CAR_Public/191030.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, October 30, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 217

                            Headlines

ALASKA AIRLINES: Shattenkirk Sues Over Travel Insurance Kickback
ALEXION PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Sales Practices Suit Underway
ALKERMES PLC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated EDNY Suit Due Nov. 27
ALKERMES PLC: Dismissal in Gagnon Class Action Now Final
ALL-STAR INC: O'Sullivan Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Info

ALLERGAN, INC: Valdez Sues over BIOCELL Implants
ALTRIA GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
ALTRIA GROUP: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
ALWAYS PRIVATE: Sialoi Seeks Overtime Wages
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Wants Court to Dismantle Class Action

ANGELS IN YOUR HOME: Employees Win Labor Class Action
ANTHEM INC: Appeal in Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Suit Pending
APET INC: Delgado Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data
ARIZONA: Court Certifies Medicaid Subclass in Civil Rights Suit
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Court Defers Ruling on Bid to Dismiss

ASTRAZENECA: Sued over Anticompetitive Scheme for Seroquel XR
AT&T INC: Portland Professor Sues Over Clean Energy Surcharge
AUTOVEST LLC: Frank Appeals Decision in Consumer Credit Suit
BAPTIST HEALTH: Appeals Decision in Whitley Suit to 8th Circuit
BEMBE INC: Underpays Bartenders, Bennici Suit Alleges

BRADFORD ESTATES: Dean Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
BRIGHVIEW TREE: Ruiz Seeks Unpaid Wages for Equipment Operators
CADENCE BANCORPORATION: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
CALIBER HOME: Faces Phillips Suit in Minnesota District Court
CAR PROTECTION: Foote Sues over Illegal Robocalls

CARGO AIRPORT: Oladipo Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
CENTRATECH INC: Class Certification in Rensel Denied in S.D Fla.
CHICK-FIL-A INC: Tucker Sues Over Violation of Disabilities Act
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal in Ong Class Action Still Pending
CHRYSLER: Flynn Plaintiffs Ordered to Comply Discovery Requests

COLOURPOP COSMETICS: Jairam Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
COLUMBIA GAS: $143 Million Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
COVETRUS INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
DAILY HARVEST: Faces Fischler Suit Alleging ADA Violations
DELAVAL INC: Removes Bishop Case to W.D. Missouri

DILLERS INC: Middleton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium Pay
DISPLAYMAX INC: Joseph Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
DOG BUTLERS: Samartinean Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Pet Workers
DOLLS KILL: Illegally Sent Marketing Texts, Hill TCPA Suit Says
DOMO INC: Patton Suit Seeks Damages Over Decline of IPO Price

DROPBOX INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action Over IPO
DTLR, INC: Scott Seeks Unpaid Compensation for Store Managers
EXCITE ENTERPRISES: Vanover Seeks OT Wages for Restaurant Workers
FAIRLIFE LLC: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Treatment of Cows
FANTASY GIRLS: Underpays Exotic Dancers, Becker Suit Claims

FIRE & SMOKE: Reitenbach Sues Over Mandatory Tip Pool
FLSMIDTH INC: Jackson Sues Under FLSA Over Illegal Pay Deductions
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Urbinas Sue Over Excessive Pay-to-Pay Fees
GBUTTER LLC: Deceives G-Butter Consumers, Jordan Suit Alleges
GEICO: Supreme Court Denies Bid to Review Class Certification

GENERAL DYNAMICS: Piron, et al. Allege WARN Act Violation
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Hall Suit over Defective 2.4L Engine
GENERAL MOTORS: GM Oil Consumption Lawsuit Settlement on Hold
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORRUGATED: Removes Schumacher Case to C.D. Calif.
GIRLSDOPORN: Owner Facing Class Action Suit From 22 Women

GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: 11th Cir. to Rehear "No Concrete Injury" Issue
GOOGLE INC: UK Appeals Court Enters Data Protection Ruling
GROUPON INC: 7th Cir. Orders Review of Dancel Suit Jurisdiction
GROUPON: Ct. Remands Suit Over Unauthorized Use of Instagram Photos
GRUMA CORP: Herrera Seeks Minimum Wages for Employees

HERC HOLDINGS: Bid to File 5th Amended Complaint in Ramirez Denied
HERSHEY ENTERTAINMENT: Tips Used to Pay Wages, Sicklesmith Says
HOMELAND SECURITY: Class Suit Over Marriage Trap Interview Launched
HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Faces Calcano Suit Alleging Violation of ADA
HP INC: Faces Pavilion Desktop False Advertising Class Action

HYUNDAI: Faces Class Action Over Kia Maintenance Schedule
IFINEX: Faces Class Action Over Fraudulent Cryptocurrency Scheme
IROBOT CORP: Faces Securities Suit Filed by Miramar Firefighters
JAOSUB INC: Montes et al Seek Overtime Wages for Restaurant Staff
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Commits $107MM Verdict Calculation Error

JPMORGAN CHASE: Tucker Sues Over Erroneous Credit Reports
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Minors, La Conner Suit Alleges
JUUL LABS: Ferraro Sues for Those Harmed by ENDS in Pennsylvania
JUUL: Collierville Man Files Deceptive Advertising Class Action
KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM: Faces Class Action Over RiverLink Toll Bills

KIA MOTORS: N.J. Supreme Court Hears Argument in Brakes Case
KIA MOTORS: Settles Class Suits Over Engine Fires
KLLM TRANSPORT: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Swales Suit
KOONS FORD: Thomas-Lawson Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
KRAFT HEINZ: Illinois Court Dismisses Capri Sun Class Action

LEXINGTON HEALTH: Webster Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
LIFELOCK: Settles Customers Class Action for $100 Million
LIGHTNING OILFIELD: Underpays Truck Pushers, Brown Suit Says
MACROGENICS INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
MAGELLAN HRSC: Coffin Class Suit Removed to S.D. California

MARIOTT: King & Spalding Discusses 9th Cir. Ruling in Arias Suit
MAX DELI: Faces Zaccaria Suit in New York Supreme Court
MDL 2804: 6th Cir. Denies Ohio's Request to Halt Opioid Trial
MDL 2885: Griffin Suit Over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated
MDL 2915: Ruffino v. Capital One Over Data Breach Consolidated

MERCY HOSPITAL: Illegally Collects Biometric Data, Webster Says
METLIFE INC: Illegally Debits Accounts, Liberato Says
MICROSOFT CORP: Court Approval of Class Notice Pending
MICROSOFT CORP: Oral Argument in Moussouris Set for Nov. 4
MIDWEST SEALCOAT: Bowers Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

MKN WORLDWIDE: Smith Suit Seeks OT Wages for Delivery Drivers
MYRIAD GENETICS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Nov. 26 Deadline
MYRIAD GENETICS: Silverman Says Securities Statement Misleading
NATURAL WELLNESS: Turizo Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
NEW BEGINNING: Rosario Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Stockers

NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit Over Lack of Tampons in Jails
NEW YORK: Ct. Narrows Claims in Dental Policy Case; Certifies Class
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Denial of Class Certification Upheld
NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL: Insurer Says It Has No Duty to Indemnify Co.
PALAKI, INC: Walden Seeks Minimum & OT Wages

PARETEUM CORPORATION: Faces Mansur Securities Suit in S.D.N.Y.
PIERRON PROPERTIES: Faces Mora Wage-and-Hour Suit
PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Court Refuses to Designate Tran Suit Complex
PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Files False Report on VMware Sale, Plumley Says
PNC MERCHANT: Ct. Narrows Claims in Fraudulent Sales Tactics Case

POTNETWORK HOLDINGS: Potter Sues over Cannabidiol Products
PRESIDIO INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Lawsuit
PURDUE PHARMA: Hardin County Suit Moved to E.D. Kentucky
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: AMCA Data Breach Class Suits to Proceed in NJ
ROMAINE EMPIRE: Holmon Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data

ROUND ROBIN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Allard Suit Alleges
RUSS DARROW: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Allen Suit Alleges
SALVATORE PIZZA: Valladares Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
SAN GABRIEL: Ex-Driver Gets Another Chance to Certify Class Suit
SANDOZ CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Contaminated Ranitidine Drug

SANOFI-AVENTIS: Zantac Defective & Unsafe, Dimesky et al. Say
SCIPLAY CORP: Faces Police Fund Suit Alleging IPO-Related Claims
SHRI JI: Sullivan Seeks Overtime Compensation for Employees
SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Credit Card Info
SIX FLAGS: Suit over Collection of Biometric Data Ongoing

SIXT RENT: Wrongly Truncates Credit/Debit Cards Info, Siglin Says
SKANSKA INC: Peters Seeks OT Wages for Straight Time Workers
SOMERSET PHASE: Trevisan Seeks OT Pay for Maintenance Technicians
SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: Hagens Berman Reminds of Class Action

SPARK ENERGY: Amended Removal Notice Filing in IUE-CWA Due Today
SPRINGBIG INC: Averts Washington TCPA Class Action
STATE FARM: Arndt Sues Over Repossessed Vehicles' Deceptive Sale
SUPERIOR GLOBAL: Siela Sues over Continuous Service Schemes
TCV V LP: Gibbs Suit Questions Loans With Usurious Interest Rates

TEAM ST. PETE: Diehl Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
TEDESCO COUNTRY CLUB: Must Remit Service Charge, Curcis Argues
TELECHECK SERVICES: Huff Wants More Time to File Cert. Petition
TETHER LTD: Faces Class Action Over Stablecoin
TEVA PHARMA: Investor Class Action to Be Moved to Connecticut

TEXARKANA IDS: Pynes Seeks OT Wages for Food Service Workers
TEXTRON INC: Building Trades Pension Fund's Suit Underway
THC ORANGE: Faces Bouzelev Suit in Central District of California
TM HEALTHCARE: Illegally Collects Biometric Info, Bounds Suit Says
TOTAL CARD: Smith Sues over Debt Collection Practices

TOYOTA MOTOR: Ct. Narrows Claims in Defective Heating, A/C Case
TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Bid to Undo Class-Action Settlement Rejected
TYSON FOODS: Robinson et al. Allege Conspiracy to Fix Hourly Wages
UNITED STATES: Classes of Immigrants in A-Files Suit Certified
VIEWRAY INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action

VIVINT SOLAR: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action Lawsuit

                            *********

ALASKA AIRLINES: Shattenkirk Sues Over Travel Insurance Kickback
----------------------------------------------------------------
MADELEINE F. SHATTENKIRK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01656 (W.D. Wash., Oct.
16, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff and consumers nationwide have
suffered monetary damages as a result of purchasing travel
insurance through the Defendant's website.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's website encourages
ticket purchasers to protect their trip with travel insurance
provided by Allianz (or any other third-party insurers that have
partnered with Alaska Airlines) to offer travel insurance
exclusively through Alaska Airlines' website. Alaska Airlines does
not disclose, however, that it has a financial interest in the
travel insurance and, in fact, receives an illegal kickback from
the insurer in exchange for brokering the insurance sale.

The Defendant's website misled her into paying for the cost of that
illegal kickback, and the Defendant is, therefore, liable for
damages, Ms. Shattenkirk contends.  The Plaintiff brings common law
claims for unjust enrichment, fraud, conversion and for violations
of the unfair business practices and consumer protection statutes
of the State of Washington and the State of Florida.

