CAR_Public/191025.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, October 25, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 214

                            Headlines

225 WEST BROADWAY: Vivar Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
520 ASIAN RESTAURANT: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Chan Suit Says
AA AND K: Bid to Certify "Valle" as Collective Action Denied
ADVANCED MOTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Dierdorf Suit Says
ALLERGAN INC: Concealed Implants' Harmful Side-effects, Dobson Says

ALLSTATE CORP: Bid to Certify Class in Gebka Suit Continued
ALLSUP, LLC: Mairs Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
ALTOUNION CONSTRUCTION: Lieberman Seeks to Certify Class
AMERICAN INCOME: Court Denies Motion to Certify Class in "Golz"
AMERICAN REALTY: Settles Investor Class Action for $1 Billion

ANTHONY VINEYARDS: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Workers
APPLE INC: Suit over GTAT Collapse Wins Class Certification
AUTOZONE: Averts Workers' Class Action Over Rest, Meal Breaks
BAKER TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Dismissal of TCPA Class Action
BARRY UNIVERSITY: Faces Flores Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing

BAUSCH HEALTH: KPH Seeks Damages Over Glumetza-Linked Overcharges
BITFINEX: Faces RICO Class Action in New York
BLISTEX INC: Faces Class Action Over Medicated Lip Balm
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Data Breach Class Action Can Proceed
CALLON PETROLEUM: Davis Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty

CHRISTIAN PENNER: Izquierdo Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
CLEARVIEW ENERGY: Cruz Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
CLIENT RESOURCE: Faces Gerstenhaber Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
CLIENT SERVICES: Yoo Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CLIMATE CORP: Loraas Seeks OT Pay for Activation Specialists

COBRA ACQUISITIONS: Lejeune Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
CONNEXIONS LOYALTY: Class Cert. Bid Denied, Arbitration Okayed
CONTINENTAL INTERMODAL: Montgomery Seeks OT Pay for Truck Drivers
CORIZON HEALTH: Nurses Seek Unpaid Wages, Damages
COX COMMUNICATIONS: Feltzs Suit Removed to C.D. California

CROCODILE CANTINA: Pena Seeks Unpaid Wages for Bartenders
DELTA COUNTY MEMORIAL: Gray Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages, Penalties
DELTA DENTAL: Faces Dolgow Suit Over Dental Insurance Monopsony
DELTA DENTAL: Legacy Sues Over Dental Insurance Monopsony
DETROIT, MI: Judge Tosses Detroit Police Arrestees' Class Action

DIAMANTE POBLANO: Cortes Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
DREAMSTYLE REMODELING: Winters Sues Over Unsolicited Calls
EL NUEVO SANDY: De La Rosa, et al. Seek Proper Wages
EMPIRE RESORTS: Franchi Files Suit Over Sale to Kien Huat/Genting
FACEBOOK INC: Settles Advertisers' Class Action for $40 Million

FAY SERVICING: Court Dismisses Robinson's Class Claims w/ Prejudice
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Court Stays Bid for Class Certification
FRESH MARKET: Faces Davis Suit Over Pork Products' False Ad
FS BLINDS: Fails to Pay Installers' Overtime Wages, Flores Claims
GANNETT CO: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action in Delaware

GANNETT CO: Steiner Balks at Merger Deal with New Media
GDS HOLDINGS: Ramzan Suit Transferred to E.D. Texas
GKN DRIVELINE: Mebane et al Seek to Certify FLSA Class
GODZILLA JAPANESE: Sicajau Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay
HEALTHCARE COLLECTIONS-I: Gonzales Sues Over FDCPA Violation

HOME DEPOT: Removes Strebin Case to Central District of California
ILLINOIS: Kay v. CMS Seeks Payment on Bond for Savings Pool
IVOX SOLUTIONS: Dameron Suit Asserts WARN Act Violation
JATIN INVESTMENTS: Lindsey Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Hotel Staff
KENTUCKY COUNSELING: Smith Sues over Data Breach

KIRIN GARDEN: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages Under FLSA, Dollar Says
LM GENERAL: Glover Seeks to Certify Class in Auto Insurance Case
LOWE'S HOME: Court Grants Conditional Collective Certification
LYDIA HEALTHCARE: Littleton Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Data
MDL 2820: Lund Suit over Dicamba Herbicides Consolidated

MDL 2915: Tadrous v. Capital One Over Data Breach Consolidated
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Faces Meyer Suit Arising From Data Breach
MNR RAMY: Cummings Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wage Under FLSA
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Dees Sues Over Breaches of Contract
NCAA: Reid Sues over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety

NCAA: Springer Sues Over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Faces Sexual Abuse Class Action
NEWSDAY LLC: Yohai Seeks Unpaid Earned Commissions
OUTSIDE DREAMS: Mondragon Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
P & A MANAGEMENT: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Fisher Claims

P & M PROPERTY: Rivera Seeks OT Wages for Landscaping Laborers
PETROBRAS: Lawyer Fees for Objector Haynes Increased to $33.7K
PIZZA BAKER: Clark Seeks to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Yang Sues over Debt Collection Practices
PRINCIPAL GLOBAL: Certification of Plan Beneficiaries Class Sought

PRODUCERS SERVICE: Andrews Seeks to Certify Oilfield Workers Class
PROVIDE COMMERCE: $200K Costs Awarded in Easysaver Rewards Suit
PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS: Walton et al Seek OT Pay for Managers
QUDIAN INC: Court Narrows Claims in Second Amended Securities Suit
REATA RESTAURANTS: Champagne Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas

RUHNN HOLDING: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
SANDERSON FARMS: Chicken Products Contain Antibiotics, Lentz Says
SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Bid for Class Certification Stricken as Moot
THUNDERBIRD COLLECTION: Gonzales Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation

TLA ENTERTAINMENT: Chiamulera Sues for Invasion of Privacy
TRANS UNION: Norman Seeks to Certify Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Dec. 3 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
UNITED RECOVERY: Kasalo Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
UNITED STATES: Row Over Immigrants' Court-Ordered Notices Arises

UTILIQUEST LLC: Muniz Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
WAG LABS: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
WESTERN SHAMROCK: Strickland Sues over Debt Collection Practices
WHITEFEATHER HOLDINGS: Minimum Pay Sought for Exotic Dancers
WINDSOR ESTATES: Webster Sues over Collection of Biometric Data

[*] Epiq Tackles Stock Considerations in Class Action Settlements

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Optical Had 46,400 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 32,120 Claims Pending at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Financial to Review A&EP Reserve in 4Q 2019
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cranford Denied Access to Burke Spouses Messages
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Friedel Given Until Dec. 9 to Perfect Appeal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Vacates March 23 Trial in Burke's Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Faces Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 111 Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Still Defends Various Lawsuits at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Forest Still Defends Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Set in Miller's Case Stayed Pending Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Faces Less Than 97 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at June 29


                            *********

225 WEST BROADWAY: Vivar Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO JUAREZ VIVAR (A.K.A MACHAZO), individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 225 WEST BROADWAY CORP.
(D/B/A ATTRAVERSA), 228 BLEECKER LLC (D/B/A ARIA WEST VILLAGE),
BRICIOLA CORP. (D/B/A BRICIOLA), TANYA HIRA (A.K.A. TANYA PASSON),
ROBERTO PASSON, GUSTAVO BUENO, ALEX DOE, and CLAUDIO PASSON,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09685 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2019), is
brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that he worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime,
and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked.
Rather, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately
for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium, says the complaint.

Mr. Juarez was employed as a cleaner and a laborer at the
Defendants' restaurants.

The Defendants own, operate, or control three Italian restaurants,
located at 225 W Broadway, in New York City, under the name
"Attraversa;" at 117 Perry Street, in New York City, under the name
"Aria West Village;" and at 370 W 51st Street, in New York City,
under the name "Briciola."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200
     Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


520 ASIAN RESTAURANT: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Chan Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHIW YIN CHAN and JIESHENG LIN, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs, v. 520 ASIAN
RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a Chef Yu and TEO SU JIN, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-09521 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 15, 2019) is a Collective Action
Complaint against Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and the New York Labor Law, that they and others similarly
situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid overtime,
unpaid minimum wage resulting from an invalid tip credit, unpaid
"spread of hours" pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked over 40 hours per
week, and their workdays lasted over 10 hours on four days each
week. Despite regularly having workdays which exceeded ten hours,
Plaintiffs never received "spread of hours" pay. Plaintiffs never
received a wage notice from Defendants, nor did they receive a tip
credit notice at any time during their employment by Defendants.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs and
Class members the statutory minimum wage and overtime rate, in
violation of the New York Labor Law. The Defendants were not
entitled to take a tip credit because (i) they failed to provide
Plaintiffs and Class members with any verbal or written notice they
were taking a tip credit against their wages, and (ii) Defendants
instituted an invalid tip pool whereby employees whose job duties
were mostly non-tipped received a share of the tips, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs were hired by Defendants to work as waiters for
Defendants' restaurant.

520 ASIAN RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a Chef Yu, is a New York business
corporation that owns and operates Chef Yu, a restaurant located at
520 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York 10018.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10011
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


AA AND K: Bid to Certify "Valle" as Collective Action Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RAMON VALLE, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AA AND K
RESTORATION GROUP, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-20873-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge K. Michael Moore
entered an order on Oct. 16, 2019:

   1. denying Plaintiff's Motion for conditional certification of
      collective action:

      "all individuals who worked as day laborers performing
      debris removal and other disaster relief following
      hurricanes and tropical storms in 2018"; and

  2. instructing Clerk of Court to add Yasmany Garcia, Francisco
      Segui, Gabriel Santini, Daniel Perez, and Abby Madrid as
      party plaintiffs to the action.

The Court said, "Plaintiff has not met his burden to demonstrate
that there is a reasonable basis to believe that others desire to
opt in to this action. Although the burden at this stage is low, it
is not invisible. And, "certification of a collective action and
notice to a potential class is not appropriate to determine whether
there are others who desire to join the lawsuit." Accordingly,
Plaintiff's request for conditional certification of a collective
action and court-authorized notice is denied. Nonetheless, because
the affidavits demonstrate that Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiffs,
Madrid, and Garcia are similarly situated to each other, and to
accommodate the individuals who have consented to join this action,
the Court will construe the Motion as a motion to join opt-in
plaintiffs Yasmany Garcia, Francisco Segui, Gabriel Santini, Daniel
Perez, and Abby Madrid as party plaintiffs, and [grant] that
Motion."

ADVANCED MOTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Dierdorf Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM DIERDORF and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. ADVANCED MOTION THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE, INC.; ADVANCED
MOTION THERAPEUTIC OF VERO BEACH, L.L.C.; MARIA ZAMBIGADIS; and
OMIROS ZAMBIGADIS a/k/a Homer Zambigadis, Defendants, Case No.
0:19-cv-62609-RAR (S.D. Fla., Oct. 21, 2019), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that he worked an average of 50-60 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.
Specifically, he avers, he worked at the Corporate Defendants'
facility and then had to do mandatory work at home filing out
reports for the Defendants. He contends that the Corporate
Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay him overtime
wages as required by the FLSA.

Mr. Dierdorf was employed by the Corporate Defendants as an
assistant physical therapist for their business from September 1,
2016, to August 2, 2019.

The Defendants are Florida companies and are Florida
residents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLERGAN INC: Concealed Implants' Harmful Side-effects, Dobson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLETTE DOBSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLERGAN, INC. f/k/a INAMED CORPORATION,
ALLERGAN USA, INC., and ALLERGAN plc., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02633-DDC-GEB (D. Kan., Oct. 15, 2019) is an action against
Allergan on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers who purchased Allergan implants.

According to the FDA, Allergan's implants significantly increase
the risk of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell
lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL") in Plaintiff and other implant patients.
Allergan has known about the connection between its textured
implants and the increased risk of developing BIA-ALCL for years.
However, Allergan did not disclose the connection between the
BIOCELL textured implants and BIA-ALCL to the FDA or the public.
Allergan did not accurately report adverse events each time an
injury or malfunction occurred concerning the BIOCELL textured
implants. Until 2017, Allergan buried evidence of ruptures and
other injuries with its implants by reporting these as routine
events that did not require any public disclosure. Allergan hid
these incidents in "Alternative Summary Reports", which are not
required to be reported to MAUDE. The ASR program was intended to
exclude severe or unexpected events or injuries.

The complaint asserts that FDA relies on accurate reporting of
adverse events to monitor the safety of medical devices. The
general public, medical personnel and researchers rely on MAUDE to
monitor the safety of medical devices. Because Allergan deceptively
and inaccurately used ASR instead of MAUDE to report adverse
incidents, Allergan misled the FDA, medical personnel, researchers,
its customers, and the general public. As a result, Allergan's
customers were exposed to harm. Additionally, Allergan did not
report to the FDA adverse events from its required post-market
approval studies. These post-market approval studies indicate that
the recalled BIOCELL textured implants have caused or contributed
to death and/or serious injury by increasing the risk of BIA-ALCL.

The complaint alleges that Allergan violated federal law by failing
to accurately and promptly report adverse events. Allergan also
violated applicable state laws, which do not impose duties or
requirements different from those imposed by federal law.
Therefore, under both state and federal law, Allergan was required
to promptly report any information indicative of a serious injury
associated with one of its medical devices. If Allergan had
complied with its obligations under federal law, the disclosure of
the risk of BIA-ALCL and BIOCELL textured implants would have
allowed Plaintiff and her surgeon to make an informed decision
whether to use the BIOCELL implants. Allergan acted recklessly and
with intentional disregard for the safety of Plaintiff and its
customers. In addition to Allergan's failure to comply with
reporting requirements, Allergan continued to distribute the
textured implants commercially. This distribution was a violation
of federal law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased breast implants from Allergan in Kansas. The
surgery to implant the BIOCELL implants occurred in Overland Park,
Kansas on March 31, 2015.

Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and silicone
filled breast implants and tissue expanders.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
     Michael A. Williams, Esq.
     Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
     WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
     1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
     Kansas City, MO 64105
     Phone: (816) 945-7110
     Fax: (816) 945-7118
     Email: matt@williamsdirks.com
            mwilliams@williamsdirks.com
            dirks@williamsdirks.com

          - and -

     Mandy M. Shell, Esq.
     SHELL LAW & TAX
     1656 Washington, Suite 140
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Phone: (816) 399-5030
     Fax: (816) 205-8420
     Email: mshell@shell-law.com


ALLSTATE CORP: Bid to Certify Class in Gebka Suit Continued
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Thomas Gebka, the Plaintiff,
vs. The Allstate Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19−cv−06662 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sharon Johnson
Coleman entered an order continuing Plaintiff's motion to certify
class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on October 16,
2019, the motion hearing was held that day.  Plaintiff's motion to
certify class is entered and continued.  A status hearing is set
for Nov. 18, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.

The Allstate Corporation is an American insurance company.  It also
has personal lines insurance operations in Canada. Allstate was
founded in 1931 as part of Sears, Roebuck and Co., and was spun off
in 1993.[CC]

ALLSUP, LLC: Mairs Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
JARED MAIRS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ALLSUP, LLC, an Illinois limited
liability company, and ALLSUP EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, LLC an Illinois
limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01086
(S.D. Ill., Oct. 6, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and
markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone
call to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Allsup, LLC is a for-profit company that provides services to
consumers to apply for social security disability insurance
benefits to the Social Security Administration. Allsup, LLC
monetizes this business by keeping 25% of the retroactive SSDI
benefits they help the consumer receive, up to $6,000 per
consumer.

In 2017 Defendant Allsup created a d/b/a True Help and TrueHelp.com
where individuals can take a free assessment to determine whether
they qualify for SSDI benefits.

In addition, Allsup created a subsidiary called Allsup Employment
Services, LLC where they provide employment services through the
Social Security Administration’s Ticket to Work program, where
Allsup is paid by the Social Security Administration as consumers
who sign up with Allsup Employment Services transition into the
workforce.

As part of Defendants' marketing efforts, Allsup Employment
Services places artificial or pre-recorded voice calls to consumers
who may qualify for their services ,the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff seeks to stop their practice of making unsolicited
cold calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice to the cellular
telephone numbers of consumers, and obtain redress for all persons
injured by its conduct.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: Law@StefanColeman.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26 th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

ALTOUNION CONSTRUCTION: Lieberman Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DAVID LIEBERMAN, on behalf of
himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. ALTOUNION CONSTRUCTION, INC., AN
ILLINOIS CORPORATION AND TODD ALTOUNION, INDIVIDUALLY, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00910 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff filed
a motion for stage-one conditional certification and notice to
putative class members.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450
          E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com

AMERICAN INCOME: Court Denies Motion to Certify Class in "Golz"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Alisa Golz, the Plaintiff,
v. American Income Life Insurance Company, et al., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-09879-SS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Suzanne H.
Segal entered an order denying without prejudice motion to certify
class.

According to the Civil Minutes – General, on June 12, 2019, the
Court entered a stay in this matter due to a pending settlement.
The Court denied the Motion to Certify Class, without prejudice, to
renewing the motion should it become necessary.

American Income Life Insurance Company, based in Waco, Texas, is an
insurance company that provides supplemental life insurance to
labor unions, credit unions, and associations. American Income Life
was founded in 1951. The company's executive offices have been
located in Waco, Texas, since 1959.[CC]

AMERICAN REALTY: Settles Investor Class Action for $1 Billion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Kelly, writing for InvestmentNews, reports that the $1
billion settlement between investors and the real estate investment
trust formerly known as American Realty Capital Properties Inc.
included an unusually large recovery for the claimants of close to
fifty cents on the dollar, as opposed to pennies on the dollar,
which is typical for such claims.

On Oct. 4, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in New York
gave preliminary approval to the settlements, according to a court
filing.

The amount of the settlement was particularly noteworthy, said
attorneys representing the class.

"The proposed settlement here represents a great recovery under the
circumstances--approximately 50% of lead plaintiff's estimated
recoverable damages of approximately $2.018 billion," the attorneys
noted in a separate court filing.

According to Cornerstone Research, a litigation consulting group,
claimants in such large class action claims commonly see far less
money in a settlement.

From 2009 to 2017, the median settlement in a claim by investors of
$1 billion or more was 2.7%, and in 2018 it was 2%. That means
investors often received two to three cents on the dollar in such
settlements.

Attorneys usually receive a payment of 15% to 25% of the final
settlement in such class action claims.

The company, now known as Vereit Inc., has been embroiled in
litigation for almost five years. In October 2014, the company,
known by its former ticker symbol ARCP, admitted to an accounting
error of $23 million, which set off a selling frenzy in the
company's stock.

The high for ARCP's stock that month--before the accounting issue
was revealed--was $12.48 per share. The low that followed was
$7.85, a swing of 37%.

Lawsuits ensued, with attorneys for investors claiming that ARCP
had misstated financial metrics to inflate its financial results
and fuel acquisitions.

On Oct. 7, Vereit's shares were trading close to $10.

In July, Nicholas Schorsch and his firm AR Capital, which managed
the REIT, agreed to pay $60 million in penalties to settle
Securities and Exchange Commission charges that he, the firm and a
partner wrongfully obtained millions of dollars in connection with
REIT mergers that were managed by AR Capital.

"The $1 billion settlement is extraordinarily impressive, and it's
also a little bit of a black eye for the SEC," said Andrew
Stoltmann, a plaintiff's attorney who was not involved in the class
action lawsuit. "Given the amount of money in the class action
settlement, it appears the SEC could have extracted a larger pound
of flesh."

A spokesman for the SEC, Ryan White, declined to comment.

Vereit will pay $738.5 million of the $1.025 billion class action
settlement. American Realty Capital, led by Mr. Schorsch, will pay
$225 million, with the company's former chief financial officer
Brian Block, who was found guilty of securities fraud in 2017,
paying $12.5 million. The auditor for the firm at the time of the
scandal, Grant Thornton, will pay $49 million. [GN]


ANTHONY VINEYARDS: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Workers
---------------------------------------------------------
SEBASTIANA MARTINEZ-SANCHEZ, individual, and EUGENIO ANTONIO-CRUZ,
an individual, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, the State of California and current and former
aggrieved employees, the Plaintiffs, vs. ANTHONY VINEYARDS, INC., a
California Corporation, and SYCAMORE LABOR, INC., a California
Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01404-DAD-JLT (E.D.
Cal., Oct. 4, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay minimum
wages, failed to provide meal periods, or pay premium wages in lieu
thereof, failed to provide rest breaks, or pay premium wages in
lieu thereof, failed to reimburse expenses, failed to furnish
accurate itemized wage statements, failed to permit inspection or
copying of records, failed to timely pay final wages at resignation
or termination in violation of the Agricultural and Migrant Worker
Protection Act, Unfair Competition, and Private Attorneys General
Act California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated are non-exempt
agricultural employees who performed field and vineyard work in the
production of table grapes -- including, but not limited to, tasks
such weeding, pruning, de-leafing, tipping, harvesting, picking,
and packing at Anthony Vineyards in California during the period
four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in the
action through the date of this action's final disposition.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          Santos Gomez, Esq.
          Dawson Morton, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SANTOS GOMEZ
          1003 Freedom Boulevard
          Watsonville, CA 95076
          Telephone: (831) 228-1560
          E-mail: santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com
                  dawson@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com

               - and -

          Marco A. Palau, Esq.
          Joseph D. Sutton, Esq.
          Eric S. Trabucco, Esq.
          ADVOCATES FOR WORKER RIGHTS LLP
          212 9th Street, Suite 314
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 269-4200
          E-mail: marco@advocatesforworkers.com
                  jds@advocatesforworkers.com
                  est@advocatesforworkers.com

APPLE INC: Suit over GTAT Collapse Wins Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Adam S. Levy, the Plaintiff
v. Thomas Gutierrez, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:14-cv-00443-JL (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Joseph N. Laplante
entered an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons and entities who: (i) purchased or otherwise
      acquired [GT Advanced Technologies, Inc.'s] publicly
      traded common stock and/or debt securities; purchased
      or otherwise acquired publicly traded call options on
      GTAT common stock; or sold publicly traded put options
      on GTAT common stock during the Class Period from
      November 5, 2013 through 9:40am Eastern Standard Time
      on October 6, 2014, inclusive; (ii) purchased or otherwise
      acquired securities in or traceable to the Company's
      offering of $214 million in aggregate principal amount
      of its 3.00% Convertible Senior Notes due 2020 conducted on
      or around December 5, 2013; or (iii) purchased or otherwise
      acquired securities in or traceable to the Company's
      offering of 9,942,196 shares of common stock conducted on or
      around December 5, 2013 and were damaged thereby";

   2. appointing Kurz and Palisade as class representatives; and

   3. appointing Bernstein Litowitz as class counsel.

Apple opposed class certification on these grounds:

   -- It contends that individualized issues will predominate,
      because the plaintiffs purportedly:

           (i) cannot prove reliance -- a core element of their
               securities fraud claim -- on a classwide basis; and

          (ii) have not provided a methodology for calculating
               classwide damages.

   -- It contends that Palisade and Kurz are neither typical nor
      adequate, and thus cannot serve as representatives of
      the proposed class.

According to the Court, each of Apple's contentions turns, in part,
on whether value investors like Palisade, who employ sophisticated
investment strategies to beat the market, may properly invoke the
presumption of reliance articulated in Basic v. Levinson, 485 U.S.
224 (1988).

After conducting a rigorous analysis into whether the plaintiffs
have satisfied each Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3)
prerequisite, the court concludes that class certification is
warranted under Rule 23(b)(3).

In this putative class action, plaintiffs allege that GTAT, GTAT's
former directors, and Apple made materially false and misleading
statements in connection with the offer and sale of securities
issued in 2013 and 2014 by New Hampshire-based GTAT.  The putative
class consists of individual and institutional entities who
acquired GTAT securities between November 5, 2013 -- the day after
GTAT executives announced a purportedly lucrative agreement with
Apple -- and October 6, 2014, when GTAT filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy.  Plaintiffs assert that GTAT executives knew from the
start that the agreement was doomed to fail and that those
executives reaped substantial profits while investors lost millions
of dollars.

