CAR_Public/191029.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, October 29, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 216

                            Headlines

1ST CONSTITUTION: Faces Parshall Securities Class Action
ABB INC: N.C. District Court Dismisses Kimbriel PII Lawsuit
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: ESI Stipulation in Hamano Securities Suit OK'd
AK TUBE: Calderas Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ALLERGAN INC: K.P. Sues over Defective BIOCELL Implant Products

ALLERGAN INC: Rikmus Sues Over Faulty BIOCELL Textured Implants
AMERICAN CONSUMER: Davidson Sues Over Illegal Termination
AMERICAN EAGLE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Aparicio Suit Claims
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid to Dismiss Anti-Steering Rules Suit Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Marcus Corp. Suit

AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
ANDA, INC.: Khan Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
ANTHEM BLUE: Bailey Appeals ERISA Suit Ruling to 9th Circuit
ANTHEM INC: Nixon Sues Under ERISA for Denial of MISIJF Surgery
APPLE INC: Judge Tosses iPhone Notch Design Class Action

AUTO MAX: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dutra Suit Alleges
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Price Class Suit Closed
BANK OF HAWAII: Tentative Deal Reached in Overdraft Fees Suit
BEACON SALES: Remand of Andrade Labor Suit to State Court Denied
BITGRAIL: Fraud Class Action Filed Against Promoters in Calif.

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
CANNABIS & GLASS: Wash. District Court Dismisses Frank TCPA Suit
CARAVAN FACILITIES: Howard Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CARIBBEAN LAWN: Mosley Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CENTENE CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Sanchez Class Suit

CENTENE CORPORATION: Faces Perez Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
CENTRAL FLORIDA: Fredrick Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CHANDLER MACLEOD: Coal Mine Casuals' Class Action Still on Track
CHANDLER MACLEOD: Ruling to Impact Employment Class Actions
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Shore Appeals Ruling to 4th Cir.

CHART INDUSTRIES: Calif. Suit Over Cryo Tank Failure Ongoing
CHART INDUSTRIES: Ontario Suit Over Cryo Storage Tank Ongoing
CHEMOURS CO: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
CHICAGO, IL: Bid for Summary Judgment in Barlett Labor Suit Granted
COACHELLA VALLEY: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Water Charges

CONDE NAST: Sued in Calif. Over Automatic Subscription Renewal
CONSUELO PRODUCE: Iglesias Sues over OT Wages for Delivery Drivers
CROSSMARK INC: Faces Salazar Wage and Hour Suit in California
CSX CORP: Denial of Class Cert. in Fuel Surcharge Suit Affirmed
DAIMLER TRUCKS: Davidson Suit Asserts FLSA and WARN Act Breach

DEL TACO: Discovery Ongoing in Former Calif. Employee's Suit
DOW CHEMICAL CO: Faces Suit over Mislabeled Herbicide Product
DROPBOX, INC: IPO Documents Misleading, Deinnocentis Claims
EARTHCARE MANAGEMENT: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
ELGIN MENTAL: Padilla Appeals Decision in Nadzhafaliyev Suit

EPIC GAMES: Krohm Dismissed w/o Prejudice for Lack of Jurisdiction
FEDEX GROUND: Hall Suit Removed to C.D. California
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Settlement Reached in Direct Customers Suit
FIBROCELL SCIENCE: Faces Franchi Suit Over Sale to Castle Creek
GD TRANSPORT: McKimm Seeks Minimum Wages for Truck Drivers

GENERAL MOTORS: Palopoli Case Now Under Judges Wilson and Wilner
GIGAMON INC: Golub Appeals Decision in Carpenter Securities Suit
GLADIATOR ENERGY: Munoz Seeks Overtime Pay for Pump Operators
GLOBAL RESORTS: Underpays Housekeepers, Andreus Suit Alleges
GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Settles Homestead Class Action for $17.5MM

GOOGLE LLC: Azzano et al. Sue over Biometric Data Collection
GREENLAND ACQUISITION: Stipulation of Dismissal in Wheby Approved
HAIRO'S PLACE: Gonzalez Hits Unpaid Minimum Wages
HASBRO INC: Lead Plaintiff Drops Suit over Toys 'R' Us Disclosures
HEALTH PROVIDERS CHOICE: Underpays Health Care Staff, Askar Says

HEALTH RECOVERY: Foster Sues over Data Breach
HEARTHSIDE FOOD: Owens Seeks Overtime Pay for Machine Operators
HONEYWELL INT'L: Bendix-Related Asbestos Class Suits Ongoing
HUMANA INSURANCE: Hindman Sues Over Deceptive Business Practice
J-J CAULKING & WATERPROOFING: Fails to Pay OT, Suit Claims

JS ELITE PAINTING: Mejia Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
KINDER MORGAN: Settlement in Wisconsin Class Suit Wins Court OK
LA NUEVA SABROSURA: Underpays Delivery Persons, Aquino Alleges
LANDS' END: Delta Airlines' Employees Sue Over Uniforms
LEBANON COUNTY, PA: ACLU Files Suit Over Medical Marijuana Ban

LEE ENTERPRISES: Affirmative Defenses in Goldsmith Partly Struck
LIBERTY MUTUAL: District Court Narrows Johansen TCPA Claims
LOPINA ENTERPRISES: Han Sues over Excessive Rental Fees
LOUISIANA FARM: 3rd Cir. Upholds Certification of Gautreax Class
MACADO'S INC: Servers Granted Conditional Class Certification

MAPLEBEAR INC: Misclassifies Shoppers, O'Shea FLSA Suit Alleges
MAPLEBEAR, INC: Underpays Personal Shoppers, Jordan Claims
MARKETPLACE UNCTION: Delivery Drivers Seek Expense Reimbursements
MARTIN SPORTS: Glynn ERISA Suit Seeks Contributions Under CBA
MCDONALD'S CORP: Not An Employer in Haynes Suit, 9th Cir. Upholds

MCDONALD'S: 9th Cir Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling in Workers Suit
MELALUECA, INC: Faces Wainwright Suit in California State Court
MERCEDES-BENZ: Ct. Narrows Claims in Defective Transmission Case
MICHIGAN: ACLU Refiles Juvenile Lifers' Resentencing Class Action
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Manning Class Suit

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: NY Consolidated Class Suit Dismissed
MIDLAND FUNDING: Can't Compel Arbitration in Hejamadi FDCPA Suit
MINDBODY INC: Del. Chancery Court Consolidates 3 Stockholders Suits
POLARIS INC: Consolidated Economic Loss-Related Class Suit Ongoing
POLARIS INC: Guzman and Albright Class Action Ongoing

POLARIS INC: Johannessohn et. al. Class Suit Ongoing
PPG INDUSTRIES: Settlement in Mild Suit Wins Final Approval
PROPAK LOGISTICS: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California
ROCKWELL COLLINS: Dvorak Suit Removed to S.D. California
ROUGE VALLEY: Dickinson Wright Attorney Discusses Court Ruling

RUDEEN MANAGEMENT: App. Court Upheld Dismissal of Silver Suit
RUST-OLEUM CORP: Concealed True Efficacy of Restore Products
SMILEDIRECT: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over IPO
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Faces Ginsberg Suit Over IPO-Related Claims
SMILEDIRECTCLUB: Sued for Practicing Unlicensed Dentistry

SMILES INCLUSIVE: Holding Redlich to Lead IPO Class Action
STATE FARM: Sued by Santoro for Charging Customers $3 Service Fee
STEVENS TRANSPORT: Parr Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
TARGET CORP: Faces Monroe Employee Suit in California Super. Ct.
TIGER BRANDS: Listeriosis Outbreak Class Action May Face Delay

TSR INC: Paskowitz Class Suit Ongoing Despite Settlement Agreement
UNION PACIFIC: Rail Shippers' Antitrust Suits Ongoing
UNITED STATES: ACLU Sues Over Immigrant Family Separations
UNITED STATES: TSA Sued for Refusing to Grant $85 Credit
USAPD LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Ahmed Suit Claims

VALVOLINE INC: Allen Sues Over Race Discrimination Against Blacks
VISALUS INC: Harris Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
VISALUS INC: Settlement in Kerrigan RICO Suit Gets Final Approval
VIVINT INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Betit Suit Claims
VSP RETAIL DEVELOPMENT: Vo Sues over Biometric Data Collection

WEGMANS: Faces Class Action Over Vanilla Ice Cream Product Label
WESTGATE RESORTS: Faces Bermudez Suit over Background Checks
WYETH INC: Objection on Denial to Reopen Discovery Overruled
Z57, INC: Lopez Seeks Overtime Wages
[*] FeganScott Expands Class-Action Litigation Practice in D.C.


                            *********

1ST CONSTITUTION: Faces Parshall Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
1st Constitution Bancorp said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on October 15, 2019, that
the company has been named as a defendant in a purported securities
class action lawsuit entitled, Parshall v. Shore Community Bank,
Docket No. C164-19.

On August 30, 2019, 1st Constitution Bancorp ("1st Constitution")
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a definitive
proxy statement-prospectus with respect to the special meeting of
shareholders of Shore Community Bank, a New Jersey-chartered bank
("Shore"), scheduled to be held on October 18, 2019. Shore
shareholders will be asked at the special meeting to vote on a
proposal to approve the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among
1st Constitution, 1st Constitution Bank, a New Jersey-chartered
bank and wholly owned subsidiary of 1st Constitution, and Shore,
dated as of June 23, 2019 (the "merger agreement"), among other
proposals. Pursuant to the merger agreement, Shore will merge with
and into 1st Constitution Bank with 1st Constitution Bank as the
surviving entity (the "merger"), at the effective time of the
merger.

A purported securities class action lawsuit has been filed against
1st Constitution, 1st Constitution Bank, Shore and each of the
members of the Board of Directors of Shore in the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Ocean County, Chancery Division. Captioned Parshall v.
Shore Community Bank, Docket No. C164-19 (N.J. Super. Ct.), the
complaint was filed on September 9, 2019 (the "Complaint"),
purports to have been brought on behalf of all public shareholders
of Shore, and seeks to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with
the shareholder vote on the merger agreement at the special meeting
or consummating the proposed merger unless and until 1st
Constitution and Shore disclose allegedly omitted information, in
addition to paying damages allegedly suffered by the plaintiffs as
a result of the asserted omissions, as well as attorneys' fees and
expenses.

1st Constitution and Shore believe that all allegations in the
Complaint are without merit, and further believe that no
supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws; however,
1st Constitution and Shore wish to make certain supplemental
disclosures related to the merger solely for the purpose of mooting
the allegations contained in the Complaint and avoiding the expense
and burden of litigation. Nothing in the supplemental disclosures
shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality
under applicable law of any of the supplemental disclosures.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/2P5zeYf.

1st Constitution Bancorp operates as a financial services holding
company. The Bank provides a wide range of business and consumer
financial services, such as checking and savings, personal and
business loans, e-banking, trade finance, and e-banking. 1st
Constitution Bancorp serves customers in the State of New Jersey.


ABB INC: N.C. District Court Dismisses Kimbriel PII Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Western Division, dismissed the case
RICKEY KIMBRIEL and PAULA KIMBRIEL, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ABB, INC., and BALDOR
ELECTRIC COMPANY n/k/a ABB MOTORS AND MECHANICAL, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 5:19-CV-215-BO (E.D. N.C.).

Kimbriel has been a machine operator at Defendant Baldor since
2015.  Baldor is a subsidiary of Defendant ABB, an industrial
technology company incorporated in Delaware with its principal
place of business in Cary, North Carolina.  Rickey and his wife,
Paula Kimbriel, have participated in ABB's health benefits plan
since Rickey joined the company.  When joining the Plan, Ricky and
Paula provided sensitive personal data, including full legal names,
addresses, birth dates, and social security numbers, which were
stored in the Plan's database along with other information such as
their plan member ID, and were accessible through certain ABB
employee email accounts.  ABB also had Rickey's checking account
information for purposes of direct deposit.

On Aug. 25, 2017, certain ABB employees' emails were hacked through
a phishing scheme, resulting in the compromise of personally
identifiable information ("PII") associated with the Plan.  On
Sept. 7, 2017, ABB sent out a formal notice informing affected
employees of the hack, stating that Rickey and his dependent's
sensitive PII associated with the plan, specifically names,
addresses, plan member IDs, birth dates, and social security
numbers, may have been exposed.  ABB represented it would pay for
identity monitoring services and encouraged affected employees to
take additional cautionary steps, including placing a fraud alert
with the Federal Trade Commission and a security freeze on their
credit files.  The PII of the Plan's 17,996 participants was
compromised by the breach.

In response to the security breach, Rickey Kimbriel stopped making
401(k) contributions, resulting in additional taxes that would have
otherwise been deferred.  On Feb. 13, 2019, a credit-monitoring
service notified Paula Kimbriel of five unauthorized credit
inquiries with banking institutions in four different states.

Plaintiffs Rickey and Paula Kimbriel commenced the putative class
action on behalf of all the nearly 18,000 victims of the ABB
security breach.  They asserted seven claims for relief.  They
allege that the Defendants' data security practices and disclosures
to employees after the breach violated the North Carolina Unfair &
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  Plaintiffs allege the Defendants
breached a fiduciary duty by not properly safeguarding the
information.  They further allege additional claims under
negligence, negligence per se, bailment, breach of contract, and
breach of implied contract.

The Defendants moved to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' causes of
action under both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  They argue the Plaintiffs lack standing
under Article III to bring this action because they have not
alleged injury-in-fact.  They also argue that, even if the
Plaintiffs do have standing to pursue their claims, they fail to
state a claim on which relief can be granted.

Judge Boyle holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to show an
injury-in-fact.  They have not alleged that they suffered a
concrete injury, at least not one that was not a self-imposed harm
in response to the speculative threat.  Furthermore, while the
Plaintiffs' speculation about future harms resulting from the data
breach is understandable, even objectively reasonable, the
complaint simply does not allege enough facts to conclude that
these harms are certainly impending.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs'
complaint must be dismissed for lack of Article III jurisdiction.

With the consent of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs moved to exceed
the page limits set by Local Civil Rule 7.2.  The Judge has
dismissed the case on standing grounds and is not in need of
additional briefing on the merits of the Plaintiffs' causes of
action.  To the extent the additional pages would address the
standing issue, he is not convinced it would benefit from
additional briefing.  Therefore, he denied the Plaintiffs' motion
to exceed the page limit.

For these reasons, Judge Boyle granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and dismissed the
Plaintiffs' complaint.  The Judge also dismissed the Plaintiffs'
consent motion.  The Clerk is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 1, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/7w2aAM from Leagle.com.

Rickey Kimbriel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated & Paula Kimbriel, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joe P. Leniski --
joeyl@bsjfirm.com -- Branstetter, Stranch and Jennings, PLLC &
Narendra K. Ghosh -- nghosh@pathlaw.com -- Patterson Harkavy LLP.

ABB, Inc. & Baldor Electric Company, unknown ABB Motors and
Mechanical Inc., Defendants, represented by Curtis J. Shipley --
curtis.shipley@elliswinters.com -- Ellis & Winters LLP, Jeffrey M.
Young, ABB Inc. Legal Department, Kelly Margolis Dagger --
kelly.dagger@elliswinters.com -- Ellis & Winters, LLP, Lenor
Cathleen Marquis Segal, Ellis & Winters LLP & Scottie Forbes Lee --
scottie.lee@elliswinters.com -- Ellis & Winters LLP.


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: ESI Stipulation in Hamano Securities Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHASE HAMANO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03788-SVW-AFMx (C.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon of the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California has entered the Parties'
Stipulated Order Regarding the Production of Electronically Stored
Information (ESI).

Consistent with the Parties' obligations under Rule 26(f) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Parties will meet and confer
regarding the scope of preservation, including custodians, data
sources, date ranges, and categories of information that have been
or should be preserved in connection with this litigation.  They
will disclose categories or sources of responsive information that
they have reason to believe have not been preserved or should not
be preserved and will explain with specificity the reasons to
support such a belief.

The Parties will produce ESI in single-page, black and white, TIFF
Group IV, 300 DPI TIFF images with the exception of spreadsheet
files, presentation files, and audio and video files, which will be
produced in native format.  If a document is produced in native
format, a single-page Bates stamped image slip sheet stating the
document has been produced in native format should be provided,
with the exception of PowerPoint presentations.  

Each Party will remove exact duplicate documents based on MD5 or
SHA-1 hash values, at the family level.  Attachments should not be
eliminated as duplicates for purposes of production, unless the
parent e-mail and all attachments are also exact duplicates.

All ESI will be produced with a delimited, database load file that
contains the metadata fields listed in Table 1, attached to the
Order.  Embedded files in e-mail and e-docs will be produced as
attachments to the document that contained the embedded file, with
the parent/child relationship preserved.

The Parties agree that if any part of an e-mail or its attachments
is responsive, the entire e-mail and attachments will be produced,
except any attachments that are withheld or redacted on the basis
of the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine,
or other applicable privilege.

Compressed file types (e.g., .ZIP, .RAR, .CAB, .Z) should be
decompressed so that the lowest level document or file is
extracted.  

To the extent a response to discovery requires production of
electronic information stored in a database, or stored in a
propriety or non-standard source that may not be reasonably usable
if produced in the formats described, the Parties will meet and
confer regarding the format and methods of such a production.

If any documents in a Party's production cannot be properly
rendered or processed, the producing Party will provide single page
slip sheets for such files bearing the filename and error code
generated by the Party's processing tool.

To maximize the security of information in transit, any media on
which documents are produced will be encrypted.

Finally, if documents that the Parties have agreed to produce in
native format or portions of metadata fields need to be redacted,
the Parties will meet and confer regarding how to implement
redactions while ensuring that proper formatting and usability are
maintained.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 1, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/t4vgA9 from Leagle.com.

Chase Hamano, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Todd L. Kammerman --
tkammerman@aftlaw.com -- Abraham Fructer and Twersky LLP & Marvin
A. Miller -- Mmiller@millerlawllc.com -- Miller Law LLC, pro hac
vice.

R N Croft Financial Group, Movant, represented by Carol V. Gilden
-- cgilden@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice.

U.A. Local No. 393 Defined Benefit Pension Plan and Defined
Contribution Plans, Movant, represented by Tricia L. McCormick --
triciam@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Alexi
Pfeffer-Gillett, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Danielle S.
Myers -- dmyers@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP,
Matthew Isaac Alpert, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Sara B.
Polychron, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Scott H. Saham,
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Tor Gronborg, Robbins Geller
Rudman and Dowd LLP & Trig Randall Smith, Robbins Geller Rudman and
Dowd LLP.

Activision Blizzard Inc, Robert A Kotick & Collister Johnson,
Defendants, represented by Erin Carey Trenda -- etrenda@cooley.com
-- Cooley LLP, Heather Marie Speers, Cooley LLP, Koji F. Fukumura
-- kfukumura@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Ryan E. Blair --
rblair@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.

Spencer Neumann, Defendant, represented by Alaina Ashley Bird,
Irell and Manella LLP & Craig Varnen, Irell and Manella LLP.


AK TUBE: Calderas Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Calderas, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. AK Tube, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02431 (N.D.
Ohio, Oct. 17, 2019) is a Complaint against AK Tube, LLC for its
failure to pay employees overtime wages seeking all available
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant did not properly calculate
overtime based on its regular rate of pay, as defined by the FLSA,
but instead calculated overtime based on its hourly rate of pay,
resulting in unpaid overtime wages for the three years preceding
the filing date of this Complaint and continuing until trial. When
Defendant paid Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
both their Base Hourly Wage and Additional Remuneration, Defendant
failed to properly calculate its employees' regular rate of pay
during workweeks when they worked over 40 hours in one or more
workweek(s) for the purposes of overtime pay because Defendant did
not include the Additional Remuneration in its regular rate
calculations for overtime wages. Consequently, Defendant failed to
properly compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees the overtime wages they were due in accordance with the
minimum requirements of the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Calderas worked as a mill operator beginning in
approximately 2011 until October 16, 2019.

Defendant manufacturers carbon and stainless electric resistant
welded tubular steel products and serves the trucking and
automotive markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


ALLERGAN INC: K.P. Sues over Defective BIOCELL Implant Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
K. P. Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and ALLERGAN PLC, Case No.
4:19-cv-03973 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 11, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by
engaging in false, misleading or deceptive acts or practices
relating to the sale of their BIOCELL products that the Plaintiff
relied on to her detriment.

Specifically, the Defendants represented that the recalled BIOCELL
products met particular standards or had characteristics, benefits
or qualities which they do not have, the Plaintiff alleges. In
addition, the Defendants failed to disclose information concerning
the recalled BIOCEL products, which was known at the time the
Plaintiff purchased the product.

In 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration identified a link
between textured breast implants and a rare form of lymphoma called
"breast-implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma"
("BIA-ALCL"). In December 2018 BIOCELL textured implants were
banned completely from the European market.

Notwithstanding this information, the Defendants continued to sell
BIOCELL products to women in Texas, according to the complaint.  It
was not until July 24, 2019, following a request from the FDA, that
Allergan issued a recall of BlOCELL textured breast implants and
tissue expanders in the U.S.A. The FDA made its request after
receiving reports suggesting that BIOCELL implants and expanders
were associated with hundreds of cases of BIA-ALCL around the
world.

The FDA reported the risk of BIA-ALCL is six times higher with
Allergan's textured implants than textured implants from other
manufacturers. As of July 6, 2019, Medical Device Reports submitted
to the FDA showed that 481 of the 573 unique cases of BIA-ALCL
reported worldwide were associated with Allergan's BIOCELL
implants.

In most cases, BIA-ALCL is found in the scar tissue and fluid near
the implant, but it can also spread through the body. BIA-ALCL can
lead to death, especially if not treated promptly. BIA-ALCL can be
treated with surgery to remove the implant and surrounding scar
tissue and may also require treatment with chemotherapy and
radiation treatment. Testing for BIA-ALCL is invasive and symptoms
may occur well after the surgical incision has healed, often years
after receiving the implant.

BIA-ALCL typically occurs in the scar tissue surrounding the
implant. Left untreated, it will spread to surrounding tissue such
as lymph nodes near the breast and may be fatal. BIA-ALCL is
typically treated with surgery meant to remove the implant and
surrounding scar tissue although some patients will require
chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or both.

The products subject to recall ("recalled BIOCELL products")
include Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants, Allergan
Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants, Natrelle 410
Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone-Filled Breast
Implants, and Allergan tissue expanders for the breast implants
that have BIOCELL texturing.

Allergan has made tens of millions of dollars as a result of
aggressively marketing a product which it knew or should have known
was a serious health hazard to women. As a result of Allergan's
conduct Plaintiffs will be forced to expend substantial sums for
surgery to remove the implants and for medical monitoring in
addition to other medical and related expenses. Breast implants are
medical devices that are implanted under the breast tissue or chest
muscle to supplement breast tissue or replace breast tissue that
has been removed as a result of cancer or trauma. Tissue expanders
are another medical device typically used in breast reconstruction
and are a type of inflatable breast implant whose purpose is to
stretch the skin and muscle to make room for the more permanent
implant in the future.

The Plaintiff contends she would not have had the Natrelle devices
implanted had she known prior to the procedure that BIOCELL
textured breast implants would subject her to a significantly
greater risk of developing BIA-ALCL, as well as the costs
associated with removal, medical monitoring, and other fees and
procedures to detect and treat BIA-ALCL. She experienced severe
emotional distress when she learned that she is now exposed to a
significantly greater risk of developing BIA-ALC, the lawsuit
says.

Allergan manufactures and sells saline and silicone filled breast
implants and tissue expanders under the trade name BIOCEL.
Allergan's BIOCELL line of implants are a type of textured breast
implants and tissue expanders that were introduced in the United
States beginning in 2006.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Shawn Staples, Esq.
          Michael J. Stanley, Esq.
          STANLEY LAW, P.C.
          230 Westcott St., Suite 120
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: 713 980-4381
          E-mail: wsstaples@stanleylaw.com
                  mstanley@stanleylaw.com


ALLERGAN INC: Rikmus Sues Over Faulty BIOCELL Textured Implants
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLE RIMKUS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs v. ALLERGAN, INC. f/k/a INAMED
CORPORATION, ALLERGAN USA, INC., and ALLERGAN plc, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-02766-RLW (E.D. Mo., Oct. 11, 2019), alleges that
Allergan failed to warn the Plaintiff and her physician about the
significantly increased risk of developing BIA-ALCL in connection
with the BIOCELL textured implants.

Allergan manufactured, distributed, and/or sold the BIOCELL
textured breast implants that the Plaintiff purchased and had
implanted.  The BIOCELL textured breast implants were defective and
unreasonably dangerous at the time they left Allergan's possession
because they did not contain adequate warnings, including the lack
of warning concerning the significantly increased risk of
developing BIA-ALCL associated with the BIOCELL textured implants,
according to the complaint.

Ms. Rikmus contends that Allergan knew, or should have known in the
exercise of ordinary care, that the BIOCELL textured breast
implants were unreasonably dangerous at the time the implants left
Allergan's control and were received by her, and that their
unreasonably dangerous nature was not generally known to the
consumer. She notes that Allergan acquired this knowledge from the
performance of extensive studies, reviewing other scientific
studies, complaints received from consumers, as well as other
sources. Further, the BIOCELL textured breast implants' health
risks were known in the scientific and medical community at the
time of their manufacture, distribution, or sale. Allergan, in
violation of federal law, attempted to conceal this information by
not making adverse event reports to the FDA, she alleges.

As a result of Allergan's failure to adequately warn of the risks
associated with BIOCELL textured implants, the Plaintiff asserts
she was harmed.  The lack of sufficient warning was a substantial
factor in causing the Plaintiff's harm.  Had the Plaintiff and her
physician been provided the appropriate warnings about the
increased risk of BIA-ALCL associated with BIOCELL textured breast
implants, she and her physician would have been able to make an
informed decision about using the product or selecting an
alternative product, the lawsuit says.

Breast implants were first introduced in the 1960s. In 1976,
Congress passed the Medical Device Amendment to the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act which allowed the FDA to review and approve
new medical devices, including breast implants.

BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and can be fatal, especially if not
diagnosed early or promptly treated. BIA-ALCL can be treated by
surgically removing the implant and surrounding scar tissue. Some
patients may also require chemotherapy and radiation treatments.

The symptoms of BIA-ALCL may occur years after the implant
placement. The diagnostic testing recommended to determine if
BIA-ALCL is present is invasive.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
          Michael A. Williams, Esq.
          Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          Courtney Stout, MO Bar No. 70375
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MI 64105
          Telephone: (816) 945-7110
          Facsimile: (816) 945-7118
          E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com
                  mwilliams@williamsdirks.com
                  dirks@williamsdirks.com
                  cstout@williamsdirks.com

               - and -

          Mandy M. Shell, Esq.
          SHELL LAW & TAX
          1656 Washington, Suite 140
          Kansas City, MI 64108
          Telephone: (816) 399-5030
          Facsimile: (816) 205-8420
          E-mail: mshell@shell-law.com


AMERICAN CONSUMER: Davidson Sues Over Illegal Termination
---------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN DAVIDSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN CONSUMER HOME SHOWS LLC and CRAIG
GITLITZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05875 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 17,
2019) is an action, on behalf of himself and other current and
former employees similarly situated, to remedy violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor Law, the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act,
New York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law, Family and
Medical Leave Act, and New York's Paid Family Leave Law.

The complaint relates that during the entirety of his employment,
Plaintiff was misclassified in that he was only paid commissions
for the work he performed for Defendants. Based on Plaintiff's
advanced age and after his wife was diagnosed with cancer,
Defendants terminated Plaintiff's employment. This termination
occurred within months of Plaintiff, through counsel, filing a
complaint of discrimination and misclassification against
Defendant. At no time prior to or after learning of his wife's
diagnosis did Defendants ever advise Plaintiff of his right to take
leave to care for his spouse. The Defendants maintained a common
policy and practice of, inter alia, not paying employees for all
hours worked during their employment or otherwise notifying them of
their rights under the law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked as a trade show sales representative for
Defendants from 2004 until his unlawful termination on February 14,
2019.

ACS's business consists of putting on trade shows, where it rents
out space in a building and then sells booth spaces and
sponsorships to exhibitors. These shows include home and garden
shows, bridal shows, flower shows and others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yale Pollack, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C.
     66 Split Rock Road
     Syosset, NY 11791
     Phone: (516) 634-6340
     Fax: (516) 634-6341
     Email: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com


AMERICAN EAGLE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Aparicio Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
TALISHA APARICIO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-62390-RKA (S.D. Fla., Sept. 25, 2019)
seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited
calls.

American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. retails men's and women's casual
apparel, footwear, outerwear, and accessories. The Company's
products include jeans, khakis, t-shirts, and other similar
apparel. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 533-4092
          E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

               - and -

          Ignacio Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave. Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          E-mail: IJHiraldo@IJHLaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid to Dismiss Anti-Steering Rules Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company's
motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of the class action in the
class action suit entitled, In re: American Express Anti-Steering
Rules Antitrust Litigation (II) is pending.

Individual merchant cases and a putative merchant class action,
which were consolidated in 2011 and collectively captioned In re:
American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II) in
the Eastern District of New York, alleged that provisions in our
merchant agreements prohibiting merchants from differentially
surcharging the company's cards or steering a customer to use
another network's card or another type of general-purpose card
("anti-steering" and "non-discrimination" contractual provisions)
violate U.S. antitrust laws.

Following the Supreme Court decision in Ohio v. American Express
Co. in favor of American Express, plaintiffs in both the individual
merchant cases and the putative merchant class action filed amended
complaints.

On April 12, 2019, the individual merchant cases were dismissed
with prejudice pursuant to a joint stipulation between the parties.


The company's motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of the class
action is pending.

American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related
services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Global Consumer Services Group, Global Commercial
Services, and Global Merchant and Network Services. American
Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Marcus Corp. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend itself against an antitrust class action
lawsuit entitled, The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co.,
et al.

In July 2004, the company was named as a defendant in another
putative class action filed in the Southern District of New York
and subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of New York,
captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co., et al.,
in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying
arrangement between certain of our charge cards and credit cards in
violation of various state and federal laws.

The plaintiffs in this action seek injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related
services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Global Consumer Services Group, Global Commercial
Services, and Global Merchant and Network Services. American
Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Franklin D. Azar & Associates, P.C. (the "Azar Law Firm") on Oct. 8
disclosed that it is investigating a lawsuit filed against AmTrust
Financial Services, Inc. ("AmTrust") on behalf of AmTrust
shareholders (OTC PINK:AFSIA, AFSIB, AFSIC, AFSIM, AFSIN, AFSIP)
alleging that AmTrust and certain of its officers violated the
federal securities laws. AmTrust investors who have purchased at
least 30,000 shares of AmTrust Preferred Stock are encouraged to
contact the Azar Law Firm at securities@fdazar.com or call
844-241-9475 to learn more about the case.

Interested AmTrust shareholders have until October 29, 2019 to
apply to be lead plaintiff. The class has not yet been certified.
Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney.
If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

The lawsuit alleges that in connection with AmTrust's merger
announced in 2018, AmTrust informed investors that, unlike
AmTrust's common shares, which were being acquired in the Buyout,
the six series of publicly traded AmTrust preferred stock were not
being purchased in the Merger. The lawsuit alleges that AmTrust
misleadingly stated the preferred shares would continue to be
listed on the NYSE and would remain listed and outstanding
following the Merger.

Contrary to these numerous public representations, less than two
months following the close of the Merger, on January 18, 2019,
AmTrust announced it would delist all six series of AmTrust
preferred stock from the NYSE. AmTrust attempted to legitimize the
delisting based on the contrived excuse "that the administrative
costs and burdens associated with maintaining the listings on the
NYSE and the registration exceed the benefits" and that there was a
new "ownership structure" due to the Merger. Since these costs,
burdens, and new ownership structure were known or had to have been
known during the entire time defendants were publicly proclaiming
that the preferred stock would remain listed, the only logical
conclusion is that defendants never intended or were deliberately
reckless when making their public statements that the preferred
stock would remain listed on the NYSE.

The prices of the preferred stocks dropped by almost 40% the very
next trading day, with the preferred stocks losing hundreds of
millions of dollars in value. The class action lawsuit seeks to
recover on behalf of purchasers of the preferred stock between
January 22, 2018 and January 18, 2019.

If you have purchased at least 30,000 shares of AmTrust Preferred
Stock, you may have a claim for damages, and you may be eligible to
seek a position in the case as a lead plaintiff. Please contact the
Azar Law Firm's shareholder rights team at securities@fdazar.com or
call 844-241-9475.

The Azar Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing individual shareholders and institutional investors in
recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its
attorneys have established track records litigating securities
cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on
behalf of shareholders. The Azar Law Firm is working with Thornton
Law Firm LLP in investigating this action. This may be considered
Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not
guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future
matter. [GN]


ANDA, INC.: Khan Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Farhan F. Khan, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
Anda, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 19-CA-009468, was removed from
the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida (Tampa) on Oct. 7, 2019. The Middle District of Florida
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-02479-MSS-JSS to the
proceeding. The suit asserts Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal
Injury Product Liability related issues. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Mary S. Scriven.

Anda Inc. distributes prescription drugs, proprietary drugs, and
toiletries. The company offers vaccines, injectables, medical and
surgical supplies, vitamins, and pet medications. Anda serves
independent and chain pharmacies, nursing homes, mail order
pharmacies, hospitals, clinics, and physician offices in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          One Tampa City Center Ste 700
          201 N Franklin Street
          Tampa, FL 33602-5157
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Jessica Elizabeth Joseph, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
          111 Huntington Ave, Suite 2500
          Boston, MA 02199
          Telephone: (407) 244-3276
          Facsimile: (407) 648-1743
          E-mail: jjoseph@foley.com

ANTHEM BLUE: Bailey Appeals ERISA Suit Ruling to 9th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Aurora Bailey filed an appeal from a Court ruling issued
in her lawsuit styled Aurora Bailey, et al. v. Anthem Blue Cross
Life and Health Insurance Company, DBA Anthem Blue Cross, et al.,
Case No. 4:16-cv-04439-JSW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendants breached the terms of their benefit
plans and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by failing to
pay plan benefits to the Plaintiff and the proposed class members.

Ms. Bailey is a 22-year-old woman with anorexia nervosa and major
depressive disorder.  She brought the Case under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as it involves claims for
employee benefits under employee benefit health plans regulated and
governed under ERISA.

The appellate case is captioned as Aurora Bailey, et al. v. Anthem
Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, DBA Anthem Blue
Cross, et al., Case No. 19-16978, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Aurora Bailey's opening brief is due on
      December 6, 2019;

   -- Appellees Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance
      Company and Blue Cross of California's answering brief is
      due on January 6, 2020; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant AURORA BAILEY, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Lisa S. Kantor, Esq.
          KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
          19839 Nordhoff Street
          Northridge, CA 91324
          Telephone: (818) 886-2525
          Facsimile: (818) 350-6272
          E-mail: lkantor@kantorlaw.net

               - and -

          Kathryn M. Trepinski, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KATHRYN M. TREPINSKI, A LAW CORPORATION
          8840 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 201-0022
          E-mail: ktrepinski@trepinskilaw.com

Defendants-Appellees ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE
COMPANY, DBA Anthem Blue Cross, and BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA, DBA
Anthem Blue Cross, are represented by:

          Molly Moriarty Lane, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market Street
          Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: mlane@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Lisa R. Weddle, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-7334
          E-mail: lisa.weddle@morganlewis.com


ANTHEM INC: Nixon Sues Under ERISA for Denial of MISIJF Surgery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Nixon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ANTHEM INC.; and ANTHEM UM SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00076-GFVT (Ky. Cir., Franklin Cty.,
Oct. 23, 2019), seeks to redress the Defendants' violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 resulting from
their practice of denying coverage for minimally invasive
sacroiliac joint fusion surgery as "investigational" and "not
medically necessary."

Through its wholly-owned subsidiaries and affiliated companies,
including Defendant Anthem UM Services Inc., Anthem acts as a
full-service company in the business of insuring and administering
health insurance and health benefits, many of which are
employer-sponsored and governed by ERISA.