In addition to operating flights nationwide, Alaska Airlines
operates 1,200 flights to 115 destinations in the United States,
Canada, Mexico and Costa Rica. As part of its business, Alaska
Airlines sells tickets to customers through its website,
www.alaskaair.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: 206 682 5600
          Facsimile: 206 682 2992
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
                  rsolomon@tousley.com

               - and -

          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45 th St.-5th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 954.341.5561
          Fax: 954.341.5531
          E-mail: memert@ssbny.com

               - and -

          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310 201 9150
          Facsimile: 310 432 1495
          E-mail: mgodino@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415.373.1671
          Facsimile: 415.484.1294
          E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: 612 333 8844
          Facsimile: 612 339 6622
          E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com


ALEXION PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Sales Practices Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
defendants' reply in further support of their motion to dismiss in
the putative class action suit involving SOLIRIS sales practices,
is due November 16, 2019.

on December 29, 2016, a shareholder filed a putative class action
against the Company and certain former employees in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that
defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about SOLIRIS.

On April 12, 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On July
14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended putative class action
complaint against the Company and seven current or former
employees. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on
September 12, 2017. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants'
motion to dismiss on November 13, 2017, and defendants' filed a
reply brief in further support of their motion on December 28,
2017. On March 26, 2019, the court held a telephonic status
conference.  

During that conference, the court informed counsel that it was
preparing a ruling granting the defendants' pending motion to
dismiss. The court inquired of plaintiffs' counsel whether they
intended to seek leave to amend their complaint, and indicated that
if they wished to file a second amended complaint, they would be
allowed to do so.  

On April 2, 2019, the court granted plaintiffs until May 31, 2019
to file a second amended complaint, thereby rendering moot
defendants' pending motion to dismiss. On May 31, 2019, plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint against the same defendants.  

The complaint alleges that defendants engaged in securities fraud,
including by making misrepresentations and omissions in its public
disclosures concerning the Company's SOLIRIS sales practices,
management changes, and related investigations, between January 30,
2014 and May 26, 2017, and that the Company's stock price dropped
upon the purported disclosure of the alleged fraud.  

The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified monetary relief,
unspecified equitable and injunctive relief, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  

Defendants' filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
August 2, 2019; plaintiffs' filed their opposition to that motion
on October 2, 2019; and defendants' reply in further support of
their motion is due November 16, 2019.  

Alexion said, "Given the early stage of these proceedings, we
cannot presently predict the likelihood of obtaining dismissal of
the case (or the ultimate outcome of the case if the motion to
dismiss is denied by the court), nor can we estimate the possible
loss or range of loss at this time."

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company,
develops and commercializes various therapeutic products. The
company was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


ALKERMES PLC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated EDNY Suit Due Nov. 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alkermes plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, is due on November 27,
2019.

In December 2018 and January 2019, purported stockholders of the
Company filed putative class actions against the Company and
certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (the "EDNY District Court") captioned
Karimian v. Alkermes plc, et al., No. 1:18-cv-07410 and McDermott
v. Alkermes plc, et al., No. 1:19-cv-00624, respectively.

In March 2019, the EDNY District Court consolidated the two cases
and appointed a lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on July 9, 2019 naming one additional officer of the
Company and one former officer of the Company as defendants.

The amended complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Alkermes securities during the period of July 31,
2014 through November 1, 2018 and alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or
misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
clinical methodologies and regulatory submission for ALKS 5461 and
the FDA's review and consideration of that submission.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified money damages,
prejudgment and postjudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs.

On August 8, 2019, the defendants filed a pre-motion letter (in
respect of a requested motion to dismiss filing) with the EDNY
District Court and on August 23, 2019, plaintiff filed a response.
On October 8, 2019, the EDNY District Court ordered the defendants
to file their motion to dismiss by November 27, 2019. Plaintiff's
opposition to such motion to dismiss, if any, and defendants’
reply to any such opposition, are due in December 2019.

Alkermes plc, a biopharmaceutical company, researches, develops,
and commercializes pharmaceutical products to address unmet medical
needs of patients in various therapeutic areas in the United
States, Ireland, and internationally. Alkermes plc was founded in
1987 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALKERMES PLC: Dismissal in Gagnon Class Action Now Final
--------------------------------------------------------
Alkermes plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the decision dismissing the
class action suit entitled, Gagnon v. Alkermes plc, et al., No.
1:17-cv-09178, is final.

In November 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action against the Company and certain of its
officers (collectively, "Defendants") in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY District
Court") captioned Gagnon v. Alkermes plc, et al., No.
1:17-cv-09178. This complaint was amended twice since its initial
filing.

The second amended complaint was filed on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of Alkermes securities during the period of
February 24, 2015 through November 14, 2017 and alleged violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly
false or misleading statements and omissions regarding the
Company's marketing practices related to VIVITROL. The lawsuit
sought, among other things, unspecified damages for alleged
inflation in the price of securities, and reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees.

In June 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint and in March 2019, the SDNY District Court issued
an order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissing the
case in its entirety and with prejudice. In April 2019, the
plaintiff filed a motion for partial reconsideration, which was
denied by the SDNY District Court on July 2, 2019. Plaintiff did
not file a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, rendering the SDNY District Court's
decision dismissing the action final.

Alkermes plc, a biopharmaceutical company, researches, develops,
and commercializes pharmaceutical products to address unmet medical
needs of patients in various therapeutic areas in the United
States, Ireland, and internationally. Alkermes plc was founded in
1987 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALL-STAR INC: O'Sullivan Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY O'SULLIVAN, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ALL-STAR, INC., Case No. 2019CH11575 (Ill.
Cir., Cook Cty., Oct. 7, 2019), seeks to redress and curtail under
Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act the Defendant's
unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the
Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric data.

All-Star is an Illinois corporation that owns and operates numerous
franchise fast food restaurants throughout Illinois.

When the Defendant hires an employee, including the Plaintiff, he
or she is enrolled in its employee database(s) using a scan of his
or her fingerprint.  The Defendant uses the employee database(s) to
monitor the time worked by its employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  hjenkins@stephanzouras.com


ALLERGAN, INC: Valdez Sues over BIOCELL Implants
------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case, JESSICA VALDEZ, JENNIFER ENCINAS, MARCIE
GAWRONSKI, AMY LaGIOIA and KERRY ANDERSEN DOUMITE individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
ALLERGAN, INC. f/k/a INAMED CORPORATION, ALLERGAN USA, INC. and
ALLERGAN plc., the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01931 (C.D. Cal.,
Oct. 8, 2019), seek relief individually and for the Class to remedy
the harms from Defendants' sale of recalled BIOCELL products.  The
Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of others
in the United States who have recalled BIOCELL textured implants
and BIOCELL tissue expanders.  They contend that the Plaintiffs and
the Class will be forced to expend substantial sums for the removal
of recalled breast implants, surgical and diagnostic fees, and/or
medical monitoring and invasive diagnostic procedures required as a
result of their exposure to the risk of contracting Breast Implant
Associated Lymphoma.

On July 24, 2019, Defendants issued a worldwide recall of their
BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue expanders.

The Food and Drug Administration categorized the Defendants' action
as a "Class I Recall", which is defined as "a situation in which
there is a reasonable probability that the use of, or exposure to,
a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences
or death."

Recall is a method of removing or correcting products that are in
violation of laws administered by the FDA. The Defendants' recall
followed the FDA's update of their safety information which found a
higher incidence of anaplastic large cell lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL") in
patients who have textured breast implants.

BIA-ALCL is a type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (cancer of the immune
system). In most cases, BIA-ALCL is found in the scar tissue and
fluid near the implant; but in some cases it can spread through the
body.

BIA-ALCL symptoms include lumps, swelling in the breast, asymmetry
around the breast implant, and pain around the breast implant. The
recommended diagnostic testing for BIA-ALCL is invasive and
includes ultrasound evaluation for fluid collection, breast masses,
and enlarged regional lymph nodes and, in some cases, explant of
the implant and surrounding scar tissue. A suspicious mass requires
tissue biopsy and evaluation.

BIA-ALCL treatment includes removal of the implant and in some
patients may also require treatment with chemotherapy and radiation
treatment.

The Defendants benefited from their products by testing BIOCELL
implants starting in 1998 in order to obtain market approval from
the FDA in May 2000 (saline-filled) and November 2006
(silicone-filled) through July 24, 2019, at the expense of
Plaintiffs and the Class who are exposed to an elevated risk of
developing BIA-ALCL.

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq.
          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Ste. D1
          Costa Mesa, California 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  nicholas@kazlg.com
                  jason@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Virginia Buchanan, Esq.
          Matthew Schultz, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS,
          MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A.
          316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, Florida 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7013
          Facsimile: (850) 436-6013
          E-mail: vbuchanan@levinlaw.com
                  mschultz@levinlaw.com

               - and -

          Megan McBride, Esq.
          MEGAN MCBRIDE, ESQ. P.L.L.C
          101 Palafox Place
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 450-1837
          E-mail: mmcbride@mcbrideesq.com

ALTRIA GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Altria
Group, Inc. (MO). To determine your eligibility and get free access
to our shareholder support tools that provide you with case
updates, automated loss calculations and claims recovery
assistance, please contact the firm via the links below. There will
be no cost or obligation to you.

Altria Group, Inc. (MO)
Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 20, 2018 -
September 24, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/altria-group-inc-loss-form?prid=3910&wire=1

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

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact:

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Tel: (212) 363-7500
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]

ALTRIA GROUP: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Altria Group, Inc. (NYSE:MO) for violations of Secs. 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. The Financial Times reported on September
24, 2019, that Philip Morris International called off talks of $200
billion merger with Altria due to scrutiny of the vaping industry
and the Company's 35% stake in market leader Juul Labs. Juul
announced on the same day it was the subject of another federal
investigation. Juul announced its CEO would step down and the firm
would stop all advertising in the United States on September 25,
2019.

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

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

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

CONTACT:

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



ALWAYS PRIVATE: Sialoi Seeks Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as TEIANO SIALOI, individually and
on behalf of other individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. ALWAYS PRIVATE SECURITY SERVICES, INC., a California
corporation JORGE ALVAREZ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV34402 (Cal. Super., Sept.
27, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to compensate all hours
worked, including overtime pay, in violation of the Industrial
Welfare Commission order and the California Labor Code.

Although Plaintiff's job title was "Assistant Account General
Manager," his job consisted solely of onsite security with no
administrative and/or behind the desk work.

Throughout his entire employment with Defendants, Defendants failed
to pay Plaintiff and Class Members their overtime wages at the
correct overtime rate. Any and all overtime was paid at their
regular, straight rate, instead of 1.5 times the regular hourly
rate.

Plaintiff and the Class members were never allowed to take their
meal breaks within the first five hours of their shifts. Even when
they would take their meal breaks, it was always interrupted and/or
they were always on-call, the lawsuit says.

APSS is a security company located in Los Angeles County.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Young W. Ryu, Esq.
          Sarah K. Sterling, Esq.
          Amber Swearingen-Ojuri, Esq.
          LOYR, APC
          3130 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 402
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (888) 365-8686
          Facsimile: (800) 576-1170
          E-mail: young.ryu@loywr.com
                  sarah.sterling@loywr.com
                  amber.ojuri@loywr.com

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Wants Court to Dismantle Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Emilee Larkin, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
vying to dismantle a class action that says American Airlines
forced employees to work during break time, a lawyer for the
airlines told the Third Circuit on Oct. 15 that the specifics of
each worker will vary too greatly to satisfy commonality.

"How would you ever find out whether, when and how much every
single class member worked without asking them," Anton Metlitsky --
ametlitsky@omm.com -- with the O'Melveny law firm said in arguments
before the Philadelphia-based appeals court.