In March 2016, GTAT emerged from bankruptcy as a restructured
entity.  As part of GTAT's bankruptcy plan, the bankruptcy court
deemed all claims against GTAT prior to March 2016, including
claims arising in this action, to be satisfied, discharged, and
released in full.[CC]

AUTOZONE: Averts Workers' Class Action Over Rest, Meal Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Dailey, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Autozone
Inc. persuaded the Ninth Circuit to affirm two lower courts'
rulings that refused to allow a group of workers to pursue class
claims over rest and meal breaks.

Autozone workers Jimmy Ellison and William Doland settled their
individual wage and hour claims against AutoZone, but as proposed
class representatives they appealed rulings by the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California and the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California. Those two courts
declined to certify a class on meal break claims and decertified a
class on rest break claims. [GN]


BAKER TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Dismissal of TCPA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a cannabis industry technology firm asked a
California court to toss a proposed class action brought by
consumers who said they received unsolicited texts from
dispensaries, arguing that developers can't be held liable under
federal communications law for how clients use their platforms.

Baker Technologies Inc. and parent company Tilt Holdings inc. filed
the motion to dismiss on Oct. 4.  The Telephone Consumer Protection
Act class action was brought by California residents Richard
Komaiko and Marcie Cooperman. [GN]




BARRY UNIVERSITY: Faces Flores Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
------------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORA FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BARRY UNIVERSITY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-24244-BB (11th Circuit Ct. Miami-Dade Cty., Fla., Oct. 15,
2019) is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, arising from Defendant's knowing and willful
violations of the TCPA.

To solicit new paying students, Defendant engaged in unsolicited
marketing with no regard for privacy rights of the recipients of
those messages, notes the complaint. The Defendant caused thousands
of unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular telephones
of Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries, including
invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass and conversion. Through this action, Plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct.

Plaintiff is a sui juris resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Defendant operates one of the largest colleges in Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
     HIRALDO P.A.
     401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954.400.4713
     Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


BAUSCH HEALTH: KPH Seeks Damages Over Glumetza-Linked Overcharges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a/k/a KINNEY DRUGS, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BAUSCH HEALTH COMPANIES INC., SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS,
LTD., SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., SANTARUS, INC., ASSERTIO
THERAPEUTICS, INC., LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and LUPIN LTD.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06839 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 21, 2019), is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other direct purchasers of
brand and generic Glumetza to recover damages for overcharges they
have already suffered and to stop the ongoing harm.

According to the complaint, fair competition would have limited the
price of a 30-day supply of diabetes prescription drug Glumetza to
less than $55. The Defendants, instead, were able to charge more
than $3,000 for the brand version and more than $2,200 for the
generic version due to the Defendants' blatant violation of the
federal antitrust law, allowing them to charge more than 50 times
the competitive price for Glumetza and steal more than $2.8 billion
from Glumetza purchasers, KPH asserts.

Patients with Type 2 diabetes use metformin to prevent and control
high blood sugar, helping the body to properly respond to its own
naturally produced insulin. The effects of generic competition for
a brand drug are predictable: sales switch quickly from the brand
drug to the generic version. Generic drugs are priced at a fraction
of the brand drug price, with prices for the generics falling
farther as more generics enter the market, and purchasers shift
swiftly to the generics.

KPH alleges that the Defendants have engaged in anticompetitive
scheme to forestall the entry of Glumetza's generic version,
causing direct purchasers to overpay by more than $2.8 billion. KPH
adds that the scheme continues to reverberate, causing more than
$175 million in additional overcharges to direct purchasers every
year.

KPH operates retail and online pharmacies in the Northeast under
the name Kinney Drugs, Inc. KPH is the assignee of McKesson
Corporation, who directly purchased branded and generic Glumetza
from the Defendants.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of British Columbia, Canada with its U.S.
headquarters located at 400 Somerset Corporate Blvd., in
Bridgewater, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     A.J. de Bartolomeo, Esq.
     TADLER LAW LLP
     P.O. Box 475847
     San Francisco, CA 94123
     Phone: (212) 631-8689
     Facsimile: (212) 273-4375
     Email: ajd@tadlerlaw.com

          - and -

     Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
     Debra G. Josephson, Esq.
     Stephanie E. Smith, Esq.
     Sarah E. DeLoach, Esq.
     ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
     20 Rahling Circle
     Little Rock, AR 72223
     Phone: (501) 821-5575
     Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
     Email: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
            debrajosephson@robertslawfirm.us
            stephaniesmith@robertslawfirm.us
            sarahdeloach@robertslawfirm.us


BITFINEX: Faces RICO Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------
The Block reports that a class action lawsuit was filed on Oct. 7
against Bitfinex, Tether and others in the United States District
Court in the Southern District of New York.

The new federal court class action lawsuit alleges over $1.4
trillion in damages suffered by class members.  This suit, filed by
Vel Freedman and Kyle Roche, lawyers who successfully sued Craig
Wright in Florida federal court, alleges violations of the
Commodities Exchange and federal RICO statute, among other claims.

Relying on publicly available documents, plaintiffs describe a
"sophisticated scheme that coopted a disruptive
innovation--cryptocurrency--and used it to defraud investors,
manipulate markets, and conceal illicit proceeds."

Counts I, II and III of the Complaint allege market manipulation in
violation of the Commodities Exchange Act.  Count IV alleges an
antitrust violation, under the Sherman Act against the Tether
defendants, alleging that "defendant Tether controls more than 80%
of the market for stablecoins in the United States and the world,"
giving Tether "monopoly power."  Count V alleges a violation of the
federal RICO statute, a U.S. law initially passed to combat
organized crime. Count VI of the lawsuit alleges fraud against the
defendants.  Count VII alleges a statutory violation of NY trade
practices law.  Finally, Count VIII seeks injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs and defendants named in the lawsuit:

Plaintiffs David Leibowitz, Benjamin Leibowitz, Jason Leibowitz,
Aaron Leibowitz, and Pinchas Goldshtein individually and on behalf
of all others similar situated, bring this action against iFinex
Inc., BFXNA Inc., BFXWW Inc., Tether Holdings Limited, Tether
Operations Limited, Tether Limited, Tether International Limited,
DigFinex Inc., Philip G. Potter, Giancarlo Devasini, Ludovicus Jan
van der Velde, Reginald Fowler, Crypto Capital Corp., and Global
Trade Solutions AG. [GN]


BLISTEX INC: Faces Class Action Over Medicated Lip Balm
-------------------------------------------------------
John Breslin, writing for Madison - St. Clair Record, reports that
a potential class action lawsuit against the makers of a lip balm
centers on the claim that each stick contains 0.017 ounces less
than is advertised on the package.

Blistex Inc., an Illinois company headquartered in Oak Brook, is
accused if violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act (ICFA ) and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act (UDTPA) over the sale of Blistex Medicated Lip
Balm.

In the lawsuit filed in St. Clair County Circuit, it is alleged the
company was involved in "deceptive, unfair, and false practices."
The plaintiff bought the items at Target, Walgreens and Dollar
General in Belleville.

Heather Erwin is suing "individually and on behalf of all other
similarly-situated current citizens of Illinois."

Blistex did not immediately respond to a request for comment from
the Record.

The suit notes that the company sells Blistex Medicated Lip Balm in
three flavors. These are original, mint, and berry, and the
packaging states the stick contains 0.15 ounce of balm.

"On the label of the Blistex Stick, Defendant deceptively, falsely,
and unfairly represents that the net weight of the Blistex Stick is
0.15 ounces of Lip Balm," the complaint states.

This deceives customers, it is claimed, into thinking the stick
delivers 0.15 ounces of balm to the lips of the user.

Citing Illinois statutes, the net weight "declaration shall
accurately reveal the quantity of the drug or device in the package
exclusive of wrappers and other material packed therewith . . ."

"The stick, however, does not contain O.15 ounces of Lip Balm
exclusive of the packaging, as regulations require, because
approximately O.017 ounces, or 11.33 percent, of the net weight is
unusable because of the product packaging," the complaint alleges.

Indeed, just over 11 percent is in the base, and "cannot by applied
without taking apart the Blistex Stick, digging the Lip Balm out of
the product packaging, and applying it with fingers."

This situation is "not what plaintiff and class members bargained
for when they chose to purchase the Stick over other packaging."

The plaintiff argues she would not have purchased the $2.30 stick
if she had known, or would have paid less. This, it is claimed, is
what all class members are thinking.

Separate actions would "create a risk of inconsistent or varying
adjudications with respect to individual member of the class," the
suit claims.

It alleges violations of the two statutes, breach of warranty, and
unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff is represented by David C. Nelson of Nelson & Nelson in
Belleville, and Matthew H. Armstrong of the Armstrong Law Firm in
St. Louis, MO.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 2019-L-677. [GN]


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Data Breach Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------
Luke Christou, writing for Verdict, reports that the United
Kingdom's High Court has granted a group litigation order, allowing
customers affected by British Airway's (BA) 2018 data breach to
launch mass legal action against the airline.

In September 2018, cybercriminals were found to have installed a
malicious skimming system on BA's payment page, which was used to
collect names, email addresses and credit card information
belonging to more than 500,000 BA customers.

The ruling will allow customers seeking compensation to bring
claims against the company. According to reports, there are already
more than 5,200 customers being represented by law firms SPG Law
and Your Lawyers Limited.

The ruling follows the record-breaking GBP183m fine issued to the
company for the breach, announced by the UK's Information
Commissioner's Office (ICO) in July.

Under General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) laws, regulators
can fine a company up to 4% of their global annual turnover if
inadequate security practices result in the loss of personal
information.

The BA fine equated to approximately 1.4% of the company's annual
revenue of GBP13.02bn in 2018.

BA data breach class-action lawsuit shows consequences go beyond
GDPR
BA CEO Alex Cruz said that the company is "surprised and
disappointed" in response to the ICO's decision to issue the
record-breaking fine. However, with the BA data breach class-action
lawsuit, the incident could end up costing the company far more.

"The news that half-a-million British Airways customers affected by
the 2018 Magecart security breach, will be able to join a
class-action lawsuit against the airliner, reinforces the power of
GDPR in holding organisations accountable following the loss of
customer data," Tony Pepper, CEO of security software company
Egress, said.

While the greatly-increased maximum penalty introduced by GDPR has
forced businesses to improve their cybersecurity practices, the
High Court decision shows that "a substantial fine is not the end
of the story".

For a breach of this magnitude, Pepper estimates that further costs
are likely to run into the tens of millions. Reputational, and
subsequent loss of business, are likely to add to BA's misery too.

"Now that class-action lawsuits are possible under GDPR, further
legal action initiated by individuals highlights what the true cost
of breaching GDPR rules can be for organisations who do not do
everything they can to protect customer data," Pepper said.

"These financial penalties will only add to the existing
reputational damage for those companies." [GN]


CALLON PETROLEUM: Davis Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
------------------------------------------------------------
DESMOND DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of CALLON PETROLEUM COMPANY, Plaintiff, v.
CALLON PETROLEUM COMPANY, L. RICHARD FLURY, JOSEPH C. GATTO, JR.,
MATTHEW R. BOB, BARBARA J. FAULKENBERRY, MICHAEL L. FINCH, LARRY D.
MCVAY, ANTHONY J. NOCCHIERO and JAMES M. TRIMBLE, Defendants, Case
No. 2019-0811- filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware on Oct. 9, 2019, is an action arising from breaches of
fiduciary duty by the Callon Board in connection with the
solicitation of stockholder approval concerning (i) Callon's
proposed issuance of common stock and (ii) a proposed amendment to
Callon's certificate of incorporation in connection with the
Company's proposed merger with Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc.

On July 14, 2019, Callon and Carrizo entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger pursuant to which Callon will acquire Carrizo in an
all-stock transaction. Under the terms of the Proposed Transaction,
Carrizo shareholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 2.05
Callon shares for each share of Carrizo common stock that they own.
Since Carrizo has over 92.5 million shares of common stock
outstanding, the Proposed Transaction requires Callon to issue
approximately 190 million shares of Callon common stock to Carrizo
stockholders who would, as a result, own approximately 46% of the
combined company. The transaction is expected to close "during the
fourth quarter of 2019."

Because Callon will issue additional shares totaling more than 20%
of its current outstanding common stock, and because applicable
stock exchange rules require an issuer, such as Callon, to obtain
stockholder approval before such issuances, the Merger Agreement
provides that the approval of Callon's shareholders of the Share
Issuance is a necessary condition to closing the Proposed
Transaction. On August 20, 2019, Callon filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission a Registration Statement on Form
S-4, which also serves as a draft of the joint proxy
statement/prospectus to be sent to Callon's stockholders to solicit
their votes in favor of the Proposals. On September 20, 2019,
Callon filed Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement with the
SEC.

According to the Amended Registration Statement, J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC served as the sole financial advisor to Callon in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, and provided the Board
with an opinion concerning the fairness of the Exchange Ratio. The
Amended Registration Statement reports that Callon agreed to pay
J.P. Morgan an advisory fee of $15 million, of which $12
million--or 80%--is contingent upon the consummation of the
Proposed Transaction. However, the $15 million in advisory fees
disclosed to Callon's stockholders was not J.P. Morgan's only
motivation for advising the Board to pursue an expensive
acquisition of Carrizo. Specifically, the Amended Registration
Statement fails to disclose (or even attempt to estimate for
stockholders) the amount of financing-related fees and/or
compensation that J.P. Morgan will receive for providing Callon
with the "proposed new five-year senior secured revolving credit
facility with an initial borrowing base expected to be $2.5 billion
(the 'new credit facility')."

The amount of undisclosed fees that J.P. Morgan will receive for
providing the transaction-related financing may exceed the $15
million in fees that J.P. Morgan stands to receive for its advisory
work to Callon on the Proposed Transaction. The omission of the
amount of financing-related fees (and thus total compensation) that
J.P. Morgan is expected to receive in connection with the Proposed
Transaction is material to Callon stockholders who are deciding
whether to approve the Proposals because it directly impacts of
motivations of J.P. Morgan in its role as the sole financial
advisor to Callon.

This omitted information is patently material because it is
imperative for Callon stockholders to be able to understand what
factors may have influenced J.P. Morgan's analytical efforts in
providing a fairness opinion to Callon in connection with the
Proposed Transaction. Notably, because a J.P. Morgan affiliate is
helping to provide the transaction-related financing to Callon,
J.P. Morgan had a powerful incentive to advise Callon to enter into
the Proposed Transaction (and for Callon to thereby assume and
refinance Carrizo's outstanding debt). Callon stockholders voting
on the Proposals would find this information regarding J.P.
Morgan's conflicts of interest material in determining how to vote.
In order to fairly assess the Proposed Transaction and decide how
to vote on the Proposals, and to assess whether to rely on J.P.
Morgan's fairness opinion in making those decision, Callon
stockholders, such as Plaintiff, are entitled to know all material
information about J.P. Morgan's conflicts of interest, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is a stockholder of Callon and has owned Callon common
stock.

Callon is engaged in the development, acquisition, and production
of oil and natural gas properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
     COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
     The Brandywine Building
     1000 West Street, 10th Floor
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 984-3800

          - and -

     D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
     KASKELA LAW LLC
     18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
     Newtown Square, PA 19073
     Phone: (888) 715-1740


CHRISTIAN PENNER: Izquierdo Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNETTE IZQUIERDO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHRISTIAN PENNER MORTGAGE TEAM
LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
9:19-cv-81428-RKA (S.D. Fla., Oct. 21, 2019), is brought to secure
redress for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. This case
arises from the Defendant's unauthorized text messages and phone
calls to cellular subscribers, who never provided the Defendant
with prior express consent, as well as cellular subscribers, who
expressly requested not to receive the Defendant's text messages.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant caused thousands of text
messages and calls to be sent to the cellular telephones of the
Plaintiff and Class Members, who either never provided the
Defendant with consent to contact them or who had revoked any prior
express consent. The Defendant caused the Plaintiff and Class
Members injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, says
the complaint. Hence, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
the Defendant's illegal conduct.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and was a resident of Palm Beach
County, Florida.

The Defendant is a home mortgage lending company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, PA
     20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 975-3320
     Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


CLEARVIEW ENERGY: Cruz Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
----------------------------------------------------------
BETSY CRUZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CLEARVIEW ENERGY, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-06798 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 15, 2019) is an action brought to
seek damages as well as injunctive relief for the Defendant's
violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff started to receive unsolicited
telephone calls from Defendant. These calls were made in an attempt
to deliver energy savings to Plaintiff. The Defendant utilizes
third party vendors to market its services. The Defendant's
outbound telemarketing efforts include the use of an automated
telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to solicit consumers nationwide.


The Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing phone calls resulted in
aggravation, anxiety, diminished value and utility of telephone
equipment and telephone subscription services, emotional distress,
increased risk of personal injury resulting from the distraction
caused by the phone calls, intrusion upon and occupation of
Plaintiff's cellular telephone capacity, invasion of privacy, loss
of battery charge, loss of concentration, mental anguish, nuisance,
the per-kilowatt electricity costs required to recharge her
cellular telephone as a result of increased usage of her telephone
services, and wasting Plaintiff's time, says the complaint.

Plaintiff BETSY CRUZ is a natural person, over 18-years-of-age, who
resided in Villa Park, Illinois.

Defendant develops marketing campaigns using a combination of sales
channels, with an emphasis on outbound telemarketing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph S. Davidson, Esq.
     Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
     Victor T. Metroff, Esq.
     Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
     2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: +1 630-575-8181
     Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com
            mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
            vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com


CLIENT RESOURCE: Faces Gerstenhaber Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL GERSTENHABER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLIENT RESOURCE GROUP, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-02004 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 21, 2019), is a
putative class action arising from the Defendant's violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

As part of its marketing strategy, the Defendant utilizes
prerecorded messages to place calls to unsuspecting consumers on
their cellular telephones for the purpose of selling its goods and
services. The Defendant caused thousands of prerecorded message
calls to be placed to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and
Class Members, causing them injuries, including invasion of their
privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass,
and conversion, says the complaint.

Through this action, 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 illegal
actions of the Defendants.

The Plaintiff is a natural person who was a citizen of and
domiciled in Broward County, Florida.

The Defendant offers student loan debt consolidation to its
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and –

     Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
     HIRALDO P.A.
     401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954.400.4713
     Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

          - and –

     Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
     IJH LAW
     1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: 786.496.4469
     Email: IJHiraldo@IJHlaw.com

          - and -

     Michael Eisenband, Esq.
     EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
     515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954.533.4092
     Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Yoo Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Seung M. Yoo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Client Services, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-18647-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., Oct. 2, 2019), seeks to
recover damages resulting from Defendant's violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Seung M. Yoo is an individual who is a citizen of the State of New
Jersey residing in Bergen County, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is a
natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt. The Defendant
regularly collects or attempts to collect debts asserted to be owed
to others.

The alleged Debt is an obligation of Plaintiff to pay money arising
out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or
services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for
personal, family, or household purposes.

In its efforts to collect the alleged Debt, the Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter dated October 8, 2018.  The Defendant's Letter
conveyed information regarding the alleged Debt. The Letter was the
initial written communication Plaintiff received from Defendant
concerning the alleged Debt.

The Plaintiff has the interest and right to receive a clear,
accurate and unambiguous validation notice, which allows a consumer
to confirm that he or she owes the debt sought to be collected by
the debt collector. The Defendant deprived Plaintiff of this right,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
          E-mail: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com
                  csanders@barshaysanders.com

CLIMATE CORP: Loraas Seeks OT Pay for Activation Specialists
------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL LORAAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE CLIMATE CORPORATION, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00825 (W.D. Wisc., Oct. 4, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and and Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws.

Specifically, the Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an
unlawful compensation system that deprived current and former
hourly-paid Climate Activation Specialists of their wages earned
for all compensable work performed each workweek, including at an
overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek, the lawsuit says.

The Climate Corporation is a digital agriculture company that
examines weather, soil and field data to help farmers determine
potential yield-limiting factors in their fields.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

COBRA ACQUISITIONS: Lejeune Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as EJ LEJEUNE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COBRA
ACQUISITIONS LLC; ESPADA LOGISTICS AND SECURITY GROUP, LLC; ESPADA
CARIBBEAN LLC; JAMES JORRIE; and JENNIFER GAY JORRIE, Defendants,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00286-JKP-ESC (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action of:

      "all individuals who worked for, or on behalf of, Cobra and
      Espada in the past 3 years who were paid a day-rate
      regardless of classification (Day-Rate Workers); and

   2. authorizing notice to the potential class members.

On March 20, 2019, LeJeune filed the Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action seeking unpaid overtime from Mammoth Energy
Services, Inc., Cobra, and Espada. LeJeune amended his Complaint to
add Espada Caribbean LLC, James Jorrie, and Jennifer Gay Jorrie.
LeJeune contends Espada and Cobra unlawfully failed to pay the
Day-Rate Workers overtime for hours worked over 40 in a single
workweek, regardless of their W-2 or 1099 classification.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@ mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@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
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30 th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375
          Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
          E-mail: jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com
                  aortiz@fslawfirm.com

CONNEXIONS LOYALTY: Class Cert. Bid Denied, Arbitration Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DAVID SWEET, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
CONNEXIONS LOYALTY, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01997-GCS-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge George C. Smith
entered an order on Oct. 16, 2019:

   1. granting Defendant's Motion to Compel Individual
      Arbitration and to Dismiss;

   2. denying as moot Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class.

Based on the applicable caselaw and Plaintiff's lack of opposition
to Defendant's Motion, the Court concludes that dismissal of
Plaintiff's Complaint is the appropriate remedy because all of
Plaintiff's claims are arbitrable. The Court can discern no purpose
for retaining jurisdiction and staying the action.

This matter shall be closed, the Court said.[CC]

CONTINENTAL INTERMODAL: Montgomery Seeks OT Pay for Truck Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE MONTGOMERY, the Plaintiff, vs. CONTINENTAL INTERMODAL
GROUP-TRUCKING LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00940-GBW-GJF
(D.N.M., Oct. 4, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other Truck
Drivers regularly worked over 40 hours in each workweek.

Specifically, Plaintiff and the other TDs were typically scheduled
for 12-14 hour shifts 5-6 days a week for weeks at a time. However,
Plaintiff and the other TDs never received overtime for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a single workweek, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant is a logistics provider offering transloading,
inventory management, transportation, and storage solutions to
customers in the oil and gas industry. Specifically, Defendant
provides "last mile" services to oil field customers, delivering
necessary oil field materials to the customer well site and
providing services and equipment for the management and storage of
materials on-site once delivered.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Class Members are:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479-9229
          Facsimile: (817) 887-1878
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
                  pamela@herrmannlaw.com

               - and -

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Matthew Thomson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: 617 994-5800
          Facsimile: 617-994-5801
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  mthomson@llrlaw.com

CORIZON HEALTH: Nurses Seek Unpaid Wages, Damages
-------------------------------------------------
JESSICA WILLIAMS, SHERYL FRITZ AND JAMIE TERRY, Individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated Corizon Correctional Nurses,
Plaintiffs, v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC., AND CORIZON, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 6:19-cv-03365-DPR (W.D. Mo., Oct. 15, 2019) is a
collective action and class action brought on behalf of Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated Correctional Nurses against Defendants
to recover compensation for pre and post shift activity which
Corizon requires but does not compensate them for. The Plaintiffs
claim unpaid wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, the Portal to Portal Act, and for unjust enrichment
pursuant to Missouri common law.