This case involves the Defendants' uniform practice of denying
coverage for medical procedure known commonly as MISIJF on basis
that it is "investigational and not medically necessary." The
Defendants have developed and utilize a medical coverage policy
called "Sacroiliac Joint Fusion (SURG.00127)," which uniformly, and
contrary to medical standards, classifies MISIJF procedures as
"investigational and not medically necessary." Through uniform
development and use of the medical policy Sacroiliac Joint Fusion,
the Defendants have erroneously, and contrary to prevailing medical
standards, denied all request for MISIJF, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Robert Nixon was a participant in and covered by the
Catholic Health Initiatives Medical Plan, an employee welfare
benefit plan under which the Plaintiff is entitled to health care
benefits, a self-funded plan administered by the Defendants.

Anthem, Inc. is one of the largest health benefits companies in the
United States in terms of medical memberships, serving
approximately 40 million members through its affiliated companies
as of December 31, 2018.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     M. Austin Mehr, Esq.
     Philip G. Fairbanks, Esq.
     Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
     MEHR, FAIRBANKS & PETERSON TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
     201 West Short Street, Suite 800
     Lexington, KY 40507
     Phone: 859-225-3731
     Facsimile: 859-225-3830
     Email: pgf@austinmehr.com


APPLE INC: Judge Tosses iPhone Notch Design Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Mark Wilson, writing for Fast Company, reports that a California
judge responded to an Apple class action suit about Apple iPhone
notch with a succinctness that shows sometimes the courts really do
get it right.

In a class action suit filed last December, plaintiffs Christian
Sponchiado and Courtney Davis argued that Apple had fraudulently
misrepresented the screen size and pixel count of products like the
iPhone X, which, instead of being perfect rectangles, feature
rounded corners and the controversial "notch" on top, a cut-out
which houses a camera and depth sensor. Such would mean that a
"5.8-inch" screen isn't viewable as a true, 5.8-inch screen.
(Perhaps it would be 5.798 by some measurements. I'm not getting
out a ruler.)

Apple's own lawyers say that Apple does disclose the few pixels
lost to the curved design across its marketing. Indeed, on Apple's
own site, right now, the company offers a footnote on mentions of
its Super Retina display found on the iPhone X. "The display has
rounded corners that follow a beautiful curved design, and these
corners are within a standard rectangle. When measured as a
standard rectangular shape, the screen is 5.85 inches . . . Actual
viewable area is less."

Oakland, California, U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr.
appeared to side with Apple (though the argument is under review),
offering an absolutely brutal burn of the alleged display
duplicity: "There doesn't really seem to be anyone in America who
seems to be concerned about it," said Gilliam, according to
Law360.

This take is absolute perfection. Other class action lawsuits
against the Cupertino company make sense: Like when Apple was found
to be actively slowing down consumers' iPhones a year into the
product's life, for instance. How many of us just didn't get why,
one day, our phone suddenly stunk? How many of us felt forced to
upgrade in the next cycle as a result? How many of us went through
this painfully expensive ritual multiple times? Dozens of lawsuits
followed, and California judges didn't immediately give such suits
the boot--and most appear to be ongoing.

But very few people on Earth bought an iPhone X only to exclaim,
"Wait, these corners are round now? I can't see a damn thing!"

Of all of Apple's many sins, it's worth giving Cupertino's rounded
corners a pass. [GN]


AUTO MAX: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dutra Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO DUTRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AUTO MAX, INC.; AUTOMAX PREOWNED, INC.;
MARIA WILNER; and GAIL WILNER, Defendants, Case No. 19-2804 (Mass.
Super., Middlesex Cty., Sept. 25, 2019) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Dutra was employed by the Defendants as salesperson.

Auto Max, Inc. operates a car dealership located in Framingham,
Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Gardner, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq.
          GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C.
          One Street, Fourth Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 390-7570
          E-mail: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com


BABCOCK & WILCOX: Price Class Suit Closed
-----------------------------------------
Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated October 21, 2019,
that the Court in Price v. Avril, et al., C.A. No. 2019-0393-JRS,
has entered an order closing the case.

On May 28, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Board of Directors (the "Board") of Babcock & Wilcox
Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware.

The complaint is captioned Price v. Avril, et al., C.A. No.
2019-0393-JRS (Del. Ch.). The complaint asserted, among other
things, that members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties
by failing to disclose all material information necessary for a
fully-informed vote on certain of the proposals presented for
consideration at the 2019 annual meeting of the Company's
stockholders.

The plaintiff also filed a motion to preliminarily enjoin the
stockholder vote on the proposals unless and until all material
information regarding the proposals was disclosed to the Company's
stockholders. The plaintiff withdrew her motion to preliminarily
enjoin the stockholder vote on the proposals following the
Company's issuance of a supplemental proxy statement on June 6,
2019.

The Court granted the plaintiff's request to voluntarily dismiss
this action with prejudice as to the named plaintiff only on July
31, 2019, and retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of
adjudicating an anticipated application for attorneys' fees and
expenses incurred by plaintiff's counsel.

Thereafter, following a period of negotiations, the Company agreed
to pay $400,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiff's
counsel in connection with the mooted disclosure claims asserted in
the action without admitting any fault or wrongdoing.

On October 16, 2019, the Court entered an order closing the case,
subject to the Company filing an affidavit with the Court
confirming compliance with the Court's order. In entering the
order, the Court was not asked to review, and did not pass judgment
on, the payment of the attorneys' fees and expenses or their
reasonableness.

Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc., incorporated on January 13,
2015, is a technology-based provider of fossil and renewable power
generation and environmental equipment that includes a suite of
boiler products and environmental systems. The Company operates in
three segments: Power, Renewable and Industrial. The company is
based in Barberton, Ohio.


BANK OF HAWAII: Tentative Deal Reached in Overdraft Fees Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of Hawaii Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated October 21, 2019,
that the company has reached a tentative settlement with the named
plaintiff to resolve the putative class action lawsuit pending in
the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, Case
No. CV 16-005131:14-cv-10318 JMS-WRP.

On October 16, 2019, Bank of Hawaii Corporation reached a tentative
settlement with the named plaintiff to settle the putative class
action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Hawaii, Case No. CV 16-005131:14-cv-10318 JMS-WRP which
was commenced in September 2016, alleging claims that Bank of
Hawaii improperly assessed overdraft fees on certain account
transactions.

The tentative settlement, subject to documentation and court
approvals, provides for forgiveness of certain related and
previously charged off overdraft fees, and a payment by the Company
of $8.0 million into a class settlement fund the proceeds of which
will be used to refund class members, and to pay attorneys' fees,
administrative and other costs, in exchange for a complete release
of all claims asserted against the Company.

Bank of Hawaii said, "The Company previously established a $2.0
million reserve relating to this claim."

Bank of Hawaii Corporation is a Delaware corporation and a bank
holding company headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii.


BEACON SALES: Remand of Andrade Labor Suit to State Court Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cormac J. Cerney of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand the
case captioned MANUEL ANDRADE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BEACON SALES ACQUISITION,
INC., BEACON ROOFING SUPPLY, INC., and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case
No. CV 19-06963-CJC(RAOx) (C.D. Cal.), to Los Angeles County
Superior Court.

Plaintiff Andrade filed the putative wage-and-hour class action
against the Defendants.  Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a
non-exempt truck driver from Oct. 14, 2014 to January 2016, earning
approximately $22 per hour.  In January 2016, the Plaintiff
transitioned to a role as a salesperson in the Defendants' office,
earning a slightly higher hourly wage as well as commissions.  He
held the job until April 13, 2018.

On March 26, 2019, the Plaintiff brought the suit against the
Defendants in Los Angeles County Superior Court.  On April 10,
2019, he filed the operative First Amended Class Action Complaint
("FAC").  The Plaintiff asserts six causes of action: (1) Unfair
Competition; (2) Failure to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages; (3)
Failure to Pay Final Wages Timely ("Waiting Time Penalties"); (4)
Failure to Keep Accurate Payroll Records ("Wage Statement
Penalties"); (5) Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods; (6)
Civil Penalties pursuant to California Labor Code Section 2699.

Plaintiff brings all but the third and fourth claims on his own
behalf and on behalf of a class defined broadly as anyone employed
by Defendants in California as a non-exempt employee in the last
four years.  The third and fourth causes of action are brought on
the Plaintiff's own behalf and on behalf of slightly narrower
subclasses.  In general, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendants
committed these Labor Code violations "as matters of policy and/or
practice."  More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay employees for opening and closing
facilities, maintained timekeeping policies that systematically
undercounted employee hours, and prohibited overtime work without
express authorization in the absence of an emergency.

The Plaintiff served the Defendants with a summons and the FAC on
May 25, 2019, and the Defendants acknowledged receipt.  On Aug. 9,
2019, the Defendants filed a Notice of Removal to the Central
District of California pursuant to CAFA and 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(a).  

Plaintiff moved to remand the Complaint to state court.

Judge Cerney finds that the Notice of Removal was timely regardless
of whether the Defendants could have removed at "any time."  There
is no evidence of undue delay or gamesmanship.  The Defendants
completed their investigation and filed for removal less than two
months after the FAC was filed and before the state court case
proceeded to discovery.  Nor is there any evidence that the
Defendants had notice of removability more than 30 days before
filing.  The Plaintiff suggests that the Defendants' were obligated
to specify when they learned that the case was removable in their
Notice of Removal.  Such a requirement has not been imposed in
analogous cases.  Moreover, it could lead to the spectre of
inevitable collateral litigation about whether the Defendant had
subjective knowledge.  The Judge rejects this argument and finds
that the Notice of Removal was timely filed.

Judge Cerney further finds that the Notice of Removal properly
establishes CAFA jurisdiction.  The Judge finds that the
Defendants' violation rates are reasonable assumptions grounded in
the allegations of the FAC.  The amount in controversy considers
the amount in dispute, not the amount that a plaintiff is likely to
recover.  For the Plaintiff's overtime, minimum wage, meal period,
and rest period claims, the FAC defines the class broadly as all
non-exempt employees that worked for the Defendants in the
statutory period.  The Defendants' showing is sufficient to satisfy
CAFA's amount-in-controversy requirement.  Finally, the Parciasepe
Declaration and the Defendants' reasonable assumptions are
sufficient to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

Accordingly, Judge Cerney denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 1, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/I9gjvb from Leagle.com.

Manuel Andrade, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Cohen Slatkin --
jcohenslatkin@jcslaw4you.com -- Law Office of Joshua Cohen
Slatkin.

Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc. & Beacon Roofing Supply, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Karin Morgan Cogbill --
kcogbill@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & Linda N. Bollinger
-- lbollinger@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC.


BITGRAIL: Fraud Class Action Filed Against Promoters in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Dennis, writing for CryptoGlobe, reports that law firms Silver
Miller and Levi Korsinsky have filed a class action lawsuit with
the district court of Northern California against the promoters of
the Nano cryptocurrency, alleging fraud and misrepresentation.

The filing summarized that the class action was on behalf of all
individuals and entities who transferred fiat currency or crypto to
BitGrail--the now-defunct Italian crypto exchange that lost around
$170 million in Nano tokens--to invest in Nano between October 24,
2015 and February 8, 2018.

Shilling on Social Media
Chief among the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation are
whether the defendents promoted Nano and BitGrail despite being
aware of the exchange's shortcomings. The filing points to the use
of social media to promote Nano, and mentions specific instances of
defendent Troy Retzer downplaying critial comments on Reddit.

The filing states:

"To fulfill their role in the conspiracy, Defendants Colin
LeMahieu, Mica Busch, Zach Shapiro, and Troy Retzer created and
managed the XRB network and used social media channels such as
Twitter, Medium, and Reddit to recruit unsuspecting investors in
the United States and abroad to purchase XRB investments and allow
the liquidation of XRB coins and/or store those valuable assets at
the inherently unsafe BitGrail exchange."

Such promotional tactics, the plaintiff lawyers believe, may have
exacerbated the losses on BitGrail as investors were directed to
the troubled Italian exchange. Nano hit its price peak around $35
in January 2018 and now stands at $0.77. At the time the tokens
went missing in February 2018, the price was around $16.

The action asks that the court should require Nano to "rescue fork"
the missing Nano into a new cryptocurrency that would fairly
compensate the class victims. [GN]


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on September 30, 2019, Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a
putative securities class action brought against a pharmaceutical
company and certain of its current and former executives. Tung v.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al., 18-cv-1611 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30,
2019). Plaintiffs allege that the pharmaceutical company (the
"Company") and defendant executives made materially misleading
statements and omissions concerning the design of the Company's
clinical trial that tested the efficacy of a newly-developed
anticancer drug in violation of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Court dismissed the claims
finding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead scienter, but
granted plaintiffs leave to amend to address the pleading
deficiencies.

In early 2014, the Company announced a clinical trial that sought
to determine whether its new drug, Opdivo, a checkpoint inhibitor,
would outperform chemotherapy as a treatment for non-small cell
lung carcinoma. Plaintiffs brought suit after the Company's stock
dropped in 2016 following the Company's announcement that the trial
"failed to demonstrate" the drug was more effective than
traditional chemotherapy. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants
mischaracterized the parameters of its trial by representing that
the purpose of the study is to show that the drug would improve
outcomes in subjects "with strongly Stage IV or Recurrent PD-L1+
non-small cell lung cancer." PD-L1 is a protein that "when present
on healthy cells, prevents the immune system from attacking them,"
which is a mechanism cancer cells replicate to prevent an immune
response against it. According to plaintiffs, defendants failed to
clarify how much PD-L1 expression was required for a patient to
"strongly" express PD-L1. After the trial failed, the Company
disclosed that "strongly" meant any patient with at least 5% of
cancer cells expressing PD-L1, and that the study's design
"precluded the researchers from reaching any conclusions about the
efficacy of [the drug] for patients whose expression of PD-L1 were
higher than 5%." According to plaintiffs, this meant that the
Company "had no means under accepted statistical methodologies of
finding a significant difference between the performance of [the
drug] and chemotherapy."

The Court first considered plaintiffs' scienter allegations and
found that plaintiffs failed to plead facts raising the requisite
"strong inference" that defendants had the motive and opportunity
to commit fraud or that they acted recklessly in "an extreme
departure from the standards of ordinary care." The Court initially
rejected plaintiffs' contention that defendants had a fraudulent
motive "to protect competitively sensitive information," noting
that guarding competitively sensitive information is merely a
"generalized business motive." The Court further found that
plaintiffs failed to allege that defendants would receive any
"concrete benefits" from withholding information concerning the
parameters of the clinical trial, other than the general benefit of
"maintaining the appearance of corporate profitability."
Accordingly, the Court noted that "[i]f scienter could be pleaded
on this basis alone, 'virtually every company in the United States
that experiences a downturn in stock price could be forced to
defend securities fraud actions'" (citing Acito v. IMCERA Grp,
Inc., 47 F.3d 47, 54 (2d Cir. 1995)). The Court also rejected
plaintiffs' contention that defendants had a fraudulent motive to
artificially inflate the stock price to sell their personal stock
holdings—finding that two of the six individual defendants did
not sell any stock during the putative class period, and the other
four individual defendants who did sell stock during the putative
class period either increased their overall holdings or maintained
their holdings during the period as a result of stock purchases.
According to the Court, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that that
the stock sales were "unusual" or "suspicious," which undermines
plaintiffs' motive and opportunity allegations.

The Court similarly held that plaintiffs failed to plead facts
alleging that defendants acted in a "highly unreasonable [manner]
which represents an extreme departure from the standards of
ordinary care." The Court held that plaintiffs' allegations -- (i)
that defendants knew the industry standards with respect to how
"strong" PD-L1 expression is defined given their leading role in
the market, (ii) that defendants had in prior trials "employed a 5%
cut-off to define mere 'positive' expression" of PD-L1 which
contradict their "current position. . . [that it can now] be used
to define 'strong' PD-L1 expression," and (iii) defendants' own
post-clinical trial statements that a 5% cut-off was not High --
"fall far short of [the] demanding standard" of pleading scienter
by recklessness, which requires plaintiffs to plead facts that
"indicate a state of mind approximating actual intent." In so
holding, the Court noted that "conclusory allegations of
[defendants'] knowledge" do not sufficiently allege their knowledge
of and departure from industry standards. The Court further noted
that plaintiffs did not allege the Company took the categorical
position in its earlier studies that "strong" compelled a cut-off
of more than 5%, and defendants' post-clinical trial statements
occurred "long after" the alleged misrepresentations were made.
Additionally, the Court found that although a competing
pharmaceutical company defined "strong" PD-L1 expression as 50% or
greater in a similar study conducted shortly after the Company's
study, plaintiffs failed to allege that the competitor's study
"indicated that 'strong' must mean, as a matter of industry
practice, a cut-off greater than 5%." According to the Court, "[a]t
best, the [competitor's] study could have informed" the Company how
the competitor was defining "strong" in their own study, which is
insufficient to meet the heightened pleading standards under the
PSLRA. Lastly, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the
alleged "unexpected" departure from the Company by one of the
individual defendants less than six months following the end of the
putative class period provided support for scienter, finding that
such departure did not rise to the level of being "highly unusual
and suspicious." For these reasons, the Court found that plaintiffs
failed to sufficiently plead scienter and dismissed the Section
10(b) claims.

Based on the dismissal of the Section 10(b) claims against the
Company and the individual defendants, the Court dismissed the
Section 20(a) and 20A claims as there were no predicate violations
of the Exchange Act under which control-person violations could be
established. Noting that district courts "typically" grant
plaintiffs at least one opportunity to plead fraud with greater
specificity when claims are dismissed under FRCP 9(b), the Court
granted plaintiffs leave to amend.

Tung v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. [GN]



CANNABIS & GLASS: Wash. District Court Dismisses Frank TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERTA FRANK, an individual, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CANNABIS & GLASS, LLC, a Washington limited
liability company; NXNW Retail, LLC, a Washington limited liability
company; Delaware Corporation; and TATE KAPPLE and his marital
community, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00250-SAB (E.D. Wash.),
Judge Stanley A. Bastian of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington granted Defendant Springbig's Motion to
Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6).

Roberta Flank commenced a putative class action against Retail
Defendants Cannabis, NXNW, and Tate Kapple, and Defendant Springbig
Inc. for their various respective roles in sending unauthorized
text messages to her cell phone.  More specifically, in October
2018, the Plaintiff visited the Retail Defendants' store.  At the
point of sale, she gave the sales associate her cell phone number
so she could be part of their loyalty program.

The Plaintiff was not told that by giving her number she would
start receiving text messages from the Retail Defendants that
notified her of sales and discounts.  Rather, she was told by the
employee that her phone number and first name were required before
she could enroll in the loyalty program.  She visited a second
store and was told that she did not have to enroll in a separate
rewards program because the two were linked.  The next day, she
began to receive daily text messages from the Retail Defendants
that were sent using Defendant Springbig's SMS short codes.

The Plaintiff is bringing claims under the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, which is based on an alleged violation of the
Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA").

Defendant Springbig filed a Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6).
A hearing on the motion was held on Sept. 26, 2019 in Spokane,
Washington.

The Plaintiff has not argued the Court should disregard the 2015
FCC Ruling, or that the necessary factors identified by the FCC in
that ruling before an application provider can be held liable
should not apply to the case.  The 2015 ruling refers to In the
Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot.
Act of 1991, 30 FCC Rcd. 7961, 7980 (2015) -- where the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) clarified that "application
providers that play a minimal role in sending text messages are not
per se liable for unwanted robocalls."  Instead Plaintiff argues
that the allegations in her complaint are sufficient to get past a
12(b)(6) Motion.  Her Amended Complaint, however, does not provide
any allegations that Defendant Springbig took steps physically
necessary to place the call or that it was so involved in the
placing of the call as to be deemed to have initiated it.  

It appears the Plaintiff is attempting to meet this requirement by
including in the Amended Complaint the content of sample text
messages found on their website, the Court notes.  These
allegations and examples are not sufficient to establish liability
on the part of Defendant Springbig, given that there are no
allegations stating the retail Defendants used Defendant
Springbig's suggested content, the Court holds.

Taken as true, Judge Bastian holds that the Plaintiff's allegations
in the Amended Complaint allege that Defendant Springbig had some
role, albeit a minor one, in the causal chain that resulted in the
sending of the text.  According to the guidance provided by the
FCC, however, it is not enough to survive a 12(b)(6) motion.
Because the Plaintiff's allegations do not allege that Springbig
controlled the recipients, timing or content, the Amended Complaint
does not allege that Defendant Springbig was the maker or initiator
of the text message.  Consequently, the Plaintiff has failed to
state a TCPA claim against Defendant Springbig, the Court
maintains.

In order for Defendant Springbig to be liable under CEMA, the
Plaintiff must allege that either it initiated the transmission or
assisted in the transmission.  The Judge finds that the Plaintiff
has not alleged that Defendant Springbig was the original sender of
the test message.  Moreover, her conclusory allegations that
Defendant Springbig violated CEMA are not sufficient, given that
she has also alleged that Defendant Springbig's role in the alleged
violation was providing a programmable platform from which the
Retail Defendants initiate the message.

Similar to the TCPA, while the Plaintiff has alleged facts that
suggest that the Defendant provided some form of assistance, i.e.
the software application used to send the text messages, the
Plaintiff has not alleged facts to suggest that Defendant Springbig
provided substantial assistance to the retail Defendants in the
sending of the alleged text message, which is required by the
statute.  Additionally, she has not alleged any facts that
Defendant Springbig knew or consciously avoided knowing the Retail
Defendants were violating or intending to violate the law.  Because
the Amended Complaint fails to allege adequate facts to show that
Defendant Springbig initiated the transmission or assisted in the
transmission of the text message as contemplated by the statute,
the Plaintiff has failed to state a CEMA/CPA claim upon which
relief may be granted.

Accordingly, Judge Bastian granted Defendant Springbig's Motion to
Dismiss.  The Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint without
delay if she believes she can remedy the pleading to address the
legal deficiencies identified.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 1, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/Kvbca5 from Leagle.com.

Roberta Frank, an individual, and all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Brian Cameron --
bcameron@cameronsutherland.com -- Cameron Sutherland PLLC & Kirk D.
Miller -- kmiller@millerlawspokane.com -- Kirk D Miller PS.

Cannabis & Glass LLC, a Washington limited liability company, NXNW
Retail LLC, a Washington limited liability company & Tate Kapple,
and his marital community, Defendants, represented by John S.
Devlin, III -- devlinj@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC & Taylor
Washburn -- washburnt@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC.

Springbig Inc, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
David S. Almeida, Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, pro hac
vice, Mark S. Eisen, Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, pro
hac vice, Medora A. Marisseau, Karr Tuttle & Campbell & Suzanne M.
Alton de Eraso, Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, pro hac
vice.


CARAVAN FACILITIES: Howard Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
William Howard and David Wright, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARAVAN FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02640 filed in
Wyandotte County District Court in Kansas on Oct. 17, 2019, is an
action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act against
Defendant.

Plaintiffs, and all employees similarly situated to them, allege
that Caravan knowingly and unlawfully failed and refused to
compensate them with proper overtime pay as required by federal law
and that no applicable exemption or exception excused Caravan from
non-payment of said overtime. By excluding pre-shift work from the
hours paid to Plaintiffs and those similarly situated individuals,
Caravan avoided paying Plaintiffs overtime wages for hours they
worked in excess of forty-per-week, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant in positions such as
Maintenance Electrician and Stationary Engineer during the relevant
timeframe of this lawsuit.

Caravan operated its business in the state of Kansas.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Patrick G. Reavey, Esq.
     Kevin C. Koc, Esq.
     REAVEY LAW LLC
     Livestock Exchange Building
     1600 Genessee, Suite 303
     Kansas City, MO 64102
     Phone: (816) 474-6300
     Fax: (816) 474-6302
     Email: patrick@reaveylaw.com
            kkoc@reaveylaw.com


CARIBBEAN LAWN: Mosley Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIQUE MOSLEY and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
CARIBBEAN LAWN & LANDSCAPE, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, and
BRIAN STOLZE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-14400-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act to recover all wages owed to the Plaintiff and others
during the course of their employment with the Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have unlawfully deprived
the Plaintiff, and all other employees similarly situated, of
overtime compensation during the course of their employment. The
Plaintiff worked an average of 55 hours per week throughout his
entire employment with the Defendants but they refused to
compensate him at the proper overtime rate of time-and-one-half
required by the FLSA for all hours worked in excess of 40, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from May 2016 until October
10, 2019.

CLL provides landscaping services, lawn care, pest control,
irrigation installation, landscape lighting, and termite prevention
for residential and commercial properties in the State of
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jordan Richards, Esq.
     Melissa Scott, Esq.
     USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
     805 East Broward Blvd., Suite 301
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 871-0050
     Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
            melissa@jordanrichadrspllc.com


CENTENE CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Sanchez Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Centene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the parties in the
class action suit entitled, Israel Sanchez v. Centene Corp., et
al., are currently in discovery phase.

On November 14, 2016, a putative federal securities class action,
Israel Sanchez v. Centene Corp., et al., was filed against the
Company and certain of its executives in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

In March 2017, the court entered an order transferring the matter
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the Company's accounting
and related disclosures for certain liabilities acquired in the
acquisition of Health Net violated federal securities laws.

In July 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss complaint in
September 2017.

In August 2019, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
in part and denied it in part, dismissing allegations regarding
certain statements and thereby narrowing the time period to which
the allegations will be subject.

The case will now move into the discovery phase.

Centene Corporation, incorporated on September 26, 2001, is a
healthcare company. The Company provides a portfolio of services to
government sponsored healthcare programs, focusing on under-insured
and uninsured individuals. The Company operates through two
segments: Managed Care and Specialty Services. It provides
member-focused services through locally based staff by assisting in
accessing care, coordinating referrals to related health and social
services and addressing member concerns and questions. It also
provides education and outreach programs to inform and assist
members in accessing appropriate healthcare services. The company
is based in St. Louis, Missouri.


CENTENE CORPORATION: Faces Perez Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CENTENE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-24384-CMA (S.D. Tex., Oct. 23, 2019),
seeks to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, Plaintiff
alleges. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief
to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the
daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks
statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a resident of Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Defendant is a multi-line managed care enterprise that serves
as an intermediary for health care programs. Allwell is Centene
Corporation's Medicare Advantage product.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Angelica M. Gentile, Esq.
     Garrett O. Berg, 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
            gberg@shamisgentile.com

          - and -

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


CENTRAL FLORIDA: Fredrick Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Fredrick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Central Florida Investments, Inc., Westgate
Resorts, Inc., Westgate Marketing, LLC, and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00418 (E.D. Tenn., Oct. 23, 2019), is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover overtime pay
from the Defendants.

The Defendants misclassified her and others similarly situated as
"independent contractors," and denied them the wages and benefits
to which they are lawfully entitled, the Plaintiff alleges. The
Defendants retained direct and indirect control over the Plaintiff
and the putative FLSA Collective in all aspects of their
employment, dictating the manner in which they performed their
work.  The Plaintiff and those similarly situated routinely work
more than 40 hours in a workweek but are not paid an overtime
premium for their overtime hours as a result of the Defendants'
misclassification, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as sales representatives at
various luxury resort destinations throughout the United States.

The Defendants operate resorts in multiple states around the
country, including a resort in Gatlinburg, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David A. Burkhalter, II, Esq.
     D. Alexander Burkhalter, III, Esq.
     Zachary J. Burkhalter, Esq.
     THE BURKHALTER LAW FIRM
     P.O. Box 2777
     Knoxville, TN 37901
     Phone: (865) 524-4974
     Facsimile: (865) 524-0172
     Web site: http://www.burkhalterlaw.com/

          - and -

     Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
     Caroline E. Bressman, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
     4600 IDS Center
     80 S 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: 612-256-3200
     Facsimile: 612-338-4878
     E-mail: strey@nka.com
             cbressman@nka.com

          - and -

     Bryce W. Ashby, Esq.
     DONATI LAW, PLLC
     1545 Union Avenue
     Memphis, TN 38104
     Phone: 901-278-1004
     Fax: 901-278-3111
     Email: bryce@donatilaw.com


CHANDLER MACLEOD: Coal Mine Casuals' Class Action Still on Track
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Kirkwood, writing for Newcastle Herald, reports that two class
actions seeking as much as $50 million on behalf of Mount Arthur
coal mine casuals are still on track despite a court ruling on Oct.
8 that the funder of the cases must provide security valued at $2
million to cover the potential costs of a loss.

The Mount Arthur class action led by injured mineworker Simon
Turner was announced in February 2018 and lodged months later in
June 2018 as two actions being heard together.

They were among the earliest of a spate of similar cases in the
mining industry and other sectors where casual work has spread.

The Turner cases against labour-hire firms TESA and Chandler
Macleod are being run by Canberra law firm Adero, which has lodged
a reported $325 million worth of coal industry cases alone.

Turner first went to lawyer Rory Markham in late 2017, saying it
was against the Black Coal Award to employ casuals as mineworkers.

Other class actions followed CFMMEU litigation on behalf of
Queensland truck driver Paul Skene against his "casual" employer
WorkPac.

The Skene case finished with the Federal Court finding that he was
entitled to accrued annual leave because he worked regular and
predictable rosters.

Employer organisations led by the Australian Industry Group
objected, saying the decision would lead to "double-dipping"
because casuals were paid loadings to cover such entitlements.

But as the Herald has reported since 2016, coal industry casuals
typically earn about 40 per cent less than their permanent
counterparts doing the same job.

The CFMMEU says they are still earning a lot less in situations
such as BHP's new "operations services" group, which the union
describes as an "in-house labour hire service", introduced in
response to the backlash against the contractor arrangements.

Adero lawyer Rory Markham said the Oct. 8 verdict in the Federal
Court was not a surprise.

Justice Michael Lee's decision shows that Mount Arthur Coal (a BHP
subsidiary) and Chandler Macleod had asked for security of $1
million for each case to be lodged by the litigation funder -
UK-based Augusta Ventures.

Although Mt Arthur coal originally proposed . . . that an award of
security should be made against Mr. Turner, this relief was
abandoned. That was wise.

Justice Michael Lee in the Oct. 8 judgement:

"Although the Fair Work Act was set up to allow people to take
court action without the usual obligation of having to pay the
other side if they lose, Justice Lee ruled that this did not apply
to litigation funders such as Augusta."

Litigation funders have traditionally made their money by taking a
contracted slice--usually between 25 per cent to 40 per cent--of
any monies awarded.

In May this year, Justice Lee questioned the amount that another
litigation funder would receive in a separate Adero case, saying it
could lead to a "situation where people are getting less than a
quarter, on the analysis, of their claim".

But Markham told the Herald that the class actions took money to
run and the cost and uncertainty of such proceedings put such
claims beyond the reach of most individuals.

"As far as we are concerned, there has been little willingness by
unions or law firms operating on a no-win, no-fee basis to take
these sorts of challenges on," Markham said.

The union aspect is critical to the Simon Turner case, because
Adero is expected to argue that the entire concept of a "casual"
mineworker is meaningless, because the Black Coal Award that sets
out employment conditions in the industry states that casual
employment is only permitted in specified "staff" positions.

As enterprise agreements are not supposed to legally conflict with
an award sitting "above" them, Adero is expected to argue that coal
industry enterprise agreements that provide for "casual" employment
are unlawful.

In the Mount Arthur cases, this includes an agreement that the
union signed in 2015 covering Chandler Macleod employees across the
"northern" (Hunter and Gunnedah) region.

Simon Turner said on Oct. 8 that the cross-case over costs had been
"a delaying tactic" and he was glad it was resolved.

Markham said the case would return to the court on October 28, when
he expected the costs security would be lodged.

"I'm hoping then that we can have the matter programmed for
hearing, and that this will take place in the first half of next
year," Markham said.

The Oct. 8 decision was being closely watched because of a likely
flow-on to other Fair Work class actions.

Markham agreed with claims that it would make these cases less
attractive to litigation funders, especially for smaller claims.
[GN]


CHANDLER MACLEOD: Ruling to Impact Employment Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Marin-Guzman, writing for Australian Financial Review,
reports that a landmark Federal Court ruling could have a chilling
effect on the recent wave of multimillion-dollar employment class
actions by requiring that litigation funders must stump up costs
ahead of legal action.

Justice Michael Lee ruled on Oct. 8 that the Fair Work Act's costs
shield, which exempts parties from the usual obligation to pay the
other side's costs if they lose, does not apply to litigation
funders and is moving to order UK funder Augusta Ventures pay an
expected $2.1 million in security of costs before proceeding.

The judgment directly affects law firm Adero's class action against
Chandler MacLeod's labour hire subsidiary Ready Workforce over
alleged underpayment of casuals in the black coal mining industry.
The action also brought in BHP as an accessory.

Additionally, it will have ramifications for ten other class
actions that have been launched over alleged underpayments and
workplace law breaches in the past 18 months.

The Fair Work Act's costs shield has been a point of attraction for
class action funders in using employment law as it means they have
less exposure if an action fails.

But Justice Lee found the costs shield safeguarded applicants with
modest claims, "facing the spectre of an intimidating inequality of
arms, to bring an action freed from the vexation that an adverse
costs order could mean financial ruination".

"There is no compelling textual or contextual argument which would
suggest that this protection should be somehow extended to
non-party funders who are using these claims to their perceived
commercial advantage," he said.

An order for security of costs in the Ready Workforce and BHP case
would also apply only to the funder, and the funder would not be
able to recover its costs from employers if it won.

Augusta Ventures told the court this disparity would negatively
affect "the appetite of [the funder] to continue to fund
representative proceedings in the industrial relations
jurisdiction".

But Justice Lee ruled that "if it turns out the Funder has not
adequately factored that risk into the price it has contracted to
charge, this does not seem to me to be something which should be of
particular concern to the Court".

His decision would be different if he was convinced funding would
be withdrawn or there was going to be "a stultification of the
claims" but he said he was not satisfied that would be the case on
the evidence.

"No doubt this will be an integer factored by the market into the
price of the provision of litigation funding services in matters of
this type," he said.

One of the reasons for a security of costs was that Augusta
Ventures was based in the UK without assets in Australia.

The judge is still to decide on the appropriate form of the costs
order, such as by deed of indemnity or by cash, but said it would
reflect anticipated party costs. BHP and Ready Workforce are
seeking about $1 million each.

The class action was filed in June last year and alleges that the
labour hire firm engaged workers as casuals rather than permanent
employees at BHP's Mount Arthur coal mine to avoid paying award
entitlements.

Adero has launched similar class actions worth an estimated $150
million against labour hire firms TESA mining, Workpac, Hays and
Stellar Recruitment.

Decision 'limits' future class actions
Justice Lee noted in his decision that industrial class actions had
represented just 3.4 per cent of funded actions between 1992 and
March 2018 and were "rare beasts" compared to shareholder actions.

However, there are now 11 industrial class actions before the
courts.

Adero Law principal Rory Markham said his firm was considering
whether to appeal the decision but warned "we expect all class
actions will attract security applications".

"From our perspective, this will increase the cost and limit future
opportunities for underpayments [class actions] where claims are
less than $10 million," he said.

He said the decision would put "a lot of pressure" on law firms to
find alternative funding arrangements for wage claims.

"One of the problems in Australian IR law is a breakdown in
compliance and underpayments," he said.

"In our experience there isn't a willingness on the part of unions
or no-win, no-fee law firms to really take these challenges on."

Justice Lee's decision came after he previously criticised UK-based
Harbour Litigation Funding's 40 per cent cut of any settlement, or
400 per cent of legal costs, in a separate IR class action as
"fantastic in the true sense of the word".

Augusta Ventures' 250 per cent return on legal costs for some of
its mining class actions has also been criticised for potentially
leaving claimants with nothing. [GN]


CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Shore Appeals Ruling to 4th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Della Shore, et al., filed an appeal from a Court ruling
entered in their lawsuit entitled Della Shore, et al. v.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-00961-TDS-LPA, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina at Greensboro.

District Court Judge Thomas D. Schroeder granted the motions of the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority and MedCost to dismiss the
Shore, et al., complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), as reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 7,
2019.

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority is a non-profit
healthcare conglomerate headquartered in Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina.  It established and maintains three employee benefit
plans: the Pension Plan of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital
Authority, the Carolinas HealthCare System 401(k) Matched Savings
Plan, and the Carolinas HealthCare System LiveWELL Health Plan.

