---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, October 28, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 215

                            Headlines

16-26 EAST: NY Appellate Division Certifies Class in Simpson Suit
18 GREENWICH: Fallon, et al. Sue Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
2617 WORLD: Henriquez Seeks Proper Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
AAA CONSTRUCTION: Kimbrell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
AETNA INC: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in Peters' RICO Class Action

APPLE INC: Gonzalez Sues Over Disruptive IOS Updates to iPhones
APPLE ZEBRA: Garcia Sues Over BIPA Violation
AUDIT SYSTEMS: Lowenbien Files FDCPA Class Action in New York
BEAUTY BAKERIE: Bunting Files Class Suit under ADA
BIODESIX INC: Lary Suit Challenges Sending of Unsolicited Faxes

BRIGHT HOUSE: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Sliwa TCPA Suit
CALLFIRE INC: Wigod Files Class Suit in Illinois
CASCADE CORPORATION: Merritt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Involuntary Dismissal of Twin City Suit Upheld
CENTURY GOLF: Brana Files Another Appeal in Izzio Suit to 5th Cir.

CHEVRON USA: Harris Files Class Suit in Oklahoma
COMPASS GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Moore/Carter Consumer Suit
DANIEL J. QUIRK: Gregoriades Seeks OT Wages for Salespersons
DARP INC: Are Employers Under AMWA, Ark. District Court Holds
DELIVERY FINANCIAL: Gonzales Sues Over Confusing Collection Letter

DENSPLY SIRONA: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
DESERT STATE: Court Denies Dismissal of Cincinnati Complaint
DIALA DELI: Basurto Files FLSA Class Action in New York
DIVVYMED LLC: Mujahid Sues Over Nuisance Telemarketing Practices
DOORDASH, INC: Nelson Sues over Data Breach

DUTCH EXPRESS: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ENLOE MEDICAL: Ort Seeks Overtime Wages for Nurse Assistants
EXCELSIOR COLLEGE: 2 Pro Se Motions Denied in Castellaw Suit
EXCHANGE MIAMI: Verona Seeks to Recover Minimum Wage for Servers
EXODUS RECOVERY: Walker Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages

FEDERAL EXPRESS: Fischer Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FELIDIA RESTAURANT: Minimum & OT Pay Sought for Restaurant Staff
FIC RESTAURANTS: Kirby Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
FIORELLA INSURANCE: Turizo Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
FLAGSTAR BANK: Mariscal Sues Over Illegal Pay-to-Pay Fees

FLORIDA ACADEMY: Rohm Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
FRED HAAS: Mendoza Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
FURNITURE DIRECT: Munive Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
GARRIDO FOOD: Guinea Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
GM EXCAVATION: Castillo Files FLSA Class Action

GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Mayer Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop
GUARANTEED RATE: Wilhelm Seeks Minimum & OT Wages
HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES: Katcher Sues Over HDD Assembly Price-fixing
HELIX SLEEP: Slade Files Suit under ADA in New York
HELLO PRODUCTS: Pastellos Sues Over Toothpaste's Misleading Ads

HILLSIDE AUTO: Stidhum Sues over Employment Discrimination
INDEPENDENT HOME: Fitzhenry Files Consumer Credit Suit
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Kapoor Appeals Order in Di Donato Class Action
IRONCLAD ENERGY: Munoz Sues Over Supervisors' Unpaid OT Wages
KABBAGE, INC: Bright Kids Sues over 'Rent-A-Bank' Scheme

KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Clark Labor Case Removed to C.D. California
LE TOTE INC: Olsen Alleges Violation under ADA
LIFE FOR RELIEF: Kempton Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Jones Files Suit under Disabilities Act
MAGNOLIA BOUTIQUE: Conner Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act

MARCO BICEGO USA: Kiler Files Suit under ADA in New York
MDL 2445: Court Certifies Class of DPPs in Suboxone Antitrust Suit
MINNESOTA: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Murphy ADA Suit
MISSOURI: Robinson May Not Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Brown Appeals S.D. Ohio Decision to 6th Circuit

NCC BUSINESS: Elhendi Appeals TCPA Suit Ruling to 9th Circuit
NEW JERSEY: Denial of Defense Request in Inmates Class Suit Upheld
NOBLE ENERGY: Phelps Oil Appeals D. Colo. Ruling to 10th Circuit
PARETEUM CORP: Faces DeMarco Suit Over Collapse of Share Price
PERUGGIA PIZZA: Nunez Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages

PETIT VOUR: Tatum-Rios Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
POPSUGAR INC: Tatum-Rios Alleges Violation under ADA
PRESIDIO, INC: Rice Balks at BC Partners Merger Deal
PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Cowley Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
PURDUE PHARMA: Al Marino Sues over Sale of Opioid Prescriptions

RAINBOW CLEANERS: Meza Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
RASH CURTIS: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of McMillion Suit Ruling
RELIANT CAPITAL: Hayden Files FDCPA Class Action in Missouri
ROCKSBOX INC: Olsen Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
SJM PROPERTIES: Faces Green Class Suit in Minn. 4th Jud'l Dist.

SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Klingenberg Suit Moved to District of Minnesota
SRC ENERGY: Aguirre Suit Seeks to Enjoin Vote on Sale to PDC
STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Agrees to Overhaul Leave of Absence Policies
STAT X-RAY: Hussain Seeks to Recover Back Wages, Damages
SUNDT CONSTRUCTION: Wirbick Suit Moved to E.D. California

SURESCRIPTS, LLC: Sued over "e-Prescribing" Services Monopoly
TOYOTA MOTOR: Camry Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Stirratt Says IPO Documents Misleading
VENTURE RESORTS: Matoy Seeks OT Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
VIRGINIA COLLEGE: Asks Court to Strike Class Claims

WALGREEN CO: Bonahoom Suit Asserts BIPA Violation
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Twardosky Suit Moved to Middle Dist. of Florida
WAYFAIR LLC: Jones Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
WEGMANS FOOD: Vanilla-Flavored Ice Cream Deceptive, Suit Says
WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS: Motorworks Files TCPA Suit in Illinois

YOGA CLUB: Conner Alleges Violation under ADA

                            *********

16-26 EAST: NY Appellate Division Certifies Class in Simpson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, N.N. SIMPSON, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. 16-26
EAST 105, LLC, ET AL., Defendants-Respondents, Case No. 9964,
160737/17 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court of New York, First Department, granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

Judge Alan C. Marin of the New York County Supreme Court entered an
order on Feb. 6, 2019, which denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  

The Plaintiffs, who are tenants in a contiguous row of buildings
owned and operated by the Defendants, allege that the Defendants
improperly deregulated their apartments while the buildings
received J-51 tax benefits.  They seek, inter alia, declaratory
relief and damages arising from the resulting rent overcharges.
The NY Supreme Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification solely on the ground that the Rent Stabilization
Code's so-called "default formula" for calculating rents in certain
instances amounts to a penalty and is therefore unavailable in a
class action.

The Rent Stabilization Code requires that a "base date" be
established for calculating the legal regulated rent for an
apartment.  Generally, the legal regulated rent is the rent
registered with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal for
the apartment six years before the overcharge proceeding was
commence.  The base date is used in the calculation of overcharges,
i.e., overcharges result from improper rent increases after the
base date.

The default formula provides for the base date to be established at
the lowest of (1) the lowest registered rent for a comparable
apartment in the building at the time the complaining tenant moved
in, (2) the complaining tenant's initial rent reduced by a certain
percentage, (3) the last registered rent paid by the prior tenant
within the lookback period, or (4) if none of those is appropriate,
an amount set by DHCR based on its relevant data.  Thus, the
default formula is applied to calculate compensatory overcharge
damages where no other method is available.  Moreover, it is
applied equally in cases in which the owner has engaged in fraud
and in cases in which the base date rent simply cannot be
determined or the rent history is unavailable.

Considered in this light, the Appellate Court concludes that the
default formula is not "punishing conduct."  Nor can a case in
which it is applied be reasonably deemed "an action to recover a
penalty" under CPLR 901(b).  In view of the foregoing, it does not
reach the question whether the Defendants' failure to raise their
argument that the default formula is a penalty within the meaning
of CPLR 901(b) in a pleading precluded the NY Supreme Court's
consideration of the argument.

For these reasons, the Apellate Court holds that the default
formula is not a penalty but a method by which to calculate
compensatory damages, and therefore is not a bar to class
certification pursuant to CPLR 901(b).  Accordingly, the Appellate
Court reversed the Supreme Court's Feb. 6, 2019 Order, and granted
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

A full-text copy of the New York Appellate Division's Oct. 1, 2019
Order is available at https://is.gd/SLLumW from Leagle.com.

Newman Ferrara LLP, New York (Roger A. Sachar -- rsachar@nfllp.com
-- of counsel), for appellants.

Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York (Hal N. Beerman --
beermanh@gtlaw.com -- of counsel), for respondents.


18 GREENWICH: Fallon, et al. Sue Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
DUQUE FALLON, EDGAR ROLANDO GUTIERREZ LOPEZ, EUTIQUIO LEON GARCIA,
HUGO ALEJANDRO GALLARDO, JOSE GARCIA, and GILBERTO LUCAS TOLENTINO,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. 18 GREENWICH AVENUE, LLC (D/B/A ROSEMARY'S), CARLOS
SUAREZ , WADE MOSES, CINDI BYUN, RUFIO LERMA, SEAN WEBSTER,
JENNIFER DOE, and ERIN GOTTHELF, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09579
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 16, 2019) is an action on behalf of Plaintiffs,
and other similarly situated individuals, for 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 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 worked. Rather, Defendants
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 failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread
of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a
day. Defendants also repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiffs wages on a
timely basis.

The Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising
Plaintiffs' actual duties in payroll records by designating them as
a bartender, a barback, busboys, waiters, delivery workers, food
runners instead of non-tipped employees. This allowed Defendants to
avoid paying Plaintiffs at the minimum wage rate and enabled them
to pay them at the lower tip-credit rate. In addition, Defendants
maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully appropriating
Plaintiffs' and other tipped employees' tips and made unlawful
deductions from these Plaintiffs' and other tipped employees'
wages. The Defendants 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, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed as a bartender, a barback, busboys,
waiters, delivery workers and food runners at the restaurant
located at 18 Greenwich Avenue, New York, NY 10011.

Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian restaurant, located
at 18 Greenwich Avenue, New York, NY 10011 under the name
"Rosemary's".[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


2617 WORLD: Henriquez Seeks Proper Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS HENRIQUEZ, on Behalf of himself And All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. 2617 WORLD HOUSEWARES & HARDWARE, INC.,
and MUSTAFA ALSAIDI, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09538 (S.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 16, 2019) is a civil action for damages and equitable relief
based upon Defendants' flagrant and willful violations of
Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed to him by: (i) the minimum wage
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act; (ii) the minimum wage
provisions of the New York Labor Law; (iii) the overtime provisions
of the FLSA; (iv) the overtime provisions of NYLL and the
corresponding N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs; (v) the spread of hours
requirement under the NYLL, and NYCCRR; (vi) the requirement that
employers furnish employees with wage statements on each payday
containing specific categories of information under the NYLL; (vii)
the requirement that employers furnish employees with a wage notice
at the time of hiring containing specific categories of accurate
information; and (viii) any other claims that can be inferred from
the facts set forth herein.

The Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work,
at least 72 hours a week. However, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff at the minimum wage or overtime rate of pay of one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay for each hour that Plaintiff
worked per week in excess of forty, as the FLSA and the NYLL
require. Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs for his
spread of hours in violation of NYLL. Lastly, Defendants failed to
furnish Plaintiff with accurate and/or complete wage statements on
each payday as the NYLL requires or provide Plaintiff with a wage
notice containing the criteria enumerated under the NYLL, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a customer service associate
from August 27, 2018 to February 23, 2019.

Defendants own and operate a housewares and hardware business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Louis M. Leon, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
     108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
     New York, NY 10018
     Phone: (212) 583-7400
     Email: LLeon@Cafaroesq.com



AAA CONSTRUCTION: Kimbrell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN KIMBRELL, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AAA CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE INC., a
Florida Profit Corporation, MAVERICK MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR, LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company, and SAFOAH DIB, an individual,
jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-62617-RNS (S.D.
Fla., Oct. 22, 2019), is a collective action brought pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to recover unpaid overtime
compensation owed to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
technicians.

The Plaintiff alleges that he worked more than 40 hours per week
during many weeks of his employment, without being paid the
federally mandated wage for overtime. Specifically, the Plaintiff
was paid only straight time for all hours worked, even those hours
in excess of forty per work week. The Defendants violated the FLSA
by failing to pay the Plaintiff for all overtime hours worked in
excess of forty per week at the applicable time and one-half rate,
says the complaint.

Steven Kimbrell was employed by the Defendants as an hourly wage
maintenance technician from November 2018 until his separation from
employment on July 21, 2019.

The Defendants are a property maintenance company in Broward
County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert S. Norell, Esq.
     ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
     300 N.W 70th Avenue, Suite 305
     Plantation, FL 33317
     Phone: (954) 617-6017
     Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
     Email: rob@floridawagelaw.com


AETNA INC: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in Peters' RICO Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sandra M. Peters filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
her lawsuit styled Sandra Peters v. Aetna Inc., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-00109-MR, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina at Asheville.

The District Court issued a Memorandum and Order granting the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, as reported in the Class
Action Reporter on Sept. 30, 2019.

Plaintiff Sandra M. Peters filed this putative class action against
the Defendants Aetna, Inc., Aetna Life Insurance Company and
OptumHealth Care Solutions, Inc., asserting claims pursuant to the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  In her
Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that Aetna engaged in a fraudulent
scheme with Optum and other subcontractors, whereby insureds were
caused to pay the subcontractors' administrative fees because the
Defendants misrepresented such fees as medical expenses.

The appellate case is captioned as Sandra Peters v. Aetna Inc., et
al., Case No. 19-2085, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SANDRA M. PETERS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
          D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
          Nell Z. Peyser, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          485 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 704-9600
          E-mail: jcowart@zuckerman.com
                  dbhufford@zuckerman.com
                  npeyser@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          Larry Stephen McDevitt, Esq.
          VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          11 North Market Street
          P. O. Box 7379
          Asheville, NC 28801-0000
          Telephone: (828) 258-2991
          E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees AETNA INCORPORATED and AETNA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY are represented by:

          Earl Thomison Holman, Esq.
          HOLMAN LAW, PLLC
          56 College Street
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 252-7381
          E-mail: tom@holmanlawwnc.com

               - and -

          Matthew Scott Roberson, Esq.
          MCGUIRE, WOOD & BISSETTE, PA
          48 Patton Avenue
          P. O. Box 3180
          Asheville, NC 28802-3180
          Telephone: (828) 254-8800
          E-mail: mroberson@mwblawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee OPTUMHEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS, INC. is represented
by:

          Brian D. Boone, Esq.
          Mark Timothy Calloway, Esq.
          Michael Roger Hoernlein, Esq.
          Emily Claire McGowan, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
          Bank of America Plaza
          101 South Tryon Street
          Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
          Telephone: (704) 444-1106
          E-mail: brian.boone@alston.com
                  mark.calloway@alston.com
                  michael.hoernlein@alston.com
                  emily.mcgowan@alston.com


APPLE INC: Gonzalez Sues Over Disruptive IOS Updates to iPhones
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE GONZALEZ, GAMALIEL ARANDA, ARTURO ARZAMENDIA, PEDRO DIAZ,
MICHELLE EJIOFOR, OLIVIA EJIOFOR, HANSEL HERNANDEZ, OSCAR LEMUS,
MICHAEL MAENG, JOSUE SALAZAR, and PASQUALO SODANO, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC.,
a California Corporation Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-06646 (N.D.
Cal., Oct. 16, 2019) is a class action brought against Apple for
its fraudulent, unlawful, deceptive and intentional interference
with the operation and performance of Apple devices.

Apple launched its iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus variants on September
9, 2014; iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus variants on September 25,
2015; iPhone SE on March 31, 2016; and iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus
on September 16, 2016. Instead of enhancing the performance of the
Devices through these updates as Apple had initially claimed, the
iOS Updates unlawfully hindered and interfered with the Devices'
performance capabilities. Apple's failed to disclose that it would
purposefully slow down the performance of the Devices through such
updates.

By intentionally failing to disclose material facts, Apple
disregarded the rights of the Plaintiffs and the class members. Due
to Apple's unlawful, deceitful, and intentional actions, Plaintiffs
and Class members have suffered economic loss and damages, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs are individuals who are residents of the State of
California and acquired one or more Devices.

Apple is a technology company, which designs, manufactures, and
markets personal computers and related personal computing and
mobile communication.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ugonne Ndukwu Lord, Esq.
     RED SAPPHIRE, P.C.
     1905 N. Wilcox Ave, Suite 150
     Hollywood, CA 90068
     Phone: (949) 502-2047
     Facsimile: (949) 502-2047
     Email: ulord@rsapphire.com


APPLE ZEBRA: Garcia Sues Over BIPA Violation
--------------------------------------------
CANDICE GARCIA, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. APPLE ZEBRA
CFS, LLC. d/b/a ST. GEORGE LOGISTICS; ST. GEORGE WAREHOUSE OF IL,
INC. d/b/a ST. GEORGE LOGISTICS, Defendants, Case No. 2019CH 12008
(Circuit Ct. Cook Cty., Ill., Oct. 16, 2019) is a Class Action
Complaint against Defendants for violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Starting in 2016 or 2017, Defendants required employees and
temporary staffing workers to use a biometric time clock system to
record their time worked. In enacting the Biometric Information
Privacy Act, the Illinois legislature recognized that biologically
unique identifiers, like fingerprints, can never be changed when
compromised, and thus subject a victim of identity theft to
heightened risk of loss. As a result, Illinois restricted private
entities, like Defendants, from collecting, storing, using, or
transferring a person's biometric identifiers and information
without adhering to strict informed-consent procedures established
by the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Defendants collected,
stored, used, and transferred the unique biometric fingerprint
identifiers, or information derived from those identifiers, of
Plaintiff and others similarly situated without following the
detailed requirements of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. As
a result, Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers lost the
right to control their biometric identifiers and information, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Apple Zebra as a safety director in Elk
Grove Village, Illinois from approximately October 2012 to March
2018.

Defendants provide logistics services, including management of
storage, transportation, and distribution of commercial goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
     Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
     Sarah J.Arendt, Esq.
     Jacqueline H. Villanueva, Esq.
     WERMAN SALAS P.C.
     77 West Washington, Suite 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 419-1008
     Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
            msalas@flsalaw.com
            zflowerree@flsalaw.com
            sarendt@flsalaw.com
            jvillanueva@flsalaw.com


AUDIT SYSTEMS: Lowenbien Files FDCPA Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Audit Systems, Inc.
The case is styled as Joseph Lowenbien as parent and guardian of
M.I., on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers, Plaintiff v. Audit Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-05977 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 23, 2019).

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

Audit Systems, Inc. (ASI) is a third-party collection agency based
in Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com




BEAUTY BAKERIE: Bunting Files Class Suit under ADA
--------------------------------------------------
Beauty Bakerie Cosmetics Brand, Inc. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Beauty Bakerie Cosmetics Brand, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-05935 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 22, 2019).

Beauty Bakerie is an e-commerce, cosmetics company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


BIODESIX INC: Lary Suit Challenges Sending of Unsolicited Faxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN H. LARY JR., M.D., individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff v. BIODESIX INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03006 (D. Colo., Oct. 22, 2019),
challenges the Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited
facsimiles.

On August 6, 2019, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff an unsolicited
fax advertisement in violation of the TCPA, according to the
complaint. Hence, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of those
who received unsolicited fax advertisements that were sent by the
Defendant without prior express invitation or permission and
without compliant opt-out language.

The Plaintiff resides in Alabama.

BIODESIX INC. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located in Centennial, Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ross M. Good, Esq.
     ANDERSON + WANCA
     3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
     Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
     Phone: 847-368-1500
     Fax: 847-368-1501
     Email: rgood@andersonwanca.com

          - and -

     Max G. Margulis, Esq.
     MARGULIS LAW GROUP
     Old Belle Monte Road
     Chesterfield, MO 63017
     Phone: (636) 536-7022
     Email: MaxMargulis@MargulisLaw.com


BRIGHT HOUSE: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Sliwa TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHAN H. SLIWA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS, LLC
and ADVANCED TELESOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-235-FtM-29MRM (M.D. Fla.), Judge John E. Steele of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers
Division, denied both (i) the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, and (ii) the Defendants' Motion to Exclude
Plaintiff's Expert Robert Biggerstaff.

On Jan. 30, 2017, Plaintiff Sliwa filed a five-count Amended Class
Action Complaint against Defendants Bright House and Advanced
Telesolutions ("ATS"), alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") (Counts I and III), the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA")(Counts II and IV), and
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA")(Count V).  The
Amended Complaint alleges that the Defendants attempted to collect
a consumer debt of unspecified nature and origin by calling the
Plaintiff's cellphone without his consent and/or after any consent
had been revoked, using an automatic telephone dialing system
and/or pre-recorded voice technology.  While the Amended Complaint
does not say so, the record establishes that  Plaintiff received
calls intended for a Bright House customer at a telephone number
given to Bright House by that customer which had subsequently been
re-assigned to the Plaintiff's cellphone.

From 2011 through 2015, Bright House provided cable, internet, and
phone services to customers in several states under the Bright
House brand pursuant to its Residential Subscriber Agreements
("RSAs").  Under the RSA, Bright House's customers agreed that
Bright House and its vendors could call the phone numbers supplied
to it for any purpose via any method, including an automatic
dialing system or an artificial or recorded voice.  Additionally,
Bright House was entitled to assume that any communications made
through a subscriber's Services or from the location at which the
subscriber receive the Services are the subscriber's communications
or have been authorised by the subscriber.  Customers provided
telephone numbers to Bright House at various times and in various
ways, and should have, but did not always, update any change in
their phone numbers.  Also, the RSA provided for the arbitration of
disputes on an individual (non-class) basis, subject to an opt-out
right.

Bright House asserts that Customer H signed up for its services and
provided it with a telephone number ending in "2025" as a home
telephone number at which Customer H could be contacted.  In 2014
and 2015, Customer H confirmed the 2025 Number as the accurate
contact telephone number.  Contrary to these assurances, in
February 2013, the Plaintiff had been assigned the 2025 Number for
his cellphone.

The Amended Complaint alleges that on Feb. 1, 2015, the Plaintiff
began receiving debt-recovery calls from Bright House/ATS at the
2025 Number.  Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiff demanded that both
Bright House and ATS stop calling his cell phone number.  The
Amended Complaint states that the Plaintiff expressly revoked any
express consent Bright House may have mistakenly believed it had
for placement of telephone calls.