As a result of Corizon's company-wide policies and practices
requiring Plaintiffs and the Affected Correctional Nurses to
perform these pre-shift and post-shift tasks while off-the-clock
(and without pay), Plaintiffs and the Affected Correctional Nurses
were not compensated for all hours worked, including, but not
limited to, all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek,
says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Corizon as non-exempt Corrections
Nurses at South Central Correctional Center.

Corizon is a privately held prison healthcare contractor that
provides correctional healthcare and pharmacy services to
approximately 98 clients in 26 U.S. states, at over 518
correctional facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gary K. Burger, Jr., Esq.
     BURGER LAW FIRM, LLC
     500 North Broadway, Suite 1860
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Phone: (314) 542-2222
     Fax: (314) 542-2222
     Email: gary@burgerlaw.com


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Feltzs Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled CHRISTONE FELTZS, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COX COMMUNICATIONS CAL.,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; COX ENTERPRISES, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware
Corporations; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 30-2019-01086069-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Orange, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 21, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-02002 to the
proceeding.

The Complaint asserted class claims for relief against the
Defendants arising out of the Plaintiff's employment with Defendant
Cox Communications California, LLC. Specifically, the Plaintiff
asserted class claims for Cox California's alleged (1) failure to
pay wages as a result of "illegal rounding;" (2) failure to provide
meal periods; (3) failure to pay all wages due at separation; (4)
failure to provide accurate wage statements; and (5) unfair
competition. The Plaintiff asserted his class claims on behalf of
himself and all other technicians who worked in California
"providing installation and maintenance services" (referred as
Universal Home Technicians or "UHTs") from July 26, 2015, to the
present.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Thomas R. Kaufman, Esq.
     Paul Berkowitz, Esq.
     Rachel P. Howard, Esq.
     SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
     1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
     Phone: 310.228.3700
     Facsimile: 310.228.370
     Email: tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com
            pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com
            rhoward@sheppardmullin.com


CROCODILE CANTINA: Pena Seeks Unpaid Wages for Bartenders
---------------------------------------------------------
MAILIN PEREZ PENA, And all others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. CROCODILE CANTINA, INC. d/b/a MAMBO CAFE and CARLOS
CALLEJA, the Defendants, Case No. 96768504 (Fla. 11th Jud'l Cir.,
Oct. 4, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Defendants' other
bartenders were not paid for all hours worked (including time spent
attending mandatory training sessions).

The Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of the Defendants. The
Defendants maintain an office, a restaurant called "Mambo Cafe",
and employed Plaintiff and others similarly situated here, in
Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff

          Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
          FAIR LAW FIRM
          7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: 305 230 4884
          Facsimile: 305 230 4844
          E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com

DELTA COUNTY MEMORIAL: Gray Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages, Penalties
------------------------------------------------------------------
KRYSTAL GRAY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. DELTA COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02938 (D. Colo., Oct. 15, 2019) is an
action to recover on behalf of herself, the Colorado Class, and the
putative Collective members, all unpaid wages, compensation,
penalties, and other damages owed to them under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and state law, individually, as a collective action,
and as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, in order to remedy the sweeping practices which
Defendant has integrated into its timekeeping and payroll policies
and which has deprived Plaintiff, Class, and Collective members of
their lawfully-earned wages.

Plaintiff and similarly situated nursing staff have been denied
payment for all hours worked, including overtime, were subject to
improper deductions from wages, and were denied meal and rest
periods in compliance with Colorado law. The Defendant's policies
and practices result in nurses being denied wages due under the
FLSA and Colorado law. This case implicates the longstanding policy
of DCMH, which fails to properly compensate non-exempt employees
for work during meal periods and for work performed while
"off-the-clock."

Under the Defendant's policies and practices, non-exempt nurses
involved in patient care were not completely relieved of duties
during meal periods and rest breaks, and were denied pay for those
on-duty meal periods and rest breaks. Defendant continues to
require nurses responsible for direct patient care to remain on
duty and subject to interruptions during meal periods and rest
breaks, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Krystal Gray was employed as a nurse by Defendant in
Delta, Colorado from approximately June 2015 to May 2019.

Defendant is a hospital that provides general medical and surgical
care for inpatients and outpatients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
     David C. Leimbach, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Phone: (415) 421-7100
     Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
     Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
            dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com

          - and -

     William M. Hogg, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960
     Houston, TX 77098
     Phone: (713) 338-2560
     Fax: (415) 421-7105
     Email: whogg@schneiderwallace.com


DELTA DENTAL: Faces Dolgow Suit Over Dental Insurance Monopsony
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert S. Dolgow D.D.S., P.A., Plaintiff v. Delta Dental Insurance
Company, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06734 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 11, 2019),
involves Delta Dental's aggregation of unlawful monopsony power in
the market for dental insurance across the United States.

The Defendants are 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.

The Plaintiff alleges that Delta Dental secured the power through
its artificial territorial division of that market among the Delta
Dental State Insurers, and is abusing it to:

   (1) restrict competition between the Delta Dental State
       Insurers when operating under the "Delta Dental" brand
       (the "Market Allocation Conspiracy");

   (2) reduce the amounts of reimbursement paid by the Delta
       Dental State Insurers to the dentists and dental practices
       who provide services to patients under Delta Dental
       insurance plans (the "Price Fixing Conspiracy"), and

   (3) restrict competition between the Delta Dental State
       Insurers when operating under non-"Delta Dental" brands
       (the "Revenue Restriction Conspiracy").

The Defendants contract with dentists and dental practices--like
the Plaintiff--that accept Delta Dental insurance to reimburse the
providers for dental services provided to Delta Dental insureds
under Delta Dental insurance contracts. The Delta Dental State
Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta Dental Plans
Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an administrator and
watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans offered to the Delta
Dental Providers and their patients via the Delta Dental State
Insurers. Delta Dental Plans Association is funded and controlled
by the Delta Dental State Insurers, and acts as a
vehicle for their concerted activity, including via a contract
entered into by each Delta Dental State Insurer with the Delta
Dental Plans Association.

The Delta Dental Providers, faced with an overwhelming majority of
patients, who have purchased Delta Dental insurance (and naturally
wish to be treated by a provider that accepts it) have little or no
choice but to acquiesce to the Defendants' non-competitive and
artificially low reimbursement rates.

Absent the Price Fixing Conspiracy--and the Market Allocation
Conspiracy and Revenue Restriction Conspiracy, which leaves
providers few or no alternative insurance plans to accept from
patients--the Delta Dental Providers would have greater choice in
the dental insurance they choose to accept, and, thus, greater
choice in the reimbursement rates received for their services, the
lawsuit says.

The Delta Dental State Insurers are 48 predominantly not-for-profit
dental services corporations that operate in 39 state or
multi-state territories across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leonid Feller, Esq.
          Athena Dalton, Esq.
          Stephen Neuwirth, Esq.
          Toby E. Futter, Esq.
          Joseph N. Kiefer, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone (312) 705-7400
          E-mail: leonidfeller@quinnemanuel.com
                  athenadalton@quinnemanuel.com
                  stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com
                  tobyfutter@quinnemanuel.com
                  josephkiefer@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          William P. Creasman, Esq.
          CARNEY, BATES, AND PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7th St.
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          E-mail: wcreaseman@cbplaw.com


DELTA DENTAL: Legacy Sues Over Dental Insurance Monopsony
---------------------------------------------------------
Legacy Dental Associates, P.C., Plaintiff v. Delta Dental Insurance
Company, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06744 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 11, 2019),
involves Delta Dental's aggregation of unlawful monopsony power in
the market for dental insurance across the United States.

The Defendants are 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.

The Plaintiff alleges that Delta Dental secured the power through
its artificial territorial division of that market among the Delta
Dental State Insurers, and is abusing it to:

   (1) restrict competition between the Delta Dental State
       Insurers when operating under the "Delta Dental" brand
       (the "Market Allocation Conspiracy");

   (2) reduce the amounts of reimbursement paid by the Delta
       Dental State Insurers to the dentists and dental practices
       who provide services to patients under Delta Dental
       insurance plans (the "Price Fixing Conspiracy"), and

   (3) restrict competition between the Delta Dental State
       Insurers when operating under non-"Delta Dental" brands
       (the "Revenue Restriction Conspiracy").

The Defendants contract with dentists and dental practices--like
the Plaintiff--that accept Delta Dental insurance to reimburse the
providers for dental services provided to Delta Dental insureds
under Delta Dental insurance contracts. The Delta Dental State
Insurers are supported in turn by the Delta Dental Plans
Association, a nationwide entity that acts as an administrator and
watchdog for the Delta Dental insurance plans offered to the Delta
Dental Providers and their patients via the Delta Dental State
Insurers. Delta Dental Plans Association is funded and controlled
by the Delta Dental State Insurers, and acts as a vehicle for their
concerted activity, including via a contract entered into by each
Delta Dental State Insurer with the Delta Dental Plans
Association.

The Delta Dental Providers, faced with an overwhelming majority of
patients, who have purchased Delta Dental insurance (and naturally
wish to be treated by a provider that accepts it) have little or no
choice but to acquiesce to the Defendants' non-competitive and
artificially low reimbursement rates.

Absent the Price Fixing Conspiracy--and the Market Allocation
Conspiracy and Revenue Restriction Conspiracy, which leaves
providers few or no alternative insurance plans to accept from
patients--the Delta Dental Providers would have greater choice in
the dental insurance they choose to accept, and, thus, greater
choice in the reimbursement rates received for their services, the
lawsuit says.

The Delta Dental State Insurers are 48 predominantly not-for-profit
dental services corporations that operate in 39 state or
multi-state territories across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leonid Feller, Esq.
          Athena Dalton, Esq.
          Stephen Neuwirth, Esq.
          Toby E. Futter, Esq.
          Joseph N. Kiefer, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone (312) 705-7400
          E-mail: leonidfeller@quinnemanuel.com
                  athenadalton@quinnemanuel.com
                  stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com
                  tobyfutter@quinnemanuel.com
                  josephkiefer@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          William P. Creasman, Esq.
          CARNEY, BATES, AND PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7th St.
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          E-mail: wcreaseman@cbplaw.com


DETROIT, MI: Judge Tosses Detroit Police Arrestees' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that a judge has rejected class-action
status in a lawsuit over the failure to provide mattresses to
people arrested by Detroit police.

The no-mattress policy for people held overnight lasted four years
until fall 2017. Federal Judge Marianne Battani says the practice
was unconstitutional. But she won't make the lawsuit a class-action
because the injuries, if any, could vary among the hundreds of
people who were locked up for one or two nights.

Battani noted that some people without bedding reported pain and
discomfort but didn't seek medical help.

Dr. Gary Stanton, an expert hired by the city of Detroit, said
people "vary significantly" in how they tolerate discomfort from
sleeping on a hard surface.

The judge was set to meet with attorneys from both sides on Oct. 9.
[GN]


DIAMANTE POBLANO: Cortes Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
----------------------------------------------------
ESTELA B CORTES and MIRIAM IVONNE CAPETILLO CAPETILLO, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DIAMANTE
POBLANO RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A DIAMANTE POBLANO), FRANCISCO DIAZ,
LETICIA DIAZ, FRANCISCO DIAZ (AKA KIKO), and NOEMI DIAZ,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09495 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 15, 2019) seeks
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law,
and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiffs have worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they have worked. Defendants
have failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked
and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium. Further, Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they have had
to work over 10 hours a day. Defendants have also repeatedly failed
to pay Plaintiffs' wages on a timely basis, says the complaint.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have employed the policy
and practice of disguising Plaintiffs' actual duties in payroll
records by designating them as waitresses instead of non-tipped
employees. This has allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiffs
at the minimum wage rate and has enabled them to pay them at the
tip-credit rate (which they still have failed to do). The
Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations, adds the
complaint.

Plaintiffs have been employed as waitresses at the restaurant
located at 2431 Jerome Ave, Bronx, NY 10468.

Defendants own, operate, or control a Mexican Restaurant, located
at 2431 Jerome Ave, Bronx, NY 10468 under the name "Diamante
Poblano".[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200
     Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


DREAMSTYLE REMODELING: Winters Sues Over Unsolicited Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Winters Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dreamstyle Remodeling, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05405-NVW (D. Ariz., Oct. 15, 2019) is
a an action brought individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated seeking damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendants, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related regulations,
specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading
Plaintiff's privacy.

The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as
defined by the TCPA to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to
solicit its services. The Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's
"prior express consent" to receive calls on his cellular telephone,
and despite being on the National Do-Not-Call list, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff, RICHARD WINTERS, JR. is a natural person residing in
Mesa, Arizona.

DREAMSTYLE REMODELING, INC. is a home improvement and remodeling
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
     Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste 460
     Phoenix, AZ 85016
     Phone: (800) 400-6808
     Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
     Email: david@kazlg.com
            ryan@kazlg.com


EL NUEVO SANDY: De La Rosa, et al. Seek Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------
JUSTO RAMON DE LA ROSA, JOSE TRINIDAD RAMOS, and ERICK AGUILAR, on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees,
Plaintiffs, v. EL NUEVO SANDY RESTAURANT CORP., doing business as
SANDY RESTAURANT, and RUBEN PICHARDO, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09497 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 15, 2019) is a complaint
against Defendants, brought by Plaintiffs, alleging that, pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, they
are entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid wages, minimum
wages, and overtime compensation; liquidated damages; unpaid
"spread of hours" premiums for each day they worked more than 10
hours; liquidated damages and statutory penalties pursuant to the
New York Wage Theft Prevention Act; prejudgment and post-judgment
interest; and attorneys' fees and costs.

The complaint notes that Plaintiffs worked over 40 hours per week.
Work performed above 40 hours per week was not paid at time and
one-half Plaintiffs' regular rate of pay as required by state and
federal law.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants in New York County, New
York, as counter persons, general helpers, a delivery person, and a
dishwasher and food preparer at Defendants' restaurant known as
"Sandy Restaurant".

El Nuevo Sandy Restaurant Corp., was and is a domestic business
entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of New
York, doing business as Sandy Restaurant, at 2261 Second Avenue,
New York, New York 10035.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


EMPIRE RESORTS: Franchi Files Suit Over Sale to Kien Huat/Genting
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. EMPIRE RESORTS, INC., EMANUEL R. PEARLMAN,
KEITH HORN, GERARD EWE KENG LIM, EDMUND MARINUCCI, and NANCY A.
PALUMBO, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01947-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 15,
2019) is an action stemming from a proposed transaction announced
on August 19, 2019, pursuant to which Empire Resorts, Inc. will be
acquired by affiliates of Kien Huat Realty III Limited and Genting
Malaysia Berhard. Kien Huat currently holds approximately 86% of
the Company's outstanding shares of common stock.

On August 18, 2019, Empire Resorts' Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Hercules
Topco LLC and Hercules Merger Subsidiary, Inc. Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, Empire Resorts' stockholders will
receive $9.74 in cash for each share of Empire Resorts common stock
they own. On October 11, 2019, defendants filed a proxy statement
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, which scheduled a
stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction for November 13, 2019.


The complaint asserts that the Proxy Statement omits material
information regarding the process leading up to the execution of
the Merger Agreement. Specifically, it fails to disclose the terms
of financial communications specialist Joele Frank's engagement.
Among other things, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose the
amount of compensation Joele Frank will receive in connection with
its engagement, as well as the amount of Joele Frank's compensation
that is contingent upon consummation of the Proposed Transaction.
Further, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose whether Joele Frank
has performed past services for any parties to the Merger Agreement
or their affiliates, as well as the timing and nature of such
services and the amount of compensation received by Joele Frank for
such services. The Proxy Statement also fails to disclose the
nature of the Special Committee's discussions on August 5 and
August 7, 2019 "relating to retention bonuses and similar payments
for certain employees in connection with a potential transaction
with Kien Huat and GenM," as well as the timing and nature of all
communications regarding future employment and directorship of the
Company's officers and directors, including who participated in all
such communications.

The Proxy Statement also omits material information regarding the
Company's financial projections. The Proxy Statement fails to
disclose, for each set of projections: (i) all line items used to
calculate adjusted EBITDA; and (ii) a reconciliation of all
non-GAAP to GAAP metrics.

The disclosure of projected financial information is material
because it provides stockholders with a basis to project the future
financial performance of a company, and allows stockholders to
better understand the financial analyses performed by the company's
financial advisor in support of its fairness opinion.

The omission of the material information renders the Proxy
Statement false and misleading, says the complaint.
Accordingly, the Defendants violate Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy
Statement.

Plaintiff is the owner of Empire Resorts common stock.

Empire Resorts was organized as a Delaware corporation on March 19,
1993, and since that time has served as a holding company for
various subsidiaries engaged in the hospitality and gaming
industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


FACEBOOK INC: Settles Advertisers' Class Action for $40 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Annabelle Woodward, writing for Forbes, reports that advertisers
suing Facebook for exaggerating video ad engagement metrics are
asking the company to pay $40 million to resolve their hard-fought
class action suit. If accepted, the settlement could entitle over
1.35 million advertisers to cash compensation.

According to a brief in support of the settlement, Facebook--the
social media mammoth that derives roughly 98% of its revenue from
ad sales--allegedly reported faulty "watch time" metrics to
advertisers in 2015 and 2016. The metrics in question are critical
for advertisers on video-based content platforms such as YouTube
and Facebook because they show the average amount of time users
spend watching their content before clicking away. During the 18
months between February of 2015 and September of 2016, Facebook was
incorrectly calculating -- and consequently, inflating--two key
metrics of this type. Members of the class action are alleging that
the faulty metrics led them to spend more money on Facebook ads
than they otherwise would have, since they were inclined to pay
more for video ads that were being watched longer.

While Facebook has admitted to miscalculating this statistic, the
company contends that the error was an "innocent mistake" that was
corrected shortly after it was discovered, according to the
briefing. When questioned about the suit, a Facebook spokesperson
said, "This lawsuit is without merit but we believe resolving this
case is in the best interests of the company and advertisers."

The case's litigation took three long years, during which the
plaintiffs' incurred millions in legal fees. Facebook filed four
motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' charges, which included unlawful
enrichment. The company reportedly argued that since it doesn't set
advertising prices based on the metrics in question, the error did
not lead to any overcharges.

The proposed settlement follows a long, winding queue of
widely-publicized lawsuits concerning Facebook's questionable data
privacy and ad-targeting practices. If both parties agree to the
settlement's terms, advertisers who ran sponsored video content on
Facebook's digital platforms during the time of the error will be
eligible for cash awards that are proportionate to how much they
spent on video ads--for example, those who spent upwards of
$500,000 might be awarded "thousands of dollars," according to the
briefing. $12 million of the settlement is slated to go toward
paying the plaintiffs' attorney fees. [GN]


FAY SERVICING: Court Dismisses Robinson's Class Claims w/ Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM ROBINSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FAY
SERVICING, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. RDB-18-2710
(D. Md.), Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint for Failure to State a
Claim and for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

The class action was commenced by Plaintiffs William Robinson and
Tracie Lyers, on their individual behalf and behalf of three
putative classes of similarly situated persons, against Defendants
Fay, Servis One, Inc., doing business as BSI Financial Services,
and Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, doing business as
Christiana Trust, as Trustee for Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R on July
30, 2018 in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland.  

The Plaintiffs allege that Ventures Trust has unlawfully profited
from collection activities related to the Plaintiffs' defaulted
mortgage loans by failing to obtain the license required under the
Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act ("MCALA") and the Maryland
Mortgage Lender Law ("MMLL").  Additionally, they allege that BSI
and Ventures Trust's standard modification/forbearance agreements
improperly capitalized inspection fees claimed due from the
Plaintiffs in violation of Com. Law Section 12-121(b).

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants unjustly enriched
themselves by engaging in mortgage debt collection practices which
violated Maryland law.  The Defendants operate within the mortgage
industry's secondary market, which springs from mortgage lenders'
desire to offload the mortgages that they originate.  

On Aug. 31, 2018, the Defendants removed the case to the Maryland
District Court, asserting that jurisdiction was proper under the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA").  The Plaintiffs have
not challenged this basis for removal.  In their Original
Complaint, the Plaintiffs brought five Counts and alleged that
Defendant Ventures Trust was required to obtain a license under the
Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act ("MCALA").

On Aug. 8, 2018, the Maryland Court of Appeals determined that
foreign statutory trusts are outside of the scope of the collection
agency industry regulated and licensed under MCALA in Blackstone v.
Sharma, 461 Md. 87, 147, 191 A.3d 1188 (2018).  Subsequently, on
Sept. 14, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint which,
despite the Court of Appeal's ruling, continued to assert MCALA as
a basis for holding Ventures Trust liable.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on Sept. 28, 2018.
On Oct. 3, 2018, the Maryland Court of Appeals denied
reconsideration of the Blackstone appeal.  Subsequent to that
decision, on Oct. 18, 2018, the Maryland District Court issued a
Letter Order memorializing the result of a telephone conference
with the parties in the case and two related cases, Altenburg v.
Caliber Home Loans, Inc., and Suazo, et al. v. U.S. Bank Trust, NA.
The Letter Order dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs'
declaratory judgment claim (Count I) and held that the Plaintiffs'
remaining claims (Counts II-V) were barred so far as they allege
violations of the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act but
remain as to a theory under the Maryland Mortgage Lender Law.  On
Sept. 25, 2019, the Maryland District Court dismissed the Suazo
Action, which advanced claims almost identical to those presented
in the Robinson case, holding in relevant part that foreign
statutory trusts are not required to be licensed under the Maryland
Mortgage Lender Law.

Pending claims in the Robinson case are:  a common law claim for
unjust enrichment by all the Named Plaintiffs on behalf of the BSI
class against Ventures Trust and BSI (Count II);  a common law
claim for unjust enrichment by the Named Plaintiffs on behalf of
the Fay Class against Fay and Ventures Trust (Count III);   an
inspection fee claim under Com. Law Section 12-121(a)(1)(II) by the
Named Plaintiffs and the Inspection Fee Class against all the
Defendants (Count IV);  and alleged violations of the Maryland
Consumer Debt Collection Act ("MCDCA") asserted by the Named
Plaintiffs on behalf of the BSI Class and the Fay Class against all
the Defendants (Count V).

Judge Bennett finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations in Counts II,
III, and V are premised on a faulty legal theory.  They allege that
Ventures Trust must either register as a debt collector under the
MCALA or as a mortgage lender under the MMLL.  The Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants may be held liable for unjust enrichment
and violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act because
Ventures Trust profited from mortgage loans with the assistance of
BSI and Fay.  These legal theories are foreclosed by the Maryland
Court of Appeals, the plain language of the MMLL, and a recent
opinion of the Court.  The Maryland Court of Appeals has
conclusively held that foreign statutory trusts, and in particular
Ventures Trust, is not required to obtain a license under MCALA.  

Contrary to the Plaintiffs' assertions, Blackstone v. Sharma did
not hold that Ventures Trust must therefore obtain a license under
the MMLL.  As the District Court has recently held, foreign
statutory trusts like Ventures Trust are not "mortgage lenders" as
that term is defined in the MMLL and are therefore not required to
obtain a license.  As Plaintiffs' claims under Counts II, III, and
V rise and fall on this legal theory, Counts II, III, and V are
dismissed with prejudice, the District Court opines.

Under Count IV, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants assessed
inspection fees in violation of Com. Law Section 12-121.  Maryland
Law provides that "a lender may not impose a lender's inspection
fee in connection with a loan secured by residential real
property."  Certain exceptions apply.  A lender may assess an
inspection fee if the inspection is needed to ascertain completion
of: (1) Construction of a new home; or (2) Repairs, alterations, or
other work required by the lender.  The Defendants move to dismiss
these claims, arguing in part that none of they are "lenders" as
that term is defined under Com. Law Section 12-121(b).  This issue
is decisive, and the Judge need not address the Defendants'
alternative theories for dismissal of this Count.

