county treasurer, and (3) a member of the county
council.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class are:

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Brian D. Flick, Esq.
          Emily White, Esq.
          DANN LAW
          P.O. Box. 6031040
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Gruenspan, Esq.
          CHARLES GRUENSPAN CO., LPA
          601 Commerce Park Square Four
          23240 Chagrin Blvd.
          Cleveland, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 595-6300
          Facsimile: (216) 595-6307
          E-mail: cgruenspanlpa@gmail.com

               - and -

          Andrew M. Engel, Esq.
          ANDREW M. ENGEL CO., LPA
          7925 Paragon Road
          Dayton, OH 45459
          Telephone: (937) 221-9819
          Facsimile: (937) 433-1510
          E-mail: aengel@amengellaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          E-mail: www.attorneyzim.com
                  firm@attorneyzim.com


DAVID BRIAN BAILEY: Blair Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashleigh Blair, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. David Brian Bailey, Bob Martin, Inc.,
Bailey Food and Beverage Group, LLC, CDBM Redlands, LLC, Doe
Managers 1-3 and Does 4-100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-01849 (C.D. Cal., September 27, 2019), seeks to recover
minimum and applicable overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants operate adult entertainment clubs under the name "The
Library Gentlemen's Club," where Blair worked as an exotic dancer.
She claims that she worked in excess of forty hours per week yet
did not receive overtime pay and only was only compensated in the
form of tips from club patrons. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John P. Kristensen, Esq.
      Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
      Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
      KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
      12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
      Los Angeles, CA 90066
      Telephone: (310) 507-7924
      Fax: (310) 507-7906
      Email: john@kristensenlaw.com
             jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
             jacob@kristensenlaw.com


DELTA DENTAL: Faces Simon and Simon Anti-trust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
SIMON AND SIMON, PC d/b/a CITY SMILES, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DELTA DENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANY; DELTACARE USA; DELTA USA INC.; DELTA DENTAL
PLANS ASSOCIATION; DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY ALABAMA; DELTA
DENTAL OF ALASKA; DELTA DENTAL OF ARIZONA; DELTA DENTAL OF
ARKANSAS; DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA; DELTA DENTAL OF COLORADO;
DELTA DENTAL OF CONNECTICUT; DELTA DENTAL OF DELAWARE; DELTA DENTAL
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; DELTA DENTAL OF FLORIDA; DELTA DENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANY GEORGIA; HAWAII DENTAL SERVICE; DELTA DENTAL OF
IDAHO; DELTA DENTAL OF ILLINOIS; DELTA DENTAL OF INDIANA; DELTA
DENTAL OF IOWA; DELTA DENTAL OF KANSAS; DELTA DENTAL OF KENTUCKY;
DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY–LOUISIANA; DELTA DENTAL OF
MARYLAND; DELTA DENTAL OF MASSACHUSETTS; DELTA DENTAL OF MICHIGAN;
DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA; DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY–MISSISSIPPI; DELTA DENTAL OF MISSOURI; DELTA DENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANY–MONTANA; DELTA DENTAL OF NEBRASKA; DELTA DENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANY–NEVADA; DELTA DENTAL OF NEW JERSEY; DELTA
DENTAL OF NEW MEXICO; DELTA DENTAL OF NEW YORK; DELTA DENTAL OF
NORTH CAROLINA; DELTA DENTAL OF NORTH DAKOTA; NORTHEAST DELTA
DENTAL (OF MAINE, NEW HAMPSHIRE AND VERMONT); DELTA DENTAL OF OHIO;
DELTA DENTAL OF OKLAHOMA; DELTA DENTAL OF OREGON; DELTA DENTAL OF
PENNSYLVANIA; DELTA DENTAL OF PUERTO RICO; DELTA DENTAL OF RHODE
ISLAND; DELTA DENTAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA; DELTA DENTAL OF SOUTH
DAKOTA; DELTA DENTAL OF TENNESSEE; DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY– TEXAS; DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY–UTAH; DELTA
DENTAL OF VIRGINIA; DELTA DENTAL OF WASHINGTON; DELTA DENTAL OF
WEST VIRGINIA; DELTA DENTAL OF WISCONSIN; AND DELTA DENTAL OF
WYOMING, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06776 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 14,
2019) is an action against the nation's dominant dental insurer,
Delta Dental.

Plaintiff alleges that the Delta State Plans engaged in a market
division conspiracy by dividing the U.S. dental insurance market
into 39 territories and setting forth that within each Delta State
Plan's territory, which is usually one state but in some cases
encompasses multiple states, other Delta State Plans will not
compete (the Market Division Conspiracy). This has reatly reduced
or effectively eliminated competition in state-level markets for
dental insurance. The Delta State Plans also conspired to fix and
reduce the reimbursement rates that they pay to Delta Practices for
services performed for Delta Patients (the Reimbursement Reduction
Conspiracy). Given that the market division conspiracy has resulted
in greatly reduced competition within each territory, the Delta
State Plans are able to abuse their market power in order to force
Delta Practices to accept these lower reimbursement rates, because
such a large fraction of actual and potential patients have Delta
insurance, so that a practice cannot practically refuse to accept
Delta Patients, notes the complaint.

The complaint relates that Delta DPA, which coordinates the Delta
State Plans and receives its funding from them, also functions as a
mechanism for operating the Market Division Conspiracy and
Reimbursement Reduction Conspiracy. Each Delta State Plan has to
sign a contract with the Delta DPA that governs its activities. The
Delta Plan Contract requires the Delta State Plans to limit their
income from non-Delta insurance plans (Non-Delta Limit Conspiracy).
This ensures that Delta State Plans can't create non-Delta
insurance plans that would compete effectively with Delta State
Plans in other territories (in addition to not being able to have
their Delta plans compete outside of their own territories). This
further enables the Reimbursement Reduction Conspiracy.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Market Division Conspiracy,
Reimbursement Reduction Conspiracy, and Non-Delta Limit Conspiracy
have greatly reduced state-level competition in the dental
insurance market, and also have resulted in lower reimbursement
rates for Delta Practices and higher premiums and worse coverage
for Delta Patients. Without the Market Division Conspiracy,
Reimbursement Reduction Conspiracy, and Non-Delta Limit Conspiracy,
Delta State Plans would actively seek to sell insurance across
state lines and territory lines, and would compete for patients and
providers, and that competition would result in higher
reimbursements for Delta Practices, and better coverage and lower
premiums for Delta Patients.

Delta's actions in the Market Division Conspiracy, Reimbursement
Reduction Conspiracy, and Non-Delta Limit Conspiracy are actionable
violations of the federal antitrust laws, asserts the complaint.
Plaintiff seeks treble damages and injunctive relief, demanding a
trial by jury of all issues so triable, under Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act, and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act.

Plaintiff Simon and Simon, PC d/b/a City Smiles, is a dental
practice located in Chicago, IL that serves Delta Patients as an
in-network provider for Delta Dental of Illinois.

Delta Dental Plans Association (Delta DPA) is an Illinois
non-profit corporation based in Oak Brook, IL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     April D. Lambert, Esq.
     John Radice, Esq.
     Daniel Rubenstein, Esq.
     RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
     475 Wall Street
     Princeton, NJ 08540
     Phone: (646) 245-8502
     Fax: (609) 385-0745
     Email: alambert@radicelawfirm.com
            jradice@radicelawfirm.com
            drubenstein@radicelawfirm.com


DESIGNER BRANDS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Austin Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE R. AUSTIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DESIGNER BRANDS INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-08187 (C.D.
Cal., Sept. 20, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
making unsolicited calls.

Designer Brands Inc. designs, produces, and retails footwear and
accessories. The Company offers shoes, boots, sandals, sneakers,
socks, handbags, and accessories. Designer Brands serves customers
in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Wilens, Esq.
          LAKESHORE LAW CENTER
          18340 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 107-610
          Yorba Linda, CA 92886
          Telephone: (714) 854-7205
          Facsimile: (714) 854-7206
          E-mail: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org

               - and -

          Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq.
          THE SPENCER LAW FIRM
          2 Venture, Suite 220
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 240-8595
          Facsimile: (949) 377-3272
          E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net


DIRECTIONAL PROJECT: Dudley Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL DUDLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECTIONAL PROJECT SUPPORT, INC., and
WILLIAM GARDNER, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00984
(D.N.M., Oct. 18, 2019), is brought to recover overtime
compensation from their former employers, the Defendants.

The Defendants employ workers to help perform non-exempt oilfield
services, but fail to provide them proper overtime pay, the
Plaintiff alleges, citing violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff routinely
worked over 40 hours per week. In fact, he was often required to
work in excess of 70 hours in weeks covered by this lawsuit and for
the Defendants. However, he was not paid overtime for doing so. The
Defendants knew that the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per
week and they allowed and directed him to do so.

The Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to receive overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 per work week and lawful
minimum wage.  He notes that the Defendants are aware of the FLSA's
requirements and chose not to pay him lawfully. The Defendants
willfully treated the Plaintiff as exempt from the FLSA and refused
to pay him overtime pay and in accordance with the law, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was one of the Defendants' numerous frontline field
employees, who primarily performed manual labor tasks, including in
and around the Defendants' job sites outside in various oilfields.

DPS is a horizontal directional drilling business and does business
throughout New Mexico and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
          E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bonoan Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
VIANN BONOAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06286 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 20, 2019) seeks
to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Discover Financial Services operates as a credit card issuer and
electronic payment services company. The Company issues credit
cards and offers student and personal loans, as well as savings
products such as certificates of deposit and money market accounts.
Discover Financial Services manages automated teller machine
networks. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

         Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
         GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
         401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
         Austin, TX 78701
         Telephone: (512) 803-1578
         Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
         E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


DRILLING FLUID: West Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
JESSIE WEST, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. DRILLING FLUID SOLUTIONS, L.L.C. d/b/a
DRILLING FS, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00235 (W.D. Tex.,
Oct. 14, 2019) is a collective action and lawsuit on behalf of
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees to recover
unpaid overtime wages from Defendants under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Drilling Fluid Solutions violated the FLSA by employing West 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." Drilling Fluid Solutions violated the FLSA by failing to
maintain accurate time and pay records for West and other similarly
situated nonexempt employees as required by the FLSA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff West was employed by Drilling Fluid Solutions as a sit
hand from June 2018 to March 2019. In March 2019, he was employed
with Drilling Fluid Solutions as a Field Supervisor and continued
in that position until September 2019.

Drilling Fluid Solutions is an oilfield services company
specializing in drilling fluid services for oil and gas drilling
operations.[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


DROPBOX INC: Faces Deinnocentis Suit Alleging IPO-Related Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON MICHAEL DEINNOCENTIS, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. DROPBOX, INC., ANDREW W. HOUSTON, AJAY
V. VASHEE, TIMOTHY J. REGAN, ARASH FERDOWSI, ROBERT J. MYLOD, JR.,
DONALD W. BLAIR, PAUL E. JACOBS, CONDOLEEZZA RICE, R. BRYAN
SCHREIER, MARGARET C. WHITMAN, SEQUOIA CAPITAL XII, L.P., SEQUOIA
CAPITAL XII PRINCIPALS FUND, LLC, SEQUOIA TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS XII,
L.P., and SC XII MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-06348-BLF (N.D.
Cal., Oct. 4, 2019), is brought on behalf of those who purchased
Dropbox Class A common stock pursuant or traceable to the
registration statement issued in connection with the Company's
March 23, 2018 initial public offering, like the Plaintiff,
asserting claims for damages under the Securities Act of 1933.

Dropbox is most known for its eponymous file-sharing service.
Dropbox allows users to store and share files over the Internet.
Customers can upload photos, videos and other files from cameras,
tablets, SD cards or smart phones using the Company's platform.  As
of December 31, 2017, Dropbox had accumulated over 500 million
registered users, making it one of the largest dedicated
file-sharing providers in the world.

The Plaintiff alleges that certain statements that were filed as
part of the Registration Statement were materially false and
misleading at the time of the IPO, because, as was demonstrated
internally by data analytics employed by the Company at the time of
the IPO, the Company had materially overstated its ability to
monetize its user base.  In addition, the Registration Statement
highlighted the rapid pace of Dropbox's revenue growth leading up
to the IPO, while failing to disclose worsening revenue trends that
were negatively impacting the Company at the time of the IPO and
the operational and competitive headwinds causing these trends,
according to the complaint.

On August 27, 2019, Dropbox stock closed at $17.53 per share,
representing a decline of more than 16% from the IPO price.
Shockingly, the Plaintiff asserts, in connection with its second
quarter 2019 earnings report, Dropbox claimed to have "more than
500 million registered users" as of June 2019, indicating that the
Company had experienced essentially no significant registered user
growth since December 31, 2017--months prior to the IPO.

Dropbox is a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices
located in San Francisco, California.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.

The Sequoia Capital Defendants are related entities that are part
of the Sequoia Capital venture capital firm located in Menlo Park,
California.  The Sequoia Capital Defendants were early investors in
Dropbox and are controlling persons of Dropbox due to their large
equity stake in the Company, certain shareholder agreements that
they have entered into with the Company, and their influence over
the Board of Directors, including through their representation on
the Board by Defendant Schreier, a Sequoia Capital partner.  Before
and after the IPO, the Sequoia Capital Defendants controlled 25% of
Dropbox.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ, LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


DUTCH GOLD: Faces Wolfe Suit in Eastern District of Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dutch Gold Honey,
Inc. The case is captioned as DANA WOLFE, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND
ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. DUTCH GOLD HONEY,
INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, and TRUE SOURCE HONEY, LLC, A
FOREIGN CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-04562-EGS
(E.D. Pa., Oct. 1, 2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Edward
G. Smith.

For over 70 years, Dutch Gold Honey, Inc., a family-owned and
operated company from Lancaster, Pa., has focused on providing
honey to its customers.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Mark C. Cavanaugh, Esq.
          DUGAN, BRINKMANN, MAGINNIS AND PACE
          1880 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          E-mail: mccavanaugh@dbmplaw.com

ELDORADO RESORTS: Rosen Reminds Investors of Nov. 22 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Eldorado Resorts, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ERI) from March 1, 2019 through September 2, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period") of the important November 22, 2019 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action commenced by the firm. The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Eldorado investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Eldorado class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1666.html or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) several of the Company's executive officers, including
CEO Thomas Reeg, engaged in improper trading with respect to the
securities of another publicly-traded company; and (2) as a result,
Defendants' statements about Eldorado's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
22, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1666.html or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact:

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



EPSON AMERICA: Sued by Mondigo for Disabling Printers Via Updates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM MONDIGO and RICHARD FAMIGLIETTI, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EPSON AMERICA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02009-BEN-BGS (S.D. Cal., Oct.
18, 2019), seeks redress on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased an Epson Printer and suffered harm as result of Epson's
anti-competitive, unfair, fraudulent, oppressive and illegal
conduct.

The Plaintiffs allege that Epson engaged, and continues to engage,
in a systematic campaign of disabling Epson printers when the owner
attempts to use non-Epson ink cartridges in an effort to improperly
and illegally quash competition from third-party manufacturers. To
carry out this scheme, Epson designed and delivered software and/or
firmware Updates to Epson printers that purposely disabled those
printers with non-Epson printer cartridges installed. For many
users, these software updates effectively ruined their printers.
For others, the updates forced them to purchase Epson ink
cartridges, which are significantly more expensive than third-party
cartridges. There is nothing inherently wrong with the third-party
ink cartridges that causes them to fail or that precludes their use
in Epson printers. Indeed, these cartridges function without issue
on Epson printers that do not have the Updates installed.

Epson never informed Epson printer owners that the Updates would
prevent their printers from working if they had third-party ink
cartridges installed, the Plaintiffs contend. To the contrary, the
Epson Software License informs consumers that the software and/or
firmware Updates will improve the printers and fix known issues.
Epson's actions violate the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and
California Computer Penal Code (Unauthorized access to computers,
computer systems and computer data), says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased and own an Epson WorkForce WF-3640
All-in-One Printer and an Epson XP-830 Small-in-One printer.

Epson America, Inc. sells and markets Epson printers in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edwin J. Kipela, Esq.
          (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq.
          Eric D. Zard, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-762-1903
          Facsimile: 619-756-6991
          E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
                  ekim@carlsonlynch.com
                  ezard@carlsonlynch.com


EQUESTRIAN SPORT: Stachurski Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE STACHURSKI, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. EQUESTRIAN SPORT PRODUCTIONS, LLC, and MARK
J. BELLISSIMO, individually, Defendants, Case No.
9:19-cv-81394-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 14, 2019) is an action for
unpaid overtime compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants have violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff
and those similarly situated employees time and one-half of their
respective hourly rates for overtime hours worked. Plaintiff worked
in excess of 40 hours during one or more work weeks during the
relevant time periods but did not receive pay at one and one-half
times his regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants in the capacity of a technician
from approximately January 2018 through July 2019.

EQUESTRIAN SPORT PRODUCTIONS, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability
Company doing business in Palm Beach County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gary A. Isaacs, Esq.
     Gary A. Isaacs, P.A.
     712 U.S. Highway One, Suite 400
     North Palm Beach, FL 33401
     Phone: (561) 844-3600
     Email: gai@fcohenlaw.com


EZRIRX LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barths Pharmacy Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
BARTHS PHARMACY INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EZRIRX, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-18201 (D.N.J., Sept. 23, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

EzriRx LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. The Company's
pharmacy marketplace allows pharmacies to compare drug prices
offered by many suppliers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew N. Fiorovanti, Esq.
          Michael J. Canning, Esq.
          GIORDANO HALLERAN & CIESLA
          125 Half Mile Road, Suite 300
          Red Bank, New Jersey 07701-6777
          Telephone: (732) 741-3900
          Facsimile: (732) 224-6599
          E-mail: mcanning@ghclaw.com
                  mfiorovanti@ghclaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


FAIRLIFE, LLC: Abowd Sues over Mislabeled Milk Products
-------------------------------------------------------
CHELSEA ABOWD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. FAIRLIFE, LLC; MIKE McCLOSKEY; and SUE
McCLOSKEY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04009-TWP-DLP (S.D. Ind.,
Sept. 24, 2019) alleges that the Defendants misrepresented the
label of their milk products to be sourced from cows that are
treated with extraordinary care.