Despite revoking consent to receive such calls, the Defendants
continued their barrage of phone calls to the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number in an attempt to collect a debt.  Either "at least
one," or "numerous," or "each" call was made by an automatic
telephone dialing system ("ATDS").  The Plaintiff asserts in the
Amended Complaint that each call used a "pre-recorded voice"
("PRV").  The Plaintiff states that Defendants called him at least
14 times after being told they had the wrong number.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify two nationwide classes in connection
with the two TCPA counts:

     a. ATDS Class: (1) All persons in the United States (2) who
        are not a customer of either defendant (3) to whose
        cellular telephone number (4) Defendants placed at least
        one non-emergency telephone call (5) using substantially
        the same dialing system(s) they used to telephone
        Plaintiff (6) within the 4 year period preceding the
        filing of the complaint (7) after Defendants had already
        documented the number as a wrong number in their records

     b. Prerecorded Voice Class: (1) All persons in the United
        States (2) who are not a customer of either defendant (3)
        to whose cellular telephone number (4) Defendants placed
        at least one non-emergency telephone call (5) using a
        prerecorded voice (6) within the 4 year period preceding
        the filing of the complaint (7) after Defendants had
        already documented the number as a wrong number in their
        records.

The Defendants oppose the request for class certification, arguing
that: (1) The proposed class definitions are broader than those in
the Amended Complaint, are being proposed for the first time after
the close of discovery, and are hopelessly vague; (2) there is no
feasible administrative way to identify even a fraction of the
members of the proposed classes; (3) there are a host of
individualized inquires which will predominate over any common
questions at trial, including the all-important issue of consent or
lack of consent; (4) the Plaintiff has failed to satisfy any of the
remaining requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for class certification; and (5) the Plaintiff and his
counsel are inadequate representatives of the classes in part
because of a conflict of interest created by their engagement
agreement, which prohibits the Plaintiff from settling or
dismissing the case against counsel's advice even if in his best
interest or the best interest of the classes.  At oral argument,
the counsel for the Defendants identified 14 of 15 grounds they
asserted were each independently sufficient to deny class
certification.

Judge Steele finds that the Plaintiff has failed satisfy Rule 23's
requirements.  The Judge opines that:

   (i) is unpersuaded by the Plaintiff's argument that Mr.
Biggerstaff's list is sufficient to establish numerosity because of
the Defendants' own testimony that the Bad Phone code was used to
wrong numbers; i.e. calls made to a non-customer;

  (ii) whether the Defendants placed phone calls using technology
prohibited by the TCPA is sufficient to satisfy the low hurdle of
Rule 23(a)(2) commonality;

(iii) there is no merit in the Defendants' assertion that
Plaintiff is atypical of the proposed classes because of the
"unique" defenses applicable to his claims;

  (iv) the Plaintiff is an adequate class representative, as his
overall testimony and actions confirm that he does not have "so
little knowledge of and involvement in the class action that he
would be unable or unwilling to protect the interests of the class
against the possibly competing interests of the attorneys; and

   (v) the Plaintiff's counsel is adequate under Rule 23(g)(4).

In addition, Judge Steele finds that the Plaintiff has failed to
satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement.  Given that the
phone numbers at issue in the case were provided to Bright House by
Bright House customers, and because Bright House provided services
to households (often with multiple service users within a
household), the Judge finds that whether non-customers consented to
receive such calls under agency law principles can only be resolved
on a case-by-case basis.  Indeed, the Defendants have submitted
evidence demonstrating that Bright House customers often prefer to
be called at a non-customer's phone (such as a spouse or family
member's phone).

The Judge concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to establish
superiority under Rule 23(b)(3).

Accordingly, Judge Steele denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification and terminated it as duplicative.  He also denied the
Defendants' Motion to Exclude and terminated it as duplicative.

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

Stephan H. Sliwa, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda J. Allen,
The Consumer Protection Firm, Amy L. Wells -- AWells@KeoghLaw.com
-- Keogh Law, LTD, pro hac vice, Donald L. Sawyer, Keogh Law,
LTD, pro hac vice, Stephen J. Stanley, Stephen J. Stanley,
Attorney & Counselor at Law, William Peerce Howard, The Consumer
Protection Firm, & Keith J. Keogh -- keith@keoghlaw.com -- Keogh
Law, LTD, pro hac vice.

Bright House Networks, LLC, Defendant, represented by Ryan D.
Watstein, Kabat Chapman & Ozmer LLP & Nathan David Chapman, Kabat
Chapman & Ozmer LLP.

Advanced Telesolutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew
J.J. Collinson -- acollinson@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson, LLP, Justin M. Penn -- jpenn@hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP & Ruel W. Smith --
rsmith@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP.

United States of America, Intervenor, represented by Anjali
Motgi, US Department of Justice -- Civil Division.


CALLFIRE INC: Wigod Files Class Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CallFire, Inc. The
case is styled as Lee I. Wigod, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CallFire, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and Lori Wigod, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06953
(N.D. Ill., Oct. 22, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Statutory
Actions, and Civil Miscellaneous Case as cause of filing.

CallFire Inc. is a cloud telephony services provider (SaaS)
headquartered in Santa Monica, California, known locally as Silicon
Beach.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

The Respondents are represented by:

   Steven Lezell Woodrow, Esq.
   Woodrow & Peluso, LLC
   3900 E Mexico Ave., Suite 300
   Denver, CO 80210
   Tel: (720) 213-0675
   Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com


CASCADE CORPORATION: Merritt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JORY MERRITT and all similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v.
CASCADE CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-01695-YY (D. Ore., Oct. 22, 2019), accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime
wages.

While employed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff and all similarly
situated employees were at all times systematically underpaid their
earned overtime premium wages, in violation of the FLSA, because of
the Defendant's failure to include both shift-differential wages
and non-discretionary bonus wages when calculating the employees'
regular rate of pay, on which the overtime premium wage rate is
based, the Plaintiff alleges.  The Plaintiff adds that all
similarly situated employees were at all times systematically paid
overtime premium wages late (after the next regular paydate for the
pay period in which the overtime hours were worked), in violation
of the FLSA.

Jory Merritt was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
machinery operator from February 25, 2019, until voluntary
resignation from employment, with two-weeks' prior notice to the
Defendant, effective July 16, 2019.

Cascade Corporation is a corporation, incorporated within the State
of Oregon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian A. Buchanan, Esq.
     OREGON CENTER FOR EMPLOYEE RIGHTS
     PO Box 18671
     Salem, OR 97305
     Phone: (503) 581-4826
     Email: Brian@wageclaims.org


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Involuntary Dismissal of Twin City Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Kansas affirmed Shawnee County District
Court's involuntary dismissal of the proposed class action in In Re
CEC ENTERTAINMENT, INC., STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION, Twin City Pipe
Trades Pension Trust, Appellant, v. GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.,
Appellee, Case No. 120,234 (Kan. App.).

The action arises out of the acquisition of CEC Entertainment --
best known for its Chuck E. Cheese's dining and entertainment
establishments -- by Apollo Global Management, LLC for $1.3
billion.

Within a matter of days following the announcement of the Merger
Agreement, four Plaintiffs -- each of whom claimed to be a
shareholder of CEC Entertainment -- filed lawsuits in Shawnee
County seeking to enjoin the transaction.  The lawsuits were (i)
Coyne v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., et al., No. 14-CV-57 (Kan. 3rd
Jud. Dist. Ct. Jan. 21, 2014); (ii) Solak v. CEC Entertainment,
Inc., et al., No. 14-CV-55 (Kan. 3rd Jud. Dist. Ct. Jan. 22, 2014);
(iii) Dixon v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., et al., No. 14-CV-81 (Kan.
3rd Jud. Dist. Ct. Jan. 24, 2014); (iv) Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees' Retirement System v. Frank, et al., No. 14-CV-97 (Kan.
3rd Jud. Dist. Ct. Jan. 31, 2014).  Notably, Twin City Pipe Pension
Trust was not a plaintiff in any of the initial lawsuits.
Likewise, neither Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. nor Goldman, Sachs &
Co. LLC were named as defendants the original petitions.

On March 7, 2014, the Shawnee County District Court consolidated
the four lawsuits into Shawnee County Case No. 14-C-57.  Although
the original Plaintiffs had sought to enjoin the transaction, the
request for injunctive relief was abandoned.  Following the
consolidation of the actions, the parties began the discovery
process.  On March 17, 2014, Goldman, Sachs & Co. was served with a
non-party records subpoena.  In response, Goldman, Sachs & Co.
produced numerous documents to the Plaintiffs relating to the
acquisition of CEC Entertainment by Apollo Global.

On July 21, 2015, Twin City Pipe filed a Consolidated Class Action
Petition.  As indicated, Twin City Pipe was not one of the
Plaintiffs in the initial actions filed in Shawnee County and it is
unclear from the record how it became the Plaintiff.  However, the
parties do not assert any issue relating to the substitution of
Twin City Pipe as the Plaintiff in the appeal.  Thus, the Kansas
Appeals Court will assume that the Shawnee County District Court
properly joined Twin City Pipe as a party to the action.

In the Consolidated Class Action Petition, Twin City Pipe and all
other similarly situated public shareholders of CEC Entertainment
asserted claims not only against the members of the Board of
Directors of CEC Entertainment but also added The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc. as a Defendant.  The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (a
Delaware corporation) is the parent company to Goldman, Sachs & Co.
(a New York limited liability company).

Specifically, Twin City Pipe asserted four claims for relief: (i)
Count I - Breach of Fiduciary Duty against the individual members
of the Board of Directors of CEC Entertainment; (ii) Count II -
Breach of Fiduciary Duty against the officers of CEC Entertainment;
(iii) Count III - Aiding and Abetting the officers and board
members of CEC Entertainment against The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.;
and (iv) Count IV - Failure to Disclose Material Information to the
shareholders of CEC Entertainment against the officers and board
members.

In the Consolidated Class Action Petition, Twin City Pipe sought
certification of a shareholders' class and the appointment of Twin
City Pipe as class representative.  In addition, Twin City Pipe
sought damages in an unspecified amount for the alleged wrongdoing
of the defendants.  Finally, Twin City Pipe sought attorney fees
and expenses as well as the court costs incurred as a result of
bringing the action.

On Jan. 21, 2016, with the consent of the parties, the District
Court appointed a Special Master pursuant to K.S.A. 60-253.  The
District Courttcharged the Special Master with overseeing all
proceedings in the case other than any trial on the merits and
related pre-trial motions, pre-trial briefing, and the pre-trial
conference.

On Jan. 27, 2016, Twin City Pipe voluntarily dismissed its claims
against CEC Entertainment with prejudice.  On Sept. 9, 2018, after
additional briefing and oral argument, the District Court issued a
Memorandum Decision and Order.  In the decision, the District Court
adopted both of the Special Master's reports; granted the motion to
dismiss filed by The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; and denied Twin
City Pipe's motion for leave to file the Proposed Verified Amended
Consolidated Class Action Petition on the grounds of futility.  In
doing so, the District Court determined that the allegations of
"misstatements and omissions" asserted in the Proposed Verified
Amended Consolidated Class Action Petition were not material as a
matter of law.

The District Court concluded that the shareholders were fully
informed that Goldman bankers were involved in both the CEC-Apollo
and CKE Roark transactions, and that Goldman and Apollo had a
lengthy history.  In particular, the district court noted that the
Schedule 14D-9 specifically listed seven transactions in the
preceding two years in which Goldman and Apollo had been involved.
The District Court further found that the names of individual
Goldman bankers in addition to the information was not material and
that Twin City Pipe failed to allege any misstatements or omissions
that significantly alter the total mix of available information.
In light of the ruling, the District Court did not analyze the
issues of substitution or personal jurisdiction.

In its notice of appeal, Twin City Pipe challenged from the
Memorandum Decision and Order entered by the District Court.  The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. also appealed from the same Memorandum
Decision and Order but only to the extent that the District Court
found that Twin City Pipe's "proposed amended petition would be
timely as to the proposed defendant Goldman, Sachs & Co."  Although
Twin City Pipe appealed from the District Court's Memorandum
Decision and Order in its entirety, a primary focus of both parties
is on the issue of whether the District Court erred in denying the
motion for leave to file the Proposed Amended Consolidated Class
Petition.

The Appellate Court finds the result is the same whether it looks
at the issue from the perspective of Twin City Pipe or from the
perspective of Goldman, Sachs & Co.  Even if it views the issue
presented from the perspective of what the prospective Defendant
knew or should have known, the Appellate Court finds nothing in the
record to suggest that Goldman, Sachs & Co. knew or should have
known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper
party, it would have been sued.  Based on its review of the record,
the Appellate Court concludes that it was reasonable for Goldman,
Sachs & Co. to believe that the deliberate choice made by Twin City
Pipe to sue its parent company was not a result of a mistake
concerning the proper party's identity.

In support of this conclusion, the Appellate Court notes that the
conduct of Twin City Pipe after the filing of the Consolidated
Class Action Petition speaks loudly to Goldman, Sachs & Co.'s
understanding of whether it "knew or should have known that the
action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake
concerning the proper party's identity."  The Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc. raised the issue regarding the proper identity of the
financial advisor in its motion to dismiss filed several months
prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations.  Had this
truly been a case of mistaken identity, it is reasonable to assume
that Twin City Pipe would have immediately taken action to correct
the mistake.

Moreover, Twin City Pipe unequivocally recognized in its response
to the motion to dismiss that Goldman, Sachs & Co. served as the
financial advisor on the Buyout.  It also continued to argue that
"GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC. IS A PROPER DEFENDANT."  And Twin City
Pipe continued to assert its belief that The Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc. was properly named in the Consolidated Class Action Petition.
Far from claiming that a mistake had been made regarding the
identity of the proper party, Twin City Pipe chose not to take any
action to seek leave to amend the Consolidated Class Action
Petition until after the limitations period had already expired.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court concludes that the Proposed
Verified Amended Consolidated Class Action Petition does not relate
back to the filing on the Consolidated Class Action Petition under
K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-215(c)(2).  As a result, granting leave to
Twin City Pipe to file the Proposed Verified Amended Class Action
Petition would be pointless and the District Court did not abuse
its discretion in denying the motion for leave to amend.  In light
of this decision, it is unnecessary for the Appellate Court to
reach the other issues presented by the parties on appeal.  The
Appellate Court, therefore, affirmed the judgment of the District
Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/I9XTUQ from Leagle.com.

Andrew M. DeMarea -- andy@kndklaw.com -- of Kenner Nygaard DeMarea
Kendall LLC, of Kansas City, Missouri, David A. Knotts --
dknotts@rgrdlaw.com -- and Randall J. Baron -- randyb@rgrdlaw.com
-- pro hac vice, of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, of San Diego,
California, and Christopher J. Orrico --
christopher.orrico@blbglaw.com -- and Jeroen van Kwawegen --
jeroen@blbglaw.com -- pro hac vice, of Berstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, of New York, New York, for appellant.

Kelly D. Stohs -- kstohs@polsinelli.com -- of Polsinelli PC, of
Overland Park, Russell S. Jones, Jr. -- rjones@polsinelli.com -- of
Polsinelli PC, of Kansas City, Missouri, and John D. Donovan, Jr.
-- John.Donovan@ropesgray.com -- pro hac vice, of Ropes & Gray LLP,
of Boston, Massachuetts, for appellee.


CENTURY GOLF: Brana Files Another Appeal in Izzio Suit to 5th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Movants Jillian Brana and Anthony Metzger filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Jillian Izzio, et al. v. Century
Golf Partners Management, L.P., Case Nos. 3:14-CV-3194 and
3:15-CV-861, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Dallas.

The appellate case is captioned as Jillian Izzio, et al. v. Century
Golf Partners Management, L.P., Case No. 19-11102, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Jillian Brana
and Anthony Metzger have filed two other appeals in the lawsuit,
assigned Case No. 19-10306 and Case No. 16-11463.

The Case is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees JILLIAN IZZIO, on Behalf of Themselves and all
Others Similarly Situated; HEATHER ZOELLER, on Behalf of Themselves
and all Others Similarly Situated; and KARA ASHBY are represented
by:

          Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
          Innessa Melamed Huot, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, L.L.P.
          685 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com
                  ihuot@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Hutchison, Esq.
          MUSCATO, DIMILLO & VONA, L.L.P.
          107 East Avenue
          Lockport, NY 14094
          Telephone: (716) 434-9177

               - and -

          Kenneth M. Stillman, Esq.
          11300 N. Central Expressway
          Royal Central Tower
          Dallas, TX 75243
          Telephone: (214) 522-0633
          Facsimile: (214) 526-0849
          E-mail: kstill53@gmail.com

Movants-Appellants ANTHONY METZGER and JILLIAN BRANA are
represented by:

          Jimmy Derek Braziel, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
          1801 N. Lamar Street
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749-1400
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com

               - and -

          Annette Gifford, Esq.
          THOMAS & SOLOMON, L.L.P.
          693 East Avenue
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Telephone: (585) 272-0540
          E-mail: agifford@theemploymentattorneys.com


CHEVRON USA: Harris Files Class Suit in Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chevron USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Mary Katherine Harris, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chevron USA, Inc., Pure Partners,
LP, Union Oil Company of California, Chevron Midcontinent, LP, Four
Star Oil & Gas Company and McFarland Energy, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 6:19-cv-00355-SPS (E.D. Okla., Oct. 23, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract:
Other, and Diversity-Account Receivable as cause of filing.

Chevron is the second-largest integrated energy company
headquartered in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
   The Lanier Law Firm (OKC)
   431 W Main St, Ste D
   Oklahoma City, OK 73102
   Tel: (405) 698-2770
   Fax: (405) 234-5506
   Email: reagan.bradford@lanierlawfirm.com



COMPASS GROUP: Court Narrows Claims in Moore/Carter Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GEORGE MOORE and VIRGINIA CARTER, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., Defendant, No. 4:18CV1962 (RLW) (E.D.
Mo.), Judge Ronnie L. White of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, entered a
Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss .

The putative class action is filed under Missouri and Illinois law.
Plaintiffs George Moore and Virginia Carter allege that they
purchased items from Compass' vending machines, using cards rather
than cash, and were charged or had withdrawn from their accounts
more money than the prices displayed on the machines. Specifically,
Plaintiffs allege they were charged an additional ten cents if they
did not pay with cash. Plaintiffs further allege that Compass did
not have a sign or other indication on the vending machines that a
greater amount would be charged or withdrawn if a customer used a
credit, debit, or prepaid card.

In the putative class action, Plaintiffs asserted nine causes of
action on behalf of themselves, a nationwide class, and separate
Missouri and Illinois subclasses:

  Count I alleges breach of contract on behalf of Plaintiffs and
  the nationwide class.

  Count II alleges violations of the Missouri Merchandising
  Practices Act (MMPA), by means of deception on behalf of Moore
  and the Missouri subclass.

  Count III alleges violations of the MMPA by means of unfair
  practices on behalf of Moore and the Missouri subclass.

  Count IV alleges unjust enrichment under Missouri law on behalf
  of Moore and the Missouri subclass.

  Count V alleges money had and received under Missouri law on
  behalf of Moore and the Missouri subclass.

  Count VI alleges violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
  (ICFA), on behalf of Carter and the Illinois subclass.

  Count VII alleges conversion under Illinois law on behalf of
  Carter and the Illinois subclass.

  Count VIII alleges unjust enrichment under Illinois law on
  behalf of Carter and the Illinois subclass and

  Count IX alleges money had and received under Illinois law on
  behalf of Carter and the Illinois subclass.

Compass has moved to transfer venue of the case to the Western
District of North Carolina, the district in which Compass's
principal place of business is located. Compass has also moved to
dismiss the nationwide class claims in Plaintiff's Amended Class
Action Complaint as well as Counts IV-IX. Plaintiffs are opposed to
both motions. In addition, Compass has moved for the Court to issue
a proposed protective order. Plaintiffs are opposed to that motion
as well and have submitted their own proposed protective order for
the Court's consideration.

Ii its Sept. 26, 2019 Memorandum and Order, Missouri District Judge
Ronnie L. White ordered that Compass Group's Motion to Dismiss is
granted, in part, as it relates to Plaintiffs' claims for
conversion under Illinois law, and denied, in part, as it relates
to the other arguments. Consequently, Count VII is dismissed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6).

The Court finds that Plaintiff Carter has failed to plead a claim
for conversion under Illinois law. In Count VII, Carter alleges she
was deprived of her interest in the money in her account by
Compass's unauthorized acts of taking more from her account than
the price of the items she purchased as shown on Compass's vending
machines. Rather than plead a specific, identifiable amount of
money, she merely claims she suffered damages due to that
conversion in the amount that Compass improperly withdrew from her
accounts.

Furthermore, Judge White ordered that:

  1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File (Proposed) Supplemental
     Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Motion to Transfer is
     granted.

  2. Defendant Compass Group USA, Inc.'s Motion to Transfer Venue
     is denied.

  3. Defendant Compass Group USA, Inc.'s Motion for Entry of a
     Protective Order is denied.

  4. Plaintiffs' Counter Motion for Entry of Plaintiffs' Proposed
     Protective Order is granted, and the Court will issue the
     protective order subsequent to the Memorandum and Order.

Compass Group is reminded of its obligation to answer or otherwise
respond to Counts IV, V, VI, VIII, and IX within the time set by
the rules, the District Court stated.

As to the Motion to Transfer Venue, Plaintiffs' choice of venue is
entitled to deference, and Compass has not met its burden of
showing the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the
interest of justice strongly favor transfer, the District Court
holds.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y64eoxfm
from Leagle.com

George Moore, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated & Virginia Carter, Plaintiffs, represented by Richard S.
Cornfeld , LAW OFFICE RICHARD S. CORNFELD & Daniel Scott Levy , LAW
OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD, LLC. 1010 Market Street, Suite 1645,
St. Louis, MO 63101

Compass Group USA, Inc., doing business as Canteen, Defendant,
represented by Andrew J. Scavotto , STINSON AND LEONARD LLP, Joseph
C. Wylie, II - joseph.wylie@klgates.com - K AND L GATES LLP, Jaclyn
Niccole Warr - nicci.warr@stinson.com - STINSON LLP & Paul W.
Sweeney, Jr.  -paul.sweeney@klgates.com - K AND L GATES LLP.


DANIEL J. QUIRK: Gregoriades Seeks OT Wages for Salespersons
------------------------------------------------------------
EMMANUEL GREGORIADES, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. DANIEL J. QUIRK, INC. and
DANIEL J. QUIRK, the Defendants, Case No. 19-1300 (Mass. Super.,
Oct. 10, 2019), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime
wages and Sunday premium pay, as required by state law.