Put simply, the Court never addressed whether the inspection fee
statute applied to foreign statutory trusts like Ventures Trust or
assignees.  Neither Taylor nor any other authority holds that
Ventures Trust is subject to Maryland law's prohibition against
inspection fees.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have failed to state
a claim under Count IV.

Finally, the Court dismissed Count I of the Amended Complaint with
prejudice by Letter Order dated Oct. 18, 2018.  Judge Bennett now
finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Counts
II, III, IV, and V because these counts are premised on invalid
legal theories.  As no amendment can cure these defects, dismissal
with prejudice is appropriate.

For the reasons stated, Judge Bennett granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs'
claims.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/Wh2m2d from Leagle.com.

William Robinson & Tracie Lyers, On Behalf of Three Classes of
Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiffs, represented by Phillip R.
Robinson -- info@marylandconsumer.com -- Consumer Law Center LLC,
Peter A. Holland -- pat@hollandlawfirm.com -- The Holland Law Firm
PC & Scott C. Borison, Legg Law Firm LLP.

Fay Servicing LLC, Servis One, Inc., doing business as BSI
Financial Services & Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, doing
business as Christina Trust, Not Individual but as Trustee for
Ventures Trust 2013 I-H-R, Defendants, represented by Andrew Justin
Narod -- dyoung@bradley.com and Nicholas A. Danella --
ndanella@bradley.com of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, pro hac
vice.


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Court Stays Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MEGAN VOEKS, the Plaintiff,
vs. FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
19-CV-1438 (E.D. Wisc.) , the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered
an order on Oct. 2, 2019, granting plaintiff's motion to stay
further proceedings on the motion for class certification.

The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set
forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for
administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate
the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. However, the
motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose
under Damasco.

On October 1, 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." Id. However, because parties are
generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class
certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."[CC]

FRESH MARKET: Faces Davis Suit Over Pork Products' False Ad
-----------------------------------------------------------
FRED MICHAEL DAVIS, CLARENCE BROUSSARD, ALAIN PIERRE, MEGAN WEBER,
MEREDITH RIEGER BRANCIFORTE, GINA MURRAY, TANJA MCPETERS, COURTNEY
WOOD, HAYLEY DENMAN, and KRISTIN CACAYORIN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE FRESH
MARKET, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-24245-PCH
(S.D. Fla., Oct. 15, 2019) is a consumer protection and false
advertising class action lawsuit brought against Defendants, based
on Defendants' misleading business practices with respect to the
sale of "Prime Pork".

Commencing in February 2017, Tyson, via its officers and directors,
decided to trade off of the known quality and prestige of USDA
Prime Beef and create a line of pork products entitled "Chairman's
Reserve Prime Pork" in an effort to increase its pork sales to its
retail partners. In creating the Product, Tyson developed a
comprehensive and uniform marketing campaign to use with its
retailers, such as Fresh Market, to mislead and confuse consumers.
Commencing in May 2019, Fresh Market, via its officers and
directors, partnered with Tyson to sell the Product in its stores.


According to the complaint, the Product's advertising and marketing
led Plaintiffs and other consumers to reasonably believe that they
were purchasing pork that was, inter alia, graded USDA "Prime." The
Product's marketing, promotion, and advertising was strongly
influenced by Tyson, and in some cases directly provided by Tyson,
as part of a conspiracy between Tyson and Fresh Market to deceive
and mislead consumers about the Product. In reality, there is no
such thing as "Prime" Pork. The Product is not graded by the USDA
as "Prime". In fact, the USDA does not provide grades for pork in a
fashion similar to beef.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants' marketing, promotion,
and advertising created a net impression that was deceptive.
Plaintiffs and other consumers paid more money for the Product than
they would have paid had they known that there is no such thing as
"Prime" Pork or that the Product was not graded as prime by the
USDA. Plaintiffs and other consumers have suffered injury in fact
as a result of Defendants' deceptive practices, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs purchased the Product that was manufactured and
advertised by Defendants.

Fresh Market is a company that owns a chain of specialty grocery
retail stores in the eastern United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     MASON A. PERTNOY, ESQ.
     RICHARD L. ALLEN, ESQ.
     STEVEN D. SOLOWSKY, ESQ.
     SOLOWSKY & ALLEN, P.L.
     915 Citigroup Center
     201 S. Biscayne Boulevard
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (305) 371-2223
     Facsimile: (305) 373-2073
     Email: mpertnoy@salawmiami.com
            rallen@salawmiami.com
            lgardner@salawmiami.com
            ssolowsky@salawmiami.com
            mlopez@salawmiami.com
     Service: pleadings@salawmiami.com

          - and -

     GARY N. MANSFIELD, ESQ.
     RONNIE BRONSTEIN, ESQ.
     DAVID STONE, ESQ.
     MANSFIELD, BRONSTEIN & STONE, LLP
     500 Broward Boulevard, Suite 1450
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
     Phone: 954-601-5600
     Facsimile: 954-961-4756
     Email: gary@mblawpa.com
            ronnie@mblawpa.com
            dstone@davidstonelaw.com
     Service: litigation@mblawpa.com


FS BLINDS: Fails to Pay Installers' Overtime Wages, Flores Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE FLORES, JEAN ROMERO-RODRIGUEZ, and BRANDON VILLAREAL,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs v. FS BLINDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-04114
(S.D. Tex., Oct. 21, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant does not pay its installers a salary or hourly rate
for their work, the Plaintiffs allege. Instead, the Plaintiffs
contend, the Defendant pays them on a piece-work basis, meaning
that they receive small amounts for each discrete task that they
perform. The Plaintiffs assert that they and their fellow
installers were non-exempt employees as that term is understood
under the FLSA, and that they were entitled to overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs are or were installers, who work or have worked for
the Defendant in and around the greater Houston area.

The Defendant is a provider of blinds, which it primarily sells to
large homebuilders.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andrew S. Golub, Esq.
     DOW GOLUB REMELS & GILBREATH, PLLC
     2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1750
     Houston, TX 77056
     Phone: (713) 526-3700
     Facsimile: (713) 526-3750
     Email: asgolub@dowgolub.com



GANNETT CO: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Oct. 7 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of holders of Gannett Co., Inc.
("Gannett") (NYSE: GCI) common stock in connection with the
proposed acquisition of Gannett by New Media Investment Group Inc.
("New Media"), Artic Holdings LLC ("Intermediate HoldCo"), and
Arctic Acquisition Corp. ("Merger Sub") announced on August 5, 2019
(the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Gannett, its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), New Media, Intermediate HoldCo, and Merger
Sub, is captioned Scarantino v. Gannett Co., Inc., Case No.
1:19-cv-01740 (D. Del.).

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

On August 5, 2019, Gannett entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with New Media, Intermediate
HoldCo, and Merger Sub.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, shareholders of Gannett will receive $6.25 in cash and
0.5427 shares of New Media common stock per share (the "Proposed
Transaction").

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 6, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

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

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

Contact:

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


GANNETT CO: Steiner Balks at Merger Deal with New Media
-------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD STEINER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GANNETT CO., INC., JOHN JEFFRY LOUIS,
PAUL J. BASCOBERT, DONALD E. FELSINGER, LAWRENCE S. KRAMER, JOHN E.
CODY, LILA IBRAHIM, CHLOE SLADDEN, DEBRA A. SANDLER, and STEPHEN W.
COLL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01851-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 2,
2019), alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with a proposed
merger between Gannett and New Media Investment Group Inc.

On August 5, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's
shareholders stand to receive $6.25 in cash and 0.5427 shares of
New Media common stock for each share of Gannett stock they own.

Upon completion of the merger, Gannett shareholders will own
approximately 49.5% and New Media shareholders will own
approximately 50.5% of the combined company.

On August 29, 2019, to convince Gannett 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.

The materially incomplete and misleading S-4 violates both
Regulation G and SEC Rule 14a-9 (17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9), each of
which constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. On September 27, 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. The Board has
scheduled a special meeting of the Company's shareholders on
November 14, 2019 to vote on the Proposed Transaction.

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 Gannett shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction; and

    (ii) the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by
Gannett's financial advisors, Greenhill & Co. LLC and Goldman Sachs
& Co. LLC 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, the lawsuit contends.

The 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 Gannett 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.

Gannett Co. is a publicly traded American mass media holding
company headquartered in McLean, Virginia in Greater Washington DC.
It is the largest U.S. newspaper publisher as measured by total
daily circulation.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182
          E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

GDS HOLDINGS: Ramzan Suit Transferred to E.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as HAMZA RAMZAN, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, and  
Maria M. Queri, the Movant, vs. GDS HOLDINGS LIMITED, WILLIAM WEI
HUANG, and DANIEL NEWMAN, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00539
(Filed Aug. 2, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for
for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on Oct. 3,
2019. The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:19-cv-09154-LAK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.

The case is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities from
March 29, 2018 and July 31, 2018, inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to
recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

GDS Holdings Ltd is a developer and operator of data centers in
China. The Company is engaged in design, build-out and operation of
data centers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hamza Ramzan, Esq.
          Kirstine Rogers, Esq.
          R. Dean Gresham, Esq.
          STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN LLP
          12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
          Dallas, TX 75230
          Telephone: (972) 387-4040
          Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
          E-mail: dean@stecklerlaw.com
                  krogers@stecklerlaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Yu Shi, Esq.
          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA
          101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  yshi@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com

Attorneys for the Movant are:

          Willie Charles Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          12700 Park Central Dr., Suite 520
          Dallas, TX 75251
          Telephone: (972) 521-6868
          Facsimile: (281) 254-7789
          E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          James Glenn Kreissman, Esq.
          Alan C. Turner, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP (CA)
          2475 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 251-5000
          Facsimile: (650) 251-5002
          E-mail: jkreissman@stblaw.com
                  aturner@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Clyde Moody Siebman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Siebman Forrest, Esq.
          SIEBMAN BURG PHILLIPS & SMITH LLP
          300 N Travis St
          Sherman, TX 75090-0070
          Telephone: (903) 870-0070
          Facsimile: (903) 870-0066
          E-mail: clydesiebman@siebman.com
                  elizabethforrest@siebman.com

GKN DRIVELINE: Mebane et al Seek to Certify FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MES MEBANE and ANGELA
WORSHAM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-CV-892-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying action as a representative
      collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   2. approving the proposed FLSA notice of the action and the
      consent form in both English and Spanish;

   3. updating production of names, last known mailing addresses,
      alternate addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and

      dates of employment of all putative FLSA plaintiffs/R. 23
      class members;

   4. directing Plaintiffs to email and/or text message the
      proposed Notice, along with utilizing regular U.S. Mail;

   5. certifying action as a class action under Rule 23(a) and (b)
      (3) for the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act claims; and

   6. appointing Mebane and Worsham as class representatives; and

   7. appointing the Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC as
      class counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

          Gilda Adriana Hernandez, Esq.
          Charlotte Smith, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Dr. Ste. 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741-8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Paul DeCamp, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
          1227 25th St., N.W., Suite 700
          Washington, D.C. 20037
          Telephone: (202) 861-1819
          Facsimile: (202) 296-2882
          E-mail: PDeCamp@ebglaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin S. Joyner, Esq.
          Regina W. Calabro, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100
          Raleigh, NC 27609
          Telephone: 919 787-9700
          Facsimile: 919 783-9412
          E-mail: Kevin.joyner@ogletree.com

GODZILLA JAPANESE: Sicajau Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
ROGELIO SOTOY SICAJAU, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GODZILLA JAPANESE REST.,
INC. (D/B/A MONSTER SUSHI), MONSTER SUSHI REST. INC. (D/B/A MONSTER
SUSHI), CARL WALTZER, LINDA WALTZER, and ON LE, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09133 (S.N.D.Y., Oct. 2, 2019), seeks to recover
minimum wage and overtime compensation under the the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Mr. Sotoy is a former employee of Defendants who own(ed),
operate(d), or control(led) two Japanese restaurants, located at
158 West 23rd Street, New York, NY 10011 and at 22 West 46th
Street, New York, NY 10036 under the name "Monster Sushi". The
Plaintiff was employed as general assistant and busboy at the
restaurants.

He worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the
hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay
Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.  
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com

HEALTHCARE COLLECTIONS-I: Gonzales Sues Over FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Adelita Gonzales, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Healthcare Collections-I, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-08309-SMB (D. Ariz., Oct. 21, 2019), is a putative
class action alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly
or indirectly, debts owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due,
another. In connection with its debt collection practices, the
Defendant sent the Plaintiff a written communication dated May 30,
2019. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant violated the FDCPA
by failing to disclose to her in the collection letter the name of
the creditor to whom her debt was owed.

The Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a
debt.

The Defendant is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
     THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
     5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
     Mesa, AZ 85206
     Phone: 602-388-8898
     Facsimile: 866-317-2674
     Email: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com


HOME DEPOT: Removes Strebin Case to Central District of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. removed the case captioned as ELLERY
STREBIN, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a
Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 19CV-0465 (Filed Aug. 9, 2019), from the San
Luis Obispo County Superior, to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on Oct. 3, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-08553
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that Home Depot violated California law by
failing to pay final wages in a timely manner pursuant to the
California Labor Code. The Plaintiff is a former Home Depot
employee.

Specifically, he alleges that when Home Depot terminates an
employee, "rather than provide a check, Defendant provides a cash
debit card to the terminated employee."

The Home Depot Inc. is the largest home improvement retailer in the
United States, supplying tools, construction products, and
services. The company is headquartered at the Atlanta Store Support
Center in unincorporated Cobb County, Georgia.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Donna M. Mezias, Esq.
          Liz K. Bertko, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          580 California Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-765-9500
          Facsimile: 415-765-9501
          E-mail: dmezias@akingump.com
                  lbertko@akingump.com

ILLINOIS: Kay v. CMS Seeks Payment on Bond for Savings Pool
-----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Kay, on behalf of herself, and a class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Department of Central Management
Services, as surety of the Illinois Treasurer, Defendant, Case No.
2019CH12160 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Oct. 21, 2019), seeks payment on
the bond posted by the Treasurer related to his administration of
Illinois College Savings Pool.

Melissa Kay is a resident of Lake County, Illinois.  She has been a
participant in the College Savings Pool through the Bright Start
plan since 2013.

The Department of Central Management Services is the surety behind
the bond posted by the Treasurer related to his administration of
the Illinois College Savings Pool, commonly known as Bright Start
and Bright Directions. CMS is an agency of the State of Illinois.

Ms. Kay alleges that the Illinois Treasurer has illegally
administered the $9 billion Illinois College Savings Pool by
charging excessive fees against certain participants. This violated
both the College Savings Pool Act in place at the time and the
associated regulations. The Treasurer is, under the Act, is
required to post a bond. Defendant CMS was retained as surety,
against whom the Plaintiff brings this action, for payment on the
bond.

The accumulated fees that should be returned to the participants,
including the Plaintiff, are kept in the College Savings Program
Administrative Trust Fund No. 668. This fund is an enterprise
fund-contrasted with a State general fund that can only receive
funds from, and spend funds on, a specific purpose. The Treasurer
established Trust 668 as an enterprise fund, only receiving money
from the College Savings Pool and expending it on administrative
costs connected to the Pool. Rather than return the fund's monthly
excess as required by both the Act and the regulation, though, the
Treasurer keeps it in Trust 668. The failure to return this money
to the participants' accounts has resulted in the deprivation of
those funds and the earnings they would have accrued, Ms. Kay
contends.

The Treasurer has also violated the Act by assessing the State
Administrative Fee against certain types of investments and not
others. The Act requires that "rules shall provide for
administration expenses of the pool to be paid from its earnings."
By discriminating in assessing fees against only certain types of
investments, the Pool's expenses are not being paid from the Pool's
earnings. Instead, they are being paid by a discrete set of
individuals. The Plaintiff and the members of the Class have
suffered by bearing a disproportionate burden of the Pool's
administrative fees, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew Hurst, Esq.
     Matthew Heffner, Esq.
     HEFFNER HURST
     30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1210
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 346-3466
     Fax: (312) 346-2829
     Email: mhurst@heffnerhurst.com
            mheffner@heffnerhurst.com


IVOX SOLUTIONS: Dameron Suit Asserts WARN Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
VICKI DAMERON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. IVOX SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-14386-DMM (S.D.
Fla., Oct. 15, 2019) is an action brought pursuant to the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.

During the weeks of October 7 and October 14, 2019, Defendants,
without warning, and despite having knowledge of their intention to
conduct mass lay-offs, engaged in a mass lay off without properly
notifying Plaintiffs. No prior written notice was provided to the
Plaintiffs as required by the WARN act. The Defendants are liable
under the WARN Act for their failure to provide the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated at least 60 days advance notice of
their termination, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants in St. Lucie County, Florida.

Defendants were a Florida Limited Liability Company conducting
business in St. Lucie County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Noah E. Storch, Esq.
     RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
     10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103
     Davie, FL 33314
     Phone: (866) 344-9243
     Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
     Email: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com


JATIN INVESTMENTS: Lindsey Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Hotel Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHELLEY LINDSEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, PLAINTIFF v. JATIN INVESTMENTS, LLC and BALDEV RAJSURI,
DEFENDANTS, Case No. 3:19-cv-00274-DPM (E.D. Ark., Oct. 11, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants violated the minimum wage and overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.

The Plaintiff worked at the Defendants' hotel in Jonesboro as an
hourly-paid employee from May 2017 until October 2019.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs as a result of the Defendants' failure to
pay proper minimum wage and overtime compensation, the lawsuit
says.

Jatin Investments is a domestic limited liability company with its
principal place of business located at 2400 Phillips Drive, in
Jonesboro, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KENTUCKY COUNSELING: Smith Sues over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. KENTUCKY COUNSELING CENTER, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00713-CRS (W.D. Ky., Oct. 2. 2019),
alleges that Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the
personally identifiable information of its patients, and failed to
provide timely, accurate and adequate notice that such information
had been compromised.

On January 4, 2019, KCC discovered that nearly one month earlier,
one of its employees obtained and exfiltrated a document containing
the personal health information and other personally identifiable
information of approximately 16,440 KCC patients.

The employee used an anonymous Internet file sharing service to
subsequently disseminate the PII to unauthorized individuals. The
exposed PII included names, addresses, dates of birth, emails,
phone numbers, Social Security Numbers, sex, marital and employment
status, insurance payer and insurance numbers.

The Data Breach was preventable and a direct result of Defendant's
failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security
procedures and protocols necessary to protect patient PII, the
lawsuit says.

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

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          Brenton D. Stanley, Esq.
          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Patrick A. Barthle, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN KENTUCKY, PLLC
          420 West Liberty Street, Suite 260
          Louisville, KY 40202-3048
          Telephone: (502) 912-5906
          E-mail: bstanley@forthepeople.com
                  jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  pbarthle@forthepoeple.com

KIRIN GARDEN: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages Under FLSA, Dollar Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE DOLLAR and JAYLON DOLLAR, Each Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. Kirin Garden Lins,
LLC, Xiang Xu Lin and Jin Shu Lin, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00730-KGB (E.D. Ark., Oct. 21, 2019), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act as a
result of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs and others
minimum wages.

The Plaintiffs allege that they earned tips, but the Defendants did
not allow them to keep all of their tips. Servers, such as the
Plaintiffs, performed both duties that generated tips, including
delivering food to customers ("tipped work"), and duties that did
not generate tips, including opening the restaurant and busing
tables ("non-tipped work"). The Defendants did not distinguish
between time spent by Servers on tipped work and time spent by
Servers on non-tipped work and paid the Plaintiffs the same rate
for both tipped work and non-tipped work, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed as hourly-paid Servers at the
Defendants' location at 4000 Vali Court in North Little Rock.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants at multiple locations in
Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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



LM GENERAL: Glover Seeks to Certify Class in Auto Insurance Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LESSIE GLOVER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
LM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Massachusetts Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21900-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order granting an amended motion for class
certification of:

   "all insureds, under a private-passenger property damage
   Florida auto policy issued by LM General, who made a first-
   party claim for property damage that was determined to be a
   covered total-loss and where the total-loss claim payment did
   not include an amount for Transfer Fees, from May 10, 2014
   until the date of any certification order."[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jacob Phillips, Esq.
          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Pl., Ste. 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: 407-603-6031
          Facsimile: 888-974-2175

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          19495 Biscayne Blvd., No. 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          300 S. Biscayne Blvd., No. 2704
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 305-610-5223
          E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com

LOWE'S HOME: Court Grants Conditional Collective Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DANIEL DANFORD and HARRY
HOUTMAN, the Plaintiffs, vs. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, and LOWE'S
COMPANIES INC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-CV-00041-KDB-DCK
(W.D.N.C., filed April 11, 2019), the Hon. Judge Kenneth D. Bell
entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective
      certification with regards to the class of:

      "all current and former hourly managers, including but not
      limited to: Department Managers; Overnight Managers; Product

      Service Department Managers; Installed Sales Department
      Managers; Loss Prevention Managers; Service Managers;
      Support Managers; Back-End Department Supervisors; Front-End

      Department Supervisors; Night-Ops Supervisors; and Sales
      Floor Department Supervisors (collectively referred to as
      "Hourly Managers"), who work or have worked for Lowe's
      Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC ("Lowe's) at
      any of their retail stores at any time on or after April 11,

      2016 and have performed off-the-clock work in connection
      with opening or closing the store or in connection with
      receiving or responding to work related communications on
      one or more smartphone applications (including, but not
      limited to: WhatsApp and GroupMe) and was not paid for such
      work;

   2. granting Plaintiffs' request for notification by U.S. Mail
      and e-mail to all Hourly Managers who worked at Lowe's on or

      after April 11, 2016 but denies Plaintiffs' request for text

      message notice, unless initial notice is undeliverable;

   3. denying Plaintiff's request to send a reminder notice by
      e-mail 30 days into the 60-day opt-in period; and

   4. directing Lowe's to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel an
      electronic list of all Hourly Managers who worked at Lowe's
      on or after April 11, 2016 that includes members' full
      names, last known addresses, phone numbers, email addresses,

      and dates and location of employment within 14 days of this
      Order.

The Court finds that the putative class members are similarly
situated with regard Lowe's policy and practice of not paying for
time worked outside of the Kronos system. The uniform use of Kronos
across all of Defendant's stores nationwide is evidence of a common
policy, as is the policy that only time imputed into Kronos is
compensated for absent request and authorization.

Additionally, the fact that Hourly Managers are only able to clock
into the system when physically present at the store and that they
are unable to override time clocked retroactively go to show that
Plaintiffs have met the fairly lenient burden that they are
similarly situated. Of course, this conditional certification does
not prejudge whether a class will ultimately be certified if
Defendants pursue decertification and, at that time the Court will
reconsider Defendants' arguments, the Court says.

The Plaintiffs filed the complaint against Lowe's on April 11, 2019
and an Amended Complaint on June 12, 2019. The Plaintiffs allege in
their Amended Complaint that Defendants willfully violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act, by failing to compensate Hourly Managers for
all hours worked. The Plaintiffs also claim Lowe's violated the
California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, the North Carolina Wage
and Hour Act, and assert claims for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.[CC]

LYDIA HEALTHCARE: Littleton Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JABORI LITTLETON, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LYDIA HEALTHCARE I, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH12142 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Oct. 21,
2019), seeks to redress and curtail the Defendant's unlawful
collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's
sensitive biometric data.

While many employers use conventional methods for tracking time
worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), the Defendant's
employees are required to have their fingerprints scanned by a
biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards--which
can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised--fingerprints
are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each
employee. This exposes the Defendant's employees to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its
citizens from such situation, Illinois enacted the Biometric
Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that
collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as
fingerprints.

The Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy
rights and unlawfully collects, stores, disseminates, and uses its
employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA, the Plaintiff
alleges. Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts, the Defendant
violates BIPA because it did not and continues not to: (a) properly
inform the Plaintiff and others similarly situated in writing of
the specific purpose and length of time for which their
fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as required by
BIPA; (b) receive a written release from the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated to collect, store, or otherwise use their
fingerprints, as required by BIPA; (c) publish a publicly available
retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the
Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated individuals' fingerprints,
as required by BIPA; and (d) Obtain consent from the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated to disclose, redisclose, or otherwise
disseminate their fingerprints to a third party as required by
BIPA.

Jabori Littleton is a natural person and a citizen of the State of
Illinois.

Lydia Healthcare I, LLC, is an Illinois specialized mental health
rehabilitation facility located at 13901 S Lydia Ave., in Robbins,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: (312) 233-1550
     Fax: (312) 233-1560
     Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
            hjenkins@stephanzouras.com
            rstephan@stephanzouras.com


MDL 2820: Lund Suit over Dicamba Herbicides Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as TANNER LEE LUND, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF LUND FAMILY FARMS, LLC; CHARLES RANDALL
LUND, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF LUND FAMILY FARMS, LLC;
and LUND FAMILY FARMS, LLC, the PLAINTIFFS, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY;
BASF SE; and BASF CORPORATION, Case No. 4:19-cv-00292 (Filed Sept.
12, 2019), was transferred form the U.S. District for  the Southern
District of Iowa, to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri (Cape Girardeau) on Oct 4, 2019.

The action is brought by farmers who have suffered damage as a
result of the design, development, promotion, and sale of a
genetically engineered trait conferring resistance to dicamba
expressly for the purpose of spraying dicamba herbicide over the
top of growing plants as part of a dicamba-based crop system.
Defendants knew that dicamba, highly volatile and prone to drift,
is ruinous to susceptible non-dicamba resistant plants and crops.

The Lund case is being consolidated with MDL 2820 in re: DICAMBA
HERBICIDES LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 1, 2018.
The actions share factual questions arising from allegations
concerning the development, testing, and marketing of Monsanto’s
dicamba-resistant Xtend seeds and three dicamba herbicides --
XtendiMax, Engenia, and FeXapan -- as well as allegations of injury
from the use of those herbicides, either alone or in conjunction
with the Xtend seeds. Centralization will eliminate duplicative
discovery, the possibility of inconsistent rulings on class
certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial matters, and
conserve judicial and party resources. In particular, discovery
concerning the development, testing, marketing, and regulatory
histories of the herbicides and seed products -- including expert
discovery on such matters as the chemical composition of the
herbicides and the mechanism of injury -- appears likely to be
extensive. Plaintiffs' allegations that Defendants conspired with
one another to conceal the risks and misrepresent the
characteristics of their products to regulators and the public also
may necessitate significant discovery into defendants various
business agreements and arrangements.

In its Feb. 1, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Eastern District of Missouri will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. The lead case is
1:18-md-02820-SNLJ.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs are:

          Ward A. Rouse, Esq.
          ROUSE LAW PC
          4940 Pleasant Street
          West Des Moines, IA 50266
          Telephone: (515) 223-9000
          E- mail: wardrouse@rouselaw.us

               - and -

          Paul Byrd, Esq.
          Joseph Gates, Esq.
          PAUL BYRD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          415 N. McKinley St. Suite 210
          Little Rock, AR 72205
          Telephone: 501-420-3050
          Facsimile: 501-420-3128
          E-mail: paul@paulbyrdlawfirm.com
                  joseph@paulbyrdlawfirm.com

MDL 2915: Tadrous v. Capital One Over Data Breach Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Akram Tadrous individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital One
Financial Corporation; Capital One, National Association; and
Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02292,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia - (Alexandria) on Oct 11, 2019.

The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02917-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga.

The case is being consolidated with MDL 2915 in re: CAPITAL ONE
CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. These actions share factual issues
concerning a recently-announced incident in which an individual
gained unauthorized access to the personal information, maintained
on cloud-based systems, of more than 100 million Capital One credit
card customers and individuals who applied for Capital One credit
card products.

All actions arise from the same data security breach, and they all
allege that Capital One failed to put in to place reasonable data
protections. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery,
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and
other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary.

In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel select the Eastern
District of Virginia as the transferee district for the litigation.
Common defendant Capital One is headquartered within this district
in McLean, Virginia, and represents that relevant documents and
witnesses will be found there. Moreover, the AWS defendants
maintain that relevant witnesses and evidence are located in an AWS
facility located in Northern Virginia. Judge Anthony J. Trenga is
an able jurist with MDL experience, and we are confident he will
steer these proceedings on a prudent course. The Panel find that
centralization under Section 1407 of all actions in the Eastern
District of Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Anthony J. Trenga.
The lead case is Case No. 1:19-md-02915-AJT-JFA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP P. C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 40
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (917) 438-9102
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John C. Toro, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING (GA-NA)
          1180 Peachtree St NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-2806
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
          E-mail: jtoro@kslaw.com


MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Faces Meyer Suit Arising From Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
CASIE MEYER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, PLAINTIFF v. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AT GULFPORT FOUNDATION,
INC., DEFENDANT, Case No. 1:19-cv-00700-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss., Oct.
11, 2019), alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of its patients,
and failed to provide timely, accurate and adequate notice that
such PII had been compromised.

On December 17, 2018, MHG discovered that one of its employees'
email accounts had been compromised 11 days earlier, and as result,
the personal health information ("PHI") and other personally
identifiable information of approximately 30,000 MHG patients had
been illegally exposed ("Data Breach").

The exposed PII included: names, dates of birth, health insurance
information, and information about medical services received at the
hospital. In several instances, the exposed PII also included
Social Security numbers.

Although the Data Breach was discovered in December 2018, MHG
waited nearly two months before publicly announcing that its
patient PII had been exposed, the Plaintiff asserts.  She contends
that the Data Breach was preventable and a direct result of the
Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
patient PII.

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

The Plaintiff suffered actual injury from having her PII stolen as
a result of the Data Breach including, but not limited to:

   (a) paying monies to MHG for its goods and services which she
       would not have had if MHG disclosed that it lacked
       computer systems and data security practices adequate to
       safeguard consumers' PII from theft;

   (b) damages to and diminution in the value of her PII--a form
       of intangible property that the Plaintiff entrusted to MHG
       as a condition for health services;

   (c) loss of her privacy;

   (d) imminent and impending injury arising from the
       substantially increased risk of fraud, identity theft, and
       misuse resulting from her PII being exposed to criminals.

Founded in 1986, the mission of the Memorial Hospital at Gulfport
Foundation, Inc. is to assist Memorial Hospital in "building a
healthier community."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William A. Graves, Esq.
          Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
          Ryan McGee, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC
          4450 Old Canton Road, Ste. 200
          Jackson, MS 39211
          Telephone: 601-603-1659
          E-mail: wgraves@forthepeople.com
                  jeanmartin@forthepeople.com
                  rmcgee@forthepeople.com


MNR RAMY: Cummings Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wage Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE CUMMINGS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MNR RAMY, INC., MNR CONVENIENCE, INC., and
MOUNA RAMY, individually, Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-02010 (M.D.
Fla., Oct. 21, 2019), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants did not compensate the
Plaintiff for all overtime hours worked in a work week. The
Plaintiff is entitled to be paid time and one half of her regular
rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours per work
week. In violation of the FLSA, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff at time and one half of her regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a convenience store
clerk from 2016 through September 30, 2019.

The Defendants are enterprises engaged in commerce or in the
production of goods for commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan S. Minick, Esq.
     JONATHAN S. MINICK, P.A.
     169 E. Flagler St., Suite 1600
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (786) 441-8909
     Facsimile: (786) 523-0610
     Email: jminick@jsmlawpa.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Dees Sues Over Breaches of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT DEES and ANGELA DEES, On behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, d/b/a
MR. COOPER, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00314 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 21,
2019), seeks injunctive, declaratory, and compensatory relief for
the Defendant's violations of the Texas Debt Collection Practices
Act and breaches of contract.

Nationstar routinely and systematically violates the Texas Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act and breaches uniform covenants in
mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration by
assessing fees to borrowers that are either not permitted by law or
are expressly prohibited by their mortgage agreements, the
Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs add that the Defendant abuses
its position as a mortgage servicer by charging fees to borrowers
who make their mortgage payments online or over the phone
("Pay-to-Pay fees"), despite those fees not being expressly
authorized in the terms of standard mortgage agreements.

As a servicer of FHA-insured loans, the Defendant is bound by the
rules and regulations of the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development, and those rules are incorporated by reference into all
FHA-insured mortgages. Under FHA servicing rules, a mortgage
servicer may not charge a borrower any fee not authorized by the
FHA. The FHA has not authorized Pay-to-Pay fees. The Plaintiffs
have incurred multiple fees Pay-to-Pay fees during the life of
their loan. Specifically, within four years of filing this
complaint, the Plaintiffs have paid multiple fees of $9.95 for
making mortgage payments online and have paid multiple fees between
$14.00–19.00 for making their mortgage payments over the phone,
says the complaint.

Plaintiffs Robert and Angela Dees have an FHA-insured deed of trust
that is serviced by the Defendant.

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper, is one of
the largest originators and servicers of mortgages in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
     Hank Bates, Esq.
     E. Lee Lowther, III, Esq.
     CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
     519 W. 7th St.
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Phone: (501) 312-8500
     Fax: (501) 312-8505
     Email: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
            hbates@cbplaw.com
            llowther@cbplaw.com

          - and –

     Abraham Moss, Esq.
     MOSS LAW OFFICE
     5350 S. Staples, Suite 209
     Corpus Christi, TX 78411
     Phone: (361) 992-8999
     Facsimile: (361) 232-5007
     Email: amoss@amlawyers.com


NCAA: Reid Sues over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARK REID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff v. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, and WIDENER UNIVERSITY, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-04191-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., Oct. 11, 2019), seeks redress for
injuries sustained a result of the Defendant's reckless disregard
for the health and safety of generations of Widener University
student-athletes.

According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football
players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football
season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players--often mere teenagers--are
riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when playing,
are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.

But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't
wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would
be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.

Football players were under the Defendant's care. Unfortunately,
the Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that
would haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing
for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the
danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those the
Plaintiff experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other football players from
the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly
and for profit, the Plaintiff asserts.

As a direct result of the Defendant's acts and omissions, the
Plaintiff and countless football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, the
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by::

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713.554.9099
          Facsimile: 713.554.9098
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589 6370
          Facsimile: 312 589 6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com


NCAA: Springer Sues Over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety
----------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON SPRINGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, and MENLO COLLEGE, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-04187-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., Oct. 11, 2019), seeks redress for
injuries sustained as a result of the Defendants' reckless
disregard for the health and safety of generations of Menlo College
student-athletes.

According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football
players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football
season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players--often mere teenagers--are
riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when playing,
are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.

But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't
wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would
be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.

Football players were under the Defendant's care. Unfortunately,
the Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that
would haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing
for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the
danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those the
Plaintiff experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other football players from
the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly
and for profit, the Plaintiff avers.

As a direct result of the Defendant's acts and omissions, the
Plaintiff and countless football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football, the lawsuit
says. As such, the Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in
order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA
accountable.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713.554.9099
          Facsimile: 713.554.9098
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 589 6370
          Facsimile: 312 589 6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com


NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Faces Sexual Abuse Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Barb Sweet, writing for Cape Breton Post, reports that allegations
of sexual abuse at boys' and girls' training facilities were
consistently ignored by officials over decades and missed by
judicial inquiries while kids were treated like animals, says the
lead lawyer on a class action liability lawsuit against the
Newfoundland and Labrador government.

The lawsuit involves three boys' and girls' training facilities--in
Whitbourne, Pleasantville and Waterford Bridge Road--and brackets
the years 1973-89.

But while the class action is singled out to those years, Morris
Martin Moore lawyer Lynn Moore had charts detailing events from the
1950s-'90s displayed on the Mount Pearl firm's boardroom wall on
Oct. 7 as she briefed reporters on events from those decades put
together from former residents' accounts, the research of a hired
historian and documents obtained from the provincial government.

"What I find startlingly horrifying about this is that sexual abuse
in our institutions has been happening for decades and the
government response has been woefully inadequate," Moore said.

"They were horribly mismanaged, and they had no respect for basic
human dignity. They did not treat these children as children.. . .
It's our view that the governments of the day were more concerned
about the embarrassment of this coming forward then they were about
protecting children, and these were vulnerable children. Until 1984
(when the Young Offenders Act came in), some of those kids ended up
in there because they were neglected. There was nobody who could
take care of them.. . . These are the children who are the most
vulnerable you could imagine."

After 1984, the sites became correctional facilities, which should
have been bound by requirements to keep the inmates safe, she
said.

"And they were not safe at all," Moore said.

The Department of Justice said on Oct. 7 that while the province
consented to having the matter proceed as a class action, that in
no way indicates any admission of liability in the case. As the
matter is currently before the courts, the department wouldn't
comment further.

The dark history of the Whitbourne detention centre, according to
the case allegations, includes a 1956 inquiry that failed to fault
staff, despite a subsequent 1957 conviction of a veterinarian who
lived on the grounds of the facility revealing that he had been
abusing boys.

Moore said the boys were sent to the veterinarian when they were
hurt and he masturbated them, claiming he needed their semen
samples to test if they were really sick or not.

In 1956, a priest had written to then-premier Joseph Smallwood and
threatened to go public if reports of abuse were not acted on,
prompting the inquiry that eventually concluded no sexual
wrongdoing on the part of staff, but immoral behaviour among the
boys, Moore said.

"All these boys are being abused while the inquiry is happening,
but the inquiry doesn't uncover it," Moore said.

The lawyers say there were instances of repeated naked beatings in
the 1960s, despite a government policy that indicated appropriate
corporal punishment of the day was no more than five hits of a
leather strap on the hand.

Complaints made by the public and on open-line programs in the
1970s often revolved around confusing "rampant homosexuality" at
Whitbourne for what should have been termed child abuse, Moore
said.

A government lawyer and civil servant were sent to investigate and
they concluded once again there was activity between the boys, but
no sexual abuse by staff, Moore said. However, documents revealed a
later conviction, she said.

Another inquiry in the 1980s flagged grave concerns. And the Hughes
Inquiry--struck after the scandal of sexual abuse at the infamous
Christian Brothers-run Mount Cashel boys' orphanage--heard from a
civil servant who testified she was told not to produce information
related to overtime restrictions at Whitbourne to a judge presiding
over an inquiry into the death of a boy who had run away from the
facility and perished, Moore said.

Moore, echoing comments made by commissioner Samuel Hughes about
the Mount Cashel scandal, said the government and civil servants
for decades had an appetite for concealment.

To be ruled through the class action is whether the provincial
government had adequate procedures that would protect against
sexual abuse, whether there was adequate training for staff and
residents, and whether the provincial government fraudulently
concealed knowledge that there was sexual abuse, Moore said.

"Our argument is that the facts clearly demonstrate it did not have
these children in mind when they were developing their policies,"
Moore said.

The class action begins at 1973, because older cases would involve
different litigation due to changes in procedures for suing the
provincial government and those older cases could be handled in a
separate action, as they have a different legal standing, Moore
explained.

The class action alleges sexual abuses were committed by employees,
priests and sometimes older children.

Sexual abuse, by its definition, can range from molestation, rape,
beatings while naked and detention while naked.

The litigation moves into a notice period for any others who may
have been at the centres and claim abuse. Once that period is up,
the case will move on to either trial or settlement.

There's a pool of about 1,200 people who went through the
institutions.

It's not yet known how many abuse claimants there might be, but
there are already 60 people who have come forward.

Eighty-five per cent of those who have come forward so far are men,
and 15 per cent are women.

When the firm first went public with the case, it made a plea for
women to come forward.

"We know that the rates for sexual assault against women are
significantly higher than the rates of sexual assaults for men,"
Moore said.

"We believe there are more women out there who have not come
forward yet."

It's alleged, for instance, that a Whitbourne staff member housed
girls escaping Whitbourne at an apartment, where they were sexually
abused by a variety of men.

The class action stops at 1989 because most victims who pursue
legal action tend to be in their 40s or 50s, and younger victims
may not be ready to come forward yet, Moore said. [GN]


NEWSDAY LLC: Yohai Seeks Unpaid Earned Commissions
--------------------------------------------------
CHERYL YOHAI, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NEWSDAY LLC, NEWSDAY MEDIA,
INC. and ELIZABETH DUFFY, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-05593 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 2, 2019), alleges that
Defendants willfully violated New York Labor Law by failing to pay
earned commissions; failing to pay for all hours worked; and
failing to provide an accurate wage statement.

Cheryl Yohai worked for Newsday LLC and Newsday Media as Sales
Representative for nearly 40 years in various advertising sales
positions until she was unlawfully terminated by her anti-Semitic
supervisor, Elizabeth Duffy on or about August 24, 2018, because of
her religion and race (Jewish), her age (62), and in retaliation
for her repeated complaints about violations of wage & hour laws;
namely, failure to pay earned commissions.

Newsday is a daily, tabloid newspaper based in Melville, New York,
that primarily services the Borough of Queens, Nassau and Suffolk
Counties on Long Island with a daily circulation of approximately
437,000 and a Sunday circulation of approximately 495,000. Newsday
also operates and maintains an on-line news service at
www.newsday.com.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170-1830
          Telephone: 212 392 4772
          Facsimile: 212.444.1030
          E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com

OUTSIDE DREAMS: Mondragon Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MONDRAGON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the PLAINTIFF, vs. OUTSIDE DREAMS, LLC, and JOSE PEREZ,
the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:19-cv-02847 (D. Colo., Oct. 4, 2019),
seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorney's
fees, as a result of Defendants' policy and practice of failing to
pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated a lawful minimum
wage and overtime wages as required by the the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to provide lawn care
services for Defendants' business in Aurora.

The Defendants classified Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated as non-exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA.

Despite the entitlement of Plaintiff and those similarly situated
to overtime payments under the FLSA, the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff and all those similarly situated an overtime rate of one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
over 40 in each one-week period.

The Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and others similarly
situated a proper overtime wage was willful, intentional,
unreasonable, arbitrary, and in bad faith, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

P & A MANAGEMENT: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Fisher Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
STAYSHA FISHER and CHRISTA KISSER, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. GEORGE MACK
PATTERSON, II; P & A MANAGEMENT, INC.; PRAIRIE PIZZA, INC.;
PATTERSON PIZZA COMPANY, LLC; TEAM LINCOLNTON, INC; MOUNTAINEER
PIZZA, LLC; and MJM PIZZA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00553
(W.D.N.C., Oct. 21, 2019), accuses the Defendants of violating the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that they consistently worked 50 hours or
more per week, sometimes up to 70 hours or more per week, but the
Defendants failed to pay them one and one- half times their regular
rate of pay for overtime hours. The Plaintiffs also allege, among
other things, that the Defendants violated the NCWHA by failing to
pay them and all other similarly situated persons their promised
bonus wages when due in the promised amount.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as general managers of the
Defendants' Domino's Pizza restaurants.

The Defendants collectively own and operate Domino's Pizza
restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Eric Spengler, Esq.
     SPENGLER & AGANS PLLC
     352 N. Caswell Road
     Charlotte, NC 28204
     Phone: (704) 910-5469
     Fax: (704) 730-7861
     Email: eric@spengleraganslaw.com


P & M PROPERTY: Rivera Seeks OT Wages for Landscaping Laborers
--------------------------------------------------------------
JERONIMO RAMOS RIVERA individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. P & M PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.
(DBA JPM LANDSCAPING), JAMES PORRETO and JAMES MORRISSEY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05774 (E.D.N.Y, Oct. 11, 2019), seeks
to recover overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, unlawful
deductions and breach-of-contract and quantum meruit damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law,
and the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated co-workers are employed by the
Defendants as Landscaping Laborers. The Plaintiff regularly work
for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
receiving appropriate overtime compensation for any of the hours
that he worked.

JPM Landscaping offers landscaping/lawn care services to home and
business owners throughout Berkeley & Jefferson.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
          Web site: http://www.FightForUrRights.com/
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 203-2417

PETROBRAS: Lawyer Fees for Objector Haynes Increased to $33.7K
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the PETROBRAS SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 14-cv-9662 (JSR)
(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York increased the award of attorneys'
fees to the counsel to objector William Haynes from $11,731.65 to
$33,741.65, to be funded from the Class Counsel's fee award.

Before the District Court on remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit is the issue of what amount of attorneys'
fees the Court should award to the counsel to Petrobras objector
William Thomas Haynes.  Because the issues as to which the remand
was made were already fully briefed, both in the District Court and
in the appeal, the District Court is in a position to promptly
resolve the issues.

On Feb. 1, 2018, after more than three years of extensive
litigation in which Haynes and his counsel had no involvement, the
counsel for the class representatives filed a notice of motion for
preliminary approval of a settlement in the underlying class action
against Petrobras.  Haynes then objected and, in a brief dated May
10, 2018, raised several objections to the settlement.  Haynes'
objections broadly fell into two categories: first, he objected to
the certification of the settlement class, and second, he objected
to the Class Counsel's proposed fee award.

The District Court found the first set of objection to lack merit
and, on June 22, 2018, it certified the settlement class and
approved the proposed class action settlement.  The Second Circuit
subsequently affirmed these decisions.

As to the second set of objections, however, while the District
Court awarded attorneys' fees to the Class Counsel, it did so in an
amount lower than requested.  Although most of the reduction had
nothing to do with Haynes' objections, a part of the reduction
resulted from the only one of Haynes' objections that had any
merit.

Specifically, Haynes noted that the Class Counsel had
inappropriately added roughly $28 million to its lodestar to
account for the work of Brazilian contract attorneys, but, for
technical reasons, it should have been billed instead as an at-cost
expense.  Since the counsel's fees were multiplied by a 1.78
lodestar factor, whereas costs and expenses were not, this led to a
reduction in the counsel fees of approximately $46 million, offset
by an increase of costs of approximately $28 million, for a net
savings to the class of about $18 million.

Haynes subsequently filed a motion to recover $199,400 of
attorneys' fees -- representing a lodestar amount of $117,316.50
with a multiplier of 1.7 -- for his counsel, Anna St. John, Esq.
Given the fact that only one of Haynes' objections had resulted in
any benefit to the class, the District Court granted Haynes'
request for attorneys' fees only in the amount of $11,731.65.

The District Court determined that Haynes' attorney should only
recover fees attributable to her time and effort developing the
successful objection about the Brazilian contract attorneys, and it
further determined that $11,731.65, or 10% of Haynes' lodestar, was
the amount appropriately attributable to his one successful
objection.

Haynes appealed the District Court's limited attorney fee award,
and the Second Circuit affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in
part.  Notably, the Second Circuit did not ask the District Court
to reconsider either its conclusion that Haynes' objection about
the Brazilian contract attorneys was the only objection that
significantly contributed to the class' recovery, nor its
conclusion that $11,731.65 was the fee amount appropriately
attributable to developing that objection.  

Rather, the Second Circuit asked the District Court to reconsider
the narrower questions of (1) whether Haynes' other objections to
Class Counsel's award of attorneys' fees besides the successful one
("additional fee objections") were so related to the Brazilian
contract attorney objection that Haynes's counsel should also
recover fees for the time spent developing these objections; and
(2) whether Haynes' counsel should recover fees for various
"all-inclusive" activities, such as satisfying the class notice
requirements, preparing for the fairness hearing, and responding to
discovery requests.

Judge Rakoff considers these two questions in turn and holds that
(1) the additional fee objections were sufficiently distinct from
the successful objection as to merit no additional award of
attorneys' fees, but (2) a $22,010 increase in the fee award to
account for the all-inclusive activities is appropriate.

As to the first question, in addition to his successful objection,
Haynes raised (along with some vague and conclusory objections) two
further objections to the Class Counsel's fee award -- that the
hourly rates for U.S.-based project attorneys used in the lodestar
calculation were excessive and that the Class Counsel failed to
provide sufficient billing summaries.