Defendants make an explicit "promise," in large bold lettering on
all material labels of the milk products, that they provide
"extraordinary animal care" (on the 11.5 once labels) or
"extraordinary care and comfort for our cows" (on the 1.5 Liter
labels). The "promise" is signed on the milk products' labels by
Defendants Mike McCloskey and Sue McCloskey. However, the
Defendants' "promise" is a sham. The Defendants' calves and cows do
not receive "extraordinary care," but are instead methodically
abused and ill-treated while they are present at the "flagship farm
in Indiana".

The Defendants exploited consumer desire for dairy products
originating from farms that ensure increased levels of animal
well-being by making their representations a central premise in
their labeling strategy, in order to charge inflated prices and
increase unit sales of their milk products.

Fairlife, LLC is a brand of ultrafiltered milk distributed in
Canada and the United States by The Coca-Cola Company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan R. Frasher, Esq.
          3209 W. Smith Valley Road, Suite 253
          Greenwood, IN 46142
          Telephone: (317) 300-8844
          Facsimile: (317) 218-4501
          E-mail: rfrasher@frasherlaw.com


FARMERS INSURANCE: Herzog Sues over Illegal Service Charge
----------------------------------------------------------
LYNNE HERZOG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, the Defendant,
Case No. 7:19-cv-09097-NSR (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2019), alleges that
Defendant charges a $5 fee -- which it calls a "Service Charge" --
for its customers to receive a paper billing statement and/or pay
by United States mail, in direct violation of New York law.

Indeed, a portion of Defendant's website states "In addition to the
convenience of receiving bills and billing reminders by email,
enrolling in Paperless Billing may also reduce or eliminate service
charges. Defendant's conduct is prohibited by New York General
Business Law ("GBL"), and therefore constitutes a deceptive act and
practice under GBL section 349.
.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this putative class action on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated New York
residents and former residents, and seeks compensatory damages from
Defendant.

Lynne Herzog is a citizen of New York who resides in Beacon, New
York. For many years, Ms. Herzog has had insurance accounts with
Defendant, and since at least 2016, Defendant has charged Ms.
Herzog a fee to receive a paper billing statement and/or pay by
United States mail, which Ms. Herzog has paid.

Farmers Insurance Group is a provider of automobile, homeowners,
renters, and life insurance in the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
                  fklorczyk@bursor.com

FCA US: Class of Vehicle Owners Certified in Victorino Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel grants the Plaintiff's renewed motion
for class certification in the lawsuit styled CARLOS VICTORINO and
ADAM TAVITIAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 3:16-cv-01617-GPC-JLB (S.D. Cal.).

According to the Order, the renewed motion for class certification
was filed after the stay in the case was lifted when the Ninth
Circuit issued its decision in Nguyen v. Nissan North Am., Inc.,
932 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2019).

The certified Class consists of:

     All persons who purchased or leased in California, from an
     authorized dealership, a new Class Vehicle primarily for
     personal, family, or household purposes.

Because the Court grants class certification, the Court appoints
Plaintiff Carlos Victorino as the Class Representative.  The Court
also appoints Capstone Law APC as Class Counsel.

Plaintiff Carlos Victorino filed this putative first amended class
action complaint (FAC) based on defects in the 2013-2016 Dodge Dart
vehicles equipped with a Fiat C635 manual transmission that cause
his vehicle's clutch to fail and stick to the floor.  Defendant FCA
US LLC is the manufacturer of his vehicle.  The FAC alleges five
causes of action: for violations of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, California's unfair competition law, a state law
breach of implied warranty pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act, a federal law breach of implied warranty pursuant to
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and unjust enrichment.[CC]


FEDEX CORP: Farrell Seeks OT Pay for Package Handlers
-----------------------------------------------------
SIRKERRA FARRELL, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FEDEX CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case
No. MID-L-006789-19 (N.J. Super, Oct. 1, 2019), seeks to redress
Defendant's violations of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

THe Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to pay her and other
similarly situated individuals at least one and one-half times
their regular rates for all hours worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek due to Defendant's policy of not including time spent in
security screenings as hours worked.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons presently
and formerly employed by Defendant as package handlers and/or
non-exempt hourly positions who worked in one of Defendant's New
Jersey distribution centers and were subject to the wage and hour
policies of Defendant at any point during the time period from two
years preceding the date the action was initiated through the
present.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a package handler.

FedEx is an American multinational courier delivery services
company headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

FEIZ ELECTRIC: Khalifehzadeth Sues Over Improper Minimum/OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FARAMARZ KHALIFEHZADETH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FEIZ ELECTRIC, a California corporation;
R.A.G. ELECTRIC, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV35562 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Oct. 4, 2019), alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a
systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California
Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders by, among
other things, failing to pay proper minimum and overtime wages.

The Defendants were and are employers as defined in and subject to
the Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, whose employees, including the
Plaintiff, were and are engaged throughout this county and the
State of California.  The Plaintiff is unaware of the true names or
capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Defendants are a licensed electrical contracting company that
provides electrical services throughout California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          Ali S. Carlsen, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          E-mail: khaque@aegislawfirm.com
                  swong@aegislawfirm.com
                  jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
                  acarlsen@aegislawfirm.com


FORD MOTOR: Collins Sues Over Trucks' Faulty Tire Valves & Wheels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES COLLINS and KEN NEWMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01983-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 18, 2019),
arises from the defective design and manufacture of the tire valve
stems and wheels of 2017 and 2018 Ford F-350 trucks and their
variants that are equipped with aluminum alloy wheels.

The lawsuit is brought for common law warranty claims and claims
under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and the Pennsylvania Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

The Firestone tire recall in the late 1990s, which was linked to
more than 100 deaths from rollovers following tire
tread-separation, prompted the United States Congress to enact
legislation mandating the use of Tire Pressure Monitoring System
("TPMS") technology in all light motor vehicles (under 10,000
pounds) to help alert drivers of under-inflation events. This
legislation mandated that by 2008 all new passenger car models must
be equipped with a TPMS. Every wheel of the Class Vehicles has a
valve stem which is affixed to a TPMS sensor and which is the point
at which pressurized air may be added into the tire. The tire valve
stems of the Class Vehicles are made of a steel alloy while the
wheels of the Class Vehicles are made of an aluminum alloy. The
contact between the steel valve stem and the aluminum wheel causes
galvanic corrosion at the point of contact which corrodes the
aluminum. This corrosion causes leaks, thereby, causing the tires
to continuously lose air pressure.

Low tire pressure caused by the Defect adversely affects the Class
Vehicles' fuel economy, tire longevity, vehicle handling, and
safety of the passengers and others. An instantaneous tire
deflation or blowout can cause drivers to lose control of their
vehicles. Low tire pressure is particularly harmful when using the
Class Vehicles to haul or tow heavy loads, which the Class Vehicles
are advertised as being capable of doing.

The Plaintiffs contend that their vehicles experienced the Defect,
forcing them to refill their tires frequently, often daily. The
Plaintiffs complained to a Ford dealership numerous times, but the
dealership did not remedy the root cause of the Defect and told
them that any repair would not be covered by the warranty. The
Plaintiffs have paid out of pocket for numerous repairs performed
by third-party mechanics. The Plaintiffs' wheels are still
discolored and corroded due to the original and replacement
defective steel valve stems.

By warranting, advertising, and selling the Class Vehicle with a
defective tire valve stem and wheel, Defendant engages in deceptive
and unfair trade practices and breaches the express and implied
warranties the Plaintiffs and the proposed Class members relied
upon in the purchase of the Class Vehicles. This case seeks
protection and relief for the purchasers of the Class Vehicles for
the harm they have suffered, and the safety risks they face, from
the Defendant's unfair, unlawful, and deceptive trade practices,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased and/or leased a 2017 or 2018 Ford F-350
equipped with aluminum wheels.

The Defendant designs, manufactures, advertises, distributes, and
sells vehicles throughout Delaware, the United States, and the
world, including the Class Vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 1401
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433

               - and -

          Daniel Levin, Esq.
          Nicholas Elia, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: 215-592-1500
          Facsimile: 215-592-4663
          E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com
                  nelia@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: 202-470-3520
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com


GEICO GENERAL: Interlocutory Appeal in Green Suit Refused
---------------------------------------------------------
In the appellate case GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
Appellant, v. YVONNE GREEN, WILMINGTON PAIN & REHABILITATION
CENTER, and REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES, P.A. on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Appellees, Case No.
389, 2019 (Del.), Judge Gary F. Traynor of the Supreme Court of
Delaware refused GEICO's application for certification of an
interlocutory appeal.

Plaintiffs Green, Wilmington Pain, and Rehabilitation Associates
filed a complaint, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, against GEICO.  The Plaintiffs alleged that GEICO used
two computerized models to deny valid personal injury protection
("PIP") claims of its insureds without evaluating the facts
underlying the claims.  They argued that the practice violated
Delaware law and the terms of GEICO's insurance policies.

After briefing and a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, the Delaware Superior certified a class for the
limited purpose of determining whether GEICO's use of the two
different models was a breach of contract or bad faith breach of
contract and to rule on a declaratory judgment, [Green v. GEICO
Gen. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 4039609, at *12 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 27,
2019)].  The Superior Court ruled that it would not determine
individual liability or damages.

On Sept. 5, 2019, GEICO filed an application for certification of
an interlocutory appeal.  GEICO argued that the Superior Court's
decision determined a substantial issue of material importance.  As
to the Rule 42(b)(iii) criteria, GEICO argued that the Superior
Court decision: (i) involved a question of law decided for the
first time in Delaware -- certification of a contested PIP class
action; (ii) conflicted with decisions of the Superior Court, the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; and (iii) related to the
construction and application 21 Del. C. Section 2118 and Superior
Court Civil Rule 23, which has not been settled, but should be,
before an appeal from a final order.  GEICO also contended that
review of the interlocutory order could terminate the litigation
and would serve the interests of justice.

The Plaintiffs opposed the application for certification, arguing
that GEICO's attacks on the Superior Court's analysis lacked merit
and that the Superior Court's decision did not involve a novel
question of law, did not conflict with other cases, and did not
relate to the unsettled construction of 21 Del. C. Section 2118 or
Rule 23.  Finally, Plaintiffs contended that interlocutory review
would not terminate the litigation or serve considerations of
justice.

On Sept. 23, 2019, the Superior Court granted the application for
certification.  It found that the class certification determined a
substantial issue.  As to the Rule 42(b)(iii) criteria, the
Superior Court concluded that the class certification arguably
related to the construction of a statute and that interlocutory
review could terminate the class portion of the litigation and
would serve the interests of justice.

In the exercise of the Supreme Court's discretion and despite the
Superior Court's granting of the application for certification,
Judge Traynor has concluded that the application for interlocutory
review does not meet the strict standards for certification under
Supreme Court Rule 42(b).  The case is not exceptional, review of
the order will not terminate the litigation, and the potential
benefits of interlocutory review do not outweigh the inefficiency,
disruption, and probable costs caused by an interlocutory appeal.
Therefore, the Supreme Court refused the interlocutory appeal.

A full-text copy of the Delaware Supreme Court's Sept. 24, 2019
Order is available at https://is.gd/TOsD3F from Leagle.com.


GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION: Certification of W-2 Technicians Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled RYAN GARY DENHAM, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC.
d/b/a AMERICA'S ALLIANCE d/b/a AMERICA'S CHOICE GARAGE DOOR
SERVICE; GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES, INC.; LEAD DRIVER, LLC;
EMPLOYEE RETENTION SERVICES, LLC; NEIGHBORHOOD GARAGE DOOR
SERVICES, INC.; PETER JAMES STEPHENS, JR.; JASON ROMSZEWSKI; and
KYOUNG LEE, Case No. 3:18-cv-01495-LAB-MDD (S.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff moves for conditional certification of collective action
and issuance of notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Denham asks the Court to conditionally certify a collective
action of similarly situated current and former non-exempt W-2
technicians, who worked for the Defendants in California and
Arizona between three years prior to an order granting this Motion
until the date the case is resolved pursuant to the FLSA and
Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989).

The Court will commence a hearing on November 18, 2019, at 11:30
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd Slobin, Esq.
          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net
                  rprieto@eeoc.net

               - and -

          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          402 West Broadway, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605
          E-mail: marbuckle@eeoc.net

               - and -

          Victoria Sherlin, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          11440 West Bernardo Court, Suite 265
          San Diego, CA 92127
          Telephone: (858) 251-7424
          Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
          E-mail: tsherlin@baronbudd.com


GLOBAL RADAR: Sanders Seeks Final Approval of $3.65MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned SHAWANA SANDERS and
KENYATTA WILLIAMS on their own behalf and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals v. GLOBAL RADAR ACQUISITION, LLC
d/b/a GLOBAL HR RESEARCH, a foreign for-profit corporation, f/k/a
RADAR POST-CLOSING HOLDING COMPANY, INC., f/k/a GLOBAL HR RESEARCH,
INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00555-UA-NPM (M.D. Fla.), move the Court for
final approval of the parties' class action settlement.

The principal terms of the Class Settlement Agreement and Release
that the Court previously approved are:

   -- Certification, for settlement purposes only, of a Class of
      all natural persons residing in the United States, any U.S.
      territory, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico who
      were the subject of a consumer report furnished by Global
      HR for employment purposes to a client of A1 HR, Continuum,
      or Accesspoint between July 11, 2013 and January 11, 2019.
      While Defendants originally estimated the Settlement Class
      to number 20,878, the Settlement Administrator has
      confirmed that after receiving the Class List from
      Defendants, the Settlement Class consists of approximately
      18,931 consumers;

   -- Defendant agrees to establish a gross settlement fund in
      the amount of $3,653,650, none of which will revert to
      Defendant except to potentially repay costs of settlement
      administration;

   -- Every Settlement Class member will be paid a pro rata
      portion of the net settlement fund without having to file a
      claim.  The Parties originally estimated each Class Member
      would receive a payment of approximately $117.50, without
      further reduction for attorneys' fees or administration
      costs.  With the revised, lower Class composition of
      18,931, Class Members will receive more--approximately
      $129.25;

   -- Payment from the settlement fund of an attorneys' fees and
      costs award, if approved by the Court, not to exceed
      thirty-three percent of the gross settlement fund;

   -- Defendant will separately pay costs of associated with
      administration of the settlement, estimated to be
      seventy-five-thousand dollars ($75,000).  Before any
      unclaimed funds are distributed to Court-approved cy pres
      recipients, Defendant may recoup these costs up to $75,000;
      and

   -- Payment from the settlement fund of service awards of
      $5,000 to each of the Named Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court for final certification of the
Class, the confirmation of their appointment as Settlement Class
Representatives and their attorneys as Settlement Class Counsel,
and the granting of the proposed awards of attorneys' fees and
costs under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant
willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act relating to its
provision of consumer reports (commonly known as background checks)
for employment purposes.  Section 1681b(b)(1) of the FCRA requires
that consumer reporting agencies ("CRAs") like the Defendant obtain
from their customers certifications of compliance with 15 U.S.C.
Sections 1681b(b)(2) and (b)(3) before the CRA may issue a
background check.  The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant failed to
meet this requirement for multiple employers, causing violations of
the FCRA with each report sold not only for the Plaintiffs, but for
thousands of members of a putative class.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: craig@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
          E-mail: medelman@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 33802
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: Rmorgan@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Andrew Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: 954-workers
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: Afrisch@forthepeople.com


HEARTHSIDE FOOD: McVay Sues Over Improper Wages
-----------------------------------------------
Tanisha McVay, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Hearthside Food Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-02389 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 1, 2019) is a complaint against
Hearthside Food Solutions, LLC for its failure to pay employees
overtime wages.  Plaintiff seeks all available relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Defendant is a food manufacturer and employs thousands of similarly
situated employees throughout the United States operating in excess
of 30 production facilities throughout Illinois, California,
Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.
Plaintiff McVay worked as a packer from approximately February 2015
until October 16, 2017.

Plaintiff asserts that he was not fully and properly paid in
accordance with the minimum requirements of the FLSA for all of her
compensable hours worked because Defendant did not properly
calculate overtime based on their regular rate of pay, as defined
by the FLSA, but instead calculated overtime based on their hourly
rate of pay, resulting in unpaid overtime wages for the three years
preceding the filing date of this Complaint and continuing until
trial.

Specifically, when Defendant paid Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees both their Base Hourly Wage and Additional
Remuneration, Defendant failed to properly calculate their
employees' regular rate of pay during workweeks when they worked
over 40 hours in one or more workweeks for the purposes of overtime
pay because Defendant did not include the Additional Remuneration
in its regular rate calculations for overtime wages. Consequently,
Defendant failed to properly compensate Named Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees the overtime wages they were due in
accordance with the minimum requirements of the FLSA, says the
complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
     Coffman Legal, LLC
     1550 Old Henderson Road, Ste. 126
     Columbus, OH 43220
     Phone: 614-949-1181
     Fax: 614-386-9964
     Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

          - and -

     Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
     BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
     1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
     Columbus, OH 43220
     Phone: (614) 704-0546
     Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
     Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com


HENRY THAYER: Lisowski Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HENRY THAYER COMPANY,
INC. The case is styled as CHRISTOPHER LISOWSKI individually and
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HENRY THAYER
COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01339-MJH (W.D. Pa.,
Oct. 18, 2019).

HENRY THAYER COMPANY, INC. is the second oldest manufacturing
company in the United States. The company manufactures THAYERS
Slippery Elm Lozenges, THAYERS non-distilled organic Witch Hazel
Astringent and Alcohol-Free Witch Hazel Toners, and Dry Mouth
Sprays. All vegan and all natural.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
     The Keeton Firm LLC
     100 S Commons, Ste 102
     Pittsburgh, PA 15212
     Phone: (443) 735-6750
     Email: efiling@keetonfirm.com


HUMMINGBIRD FUNDS: Violates Alabama Usury Laws, Easley Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
LILLIAN EASLEY and all others similarly situated v. HUMMINGBIRD
FUNDS, D/B/A BLUE TRUST LOANS; JOSEPH WILDCAT, SR.; NICOLE
CHAPMAN-REYNOLDS; EDMUND PETERSON; CHRIS SOULIER; PATRICIA MARQUEZ;
PHILLIP CHAPMAN, JR.; DAROLD LONDO; RANDY SOULIER; MELISSA DOUD;
JESSI PHILLIPS LORENZO; & JUANITA HUGULEY A/K/A JUANITA
GEORGE-HUGULEY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00740 (S.D. Ala., Oct. 4, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants operate an illegal scheme hiding behind
the facade of Native American tribes while they openly violate the
usury laws of Alabama and other states.