On January 14, 2013, Quirk hired Mr. Gregoriades as a salesperson.
His responsibilities included selling vehicles. Quirk agreed to
compensate Mr. Gregoriades for his work with a draw and
commissions.

The Plaintiff and putative class members are former and current
employees of the Defendants engaged in the sale of automobiles and
related products. The employees work in excess of 40 hours per
week, but do not receive overtime pay for their overtime hours
and/or Sunday Premium Pay in violation of Massachusetts law, the
lawsuit says.

Quirk is a company operating multiple car dealerships and selling
vehicles in Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 338-9400
          E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com


DARP INC: Are Employers Under AMWA, Ark. District Court Holds
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARK FOCHTMAN, et al., Individually, and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. DARP, INC.
and HENDREN PLASTICS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-5047 (W.D.
Ark.), Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, (i) denied
DARP's Motion for Summary Judgment; (ii) denied Hendren's Motion
for Summary Judgment; and (iii) granted in part and deferred in
part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.

Plaintiff Mark Fochtman and a second individual, Shane O'Neal,
originally filed the lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Benton County,
Arkansas, on Oct. 23, 2017.  At that time, the Defendants in the
lawsuit included DARP, a drug and alcohol recovery facility in
Decatur, Arkansas; Hendren, a plastics factory in Gravette,
Arkansas; CAAIR, Inc., a drug and alcohol recovery facility located
near Jay, Oklahoma; and Simmons Foods, Inc., a business that, among
other things, operates poultry processing plants and chicken farms
in Arkansas and Oklahoma.  On Nov. 6, 2017, Defendant Simmons
removed the case to the Arkansas District Court, asserting federal
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").

The Plaintiffs initially disagreed about whether removal was proper
and federal jurisdiction was appropriate, but at some point, they
were persuaded that CAFA's jurisdictional requirements had been
satisfied as of the time of removal, and their motion to remand was
deemed moot.  All the parties agreed -- eventually -- that the case
should be severed into two separate lawsuits, as there appeared to
be two putative classes asserted in the complaint.

The first class included individuals who were ordered by state drug
courts to reside at CAAIR, which, in turn, required its residents
to work at Simmons's poultry processing plant and/or chicken farm;
and the other class included individuals who were ordered to reside
at DARP, which, in turn, required its residents to work at
Hendren's plastics factory.  

Defendant Simmons asked the Court to transfer the Simmons/CAAIR
claims to the Northern District of Oklahoma, where similar claims
were already pending, and Defendants Hendren and DARP asked the
Court to remand the Hendren/DARP claims to state court pursuant to
an exception to CAFA jurisdiction.  The Plaintiffs opposed both
requests.

In a memorandum opinion and order issued on Feb. 27, 2018, the
District Court granted Simmons's motion to transfer the
Simmons/CAAIR putative class action claims to the Northern District
of Oklahoma; but denied Hendren and DARP's joint request to remand
the Hendren/DARP claims to state court.  It directed Mr. Fochtman
to submit an amended complaint containing only claims against
Hendren and DARP, and he did so on March 9, 2018, under the instant
case.

The Plaintiffs identified in the Complaint are individuals who, at
one time, faced criminal charges related to substance abuse.
Arkansas drug courts offered them the opportunity to participate in
DARP's residential drug and alcohol recovery program in lieu of
punishment in the criminal justice system.  They knew that if they
chose to enter DARP but did not complete DARP's program
requirements, they would be returned to drug court to face the
prospect of prison time.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants qualify as joint
employers under the AMWA and that they violated the law by failing
to pay DARP's residents minimum-wage and overtime compensation for
the hours they worked at Hendren's plastics factory.  DARP provided
each resident with bed space at one of its two 60-bed facilities in
Decatur, as well as meals, clothing and basic hygiene supplies (if
needed), and transportation to and from a job at Hendren's
for-profit plastics factory.  DARP and Hendren entered into a
Contract Labor Agreement that provided that DARP would transport
its residents to Hendren to work daily shifts at the factory at a
flat rate per hour.  The two companies also negotiated a rate for
overtime compensation for these workers.

According to their agreement, the two companies entered into this
business relationship to further their twin goals of providing "a
reliable work force" for Hendren that would show up to work on
time, every day, and of demonstrating to DARP's residents the value
of sobriety through the ethic of hard work.  Hendren did not pay
the workers directly.  Instead, it would keep track of their hours
using the same timeclock system that the regular employees used,
and then Hendren would forward the total number of hours worked to
DARP. DARP would multiply those hours by the hourly rates DARP and
Hendren had agreed to ahead of time, and then DARP would provide
Hendren with an invoice.  With the invoice in hand, Hendren would
cut a lump-sum check to DARP for the residents' labor.

All residents signed a document entitled "Admission Agreement" upon
their entry to DARP that clearly informed them they would not be
paid wages for their work at the factory, as the money earned goes
toward operation of the D.A.R.P. Foundation, but that they might
receive a gratuity/stipend from DARP if DARP determined they had
successfully completed the program.

After the Complaint was filed, Hendren and DARP each filed motions
to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The District Court denied both motions in an order entered on June
27, 2018.  Several months later, the District Court considered the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, filed on Sept. 17,
2018.  The motion was vigorously opposed by both the Defendants.  

In a memorandum opinion and order issued on Jan. 31, 2019, the
District Court certified a class composed of all individuals who
were DARP participants at any time from Oct. 23, 2014, until the
present, and who worked for Hendren Plastics, Inc. in the State of
Arkansas during their time at DARP.

Following the District Court's order on class certification,
Hendren and DARP filed petitions at the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit on February 13 and 14, respectively, seeking to
appeal the District Court's class certification decision.  However,
by March 14, both petitions had been denied.  Discovery in the case
continued.

In June 2019, the Plaintiffs, DARP, and Hendren each filed separate
motions for summary judgment.  All three motions ask the District
Court to decide as a matter of law the following two legal
questions: (1) whether Plaintiffs and the class members they
represent are employees under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"
or "Act") and (2) whether the Defendants qualify as employers under
the Act.

On review, Judge Brooks of the Arkansas District Court concludes
that businesses that profit from the labor of non-incarcerated drug
addicts must still comply with the AMWA's strict requirements.
Though the Defendants would rather the Court pretend that the class
members were actually prisoners when they lived at DARP, they were
not.  They were merely "charged with felony drug crimes," as
Hendren concedes in its brief, not convicted of those crimes.
Therefore, they were entitled to the basic rights under state law
that all Arkansans are entitled to.  Obviously, being subject to
the jurisdiction of the state drug courts is not the same as being
in prison.  Judge Brooks also observes that the Defendants were not
operating as charities.  They were businesses that manipulated the
labor market and skirted compliance with the labor laws for their
own private ends.  Consequently, they are jointly and severally
liable under the AMWA for their failure to pay minimum-wage and
overtime compensation to the class.

Judge Brooks then turns to Hendren's affirmative defenses to
liability.  He finds that Hendren directs the Court to the Arkansas
Code at Section 16-98-304, which empowers drug court judges to
order offenders to pay court costs, treatment costs, residential
treatment fees, and the like.  Simply because drug courts could
have ordered DARP residents to pay the costs of DARP's services
does not mean the courts "ordered the participants' wages to be
paid to DARP," as Hendren claims.  Those are two distinct legal
obligations.  And although DARP certainly claims that the money it
received from Hendren and other employers were used entirely to
offset the cost of the program and facilitate its operation, the
Court has not been presented with any objective data to demonstrate
the program's costs in relation to the cash wages the class members
would have earned during the relevant class period.  Accordingly,
the affirmative defenses are subject to dismissal.

There is no dispute about the number of regular and overtime hours
the class members worked, and the parties also agree about the
minimum-wage and overtime rates that apply to those hours.  The
Judge now addresses the parties' substantive claims and defenses as
to each element of damages.  He finds that the Defendants have
plainly failed to meet their burdens of showing affirmative steps
to ascertain the Act's requirements.

First, changing the amount of credit an employer may take against
its minimum-wage obligations is not a remedial change because it
disturbs vested rights.  In particular, the amendment to the AMWA
at issue disturbs an employee's vested right to collect a cash
minimum wage that may, at most, be offset by a credit for in-kind
services of up to $0.30 per hour.  Accordingly, the legislature's
recent elimination of the $0.30 cap has no bearing on the
calculation of damages in the case.

Second, the context of the conversation does not support the notion
that Mr. Hendren was trying to ascertain whether DARP's program
complied with the AMWA.  Moreover, judicial officers are not
permitted to dispense private advisory opinions on regulatory
compliance matters.  It was unreasonable for Mr. Hendren to have
thought back then -- much less argue now -- that Judge Smith's
passionately held beliefs about alternatives to incarceration20
(conveyed in the context of a private conversation) were somehow
intended as an assurance that Hendren's arrangement with DARP
complied with Arkansas's wage and hour laws.

For the reasons stated, Judge Brooks granted in part and deferred
in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.  He granted
the Motion as to the issue of liability.  He finds that the
Plaintiffs and the class members were employees and that the
Defendants were joint employers under the AMWA.  Accordingly, the
Defendants are jointly and severally liable for any damages that
are determined to be owed to the class for failure to pay
minimum-wage and overtime compensation, as well as an equal amount
of liquidated damages.

Judge Brooks deferred the Motion with respect to the Plaintiffs'
request that the District Court determine as a matter of law the
total amount of damages owed.  It is not presently clear to the
District Court whether the Plaintiffs dispute that the Defendants
are entitled to a credit in the full amount of the $0.30 cap on any
deduction for in-kind services or whether any "stipends" DARP may
have paid to certain class members should be deducted from the
total damages owed to those respective class members.  The
Plaintiffs were to file a Supplemental Response explaining their
positions on these issues without delay.

Furthermore, Judge Brooks denied both Defendant DARP's Motion for
Summary Judgment, and Defendant Hendren's Motion for Summary
Judgment.

The remaining tasks to prepare for trial as outlined in the Court's
Case Management Order are held in abeyance pending further notice
from the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/QP9oK6 from
Leagle.com.

Mark Fochtman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Corby Shumate, individually, and on behalf of all others,
Michael Spears, individually and on behalf of all others, Andrew
Daniel, individually and on behalf of all others, Fabian Aguilar,
individually and on behalf of all others & Sloan Simms,
individually and on behalf of all others, Plaintiffs, represented
by John Holleman , Holleman & Associate P.A. A Professional
Association & Timothy A. Steadman -- jholleman@johnholleman.net --
Holleman & Associates, P.A.

DARP, Inc., Defendant, represented by William B. Putman, Putman Law
Office.

Hendren Plastics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Laurence M.
McCredy -- info@rmp.law -- Reece Moore Pendergraft LLP, Timothy
Chad Hutchinson, Rmp LLP, James Robert Renner, Rmp LLP & Seth M.
Haines, Reece Moore Pendergraft.


DELIVERY FINANCIAL: Gonzales Sues Over Confusing Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Adelita Gonzales, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Delivery Financial Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-08304-SPL (D. Ariz., Oct. 16, 2019) is
a putative class action against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

In connection with the collection of the Debt, Defendant sent
Plaintiff a written communication dated July 24, 2019. The Letter
states: "Original Creditor: ROBERT J BROWNSBERGER MD PC." The
Letter further states that Defendant "will provide you with the
name and address of the original creditor, if different from the
current creditor." The Letter does not identify the "current
creditor." If "Robert J Brownsberger MD PC" was the current
creditor, then the Letter failed to effectively convey this
information by identifying it as the "original creditor," rather
than the "current creditor" or, simply, the "creditor." The least
sophisticated consumer may reasonably conclude that "Robert J
Brownsberger MD PC" is the original creditor and that another
entity is the creditor to whom the Debt is owed. The Letter does
not explain who assigned the Debt to Defendant for collection, nor
does it state Defendant's relationship to "Robert J Brownsberger MD
PC." The Defendant sent no other written communication to Plaintiff
within five days of sending the Letter, says the complaint.

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

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


DENSPLY SIRONA: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Saliann Scarpulla of the New York County Supreme Court
entered an order dismissing the case captioned IN RE DENSPLY
SIRONA, INC. SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION Plaintiff, v. XXX, Defendant,
2019 NY Slip Op 32849(U), (N.Y.  Sup.).

The putative class action alleges violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 against Jeffrey Slovin, Bret W. Wise, Christopher T. Clark,
Michael C. Alfano, Eric K. Brandt, Paula H. Cholmondeley, Michael
J. Coleman, Willie A. Deese, William F. Hecht, Francis J. Lunger,
John L. Miclot, John C. Miles, II, Thomas Jetter, David Beecken,
William K. Hood, Arthur D. Kowaloff, Harry M. Jansen Kraemer, Jr.
and Timothy P. Sullivan  (together, the "Individual Defendants")
and Dentsply Sirona Inc. (collectively "Defendants").

On September 15, 2015, Dentsply International Inc. ("Dentsply
Intl.") announced that it would acquire Sirona Dental Systems, Inc.
("Sirona") in an all-stock transaction, subject to shareholder
approval, pursuant to which Sirona shareholders would exchange
their Sirona shares for Dentsply Intl. shares. A prospectus
("Prospectus") and joint proxy statement ("Proxy") were filed in
connection with the Acquisition (together, the "Registration
Statement") and the SEC declared the Registration Statement
effective on December 7, 2015. Dentsply Intl.'s acquisition of
Sirona took place on February 29, 2016 (the "Acquisition") creating
a combined company, Dentsply Sirona.

Dentsply Sirona and its predecessor companies sold dental products
and services to distributors, which in turn sold the products to
dentists. Three main distributors — Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson
Companies, Inc. and Benco Dental Supply Co. (together, the
"Distributors") -- controlled up to 85% of the U.S. distribution
channel for dental supplies and did business with Dentsply Intl.
and Sirona.

The class action alleges that Defendants were aware of, and
complicit in, a scheme perpetrated by the Distributors (Alleged
Anticompetitive Scheme) to control supply distribution, limit
competition, and receive artificially high profit margins, the
Registration Statement did not disclose facts regarding this
scheme, or the benefit that Dentsply Intl. and Sirona derived from
it. The Amended Complaint alleges that the Alleged Anticompetitive
Scheme artificially inflated the financial results, goodwill and
intangible assets of both Dentsply Intl. and Sirona in addition to
the value of Dentsply Sirona's goodwill and intangible assets and
rendered their SEC filings which were incorporated by reference in
the Registration Statement misleading.

Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of
documentary evidence, statute of limitations, failure to state a
claim and lack of jurisdiction.

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) are time-barred because any allegedly untrue statements or
omissions were discoverable for more than one year prior to the
Plaintiffs' filing of the complaint.  In opposition, Plaintiffs
contend that investors did not suffer damages until August 2017
when Dentsply Sirona reported the impairment charge and its stock
dropped, and therefore the complaint was timely filed.

Judge Scarpulla opines that at this early stage of the litigation
and because the inquiry is fact-intensive, Defendants have failed
to conclusively establish as a matter of law the date from which
the statute of limitations began to run. The Supreme Court
therefore declines to dismiss the complaint on statute of
limitations grounds at this pre-answer stage of the litigation.

However, Defendants have raised issues of fact regarding when the
statute began to run that will be addressed at a later stage if
this litigation proceeds, the Supreme Court holds.

Judge Scarpulla further opines that while it is true that the
Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements, it does not contain claims for fraud or
misrepresentation but instead alleges strict liability and
negligence claims pursuant to Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
1933 Securities Act. Therefore, the heightened pleading standard of
CPLR 3016(b) does not apply.  

Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of
the '33 Act and the Court dismisses the aforementioned claims, the
Supreme Court holds.

The Judge states that because she is dismissing the complaint based
on Plaintiffs' failure to state a claim, she will not address the
other potential ground of dismissal - the lack of personal
jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed in its
entirety, Judge Scarpulla rules.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's September 26, 2019 Decision
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2vry2d9 from
Leagle.com


DESERT STATE: Court Denies Dismissal of Cincinnati Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Judith Herrera of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Mexico issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendant
Cameron Graham's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for
Declaratory Judgment in the case captioned THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE
COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. DESERT STATE LIFE MANAGEMENT, et al.,
Defendants. No. Civ. 18-981 JCH-SCY, (D. N.M.).

Defendant Desert State Life Management, Inc., is a New Mexico
non-profit corporation that provided trustee and representative
payee services to its clients. Paul Donisthorpe was at all relevant
times the Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and Director for Desert
State. Liane Kerr is Donisthorpe's spouse. Helen Bennett is a
former director of Desert State.

State Court Litigation

Dessert State got involved in a state court litigation in 2017 (the
"State Court Litigation").  The Financial Institutions Division
(FID) in May 2017 sued Dessert State and others in a New Mexico
state court on money fraud allegations. Dessert State sole owner
and operator, CEO Donisthorpe was alleged to have transferred more
than $4 million in client funds to his own accounts. Numerous
lawsuits followed by former Desert State clients.  Among them,
Cameron Graham, as the trustee for Andrew Graham filed a class
action suit against Desert State, et al. ("Graham Class Action
Litigation"). The other lawsuits were consolidated and dismissed
without prejudice in July 2018 to permit them to pursue their
claims through the Graham Class Action Litigation.

Insurance and Federal Lawsuit

Previously, in April 2012, CEO Donisthorpe signed a proposal to
obtain a policy of insurance from Plaintiff The Cincinnati
Insurance Company for Desert State, and sought renewals in 2013 and
2016.  Cincinnati issued a Non-Profit Organization Blue Chip Policy
Number BCN-0007591 for insurance ("the Policy") to Desert State
with a policy period from April 17, 2016 to April 17, 2019.  The
continuity date listed in the Policy is April 17, 2012.

In September 2018, Cincinnati notified the FID that it was denying
coverage to Desert State and Donisthorpe for the Graham Class
Action Litigation, as well as to for the other lawsuits that had
been dismissed. The letter also advised that Cincinnati would
defend Desert State for the Graham Class Action Litigation under a
reservation of rights to the withdrawal of the defense upon a
judicial determination that it has no duty to defend or indemnify
Desert State.

In October 2018, Cincinnati filed a declaratory judgment action
(the "Federal Complaint") before the New Mexico District Court
under the Court's diversity jurisdiction seeking a determination
that the Policy does not cover any loss and defense costs incurred
by Desert State and Donisthorpe.

Cincinnati states that it relied on the material false statements,
representations, omissions, and warranties, and that it would not
have issued the Policy had the correct information been disclosed.

Following the filing of the federal complaint, the plaintiffs in
the Graham Class Action Litigation filed an amended complaint.  The
Amended Complaint added four new plaintiff/class representatives
and added Kerr, among other defendants. The current claims in the
Graham Class Action Litigation as relevant to the parties in the
Cincinnati case are for negligence and gross negligence against
Desert State, Donisthorpe, and Bennett (Claim 1); breach of
fiduciary duty against Desert State, Donisthorpe, and Bennett
(Claim 2); conversion against Desert State and Donisthorpe (Claim
3); violations of the New Mexico Uniform Trust Code against Desert
State, Donisthorpe, and Bennett (Claim 4); violations of the New
Mexico Unfair Practices Act against Desert State, Donisthorpe, and
another, (Claim 5); violations of the New Mexico Uniform Voidable
Transactions Act against Desert State, Donisthorpe, Kerr, and
others (Claim 6); and unjust enrichment against Kerr (Claim 10).
Cincinnati is not a party to the Graham Class Action Litigation.
The state court lawsuit does not allege Bennett knew of
Donisthorpe's diversion of funds or that she intentionally
participated in the diversion, but rather that she exercised little
to no oversight of the actions of Donisthorpe or Desert State and
failed in her duties as the director of Desert State.

Subsequently, Defendant Graham filed a motion to dismiss the
declaratory judgment action. Graham offers multiple reasons for why
the Court should dismiss the case. Graham argues the Court should
decline to exercise its discretion to consider the case because it
would not settle the issue of Cincinnati's insurance obligations
and is better left for the state court.

Judge Herrera concludes that amendment to add the newly added class
representatives is the appropriate remedy here. At the time the
Cincinnati case was filed, Cincinnati had joined all injured
parties. Adding the new class representatives addresses the
concerns of the courts in requiring joinder of injured parties in
declaratory actions concerning policy coverage, because the class
representatives, if the class is certified, can fairly and
adequately protect the injured parties' interests and give input to
the Court before it potentially eliminates a source of funds to
compensate the injured persons' interests.  

The declaratory action will settle issues between the parties and
serve a useful purpose in clarifying defense and coverage issues
between them, Judge Herrera opines. To the extent that there are or
there will become necessary parties to this action, they can be
joined to the action to help settle similar issues. The issue here
will not be resolved in the pending state court litigation, the
District Court adds.
  
Accordingly, Judge Herrera denied Graham's Motion to Dismiss
Cincinnati's Complaint for Declaratory Judgment.

Cincinnati is granted leave to amend its Complaint to add the newly
named plaintiffs/class representatives in the Graham Class Action
Litigation as defendants.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y3rctv87 from Leagle.com

The Cincinnati Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Paul M.
Kienzle, III - paul@kienzlelaw.com - Scott & Kienzle, PA & Nancy K.
Tordai - nancytordai@petersnye.com - Peters and Nye LLP, pro hac
vice.

Christopher Moya, in his capacity as Receiver for the receivership
estate of Desert State Life Management, Defendant, represented by
Daniel Ross Rubin , New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department
& Kevin Arthur Graham , NM Regulation & Licensing Department, 33
Gallatin Dr, Dix Hills, NY 11746-7949

Cameron Graham, as trustee for Andrew Graham on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Defendant, represented by David
H. Urias , Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward, PA, Frank
T. Davis, Jr. , Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward, P.A.
& Joseph Goldberg , Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward,
P.A., 20 First Plaza, Albuquerque, NM 87102.


DIALA DELI: Basurto Files FLSA Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diala Deli Gourmet
Corp. The case is styled as Evaristo Espinobarros Basurto, on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Diala Deli
Gourmet Corp. doing business as: Diala Deli, 2009 New LLC doing
business as: Diala Deli, Third Ave Deli Gourmet Corp.
doing business as: Diala Deli, Abraham Kassim and Erick Vargas,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09792 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 23, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Fair
Standards filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

DIALA DELI GOURMET CORP is domestic business corporation located in
Bronx, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
   Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C.
   60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
   New York, NY 10165
   Tel: (212) 317-1200
   Fax: (212) 317-1620
   Email: michael@faillacelaw.com


DIVVYMED LLC: Mujahid Sues Over Nuisance Telemarketing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sana Mujahid, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons
and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Divvymed, LLC d/b/a
Divvydose, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05454-NVW (D. Ariz., Oct.
22, 2019), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
a federal statute enacted in response to widespread public outrage
about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing
practices.