Daniel Ferreras and Edwin Gonzalez--two clerks responsible for
towing airplanes into and out of hangars, providing water and
lavatory services, and loading and offloading baggage to and from
airplanes--brought the 2016 overtime lawsuit in New Jersey.

Though they initially sought to represent thousands of clerks from
airports across the country, Chief U.S. District Judge Jose Linares
granted certification last year to three subclasses of employees
who, like Ferreras and Gonzalez, worked at Newark Liberty
International Airport. Linares noted that the plaintiffs had
identified approximately 200 class members to date, with at least
40 members in each subclass.

U.S. Circuit Judge Kent Jordan, one of three members of the Oct. 15
appellate panel, questioned the airline's lawyer as to whether it
would be satisfied with more narrow classes based on departments.

Metlitsky pushed back, saying that does not matter because there is
still no record of the off-the-clock work.

Lee Shalov, representing the class, emphasized to the panel that it
matters only whether the employee worked--not when or how long--to
be considered a part of the class.

Jordan pressed Shalov on how a blanket statement that all the
employees worked shows enough commonality to award damages to the
entire class.

"How is the court supposed to find commonality if you don't know
whether or not a person worked more than 40 hours a week," Jordan
asked.  

Shalov, with McLaughlin Stern law firm, agreed that any
determination of how long a person worked would have to be done on
an individual basis, but again stressed that the court should only
look at the simple fact that the employees worked.

U.S. Circuit Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo asked Metlitsky on his
rebuttal why it is not enough for the class to get damages, since
there is no dispute that each of the plaintiffs in the class
worked.

Metlitsky again noted that it was not the point if they worked, but
when.

"Even on the question of whether they worked, they can't tell you
when," said Metlitsky.

U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Chagares rounded out the panel.


ANGELS IN YOUR HOME: Employees Win Labor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Bennett Loudon, writing for The Daily Record, reports that the
owner of the largest home health-care agency in the Rochester area
must pay more than $1 million in unpaid wages, penalties and
attorney's fees for violating state labor laws. In January, U.S.
District Court Judge Frank P. Geraci Jr. certified the class-action
lawsuit on behalf of current and former employees of Angels in Your
Home. [GN]


ANTHEM INC: Appeal in Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal in the class
action suit entitled, In re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA
Litigation, has been heard but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit has not decided on the appeal yet.

The company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit that was
initially filed in June 2016 against Anthem, Inc. and Express
Scripts, which has been consolidated into a single multi-district
lawsuit captioned In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The consolidated complaint was filed by plaintiffs against Express
Scripts and the company on behalf of all persons who are
participants in or beneficiaries of any Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) or non-ERISA healthcare
plan from December 1, 2009 to the present in which we provided
prescription drug benefits through the ESI PBM Agreement and paid a
percentage based co-insurance payment in the course of using that
prescription drug benefit.

The plaintiffs allege that the company breached its duties, either
under ERISA or with respect to the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing implied in the health plans, (i) by failing to
adequately monitor Express Scripts' pricing under the ESI PBM
Agreement and (ii) by placing the company's own pecuniary interest
above the best interests of its insureds by allegedly agreeing to
higher pricing in the ESI PBM Agreement in exchange for the
purchase price for its NextRx PBM business, and (iii) with respect
to the non-ERISA members, by negotiating and entering into the ESI
PBM Agreement that was allegedly detrimental to the interests of
such non-ERISA members.

Plaintiffs seek to hold the company and Express Scripts jointly and
severally liable and to recover all losses suffered by the proposed
class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains,
injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs and interest.

In April 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the claims
brought against it, and it was granted, without prejudice, in
January 2018. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was heard in
October 2018 but has not yet been decided.

Anthem said, "We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however,
its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States. It operates through three
segments: Commercial & Specialty Business, Government Business, and
Other. The company was formerly known as WellPoint, Inc. and
changed its name to Anthem, Inc. in December 2014. Anthem, Inc. was
founded in 1944 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


APET INC: Delgado Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APET, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2019CH12386 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Oct. 24, 2019), seeks to put a
stop to the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and storage of
the Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' sensitive biometric
data.

While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks
in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or
identification cards--which can be changed or replaced if stolen or
compromised--fingerprints/handprints are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers associated with the employee. This exposes
employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing
the need to protect its citizens from situations like these,
Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois
citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Despite this law, the
Plaintiff contends, APET disregards its employees' statutorily
protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses
their biometric data in violation of the BIPA.

Specifically, APET has violated (and continues to violate) the BIPA
because it did not: properly inform the Plaintiff and the Class
members in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for
which their fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as
required by the BIPA; provide a publicly available retention
schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff
and the Class's fingerprints, as required by the BIPA; and receive
a written release from the Plaintiff or the members of the Class to
collect, capture, or otherwise obtain fingerprints, as required by
the BIPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in the State of
Illinois.

APET is one of the largest full line pet distributors in the
country. It acts as a wholesale distributor of tropical fish,
saltwater fish, corals, invertebrates, birds, small animals, and
reptiles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Fish, Esq.
     John Kunze, Esq.
     THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
     200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
     Naperville, IL 60563
     Phone: 630.355.7590
     Fax: 630.778.0400
     Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
            jkunze@fishlawfirm.com


ARIZONA: Court Certifies Medicaid Subclass in Civil Rights Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal court in Arizona
certified a "Medicaid subclass," in a civil rights suit brought on
behalf of children in the state's foster care system, finding the
class has sufficiently alleged that certain policies in the system
put children at risk of not receiving necessary physical, dental
and behavioral health services.

A copy of the Order is available at:

                      https://is.gd/R4a6gf



ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Court Defers Ruling on Bid to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------
ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court
has further deferred its ruling on the motion to dismiss the class
action suit entitled, In re JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp.
Shareholder Litigation (Case No. 24-C-16-001542) for six months.

Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the tender offer (the "Tender Offer") and merger (the
"Merger") for JAVELIN. The Tender Offer and Merger are collectively
defined herein as the "Transactions."

All nine suits name ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN's board
of directors prior to the Merger (of which eight are current
members of ARMOUR's board of directors) (the "Individual
Defendants") and JMI Acquisition Corporation ("Acquisition") as
defendants. Certain cases also name ACM and JAVELIN as additional
defendants.

The lawsuits were brought by purported holders of JAVELIN's common
stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of
JAVELIN's stockholders, alleging that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and the
putative class of JAVELIN stockholders, including claims that the
Individual Defendants failed to properly value JAVELIN; failed to
take steps to maximize the value of JAVELIN to its stockholders;
ignored or failed to protect against conflicts of interest; failed
to disclose material information about the Transactions; took steps
to avoid competitive bidding and to give ARMOUR an unfair advantage
by failing to adequately solicit other potential acquirors or
alternative transactions; and erected unreasonable barriers to
other third-party bidders.

The suits also allege that ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ARMOUR Capital
Management LP (ACM) and Acquisition aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants.

The lawsuits seek equitable relief, including, among other relief,
to enjoin consummation of the Transactions, or rescind or unwind
the Transactions if already consummated, and award costs and
disbursements, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses.


The sole Florida lawsuit was never served on the defendants, and
that case was voluntarily dismissed and closed on January 20, 2017.


On April 25, 2016, the Maryland court issued an order consolidating
the eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned In re JAVELIN
Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case No.
24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the Maryland
cases as interim lead co-counsel. On May 26, 2016, interim lead
counsel filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for
Breach of Fiduciary Duty asserting consolidated claims of breach of
fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty,
and waste.

On June 27, 2016, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failing to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. A hearing was held on the
Motion to Dismiss on March 3, 2017, and the Court reserved ruling.
On September 27, 2019, the court further deferred the matter for
six months.

Each of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and the Individual Defendants intends
to defend the claims made in these lawsuits vigorously; however,
there can be no assurance that any of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM or the
Individual Defendants will prevail in its defense of any of these
lawsuits to which it is a party. An unfavorable resolution of any
such litigation surrounding the Transactions may result in monetary
damages being awarded to the plaintiffs and the putative class of
former stockholders of JAVELIN and the cost of defending the
litigation, even if resolved favorably, could be substantial. Due
to the preliminary nature all of these suits, ARMOUR is not able at
this time to estimate their outcome.

ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. invests in residential mortgage
backed securities in the United States. The company is managed by
ARMOUR Capital Management LP. The company was founded in 2008 and
is based in Vero Beach, Florida.


ASTRAZENECA: Sued over Anticompetitive Scheme for Seroquel XR
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, THE UNIFORMED FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION OF GREATER NEW
YORK SECURITY BENEFIT FUND and THE RETIRED FIREFIGHTERS' SECURITY
BENEFIT FUND OF THE UNIFORMED FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
vs. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS L.P.; ASTRAZENECA L.P.; ASTRAZENECA
UK LIMITED; HANDA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; and PAR PHARMACEUTICAL,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09271 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 7,
2019), seeks overcharge damages arising from AstraZeneca's unlawful
agreements with Handa and Accord not to compete in the market for
Seroquel XR and corresponding generic versions in the United States
and its territories.

The case arises from Defendants' illegal scheme to delay
competition in the United States and its territories for Seroquel
XR, a prescription medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration for the treatment of: (1) schizophrenia; (2) acute
depressive episodes of bipolar disorder; (3) acute manic or mixed
episodes of bipolar disorder in conjunction with other medications;
(4) long-term bipolar disorder in conjunction with other
medications; and (5) major depressive disorder in conjunction with
other medications for those patients who have not had an adequate
response to antidepressant medications.

Handa subsequently assigned this unlawful agreement to Par, which
performed the agreement, sold generic Seroquel XR at
supracompetitive prices, and shared its illegal gains with Handa.

Seroquel XR is a dopamine, serotonin, and adrenergic antagonist. As
such, it blocks the effects of these neurotransmitters in the
brain, resulting in a reduction of symptoms.

In patients with schizophrenia, antagonism of the 5-HT 2A serotonin
receptor in the frontal cortex of the brain relieves the negative
symptoms while antagonism of the D 2 dopamine receptor relieves
negative symptoms. As of 2016, it was the eighty-sixth most
prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 8
million prescriptions and annual sales exceeding $1 billion.

The Plaintiffs bring this action as end-payor purchasers of
Seroquel XR, on their own behalf and on behalf of all similarly
situated end-payor purchasers. Defendants' unlawful conduct has
prevented generic extended-release quetiapine fumarate
manufacturers from entering the market with competing generic
products an has cost Plaintiffs and end-payor purchasers hundreds
of millions of dollars in overcharge damages.

The UFASBF and RFSBF are health and welfare benefit plans
headquartered and with a principal place of business in New, York,
New York. The UFA Funds administer the assets of a defined
contribution plan formed by a collective bargaining agreement
between the City of New York and the Uniformed Firefighters
Association to provide certain benefits including prescription drug
benefits. They provide health and welfare benefits to approximately
35,000 beneficiaries who reside in numerous locations in the United
States.

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals manufactures, fabricates, and processes
drugs in pharmaceutical preparations. The Company focuses on
several therapeutic areas such as cardiovascular and metabolic,
gastrointestinal, neuroscience, oncology, respiratory, and
infection.[BN]

Counsel for The Uniformed Firefighters' Association of Greater New
York Security Benefit Fund and the Retired Firefighters' Security
Benefit Fund of the Uniformed Firefighters for the Uniform
Firefighters' Association, are:

          Brian Murray, Esq.
          Lee Albert, Esq.
          Brian Brooks, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
                  lalbert@glancylaw.com
                  bbrooks@glancylaw.com

AT&T INC: Portland Professor Sues Over Clean Energy Surcharge
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Monahan, writing for Willamette Week, reports that AT&T now
faces a lawsuit over improperly billing customers for a tax that it
does not have to pay.