According to the Plaintiff, operating solely online and, therefore,
available to anyone in Alabama or the United States with a computer
and a bank account, Hummingbird Funds made a loan to her on March
26, 2019, with the principal amount of $600 and an annual interest
rate of 609.72 per cent.  

The Plaintiff files this Class Action Complaint alleging violations
of the Alabama Small Loan Act and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

Hummingbird Funds, doing business as Blue Trust Loans, is an
Internet lender with a principal place of business in Hayward,
Wisconsin.  Blue Trust purports to be an entity organized under the
laws of the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Indians.

Joseph Wildcat, Sr., is a citizen of Wisconsin employed as
president of the Lac Du Flambeau Tribe of Lake Superior Chippewa
Indians ("the LDF Tribe"), in Lac du Flambeau Wisconsin.  Nicole
Chapman-Reynolds is a citizen of Wisconsin employed as president of
the board of directors of the Lac Du Flambeau Business Development
Corporation ("LDF BDC"), in Lac Du Flambeau, Wisconsin.  Juanita
Huguley a/k/a Juanita George-Huguley is a citizen of Wisconsin
employed as operations director of LDF Holdings, LLC ("LDF
Holdings").

The other Individual Defendants are citizens of Wisconsin and are
officers, employees or directors of the LDF BDC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Earl P. Underwood, Jr., Esq.
          UNDERWOOD & RIEMER, P.C.
          21 S. Section Street
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Telephone: (251) 990-5558
          Facsimile: (251) 990-0626
          E-mail: epunderwood@alalaw.com

               - and -

          Steven P. Gregory, Esq.
          GREGORY LAW FIRM, P.C
          2700 Corporate Drive, Suite 200
          Birmingham, AL 35242
          Telephone (205) 799-0380
          E-mail: steve@gregorylawfirm.us


HUNGRY MAN INC: Castaneda Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Agustin Castaneda, individually, and on behalf
of others similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff, v. Hungry
Man, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19STCV26637 (Cal. Super., July 31,
2019), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in September 30, 2019 under Case No.
19-cv-08441.

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

Castaneda is represented by:

     Dale Alan Harris, Esq.
     Lin Zhan, Esq.
     Min Ji Gal, Esq.
     HARRIS & RUBLE
     655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor
     Glendale CA 91203
     Tel: (323) 962-3777
     Fax: (323) 962-3004
     Email: aharris@harrisandruble.com
            mgal@harrisandruble.com
            lzhan@harrisandruble.com

Hungry Man is represented by:

      Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
      Cameron J. Davila, Esq.
      Tim L. Johnson, Esq.
      OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
      4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
      San Diego, CA 92122
      Telephone: (858) 652-3100
      Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
      Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
             cameron.davila@ogletree.com
             tim.johnson@ogletree.com


ILLINOIS: District Court Narrows Claims in Stewart's IDOC Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAVAR STEWART, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JACQUELINE LASHBROOK,
MICHAEL D. SCOTT, KIMBERLY FERRARI, WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
SALVADOR GODINEZ, and LOUIS SHICKER, Defendants, Case No.
3:16-CV-1321-NJR-MAB (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (i)
granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss; (ii) denied Wexford's
alternative Motion to Strike; and (iii) dismissed without prejudice
Count 5.

The matter is before the Illinois District Court on the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty, which recommends
the Illinois Court deny the partial motions to dismiss filed by
Defendants Jaqueline Lashbrook, Salvador Godinez, and Louis Shicker
("IDOC Defendants"), and Defendants Wexford Health Sources, Inc.,
Kimberly Ferrari, and Michael D. Scott ("Wexford Defendants").  The
Defendants timely objected to the Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff Stewart filed a response to those objections.

Stewart, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
("IDOC"), filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 for claims arising from allegedly delayed medical treatment
for a knee injury.  He was subsequently appointed counsel, who
filed an Amended Complaint, adding several Defendants and asserting
a putative class action.

Stewart's Amended Complaint was divided into five counts:

Count 1: Claim for alleged violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Jacqueline Lashbrook;

Count 2: Claim for alleged violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Kimberly Ferrari;

Count 3: Claim for alleged violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Michael Scott

Count 4: Claim for alleged violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Wexford

Count 5: Claim for alleged violation of the putative class members'
rights under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Wexford and
the State Defendants.

Stewart's Amended Complaint, specifically Count 5, indicates that
he will seek to move for class status to represent all inmates who
are or will be under the direct care and medical supervision of the
named Defendants and subjected to the policies and practices in the
provision of medical care.

The Defendants now seek dismissal of Count 5 pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.  Alternatively, they seek to strike
Count 5 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).  More
specifically, the Defendants argue Count 5 should be dismissed
because the members of Stewart's proposed class are already part
of, and thus bound by, an "essentially identical" certified class
in Lippert, et al. v. Baldwin, et al., pending in the Northern
District of Illinois (Case No. 10-cv-4603).  The Rule 23(b)(2)
class in Lippert has been certified as representing all prisoners
in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC)
requiring medical care and treatment while incarcerated.

Stewart's Amended Complaint claims that the lack of adequate care
from the IDOC Defendants and Wexford Defendants has exposed all
inmates to substantial risk of harm in violation of the Eighth
Amendment.  Specific to Count 5, Stewart asserts, on behalf of the
putative class, that the Defendants failed to provide: (1) adequate
staffing on weekends and holidays; (2) health care providers
possessing the requisite education, training, and experience; (3)
prompt referrals for off-site medical care; and (4) timely
emergency treatment.  Stewart prayed for a mandatory injunction
requiring the Wexford Defendants and the IDOC Defendants to submit
and implement a plan describing the measures they will take to
provide constitutionally-adequate care and services.

The Lippert class action also alleges that the health care provided
to incarcerated individuals in the IDOC violates Eighth Amendment
constitutional standards.  Specifically, the Lippert class
identifies nine IDOC policies and practices that put the class at a
substantial risk of harm, in pertinent part: (1) failing to fill
medical leadership and other medical staff vacancies; (2)
permitting under-qualified medical professionals to treat
prisoners; (3) failing to timely identify medical problems at
reception and intrasystem transfer; and (6) delaying and denying
specialty care.  The Lippert class prayed for injunctive relief
barring unconstitutional practices and requiring the IDOC to submit
and implement a plan to address these violations.

On June 12, 2019, Magistrate Judge Beatty entered a Report and
Recommendation that recommends the Court deny the Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss.  He was unpersuaded by the Defendants' argument
that the putative class action proposed in Count 5 is duplicative
of the Lippert class, concluding that there were substantial
differences between each class action.  In particular, Magistrate
Judge Beatty concluded that each action was: not filed by the same
Plaintiff; not filed in the same district court; did not include
the same defendants; and did not involve the same issues.  In
short, he concluded that the outcome in Lippert would not likely
remedy the allegations of systemically-flawed staffing schedules of
the IDOC which the class addresses.

The IDOC Defendants filed a timely objection, exhibiting the
Consent Decree from the Lippert case, and arguing that Lippert
requires dismissal of Count 5 because the claims are covered and
duplicative relief is sought.  The Wexford Defendants also filed a
timely objection, arguing similarly that the class is duplicative
and should not be certified because Stewart is a member of the
Lippert class.  Stewart filed a timely response arguing that the
grounds for attacking the proposed class is premature and that
there are significant differences between the two classes.

On review, Judge Rosenstengel finds that the parties are
substantially similar.  Although Lippert was not filed by Stewart,
he is a member of the class that Lippert represents, being a
prisoner in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections
with serious medical needs.

Judge Rosenstengel also finds that the fact that Lippert and the
case were filed in different districts is not dispositive.  Stewart
relies on Hecker v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. to argue that
dismissal is appropriate only when the case is filed in the same
district by the same plaintiff.  However, the Hecker case was a
class action brought under Rule 23(b)(3) in which members had the
right to opt-out because they were seeking individualized money
damages, not class-wide relief.  As noted, the class in Lippert
consists of "all prisoners in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (IDOC) requiring medical care and
treatment while incarcerated."  Thus, it does not matter that the
two cases were filed in different judicial districts; Stewart is a
member of the Lippert class.

Judge Rosenstengel continues to note that while the Wexford
Defendants are not named Defendants in Lippert, Wexford -- a
contracted vendor of the IDOC -- and its employees are still bound
by the Lippert Consent Decree.  The Consent Decree in Lippert,
entered May 9, 2019, states: "Defendants represent that any vendor
contract will require vendors to comply with all court orders,
policies and procedures of IDOC."

Finally, Rosenstengel finds the claims and relief available are
also substantially similar.  First, the specific claims brought
forth for the putative class are essentially identical to that of
Lippert.  Second, the plaintiffs in both cases have requested
injunctive relief barring unconstitutional practices and ask the
Court to require the defendants to submit and implement a plan to
address the violations.  In this respect, Lippert is broad enough
to provide efficient avenues of resolution for any claims that
Count 5 addresses.  Accordingly, Count 5 will be dismissed.

For these reasons, Judge Rosenstengel sustained the Defendants'
objections, and rejected the Report and Recommendation.  The
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss is granted.  Wexford's Alternative
Motion to Strike is denied. Count 5 is dismissed without prejudice,
the Judge further ruled.

The Clerk of Court is directed to substitute the Defendants in
their official capacity.  Because Defendants Rob Jeffreys and
Steven Meeks are only named as Defendants in their official
capacities in Count 5, they are also dismissed without prejudice.
The action will now proceed on Counts 1-4 in Stewart's individual
capacity.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://is.gd/nqxfXi from Leagle.com.

Javar Stewart, Plaintiff, represented by Robert L. King , Korein
Tillery.

Jacqueline Lashbrook, Warden, Chief Administrator, Pinckneyville
CC, Salvador Godinez, Added per Order 57 & Louis Shicker, Added per
Order 57, Defendants, represented by Clayton J. Ankney, Illinois
Attorney General's Office.

Michael D. Scott, Physician Doctor, Pinckneyville CC, Kimberly
Ferrari, Nurse & Wexford Health Sources Inc, Added per Order 57,
Defendants, represented by Untress L. Quinn --
uquinn@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg, Phoenix, et al., Natalie J.
Kussart -- nkussart@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg, Phoenix, et
al. & Timothy R. Tevlin -- ttevlin@sandbergphoenix.com -- Sandberg,
Phoenix, et al..


INFORMATICA LLC: Flynn Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Flynn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Informatica, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-06192, (N.D. Cal., September 30, 2019), seeks unpaid back
wages at the applicable overtime rates, liquidated damages, costs
and attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and such other
and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a software company that makes and sells enterprise
software solutions to businesses' information technology where
Flynn worked as an inside sales representatives. Flynn claims to
have worked between 45-48 hours per work week but was not paid
overtime for hours in excess of 40.  [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
      Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
      235 Montgomery St., Suite 810
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 277-7235
      Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
      Email: helland@nka.com
             dbrome@nka.com

             - and -

      Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
      Jay Eidsness, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
      Email: fisher@nka.com
             jeidsness@nka.com

             - and -

      Austin Kaplan, Esq.
      KAPLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
      406 Sterzing St.
      Austin, TX 78704
      Telephone: (512) 553-9390
      Telecopier: (512) 692-2788
      Email: akaplan@kaplanlawatx.com


JEROME GOLDEN: Faces Jones Suit Alleging Violation of WARN Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOYCE JONES and MARGARET SCHNITZER, on behalf of themselves and a
class of those others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE JEROME
GOLDEN CENTER FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
9:19-cv-81422-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 20, 2019), is brought over the
Defendant's alleged violation of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act of 1988.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant fails to provide them and
all others similarly situated at least 60 days advance notice of
their termination, as required by the WARN Act.  The Plaintiffs and
all other similarly situated employees were terminated as part of
plant shutdowns or mass layoffs as defined by the WARN Act. The
Defendant also failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other former
employees their wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued
holiday pay, vacation, and other benefits, which would have accrued
for 60 days following their terminations without notice and failed
to make 403(b) contributions and provide them with health insurance
coverage and other employee benefits, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant until termination
without cause on October 3, 2019, and October 7, 2019.

The Defendant was a business focusing on providing behavioral
health care
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan D. Barack, Esq.
          KWALL BARACK NADEAU PLLC
          304 S. Belcher Road, Suite C
          Clearwater, FL 33765
          Telephone: (727) 441-4947
          Facsimile: (727) 447-3158
          E-mail: rbarack@employeerights.com


JMZ PROPERTIES: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JMZ PROPERTIES, INC.
The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JMZ PROPERTIES, INC.
a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-81421-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., Oct. 18, 2019).

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

JMZ PROPERTIES, INC. is a property management & residential leasing
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
     Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
     200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 282-1858
     Fax: (844) 786-3694
     Email: service@advocacypa.com


JOHN DOE: Brandi K. Stokes Files Civil Rights Suit in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doe. The case is
styled as Brandi K. Stokes as an individual and on behalf of all
family members similarly situated, Plaintiff v. John Doe name(s) to
be determined later; protected persons pursuant to the Geneva
Conventions, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01021-RP (W.D. Tex., Oct.
18, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandi K. Stokes
     P.O. Box 301916
     Austin, TX 78703
     Phone: (512) 206-0202
     Fax: (512) 519-2013
     PRO SE


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Curry Sues over Talc Baby Powder Health Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
RANDI LYNN CURRY, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON
& JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC., Defendants  Case No. 1:19-cv-01016-TDS-JEP
(M.D.N.C., Oct. 1, 2019), alleges that Defendants continue to
intentionally conceal and/or recklessly and/or grossly negligently
fail to disclose to the public, including Plaintiff, the serious
side effects of the Johnson's Baby Powder in order to ensure
continued and increased sales.

Curry is a citizen and resident of Forsyth County, North Carolina.
She had been using Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower
products.  She had been diagnosed and had undergone treatment of
her ovarian cancer.

In 1893, Johnson & Johnson developed Johnson's Baby Powder as a
daily use powder intended to eliminate friction and absorb unwanted
excess moisture on the skin for both babies and women.  According
to the complaint, the Defendants continue to aggressively market
the Products to consumers, without disclosing the true risk of side
effects.  The Defendants knew that the Products were defective and
of an unreasonably dangerous nature, but continued to manufacture,
produce, assemble, market, distribute, and sell the Products so as
to maximize sales and profits at the expense of the health and
safety of the Public, including Plaintiff, in conscious and/or
reckless disregard of the foreseeable harm caused by the Products.

According to the lawsuit, as a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiff has required and will
require health care and services, and has incurred medical, health
care, incidental, and related expenses. The Plaintiff is informed
and believes, and further alleges, that Plaintiff and other members
of the public will in the future be required to obtain further
medical care and/or hospital care and medical services, the lawsuit
says.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer has been a wholly owned subsidiary of
Johnson & Johnson under the complete dominion and control of
Johnson & Johnson and functions as an agent and/or alter ego of its
parent corporation. Johnson & Johnson Consumer formulated,
manufactured, marketed, tested, promoted, sold, and distributed
Johnsons Baby Powder.

Talc, magnesium trisilicate, is an inorganic mineral mined from the
earth. Imerys Talc America, Inc.  mined the talc at issue in the
case and supplied the Material Safety Data sheets, containing
health and warning information, for talc.

Talc is the main substance in talcum powders, and talcum powders is
the main ingredient in Defendants' Johnson's Baby Powder, the
product at issue in the case. Johnson's Baby Powder is composed
almost entirely of talc.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          John D. Hurst, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          50 Clay Street, Suite 1
          Morgantown, WV 26501
          Telephone: (304) 413-0457
          Facsimile: (304) 413-0458
          E-mail: jhurst@motleyrice.com

K1 HVAC INC: Denied Technicians Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dwayne Brummell, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. K1 HVAC Inc. and Krishnadat Sing,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-05488 (E.D. N.Y., September 27, 2019),
seeks to recover the statutory minimum wage, overtime premium pay,
redress for failure to provide a Notice and Acknowledgement of
Payrate and Payday and accurate wage statements, attorneys' fees
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor
law.

Defendants operate a heating, ventilation and air-conditioning
repair and installation company located at 107-25 116th Street,
Richmond Hill, New York where Brummell worked as an HVAC
technician. He claims to be denied overtime premium pay for any
hours he worked above 40 in a week.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
      Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
      Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
      LIPSKY LOWE LLP
      630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
      New York, NY 10017-6705
      Tel: (212) 392-4772
      Fax: (212) 444-1030
      Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
             chris@lipskylowe.com


KAAM ENTERPRISES: Morissette Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
KARI MORISSETTE, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. KAAM ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a SUBWAY, and KHALID ABID,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-24228-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 14, 2019)
is an action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages
under the laws of the United States under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

While employed by the Corporate Defendant, Plaintiff worked
approximately an average of 55-60 hours per week without being
compensated at the rate of not less than one and one-half times the
regular rate at which she was employed. Specifically, the Defendant
paid Plaintiff 28-30 hours by check and the rest in cash. Defendant
never paid for any hour at time and one-half. The Corporate
Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff
overtime wages as required by the laws of the United States and
remains owing Plaintiff these overtime wages since the commencement
of Plaintiff’s employment with the Corporate Defendant, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by the Corporate Defendant as a cashier for
the Corporate Defendant's business.

Defendants are a Florida company and a Florida resident, having
their main place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
     SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
     20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 503-5131
     Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
     Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com



LION OIL: Arkansas Ct. Denies Bid to Certify Class in Fuller Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THURMAN FULLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LION OIL
TRADING & TRANSPORTATION, LLC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-1020
(W.D. Ark.), Judge Susan O. Hickey of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas, El Dorado Division, denied the
Plaintiffs' (i) motion for class certification, and (ii) motion for
extension of time to respond.

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

On Aug. 14, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, seeming to request that the Court certifies a class
consisting of themselves.  On Aug. 28, 2019, the Defendant
responded, indicating that it opposes the motion.