Ms. Mujahid alleges that Divvymed, LLC d/b/a Divvydose made
automated and pre-recorded telemarketing calls to her and other
class members without their prior express written consent. In fact,
Ms. Mujahid and other class member received calls even though their
number was placed on the National Do Not Call Registry to avoid
unwanted telemarketing calls. Ms. Mujahid contends she and class
members never consented to receive these calls. DivvyDose,
nonetheless, engaged in a nationwide telemarketing campaign
designed to sell their products to consumers, says the complaint.

Because this telemarketing campaign placed calls to many thousands
of potential customers en masse, Ms. Mujahid brings this action on
behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons, who
received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of
DivvyDose.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

DivvyMed, LLC d/b/a DivvyDose is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business located in
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nathan Brown, Esq.
     BROWN PATENT LAW
     15100 N 78th Way Suite 203
     Scottsdale, AZ 85260
     Phone: 602-529-3474
     Email: Nathan.Brown@BrownPatentLaw.com


DOORDASH, INC: Nelson Sues over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------
Melissa Nelson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Doordash, Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-05622-RRM-RLM (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2019), alleges that
Defendant failed to provide adequate privacy, security, and
confidentiality safeguards for Plaintiff’s and Class member's
information and documents.

According to media reports and confirmed by Doordash, the Defendant
experienced a data breach incident in May 2019, exposing the
personal and confidential information of at least 4.9 million users
of defendant's services.

Defendant had at least five months to have informed plaintiff and
its users of the data breach but failed to failed to inform
plaintiffs and class members until the last week of September
2019.

Not only customers were impacted, as at least 100,000 drivers --
the backbone of Doordash and its "gig economy" -- had their
driver's license information hacked among other private
information.

Though the Defendant has speculated that passwords were not
breached, it nonetheless urged its users to change all of their
passwords to all online accounts including Doordash and create a
unique password only for DoorDash.

Though defendant has initially claimed that customers who joined
after April 5, 2018 are not victims of this data breach, this has
not been confirmed by third-parties.

Defendant made data security one of its primary selling points in
competing for customers in the highly competitive food and
on-demand delivery industry, through promotion of its data security
technology and numerous disclosures to customers emphasizing to its
privacy and security policies.

According to Natalie Dunlevey, President of National Processing
Solutions, consumers and workers of Doordash will need to be
especially vigilant for future phone and email solicitation and
phishing scams.

The Defendant had or may have been previously vulnerable to data
intrusions which should have resulted in hardening its defenses
against repeated efforts of cyber-criminals.

It is expected that the private information of plaintiff and class
members is for sale on the "dark web" and will be used for
nefarious and mischievous ends, which ultimately will harm
plaintiffs and class members in time, money and reputation, the
lawsuit says.

Doordash, Inc. provides food delivery services via the Doordash app
enabling consumers to obtain home delivery of food, beverages and
other items from restaurants and stores to customers throughout the
United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

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

DUTCH EXPRESS: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN LOPEZ, PETRUS MCFARLANE, JOSEPH NASARIO, CEDRIC OVERTON, AND
LENORA HECTOR, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DUTCH EXPRESS, LLC d/b/a DUTCH
EXPRESS, DUTCH EXPRESS II LLC d/b/a DUTCH EXPRESS, MARCUS HOED,
ARIELLA AZOGUI, and AVIV SISO, Jointly and Severally, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09759 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants violated the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act by:

     (i) failing to pay the minimum wage;
    (ii) failing to pay overtime premium pay;
   (iii) failing to pay for all hours worked;
    (iv) failing to pay spread-of-hours pay;
     (v) failing to reimburse them for all job-related expenses;
    (vi) unlawfully retaining gratuities, and
   (vii) failing to provide proper wage statements.

Plaintiffs Nasario and McFarlane were employed by the Defendants as
walking couriers. Plaintiffs Overton, Lopez and Hector were
employed as delivery drivers.

Throughout their employment, the Plaintiffs have been regularly
required to work more than their scheduled hours, and the
Defendants have not provided the Plaintiffs with any meal breaks,
or any other breaks, says the complaint.  The Plaintiffs also
allege that the Defendants have retained a portion of the
Plaintiffs' tips. Specifically, customers may enter a tip amount
through Amazon's phone or computer application, and the Defendants
have never permitted the Plaintiffs to see how much each of the
customers give them. The Defendants, instead, provide the
Plaintiffs with their tips at the end of each workweek, without a
breakdown of how much each customer provided them.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to pay the
Plaintiffs for all hours that they worked by prohibiting the
Plaintiffs from signing in and out when they have worked beyond
their regularly scheduled hours. The Defendants, instead, have only
paid the Plaintiffs for the hours that they permitted them to clock
in and out-their scheduled hours as opposed to the actual hours
worked. The Defendants have also failed to fully reimburse
Plaintiffs Overton, Lopez and Hector for the cost of driving their
own cars to make deliveries, says the complaint.

The Defendants provide courier services in the Manhattan area,
including for Amazon Prime Now, a same-day food delivery
service.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
     Sara J. Isaacson, Esq.
     LIPSKY LOWE LLP
     420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 180
     New York, NY 10017-1830
     Phone: 212.392.4772
     Fax: 212.444.1030
     Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
            sara@lipskylowe.com


ENLOE MEDICAL: Ort Seeks Overtime Wages for Nurse Assistants
------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL ORT, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER, a California Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19CV02994
(Cal. Super., Oct. 4, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay
minimum wages, failed to pay wages and overtime, failed to provide
meal-period and rest-break, and failed to keep required payroll
records under California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and the other Class members worked for Defendants as
certified nurse assistants in Butte County, and in other nonexempt
positions, throughout California and, and consistently worked at
Defendants' behest without being paid all wages due.

Enloe Medical Center provides expert care for comprehensve medical
services in Chico, California.[BN]

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

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
                  roman@yeremianlaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
          5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (310) 652-2242
          E-mail: whaines@uelg.com

EXCELSIOR COLLEGE: 2 Pro Se Motions Denied in Castellaw Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York issued a Report and
Recommendation denying Maketa Jolly and Mary Elizabeth Williams'
Motions in the case captioned CAROLINE CASTELLAW, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. EXCELSIOR COLLEGE, Defendant. No. 14-CV-1048 (JBW).
(E.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiffs commenced the class action on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, seeking damages and injunctive
relief arising out of plaintiffs' enrollment in defendant Excelsior
College's Associate Degree in Nursing Program (Nursing Program).
The action was settled in 2015, but plaintiffs recently alleged
that defendant was violating the settlement agreement, a dispute
that the parties subsequently resolved.

Currently before the New York District Court, on referral from the
Honorable Jack B. Weinstein, are pro se submissions filed by two
named plaintiffs, Maketa Jolly and Mary Elizabeth Williams, who
were represented by class counsel during the pendency of the case.


In March 2019, Plaintiff Maketa Jolly asked Judge Weinstein to
assist her in connection with the impending suspension of her
nursing license by the Board of Nursing of the State of New Jersey.
Ms. Jolly blames defendant Excelsior College for denying that Ms.
Jolly graduated from the Nursing Program, in retaliation for her
participation in the action.

Another named plaintiff, Mary Elizabeth Williams, has submitted a
document, filed on April 1, 2019, titled "Conditional Acceptance
for the Value/Agreement/Counter Offer to Acceptance of Offer."
Although Ms. Williams' pro se submission is largely
incomprehensible, she attaches a copy of the parties' 2019
Confidential Settlement Agreement and General Release (the "2019
Settlement Agreement"), with each page bearing the following
handwritten notations: "Moot and Frivolous," "Void on Face," and
"See Enclosed Order."

Maketa Jolly

Judge Mann notes that rather than seeking to enforce the terms of
the 2015 Settlement Agreement, Ms. Jolly is endeavoring to impose
new terms that were not agreed to by the parties. She asserts an
entirely new theory of liability and seeks a different kind of
relief from that litigated by the parties and addressed by the 2015
Settlement Agreement. Simply put, Ms. Jolly's allegations are more
than just a continuation or renewal of the dismissed suit and are
not ancillary to this action, the District Court holds.

Judge Mann thus recommends that the relief requested by Ms. Jolly
be denied for lack of ancillary jurisdiction.

Mary Elizabeth Williams

As to Ms. Williams, it does not appear that she is seeking any
particular relief from the Court. The District Court construes her
papers as a rejection of the 2019 Settlement Agreement, rather than
a request for its enforcement. To the extent that her papers could
be construed as a motion, the District Court recommends that the
motion be denied for lack of ancillary jurisdiction.

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

Maketa Jolly 42 Kingston Terrace Aston, PA 19014 Mary Elizabeth
Williams 1008 Fairfield Avenue Grenada, MS 38901

Caroline Castellaw, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated
others, Cheryl Carnes, On behalf of themselves and
similarly-situated others, Kathryn Rose, On behalf of themselves
and similarly-situated others, Amanda Wilson, On behalf of
themselves and similarly-situated others, Helen Sposato, On behalf
of themselves and similarly-situated others, Kacy McDonough, On
behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others, Sherry Taitz,
On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others, Marla Huber,
On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others, Joy Marie
Czapski, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others,
Daniel Quick, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated
others, Charity Richert, On behalf of themselves and
similarly-situated others, Diane Rubens, On behalf of themselves
and similarly-situated others, Karen Blanken, On behalf of
themselves and similarly-situated others, Wanda Pennino, On behalf
of themselves and similarly-situated others, Jillian Phelan, On
behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others, Deborah
McCarver, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others,
Debra Alexander, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated
others, Donald Wells, On behalf of themselves and
similarly-situated others, Celeste Hoban, On behalf of themselves
and similarly-situated others, Simon Rawson, On behalf of
themselves and similarly-situated others, Ileana Marin, On behalf
of themselves and similarly-situated others, Robin Wright, On
behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others, Zavida Bal, On
behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others, Brenda
Bertucci, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others,
Leann Togarepi, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated
others, Rebecca Berner, On behalf of themselves and
similarly-situated others, Christina Frye, On behalf of themselves
and similarly-situated others, Marcia Brown, On behalf of
themselves and similarly-situated others, Aaron Childress, On
behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others, Jenny St.
Aubin, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others,
Rhonda Cain, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others,
Heike Baker, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others,
Stacey Dorr, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others,
Carmen Richard-Gould, On behalf of themselves and
similarly-situated others, Lori Schimschock, On behalf of
themselves and similarly-situated others, Jeffery C. Simpson, On
behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others, Vivian Mbu, On
behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others, Robin Bolton,
On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others, Johnathan
Tudor, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others, Anna
Briones, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others,
Ollette Crowley, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated
others, Vincent Giganti, On behalf of themselves and
similarly-situated others, Nathan Myer, On behalf of themselves and
similarly-situated others, Lily Bataille, On behalf of themselves
and similarly-situated others, Charles Krabbe, On behalf of
themselves and similarly-situated others, Carol Austin, On behalf
of themselves and similarly-situated others, Archie Welch, On
behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others, Barbara V.
Reynolds, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others,
Kathy Kent, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others,
Charlotte Hutter, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated
others, Ernest James Gilmore, On behalf of themselves and
similarly-situated others, Justin Lamp, On behalf of themselves and
similarly-situated others, Tricia Hurt, On behalf of themselves and
similarly-situated others, Julie Nestor, On behalf of themselves
and similarly-situated others, Ann Ogborn, On behalf of themselves
and similarly-situated others, Robbin Cessna, On behalf of
themselves and similarly-situated others, Roger Lockshier, On
behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others, Nadine
Lawes-Burgos, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated
others, Staci McCarty, On behalf of themselves and
similarly-situated others, Lynelle Gombeda, On behalf of themselves
and similarly-situated others, Mary Williams, On behalf of
themselves and similarly-situated others, Ray D. Jones, Jr., On
behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others, Kelsay Irby, On
behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others, Maketa Jolly,
Deborah Hershman, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated
others, Tod Kemble, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated
others, Elizabeth McFadden, On behalf of themselves and
similarly-situated others, William Halcovage, On behalf of
themselves and similarly-situated others, Lacie Norton, On behalf
of themselves and similarly-situated others, Lisa Murk, On behalf
of themselves and similarly-situated others, Nicole Taylor, On
behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others, Sharima
Johnson, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others,
Christi Dawson, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated
others, Christina Craig, On behalf of themselves and
similarly-situated others & Charlotte Davis, On behalf of
themselves and similarly-situated others, Plaintiffs, represented
by Gregory Joseph Allen - greg@gjallenlaw.com - Home Office & John
W. Hermina - law@herminalaw.com - Hermina Law Group.

Regents College, On behalf of themselves and similarly-situated
others, Defendant, represented by Joan M. Gilbride , Kaufman
Borgeest & Ryan, Julie Ann Mickiewicz , Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan
LLP, Laura Baldwin Juffa , Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP & Matthew
Caleb Berger , Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, 99 Park Avenue, 19th
Floor, New York, NY 10016

Excelsior College, Defendant, represented by Joan M. Gilbride ,
Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan, Daniel H. Oliner , Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan
LLP, Laura Baldwin Juffa , Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP & Matthew
Caleb Berger , Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP.


EXCHANGE MIAMI: Verona Seeks to Recover Minimum Wage for Servers
----------------------------------------------------------------
PRICILLA VERONA, SELENA ROMERO, ALISCIA VAZQUEZ, MARIANNA BRANDA,
ISIDORA MADZAREVIC, ASHLEY MORALES, PIERRE PAGE, JORDAN TRTANJ, and
JUSTIN SANTIAGO, the Plaintiffs v. EXCHANGE MIAMI, LLC, SHAKI DOBBS
and ANTHONY DOBBS, the Defendants, Case No. 97072802 (Fla. 11th
Jud'l Cir., Oct. 10, 2019), seeks to recover minimum wage,
liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated are employed by the
Defendants as servers.

Exchange Miami is a stylish nightspot featuring dynamic lighting,
bottle service, hip-hop dance tunes & DJ events.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lawrence J. McGuinness, Esq.
          MG LEGAL GROUP, P.A.
          3126 Center St.
          Coconut Grove, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 448-9557
          Facsimile: (305) 448-9559
          E-mail: ljm@ljmpalaw.com
                  schecluLing_ljmpa@comcast.net


EXODUS RECOVERY: Walker Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA WALKER on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees,
the PLAINTIFF v. EXODUS RECOVERY, INC., a California corporation,
OASIS OUTSOURCING, INC., a Florida Corporation, and DOES 1 to 100,
Inclusive, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 19STCV36526 (Cal. Super., Oct.
11, 2019), seeks civil penalties arising from the Defendants'
violations of the Labor Code based on their failure to:

   * pay overtime wages for overtime work;

   * provide all legally required and legally compliant meal
     breaks;

   * pay wages (at applicable minimum wage, earned rate, or
     overtime rate) for all hours worked; and

   * timely pay wages following separation of employment pursuant
     to the Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 California
     Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and the similarly situated are employed by the
Defendants as non-exempt employees.

Exodus Recovery provides psychiatric and chemical dependency
treatment services to Southern California communities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  jbello@lelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


FEDERAL EXPRESS: Fischer Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTA B. FISCHER, Individually and On Behalf of Other Similarly
Situated Employees, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, FEDEX
GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-04924-JFL
(E.D. Pa., Oct. 22, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection
Law.

Ms. Fischer contends that she and others consistently work in
excess of 40 hours per week but the Defendants did not them for
their overtime hours. She asserts that the Defendants have
justified this behavior by paying her under the guise of a salary
and as a supposed "exempt employee." The Defendants have willfully
and intentionally misclassified Ms. Fischer and other Security
Specialists and Senior Security Specialists as salaried employees
to avoid paying them overtime compensation for all hours they
worked over 40 per week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a Courier in
approximately August 2005. She worked as a Courier until
approximately November 2009, when the Defendants promoted her to
the position of Security Specialist III.

Federal Express Corp. is an international organization operating in
the package delivery industry with its principal office located in
Memphis, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     George E. Swegman, Esq.
     Kelly A. Burgy, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 320-7268
     Email: gswegman@nicholllaw.com
            kburgy@nicholllaw.com

          - and -

     Scott M. Pollins, Esq.
     Tashell J. Jenkins, Esq.
     POLLINS LAW
     303 W. Lancaster Avenue, Ste. 1C
     Wayne, PA 19087
     Phone: (610) 896-9909
     Fax: (610) 896-9910
     Email: scott@pollinslaw.com
            tashell@pollinslaw.com


FELIDIA RESTAURANT: Minimum & OT Pay Sought for Restaurant Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNY RIVAS, EDUARDO MELENDEZ, and RENE NARISSA MUNSON
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. FELIDIA RESTAURANT, INC. (D/B/A FELIDIA), LIDIA
BASTIANICH, TANYA BASTIANICH and SANTIAGO PESANTEZ, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09218 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2019), seeks to recover
minimum wage and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs were employed as a head waiter, bartender, and a
busboy at Defendants' restaurant.  However, they were required to
spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped
duties, including but not limited to washing dishes, polishing
dishes, carrying baskets of dirty dishes from the second floor to
the basement and back again, cleaning the bathrooms, carrying wine
inventory from the 1st floor to the mezzanine and third floor,
bringing chairs and tables to and from different floors, and
bringing down plates from high stock shelves, closing servers'
checks, count money, stocking liquor, beer, and wine, bar backing,
and cleaning the storage closet (non-tipped duties).

The Plaintiffs 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 worked.

Rather, the Defendants 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, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian restaurant,
located at 243 East 58th Street, New York, NY 10022 under the name
"Felidia".[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs 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

FIC RESTAURANTS: Kirby Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
-----------------------------------------------------
BRITTANI KIRBY and KAREEM SULLIVAN, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FIC
RESTAURANTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-01306-FJS-ML
(N.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover from the
Defendant unpaid minimum wages, spread of hours compensation,
uniform maintenance payments, and unpaid tips and gratuities.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as a server and a
lead cook at Friendly's locations.

The Defendant operates a single integrated business, consisting of
over one hundred restaurants known as Friendly's, which are
businesses engaged in the food service, catering and restaurant
industry.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant has a policy and practice
of failing to pay them earned minimum wages for work they performed
on behalf of the Defendant. They add that the Defendant has a
policy and practice of unlawfully retaining their tips.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
     VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
     40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: 212-943-9080

          - and –

     Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
     GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
     7030 E. Genesee Street
     Fayetteville, NY 13066
     Phone: (315) 314-8000


FIORELLA INSURANCE: Turizo Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN TURIZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FIORELLA INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-62486 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 5, 2019),
contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise,
in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone
users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

For example, across a span of less than four weeks, beginning on
May 17, 2019, Defendant called Plaintiff's Cellphone a minimum of
12 times.

The Defendant utilized a combination of hardware and software
systems to place calls to Plaintiff's Cellphone. These systems
utilized by Defendant have the current capacity or present ability
to store telephone numbers and dial stored numbers automatically,
to generate or store random or sequential numbers or to dial
sequentially or randomly at the time the call is made, and to dial
such numbers, en masse, in an automated fashion without human
intervention.

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

Fiorella Insurance is a Contracted General Agency for Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Florida offering individual health insurance,
group health.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiif are:

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

FLAGSTAR BANK: Mariscal Sues Over Illegal Pay-to-Pay Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
ARTHUR MARISCAL and CATHERINE MARISCAL, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB,
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-02023 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 22, 2019),
alleges breach of contract and violations of the Rosenthal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Flagstar customers who make their regular mortgage payments by
phone pay a fee of $15 ("Pay-to-Pay fee"). Of this fee, Flagstar
pays Western Union less than a dollar to process the payment and
pockets the difference as profit, the Plaintiffs say. They contend
that federal and state debt collection laws strictly prohibit these
charges unless expressly agreed to by the borrower, but these
Pay-to-Pay fees are found nowhere in the standard deed of trust.

The Plaintiffs assert that Pay-to-Pay fees are expressly prohibited
by Fannie Mae's servicing guidelines, which prohibit all Fannie Mae
servicers from charging any fee for routine borrower collections.
Even if some fee were allowed, the mortgage uniform covenants allow
Flagstar to pass along to the borrower only the actual cost of fees
incurred--here, less than a dollar per transaction. The Plaintiffs,
therefore, insist that Flagstar must be held accountable for
charging these illegal fees.

The Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of California and have a
mortgage on a home in California that is serviced by Flagstar.

Flagstar Bank is a corporation with a principal place of business
in Troy, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Hank Bates, Esq.
     CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
     519 W. 7th St.
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Phone: (501) 312-8500
     Fax: (501) 312-8505
     Email: hbates@cbplaw.com


FLORIDA ACADEMY: Rohm Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
JAMES ROHM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE FLORIDA ACADEMY OF NURSING, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-62487 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 4, 2019),
contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise,
in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone
users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In an effort to drum-up its business, the Defendant would uniformly
send marketing text messages to thousands of consumers at a time
and provided different types of offers and savings for future
purchases.

The Defendant has sent at least one thousand illegal text messages
over the last four years preceding the lawsuit. Plaintiff was sent
marketing text messages without Plaintiff's express written
consent, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

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

FRED HAAS: Mendoza Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRED HAAS MOTORS, LTD., a Texas corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-04119 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 22, 2019),
accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by making unsolicited prerecorded telemarketing
calls that infringe consumers' privacy rights.

The Defendant knew that it was prohibited by the TCPA from
contacting consumers on their cellular telephones with prerecorded
calls, without their prior express consent. Nevertheless, in a
failed attempt to circumvent the TCPA, the Defendant did just that
by utilizing "ringless" voicemail technology to place calls to the
Plaintiff and members of the Class to promote its products and
services, says the complaint.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant
accountable for its violations of the TCPA, and for violating the
privacy of hundreds or thousands of consumers. The Plaintiff, for
himself and a Class of similarly situated individuals, seeks
injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful conduct.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Texas residing in Harris
County, Texas.

The Defendant is an automotive dealership.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Angelica M. Gentile, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone (305) 479-2299
     Facsimile (786) 623-0915
     Email: agentile@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

            - and -

     Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
     KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
     4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
     Chicago, IL 60630
     Phone: 773.545.9607
     Fax: 773.496.8617
     Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com


FURNITURE DIRECT: Munive Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Candido Tepox Munive, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FURNITURE DIRECT OUTLET INC., and
RAMI ALQURAN, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09576
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 16, 2019) is an action against Defendants to
recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage
and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Although Plaintiff worked approximately 72 or more hours per week
during his employment by Defendants, the Defendants did not pay
Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant
violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and
NYLL. The Defendants also willfully failed to post notices of
minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place
at the location of their employment as required by both the NYLL
and the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at FURNITURE DIRECT OUTLET
INC. from December 2011 until June 2019.