The company has been collecting a small amount per month from
Portland customers to cover the Clean Energy Fund surcharge, but
the company is actually exempt from the measure passed by voters
last year.

As WW first reported earlier this week, the company is considered a
utility for the purposes of the Clean Energy Fund tax--and is
therefore exempt from the 1 percent increase in the business
license tax that applies to all retail companies with $500,000 in
revenue locally and $1 billion nationally.

The money generated by the new tax is designated to go to
sustainability projects, particularly in low income communities and
communities of color.

The Oregonian first reported that AT&T would refund local customers
who have been charged for the tax.

But the class-action complaint, filed in Multnomah Circuit Court,
seeks to collect at least $200 for each customer affected.

"AT&T only said it would refund the money it wrongfully collected
from Oregon customers after AT&T got caught," states the lawsuit,
filed by Lewis and Clark College professor Elliott Young. "AT&T
still has not agreed to pay its customers the $200 penalties and
interest they are entitled to under Oregon law as result of AT&T's
unlawful trade practices."

Attorney Michael Fuller, Esq., who is representing Young, says the
penalty is a necessary disincentive.

"If you steal from a bank, you can't just refund the money you
stole when you get caught and call it good," Fuller tells WW. "AT&T
stole from Oregon customers, and Oregon law entitles customers who
were assessed the unlawful surcharge to $200 statutory damages, and
punitive damages to punish AT&T and deter other corporations from
charging illegal fees." [GN]

AUTOVEST LLC: Frank Appeals Decision in Consumer Credit Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Phyllis Frank seeks review of a decision by the District
Court in the lawsuit entitled Phyllis Frank v. Autovest, LLC, et
al., Case No. 1:17-cv-02773-RJL, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
moved the District Court to certify the matter as a class action.

Phyllis Frank also sought to be designated as the class
representative.  If any matter in the Motion is found to be
insufficiently supported by proof, the Plaintiff asked a stay of
the Motion pending discovery or other preliminary proceedings.

The appellate case is captioned as Phyllis Frank v. Autovest, LLC,
et al., Case No. 19-7119, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that these
documents are due on November 7, 2019:

   -- Appellant's docketing statement;
   -- Appellant's certificate as to parties;
   -- Appellant's statement of issues;
   -- Appellant's underlying decision;
   -- Appellant's deferred appendix statement;
   -- Appellant's notice of appearance;
   -- Appellant's transcript status report;
   -- Appellant's procedural motions
   -- Appellee's certificate as to parties;
   -- Appellee's entry of appearance; and
   -- Appellee's procedural motions.

The Appellant's and the Appellee's dispositive motions are due on
November 22, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Phyllis Frank, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Dean Gregory, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DEAN GREGORY
          1717 K Street NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 905-8058
          Facsimile: (202) 776-0136
          E-mail: dean@deangregory.com

Defendants-Appellees Autovest, LLC, and Michael Andrews &
Associates are represented by:

          Eric Nathan Heyer, Esq.
          THOMPSON HINE LLP
          1919 M Street, NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20036-1600
          Telephone: (202) 331-8800
          E-mail: eric.heyer@thompsonhine.com


BAPTIST HEALTH: Appeals Decision in Whitley Suit to 8th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Baptist Health, Baptist Health Hospitals and Diamond
Risk Insurance filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit
titled Brian Whitley v. Baptist Health, et al., Case No.
4:16-cv-00624-DPM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas - Little Rock.

The appellate case is entitled Brian Whitley v. Baptist Health, et
al., Case No. 19-8018, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants
appealed a decision in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is
captioned as Brian Whitley v. Baptist Health, et al., Case No.
17-8020.

The Plaintiff alleges unjust enrichment, breach of contract and
violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent Brian Whitley, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Frank H. Bailey, Esq.
          Geoff Hamby, Esq.
          Sach D. Oliver, Esq.
          Timothy Ryan Scott, Esq.
          BAILEY & OLIVER LAW FIRM
          3606 W. Southern Hills Boulevard
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 202-5200
          E-mail: fbailey@baileyoliverlawfirm.com
                  ghamby@baileyoliverlawfirm.com
                  soliver@baileyoliverlawfirm.co
                  rscott@baileyoliverlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Donald K. Campbell, III, Esq.
          Kendel Grooms, Esq.
          CAMPBELL & GROOMS PLLC
          8500 W. Markham Street
          Little Rock, AR 72205
          Telephone: (501) 313-4967
          E-mail: don@campbellgrooms.com
                  kendel@campbellgrooms.com

               - and -

          Erik S. Heninger, Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Leonard, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 First Avenue, N.
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336
          Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
          E-mail: erik@hgdlawfirm.com
                  jleonard@hgdlawfirm.com

Defendants-Petitioners Baptist Health, Baptist Health Hospitals and
Diamond Risk Insurance, LLC, are represented by:

          Adam David Franks, Esq.
          Robert L. Henry, III, Esq.
          James D. Robertson, Esq.
          BARBER LAW FIRM
          425 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3414
          Telephone: (501) 372-6175
          E-mail: afranks@barberlawfirm.com
                  rhenry@barberlawfirm.com
                  jrobertson@barberlawfirm.com


BEMBE INC: Underpays Bartenders, Bennici Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
MAMIE NKATIA-BOATEMA BENNICI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEMBE INC.; and ANTHONY
PILIASKAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-08917 (S.D.N.Y., 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 Bennici was employed by the Defendants as bartender.

Bembe Inc. is a New York corporation owning and operating a bar and
music venue. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640


BRADFORD ESTATES: Dean Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON DEAN, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. BRADFORD ESTATES, LLC, and JAROD PUCKETT,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00748-BSM (E.D. Ark., Oct. 24, 2019),
is a collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act arising from the Defendants'
failure to pay the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
employees minimum wage and lawful overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 per week.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees frequently
worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants failed to
pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees an
overtime premium of one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay for all hours worked over 40 per week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Groundskeeper
from June 2019 until July 2019, and again from September 2019 to
the present.

Bradford Estates, LLC is a domestic limited liability company. The
Defendants own an apartment complex in Little Rock.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRIGHVIEW TREE: Ruiz Seeks Unpaid Wages for Equipment Operators
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAUL RUIZ, an individual, on behalf of the State of California, as
a private attorney general, and on behalf all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BRIGHVIEW TREE COMPANY, a California
Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2019-12863 (Cal. Super., Sept. 27, 2019), seeks
penalties for Defendants' violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff worked for as non-exempt "Equipment Operator" in
Defendants' Farmington, California nursery.

The Defendants' policies and procedures required the Plaintiff and
other aggrieved employees to wear their protective equipment before
being allowed to work without protective equipment. Yet, the
Defendants maintained a policy and procedure that failed to
compensate the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees the legal
minimum and overtime wage for the time it took aggrieved employees
to don and doff mandatory protective equipment.

The Defendants operate a state-of-art tree farms and nurseries with
800 acres of growing in across California, and employed Plaintiff
and other similarly aggrieved employees within San Joaquin and the
State of California.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and aggrieved employees are:

          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 975 1493
          Facsimile: (310) 675 0861
          E-mail mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq.
          FALAKASSA LAW GROUP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (818) 456 6168
          Facsimile: (888) 505 0868
          E-mail: josh@falakassa.com

CADENCE BANCORPORATION: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.


MacroGenics, Inc. (MGNX)
Class Period: February 6, 2019 - June 3, 2019
Deadline: November 12, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/mgnx

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company had conducted the progression-free survival
("PFS") and first interim overall survival ("OS") analyses for the
SOPHIA trial by no later than October 10, 2018; (2) the October
2018 PFS analysis showed a 0.9 month improvement in PFS; and (3)
the October 2018 OS interim analysis did not produce a
statistically significant result and the interim OS Kaplan-Meier
curves (a non-parametric statistic used to estimate the survival
function from lifetime data) crossed in several spots (thereby
violating the constant hazard assumption) and separated late; and
(4) as a result, MacroGenic's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.


ViewRay, Inc. (VRAY)
Class Period: March 15, 2019 - August 8, 2019
Deadline: November 12, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/vray

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) demand for ViewRay systems had declined due in part to
changes being made to Medicare reimbursement approaches first
announced in November 2018 that could make purchases of new ViewRay
systems less profitable for customers; (2) the Company's reported
backlog was overstated due to the inclusion of orders with
insufficient surety as to permit for their inclusion in reported
backlog; and (3) as a result, ViewRay's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.


Cadence Bancorporation (CADE)
Class Period: July 23, 2018 - July 22, 2019
Deadline: November 15, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/cade

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

Contact:

Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Tel: 212-697-6484
Email: info@bgandg.com, peretz@bgandg.com
[GN]



CALIBER HOME: Faces Phillips Suit in Minnesota District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caliber Home Loans.
The case is captioned as Stephen Phillips and Mary
Tourville-Phillips, On behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Caliber Home Loans, Defendant,
Case No. 0:19-cv-02711-WMW-LIB (D. Minn., Oct. 14, 2019). The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright.

Caliber Home is an Irving, Texas-based home mortgage originator and
servicer established in 2013 by the merger of Caliber Funding and
Vericrest Financial. The firm is owned by affiliates of private
equity fund managers Trillian Fund and Lone Star Funds.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel E Gustafson, Esq.
          David A Goodwin, Esq.
          Mickey L Stevens, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
                  mstevens@gustafsongluek.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher J. Knapp, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          2800 Capella Tower
          225 South Sixth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4662
          Telephone: (612) 333-2111
          Facsimile: (612) 333-6798
          E-mail: christopher.knapp@btlaw.com

               - and -

          Kristine E. Kruger, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 359-3111
          E-mail: kkruger@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Robert Christopher Folland, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          41 S. High Street, Suite 3300
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 628-1429
          Facsimile: (614) 628-1433
          E-mail: rob.folland@btlaw.com


CAR PROTECTION: Foote Sues over Illegal Robocalls
-------------------------------------------------
PAULA FOOTE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CAR PROTECTION USA D/B/A CLEAR PATH
and JOHN DAVIS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04381-LMM (N.D.
Ga., Sept. 29, 2019), alleges that Car Protection USA  and its
owner John Davis, who directed and controlled the activities of
Clear Path, sent her a pre-recorded call. The Plaintiff brings this
action to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act in response to widespread public outrage
about the proliferation of automated and prerecorded telephone
calls.

The Plaintiff and putative class members never consented to receive
these calls. Because automated dialing campaigns generally place
calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential
customers en masse, the Plaintiff bring this action on behalf of a
proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal
robocalls from or on behalf of the defendants, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven H. Koval, Esq.
          THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
          3575 Piedmont Road
          Building 15, Suite 120
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 513-6651
          E-mail: Steve@KovalFirm.com

CARGO AIRPORT: Oladipo Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BABATUNDE OLADIPO, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
CARGO AIRPORT SERVICES USA, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
16-cv-06165(CLP) (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties will move the Court on
Nov. 1, 2019, for an order:

   1. approving a settlement of the lawsuit;

   2. certifying a settlement class;

   3. approving class release and individual release of the
      Plaintiff;

   4. granting request for an award of attorneys' fees,
      reimbursement of litigation expenses and service award.[CC]

Class Counsel are:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
          LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG PC
          1613 Northern Blvd.
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625-0105
          E-mail: lg@louisginsberglawoffices.com

CENTRATECH INC: Class Certification in Rensel Denied in S.D Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Palley, writing for The Block, reports that a court order
was entered denying a motion for class certification in the saga
that has been the CentraTech case in federal court in the Southern
District of Florida ("S.D. Fla.")