On Sept. 9, 2019, Magistrate Judge Barry A. Bryant issued a Report
and Recommendation, in which he recommends that the Court denies
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The Plaintiffs
have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the
time to object has passed.

On Sept. 25, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a 60-day
extension of time to respond to the Defendant's opposition to their
class certification motion.

Judge Hickey finds that the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and motion for extension of time were docketed as
filed by all the Plaintiffs.  However, only Plaintiff Clara Fuller,
a non-lawyer as far as the Court can tell, signed the motions.  She
is not the Other Plaintiffs' attorney and her own signature does
not suffice for them for purposes of Rule 11(a).  Ordinarily in
situations like this, the Court would direct the Clerk of Court to
mail copies of the motions to all the Plaintiffs who have not
signed them and grant them an opportunity to sign and return the
motions.  

Judge Hickey will not do so in the instance because it would only
serve to delay the resolution of the instant motions.  Her analysis
and rulings would be the same regardless of whether or not all the
Plaintiffs have signed the pending motions.  However, the
Plaintiffs should ensure that all future filings in the case are
signed by all the Plaintiffs to avoid any further issues under Rule
11(a).

Turning to the Plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time, Judge
Hickey finds that the Plaintiffs' class certification motion is not
a summary judgment motion, so they are not entitled to file a reply
brief unless the Court grants leave to do so.  The  Plaintiffs have
not provided the Court with a proposed reply brief, nor have they
discussed what specifically in the Defendant's response brief they
wish to address or what issues they need sixty days' time to
research.  Judge Hickey sees no basis to grant the Plaintiffs leave
to file a reply brief and, thus, she declines to do so.

Finally, Magistrate Judge Bryant's findings concludes that the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification should be denied because
the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that Rule 23 class
certification is proper in the case.  The Plaintiffs have not filed
objections to the Report and Recommendation and their time to
object has passed.  Judge Hickey has reviewed the filings and
agrees with Magistrate Judge Bryant's recommendation that the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification should be denied.

For these reasons and upon de novo review, Judge Hickey adopted the
Report and Recommendation in toto.  She denied the Plaintiffs' (i)
motion for class certification, and (ii) motion for extension of
time.

A full-text copy of Judge Hickey's Sept. 27, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/lPesFE from Leagle.com.

Thurman Fuller, Plaintiff, pro se.

Grace Fuller, Plaintiff, pro se.

Patricia Dockery, Plaintiff, pro se.

Elizabeth Donell, Plaintiff, pro se.

Louise Sawyer, Plaintiff, pro se.

George Fuller, Plaintiff, pro se.

Clara Fuller, Plaintiff, pro se.

Lion Oil Trading & Transportation, LLC, Defendant, represented by
G. Alan Perkins -- alan@ppgmrlaw.com -- PPGMR Law PLLC, William Ray
Whitman -- rwhitman@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP & Monica
Kristin Gerety -- kgerety@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP.


LONG ISLAND BAGEL: Guevara Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
ELMER DAVID GUEVARA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LONG ISLAND BAGEL CAFE, LLC and
RANDY DESTEFANO, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05899 (E.D.N.Y., Oct.
18, 2019), seeks equitable and legal relief for the Defendants'
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.

The Defendants did not pay him additional compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 per week, the Plaintiff alleges. While
employed with the Defendants, the Plaintiff contends he was a
non-exempt employee pursuant to the FLSA and the NYLL, and was
entitled to receive at least the minimum wage for all hours worked
and overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
week. However, the Plaintiff was not paid at least the minimum wage
for all hours worked, and despite routinely working more than 40
hours per week, the Defendants failed to pay him overtime
compensation of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay or
the applicable minimum wage rate, whichever is greater, for the
hours he worked in excess of 40 per week. The Defendants also
failed to furnish to the Plaintiff a payroll notice at the time of
his hire, or at any time thereafter, containing his rates of pay,
the designated payday, or other information required by NYLL, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a prep-cook from
March 2017 until June 7, 2019.

Long Island Bagel is a domestic limited liability company with its
principal place of business located at 248 Smithtown Blvd., in
Nesconset, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine Morales, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 460-0047
          E-mail: kymorales@katzmelinger.com


LOWE'S HOME: Bid to Dismiss Houtman FLSA Suit Denied as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Daniel Danford Harry Houtman, Plaintiff, v. Lowe's
Home Centers LLC, Lowe's Companies Inc, Defendant, Civil Action No.
5:19-cv-00041-KDB-DCK (W.D. N.C.), Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Statesville Division, denied as moot the Defendants' Partial Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Collected and Class Action
Complaint.

The Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R")
recommends that the Defendant's Motion be denied as moot.  The
parties have not filed an objection to the M&R, and the time for
doing so has expired.

Having carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's M&R, the relevant
portions of the record and applicable legal authority, Judge Bell
is satisfied that there is no clear error as to the M&R, to which
no objection was made.  

Accordingly, Judge Bell Bell adopted the Magistrate Judge's M&R,
and denied as moot the Defendants' Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/L7a1Z9 from Leagle.com.

Daniel Danford, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin J. Stoops --
kstoops@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, pro hac vice, Rod M.
Johnston -- rjohnston@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro
hac vice & James Jenkins Mills -- jmills@bdppa.com -- Burns Day &
Presnell, PA.

Lowe's Companies Inc & Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Benjamin Paul Fryer -- benjaminfryer@mvalaw.com --
Moore & Van Allen PLLC, Paul Javier Peralta --
paulperalta@mvalaw.com -- Rachael McMillan Coe --
rachaelcoe@mvalaw.com -- Moore & Van Allen & Scott M. Tyler --
scotttyler@mvalaw.com -- Moore & Van Allen, PLLC.


LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Vo Sues over Biometric Data Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA VO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2019CH10946 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Sept. 20, 2019) alleges
violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant collect,
store, and use the Plaintiff's biometric identifiers and biometric
information without informed written consent in violation of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Luxottica Retail North America Inc. offers prescription glasses and
sunglasses. The Company offers premium, luxury, and sports eyewear,
while also providing a managed care package that includes medical
and dental insurance. Luxottica Retail North America serves
customers through a retail network throughout North America. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Myles P. McGuire, Esq.
          Evan Meyers, Esq.
          David L. Gerbie, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  emeyers@mcgpc.com
                  dgerbie@mcgpc.com


MASTER GROUP: Does not Properly Pay Drivers, Montemarano Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vince Montemarano, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Master Group Enterprises, LLC, Brian
Corradi, Master Pizza Franchise Group, LLC, Michael LaMarca, Doe
Corporation 1-25; John Doe 1-25; Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02387
(N.D. Ohio, Oct. 14, 2019) is an action against Defendants seeking
appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on
Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and
similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages and overtime
wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio
Constitution, Article II, Section 34a, and for unjust enrichment.

Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Section 34a, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act by failing
to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related
expenses. All delivery drivers at the Master Pizza stores,
including Plaintiff, have been subject to the same or similar
employment policies and practices. The Defendants have also failed
to properly take a tip credit from Plaintiff's wages because, after
accounting for unreimbursed expenses, Defendants have taken more of
a tip credit than they informed Plaintiff they would be taking.
Thus, Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wage as
required by law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked at the Master Pizza store in Medina, Ohio as a
delivery driver from August to September 2019.

Defendants Master Pizza Franchise Group, LLC and Michael LaMarca
operate approximately 10 Master Pizza stores in northeastern
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew Biller, Esq.
     Biller & Kimble, LLC
     4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
     Columbus, OH 43219
     Phone: (614) 604-8759
     Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
     Email: abiller@billerkimble.com

          - and –

     Andrew Kimble, Esq.
     Louise M. Roselle, Esq.
     Biller & Kimble, LLC
     3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
     Cincinnati, OH 45209
     Phone: 513-715-8711
     Fax: 614-340-4620
     Email: akimble@billerkimble.com
            lroselle@billerkimble.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Khalid Appeals Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Atm Shafiqul Khalid filed an appeal from a Court ruling
in his lawsuit titled Atm Khalid, et al. v. Microsoft Corporation,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00130-RSM, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle.

The appellate case is captioned as Atm Khalid, et al. v. Microsoft
Corporation, Case No. 19-35841, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

District Court Judge Ricardo S. Martinez granted Defendant
Microsoft's Motion to Dismiss Khalid's amended complaint with leave
to amend certain claims, as reported in the Class Action Reporter
on Oct. 7, 2019.  

The Plaintiff worked at Microsoft from Jan. 9, 2012 until February
2015. As an initial matter, the Plaintiff sought to certify as a
class of all Microsoft employees who signed an employment contract
with Microsoft similar to the Employee Agreement signed by the
Plaintiff (presented as "Count 7").  

A pro se litigant may not serve as the representative of a class in
a class action lawsuit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.  Accordingly,
Judge Martinez did not consider the question of class
certification.

Having reviewed the Defendant's Motion, the Plaintiff's Response,
the Defendant's Reply, and the remainder of the record, Judge
Martinez granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  He (i)
dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend Counts 1 and 2
(Sherman Act claims) and Count 3 (claim for extortion under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); (ii) dismissed
with prejudice Count 4 (forced labor), Count 5 (RICO claim for
forced labor), Counts 6 and 12 (civil rights claims), Count 8
(fraud), and the Plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief on
Fourteenth Amendment violation (Count 10); and dismissed without
prejudice and with leave to amend the Plaintiff's remaining claims
for declaratory relief (Counts 9 and 11).

Among other things, with respect to the Plaintiffs' Anti-Trust
Claims (Counts 1-2), the Judge found that (ii) the Plaintiff has
not alleged a contract or conspiracy among multiple
entities--instead, his complaint only names Microsoft and employees
of Microsoft as the bad actors.  The Plaintiff has likewise failed
to state a claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 2 as he has provided no
market analysis such as barriers to entry or hyper-competitive
pricing that inhibits competitors from expanding their output in
the cloud application market or the other identified markets.
Finally, the injuries alleged by the Plaintiff are not within the
scope of "antitrust injury" contemplated by Section 2, said the
Court.

As for Count 3, the Plaintiff's RICO claims predicated on
extortion, the Judge found that the Plaintiff has not alleged
sufficient facts to plausibly lead to his asserted RICO claim.  The
Plaintiff's complaint does not allege conduct by Microsoft that
constitutes extortion under the Hobbs Act or Washington state law.
Furthermore, he has failed to adequately allege an "enterprise"
under RICO.  Instead, the Plaintiff alleges that these various
entities enjoy mutual benefits through their partnerships and
explains how money flows between the various entities.  These
allegations do not set forth a viable RICO claim.

The Judge also found that the broad and vague declaratory relief
sought by the Plaintiff does not admit of specific relief through a
decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion
advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical set of facts.
Even if the Court narrows the broad language of the Plaintiff's
request to apply to Microsoft's use and enforcement of its
Employment Agreement, the Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently
allege an actual dispute suitable for declaratory relief.  On
amendment, Plaintiff's complaint must request specific relief from
the Court based on his own dispute with Microsoft--not broad relief
based on hypothetical injuries to other Microsoft employees.

The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint so that he
may be afforded an additional opportunity to plead a viable claim
under the Sherman Act (Counts 1, 2), RICO (Count 3) and/or
declaratory relief under Counts 9 and 11.  The claims will be made
on his own behalf and not on behalf of a putative class of
Plaintiffs.  The amended complaint will contain a concise statement
of his claims setting forth the specific facts giving rise to a
plausible inference that Microsoft is liable for the alleged
violations.  The Plaintiff was ordered to file a Second Amended
Complaint within 30 days of the Order for Counts 1-3, 9 and 11.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellant Atm Shafiqul Khalid's opening brief is due on
      November 29, 2019;

   -- Appellee Microsoft Corporation's answering brief is due on
      December 30, 2019;

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiff-Appellant ATM SHAFIQUL KHALID, an individual and on
behalf of similarly situated, of Redmond, Washington, appears pro
se.[BN]

Defendant-Appellee MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation,
is represented by:

          Heidi Brooks Bradley, Esq.
          Tiffany Connors, Esq.
          LANE POWELL PC
          1420 Fifth Avenue
          P.O. Box 91302
          Seattle, WA 98111-9402
          Telephone: (206) 223-7000
          E-mail: bradleyh@lanepowell.com
                  connorst@lanepowell.com

MILACRON HOLDINGS: Krieger Seeks More Info re Hillenbrand Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSH KRIEGER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. MILACRON HOLDINGS CORP., IRA G. BOOTS,
THOMAS J. GOEKE, JAMES F. GENTILCORE, TIMOTHY M. CROW, JAMES M.
KRATOCHVIL, WATERS S. DAVIS IV, GREGORY J. GLUCHOWSKI, JR., DAVID
REEDER and REBECCA LEE STEINFORT, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01943-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 14, 2019) is a class action
brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public
holders of the common stock of Milacron Holdings Corp. against the
Company and the members of the Company's board of directors for
their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, SEC Rule 14a-9, and Regulation G, in
connection with the proposed merger between Milacron and
Hillenbrand, Inc.

On July 12, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger with Hillenbrand, Inc., pursuant to
which the Company's shareholders stand to receive $11.80 in cash
and 0.1612 shares of Hillenbrand common stock for each share of
Milacron stock they own. Upon completion of the merger, Milacron
shareholders will own approximately 16% and Hillenbrand
shareholders will own approximately 84% of the combined company.

On September 10, 2019, in order to convince Milacron shareholders
to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized
the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4
Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, notes
the complaint. The materially incomplete and misleading S-4
violates both Regulation G and SEC Rule 14a-9, each of which
constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. On October 11, 2019, the Company filed a Form S-4/A
Registration Statement that did not correct the materially
incomplete and misleading nature of the S-4.

While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the S-4, Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and
rendering certain statements in the S-4 materially incomplete and
misleading. In particular, the S-4 contains materially incomplete
and misleading information concerning: (i) the financial
projections for the Company that were prepared by the Company and
relied on by Defendants in recommending that Milacron shareholders
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of
certain valuation analyses conducted by Milacron's financial
advisor, Barclays Capital Inc. in support of its opinion that the
Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the Board
relied.

It is imperative that the material information that has been
omitted from the S-4 is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to
allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision
regarding the Proposed Transaction. For these reasons, Plaintiff
asserts claims against Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based on Defendants' violation of:
(i) Regulation G; and (ii) Rule 14a-9.

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding the shareholder
vote on the Proposed Transaction and taking any steps to consummate
the Proposed Transaction unless, and until, the material
information is disclosed to Milacron shareholders sufficiently in
advance of the vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the event
the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages
resulting from Defendants’ violations of the Exchange Act, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff is a holder of Milacron common stock.

Milacron manufactures, distributes, and services highly engineered
and customized systems within the plastic technology and processing
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 482-3182
     Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

          - and -

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Fax: (212) 983-9331
     Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
            jwilson@faruqilaw.com


MORGAN STANLEY: Chen Appeals Ruling in Harvey Suit to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Intervenors Tracy Chen and Mathew Lucadano filed an appeal
from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Brandon Harvey v.
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-02835-WHO, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

The District Court issued an order denying the Proposed
Intervenors' Motion Seeking to Include Information in the Class
Notice, as reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 19,
2019.

The Proposed Intervenors have filed an administrative motion
seeking to include information about their lawsuit into the class
notice issued in relation to preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement in this case.

Plaintiffs Tracy Chen and Matthew Lucadano are pursuing a parallel
lawsuit, Chen v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, Case No.
30-2014-00724866-CU-OE-CXC, in California Superior Court in Orange
County, asserting civil penalty claims on behalf of Morgan Stanley
FAs and the State of California pursuant to the California Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act.

The Parties in the Harvey case opposd.

Harvey argued that the Proposed Intervenor's motion is procedurally
improper for three reasons: (i) they are not parties to this action
and were only granted leave to file an amicus brief in opposition
to the motion for preliminary approval, (ii) the motion is
untimely, this issue should have been raised in the briefing or at
the oral argument that took place on June 12, 2019 and (iii) an
administrative motion is not the correct method of seeking the
relief requested because Local Rule 7-11 reserves such motions for
miscellaneous administrative matters" such as requests to exceed
page limits or to file documents under seal.

At minimum, Harvey contends, the Proposed Intervenors should be
required to file a properly noticed motion after providing a
satisfactory explanation why these concerns were not raised
earlier.

Harvey also argued that the motion should be denied on the merits
because there is no authority for the Proposed Intervenors'
request.  Harvey also disputed the Proposed Intervenors' damages
calculations as lacking foundation and highly speculative.

MSSB argued that the Proposed Intervenor's motion should be denied
on additional grounds as well. It contends that the purpose of
providing information about parallel proceedings in a class notice
is to provide individuals with the information necessary to opt out
and pursue their own separate recovery in that separate proceeding.
But here, potentially aggrieved employees under PAGA do not have
the right to object or opt out of a PAGA settlement.

The Parties' arguments on procedural grounds are all correct, ruled
the District Court.  An administrative motion is the incorrect
vehicle for the Proposed Intervenors' motion and they had the
opportunity to make their request in the amicus brief and at the
hearing on the preliminary approval motion.  Moreover, the Court
agrees with the Parties on the merits.  Potentially aggrieved
employees do not have the right to opt out or object to a PAGA
settlement.