Judge Rakoff declines to increase the fee award to Haynes's counsel
to account for her time litigating the additional fee objections.
The Judge opines that Haynes' counsel is entitled to no added award
of fees for the time attributable to litigating the additional fee
objections, because they were sufficiently unrelated to Haynes'
successful objection.  Neither of the additional fee objections
involve a common core of facts or legal theories with the Brazilian
contract attorney objection.  Furthermore, these other objections
were not "alternative legal grounds," to the successful objection
for arriving at the same result.  These were separate (and
unpersuasive) objections to different aspects of the Class
Counsel's lodestar calculation, and they sought to justify a
reduction of the Class Counsel's fee award beyond the reduction
associated with the successful objection.

Turning to the second question, the Second Circuit also directs the
District Court to reconsider whether Haynes' counsel is entitled to
recover fees for the "all-inclusive" activities necessary to
sustain Haynes's status as an objector, including satisfying the
class notice requirements, preparing for the fairness hearing, and
responding to discovery requests.

Judge Rakoff believes it would be inappropriate to award the entire
lodestar amount in additional attorneys' fees.  The District Court
explained that Haynes was only involved in the case for a short
period of time and faced no risks in his involvement.  These
factors counsel against an award of fees for the activities
associated with maintaining the objection.  Furthermore, Judge
Rakoff is also skeptical that all of the time spent responding to
the Class Counsel's discovery requests merits a recovery of
attorneys' fees, as at least some of these discovery requests were
likely prompted by Haynes's objections to the certification of the
settlement class.

Nevertheless, Judge Rakoff is persuaded that some recovery of fees
for the time spent on the all-inclusive activities is appropriate.
As the Second Circuit noted, at least one out-of-circuit court has
awarded attorneys' fees for such costs under similar circumstances.
The Judge finds that the counsel who prepare a
partially-successful objection may sometimes be entitled to recover
costs for activities that do not relate directly to the
ultimately-successful objection but without the performance of
which it would have been quite impossible to raise any objection at
all.

Weighing all these factors, Judge Rakoff's view is that the
appropriate recovery for Haynes' counsel for her time spent on the
all-inclusive activities is $22,010, or two-thirds of the
above-calculated lodestar amount of $33,015, with no multiplier.
When added to the previous recovery of $11,731.65, this results in
a new award totaling $33,741.65.  The award of attorneys' fees to
the counsel to objector William Haynes is accordingly increased
from $11,731.65 to $33,741.65, to be funded from the Class
Counsel's fee award, the District Court ruled.

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

Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited, Lead Plaintiff,
represented by Emma Gilmore -- egilmore@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP, Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP, Marc Ian Gross -- migross@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Adam
G.
Kurtz -- agkurtz@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Brenda F. Szydlo --
bszydlo@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jennifer Pafiti -- Pafiti,
Esq. -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Banner Sobers --
jbsobers@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, John Anthony Kehoe --
jkehoe@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Justin Solomon Nematzadeh --
jnematzadeh@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Marc Christian Gorrie --
mgorrie@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom --
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Susan Jessica Weiswasser
-- sjweiswasser@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Peter Kaltman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chet Barry Waldman, Wolf
Popper
LLP, Fei-Lu Qian, Wolf Popper LLP, Lester L. Levy, Sr., Wolf
Popper
LLP & Robert Craig Finkel, Wolf Popper LLP.

Union Asset Management Holding AG, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher F. Moriarty, Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, William H.
Narwold, Motley Rice LLC & Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, Plaintiff,
represented by David J. Goldsmith -- agoldsmith@kellogghansen.com
-- Labaton Sucharow, LLP, John Julian Esmay , Labaton & Sucharow
LLP, Michael Howard Rogers , Labaton & Sucharow LLP & Jeremy Alan
Lieberman , Pomerantz LLP.

North Carolina Department of State Treasurer, Plaintiff,
represented by Brenda F. Szydlo, Pomerantz LLP, Justin Solomon
Nematzadeh, Pomerantz LLP, Susan Jessica Weiswasser, Pomerantz LLP
& Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Aura Capital Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Whitney Dona,
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, Kim Elaine Miller --
kmiller@kellogghansen.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC & Lewis
Stephen
Kahn, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC.

Dimensional Emerging Markets Value Fund, Plaintiff, pro se.

DFA Investment Dimensions Group Inc. on behalf of its series
Emerging Markets Core Equity Portfolio, Plaintiff, pro se.

Emerging Markets Social Core Equity Portfolio and T.A. World ex
U.S. Core Equity Portfolio, Plaintiff, pro se.

DFA Investment Trust Company on behalf of its series The Emerging
Markets Series, Plaintiff, pro se.

Jose Sergio Gabrielli, Defendant, represented by Roger Allen
Cooper
- -racooper@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb, Edward M. Spiro --
espiro@magislaw.com -- Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, &
Anello
P.C., Elizabeth Vicens, Cleary Gottlieb, Elkan Abramowitz --
eabramowitz@maglaw.com -- Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, &
Anello P.C. & Jasmine Marie Juteau -- jjuteau@maglaw.com --
Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, & Anello P.C.

BB Securities Ltd., Defendant, represented by Albert L. Hogan, III
, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, Jeremy A. Berman,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Michael Scott Bailey,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

Theodore Marshall Helms, Defendant, represented by Andrew Edward
Goldsmith, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick PLLC,
Elizabeth
Vicens, Cleary Gottlieb, Erica Klipper -- eklipper@cgsh.com --
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Jared Mitchell Gerber --
jgerber@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb, Lewis J. Liman, Cleary
Gottlieb & Luke Ashe Barefoot -- lbarefoot@cgsh.com -- Cleary
Gottlieb.

Petrobras Global Finance, B.V., Defendant, represented by Alexis
L.
Collins , Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Andrew Edward
Goldsmith , Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick PLLC, Andrew
Chun-Yang Shen , Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick PLLC,
David L. Schwarz , Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick PLLC,
pro hac vice, Elizabeth Vicens , Cleary Gottlieb, Erica Klipper ,
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Jared Mitchell Gerber ,
Cleary Gottlieb, Joseph Solomon Hall , Kellogg, Hansen, Todd,
Figel
& Frederick PLLC, Joshua D. Branson , Kellogg, Huber, Hansen,
Todd,
Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Kevin J. Miller , Kellogg,
Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick PLLC, pro hac vice, Lewis J. Liman
, Cleary Gottlieb, Luke Ashe Barefoot , Cleary Gottlieb, Rebecca
A.
Beynon , Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C.,
pro
hac vice, Reid Mason Figel , Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans &
Figel, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, William Evans , Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton LLP & William Thomas , Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP.

Petrobras America Inc., Defendant, represented by Lewis J. Liman
--
lliman@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb, Alexis L. Collins , Cleary
Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Andrew Edward Goldsmith --
agoldsmith@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &
Frederick PLLC, Andrew Chun-Yang Shen -- ashen@kellogghansen.com
--
Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick PLLC, David L. Schwarz --
dschwarz@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &
Frederick PLLC, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Vicens, Cleary Gottlieb,
Jared Mitchell Gerber, Cleary Gottlieb, Joseph Solomon Hall --
jhall@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &
Frederick
PLLC, Joshua D. Branson -- jbranson@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg,
Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Kevin
J. Miller -- kmiller@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Hansen, Todd,
Figel & Frederick PLLC, pro hac vice, Luke Ashe Barefoot, Cleary
Gottlieb, Rebecca A. Beynon -- rbeynon@kellogghansen.com --
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C., pro hac
vice, Reid Mason Figel -- rfigel@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg,
Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Roger
Allen Cooper -- racooper@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb, William
Evans
-- wevans@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP &
William Thomas -- wthomas@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP.

Jose Carlos Cosenza, Guillherme de Oliveira Estrella & Jose
Miranda
Formigli Filho, Defendants, represented by Lewis J. Liman, Cleary
Gottlieb, Roger Allen Cooper, Cleary Gottlieb & Elizabeth Vicens
--
evicens@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb.

Petrobras Global Finance B.V. & Theodore Marshall Helms,
Consolidated Defendants, represented by Roger Allen Cooper ,
Cleary
Gottlieb.

Maria Das Gracas Silva Foster, Consolidated Defendant, represented
by Richard Mark Strassberg , Goodwin Procter, LLP, Roger Allen
Cooper, Cleary Gottlieb, Daniel Prugh Roeser, Goodwin Procter,
LLP,
Elizabeth Vicens, Cleary Gottlieb, John Owen Farley, Goodwin
Procter, LLP & William Breslin Brady, Goodwin Procter, LLP.

Almir Guilherme Barbassa, Consolidated Defendant, represented by
Lewis J. Liman, Cleary Gottlieb, Roger Allen Cooper, Cleary
Gottlieb & Elizabeth Vicens, Cleary Gottlieb.

Daniel Lima De Oliveira, Jose Raimundo Branda Pereira, Servio
Tulio
Da Rosa Tinoco, Paulo Jose Alves, Gustavo Tardin Barbosa & Marcos
Antonio Zacarias, Consolidated Defendants, represented by
Elizabeth
Vicens, Cleary Gottlieb & Roger Allen Cooper, Cleary Gottlieb.


PIZZA BAKER: Clark Seeks to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Ronald Clark, On behalf of
himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Pizza
Baker Inc., et al, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00157-ALM-EPD
(S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff and the opt-in Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order, conditionally certifying the action as a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards and designating Plaintiff
Clark as the representative of a class consisting of:

   "all current and former Domino's delivery drivers who worked at
   any Domino's corporate or franchise location within the three
   years prior to the filing of this Class Action Complaint and
   the date of final judgment in this matter, who drove their
   personal cars to complete deliveries, and who were not
   reimbursed for their actual expenses or at or above the IRS
   standard mileage rate for all miles driven while completing
   deliveries."

The class excludes any individual who is part of a certified
collective action currently pending in any other court against
Domino's Pizza, Inc., Domino's Pizza, LLC and/or Domino's Pizza
Franchising, LLC.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Louise M. Roselle, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 604-8759
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
                  akimble@billerkimble.com
                  lroselle@billerkimble.com
                  pkrzeski@billerkimble.com

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Yang Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Inho Yang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-09141-VB (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 2, 2019),
seeks to recover damages resulting from Defendant's violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Inho Yang is an individual who is a citizen of the State of New
York residing in Westchester County, New York.

The Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection
of debts allegedly others. The Defendant uses the mails in its debt
collection business.

The alleged Debt is an alleged obligation of Plaintiff to pay money
arising out of a transaction in which the money, property,
insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are
primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. The alleged
Debt does not arise from any business enterprise of Plaintiff.

In its efforts to collect the alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter dated December 20, 2018.  The Letter fails to
advise Plaintiff that a written promise to pay on the alleged Debt
will revive the payment obligations on the alleged time barred
debt, the lawsuit says.

PRA is a company acquiring and collecting nonperforming loans.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
          E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com
                  ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com

PRINCIPAL GLOBAL: Certification of Plan Beneficiaries Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Ashley Nelsen, Roody Jasmin,
and Joellyn Williams, individually and as representatives of a
class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. Principal
Global Investors Trust Company, Delaware Charter Guarantee & Trust
Company d/b/a Principal Trust Company, Principal Global Investors,
LLC, and Principal Management Corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-00115-SMR-SBJ (S.D. Iowa), the Plaintiffs asks the Court
for an order:

   1. certifying the proposed class in this action (or in the
      alternative, such other class(es) as the court may determine
      to be appropriate):

      "all participants and beneficiaries of an employee benefit
      plan qualified under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue
      Code invested in any of the Principal LifeTime Hybrid
      Collective Investment Funds at any time on or after April
      16, 2012, excluding participants and beneficiaries in
      governmental plans, as defined by Section 414(d) of the
      Code";

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as the class representatives for the
      class; and

   3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel (Nichols
      Kaster, PLLP as lead class counsel and Newkirk Zwagerman,
      P.L.C. as local counsel for the Class).

Principal Global Investors, LLC provides investment management
services. The company offers real estate, multi-asset, fixed
income, and equity services.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
          Brock J. Specht, Esq.
          Brandon T. McDonough, Esq.
          Chloe A. O'Neill, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: 612-256-3200
          Facsimile: 612-338-4878
          E-mail: krichter@nka.com
                  lukas@nka.com
                  cengstrom@nka.com
                  bspecht@nka.com
                  bmcdonough@nka.com
                  coneill@nka.com

               - and -

          Jill Zwagerman, Esq.
          NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN, P.L.C.
          521 E. Locust Street, Suite 300
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: 515-883-2000
          E-maul: jzwagerman@newkirklaw.com

PRODUCERS SERVICE: Andrews Seeks to Certify Oilfield Workers Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as NATHAN ANDREWS, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFF, vs.
PRODUCERS SERVICE CORP., the DEFENDANT, Case No.
2:19-cv-02514-GCS-CMV Doc (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an order:

   A. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all non-management oilfield operations employees since June
      17, 2016, excluding any individual who has an active Consent

      to Join filed in the case Casarez v. Producers Service
      Corp., Case No. 2:17-cv-1086 (S.D. Ohio)";

   B. granting approval to the form and content;

   C. directing the Defendant to produce the requested contact
      information of each putative class member in an
      electronically importable and malleable electronic format,
      such as Excel, within one week after this Court's Order is
      entered;

   D. allowing for an opt-in period of 90 days, to begin three
      days after the day that Defendant produces the names and
      contact information for the putative class members, in which

      putative class members may submit a Consent to Join the
      lawsuit as an opt-in plaintiff;

   E. granting Plaintiff leave to send the applicable Notice and
      Consents to each putative class member via U.S. Mail and via

      email, or alternatively via U.S. Mail and text message link;

   F. granting Plaintiff leave to send the Follow-Up Postcard via
      U.S. Mail and email, or alternatively via U.S. Mail and text

      message link, beginning thirty days after the opt-in period
      begins, to potential plaintiffs who have not responded to
      the Notice; and

   G. granting Award costs and a reasonable attorney's fee and all

      other good or necessary relief to which Plaintiff may be
      entitled, whether specifically prayed for or not.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
          250 East Broad Street, 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                  jdoogan@ barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

          Jason H. Beehler, Esq.
          Brendan P. Feheley, Esq.
          KEGLER, BROWN, HILL + RITTER, LPA
          65 East State Street, Suite 1800
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 462-4552
          E-mail: jbeehler@keglerbrown.com
                  bfeheley@keglerbrown.com

PROVIDE COMMERCE: $200K Costs Awarded in Easysaver Rewards Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE EASYSAVER REWARDS LITIGATION, Case No. 09-cv-02094-BAS-WVG
(S.D. Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and costs.

Defendant Provide Commerce, Inc. operates online businesses that
sell flowers, chocolates, fruit baskets, and other similar items.


According to the Complaint, Plaintiff Josue Romero and seven other
class representatives purchased items from a Provide business and
were then presented with a pop-up advertisement for $15 off another
item from the same website.  Clicking the pop-up directed the
Plaintiffs to a different website and instructed them to enter
their contact information and click "Accept."  This process
(irrespective of whether the Plaintiffs entered their contact
information or clicked "Accept") enrolled the Plaintiffs in
Provide's membership rewards program.  Provide then transmitted the
Plaintiffs' payment information to a separate company, Defendant
Regent Group, Inc., which proceeded to charge the Plaintiffs a
$1.95 activation fee and a recurring $14.95 monthly membership fee.
The Plaintiffs did not consent to joining the rewards program or,
by extension, to having their data transferred to Regent.  They
also never received "the promised coupons, gift codes, or any other
savings benefits."

In 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against
Defendants in the California District Court, alleging violations of
various state laws arising from the Defendants' operation of their
membership rewards program. After more than two years of
litigation, including extensive discovery and mediation, the
parties agreed to settle.  The proposed settlement provides the
class members with two forms of relief: monetary reimbursement of
membership fees upon submission of a claim and a $20 credit.

The settlement establishes a $12.5 million fund from which the
Defendants will pay up to $8.7 million in attorney's fees; $80,000
in enhancement awards to the named Plaintiffs; and $200,000 in
litigation costs.  The approximately $3.5 million remaining will be
available to fund the settlement's administration costs and to
reimburse the class members for their membership fees "on a pro
rata basis up to the full amount owed."  After the refunds are
issued, any remaining funds are to be distributed as a cy pres
award to San Diego State University, the University of California
at San Diego, and the University of San Diego School of Law "for a
chair, professorship, fellowship, lectureship, seminar series or
similar funding, gift, or donation program regarding internet
privacy or internet data security."

The settlement also directs the Defendants to email every class
member a $20 credit that can be used to purchase items on the
Defendants' websites.  Unlike with the refund, the class members
were not required to submit a claim to receive the credit.  The
credits are to be fully transferable, but they will include a
series of restrictions, including that they expire one year after
their distribution date and they cannot be used in the lead-up to
Christmas, Valentine's Day, or Mother's Day.  The credits also
cannot be used for same-day orders, nor can they be combined with
other promotions.

In June 2012, the District Court preliminarily approved the
settlement.  In January 2013, the Court held a final settlement
approval hearing at which class member Brian Perryman ("Objector")
objected to the settlement.  He argued that the attorney's fee
award did not comply with CAFA's requirements for settlements
awarding coupons and that the cy pres award was improper.

The District Court rejected these objections and issued a final
order approving both the settlement and class counsel's
accompanying fee request. The District Court's order placed the
full settlement value at $38 million, including $12.5 million for
the cash fund and $25.5 million for the $20 credits to be
distributed to the approximately 1.3 million class members.
Objector appealed, and the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded for
further proceedings in light of its decision in In re Online DVD,
779 F.3d 934, which addressed what qualifies as a "coupon" under
CAFA.

On remand, the District Court determined that under In re Online
DVD, the credits should not be construed as coupons, and that it
was therefore unnecessary to apply CAFA's requirements for coupon
settlements.  In the District Court's view, it was particularly
significant that class members had, by virtue of their inclusion in
the class, shown "an interest in getting $15 off their next
purchase" from the Defendants.  Considering this factor in
conjunction with the holding of In re Online DVD, the District
Court concluded the settlement was not a coupon settlement subject
to the strictures of section 1712.

Again, using $38 million as the total value of the settlement, the
District Court then approved the fee award based on both
percentage-of-recovery and lodestar calculations.  Under the
percentage-of-recovery method, the District Court concluded that an
$8.7 million attorney's fee award was reasonable because it
represented 23% of the settlement value - below the 25% benchmark
typically used in the Ninth Circuit.

The District Court then cross-checked the reasonableness of the
award using the lodestar method.  Based on declarations reciting
the hours spent by the class counsel on the case and their hourly
rates, the class counsel's fees came to approximately $4.3 million.
The District Court decided that the class counsel's rates and
hours were reasonable, and furthermore, that a multiplier of two --
necessary for the lodestar figure to match the $8.7 million awarded
under the settlement -- was appropriate.  As a result, the District
Court reinstated its prior approval of the settlement and the fee
award.

The Objector again appealed to challenge the attorney's fee and cy
pres awards.  As to the fee award, the Objector argued the District
Court erred in not applying CAFA's coupon settlement provisions.
The Ninth Circuit explained that, regardless of the substance of
the underlying claim or injury, CAFA prevents settling parties from
valuing coupons at face value without accounting for their
redemption rate.  Therefore, the Ninth Circuit held the District
Court improperly merged its coupon analysis with whether the
settlement was fair and reasonable.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit vacated the fee award and remanded
for it to be recalculated in a manner that treats the $20 credits
as coupons under CAFA.  The Ninth Circuit then rejected the
Objector's challenges to the cy pres component of the settlement.
And, given both the structure of the settlement agreement and the
focus of Objector's challenges, the Ninth Circuit held that it was
unnecessary to reverse the entire settlement approval in
conjunction with its vacatur of the fee award.  Thus, the Ninth
Circuit otherwise affirmed the settlement approval.  Upon remand,
the District Court set a briefing schedule to allow the parties and
Objector to again address the proper fee award.

Now, upon remand, the Plaintiffs renew their request for attorney's
fees.  They ask the District Court to ignore the value of the
settlement's coupon relief but still award the same amount of fees.
The Defendants do not oppose, but the class member who succeeded
in challenging the prior award on appeal objects to the Plaintiffs'
request.

In their renewed motion for attorney's fees and costs, the
Plaintiffs continue to seek a total of approximately $8.7 million
in attorney's fees and $200,000 in costs.  They ask the Court to
award these fees for the entire settlement by using only the
lodestar method.  Hence, Plaintiffs propose that the Court not base
any of its fee award on the value of the coupons or their
redemption rate.

Judge Bashant granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for attorney's fees and costs.  The Judge grants the
Plaintiffs' request for an award of $200,000 in costs to the class
counsel; but denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' request for
$8.7 million in attorney's fees based on the entire settlement.  

If the Plaintiffs wish to seek fees based on only the non-coupon
portion of the settlement, they may file a new motion for
attorney's fees that is consistent with the District Court's order
no later than Nov. 1, 2019.  The Judge will provide the Defendants
and the Objector an opportunity to respond to any future fee
request.

Furthermore, unless the class counsel choose to forego recovering
any fees based on the coupon relief, Judge Bashant ordered the
Plaintiffs and the Defendants to meet and confer regarding the plan
for distributing the credits under the settlement to allow the
parties to determine the redemption rate of the coupons.  

The parties are directed to file a joint status report no later
than Oct. 25, 2019, informing the Court of their plan for
distributing the credits, including whether they have chosen to
amend the settlement agreement or whether the Court needs to enter
an amended judgment to allow for distribution of the credits.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/BDc9yc from Leagle.com.

Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situation, Plaintiff, represented by Alisa A. Martin, Amartin Law,
PC, Bruce W. Steckler, The Steckler Law Firm, pro hac vice, Gene J.
Stonebarger, Stonebarger Law, APC, Isam C. Khoury, Cohelan Khoury &
Singer, James Richard Patterson, Patterson Law Group, APC, Jennie
Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, Kimberly Dawn Neilson, Law
Office of Lisa J. Frisella, APC, Mazin A. Sbaiti, Sbaiti & Company
PLLC & Michael D. Singer, Cohelan, Khoury & Singer.

Deanna Hunt, Plaintiff, represented by Alisa A. Martin, Amartin
Law, PC, Bruce W. Steckler, The Steckler Law Firm, pro hac vice,
James Richard Patterson, Patterson Law Group, APC, Jennie Lee
Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP & Kimberly Dawn Neilson, Law Office
of Lisa J. Frisella, APC.

Kimberly Kenyon & Gina Bailey, Plaintiffs, represented by Bruce W.
Steckler, The Steckler Law Firm, pro hac vice, Jennie Lee Anderson,
Andrus Anderson LLP, Mazin A. Sbaiti, Sbaiti & Company PLLC, Alisa
A. Martin, Amartin Law, PC, James Richard Patterson, Patterson Law
Group, APC & Kimberly Dawn Neilson, Law Office of Lisa J. Frisella,
APC.

Alissa Herbst, Plaintiff, represented by Diane E. Sammons, Nagel
Rice, LLP, pro hac vice, Jay J. Rice, Nagel Rice, LLP, pro hac vice
& Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP.

Grant Jenkins & Bradley Berentson, Plaintiffs, represented by Alisa
A. Martin, Amartin Law, PC, Bruce W. Steckler, The Steckler Law
Firm, pro hac vice, Gene J. Stonebarger, Stonebarger Law, APC, Isam
C. Khoury, Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus
Anderson LLP, Mazin A. Sbaiti, Sbaiti & Company PLLC & James
Richard Patterson, Patterson Law Group, APC.

Jennifer Lawler, Daniel Cox, Jonathan Walter & Christopher Dickey,
Plaintiffs, represented by Alisa A. Martin, Amartin Law, PC, Jennie
Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP & Mazin A. Sbaiti, Sbaiti &
Company PLLC.