Rensel et al. v. CentraTech, Inc., Case No.
1:17–cv-24500[RNS](S.D. Fla. entered September 17, 2019)[NMR]

S.D. Fla. does not have a local rule pertaining to the timeliness
of the filing of a class certification, but the Court noted that
two other Florida federal courts, along with others around the
country DO have rules related to timeliness of certification
filings.  Here, the certification motion was filed 18 months after
the initial lawsuit was filed, and 6 months after the first amended
complaint. Also, the Court seems to suggest the delay was
deliberately done after defendants were dismissed and default
judgment done to them.  And the Court didn't like that.

Upon reviewing the facts of the case at the time and the
plaintiffs' three proposed classes, the Court found that there was
essentially no way that they would be able to identify members of
the class.  The plaintiff made reference to a supposed spreadsheet
that the Federal government has of Centra Token purchasers in the
criminal case, but there was no guarantee they could even get the
spreadsheet.  Another argument they asserted that you could
definitely ascertain their proposed classes was a hand-wavy "you
can look at the crypto exchanges, they know," which the Court in
essence said "Dude. Come on." [GN]

CHICK-FIL-A INC: Tucker Sues Over Violation of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY TUCKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHICK-FIL-A, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-09844 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's failure to sell to consumers store gift cards that
contain writing in Braille so those cards can be fully accessed and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its products and
services is a violation of his rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Plaintiff contends.  The Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that its store gift cards
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read
written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit
cards, etc.

Chick-Fil-A owns, operates and/or controls multiple restaurant
locations in the State of New York and is one of the largest
restaurant chains in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
     GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
     150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003-2461
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Email: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
            danalgottlieb@aol.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal in Ong Class Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal
in the class action lawsuit initiated by Susie Ong is still
pending.

On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of shares of the company's common
stock between February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016.

The complaint purports to state claims against the company, each of
the co-Chief Executive Officers serving during the claimed class
period and the Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
related rules, based on the company's alleged failure during the
claimed class period to disclose material information about its
quality controls and safeguards in relation to consumer and
employee health.

The complaint asserts that those failures and related public
statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the
market price of the company's stock was artificially inflated
during the claimed class period.

The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an
unspecified amount, interest, and an award of reasonable attorneys'
fees, expert fees and other costs.

On March 8, 2017, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on April 7, 2017.

On March 22, 2018, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss, with prejudice. On April 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for relief from the judgment and seeking leave to file a
third amended complaint, and on November 20, 2018, the court denied
the motion.  

On December 20, 2018, the plaintiff initiated an appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Chipotle said, "We intend to continue vigorously defending the Ong
case through any further appeals made by the plaintiff, but it is
not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or
any potential liability from either of this case."

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

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. As of December 31,
2018, it operated 2,491 restaurants, including 2,452 Chipotle
restaurants in the United States, 37 Chipotle restaurants
internationally, and two non-Chipotle restaurants. The company was
founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California.


CHRYSLER: Flynn Plaintiffs Ordered to Comply Discovery Requests
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison - St. Clair Record reports that Chrysler shared its
science with plaintiffs in a half secret class action over the
vulnerability of its vehicles to hacking, yet it needed a court
order to find out where plaintiffs took their vehicles for
maintenance.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Reona Daly ruled in Chrysler's favor on Oct.
2, requiring plaintiffs to supplement their responses to document
requests.

Daly didn't grant all the documents Chrysler requested, limiting
her order to a list of locations where plaintiffs took the
vehicles.

She reminded plaintiffs that if there are responses they haven't
supplemented, timely supplementation is mandatory.

She also ordered plaintiff Michael Keith of Michigan to provide
documents "related to the disposals and the dates on which the
vehicles were disposed."

The reference to disposals lacks context because the parties didn't
file briefs.

Context for the entire action remains fuzzy, because the clerk has
sealed dozens of documents pursuant to a confidentiality order.  

The clerk sealed the class certification motion that former
district judge Michael Reagan granted and Seventh Circuit appellate
judges approved.

Belleville city attorney Brian Flynn started the action, not as
lawyer but as owner of a Jeep Grand Cherokee.

He sued Chrysler in 2015, after Wired magazine reported that remote
hackers gained access to a Chrysler vehicle under controlled
conditions.

Michael Gras and Lloyd M. Cueto, both of Belleville, represented
Flynn.  

He would state at a deposition that he and Gras went to law school
together, and that Gras contacted him about suing Chrysler.

Kelly Brown and George Brown of Pacific, Mo., joined Flynn as
plaintiffs.

Michael Keith of Montague, Mich. soon added his name.

They seek damages not only from Chrysler but also from Harman
Industries, maker of UConnect information devices that the hackers
exploited.

They proposed a national recall, claiming Chrysler's voluntary
recall at the time of the Wired report didn't fix the defect.

In the third month of the action, Armstrong Teasdale lawyers Lucas
Pendry and Christopher Baucom entered appearances for Flynn and the
rest.

Former U.S. attorney Stephen Wigginton, then as an Armstrong
Teasdale lawyer, entered an appearance three months later.

In July 2016, Flynn stated at a deposition that he continued
driving his Jeep and took parents, girlfriend, and others along
without warning them.

When someone asked if he knew how much Wired magazine spent to get
inside the vehicle's computer, he said no.

He said he didn't respond to the recall at the time of the report
because he wasn't comfortable plugging something into his car.

"Another reason was, after discussing with my attorneys, it was my
understanding that it didn't really fix the problem," he said.

In September 2016, Judge Reagan ruled that plaintiffs could claim
that they overpaid for vehicles and that market values of the
vehicles have dropped.

He ruled that they lacked standing to claim risk of death or fear
of death, finding no allegation that a real world hacker caused
injury.

In April 2017, Wigginton contacted a California lawyer to serve a
subpoena on technology company Cisco about vulnerability tests.

The California lawyer filed confidential documents from Flynn's
discovery as public record in California.

Chrysler counsel Sharon Rosenberg, of Thompson Coburn in St. Louis,
promptly persuaded the California court to remove the documents
from public view.

In Reagan's court, she moved for sanctions.

Wigginton filed a response, which the clerk sealed.

At a hearing in May 2017, Former Magistrate Judge Donald Wilkerson
said he was troubled about a footnote and needed Wigginton to
explain it.

Wilkerson read the footnote out loud, according to a transcript.

The clerk redacted the next two lines of the transcript.

Wigginton began to make an argument but Wilkerson stopped him and
said, "What I want to know is this."

The clerk redacted the next two lines.

Wigginton said, "We believe that that information was in the public
domain."

Wilkerson said that was a different question, and he asked
Wigginton if it was produced to the plaintiff and marked
confidential.

Gestures from Rosenberg caused Wilkerson to turn the question to
her.

She handed documents to him, and he began reading.

The clerk redacted the next seven lines.

Wilkerson said the quote came directly from a Chrysler document and
he assumed it was confidential when the company produced it.

Rosenberg said, "It was quite confidential within the company."

Wilkerson read a document about Cisco.

The clerk redacted 14 lines at three points.

Wigginton said, "We speculated that Chrysler engaged them."

He said he had good relations with Cisco's lawyers before Chrysler
got involved.

Rosenberg said that was entirely false.

Wigginton said, "How can you say that it's false when you don't
even know how -"    

Wilkerson said, "Wait, wait, wait. Hold on hold on hold on. Mr.
Wigginton-"

Wigginton said, "How can she say that's false?"

Wilkerson said, "Mr. Wigginton, hold on. Hold on."

Wigginton said, "You don't even know what you're saying."

Wilkerson said, "Mr. Wigginton, Mr. Wigginton, all right Mr.
Wigginton. Take it down a notch, okay?"

Wilkerson sanctioned the plaintiffs, finding that no public sources
conveyed all the information Chrysler contended was confidential.

He asked Chrysler to submit a bill for addressing and remedying
violations of the confidentiality order.

Plaintiffs appealed to Reagan, who overturned Wilkerson's order.

Wigginton left Armstrong Teasdale in December 2017, briefly worked
for Simmons Hanly Conroy, and entered private practice last year.

In July 2018, Reagan certified a class action with separate classes
in Illinois, Missouri, and Michigan.

He defined each class as all who bought or leased vehicles subject
to the recall up to the date of his order. He found genuine
disputes as to whether the vehicles have defects and whether they
were and are merchantable.

"There is evidence suggesting that Chrysler knew of the defects at
all relevant times and did not disclose them," Wilkerson wrote.

Chrysler and Harman petitioned for review at the Seventh Circuit
appellate court, but didn't get it.

Wilkerson retired and Magistrate Judge Gilbert Sison replaced him.


At a hearing in February, in East St. Louis, Sison said he hadn't
known he was acquainted with the plaintiff.

He said Flynn offered to hold a happy hour reception to celebrate
his appointment.

Sison recused himself in March, and Magistrate Judge Daly took
charge in Benton.

Reagan retired and the clerk assigned District Judge Nancy
Rosenstengel.

She recused herself, and the clerk assigned District Judge Staci
Yandle.

Daly's current order overruled Chrysler's objection to a request
for admission that connected vehicles are potential targets for
malicious hackers.

She overruled its objection to a request for admission that it
didn't notify consumers that a cyber attack could affect components
in any vehicle.

She found its objection evasive and improper, and overruled its
objections to requests for admissions about primary segments and
hardware trust anchors.

She overruled its objection to a request for admission that it
didn't conduct security risk assessments as part of the design
process.

She overruled its objection to a request to admit that Chrysler had
no group with dedicated responsibility for cyber security until at
least April 2014.

On the other hand, she sustained Chrysler's objection to relevancy
of documents and video about whole vehicle penetration testing.

She sustained Chrysler's objection to a request to admit that 2018
and later models have hardware gateways for infotainment systems.

She wrote that it was beyond the scope of the pending claims.

She sustained Chrysler's relevancy objection to a request to admit
that each affected vehicle had multiple attack surfaces, and
sustained Chrysler's objection to production of 130 documents that
plaintiffs learned about from discovery she ordered in April.

"There are limits to relevancy in discovery," she wrote.

She sustained Chrysler's objection to production of terms and
payments in a "bug bounty" program.

She sustained Chrysler's objection to production of consumer survey
information, finding plaintiffs based the request on speculation.

District Judge Yandle hasn't set a trial date. [GN]    


COLOURPOP COSMETICS: Jairam Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads
---------------------------------------------------------
Anita Jairam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Colourpop Cosmetics, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-62438, (S.D. Fla., October 1, 2019) seeks statutory
damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant is an online retailer of consumer cosmetics products, as
well as a manufacturer and distributor of cosmetic products. It
engaged in unsolicited telemarketing directed towards prospective
customers and transmitted multiple text messages with intent to
encourage its recipients to avail of its services. At no point in
time did Stevens provide the Defendant with his express written
consent to be contacted using an automated dialer. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
      IJH LAW
      14 NE First Ave., 10th Floor
      Miami, FL 33132
      Tel: (786) 351-8709
      Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com


COLUMBIA GAS: $143 Million Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Max Reyes, writing for Boston Globe News, reports that a judge on
October 11 granted preliminary approval to a $143 million class
action settlement between Columbia Gas and residents and businesses
affected by the gas explosions that rocked the Merrimack Valley
last year.

Essex Superior Court Judge James Lang said that the settlement
"appears to be fair, reasonable, adequate, and sufficient,"
according to the ruling.