The City of Charlotte created the Authority in 1943 pursuant to the
Hospital Authority Act ("HAA"), which authorizes cities and
counties to create hospital authorities whenever a city council or
a county board of commissioners finds and adopts a resolution
finding that it is in the interest of the public health and welfare
to create a hospital authority.  The Authority is registered as a
"municipal" body.  The Authority is governed by the Board of Atrium
Commissioners.

The putative class action alleges that the Defendants did not
comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA").  The action is brought by former Authority employees who
allege that they participated in the Authority's employee benefit
plans which should have complied with ERISA requirements.  The
Plaintiffs allege several claims flowing from a contention that the
plans are subject to ERISA and seek a declaration they are covered
plans and an order that they be brought into compliance with the
law.

The appellate case is captioned as Della Shore, et al. v.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital, et al., Case No. 19-2086, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DELLA SHORE, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND
ON BEHALF OF THE ATRIUM PLANS; LISA ENGEL, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND
ON BEHALF OF THE ATRIUM PLANS; MARK RACZ, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND
ON BEHALF OF THE ATRIUM PLANS; MICHAEL SCHWOB, ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE ATRIUM PLANS; and LYDIA WALKER, ON
BEHALF OF THEMSELVES, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE ATRIUM PLANS, are
represented by:

          Jamie Leigh Bowers, Esq.
          Karen Louise Handorf, Esq.
          Julie S. Selesnick, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-3965
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: jbowers@cohenmilstein.com
                  khandorf@cohenmilstein.com
                  jselesnick@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Martha Anne Geer, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          150 Fayetteville Street
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 890-0560
          E-mail: mgeer@cohenmilstein.com

Defendants-Appellees CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, A
NORTH CAROLINA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION doing business as ATRIUM
formerly known as CAROLINAS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, and ATRIUM HEALTH
RETIREMENT COMMITTEE are represented by:

          Mark B. Blocker, Esq.
          Chris K. Meyer, Esq.
          Caroline A. Wong, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
          1 South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603-0000
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: mblocker@sidley.com
                  cmeyer@sidley.com
                  caroline.wong@sidley.com

               - and -

          Mark Hiller, Esq.
          ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
          1450 Raleigh Road
          Chapel Hill, NC 27517
          Telephone: (919) 328-8814
          E-mail: mhiller@robinsonbradshaw.com

               - and -

          Travis Styres Hinman, Esq.
          Charles Evans Johnson, Esq.
          Jonathan C. Krisko, Esq.
          David Calep Wright, III, Esq.
          ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
          101 North Tryon Street
          Charlotte, NC 28246
          Telephone: (704) 377-8365
          E-mail: thinman@robinsonbradshaw.com
                  cejohnson@robinsonbradshaw.com
                  jkrisko@robinsonbradshaw.com
                  dwright@robinsonbradshaw.com

Defendants-Appellees MEDCOST LLC and MEDCOST BENEFIT SERVICES, LLC,
are represented by:

          Richard Andrew Coughlin, Esq.
          Maureen Demarest Murray, Esq.
          Whitney Demain Pierce, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          300 North Greene Street
          Greensboro, NC 27401
          Telephone: (336) 378-5471
          E-mail: rcoughlin@foxrothschild.com
                  mmurray@foxrothschild.com
                  wpierce@foxrothschild.com


CHART INDUSTRIES: Calif. Suit Over Cryo Tank Failure Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Chart Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a purported class action lawsuit related to the alleged
failure of its aluminum cryobiological storage tank product.

During the second quarter of 2018, Chart was named in lawsuits
(including a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California) filed against Chart and
other defendants with respect to the alleged failure of a stainless
steel cryobiological storage tank (model MVE 808AF-GB) at the
Pacific Fertility Center in San Francisco, California.

The company continues to evaluate the merits of such claims in
light of the limited information available to date regarding use,
maintenance and operation of the tank which has been out of its
custody for the past six years when it was sold to the Pacific
Fertility Center through an independent distributor.  

Accordingly, an accrual related to any damages that may result from
the lawsuits has not been recorded because a potential loss is not
currently probable or estimable.

Chart Industries said, "We have asserted various defenses against
the claims in the lawsuits, including a defense that since
manufacture, we were not in any way involved with the installation,
ongoing maintenance or monitoring of the tank or related fertility
center cryogenic systems at any time since the initial delivery of
the tank."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Chart Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells engineered equipment
and packaged solutions; and provides value-add services for the
energy and industrial gas industries worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Energy & Chemicals, Distribution & Storage Western
Hemisphere, and Distribution & Storage Eastern Hemisphere segments.
Chart Industries, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in
Ball Ground, Georgia.


CHART INDUSTRIES: Ontario Suit Over Cryo Storage Tank Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chart Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a purported class action lawsuit related to the alleged
failure of its aluminum cryobiological storage tank product.

Chart has been named in purported class action lawsuits filed in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and other
defendants with respect to the alleged failure of an aluminum
cryobiological storage tank (model FNL XC 47/11-6 W/11) at The
Toronto Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Etobicoke, Ontario.


The company had confirmed that the tank in question was part of the
aluminum cryobiological tank recall commenced on April 23, 2018.

Chart Industries said, "We have asserted various defenses against
the claims in the lawsuits and are in the early stages of
litigation. Accordingly, an accrual related to any damages that may
result from the lawsuit has not been recorded because a potential
loss is not currently probable or estimable."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Chart Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells engineered equipment
and packaged solutions; and provides value-add services for the
energy and industrial gas industries worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Energy & Chemicals, Distribution & Storage Western
Hemisphere, and Distribution & Storage Eastern Hemisphere segments.
Chart Industries, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in
Ball Ground, Georgia.


CHEMOURS CO: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") on Oct. 9
disclosed that it filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf
of its client the Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103,
I.B.E.W. ("Local 103") against The Chemours Company ("Chemours" or
the "Company") (NYSE: CC) and certain of the Company's senior
executives (collectively, "Defendants"). The action, which is
captioned Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v.
The Chemours Company, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all purchasers
of Chemours common stock between February 16, 2017 and August 1,
2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Chemours is a spin-off of the Performance Chemicals division of
industrial conglomerate E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
("DuPont") which began trading as its own public company in 2015.
The spin-off was completed pursuant to a Separation Agreement that
required Chemours to indemnify DuPont for historic environmental
liabilities. The action arises from Defendants' misrepresentations
and omissions relating to Chemours' statements and accruals for
environmental liabilities arising from its decades-long production,
use, and discharge of chemicals manufactured by the Performance
Chemicals division, including perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS")--toxic chemicals that have become the basis for
environmental regulatory actions, prosecutions, personal injury
lawsuits, and extensive remediation efforts.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
misled investors by representing that Chemours had appropriately
accounted and accrued reserves for its environmental liabilities,
that the possibility of costs exceeding accrued amounts was
"remote," and that, in any event, additional costs would not be
material. Chemours also assured investors that its "policies,
standards and procedures are properly designed to prevent
unreasonable risk of harm to people and the environment," and that
its "handling, manufacture, use and disposal of hazardous
substances are in accordance with applicable environmental laws and
regulations." As a result of these misrepresentations, Chemours
shares traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class
Period.

A series of disclosures beginning on May 6, 2019 and culminating on
August 1, 2019 revealed the truth about the Company's environmental
practices, and that Chemours' liabilities were far greater than the
Company had represented. These disclosures included the June 28,
2019 unsealing of a complaint Chemours had filed under seal against
DuPont on May 13, 2019, in which Chemours made detailed allegations
that its spin-off from DuPont was part a deliberate plan by DuPont
to rid itself of significant exposures incurred through decades of
PFAS discharge and to unload that responsibility onto Chemours.
These disclosures triggered sharp declines in the price of Chemours
stock, which lost half its value during this time frame, with
Chemours shares falling from $34.18 per share on May 3, 2019 to
close at $14.69 per share on August 2, 2019.

A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available on
BLB&G's website at www.blbglaw.com.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file
a motion with the Court no later than December 9, 2019, which is
the first business day on which the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware is open that is 60 days after the publication
date of October 9, 2019. Any member of the proposed Class may move
the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their
choice. Members may also choose to do nothing and remain part of
the proposed Class.

Local 103 is represented by BLB&G, a firm of over 150 attorneys
with offices in New York, California, Louisiana, Illinois, and
Delaware. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Michael D. Blatchley of BLB&G at 212-554-1281, or via e-mail at
michaelb@blbglaw.com.

Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G has built an international
reputation for excellence and integrity. Specializing in securities
fraud, corporate governance, shareholders' rights, employment
discrimination, and civil rights litigation, among other practice
areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and private actions on behalf of
institutional and individual clients worldwide. Unique among its
peers, BLB&G has obtained several of the largest and most
significant securities recoveries in history, recovering billions
of dollars on behalf of defrauded investors. More information about
BLB&G can be found online at www.blbglaw.com.

CONTACT:

Michael D. Blatchley
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, New York 10020
(212) 554-1281
[GN]


CHICAGO, IL: Bid for Summary Judgment in Barlett Labor Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT BARLETT and PATRICK LEYDEN, individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated SWAT team members of the Chicago
Police Department, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant, Case
No. 14C7225 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Charles P. Kocoras of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, (i) granted the City's motion for summary judgment, and
(ii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs Bartlett and Leyden are Chicago Police Department
("CPD") officers who were both assigned to the CPD's Special
Weapons and Tactics ("SWAT") Unit when it became a full-time unit
in 2005.  Bartlett was assigned to the SWAT Unit until April 2017.
He is currently on leave from the CPD while performing duties as a
field representative for The Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago
Lodge No. 7 ("FOP"), the union that represents CPD officers below
the rank of sergeant. Leyden remains assigned to the SWAT Unit.

In addition to Bartlett and Leyden, the Plaintiffs' FLSA certified
collective class includes 76 opt-in Plaintiffs, and the Rule 23
certified class consists of 102 class members.  The Plaintiffs
currently work or formerly worked as operational members of the
SWAT Unit in the rank of police officer.

The Plaintiffs filed their third amended class action complaint on
Nov. 3, 2017, claiming that they should be compensated for the time
required to transport, load/unload, and store their gear between
their vehicles and their residences.  They seek relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") (Count I); the Illinois Wage
Payment Collection Act ("IWPCA"), as amended, (Count II); and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") (Count III) for unpaid
compensation unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and injunctive relief, and any
such other relief the Court may deem appropriate.

On Jan. 22, 2018, the parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.  The City
moves for summary judgment on all counts with respect to liability,
as the parties agreed to bifurcate the assessment of liability and
damages in the case.  The Plaintiffs only move for summary judgment
on Counts I and III, the FLSA and IMWL claims, respectively.

Having found that the transportation, loading/unloading, and
storage of gear is not integral and indispensable to a SWAT
operator's principal activity, Judge Kocoras must return to the
defaults laid out in the Portal-to-Portal Act.  The practical
effect of granting the Plaintiffs' requested relief would be to
compensate them for the time spent commuting to and from work.
Although the Judge recognizes and applauds the Plaintiffs' efforts
to hasten their response to critical incidents, the law prohibits a
finding that such efforts are compensable when they primarily
consist of commute time.  As the Supreme Court stated, these
arguments are properly presented to the employer at the bargaining
table, not to a court in an FLSA claim.  Accordingly, Judge Kocoras
grants summary judgment in the City's favor as to Counts I and
III.

Furthermore, Judge Kocoras finds that the parties' agreement
affords compensation only for "approved overtime."  As the record
and the existence of the lawsuit clearly indicate, the City did not
agree to pay the Plaintiffs overtime for the transportation and
storage of their gear.  The City consistently denied their requests
for such overtime pay, and there is no provision in the Plaintiffs'
collective bargaining agreement that entitles them to compensation
for this undertaking.  Accordingly, the IWPCA claim cannot stand,
and Judge Kocoras grants summary judgment in favor of the City on
Count II.

For these reasons, Judge Kocoras granted the City's motion, and
denied the Plaintiffs' motion.  

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 1, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/lswy4Y from Leagle.com.

Robert Bartlett, Individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated SWAT team members on the Chicago Police Department,
Plaintiff, represented by Paul D. Geiger, Law Offices of Paul D.
Geiger & Ronald C. Dahms .

Patrick Leyden, Plaintiff, represented by Paul D. Geiger, Law
Offices of Paul D. Geiger.

City Of Chicago, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Anne Naber --
jnaber@lanermuchin.com -- Laner Muchin, Ltd., James J. Convery --
jconvery@lanermuchin.com -- Laner Muchin, Ltd., Joseph Michael
Gagliardo -- jgagliardo@lanermuchin.com -- Laner Muchin, Ltd.,
Matthew Patrick Kellam, Laner Muchin, Ltd. & Priyavathi Reddy --
preddy@lanermuchin.com -- Laner Muchin, Ltd..


COACHELLA VALLEY: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Water Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action claims
the Coachella Valley Water District, in the California desert,
illegally charges its nonagricultural customers more for nonpotable
water than it charges agricultural users, including some on the
water district's board.




CONDE NAST: Sued in Calif. Over Automatic Subscription Renewal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class action in superior
court claims Conde Nast magazines "enrolls consumers in automatic
renewal or continuous service subscriptions without providing the
'clear and conspicuous' disclosures mandated by California law."

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

                      https://is.gd/zITqQr


CONSUELO PRODUCE: Iglesias Sues over OT Wages for Delivery Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR IGLESIAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CONSUELO PRODUCE, LLC and PEDRO
CONSUELO, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-04484-ELR (N.D. Ga., Oct. 4, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime premium pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Throughout Plaintiff's employment, he drove a small vehicle
weighing less than 10,001 pounds, such that the Motor Carrier Act
exemption does not apply, and he is owed overtime wages.

The Plaintiff was not paid any overtime wages, despite working in
excess of 40 hours per week throughout his employment.

The exact number of employees who have suffered the same unpaid
overtime wage injury as Plaintiff, and have yet to receive redress
is unknown at this time.

The Defendants have been in the food delivery industry, delivering
food and beverages for clients by using trucks and smaller
vehicles. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a delivery
driver.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC
          1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (678) 330-2909
          Facsimile: (678) 638-6201
          E-mail: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com

CROSSMARK INC: Faces Salazar Wage and Hour Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROSALIE SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. CROSSMARK, INC., a corporation; and DOES
1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19NWCV00808 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 23, 2019), is brought under the California
Private Attorneys General Act seeking to remedy the Defendants'
wage-and-hour violations.

The Defendants have engaged in a uniform policy and systematic
scheme of wage abuse against the Plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees, including failing to provide meal and rest breaks, to
pay minimum and overtime wages, and to furnish the Plaintiff and
other employees with accurate, itemized wage statements. As a
result of these violations, the Defendants are liable for civil
penalties under the California PAGA, says the complaint.

Rosalie Salazar has been employed by the Defendants as an event
specialist from October 2018 to the present in South Gate,
California.

Crossmark, Inc. is a sales and marketing services company that
operates throughout the United States. Crossmark is headquartered
in Plano, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
     Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
     KJT LAW GROUP LLP
     230 North Maryland Avenue, Suite 306
     Glendale, CA 91206
     Phone: 818.507.8525

          - and -

     Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
     ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
     4740 Calle Carga
     Camarillo, CA 93012
     Phone: 818.425.1437


CSX CORP: Denial of Class Cert. in Fuel Surcharge Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has affirmed the District Court's
ruling in denying the class certification in the Fuel Surcharge
Antitrust Litigation.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSX
Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) and three other U.S.-based Class I
railroads alleging that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices
relating to contract and unregulated traffic resulted from an
illegal conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws. The class action
lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the District of
Columbia.

In 2017, the District Court issued its decision denying class
certification. On August 16, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling.

CSX Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
rail-based freight transportation services. The company offers rail
services, as well as transports intermodal containers and trailers.
CSX Corporation was founded in 1978 and is based in Jacksonville,
Florida.

DAIMLER TRUCKS: Davidson Suit Asserts FLSA and WARN Act Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN DAVIDSON, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00543 (W.D. N.C., Oct. 17, 2019) is a
collective and class action brought by Plaintiff, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated persons employed by Defendant
arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, and the
Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.

The Defendant maintained a common policy of prohibiting hourly-paid
production line workers from being "clocked in" before and after
their scheduled shifts, and/or during their meal breaks, regardless
of whether they were working during such times. As a result,
hourly-paid production line workers regularly worked "off the
clock" before and after their scheduled shifts, and/or during their
meal breaks, and were not paid for such work. In many weeks, the
work hourly-paid production line workers performed "off the clock"
occurred in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, and thus should have
been compensated at time-and-a-half of their regular rates of pay,
but was not. The Defendant knew that hourly-paid production line
workers were working "off the clock" before and after their
scheduled shifts, and/or during their meal breaks, but failed to
compensate them for such time.

In October 2019, Defendant laid off over 500 other full-time
employees at its Mount Holly, North Carolina plant, including
Plaintiff. The laid-off employees were entitled to receive 60 days
advance written notice under the WARN Act from the Defendant.
However, the Defendant failed to give the employees notice at least
60 days prior to laying them off, in violation of the WARN Act,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant from approximately March 16, 2015
through approximately October 11, 2019 in Defendant's plant in
Mount Holly, North Carolina.

Defendant is an automotive industry manufacturer of commercial
vehicles headquartered in Portland, Oregon, and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of the German company Daimler AG.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
     CRUMLEY ROBERTS LLP
     2400 Freeman Mill Road
     Greensboro, NC 27406
     Phone: (800) 288-1529
     Fax: (336) 333-9894
     Email: BLKinsley@crumleyroberts.com

          - and -

     Jason T. Brown, Esq.
     Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
     BROWN, LLC
     111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
     Jersey City, NJ 07310
     Phone: (877) 561-0000
     Fax: (855) 582-5297
     Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
            nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


DEL TACO: Discovery Ongoing in Former Calif. Employee's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 10, 2019, that the parties in the
class action suit initiated by a former employee of the company are
undergoing discovery.

In March 2014, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class
action complaint alleging that Del Taco has not appropriately
provided meal breaks and failed to pay wages to its California
hourly employees.

Del Taco said it intends to assert all of its defenses to this
threatened class action and the individual claims.

Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes could
prevent the certification of the class, as well as the potential
assessment of any damages on a class basis.

Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company is
not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved
matter.

Del Taco said, "However, based on management's current
understanding of the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company
does not believe that these proceedings give rise to a probable or
estimable loss and should not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position, operations or cash flows. Therefore,
Del Taco has not recorded any amount for the claim as of September
10, 2019.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. operates a chain of fast food
restaurants. The company consists of two separate Mexican fast-food
groups, 79 Del Taco units and 36 Taco Villa restaurants. The
company offers Mexican food items, such as tacos, burritos,
quesadillas, burgers, French fries, and soft drinks. The company
was incorporated in 1983 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Del Taco
Restaurants operates as a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co.


DOW CHEMICAL CO: Faces Suit over Mislabeled Herbicide Product
-------------------------------------------------------------
BOOTHE FARMS, INC.; BIG RISK FARMS, INC.; JEFFREY D. BOOTHE; TERRY
BOOTHE; ADAM BOOTHE; RINEHART FAMILY FARMS II; MM FAMILY FARMS; and
JASON R. HANKS individually and on behalf of all those others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE DOW CHEMICAL CO.; DOW
AGROSCIENCES LLC; CORTEV A, INC.; and E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
CO., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00264 (E.D. Ark., Sept. 26, 2019)
is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the research, design, development, manufacture,
testing, promotion, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling,
and sale of Loyant herbicide for use on rice crops.

According to the complaint, the Defendants touted Loyant's ability
to control certain weeds, such as bamyardgrass, while also
representing that Loyant would not impact or harm rice crops or
yields, or that any such impacts would be temporary. In direct
contrast to these representations, however, Loyant failed to
control bamyardgrass as well as other grasses and weeds and damaged
the Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' rice crops causing financial
loss.

The Dow Chemical Company operates as a chemical company. The
Company manufactures specialty chemicals, rubber, agro-science, and
plastic materials. Dow Chemical serves the packaging,
infrastructure, agricultural, and consumer care industries
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clayton Smaistrla, Esq.
          SAUCIER & SMAISTRLA PLLC
          200 Concord Plaza Drive, Suite 750
          San Antonio, TX 78216
          Telephone: (210) 901-8112
          Facsimile: 210-338-8916
          E-mail: clayton@s2lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
          Arthur  M. Murray, Esq.
          Jessica  W. Hayes
          MURRAY LAW FIRM
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-525-8100
          Facsimile: 504-584-5249
          E-mail: smurrajr@murray-lawfirm.com
                  amurray@murray-lawfirm.com
                  jhayes@murray-lawfirm.com
                  James Pizzirusso
                  Hausfeld LLP

               - and -

          James Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K St., NW, Ste 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone:  202-540-7200
          Facsimile:  202-540-7201
          E-mail:  jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com


DROPBOX, INC: IPO Documents Misleading, Deinnocentis Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
JASON MICHAEL DEINNOCENTIS, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DROPBOX, INC., ANDREW
W. HOUSTON, AJAY V. VASHEE, TIMOTHY J. REGAN, ARASH FERDOWSI,
ROBERT J. MYLOD, JR., DONALD W. BLAIR, PAUL E. JACOBS,
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, R. BRYAN SCHREIER, MARGARET C. WHITMAN, SEQUOIA
CAPITAL XII, L.P., SEQUOIA CAPITAL XII PRINCIPALS FUND, LLC,
SEQUOIA TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS XII, L.P., and SC XII MANAGEMENT, LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-06348-BLF (N.D. Cal., Oct. 4,
2019), is a securities class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased Dropbox Class A common stock pursuant or traceable to a
the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's
March 23, 2018 initial public offering.

The lawsuit asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933 against
Dropbox, its senior executive officers and directors, and venture
capital sponsors of the Company's initial public offering. The
Plaintiff acquired Dropbox Class A common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement and was damaged thereby.

According to the complaint, the Company maintains a multi-share
class voting structure designed to concentrate voting control in
the hands of Company insiders and early investors, such as the
Defendants, while transferring a disproportionate amount of the
economic risk of investing in the Company onto outside investors.
Class A shares, which were sold in the IPO, have one vote each,
while Class B shares, which are held by Company insiders and early
stage investors, have ten votes each. Following the IPO,
outstanding shares of Class B common stock represented
approximately 98.1% of the voting power of Dropbox's outstanding
capital stock.

On February 23, 2018, Dropbox filed a registration statement for
the IPO on Form S-1, which, after several amendments, was declared
effective on March 22, 2018. On March 23, 2018, Dropbox filed the
prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4, which incorporated and formed
part of the Registration Statement.

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 claimed that a significant proportion of the
Company's registered user base was primed for monetization.

The Defendants offered and sold 41.4 million Class A shares at $21
per share for over $869 million in gross offering proceeds, which
included the full exercise of underwriters' over-allotment option
to sell an additional 5.4 million shares. In addition, the Company
conducted a private offering of Class A stock concurrently with the
IPO in which it sold over 4.7 million shares to an institutional
investor for an additional $100 million in gross proceeds.

The Defendants also sold stock in the IPO, raking in more than $184
million after applicable underwriting discounts. Underwriters
received more than $38.6 million in underwriting discounts and fees
from the IPO proceeds, and several, including lead underwriters
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, received
tens of millions of dollars more as a result of payments by Dropbox
towards a revolving credit facility maintained by these investment
banks.

On August 27, 2019, Dropbox stock closed at $17.53 per share,
representing a decline of more than 16% from the IPO price.
Shockingly, in connection with its second quarter 2019 earnings
report, Dropbox still claimed to have "more than 500 million
registered users" as of June 2019, indicating that the Company had
experienced essentially no significant registered user growth since
December 31, 2017 -- months prior to the IPO. The company had only
converted an additional 2.6 million paid users in the
year-and-a-half since the IPO, representing an annualized post-IPO
growth rate of only 15% and less than 1% of the "300 million"
figure provided in the Registration Statement.  Similarly, the
Company's revenue growth rate had dramatically decelerated to only
18% for 2019, a sharp decline from the 40% and 31% annual growth
rates highlighted in the Registration Statement.

Dropbox is a software and technology Company based in San
Francisco, California. Its Class A common stock trades on the
NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "DBX."

Attorney for the Plaintiff are:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

EARTHCARE MANAGEMENT: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE GONZALEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated
Persons, Plaintiff, v. EARTHCARE MANAGEMENT, INC. And BRENT
ABSHIRE, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-04057 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 17,
2019) is an action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
brought both as an individual action and collective action to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees owed to Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
employees employed by, or formerly employed by Defendants its
subsidiaries and affiliated companies.

Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The
Defendants knew of, approved of, and benefited from Plaintiff's
regular and overtime work. Plaintiff was entitled to be paid for
all hours he worked for the Defendants, and to be paid an overtime
premium for all work performed during the hours worked over 40
hours in each workweek. However, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff for all of the overtime hours worked in many workweeks
that the Plaintiff was employed by Defendants, as the Plaintiff
worked in excess of 40 hours in most weeks, in clear violation of
the FLSA. The Defendants' actions were willful and in blatant
disregard for Plaintiff's federally protected right, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Jose Gonzalez worked for Defendants as a laborer from
July 8, 2012 until August 26, 2019.

Defendants were an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce,
operating on interstate highways, purchasing materials through
commerce, transporting materials through commerce and on the
interstate highways, conducting transactions through commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
     Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
     Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
     THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
     2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
     Houston, TX 77018
     Phone: 713-868-3388
     Facsimile: 713-683-9940
     Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
            tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com
            vijay@buenkerlaw.com


ELGIN MENTAL: Padilla Appeals Decision in Nadzhafaliyev Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Daniel Padilla filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Ali Nadzhafaliyev, et al. v. Daniel Hardy, et al.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-04469, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was
filed on June 13, 2017, and is captioned as Ali Nadzhafaliyev; Sean
Gunderson; Paul Olsson; Abby Grason; James Baker; Mark Owens;
Daniel Padilla, Other Similarly situated Detainees who fear
retaliation for Participating; and All residents/detainees of the
Elgin Mental Health Center, Elgin, Illinois, the Plaintiffs v.
Daniel Hardy; Coleen Delaney; Brian Dawson; Jeff Pharis; Danette
Jungles; Bill Epperson; Dr. Langely; Debbie Giardina; Richard
Malis; Rhyma Jacobson; Tom Comeford; Daniel Malone; Jeff Pilario;
Anderson Freeman; Penny Sanchez; Lorrie Campbell; Sharon Coleman;
Carmen Carter; Naina Desai; Ghouse Mouhoudini, in his official &
individual capacities; and Elgin Mental Health Center, an Illinois
Agency; and Daniel Dyslin, in his official capacity(ies) as general
Counsel and legal oversight official for the Illinois Department of
Human Services, & the Elgin Mental Health Center & his individual
capacity, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04469 (N.D. Ill.).

Elgin Mental Health Center (formerly Elgin State Hospital) is a
mental health facility operated by the State of Illinois in Elgin,
Illinois.

The appellate case is captioned as Daniel Padilla v. Daniel Hardy,
et al., Case No. 19-2966, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellant's brief is due on or before November 18, 2019, for Daniel
Padilla.

Plaintiff-Appellant DANIEL PADILLA, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated detainees, who fear retaliation for
participating, appears pro se.[BN]

Defendants-Appellees DANIEL HARDY, in his official & individual
capacities; COLEEN DELANEY, in her official & individual
capacities; DANETTE JUNGLES, in her official & individual
capacities; BILL EPPERSON, in his official & individual capacities;
and DEBBIE GIARDINA, in her official and individual capacities, are
represented by:

          Nadine J. Wichern, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          100 W. Randolph Street
          State of Illinois Center
          Chicago, IL 60601-0000
          Telephone: (312) 814-5659
          E-mail: nwichern@atg.state.il.us


EPIC GAMES: Krohm Dismissed w/o Prejudice for Lack of Jurisdiction
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Western Division, dismissed without
prejudice the case styled as ERIC KROHM, individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EPIC GAMES, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-CV-173-BO (E.D. N.C.).

Defendant Epic Games is the developer of Fortnite, a popular
videogame with millions of players in the United States and around
the world.  The Plaintiff, like other Fortnite players, was
required to create an account in order to play, which entailed
providing personally identifiable information ("PII").  The
Defendant allegedly promised to maintain appropriate technical
safeguards of player data.

Around November 2018, a cybersecurity firm alerted the Defendant to
a vulnerability in Fortnite's system which allowed cyber-criminals
and unauthorized parties to access and extract PII, payment
information, and other sensitive data associated with Fortnite
players' accounts.  Fortnite was allegedly the target of a data
hack in the summer of 2018, which affected millions of players'
accounts.  The Defendant allegedly failed to take measures to cure
the cyber vulnerability and to alert customers that their
information may have been compromised.

In response to learning about the cyber vulnerability, the
Plaintiff has taken time and effort to mitigate the risk of
identity theft, including changing passwords and paying for credit
monitoring services.  He has also allegedly experienced mental
anguish and anxiety from the fear of identity theft and fraud.

The Plaintiff brought the putative class action on behalf of the
millions of Fortnite account holders potentially affected by the
cyber vulnerability.  The Plaintiff alleges violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and negligence.
The suit was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.

The Defendant removed the case to federal court in Illinois based
on the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  Once in federal court,
the case was transferred to the Eastern District of North Carolina
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) because of a forum selection
clause in the End User License Agreement ("EULA").

The Defendant moved to dismiss all of the Plaintiff's causes of
action under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
or in the alternative, asks the North Carolina Court to compel
arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision of the EULA.

The case involves a peculiar role reversal.  The Plaintiff, who
wants the case returned to Illinois state court, argues that he
does not have Article III standing because he has not pled a proper
injury-in-fact.  The Defendant, who removed the case to federal
court, argues the opposite.  It argues that the Plaintiff has
alleged sufficient injuries for Article III standing, just not the
economic damages needed for a cognizable claim under his asserted
causes of action.

Judge Boyle holds that the case must be dismissed because the North
Carolina Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the
Plaintiff's claims.  The Plaintiff alleges no Article III
injury-in-fact.  The mere existence of the data vulnerability does
not constitute injury-in-fact.  Instead, the complaint must allege
a sufficient factual basis from which to conclude either that the
Plaintiff's compromised data has been misused, or that it will be
misused, such that concrete harms are actual or imminent.  The
Plaintiff's complaint contains no facts showing, or even
suggesting, that his personal data has been used as a result of the
cyber vulnerability, Judge Boyle finds.

Because the Defendant wants the North Carolina Court to dismiss the
case under Rule 12(b)(6) or compel arbitration, it argues, among
other things, that CAFA entitles it to have its case decided by a
federal court.  Judge Boyle holds that the Defendant's argument
fails.  The requirement of injury in fact is a hard floor of
Article III jurisdiction that cannot be removed by statute.  The
North Carolina Court does not have Article III jurisdiction over
the case, and therefore can neither dismiss for failure to state a
claim nor compel arbitration.  The case must be dismissed without
prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff moved to remand the case back to the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois even though the case was transferred from the
Northern District of Illinois.  The North Carolina Court is aware
that at least one circuit has held that a district court can send a
case to the original state court even when that state court was not
the transferor.

Judge Boyle declines to construe the Court's ability to remand
quite so liberally.  When a court remands a case, it sends the case
back to the place from which it came.  The case was transferred
from the Northern District of Illinois, not the Circuit Court of
Cook County.  Judge Boyle said he cannot send the case to the
Circuit Court of Cook County, and therefore has no other option but
to dismiss the case for lack of Article III jurisdiction.  Judge
Boyle denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand.

Finally, the Plaintiff also moved to stay briefing on the
Defendant's motion to dismiss pending resolution of his motion to
remand.  As explained, the Judge is dismissing the case, so the
Plaintiff's motion to stay will be mooted.

For the reasons stated, Judge Boyle (i) denied the Defendant's
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; (ii) denied the
Plaintiff's motions to remand and to stay briefing; and (iii)
dismissed without prejudice the case for lack of jurisdiction.  The
Clerk is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of Judge Boyle's Oct. 1, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/IPH7r9 from Leagle.com.

Eric Krohm, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel K. Bryson, Whitfield,
Bryson & Mason, LLP, Jad Sheikali -- jsheikali@mcgpc.com -- McGuire
Law, P.C., Myles P. McGuire -- mmcguire@mcgpc.com -- McGuire Law,
P.C., Patrick M. Wallace, Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP & Timothy
Patrick Kingsbury -- tkingsbury@mcgpc.com -- McGuire Law, P.C.

Epic Games, Inc., a Maryland corporation, Defendant, represented by
Constantine Koutsoubas -- ckoutsoubas@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye
& Warren LLP, Jeffrey S. Jacobson -- jjacobson@kelleydrye.com --
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Matthew Charles Luzadder --
mluzadder@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Andrew Robert
Shores, Williams Mullen, Robert C. Van Arnam, Williams Mullen & Wes
J. Camden , Williams Mullen.


FEDEX GROUND: Hall Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned ROBERT B. HALL, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE
SYSTEM, INC., a Delaware Corporation; GHG CORPORATION, a Nevada
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 19STCV26934 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
Oct. 17, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-08973.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges ten causes of action against
FedEx Ground: (1) Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; (2)
Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; (3) Failure to Pay
Overtime Wages; (4) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; (5) Failure to Pay
All Wages Due to Discharged or Quitting Employees; (6) Failure to
Maintain Required Records; (7) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized
Wage Statements; (8) Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary
Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties; (9) Unlawful
Deductions from Wages; and (1) Unfair and Unlawful Business
Practices.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     SHAUN J. VOIGT, ESQ.
     FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
     444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
     Los Angeles, California 90071
     Phone: (213) 330-4500
     Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
     Email: svoigt@fisherphillips.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Settlement Reached in Direct Customers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 15, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2019, that the company has
reached a settlement with direct customers, pursuant to which the
company agreed to pay a total of $6.25 million to resolve all
claims asserted by the putative direct purchaser class related to
barbeque cylinders.

The company has been named as a defendant, along with a competitor,
in putative class action lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions.
The lawsuits, which were consolidated in the Western District of
Missouri on October 16, 2014, allege that Ferrellgas and a
competitor coordinated in 2008 to reduce the fill level in barbeque
cylinders and combined to persuade a common customer to accept that
fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to direct
customers and end-user customers in violation of federal and
certain state antitrust laws. The lawsuits seek treble damages,
attorneys' fees, injunctive relief and costs on behalf of the
putative class. These lawsuits have been coordinated for pretrial
purposes by the multidistrict litigation panel.

The Federal Court for the Western District of Missouri initially
dismissed all claims brought by direct and indirect customers other
than state law claims of indirect customers under Wisconsin, Maine
and Vermont law. The direct customer plaintiffs filed an appeal,
which resulted in a reversal of the district court's dismissal.

The company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari which was
denied. An appeal by the indirect customer plaintiffs resulted in
the court of appeals affirming the dismissal of the federal claims
and remanding the case to the district court to decide whether to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims.

Thereafter, in August 2019, the company reached a settlement with
the direct customers, pursuant to which it agreed to pay a total of
$6.25 million to resolve all claims asserted by the putative direct
purchaser class.  With respect to the indirect customers, the
district court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining state law claims, but then granted in part the company's
pleadings-based motion and dismissed 11 of the 24 remaining state
law claims. As a result, there are 13 remaining state law claims
brought by a putative class of indirect customers.  

Ferrellgas Partners said, "We believe we have strong defenses and
intend to vigorously defend against these remaining claims. We do
not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time
related to the putative class action lawsuit."

Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. distributes and sells propane and related
equipment and supplies. The company transports propane to propane
distribution locations, tanks on customers' premises, or to
portable propane tanks delivered to retailers. Ferrellgas Partners,
L.P. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Overland Park,
Kansas .


FIBROCELL SCIENCE: Faces Franchi Suit Over Sale to Castle Creek
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. FIBROCELL SCIENCE, INC., DOUGLAS J. SWIRSKY,
JULIAN P. KIRK, JOHN MASLOWSKI, MARC B. MAZUR, KELVIN D. MOORE,
MARCUS E. SMITH, and CHRISTINE ST. CLARE, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02001-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 23, 2019), stems from a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Fibrocell will be acquired by Castle
Creek Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. and Castle Creek Merger Corp.