Provide Commerce, Inc., Defendant, represented by Leo P. Norton,
Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, Michael G. Rhodes, Cooley Godward
Kronish & Michelle C. Doolin, Cooley Godward.

Regent Group, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Ethan Thomas Boyer, Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach LLP,
Jacie C. Zolna, Myron M. Cherry & Associates, LLC, pro hac vice,
Michael L. Kirby, Kirby & Kirby LLP & Myron Milton Cherry, Mryon M.
Cheery & Associates, LLC.

Encore Marketing International, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Jacie C. Zolna, Myron M. Cherry &
Associates, LLC & Myron Milton Cherry, Mryon M. Cheery &
Associates, LLC.


PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS: Walton et al Seek OT Pay for Managers
----------------------------------------------------------
TAKIA WALTON, DANYLLE MCHARDY, GEORGE DE LA PAZ JR., KEVIN JACOBS
and FEIONA DUPREE, Each individually and on Behalf of ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04466-LMM (N.D. Ga., Oct. 3, 2019),
contends that the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated are
misclassified department managers and assistant department
managers, employed by Defendant at any time within a three-year
period preceding the filing of the complaint. The Defendant failed
to pay them overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of
40 per workweek.  The Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil
penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs' primary daily duties were essentially the same as
the hourly-paid employees they were tasked with supervising. Like
the hourly-paid employees, Bakery Department Managers spent most of
their work time mixing dough, baking bread and pastries,
cashiering, slicing bread, packing bread, packing pastries and
cookies, decorating baked goods, the lawsuit says.

Publix Super Markets, Inc., commonly known as Publix, is an
employee-owned, American supermarket chain headquartered in
Lakeland, Florida. Founded in 1930 by George W. Jenkins, Publix is
a private corporation that is wholly owned by present and past
employees and members of the Jenkins family.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Arnold J. Lizana, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III
          1175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30361
          Telephone: 877-443-0999
          Facsimile: 877-443-0999
          E-mail: alizana@attorneylizana.com

               - and -

          Taft L. Foley II, Esq.
          THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
          3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (832) 778-8182
          Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
          E-mail: taft.foley@thefoleylawfirm.com

QUDIAN INC: Court Narrows Claims in Second Amended Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Claims in the QUDIAN INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 17-CV-9741 (JMF) (S.D. N.Y.).

Plaintiffs brought securities fraud claims against Qudian, several
of its employees and board members, the institutions that sold
Qudian shares on behalf of the company or its individual members,
and the banks that acted as underwriters for the Company's Oct. 18,
2017 initial public offering.  The Plaintiffs, who purchased
American Depositary Shares ("ADS") in or traceable to the IPO,
allege that the Registration Statement and Prospectus that Qudian
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in advance of the
IPO contained false and misleading statements and omitted material
facts in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

Founded in 2014, Qudian is a company based in China that offers
online cash and installment loans primarily to Chinese consumers.
In anticipation of going public in the United States, the company
filed a Registration Statement with the SEC on Sept. 18, 2017.
Exactly one month later, the Company filed its final Prospectus and
Registration Statement.  The Plaintiffs' claims relate to five
categories of representations or alleged omissions in these
offering materials: Lending to College Students, Debt Collection
Practices, Lending Fee Rates, Data Security, and Auto Financing.  

On Oct. 18, 2017, Qudian held its IPO of American Depositary Shares
(ADSs) at $24 per share.  In total, 43,125,000 ADSs were sold to
investors pursuant to or traceable to the IPO, netting the company
in excess of $1 billion.

The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants made material
misstatements or omissions in the offering materials with respect
to five subjects: (1) Qudian's practices of making (or not making)
loans to college students; (2) Qudian's use of aggressive
debt-collection practices; (3) Qudian's imposition of unlawfully
high penalty fees; (4) Qudian's data security protocols; and (5)
Qudian's plans to open (and to use a portion of the IPO proceeds
with respect to) an auto financing business called Dabai Auto.

All in all, between the Oct. 18, 2017 IPO and the Dec. 12, 2017
filing of the lawsuit, Qudian's stock price dropped from $24 to
$13.19.  The figures are even more drastic between the October 18,
2017 IPO and the May 21, 2018 press release announcing continued
cost increases associated with Dabai Auto: a drop from $24 to
$9.59.  The Plaintiffs attribute these price drops to materially
false and misleading statements and material omissions in the
Registration Statement.  On that basis, Plaintiffs brought claims
against the Defendants under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act.  Notably, however, they specifically disclaim any
allegation that sounds in fraud.

Judge Furman granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  The Judge concludes that except as they relate
to Dabai Auto, the Plaintiffs' claims under Section 11 and 12(a)(2)
fail as a matter of law.  It follows that their Section 15 claims
are dismissed to the same extent.  That leaves only the question of
whether the Plaintiffs should be permitted to replead their claims
to the extent they have been dismissed.   Given the disclosures in
the offering materials, the Judge is skeptical that the Plaintiffs
can cure the defects that he has found in their claims and, thus,
would likely be on firm ground denying leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/UUWk2Z from Leagle.com.

Alan B. Hertz & Alan Hertz Family 2012 Trust, Lead Plaintiffs,
represented by Jack I. Zwick, Jack I Zwick, Joshua Lon Crowell ,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Jonathan M. Rotter --
JROTTER@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Joseph Cohen
-- jcohen@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Anand Ramnath, individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Sherief Morsy, Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP & Richard William Gonnello, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP.

Carlos Maia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Philip Campisi --
jcampisi@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Bryan D. Foat, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Samuel Howard Rudman --
srudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

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

Darwin Sutanto, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Cohen, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP.

DARWIN SUTANTO, Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm.

Pak Cheung Hong and Siu Ling Li, Movant, represented by Adam M.
Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

Chunlei He, Movant, represented by Michael Benjamin Eisenkraft,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Kaib Global Fund LP, Movant, represented by Richard William
Gonnello , Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP.

Joel Fu, Movant, represented by Garam Choe, Lowey Dannenberg P.C. &
David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Qudian Inc., Defendant, represented by James Glenn Kreissman --
jkreissman@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Bo Bryan
Jin -- bryan.jin@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP &
Stephen Patrick Blake -- sblake@stblaw.com -- Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP.

Diana Arias, Qufenqi Holding Limited, Phoenix Auspicious FinTech
Investment L.P., Wa Sung Investment Limited & Ever Bliss Fund,
L.P., Defendants, represented by James Glenn Kreissman, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP & Stephen Patrick Blake, Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP.

Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc, Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., China International
Capital Corporation Hong Kong Securities Limited, UBS Securities
LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus and Company, Incorporated, Needham & Company,
LLC & Nomura Securities International, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Jonathan Rosenberg, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, William
Joseph Sushon , O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Emily Elizabeth Atwater,
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP & Garabed Mihran Hoplamazian, Jr., O'Melveny
& Myers, LLP.

Source Code Accelerate L.P., Defendant, represented by Jesse
Bernstein, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan & Rollo Clyde Baker,
IV, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.


REATA RESTAURANTS: Champagne Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Cody Champagne, Lydia Wittig,
Ruairi Mulligan, Kyle Parrish, Anthony Zavala, Laura Grant,
Thurston Beadle, Andy Hammond, Joseph McClanahan, Jeffrey Hankins,
Rian Weigart, Tyler Bort, Andrew Carlson, Shirley Rodriguez,
Brittany Maxon, Chelsey Boydstun, Kay-Leigh Greer, Austin Jordan,
Amanda Baird, Jon Gomez, Jesus Angelo Canales, Tonya Farmer, Jeremy
Stewart, Drew N Herrmann, Kendal Rash, Joshua Brundrett, Spencer
Melton, George Rudolph, Lynette Barboza, Lauren Robinson, and
Denise Lindsey, on behalf himself of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. Reata Restaurants Inc. and Reata Restaurants
Management Co. LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00028 (Filed
June 19, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas, to U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth) on Oct. 3, 2019. The
Northern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-00799-A to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Senior Judge John McBryde.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members are:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479-9229
          Facsimile: (817) 887-1878
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com

Attorneys for Reata Restaurants Inc. are:

          Angella Hebert Myers, Esq.
          THE MYERS LAW GROUP, LLP
          8144 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 390
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (972) 781-2400
          Facsimile: (972) 781-2401
          E-mail: amyers@myerslawllp.com

               - and -

          Tammy L. Clary, Esq.
          QUILLING, SELANDER CUMMISKEY & LOWNDS, P.C.
          2001 Bryan Street-Suite 1800
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 871-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 871-2111
          E-mail: tclary@qslwn.com

RUHNN HOLDING: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 7
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Ruhnn Holding Limited (NASDAQ:
RUHN) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement")
issued in connection with Ruhnn's April 3, 2019 initial public
stock offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Sundial investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Ruhnn class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1686.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, the Registration Statement contained
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) at the time of the IPO, the number of Ruhnn's online stores had
declined by nearly 40%; (2) at the time of the IPO, the number of
Ruhnn's full-service Key Opinion Leaders had declined by nearly
44%; (3) as a result, the Company's net revenues derived from its
full-service segment had declined by 46% on a sequential basis; and
(3) as a result, defendants' statements about Ruhnn'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 December
6, 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-1686.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, 40thFloor
New York, NY 10016

Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com
[GN]


SANDERSON FARMS: Chicken Products Contain Antibiotics, Lentz Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL LENTZ, PAM La FOSSE and MARYBETH NORMAN, individually on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Does
(1-100) on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SANDERSON FARMS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-06570 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 2019), alleges that Sanderson's
advertising misleads consumers into believing that its chickens
were not given antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals.

The case is a nationwide class action brought on behalf of all
consumers, who purchased Sanderson chicken products, which the
Defendant sold based on misleading representations in its
advertising.

However, the truth is that the feed Sanderson gives to its chickens
contains antibiotics and pharmaceuticals; the chickens are raised
indoors in crowded and dirty sheds, which is one reason why its use
of antibiotics is necessary; there is extensive reliable evidence
that the use of antibiotics in poultry contributes to
antibiotic-resistant bacteria; and Sanderson's chickens have been
found to contain antibiotic and 18 pharmaceutical residue, the
lawsuit says.

Having purchased Products sold with these misrepresentations, the
Plaintiffs and Class members suffered injury in fact, and a loss of
money or property as a result of the Defendant's conduct.

The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief requiring Sanderson to remove
the misrepresentations and to make corrective and clarifying
statements.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan D. Miller, Esq.
          Alison M. Bernal, Esq.
          NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP
          33 West Mission Street, Suite 201
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 963-2345
          Facsimile: (805) 284-9590
          E-mail: jonathan@nshmlaw.com
                  alison@nshmlaw.com

               - and -

          Gretchen Elsner, Esq.
          ELSNER LAW & POLICY LLC
          150 Washington Avenue, Suite 201
          Santa Fe, NM 87501
          Telephone: (505) 303-0980
          Facsimile: (505) 395-4501
          E-mail: gretchen@elsnerlaw.org

               - and -

          Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH, PLLC
          1561 Long Haul Road
          Grangeville, ID 83530
          Telephone: (541) 359-2827
          Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
          E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com

               - and -

          Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com


SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Oct. 8 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, captioned Malhotra v.
Sonim Technologies, Inc., et. al., (Case No. 3:19-cv-06416) on
behalf of persons and/or entities that acquired Sonim Technologies,
Inc. ("Sonim" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SONM) common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with the Company's May 2019 initial public offering
("IPO" or the "Offering"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from October
8, 2019, the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff in this action.

In May 2019, the Company completed its initial public offering
("IPO") in which it sold approximately 4.07 million shares of
common stock at a price of $11.00 per share.

On September 10, 2019, Sonim stated that it expected fiscal 2019
net revenues to be flat or slightly below 2018 net revenues of
$135.7 million, citing "significant delays" in the launch of new
products as well as software issues related to these new
introductions. Moreover, the Company disclosed that James Walker
"will cease serving as the Company's Chief Financial Officer."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.30, or nearly 47%,
to close at $3.76 per share on September 10, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.

By the commencement of this action, Sonim stock was trading as low
as $3.39 per share, a nearly 70% decline from the $11 per share IPO
price.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's XP8 was
experiencing material software challenges; (2) that these software
issues adversely affected how the device's Qualcomm chipset, which
supported Band 14 access, connected to AT&T's carrier network
configuration; (3) that the Company's XP5 and XP3 devices were
experiencing material software defects that adversely affected
their optimization with certain accessories; (4) that, as a result,
the Company was reasonably likely to delay the launch of new
products; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial results would be materially and adversely impacted; and
(6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Sonim common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the Registration Statement, you may move the Court no later than 60
days from October 8, 2019, the date of this notice to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class 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. 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, 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.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]



SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Bid for Class Certification Stricken as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CAROLYN MILLER, the
Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST CREDIT SYSTEMS, L.P., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-04088 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer
entered an order on Oct. 16, 2019:

   1. denying Plaintiff Miller's motion for summary judgment;

   2. granting Defendant SWC's motion for summary judgment; and

   3. striking as moot the motion for class certification.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Judge Pallmeyer, however, held that the debt collection notice SWC
sent Ms. Miller in 2018 is not confusing on its face. It could
potentially be confusing to the unsophisticated consumer, but
Miller's failure to produce any extrinsic evidence of consumer
confusion defeats her FDCPA claim.

The Court does not find this claim credible as it does not believe
an unsophisticated consumer, who is uninformed, naive, or trusting,
would use the Illinois Secretary of State website in the first
place.  The FDCPA does not require debt collectors to identify
creditors by their full legal names, and in many situations, a name
other than a business' legal one may be more recognizable to
consumers.[CC]


THUNDERBIRD COLLECTION: Gonzales Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adelita Gonzales, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Thunderbird Collection Specialists, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-08302-SPL (D. Ariz., Oct. 15, 2019) is
a putative class action against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant sent Plaintiff written communication dated May 13,
2019, which states, "You now have the opportunity to pay this
account in full or we will report the debt to one or more of the
three national credit bureaus after the 30th day from the date of
this letter." The Defendant failed to inform Plaintiff that she had
the right to submit a written dispute within the thirty-day period
of any portion of the Debt, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt
asserted to be owed or due a creditor other than Defendant.

Defendant is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
     Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC
     5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
     Mesa, AZ 85206
     Phone: 602-388-8898
     Facsimile: 866-317-2674
     Email: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com


TLA ENTERTAINMENT: Chiamulera Sues for Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS CHIAMULERA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TLA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-09512 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 15, 2019) is a
Class Action Complaint against TLA for its intentional and unlawful
disclosure of its consumers' Personal Viewing Information in
violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act and the New York
Video Consumer Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, despite the sensitive nature of its
videos, TLA sold, rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed
personal information about Plaintiff's video purchases and/or
rentals to data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and
list brokers, among others, which in turn disclosed his information
to aggressive advertisers, non-profit organizations, and other
third-party companies. As a result, Plaintiff has received a
barrage of unwanted junk mail. Moreover, by selling, renting,
exchanging, and/or otherwise disclosing Plaintiff's Personal
Viewing Information, TLA violated Plaintiff's privacy rights under
the VPPA, as well as the NYVCPA.

TLA's disclosure of Personal Viewing Information, and other
personal, demographic, and lifestyle information is not only
unlawful, but also dangerous because it allows for the targeting of
particularly vulnerable members of society, including members of
the LGBTQ community. While TLA profits handsomely from the
unauthorized sale, rental, exchange, and/or disclosure of its
consumers' Personal Viewing Information and other personal
information, it does so at the expense of its consumers' privacy
and statutory rights because TLA does not obtain its consumers'
written consent prior to disclosing their Personal Viewing
Information, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Dennis Chiamulera is a natural person and citizen of New
Windsor, New York and is a consumer of TLA videos.

TLA Entertainment Group, Inc. is a video service provider of adult
films, specializing in gay and lesbian cinema.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRANS UNION: Norman Seeks to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DUANE E. NORMAN, SR., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. TRANS UNION, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-05225-GAM
(E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order certifying
the case as a class action.

Trans Union develops and delivers information and risk management
solutions. The Company offers various credit monitoring products,
risk management solutions, marketing services, and other related
solutions. TransUnion provides its products and services throughout
the world.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          John Soumilas, Esq.
          James A. Francis, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN , P.C.
          1600 Market Street, 25th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone:  215-735-8600
          Facsimile:  215-940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
          Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
          FLITTER MILZ , P.C.
          450 N. Narberth Ave., Suite 101
          Narberth, PA 19072
          Telephone: 610 822-0782
          Facsimile: 610 667-0552
          E-mail: cflitter@consumerslaw.com
                  amilz@consumerslaw.com

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Dec. 3 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Oct. 7 disclosed that a securities class action has been
filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the
securities of Uber Technologies, Inc. ("Uber" or the "Company")
(UBER) in connection with the Company's IPO on May 10, 2019. The
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1933.

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

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the 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) at the time of the
Offering, Uber was rapidly increasing subsidies for drivers and
customer's rides and meals in a bid for market share, which caused
the Company's sales and marketing expenses to swell; (2) Defendants
were cutting (or planned to cut) costs in key areas that undermined
the Company's central growth opportunities; and (3) as a result,
defendants statements about Ubers 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.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 3, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Uber securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/ubertechnologiesinc-uber-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-197/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

Contact Information:

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

UNITED RECOVERY: Kasalo Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
-------------------------------------------------
MARIO KRIS KASALO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED RECOVERY SERVICE, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-06823 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 15, 2019) is an action
brought on behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant sent Plaintiff a series of collection letters using
envelopes which reveal to others that Defendant is in the debt
collection business, and Defendant also tried to collect an
inflated claim from Plaintiff, all in violation of the FDCPA.
Plaintiff has, thus, suffered an injury as a result of Defendant's
conduct. Further, Plaintiff's reputation was damaged and his
privacy invaded as a result of the disclosure of his alleged
indebtedness to others, says the complaint.

Plaintiff, Mario Kris Kasalo is a resident of the State of
Illinois, from whom Defendant attempted to collect two defaulted
medical debts.

United Recovery Service, LLC ("URS" or "Defendant") is an Illinois
limited liability company that acts as a debt collector as defined
by the FDCPA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Wood, Esq.
     Celetha Chatman, Esq.
     Community Lawyers LLC
     20 N. Clark Street, Suite 3100
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 757-1880
     Fax: (312) 265-3227
     Email: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com


UNITED STATES: Row Over Immigrants' Court-Ordered Notices Arises
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Grant, writing for Law.com, reports that in the wake of a
class action lawsuit that forced the Trump administration to
reverse course on its denial of green cards to thousands of
abandoned and neglected 18-to-20-year-old immigrants, the Legal Aid
Society of New York is claiming that the administration has failed
to give court-ordered notice about the lawsuit to at least 500
young immigrants.

And that has wrongfully put those immigrants at "further risk of
removal" from the United States, said The Legal Aid Society and its
co-counsel in the federal suit, Latham & Watkins, in a news release
on Oct. 7.

As a result, Legal Aid and Latham said on Oct. 7 that they are
"reaching out to the public directly to make sure R.F.M. class
members are aware of their rights." The news release appeared to be
part of that effort.

The lawsuit centered on the Trump administration in early 2018
allegedly implementing a new policy, without public notice, that
had the effect of denying "Special Immigrant Juvenile" status to
young immigrants--ranging in age from 18 to 20--who the New York
State Family Court found had been abused, abandoned or neglected by
one or both of their parents. The status is a form of immigration
relief that affords a path to lawful permanent U.S. residence to
those awarded it, and U.S. District Judge John Koeltl of the
Southern District of New York ruled in March that the
administration's new policy had violated the federal Administrative
Procedure Act.

Still, at a hearing before Koeltl, he ruled that the government had
met its duty to send out the court-ordered notices, and he did not
order additional action be taken by the government, according to a
source with knowledge of what transpired at the hearing. (No
transcript of the hearing, and what was ordered, has yet been
released, according to both the source and a review of the public
online docket in the case.)

But Legal Aid and Latham contend that a compliance report issued by
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Department of
Homeland Security entity most directly involved in the lawsuit,
made clear that there has been a failure to get notices to at least
500 class members or their counsel. Moreover, according to Legal
Aid and Latham, Koeltl in the hearing "acknowledged class counsel's
concerns regarding notice and remained open to further briefing
from the parties on the matter."

"While we are disappointed at the outcome of the hearing in which
the court did not impose additional requirements on USCIS to
provide notices, we are hopeful that the court may reconsider this
ruling in the future." said Beth Krause, supervising attorney of
the Immigrant Youth Project at The Legal Aid Society, in the
release. "We are now reaching out to the public directly to make
sure R.F.M. class members are aware of their rights. We will
continue to identify and locate eligible individuals to ensure that
these young people have the legal support they need to complete the
process of obtaining lawful status through this vital humanitarian
program."

A media representative from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services declined to comment. The Department of Homeland Security
deferred comment to the USCIS division.

According to the news release from Legal Aid and Latham, adequate
notice to class members "is crucial and an issue of fundamental
fairness as it notifies youth that they are R.F.M. class members,
an important fact when advocating against removal before the
Immigration Court."

The lawyers also pointed out that "where applicable, notice alerts
immigrant youth that they are eligible to apply to reopen their
SIJS and must take steps to reopen their cases within the next two
years."

Moreover, they said that "detained class members are at heightened
risk of removal as they do not have access to the internet and
cannot receive class notice by finding it online," and "they are
unlikely to receive any notification of eligibility without a
formal notice mailed to their detention center."

"Despite repeated requests from class counsel that detained class
members not be removed until their applications are fairly
adjudicated, several cases have been reported in which R.F.M. class
members were nearly deported," Legal Aid and Latham also said.

"We will continue to work with the thousands of class members to
ensure that they get the benefits to which they are entitled under
the law," said Latham & Watkins partner Robert Malionek, who helped
litigate the successful class action.

In the underling suit, launched in June 2018 and subsequently
amended, five unnamed immigrants represented the class. The
plaintiffs sought to enjoin USCIS' new policy, contending it ran
afoul of the APA and that it was based on an incorrect
understanding of federal and state law.

According to Koeltl's decision awarding summary judgment to
plaintiffs, the various named government defendants said there was
no new policy but just a centralization of the SIJ adjudication
process and a proper clarification of the SIJ statute.

Koeltl issued declaratory and injunctive relief, and as part of his
order, directed that notices be sent to class members.

In May, it was reported that federal immigration officials believe
more than 6,500 at-risk adolescent immigrants in New York were
denied special federal protected status following the change in
policy in 2018, according to court filings. [GN]


UTILIQUEST LLC: Muniz Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
At Utiliquest, LLC's behest, the case captioned as JESUS GARCIA
MUNIZ, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated and
aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. UTILIQUEST, LLC, a limited
liability company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BC685160 (Filed Dec. 1, 2017), was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
October 11, 2019.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-08759 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to pay minimum
wages; failed to pay overtime wages; failed to provide meal
periods; and failed to provide rest periods in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Atlanta-based UtiliQuest, LLC is a nationwide organization that
provides underground facility locating services to companies across
the country. The Company helps each client individually to conduct
safer excavations, reduce damages to their buried facilities, and
lower their total cost of ownership.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark D. Kemple, Esq.
          Bryan W. Patton, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
          Telephone: 310-586-7700
          Facsimile: 310-586-7800
          E-mail: kemplem@gtlaw.com
                  pattonbw@gtlaw.com


WAG LABS: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GARY D. DARSEY, et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. WAG LABS, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-07014-FMO-JPR (C.D. Cal., Filed Sept. 22, 2017), Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order granting final approval of the class
action settlement.