The Globe previously reported that approximately 147,000 residents
and over 10,000 businesses from Lawrence, Andover, and North
Andover will be eligible for payments as a result of the
settlement, which was announced in July.

A final approval hearing is pending and is scheduled for Feb. 27,
court documents show.

The settlement calls for six categories of lump sum payouts,
ranging from up to $50 for a "nominal" disruption to up to $15,000
for a "major" disruption, the Associated Press reported. Families
and businesses that "suffered unusually high damage" would be able
to seek larger payouts.

"Today represents a significant step forward in bringing the
communities of Lawrence, Andover, and North Andover the
compensation they're entitled to in a timely manner," lawyers
representing the plaintiffs said in a joint statement issued
October 11.

The $143 million is part of roughly $1 billion Columbia Gas has
dedicated toward recovery efforts so far, according to a statement
from company spokesman Dean Lieberman.

"We are pleased that the court has granted preliminary approval to
the settlement. As we have said, we view the $143 million
settlement as an important step forward as we continue to fulfill
our commitments to affected residents and businesses," Lieberman
said.

Injury and wrongful death claims are not covered under the
settlement, according to a court document.

Columbia Gas previously settled a lawsuit filed by the family of
18-year-old Leonel Rondon, who was killed when a chimney fell on
his car during the explosions, as well as a lawsuit from the
Figueroa family of Lawrence. Members of the Figueroa family were
among dozens injured in the explosions. Rondon was the only person
killed.

Also separate from the lawsuit is an $80 million payout that went
to the three communities affected by the explosions.

The explosions on Sept. 13, 2018, forced tens of thousands of
people to evacuate and spawned a long-running recovery effort.

Since then, Columbia Gas and its practices have come under review
from officials at the state and federal levels. The utility has
also been subject to legal action.

Last week, regulators ordered Columbia Gas to halt all
non-emergency work based on concerns over the work done on its gas
systems following last year's explosions. The utility is currently
reinspecting service lines that it had replaced or abandoned last
year.

That order followed a gas leak in Lawrence that caused hundreds of
people to temporarily abandon their homes. They were able to return
the next day.

In September, officials from the National Transportation Safety
Board said Columbia Gas, a subsidiary of NiSource, had a "weak
engineering management" system and made several errors in the years
prior to the explosions. [GN]




COVETRUS INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Covetrus,
Inc. (CVET).  To determine your eligibility and get free access to
our shareholder support tools that provide you with case updates,
automated loss calculations and claims recovery assistance, please
contact the firm via the links below. There will be no cost or
obligation to you.

Covetrus, Inc. (CVET)

Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 8, 2019 -
August 12, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 29, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/covetrus-inc-loss-form?prid=3910&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Covetrus, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had overstated its
capabilities with regard to inventory management and supply chain
services; (ii) Covetrus had understated the costs of the
integration of Henry Schein's Animal Health Business and VFC,
including the timing and nature of those costs; (iii) Covetrus had
understated its separation costs from Henry Schein; and (iv) the
Company understated the impact on earnings from online competition
and alternative distribution channels as well as the impact of the
loss of a large customer in North America just prior to the
Company's separation from Henry Schein.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

Contact:

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Tel: (212) 363-7500
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]



DAILY HARVEST: Faces Fischler Suit Alleging ADA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daily Harvest, Inc.
The case is titled Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Daily Harvest, Inc., Case
No. 1:19-cv-09259 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case over alleged violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Daily Harvest, Inc. provides food products.  The Company offers
smoothies, overnight oats, chia parfaits, sundaes, and soups. Daily
Harvest serves clients in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
          E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com


DELAVAL INC: Removes Bishop Case to W.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------
DeLaval Inc. and DeLaval International AB removed the case
captioned as  TERRY BISHOP; BERNARD AND DENISE ROBILLARD, and
ROBILLARD FLAT FARMS, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DELAVAL INC. et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 19AE-CC00272 (Filed Sept. 4, 2019), from the
Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri on Sept. 27, 2019. The
Western District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:19-cv-06129-SRB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs contend that Defendants designed, manufactured,
marketed, sold, distributed, and installed a voluntary milking
system (VMS Classic), which is an automatic milking system designed
to milk dairy cows in a cow-friendly, hygienic, and efficient
manner.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made certain
misrepresentations about the VMS Classic in order to induce
Plaintiffs to purchase the VMS Classic. The Plaintiffs allege that
they relied on the misrepresentations and purchased VMS Classic
units at "substantial costs exceeding hundreds of thousands of
dollars, and expended additional costs to design, modify, retrofit
and/or build new barns to install the system, which did not perform
as advertised and marketed."[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
          Bradley T. Wilders, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Rd., Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64113
          E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
                  wilders@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Arend R. Tensen, Esq.
          CULLENBERG & TENSEN, PLLC
          199 Heather Road, Suite 2
          Lebanon, NH 03766
          E-mail: tensen@nhvt-injurylaw.com

Counsel for the Defendants are:

          Robert T Adams, Esq.
          Gregory K. Wu, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 474-6550
          Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
          E-mail: gwu@shb.com

DILLERS INC: Middleton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
RHESHAD MIDDLETON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DILLERS, INC., ALAN KAUFMAN, MICHAEL CHU
a/k/a MIKE CHU, WILLIAM SUE, and THE PICKLE GUYS, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09830 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to remedy
the Defendants' failure to pay overtime premium pay.

The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime pay for hours
worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, the
New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of
Labor regulations, according to the complaint. The Defendants also
refused to provide the Plaintiff written notice of his regular rate
of pay or overtime rate of pay, in violation of New York Labor Law
and the Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Defendants also failed to
provide the Plaintiff with accurate paystubs and W-2s as required
by state and federal law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Rheshad Middleton was employed by the Defendants from
August 17, 2017, to October 2, 2019.

The Defendants operate a pickle business located at 357 Grand
Street, in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Heng Wang, Esq.
     HENG WANG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     305 Broadway, Suite 1000
     New York, NY 10007
     Phone: (212) 203-5231
     Fax: (212) 203-5237
     Email: heng.wang@wanggaolaw.com


DISPLAYMAX INC: Joseph Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Becky Joseph, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Displaymax, Inc. and Fixturemax, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-12872 (E.D. Mich., October 1, 2019),
seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

DisplayMax and FixtureMax demolish and construct retail merchandise
displays, as well as remodels and renovates retail stores. Joseph
began her employment with Defendants as a demolition and
construction worker starting on June 10, 2019. She claims to be
denied overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty in a
workweek. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David M. Blanchard, Esq.
      Frances J. Hollander, Esq.
      BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
      221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
      Ann Arbor, MI 48104
      Telephone: (734) 929-4313
      Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
             hollander@bwlawonline.com


DOG BUTLERS: Samartinean Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Pet Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ioana Samartinean, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Dog Butlers LLC; Jayce
McQuerter; Adam Gaston and Tahnya Kathryn Gubler, husband and wife,
the Defendants, Case 2:19-cv-05351-DLR (D. Ariz., Oct. 9, 2019),
seeks to redress Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, the Arizona wage and minimum wage statutes, by
knowingly failing to pay its dog walker, pet sitter and pet care
worker employees for all compensable work time, and by denying them
the statutorily required minimum wages and overtime wages for the
work they performed.

From October 2018 to November 2018, Samartinean worked as a dog
walker, pet sitter and pet care worker for Defendants. Beginning
Oct. 8 2018, Defendants paid Plaintiff on a combined
"per-visit"/hourly basis that did not include the payment of wages
for all the hours she worked.

The Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff Samartinean and
their similarly situated current and former employees for their
off-the-clock work time including, but not limited to, time spent:
driving between job sites, searching for and locating lockboxes
needed to gain authorized entry to work locations, accessing Dog
Butler's smartphone application and entering required data in order
to perform certain job functions and duties, providing status
updates relating to customer services, and filling out other
reports concerning or relating to duties performed, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:

          Susan Martin, Esq.
          Daniel Bonnett, Esq.
          Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.
          4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Telephone: (602) 240-6900
          Facsimile: (602) 240-2345
          E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com
                  dbonnett@martinebonnett.com
                  jkroll@martinbonnett.com

               - and -

          Meenoo Chahbazi, Esq.
          CHAHBAZI LAW PLLC
          4742 N. 24th Street, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 282-5868
          E-mail: mc@employeelawoffice.com

DOLLS KILL: Illegally Sent Marketing Texts, Hill TCPA Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIANA HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DOLLS KILL, INC., Case No. 0:19-cv-62495-RNS (S.D.
Fla., Oct. 7, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending the Plaintiff and
others marketing text messages without their express written
consent.

Dolls Kill, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with a principal office
located in San Francisco, California.  The Defendant directs,
markets, and controls its online business in the United States.

The Defendant is an online retailer of clothes and accessories.  In
efforts to drum-up business, the Defendant would uniformly send
marketing text messages to thousands of consumers at a time and
provided different types of offers and savings for future
purchases, according to the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOMO INC: Patton Suit Seeks Damages Over Decline of IPO Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
JARRETT PATTON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. DOMO, INC., JOSHUA G. JAMES, BRUCE FELT,
FRASER BULLOCK, MATTHEW R. COHLER, DANA EVAN, MARK GORENBERG, NEHAL
RAJ, and GLENN SOLOMON, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00781-DAK (D.
Utah, Oct. 17, 2019), seeks to pursue claims under the Securities
Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from
the decline of price of stocks acquired pursuant to the Company's
initial public offering.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than the Defendants,
that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Domo common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
(IPO or Offering) commenced on June 29, 2018; or (b) Domo
securities between June 28, 2018 and September 5, 2019, both dates
inclusive.

On June 1, 2018, Domo filed a registration statement on Form S-1
with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after amendment,
was declared effective by the SEC on June 28, 2018.  On June 29,
2018, Domo filed a prospectus in connection with the IPO on Form
424B4, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration
Statement.

On June 29, 2018, pursuant to the IPO, Domo's Class B common stock
began trading on the Nasdaq Global Market.  On July 3, 2018, Domo
closed the IPO, in which the Company issued and sold 10,580,000
shares of Class B common stock at $21.00 per share for aggregate
net proceeds of $202.5 million, after deducting underwriters'
discounts and offering expenses payable by the Company.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Offering Documents were 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 were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, the Plaintiff contends, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies.

Specifically, the Plaintiff says, the Offering Documents and
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Domo was experiencing weakness in its enterprise
and international businesses; (ii) Domo's billings growth had
dramatically slowed; (iii) all of the foregoing was reasonably
likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's
financial results; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents
were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state
information required to be stated therein and the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On September 5, 2019, during after-market hours, Domo issued a
press release announcing its financial results for the second
quarter of 2020. Although Domo reported positive earnings news, the
Company also provided guidance for the third quarter and full
fiscal year 2020 that fell short of market expectations.
Specifically, Defendants revealed to investors that they expected
third quarter revenue of $41.5-42.5 million versus a consensus of
$44.2 million, and a loss of $1.04-1.00 per share versus a
consensus of a $0.91 loss per share. Additionally, Defendants
revealed a full year 2020 view with revenue of $168-169 million
versus a consensus of $173.7 million, and a loss of $4.10-4.00 per
share versus a consensus of a $3.82 loss per share.

On September 6, 2019, during pre-market hours, JMP Securities
dropped its Domo target by $10.00 to $37.00, citing the
"disappointing" report and guidance, weakness in Domo's enterprise
and international businesses, and billings growth that was about
half of what was expected.

On this news, Domo's stock price fell $9.44 per share, or 37.45%,
to close at $15.77 per share on September 6, 2019, or 24.9% below
the IPO price of $21.00.