On September 12, 2019, Fibrocell's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Castle
Creek. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Fibrocell's
stockholders will receive $3.00 in cash for each share of Fibrocell
common stock they own. On October 11, 2019, the Defendants filed a
proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading, the Plaintiff alleges, citing violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the
Company's financial projections because it fails to disclose, for
each set of projections: (i) all line items used to calculate
EBITDA and EBIT; (ii) projected free cash flows and all underlying
line items; and (iii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP
metrics, the Plaintiff contends.  The Plaintiff adds that the Proxy
Statement omits material information regarding the analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisor, Canaccord Genuity, in
connection with the Proposed Transaction because the Statement
fails to disclose the individual multiples and metrics for the
companies observed by Canaccord in the analysis.

The Proxy Statement also fails to disclose the nature of
Canaccord's communications with the "five potential strategic
partners identified by the Special Committee" regarding "their
potential interest in acquiring the Company," the Plaintiff also
points out. The Company's stockholders are entitled to an accurate
description of the process leading up to the execution of the
Merger Agreement, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Fibrocell common stock.

Fibrocell is a cell and gene therapy company focused on improving
the lives of people with rare diseases of the skin and connective
tissue.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


GD TRANSPORT: McKimm Seeks Minimum Wages for Truck Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN MCKIMM on his own behalf and all similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. GD TRANSPORT, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, and JOSLEMY S. DELGADO, individually, the
Defendants, the Case No. 6:19-cv-01914 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 7, 2019),
seeks to recover minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked for Defendants as
truck drivers. The Defendants failed to track the Truck Drivers'
hours of work beyond those hours tracked by the United States
Department of Transportation.

In many weeks, the Truck Drivers were paid less than minimum wage
for each hour that they worked, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs are:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813 223 5502
          Facsimile: 813 223 5402
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Palopoli Case Now Under Judges Wilson and Wilner
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Joseph Palopoli, Jr. on behalf
of himself and a class of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff v. General Motors, LLC; General Motors Holdings LLC; and
General Motors Company, the Defendants (C.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 11,
2019), was transferred from Judge Dale S. Fischer and Magistrate
Judge Steve Kim to Judge Stephen V. Wilson and Magistrate Judge
Michael R. Wilner on Oct. 18, 2019, for all further proceedings.

The case number now reflects the initials of the transferee judge,
Case No. 2:19-cv-08770 SVW(MRWx). The suit involves Diversity-Motor
Vehicle Product Liability. The case is related to Case No.
2:19-cv-07668-SVW-MRW.

General Motors is an American multinational corporation that
designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and
vehicle parts, and sells financial services, with global
headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance Center, in Detroit,
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          STULL STULL AND BRODY
          9430 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 209-2468
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2087
          E-mail: memert@ssbny.com

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER GRAIFMAN
          747 Chestnut Ridge Rd., Suite 200
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com


GIGAMON INC: Golub Appeals Decision in Carpenter Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff John E. Golub filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Brian Carpenter, et al. v. Gigamon Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-06653-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on November 17, 2017, alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising from a proposed merger
between Gigamon and Elliott Management Corporation.  Pursuant to
the merger, the Company's shareholders stand to receive $38.50 in
cash for each share of Gigamon stock they own, representing $1.6
billion in equity value.

The appellate case is captioned as John Golub, et al. v. Gigamon
Inc., et al., Case No. 19-16975, 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 John E. Golub's opening brief is due on
      January 13, 2020;

   -- Appellees Arthur W. Coviello Jr., Joan A. Dempsey, Elliott
      Associates, L.P., Elliott International, L.P., Elliott
      Management Corporation, Evergreen Coast Capital
      Corporation, Gigamon Inc., Ginsberg Holdco, Inc., Ginsberg
      Merger Sub, Inc., Ted C. Ho, Paul A. Hooper, John H.
      Kispert, Paul E. Milbury, Corey M. Mulloy, Michael C.
      Ruettgers, Robert E. Switz and Dario Zamarian's answering
      brief is due on February 13, 2020; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant, JOHN E. GOLUB, On Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Danielle Suzanne Myers, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: dmyers@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn Anthony Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          One Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees GIGAMON INC., COREY M. MULLOY, PAUL A. HOOPER,
ARTHUR W. COVIELLO, Jr., JOAN A. DEMPSEY, TED C. HO, JOHN H.
KISPERT, PAUL E. MILBURY, MICHAEL C. RUETTGERS, ROBERT E. SWITZ and
DARIO ZAMARIAN are represented by:

          David Joel Berger, Esq.
          Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq.
          Joni Ostler, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Telephone: (650) 493-9300
          E-mail: dberger@wsgr.com
                  jbirn@wsgr.com
                  jostler@wsgr.com

Defendants-Appellees ELLIOTT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, ELLIOTT
ASSOCIATES, L.P., ELLIOTT INTERNATIONAL, L.P., EVERGREEN COAST
CAPITAL CORPORATION, GINSBERG HOLDCO, INC., and GINSBERG MERGER
SUB, INC., are represented by:

          Michael J. Kahn, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1881 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 849-5330
          E-mail: mjkahn@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Brian Michael Lutz, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 393-8200
          E-mail: blutz@gibsondunn.com


GLADIATOR ENERGY: Munoz Seeks Overtime Pay for Pump Operators
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARCUS MUNOZ, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. GLADIATOR ENERGY LLC and STEVEN CLOY GANTT,
Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-00251 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 23, 2019),
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act in
connection with their failure to pay the Plaintiff and other
salaried Pump Operators lawful overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked in
excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with the
Defendants, according to the complaint. On average, the Plaintiff
and other similarly-situated employees worked over 90 hours per
week but they did not receive any overtime compensation as required
by the FLSA. Within the time period relevant to this case, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were misclassified
as exempt and were only paid a salary, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Pump Operator from
July 2019 through August 2019.

Gladiator Energy LLC is a foreign limited liability company,
licensed to do business in the State of Texas.[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


GLOBAL RESORTS: Underpays Housekeepers, Andreus Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY ANDREUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL RESORTS GROUP, CORP. d/b/a EL PARAISO
MOTEL, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-23993-RNS (S.D. Fla., Sept. 26,
2019) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Andreus was employed by the Defendant as
housekeeper.

Global Resorts Group, Corp. d/b/a El Paraiso Motel is a Florida
corporation operating a motel and accommodation services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
           ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
           9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
           Miami, FL 33156
           Telephone: (305) 446-1500
           Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
           E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Settles Homestead Class Action for $17.5MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Cooper, writing for The Brunswick News, reports that Glynn
County released a notice on Oct. 7 of a $17.5 million preliminary
settlement in a class-action lawsuit over improper application of
the Scarlett Williams homestead exemption.

"We had an expert go in and calculate the refund amount, and we
believe this will give class members 100 percent of what they're
due. You can't get better than that," Jay Roberts, attorney for the
class, said.

He said the class includes upwards of 13,000 Glynn County
residents.

"If you applied for and received the local homestead exemption
known as the Scarlett Williams exemption . . . for tax years 2010
through 2018, you may be a class member and eligible for a tax
refund," the notice released by the county reads.

The class-action lawsuit goes back to 2012 when J. Matthew and
Elizabeth Coleman filed a lawsuit alleging they had been
overcharged on property taxes due to misapplication of the Scarlett
Williams homestead exemption.

In effect, the homestead exemption "freezes" a property's assessed
value at the value of the base year. In the lawsuit, the Colemans
alleged the county had used the wrong base year. It had used the
year they applied for an exemption as the base year, when it should
have used the year before.

For some, this means the county has been overcharging them for
years. For others, it may mean an increase in property taxes as
their base year is changed to a year in which their property values
were higher.

Two more lawsuits filed in 2013 and 2014 alleged the same thing,
and all three were certified as a single class-action lawsuit in
2015.

Cobb County Superior Court Judge G. Grant Brantley sided with the
county in 2017, clearing it of civil charges.

In March 2018, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the judge's
decision. The case went to the state Supreme Court, which declined
to hear the case later that year in August. As such, the appeals
court's ruling stands. The settlement is not final until Judge
Brantley issues his final order.

"The court will hold a final approval hearing at 10 a.m. on Nov. 8,
2019, at the Glynn County Courthouse. After the final approval
hearing, the court will decide whether to approve the settlement.
The court may also decide how much to pay class counsel or whether
to approve the class service petition. We do not know how long it
will take the court to make its decision," according to the
notice.

The settlement notice also details the method by which refunds will
be calculated.

Generally, refund administrators will take the difference between
the value of the correct year and the actual base year and multiply
it by the county and Glynn County Schools millage rate.

Some factors may impact the calculations, such as the size of the
property, whether or not the assessed value was "refrozen" — the
practice of resetting the base year to a later year when values
were lower — additional property tax exemptions and construction
occurring between the incorrect and correct years.

"At this time, it is not known how much each individual refund will
be. The administrators will calculate the individual refund amounts
after the final approval hearing and after the court finally
approves the settlement," according to the notice.

Not all who meet the criteria will qualify for a refund, however.
If the base year used to calculate property taxes is incorrect, but
is less than or equal to the correct base year, that taxpayer will
be excluded from the settlement, the notice states.

For more information on the settlement and to whom it applies,
visit glynncounty.org/taxrefundcase.

Class counsel in the case is St. Simons Island law firm Roberts
Tate. Anyone who meets the class criteria can call the firm at
912-638-5200.

"A lot of people have been doing so, starting Oct. 9 when the
notice ran in the paper," Roberts said. [GN]


GOOGLE LLC: Azzano et al. Sue over Biometric Data Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL AZZANO; and NOE GAMBOA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2019CH11153 (Il. Cir., Cook Cty., Sept. 26, 2019), is an
action against the Defendant for collecting and storing individual
biometric identifiers and biometric information without notice and
consent.

Plaintiffs bring the class action to prevent Google from further
violating the privacy rights of Google Photos users, and to recover
statutory damages for Google's unauthorized collection, storage,
and use of these individuals' biometrics in violation of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Google LLC is a global technology company specializes in
internet-related services and products. The Company is primarily
focused on web-based search and display advertising tools, search
engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google serves
customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
                  kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Theodore Maya, Esq.
          Bradley King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          David P. Milian, Esq.
          CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA, LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-7474
          Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
          E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com


GREENLAND ACQUISITION: Stipulation of Dismissal in Wheby Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Greenland Acquisition Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21,
2019, for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2019, that the
stipulation and order of dismissal in Wheby v. Greenland
Acquisition Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-1758-MN, has been
approved.

On July 12, 2019, the Company filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) a preliminary proxy statement in
connection with a special meeting of the shareholders of the
Company to consider and vote on the Business Combination and
related matters. Subsequently, the Company filed an amendment to
the Preliminary Proxy Statement and on September 26, 2019, the
Company filed with the SEC a definitive proxy statement .

On September 19, 2019, a purported class action challenging the
Business Combination was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware (the "District Court"), captioned
Wheby v. Greenland Acquisition Corporation, et al., Case No.
19-1758-MN (D. Del.).

The Action alleged certain violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and sought, among other things, to enjoin
the Business Combination from closing (or, if consummated, to
rescind the Business Combination or award rescissory damages), to
require the Company to issue a separate proxy statement, and to
receive an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are
without merit and denies that any further disclosure beyond that
already contained in the Preliminary Proxy Statement is required
under applicable law to supplement the Preliminary Proxy Statement
included therein which has been disseminated to shareholders of the
Company.

Nonetheless, in order to moot plaintiff's unmeritorious disclosure
claims, avoid nuisance and possible expenses, and provide
additional information to the shareholders, the Company determined
to voluntarily make minor modifications to the Definitive Proxy
Statement, which the Company deemed immaterial.

On October 14, 2019, the plaintiff, the Company and all other named
defendants in the Action entered into a confidential memorandum of
understanding, pursuant to which a Stipulation and Order of
Dismissal of the Action was filed on October 14, 2019. The
Stipulation of Dismissal was approved and entered by the District
Court on October 15, 2019.

Among other things, the Stipulation of Dismissal acknowledged that
the Definitive Proxy Statement mooted the plaintiff's claims
regarding the sufficiency of disclosures, dismissed all claims
asserted in the Action, with prejudice as to the plaintiff only,
permits the plaintiff to seek an award of attorneys' fees in
connection with the mooted claims, and reserves the defendants'
rights to oppose such an award, if appropriate.

Greenland Acquisition Corporation operates as a blank check
company. The Company aims to acquire one and more businesses and
assets, via a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition,
stock purchase, and reorganization. The company is based in
Beijing, People's Republic of China.


HAIRO'S PLACE: Gonzalez Hits Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------
LINA M. GONZALEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v.  HAIRO'S PLACE INC. d/b/a HAIRO'S NIGHT
CLUB, JAIRO RODRIGUEZ, CAROLINA RODRIGUEZ, and JOHN DOES 1-5,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05874 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 17, 2019) is
Complaint against Defendants, brought by Plaintiff, alleging that,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law, she is entitled to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum
wages; liquidated and statutory damages; prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs.

Beginning in January 2019 and continuing through the remainder of
her employment on September 9, 2019, Plaintiff was not paid proper
minimum wages, asserts the complaint. From the beginning of
Plaintiff's employment and continuing through August 2015,
Defendants paid Plaintiff entirely in cash and failed to provide
Plaintiff with weekly wage statements setting forth, among other
things, Plaintiffs gross wages, deductions, and net wages. The
Defendants knowingly and willfully operate their business with a
policy of not paying either the FLSA minimum wage or the New York
State minimum wage to Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees. During the course of Plaintiff's employment, Defendants
failed to maintain accurate and sufficient time and pay records,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as a non-exempt
server/waitress from July 2014 through September 9, 2019.

HAIRO'S, owns and operates a nightclub/sports bar known as "Hairo's
Night Club," located at 81-09 Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson Heights,
New York 11372.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


HASBRO INC: Lead Plaintiff Drops Suit over Toys 'R' Us Disclosures
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hasbro, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 29, 2019, that the lead plaintiff in the
putative securities class action lawsuit over the company's alleged
misleading statements with respect to the financial condition of
Toys"R"Us, Inc. had voluntarily dismissed the action without
prejudice against the Defendants.

On or about September 28, 2018, a putative securities class action
complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its officers
and/or directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Rhode Island, on behalf of all purchasers of Hasbro common stock
between April 24, 2017 and October 23, 2017, inclusive.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, alleging that
Defendants purportedly made materially false and misleading
statements in connection with the financial condition of Toys"R"Us,
Inc. and its impact on the Company, as well as the financial impact
on the Company's business of economic conditions in the United
Kingdom and Brazil.

On October 18, 2019, the lead plaintiff in this matter voluntarily
dismissed the action without prejudice against the Defendants.

Hasbro, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a play
and entertainment company. Hasbro, Inc. was founded in 1923 and is
headquartered in Pawtucket, Rhode Island.


HEALTH PROVIDERS CHOICE: Underpays Health Care Staff, Askar Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MAHA ASKAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH PROVIDERS CHOICE, INC.; and DOES 1 to
10, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-06125 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 26, 2019)
is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff
and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Askar was employed by the Defendants as health care
professional.

Health Providers Choice Inc provides supplemental healthcare
staffing services. The Company offers lab, pharmacy, therapy, case
managers, dialysis, home care, house supervisor, intensive care
unit, nurse manager, sleep tech, radiology, and trauma care unit
positions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
          Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
          HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
          595 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 303
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 808-4357
          Facsimile: (626) 921-4932
          E-mail: kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com
                  mhayes@helpcounsel.com


HEALTH RECOVERY: Foster Sues over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------
TROY FOSTER; individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. HEALTH RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04453-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 6,
2019), alleges that Defendant failed to adequately protect and
secure Personal Information in its possession; failed to timely
detect the breach; and failed to follow state and federal laws
related to protecting health information.  As a result,
unauthorized individuals gained and kept access to and obtained
Personal Information belonging to Plaintiff Foster and Data Breach
Class members.

Health Recovery Services, Inc. is an Athens, Ohio-based provider of
alcohol and drug addiction services. In providing these services,
HRS collects and stores the Personal Information of recipients of
these services. This Personal Information includes, but is not
limited to, names, addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth,
medical information, health insurance information, diagnoses,
treatment information, and social security numbers.

Social security information and health related information of the
type that was involved in this data breach is entitled to high
level of protection due to its private and confidential nature. The
protection to which this information is entitled is recognized by
statutory and case law, including the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The combination of this
information with the names and birth dates of Mr. Foster and Data
Breach Class members enhances the sensitivity of the information,
making it susceptible to abuse and exploitation and requires the
utmost protection in its handling.

HRS knew and understood the confidential and private nature of the
Personal Information of Plaintiff Foster and Data Breach Class
members and owed a duty to Plaintiff Foster and Data Breach Class
members to protect and maintain the confidentiality of the Personal
Information. In particular, social security numbers are a form of
national identifier and are not easily replaced. Unlawful
exploitation of social security numbers costs the federal
government hundreds of millions of dollars a year from the
fraudulent filing of tax returns by identity thieves and extols a
severe financial toll on persons whose social security numbers are
stolen and/or misappropriated.

The present case stems from the unauthorized access of Defendant
HRS' computer storage systems. On February 5, 2019, Defendant HRS
discovered that an unauthorized IP address had remotely accessed
its computer network which contained the Personal Information of
Plaintiff Foster and Data Breach Class members since November 14,
2019.

Despite Defendant HRS' duty to expeditiously notify individuals
that their Personal Information may have been compromised,
Defendant HRS kept its knowledge of the data breach secret from
Plaintiff Foster and Data Breach Class members until releasing
notification titled "NOTICE OF DATA INCIDENT" on April 5, 2019,
roughly two months after Defendant discovered that the Personal
Information of Plaintiff Foster and the Data Breach Class members
had been compromised and misappropriated since November 14, 2018.

Troy Foster is a resident of Athens, Ohio. He is, and was during
the period of the Defendant HRS' data breach, a citizen of the
State of Ohio.  Foster was a recipient of services from Health
Recovery Services, and thus had his Personal Information
compromised as a result of Defendant HRS' data breach.

Defendant Health Recovery Services, Inc. is an Ohio private
non-profit 501(c)3 corporation with its principle place of business
in Athens, Ohio. Defendant HRS' website states that its mission
involves "serving those affected with mental illness and alcohol,
tobacco, and drug addiction." Defendant HRS states that they offer
"both outpatient and residential treatment options for
consumers."[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff are:

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
          8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: 847-986-5889
          Facsimile: 847-673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

HEARTHSIDE FOOD: Owens Seeks Overtime Pay for Machine Operators
---------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA OWENS on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEARTHSIDE FOOD SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-02479 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 23, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant fails to pay its hourly, non-exempt employees, including
the Plaintiff, overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all of the hours they
worked over 40 each workweek.

The Plaintiff estimates that she worked on average between 48 and
52 hours per workweek but she and other similarly situated
manufacturing employees were not paid for all hours worked,
including overtime compensation for all of the hours they worked
over 40 each workweek.  Hence, the Plaintiff seeks remedy from the
Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a machine operator
at its McComb, Ohio facility since August 2017.

The Defendant manufactures baked goods and snack foods at
facilities located in 38 states, including facilities in McComb,
Ohio; Toledo, Ohio; and London, Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
     Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
     Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
     THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
     920 Rockefeller Building
     614 W. Superior Avenue
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: 216-696-5000
     Facsimile: 216-696-7005
     Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
            chastity@lazzarolawfirm.co


HONEYWELL INT'L: Bendix-Related Asbestos Class Suits Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Wayne
County Employees' Retirement System has voluntarily dismissed its
complaint without prejudice, in light of its motion to be appointed
as substitute lead plaintiff in the lawsuit by David Kanefsky.

On September 13, 2018, following completion of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) Division of Corporation Finance's review
of the company's prior accounting for liabilities for unasserted
Bendix-related asbestos claims, the SEC Division of Enforcement
advised that it had opened an investigation related to this matter.


On August 28, 2019, the SEC informed the Company that it had
concluded its investigation and that it does not intend to
recommend any enforcement action against Honeywell.

On October 31, 2018, David Kanefsky, a Honeywell shareholder, filed
a putative class action complaint alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to the prior
accounting for Bendix asbestos claims.

On May 15, 2019, Wayne County Employees' Retirement System, another
Honeywell shareholder, filed a putative class action asserting the
same claims relating to substantially the same alleged conduct in
the same jurisdiction.

On August 26, 2019, Wayne County Employees' Retirement System
voluntarily dismissed its complaint without prejudice, in light of
its motion to be appointed as substitute lead plaintiff in the
Kanefsky action.

Honeywell said, "We believe neither complaint has any merit."

Honeywell International Inc. is a worldwide diversified technology
and manufacturing company. The Company provides aerospace products
and services, control, sensing and security technologies,
turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic
and advanced materials, process technology for refining and
petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions. The
company is based in Morris Plains, New Jersey.


HUMANA INSURANCE: Hindman Sues Over Deceptive Business Practice
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES HINDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUMANA INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Profit
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 97470814 (Circuit Ct., Pinellas
Ct., Fla., Oct. 17, 2019) is a class action for damages in excess
of $15,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys' fees,
based on Defendant's breach of contract and unfair and deceptive
practice of promoting, marketing, and selling dental health
insurance plans that claimed to cover topical fluoride
applications.

Humana Insurance Company does business in Pinellas County, Florida.
Plaintiff purchased private Humana Dental Value Plan in September
of 2017.

Pursuant to the insurance contract, Plaintiff was entitled to two
topical fluoride varnish treatments per year at no charge. The
identified code on dental procedures ("CPT Code") in the Dental
Plan for the fluoride treatment was D1204-- a code that does not
exist under the American Dental Association CDT-2017 Code on Dental
Procedures and Nomenclature.

On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff received a topical fluoride
application from his dentist in Florida. Plaintiff's dentist
correctly billed Defendant for the topical fluoride application
under CPT Code D1208. Despite Plaintiff's coverage for the topical
fluoride treatment, Defendant refused to cover the charges to
Plaintiff in the amount of $42.00. Despite the fact coverage
clearly existed for the treatment, Defendant denied coverage based
on the CPT coding error of its own making.

Accordingly, the Defendant committed an unfair or deceptive
practice by falsely promoting, marketing and selling Dental Plans
that claimed to cover topical fluoride applications, says the
complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     JASON WHITTEMORE, ESQ.
     Wagner McLaughlin, P.A.
     601 Bayshore Blvd., Suite 910
     Tampa, FL 33606
     Phone: (813) 225-4000
     Primary email: Jason@WagenerLaw.com
     Secondary email: Arelys@WagenerLaw.com


J-J CAULKING & WATERPROOFING: Fails to Pay OT, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
KAREN JUDITH BETETA RODRIGUEZ; GLORIA E. MARTINEZ ANDURAY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. J-J CAULKING & WATERPROOFING CORP.; MARIA D. TENORIO,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-24005-JLK (S.D. Fla., Sept. 27, 2019)
is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff
and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,
hourly paid employees.

J-J Caulking & Waterproofing Corp. provides special trade
contracting services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
          2847 Hollywood Blvd.
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 361-8383
          E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

               - and -

          Isaac Mamane, Esq.
          MAMANE LAW LLC
          10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 350A
          Miami, FL 33161
          Telephone (305) 773-6661
          E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


JS ELITE PAINTING: Mejia Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
ELMER MEJIA, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly
Situated Plaintiff, v. JS ELITE PAINTING PROS, LLC and JOSE SUYO,
Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04654-SDG (N.D.
Ga. Oct. 17, 2019) is an action brought on behalf of Plaintiff and
all other similarly situated employees of Defendants, to recover
unpaid overtime premium pay, owed to them pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and supporting regulations.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages,
despite working in excess of 40 hours per week throughout his
employment. Plaintiff was paid straight-time pay for all hours
worked, despite working in excess of 40 hours throughout his
employment. This failure to pay overtime premium wages to hourly
employees can only be considered a willful violation of the FLSA,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed as a laborer by Defendants to perform
painting and cleaning services at commercial and residential
properties.

Defendants operate a painting and cleaning service called JS Elite
Painting Pros, LLC based out of Buford, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandon A. Thomas, Esq.
     The Law Offices of Brandon A. Thomas, PC
     1 Glenlake Parkway, N.E., Suite 650
     Atlanta, GA 30328
     Phone: (678) 330-2909
     Fax: (678) 638-6201
     Email: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com


KINDER MORGAN: Settlement in Wisconsin Class Suit Wins Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the settlement in
the Wisconsin class action suit has been granted final approval by
the U.S. District Court in Nevada.

Beginning in 2003, several lawsuits were filed by purchasers of
natural gas against El Paso Corporation, El Paso Marketing L.P. and
numerous other energy companies based on a claim under state
antitrust law that such defendants conspired to manipulate the
price of natural gas by providing false price information to
industry trade publications that published gas indices.

All of the cases have been settled or dismissed, including the
settlement of the final Wisconsin class action lawsuit which was
approved by the U.S. District Court in Nevada on August 5, 2019.

The amount that was paid in settlement of this matter is not
material to our results of operations, cash flows or dividends to
shareholders.

Kinder Morgan, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company in
North America. The company operates through Natural Gas Pipelines,
Products Pipelines, Terminals, and CO2 segments. Kinder Morgan,
Inc. was founded in 1936 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


LA NUEVA SABROSURA: Underpays Delivery Persons, Aquino Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON GARCIA AQUINO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LA NUEVA SABROSURA RESTAURANT,
INC. dba QUE SABROSURA RESTAURANT AND BAR; EDDY MORONTA; and MALENA
MORONTA, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08974 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 26,
2019) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Aquino was employed by the Defendants as delivery
person.

La Nueva Sabrosura Restaurant, Inc. dba Que Sabrosura Restaurant
And Bar operates as a restaurant and bar. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          155 East 44th Street-6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel: (212) 209-3933
          Fax: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


LANDS' END: Delta Airlines' Employees Sue Over Uniforms
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class of employees at Delta
Airlines is suing clothing retailer Lands' End in Wisconsin federal
court, claiming their uniforms are causing rashes, hair loss,
breathing difficulties and low white blood cell counts, and the dye
bleeds onto their skin and personal belongings.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

                     https://is.gd/EEDQbu


LEBANON COUNTY, PA: ACLU Files Suit Over Medical Marijuana Ban
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nora Shelly, writing for Lebanon Daily News, reports that the ACLU
of Pennsylvania filed a class action lawsuit against Lebanon County
Courts on Oct. 8, claiming a policy banning people on probation
from using medical marijuana is illegal.

A ruling on the matter from the Commonwealth Court would apply to
all counties in Pennsylvania. Currently, each county can
independently decide how to handle medical marijuana use by
probationers.

The Lebanon County Courts policy signed by President Judge John
Tylwalk prohibits the use of the substance for people under county
supervision even if they have medical marijuana cards and have
complied with state law.

The suit claims that state law protects people who use medical
marijuana from penalty, and that denying the roughly 60
probationers with medical marijuana cards the right to use it
creates life-threatening health risks.

"The medical marijuana law makes no exceptions for people on
probation. You have a right to use medical marijuana while you're
on probation," ACLU of Pennsylvania legal director Witold Walczak
said on Oct. 8 at a news conference.

"Judges may not agree with the medical marijuana law, they may not
support anybody using marijuana, but they must follow the law, and
that's what this lawsuit is all about."

Tylwalk, whose office deferred comment on the lawsuit to the
Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts on Oct. 8, told the
Lebanon Daily News in September that because county officials
received no guidance from the state on how to deal with this issue,
they felt the need to pass a blanket policy.

The ACLU had been negotiating with lawyers from the Administrative
Office of Pennsylvania Courts, and Walczak said they had been told
they wouldn't immediately detain any probationers with medical
marijuana cards who tested positive for THC.

But, negotiations broke down after lawyers for the county couldn't
guarantee they wouldn't start violation proceedings against
probationers who failed a drug test, Walczak said.  

The AOPC declined comment on the matter, due to the pending
litigation.

What's the issue?
As thousands of people in Pennsylvania now have medical marijuana
cards, law enforcement and the legal system has had to figure out
in real time how to deal with people using the substance, which is
still considered illegal under federal law.

However, Congress passed a provision as part of a spending bill
that prohibits the Department of Justice from interfering in states
where medical marijuana is legal. This means that even though it's
still illegal under federal law, no one using medical marijuana in
compliance with the state law in Pennsylvania would be arrested by
federal agents.

Tylwalk told the Lebanon Daily News in September that since a
general condition of supervision holds that people not break any
law, then the use of medical marijuana technically violates the
terms of supervision, even if federal law enforcement implicitly
allows for its use in Pennsylvania.

"Those arguments that they have to follow federal law, that's just
wrong, they're wrong about that," Walczak said, referencing two
separate decisions in federal courts in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh
where judges ruled federal probationers can't be violated for
following the state medical marijuana act.

The Medical Marijuana Act includes no guidance for county judges on
how they should deal with people on probation, which means every
county can set its own policy or practice. Other Central Pa.
counties largely allow for the use of medical marijuana by those
under supervision, with some handling the matter on a case-by-case
basis.

While Lebanon is the lone midstate county with an outright ban, a
few others in the state have similar policies.

Lycoming County has such a ban, and a panel of judges there denied
a man's request to use medical marijuana while on probation.  

The ACLU plans to appeal that ruling, which could lead to a
superior court decision.

Who is filing the suit?
The ACLU class action suit is filed on behalf of three people on
probation in Lebanon County: Melissa Gass, Ashley Bennett and
Andrew Koch, as well as all other probationers in the county with
medical marijuana cards.

Lebanon County's policy is already having severe impacts on the
three petitioners, according to the lawsuit. Gass used medical
marijuana to help treat seizures, as well as post-traumatic stress
disorder, anxiety and depression. The medication she used before
medical marijuana made it difficult to function, Gass said.

The medical marijuana oil Gass used would help stop her seizures
almost as soon as they began, according to the suit, and helped her
taper off the other medications.

"I'm able to function," she said. "I had under a handful of
seizures in a 10 month span."

After Gass had to stop using medical marijuana in September, she
had 20 seizures in two weeks, according to the suit.

"I'm not functionable, I'm put on all kinds of medicine," she said.


The suit also describes how Bennett and Koch have had health issues
after they were forced to stop using medical marijuana.

Bennett said on Oct. 8 that since stopping her medical marijuana
use, she has been dealing with nausea that has caused her to lose
18 pounds. Bennett said she's found it difficult to get out of bed
and be there for her two young kids.

"I just want to feel normal again," she said.

What the ACLU's lawsuit says
The ACLU contends that the Medical Marijuana Act provides immunity
from any penalty to those using the substance.

The suit notes that the law states that none of the individuals
with medical marijuana cards "shall be subject to arrest,
prosecution or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or
privilege, including civil penalty or disciplinary action by a
Commonwealth licensing board or commission, solely for lawful use
of medical marijuana or manufacture or sale or dispensing of
medical marijuana, or for any other action taken in accordance with
this act."

Because the legislation doesn't specify how it applies to people
under court supervision, it implicitly allows for probationers to
use the substance, the ACLU is arguing. Additionally, violating
people's probation because they use medical marijuana constitutes a
penalty, which the Medical Marijuana Act prohibits, the suit says.


"We don't think the law is poorly written at all," Walczak said.
"We just think the judges are misreading it and misapplying the
law." [GN]



LEE ENTERPRISES: Affirmative Defenses in Goldsmith Partly Struck
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN GOLDSMITH, Plaintiff, v. LEE ENTERPRISES, INC.,
et al., Defendants., Case No. 4:19CV1772 HEA (E.D. Mo.), Judge
Henry Edward Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, (i) denied the Plaintiff's
Motion to Strike Defendants' Answer, and (ii) denied in part and
granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants'
Affirmative Defenses.

The Plaintiff initially filed a Petition in the Circuit Court for
St. Louis County, Missouri.  The Defendants removed the action to
federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441, 1446, and the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.  The Plaintiff filed his
six-count First Amended Class Action Complaint with the Court on
July 3, 2019.  The Defendants filed their Answer including
affirmative defenses on July 16.

In his Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
overcharged him and other similarly situated St. Louis
Post-Dispatch subscribers by "double billing," that is, including
the same day in more than one billing period.  He alleges breach of
contract (Count I), breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing (Count II), unjust enrichment (Count III), money
had and received (Count IV), violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA") by means of unfair practices
(Count V), and violation of the MMPA by means of deception (Count
VI).

In their Answer, the Defendants deny the Plaintiff's allegations
regarding improper or double billing.  They also deny the
allegation that they acted unethically or unlawfully.  The Answer
sets forth 16 paragraphs of affirmative defenses, 12 of which the
Plaintiff now moves to strike.  The Plaintiff also moves to strike
19 paragraphs from the Defendants' Answer.

The Plaintiff moves to strike paragraphs 37-55 from the Defendants'
Answer.  These paragraphs respond to their allegations regarding
the purported ethical standards of the Direct Marketing Association
and American Marketing Association.

Judge Autrey finds that the "extraneous" statements raise no issues
that will require additional discovery or the irrelevant
litigation.  Elsewhere in their Answer, the Defendants already
denied improper billing and denied acting unethically or
unlawfully.  The relevance of DMA and AMA ethical standards and
whether Defendants violated them are essential aspects of the
Plaintiff's Complaint, therefore the Defendants' statements in
those veins are not prejudicial.  Finally, because the Plaintiff
vehemently asserts that the DMA and AMA standards apply to all
marketers, the Defendants' statement that they did not purport to
adhere to the standards is a nonissue that does not require
discovery.  Regardless of whether Defendants' answers are
"non-responsive," the Plaintiff fails to show that he will be
prejudiced if they are not stricken.  The Motion to Strike the
Answer is denied.

The Plaintiff initially moved to strike paragraphs 3-10 and 13-16
of the Defendants' affirmative defenses.  In their brief on this
motion, the Defendants stated that they do not oppose striking
paragraphs 9 and 15.  The Plaintiff now moves to strike paragraphs
2-8, 10, 13, 14 and 16 of the Defendants' affirmative defenses.

The Judge will not strike the defenses in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 8 and
10.  He finds that the Plaintiff has the enhanced facts, no
prejudice results from the inclusion of the aforementioned defenses
in the Defendants' Answer.  Similarly, the Defendants have
clarified the allegations in the Complaint on which they base the
voluntary payment defense in paragraph 8.

The Judge also finds that at least some facts relevant to the
statutory exemptions in the MMPA likely would have been available
to Defendants at the time of their Answer.  Because they failed to
plead any such facts in paragraph 7 or in their brief in
opposition, paragraph 7 will be stricken without prejudice.

Next, the defense in paragraph 13 cannot be expected to be fully
fleshed out in light of the relatively spare class allegations in
the Complaint and the limited time period Defendants have to
investigate and respond.  Paragraph 13 will not be stricken.

Paragraph 14 alleges a res judicata defense but is bereft of facts
indicating that previous judicial proceedings may exist.  Paragraph
14 will be stricken without prejudice.

Finally, paragraph 16 is a catch-all defense, in which the
Defendant "reserves the right" to amend or supplement its answer
and affirmative defenses.  Of course, under Rule 15, Defendants may
always amend their Answer with leave of the Court or with the
Plaintiff's consent.  The paragraph does not prejudice the
Plaintiff in any way and it will not be stricken.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Autrey denied the Plaintiff's
Motion to Strike the Answer, and granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Affirmative Defenses.  He
granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Answer without
prejudice as to paragraphs 6, 7, 9, 14, and 15, and denied as to
paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13 and 16.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 15, 2019 Opinion, Memorandum &
Order is available at https://is.gd/dbXVKH from Leagle.com.

Steven Goldsmith, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Scott Levy --
info@cornfeldlegal.com -- LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD, LLC &
Richard S. Cornfeld, LAW OFFICE RICHARD S. CORNFELD.