The appellate case is captioned as Brandon Harvey v. Morgan Stanley
Smith Barney LLC, Case No. 19-16955, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 31, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on December 2, 2019;

   -- Appellants Tracy Chen and Mathew Lucadano's opening brief
      is due on January 9, 2020;

   -- Appellees Brandon Harvey and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney
      LLC's answering brief is due on February 10, 2020; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee BRANDON HARVEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          James F. Clapp, Esq.
          Marita Murphy Lauinger, Esq.
          CLAPP & LAUINGER LLP
          701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300
          Carlsbad, CA 92011
          Telephone: (760) 209-6565
          E-mail: jclapp@clapplegal.com
                  mlauinger@clapplegal.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Compton, Esq.
          David S. Markun, Esq.
          MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON, LLP
          17383 West Sunset Boulevard
          Pacific Palisades, CA 90272-4181
          Telephone: (310) 454-5900
          E-mail: jcompton@mzclaw.com
                  dmarkun@mczlaw.com

               - and -

          George Nemiroff, Esq.
          Edward Wynne, Esq.
          WYNNE LAW FIRM
          80 E Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Suite 3G
          Larkspur, CA 94939-1709
          Telephone: (415) 461-6400
          Facsimile: (415) 461-3900
          E-mail: gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com
                  ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC is represented
by:

          Lynne C. Hermle, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
          1000 Marsh Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
          Telephone: (650) 614-7400
          E-mail: lchermle@orrick.com

               - and -

          Andrew Livingston, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 773-5588
          E-mail: alivingston@orrick.com

Movants-Appellants MATHEW LUCADANO and TRACY CHEN, Proposed
Intervenors, are represented by:

          Mark Humenik, Esq.
          HABER POLK KABAT, LLP
          423 S. Estate Drive
          Orange, CA 92869
          Telephone: (949) 636-5754
          E-mail: mhumenik@haberpolk.com

               - and -

          Christopher McNerney, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: cmcnerney@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          Relic Sun, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
                  rsun@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Laura Sullivan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LAURA SULLIVAN
          423 South Estate Drive
          Orange, CA 92869
          Telephone: (714) 744-1522
          E-mail: laurasullivan@laurasullivanlaw.com

MUHLENBERG COUNTY, KY: Violates FLSA and KWHA, Drake Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LORETTA DRAKE AND, AND LONNIE DRAKE on Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly-situated v. MUHLENBERG COUNTY FISCAL COURT, Case
No. 4:19-cv-00137-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky., Oct. 4, 2019), accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Kentucky Wages and Hours Act.

The Defendant is a governmental entity and a subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky.  The Defendant operates a jail in
Greenville, Muhlenberg County, Kentucky.  The Defendant employs
non-exempt employees at that jail, including Plaintiff Loretta
Drake (Plaintiff Lonnie Drake was previously employed in a
non-exempt position at the jail).

The Plaintiffs bring this Complaint for the Defendant's violations
of its statutory obligations to pay employees for work performed,
including overtime work.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend, the
Defendant willfully engaged in a practice of not paying its
employees for compensable work, including work performed before and
after scheduled shifts and when employees would "switch shifts"
with other employees or "cover" shifts for other employees.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark N. Foster, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
          P.O. Box 869
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Telephone: (270) 213-1303
          E-mail: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com


MY FRENCH: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against My French Connection
LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. My
French Connection LLC doing business as: Oui Please, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-05887 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 18, 2019).

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

MY FRENCH CONNECTION LLC provides consulting, brand management, and
expansion opportunities for French brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


NASHVILLE TENNESSEE VENTURES: Fails to Pay OT Wages, McGill Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BETH MCGILL, TINA GIPSON, KARI NUENKE, EMILY NUENKE, and REBEL
MOORE, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs v.
NASHVILLE TENNESSEE VENTURES, INC. a Tennessee Corporation, a/k/a
NASHVILLE VENTURES, d/b/a HELP 4 TIMESHARE OWNERS, INTEGRITY
SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, a New Mexico Limited Liability Company, JOHN
STEVEN HUFFMAN, and JOHN PRESTON THOMPSON, Individually,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00922 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 18, 2019), is
brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to
the Plaintiffs and other current and former employees of the
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members were always required to work in
excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs contend that the
Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to compensate the
Plaintiffs  at the rate of time and one-half their regular rate of
pay for all the hours worked over 40 hours in each workweek. The
Plaintiffs are owed time and a half pay and liquidated damages for
all hours worked over 40 and during the statutory period, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed as hourly-paid Executive Branch
Director and Case Managers.

The Defendants' primary business, according to their Web site, is
providing assistance to timeshare owners who "were fraudulently
sold their timeshare properties." The Defendants provide assistance
to timeshare owners in attempting to cancel timeshare
contracts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner IV, Esq.
          Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

               - and -

          Nina Parsley, Esq.
          PONCE LAW
          400 Professional Park Drive
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com


NATIONWIDE EXPRESS: Warfa Labor Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Abdullahi Warfa and Omar Omar, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Minnesota
Rule 23 Class, Plaintiffs, v. Nationwide Express, LLC, and Amazon
Logistics, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-3103 (TNL) (D. Minn.),
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Conditional and Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of
Settlement.

Magistrate Judge Leung has reviewed and considered all papers filed
in connection with the motion.  Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e),
for settlement purposes, only, the Magistrate Judge certified the
Plaintiffs' claim for unpaid overtime under the Minnesota Fair
Labor Standards Act as a class action on behalf of the class of all
delivery drivers who performed services for Defendants through
Nationwide Express, LLC at any time during the period of May 19,
2018 to March 13, 2019.

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), for settlement purposes only,
the Magistrate Judge also certified the lawsuit as a collective
action for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, on
behalf of the class of all delivery drivers who performed services
for Defendants through Nationwide Express, LLC at any time during
the period of May 19, 2018 to March 13, 2019.

The Magistrate Judge further appointed Michele R. Fisher and Neil
D. Pederson of Nichols Kaster PLLP and their firm as the class
counsel to represent the settlement group.

Because of the structure of the settlement, class and collective
members who do not wish to be included in the settlement class need
not submit any statement of exclusion.  Any class or collective
member who wishes to object to the proposed settlement or appear at
the final approval hearing, must file or mail a notice of intent to
object to the class counsel at the following address by Dec. 16,
2019 to:

      Michele R. Fisher
      Neil Pederson
      Nichols Kaster, PLLP
      80 South 8th Street, Suite 4600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Email: intake@nka.com

The Plaintiffs are required to file a letter with the Court
supplementing the Memorandum of Law in Support of Unopposed Motion
for Conditional and Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of
Settlement by Jan. 6, 2020. The Plaintiffs need only supplement the
previously filed memorandum to the extent new issues or information
arises regarding the fairness, adequacy, or reasonableness of the
settlement, but will update the Court as to whether any objections
or requests for exclusion were received.  They will also file a
proposed order for final approval, as well as the requests for
exclusion and objections to the Court at that time.

The Court will hold a final approval hearing on Jan. 13, 2020 at
10:00 a.m.

The parties are ordered to take all reasonable steps needed to
comply with the following timeline:

      a. Accomplish mailing of notice due Oct. 24, 2019

      b. Objections and requests for exclusion to the class
         counsel due Dec. 16, 2019

      c. Requests for exclusion and objections to the Court and
         the defense counsel; and letter supporting previously
         filed memorandum  due Jan. 6, 2020 due

      d. Final Approval Hearing - Jan. 13, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/4cJCZi from Leagle.com.

Abdullahi Warfa, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the Minnesota Rule 23 Class & Omar Omar,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and on
behalf of the Minnesota Rule 23 Class, Plaintiffs, represented by
Gregory S. Walz -- greg@walzlaw.com -- Walz Law Office, Michele R.
Fisher -- fisher@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP & Neil Daniel
Pederson -- npederson@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP.

Nationwide Express, LLC, Defendant, represented by Keillen V.
Curtis, Curtis Law Firm & Marcus A. Jarvis -- jarvislawfirm@msn.com
-- Marcus-Jarvis Law Limited.

Amazon Logistics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brittany B. Skemp
-- bskemp@bassford.com -- Bassford Remele, PA, Bryan R. Browning,
Bassford Remele, Jonathan P. Norrie -- jnorrie@bassford.com --
Bassford Remele, Meredith Riccio -- meredith.riccio@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice & Stephanie L. Sweitzer
-- stephanie.sweitzer@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, pro hac vice.


PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE: Tompkins Sues over Automated Robocalls
-------------------------------------------------------------
TOMMY J. TOMPKINS, JR, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plainitff, vs. PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00731 (S.D. Ala.,
Oct. 1, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited calls to wireless
phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The complaint addresses the unlawful telemarketing campaigns
conducted by the Defendant through automated robocalls made without
any prior consent. Robocalling has plagued American consumers for
years and it's getting much worse, the lawsuit says.

Palmer Administrative is one of the nation's leading auto warranty
providers.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Kenneth J. Riemer, Esq.
          UNDERWOOD & RIEMER, PC
          2153 Airport Boulevard
          Mobile, AL 36606
          Telephone: (251) 432 9212
          Facsimile: (251) 990 0626
          E-mail: kriemer@alalaw.com

PATRIOT CAR: American Country Sues over Biometric Data Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMERICAN COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PATRIOT CAR SERVICES,
LLC d/b/a PATRIOT MEDICAL TRANSPORT; and CHRISTOPHER DIXON,
Defendants, Case No. 2019CH10904 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Sept. 20,
2019) alleges violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
disregarded their employees' statutorily protected privacy rights
and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in
violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Defendants
failed to provide the Plaintiffs and the class in writing that
their biometric information were being obtained, collected,
captured and stored. The Defendants also failed to inform the
Plaintiff and the class in writing of the specific purpose and
length of term for which the biometric information was being
collected, stored, and used.

Patriot Car Services LLC was founded in 2015. The company's line of
business includes providing local and suburban mass passenger
transportation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Piegore, Esq.
          Edric S. Bautista, Esq.
          SANCHEZ DANIELS & HOFFMAN, LLP
          333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 641-1555
          E-mail: jpiegore@sanchezdh.com
                  ebautista@sanchezdh.com


PILOT TRAVEL: Fails to Pay OT Wage Under NM Wage Act, Drasal Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN C. DRASAL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC, d/b/a
PILOT FLYING J, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-00981 (D.N.M., Oct. 18,
2019), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay its drivers in
accordance with the guarantees and protections of the New Mexico
Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant refuses to pay the
Plaintiff for all of his work time. Specifically, the Defendant
refuses to pay the Plaintiff an overtime premium for hours worked
over forty in a workweek. The Plaintiff routinely worked 55-60
hours per week, but, because the Defendant did not pay him any
overtime premium for hours worked over forty in a workweek, the
Defendant failed and refused to pay him all of his wages due under
the NM Wage Act, Mr. Drasal contends.

Because there are other putative plaintiffs who are similarly
situated to the Named Plaintiff with regard to the work performed
and the Defendant's compensation policies, the Named Plaintiff
brings his NM Wage Act claims as an opt-out class action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a driver in December
2018. He remained in that role until he left employment with the
Defendant in September 2019.

The Defendant operates travel centers across the country, and
provides travel-related services, including food and beverage
services and fuel to both personal and professional drivers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
          The Commissioners House at Heritage Square
          2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: daniel@morelandlaw.com

               - and -

          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
          700 West Summit Dr.
          Wimberley, TX 78676
          Telephone: 512 782 0567
          Facsimile: 512 782 0605
          E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Newman Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH NEWMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P,
Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00244 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Newman and the other workers like him, regularly worked for
Plains in excess of 40 hours each week. The Plaintiff contends that
these workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a single workweek and were, instead, paid a day rate.
This collective action seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages
and other damages owed to these workers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has performed work for Plains as a coating inspector
from February 2018 through August 2019.

Plains owns and operates "an extensive network of pipeline
transportation, terminals, storage and gathering assets in key
crude oil and NGL producing basins, transportation corridors, and
at major market hubs in the United States and Canada."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


PLI CHICAGO: Faces Glon Class Suit Alleging Violation of BIPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
TRACI GLON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PLI CHICAGO, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH12079 (Ill. Cir., Cook
Cty., Oct. 18, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating Illinois'
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Despite the substantial privacy risks created by the collection and
storage of biometric data, and the decade-old prohibition on
collecting and retaining biometric data in Illinois without
informed consent, the Defendant uses a biometric time-tracking
system that requires its employees to use their fingerprints as a
means of authentication, the Plaintiff asserts. When the
Defendant's Illinois employees begin their employment, the
Defendant requires them to scan their fingerprints into an employee
database. The Defendant's scanning and retention of employees'
fingerprints without informed consent is clearly unlawful in
Illinois, says the complaint.

Traci Glon is a natural person and a citizen of the State of
Illinois residing in DuPage County.

The Defendant operates a card manufacturing facility located at
1120 Windham Pkwy., in Romeoville, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ashley Keller, Esq.
          Alex J. Dravillas, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312.741.5220
          E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com
                  ajd@kellerlenkner.com


PRAIRIE PIZZA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages to Delivery Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS MORENO, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. PRAIRIE PIZZA, INC. d/b/a "Domino's",
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00532 (W.D. N.C., Oct. 14, 2019) is a
lawsuit brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and class action under the North Carolina Wage and
Hour Act, to recover unpaid minimum wages owed to Plaintiff and
similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its
Domino's stores.

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

Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant most recently from 2012 to
the present as a delivery driver at several of Defendant's
Domino’s stores located in Charlotte, North Carolina and within
this District.

Defendant operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores
including in and around the Charlotte, North Carolina area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     J. Forester, Esq.
     FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
     400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Phone: (214) 210-2100
     Fax: (214) 346-5909
     Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com



PROTALUS LLC: Saitta Files Class Action in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Protalus, LLC. The
case is styled as Ronald Saitta Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Protalus, LLC, Protalus
USA, LLC, Protalus Holdings, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-12156-MLW (D. Mass., Oct. 18, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Protalus LLC is a privately held company in West Linn, OR and is a
Single Location business, categorized under Boot and Shoe-Cut Stock
and Findings Manufacturers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Pastor, Esq.
     Pastor Law Office, LLP
     63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
     Boston, MA 02110
     Phone: (617) 742-9700
     Fax: (617) 742-9701
     Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com


PURDUE PHARMA: County of Kaua'i Opioid Suit Removed to D. Hawaii
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled COUNTY OF KAUA'I, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE
STATE OF HAWAI'I, for themselves individually, and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the general public, as
a class v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA INC.; PURDUE FREDERICK
COMPANY, INC.; PURDUE PHARMACEUTICALS L.P.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL
USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC. N/K/A JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
N/K/A JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.;
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; ALLERGAN PLC F/K/A ACTAVIS PLC; ACTAVIS,
INC. F/K/A WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.;
ACTAVIS LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. F/K/A WATSON PHARMA, INC.; INSYS
THERAPEUTICS, INC.; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCE DRUG
CORPORATION; AMERICAN MEDICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; BELLCO DRUG
CORP.; BLENHEIM PHARMACAL, INC.; EVEREADY WHOLESALE DRUGS LTD.;
KINRAY, LLC; PSS WORLD MEDICAL, INC.; ROCHESTER DRUG COOPERATIVE,
INC.; DARBY GROUP COPANIES, INC.; RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; MORTIMER
SACKLER FAMILY; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHAN D. SACKLER; MORTIMER
D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER LEFCOURT; BEVERLY
SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; DAVID A. SACKLER; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES;
RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES
PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE
RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F. LABORATORIES, INC.; STUART D.
BAKER; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES,
INC.; MALLINCKRODT PLC; MALLINCKRODT LLC; SPECGX LLC; MYLAN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; SANDOZ, INC.; WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS
CORP. N/K/A HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.; NORAMCO, INC.; JOHN N. KAPOOR; ADNA, INC.; DISCOUNT DRUG
MART, INC.; HBC SERVICE COMPANY; MORRIS & DICKSON CO., LLC; PUBLIX
SUPERMARKETS, INC.; SAJ DISTRIBUTORS; VALUE DRUG COMPANY; SMITH
DRUG COMPANY; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF MARYLAND, INC.,
D/B/A RITE AID MID-ATLANTIC CUSTOMER SUPPORT CENTER, INC.; RITE AID
CORP.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.; WALGREEN EASTERN CO.;
WALGREEN, CO.; WAL-MART INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; THE KROGER CO.;
HENRY SCHEIN, INC.; AND HENRY SCHEIN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. and
HAROLD CHARLES SPEARS, M.D., RUDOLPH B. PUANA, M.D., BIG ISLAND
PAIN CENTER LLC, AND PUANA PAIN, LLC, Case No. 19-1-0075RGBV, was
removed from the Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit of the State
of Hawaii, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii on
Oct. 18, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-op-45862-DAP to the
proceeding.

This action is one of more than 2,000 opioid lawsuits filed by
political subdivisions against manufacturers, distributors, and
dispensers of prescription opioid medications. The Plaintiffs in
these cases contend that the Defendants are liable for economic and
non-economic harms they alleged were caused by the abuse of opioid
medications. The County of Kauai's Complaint asserts claims for
violation of Hawaii's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practice Act and
Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practice Act, false advertising, public
nuisance, fraud, unjust enrichment, negligence, and civil
conspiracy.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Portnoy, Esq.
          Lisa K. Swartzfager, Esq.
          CADES SCHUTTE LLP
          Cades Schutte Building
          1000 Bishop Street, Suite 1200
          Honolulu, HI 96813-4212
          Telephone: (808) 521-9200
          Facsimile: (808) 521-9210
          E-mail: jportnoy@cades.com
                  lswartzfager@cades.com


QG PRINTING: Deposition of Corporate Rep in Clark Labor Suit Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL CLARK, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Q.G.
PRINTING II, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company;
QUAD/GRAPHICS INC. a Wisconsin corporation and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00899-AWI-EPG (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiff's Motion
to Modify Scheduling Order to Depose Defendant's Corporate
Representative and for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint to
the extent that he seeks to take a 30(b)(6) deposition of the
Defendants' corporate representative(s).

The proposed class action suit alleges various causes of action
against the Defendants under the Private Attorneys General Act,
California Labor Code Sections 2698, et seq.

On Aug. 20, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the Motion to Modify
Scheduling Order.  The Court previously granted the Motion to the
extent it sought leave to amend.  It now addresses the Motion to
the extent the Plaintiff seeks to take an untimely deposition of
the Defendants' corporate representative(s) pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6).

The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants failed to produce
class-wide data related to wage information until July 16, 2019,
which hindered his ability to take a meaningful 30(b)(6) deposition
by the June 28, 2019 class certification discovery deadline.  The
Defendants do not dispute the late production of records but
maintain that the Plaintiff should have exercised more diligence in
noticing a 30(b)(6) deposition.  The parties also differ as to the
effect of a prefatory paragraph in a July 19, 2019 stipulation that
stated that the Plaintiff would take a 30(b)(6) deposition.  There
was, however, no request in the stipulation to extend the discovery
cut-off to allow for  a 30(b)(6) deposition.