The price of Domo common stock continues to trade below the IPO
price, damaging investors. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful
acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value
of Domo's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.

Domo was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in American Fork,
Utah. The Company was formerly known as Domo Technologies, Inc. and
changed its name to Domo, Inc. in December 2011. The Company
operates a cloud-based platform in the United States that
purportedly digitally connects everyone from the chief executive
officer to the frontline employee with the people, data, and
systems in an organization, giving them access to real-time data
and insights, and allowing them to manage business from
smartphones.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Scofield, Esq.
          PETERS SCOFIELD
          7430 Creek Road, Suite 303
          Sandy, UT 84093-6160
          Telephone: (801) 322-2002
          Facsimile: (801) 912-0320
          E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com

               - and -

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


DROPBOX INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action Over IPO
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 9
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of shares of Dropbox, Inc. (NASDAQ: DBX) Class A common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement
issued in connection with Dropbox's March 23, 2018 initial public
stock offering (the "IPO"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages
for Dropbox investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Dropbox class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1664.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Dropbox had materially overstated its ability to monetize
its user base; (2) Dropbox was facing worsening revenue trends that
were negatively impacting the Company at the time of the IPO; (3)
Dropbox was tracking below its internal revenue and monetization
targets at the time of the IPO; and (4) as a result, defendants'
statements about Dropbox's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
3, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1664.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

Contact Information:

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


DTLR, INC: Scott Seeks Unpaid Compensation for Store Managers
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAKEYA SCOTT 4217 Seidel Ave., Baltimore, MD 21206, Individually
and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
DTLR, INC., d/b/a DTLR VILLA, 1300 Mercedes Dr., Hanover, MD
21076-3140, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02961-GLR (D. Md., Oct.
9, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid compensation in the form of sales
incentives, commissions, bonuses, owed to plaintiff and all
employees and former employees of defendant who are similarly
situated, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated are or were employed by
Defendant DTLR as a Store Manager, and DTL misclassified the
employees who performed work such as preventing or detecting
crimes, conducting investigations or inspections for violations of
law, performing surveillance, pursuing, restraining and
apprehending suspects; interrogating suspects and preparing
investigative reports.

DTLR retails urban footwear, apparel, and music and currently
operates in regions throughout the East coast and Mid-West. DTLR
values the urban lifestyle and is committed to bringing the hottest
urban fashions to the streets.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff Individually and others similarly
situated are:

          Ikechukwu Emejuru, Esq.
          EMEJURU LAW L.L.C.
          8403 Colesville Road, Suite 1100
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (240) 638-2786
          Facsimile: 1-800-250-7923
          E-mail: iemejuru@emejurulaw.com

              - and -

          Andrew Nyombi, Esq.
          KNA PEARL L.L.C.
          8701 Georgia Avenue, Suite 606
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 585-1568
          Facsimile: 1-800-250-7923
          E-mail: anyombi@knapearl.com

EXCITE ENTERPRISES: Vanover Seeks OT Wages for Restaurant Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Vanover, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Excite Enterprises, LLC dba Savor
Flavor Asia, an Arizona limited liability corporation; Rod Barnett,
an Arizona resident; and Ngan Ngoc Barnett, an Arizona resident,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05344-DLR (D. Ariz., Oct. 8,
2019), alleges that Defendants unlawfully failed to pay overtime in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and the Collective Members are current and former
restaurant workers who were compensated on an hourly or salary
basis, and who were not paid one-and-one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a given
workweek.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Michael Zoldan, Esq.
          Jason Barrat, Esq.
          ZOLDAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          14500 N. Northsight Blvd., Suite 133
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Telephone: 480 442 3410
          E-mail: mzoldan@zoldangroup.com
                  jbarrat@zoldangroup.com

FAIRLIFE LLC: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Treatment of Cows
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Bradon, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
California consumer alleges the producers of Fairlife dairy
products are scamming consumers with false representations of
humane animal treatment.

Marleny Olivo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint on Sept. 25 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against The Coca-Cola Co.
and FairLife LLC alleging violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising
Law, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, common
law fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

The suit states FairLife is advertised as dairy milk that is
produced in safe and humane conditions for the cows. The plaintiff
alleges she paid a premium for the defendants' goods believing her
money was going to a company that values the treatment of its
animals. The plaintiff alleges the defendants' representations are
false as their cows are not given any special level of care and its
flagship farm has had reports of animal abuse.

The plaintiff alleges she and other consumers have been "scammed"
by the defendants' false representations.

The plaintiff is seeking trial by jury, attorneys' fees, court
costs, interest and just relief. The plaintiff is represented by
Benjamin Heikali and Joshua Nassir of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP in Los
Angeles.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case
No. 2:19-cv-08302  [GN]


FANTASY GIRLS: Underpays Exotic Dancers, Becker Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARLONESHA BECKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAMY KESHMIRI; JAMY KESHMIRI;
FANTASY GIRLS, LLC; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00602-LRH-WGC (D. Nev., Sept. 30,
2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Becker was employed by the Defendants as exotic
dancer.

Fantasy Girls, LLC operates an adult entertainment club. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. O'Mara, Esq
          THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C.
          311 E. Liberty Street
          Reno, NV 89501
          Telephone: (775) 323-1321
          Facsimile: (775) 323-4082
          E-mail: david@omaralaw.net

               - and -

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


FIRE & SMOKE: Reitenbach Sues Over Mandatory Tip Pool
-----------------------------------------------------
JON REITENBACH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRE & SMOKE, LLC d/b/a FIRE & SMOKE
GASTROPUB; TYLER RICE, individually; and LESLIE RICE, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02957-MGL (D.S.C., Oct. 17, 2019),
seeks actual damages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and for other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

According to the complaint, the Defendants had a policy that
required Mr. Reitenbach and others to remit, from the tips they
received, a portion of their tips at the end of each shift into the
mandatory Tip Pool, or to give a portion of their tips to other
employees, who were not employees who "customarily and regularly"
received tips, specifically the dishwasher.

Mr. Reitenbach was employed by Fire & Smoke as a server from May
2016 through April 2019.

Fire & Smoke offers handcrafted cocktails along with upscale
American snacks, small plates & entrees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
          BRUCE E. MILLER , P.A.
          147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
          Charleston, SC 29412
          Telephone: 843.579.7373
          Facsimile: 843.614.6417
          E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com


FLSMIDTH INC: Jackson Sues Under FLSA Over Illegal Pay Deductions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Jackson, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. FLSmidth, Inc., Case No.
0:19-cv-02661-NEB-DTS (D. Minn., Oct. 7, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's unlawful pay deductions and minimum wage violations, as
well as its failure to pay the Plaintiff and other employees proper
overtime wage compensation.

The lawsuit is brought over claims under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act.

FLSmidth, Inc., is a foreign business corporation, registered to do
business in Minnesota.  The Defendant sells equipment and services
to the cement and mining industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Joshua A. Newville, Esq.
          MADIA LAW LLC
          323 Washington Ave. N., #200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 349-2743
          Facsimile: (612) 235-3357
          E-mail: newville@madialaw.com


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Urbinas Sue Over Excessive Pay-to-Pay Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
NERI URBINA and LEONILA URBINA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-at-00745 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 16,
2019), alleges breach of contract and violations of the Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Borrowers in California struggle enough to make their regular
mortgage payments without getting charged extra, illegal fees when
they try to pay by phone or online ("Pay-to-Pay fees"). Federal and
state debt collection laws strictly prohibit these charges unless
expressly agreed to by the borrower, but these Pay-to-Pay fees are
found nowhere in any standard deed of trust.

The Urbinas allege that FMC charges borrowers between $10.00-15.00
for making their mortgage payments online or over the phone. They
assert that the vast majority of that fee is pure profit for FMC.
They add that FMC services mortgages across the country and must
know the terms of the standard loan agreements it services, none of
which expressly allow Pay-to-Pay fees as a type of service fee that
FMC can charge.

According to the complaint, the Urbinas' mortgage is guaranteed by
the Federal Housing Administration ("FHA"). The FHA rules and
regulations, which are incorporated by reference into FHA-insured
mortgages, prohibit all FHA-approved servicers, such as FMC, from
charging any fee to the borrowers that is not expressly allowed.
And even for fees that are expressly allowed, FHA rules permit the
mortgage servicer to pass along to the borrower only its
out-of-pocket costs for providing the services.

The Plaintiffs are persons residing in California, who have a
mortgage loan that was serviced by FMC on their home located in
California.

Freedom Mortgage Corporation is a corporation with a principal
place of business in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. The Defendant is one
of the nation's leading mortgage lending and servicing
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hank Bates, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7th St.
          Little Rock, AR, 72201
          Telephone: 501 312 8500
          Facsimile: 501 312 8505
          E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com


GBUTTER LLC: Deceives G-Butter Consumers, Jordan Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL JORDAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GBUTTER LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, and GSWEAT LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-24397-DPG (S.D. Fla., Oct. 24, 2019),
is a consumer class action brought on behalf of those who purchased
certain varieties of the Defendants' product, G-Butter, a supposed
"high protein, low calorie" nut-based spread.

The Defendants' business centers entirely on the Product. The
Product, when not considering the number of variations thereof
independently, appears to be the only item that the Defendants
manufacture, market, and sell. The Defendants' website makes
certain claims about the Product and its ingredients.  The
Defendants' unequivocal intent is to have the Product be deemed by
potential consumers as one that is "high protein" and "low
calorie," essentially a health food and protein supplement,
according to the Plaintiff.

However, unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and the Members of the
proposed Classes, all of whom relied upon the Defendants'
advertising and Product label claims in deciding to purchase the
Product, the Product was not a healthy food, doesn't lend itself to
a healthy lifestyle, did not contain accurate Nutrition Facts label
statements, was not a low-calorie food, and was not a notable
source of protein--all contrary to the Defendants' claims relating
to the Product and its nutritional content, says the complaint.
Instead, and in fact, the Defendants' Product's labels
significantly understate the total amounts of calories,
carbohydrates, fat, and sugar the Product actually contains per
each two-tablespoon (or 40-gram) serving (a "Serving"). In
addition, the Product's labels significantly overstate the amount
of protein the Product actually contains per Serving. The
Defendants' over- and under-statements of key nutritional
information are so substantial and deviate well beyond the bounds
of any legally permissible margins of error, that had the Plaintiff
and Members of the proposed Classes known of the true nutritional
content of the Product, they would have not purchased the Product,
the Plaintiff asserts. Indeed, the Defendants' labeling of the
Product is in gross violation of every state and federal product
labeling law in the United States.

As a result of the Defendants' unlawful and deceptive conduct, the
Plaintiff seeks actual damages, injunctive and declaratory relief,
interest, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees.

Mr. Jordan purchased the Product for his own consumption on
numerous occasions.

The Defendants manufacture, market, distribute, and sell one
product, G-Butter.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul Souferis, Esq.
     Mikhail Shvartsman, Esq.
     SOUFERIS & SHVARTSMAN, PLLC
     201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1210
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: 305.928.5878
     Email: paul@havejustice.com
            mikhail@havejustice.com

            - and -

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


GEICO: Supreme Court Denies Bid to Review Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the Delaware Supreme Court on Oct. 8 denied
Geico's bid for a reconsideration of a lower court's August
certification of a class action challenging the company's auto
insurer caps on personal injury payouts, ruling there are no
"exceptional" issues that merit midcase review. In a brief order, a
three-justice panel rejected Geico's argument that review of the
Delaware Superior Court's decision to certify the class was
warranted, ruling that the case is not exceptional, review of the
order will not terminate the litigation. [GN]



GENERAL DYNAMICS: Piron, et al. Allege WARN Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
MOLLIE PIRON and STEPHANIE MERINO, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GENERAL DYNAMICS
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00709
(E.D. Va., Sept. 27, 2019), seeks to recover up to 60 days' wages
and benefits pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.