Lee Enterprises Inc., Lee Enterprises Missouri, Inc., St. Louis
Post-Dispatch LLC & Pulitzer, Inc., doing business as St. Louis
Post-Dispatch, Defendants, represented by John M. Hessel --
jhessel@lewisrice.com -- LEWIS RICE, LLC, Roger Myers --
roger.myers@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP, Edward T. Pivin --
epivin@lewisrice.com -- LEWIS RICE, LLC & Joseph E. Martineau --
jmartineau@lewisrice.com -- LEWIS RICE, LLC.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: District Court Narrows Johansen TCPA Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned KEN
JOHANSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC., and SPANISH
QUOTES, INC. d/b/a WESPEAKINSURANCE, Defendants, LIBERTY MUTUAL
GROUP, INC., Cross-Claimant, v. SPANISH QUOTES, INC. d/b/a
WESPEAKINSURANCE, Cross-Defendant, LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC.,
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v.
PRECISE LEADS, INC., and DIGITAS, INC., Third-Party Defendants,
Civil Action No. 15-cv-12920-ADB, (D. Mass.).

The case began as a putative class action complaint against Liberty
Mutual Group Inc. and Spanish Quotes Inc., which does business as
WeSpeakInsurance.  Plaintiff Ken Johansen alleged that Liberty
Mutual and Spanish Quotes called him, or caused him to be called,
multiple times in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA), despite his number being listed on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry and his request that Liberty Mutual not call
him again.

Mr. Johansen settled with Liberty Mutual and Spanish Quotes, and
his claims against them were dismissed with prejudice on May 30,
2018. The Defendants were then unable to agree whether Liberty
Mutual was entitled to indemnity under the Master Services
Agreement ("MSA") between Liberty Mutual and Digitas and the
associated Aggregator Service Agreement ("ASA") with Spanish
Quotes.

Liberty Mutual is a diversified insurer, which provides car
insurance policies to individual customers.  Liberty Mutual entered
into a marketing agreement with Digitas, a Boston-based marketing
firm.  In February 2015, Digitas and Liberty Mutual entered into a
Statement of Work ("SOW"). The SOW describes the covered marketing
tactics as "paid search, aggregator, affiliate and landing pages
(tracking and read out only). . . ." The MSA incorporates the SOW
by reference.

Digitas then entered into the ASA with Spanish Quotes, which acts
as an insurance shopping tool to help individual customers find
quotes on auto and home insurance.

Presently before the Court are Digitas' and Liberty Mutual's
respective motions for summary judgment.

I. Liberty Mutual's Claim for Indemnity

Liberty Mutual claims that Digitas violated its duty to indemnify
in accordance with Section 14 of the MSA.

Digitas claims that the MSA indemnity provision is inapplicable
because it only relates to third-party claims and Liberty Mutual
has failed to identify a relevant third-party claim. According to
Digitas, the third-party action in this case, Mr. Johansen's
original lawsuit, did not arise out of Digitas' SOW with Liberty
Mutual. Therefore, Liberty Mutual cannot seek indemnity based on an
alleged violation of the SOW.  

In its Amended Answer, which includes the third-party complaint at
issue, Liberty Mutual referenced the MSA's explicit warranty that
all services would be performed in a competent and professional
manner by qualified personnel and will conform to the Client's
requirements as specified in the applicable SOW. The Court
previously summarized the claim as follows: The statement of work
did not include outbound calls, but Digitas made such calls and did
so without adequate procedures to ensure compliance with the TCPA,
including the unlawful calls to Mr. Johansen that led to this
lawsuit.  Liberty Mutual has therefore identified a third-party
claim that arose from Digitas' alleged violations of the MSA.

Liberty Mutual argues that Digitas breached its MSA warranty
regarding the nature of the services it would provide.
Specifically, the SOW specified that the authorized tactics to be
used by Digitas included paid search, aggregator, affiliate and
landing (pages tracking and readout only).

The SOW did not reference the use of "warm transfers." With a warm
transfer, after a customer has consented to receive a quote, an
outbound call is made to verify the interest. The call is then
transferred to the insurance provider to provide that quote. The
SOW also does not reference the use of "Lead Forms." With a "Lead
Form," an outbound call is made to a customer after that customer
has completed an online form requesting contact information and
consenting to be called. According to Liberty Mutual, there is
nothing in the summary judgment record to dispute the material fact
that it prohibited warm transfers by phone or Lead Form. Digitas
argues that, though transfers are not included on the list of
campaign activities in the SOW, the SOW also does not explicitly
prohibit their use.

Digitas has provided no evidence that creates a dispute of material
fact as to whether warm transfers and Lead Forms were permitted
under the relevant agreement. Digitas argues, for the first time,
in its response to Liberty Mutual's motion for summary judgment
that, because Liberty Mutual failed to sign the SOW, it raises an
issue of fact concerning the binding nature of the SOW that
precludes summary judgment.  

The mere failure to sign is insufficient to establish that there
was not a contract, the District Court holds. "A written contract,
signed by only one party, may be binding and enforceable even
without the other party's signature if the other party manifests
acceptance." Haufler v. Zotos, 845 N.E.2d 322, 331 (Mass. 2006).
For the reasons that follow, it is clear that Digitas manifested
acceptance of the SOW, the District Court maintains.

From Digitas' course of performance after learning of Mr.
Johansen's initial complaints, the District Court infers that it
understood that warm transfers were prohibited under its agreement
with Liberty Mutual. On multiple occasions, Digitas explicitly told
Liberty Mutual that its campaign should not have used warm
transfers, including informing Liberty Mutual that it did not allow
transfers' in Digitas' programs and that none of its campaigns with
Liberty Mutual should have calling out as a feature.  

Spanish Quotes also understood that the Liberty Mutual campaign
should not have included any transfers. Spanish Quotes informed
Digitas that because the Liberty Mutual number had been placed on a
warm transfer list, it would not charge Liberty Mutual for 237 paid
calls. Because Spanish Quotes' sources were strictly prohibited
from engaging in phone transfers, it excluded any transfers from
its invoice to Liberty Mutual.  

Under the ASA, Spanish Quotes had a duty to indemnify against a
claim that arose from a breach of warranty. Part of that agreement
was Spanish Quotes' warranty that Services will not violate any
other laws, rules or regulations of the United States.

Both Digitas and Spanish Quotes have therefore failed to
demonstrate that there is a genuine dispute of material fact
concerning whether they understood that transfers should not have
been a part of their work for Liberty Mutual, the District Court
opines.  To the contrary, communications between the companies
demonstrate that both Spanish Quotes and Digitas understood that
they should not have engaged in transfers as part of the Liberty
Mutual campaign, the District Court adds.

The Court finds that because the contract merely requires the
opportunity for complete control and not the actual transfer or
tender of the defense, Liberty Mutual met its condition precedent
obligations needed to receive the benefits of Digitas'
indemnification, the precise terms of which were not set forth in
the MSA.  Moreover, the Court rejects both of Spanish Quotes'
arguments opposing summary judgment and consequently finds that
Liberty Mutual performed as required to receive the indemnity
referenced in the ASA.

Liberty Mutual further argues that it had a right to insist on full
and complete indemnity, but that Digitas only offered partial
indemnity. Digitas argues that its duty to indemnify arises only if
Liberty Mutual's losses are related to Digitas' breach of the MSA
and that, because the claim was settled, there has been no finding
that Liberty Mutual's loss was due to Digitas' breach of the MSA.


The MSA's indemnity provision specifically anticipates that Digitas
would have to indemnify Liberty Mutual in the event of a settlement
of claims that arose due to Digitas' breach of the agreement. The
provision specifies that Digitas would indemnify the other party
from and against any and all third party claims, damages,
liabilities costs and expenses to the extent arising out of any
breach of any warranty conditioned upon the opportunity for
complete control of the defense and settlement thereof. The Court
has already determined that Digitas was given the opportunity for
complete control of the defense, and now has to decide whether
Digitas also had the requisite opportunity for complete control of
the settlement.

Digitas argues that Liberty Mutual took complete control of the
settlement negotiations, flying in the face of the MSA's indemnity
provision. From the evidence attached to Digitas' own motion for
summary judgment, however, the Court finds that Liberty Mutual
provided an opportunity for Digitas to control the settlement
negotiations. For example, Liberty Mutual informed Digitas that it
could reach out to Mr. Johansen's counsel directly, but Digitas did
not do so. Liberty Mutual also brought numerous settlement offers
and counteroffers to Mr. Johansen's counsel at the request of
Digitas and Precise Leads, showing that Liberty Mutual was willing
to act at the direction of Digitas and Precise Leads.  Liberty
Mutual therefore fulfilled its obligations under the MSA, despite
Digitas' continued refusal to act, the Court holds.

Furthermore, the Court stated it will not eviscerate the indemnity
provision by finding that it was essentially permissive, allowing
parties to defend one another in the event that they decided to
take control of the defense. Liberty Mutual is thus entitled to
indemnification for its attorney's fees incurred in defending
against the Johansen lawsuit, the Court holds.

II. Liberty Mutual's Breach of Contract Claims

The Court finds that Digitas breached its contract with Liberty
Mutual by failing to indemnify.

The Court also finds that Spanish Quotes failed to defend or
indemnify.

III. Liberty Mutual's Negligence Claim

Finally, Liberty Mutual argues that it is entitled to summary
judgment on its negligence claim. In its third-party complaint,
Liberty Mutual claims that Digitas negligently violated the TCPA in
its performance of its duties under the MSA. Liberty Mutual
therefore seeks to recover damages to the extent that it is found
liable to Mr. Johansen for the alleged TCPA violations.  

Because the parties have already settled Mr. Johansen's underlying
allegations, Liberty Mutual will not be found liable to Mr.
Johansen for any alleged TCPA violations. Because the Court now
does not have to decide whether Liberty Mutual is liable to Mr.
Johansen, Liberty Mutual will not be entitled to relief to the
extent that it is found liable to Johansen for damages arising from
any violations of the TCPA.

Therefore, the issue is moot, the Court opines.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Liberty Mutual's motion for
summary judgment is GRANTED in part, insofar as the Court finds
that Digitas and Spanish Quotes violated their contractual duties
to indemnify Liberty Mutual, and DENIED in part, insofar as its
claim of negligence was premised upon a finding that it was liable
to Mr. Johansen for violating the TCPA.  Likewise, Digitas' motion
for summary judgment is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

The full-text copy of the District Court's October 2, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y68yuwf9
from Leagle.com

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company & Liberty Mutual Group Inc.,
ThirdParty Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony A. Froio -
AFroio@RobinsKaplan.com - Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP,
Michael Reif - MReif@RobinsKaplan.com -, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac
vice & Manleen K. Singh - KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com - Robins,
Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP.

Digitas, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by John E. Frey ,
Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, 1330 Connecticut Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036, pro hac vice, Lauren Jaffe , Steptoe &
Johnson, LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Dockterman -
mdockterman@edwardswildman.com - Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, pro
hac vice, Julianne Landsvik - jlandsvik@cooley.com - Cooley LLP &
Laura Greenberg-Chao - lgreenbergchao@henshon.com - Henshon Klein.

Liberty Mutual Group Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Anthony
A. Froio -
AFroio@RobinsKaplan.com - Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP,
Michael Reif -MReif@RobinsKaplan.com - Robins Kaplan LLP & Manleen
K. Singh -
KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com - Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP.

SPANISH QUOTES, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by Joseph J.
Koltun , Koltun Law Office, 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA,
02210-2211 & Anthony A. Froio -
AFroio@RobinsKaplan.com - Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP.


LOPINA ENTERPRISES: Han Sues over Excessive Rental Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
MENG-TSE "Mark" HAN and MIN "Amy" HONG, individually and behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. LOPINA
ENTERPRISES, a California general partnership, GREG SCHUYLER, an
individual, and DOES 1-50, the Defedants, Case No. 19CV356280 (Cal.
Super., Oct. 4, 2019),  alleges that Defendant violated the
Milpitas Municipal Code by effecting mobile home space rent
increases that exceeded Chapter 30 of the Milpitas Municipal Code
without filing Home Rental Review Board and without the Board
allowing such increases; and increasing mobile home space rents
more than once in a 12-month period.

In or around December 2011, the Plaintiffs signed a rental
agreement for a mobile home rental space at Milpitas or a term of
five years commencing on December 20, 2011.

That 2011 rental agreement provided that the initial space rent for
Plaintiffs' mobile home rental space was $398.00 per month and
further provided for annual increases in that monthly rent of
around seven percent during the term of the rental agreement.

Plaintiffs' rental agreement expired on December 20, 2016, at which
time the monthly space rent for Plaintiffs' mobile home rental
space will be increased by 1.72% to $530.67 effective July 1,
2017.

Starting on May 1, 2018, Defendants increased Plaintiffs' monthly
space rent to $600.00, which was an increase of more than 13%.  For
the months from May 2018 to August 2018, Defendants charged $600.00
per month in space rent.

The May 2018 space rent increase violated Milpitas Municipal Code
because Defendants had already increased Plaintiffs' space rent to
$530.67 as of July 1, 2017 and Section III-30-6.00 prohibits more
than one increase in mobile home and space rent in any 12-month
period, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiffs are mobile homeowners and mobile home rental space
tenants Mobilodge of Milpitas mobile home park. The Plaintiffs are
seniors with limited English proficiency.

Lopina Enterprises rents mobile home rental spaces to owners of
mobile homes sited at Mobilodge of Milpitas.[BN]

Attorneys for Individual and Representative Plaintiffs are:

          Joshua Katz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA KATZ
          144 South E Street, Suite 206
          Santa Rosa, CA 95404
          Telephone: (707) 546 4510
          Facsimile: (707) 575-6014
          E-mail: jkatz@sonomalegal.com

               - and -

          Todd Espinosa, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TODD ESPINOSA
          2000 Broadway Street
          Redwood City, CA 94063
          Telephone: (650) 241—3873
          Facsimile: (650) 409-2550
          E-mail: tie@toddespinosalaw.com

LOUISIANA FARM: 3rd Cir. Upholds Certification of Gautreax Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, affirmed the trial
court's class certification order in the case captioned JOSEPH
HARVEY GAUTREAUX, ET AL., v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY
INSURANCE CO., Case No. 19-17. (3rd Cir.)

Plaintiffs were all insured by Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty
Insurance Company's (Farm Bureau) and received payment of the
considered cash value for a total loss vehicle calculated with the
help of an automated computer system called Mitchell Work Center
Total Loss (WCTL). Plaintiffs brought the current class action
challenging Farm Bureau's use of Mitchell WCTL in valuing
first-party vehicle total loss claims, claiming the use of this
system fails to comply with the specific requirements of La.R.S.
22:1892(B)(5) and constitutes a breach of Farm Bureau's duty of
good faith and fair dealing in violation of La.R.S. 22:1973.
Plaintiffs assert that the Mitchell WCTL system is unfairly low in
its valuation of vehicles and filed suit in an attempt to recover
for alleged underpayment of individual insurance claims.

A formal judgment was rendered on August 23, 2018, in favor of
Plaintiffs, granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
designating Joseph Harvey Gautreaux, Susie Lagneaux, Yvette
Beauchamp, and Wilfred Meaux as class representatives with the
definition of the class to be certified as "[a]ll persons insured
by Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company who have made a
claim for first party total loss, which claim Louisiana Farm Bureau
Casualty Insurance Company evaluated using Mitchell WorkCenter
Total Loss, from July 1, 2013 to the present date (date of class
action notice]."

Farm Bureau thereafter instituted an appeal, challenging the ruling
of the trial court.

On review, the Appellate Court:

-- finds that the trial court did not err in its conclusion that
    the numerosity requirement was satisfied based on facts and
    circumstances of the case;

-- finds that there is no manifest error with the trial court's
    ruling that common questions did exist within the potential
    class;

-- agrees with the trial court's conclusion that the proposed
    class representatives met the adequacy requirements and finds
    that Plaintiffs' claims also appear to be typical of the
    class;

-- finds no error in the trial court's opinion that Plaintiffs
    objectively defined their class using ascertainable criteria
    such that the constituency of the class is easily determined
    for purposes of any judgment that may be rendered;

-- finds no error in that trial court opinion that common
    questions of Farm Bureau's alleged liability, and whether such
    liability allows Plaintiffs to recover penalties under La.R.S.
    22:1892(B)(5) and 22:1973, predominate over any questions
    affecting individual members, as any individual questions are
    easily answered using readily available, objective data and
    criteria;

-- agrees with the trial court that a class action is superior to
    other available methods under the facts and circumstances of
    the ligitation.

For the reasons stated, the Appellate Court concludes that the
trial court did not manifestly err in its judgment, having
correctly and fairly determined the common question to be answered
and the class certification issues in the current case.
Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirms the judgment of the trial
court and assess costs to Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance
Company.

The appellate panel comprised of Judges Sylvia R. Cooks, John E.
Conery, and Van H. Kyzar.

The full-text copy of the Appellate Court's October 2, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4y2pvbr from Leagle.com

Charles C. Garrison , Caffery, Oubre, Campbell & Garrison, LLP, P.
O. Drawer 12410, New Iberia, LA 70562-2410, (337) 364-1816, COUNSEL
FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance
Co.

Wayne J. Lee , Stone, Pigman, Walthers, Wittmann L.L.C., 909
Poydras Street, Suite 3150, New Orleans, LA 70112, (504) 581-3200,
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty
Insurance Co.

Andrew L. Plauche, Jr. , Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson LLP, 701
Poydras St., Suite 3800, New Orleans, LA 70139, (504) 582-1142,
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty
Insurance Co.

George Febiger Riess , 228 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 1224, New
Orleans, LA 70130-0000, (504) 568-1962, COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES: Joseph Harvey Gautreaux, Susie Lagneaux,

Yvette Beauchamp, Wilfred Meaux.
Kenneth W. DeJean , DeJean Law Firm, P.O. Box 4325, Lafayette, LA
70502-4325, (337) 235-5294, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES:
Joseph Harvey Gautreaux, Susie Lagneaux, Yvette Beauchamp, Wilfred
Meaux.

Kenneth David St. Pe , St. Pe Law Firm, 311 W. University Avenue,
Suite A, Lafayette, LA 70506, (337) 534-4043, COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES: Joseph Harvey Gautreaux, Susie Lagneaux,
Yvette Beauchamp, Wilfred Meaux.

Stephen B. Murray, Jr. , Murray Law Firm, 650 Poydras Street, Suite
2150, New Orleans, LA 70130, (504) 525-8100, COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES: Joseph Harvey Gautreaux, Susie Lagneaux,
Yvette Beauchamp, Wilfred Meaux.

John Randall Whaley , Whaley Law Firm, 6700 Jefferson Highway,
Building 12, Suite A, Baton Rouge, LA 70806, (225) 302-8810,
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES: Joseph Harvey Gautreaux, Susie
Lagneaux, Yvette Beauchamp, Wilfred Meaux.


MACADO'S INC: Servers Granted Conditional Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal court in West
Virginia granted conditional class certification to servers at
Macado's restaurants who claim the chain underpaid them.

A copy of the Momorandum Opinion is available at:

                   https://is.gd/rCiW4P


MAPLEBEAR INC: Misclassifies Shoppers, O'Shea FLSA Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE O'SHEA, BRIAN POSNER AND TOM BACON on behalf of
themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown, Plaintiffs v. MAPLEBEAR, INC. D/B/A INSTACART AND "DOES" 1
THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06994 (N.D.
Ill., Oct. 23, 2019), alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that Instacart controlled the "when,"
"where," and "how" of their jobs. They assert that the work they
performed was within the usual course of Instacart's business of
grocery delivery and they were completely dependent on the
Instacart platform to perform grocery delivery work. The Plaintiffs
argue they were not independently engaged in grocery delivery
outside of their work for Instacart. Under the applicable test for
employment under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, Shoppers are presumptive employees
entitled to labor law protections such as minimum wage guarantees,
overtime compensation, workers' compensation insurance coverage,
payroll tax contributions, and other employee benefits, says the
complaint.

By misclassifying Shoppers as independent contractors, however,
Instacart denied them rights, shifting all risk to Shoppers and
saving itself millions in overhead in the process, the Plaintiffs
contend.  The Defendants intentionally misrepresented to the
Plaintiffs that they were independent contractors and, therefore,
not entitled to wages for non-productive time, reimbursements for
expenses incurred in relation to their employment, workers'
compensation insurance benefits, and tax benefits enjoyed by
employees, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were continuously employed by Defendants as
Shoppers.

Instacart maintains substantial ongoing business operations
throughout the United States, including San Francisco County, and
is in the business of providing online grocery shopping and
delivery service.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Shounak S. Dharap, Esq.
     THE ARNS LAW FIRM
     515 Folsom Street, Third Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Phone: (415) 495-7800

          - and -

     John W. Billhorn, Esq.
     BILLHORN LAW FIRM
     53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 853-1450


MAPLEBEAR, INC: Underpays Personal Shoppers, Jordan Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL JORDAN, Individually and on behalf of all Similarly
Situated Individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. MAPLEBEAR, INC, dba
INSTACART; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. CGC-19-579780 (Cal. Super., Oct. 4, 2019), contends that the
Defendant misclassfies the Plaintiff and members of the putative
class as independent contractors.

Instacart is a grocery shopping and delivery service company whose
workers shop for groceries from various grocery stores, including
Saveway, Whole Foods, Costco, Bi-Rite, BevMo!, Sprouts, CVS, and
Andronico's, then deliver them to Instacart customers.

The Plaintiffs and putative class members worked or continue to
work as personal shoppers, drivers, and delivery persons for
Instacart. Shoppers are dispatched through a mobile phone
application to shop, purchase, and deliver groceries to customers
at their home and businesses.

According to the complaint, Shoppers are presumptive employees
entitled to labor law protections such as minimum wage guarantees,
overtime compensation, workers' compensation insurance coverage,
payroll taxcontributions, and other employee benefits. By
misclassifying Shoppers as Independent contractors, however
Instacart denied them these rights, shifting all risk to Shoppers
and saving itself millions in overhead in the process.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Robert S. Arns, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Davis, Esq.
          Kevin M. Osborne, Esq.
          Julie C. Erikson, Esq.
          Shournak S. Dharap, Esq.
          THE ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom St., 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94109
          Telephone: (415) 495 7800
          Facsimile: (415) 495 7888
          E-mail: rsa@rnslaw.com
                  jed@rnslaw.com
                  kmo@rnslaw.com
                  jce@rnslaw.com
                  ssd@rnslaw.com

MARKETPLACE UNCTION: Delivery Drivers Seek Expense Reimbursements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STACY DIXON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. MARKETPLACE UNCTION, INC. D/B/A SCARPINO'S
PIZZERIA AND TEK HAMMENT, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-02728 (D.
Minn., Oct. 17, 2019) is a lawsuit brought as a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as a class action under
Minnesota's Fair Labor Standards Act, Minnesota's Payment of Wages
Act, and common law to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated persons employed by
Defendants at their Scarpino's Pizzeria stores.

The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
Defendants fail to reimburse at all for the use of the drivers'
vehicles, such that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their
wages to fall so far below minimum wage that many likely operate at
a net loss. Plaintiff and similarly situated drivers were paid less
than minimum wage, and Defendants' failure to reasonably reimburse
the amount of their drivers' automobile expenses diminishes their
wages even further below the federal and state minimum wage
requirements. In sum, Defendants' reimbursement policy fails to
reflect the realities of delivery drivers' automobile expenses,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Stacy Dixon was employed by Defendants from approximately
August, 2014 to November, 2016 as a delivery driver at Defendants'
Scarpino's Pizzeria Pizza stores located in the Minneapolis-St.

Defendants own and operate numerous Scarpino's Pizzeria Pizza
franchise stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
     Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
     100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Phone: (612) 339-6900
     Fax: (612) 339-0981
     Email: khriebel@locklaw.com
            kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

          - and -

     Joe P. Leniski, Esq.
     BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
     223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
     Nashville, TN 37203
     Phone: 615/254-8801
     Facsimile: 615/255-5419
     Email: joeyl@bsjfirm.com

          - and -

     J. Forester, Esq.
     FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
     1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 210-2100
     Fax: (214) 346-5909
     Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com


MARTIN SPORTS: Glynn ERISA Suit Seeks Contributions Under CBA
-------------------------------------------------------------
COLLEEN A. GLYNN, CHRISTOPHER P. WELLING, in their capacity as
Trustees and Fiduciaries of ERISA Plans, and DOUGLAS C. ANDERSON,
on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MARTIN SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, DAVID MARTIN and
THERESA MARTIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-12189-IT (D. Mass.,
Oct. 23, 2019), is brought by fiduciaries of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 plans seeking to collect contributions
from the Company that were/are owed under the terms of a collective
bargaining agreement.

The action also includes a state-law claim for nonpayment of wages
brought by a former employee of the Defendants on his own behalf
and on behalf of others similarly situated pursuant to
Massachusetts General Laws.

On May 9, 27 and 29, Martin Sports produced the Boston Bruins' Fan
Fest before the Boston Bruins' hockey playoff home games. On May 8,
2019, Martin Sports entered into a collective bargaining agreement
with IATSE, Local 11, under which Local 11 would supply stagehands
to perform services related to the Boston Bruins' Fan Fest produced
by Martin Sports. May 20, 2019, and June 4, 2019, ART Payroll sent
invoices to Martin Sports related to the services provided by the
Local 11 referred stagehands. The invoices reflected the amounts
owed by the Defendants for the work performed by employees of the
Defendants related to the Boston Bruins' Fan Fest. Despite repeated
requests, Martin Sports refused and failed to pay the wages and
ERISA plan contributions as invoiced by ART Payroll. Plaintiff
Anderson and the similarly situated individuals provided the
services related to the unpaid invoices.

In accordance with the terms of its collective bargaining agreement
with IATSE Local 11, Martin Sports owed the Funds the following
amounts for worked performed under the collective bargaining
agreement related to the Boston Bruins' Fan Fest: Pension Fund of
Local No. 11, I.A.T.S.E. ($2,721.23); International Alliance of
Stage Employees Local 11 Section 401(k) Plan ($680.31); and IATSE
Local 11 Joint Apprentice Committee Educational Fund ($226.77),
says the complaint.

Plaintiffs Colleen A. Glynn and Christopher P. Welling are Trustees
and Fiduciaries of the ERISA Plans. Plaintiff Douglas C. Anderson
is a natural person who resides at 16 Harvard Street, in
Charlestown, Massachusetts.

Martin Sports & Entertainment, LLC is a limited liability company
with a mailing address of P.O. Box 252084, in West Bloomfield,
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gabriel O. Dumont, Jr., Esq.
     DUMONT, MORRIS AND BURKE, P.C.
     141 Tremont Street, Suite 500
     Boston, MA 02111
     Phone: (617) 227-7272
     Email: gdumont@dmbpc.net


MCDONALD'S CORP: Not An Employer in Haynes Suit, 9th Cir. Upholds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GUADALUPE SALAZAR; GENOVEVA LOPEZ; JUDITH ZARATE, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. McDONALD'S CORP., a corporation;
McDONALD'S USA, LLC, a limited liability company; McDONALD'S
RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a corporation; BOBBY O. HAYNES SR.
AND CAROL R. HAYNES FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, dba McDonald's,
erroneously sued as Bobby O. Haynes and Carole R. Haynes Family
Limited Partnership, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-15673 (9th
Cir.), Judge Susan P. Graber of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment in
favor of McDonald's.

McDonald's U.S.A., LLC contracts with franchisees to license the
McDonald's name, trademark, and various business practices.  The
Haynes Family Limited Partnership operated eight McDonald's
franchises in Oakland and San Leandro, California, during the
relevant period.  The franchise agreements required Haynes to pay
fees to McDonald's.  To maintain the franchise, Haynes had to meet
certain standards, such as serving McDonald's products.

Plaintiffs Salazar, Lopez, and Zarate worked at a Haynes-operated
McDonald's franchise restaurant in Oakland.  They sued McDonald's
and Haynes on behalf of a class of approximately 1,400 employees at
Haynes-operated McDonald's franchises in the Bay Area.  They allege
that McDonald's and Haynes denied overtime premiums, meal and rest
breaks, and other benefits in violation of California wage-and-hour
statutes.  The Plaintiffs also allege negligence and seek civil
penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA").  They further allege that McDonald's and Haynes are their
joint employers.

Haynes selects, interviews, and hires employees for its franchises.
It trains new employees and sets their wages, which are paid from
Haynes' bank account.  Haynes sets employees' schedules and
monitors their time entries. Haynes also supervises, disciplines,
and fires employees such as the Plaintiffs.  There is no evidence
that McDonald's performs any of those functions.

Nonetheless, evidence in the record, viewed in the Plaintiffs'
favor, would permit a finding that McDonald's could have prevented
some of the alleged wage-and-hour violations but did not do so.
Under the franchise agreement, McDonald's required Haynes to use
its Point of Sale ("POS") and In-Store Processor ("ISP") computer
systems every day to open and close each franchise location of
McDonald's.  Managers of the Haynes McDonald's franchises took
various courses with McDonald's at Hamburger University and then
trained other employees on topics such as meal and rest break
policies.  At least one McDonald's-trained manager was required to
be present during each shift at the Haynes franchises.

Haynes management also voluntarily used the McDonald's computer
systems for scheduling, timekeeping, and determining regular and
overtime pay through applications that come with the ISP software,
including e*Restaurant People Management Deployment and McDonald's
Dynamic Shift Positioning Tool.  The e*Restaurant app is described
as "a bundle of tools designed to innovate employee
management—from hire to retire." It includes e*HR and e*Labor.
The Positioning Tool determines where employees "should be
positioned throughout their shifts and what duties they should
perform."  McDonald's encouraged franchisees to use these
additional applications but did not require them to do so.

McDonald's ISP system assigns all hours recorded by workers to the
date on which the shift began, including on overnight shifts. The
Plaintiffs allege that this system caused many employees who worked
more than eight hours in a 24-hour period to miss out on overtime
pay that they earned, because the system did not recognize these
additional hours as overtime.  The ISP system is also set to daily
and weekly overtime thresholds of 8:59 hours (instead of 8:00
hours) and 50:00 hours (instead of 40:00 hours).  The Plaintiffs
allege that the system's settings caused many workers to miss out
on overtime pay that they earned for working between eight and nine
hours in one day or between 40 and 50 hours in one week.

The ISP settings do not schedule any rest breaks or require second
meal periods.  Under the ISP settings, meal periods are set to
occur at intervals of 5:15, 5:30, or 6:00 hours, instead of at the
five-hour mark required by California law.  And the ISP does not
flag when rest breaks are missed.  The Plaintiffs allege that these
settings caused workers to miss out on overtime pay that they
should have earned for missed and late breaks.

After the filing of the action, the Plaintiffs and Haynes reached a
classwide settlement involving both injunctive and monetary relief.
McDonald's then moved for summary judgment on the ground that it
is not a joint employer of workers at franchises and that it owes
them no duty of care.

The district court entered summary judgment in favor of McDonald's,
ruling that McDonald's is not a joint employer of the Plaintiffs
because it does not retain or exert direct or indirect control over
the Plaintiffs' hiring, firing, wages, hours, or material working
conditions and does not suffer or permit the Plaintiffs to work, or
engage in an actual agency relationship with the franchisee.

The district court denied the Plaintiffs' negligence claim on the
basis of California's "new-right exclusive remedy doctrine."
Later, the district court granted McDonald's' Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(f) motion to strike the Plaintiffs' PAGA claims
because a classwide adjudication of their ostensible-agency theory
was "unmanageable."

McDonald's then filed another summary judgment motion, arguing that
ostensible agency can never support employer liability for
California wage-and-hour violations.  The district court granted
that summary judgment motion, holding that California Wage Order
No. 5-2001, section 2(H)'s definition of an employer precludes
ostensible-agency liability.

The Plaintiffs timely appealed.

Reviewing the summary judgment de novo, and viewing the facts in
the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, Judge Graber affirmed
the district court's ruling.  

As to joint employment, Judge Graber first finds that the district
court properly ruled that McDonald's is not an employer under the
"control" definition, which requires "control over the wages,
hours, or working conditions.  McDonald's involvement in its
franchises and with workers at the franchises is central to modern
franchising and to the company's ability to maintain brand
standards, but does not represent control over wages, hours, or
working conditions.

Second, Judge Graber finds that the district court also correctly
concluded that McDonald's does not meet the "suffer or permit"
definition of employer.  The Defendants did not suffer or permit
the Plaintiffs to work "because neither had the power to prevent
them from working, and the third-party employer had the exclusive
power to hire and fire the workers, to set their wages and hours,
and to tell them when and where to report to work."

Finally, the district court correctly concluded that McDonald's is
not an employer under the common law definition.  Judge Graber
finds that there is evidence suggesting that McDonald's was aware
that Haynes was violating California's wage-and-hour laws with
respect to Haynes' employees.  But there is no evidence that
McDonald's had the requisite level of control over the Plaintiffs'
employment to render it a joint employer under the principles set
forth in Martinez, Curry v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC, and other
applicable California precedents.

The Plaintiffs next argue that McDonald's is liable for
wage-and-hour violations under an ostensible-agency theory,
pursuant to Wage Order 5-2001.  Judge Graber holds that the
Plaintiffs correctly note that, in California, agency principles
ordinarily encompass both actual and ostensible agency.  But the
Wage Order is more specific and, therefore, controls.  Thus, she
holds that McDonald's cannot be held liable for those violations
under an ostensible-agency theory.

The Plaintiffs also allege that McDonald's owed them a duty of
care, which it breached by supervising Haynes' managers
inadequately and thereby failing to prevent the alleged
wage-and-hour violations.  This claim fails for two reasons, the
Ninth Circuit finds.  First, the negligence claim arises from the
same facts as the wage-and-hour claims.  Under California law,
"where a statute creates a right that did not exist at common law
and provides a comprehensive and detailed remedial scheme for its
enforcement, the statutory remedy is exclusive."  The Plaintiffs
cannot prove damages except by establishing a statutory
wage-and-hour violation, which brings the Court full circle to the
exclusivity of the statutory remedy.

Second, the Plaintiffs must also prove duty.  Under California law,
McDonald's had no "supervisory" duties with respect to Haynes.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs meet neither the damages nor the duty
elements required to prove negligence.

Finally, the Plaintiffs contend that the district court erred by
striking their representative PAGA claim and by denying class
certification.  Because the Ninth Circuit affirms dismissal of all
claims, it need not and do not consider the Plaintiffs' arguments
on the merits of these rulings.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Oct. 1, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/PB4QOl from Leagle.com.

Michael Rubin (argued) -- mrubin@altber.com -- Barbara J. Chisholm
-- bchisholm@altber.com -- P. Casey Pitts -- cpitts@altber.com --
and Matthew J. Murray -- mmurray@altber.com -- Altshuler Berzon
LLP, San Francisco, California; Joseph M. Sellers --
jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- and Miriam R. Nemeth --
mnemeth@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Washington, D.C.; for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Pratik A. Shah (argued) -- pshah@akingump.com -- James E. Tysse,
and Martine E. Cicconi, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP,
Washington, D.C.; Michael I. Gray and Elizabeth B. McRee --
ebmcree@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Chicago, Illinois; Kelsey
Israel-Trummel -- kitrummel@jonesday -- Jones Day, San Francisco,
California; for Defendants-Appellees.

Catherine K. Ruckelshaus, National Employment Law Project, New
York, New York; Shannon Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan P.C.,
Boston, Massachusetts; for Amici Curiae National Employment Law
Project, Impact Fund, Legal Aid at Work, Centro Legal de la Raza,
Asian Americans Advancing Justice—Los Angeles, Los Angeles
Alliance for a New Economy, and Equal Rights Advocates.

Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney; Christine Van Aken, Chief of
Appellate Litigation, Yvonne Meré, Chief of Complex & Affirmative
Litigation; Matthew Goldberg, Deputy City Attorney; Office of the
City Attorney, San Francisco, California; Barbara J. Parker, City
Attorney; Maria Bee, Special Counsel;, Erin Bernstein, Senior
Deputy City Attorney; Malia McPherson, Attorney; Office of the City
Attorney, Oakland, California; for Amici Curiae City of Oakland and
City and County of San Francisco.

Karen Marchiano, DLA Piper LLP (US), East Palo Alto, California;
Norman M. Leon and John F. Verhey, DLA Piper LLP (US), Chicago,
Illinois; for Amici Curiae International Franchise Association and
California Restaurant Association.