FURNITURE DIRECT OUTLET INC. is a corporation organized under the
laws of New York with a principal executive office at 1047 Lowell
Street, Bronx, New York 10459.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
     Helen F. Dalton & Associated, P.C.
     80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
     Kew Gardens, NY 11415
     Phone: 718-263-9591
     Fax: 718-263-9598


GARRIDO FOOD: Guinea Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ERNESTO VENANCIO GUINEA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. GARRIDO FOOD CORP. d/b/a IDEAL
FOOD BASKET and ANDRES FERREIRA, Jointly and Severally, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-05860 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 16, 2019) is an action
brought to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime premium pay
owed to Plaintiff pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff also brings claims for unpaid
spread-of-hours premiums, and failure to provide proper wage
notices and wage statements pursuant to NYLL and the supporting
regulations.

Plaintiff was not paid minimum wages for all hours worked and was
not paid overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a given
workweek, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Guinea was not paid
overtime premiums of one and one-half times his regular hourly rate
for hours over 40 each workweek. Despite the fact that Guinea
regularly worked shifts in excess of 10 hours throughout the Guinea
Employment Period, Guinea was not paid spread-of-hours premiums for
such days. The Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff overtime
compensation of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate
for hours over 40 each week is a corporate policy of Defendants
which applies to non-management employees throughout the Class
Period, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Ernesto Venancio Guinea was employed by Defendants as a
butcher, porter, cleaner, and grocery employee at their 1086
Brooklyn Avenue location from February 2011 to March 19, 2019.

Defendants have owned and operated at least 33 supermarkets in the
New York City and New Jersey area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
     Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
     PELTON GRAHAM LLC
     111 Broadway, Suite 1503
     New York, NY 10006
     Phone: (212) 385-9700
     Facsimile: (212) 385-0800


GM EXCAVATION: Castillo Files FLSA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GM Excavation and
Construction Corp. The case is styled as Samuel Becerra Castillo
and Javier Cuellar Enamordo, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GM Excavation and
Construction Corp., Mariusz Giza and Gregorio Giza, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-05940-ARR-JO (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 22, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Fair
Standards filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

GM Excavation and Construction Corp. is a premier excavation
contractor who provides a range of construction services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Roman M. Avshalumov, Esq.
   Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C.
   80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
   Kew Gardens, NY 11415
   Tel: (718) 263-9591
   Emil: avshalumovr@yahoo.com


GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Mayer Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
RANDALL MAYER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. GREENLANE HOLDINGS, INC., AARON LOCASIO,
ETHAN RUDIN, ADAM SCHOENFELD, NEIL CLOSNER, RICHARD TANEY, and JEFF
UTTZ, Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-81411-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 16,
2019) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Greenlane common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's April 2019 initial public
offering. Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933.

Greenlane distributes e-cigarettes, vaporizers, and accessories
through its subsidiaries. The Company also distributes premium
products containing hemp-derived cannabidiol ("CBD").

On April 22, 2019, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4
with the SEC, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In
the IPO, the Company sold approximately 6.45 million shares of
common stock at a price of $17.00 per share. The Company received
proceeds of approximately $110 million from the Offering, net of
underwriting discounts and commissions. The proceeds from the IPO
were purportedly to be used for capital improvements to its
warehouses and other facilities, capital expenditures relating to
its information technology systems, working capital, and general
corporate purposes.

However, asserts the complaint, the Registration Statement was
negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements
of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make
the statements made not misleading and was not prepared in
accordance with the rules and regulations governing its
preparation. Specifically, the Registration Statement made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the City of San Francisco had introduced a major initiative to ban
the sale of e-cigarette products across three major cities and
prohibit the manufacture of products at the headquarters of
Greenlane's key partner, JUUL Labs; (ii) if approved, the
initiative would materially and adversely impact the Company's
financial results and prospects; and (iii) as a result, the
Registration Statement was materially false and/or misleading and
failed to state information required to be stated therein.

On June 18, 2019, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
unanimously approved the ban on the sale and distribution of
e-cigarette products within the city. It also endorsed a ban on the
manufacturing of e-cigarette products on city property. On this
news, the Company's stock price fell $2.27 per share, or over 17%,
to close at $11.00 per share on June 19, 2019, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The stock price continued to decline over the
course of the next three trading sessions, dropping $1.68 per
share, or over 15%, to close at $9.32 per share on June 24, 2019.
By the commencement of this action, Greenlane stock was trading as
low as $3.47 per share, a nearly 80% decline from the $17.00 per
share IPO price. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired Greenlane common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the Company's IPO, and was damaged thereby.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
     Nathan Zipperian, Esq.
     SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
     1620 N. Commerce Pkwy., Ste. 320
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
     Phone: (954) 515-0123
     Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
     Email: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com
            nzipperian@sfmslaw.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

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

GUARANTEED RATE: Wilhelm Seeks Minimum & OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------
ERIC WILHELM, on behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated
and aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, vs. GUARANTEED RATE
AFFINITY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, the Defendant,
Case No. 19CV356119 (Cal. Super., Oct 4, 2019), alleges that
Defendant failed to pay overtime wages, and failed to provide meal
periods and permit paid rest periods or compensation under the
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General California Labor Code.

Guaranteed Rate Affinity LLC provides residential mortgage lending
services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly-situated and aggrieved employees, are:

          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          Jeff Geraci, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) R.
          E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com
                  jgeraci@ckslaw.com

               - and -

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd, Suite 130
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 875-2008
          Facsimile: (8 1 8) 722-3974
          E-mail: emil@DavtyanLaw.com

HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES: Katcher Sues Over HDD Assembly Price-fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOANNA KATCHER, JAMES MAREAN, YVONNE PEYCHAL, JONATHAN RIZZO, LARRY
STEELE, SETH SWANSON, ANDREW SYVERSON, AND SHAUN WOLF, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP
PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN)
CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD.,
NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK
SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO, LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD.,
AND TDK CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06655 (N.D. Cal.,
Oct. 16, 2019) is a class action against Defendants for damages,
injunctive relief and other relief pursuant to federal antitrust
laws, state antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection
laws, and the laws of unjust enrichment.

This lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and
their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares
for hard disk drive ("HDD") suspension assemblies. As Assistant
Attorney General of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division
Makan Delrahim described, HDD suspension assemblies are "critical
to the operation and performance of electronic devices, and their
impact on American consumers and business is direct and
substantial. The Defendants manufactured and sold HDD suspension
assemblies throughout and into the United States. As of 2016,
Defendants TDK and NHK, along with their subsidiaries, were the
leading manufacturers of HDD suspension assemblies, with a combined
worldwide market share of approximately 90%.

From approximately May 2008 through at least April 2016, Defendants
and their co-conspirators contracted, combined, or conspired to
fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices of and allocate
market shares for HDD suspension assemblies in the United States.
Since at least 2016, United States and foreign governments have
investigated potential price-fixing of HDD suspension assemblies;
in 2019, Defendant NHK admitted guilt. On July 29, 2019, the DOJ
announced that Defendant NHK agreed to plead guilty and pay a $28.5
million fine for its role in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate
competition by fixing prices of HDD suspension assemblies sold in
the United States and elsewhere. On February 9, 2018, the Japanese
Fair Trade Commission issued a cease and desist order to both
Defendants TDK and NHK and found that they substantially restrained
competition in the HDD suspension assemblies market by agreeing to
maintain sales prices, fining NHK Spring and one of their
subsidiaries ¥1076.16 million yen.

The Defendants and their co-conspirators participated in a
combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition
for HDD suspension assemblies by agreeing to rig bids for, and to
fix, stabilize, and maintain the prices of HDD suspension
assemblies sold in the United States and elsewhere. The combination
and conspiracy engaged in by the Defendants and their
co-conspirators was in unreasonable restraint of interstate and
foreign trade and commerce in violation of the Sherman Antitrust
Act, and state antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection
laws, and the common law of unjust enrichment. As a direct and
proximate result of the anticompetitive and unlawful conduct
alleged herein, Plaintiffs and the Classes paid more during the
Class Period for HDD suspension assemblies than they otherwise
would have paid in a competitive market, and have thereby suffered
antitrust injury to their business or property, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs purchased at least one HDD suspension assembly
indirectly from at least one Defendant.

Headway Technologies, directly and/or through its affiliates,
manufactured, marketed and/or sold HDD suspension assemblies that
were sold and purchased throughout the United States, including in
this District.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
     ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
     2440 W El Camino Real, Suite 100
     Mountain View, CA 94040
     Phone: (650) 784-4040
     Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
     Email: asheanin@robinskaplan.com


HELIX SLEEP: Slade Files Suit under ADA in New York
---------------------------------------------------
Helix Sleep, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Linda
Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Helix Sleep, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09789 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 23, 2019).

Helix Sleep Inc. provides home furnishing products. The Company
offers customized and personalized mattresses. Helix Sleep serves
customers in the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com



HELLO PRODUCTS: Pastellos Sues Over Toothpaste's Misleading Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH PATELLOS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. HELLO PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-09577 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 16, 2019) is a consumer Class Action
against Defendant Hello for false and misleading representations
about its line of toothpastes containing activated charcoal.

Activated charcoal is highly porous and has adsorptive qualities
that can be useful in certain contexts. In recent years, health and
beauty products containing activated charcoal have become a
consumer sensation. Defendant Hello, a company that sells oral care
products, observed this trend and decided to capitalize on growing
consumer interest. Hello developed a line of oral care products
containing activated charcoal. In extensive online and print
marketing, Defendant promotes its line of Charcoal Toothpastes as
safe, "whitening," "de-toxifying," and generally beneficial to oral
health. Multiple claims are printed on the product packaging and
tube labeling for the Charcoal Toothpastes, including: "whitens
naturally," "noticeably whiter teeth," and/or "epic whitening."

Hello's marketing strategy has been very successful, and the
Charcoal Toothpastes have become one of the top sellers in its
product category. However, the message conveyed to consumers--that
the Charcoal Toothpastes are gentle and safe for everyday use and
are effective as a natural "epic" whitener and de-toxifier--is
misleading and deceptive, and lacks a factual basis. For the types
of marketing claims at issue, the Federal Trade Commission requires
that Hello have competent and reliable evidence for its claims, at
the time those claims were made. But in its speed to get the
products to consumers, Hello failed to conduct competent,
independent clinical testing and research on its Charcoal
Toothpastes, or seemingly to review available scientific literature
on the safety and effectiveness of activated charcoal in
toothpastes. Hello did not, and never has, possessed the requisite
clinical or scientific substantiation to support its multiple
assertions on the benefits, safety and efficacy of activated
charcoal for oral hygiene use, note the complaint.

Dental professionals, consumer publications, and some mainstream
media outlets have reported on the questionable effectiveness of
charcoal toothpastes, and even raised serious concerns about the
safety of using activated charcoal for oral hygiene. Hello knew, or
should have known, its claims regarding activated charcoal in
dentifrice and the Charcoal Toothpastes were false, misleading and
deceptive. Plaintiff and members of the potential class have been
deceived by Hello's representations and omissions of material
facts. Plaintiff and members of the potential class reasonably
relied upon Hello's claims and attributed value to Hello's false
promises that the products were safe and gentle for everyday use
and would be effective at teeth whitening as well as 'de-toxifying'
the mouth. In reality the products provide none of those benefits.

The Defendant's claims and advertisements are consumer-oriented and
materially deceptive and misleading, in violation of Sections 349
and 350 of New York General Business Law. Defendant's acts and
omissions also constitute false advertising, unfair competition
and/or unfair, unconscionable, deceptive or unlawful acts or
business practices under the consumer protection and deceptive
trade practices laws of various states. Defendant's conduct also
constitutes a breach of express and implied warranties, as well as
violations of common law, and Defendant was unjustly enriched as a
result, says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased the toothpaste in reliance on the
representations made in Hello's marketing and advertisements.

Defendant is an oral care company engaged in the business of
selling toothpastes, dental floss, mouthwash, and related products
to consumers from its website, www.hello-products.com, and through
the brick-and-mortar and online stores of third-party
retailers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William B. Federman, Esq.
     FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
     10205 North Pennsylvania Ave.
     Oklahoma City, OK 73120
     Phone: (405) 235-1560
     Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
     Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com


HILLSIDE AUTO: Stidhum Sues over Employment Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
LETICIA FRANCINE STIDHUM, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 161-10 HILLSIDE AUTO AVE, LLC d/b/a
Hillside Auto Outlet, and HILLSIDE AUTO MALL INC d/b/a Hillside
Auto Mall, ISHAQUE THANWALLA, JORY BARON, RONALD M BARON, and
ANDRIS GUZMAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05458 (E.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 25, 2019), seeks to remedy claims of employment
discrimination on the basis of sex, pursuant to the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York
City Human Rights Law. Stidhum seeks injunctive and declaratory
relief, compensatory and liquidated damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, and other appropriate relief.

As a result of Defendant's discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has
suffered loss of income and benefits, termination of employment,
loss of opportunity for advancement and promotion, emotional pain
and suffering, mental anguish, embarrassment and humiliation.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff are:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com

INDEPENDENT HOME: Fitzhenry Files Consumer Credit Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Independent Home
Products LLC. The case is styled as Mark Fitzhenry, individually
and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Independent Home Products LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-02993-RMG (D. S.C., Oct. 22, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer
Credit.

Independent Home Products, LLC is a Walk-in Bathtub Installer
provider serving the continental United States of America since
2007.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Andrew Maxfield, Esq.
   David Maxfield Attorney LLC
   PO Box 11865
   Columbia, SC 29211
   Tel: (803) 509-6800
   Fax: (855) 299-1656
   Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Kapoor Appeals Order in Di Donato Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant John N. Kapoor filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Richard Di Donato, et al. v. Insys Therapeutics,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00302-NVW, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

Mr. Kapoor served as a high-level executive at Insys during 2014
through 2016.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 18, 2019, the
District Court granted (i) the Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, and (ii) the Defendants' Motion for Leave to File
Sur-Reply in Further Opposition to Lead Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification.

On June 10, 2019, Defendant Insys commenced a voluntary case under
chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, and the instant
action was automatically stayed with respect to Insys.  The action
is not stayed as to the proceedings against the Defendants other
than Insys.  The Order, therefore, applies only to Defendants
Michael L. Babich, Darryl S. Baker, and John N. Kapoor.  Claims
against Defendant Alec Burlakoff were dismissed.

In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements.  He also alleges that
Insys stock prices declined because of news or announcements to
investors that revealed the company's prior statements to have been
false or misleading.

The Plaintiff sought to certify a class pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) consisting of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Insys common stock
during the period from March 3, 2015, through Jan. 25, 2016, and
were damaged thereby.

The appellate case is captioned as Richard Di Donato, et al. v.
John Kapoor, et al., Case No. 19-80135, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent RICHARD DI DONATO, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Esq.
          William G. Fairbourn, Esq.
          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com
                  gfairbourn@bffb.com
                  afriedman@bffb.com

               - and -

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          GOLDBERG LAW PC
          3700 The Strand
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (800) 977-7401
          E-mail: michael@goldberglawpc.com

Defendant-Petitioner, JOHN N. KAPOOR is represented by:

          Matthew T. Mclaughlin, Esq.
          George J. Skelly, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109-2835
          Telephone: (617) 345-1000
          E-mail: mmclaughlin@nixonpeabody.com
                  gskelly@nixonpeabody.com

               - and -

          Brian T. Kelly, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          100 Summer Street
          Boston, MA 02110-2131
          Telephone: (617) 345-1065
          E-mail: bkelly@nixonpeabody.com

               - and -

          Larry A. Hammond, Esq.
          David B. Rosenbaum, Esq.
          Joseph Nathaniel Roth, Esq.
          OSBORN MALEDON, PA
          2929 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2100
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 640-9361
          E-mail: lhammond@omlaw.com
                  drosenbaum@omlaw.com
                  jroth@omlaw.com


IRONCLAD ENERGY: Munoz Sues Over Supervisors' Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARCUS MUNOZ, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. IRONCLAD ENERGY, LLC, JAMES C. DONNAN and
STEVEN CLOY GANTT, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01251 (W.D. Tex.,
Oct. 22, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and other salaried
pumpdown supervisors lawful overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout
their tenure with the Defendants. On average, the Plaintiff and
other Pumpdown Supervisors worked over 90 hours per week but they
did not receive any overtime compensation because they were
misclassified as exempt and paid a salary, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Pumpdown Supervisor
from January 2019 through July 2019.

Ironclad Energy, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KABBAGE, INC: Bright Kids Sues over 'Rent-A-Bank' Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------
BRIGHT KIDS NYC, INC.; BRIGHT KIDS CHICAGO, INC.; BIGE DORUK; IB
OLSEN, MIKE'S AUTO SERVICE, INC., MICHAEL L. PEDERSON, PIM SALONS,
LLC D/B/A BEAUTIFUL BRANDS; MARCIA VAN CAMP; DBR CONSTRUCTION;
JULIE COX; THE CEDARS OF LEBANON LLC; and THEODORE MONSOUR II,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. KABBAGE, INC., a Delaware corporation; ROBERT
FROHWEIN, individually and, KATHRYN PETRALIA, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09221-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2019),
alleges that Defendants engaged in unscrupulous scheme to evade
state-imposed limits through their illegal "rent-a-bank" scheme.

As a matter of their strong public policy, more than a dozen states
place limits on the amount of interest that can be charged on
business loans.

In order to obtain clients for its loans, Kabbage aggressively
markets, underwrites and services short-term loans to small
businesses in need of quick capital.

These loans often substantially exceed the statutory maximum legal
interest rate in violation of state usury laws.

In an effort to hide -- and ostensibly legalize -- its illegal
activities, Kabbage entered into an illegal "rent-a-bank" scheme
with Celtic Bank, a foreign state chartered bank in Utah (a state
with no maximum interest rate for commercial loans).

The enterprise's purpose is to evade the criminal usury laws of
states throughout the country, including California, Colorado,
Massachusetts and New York.

Under the "rent-a-bank" scheme, Kabbage originates, underwrites,
securitizes and funds the loans, and then enters into sham
transactions with Celtic Bank, which acts as the lender in name
only.

Thus, in economic reality, Kabbage markets, underwrites, prices,
approves, funds, and collects upon 100% of the loans. It also bears
100% risk of loss.

In contrast, Celtic Bank owns the receivables on paper for just
two-days, bears zero risk of loss and literally does not lift a
finger to service the loan.

From the inception of every loan that it originates, Kabbage is
contractually obligated to purchase from Celtic Bank 100% of those
receivables.

Celtic Bank retains no ownership or monetary interest in the
receivables, and therefore, it has absolutely no economic risk of
loss due to a borrower's non-payment or subsequent default.

Put another way, Celtic Bank rents its charter to Kabbage in
exchange for a commission on loans originated and funded by Kabbage
but nominally made under Celtic's name for the purpose of evading
state usury laws.

Kabbage, however, willingly approves and takes on these high-risk
loans because it charges these small businesses usurious interest
rates that are as high as 95% APR.

The result of these high interest rates can be devastating to
struggling small businesses in desperate need of capital. For
example, on a $100,000 loan, the most that can be charged per year
under New York criminal law is $25,000. At a 95% APR, Kabbage would
be charging a struggling small business $58,547. That is double the
amount permitted in Colorado and New York, nearly triple the amount
permitted in Massachusetts, and more than five times the amount
permitted in California, the lawsuit says.

Kabbage is an online digital technology company which provides
funding directly to small businesses and consumers through an
automated lending platform.[BN]

Attorneys for All Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members are:

          Shane R. Heskin, Esq.
          WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
          7 times Square, Suite 2900
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone (212) 244-9500
          E-mail: heskins@whiteandwilliams.com

Attorneys for Bright Kids NYC, Bright Kids Chicago, Bige Doru, and
Ib Olsen, are:

          Dov Medinets, Esq.
          GUTMAN WEISS, P.C.
          2276 Sixty-Fifth Street, 2nd Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11204
          Telephone: 718 259 2100
          Facsimile: 718.259.2105
          E-mail: dmedinets@gwpclaw.com





KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Clark Labor Case Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare Operating, LLC and THC-Orange County, LLC,
removed the case captioned as THADNISHA CLARK, as an individual and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v.
KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING, LLC, a California limited liability
company; THC - ORANGE COUNTY, LLC, a California limited liability
company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
30-2019-01094781-CU-OE-CXC (Filed Sept. 5, 2019), 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. 10,
2019.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:19-cv-01952-DOC-DFM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid minimum wages and liquidated
damages, unpaid overtime, and compensation in lieu for failure to
provide meal periods and rest periods under the California Labor
Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elizabeth Staggs-Wilson, Esq.
          James Payer, Esq.
          Maggy Athanasious, Esq.
          Jyoti Mittal, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213.443.4300
          Facsimile: 213.443.4299
          E-mail: estaggs-wilson@littler.com
                  jpayer@littler.com
                  mathanasious@littler.com
                  jmittal@littler.com


LE TOTE INC: Olsen Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------
Le Tote, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Thomas
J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Le Tote, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-05956 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 23, 2019).

Le Tote is a clothing rental subscription service featuring top
brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




LIFE FOR RELIEF: Kempton Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
Ty Kempton, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Life for Relief and Development Inc., a
California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-13040-NGE-MJH
(D. Ariz., Oct. 16, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint and Demand
for Jury Trial against Defendant to stop Life for Relief from
violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending
unsolicited autodialed text messages to consumers, and to obtain
injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by Life for
Relief's conduct.

Life for Relief uses text message marketing to solicit donations.
In Plaintiff's case, Life for Relief sent approximately eight
unsolicited, unwanted autodialed text messages to his cellular
phone. In response to these text messages, Plaintiff files this
lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, requiring Defendant to cease
sending unwanted text messages to consumers' cellular telephone
numbers using an automatic dialing system without consent, as well
as an award of statutory damages to the members of the Class and
costs.

Plaintiff Kempton is a Gilbert, Arizona resident.

Life for Relief is a California nonprofit corporation headquartered
in Southfield, Michigan. Defendant conducts business throughout
this District, the state of Arizona, and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nathan Brown, Esq.
     Brown Patent Law
     15100 N 78th Way Suite 203
     Scottsdale, AZ 85260
     Phone: 602-529-3474
     Email: Nathan.Brown@BrownPatentLaw.com

          - and -

     Stefan Coleman, Esq.
     Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, P.A.
     201 s. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (877) 333-9427
     Fascimile: (888) 498-8946
     Email: law@StefanColeman.com

          - and -

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


LOWE'S COMPANIES: Jones Files Suit under Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------
Lowe's Companies, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Kahlimah Jones, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Lowe's Companies,
Inc. and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-05937 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 22, 2019).