At oral argument, a dispute arose about whether the parties had
discussed a 30(b)(6) deposition prior to August 2019, when the
Plaintiff first sent draft notices of the 30(b)(6) deposition.  The
Defendants responded that it was "100% absolutely not the case"
that any discussion of a 30(b)(6) deposition occurred prior to
August 2019.  On Sept. 23, 2019, at the Court's request, the
Plaintiff filed supplemental documentation with the Court, which
included a declaration from Beverly Allen Pike, an attorney of
record for Plaintiff.

Ms. Pike represented that there were verbal discussions between the
parties after the suit was filed, in which the Plaintiff agreed not
to notice the 30(b)(6) depositions until the named Plaintiffs were
deposed.  The Defendants do not deny the discussions the Pike
declaration references or that a potential 30 (b)(6) deposition was
discussed in the March 11, 2019 Joint Status Report.  They
nevertheless object to the deposition, arguing that it produced the
policies, procedures, and timelines in a timely fashion; thus, at
least according to the Plaintiff's representations in the March 11,
2019 Joint Status Report, nothing prevented a 30(b)(6) deposition
from going forward.

Magistrate Judge Grosjean finds that while the Plaintiff should
have noticed the 30(b)(6) deposition sooner and requested a change
to the schedule before the discovery cut-off, the deposition was
ultimately delayed because the Defendants did not turn over
class-wide data related to wage payment until July 2019 -- after
the discovery deadline for class certification had passed.  Indeed,
Judge Grosjean finds that due to the late production from the
Defendants, a 30(b)(6) deposition could not have been taken before
the discovery cut-off.

Furthermore, the Magistrate Judge finds that the Defendants
misrepresented to the Court that there were no discussions of a
30(b)(6) deposition prior to the discovery cut-off.  The March 11,
2019, Joint Status Report -- which the Defendants considered and
approved prior to submission to the Court -- clearly demonstrates
that the Plaintiff communicated its intent to notice a 30(b)(6)
deposition to the Defendants before the discovery cut-off.

Accordingly, for the reasons sstated, Magistrate Judge Grosjean
grants the Plaintiff's Motion to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to
take a 30(b)(6) deposition of the Defendants' corporate
representative(s).  The 30(b)(6) deposition is to occur as soon as
possible, consistent with the schedule already set by the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/8dy26r from Leagle.com.

Paul Clark, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ari
Yale Basser -- Ari.Basser@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law, APC,
Bevin Elaine Allen Pike -- Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com --
Capstone Law APC, Joseph Hakakian --
Joseph.Hakakian@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC & Orlando
Villalba -- Orlando.Villalba@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law
APC.

QG Printing II, LLC, a Conneciticut limited liability company &
Quad/Graphics, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, Defendants,
represented by Gregory G. Iskander -- giskander@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C., James Phuc Van -- jpvan@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson & Andrew Hoon Woo -- awoo@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC.


QUICK WEIGHT: Wriley Sues over Unwanted Misleading E-mails
----------------------------------------------------------
FELICIA WRILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QUICK WEIGHT LOSS CENTERS LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. CACE-19-020202 (Fla. 17th Jud'l Cir., Oct. 2,
2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending spam e-mail marketing to computer
users, in violation of the Florida's Electronic Mail Communications
Act.

The Defendant operates over 40 weight loss centers in Florida and
Texas, selling programs, foods, and supplements to individuals
attempting to lose weight.  To solicit new customers, the Defendant
engages in spam e-mail marketing with no regard for the rights of
the recipients of those e-mails.

Spam e-mails like the Defendant's undermine the integrity of
electronic commerce in Florida and throughout the United States,
the lawsuit contends, saying the Defendant caused thousands of
misleading e-mails to be sent to Plaintiff and Class Members,
causing them injuries, including lost productivity and resources,
annoyance, consumption of valuable digital storage space and/or
financial costs, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
illegal conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on
behalf of himself and Class Members, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies resulting from the Defendant's illegal
actions.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTIT-E, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, Florida 33 132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607
          Aventura, FL 33 180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

QUICKEN LOANS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Ball Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
TANYA BALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUICKEN LOANS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:19-cv-01836 (M.D., Fla., Sept. 23, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Quicken Loans Inc. is a mortgage lending company headquartered in
the One Campus Martius building in the heart of the financial
district of downtown Detroit, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Patrick A. Barthle, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 222-2434
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  pbarthle@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
          210 South MacDill Avenue
          South Tampa, FL, 33609
          Telephone: (813) 500-1500
          E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com


QUINONEZ FOODSERVICE: Underpays Servers, Casas Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
CORINA CASAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUINONEZ FOODSERVICE LTD d/b/a CHACHO'S #1,
d/b/a CHACHO'S #2, d/b/a CHACHO'S #3, d/b/a CHACHO'S #5, and d/b/a
CHACHO'S, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-01156 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 24,
2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Casas was employed by the Defendants as server.

Quinonez Foodservice LTD is a domestic Limited Partnership, which
does business in Texas. The company's line of business includes the
retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for on-premise
consumption. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
         Todd Slobin, Esq.
         Mark G. Lazarz, Esq.
         Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 621-2277
         Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
         E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
                 tslobin@eeoc.net
                 mlazarz@eeoc.net
                 marbuckle@eeoc.net


RED LION HOTELS: Herbert Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
VIRGINIA HERBERT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RED LION HOTELS CORPORATION, D/B/A RLH
CORPORATION, D/B/A HOTEL RL AND MAINSAIL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03779-RV-EMT (N.D. Fla., Oct. 18,
2019), is a collective action complaint asserting claims for unpaid
minimum wages pursuant to the collective action provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

While working for the Defendants as a bartender, the Plaintiff was
subjected to the Defendants' policy of taking a "tip credit" and,
therefore, not paying her the regular federal minimum wage of $7.25
per hour or the Florida minimum wage of $8.46 per hour, the
Plaintiff asserts. However, the Defendants also required the
Plaintiff to share a portion of her tips with the Defendants'
managers, in violation of the "tip credit" provisions of the FLSA.
In this manner, the Plaintiff did not receive all minimum wage pay
she was owed for all hours that she worked, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a bartender from
December 2018 to August 2019.

Red Lion Hotels Corporation is the owner and operator of the Island
Hotel in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, where the Plaintiff
worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          1992 Lewis Turner Blvd., Suite 1023
          Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547
          Telephone: (850) 200-4594
          Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
          E-mail: mjackson@jackson-law.net


RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Bushansky Sues over Proposed Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESTORATION ROBOTICS, INC.; RYAN
RHODES; FREDERIC MOLL; JEFFREY BIRD; GIL KLIMAN; CRAIG TAYLOR;
SHELLEY THUNEN; and KEITH SULLIVAN, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-06004-MMC (N.D. Cal., Sept. 24, 2019) is a class action
brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the public
stockholders of Restoration Robotics, Inc. against Restoration
Robotics and the members of its Board of Directors their violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The action also seeks to enjoin the vote on a stock issuance in
connection with a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Radiant
Merger Sub, Ltd., a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Restoration
Robotics, will merge with and into Venus Concept Ltd.,  with Venus
continuing as the surviving corporation and a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of Restoration Robotics.

On September 10, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy
statement/prospectus on Form 424B3 with the SEC.  According to the
complaint, the Proxy Statement, which recommends that Restoration
Robotics stockholders vote in favor of the Stock Issuance, omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(i) Restoration Robotics' and Venus financial projections, relied
upon by the Company's financial advisor, SVB Leerink LLC, in its
financial analyses; (ii) the valuation analyses performed by
Restoration Robotics' financial advisor SVB Leerink regarding the
Proposed Transaction; and (iii) potential conflicts of interest
faced by Company insiders and SVB Leerink. Defendants authorized
the issuance of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Unless remedied, Restoration Robotics' public stockholders will be
irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting decision on the Stock Issuance.

Restoration Robotics, Inc. designs and develops medical devices.
The Company provides hair transplantation systems for follicular
unit extraction and harvesting. Restoration Robotics serves
physicians and patients in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com


RUSHMORE SERVICE: Can Compel Arbitration in Jackson FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC JACKSON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RUSHMORE SERVICE CENTER, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-4587(SJF)(AYS)(E.D. N.Y.), Judge Sandra
J. Feuerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration
and stay the action pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act
("FAA").

On Aug. 15, 2018, Plaintiff Jackson commenced a putative class
action against the Defendant, alleging violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant violated the FDCPA by sending him a purportedly
misleading collection letter, related to a credit card account
ending in -5838 that was issued by First Premiere Bank ("FPB"), on
Aug. 14, 2017.  The Plaintiff alleges that the collection letter
the Defendant sent to him was false, deceptive or misleading in
violation of the FDCPA.  At all relevant times, the Defendant was
authorized and retained by FPB to collect on the Account after the
Plaintiff defaulted in making the minimum payments due on the
Account.  

The Plaintiff opened the Account on March 1, 2016 by completing an
online application on FPB's website.  Thereafter, pursuant to its
normal course of business and regular business practices, FPB
directed its vendor First Data Resources ("FDR") to mail the
applicable credit card for the Account, together with the card
agreement containing the terms and conditions governing the Account
to the Plaintiff via first class United States mail sent to the
address the Plaintiff had provided to FPB.  The Plaintiff does not
dispute that he received the credit card and, indeed, account
statements reflecting his use of the Account establish that he
received the mailing containing both the credit card and the Card
Agreement.

The Defendant submits "an exemplar Credit Card Contract and Account
Opening Disclosures," bearing the notation "02/16," which contains
the terms and conditions governing the Account that would have been
sent to the Plaintiff at the same time the credit card was sent to
him.  In lieu of filing an answer to the complaint, the Defendant
moves to compel arbitration and stay this action pursuant to the
FAA.

The only question at issue on the motion is whether a valid
agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties.  The
Plaintiff's sole argument in opposition to the Defendant's motion
to compel is that the Defendant has not made a prima facie showing
that the Card Agreement containing the arbitration provision at
issue was mailed to him and, thus, there is no presumption that he
ever received it.

Judge Feuerstein finds that the Defendant sufficiently demonstrated
that the Card Agreement was mailed to the Plaintiff, and that the
Plaintiff received it.  The uncontroverted evidence demonstrating:
(i) that the Plaintiff opened a credit card account with FPB, used
the credit card issued by FPB to incur a debt and then defaulted on
the payments thereunder; and (ii) that it was FPB's regular
business practice to direct its vendor to mail a copy of the Card
Agreement together with the credit card when an account was opened,
and that it directed its vendor to do so with respect to the
Plaintiff's Account, is sufficient to show that he received the
Card Agreement and consented to its terms.  Therefore, the
Defendant has satisfied its burden of showing that a valid
agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties.

Since the Plaintiff does not oppose any other branch of the
Defendant's motion and, in any event, the arbitration provision in
the Card Agreement is clear that the Plaintiff waived his right to
participate in a class action4; the Plaintiff's FDCPA claims
clearly fall within the scope of the broad arbitration provision at
issue; and it is undisputed that the Defendant has standing to
enforce the arbitration agreement, the branch of the Defendant's
motion seeking to compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims
against it on an individual basis pursuant to Section 4 of the FAA
is granted; the parties will proceed to arbitration in accordance
with the terms of the Card Agreement; and the class action claims
in the Plaintiff's complaint are dismissed in their entirety.

Section 3 of the FAA requires courts to stay litigation of arbitral
claims pending arbitration of those claims in accordance with the
terms of the agreement.  Accordingly, the branch of the Defendant's
motion seeking to stay the action pursuant to Section 3 of the FAA
is granted and the action is stayed pending the arbitration of the
Plaintiff's claims.

For the stated reasons, Judge Feuerstein granted the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims against it
on an individual basis and to stay the action pending the
arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  The parties will proceed to
arbitration in accordance with the terms of the Card Agreement.
The class action claims in the Plaintiff's complaint are dismissed
in their entirety.  

The Plaintiff will submit his claims to arbitration within 30 days
of the date of the Order.  The action is stayed and
administratively closed with leave to reopen on 10 days' notice
within 30 days from the completion of the arbitration, but in no
event later than Sept. 28, 2020.  The Clerk of the Court will close
the case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/ew59iu from Leagle.com.

Eric Jackson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mitchell L. Pashkin.

Rushmore Service Center, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joseph
Slaughter -- SLAUGHTERJBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP &
Justin Ward Lamson -- LAMSONJWBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr
LLP.


SAZON CUBAN: Leal-Rodriguez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAURY LEAL-RODRIGUEZ, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. SAZON CUBAN CUISINE, L.L.C., RUBEN SEOANES and OSCAR
SKLAR, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-24234-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 14,
2019) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime
wages under the laws of the United States. This Court has
jurisdiction pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked approximately an average of 48 hours per week
without being compensated at the rate of not less than one and one
half times the regular rate at which he was employed, asserts the
complaint. Plaintiff was employed as a cook performing the same or
similar duties as that of those other similarly situated cooks whom
Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40 hours per week without
overtime compensation, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants' main place of business in
Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Sazon Cuban Cuisine is a cafe with Caribbean cuisine, a covered
outdoor patio & weekend live entertainment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
     SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
     20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 503-5131
     Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
     Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


SETERUS INC: Mich. Court Narrows Claims in Adams FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRACY ADAMS, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SETERUS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-12731
(E.D. Mich.), Judge Denise Page Hood of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted in
part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint.

The Plaintiff owns a residential home located at 8890 Burlingame
Avenue, SW, Byron Center, Michigan.  The home is secured by a
mortgage owned, backed, or controlled by Federal National Mortgage
Association that is serviced by the Defendant.  The Defendant
acquired the servicing rights to the Plaintiff's Fannie Mae-owned
loan from CitiMortgage when the loan was in a state of default.  As
a mortgage servicer, the Defendant contracts with Fannie Mae to
collect payments, fees, and other amounts owed by the home owner
and to provide other services to investors relating to the home
owner's loan.  Pursuant to its agreement with Fannie Mae, Seterus
provides notices to the Plaintiff and consumers like the Plaintiff
using a form letter that is identified in the Complaint as the
"Michigan Final Letter."

On Sept. 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a two-count Complaint
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA") and the Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act
("MRCPA").

In its Motion to Dismiss Complaint, the Defendant contended that
the Plaintiff lacks standing to assert her claims and, even if she
has standing, she has failed to allege a violation of the FDCPA.
The Defendant contended that any anxiety, stress, anger,
frustration, and mental anguish suffered by the Plaintiff was
solely caused by her own default and the Defendant's
contractually-required notification of its right to accelerate and
foreclose based on that default.  The Defendant asserted that the
Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that the anxiety was the direct
result of its method of determining whether to accelerate a loan
following receipt of a payment for less than the full amount due.

Judge Hood rejects the Defendant's argument.  Plaintiff has alleged
that the injury she suffered (anxiety, stress, anger, frustration,
and mental anguish) was attributable to the Defendant making false
or misleading threats of acceleration and foreclosure in the
Michigan Final Letter.  The Defendant's argument that any injury
suffered by the Plaintiff is attributable solely to her default on
her mortgage and loan is misplaced in its motion to dismiss, the
Court opines.  Based on the Plaintiff's allegations, Judge Hood
finds that the Plaintiff has alleged a concrete harm attributable
(fairly traceable) to the Michigan Final Letter sent by the
Defendant.  The Judge concludes that the Plaintiff has standing to
bring the cause of action.

Judge Hood further finds that the Plaintiff has adequately alleged
an FDCPA claim based on alleging that the Michigan Final Letter
threatens foreclosure proceedings that the Defendant would not
pursue if the Plaintiff paid less than the amount demanded in the
Michigan Final Letter.

However, for reasons argued by the Defendant, Judge Hood dismisses
the Plaintiff's FDCPA claim to the extent she relies on allegations
that the Michigan Final Letter's language that the Plaintiff would
have "the right to bring a court action or assert in the
foreclosure proceedings the nonexistence of a default or any other
defense to acceleration" was deceptive and misleading.  As the
language expressly provides, a debtor can bring a court action "or"
raise defenses in foreclosure proceedings.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiff's reliance on the alleged deceptiveness of the second
clause of that sentence is not persuasive, the Court holds.

Accordingly, Judge Hood (i) concludes that the Plaintiff may
proceed with her FDCPA claim related to the accelerating
foreclosure proceedings, including related class action claims; and
(2) dismisses the Plaintiff's FDCPA claim related to the assertion
of defenses in foreclosure.

As for Count II - MRCPA Claim, Judge Hood (1) concludes that the
Plaintiff may proceed with her MRCPA claim related to the
accelerating foreclosure proceedings, including the class action
claims thereunder; and (2) dismisses the Plaintiff's MRCPA claim
related to the assertion of defenses in foreclosure.  

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/x1pZgv from Leagle.com.

Tracy Adams, Plaintiff, represented by Scott C. Harris --
scott@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason & Andrew J. McGuinness
-- drewmcg@topclasslaw.com -- United Sta.

Seterus, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ari M. Charlip --
ACharlip@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC & James A.
Martone -- JMartone@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC.


SMS PIPELINE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Luker Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES LUKER, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. SMS PIPELINE SERVICES, LLC d/b/a LIBERTY ENERGY
SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00136 (E.D. Tex., Oct. 18,
2019), is a collective action seeking to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages owed to the Plaintiff and Liberty's other
similarly-situated workers.

SMS Pipeline Services, LLC d/b/a Liberty Energy Services does not
pay its day rate workers overtime as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Plaintiff alleges.  Instead of paying overtime,
Liberty pays all of its day rate workers a flat amount for each day
worked without any overtime compensation whatsoever regardless of
the number of hours worked in a workweek, the Plaintiff asserts.
Liberty's day rate pay plan violates the FLSA because employees
paid on a day rate basis are still entitled to overtime pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Liberty as a Safety Inspector from May
2018 until October 2018.

Liberty bills itself as "a world-class energy pipeline services
consulting firm." Liberty services its oil and gas sector clientele
throughout the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          Michael K. Burke, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  mburke@brucknerburch.com


SOBRATO ORGANIZATION: Fails to Refund Security Deposit, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM D.K. ABELKOP, and KATHERINE G. MACDONALD, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE SOBRATO
ORGANIZATION; SI VI, LLC, and DOES 1 through 200, Defendants, Case
No. 19CV355487 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty.,
Sept. 23, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
refund the Plaintiffs' security deposits at the termination of the
rental contract.