Robert R. Roginson, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart P.C., Los
Angeles, California, for Amici Curiae Employers Group and Chamber
of Commerce of the United States of America.


MCDONALD'S: 9th Cir Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling in Workers Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the Ninth Circuit ruled in
favor of McDonald's, affirming summary judgment against a class of
employees who say they were denied overtime premiums, meal breaks
and rest breaks.

Under California law, McDonald's cannot be classified as an
employer of its franchisees' workers.

A copy of the Opinion is available at:

                      https://is.gd/MYfSeP


MELALUECA, INC: Faces Wainwright Suit in California State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Melalueca, Inc. The
case is captioned as Joann Wainwright, on behalf of other member of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Does
1-100 and Melalueca, Inc., an Idaho corporation, the Defendants,
Case No. 34-2019-00266415-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Oct. 4, 2019).
The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws.

Melaleuca, Inc. manufactures and distributes of nutritional,
pharmaceutical, personal care, facial care, home, and wellness
products. The Company offers vitamins, supplements, food and weight
loss, cleaning, laundry, medicine, dental, facial, hair, bath and
body, beauty, and candles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is Represented by:

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

MERCEDES-BENZ: Ct. Narrows Claims in Defective Transmission Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division issued an order granting in part and
denying in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned TERRY HAMM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-03370-EJD, (N.D. Cal.).  The Court
also denied Plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment
or adjudication of issues.

In this action, Plaintiffs Terry Hamm and Bryce Meeker bring
various consumer protection claims predicated on allegations that
Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA) knew of and actively
concealed defects in vehicle transmission systems. The alleged
defect caused their vehicles to enter limp mode in which their
vehicles could not shift or accelerate. Plaintiffs allege that
MBUSA knew of the defect but failed to disclose it, thereby
violating the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the
California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and the Kansas Consumer
Protection Act (KCPA).

MBUSA moved for summary judgment, contending that because
Plaintiffs purchased their vehicles used from sellers other than
MBUSA, neither was involved in a transaction with MBUSA so as to
trigger MBUSA's duty to disclose any defect under California or
Kansas law. MBUSA also contends that there is no evidence of
reliance. MBUSA separately contends that Plaintiff Meeker cannot
invoke the KCPA because he purchased his vehicle in Illinois, not
Kansas.

STANDARDS

A motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment should be
granted if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The moving
party bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis
for the motion and identifying the portions of the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, or affidavits
that demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of material fact.


If the moving party meets the initial burden, the burden then
shifts to the non-moving party to go beyond the pleadings and
designate specific materials in the record to show that there is a
genuinely disputed fact. A genuine issue for trial exists if the
non-moving party presents evidence from which a reasonable jury,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to that party,
could resolve the material issue in his or her favor.  

Hamm's CLRA And UCL Claims: Duty to Disclose

The CLRA prohibits deceptive acts and practices undertaken by any
person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the
sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer.

Hamm's SAC alleges that MBUSA violated section 1770(a)(5) by
representing that its goods or services have sponsorship, approval,
characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which
they do not have by representing that its goods or services are of
a particular standard, quality, or grade, if they are of another,
by advertising goods and services with the intent not to sell them
as advertised, by representing that its subscription service
confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does
not have or involve, by representing that the subject of a
transaction has been supplied in accordance with a previous
representation when it has not.  

The UCL prohibits business practices that are (1) unlawful, (2)
unfair, or (3) fraudulent. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200.
The SAC alleges that MBUSA's actions were unlawful in that they
violated the CLRA. The SAC also alleges that MBUSA's marketing and
sale of the subject vehicles without disclosing the alleged defect
when MBUSA knew of the defect amounts to a deceptive business
practice. The SAC further alleges that MBUSA intentionally
concealed its knowledge of the defect. Id. Although the SAC alleges
affirmative misrepresentations and omissions, the parties'
respective briefs treat Hamm's claims as entirely omissions-based
claims.

Omissions may give rise to liability under both the CLRA and UCL.
Here, Hamm's theory of liability against MBUSA is straightforward:
MBUSA, as the manufacturer, had a duty to disclose the alleged
defect in their used vehicles' transmission systems because the
alleged defect poses an unreasonable safety risk. The issue raised
by MBUSA's motion, however, is not as straightforward: to whom this
duty of disclosure is owed.

MBUSA contend that it does not owe a duty to disclose to Hamm
because there was no relationship between MBUSA and Hamm to trigger
such a duty. MBUSA emphasizes that Hamm did not purchase his
vehicle directly from MBUSA or from an authorized Mercedes-Benz
dealership. Moreover, MBUSA contends that the law does not impose a
duty to do the impossible. MBUSA reasons that MBUSA had no ability
to make disclosures to Hamm because he (1) is the fourth owner of
his vehicle (2) bought it after it was marketed and sold by MBUSA
(3) bought it from a Toyota dealership and (4) never looked at any
vehicle brochures, marketing materials or other publications by
MBUSA.

In response, Hamm contends that the nature of the alleged defect
imposed a duty to disclose, regardless of the lack of any
relationship between Hamm and MBUSA. Hamm reasons that if he proves
a defect known to MBUSA that either poses a safety risk or that
goes to an essential function of the car, then California holds
that MBUSA has a duty to disclose the defect.

Duty to Disclose Unreasonable Safety Risk

The Court concludes that under California law, a manufacturer has a
duty to disclose a defect that poses an unreasonable safety risk
even if that manufacturer did not have a transactional relationship
with the vehicle owner. That Hamm and MBUSA did not have a
transactional relationship is not fatal to Hamm's claim.

Duty to Disclose Under Rutledge

Hamm contends that Rutledge imposes a separate duty to disclose on
MBUSA that is independent of any unreasonable safety risk. Rutledge
v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 238 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1179 (2015). Id.
Because the court finds that MBUSA had a duty to disclose an
unreasonable safety risk, it is unnecessary for the court to
consider Plaintiffs' duty to disclose theory under Rutledge for
purposes of deciding MBUSA's motion for summary judgment.


Reliance

MBUSA next contends that the CLRA and UCL claims fail because Hamm
cannot establish reliance. In response, Hamm contends that he is
not required to show reliance. Hamm draws a distinction between a
duty to disclose claim based upon a partial representation theory,
where a plaintiff must show reliance, and a claim based upon
nondisclosure of a material fact, such as a safety issue as alleged
in the present case. Hamm contends that reliance is required for
the first type of claim, but not for the second, citing Falk v.
General Motors Corp., 496 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1095 (N.D. Cal. 2007)).

Hamm's reading of Falk is inaccurate. In Falk, GM truck owners
alleged that GM had a duty to disclose that their trucks'
speedometers were defective. The Falk court held that plaintiffs
had adequately stated a claim of fraud by omission, and in doing so
specifically addressed the justifiable reliance element of the
fraud by omission claim. Thus, contrary to Hamm's assertion, Falk
confirms that a plaintiff must establish reliance to prevail on a
fraud by omission claim.

The Falk court concluded that the reliance element was easily
satisfied by plaintiffs' allegation that a reasonable customer
would not have paid the asking price had it been disclosed that the
speedometer was defective.

Here, MBUSA's argument is essentially that Hamm cannot satisfy the
first of the two sub-elements of reliance, namely that had MBUSA
disclosed the alleged defect, Hamm would have been aware of it.

MBUSA's position is well supported. Hamm purchased his vehicle
fourth-hand from a Toyota dealership. Hamm never reviewed any sales
brochures or advertising materials, or any other materials
published by MBUSA, regarding the 7-year-old used 2006 CLK350 prior
to or at the time of sale. He never talked to anyone from MBUSA or
from a Mercedes-Benz dealership) about his prospective purchase. A
reasonable jury could find based on these facts that even if MBUSA
had disclosed the alleged defect, Hamm would not have been aware of
it, and therefore MBUSA is not liable for the alleged CLRA and UCL
violations.  

Hamm, however, has presented evidence from which a reasonable jury
could infer that he would have been aware of the alleged defect.
When Hamm saw the 2006 CLK350 on the Toyota dealership lot, he used
his cell phone to search for information on various websites,
including Cars.com, Edmunds and the usual suspects. Hamm also
looked at a couple of magazines and may have looked at Car & Driver
and others.  

In addition, the dealership provided Hamm with information about
the vehicle. In sum, a genuine issue of material facts precludes
summary judgment on Hamm's claims.

Meeker's KCPA Claim

MBUSA contends that Meeker's KCPA claim fails because, among other
things, he cannot show the existence of a Kansas consumer
transaction. The court agrees.

The KCPA provides that no supplier shall engage in any deceptive
act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction. A
consumer transaction is defined as a sale, lease, assignment or
other disposition for value of property or services within this
state to a consumer or a solicitation by a supplier with respect to
any of these dispositions.

Here, Meeker's transaction did not take place within the state of
Kansas. Meeker testified that when he was in Chicago, Leydon made
an offer, the I accepted and the I drove the vehicle home. Prior to
Meeker leaving Chicago to return home to Kansas, Leydon gave Meeker
the used 2007 C230, its title, and all of its keys. As a matter of
law, title to the used 2007 C230 passed to Meeker in Illinois when
Leydon tendered the vehicle to him there.  

Meeker does not challenge the general principle that title passes
when delivery is made, but argues that no contract of sale was made
and no consideration given until after Meeker and the car were in
Kansas. Meeker analogizes his exchange with Leydon in Chicago as
that of a driver delivering a car to a valet, and argues that the
exchange did not result in a transfer of title.

Further, Meeker contends that no agreement to sell the car was even
negotiated until Meeker was in Kansas. That agreement, along with
Meeker's payment made from Kansas pursuant to the agreement,
encompassed the transaction. Meeker emphasizes that he did not
execute a bill of sale or pay for the vehicle until after he
returned to Kansas. Meeker also asserts that he did not feel he had
an agreement to buy the car while he was in Illinois.

Meeker's subjective understanding is inconsistent with Leydon
giving Meeker possession of the vehicle, keys, and title and Leydon
permitting Meeker to drive the vehicle hundreds of miles away from
Chicago. There is also no evidence that Meeker ever communicated
his subjective understanding to Leydon. The transaction occurred in
Illinois.  

Because Meeker did not engage in a transaction within Kansas, his
KCPA claim fails.
  
Plaintiffs' Motion Violates The One-Way Intervention Rule

MBUSA contends that Plaintiffs' cross-motion violates the one-way
intervention rule because it seeks to establish liability before
class certification. Plaintiffs counter that there is no one-way
intervention bar because MBUSA opted to move for summary judgment
before class certification, citing this court's decision in Villa
v. San Francisco Fort-Niners, Ltd., 104 F.Supp.3d 1017, 1022 (N.D.
Cal. 2015).

Plaintiffs' reliance on Villa is misplaced. In Villa, this court
held that the one-way intervention rule applied and denied the
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as to liability.  

The present case is in the same posture as Villa: the court has not
yet ruled on class certification. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs argue
that the court should proceed with Plaintiffs' motion because the
rationale for a one-way intervention rule] disappears when the
defendant himself moves for summary judgment before a decision on
class certification. Plaintiffs have plucked this sentence from
Villla out of context. In Villa this court explained immediately
after the quoted sentence that in such a situation, only the
slender reed of stare decisis stands between the defendant and the
prospective onrush of litigants.

In other words, when a defendant proceeds with a motion for summary
judgment, the defendant proceeds at its peril, knowing that it may,
in the absence of class certification, face the onrush of litigants
who will not be bound by the summary judgment ruling. Therefore,
the rationale for a one-way intervention rule disappears when the
defendant moves for summary judgment before class certification.
When read in context, the stand-alone sentence from Villa relied on
by Plaintiffs does not support their argument.

For the reasons set forth above, MBUSA's motion for summary
judgment is GRANTED as to Meeker's KCPA claim and DENIED in all
other respects. Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment or
summary adjudication of issues is DENIED. The Court directed the
parties to jointly file a proposed schedule for class certification
briefing and a proposed hearing date.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ptowsp from Leagle.com

Terry Hamm & Charlie A Jacquo-Stevenson, Plaintiffs, represented by
Michael D. Braun  - mdb@braunlawgroup.com - Braun Law Group, P.C.,
Roy Arie Katriel - rak@katriellaw.com -  The Katriel Law Firm &
Gary S. Graifman - ggraifman@kgglaw.com - Kantrowitz Goldhamer &
Graifman, P.C.

Bryce Meeker, Plaintiff, represented by Gary S. Graifman,
Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. & Roy Arie Katriel, The
Katriel Law Firm.

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Troy Masami
Yoshino, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, 275 Battery Street, Suite
2600, San Francisco, CA, 94111, Eric J. Knapp -
eric.knapp@squirepb.com - Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP & Scott
Jefferson Carr, Carroll Burdick and McDonough LLP, 44 Montgomery
Street Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104-4606

MICHIGAN: ACLU Refiles Juvenile Lifers' Resentencing Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Voice of Detroit reports that a federal class action lawsuit, Hill
v. Whitmer was re-filed by Attorney Deborah LaBelle and the
Michigan ACLU on behalf of over 200 Michigan juvenile lifers who
have languished in prison far beyond the U.S. Supreme Court's
abolition of mandatory juvenile life without parole in 2012, and
its declaration making the ruling retroactive in 2016. They have
yet to see a judge for judicial review and resentencing.

On Sept. 9, LaBelle filed a Third Amendment to the Complaint
alleging that the delays constitute clear violations of federal due
process law. On Oct. 3, LaBelle countered the state's position that
the denial of programming and training to lifers does not adversely
affect their chances for parole.

The 200 juvenile lifers represent 63 percent of the total number of
the state's juvenile lifers, 363. County prosecutors are seeking
renewed life without parole for them, in apparent violation of the
high court's holdings that only the rarest child proven to be
incapable of rehabilitation should die in prison. Seventy percent
of Michigan juvenile lifers are Black. The highest number, 60, come
from Wayne County.

Will Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel live up to her campaign
promises on behalf of the state's juvenile lifers in this newest
phase of Hill v. Whitmer? asks the Voice of Detroit.

"There's an understanding, obviously, that when juveniles commit
crimes, it does not mean that they are someone who forever cannot
be rehabilitated," Nessel told Michigan Public Radio, while
campaigning for AG. "Their brains are not fully formed. There's a
lot of scientific evidence and scientific data that bears that out.
So I do think that in all but the most extreme cases, you should be
giving that person the opportunity to be paroled at some point in
life."

A complete list of the juvenile lifers awaiting resentencing is
included in Hill v. Whitmer case documents at
http://voiceofdetroit.net/wp-content/uploads/List-of-juvenile-lifers-awaiting-resentencing.pdf


In 2016, former Wayne County Prosecutor John O'Hair and other
retired prosecutors, outraged at Michigan's non-compliance with the
U.S. Supreme Court rulings, called on the federal government to
intervene.

"Some prosecutors and judges in Michigan have ignored the Court's
guidance that life sentences for youth are impermissible except for
'the rare juvenile offender who exhibits such depravity that
rehabilitation is impossible,' and have relied heavily on the life
without parole option provided to them by the Legislature," O'Hair
wrote in an editorial published in several newspapers.

"[The incarcerated juvenile lifers] got a shock recently when
prosecutors recommended life without parole -- again -- for most,
if not all, of those eligible for resentencing. Their actions
undermine the Supreme Court and are an affront to our justice
system."

Meanwhile, 22 states have either abolished juvenile life without
parole, and five have no one serving that sentence, a rapid
increase over the past several years.

The U.S. is the ONLY country in the world that sentences children
to die in prison. It is also the only country in the world with
TRUE life without parole. In others, lifers are still afforded
regular parole hearings and release if rehabilitated. The battle
against JLWOP has ignited a broader battle against LWOP across the
U.S., from Pennsylvania to California.

Nessel's office now represents the state in ongoing hearings before
U.S. District Court Judge Mark Goldsmith on the Hill case,
replacing former Attorney General Bill Schuette, a virulent
opponent of releasing juvenile lifers.

Goldsmith appointed Atty. Deborah LaBelle as the official
representative of the juvenile lifer class when he earlier struck
down provisions of state statutes passed in 2014 that denied
resentenced juvenile lifers their access to "good time" credits.

In her filing Sept. 9, LaBelle wrote, "More than three years after
the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Montgomery v. Louisiana
. . . . (2016), confirmed that plaintiffs are entitled to be
resentenced, nearly 200 Hill class members remain in prison
awaiting resentencing with no relief in sight. To compound this
injustice, many would be eligible for release on parole or even
immediate release if they are resentenced to a term-of-years. A
delay this serious should no longer be countenanced.

"Therefore, Plaintiffs request permission to amend their complaint
to add a claim seeking a declaratory judgement that the
unreasonable delay in resentencing violates the Plaintiffs' due
process rights."

She added, "The delay in resentencing Plaintiffs is inexcusable. It
came about by Michigan's initial over-designation of the majority
of the Plaintiff class as the rarest of youth whose crime evidences
irreparable corruption and is incapable of rehabilitation, and
seeking to reimpose Plaintiffs' life-without-parole sentences. But
seeking to reimpose life-without-parole sentences on the majority
of youth (including those who were convicted of felony murder,
those who have exemplary prison records and demonstrable
rehabilitation) should not result in over three years of delay in
Plaintiffs having the opportunity to demonstrate that a
term-of-years sentence is warranted and thus provide them with
their constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to obtain
their release."

Charles Lewis, now 60, has served nearly 44 years in prison, since
the age of 17 for the killing of an off-duty police officer in
1976, during a period of violent racial strife and mortal danger
for Black youth in the city. Lewis is one of 60 juvenile lifers for
whom Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy has recommended renewed
LWOP.

He has always maintained his innocence. Lewis' trial Judge Joseph
Maher never stated on the record why he dismissed Lewis' first jury
after it heard from the officer's partner and numerous other
eyewitnesses that another man committed the crime.

During an appeal hearing in 2006, Judge Deborah Thomas said that
meant he should have been acquitted and subject to double jeopardy,
and that the prosecution's theory of the case, drawn from three
younger juveniles who were threatened with charges if they did not
testify against Lewis, was "a scientific impossibility."

Judge Gershwin Drain ordered Lewis' conviction and sentence
dismissed in an order on April 3, 2000, but the order was lost in
another file for 10 years.  After Lewis moved to carry out the
order, his entire case file came up missing and he was accused of
forgery, with no documentary proof.  He says legal precedents
mandate his case should have been dismissed.

He is one of the first juvenile lifers facing a recommendation of
LWOP to be scheduled for a mitigation hearing Tues. Oct. 15 at 9 am
in front of Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Qiana Lillard, Rm. 502
FMHJ. In his defense brief, Lewis' attorney Sanford Schulman is
asking for him to be re-sentenced to a term of 40 years, which
would mean immediate discharge due to Judge Goldsmith's restoration
of good-time benefits to the juvenile lifer class.

Lewis told VOD that at least 30 juvenile lifers, also recommended
for LWOP, are in the Macomb Correctional Facility Re-Entry Program
with him.

Attorney Schulman is court-appointed and selected numerous
resentencing experts including a polygraph examiner (with respect
to the validity of Lewis' innocence claim), a psychiatrist, a
mitigation specialist, and an MDOC misconduct specialist, with
generally positive results recommending release.

Lewis hopes to resume a promising musical career upon release. He
was known before his arrest and during his imprisonment for
"world-class" talent in writing music, producing concerts, and
playing virtually every musical instrument. But he said others with
him are not so fortunate.

"Many don't have attorneys, or have not seen them or experts to
which they are entitled under state law, and they don't know when
or if ever they will ever benefit from the U.S. Supreme Court
rulings," he said.

He remembered the joy with which juvenile lifers greeted the Miller
v. Alabama ruling in 2012.

"That was the first time we knew we would not have to die in
prison," he recalled. His mother said prison officials told her
when he was sentenced that she would not even be able to get his
body to bury him after he died in prison.

But Lewis is gravely concerned that judges have resentenced some
juvenile lifers to life without parole again, without adequate
grounds, and wonders what action is planned in their defense.
Additionally, other plaintiffs' filings in the Hill v. Whitmer
federal case indicate that many juvenile lifers who HAVE been
re-sentenced face ongoing complications with the parole board,
based in part on the state's admitted policy of denying programming
and training to prisoners serving life.

David Bennett, incarcerated since 1972 for the murder of a young
woman, was resentenced to LWOP on June 5, 2019 by visiting Wayne
County Circuit Court Judge Dalton Roberson, known before his
retirement for his relatively liberal stance. At the time of
Bennett's original sentencing in 1992, experts said he was
suffering from schizophrenia and other mental disorders, and he was
placed on a regimen of multiple anti-psychotic medications.

His attorneys Eric Van Campen and Kristin Lavoy wrote in their
defense brief that Bennett "has committed no act of aggression or
violence" in the last 45 years.

"Even though he was sentenced to die in prison, Mr. Bennett chose
to better himself in every way possible," they said. "He has put
extraordinary effort into developing skills to cope with his mental
illness and manage the trauma of his youth.

"Today, Mr. Bennett's mental health is so stable that the only
medication he takes is for depression. Thus, Mr. Bennett has
demonstrated not only that he had the capacity for rehabilitation
at the time of his offense, but that he has been successfully
rehabilitated through his own efforts, the aging process, and the
programming he has received within the MDOC."

But Judge Roberson gave Bennett life again. The Judge said Bennett
had been on multiple anti-psychotic medications and expressed fear
that he would not continue taking his meds if he was not in a
structured environment, despite contrary indications from expert
defense witnesses.

Barbara Hernandez was resentenced to LWOP on Aug. 8, 2019 by
Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Nanci Grant. Born on March 16,
1974, Hernandez left home at 14 as a result of ongoing physical and
sexual abuse first from her father and then from her stepfather.
She moved in with a boyfriend four years her senior. In 1990 when
Barbara was sixteen, her boyfriend coerced her into helping him
steal a car as part of a plan to leave the state. When Barbara
brought a man with a car to the house, her boyfriend attacked and
killed the victim while Barbara was in another room.

Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper recommended LWOP for
nearly 100 percent of that County's juvenile offenders. Along with
former Michigan AG Schuette, Wayne Co. Prosecutor Kym Worthy, and
Berrien County Prosecutor, she has been one of the most strenuous
opponents of any change in juvenile lifer laws.

In Michigan's Ottawa County, the sole juvenile lifer there,
Juan Carlos Nunez, was resentenced to LWOP April 24, by County
Circuit Court Judge Jon Hulzing.

Nunez was 16 at the time of the murder in question, which took
place during a robbery gone wrong. Judge Hulsing considered the six
Miller factors mitigating crimes committed by youths, but declared
that Nunez "still knew right from wrong." This constituted a
deliberate misstatement of the U.S. Supreme Court findings in
Miller and Montgomery, which cited scientific evidence that the
brains of juveniles, in particular the areas involving impulse
control, do not develop fully until the age of 25.

The Hill v, Whitmer complaint until now had proceeded chiefly along
lines of the defense's argument in Count VI.

Count VI alleges that by failing or refusing "to provide
programming, education, training and rehabilitation opportunities,"
Defendants have "deprived Plaintiffs of meaningful opportunities to
obtain release based on their demonstrated growth, maturity and
rehabilitation."

The State took the position essentially that the parole board does
not require proof of such programming in releasing prisoners on
parole and identified various defendants who had been
re-sentenced to terms of years despite the lack of such resources.
However, LaBelle cites juvenile lifers who have been re-sentenced
to a term of years, but not yet paroled, awaiting completion of
such programming.

"Kevin Boyd must complete substance abuse core programming, yet he
has been denied access to this program during his over thirty-years
of incarceration in MDOC facilities," writes LaBelle. "The
prosecutor in Oakland County sought to resentence Kevin Boyd, a
named class representative, to life without parole. On May 15,
2019, Kevin was instead resentenced to a term of 25-60 years. With
good time credits he was eligible for release on
June 1, 2015. Kevin was not interviewed by the Parole Board until
June 24, 2019, and is still waiting to receive its decision, over
three months later.

Tykeith Turner was resentenced on December 21, 2016 to 25-60 years.
He has outstanding requirements for core programming, including
substance abuse and violence prevention programming. Defendants
refused to allow Tykeith's requests to participate in this
programming even after his life-without-parole sentence was vacated
and he was resentenced to a term-of-years sentence.

On April 29, 2018, Tykeith became parole-eligible and the next day
he was interviewed by the Parole Board. Tykeith has yet to receive
a decision more than a year later.  

Defendants' records note that Tykeith is still awaiting
classification referral for substance abuse and violence prevention
core programming; they also note that Tykeith as ineligible for
this programming because of his "lifer" status. 1 (See Ex. 2).  

"Defendants also fail to address class members, including
Christopher Wiley and Lorenzo Harrell, whose parole decision was
deferred specifically because they had been unable to complete core
programs. In fact, Defendants deferred Christopher Wiley's and
Lorenzo Harrell's parole reviews for months because they had not
completed recommended core programming.

"But Defendants denied them access to this critical programming
while they were waiting to be resentenced. Thus, they remained
incarcerated—despite being immediately parole-eligible—solely
because they had failed to complete recommended core programs."

There are thirty-two other class members who have been resentenced,
are parole-eligible, and have outstanding core programming
requirements. It is unclear when or if they will ever be provided
this programming before their parole review hearings, or whether
their parole determinations will be deferred, denied or delayed
because of this lack of core programming." [GN]

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Manning Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended August 29, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Chris Manning.

On June 13, 2019, current Micron employee Chris Manning filed a
putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Micron employees subject
to the Idaho Claim Act who earned a performance-based bonus after
the conclusion of fiscal year 2018 whose performance rating was
calculated based upon a mandatory percentage distribution range of
performance ratings.

On behalf of himself and the putative class, Manning asserts claims
for violation of the Idaho Wage Claim Act, breach of contract,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraud.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Micron Technology, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
markets dynamic random access memory chips (DRAMs), static random
access memory chips (SRAMs), flash memory, semiconductor
components, and memory modules. The company is based in Boise,
Idaho.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: NY Consolidated Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended August 29, 2019, that the consolidated class
action suit before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York has been dismissed.

On January 23, 2019, a complaint was filed against Micron and two
of its officers, Sanjay Mehrotra and David Zinsner, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit
purports to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period from June 22, 2018 through
November 19, 2018.

Subsequently two substantially similar cases were filed in the same
court adding one of the company's former officers, Ernie Maddock,
as a defendant and alleging a class action period from September
26, 2017 through November 19, 2018. The separate cases were joined,
and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on June 15, 2019.
The consolidated amended complaint alleges that defendants
committed securities fraud through misrepresentations and omissions
about purported anticompetitive behavior in the Dynamic Random
Access Memory (DRAM) industry and seek compensatory and punitive
damages, fees, interest, costs, and other appropriate relief.

On October 2, 2019, the parties submitted a joint stipulation to
dismiss the complaint. The Court approved the stipulation and
dismissed the complaint on October 3, 2019.

Micron Technology, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
markets dynamic random access memory chips (DRAMs), static random
access memory chips (SRAMs), flash memory, semiconductor
components, and memory modules. The company is based in Boise,
Idaho.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Can't Compel Arbitration in Hejamadi FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHANTHI R. HEJAMADI and RICARDO VARELA, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1 to
10, Defendants, Civil No. 18-13203 (KSH) (CLW) (D. N.J.), Judge
Katherine S. Hayden of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey denied without prejudice the Defendants' motion to
compel arbitration of the Plaintiffs' claims on an individual basis
and dismiss the first amended class action complaint ("FAC").

Hejamadi and Varela sued Defendants Midland Funding and Midland
Credit on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated for
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants assert that
they incurred or owed certain financial obligations arising from
accounts which were primarily for their personal, family, or
household purposes.  They further maintain that the Accounts were
assigned to or placed with defendants for collection at which time
they "were past-due and in default."

The Defendants sought to collect a debt that Hejamadi owed by
mailing her collection letters dated Oct. 25, 2017 and Nov. 13,
2017.  Similarly, they mailed Varela a collection letter dated Nov.
14, 2017 in an attempt to collect a debt he owed.

The Plaintiffs allege that contrary to their statements in those
collection letters, the Defendants continue to offer flexible
payment options for accounts even after they are sent to attorneys
or after lawsuits have been filed.  They further assert that the
Defendants do not, nor did they ever, intend to make flexible
payment options unavailable.  According to the Plaintiffs, the
Defendants' "policy and practice" to send collection letters that
allegedly falsely threaten that flexible options will no longer be
available violates the FDCPA.

To collect the debt allegedly owed by Hejamadi, Midland Funding
sued her in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County,
Special Civil Part.  On May 24, 2018, Hejamadi filed an answer and
class action counterclaim asserting one cause of action for
violation of the FDCPA.  Midland Funding subsequently dismissed its
claim against Hejamadi with prejudice.  On Aug. 17, 2018, as a
result of Midland Funding dismissing its cause of action against
Hejamadi, the state court entered an order realigning the parties
so that Hejamadi was now identified as the Plaintiff and Midland
Funding was identified as the Defendant.

That same day, the state court issued a second order transferring
the case to the Law Division.  Midland Funding removed the action
to the Court on Aug. 24, 2018.  The action in the Court was
originally captioned as Hejamadi against Midland Funding.  On Nov.
26, 2018, the operative amended complaint was filed.  It added
Varela as a Plaintiff and MCM as a Defendant.

The Plaintiffs purport to bring it on behalf of a class defined as
all natural persons with an address within the State of New Jersey,
to whom, from Dec. 1, 2016 through and including May 24, 2018,
Defendants sent one or more letters in an attempt to collect a
Citibank, N.A. debt which contained the same or similar statement
that "If the account goes to an attorney, our flexible options may
no longer be available to you."

On Feb. 4, 2019, the Defendants filed the pending motion to compel
arbitration and dismiss the FAC.  They argue that the agreements
governing the Accounts provide that (i) all claims related to the
Accounts must be submitted to binding arbitration, and (ii) the
Plaintiffs' waived their right to bring class action claims.  The
Defendants have included the operative agreements for each of the
Plaintiffs' Accounts as exhibits to the motion to compel
arbitration.

Judge Hayden states that at issue is the first question a court
must ask before compelling parties to arbitrate -- whether there is
an agreement to arbitrate.  In determining whether an agreement to
arbitrate exists, a court must first assess whether to apply the
standard for a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or
a motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs do not attach a copy of the
agreements containing the arbitration provision to the FAC, and
their claims are based entirely on the collection letters allegedly
sent by the Defendants.  Indeed, the Plaintiffs do not even mention
the agreements or arbitration provision in the FAC.  Rather, their
existence is raised for the first time by the Defendants in their
motion to compel arbitration and the affidavits they submitted in
support of that motion.

Undeterred, the Defendants argue that the FAC "readily admits the
existence" of the agreements by alleging the Plaintiffs' debts
"were incurred for personal, family or household purposes" and
"were past-due and in default" when they were "placed with or
assigned" to them for collection.  Courts in the District, however,
have found that such allegations are insufficient to show that an
agreement to arbitrate exists.

Accordingly, because the question of arbitrability cannot be
resolved without considering evidence extraneous to the pleadings,
it would be inappropriate to apply a Rule 12(b)(6) standard in
deciding the instant motion, Judge Hayden says.  Thus the motion to
compel arbitration must be denied pending further development of
the factual record, the Court maintains.

Once the parties have completed limited discovery on the issue of
arbitrability, the Defendants may renew their motion to compel
arbitration.  At such time, the Court will review it pursuant to
the standard applicable to motions for summary judgment under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56.

For these reasons, Judge Hayden denied, without prejudice, the
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the FAC.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 1, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/Bskd6B from Leagle.com.

SHANTHI HEJAMADI, Plaintiff, represented by EVAN WILLIAM LEHRER,
KIM LAW FIRM LLC, JASON ROBERT D'AGNENICA, KIM LAW FIRM LLC &
YONGMOON KIM -- jhk@thekimlawfirm.com -- Kim Law Firm LLC.

RICARDO VARELA, Plaintiff, represented by JASON ROBERT D'AGNENICA,
KIM LAW FIRM LLC, RONALD IRA LEVINE & YONGMOON KIM, Kim Law Firm
LLC.

MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, Defendant, represented by ELLEN BETH SILVERMAN
-- esilverman@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP & HAN
SHENG BEH -- hbeh@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP.

MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, represented by HAN
SHENG BEH, HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP.


MINDBODY INC: Del. Chancery Court Consolidates 3 Stockholders Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kathleen St. J. McCormick of the Court of Chancery of
Delaware, in an Oct. 1, 2019 Order, consolidated three related
actions involving Mindbody Inc. and Stollmeyer.  They are:

  (i) Ryan v. Mindbody, Inc., C.A. No. 2019-0061-KSJM ("Ryan
      Action");

(ii) Luxor Capital Partners, LP v. Stollmeyer, C.A. No.
      2019-0442-KSJM ("Luxor Action"); and

(iii) Luxor Capital Partners, LP v. Stollmeyer, C.A. No.
      2019-0293-KSJM ("Appraisal Action").

The individual actions were captioned PHILIP RYAN, JR. and DONALD
FRIEDMAN, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
stockholders of MINDBODY, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. MINDBODY, INC.,
RICHARD L. STOLLMEYER, KATHERINE BLAIR CHRISTIE, COURT CUNNINGHAM,
GAIL GOODMAN, CIPORA HERMAN, ERIC LIAW, ADAM MILLER, GRAHAM SMITH,
VISTA EQUITY PARTNERS MANAGEMENT, LLC, TORREYS PARENT, LLC, TORREYS
MERGER SUB, INC., and INSTITUTIONAL VENTURE PARTNERS XIII, L.P.,
MINDBODY, INC., et al., Defendants; LUXOR CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP,
LUXOR CAPITAL PARTNERS OFFSHORE MASTER FUND, LP, LUXOR WAVEFRONT,
LP, and LUGARD ROAD CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LP, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated former stockholders of
MINDBODY, INC., Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD L. STOLLMEYER, BRETT WHITE,
and ERIC LIAW, Defendants, C.A. Nos. 2019-0061-KSJM, 2019-0442-KSJM
( Del. Ch.).

The Related Actions are consolidated for all purposes. All papers
and documents previously served and filed in any of the Related
Actions are deemed a part of the record in the Consolidated
Action.

The Consolidated Action will bear the following caption: IN RE
MINDBODY, INC., Consolidated STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION C.A. No.
2019-0442-KSJM.

Two groups of stockholder Plaintiffs and counsel seek to be
appointed to leadership roles in the Consolidated Action.

Plaintiff in the Ryan Action, Philip Ryan, Jr., proposes that his
claims brought pursuant to 8 Del C. Section 225, as well as
disclosure issues addressed in the trial briefs filed at C.A. No.
2019-0061-KSJM, be severed from the Consolidated Action and remain
in the Ryan Action.  Ryan also seeks to be appointed the Lead
Plaintiff and to have his counsel, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A.
and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, appointed as the co-lead
counsel in the Consolidated Action.

Plaintiffs in the Luxor Action, Luxor Capital Partners, LP, Luxor
Capital Partners Offshore Master Fund, LP, Luxor Wavefront, LP, and
Lugard Road Capital Master Fund, LP, do not oppose severing the
Section 225 Claims from the Consolidated Action, but they argue
that certain of the Ryan Disclosure Issues should be litigated as
part of the Consolidated Action.  The Luxor Plaintiffs propose that
they each be appointed as the Lead Plaintiffs and have their
counsel, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., and Bernstein Litowitz Berger
& Grossman LLP, appointed as the co-lead counsel in the
Consolidated Action.

As a threshold matter, Judge McCormick granted Team Ryan's request
to sever the Section 225 Claims.  Team Ryan may continue to pursue
those claims.  The Section 225 Claims have been fully litigated and
briefed, there is no reason to delay their resolution, and it would
be inefficient to switch teams for the purpose of prosecuting those
claims at this stage.  The parties in the Ryan Action will contact
Chambers to reschedule oral argument on the Section 225 Claims.
Following oral argument, the Court will determine whether the Ryan
Disclosure Issues should be resolved as part of the Section 225
Claims or as part of the Consolidated Action.  The record on the
Section 225 Claims will be considered part of the record in the
Consolidated Action, such that the class may benefit from the
record created on the Section 225 Claims to date.