Lowe's Companies, Inc., doing business as Lowe's, is an American
retail company specializing in home improvement. Headquartered in
Mooresville, North Carolina, the company operates a chain of retail
stores in the United States and Canada. As of November 2018, Lowe's
and its related businesses operate 2,015 home improvement and
hardware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com



MAGNOLIA BOUTIQUE: Conner Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Magnolia Boutique LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Magnolia Boutique LLC,
doing business as: indiefashionboutique.com, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-05944 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 22, 2019).

Magnolia Boutique is a women's boutique in Southaven, MS offering
trendy, carefully selected clothing and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


MARCO BICEGO USA: Kiler Files Suit under ADA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Marco Bicego USA, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Marion Kiler, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Marco Bicego USA, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05957 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 23, 2019).

Marco Bicego USA, Inc. is a Fashion Store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


MDL 2445: Court Certifies Class of DPPs in Suboxone Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The SUBOXONE multi-district ligitation allege anticompetitive
conduct by Defendant Reckitt Benckiser, Inc. in connection with
their Suboxone product, a drug used to combat opioid addiction (IN
RE: SUBOXONE (BUPRENORPHINE HYDROCHLORIDE AND NALAXONE) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2445 (E.D. Pa.)).

The Plaintiffs' claims focus on a relatively new theory of
antitrust liability, referred to as a "product hop," pursuant to
the unique regulatory and statutory scheme that governs the
marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical drugs.  Under this
theory, a pharmaceutical company makes modest reformulations to a
brand-name drug prior to the expiration of its market exclusivity
for the purpose of stymieing generic competition and preserving
monopoly profits.

The Plaintiffs are the Direct Purchasers of Suboxone ("DPPs") and
the End Payors of Suboxone ("EPPs"), who claim that Reckitt
switched from sublingual Suboxone tablets to a sublingual Suboxone
film for the purpose of foreclosing generic competition.  According
to the Plaintiffs, this switch ("product hop") was accompanied by
Reckitt disparaging the tablet through fabricated safety concerns
and ultimately removing Suboxone tablets from the market just as
generic Suboxone tablets were able to begin competing.  Reckitt is
also alleged to have manipulated FDA regulations to delay the entry
of generic Suboxone onto the market, thereby unlawfully maintaining
a monopoly in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.  According
to all the Plaintiffs, Reckitt's conduct foreclosed competition and
resulted in the overpayment for Suboxone.  

Reckitt acknowledges the product switch, but strenuously asserts
that the switch was done to market and sell an improved and
superior product.

Both the DPPs and the EPPs sought class certification.

On review, Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:

  (1) certified the DPP class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3);

  (2) denied certification of the EPP class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2); and

  (3) grant certification of the EPP class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(c)(4).

In their Second Amended Complaint, the Direct Purchasers (DPP)
bring claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act for: (1) unlawful
maintenance of monopoly power through an overarching scheme to
prevent or delay generic competition ("Count I"); (2) unlawful
maintenance of monopoly power by conversion of the market from
tablet to film formulation ("Count II"); (3) unlawful maintenance
of monopoly power by intentionally delaying the SSRS process and
violating 21 U.S.C. Section 355-1(f)(8) ("Count III"); (4) unlawful
maintenance of monopoly power by filing a sham Citizen Petition
("Count IV"); and (5) unlawful maintenance of monopoly power by
fraudulently delaying the filing of the Citizen Petition until the
eve of generic ANDA approval ("Count V").

The End Payors (EPP) assert the following causes of action in their
Second Amended Complaint: (1) monopolization and monopolistic
scheme under state law ("Count I"); (2) attempted monopolization
under state law ("Count II"); (3) unfair and deceptive trade
practices under state law ("Count III"); (4) injunctive and
declaratory relief under section 16 of the Clayton Act for
Reckitt's violations of section 2 of the Sherman Act (Count IV),
and (5) unjust enrichment under state law ("Count V").

The DPPs sought certification of the following class: All persons
or entities in the United States and its territories who purchased
branded Suboxone tablets directly from Reckitt at any time during
the period Jan. 1, 2012 through March 14, 2013.

The EPPs sought certification of two different classes.  First,
they define a nationwide class, seeking injunctive relief under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), consisting of: All
persons or entities in the United States who purchased and/or paid
for some o[r] all of the purchase price for Co-Formulated
Buprenorphine/Naloxone (Suboxone) in any form for consumption by
themselves, their families, or their members, employees, insureds,
articipants, or beneficiaries at any time during the period Jan. 1,
2012 through the date of class certification. Second, they define a
state antitrust/consumer protection issues class under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4), consisting of: All persons or entities
who purchased and/or paid for some o[r] all of the purchase price
for Co-Formulated Buprenorphine/Naloxone (Suboxone) in California,
Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New York,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin in any form for consumption
by themselves, their families, or their members, employees,
insureds, participants, or beneficiaries at any time during the
period Jan. 1, 2012 through the date of class certification.

The DPPs Motion for Class Certification relies, in large part, on
the expert report of Dr. Russell Lamb.  Dr. Lamb opines that the
DPPs can prove -- using evidence common to the class -- that the
direct purchasers of Suboxone Tablets suffered antitrust injury on
a class-wide basis.  Dr. Lamb has also calculated damages the class
incurred as a result of Reckitt's hard switch scheme.  

Upon analysis, Judge Goldberg finds that class certification for
both the DPPs and the EPPs is warranted in part.  As to the DPPs,
he concludes, upon "rigorous scrutiny," that they have sufficiently
established all of the Rule 23(a) factors, as well as predominance
and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3).  Thus, he certifies the Class
in its entirety.  In connection with that decision, the Judge
denied Reckitt's Motion to Exclude the Opinion of Russell Lamb.

As to the EPPs, the Judge finds that they have not proven that
their requested injunctive class would provide appropriate final
relief to the class as a whole.  Therefore, Judge Goldberg declined
to certify their class under Rule 23(b)(2).  He finds, however,
that the EPPs have sufficiently proven, under the myriad of
considerations enumerated by the Third Circuit, that the identified
issues for the Rule 23(c)(4) issues class warrant common resolution
and, thus, certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Memorandum
is available at https://is.gd/Hg4atG from Leagle.com.

In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Nalaxone) Antitrust
Litigation, represented by JAMES R. DUGAN, II, THE DUGAN LAW FIRM.



MINNESOTA: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Murphy ADA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Tenner Murphy, by his guardian Kay Murphy; Marrie
Bottelson; Dionne Swanson; and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Jodi Harpstead, in her capacity as
Commissioner of The Minnesota Department of Human Services,
Defendant, Civil No. 16-2623 (DWF/BRT) (D. Minn.), Judge Donovan W.
Frank of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (i)
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment; and (ii) denied the Defendant's motion
for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs are individuals with disabilities and Medicaid
recipients who receive Home and Community Based Disability Waivers
from the State of Minnesota under the direction of Defendant Jodi
Harpstead, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human
Services ("DHS").  The Plaintiffs reside, or did reside, in
Community Residential Setting ("CRS") facilities, known as
corporate adult foster care ("CFC") -- and wish to access various
individualized housing services available under the Disability
Waivers to pursue more integrated housing options ("IHO").  They
assert that CFC facilities isolate and segregate them from their
communities in violation of federal law.

The Plaintiffs assert the following claims against Commissioner
Jodi Harpstead in her official capacity:

(1) Count I - failure to furnish Medicaid services with reasonable
promptness under 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a(a)(8), enforced under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983;

(2) Count II - violation of the Plaintiffs' Due Process rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Medicaid Act's advance
notice and fair hearing requirements, enforced under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983;

(3) Count III - violation of Title II of the ADA; and

(4) Count IV - violation of Section 504 of the RA.

The Plaintiffs assert their claims on behalf of themselves and a
Class of similarly situated individuals.  They assert that they and
the Class have a common remedy: modifications to the Defendant's
residential service system to provide individuals with choices and
prevent needless segregation of individuals in segregated
residential settings.  They seek access to Waiver services that
will allow them to plan, explore options, and ultimately move out
of their CFC facilities and into the most integrated setting
appropriate to their needs.  The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and
injunctive relief to remedy the Defendants' alleged violations of
the law, attorney fees and costs, and other relief deemed necessary
to protect the rights of the Plaintiffs and the Class.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that: (1)
the Defendant is violating the Medicaid Act by not providing
services with reasonable promptness and violating the Plaintiffs'
Constitutional and Medicaid due process rights; and (2) the
Defendant is violating the ADA and RA by segregating the Plaintiffs
while failing to provide them with individualized ousing services
for which they are eligible.

The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to:
(1) promptly ensure every Disability Waiver recipient living in a
CRS facility receives notice about eligibility for and access to
individualized housing services, including person-centered
planning; (2) specifically provide access and take prompt steps to
make individualized housing services, including person-centered
planning, available to the  Plaintiffs in a reasonable amount of
time; and (3) take such other steps as necessary to enable the
Plaintiffs to receive residential services in the most integrated
setting appropriate to their needs.  Under items (2) and (3), the
Plaintiffs identify in detail the proposed relief they seek to
modify the state's residential service system.

The Defendant contends that of the 45,438 Disability Waiver
recipients in 2018, only 31% lived in CFC facilities, and only 1.3%
of those living in CFC facilities are putative class members.
Accordingly, she argues that she is not overrelying on CFC
facilities, nor do her policies prevent individuals from moving to
their preferred setting. She further contends that her policies and
practices comply with federal law, and to the extent any alleged
harm has occurred, she may not be held liable in her official
capacity.

The Plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment on Count II of
their Amended Complaint and ask the Court to declare that
Defendant's current notice policy for Disability Waiver recipients
violates federal law.  Specifically, they allege that the
Defendant's policy violates their due process rights under both the
Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Medicaid Act's
fair hearing requirements.

As to the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, the Defendant
first argues that she is entitled to summary judgment because
Plaintiffs Tenner Murphy, by his guardian Kay Murphy; Marrie
Bottelson, and Dionne Swanson lack standing to bring their claims,
and because Plaintiffs Murphy and Bottelson's claims are moot.

Accordingly, Judge Frank granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.  The Defendant's
policy violates Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment
and the Medicaid Act's advance notice and fair hearing
requirements, enforced under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  In lieu of
granting an injunction at this time, the Judge encourages the
parties to jointly establish revisions to the Defendant's policy
that are sufficiently clear and mutually agreeable.  

Judge Frank on the other hand denied the Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment.  The Judge finds that disputes over issues of
material fact preclude summary judgment.  Notwithstanding, the
Judge finds that the Plaintiffs continue to have standing, their
claims are not moot, the Defendant may be held liable in her
official capacity, and the Plaintiffs' alleged injury is
sufficiently widespread to justify widespread relief.

Judge Frank is mindful that the parties worked diligently to reach
a settlement agreement prior to its rulings.  He hopes that the
parties may now redouble their efforts, as continued litigation
will do little to serve the interests of either party.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 27, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/YCDU0z from
Leagle.com.

Tenner Murphy, by his guardians Kay and Richard Murphy and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Marrie Bottelson, and on
behalf of others similarly situated & Dionne Swanson, and on
behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Eren
Ernest Sutherland, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid Minnesota Disability
Law
Center, Joseph W. Anthony -- janthony@anthonyostlund.com --
Anthony
Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA, Justin M. Page, Mid-Minnesota Legal
Aid/Disability Law Center, Justin H. Perl -- jperl@mylegalaid.org
--, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, Peter McElligott --
pmcelligott@anthonyostland.com -- Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie
PA, Steven M. Pincus -- spincus@anthonyostlund.com -- Anthony
Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA, Steven C. Schmidt, Mid-Minnesota Legal
Aid Minnesota Disability Law Center & Steven Andrew Smith, Nichols
Kaster, PLLP.

Emily Johnson Piper, in her Capacity as Commissioner of the The
Minnesota Department of Human Services, Defendant, represented by
Aaron Winter -- aaron.winter@ag.state.mn.us -- Minnesota Attorney
General's Office, Brandon L. Boese, Office of the Minnesota
Attorney General, Janine Wetzel Kimble --
janine.kimble@ag.state.mn.us -- Minnesota Office of Attorney
General & Scott H. Ikeda -- scott.ikeda@ag.state.mn.us --
Minnesota
Attorney General's Office.

ARRM, Amicus, represented by Pari McGarraugh --
pmcgarraugh@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson & Byron & Samuel D. Orbovich
-- sorbovich@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson & Byron, PA.


MISSOURI: Robinson May Not Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case HOSEA L. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19CV99 SPM (E.D. Mo.), Judge Henry
Edward Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, Southeastern Division, (i) denied the Plaintiff's
motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal; and (ii) vacated the
portion of the Memorandum and Order entered on June 28, 2019
originally granting the Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis.

Judge Autrey finds that the Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal
but has failed to pay the statutory filing fee.   Consequently, the
Judge will order him to pay the full $505 filing fee.  

Furthermore, Judge Autrey rules that the Plaintiff may not proceed
in forma pauperis on appeal, because he has incurred more than
three "strikes" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g).  The
Plaintiff's assertions that he wishes to bring a class action on
behalf of all "chronically ill, disabled inmates under the equal
protection clause of the 14th Amendment" does not qualify as
imminent danger at the time of the filing of the complaint such
that he should be exempted from the three strikes provision of the
statute, the District Court holds.

The Plaintiff is directed to pay the full $505 fee for filing an
appeal to the Court within 30 days of the Order.  The Plaintiff is
instructed to make his remittance payable to "Clerk, United States
District Court," and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his
prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the
remittance is for the appeal of the instant action.

The Plaintiff will file any future document or pleadings in
connection with his appeal directly with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 1, 2019 Opinion
Memorandum & Order is available at https://is.gd/kzbSxD from
Leagle.com.

Hosea L. Robinson, Plaintiff, pro se.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Brown Appeals S.D. Ohio Decision to 6th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Theresa Brown took an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit titled THERESA BROWN, Individually, and as a representative
of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the
Andrus Wagstaff, PC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and all other
similarly Situated individual Retirement plans v. NATIONWIDE LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., AND ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, PC, Individually
and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Case No.
2:17-cv-00558-EAS-CMV, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio at Columbus.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 7, 2019, the Hon.
Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., issued an Opinion & Order denying the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

Judge Sargus also denied as moot each of the Defendants' Motion to
Strike the Class Allegations from the Second Amended Complaint.

On June 27, 2017, former Named Plaintiff Alana Schmitt commenced
this action on behalf of herself, other participants and
beneficiaries of AW's 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan ("the Plan"), and
the participants and beneficiaries of similarly-situated individual
account plans.  AW is the administrator and fiduciary of Plan,
which is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 ("ERISA").  On September 28, 2018, Theresa Brown moved to
intervene and assume the role of Named Plaintiff.  That same day
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiff seeks: (1) certification of a Plaintiff Class; (2)
certification of a Defendant Class; (3) declaratory judgment; (4)
disgorgement by Nationwide of the excessive fees charged; (5)
attorney's fees and costs; and (6) pre and post-judgment interest.

The Plaintiff seeks certification of:

   * a Plaintiff Class represent by Theresa Brown:

     All participant-directed individual 401(k) account plans
     that, at any time from October 1, 2014 through the date of
     judgment (the "Class Period"), that (1) have total Plan
     assets of less than $10 million; (2) paid Nationwide for
     recordkeeping and other administrative services through the
     Nationwide Retirement Flexible Advantage Retirement Plans
     Program; and (3) paid recordkeeping and administrative
     service fees to Nationwide in excess of $64 per participant.
     Excluded from the Plaintiff Class are employees of
     Plaintiff's law firms; and

   * a Defendant Class represented by Defendant Andrus Wagstaff,
     P.C.:

     All sponsors of participant-directed individual 401(k)
     account plans that, at any time from October 1, 2014 through
     the date of judgment (the "Class Period"), (1) have total
     Plan assets of less than $10 million; (2) entered into
     Program Agreements with Nationwide through the Nationwide
     Retirement Flexible Advantage Retirement Plans Program to
     provide recordkeeping and administrative services for their
     companies' defined contribution retirement plans; and (3)
     paid recordkeeping and administrative service fees to
     Nationwide in excess of $64 per participant.

In his Opinion & Order, Judge Sargus finds that the putative
Defendant Class members do not share a juridical link, and as a
result, the Plaintiff lacks standing to sue each Defendant, and
Rule 23 certification of the putative Defendant Class would be
improper.  The Court also opines that the Plaintiff can only assert
a cause of action against Nationwide and her plan sponsor, AW.
Likewise, each of the 250,000 putative Plaintiff Class members can
only assert causes of action against Nationwide and their
individual plan sponsors.  Hence, Judge Sargus says, the Plaintiff
Class lacks standing to sue AW and all similarly-situated plan
sponsors.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Theresa Brown, Case No.
19-307, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner In re: THERESA BROWN, Individually and as
representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries on
behalf of the Andrus Wagstaff, PC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and
all other similarly situated individual account retirement plans,
is represented by:

          John Allan Smalley, Esq.
          DYER, GAROFALO, MANN & SCHULTZ
          131 N. Ludlow Street
          Suite 1400, Talbott Tower
          Dayton, OH 45402
          Telephone: (937) 223-8888
          Facsimile: (937) 226-9436
          E-mail: jsmalley@dgmslaw.com

               - and -

          Paul R. Wood, Esq.
          FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES
          14426 E. Evans Avenue
          Aurora, CO 80014
          Telephone: (303) 757-3300
          Facsimile: (303) 757-3206
          E-mail: woodp@fdazar.com

Defendants-Respondents NATIONWIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, c/o
Corporation Service Company; NATIONWIDE BANK, c/o W. Sidney Druen
and Corporation Service Company; and NATIONWIDE TRUST COMPANY, FSB,
c/o W. Sidney Druen and Corporation Service Company, are
represented by:

          Michael Hiram Carpenter, Esq.
          CARPENTER, LIPPS & LELAND LLP
          280 N. High Street, Suite 1300
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 365-4100
          E-mail: carpenter@carpenterlipps.com

Defendant-Respondent ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, PC, is represented by:

          Joseph Lyon, Esq.
          THE LYON FIRM
          2021 Auburn Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45219
          Telephone: (513) 281-2333
          E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com


NCC BUSINESS: Elhendi Appeals TCPA Suit Ruling to 9th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Mohamed Elhendi filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Mohamed Elhendi v. NCC Business Services,
Inc., et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-00576-PSG-PJW, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Mohamed Elhendi v. NCC Business
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-80134, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner, MOHAMED ELHENDI, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

Defendant-Respondent, NCC BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., is represented
by:

          Mark Ellis, Esq.
          ELLIS LAW GROUP, LLP
          1425 River Park Drive, Suite 400
          Sacramento, CA 95815
          Telephone: (916) 283-8820
          Facsimile: (916) 283-8821
          E-mail: mellis@ellislawgrp.com


NEW JERSEY: Denial of Defense Request in Inmates Class Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANA CLARK STEVENSON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF LAW
AND PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent-Respondent, Case No. A-1390-17T4
(N.J. Super. App. Div.), the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Appellate Division, affirmed the Attorney General's final decision
denying the County of Salem's request for defense and
indemnification in connection with a class action lawsuit filed
against it by a group of inmates.

On May 17, 2017, four inmates housed in the Salem County Jail filed
a complaint against the County in the New Jersey Superior Court,
Law Division.  The inmates alleged that the County violated their
federal and state civil rights by adopting policies and practices
requiring that they and other similarly-situated inmates be
"classified as suicidal for no apparent reason, made to wear
garments which exposed [their] private parts, and routinely strip
searched" several times a day.  The inmates sought an award of
compensatory damages, and a judgment declaring the County's
policies, practices and customs to be unconstitutional and/or
violations of their rights.

Significantly, the complaint did not name the County Sheriff or any
individual county employees as defendants.  On June 19, 2017, the
County filed an answer to the complaint.

Two months later, the County sent a letter to the Attorney General
and the Commissioner of the State Department of Corrections
demanding that the Attorney General defend and provide
indemnification to the County in the lawsuit.  In support of this
demand, the County relied upon the Tort Claim Act, but failed to
cite a specific section of the Act that supported its request.  It
also referred to the Supreme Court's seminal decision in Wright v.
State, in support of its claim that it was entitled to defense and
indemnification.

On Sept. 21, 2017, the Attorney General rendered a written decision
denying the County's demand.  The Attorney General explained that
in Wright, the Court held that a county prosecutorial employee,
sued for actions taken while acting in his or her law enforcement
or investigatory capacity, could be considered a "State employee"
under the Act and entitled to defense and indemnification provided
by the State.  

In the instant case, however, the Attorney General determined that
the Wright case did not apply because the County's development and
implementation of a strip search policy at the county-operated
correctional facility was an administrative function, rather than a
law enforcement action.

The appeal followed.  On appeal, the County raised the following
contentions:

     i. Point One: The County Sheriff and his uniformed corrections
staff prove to be local agents of the State for law enforcement
purposes respecting the management of a county adult correctional
facility.

     ii. Point Two: A county sheriff's operation of a county jail
is subject to a compulsory and pervasive State government
regulatory framework administered by the Attorney General and the
Department of Corrections.

     iii. Point Three: The vicarious liability rule of the New
Jersey Tort Claims Act authorizes imposition of liability on the
State for unintentional wrongs by its local law enforcement agents,
including county jail corrections staff.

     iv. Point Four: Where the Act permits vicarious liability to
be imposed upon the State of New Jersey for a sheriff's law
enforcement officer's unintentional wrongs, the State owes trial
court defense and indemnity obligations to the sheriff and the
county.

The Appellate Court opines that the decision in the Wright case is
simply inapplicable.  In that case, the court had to decide whether
employees of a county prosecutor's office should be treated as
"State employees" eligible for defense and indemnification in a
case where they were sued as individuals for alleged improper
actions taken during their law enforcement activities.  It
concluded that these county prosecutors held a "hybrid status" due
to their "unique role" in performing a function that has
traditionally been the responsibility of the State and for which
the Attorney General is ultimately answerable.  

In the present case, however, no county employees were parties to
the underlying class action lawsuit, and no employees sought
defense and indemnification from the State.  Therefore, and
contrary to the County's assertions, there is no need to perform a
Wright analysis in the matter, the Appellate Court holds.

Nevertheless, and for purposes of completeness, the Appellate Court
notes that the County Sheriff and his or her office are part of
county government.  Unlike the situation in Wright, where the
county prosecutors shared responsibility with the State for the
enforcement of the State's criminal law, the County Sheriff alone
is charged with the care, custody and control of the county jail or
jails and all persons therein, and will be responsible for the
conduct of any keeper appointed by him to oversee the operation of
those institutions.  These "administrative functions," including
the development and implementation of the challenged search
procedures, are the exclusive responsibility of the County and,
therefore, do not fall under the rule of Wright.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the lower court's ruling
on Salem's indemnification request.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 1, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/vUvWvC from Leagle.com.