According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants collect security
deposits from their tenants with representations of intentions to
refund such deposits according to law at the conclusion of the
tenancy in accordance with California State Law. The Defendants,
however, have no such intention and routinely refuse to return all
or a substantial portion of the tenants' deposits asserting false,
fraudulent, and spurious reasons. In furtherance of their
fraudulent scheme to retain security deposits owed their former
tenants, the Defendants knowingly, intentionally, and regularly
make false allegations of damages to rental units, often exceeding
the security deposits in issue, in an effort to shift the burden of
ordinary wear and tear from the Defendants and onto their tenants.

The Defendants retaliate against and resist complaining tenants'
efforts to recover their security deposits by threatening
collection action or by negotiating the return of a portion of the
withheld security deposit in an effort to stave off civil action.

The Sobrato Organization, LLC owns, develops, manages, and invests
in real estate properties. Sobrato Organization serves customers in
the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander J. Perez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER J. PEREZ
          58 West Portal Avenue, Suite 286
          San Francisco, CA 94127
          Telephone: (415) 785-7775
          E-mail: perezlawoffice@att.net

               - and -

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Michael K. Teiman (SBN: 3 19524)
          HAFFNER LAW, PC
          445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2625
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Tel.: (213) 514-5681
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
                  mt@haffnerlawyers.com


SPARK SPORTS: May Face Class Suit Over Rugby World Cup Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Longley, writing for New Zealand-based NewsHub, reports that a
group of rugby fans who are unhappy with the streaming service
Spark Sport has provided of the Rugby World Cup have threatened
legal action.

The group, called The People v Spark Sport, say they will take a
class action lawsuit against Spark Sport for $250 million over
failings of its streaming service.

The group announced the class action on their Facebook page saying
customers "who experience any minor or major issues with regards to
Spark Sport App or Spark Services (inc Spark or Spark Sport
customer service experiences) during the RWC campaign will be
represented at no cost to those customers AFFECTED.

"Customers that have not experienced issues may choose to 'opt out'
of the lawsuit."

Spark Sport's streaming of the All Black's first game of the
tournament, a victory over South Africa, was plagued with issues,
including intermittent periods of reduced video quality such as
pixelation and buffering.

Spark Sport moved the game to free-to-air and issued a statement
afterwards apologising.

"Midway through the first half we identified that the quality of
the video stream was fluctuating for some customers," the company
said in a statement.

"We were uncomfortable at the quality of the experience our
customers were getting and, as we always said we would, we moved
quickly to provide them with an alternative means of watching the
match.

"We had prior established procedures with our partner TVNZ to
enable live, free-to-air coverage at short notice."

Spark CEO, Jolie Hodson added: "We are very disappointed that some
New Zealanders did not get the experience they deserved last night
during such an important match."

Spark Sport says coverage of the tournament since then has been
good but acknowledged some customers are still having problems.

In a statement after Wales beat Georgia on September 30 the company
said "vast majority" of viewers successfully streamed the latest
Rugby World Cup match but a small lot did have issues "unrelated to
the Spark Sport platform".

"Spark Sport is pleased to confirm that the Wales v Georgia match
streamed successfully both from a platform and broadband network
perspective.

"The vast majority of Spark Sport customers who watched Spark Sport
live and on-demand had a great viewing experience."

When it is filed the lawsuit would claim Spark Sport misled
customers about its streaming product.

In a satement to Newshub, Spark Sport said they had yet to be
directly contacted with any information as to the basis of the
claims to be alleged.

The company also said it was comfortable they had satisfied their
legal obligations.

"The primary request from The People vs Spark Sport, has been for
us to show all remaining matches simulcast on TVNZ.

"While we have a contingency plan in place, we have a set of
criteria around how we decide to activate this plan.

"We have been clear since we announced this plan that Spark would
only decide to switch to simulcast on TVNZ in the event of a
significant failure of the Spark Sport platform or a widespread
breakdown of streaming availability.

"We activated the simulcast on Saturday, September 21, during the
pool match between the All Blacks and South Africa, because we had
identified a fault within our streaming delivery chain.

"To give customers confidence in Spark Sport, we chose to continue
to simulcast the next day's games on TVNZ Duke while we confirmed
that the network configuration changes we made to the platform had
resolved this fault.

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

"As we do with all our customers, we have repeatedly offered
assistance to the owner of the Facebook page to resolve her
personal streaming issues with Spark Sport.

"She has decided to decline any support from Spark Sport.
"We continue to strongly encourage customers who are unhappy to
seek help from us directly and take advantage of our enhanced care
measures," the statement said. [GN]



STATE COLLECTION: Thorson's Bid for Class Certification Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William E. Duffin grants the Plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings on the motion for class certification in the
lawsuit entitled MICHAEL THORSON, ET AL. v. STATE COLLECTION
SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01463-WED (E.D. Wisc.).

On October 7, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint.
At the same time, the Plaintiff filed what the Court commonly
refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification.  In
this motion, the Plaintiff moved to certify the class described in
the complaint but also moved the Court to stay further proceedings
on that Motion.

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

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on
the motion for class certification is granted, rules the Court.
The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set
forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c).  Moreover, for
administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.  However, this
Motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose
under Damasco, Judge Duffin opines.[CC]


STERLING INVESTMENT: Coleman Hits Fund Mismanagement, Shady Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the case captioned Jason Coleman and Jessica
Casey, on behalf of the RVNB Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock
Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Neil M. Brozen, Robert Peterson,
Jr., Vasilia Peterson, Paul Generale, Mike Paxton, Nick Bouras and
Sterling Investment Partners III, L.P., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00705 (E.D. Tex., September 27, 2019), seeks to restore their
employee benefit plan and recover any profits made by breaching
fiduciaries through the use of Plan assets; and to obtain other
appropriate equitable and legal remedies in order to redress
violations and enforce the provisions of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, including the return of the wrongfully
redeemed RVNB stock to the Plan.

RVNB Holdings, Inc. provides moving and storage services with
facilities throughout the United States and operates under the
trade name "All My Sons Moving & Storage." Jason Coleman and
Jessica Casey are employees of RVNB and participants of its
employee benefit plan, a defined contribution plan. Defendants
allegedly terminated the Plan and sold its shares of RVNB for less
than fair market value in 2017.

Neil M. Brozen is the trustee for the RVNB Holdings, Inc. Employee
Stock Ownership Plan. Said Plan was terminated and sold to Sterling
Investment Partners. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas R. Ajamie, Esq.
      John S. Edwards, Jr., Esq.
      AJAMIE LLP
      Pennzoil Place - South Tower
      711 Louisiana, Suite 2150
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 860-1600
      Fax: (713) 860-1699
      Email: tajamie@ajamie.com
             jedwards@ajamie.com

             - and -

      Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
      Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      1055 Thomas Jefferson St., NW, Suite 540
      Washington, DC 20007
      Tel: (202) 463-2101
      Fax: (202) 463-2103
      Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com
             rjenny@baileyglasser.com


SUBARU CORP: $6.2M Deal in Starlink Suit Has Interim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Denis Flierl, writing for Torque News, reports that customers are
getting closer to receiving the $6.2 million dollars coming to them
in the Subaru Starlink class-action lawsuit settlement. Attorneys
from Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP have reported
on Oct. 4, 2019, a New Jersey court has granted preliminary
approval to the class action settlement reached with Subaru related
to 2018 Subaru Outback, 2018 Crosstrek, 2018 Legacy, 2017-2018
Impreza, and 2018 BRZ.

Seven plaintiffs (Chad Udeen, Mary Jane Jeffrey, Lydia Runkel,
Michael Block, Gary Gilpin, Alicia Smith, and Susan Williams)
allege the Subaru Starlink multimedia system can "freeze and
malfunction because the head units fail, and updates offered by the
automaker have allegedly failed to fix the systems (Starlink
problems)."

2018 Subaru Outback Starlink

The Starlink system consists of Harman Gen 3 audio and navigation
head units, and the lawsuit alleges it's the head units that create
safety concerns for Subaru drivers.

What does the preliminary approval mean for customers?

All individuals in the U.S. who purchased or leased one of these
vehicles will be entitled to receive an extended warranty covering
the Starlink system on their 2017-2018 Subaru Impreza, 2018
Outback, 2018 Legacy, 2018 Crosstrek, and 2018 BRZ vehicle. Class
members will also be able to claim cash compensation of up to $300
if they had to have their infotainment systems repaired multiple
times and/or $16/day spent without a functioning system while
replacement head units were on backorder.

Subaru Starlink connectivity

All class members will be issued a formal notice within 60 days
from the date of the preliminary approval order on October 4, 2019.
This final approval to the settlement has not been granted yet, and
another hearing is scheduled on February 3, 2020, in District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

What owners can do

If you are experiencing problems with your Subaru Starlink system,
the equipment is covered under the 3-Year/36,000-Mile Subaru
Limited Warranty. Take your vehicle into a Subaru dealer and
document your conversation and get written proof of your complaint
with each visit.

Subaru Starlink multimedia

Stay tuned for additional information on the final Subaru Starlink
settlement on your 2018 Subaru Outback, 2018 Crosstrek, 2018
Legacy, 2017-2018 Impreza, and 2018 BRZ vehicles on or near
February 3, 2020.

Bookmark the TN Subaru page and be sure to follow Subaru Starlink
class-action lawsuit reports on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram,
Subaru Report. Send us your Subaru news tips @SubaruLegitNews and
we'll give you a shout out! Check back tomorrow for more Subaru
news and updates.

Watch Why Subaru Didn't Bring More Exterior Changes to the 2020
Outback video and subscribe to the Torque News YouTube channel for
daily Subaru and automotive news analysis. [GN]




SUMMIT FUNDING: Faces Haug Suit in California Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Summit Funding Inc.
The case is captioned as Teri Haug, individually and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. Does 1-100 and Summit Funding Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 34-2019-00266270-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Oct. 2, 2019).

Summit Funding is a direct seller servicer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com

SURESCRIPTS: Intergrated Pharma Sues Over Anticompetitive Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intergrated Pharmaceutical Solutions LLC d/b/a Bartow Pharmacy and
Medical Supply, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SURESCRIPTS, LLC; RELAYHEALTH; and
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-06778 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 14, 2019) is an action under
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act to restrain anticompetitive
conduct by Surescripts, the nation's largest provider of
"e-prescribing" services, and to remedy the harms of its
decade-long anticompetitive scheme.

According to the complaint, Surescripts possesses monopoly power in
two markets: (1) electronic prescription routing and (2)
eligibility, collectively known as "e-prescribing" services.
"Routing" is the transmission of prescription and
prescription-related information from a prescriber (such as a
physician) to a pharmacy, like Plaintiff here. Routing information
is transmitted from the prescriber's electronic health record (EHR)
system to the pharmacy's computer database to effectively deliver
the "e-prescription" from physician to pharmacy on behalf of a
patient. "Eligibility" is the transmission of a patient's formulary
and pharmaceutical benefit information from the patient’s health
care plan (usually the patient's health insurer or pharmacy benefit
manager) to a prescriber physician's EHR system. Despite the
explosive growth of routing and eligibility transactions--from
nearly 70 million routing transactions in 2008 to more than 1.7
billion in 2017--Surescripts has maintained at least a 95% share,
by transaction volume, in both the routing and eligibility markets.
As such, pharmacies have no commercially reasonable alternative to
Surescripts for these "e prescribing" services. And as a result,
Surescripts has been able to charge pharmacies supracompetitive
prices for almost ten years.

Surescripts was able to maintain this dominant market position not
through competition on the merits, but instead through a
multifaceted scheme to exclude competitors. Surescripts has taken
several anticompetitive steps to ensure that it--and it
alone--controls routing service and pricing in the United States.
The goal and effect of Surescripts' overarching scheme was to
neutralize actual and nascent competitors before they could
undermine Surescripts' ability to charge monopoly prices in the
e-prescribing industry. As a result of Surescripts' unlawfully
maintained dominance, pharmacies--such as Plaintiff here--have been
forced to pay considerably more for their routing services than
they otherwise would have paid in the presence of lawful
competition.

Due to Defendants' ongoing conduct, there is no meaningful
competition in the markets for routing or eligibility, asserts the
complaint. The decade-long monopolies in these markets have
produced predictable effects: higher prices, reduced quality,
stifled innovation, suppressed output, and stymied alternative
business models. Pharmacies, like Plaintiff here, typically pay at
least 17 cents per routing transaction under Surescripts'
monopolistic regime, notes the complaint. These pennies add up for
independent pharmacy Plaintiff here and members of the Class. In
2013, 1 billion new and refill prescriptions were routed to
pharmacies electronically. In 2018, Surescripts claims it processed
1.9 billion e-prescriptions alone. Over a decade, that's billions
of overcharge transactions and supracompetitive prices pulled from
pharmacies that are trying to deliver timely, quality care to
consumers nationwide. Had Surescripts' 1.9 billion e-prescriptions
in 2018 been routed at competitive prices instead of monopoly
prices, Plaintiff and the Class would have saved many millions of
dollars in that year alone. And this scheme has been underway for
almost a decade, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Intergrated Pharmaceutical Solutions LLC d/b/a Bartow
Pharmacy Medical Supply is a Florida limited liability corporation
located at 1478 N. Wilson Ave, Bartow, FL 33830. Bartow Pharmacy
Medical Supply has paid and continues to pay Surescripts
e-prescription routing charges.

Surescripts is a for-profit Delaware limited liability company,
with its principal place of business at 2800 Crystal Drive,
Arlington, VA 22202.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
     Justin N. Boley, Esq.
     Tyler J. Story, Esq.
     55 West Monroe St., Ste. 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 346-2222
     Fax: (312) 346-0022
     Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
            jnb@wexlerwallace.com
            tjs@wexlerwallace.com

          - and -

     W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
     Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
     Brian D. Clark, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
     100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Phone: (612) 339-6900
     Fax: (612) 339-0981
     Email: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
            rkshelquist@locklaw.com
            bdclark@locklaw.com

          - and –

     D. Michael Campbell, Esq.
     MOODY LAW
     575 North Broadway Ave.
     Bartow, FL 33830
     Phone: (863) 733-9090
     Fax: (863) 534-1001
     Email: dmcampbell@campbelllaw.com


SYDNEY OLYMPIC: Opal Developer Ecove Dragged Into Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Su-Lin Tan, writing for Financial Review, reports that the NSW
government's Sydney Olympic Park Authority (SOPA) has dragged Opal
Tower builder Icon and developer Ecove into the
multi-million-dollar class action for compensation over the failed
building.

In July, owners launched the lawsuit against SOPA, the owner of the
land on which Opal Tower sits, but have had to wait for the case to
be heard before the NSW Supreme Court as SOPA launched cross claims
against Icon and Ecove.

Nine months since the tower was evacuated on Christmas Eve over
cracking sounds, not only are owners still in limbo over
compensation but many have not yet moved back to their units or
been paid promised reimbursements for alternative accommodation.

In July, owners sued SOPA and the NSW government as a single
defendant, but last week, both Icon and Ecove were drawn into the
case following lodged cross claims.

More submissions and defences will now follow before court
directions are heard again in early December.

There has, however, been one win for the owners.

Owners were able to obtain an order which stopped SOPA, Icon and
Ecove from trying to "settle claims" outside of the case,
effectively inducing owners to back out of the class action.

The Australian Financial Review revealed builder Icon attempted to
"settle" owners quietly in anticipation of being drawn into the
class action.

The move was slammed by owners as "sneaky".

A court order now stops any of the defendants from initiating
"settlements" with owners who are either in or have not
participated in the class action.

Icon was unsuccessful in opposing the order. [GN]




TEACHERS FEDERAL: Faces Donnelly Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teachers Federal
Credit Union. The case is captioned as Annie Donnelly, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
Teachers Federal Credit Union, the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-05564 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2019). The suit demands $5 million
damages.

Teachers Federal is not-for-profit financial institution offering
competitive rates on savings and loans, and a variety of
convenience services for their members.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Annick M. Persinger., Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com

TENCENT MUSIC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Nov. 25 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Tencent Music Entertainment Group
(NYSE: TME) from December 12, 2018 through August 26, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important November 25, 2019
lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action commenced by
the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Tencent Music
investors under the federal securities laws.

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

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

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

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

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

Contact:

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



THERANOS: Founder's Unpaid Lawyers Quit
---------------------------------------
Paige Leskin, writing for Business Insider, reports that three
attorneys defending Elizabeth Holmes in federal court are trying to
quit the case because they say the Theranos founder, once valued at
$4.5 billion, hasn't paid them in over a year.

The lawyers, who work at the law firm Cooley, have been
representing Holmes against a federal class-action lawsuit brought
on by former Theranos patients who allege their blood tests from
the startup yielded inaccurate results and caused them to undertake
unnecessary medical costs.

However, the attorneys filed a motion last week to withdraw as
counsel for Holmes, saying Holmes hasn't paid Cooley for its
defense work "for more than a year." The law firm said that it
doesn't expect Holmes to ever pay it for services, given her
"current financial situation," and that it would be "unfair and
unreasonable" for it to continue representing her, the documents
said.

The Mercury News first reported on the lawyers' motion to withdraw
as counsel.

The class-action suit was filed in 2016 in Phoenix, where Theranos
operated several blood-testing "wellness centers" out of Walgreens
stores in the area. Holmes, Walgreens, and Theranos, who are also
named as defendants, have all denied wrongdoing in the case. No
trial date has been set.

The civil lawsuit in question is separate from the one involving
criminal charges against Holmes that could result in jail time. In
that case, the Department of Justice has charged Holmes and
Theranos' former president, Sunny Balwani, with multiple counts of
fraud. The charges stem from allegations that Holmes and Balwani,
who hid that they were romantically involved for much of the time
they headed Theranos, schemed to defraud the startup's investors,
its doctors, and its patients while knowing that its test results
were inaccurate and unreliable.

The trial in the criminal case is set to begin in July 2020. Both
Holmes and Balwani could face up to 20 years in prison, as well as
a $250,000 fine plus restitution for each charge, the government
has said.