On the leadership dispute, Judge McCormick finds that the Luxor
Plaintiffs' significant relative ownership stake tips the balance
in their favor.  Accordingly, the Luxor Plaintiffs are appointed as
the Lead Plaintiffs of the Consolidated Action, the Court rules.
The law firms of Friedlander & Gorris, P.A. and Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP are appointed as the Co-Lead Counsel.  The
following law firms are designated as additional counsel: Prickett,
Jones & Elliott, P.A.; Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP; and
Schall Law Firm.

The Co-Lead Counsel will set policy for the prosecution of the
litigation, delegate and monitor the work performed to ensure that
there is no duplication of effort or unnecessary expense, and
initiate and coordinate the activities of the counsel.

The Verified Complaint in the Luxor Action is deemed operative for
the Consolidated Action.  The parties will confer on an appropriate
schedule moving forward regarding the Consolidated Action,
including a deadline for the Lead Plaintiffs to file an amended
Consolidated Complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 1, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/zb9GcS from Leagle.com.


POLARIS INC: Consolidated Economic Loss-Related Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend the class action suit entitled, In re Polaris Marketing,
Sales Practices, and Product Liability Litigation (D. Minn.), June
15, 2018.

The putative class action is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota and arises out of allegations
that certain Polaris products suffer from unresolved fire hazards
allegedly resulting in economic loss, and is the result of the
consolidation of the three putative class actions the company
reported in its April 26, 2018 quarterly report and that were filed
between April 5-10, 2018.

Polaris Inc. is an American manufacturer of motorcycles,
snowmobiles, ATV, and neighborhood electric vehicles. Polaris was
founded in Roseau, Minnesota, USA, where it still has engineering
and manufacturing. The company's corporate headquarters is in
Medina, Minnesota. The company manufactured motorcycles through its
Victory Motorcycles subsidiary until January 2017, and currently
produces motorcycles through the Indian Motorcycle subsidiary,
which it purchased in April 2011. Polaris produced personal
watercraft from 1994-2004. The company was originally named Polaris
Industries Inc. and was renamed in 2019 to Polaris Inc.


POLARIS INC: Guzman and Albright Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Polaris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the company is facing a
putative class action pending in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California and alleges violations of
various California consumer protection laws, including in
connection with ROPS (rollover protection systems) certifications,
for various Polaris products sold in California: Paul Guzman and
Jeremy Albright v. Polaris Inc., Polaris Industries Inc., and
Polaris Sales Inc., August 8, 2019.

Polaris Inc. is an American manufacturer of motorcycles,
snowmobiles, ATV, and neighborhood electric vehicles. Polaris was
founded in Roseau, Minnesota, USA, where it still has engineering
and manufacturing. The company's corporate headquarters is in
Medina, Minnesota. The company manufactured motorcycles through its
Victory Motorcycles subsidiary until January 2017, and currently
produces motorcycles through the Indian Motorcycle subsidiary,
which it purchased in April 2011. Polaris produced personal
watercraft from 1994-2004. The company was originally named Polaris
Industries Inc. and was renamed in 2019 to Polaris Inc.


POLARIS INC: Johannessohn et. al. Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Polaris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Riley Johannessohn, Daniel
Badilla, James Kelley, Kevin Wonders, William Bates and James
Pinion, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Polaris Industries (D. Minn.), October 4, 2016.

The company has been named as a defendant in a putative class
action pending in the United States District Court for the District
of Minnesota.  The lawsuit alleges excessive heat hazards on
certain other Polaris products and seeks damages for alleged
economic loss.

Polaris Inc. is an American manufacturer of motorcycles,
snowmobiles, ATV, and neighborhood electric vehicles. Polaris was
founded in Roseau, Minnesota, USA, where it still has engineering
and manufacturing. The company's corporate headquarters is in
Medina, Minnesota. The company manufactured motorcycles through its
Victory Motorcycles subsidiary until January 2017, and currently
produces motorcycles through the Indian Motorcycle subsidiary,
which it purchased in April 2011. Polaris produced personal
watercraft from 1994-2004. The company was originally named Polaris
Industries Inc. and was renamed in 2019 to Polaris Inc.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Settlement in Mild Suit Wins Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Trevor Mild v. PPG Industries, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-04231 (C.D. Cal., May 20, 2018), the Hon. R. Gary Klausner
granted Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Plan of Allocation.  No objections have been filed
and there were no objectors present at the October 21 hearing.

Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses is taken under submission.

PPG Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that on May 20, 2018, a
putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against the
Company and three of its current and former officers.  

On September 21, 2018, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed
in the lawsuit. The Amended Complaint, captioned Trevor Mild v. PPG
Industries, Inc., Michael H. McGarry, Vincent J. Morales, and Mark
C. Kelly, asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired stock
of the Company between January 19, 2017 and May 10, 2018.

The allegations relate to, among other things, allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about
the Company's business, operations and prospects. The parties
reached a settlement in principal on May 1, 2019.  

On June 2, 2019, the plaintiff filed with the Court a Petition for
Preliminary Approval of the proposed settlement, including the
proposed settlement amount of $25 million. On July 25, 2019, the
Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and now the
parties are proceeding with the remaining procedures required to
obtain final approval.

The Court scheduled October 21, 2019 for a hearing to consider the
plaintiff's request for final approval of the settlement.

PPG's insurance carriers confirmed to the Company insurance
coverage for the full amount of the proposed settlement.

PPG Industries, Inc. manufactures and distributes paints, coatings,
and specialty materials worldwide. The company was founded in 1883
and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


PROPAK LOGISTICS: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled ROBERT GARCIA, an individual, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROPAK
LOGISTICS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. RIC1904790, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on Oct. 23, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-02034 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts these causes of action: (1)
Failure to Pay Wages and/or Overtime Under Labor Code; (2) Failure
to Provide Rest Breaks Pursuant to Labor Code; (3) Violation of
Labor Code; (4) Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code; and (5) Violation
of Business & Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Katherine C. Den Bleyker, Esq.
     LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
     633 West 5 Street, Suite 4000
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: 213.250.1800
     Facsimile: 213.250.7900
     Email: Katherine.DenBleyker@lewisbrisbois.com


ROCKWELL COLLINS: Dvorak Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE DVORAK, an individual, and on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROCKWELL
COLLINS, INC., a Corporation; AIR ROUTING INTERNATIONAL L.P., a
Limited partnership; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 37-2019-000421510CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, for the County of San Diego, to
the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of California on
Oct. 23, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02042-H-BGS to
the proceeding.

The Complaint alleged ten causes of action against the Defendants:
(1) Unfair Competition; (2) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (3)
Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (4) Failure to Provide Required Meal
Periods; (5) Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; (6) Failure
to Provide Accurate Itemized [Wage] Statements; (7) Failure to
Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses; (8) Failure to Provide
Wages When Due;  (9) Wrongful Termination; and (10)
Retaliation.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Timothy M. Rusche, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Phone: (213) 270-9600
     Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
     Email: trusche@seyfarth.com

          - and -

     Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq.
     Jarea W. Speier, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
     Phone: (310) 277-7200
     Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
     Email: jbrophy@seyfarth.com
            jspeier@seyfarth.com


ROUGE VALLEY: Dickinson Wright Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Radnoff, Esq. -- bradnoff@dickinsonwright.com --
of Dickinson Wright, in an article for JDSupra, reports that since
the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Jones v. Tsige, creating
an Ontario version of the tort of invasion of privacy called
"intrusion upon seclusion", privacy-related class actions have
emerged as a growth area. Many of these have focused on the
institutional release of personal information and some have been
successfully certified. However, a review of two recent Ontario
Superior Court decisions, Broutzas v. Rouge Valley Health System
and Kaplan v. Casino Rama, highlight some of the difficulties in
certifying these types of actions. In both cases, certification of
the class action was refused.

Broutzas v. Rouge Valley Health System involved a proposed class
action relating to hospital employees selling to RESP salespeople
the contact information of women who had recently given birth.

Kaplan v. Casino Rama involved a proposed class action relating to
a hacker stealing and posting online the personal information of
nearly 11,000 casino customers.

Whether Information Is Private

In Broutzas, the Court determined the information relating to
whether a woman had given birth was not private. This kind of
information was typically posted on social media, announced and
shared with family and friends. In addition, some class members
gave their contact information to companies in exchange for free
baby products. Moreover, a person's contact information is normally
public information. The Court concluded that none of the
information released was protected under the tort. This type of
information can be distinguished from medical information, which is
private.

Ultimately, a release of personal information does not necessarily
mean an invasion of privacy. The invasion must be something a
reasonable person would find highly offensive, causing distress,
humiliation, or anguish. Release of contact information, or that a
person gave birth, does not qualify.

The Issue of Overbreadth and Indirect Defendants

The Court in Rouge Valley concluded there was no cause of action
against the RESP salespeople. The salespeople were not negligent as
they did not owe a duty of care to the class members. Furthermore,
they were not involved in the actual breach themselves. It would be
unreasonable to impose a duty on the salespeople to ensure the
information was not improperly obtained.

Similarly, in Kaplan, while the casino may have been negligent for
the breach, it was not liable for intrusion upon seclusion. The
hacker, not the casino had invaded the class members' privacy.

Common Issues

In Broutzas, the class members did not share common issues. Some
had publicly announced their birth, meaning the information was not
private. Some women were not contacted by any salespeople. Others
purchased RESPs because of the solicitations, meaning they did not
suffer harm. Others had already purchased RESPs from the same
companies prior to the breach. As a result, different class members
would be in very different positions.

Moreover, the defendants did not share common issues. The issues of
invasion of privacy and negligence were relevant to the hospital
defendants but not to the RESP salespeople. Resolving issues
relating to liability for the hospital defendants would be
irrelevant to the RESP salespeople.

In Kaplan, the class members faced a similar problem. While the
casino customers were affected by the same breach, the type and
amount of information that was revealed varied between them. No
common issue existed because the standard of care owed by the
casino varied depending on the information exposed.

Ultimately, neither proposed proceeding contained sufficient common
issues between the class members that would advance the claim.

Conclusion

There have been instances of successful certification motions in
privacy class actions in Ontario, particularly where it was clear
the information was personal, such as medical information, and the
action was not overbroad and limited to direct defendants. In
appropriate cases, however, defendants will be able to contest
whether the class action should be certified. Privacy class actions
can raise issues that make certification difficult. When a privacy
class action is commenced, defendants should carefully consider
whether certification can be successfully opposed. There will be
occasions where certification will likely be successful, but these
recent decisions demonstrate that, in the right case, it makes
sense to oppose certification. [GN]


RUDEEN MANAGEMENT: App. Court Upheld Dismissal of Silver Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS SILVER, an individual, and all those similarly
situated, Appellant, v. RUDEEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., a
Washington corporation, Respondent, Case No. 36165-9-III (Wash.
App.), Judge Kevin M. Korsmo of the Court of Appeals of Washington,
Division Three, affirmed the trial court's dismissal at summary
judgment of Silver's class action.

Thomas Silver rented an apartment managed by Rudeen for about 40
months.  Upon entering into the tenancy, Silver paid Rudeen a $300
damage deposit.  He vacated the premises June 30, 2015, after
giving timely notice of his intention.  On that same day, Rudeen
provided Silver a "preliminary" "Deposit Disposition" statement.
The disposition claimed Silver owed $2,516 for excessive wear and
tear.  On Aug. 18, 2015, Rudeen sent Silver a "final" "Deposit
Disposition" statement claiming a revised amount of $2,281.35 for
excessive wear and tear.

Rudeen sometime thereafter began efforts to collect on its claim.
Silver responded by filing the class action.  On Aug. 10, 2017, he
filed a complaint for damages against Rudeen, asserting the
existence of a class of the Plaintiffs and a single cause of
action: a contention that Rudeen had violated the Residential
Landlord-Tenant Act of 1973 ("RLTA"), by not providing within 21
days a final statement concerning the damage deposit pursuant to
RCW 59.18.280.  The Plaintiff requested that the court refunds each
class member's security deposit, give each class member double the
amount of the deposit, and award attorney fees costs.

Rudeen eventually moved for summary judgment, arguing that the
action was filed outside the two-year statute of limitations.
Silver contended that his action was subject to the three-year
statute of limitations governing recovery of personal property.
The trial court concluded that the only cause of action asserted
was a violation of the RLTA governed by a two-year statute of
limitations.  The trial court granted summary judgment and
dismissed the case for untimely filing.

Silver timely appealed to the Appellate Court.  The sole issue
presented is whether the two- or three-year statute of limitations
period applied to the complaint.

Judge Korsmo agrees with the trial court that the two-year period
applied.  The Judge concludes that the action is an action to
enforce the statute, not an action for return of property.  It is
the difference between saying "I did not do $300 worth of damage,
return my deposit," and saying "you did not respond in a timely
fashion as required, so pay me the statutory remedies."  The former
involves a personal right of the Plaintiff to possession of his own
funds.  The latter involves a breach of statutory duty in
derogation of the Plaintiff's rights.

The case was an action to enforce the deposit return obligation of
the RLTA.  It was not an action for return of personal property.
The two-year statute of limitations period applied.  The action was
brought more than two years after it had accrued.  Hence, the trial
court correctly determined that it was untimely, Judge Korsmo
held.

Accordingly, Judge Korsmo affirmed the trial court's ruling.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Oct. 1, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/SFSc24 from Leagle.com.

Brian Cameron, Attorney at Law, 421 W Riverside Ave Ste 660,
Spokane, WA, 99201-0410, Kirk David Miller --
kmiller@millerlawspokane.com -- Kirk D. Miller, P.S., 421 W
Riverside Ave Ste 660, Spokane, WA, 99201-0410, Counsel for
Appellant(s).

Timothy W. Durkop -- mail@durkoplaw.com -- Attorney at Law, 2906 N
Argonne Rd, Spokane Valley, WA, 99212-2235, Counsel for
Respondent(s).


RUST-OLEUM CORP: Concealed True Efficacy of Restore Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN GARRARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00836-DGK (W.D. Mo., Oct. 17, 2019) is a Complaint against
Defendant related to the company's marketing and sale of Rust-Oleum
Restore products, specifically Rust-Oleum Deck Start Wood Primer,
Restore 2X One Coat Solid Stain, and Restore 4X Deck Coat.

Rust-Oleum sold Restore Products to Missouri consumers for the
purpose of resurfacing wooden structures, but the company
misrepresented, omitted, and concealed material information
concerning the efficacy of Restore Products, including (1) Restore
Products are more prone to chipping, peeling, and flaking than
comparable wood resurfacing products; (2) Restore Products do not
last longer than comparable products and, instead, they deteriorate
more quickly than comparable products; and (3) Restore Products do
not provide enhanced protection that is superior to comparable
products despite a premium price charged for Restore Products, says
the complaint.

Rust-Oleum sold Restore Products with full knowledge of these
conditions, yet did not disclose them to consumers. In this
respect, Rust-Oleum has concealed and omitted material facts in
violation of the law. Rust-Oleum's conduct harmed consumers.
Rust-Oleum charges a premium for its products, and consumers pay
enhanced prices for Restore Products. Moreover, consumers have not
received the benefit of their bargain in that they have not
received the product they purchased.  Had Plaintiff and consumers
been aware of the defective nature of Restore Products, they would
not have purchased Restore Products or would have paid far less
money for them, the complaint asserts.

Plaintiff purchased his Restore Products in the State of Missouri,
and suffered damages as a result of Rust-Oleum's conduct within
Missouri.

Rust-Oleum Corporation is an Illinois corporation with its
principal place of business in Vernon Hills, Illinois. Rust-Oleum
Corporation is owned by RPM International, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
     Amy R. Jackson, Esq.
     WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
     1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
     Kansas City, MO 64105
     Phone: (816) 945-7110
     Fax: (816) 945-7118
     Email: matt@williamsdirks.com
            amy@williamsdirks.com


SMILEDIRECT: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over IPO
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a shareholder class action in
Davidson County Court claims that SmileDirect made false or
misleading statements in its $1.3 billion IPO, "specifically . . .
the severity of the legal obstacles SmileDirect faces in 40
states," causing the share price to drop from $23 to $13 in 15
days.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

                    https://is.gd/MqvW8Q



SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Faces Ginsberg Suit Over IPO-Related Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
BARRY GINSBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, INC., DAVID KATZMAN, KYLE
WAILES, STEVEN KATZMAN, ALEXANDER FENKELL, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES,
INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., BOFA SECURITIES, INC.,
JEFFERIES LLC, UBS SECURITIES LLC, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA)
LLC, and CAMELOT VENTURE GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09794
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2019), is a federal securities class action
brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired SmileDirectClub Class A common stock (a)
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's September 12,
2019 initial public offering, or (b) during the period from
September 8, 2019, through October 2, 2019, inclusive, and suffered
damages.

The Plaintiff pursues claims against the Company, certain of its
top officials, and certain banks, which acted as underwriters to
the IPO under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Exchange Act of 1934.

On September 12, 2019, SmileDirectClub completed its IPO, issuing
shares at a price of $23.00 per share. The Offering Price was
inflated, and the shares have not traded remotely close to that
price since becoming publicly available, the Plaintiff alleges. The
Company sold approximately 58.54 million shares of Class A common
stock and received proceeds of approximately $1.27 billion, net of
underwriting discounts and commissions. The proceeds from the IPO
were purportedly to be used for employee incentive bonuses, certain
equity arrangements, and general corporate disclosures.

On September 24, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
Middle District of Tennessee by dentists, orthodontists, and
consumers against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors for false advertising, fraud, negligence, and unfair and
deceptive trade practices. The complaint alleges, inter alia, that
inaccurate statements were made in the IPO's Registration Statement
and that the Company is subject to litigation for operating as a
dentist without proper licensing in several states, among other
litigations. On this news, the SDC share price fell $1.47 (or
nearly 9%), from $17.15 to $15.68 per share on September 24, 2019,
on unusually high trading volume.

The price continued to decline over the next two trading sessions
to close at $14.51 on September 25, 2019, and $12.94 on September
26, 2019, on unusually high trading volume. The cumulative decline
as a result of this disclosure was $4.21. As a result of the
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff acquired SDC common stock at an artificially inflated
price in traceable to the IPO.

SmileDirectClub was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in
Nashville, Tennessee. The Company manufactures, markets, and sells
clear dental aligner treatments through its Web site:
https://smiledirectclub.com/ and over 300 brick-and-mortar retail
locations.[BN]

SmileDirectClub was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in
Nashville, Tennessee. The Company manufactures, markets, and sells
clear dental aligner treatments through its website
https://smiledirectclub.com/ and over 300 brick-and-mortar retail
locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ian M. Press, Esq.
     KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
     250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
     New York, NY 10177
     Phone: (212) 371-6600
     Facsimile: (212) 699-1194
     Email: ipress@kmllp.com


SMILEDIRECTCLUB: Sued for Practicing Unlicensed Dentistry
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class of shareholders
claims in a federal lawsuit that SmileDirectClub practiced
unlicensed dentistry in several states and faced legal action
because of it, causing stock value to drop from a high of $23 a
share to $12.94.

A copy of the complaint is available at:

                    https://is.gd/kYWA3V



SMILES INCLUSIVE: Holding Redlich to Lead IPO Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Ogg, writing for Business News Australia, reports that Holding
Redlich has confirmed the process is underway for a class action
against embattled Gold Coast-based dental group Smiles Inclusive.

The company has seen profits, cash and its share price deteriorate
since its April 2018 initial public offering (IPO) that raised $35
million to support an ambitious national acquisition plan.

Smiles' expansion included joint venture partnerships (JVPs) with
dentists around the country, but its guidance to the market and
results worsened over time.

From a listing price of $1 the company's share price has dwindled
to 4.6 cents at the time of writing, as Smiles undertakes a capital
raising to stay afloat and pay a small fraction of the $19 million
it owes to National Australia Bank (ASX: NAB).

The capital raising was announced prior to a substantial adjustment
to Smiles' FY19 loss from $19 million in the unaudited results to
$31 million in the statutory figures.

Two JVP dentists who have been vocal about governance issues at the
group are Dr John Camacho and Dr Arthur Walsh, who are now taking
their battle against the corporate up a notch.

"Holding Redlich Melbourne have stepped forward ready to lead the
$50 million class action process," Camacho said in a press release
this morning.

"Regardless if Smiles goes into administration, we are committed to
recouping cash from Morgans, KPMG, Talbot Sayer and Smiles
Directors and Officers personally.

"The class action, aimed at recouping 95 cents a share, offers a
lot more upside for shareholders than the current 4 to 5 cents on
offer."

Holding Redlich confirmed with Business News Australia that the
action was on the cards.

"Holding Redlich have agreed to lead a class action process working
closely with aggrieved dentists and shareholders. The IPO is the
starting point," a spokesperson for the firm said.

Smiles Inclusive CEO Tony McCormack has responded claiming he is
"not aware that any class action has commenced and has not received
any legal proceedings".

In an announcement to the ASX on Oct. 8, Smiles said it had become
aware that some parties were "sending misleading and deceptive
information to shareholders and issuing media releases which
deliberately misrepresent matters relating to the Company and its
operations".

"All interested parties should treat these statements with extreme
caution," the company said.

"The motivation of these parties is unknown at this time, but all
indications are is that their intention is to see the company
fail.

"The Company's recently announced rights issue is fully
underwritten and will provide the Company with the opportunity to
execute its turnaround plan."

At the time of writing, Smiles had not responded to requests for
comment about which specific information it believed was
"misleading and deceptive". [GN]


STATE FARM: Sued by Santoro for Charging Customers $3 Service Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA SANTORO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-09782 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23,
2019), is brought on behalf of New York residents and former
residents seeking compensatory damages arising from the Defendant's
charging of $3 service fees.

In direct violation of New York law, the Defendant charges a $3
fee, which it calls a "Service Charge" or "Installment Fee," in
order for its insurance customers to receive a paper billing
statement and/or pay by United States mail. Indeed, a portion of
the Defendant's website entitled "Lower Installment Fees with
Paperless Billing," states "selecting the paperless option for your
State Farm Payment Plan may result in a reduction of your SFPP
installment fee." The Defendant's conduct is prohibited by New York
General Business Law and, therefore, constitutes a deceptive act
and practice under GBL, says the complaint.

Ms. Santoro has had insurance accounts with the Defendant.

The Defendant is the largest property, casualty, and automobile
insurance company in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Phone: (925) 300-4455
     Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
     Email: fklorczyk@bursor.com


STEVENS TRANSPORT: Parr Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Jeremy Parr, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
public, the Plaintiff, vs. Stevens Transport, Inc., Stevens
Transport T 22 L., Inc, Stevens Transport CO. Inc., Stevens
Transport CD, Inc. (dba Stevens Transport), the Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-02610 (May 14, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the  Northern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) on
Oct. 7, 2019. The Northern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:19-cv-02378-S to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Karen Gren Scholer.

The Plaintiff worked as a truck driver for Defendants and seeks
relief for violations of California law arising out of Defendants'
policy of failing to pay minimum wage for all hours worked; failing
to provide off-duty meal periods; failing to permit and authorize
paid, off-duty rest periods; failing to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, and failing to timely pay all wages due, all in
violation of the California Labor Code and California's Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Order.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
          235 Montgomery, Suite 810
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 277-7234
          Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
          E-mail: dbrome@nka.com
                  helland@nka.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com

               - and -

          Lotus Cannon, Esq.
          Nicholas Raymond Conlon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: 877-561-000
          E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
          
Attorneys for Stevens Transport Inc. are

          Brian Davis Berry, Esq.
          Jared Lee Palmer, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          One Market Plaza, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 369-3554
          Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
          E-mail: brian.berry@ogletree.com
                  jared.palmer@ogletreedeakins.com

TARGET CORP: Faces Monroe Employee Suit in California Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Target Corporation,
et al. The case is captioned as Deena Monroe, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Target Corporation,
Johnny Camacho, and Does 1-100, the Defendants, Case No.
34-2019-00266832-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Oct. 11, 2019).

The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.

Target Corporation is the eighth largest retailer in the United
States, and is a component of the S&P 500 Index.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laura Van Note, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES
          555 12th Street, Ste. 1725
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800


TIGER BRANDS: Listeriosis Outbreak Class Action May Face Delay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Riaan Grobler, writing for News24, reports that the class action
brought against Tiger Brands following a listeriosis outbreak
caused by some of its products could take years before it finally
gets to court.

In April, Tiger Brands received the summons for a class action
linked to the listeriosis outbreak from the Gauteng High Court in
Johannesburg.

In February, the court determined that Richard Spoor Attorneys
could go ahead with the class action, representing more than 1,000
people affected by the listeriosis outbreak in 2017 and 2018 that
claimed more than 200 lives.

On Oct. 8, Spoor said the class action could be delayed "for years"
as Tiger Brands had issued subpoenas against food-testing
laboratories to obtain information about the identities of people
or parties who submitted samples for testing listeriosis and the
results of those tests during the period of the outbreak.

Two laboratories -- Aspirata and Deltamune -- have indicated that
they would oppose this as the information is confidential. In a
worst-case scenario, the matter could go all the way to the
Constitutional Court, which could take years, Spoor said.

Tiger Brands has lodged an application in the High Court to compel
the disclosure of the documents.  

'Fishing expedition'

"This is a fishing expedition," Spoor said. "There is no reason to
believe that anyone other than [Tiger Brands] is responsible for
the outbreak."

Spoor said his firm might participate in the litigation of the
matter between Tiger Brands and the laboratories to speed up the
matter.

"Foremost, is the question of public policy and privacy. We want
companies to submit products for testing. From a health and safety
point of view, it is desirable for corporations to test often for
any signs of contamination and to respond appropriately.

"But when these companies send their samples to private
laboratories to be tested, at their own expense, and the results
become public knowledge, it creates a strong disincentive for them
to do so."

Products found to be contaminated are not sold to the public. Spoor
said chicken, for example, may contain traces of listeria, but this
is not a "train smash" as it will be cooked, killing the bacteria.

"But in the eyes of the public, it sounds appalling. So here you
have a small manufacturer that submits its products, listeria is
found and appropriate measures are taken, so there's no risk to
anybody. However, the fact that listeria was found could be very
bad for [the company's reputation] if it comes out in public.

"People could become terrified, even if there is no risk involved."


This is the reason the laboratories want to keep their records
confidential, Spoor said. "It could cause reputational harm that
just isn't justified."

That said, the subpoenas are causing a delay in the class action.

Constitutional matter

"One of the important issues is that this is a constitutional
matter. It's about the right to privacy. So this is a matter that
could, conceivably, go all the way to the Constitutional Court and
that process can take a few years.

"We really don't want that to happen."

This is why Spoor is contemplating intervening by joining Tiger
Brands as an applicant to "find a solution that is in the interest
of the claimants and justice".

Spoor said a decision on this was to be made by Oct. 11.  

News24 has approached a spokesperson at Tiger Brands for comment.
This will be added once received.

In a statement in December last year, the company said it would
follow the legal process to bring closure to all parties.

"Tiger Brands reiterates that no liability has been established
against the company for the listeriosis outbreak.

"However, should liability be determined, the company will respond
appropriately to any legitimate claims," the statement read.

In the same statement, Tiger Brands chief corporate affairs officer
Mary Jane Morifi said the R1m that the company extended to assist
in supporting the class action process, and a hotline to facilitate
it, was a sign that the company was committed to finding a
resolution for everyone affected. [GN]


TSR INC: Paskowitz Class Suit Ongoing Despite Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------
TSR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 15, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended August 31, 2019, that the Company has entered into the
Settlement and Release Agreement with the Investor Parties with
respect to the proxy contest pertaining to the election of
directors at the 2018 Annual Meeting but the Settlement Agreement
did not resolve the pending litigation filed by Susan Paskowitz
against the Company, Joseph F. Hughes, Winifred M. Hughes and
certain current and former directors of the Company in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York on October 11, 2018, which is the
only ongoing litigation in which the Company is involved.

On October 16, 2018, the Company was served with a complaint filed
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County, by
Susan Paskowitz, a stockholder of the Company, against the Company;
Joseph F. Hughes and Winifred M. Hughes; current and former
directors Christopher Hughes, Raymond A. Roel, Brian J. Mangan,
Regina Dowd, James J. Hill, William Kelly, and Eric Stein; as well
as stockholders Zeff Capital, L.P. , QAR Industries, Inc. and
Fintech Consulting LLC.

The complaint purports to be a class action lawsuit asserting
claims on behalf of all minority stockholders of the Company. Ms.
Paskowitz alleges the following: the sale by Joseph F. Hughes and
Winifred M. Hughes of an aggregate of 819,491 shares of the
Company's common stock ("controlling interest") to Zeff Capital,
L.P., QAR Industries, Inc. and Fintech Consulting LLC was in breach
of Joseph F. Hughes' and Winifred M. Hughes' fiduciary duties and
to the detriment of the Company's minority stockholders; the
members of the Board of Directors of the Company named in the
complaint breached their fiduciary duties by failing to immediately
adopt a rights plan that would have prevented Joseph F. Hughes and
Winifred M. Hughes from selling their shares and preserved a higher
premium for all stockholders; Zeff, QAR, and Fintech are "partners"
and constitute a "group."

Ms. Paskowitz also asserts that Zeff Capital, L.P., QAR Industries,
Inc. and Fintech Consulting LLC aided and abetted Joseph F. Hughes'
and Winifred M. Hughes' conduct, and ultimately sought to buy out
the remaining shares of the Company at an unfair price. The
complaint requests declarations from the court that: (1) Joseph F.
Hughes' and Winifred M. Hughes' sale of their controlling interest
to Zeff Capital, L.P., QAR Industries, Inc. and Fintech Consulting
LLC was in breach of their fiduciary duties, and that those shares
may not be voted or sold back to the Company pending further court
order, (2) the members of the Board of Directors named in the
complaint breached their fiduciary duties by failing to timely
adopt a stockholder rights plan, which resulted in the loss of the
ability to auction the Company off to the highest bidder without
interference from Zeff Capital, L.P., QAR Industries, Inc. and
Fintech Consulting LLC, and (3) Zeff Capital, L.P., QAR Industries,
Inc. and Fintech Consulting LLC must make a number of disclosures
regarding their plans for the Company, their relationships with one
another, and any agreements with Joseph F. Hughes and Winifred M.
Hughes.

The complaint has not assigned any monetary values to alleged
damages, but it seeks: (1) for Joseph F. Hughes and Winifred M.
Hughes, and Zeff Capital, L.P., QAR Industries, Inc. and Fintech
Consulting LLC, to disgorge any benefit they received from the sale
of the Hughes’ controlling interest, (2) for the Board of
Directors to pay damages equal to the reduced value of the class
members’ shares as auctionable assets, and (3) reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

Although the Company is named as a defendant, there are no claims
or damage allegations against the Company, and the complaint states
that it names the Company solely to effectuate equitable relief if
granted.

On May 6, 2019, a stipulation of dismissal was filed in this action
with respect to defendants Joseph F. Hughes, Winifred M. Hughes,
and Regina Dowd, in which the plaintiff and these defendants agreed
to the dismissal of all claims asserted by and against them,
without prejudice. On July 26, 2019, the Company filed cross-claims
against Zeff Capital, L.P., QAR Industries, Inc. and Fintech
Consulting LLC relating to alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and
for indemnification and contribution filed.

On June 14, 2019, Ms. Paskowitz filed an amended complaint in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County against the
members of the Board of Directors and Zeff Capital, L.P., QAR
Industries, Inc. and Fintech Consulting LLC, which asserts
substantially similar allegations to those contained in the October
11, 2018 complaint.

In addition to the members of the Board of Directors named in the
original complaint, the amended complaint names directors Ira
Cohen, Joseph Pennacchio, and William Kelly as defendants.

The amended complaint also asserts a derivative claim purportedly
on behalf of the Company against the named members of the Board of
Directors.

The amended complaint seeks declaratory judgment and unspecified
monetary damages. The complaint requests: (1) a declaration from
the court that the members of the Board of Directors named in the
complaint breached their fiduciary duties by failing to timely
adopt a stockholder rights plan, which resulted in the loss of the
ability to auction the Company off to the highest bidder without
interference from Zeff Capital, L.P., QAR Industries, Inc. and
Fintech Consulting LLC; (2) damages derivatively on behalf of the
Company for unspecified harm caused by the Directors' alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties; (3) damages and equitable relief
derivatively on behalf of the Company for the Directors' alleged
failure to adopt proper corporate governance practices; and (4)
damages and injunctive relief against Zeff Capital, L.P., QAR
Industries, Inc. and Fintech Consulting LLC based on their knowing
dissemination of false or misleading public statements concerning
their status as a group. The complaint has not assigned any
monetary values to alleged damages.

On July 15, 2019, the Company filed an answer to the amended
complaint and cross-claims against Zeff Capital, L.P., QAR
Industries, Inc. and Fintech Consulting LLC for breaches of their
fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties,
and indemnification and contribution based on their
misappropriation of material nonpublic information and their
failure to disclose complete and accurate information in SEC
filings concerning their group actions to attempt a creeping
takeover of the Company.

In addition, on December 21, 2018, the Company filed a complaint in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
against Zeff Capital, L.P., Zeff Holding Company, LLC, Daniel Zeff,
QAR Industries, Inc., Robert Fitzgerald, Fintech Consulting LLC,
and Tajuddin Haslani for violations of the disclosure and
anti-fraud requirements of the federal securities laws under
Sections 13(d) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act"), and the related rules and regulations promulgated
by the SEC, for failing to disclose to the Company and its
stockholders their formation of a group and the group’s intention
to seize control of the Company.

The complaint requests that the court, among other things, declare
that the defendants have solicited proxies without filing timely,
accurate and complete reports on Schedule 13D and Schedule 14A in
violation of Sections 13(d) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act, direct
the defendants to file with the SEC complete and accurate
disclosures, enjoin the defendants from voting any of their shares
prior to such time as complete and accurate disclosures have been
filed, and enjoin the defendants from further violations of the
Exchange Act with respect to the securities of the Company.

The Company has filed motions for preliminary injunction and
expedited discovery. The court held an initial pretrial conference
on April 23, 2019 during which it ordered the parties to
participate in a mediation of the claims raised in the action. The
parties subsequently participated in mediation sessions through the
Court-annexed Mediation Program; however, no resolution has been
reached.

On January 7, 2019, Ms. Paskowitz filed a related action against
Zeff Capital, L.P., Zeff Holding Company, LLC, Daniel Zeff, QAR
Industries, Inc., Robert Fitzgerald, Fintech Consulting LLC, and
Tajuddin Haslani in the Southern District of New York, which
asserts claims against them for breach of fiduciary duty and under
federal securities laws similar to those asserted in the Company's
action. Although the Company is not a party to Ms. Paskowitz's
action, the court has determined to treat the Company's and Ms.
Paskowitz's respective actions as related.

On August 7, 2019, following the Company's initial rescheduling of
the 2018 Annual Meeting for September 13, 2019 and the filing of
Preliminary Proxy Statements by the Company and Zeff Capital, L.P.,
Zeff Capital, L.P. filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against the Company seeking an order requiring the Company
to hold its next annual meeting of stockholders on or around
September 13, 2019, and obligating the Company to elect Class I and
Class III directors at that annual meeting.

On August 30, 2019, the Company entered into the Settlement and
Release Agreement with the Investor Parties with respect to the
proxy contest pertaining to the election of directors at the 2018
Annual Meeting, which was agreed to be held on October 22, 2019.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the parties have agreed to
forever settle and resolve any and all disputes between the
parties, including without limitation disputes arising out of or
relating to the following litigation:

     (i) The complaint relating to alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties filed on November 1, 2018 by Fintech Consulting LLC against
the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery, which was previously
dismissed voluntarily;

    (ii) The complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief for
violations of the federal securities laws filed on December 21,
2018 by the Company against the Investor Parties in the United
States District Court in the Southern District of New York;

   (iii) Cross-claims relating to alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties and for indemnification and contribution filed on July 26,
2019 by the Company against the Investor Parties in New York
Supreme Court, Queens County; and

    (iv) The complaint to compel annual meeting of stockholders
filed on August 7, 2019 by Zeff Capital, L.P. against the Company
in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

No party admitted any liability by entering into the Settlement
Agreement. The Settlement Agreement did not resolve the pending
litigation filed by Susan Paskowitz against the Company, Joseph F.
Hughes, Winifred M. Hughes and certain current and former directors
of the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on
October 11, 2018, which is the only ongoing litigation in which the
Company is involved.