Michael M. Mulligan, Salem County Counsel, argued the cause for
appellant County of Salem.

Robert J. McGuire, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for
respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Melissa
H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Robert J.
McGuire, on the brief).


NOBLE ENERGY: Phelps Oil Appeals D. Colo. Ruling to 10th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Phelps Oil and Gas, LLC, filed an appeal from a Court
ruling issued in its lawsuit styled Phelps Oil and Gas LLC v. Noble
Energy Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-CV-02604-REB-SKC, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado - Denver.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Phelps Oil and Gas, LLC, receives royalties from the natural gas
drilling operations of defendant Noble Energy, Inc. on certain
mineral leases.  Defendant DCP buys natural gas from Noble,
processes the gas to make it ready for sale, and then sells the
gas.  Under percentage-of-proceeds agreements (POP agreements)
between Noble and DCP, Noble receives from DCP a percentage of the
proceeds from the sale of the gas subject to the POP agreements.
Some of the gas that is subject to the agreements between Phelps
and Noble goes through the DCP post-wellhead services prior to
sale.

In its complaint, Phelps alleges that DCP has failed to pay to
Noble the proper amounts due to Noble under the POP agreements
between DCP and Noble.  As a result, Phelps alleges, Noble has not
paid Phelps the full amount of royalties due to Phelps under the
contracts between Phelps and Noble. On this basis, Phelps alleges
against DCP a claim for breach of contract, with Phelps claiming to
be a third-party beneficiary of the POP agreements between DCP and
Noble.  Phelps also asserts a claim seeking declaratory judgment
for a determination of rights under the POP agreements between DCP
and Noble.  In the alternative, Phelps alleges a claim for unjust
enrichment against DCP.

The appellate case is captioned as Phelps Oil and Gas LLC v. Noble
Energy Inc., et al., Case No. 19-1376, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff- Appellant PHELPS OIL AND GAS, LLC, on behalf of itself
and a class of similarly situated royalty owners, is represented
by:

          George Barton, Esq.
          Stacy Ann Burrows, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE A. BARTON, P.C.
          7227 Metcalf, Suite 301
          Overland Park, KS 66204
          Telephone: (913) 563-6250

               - and -

          Katherine Merlin, Esq.
          479 Arapahoe Avenue
          Boulder, CO 80302
          Telephone: (720) 965-0854

Defendant-Appellee NOBLE ENERGY INC. is represented by:

          Michael John Gallagher, Esq.
          David C. Holman, Esq.
          Jonathan William Rauchway, Esq.
          DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP
          1550 Seventeenth Street, Suite 500
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 892-7533
          E-mail: mike.gallagher@dgslaw.com
                  david.holman@dgslaw.com
                  jrauchway@dgslaw.com

Defendant-Appellee DCP MIDSTREAM, LP is represented by:

          Daniel Mead McClure, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          1301 McKinney Street, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 651-5151
          E-mail: dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com


PARETEUM CORP: Faces DeMarco Suit Over Collapse of Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN DEMARCO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PARETEUM CORPORATION, ROBERT TURNER, and
EDWARD O'DONNELL, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05949 (E.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 22, 2019), is brought on behalf of persons or entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Pareteum securities
between March 12, 2019, and October 21, 2019, inclusive, and who
were damaged when Pareteum's share price fell.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On March 12, 2019, the Company reported earnings for the quarter
and fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, reporting $14.3 million in
total revenue for the quarter and $32.4 million in total revenue
for the fiscal year. On March 18, 2019, the Company filed a Form
10-K with the SEC, which provided its financial results and
position for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 (the "2018
10-K"). On May 7, 2019, the Company announced earnings for the
first quarter of 2019, reporting $23 million in total revenue. On
May 10, 2019, the Company filed a Form 10-Q with the SEC, which
provided its financial results and position for the quarter ended
March 31, 2019 (the "1Q 2019 10-Q"). On August 6, 2019, the Company
announced earnings for the second quarter of 2019, reporting $34.1
million in total revenue. On August 9, 2019, the Company filed a
Form 10-Q with the SEC, which provided its financial results and
position for the quarter ended June 30, 2019 (the "2Q 2019 10-Q").
The filings were signed by Defendants Turner and O'Donnell.

On October 21, 2019, Pareteum published a press release, announcing
"that the Company will restate its previously issued consolidated
financial statements as of and for the full year ended December 31,
2018, and interim periods ended March 31, 2019 and June 30, 2019."
The press release also advised that investors should no longer rely
upon the Company's previously released financial statements for
those time periods. On this news, Pareteum's stock price collapsed
damaging investors.

The Plaintiff alleges that the statements were materially false
and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business,
operations and prospects, which were known to the Defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Pareteum improperly and inaccurately recognized revenue for
certain customer transactions; (2) Pareteum's financial statements
for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2018, and quarters of
ending March 31, 2019, and June 30, 2019, were false and could not
be relied on; and (3) consequently, Pareteum's public statements
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Pareteum securities during the Class
Period.

Pareteum purports to operate a communications cloud services
platform in Europe and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
            lrosen@rosenlegal.com


PERUGGIA PIZZA: Nunez Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY NUNEZ, on behalf of himself, individually, and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERUGGIA PIZZA CORP. d/b/a
MARIO'S ITALIAN RESTAURANT, and MARIO BRANCHINELLI, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05945 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2019), is
brought to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the supporting New
York State Department of Labor Regulations.

The Defendants failed to pay him at the statutorily required
overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular rates of pay
for hours worked in excess of forty hours in violation of the FLSA
and NYLL, the Plaintiff asserts.  He also discloses that throughout
his employment, he also regularly worked daily shifts that exceeded
ten hours per day from its start to its finish, however, the
Defendants failed to pay him spread of hours compensation of one
additional hour at the applicable minimum wage rate for each
workday that exceeded ten hours.  He adds that the Defendants
failed to pay him any wages for work performed during his last pay
period of employment, thereby, failing to pay him minimum wage and
overtime compensation under the FLSA and NYLL.

Mr. Nunez commenced his employment in the Summer of 2012 as a
kitchen worker, a position that he held until April 2019.

The Defendants serve Italian fare at their restaurant located at
212 Main Street, in East Setauket, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David B. Barnhorn, Esq.
     Peter A. Romero, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
     825 Veterans Highway, Suite B
     Hauppauge, NY 11788
     Phone: (631) 257-5588


PETIT VOUR: Tatum-Rios Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Petit Vour LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Lynette
Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Petit Vour LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-09770 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 23, 2019).

Petit Vour is a luxury cruelty-free and vegan makeup and skincare
subscription box.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


POPSUGAR INC: Tatum-Rios Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Popsugar Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Lynette
Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Popsugar Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-09739-KPF (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 22, 2019).

POPSUGAR Inc. is a global media and technology company including as
a lifestyle media publisher.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRESIDIO, INC: Rice Balks at BC Partners Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------
WALTER RICE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PRESIDIO, INC., ROBERT CAGNAZZI,
PANKAJ S. PATEL, TODD H. SIEGEL, MATTHEW H. NORD, CHRISTOPHER
EDSON, MICHAEL REISS, STEVEN J. LERNER, SALIM HIRJI, and HEATHER
BERGER, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09219 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4,
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 Presidio and BC Partners Advisors L.P.

On August 14, 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 $16.00 in cash for each share of
Presidio stock they own. On September 25, 2019, the Company entered
into an amendment to the Merger Agreement increasing the
consideration to $16.60 in cash for each share of Presidio stock
owned.

On September 10, 2019, in order to convince Presidio shareholders
to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized
the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form PREM14A
Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. The materially incomplete and misleading Proxy violates
both Regulation G and SEC Rule 14a-9 (17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9), each of
which constitutes a violation of Section 14(a) and 20.

While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the Proxy, 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 Proxy materially
incomplete and misleading.

In particular, the Proxy 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 Presidio shareholders vote in favor
of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain
valuation analyses conducted by Presidio financial advisor,
LionTree Advisors 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 Proxy 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, material
information is disclosed to Presidio 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, the
lawsuit says.

Presidio is the premier provider of digital transformation
solutions built on agile secure infrastructure deployed in a
multi-cloud world with business analytics.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

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

PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Cowley Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA COWLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PRUDENTIAL SECURITY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-at-00746 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 16, 2019) is a lawsuit against
Defendant seeking to recover for Defendant's violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938; the applicable California Labor Code
provisions; the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Order; and the Unfair Business Practices Act.

This is a collective and class action complaint against Prudential
to challenge its policies and practices of: (1) failing to pay
non-exempt, hourly security guards for all hours worked; (2)
failing to pay required minimum wages; (3) failing to pay required
overtime wages; (4) failing to authorize, permit, and/or make meal
and rest periods available, and failing to pay premium pay for
these missed breaks; (5) failing to pay all wages after termination
of employment; and (6) failing to provide accurate, itemized wage
statements.

The Defendant fails to compensate Plaintiff and putative Collective
and Class Members for all of the time that they spend working for
Defendant's benefit, including work performed pre-shift,
post-shift, and outside of scheduled hours, all without
compensation. Because of these issues, Defendant does not pay
Plaintiff and putative Collective and Class Members for all hours
worked, including minimum wage and overtime. Ultimately, the daily
time that Defendant requires Plaintiff and putative Collective and
Class Members to work without compensation deprives them of
substantial amounts of pay to which they are entitled under Federal
law and the laws of the states of California, asserts the
complaint.

As Plaintiff and putative Collective and Class Members regularly
work in excess of eight hours per day and forty hours per week, at
least some of this off-the-clock work should be compensated at
overtime rates. However, Defendant fails to pay for any of this
work time, including the required overtime premiums, in violation
of the FLSA and California Labor Code. Plaintiff and other putative
Collective and Class Members regularly work in excess of six hours
per days and are routinely denied timely and compliant meal and
rest periods, and the requisite pay for working through such
breaks. Indeed, as a matter of policy, Defendant requires Plaintiff
and putative Collective and Class Members to work entire shifts
without a duty-free meal or rest break. As a result of the above
violations, Defendant fails to provide Plaintiff and putative
Collective and Class Members with accurate, itemized wage
statements. Defendant has also failed to pay all wages after these
hourly employees, like Plaintiff, voluntarily or involuntarily
terminated their employment with Defendant. The Defendant is also
liable for violation of the Unfair Business Practices Act for the
violations, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a former non-exempt, hourly security guard for
Prudential in California City, California.

Defendant is a security company that provides security services to
clients in California and throughout the United States.[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


PURDUE PHARMA: Al Marino Sues over Sale of Opioid Prescriptions
---------------------------------------------------------------
AL MARINO, INC., individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE
PHARMA INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; INSYS
THERAPEUTICS, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON;
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ACTAVIS PLC; ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; MCKESSON
CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; and AMERISOURCEBERGEN
CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00723 (S.D. W.Va.,
Oct. 4, 2019), seeks redress for Defendants' alleged illegal acts
that have caused Plaintiff's health insurance premiums to increase.


Prescription opioids have devastated communities across the country
and in the State of West Virginia. Since 1999, there have been more
than 183,000 reported opioid-related deaths nationwide -- more than
three times the number of U.S. soldiers who died in the Vietnam
War.

In addition to the tragic loss of life and the heartbreaking impact
on children and loved ones, some estimates state that the opioid
crisis is costing governmental entities and private companies as
much as $500 billion per year.

Defendants manufacture, market, sell, and distribute prescription
opioids, which are powerful, highly addictive narcotic painkillers.
The Manufacturer Defendants have engaged in a cunning and deceptive
marketing scheme to encourage doctors and patients to use opioids
to treat chronic pain. In doing so, the Manufacturer Defendants
falsely minimized the risks of opioids, overstated their benefits,
and generated far more opioid prescriptions than there should have
been.

The opioid epidemic is the direct result of the Manufacturer
Defendants' deliberately crafted, well-funded campaign of
deception. For years, they misrepresented the risks posed by the
opioids they manufacture and sell, misleading susceptible
prescribers and vulnerable patient populations. As families and
communities suffered from the scourge of opioid abuse, the
Manufacturer Defendants earned billions in profits as a direct
result of the harms they imposed.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knew that their
misrepresentations about the risks and benefits of opioids were not
supported by, and sometimes were directly contrary to, the
scientific evidence. Certain opioid manufacturers, including Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Purdue Pharma L.P., have entered
agreements prohibiting them from making misrepresentations
identified in this Complaint in other jurisdictions. Nonetheless,
the Defendants continue to misrepresent the risks and benefits of
long-term opioid use in West Virginia, and they have not corrected
their past misrepresentations.

The Defendants' false and misleading statements deceived doctors
and patients about the risks and benefits of opioids and convinced
them that opioids were not only appropriate, but necessary to treat
chronic pain. The Manufacturer Defendants targeted susceptible
prescribers, like family doctors, and vulnerable patient
populations, like the elderly and veterans. And they tainted the
sources that doctors and patients relied upon for guidance,
including treatment guidelines, medical education programs, medical
conferences and seminars, and scientific articles.

As a result, they successfully transformed the way doctors treat
chronic pain, opening the floodgates of opioid prescriptions and
dependence. Opioids are now the most prescribed class of drugs,
generating billions of dollars in revenue for the Defendants every
year.

In addition, the Defendants could and should have prevented the
brunt of the opioid epidemic, but instead allowed the country to be
flooded with prescription opioids.

Under federal law, distributors are required to secure and monitor
drugs as they travel through commerce, to protect them from theft,
and to reject and report suspicious or unusual orders by downstream
pharmacies, doctors, or patients. But the Distributor Defendants
neglected this duty, turning a blind eye to known or knowable
problems in their own supply chains. By doing so, the Distributor
Defendants created conditions in which vast amounts of opioids
flowed freely from the Defendants to abusers and drug dealers --
with the Distributor Defendants readily fulfilling suspicious
orders from pharmacies and ignoring red flags that would require
further investigation and resolution.

The explosion in opioid prescriptions and use has created a public
health crisis in West Virginia. An oversupply of prescription
opioids has provided a source for illicit use or sale of opioids,
while their widespread use has created a population of addicted and
dependent patients.

When those patients can no longer afford or legitimately obtain
opioids, they often turn to the street to buy prescription opioids
or even heroin. In addition to the societal impact of deaths,
overdoses, and rampant addiction, Defendants' conduct has created
higher demand and thus higher prices for opioids, as well as the
need for expensive medical treatment for a number of covered health
conditions, resulting in increased insurance costs for West
Virginia residents.

Defendants' conduct has fueled skyrocketing opioid addiction and
opioid-related deaths and emergency treatments, and has generated
huge sales of opioids at inflated prices.

The direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' misconduct is
that every West Virginia purchaser of private health insurance paid
higher premiums, co-payments, and deductibles. Insurance companies
have considerable market power and pass onto their insureds the
expected cost of future care -- including opioid-related coverage.
Accordingly, insurance companies factored in the unwarranted and
exorbitant healthcare costs of opioid-related coverage caused by
Defendants and charged that back to insureds in the form of higher
premiums, deductibles, and co-payments.

Ths action seeks to hold Defendants accountable for the economic
harm they have imposed on West Virginia purchasers of private
health insurance, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:

          Mark E. Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW FIRM, PLLC
          222 Capitol Street, Suite 200A
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: 304 345 1122
          Facsimile: 304 414 5692
          E-mail: mark@troylawwv.com

               - and -

          James Young, Esq.
          Juan Martinez, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          76 South Laura Street, Suite 1100
          Jacksonville, FL 32202-5413
          Telephone: 904 398 2722
          E-Mail: jyoung@ForThePeople.com
                  juanmartinez@ForThePeople.com

RAINBOW CLEANERS: Meza Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
IRENE GUTIERREZ MEZA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAINBOW CLEANERS OF NY, INC.
(D/B/A ECOMERIT CLEANERS), SC TRADING SUPPLY INC. (D/B/A ECOMERIT
CLEANERS), CHAE CLEANER SUPPLY INC. (D/B/A ECOMERIT CLEANERS), PAUL
CHUNG, and JOHNNY DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09746
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that she worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime
compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, the Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and
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.

The Plaintiff was employed as a dry cleaner worker at the
laundromat located at 240 Madison Avenue, in New York City.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a dry cleaner, located at
240 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 under the name
"Ecomerit Cleaners."[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


RASH CURTIS: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of McMillion Suit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Rash Curtis & Associates filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Sandra McMillion, et al. v. Rash
Curtis & Associates, Case No. 4:16-cv-03396-YGR, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
McMillion, Jessica Adekoya, and Ignacio Perez bring the class
action against Rash Curtis, alleging that the Defendant called the
Plaintiffs and the class members without consent.  On Sept. 6,
2017, the Court certified four classes with Perez as the class
representative, both for injunctive relief pursuant to Rule
23(b)(2) and damages pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).

The appellate case is captioned as Sandra McMillion, et al. v. Rash
Curtis & Associates, Case No. 19-16964, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 4, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on December 2, 2019;

   -- Appellant Rash Curtis & Associates' opening brief is due on
      January 13, 2020;

   -- Appellees Jessica Adekoya, Sandra McMillion and Ignacio
      Perez's answering brief is due on February 10, 2020; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees SANDRA MCMILLION, JESSICA ADEKOYA and IGNACIO
PEREZ, on Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated,
are represented by:

          Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          E-mail: ykrivoshey@bursor.com
                  ltfisher@bursor.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com

Defendant-Appellant RASH CURTIS & ASSOCIATES is represented by:

          Mark Ellis, Esq.
          ELLIS LAW GROUP, LLP
          1425 River Park Drive, Suite 400
          Sacramento, CA 95815
          Telephone: (916) 283-8820
          E-mail: mellis@ellislawgrp.com


RELIANT CAPITAL: Hayden Files FDCPA Class Action in Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reliant Capital
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Maurice Hayden, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Reliant Capital Solutions, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 4:19-cv-02889 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 23, 2019).

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

Reliant Capital Solutions LLC or RCS is a debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yaakov Saks, Esq.
   RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500 x101
   Fax: (201) 282-6501
   Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com



ROCKSBOX INC: Olsen Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------
Rocksbox, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Thomas
J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Rocksbox, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-05924 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 22, 2019).

Rocksbox is a jewelry membership service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SJM PROPERTIES: Faces Green Class Suit in Minn. 4th Jud'l Dist.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against S.J.M. Properties,
Inc. The case is captioned as Shannon Green, Tonya Rowe, David
Allen, and Urban Homeworks, Inc. on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Steven Meldahl and
S.J.M. Properties, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 27-CV-19-16913
(Minn. 4th Jud'l Dist., Hennepin County, Oct. 9, 2019).[BN]


SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Klingenberg Suit Moved to District of Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Jason Klingenberg, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v.
Smitty's Supply, Inc. and Tractor Supply Company, the Defendants,
Case No. 53-CV-19-884, was removed from the County of Nobles, Fifth
Judicial District, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota on Oct 9, 2019.

The District of Minnesota Court Clerk assigned Case No.
0:19-cv-02684-ECT-ECW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Eric C. Tostrud.

Smitty's Supply, Inc. manufactures and distributes lubricants and
related products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John M. Sandy, Esq.
          SANDY LAW FIRM, P.C.
          304 18th St.
          Spirit Lake, IA 51360
          Telephone: (712) 336-5588
          Facsimile: (712) 336-5589
          E-mail: jmsandy@sandylawpractice.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jacqueline Cook, Esq.
          FRANKE, SCHULTZ & MULLEN, PC
          8900 Ward Parkway
          Kansas City, MO 64114
          Telephone: (816) 421-7100
          E-mail: jcook@fsmlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jessica L. Klander, Esq.
          Michael A Klutho, Esq.
          BASSFORD REMELE
          100 South 5th Street, Suite 1500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 376-1660
          Facsimile: (612) 746-1260
          E-mail: jklander@bassford.com
                  mklutho@bassford.com

               - and -

          Nikki Eckland Cannezzaro, Esq.
          FRANKE, SCHULTZ AND MULLEN
          8900 Ward Parkway
          Kansas City, MO 64114
          Telephone: (816) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 421-7915
          E-mail: ncannezzaro@fsmlawfirm.com


SRC ENERGY: Aguirre Suit Seeks to Enjoin Vote on Sale to PDC
------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN AGUIRRE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff v. SRC ENERGY INC., LYNN A. PETERSON,
RAYMOND E. MCELHANEY, JACK N. AYDIN, DANIEL E. KELLY, PAUL J.
KORUS, JENNIFER S. ZUCKER, and PDC ENERGY, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01934-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 11, 2019), alleges that
the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of the Board of Directors' attempt
to sell the Company to PDC Energy, Inc.

The Defendants have violated the Exchange Act by causing a
materially incomplete and misleading registration statement (S-4)
to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 25, 2019. Specifically, the S-4 contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning the sales process,
financial projections prepared by SRC management, and the financial
analyses conducted by Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Goldman
Sachs & Co. LLC , SRC's financial advisors.

The S-4 recommends that SRC stockholders vote in favor of a
proposed transaction (the Proposed Transaction) whereby SRC is
acquired by PDC. The Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on
August 26, 2019, when SRC and PDC announced that they had entered
into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which SRC
stockholders will receive 0.158 shares of PDC for each share of SRC
common stock that they hold. The deal is valued at approximately
$1.7 billion and is expected to close in the fourth quarter of
2019.

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps
to consummate the Proposed Transaction, including filing an
amendment to the S-4 with the SEC or otherwise causing an amendment
to the S-4 to be disseminated to SRC's stockholders, unless and
until the missing material information is included in any such
amendment or otherwise disseminated to SRC's stockholders. In the
event the Proposed Transaction is consummated without the material
omissions being remedied, the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages
resulting from the Defendants' violations, the lawsuit says.

SRC Energy Inc is a domestic oil and natural gas exploration and
production company. SRC Energy's core area of operations is in the
Denver-Julesburg Basin, which encompasses Colorado, Wyoming,
Kansas, and Nebraska.[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
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
          ROWLEY LAW PLLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 400-1920
          Facsimile: (914) 301-3514


STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Agrees to Overhaul Leave of Absence Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Wang, writing for The Stanford Daily, reports that following
a yearlong legal battle in which a coalition of students accused
Stanford's leave of absence policies of discriminating against
those with mental health disabilities, the University agreed in a
settlement released on Oct. 7 to treat mandatory leaves as a last
resort and provide access to one quarter of on-campus housing for
some students on leave.