Wag Labs is a pet care company that offers on-demand dog walking
through a mobile application. The company hires independent
contractors, who are paired with clients to walk dogs on demand.
The app has been referred to as "the Uber for Dogs". [CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, are:

          Nicholas T. Hua, Esq.
          Giacomo Gallai, Esq.
          Steven C. Gonzalez, Esq.
          HUA GALLAI & GONZALEZ, LLP
          433 N. Camden Drive, 4 Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 279-5239
          Facsimile: (480) 393-4433
          E-mail: Nick@hua-gallai.com
                  gg@hua-gallai.com
                  Steve@hua-gallai.com

WESTERN SHAMROCK: Strickland Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA STRICKLAND, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. WESTERN SHAMROCK CORPORATION D/B/A
WESTERN FINANCE, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-03799 (S.D. Tex.,
Oct. 3, 2019), seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendant's
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The case centers, in part, on Defendant's failure to effectively
provide the disclosures required by 15 U.S.C. section 1692g in its
initial written communications to Texas consumers, or within five
days thereafter.

The case also involves Defendant's efforts to design, compile and
furnish debt collection letters in such a form as to create the
false belief in consumers that an entity other than Defendant --
namely, the Darby Law Firm, PLLC -- is participating in the
collection of debts allegedly owed to Defendant, when in fact the
Darby Law Firm, PLLC was not so participating.

Plaintiff's obligation, or alleged obligation, owed or due, or
asserted to be owed or due, arises from a transaction in which the
money, property, insurance, or services that are the subject of the
transaction were incurred primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes -- namely, a personal loan.  The Defendant
attempted to collect the Debt from Plaintiff, the Debt was in
default, or Defendant treated the Debt as if it were in
default.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed class and subclasses are:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          James L. Davidson, 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
                  jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com

WHITEFEATHER HOLDINGS: Minimum Pay Sought for Exotic Dancers
------------------------------------------------------------
Fantasia Williams, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Whitefeather Holdings, LLC;
Whitefeather Ventures, LLC and Corey Owens, Individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00482-RCC (D. Ariz., Oct 3, 2019),
alleges that Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at the
federally mandated minimum wage and overtime pay in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and Arizona Wage Act.

Th Defendants required and/or permitted Fantasia Williams to work
as an exotic dancer at their adult entertainment club "Venom" in
Tucson, Arizona, in excess of 40 hours per week, but refused to
compensate her at the applicable minimum wage and overtime rates.

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

Moreover, Plaintiff was required to divide her tips with Defendants
and other employees who do not customarily receive tips.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Class Members are:

          Samuel R. Randall, Esq.
          RANDALL LAW PLLC
          4742 N 24th Street, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 328-0262
          E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com

               - and -

          Jonah A. Flynn, Esq.
          FLYNN LAW FIRM, LLC
          4200 Northside Parkway NW
          Building One, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: 404-835-9660
          Facsimile: 404-835-6005
          E-mail: jflynn@flynnfirm.com

               - and -

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
          12540 Beatrice St., Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Telephone: 310-507-7924
          Facsimile: 310-507-7906
          E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com

WINDSOR ESTATES: Webster Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA R. WEBSTER, individually, and on behalf of all .others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WINDSOR ESTATES NURSING AND
REHAB CENTRE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH11441 (Ill. Cir.,
Oct. 3, 2019), seeks to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful
collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs sensitive
biometric data.

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

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

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

Biometrics are not relegated to esoteric corners of commerce. Many
businesses -- such as Defendant -- and financial institutions have
incorporated biometric applications into their workplace in the
form of biometric timeclocks, and into consumer products, including
such ubiquitous consumer products as checking accounts and cell
phones.

In 2015, a data breach at the United States Office of Personnel
Management exposed the personal identification information,
including biometric data, of over 21.5 million federal employees,
contractors, and job applicants, the lawsuit says.

Windsor is a boutique nursing and rehabilitation center with its
principle place of business at 18200 S. Cicero Avenue, Country Club
Hills, IL 60478.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312 233 1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com

[*] Epiq Tackles Stock Considerations in Class Action Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Waciura, Vice President and Alex Villanova, Senior Project
Manager at Epiq, discussed stock considerations when settling class
action lawsuits.

In a traditional securities settlement, payouts are most often
cash-funded and distributed via paper check or wire transfer to
class members' accounts. In some matters, however, a cash-funded
settlement may not be realistic, and parties may propose funding
the settlement with common stock, or an equity ownership share in
the defendant company.

Common stock can be deemed by courts to be fair, reasonable, and
adequate, particularly when damages are significant and the
financial condition of the defendant or limits of liability under
the defendant's insurance policies prohibit the defendant from
funding the settlement in cash to the satisfaction of the class or
court.

Stock-funded settlements pose a perceived risk for parties
unfamiliar with how they influence the scope of the settlement
administration. Here we discuss how to navigate the stipulation of
settlement, noticing and claims processing, and settlement
distribution for stock-funded securities settlements.

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT
When parties are negotiating a stock-funded settlement, all
variables that could impact the value of the common stock should be
identified and necessary provisions included in the stipulation of
settlement.

For example, a provision should give discretion to lead counsel
sell the stock if at any point they believe a sale would be more
appropriate or valuable than the stock itself. This is particularly
important for when the defendant corporation's stock price is
volatile. Additionally, parties should also include in the
stipulation details about how the distribution of stock is likely
to affect equity value, as well as reasonable caps on the sale of
shares within a given timeframe.

Precise timing for the transfer of securities to the plaintiffs'
designee, and which party will bear the cost of said transfer,
should also be outlined in the stipulation. Parties may also
consider how to address stock splits, reverse stock splits, stock
dividends, stock conversions due to mergers or acquisitions, and
any other variables that could potentially impact stock value.

Finally, it is prudent to outline all parties that may become
involved in the settlement distribution, and the cost of their
involvement in the administration, in the stipulation.

NOTICING + CLAIMS PROCESSING
Stock-funded settlements tend to raise more questions, even among
the most seasoned investors and investment managers. Counsel and
administrators can minimize confusion--and the cost of class member
noticing and claims processing--by being detailed and transparent
in the settlement notice.

When securities are involved, all information pertaining to the
stipulation of settlement, plan of allocation, and settlement
distribution must be disclosed in the settlement notice sent to
class members. Counsel should outline when and how stock value was
calculated; under what circumstances stock may be liquidated; how
partial shares will be treated; what, if any, distribution minimums
exist; and how claims that do not meet the minimum distribution
threshold for a stock transfer will be handled.

Disclaimers within both the notice and claim form should reinforce
that stock may be liquidated prior to distribution and address the
potential for appeals or delays, pursuant to which revised claim
forms may be requested or distribution delayed. Finally, in
settlements that include a stock component, claimants may be asked
to complete a more detailed registration page with specific
brokerage and investment account information to which shares should
be directed.

SETTLEMENT DISTRIBUTION
Due to the cost of administering stock-funded settlements, it is
rare that stock is distributed as part of a final settlement.

When it is, the distribution is a complex process requiring
coordination among lead counsel, settlement administrator, and
transfer agents to ensure the successful transfer of equity shares
from the defendant corporation to class members. Counsel can help
effectuate the distribution of stock in a structured and
cost-effective manner by reinforcing to class members their
responsibility as recipients of a stock-funded settlement.

Investment accounts must be open and current, and account details
must be conveyed precisely to the settlement administrator. Class
members should be aware of their responsibility to affirmatively
accept stock transfers, which do not process automatically like
electronic funds transfers (EFTs). However, no matter how clear the
communication to the class prior to distribution, lead counsel and
the administrator should be prepared to field more
post-distribution inquiries from class members than in a standard
cash settlement.

While cash-funded settlements remain the most prevalent settlement
consideration, liquidity concerns and insurance limitations may
prevent parties from reaching cash settlements in some cases. When
cash-funded settlements are not feasible, a nontraditional approach
may help companies avoid costly litigation and potentially damaging
verdicts, while helping lead counsel return losses to harmed
investors. Counsel and administrators may find the practices
detailed herein beneficial as they navigate their next
nontraditional securities class action settlement. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Optical Had 46,400 Claims at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019, that approximately 46,400 claims naming American
Optical and numerous other defendants were pending as of June 30,
2019, in various federal and state courts seeking damages for
alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other
allegedly hazardous materials.

The Company states, "Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned
American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured
and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety
clothing.  In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982,
Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain
liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims.

"Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Pfizer.  Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in
the defense of, and will continue to explore various means of
resolving, these claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/drIvTC


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 32,120 Claims Pending at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had approximately 32,120 pending asbestos claims as
of June 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019.

CBS Corp. states, "The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming
various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials,
which allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s.  Westinghouse was neither a producer nor
a manufacturer of asbestos.  The Company is typically named as one
of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases.
In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not
identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a claim.
Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified
most commonly relate to allegations of exposure to
asbestos-containing insulating material used in conjunction with
turbines.

"Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period.  The Company does not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets that some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or
no impairment.  As of June 30, 2019, the Company had pending
approximately 32,120 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 31,570 as of December 31, 2018 and 31,750 as of June
30, 2018.  During the second quarter of 2019, the Company received
approximately 1,000 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive
docket approximately 720 claims.  The Company reports claims as
closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has been
entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement with
the claimants on the material terms of a settlement.  Settlement
costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis
of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and
other factors.  The Company's total costs for the years 2018 and
2017 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance
recoveries and net of tax were approximately US$45 million and
US$57 million, respectively.  The Company's costs for settlement
and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance
proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured
portion of the expenses.

"Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly
increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may
be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be
asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are
substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of
individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly
asbestos-related disease.  The predominant number of pending claims
against the Company are non-cancer claims.  The Company believes
that its reserves and insurance are adequate to cover its asbestos
liabilities.  This belief is based upon many factors and
assumptions, including the number of outstanding claims, estimated
average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims by disease type,
historic claim filings, costs per claim of resolution and the
filing of new claims.  While the number of asbestos claims filed
against the Company has remained generally flat in recent years, it
is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and
circumstances may occur, including, among others, the number and
types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims, which
could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/wEdkss


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Financial to Review A&EP Reserve in 4Q 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that it intends to complete its annual
Asbestos and Environmental Pollution (A&EP) reserve review in the
fourth quarter of 2019 and maintains this timing for all future
annual A&EP reserve reviews.

CNA Financial states, "The Company completed A&EP reserve reviews
in both the first and fourth quarters of 2018.  Based upon the
Company's 2018 first quarter A&EP reserve review, net unfavorable
prior year development of US$113 million was recognized before
consideration of cessions to the LPT for the six months ended June
30, 2018.  The 2018 unfavorable development was driven by higher
than anticipated defense costs on direct asbestos and environmental
accounts and paid losses on assumed reinsurance exposures.
Additionally, in 2018, the Company released a portion of its
provision for uncollectible third-party reinsurance.

"As of June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the cumulative amounts
ceded under the LPT were US$3.1 billion.  The unrecognized deferred
retroactive reinsurance benefit was US$338 million and US$374
million as of June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018 and is included
within Other liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets.

"NICO established a collateral trust account as security for its
obligations to the Company.  The fair value of the collateral trust
account was US$3.1 billion and US$2.7 billion as of June 30, 2019
and December 31, 2018.  In addition, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
guaranteed the payment obligations of NICO up to the aggregate
reinsurance limit as well as certain of NICO's performance
obligations under the trust agreement.  NICO is responsible for
claims handling and billing and collection from third-party
reinsurers related to the majority of the Company's A&EP claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/m9D4CT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cranford Denied Access to Burke Spouses Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan P. Watters of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Montana denied Defendant Dallas Cranford's motion to compel
discovery from the Plaintiffs Josiah and Crystal Burke.

The Plaintiffs, a married couple with children, began renting a
home from Brian and Dale Osness during the summer of 2016. In early
spring of 2017, the Osnesses renovated the bathroom in the home and
allegedly disturbed asbestos, contaminating the living space. As a
result, the Plaintiffs and their children allegedly lost nearly all
their possessions and face an increased risk of developing
asbestos-related illnesses. The Plaintiffs filed suit on their own
behalf and on behalf of their children, against the Osnesses, Tom
Ferguson and TF Construction, and Dallas Cranford and Liberty
Environmental.

During discovery, Cranford made requests for production for: (a)
all correspondence sent from Feb. 6, 2017, to present on any
platform. . . "that relate in any way to the remodel of the
bathroom, your claim, your injuries, or your damages;" and (b) all
recorded communication between Crystal and Josiah from Feb. 6,
2017, and April 6, 2017, including, but not limited to, text
messages, voicemails, and Facebook posts or Facebook Messenger. The
Plaintiffs responded stating that the information sought in
Cranford's Request for Production was subject to spousal privilege.


Cranford argues communication between the Plaintiffs is not
privileged because the Plaintiffs have not attempted to keep their
asbestos exposure confidential. Cranford states they have spoken to
others about their asbestos exposure and have posted on social
media about their asbestos exposure.

The Court holds the text messages or instant messages exchanged
between the Plaintiffs regarding their asbestos exposure are
protected by spousal privilege because the messages are
confidential communications between husband and wife. The Court
finds no evidence that the texts or instant messages exchanged
between the Plaintiffs were intended to be seen or read by anyone
but themselves -- there is no third-party in the text or instant
message thread. The fact the Plaintiffs spoke with others about
their asbestos exposure does not render what they said to each
other on the same subject matter non-confidential, the Court
explains.

The case is entitled Josiah Burke and Crystal Burke, husband and
wife, individually and on behalf of their minor children,
Plaintiffs, v. Brian Osness, Dale Osness, Tom Ferguson,
individually and as agent for TF Construction, and Dallas Cranford,
individually and as agent for Liberty Environmental, LLC,
Defendants; Cause No. CV 18-144-BLG-SPW, (D. Mont.).

Josiah Burke, husband and wife, inidvidually and on behalf of their
minor children & Crystal Burke, husband and wife, inidvidually and
on behalf of their minor children, Plaintiffs, represented by
Dustin T. Lujan , LUBING & CORRIGAN, LLC, pro hac vice.

Brian Osness & Dale Osness, Defendants, represented by John W.
Harkins, IV , CROWLEY FLECK PLLP & Jon T. Dyre , CROWLEY FLECK
PLLP.

Tom Ferguson, individually and as agent for TF Construction & TF
Construction, Defendants, represented by Guy W. Rogers , BROWN LAW
FIRM, P.C. & Jon A. Wilson , BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C.

Dallas Cranford, individually and as agent for Liberty
Environmental, LLC & Liberty Environmental, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Emma L. Mediak -- elmediak@GARLINGTON.COM --
GARLINGTON LOHN & ROBINSON, PLLP.

Brian Osness & Dale Osness, Counter Claimants, represented by John
W. Harkins, IV , CROWLEY FLECK PLLP & Jon T. Dyre , CROWLEY FLECK
PLLP.

Crystal Burke, husband and wife, inidvidually and on behalf of
their minor children & Josiah Burke, husband and wife, inidvidually
and on behalf of their minor children, Counter Defendants,
represented by Dustin T. Lujan , LUBING & CORRIGAN, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Friedel Given Until Dec. 9 to Perfect Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Fourth Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court of New York has extended the time to perfect the appeals to
Dec. 9, 2019, in following cases: Vernon Friedel and Joanna M.
Friedel, his Spouse, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Asbestos
Corporation, LTD., et al., Defendants, Special Electric Company,
Inc., Defendant-Respondent. (Action No. 1) Thomas A. Henderson and
Sharon Henderson, his Spouse, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Asbestos
Corporation, LTD., et al., Defendants, Special Electric Company,
Inc., Defendant-Respondent. (Action No. 2) Dennis C. Schreiber and
Marjorie Schreiber, his Spouse, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ajax
Magnathermic Corp., et al., Defendants, Special Electric Company,
Inc., Defendant-Respondent. (Action No. 3) Shirley J. Thrush,
Executor of the Estate of Terry W. Thrush, Deceased, and
Individually as the Surviving Spouse pf Terry W. Thrush,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Asbestos Corporation, LTD., et al.,
Defendants, Special Electric Company, Inc., Defendant-Respondent.
(Action No. 4), Motion No. CA 19-00699, (N.Y.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Faces Lawsuits at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos
lawsuits related to its discontinued heat technologies segment,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

IntriCon states, "The Company is a defendant along with a number of
other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have
contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to
asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or
more named defendants.  These lawsuits relate to the discontinued
heat technologies segment which was sold in March 2005.  Due to the
non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not know
whether any of the complaints state valid claims against the
Company.

"Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the
primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and
insurance coverage under those policies.  However, the Company has
other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company
believes afford coverage for later years.

"Some of these other primary insurers have accepted defense and
insurance coverage for these suits, and some of them have either
ignored the Company's tender of defense of these cases, or have
denied coverage, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a
reservation of rights and/or advised the Company that they need to
investigate further.  Because settlement payments are applied to
all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos,
the Company believes that it will have funds available for defense
and insurance coverage under the non-exhausted primary and excess
insurance policies.

"However, unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have
deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that the
Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects
that its litigation costs will increase in the future.  Further,
many of the policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and
thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or
operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for
asbestos-related lawsuits.

"The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some
of the primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
liquidity, or results of operations.  Management believes that the
number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits,
and the significant number of policy years and policy limits under
which these insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the
ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/190lvQ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Vacates March 23 Trial in Burke's Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan P. Watters issued an order vacating the trial
scheduled to take place on March 23, 2020, along with all
associated deadlines outlined in the Court's Scheduling Order. The
Final Pretrial Conference set for March 11, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. is
also vacated.

Defendants, Brian Osness and Dale Osness, on behalf of all parties,
have filed an Unopposed Motion to Vacate Scheduling Order and
Continue Trial, on the basis that the parties have reached a
settlement agreement in principle. The parties will file a
stipulation to dismiss together with a proposed order dismissing
the case or a status update on or before Dec. 2.

The case is entitled Josiah Burke and Crystal Burke, husband and
wife, individually and on behalf of their minor children,
Plaintiffs, v. Brian Osness, Dale Osness, Tom Ferguson,
individually and as agent for TF Construction, and Dallas Cranford,
individually and as agent for Liberty Environmental, LLC,
Defendants; Cause No. CV 18-144-BLG-SPW, (D. Mont.),

Josiah Burke, husband and wife, inidvidually and on behalf of their
minor children & Crystal Burke, husband and wife, inidvidually and
on behalf of their minor children, Plaintiffs, represented by
Dustin T. Lujan , LUBING & CORRIGAN, LLC, pro hac vice.

Brian Osness & Dale Osness, Defendants, represented by John W.
Harkins, IV , CROWLEY FLECK PLLP & Jon T. Dyre , CROWLEY FLECK
PLLP.

Tom Ferguson, individually and as agent for TF Construction & TF
Construction, Defendants, represented by Guy W. Rogers , BROWN LAW
FIRM, P.C. & Jon A. Wilson , BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C.

Dallas Cranford, individually and as agent for Liberty
Environmental, LLC & Liberty Environmental, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Emma L. Mediak -- elmediak@GARLINGTON.COM --
GARLINGTON LOHN & ROBINSON, PLLP.

Brian Osness & Dale Osness, Counter Claimants, represented by John
W. Harkins, IV , CROWLEY FLECK PLLP & Jon T. Dyre , CROWLEY FLECK
PLLP.

Crystal Burke, husband and wife, inidvidually and on behalf of
their minor children & Josiah Burke, husband and wife, inidvidually
and on behalf of their minor children, Counter Defendants,
represented by Dustin T. Lujan , LUBING & CORRIGAN, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Faces Suits at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC is still facing personal injury suits related
to asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to
other entities, and D/C have been named as defendants in personal
injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos.  While
there are relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land, there were
a substantial number of cases that were pending against D/C on the
U.S. mainland (primarily in California).

"Cases against Kaanapali Land (hereafter, "Kaanapali Land asbestos
cases") are allegedly based on its prior business operations in
Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on sale of
asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business
operations primarily in California.  Each entity defending these
cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these
actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
these cases.  The defense of these cases has had a material adverse
effect on the financial condition of D/C as it has been forced to
file a voluntary petition for liquidation.

"Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly or
indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases.  Kaanapali Land
does not presently believe that the cases in which it is named will
result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land; however, there
can be no assurance in that regard."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/FzM25Z


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 111 Suits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. remains a co-defendant in approximately
111 asbestos-related personal injury cases, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "We were a co-defendant in approximately 111
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 214 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are three asbestos cases, involving 19 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the
three cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action.  In two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at
US$3.0 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at
US$3.0 million compensatory and US$1.0 million punitive damages;
one count at US$1.0 million.  In the third case, the plaintiff has
alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of
US$20.0 million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0
million compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.  We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation.  Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations.  Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned above; (b) many cases have been improperly filed
against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs
have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our
products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable
injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they
have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos;
and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants
and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to
individual defendants.  Additionally, we do not believe that the
amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful
indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed
typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury,
if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date
and, based upon available information, our management does not
expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/iICIRi


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Still Defends Various Lawsuits at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. remains a defendant in a number of asbestos-related
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Numerous lawsuits are pending against Pfizer
in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged
personal injury from exposure to products allegedly containing
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and
certain of its previously owned subsidiaries.

"There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its
subsidiaries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/drIvTC


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Forest Still Defends Suits at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Resolute Forest Products Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that it is involved in a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits filed primarily in U.S. state courts,
including certain cases involving multiple defendants.  

The Company states, "These lawsuits principally allege direct or
indirect personal injury or death resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing premises.  While we dispute the plaintiffs'
allegations and intend to vigorously defend these claims, the
ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this
time.  These lawsuits frequently involve claims for unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and we are unable to reasonably
estimate a range of possible losses.  However, unfavorable rulings,
judgments or settlement terms could materially impact our
Consolidated Financial Statements.  Certain cases, including cases
that were scheduled in March 2019, were settled without any
material impact in our Consolidated Statements of Operations for
the three and six months ended June 30, 2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/FT3pni


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Set in Miller's Case Stayed Pending Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The First Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
of New York has stayed the trial set in the case entitled In Re:
New York City Asbestos Litigaztion. Deborah Hampton Miller,
Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Myron William
Miller, Deceased, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.O. Smith Water
Products, et al., Defendants, W.W. Grainger, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellant. Motion No. M-6867, Index No. 190257/16,
(N.Y.), pending hearing and determination of the appeal taken
therefrom.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Faces Less Than 97 Claims at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Univar Inc. has fewer than 97 asbestos-related claims as of June
30, 2019, for which the Company has liability for defense and
indemnity pursuant to the indemnification obligation, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

Univar states, "The Company is subject to liabilities from claims
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos.  The claims
result primarily from an indemnification obligation related to
Univar USA Inc.'s ("Univar") 1986 purchase of McKesson Chemical
Company from McKesson Corporation ("McKesson").  Univar is also a
defendant in a small number of asbestos claims.  As of June 30,
2019, there were fewer than 97 asbestos-related claims for which
the Company has liability for defense and indemnity pursuant to the
indemnification obligation.  The volume of such cases has decreased
in recent quarters.  Historically, the vast majority of the claims
against both McKesson and Univar have been dismissed without
payment.  The Company does incur costs in defending these claims.
While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these
matters, it does not believe, based upon currently available facts,
that the ultimate resolution of any of these matters will have a
material effect on its overall financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.  However, the Company cannot predict the
outcome of any present or future claims or litigation and adverse
developments could negatively impact earnings or cash flows in a
particular future period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/9OJkDI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at June 29
------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend
themselves against lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by
installation of brakes with asbestos, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2019.

The Company states, "A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company,
Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its
wholly-owned subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are
named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages
caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early
1970's that contained asbestos.  WAG marketed certain brakes, but
did not manufacture any brakes.  WAG maintains liability insurance
coverage to protect its and the Company's assets from losses
arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an
occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company is not
expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in connection
with this matter that would be material to its consolidated
financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/hqd3nl



                            *********

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 ***