In addition, concurrently with the Settlement Agreement, the
parties entered into a share repurchase agreement under which the
Company may purchase 633,074 shares of the Company's Common Stock,
at a purchase price of $6.25 per share, from the Investor Parties,
and Christopher Hughes, the Chairman of the Board of Directors and
the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, may purchase 320,000
shares of Common Stock, at a purchase price of $6.25 per share,
from the Investor Parties, for an aggregate purchase price of
$5,956,712.50 in cash, subject to the terms and conditions
contained in the Repurchase Agreement.

The Company also agreed to make a payment of $1,543,287.50 to the
Investor Parties at the closing of the Repurchase for the
settlement of all disputes between the parties, dismissal of any
and all claims related thereto, including the lawsuits mentioned
above, and the settlement and release of any and all matters (the
"Settlement Payment"). There can be no assurance that either the
Company or Christopher Hughes will ultimately consummate these
purchases.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, (1) the Company agreed to
adopt an amendment to the Company's Amended and Restated By-Laws,
dated April 9, 2015 (the "By-Laws Amendment"), providing that
stockholders of the Company owning at least forty percent (40%) of
the issued and outstanding Common Stock may request a special
meeting of stockholders; (2) the Investor Parties agreed not to
take any action to call or otherwise cause a special meeting of
stockholders to occur prior to December 30, 2019 unless the Company
fails to hold the 2018 Annual Meeting; (3) the Company agreed to
amend and restate the Company's Rights Agreement, dated August 29,
2018 (the "Amended Rights Agreement"), to confirm that a
Distribution Date (as defined in the Amended and Restated Rights
Agreement) shall not occur as a result of any request by any of the
Investor Parties for a special meeting; (4) the Company agreed that
prior to the earlier of (A) the completion of the Repurchase and
the payment of the Settlement Payment and (B) January 1, 2020, the
Board of Directors shall not consist of more than seven (7)
directors.

The Settlement Agreement provides the Company will solicit proxies
for two alternative Class I director slates for election at the
2018 Annual Meeting: one slate for the Company's nominees, and one
slate for nominees selected by Zeff Capital, L.P. If the Company
completes the Repurchase and makes the Settlement Payment prior to
the 2018 Annual Meeting, Zeff Capital, L.P. will withdraw its
director slate from consideration at the 2018 Annual Meeting and a
vote for Zeff Capital, L.P.'s nominees shall constitute a vote for
the Company's nominees. If the Repurchase is not completed or the
Settlement Payment is not made prior to the 2018 Annual Meeting,
then the Company will withdraw its director slate and a vote for
the Company's nominees shall constitute a vote for the slate
proposed by Zeff Capital, L.P. If the Repurchase is not completed
or the Settlement Payment is not made as of 5:00 pm, Eastern Time,
on December 30, 2019, the current members of the Board of Directors
will resign from the Board. If the Repurchase is completed after
the 2018 Annual Meeting and prior to December 30, 2019, the two
directors nominated by Zeff Capital, L.P. will resign from the
Board of Directors.

In addition, the Settlement Agreement provides for mutual releases
between the Company and each of the Investor Parties and certain of
their affiliates. Each of the Investor Parties and certain of their
affiliates also agreed to certain customary standstill provisions,
including without limitation, with regard to certain actions in
connection with the 2018 Annual Meeting, Extraordinary Transactions
(as defined in the Settlement Agreement) with the Company, and the
acquisition of  any securities (or beneficial ownership thereof) of
the Company, each of which expire on the later of December 30,
2019, or, should the Company consummate the Repurchase and the
payment of the Settlement Payment prior thereto, the opening of the
Company's advance notice period in respect of its annual meeting
occurring during the calendar year 2027.

TSR said, "At this time, it is not possible to predict the outcome
of the litigation matters or their effect on the Company and the
Company's consolidated financial position."

TSR, Inc. provides contract computer programming services in the
New York metropolitan area, New England, and the Mid-Atlantic
region. TSR, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is based in Hauppauge,
New York.


UNION PACIFIC: Rail Shippers' Antitrust Suits Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend antitrust suits by rail shippers.

According to the report, 20 rail shippers (many of whom are
represented by the same law firms) filed virtually identical
antitrust lawsuits in various federal district courts against the
company and four other Class I railroads in the U.S. Currently,
Union Pacific Railrod Company (UPRR) and three other Class I
railroads are the named defendants in the lawsuit.

An appellate hearing related to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia's denial of class certification for the rail
shippers was held on September 28, 2018. On August 16, 2019, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed
the decision of U.S. District Court denying class certification.  

A status conference is expected to determine how the case will
proceed.

Since the D.C. Circuit's ruling, approximately 25 lawsuits have
been filed in federal court based on claims identical to those
alleged in the class case. Union Pacific has also entered into
certain tolling agreements. Like the class action claims, Union
Pacific believes these claims are without merit.

Union Pacific Corporation, through its subsidiary, Union Pacific
Railroad Company, engages in the railroad business in the United
States. Union Pacific Corporation was founded in 1862 and is
headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.


UNITED STATES: ACLU Sues Over Immigrant Family Separations
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the ACLU has filed a lawsuit
against more than a dozen current and former Trump administration
officials seeking damages on behalf of immigrant children and their
parents who were "cruelly and inhumanely separated from each other
by the U.S. government."

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

                     https://is.gd/Cbx3yp


UNITED STATES: TSA Sued for Refusing to Grant $85 Credit
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action claims
the Transportation Security Administration and JPMorgan Chase bank
refuse to grant an $85 credit they promised for enrolling in TSA's
expedited security-screening program if they categorize the
enrollment "as a 'business' card, not a 'consumer' card," a
distinction without a difference.

A copy of the Complaint is available at https://is.gd/WLf28U


USAPD LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Ahmed Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
TWANA AHMED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. USAPD, LLC DBA USA PATROL DIVISION; and ISAM
SAMARA, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-03620 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 25,
2019) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Ahmed was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
hourly paid employees.

USAPD, LLC, d/b/a USA Patrol Division is a Limited Liability
Company in Texas. The Company is engaged as a security agency.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michelle Mishoe Miller, Esq.
          MISHOE MILLER LAW, PLLC
          4309 Yoakum Blvd.
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 521-6575
          Facsimile: (832) 550-2073
          E-mail: Michelle.Miller@mishoemillerlaw.com


VALVOLINE INC: Allen Sues Over Race Discrimination Against Blacks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOROTHY ALLEN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GARRETT ALLEN, and
SIRROM STERGIS, CURTIS PRATT, JAMAR BEASLEYMARION ROUSE, JEVAN
NEWCOMB, ANTONIO WAINWRIGHT v. VALVOLINE INC., BRIAN FLEMING, and
MATTHEW MARSHALL, Defendants, Case No. CV-19-923820 (Ohio Cir.,
Cuyahoga Cty., Oct. 23, 2019), is brought under the Ohio Revised
Code to correct the Defendants' unlawful employment practices that
discriminate on the basis of race and to provide appropriate relief
to African American employees, who were and are adversely affected
by those practices.

The Plaintiffs allege that Valvoline has engaged in, and continues
to engage in, unlawful race discrimination by (1) denying African
American employees equal opportunity for promotion to management
and management-track positions; (2) denying African Americans equal
paid hourly positions; (3) denying African Americans equal pay for
management positions; and (4) engaging in discriminatory hiring
practices. The Plaintiffs were given a Valvoline employee handbook
that they reviewed, but Valvoline did not permit them to keep.
Valvoline's handbook contains a two-page policy entitled "Dress
Code and Appearance Guideline." Valvoline's Dress Code and
Appearance Guideline applies its rules more restrictively on
hairstyles worn by African Americans. Valvoline's Dress Code and
Appearance Guideline applies its rules more restrictively on facial
hair worn by African Americans, according to the complaint.

Due to Valvoline's broadly worded and discriminatorily restrictive
Dress Code and Appearance Guideline, Defendant Fleming used the
policy to harass the Plaintiffs, as well as other African Americans
he supervised, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Valvoline. The Plaintiffs are
African American and members of a protected class.

Valvoline is a Kentucky corporation licensed to do business in
Cuyahoga County, in the State of Ohio, and regularly does and
solicits business and engages in other persistent courses of
conduct or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed,
or services rendered in the State of Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lewis A. Zipkin, Esq.
     Kevin M. Gross, Esq.
     ZIPKIN WHITING CO., L.P.A.
     The Zipkin Whiting Building
     3637 South Green Road - 2nd Floor
     Beachwood, OH 44122
     Telephone: (216) 514-6400
     Facsimile: (216) 514-6406
     E-mail: zfwlpa@aol.com
            kgross.zipkinwhiting@gmail.com


VISALUS INC: Harris Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC J. HARRIS, SR., individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and CAPRECE BYRD, BRYANT WATTS,
RENAE WHITE, LAURA HERL, DR. FRANK McWHORTER, ERIC J. HARRIS, SR.
and CONNIE BATES, individually on their own behalf, Plaintiffs, v.
VISALUS, INC., a corporation, et al, Case No. 17-cv-12626 (E.D.
Mich.), Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted the Named
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Proposed
Settlement and Final Judgment.

Plaintiff Eric Harris, acting individually and on behalf of the
Settlement Class, filed a Motion seeking final approval of their
Agreement with the Defendants to settle all individual and class
claims that have, or could have, been made, in the Plaintiffs'
Third Amended Complaint.

On review, Judge Leitman finds that the Settlement is fair,
adequate, and reasonable; and entered final approval of the
Settlement.

For purposes of the Final Approval Order and Judgment, the
Settlement Class is defined as all U.S. Independent Promotors of
ViSalus, Inc. who qualified for units in the Founders' Equity
Incentive Plan between Jan. 1, 2015 through March 1, 2017.

The claims of the Named Plaintiffs and all the members of the
Settlement Class are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice.

The Judge approved a $15,000 incentive award for Eric J. Harris,
Sr.  

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

Caprece Byrd, Bryant Watts & Renae White, Plaintiffs, represented
by Brent Caldwell bcaldwell@pfalawfirm.com -- Pregeg Faucett &
Abbott PLLC, Mark R. Miller -- mrm@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler
Wallace, Matthew J.M. Prebeg -- mprebeg@pfalawfirm.com -- Prebeg,
Faucett & Abbott PLLC, Patrick E. Cafferty --
PCafferty@CaffertyClobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &
Sprengel LLP & Andrew Kochanowski -- akochanowski@sommerspc.com --
Sommers Schwartz, P.C.

Dr Frank McWhorter, Connie Bates & Laura Herl, Plaintiffs,
represented by Mark R. Miller, Wexler Wallace, Patrick E.
Cafferty,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP &Andrew Kochanowski,
Sommers Schwartz, P.C.

Eric J Harris Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Brent Caldwell, Pregeg
Faucett & Abbott PLLC, Mark R. Miller, Wexler Wallace, Patrick E.
Cafferty, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP & Andrew
Kochanowski, Sommers Schwartz, P.C.

VISALUS, INC., Nick Sarnicola, Ashley Sarnicola, Blake Mallen,
Ryan
Blair, Todd Goergen & Gary J. Reynolds, Defendants, represented by
Andrew Clark -- aclark@honigman.com -- Honigman, Miller, Schwartz
& Cohn, LLP, Brian A. Howie -- brian.howie@quarles.com -- Quarles
&
Brady LLP, Edward A. Salanga -- esalanga@quarles.com -- Quarles &
Brady LLP, Kevin D. Quigley -- kevin.quigley@quarles.com --
Quarles
& Brady LLP, Michael S. Catlett -- michael.catlett@quarles.com --
Quarles & Brady LLP & Nicholas B. Gorga -- ngorga@honigman --
Honigman, Miller.

Vincent Owens, Defendant, pro se.

Michael Craig, Defendant, represented by Andrew Clark, Honigman
LLP
& Nicholas B. Gorga, Honigman LLP.


VISALUS INC: Settlement in Kerrigan RICO Suit Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIMOTHY KERRIGAN, LORI MIKOVICH and RYAN M. VALLI,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. VISALUS, INC., a corporation, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 14-cv-12693 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, granted the Named Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Proposed Settlement and Final Judgment.

The Motion sought final approval of the Class Representatives'
Settlement Agreement with the Defendants to settle all individual
and class claims that have, or could have, been made in the
Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint as specified in their
Settlement Agreement.

The Complaint alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Judge Leitman determined that the Settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable. The Judge thus granted  the Motion.

The Settlement Class include all the members of the Settlement
Class who did not submit timely and valid requests for exclusion.


Twenty-two individuals, members of the Settlement Class, timely
submitted notices to opt out of the class settlement, and therefore
their rights are not affected by the final judgment. They are (1)
Johnny Volpe, ViSalus IP #3396754; (2) Victoria Hughes, ViSalus IP
#1822936; (3) Cynthia Cialdella, ViSalus IP #2757479; (4) Alison
Belgrave, ViSalus IP #1330764; (5) Carlos Ubinas, ViSalus IP
#2502998; (6) Jean-Michel Moulin, ViSalus IP #1621357; (7)
Kimberley Earl, ViSalus IP #3462962; (8) Maxime Lacoursiere,
ViSalus IP #2329006; (9) Benoit Giguere, ViSalus IP #1269371; (10)
Caroline Dombroskie, ViSalus IP #3953459; (11) Christopher Scarfo,
ViSalus IP #514227; (12) Youri Durocher, ViSalus IP #1631810; (13)
Claudette Grondin, ViSalus IP #1269648; (14) Shakeel Khan, ViSalus
IP #1422532; (15) Victoria Loughlin, ViSalus IP #667640; (16)
Willington Tique, ViSalus IP #1247502; (17) Blake Moore, ViSalus IP
#407918; (18) Jodi Woodside, ViSalus IP #650736; (19) Julie
Grenier, ViSalus IP #2284611; (20) Callie Chicoine, ViSalus IP
#748296; (21) Cindy Long, ViSalus IP #817462; and (22) Susan
Escritor, ViSalus IP #1921072.

For purposes of the Final Approval Order and Judgment, the
Settlement Class is defined as all current or former Independent
Promoters (IPs) of ViSalus who reside in the United States or
Canada that lost money as a ViSalus IP between July 9, 2008 and the
Preliminary Approval Date of June 14, 2019.

In determining whether an IP lost money as an IP for purposes of
the Settlement Class, the following calculation was used: (a) $49
of the cost of any ViSalus promoter system purchased (regardless of
additional amounts spent above $49); plus (b) the costs spent on
Vi-Net; plus (c) all renewal fees paid by the IP, minus; (d) all
commissions received by the IP; minus (e) the value of all free
product received by the IP (including, but not limited to, free
products received as part of the 3 for Free promotion); and minus
(f) the value of all Vi Points earned by the IP.

The claims of the Named Plaintiffs and all the members of the
Settlement Class are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice.

Judge Leitman approved incentive awards to the Named Plaintiffs in
the following amounts:

   (i) Timothy Kerrigan, $15,000;
  (ii) Lori Mikovich, $10,000; and
(iii) Ryan Valli, $10,000.

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

Timothy Kerrigan, Lori Mikovich & Ryan M. Valli, Plaintiffs,
represented by Brent Caldwell -- bcaldwell@pfalawfirm.com --
Pregeg Faucett & Abbott PLLC, Edward A. Wallace, Wexler Wallace
LLP, Jason J. Thompson , Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Mark R. Miller ,
Wexler Wallace, Matthew J.M. Prebeg -- mprebeg@pfalawfirm.com --
Prebeg, Faucett & Abbott PLLC, Sarah Lindsay Rickard --
SRickard@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz PC & Andrew
Kochanowski -- akochanowski@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz,
P.C.

VISALUS, INC., Visalus Holdings, LLC, Robert Goergen, Sr., Todd
Goergen, Ryan Blair & Blake Mallen, Defendants, represented by
Andrew Clark , Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn, LLP, Barry M.
Rosenbaum -- BROSENBAUM@SEYBURN.COM -- Seyburn, Kahn, Brian A.
Howie -- brian.howie@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP, Edward
A. Salanga -- Edward.salanga@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP,
Kevin D. Quigley -- kevin.quigley@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady
LLP, Michael S. Catlett , Quarles & Brady LLP & Nicholas B. Gorga
-- -- ngorga@honigman.com -- Honigman, Miller.

Ropart Asset Management Fund, LLC & Ropart Asset Management Fund
II, LLC, Defendants, represented by Barry M. Rosenbaum, Seyburn,
Kahn, Marc L. Newman -- mln@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm, E.
Powell Miller -- epm@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm & Kevin F.
O'Shea -- kfo@miller.law -- Miller Law Firm.

Mojos Legacy, LLC, Fragmob, LLC, Freedom Legacy, LLC, Wealth
Builder International, Inc., Residual Marketing, Inc., Jaketrz,
Inc., Insider Corporate and Partnership Defendant Company Does 1-
10, Frank Varon, Kyle Pacetti, Jr., Jake Trzcinski, Michael
Craig, Lavon Craig, Timothy Kirkland, Holley Kirkland, Joshua
Jackson, Aaron Fortner, Rachel Jackson, Tara Wilson, Anthony
Lucero, Rhonda Lucero, Individual Defendant John Does 1-10, Jason
O'Toole, Lori Petrilli, Gary J. Reynolds, Kevin Merriweather, OCD
Marketing, Inc., Power Couple, Inc., ArriveBy 25, Inc., BAM
Ventures, Inc., Jason O'Toole International Holdings, Inc.,
Gooder, LLC, Red Letters, LLC, M-Power Path, Inc., A Berry Good
Life, Inc., Network Dynamics America Corp., Got Heart Global,
Inc., Beachlifestyle Enterprises, LLC, Wealth Builder
International, LLC, Prospex Automated Wealth Systems, Inc. &
9248-2587 Quebec, Inc., Defendants, represented by Barry M.
Rosenbaum, Seyburn, Kahn.

Nick Sarnicola, Defendant, represented by Marc L. Newman, The
Miller Law Firm.

Rock Ridge Asset Management Company, LLC, Ropart Asset
Management, LLC, Living Trust Dated 9/30/1991 F/B/O Robert B.
Goergen & Hashtag One, LLC, Defendants, represented by E. Powell
Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Kevin F. O'Shea, Miller Law Firm &
Marc L. Newman, The Miller Law Firm.


VIVINT INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Betit Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
AMY BETIT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VIVINT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-62419 (S.D. Fla., Sept. 28, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls in violation of
the Electronic Mail Communications Act.

Vivint, Inc. provides home automation solutions. The Company offers
thermostats, electronic door locks, carbon monoxide alarms, smoke
alarms, fixed video cameras, lighting and small appliance control
products, glass-break and motion detectors, door and window
sensors, recessed door sensors, switches, and light bulbs. Vivint
serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VSP RETAIL DEVELOPMENT: Vo Sues over Biometric Data Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA VO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VSP RETAIL DEVELOPMENT HOLDING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH11261 (Il. Cir., Cook Cty., Sept. 27,
2019) alleges violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant actively
capture, collect, store, and obtain -- without providing notice,
obtaining informed written consent or publishing data retention
policies -- the biometrics of thousands of individuals who use the
Defendant's Virtual Try-On software.

VSP Retail Development Holding, Inc. provides insurance and related
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WEGMANS: Faces Class Action Over Vanilla Ice Cream Product Label
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Dienst, writing for NBC 4 New York, reports that Wegmans
supermarket was hit with a class action complaint after a pair of
ice cream buyers accused the chain of misleading consumers by
marketing its ice cream as having vanilla, even though the
ingredient is not listed on the products' labels.

In the complaint filed on Oct. 4 in New York federal court, Quincy
Steele, of Pennsylvania, and Jimmy Arriola, of the Bronx, said that
instead of using vanilla flavoring or vanilla extract, Wegmans' ice
creams use a non-vanilla "natural flavor" to achieve the vanilla
taste while selling its products at premium prices, calling the
alleged practice "misleading and deceptive."

"The front label statements of "vanilla ice cream" are understood
by consumers to identify a product where the characterizing flavor
is vanilla and supplied to the Products only from the vanilla
plant," according to the complaint.

"The proportion of the characterizing component, vanilla, has a
material bearing on price or consumer acceptance of the products
because it is more expensive and desired by consumers," the
complaint goes on to say.

To showcase their allegations, the plaintiffs include photos of
Wegmans' ice cream ingredient lists, which show no mention of the
vanilla, but rather "natural flavor." To drive the point across,
the plaintiffs also include photos of the ingredients lists of
various competing ice cream brands for comparison. The competing
brands list vanilla extract in their ingredient list.

The consumers who have presented the complaint say the supermarket
chain tried to deceive them into thinking the product is made using
real vanilla in violation of federal regulations and that the chain
should have stated that it was artificially flavored.

Steele and Arriola will represent their Pennsylvania and New York
state sub-class but look to be joined by other sub-classes from the
other states with store locations: Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, North Carolina and Virginia.

"Plaintiff and class members reasonably and justifiably relied on
these negligent misrepresentations and omissions, which served to
induce and did induce, the purchase of the Products," the complaint
says.

The plaintiffs accuse Wegmans of violating New York consumer
protection laws, negligent representation, breach of warranty,
fraud and unjust enrichment. Steele and Arriola seek monetary
damages and for the supermarket chain to correct the alleged
misleading labels.

Wegmans contends it has complied with all regulations and industry
standards.

"We take great pride in the quality of all of our Wegmans Brand
products," a Wegmans' spokesperson said in a statement to News 4.
"We believe that the labeling of our ice cream fully complies with
all regulations and industry standards, and is not misleading in
any way." [GN]


WESTGATE RESORTS: Faces Bermudez Suit over Background Checks
------------------------------------------------------------
WILFRED BERMUDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTGATE RESORTS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 6:19-cv-01847-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla., Sept. 25, 2019) alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Westgate Resorts, Inc. operates resorts. The Company provides
resort and hotel accommodations, including resorts with spa's,
pools, and other recreational activities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WYETH INC: Objection on Denial to Reopen Discovery Overruled
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, APRIL KRUEGER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WYETH, INC. f/k/a AMERICAN
HOME PRODUCTS, a Pennsylvania corporation; WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS
f/k/a WYETH-AYERST PHARMACEUTICALS, a Pennsylvania corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100 Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:03-cv-2496-JAH
(MDD) (S.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Houston of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California overruled the Defendants'
objection to Magistrate Judge Dembin's order denying their motion
to amend the scheduling order to reopen discovery and for
permission to conduct discovery of a sampling of the absent class
members and prescribers.

WYETH: Objection on  to Denial of Bid to Reopen Discovery
Overruled

The consumer protection class-action lawsuit was filed in 2003.
The case was transferred to a Multi-District Litigation ("MDL")
pending in the Eastern District of Arkansas. After limited
discovery and motions practice, the case was remanded to the
Southern District of California from the MDL in 2007.

On March 30, 2011, the California Court granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiff's class certification motion, and certified
the following Class: All California consumers who purchased Wyeth's
Hormone Replacement Therapy products, Premarin, Prempro, and/or
Premphase, for personal consumption between January 1995 and
January 2003, and were exposed to a representation from Wyeth, or
health care providers, or read in literature in which Wyeth
advertised or provided to third parties to be disseminated under
its brand or the third parties' brand, that Premarin, Prempro,
and/or Premphase lowered cardiovascular, Alzheimers and/or dementia
risk, or did not increase breast cancer risk, and do not seek
personal injury damages resulting from it.

The Defendants objected to the inclusion of the exposure criteria
in the class definition by filing their Motion for Reconsideration
of the Class Certification Order.  On July 13, 2011, their Motion
for Reconsideration was denied.  They filed a petition for
permission to appeal the Order certifying the class and the Order
denying the motion for reconsideration.  The U.S Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit denied the petition on Oct. 18, 2011.

A month later, the parties filed the Joint Discovery Plan in which
the Defendants stated that they planned "to pursue discovery on a
number of matters, including, but not limited to: (3) the class
members' physicians' views regarding Premarin, Prempro and
Premphrase; (4) the class members' exposure to written or oral
statements regarding the potential benefits or risks of Premarin,
Prempro and Premphrase; (5) the class members' knowledge regarding
the potential benefits or risks of Premarin, Prempro and
Premphrase."  The discovery phase began on Nov. 30, 2011 and was
scheduled to close on June 15, 2012 pursuant to the scheduling
order.

On May 8, 2012, the parties filed a joint motion for a
determination of a discovery dispute, involving the scheduling of
nine depositions of non-party witnesses, all of whom were former
employees of the Defendants.  Magistrate Judge Dembin found good
cause to extend the fact discovery deadline to July 20, 2012, for
the sole purpose of taking the depositions of the nine persons
identified in the joint motion.

On May 16, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to take 14
additional depositions.  The Defendants opposed the Plaintiff's
motion but offered to stipulate to five additional depositions.
Magistrate Judge Dembin found that the Defendants' proffered
stipulation was reasonable and allowed the Plaintiff a total of 15
depositions.  However, the court emphasized that discovery
deadlines would remain unchanged; with a fact discovery deadline of
July 20, 2012 and an expert discovery deadline of Aug. 10, 2012.

At the conclusion of discovery and after denying the Defendants'
initial motions for summary judgment and to decertify the class,
the California District Court invited both parties to file
supplemental briefs addressing whether to amend the class
definition considering the issue of ascertainability.

In the Oct. 7, 2015 Order on the supplemental briefs, the
California District Court deleted the exposure requirement from the
class definition.  It adopted the Plaintiff's suggested class
definition and amended the definition to include: All California
consumers who purchased Wyeth's Hormone Replacement Therapy
products, Premarin, Prempro, and/or Premphase, or personal
consumption between January 1995 and January 2003, and who do not
seek personal injury damages resulting from it.

A case management conference was held on Dec. 11, 2015 and
Magistrate Judge Dembin set a briefing schedule on the Defendant's
request for discovery of the absentee class members.  

On Jan. 8, 2016, the Defendants filed the motion seeking to amend
the scheduling order and for absent class member discovery.  They
sought permission to conduct limited surveys and depositions from a
sampling of absent class members and their prescribers to
determine: (1) whether the absent class members were exposed to the
alleged misrepresentations, (2) the degree of exposure, and (3) the
effect of that exposure on the individual class members' decisions
to purchase the hormone therapy medication.  In addition, they
argued that discovery is highly relevant, and necessary to present
their defense that the individual class members cannot prove an
injury or harm if they were not exposed to any alleged
misrepresentation -- elements required for both Article III
standing and liability under California consumer protection laws.

On April 4, 2016, Magistrate Judge Dembin issued an order denying
the Defendants' motion to reopen discovery.  The Magistrate Judge
found the Defendants failed to show good cause for amending the
Scheduling Order.  Their failure to pursue the discovery while
discovery was open despite knowledge of the supposed need precludes
a finding of diligence.

The Defendants filed a timely objection.  While awaiting a ruling
on the objection, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, incorporating the argument that the Plaintiffs had not
produced evidence of injury or reliance by the class members on the
alleged misrepresentations and omissions.

The Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.  Thereafter, upon the
Defendants' request, the Court allowed the parties to submit
supplemental briefing on the Defendant's objection to the discovery
order.  The objection is now before the Court.

Judge Houston first reviews the Defendants' reasons for seeking the
modification.  Wyeth initially objected to the Magistrate Judge's
order denying the motion to reopen discovery and argued that the
evidence sought is required to rebut the "presumption or inference
of exposure" and thus class-wide reliance on the
misrepresentations.  The Defendants further argue that the
Magistrate Judge erred in finding that they did not establish good
cause.

Judge Houston finds that no reliance element exists under the
Unfair Competition Law (UCL).  For example, under the fraudulent
prong of the UCL, the Plaintiff must show that members of the
public are likely to be deceived by the Defendants' business
practice.  Actual falsehood, the perpetrator's knowledge of
falsity, and perhaps most importantly, the victim's reliance on the
false statements are not required to show a violation of
California's UCL.  Moreover, the Plaintiff's burden to establish
the causal connection or link required between the Defendant's
alleged unfair or fraudulent business practice and the injury has
not changed since the issuance of the Court's October 2015 order.
The same causal connection was required in March 2011 before fact
discovery began and before the Defendants implemented their
discovery plan to pursue information involving, among other
interests, "class members' knowledge" regarding the potential
benefits or risks of their HRT.  The Defendants made no request to
extend fact discovery deadlines to achieve these goals prior to
discovery cutoff.

Wyeth argues that the Court impermissibly expanded the scope of the
class by implementing a "presumption of exposure."  Judge Houston
disagrees.  He finds that nothing in the Court's 2015 and 2019
Orders changed the facts in dispute or the defenses available.  The
Defendants may present evidence that the alleged misrepresentations
or omitted facts were not material in an effort to rebut any
class-wide inference of reliance established by the Plaintiff at
trial.  However, they may only reopen discovery to do so when an
unforeseeable, unusual, or unavoidable circumstance makes complying
with the discovery deadline beyond their control.  None of those
circumstances exist in the case.  The discovery the Defendants now
seek could have been obtained during the discovery period.
Accordingly, Judge Houston finds no error in the Magistrate Judge's
determination that the Defendants' failure to pursue this discovery
while discovery was open despite knowledge of the supposed need
precludes a finding of diligence.

Judge Houston finds that the Magistrate Judge's order denying the
Defendant's motion to amend the scheduling order and reopen
discovery was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Accordingly, Judge Houston overrules the Defendant's objections.

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

April Krueger, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony D. Birchfield, Jr.
-- Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com -- Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin,
Portis & Miles, PC, Breean Walas, Walas Law Firm, PLLC, 708 W 2nd
St; Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, pro hac vice, David B. Byrne, III,
David B Byrne III, 218 Commerce St., Montgomery, AL 36104-2540, pro
hac vice, Eileen L. McGeever, Rushall and McGeever, 6100  nnovation
Way Carlsbad, California 92009, P. Leigh O'Dell, Beasley Allen Crow
Methvin Portis & Miles PC, 218 Commerce Street, Montgomery, AL
36104 & William Gary Holt, Gary Holt & Associates PA, 708 West
Second Street, P.O. Box 3887Little Rock, AR 72201, pro hac vice.

Wyeth Inc, a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant, represented by
Alexandra Walsh -- awalsh@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- Wilkinson Walsh +
Eskovitz LLP, Bert L. Slonim -- bert.slonim@arnoldporter.com --
Kaye Scholer LLP, pro hac vice, Bert L. Wolff, Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher & Flom LLP, 1096 Avenue of the Americas. New York, NY
10036, pro hac vice, Beth A. Wilkinson --
bwilkinson@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- Wilkinson Walsh + Eskovitz LLP,
pro hac vice, Christopher M. Young --
christopher.young@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US, David C. Bonnin,
DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice, Grace Lee elee@shb.com -- Shook Hardy
& Bacon LLP, Hayden A. Coleman, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
LLP, 4 Times Square Floor 24, New York, NY, 10036, pro hac vice,
Jennifer L. Saulino, Wilkinson Walsh + Eskovitz LLP, 900 M. Street
NW, Suite 800. Washington, DC 20036, pro hac vice.

Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant,
represented by Bert L. Slonim, Kaye Scholer LLP, pro hac vice, Bert
L. Wolff, Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Beth A. Wilkinson, Wilkinson
Walsh + Eskovitz LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher M. Young, DLA Piper
US, David C. Bonnin, DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice, Grace Lee, Shook
Hardy & Bacon LLP, Hayden A. Coleman, Dechert LLP, pro hac vice,
Jessica D. Miller, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac
vice, John H. Beisner, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP,
Kieran Gostin, Wilkinson Walsh + Eskovitz LLP, pro hac vice, Nathan
E. Hoffman, Dechert, LLP, Fletcher C. Alford, SNR Denton US LLP,
Frank Lane Heard, III, Wiliiams & Connolly LLP, Pamela Joan Yates,
Kaye Scholer LLP & Ryan B. Polk, Gordon & Rees LLP.

DOES, 1-100, inclusive, Defendant, represented by Nathan E.
Hoffman, Dechert, LLP.

Diana Boucher, Michele Coleman, Pamela Creek, Laura Fiveash, Mike
Marquard, Amy Waltz, Peggy Woglom & Rick Zuniga, Miscellaneous
Partys, represented by Joseph David Cohen, Porter Hedges, L.L.P,
pro hac vice & Robert A. Shields, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP.


Z57, INC: Lopez Seeks Overtime Wages
------------------------------------
YVONNE LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, JAIRUS HILL individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Z57, INC., a California
Corporation; CONSTELLATION HOMEBUILDER SYSTEMS, INC. a Delaware
Corporation; ZURPLE, INC., Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50,
Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00053014-CU-OE-CTL
(Cal. Super., Oct. 4, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to
provide required meal periods; failed to provide required rest
periods; failed to pay overtime wages; failed to pay minimum wages;
failed to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees;
failed to maintain required records; and failed to furnish accurate
itemized wage statements pursuant to the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs were employed as non-exempt employees.  Beginning
approximately December 2017 until September 2019, they were paid in
whole or in part on an hourly basis and in whole or in part on a
sales commissions and non-discretionary bonuses.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' unlawful
actions, the Plaintiffs and class members have suffered, and
continue to suffer, from loss of earnings, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants offer marketing services, social media services, and
CRM systems for real estate professionals.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
          JCL LAW FIRM, APC
          3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 599-8292
          Facsimile: (619) 599-8291
          E-mail: JLAPUYADE@CL-LAWFIRM.COM

          - and -

          Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
          ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APC
          5850 Oberlin Drive, Suite 230a
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 255-9047
          Facsimile: (858) 404-9203

[*] FeganScott Expands Class-Action Litigation Practice in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago-based law firm FeganScott on Oct. 9 disclosed that attorney
Jessica Meeder has joined the firm to open its Washington D.C.
office.

Meeder will help FeganScott expand its class-action litigation
practice and will anchor the firm's presence in Washington D.C.
Meeder specializes in class-action, mass tort, and multi-district
litigation and has spent many years prosecuting class-action and
multi-plaintiff cases at both the state and federal levels. Her
passionate advocacy has resulted in numerous favorable judicial
opinions, at both the trial court and appellate court levels, thus
ensuring her clients a path to justice.

Recently Meeder represented numerous patients who were sexually
abused by a Kaiser Permanente pain management physician. She also
represented residents of Flint, Mich. in a class-action lawsuit for
clean drinking water.

Her experience in creatively and effectively advocating for victims
of civil rights violations, catastrophic personal injury, sexual
assault and fraud will benefit FeganScott's national reach and
advocacy.

"Jessica is a skilled class-action attorney who is adept at
navigating complex and nuanced legal issues," said Elizabeth Fegan,
founding partner of FeganScott. "Her insight and effective
representation will play a key role in chartering our east coast
presence."

Prior to joining FeganScott, Meeder was a partner at Murphy, Falcon
& Murphy, a preeminent trial law firm in Baltimore, MD. Meeder
earned her juris doctorate from the University of Maryland School
of Law, where she was an editor for the University of Maryland Law
Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class. Subsequently, she
clerked for the Honorable Robert M. Bell, Chief Judge of the
Maryland Court of Appeals, Maryland's highest court.

Founded in 2019 by legal industry veterans Elizabeth Fegan and
Timothy Scott, FeganScott is a national class-action law firm
dedicated to helping victims of sexual assault, discrimination,
consumer fraud and antitrust violations. Elizabeth Fegan currently
represents victims of sexual abuse by Hollywood mogul Harvey
Weinstein as co-lead counsel in the class action litigation.

                        About FeganScott

FeganScott -- http://www.feganscott.com--  
is a national class-action law firm dedicated to helping victims of
sexual abuse, discrimination, consumer fraud, antitrust violations
and more. The firm is championed by acclaimed class-action and
veteran attorneys and has successfully recovered $1 billion for
millions of victims nationwide. FeganScott is committed to pursuing
successful outcomes with integrity and excellence, while holding
unjust parties accountable. [GN]



                            *********

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 ***