"We're very happy about being able to reach the terms that we did
in the settlement," said Caroline Zha '20, co-director of the
Mental Health & Wellness Coalition, which is a plaintiff in the
suit.

A primary allegation in the suit, filed May 17, 2018, was that
Stanford imposed a "blanket policy" of placing students who undergo
a mental health crisis on mandatory leaves of absence, without
considering all potential ways the University could keep them on
campus. Students were forced to immediately withdraw from all
classes and were stripped of their housing.

The new policy, which takes effect Jan. 4, 2020, requires that a
mandatory leave only be pursued if a consultation with a
representative from Stanford's Office of Accessible Education (OAE)
with expertise in mental health disabilities cannot find reasonable
accommodations that would permit the student to remain at Stanford
without taking a leave of absence. These accommodations may pertain
to academics or housing.

"I won my lawsuit against Stanford," plaintiff Harrison Fowler '22
wrote in an Instagram post about the settlement. "I paid no money,
I received no money. Leave of absence policies at Stanford have now
changed for the better."

Furthermore, students with mental health disabilities will be
eligible to petition for one quarter of on-campus housing while
they are on leave. Previously, Stanford extended this housing right
to only students with non-mental health related medical
disabilities and prohibited students on mental health-related leave
from living on campus or participating in University-related
activities.

"The key change from the old policy to the new is that it is now
required to go through every possible reasonable accommodation
before a leave is implemented, which will eliminate the need for
leave in some cases, we anticipate," said Monica Porter, the
attorney representing the plaintiffs in the case.

Also among the suit's complaints was Stanford's disregard for the
recommendation of students' outside mental health providers against
leaves of absence, which happened in the case of a plaintiff
referred to as Rose A. Under the new policy, Stanford will give
"substantial weight to the opinion of the students' treatment
providers" in its assessment of whether a student should be placed
on leave, Porter said.

When a student is ready to return from leave, Stanford's assessment
of the student will be of whether they are able and ready to return
to the University with or without reasonable accommodations--for
example, by giving students the option to return part-time.
Students returning from leaves of absence are also no longer
required to submit personal statements justifying their readiness
to return, a measure some plaintiffs felt required them to take the
blame for something that was out of their control.  

The settlement further stipulates that Stanford must provide
clearer documentation on the OAE website on what accommodations are
available to students--especially those with less visible
disability such as mental health disability--since many are unaware
of the accommodations they are entitled to under federal law. The
accommodations now listed on the OAE include, but are not limited
to, reduced course load, recording missed classes and changing dorm
rooms.

"Above all, the most important impact we hope the policy changes
will have on students is to encourage them to know their rights and
ask for the accommodations that they are legally entitled to," Zha
said. "Experiencing a mental health crisis is scary and often
traumatizing, and the institutional barriers and administrative
hoops that you have to jump over and work through in the aftermath
can be even moreso."

The University will use the rest of fall quarter leading up the new
policy's winter quarter implementation to "develop clear processes,
to engage and train all staff members who will interact with the
new policy, and to provide an opportunity for information sessions
during which interested community members can ask questions about
the new policy and the processes it will prescribe," according to a
statement released by Vice Provost for Student Affairs Susie
Brubaker-Cole.

"Of course, there is always additional work to be done, and we look
forward to continuing to work with student activists and
administrators to continue to strengthen and improve mental health
resources and policies on campus moving forward, in order to ensure
that all students feel safe and supported seeking help at
Stanford," Zha wrote in a statement to The Daily. [GN]


STAT X-RAY: Hussain Seeks to Recover Back Wages, Damages
--------------------------------------------------------
ARBAZ HUSSAIN and VICTORIA MATHIS, and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. STAT X-RAY OF TEXAS INC. and TROY ISSAC, Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-02452-X (N.D. Tex., Oct. 16, 2019) is an action
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated employees to recover back wages, an
equal amount of liquidated/double damages, attorney fees, interest,
and costs.

Plaintiffs work for Defendants as hourly-paid employees. They have
regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek, and Defendants
have not paid them an overtime premium of at least one and one-half
times their regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
There is no overtime exemption or exception under the FLSA that
applies to Plaintiffs' employment as hourly employees of
Defendants, and Defendants' actions in not paying overtime for
hours worked over 40 in a workweek are willful, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as hourly-paid dispatchers since
approximately December 2016 and August 2017.

Defendant Stat X-Ray is in the business of providing mobile x-ray
and ultrasound scanning services at hospitals, nursing homes, and
other facilities located in the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan
area.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Barry S. Hersh, Esq.
     Hersh Law Firm, PC
     3626 N. Hall St., Suite 800
     Dallas, TX 75219-5133
     Phone: (214) 303-1022
     Fax: (214) 550-8170
     Email: barry@hersh-law.com


SUNDT CONSTRUCTION: Wirbick Suit Moved to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CODY WIRBICK, as an
individual and on Behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs v. SUNDT CONSTRUCTION, INC., an Arizona corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. FC5053488
(filed Aug. 29, 2019), was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Solano, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California on Oct. 11, 2019.

The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-at-00729 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the California
Labor Code.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles S. Painter, Esq.
          Graham M. Cridland, Esq.
          Gabriel Ullrich, Esq.
          ERICKSEN ARBUTHNOT
          100 Howe Avenue, Suite 110 South
          Sacramento, CA 95825-8201
          Telephone: (916) 483-5181
          Facsimile: (916) 483-7558
          E-mail: cpainter@ericksenarbuthnot.com
                  gcridland@ericksenarbuthnotcom
                  gijich@ericksenarbuthnot.com


SURESCRIPTS, LLC: Sued over "e-Prescribing" Services Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------------
POWELL PRESCRIPTION CENTER, CORNER PHARMACY, SUMMERS PHARMACY,
LOGAN PRIMARY PHARMACY, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SURESCRIPTS, LLC;
RELAYHEALTH; and ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06627 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 4, 2019), seeks
to restrain anticompetitive conduct by Surescripts and to remedy
the harms of its decade-long anticompetitive scheme pursuant to the
Sherman Act.

The lawsuit alleges that Surescripts possesses monopoly power in
two markets: (1) electronic prescription routing and (2)
eligibility, collectively known as "e-prescribing" services. "
Routing" is the transmission of prescription and
prescription-related information from a prescriber (such as a
physician) to a pharmacy, like Plaintiffs.

Routing information is transmitted from the prescriber's electronic
health record ("EHR") system to the pharmacy's computer database to
effectively deliver the " e-prescription" from physician to
pharmacy on behalf of a patient.

"Eligibility" is the transmission of a patient's formulary and
pharmaceutical benefit information from the patient's health care
plan (usually the patient's health insurer or pharmacy benefit
manager) to a prescriber physician's EHR system.

Despite the explosive growth of routing and eligibility
transactions -- from nearly 70 million routing transactions in 2008
to more than 1.7 billion in 2017 -- Surescripts has maintained at
least a 95% share, by transaction volume, in both the routing and
eligibility markets. As such, pharmacies have no commercially
reasonable alternative to Surescripts for these " e-prescribing"
services. And as a result, Surescripts has been able to charge
pharmacies supracompetitive prices for almost ten years.

Surescripts was able to maintain this dominant market position not
through competition on the merits, but instead through a
multifaceted scheme to exclude competitors.

Surescripts has taken several anticompetitive steps to ensure that
it -- and it alone -- controls routing service and pricing in the
United States. The goal and effect of Surescripts' overarching
scheme was to neutralize actual and nascent competitors before they
could undermine Surescripts' ability to charge monopoly prices in
the e-prescribing industry.

As a result of Surescripts' unlawfully maintained dominance,
pharmacies -- such as Plaintiffs here -- have been forced to pay
considerably more for their routing services than they otherwise
would have paid in the presence of lawful competition.

The details of this scheme were first revealed to public knowledge
through the investigations of the Federal Trade Commission, which
filed a lawsuit against Surescripts in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia on May 3, 2019.

Had Surescripts' 1.9 billion e-prescriptions in 2018 been routed at
competitive prices instead of monopoly prices, Plaintiffs and the
Class would have saved many millions of dollars in that year alone.
And this scheme has been underway for almost a decade, the lawsuit
says.

Surescripts is nation's largest provider of "e-prescribing"
services.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are:

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Justin N. Boley, Esq.
          Tyler J. Story, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe St., Ste. 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  jnb@wexlerwallace.com
                  tjs@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
          Eric D. Barton, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP
          4740 Grand Avenue, Ste. 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 701-1100
          Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
          E-mail: thudson@wcllp.com
                  ebarton@wcllp.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South Sixth Street, Ste. 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
                  mlooby@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Chad McCoy, Esq.
          Jared Smith, Esq.
          MCCOY, HIESTAND & SMITH, PLC
          108 Browns Lane
          Louisville, KY 40207
          Telephone: (502) 233-8385
          Facsimile: (502) 233-8409
          E-mail: chad@mhsattorneys.com
                  jared@mhsattorneys.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. Bogdan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH J. BOGDAN
          5950 E. Lincoln Ave. Ste. 200
          Lisle, IL 60532
          Telephone: (630) 310-1267
          Facsimile: (630) 206-2454
          E-mail: jbogdanlawoffice@gmail.com

TOYOTA MOTOR: Camry Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Toyota
Camry class action lawsuit has survived a motion to dismiss the
complaint that alleges the heating and air conditioning systems
emit bad smells accompanied by toxic mold fumes.

According to the class action lawsuit, Toyota sold millions of
2012-2017 Camry and Camry Hybrid cars while knowing the heating,
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems were defective.

The automaker allegedly knew the systems didn't properly remove
water and humidity, causing the systems to emit horrible odors that
harm the health of car occupants. Camry owners claim mold has been
a huge problem, and people allegedly sometimes refuse to ride in
the cars due to the odors.

According to the lawsuit, Toyota must have known about the air
conditioning odors due to customer complaints, internal testing,
repair and warranty orders and technical service bulletins (TSBs)
issued to dealerships.

One of those bulletins from 1997 said the Camry HVAC system could
create a "musty odor . . . emitted from the air conditioning system
of some vehicles which are usually operated in areas with high
temperature and humidity."

The TSB also said the problem was caused by a "[b]lockage of the
evaporator housing drain pipe, resulting in the build up of
condensate" or "[m]icrobial growth in the evaporator, arising from
dampness in the evaporator housing where the cooling air flow is
dehumidified."

Later TSBs said a "newly designed evaporator sub-assembly [had]
been made available to decrease the potential for HVAC odor" and
that this repair was "covered under the Toyota Comprehensive
Warranty . . . in effect for 36 months or 36,000 miles, whichever
occurs first."

Another bulletin explained the odors as "naturally occurring from
the HVAC system and/or related environmental factors" and dealers
were told there was "no way to eliminate these odors."

The plaintiffs claim Toyota violated racketeering laws by
committing mail and wire fraud, and according to the judge, the
allegations must be taken as true at the dismissal stage.

The judge found the lawsuit sufficiently alleges a scheme by Toyota
to defraud owners based on "'material misrepresentations' or the
'omission or concealment' of material facts from the Plaintiffs and
the putative class members." The judge also ruled the lawsuit
"sufficiently alleges a RICO enterprise," meaning racketeering
claims can move forward.

However, Toyota will have its turn to refute the allegations.

"The Court emphasizes that at the dismissal stage, the Plaintiffs'
allegations are the ones given weight. To be sure, the Toyota
Defendants will have the opportunity to present evidence at summary
judgment or trial in support of their defenses."

The plaintiffs also prevailed with their claims Toyota violated
Texas consumer protection laws and Florida unfair trade practice
laws.

In the end, the judge dismissed about half the claims made by the
plaintiffs, including claims of warranty and fraud violations.

The Toyota Camry class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida - Cardenas, et
al., v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Podhurst Orseck P.A., Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, and Kiesel Law LLP.

CarComplaints.com has complaints from drivers of Toyota Camry
cars:

Toyota Camry - 2012 / 2013 / 2014 / 2015 / 2016 / 2017
Toyota Camry Hybrid - 2012 / 2013 / 2014 / 2015 / 2016 / 2017 [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Stirratt Says IPO Documents Misleading
---------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN STIRRATT, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
DARA KHOSROWSHAHI, NELSON CHAI, GLEN CEREMONY, RONALD SUGAR, URSULA
BURNS, GARRETT CAMP, MATT COHLER, RYAN GRAVES, ARIANNA HUFFINGTON,
TRAVIS KALANICK, WAN LING MARTELLO, H.E. YASIR AL-RUMAYYAN, JOHN
THAIN, DAVID TRUJILLO, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS &
CO. LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED,
BARCLAYS CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC.,
DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC., SMBC
NIKKO SECURITIES AMERICA, INC., MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC, NEEDHAM
& COMPANY, LLC, LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, SIEBERT CISNEROS SHANK &
CO., L.L.C., ACADEMY SECURITIES, INC., BTIG, LLC, CANACCORD GENUITY
LLC, CASTLEOAK SECURITIES, L.P., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, MACQUARIE
CAPITAL (USA) INC., MISCHLER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., OPPENHEIMER &
CO. INC., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., WILLIAM BLAIR &
COMPANY, L.L.C., THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P., AND TPG CAPITAL
BD, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06361-RS (N.D. Cal., Oct. 4,
2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired Uber securities pursuant and/or
traceable to Uber's Registration Statement issued in connection
with Uber's May 10, 2019 initial public stock offering.

In May 2019, the Defendants held the IPO, issuing approximately 180
million shares of common stock to the investing public at $45.00
per share, pursuant to the Registration Statement.

By the commencement of the action, Uber's shares trade
significantly below its IPO price. As a result, investors were
damaged.

The Registration Statement and Prospectus used by Defendants to
effectuate Uber's Offering was false and misleading in that it
misled investors with regard to the Company's ballooning losses,
stagnating growth rate, and cost-cutting measures that undercut its
key growth initiatives, all of which were known to, but concealed
by, Defendants at the time of the Offering.

The Offering Documents claimed that Uber had a number of
significant opportunities to continue to grow its business,
including "increasing Ridesharing and Uber Eats category
penetration in existing markets, expanding Ridesharing and Uber
Eats into new markets, increasing MAPCs and Trips per MAPC,
investing in and expanding our New Mobility products, including
dockless e-bikes and e-scooters, and investing in and expanding
Uber Freight." Defendants also promised to continue to "invest in
consumer and Driver rewards programs across our offerings."

The statements were materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or
incomplete because they failed to disclose, inter alia, that:

     (1) at the time of the Offering, Uber was rapidly increasing
subsidies for customer's rides and meals in a bid for market share,
which caused the Company's sales and marketing expenses to swell;
and

     (2) Defendants were cutting (or planned to cut) costs in key
areas that undermined the Company's central growth opportunities.

Uber purports to be a technology company that primarily facilitates
access to rides and meals on demand. Uber's shares are listed and
traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker "UBER."[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

VENTURE RESORTS: Matoy Seeks OT Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
----------------------------------------------------------
TELISA MICHELLE MATOY, Individually, and on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VENTURE RESORTS, INC., a
Tennessee Corporation, and SMOKY MOUNTAIN RESORT SERVICES, LLC, a
South Carolina Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00410 (E.D. Tenn., Oct. 16, 2019) is a collective action
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, brought against
Defendants on behalf of all current and former hourly-paid
housekeeping employees who worked for Defendants during the past 3
years. Plaintiff and the putative class seek damages for unpaid
"off-the-clock" or "edited-out" overtime wages. Their unpaid
"off-the-clock" wage claims are unified by common theories of FLSA
violations.

According to the complaint, the Defendants had a policy of manually
editing/shaving Plaintiff and putative class members time records
to avoid paying them overtime for all time worked over 40 in a
single work week. The Defendants have maintained a common plan,
policy, and practice of editing/shaving Plaintiff and putative
class members' work time in its timekeeping system to reflect less
time spent working for Defendants. As a result of Defendants' bad
faith and willful failure to pay Plaintiff and putative class
members in compliance with the requirements of the FLSA, Plaintiff
and putative class members have suffered lost wages in terms of
lost and overtime compensation as well as other damages, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was an hourly-paid housekeeping employee of Defendants
and performed job duties at all of Defendants' known resort
properties in east Tennessee.

Defendants own and operate cabin resort properties throughout
Gatlinburg, Pigeon Forge, Wears Valley and Sevierville,
Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VIRGINIA COLLEGE: Asks Court to Strike Class Claims
---------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW CHEATHAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. VIRGINIA COLLEGE, LLC and EDUCATION
CORPORATION OF AMERICA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04481-CC
(N.D. Ga., Oct. 8, 2019), asks the Court to compel individual
arbitration of Plaintiff's claims under the Federal Arbitration
Act, deny class arbitration, and dismiss and/or strike Plaintiff's
class claims and/or deny certification of such claims.

Virginia College and Education Corporation of America submitted an
Answer to the Class Action Complaint filed by Plaintiff Matthew
Cheatham on behalf of himself and those similarly situated.
Defendants noted that the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with
them in which he agreed to both a mandatory arbitration agreement
and a class action waiver provision.

Defendants admit that both Virginia College and ECA operated
colleges in the United States. Defendants admit that the
Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools suspended
Virginia College's accreditation on December 4, 2018, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Christopher N. Armor
          ARMOR LAW, LLC
          160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 200
          Decatur, GA 30030
          E-mail: Chris.armor@amorlaw.com

               - and -

          James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq.
          HURT STOLZ, P.C.
          1551 Jennings Mill Road, Suite 3100-B
          Watkinsville, GA 30677
          E-mail: Jhurt@hurtstolz.com

Attorney for the Defendants are:

          Alexander B. Feinberg, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          1901 Sixth Avenue North
          2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza
          Birmingham, AL 35203-2602
          Telephone: (205) 254-1000
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1999
          E-mail: afeinberg@maynardcooper.com

WALGREEN CO: Bonahoom Suit Asserts BIPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
PETER BONAHOOM, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. WALGREEN, CO., an Illinois
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH12010 (Circuit Ct., Cook
Cty., Ill., Oct. 16, 2019) seeks to stop the capture, collection,
use, and storage of individuals' biometric identifiers and/or
biometric information pursuant to the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act, and to obtain redress for all persons
injured by Defendant's conduct.

The complaint alleges that Defendant captures, uploads, stores, and
disseminates customers' facial geometry and related biometric
information without complying with BIPA. The Defendant uses such
technology to capture, collect, and otherwise use biometrics,
including face scans and facial geometry. The Defendant has
installed such technology in its stores across the country, which,
in turn, uses the technology on customers, such as Plaintiff,
without their consent and in violation of BIPA. The Defendant's
system works by extracting biometric information from its customers
facial geometry and subsequently using and transferring such
information to third party vendors, where such information is then
utilized to serve ads to customers based on the biometrics. The
Defendant implemented this biometric face scanning regime and began
collecting the facial geometry of its customers without first
obtaining their informed written consent or providing them with the
necessary disclosures as required by law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Peter Bonahoom has been a resident and citizen of the
state of Illinois.

Defendant is one of the nation's largest pharmacy store
chains.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William P.N. Kingston, Esq.
     Jad Sheikali, Esq.
     MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
     55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
     Chicago, IL 6060l
     Phone: (312) 893-7002
     Fax: (312) 275-7895
     Email: wkingston@mcgpc.com
            jsheikali@mcgpc.com


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Twardosky Suit Moved to Middle Dist. of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc. of Florida and Waste Management Inc. removed
the case captioned as JOSH TWARDOSKY, on behalf of himself and all
similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. WASTE MANAGEMENT,
INC. OF FLORIDA and WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 8:19-cv-02467 (Filed Aug. 26, 2019), from the Circuit Court of
the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Hernando County, Florida, to
the United State District for the Court for the Middle District of
Florida on Oct. 4, 2019. The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-02467 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit purports to arise out of the background check forms
Defendants allegedly provided to Plaintiff and putative class
members. The amended complaint purports to raise claims under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970.[BN]

Counsel for the Defendants are:

          Nancy A. Johnson, Esq.
          William J. Simmons, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          111 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1750
          Orlando, FL 32801-2366
          Telephone: (407) 393-2900
          Facsimile: (407) 393-2929
          Telephone: 267 402 3047
          E-mail: najohnson@littler.com
                  wsimmons@littler.com

WAYFAIR LLC: Jones Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------
Wayfair LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Kahlimah
Jones, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Wayfair LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-05933 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 22, 2019).

Wayfair is an online retail business that sells over 5,000 brands
of home furnishings and decor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com

WEGMANS FOOD: Vanilla-Flavored Ice Cream Deceptive, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quincy Steele and Jimmy Arriola, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Wegmans Food
Markets, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09227 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 4, 2019), alleges that Defendant failed to accurately indicate
that the Products contained flavor from non-vanilla sources on the
front label, because it knows consumers prefer food that are
flavored from food ingredients instead of added flavor ingredients
and contain enough of the characterizing food ingredients to flavor
the Products.

The Products are available to consumers from the Defendant's
approximately 90 stores in states from Virginia to Massachusetts,
and directly from the Defendant's website.

The Products are sold in containers of 1.5 quarts and 1.0 pints
cartons and represented as containing vanilla ice cream on the
labels, in point-of-sale marketing, store display ads and print
circulars and promotions, websites, television and/or radio ads.

The Products include approximately 80 flavors across distinct
Product Lines -- Regular, Premium and Organic. Within the Regular
Product Line, the Defendant sells standard 10% milkfat ice cream
and versions of ice cream modified by express nutrient content
claims.

The Regular and Premium Products are not flavored only by vanilla
but contain flavors derived from non-vanilla sources, which is
misleading to consumers, the lawsuit says.

No fewer than 22, or 27.5%, of the Products purport to contain
types of vanilla ice cream.

The Defendant's intent was to secure economic advantage in the
marketplace against competitors by appealing to consumers who value
products with sufficient amounts of the characterizing ingredients.
The  Plaintiff and class members observed and relied on the
Defendant's claims, causing them to pay more than they would have,
entitling them to damages.

Wegmans Food Markets manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells ice cream products purporting to contain vanilla ice cream
under the Wegmans brand.[BN]

Attorneys fot the Plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

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

WYNDHAM DESTINATIONS: Motorworks Files TCPA Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wyndham Destinations,
Inc. The case is styled as Diamond Motorworks, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons and
entities, Plaintiff v. Wyndham Destinations, Inc, RCI, LLC and John
Doe Defendants, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06950 (N.D. Ill., Oct.
22, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as  Restrictions
of Use of Telephone Equipment filed pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Wyndham Destinations, Inc is an American timeshare company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


YOGA CLUB: Conner Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------
Yoga Club, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Mary
Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Yoga Club, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-05932 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 22, 2019).

YogaClub is a women's subscription service exclusively for designer
yoga apparel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***