The lawyers defending Holmes in the criminal case did not respond
to Business Insider's questions about whether they had been paid
for their representation.[GN]




THGPP LLC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against THGPP LLC. The case
is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THGPP LLC doing
business as: Glossybox, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09623 (S.D.
N.Y., Oct. 18, 2019).

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

GLOSSYBOX is an online subscription service, delivering beauty
products directly to its users' doorstep.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


TOTAL GAS: City of Long Beach Alleges Stock Market Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF LONG BEACH, individually and on behalf of and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOTAL GAS & POWER NORTH AMERICA,
INC.; TOTAL, S.A.; and TOTAL GAS & POWER, LTD. Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-08725 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2019) alleges that the
Defendants engage in conduct that unreasonably restrained the
markets for trading natural gas and natural gas-related contracts
which set the monthly index prices for four major western U.S.
trading hubs, published by Natural Gas Intelligence's Bidweek
Survey and Mc-Graw-Hill Platts Inside FERC Gas Market Report, and
by which Total Gas acquired and maintained monopoly power over the
setting of such Monthly Index Prices between July 1, 2009 and July
31, 2012.

According to the complaint, Total Gas entered into natural
gas-related term contracts -- usually called "swap" contracts by
FERC -- which settled based on the "Monthly Index Prices" which
were calculated by Platts and NGI based on numerous next-month
fixed price natural gas transactions at specific natural gas
trading locations executed during the last five trading days of the
month preceding the designated pricing month (known as "bidweek"),
as reported to NGI and Platts. Total Gas then proceeded to
intentionally manipulate the Monthly Index Prices in whichever way
-- up or down -- that benefited the Monthly Index swap contracts it
held relating to the specific location, by buying or selling,
generally at a loss and at artificial money-losing prices, large
quantities of the underlying next-month fixed price contracts for
natural gas at that location during bidweek on which the next
month's Monthly Index Prices for that location were calculated.

Because of the large size of Total Gas's position in the Monthly
Index swap contracts, Total Gas more than offset its losses on its
money-losing purchases or sales of the underlying next-month fixed
price gas contracts which it used to manipulate the Monthly Index
Prices, by receiving significantly greater revenues under its swap
contracts which settled based on the manipulated Monthly Index
Prices.

Total Gas & Power North America distributes natural gas. The
Company offers natural gas, petcoke, and liquefied natural gas.
Total Gas & Power North America serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          2 International Drive. Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200

               - and -

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          Pamela A. Markert, Esq.
          CERA LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 1350
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230

               - and -

          Daniel J. Sponseller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL J. SPONSELLER
          409 Broad Street, Suite 200
          Sewickley, PA 15143
          Telephone: (412) 741-4422


TOYOTA MOTOR: Muswaya Files Consumer Credit Suit in E.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Motor Credit
Corporation. The case is styled as Robert M. Muswaya individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Toyota
Motor Credit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00768 (E.D.
Tex., Oct. 18, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (TMCC) provides automotive finance
services. The Company offers dealer finance, term loans, and
revolving credit services to vehicles and industrial equipment
dealers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
     Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
     2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 575-8181 Ext.114
     Fax: (630) 575-8188
     Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com

          - and -

     Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
     Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd
     900 Jorie Boulevard, Suite 150
     Oak Brook, IL 60523
     Phone: (630) 575-8181 Ext. 116
     Fax: (630) 575-8188
     Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com


TRAEGER PELLET: Yates Sues over Deceptive Wood Pellet Ads
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL YATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TRAEGER PELLET GRILLS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00723-(D. Utah, Oct. 1, 2019), contends that the Defendant
wrongfully and unfairly deceived the public and its customers by
misrepresenting that its wood pellets comprise one type of wood,
when in fact the pellets comprise a different type of less
expensive wood containing flavored oils to masquerade as more
expensive, sought-after grilling woods.

Over the past decade, barbecue culture has exploded, resulting in
an entire industry focused on how to smoke prime rib, tri-tip,
brisket, ribs, pork shoulder, and other prime cuts of meat "low and
slow" to best infuse them with flavor.  In marketing and selling
its wood pellets, Defendant uniformly represents that its wood
pellets comprise a specific type of wood.  For example, Defendant
markets and sells, "Hickory BBQ Wood Pellets" and "Mesquite BBQ
Wood Pellets." The Defendants' representations about the wood
pellets are false. Contrary to the Defendant's advertisements and
product packaging, the Defendant's wood pellets do not comprise or
even primarily comprise the identified wood.

As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, Plaintiff and
Class Members who purchased the wood pellets were injured and lost
money, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jared D. Scott, Esq.
          Heather M. Sneddon, Esq.
          Jason Greene, Esq.
          ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
          50 West Broadway, #700
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2035
          Telephone: (801) 534-1700
          E-mail: hsneddon@aklawfirm.com
                  jscott@aklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Liana W. Chen, Esq.
          KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP
          150 Post Street, Suite 520
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 955-1155
          E-mail: karl@KRInternetLaw.com
                  jeff@KRInternetLaw.com
                  liana@KRInternetLaw.com

TWITTER INC: Doshier Suit Venue Moved to Calif. Northern District
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kristine G. Baker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, Western Division, transferred the case
WILLIAM F. DOSHIER and DOTSTRATEGY, CO., Plaintiffs, v. TWITTER,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00700-KGB (E.D. Ark.), to the
Northern District of California.

The Plaintiffs filed their complaint initially in the Circuit Court
of Faulkner County, Arkansas.  Twitter removed the action to the
Arkansas District Court on Sept. 21, 2018.  Twitter then filed a
motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3)
or, alternatively, to transfer venue.  The Plaintiffs oppose the
motion.

Twitter asserts that venue is improper in the Arkansas District
Court and that the District Court should either dismiss the case or
transfer it to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a).  Twitter contends that it is not a resident
of Arkansas within the meaning of Section 1391(c).  Further, it
asserts that the acts forming the basis of the Plaintiffs' claims
did not occur in the Eastern District of Arkansas.

The Plaintiffs requested limited jurisdictional discovery regarding
venue, but the District Court by separate order denied that
request.

Twitter is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in San Francisco, California, and therefore resides
outside of the Eastern District of Arkansas.  It maintains that it
has no employees or offices in Arkansas and that it does not own
any real property in Arkansas.  On the record before the Court,
Judge Baker declines to find that Twitter has sufficient minimum
contacts with the State of Arkansas to subject it to general
jurisdiction in the State of Arkansas.

Further, Twitter asserts that the acts forming the basis of the
Plaintiffs' claims did not occur in the Eastern District of
Arkansas.  It maintains that the Plaintiffs do not and cannot
allege that Twitter targets its platform at Arkansas and that, even
if they could make such a showing, their claims do not arise out of
any Twitter action purportedly targeting Arkansas.  As a result,
Twitter maintains that the Arkansas Court lacks specific
jurisdiction and venue.

On the record before the Arkansas Court, Judge Baker declines to
find that the acts that the Plaintiffs allege form the basis of the
litigation occurred in the Eastern District of Arkansas.  She also
determines that, based on the contacts alleged, the Arkansas Court
cannot exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Twitter.

Finally, Twitter contended that Section 1391(b)(3) does not apply
because most of the alleged acts or omissions giving rise to the
Plaintiffs' claims took place in the Northern District of
California, where Twitter resides.  The Judge agrees.  As a result,
venue is proper in that district, making Section 1391(b)(3)
inapplicable.

For all of these reasons, Judge Baker concludes that venue of the
Doshier/Twitter case in the Eastern District of Arkansas is not
proper under Section 1391 and that transfer is appropriate under
Section 1406(a).  Even if venue in the Eastern District of Arkansas
is proper, the Judge concludes that transfer is appropriate under
Section 1404(a).  The Judge directed the Clerk to transfer the case
immediately to the Northern District of California.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/0TAqpP from Leagle.com.

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

Twitter Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey R. Roeser --
rroeser@haltomdoan.com -- Haltom & Doan, LLP & Jennifer Haltom Doan
-- jdoan@haltomdoan.com -- Haltom and Doan.


TXF LOGISTICS: Underpays Equipment Operators, Joe Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
NASIR JOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TXF LOGISTICS LLC; and CRAIG MARCUM,
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01155 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 24, 2019)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Joe was employed by the Defendants as equipment
operator.

TXF Logistics LLC is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from
Pickerington, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Merideth Q. McEntire, Esq.
           Josh Sanford, Esq.
           SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
           650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
           Little Rock, AK 72211
           Telephone: (501) 221-0088
           Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
           E-mail: merideth@sanfordlawfirm.com
                   josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ashford Says Registration Statement Misleading
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uber Technologies,
Inc. et al. The action asserts strict liability claims under the
Securities Act  of 1993 against Uber. The Plaintiff brings the
class action on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise
acquired Uber common stock pursuant or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
Uber's May 2019 initial public offering.

In May 2019, the Defendants issued more than 207 millions shares of
Uber common stock to the investing public at $45 per share, all
pursuant to the Registration Statement.

The lawsuit contends that the Registration Statement contained
untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state material
facts both required by governing regulations and necessary to make
the statements made not misleading.  The representation and
purported risk disclosures were false and misleading because, in
truth, by the time of the IPO:

     (i) Uber was already rapidly increasing subsidiaries for
customers' rides and meals in a bid for market share, which caused
the Company's sales and marketing expenses to swell; and

    (ii) defendants were cutting (or planned to cut) costs in key
areas that undermined the Company's central growth opportunities.

Uber is a technology company that provides a mobile application for
ridesharing.

The case is captioned as GERALD ASHFORD, Individually and on behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DAKA KHOSROWSHAHI, NELSON CHAI, GLENN CEREMONY,
RONALD SUGAR, URSULA BURNS, GARRETT, CAMP, MATT COHLER, RYAN
GRAVES, ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, TRAVIS KALANICK, WAN LING MARTELLO,
H.E. YASIR AL-RUMAYYAN, JOHN THAIN, DAVID TRUJILLO, MORGAN STANLEY
& CO, LLC. GOLDMAN'S SACHS & CO., LLC; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE,
FENNER & SMITH, INC., BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS, LLC, ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC,
SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPREY, INC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., HSBC
SECURITIES (USA)  INC., SMBC NIKKO SECURITIES AMERICA, INC., MIZUHO
SECURITIES USA LLC, NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC, LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS
LLC, SIEBERT CISNEROS SHANK CO., LLC, ACADEMY SECURITIES, INC.,
BTIG, LLC, CANACORD GENUITY LLC, CASTLEOAK SECURITIES, L.P., COWEN
AND COMPANY, LLC, EVERCORE GROUP, LLC, JMP SECURITIES, LLC,
MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC., MISCHLER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.,
OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., WILLIAM
BLAIR & COMPANY, LLC, THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, LP, TPG CAPITAL
BD, LLC, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
CG-19-579684 (Cal. Super., Oct. 1, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          James I. Jaconate, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN &
          DOWSD LLP655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231 7423
          E-mail: james@rgdlaw.com.

               - and -

          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 766 3534
          Facsimile: (415) 402 0058
          E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com

               - and -

          Brian Schall, Esq.
          SCHALL LAW FIRM
          1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 301 3335
          Facsimile: (310) 301 0192
          E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com

USA TECHNOLOGIES: Gouet Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as STEPHANE GOUET, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. USA
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STEPHEN P. HERBERT, and PRIYANKA SINGH, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04565-CFK (Filed Sept. 11, 2018), was
transferred from the United States District for the District of New
Jersey, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on Oct. 2, 2019. The
Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-04565-CFK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Chas F. Kenney.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of federal securities laws and pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

USA Technologies provides wireless networking, cashless
transactions, asset monitoring, and other value-added services in
the United States and internationally.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Telephone: (973) 313-1887
          Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

VANGUARD CONSTRUCTION: Zollo Seeks Proper Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
GERARDO ZOLLO on behalf of himself and other employees similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. VANGUARD CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT AND
COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09477 (S.D. N.Y., Oct.
14, 2019) is an action to remedy violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief; his unpaid wages including
overtime wages; penalties for notice and record keeping violations;
statutory liquidated damages; pre-judgment interest; his reasonable
attorney fees and costs; and all other appropriate legal and
equitable relief.

Zollo's work hours and work schedule each week varied considerably,
based upon Vanguard's needs and the needs of the particular
construction sites to which he was sent. He generally worked 5 or 6
days each week, between 8 and 16 hours each day; on a few
occasions, he worked 19 or 20 hours in a single day. Typically, he
worked between 40 and 70 hours each week. On a number of occasions,
his weekly hours worked were above 80 or 90. Zollo did not receive
required wage notices. Further, with only a few rare exceptions,
Zollo's weekly pay stubs did not show the rate of pay or the number
of hours compensated. This information was also not reported to him
in any other form. Zollo was generally not paid overtime. By
comparing his log book with his pay stubs, Zollo confirmed that he
did not receive an overtime premium for his overtime hours worked,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Zollo was employed by Vanguard as a laborer from July 18,
2016 to June 7, 2019.

Vanguard is a general contractor and construction management
company with dozens of commercial and other institutional
construction projects throughout New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony P. Consiglio, Esq.
     CARY KANE LLP
     1350 Broadway, Suite 1400
     New York, NY 10018
     Phone: (212) 868-6300
     Email: aconsiglio@carykane.com


VIMEO INC: Faces Acaley Suit over Biometric Data Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY ACALEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VIMEO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH10873
(Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Sept. 20, 2019) alleges violation of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant collect,
store, and use the Plaintiff's biometric identifiers and biometric
information without informed written consent in violation of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Vimeo, LLC operates as a video sharing site. The Company enables
its users to upload, share, and watch various categories of videos,
as well as provides news, sports, and entertainment content online
in an easily searchable format. Vimeo serves customers in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Brad King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and –

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (786) 831-6555


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

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 17,
2019 through August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and/or
pursuant or traceable to Waitr's November 2018 going public
transaction with Landcadia or in its May 2019 secondary public
offering ("SPO"), are encouraged to contact the firm before
November 29, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Waitr was not close to becoming a
profitable business. The Company could not sustain itself at the
low take rate of 15%. Waitr was not capable of driving efficiencies
with its workforce to offer lower rates than competitors. In fact,
the Company's software represented little to no competitive
advantage in the market. Based on these facts the company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Waitr,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

Contact:

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



WESTERN BEST LLC: Byars Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kizzy Byars, Danielle James, as individuals and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Western Best LLC, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01690 (D. Nev., September 27, 2019),
seeks redress for unpaid overtime wages, waiting time penalties,
unpaid meal and rest breaks, hostile work environment,
discrimination and retaliation and tortious constructive
discharge.

Western Best LLC operates as "The Chicken Ranch" where Plaintiffs
are adult African-American females who worked as legal prostitutes.
They claim to regularly work more than eight hours in a workday.
Being on-call, they sometimes worked through their meal breaks.
They also were subjected to highly offensive and derogatory
language when referring to African-American and female employees.
They were eventually retaliated against for asserting their rights.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan Alexander, Esq.
      RYAN ALEXANDER, CHTD.
      3017 West Charleston Blvd., Ste. 58
      Las Vegas, NV 89102
      Phone: (702) 868-3311
      Fax: (702) 822-1133


WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC: Musselwhite Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY MUSSELWHITE, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY,
LLC, STONE & WEBSTER, INC., and STONE & WEBSTER SERVICES LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01338-CB (W.D. Pa., Oct. 18, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

While working for Stone & Webster, Mr. Musselwhite alleges he was
paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked (including those
hours in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek) with no overtime
compensation. The Plaintiff and other workers like him were not
paid overtime as required by the FLSA for work they performed for
the Defendants. Instead, he asserts, he and other workers were paid
the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in
excess of 40 in a workweek. Rather than receiving time and half as
required by the FLSA, Mr. Musselwhite only received "straight time"
pay for overtime hours worked and did not receive any compensation
for the first eight hours or overtime, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Stone & Webster as a Source Inspector in
Louisiana, Texas and Oregon from 2013 through April 2018.

Stone & Webster provides nuclear engineering and consulting
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Telecopier: (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


WIDOW JANE: Boshnack Sues over Mislabeled Bourbon Whiskey
---------------------------------------------------------
MARC BOSHNACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WIDOW JANE DISTILLERIES LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-08812 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2019) is a class action on
behalf of purchasers of Widow Jane bourbon alleging that the
Defendant is engaged in deceptive marketing practices.

According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant deceptively markets the
Product in order to trick consumers into believing that its bourbon
is a product of New York when in fact the distillery, which is
located in Brooklyn, does not make the Product, but rather
purchases barrels of the bourbon from a distillery in Kentucky.

The Product is not actually distilled with water from New York at
all. It was distilled from Kentucky water in the state of Kentucky
and New York water was added to the finished product after it was
aged and removed from the barrels before bottling.

The Defendant's reference to use of "pure limestone mineral water"
from New York is particularly confusing to consumers in the context
of bourbon. That is because limestone water has unique properties
which make it ideal for distillation. However, limestone water adds
no benefit when it is simply added to the bourbon after
distillation has already taken place, as it was here with Widow
Jane bourbon. Widow Jane's price is exorbitantly higher than its
Kentucky counterparts due to Defendant's false and misleading
marketing.

The Defendant offers distillery, beer, spirits, and other alcoholic
beverages. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
                  ykopel@bursor.com
                  aleslie@bursor.com


WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Diaz Hits Misclassification, Denied Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
April Diaz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. World Acceptance Corporation and WFC
Limited Partnership, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00957, (W.D. Tex.,
September 30, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated
damages and attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Diaz worked as a branch manager for Defendant's Taylor, Texas
branch. She claims to have routinely worked more than forty hours
in a workweek but was not paid an overtime premium.

World Acceptance Corporation is a small-loan consumer finance
company offering short-term installment loans, medium-term larger
installment loans, related credit insurance and ancillary products.
WFC Limited Partnership is subsidiary of Defendant World Acceptance
Corporation, established in Texas. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
      Jay E. Eidsness, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      80 South Eighth Street, Suite 4600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Email: fisher@nka.com
             jeidsness@nka.com

            - and -

      Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
      Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
      ROSS LAW GROUP
      1104 San Antonio Street
      Houston, TX 78701
      Tel: (512) 474-7677
      Fax: (512) 474-5306
      Email: Charles@rosslawpc.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 ***