In the spring of 2018, GDIT acquired CSRA, a company which
performed federal agency employee background checks for the Office
of Personnel Management. The CSRA employees continued to work
within GDIT on the OPM contract as the Civil and Homeland Security
Group.

These employees comprised about 1,200 Investigators and about 300
Reviewers, including their managers. These employees all worked
from their homes, but ultimately reported up to managers Rebecca
Knock and Anthony Durante, in the Group's Program Management Office
in Falls Church, Virginia.

In the spring of 2019, GDIT management determined the OPM work
would end in September 2019, and began laying off Group employees.
The first large wave of laid off employees were sent layoff letters
on or about June stating they would be terminated on July 3, 2019,
because of a "business decision to reduce headcount".

Subsequent waves of similar layoffs occurred termination dates of
July 26 and August 16, 2019. The final waves received letters on
August 22 and 26 stating that "CSRA made a business decision to end
the OPM contract, and that employment would end". Their termination
dates were September 5 or 13, 2019, respectively.

After September 13, 2019, all field investigators, reviewers and
their managers were gone, and only a few personnel associated with
the Group remained to wrap up its affairs.

Under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, an
employer must provide 60 days' notice prior to terminating 500 or
more employees in a mass layoff or before terminating 50 or more
employees in a plant closing. The Group employees terminated in the
waves of layoffs leading to shutdown of the Group constituted mass
layoffs and plant closings without 60 days' notice, in violation of
the WARN Act, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative Class are:

          Jennifer J. West, Esq.
          Edward E. Bagnell, Jr., Esq.
          SPOTTS FAIN PC
          411 East Franklin Street, Suite 600
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 697-2000
          Facsimile: (804) 697-2100
          E-mail: rchappell@spottsfain.com
                  jwest@spottsfain.com

               - and -

          Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
          Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: jar@outtengolden.com
                  rsr@outtengolden.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Hall Suit over Defective 2.4L Engine
----------------------------------------------------------
BEVERLY M. HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV34688 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Sept. 30, 2019) alleges that the 2.4L engine in the
2010-2013 vehicles manufactured by the Defendant, equipped with the
2.4L engine, including 2010-2013 Chevrolet Equinox vehicles,
contains one or more design and manufacturing defects that causes
it to be unable to properly utilize engine oil and, in fact, to
improperly burn off and consume abnormally high amounts of oil.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the 2010-2013 Chevrolet
Equinox, the Subject Vehicle, contained or developed defects,
including but not limited to, defects causing the Subject Vehicle's
engine to be unable to properly utilize engine oil and, in fact, to
improperly burn off and consume abnormally high amounts of oil;
defects requiring performance of an oil consumption test; and
defects causing failure and replacement of pistons and rings. Said
defects substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the
Subject Vehicle.

General Motors LLC was incorporated in 2009 and is based in
Wilmington, Delaware. General Motors LLC operates as a subsidiary
of General Motors Company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tionna Dolin, Esq.
          Daniel Tai, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 430
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 929-4900
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
          E-mail: tdolin@slpattomey.com
                  dtai@slpattorney.com


GENERAL MOTORS: GM Oil Consumption Lawsuit Settlement on Hold
-------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for Car Complaints, reports that a GM oil
consumption lawsuit settlement is on hold after the federal judge
told all the parties they need to come up with better settlement
terms.

The consolidated class action oil consumption lawsuit started as
three class actions: Berman v. General Motors, Hindsman v. General
Motors and Sanchez v. General Motors.

The class action allege the engines burn one quart of oil every
1,000 miles. In addition, customers claim the SUVs suffer from
fouled spark plugs, knocking sounds, timing chain damage, low oil
pressure and complete engine failures

According to the settlement, the terms apply to:

"All persons within the United States who purchased or leased, at
any time before the Preliminary Approval Date, a new retail or used
model year 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013 Chevrolet Equinox or GMC
Terrain vehicle equipped with 2.4 liter Ecotec engines,
manufactured prior to the Production Change, and who have not
experienced engine failure or executed a prior release of the
claims set forth in the Action or Related Actions in favor of GM.
Excluded from the Class Vehicles for avoidance of doubt are all
model year 2013 Equinox and Terrain vehicles that GM manufactured
after the Production Change."

General Motors denies there are defects in the vehicles but agreed
to settle the lawsuit to save on expenses that will occur in a long
trial.

Much of the proposed agreement involves what GM calls "special
coverage adjustments," but 2010-2012 Chevy Equinox and GMC Terrain
customers already had access to three of those adjustment programs
before the lawsuit settlement agreement was proposed.

-- Adjustment 14159 is offered for 2010 Terrain and Equinox SUVs
and provides free piston assembly replacements for 10 years or
120,000 miles after initial sale or lease.

-- Adjustment 15285 is for 2011 Equinox and Terrain vehicles and
provides free piston assembly replacements for seven years and six
months or 120,000 miles after initial sale or lease.

-- Adjustment 16118 applies to 2012 Terrain and Equinox SUVs and
provides free piston assembly replacements for seven years and six
months or 120,000 miles after initial sale or lease.

In addition, General Motors had already issued a technical service
bulletin in 2016 that covered 2011 Chevrolet Equinox and 2011 GMC
Terrain SUVs.

The lawsuit settlement does add a new special coverage adjustment
for 2013 models, but owners and lessees must meet certain
requirements to take advantage of this program.

According to the oil consumption settlement:

"Under the New SCA [special coverage adjustment], subject to its
express terms, conditions and time and mileage limits, Settlement
Class Members may take their Class Vehicles to authorized GM
dealerships for free diagnoses and, if diagnosed as currently
consuming excessive oil within New SCA time and mileage limits,
receive free piston assembly replacement."

Equinox and Terrain customers could also be reimbursed for certain
expenses related to replacing the piston assemblies, but only if
specific conditions are met.

"Reimbursable expenses include expenses covered explicitly by the
applicable SCAs as well as certain other out-of-pocket expenses,
including for the avoidance of doubt reasonable rental car charges
supported by documentation showing that such charges were incurred
during the period that Class Vehicles were at a dealership or
repair shop for piston assembly repairs related to oil consumption,
and that such expenses were incurred within SCA time and mileage
limits."

The attorneys who crafted the original settlement terms on behalf
of GM customers will receive $3.5 million if the settlement is
approved.

At least 70 GM customers objected to the GM oil consumption
settlement and more than 1,700 customers opted out of the agreement
entirely, claiming the settlement is lousy for customers.

Customers who objected to the settlement agreement said lawyers on
both sides need to explain if the automaker will reimburse owners
and lessees for engine replacements caused by faulty piston rings.

The objectors told the judge the proposed settlement doesn't cover
complete engine replacements caused by oil consumption problems due
to the piston rings.

Objectors also pointed out how GM will call the shots on which
owner claims are accepted or denied, leaving the automaker capable
of rejecting legitimate claims and leaving customers with no legal
recourse.

In declining to approve the settlement, Judge Robin L. Rosenberg
told both sides to submit new more "robust" settlement terms by
October 25, 2019. The judge also wants any new proposed settlement
to include details about contacting all affected customers again,
including owners and lessees who opted out of the proposed
agreement.

The GM oil consumption class action lawsuit is being heard in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida - Berman,
et al., v. General Motors, LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by Greg Coleman Law PC, Ahdoot &
Wolfson, PC, and Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP. [GN]



GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORRUGATED: Removes Schumacher Case to C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia-Pacific Corrugated LLC removes the case captioned as JACOB
SCHUMACHER, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORRUGATED LLC, a Delaware Company and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 19STCV31420 (Filed
Sep. 5, 2019), from the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on Oct. 7, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-08632
to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges violation of the California Labor Code
including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest
period premiums, final wages not timely paid, and non-compliant
wage statements.

The Defendant offers comprehensive suite of bleached paperboard
products, including MasterServe (cupstock and platestock),
MasterCarton (folding carton) and MasterLiner (linerboard).[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Evan R. Moses, Esq.
          Sarah Zenewicz, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-239-9800
          Facsimile: 213-239-9045
          E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
                  sarah.zenewicz@ogletree.com

GIRLSDOPORN: Owner Facing Class Action Suit From 22 Women
---------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kuschmider, writing for Your Tango, reports 22 different
women answered ads thinking they were applying to be models.
Instead, they were coerced into having sex on camera.  Most of them
say they were told that the videos would only be distributed
overseas but that was a lie.  The site GirlsDoPorn posted the
videos online and, eventually, the women found their names released
publicly as well.  Now the women have banded together to file a
class-action suit against the company and it's owner Michael
Pratt.

For his part, Pratt has fled the country, just days before he was
supposed to testify at trial.  Pratt, a native of New Zealand, took
off even though he is under subpoena to appear in a San Diego
court. His lawyers say the trip has nothing to do with the trial
but prosecutors don't hold much hope that he'll testify.

Who is Michael Pratt? Read on for all the sordid details.

1. What is GirlsDoPorn?
The Daily Beast reports that GirlsDoPorn was founded in 2006 by New
Zealand native Michael Pratt. The San Diego-based adult
subscription service advertised videos featuring women aged 18-22
doing XXX rated videos. The women were amateur performers--the site
bragged that this was the "one and only time the women do
porn"--without prior experience in the adult film industry. The
lawsuit alleges that Pratt recruited performers by posting ads for
models on Craig's List.

2. Bait and switch ads
The 22 women in the class action say that they were promised $5000
to do what they were told would be a 30-minute video shoot. Once
they agreed, they were flown to San Diego and put up in expensive
hotels for the shoot. They signed release forms but were verbally
assured that the videos would be released only on DVD and
distributed in New Zealand and Australia, not online. However, once
they arrived at the video shoots, they were told they had to go
through with filming or be held liable for the cost of their
flights and accommodations. They were paid less than what was
originally promised, sometimes only making a few hundred dollars,
according to testimony by a former GirlsDoPorn administrative
assistant. And the promise to keep the distribution of the videos
limited was flagrantly broken. The videos ended up on the
GirlsDoPorn website as well as on popular free sites like PornHub.


3. Lying to the women
NBC7 San Diego reports that GirlsDoPorn videographer Teddy Gyi
testified about the lies the women were told regarding the
distribution practices. Gyi worked with principal videographer
Matthew Wolfe and actor Ruben Garcia on the videos and he told the
jury that both of those men reiterated to the women that the videos
would never be posted on the website. "I heard [Garcia] tell women
the videos would not be posted online," testified Gyi. Attorneys
asked if he ever corrected Garcia and told the women that the
videos would wind up on the website and he said he did not.

4. "If I had known . . ."
After the videos went online, it was only a matter of time until
identifying information about the women in them was also revealed.
The Daily Beast notes that their names and other information
circulated on sites like WikiPorn and the women faced harassment
and embarrassment from their families, friends and coworkers. Some
reported having to drop out of school or quit jobs to avoid the
fallout.

One woman spoke at trial this week to share that she only agreed to
the shoot because of the lies she was told. If she had been told
the truth, it would have changed her choices. "If I had known that
not only was it going on the internet," the woman who is identified
as Jane Doe 15 said in her testimony, "but that they were posting
it on the internet, that my name would be attached to it, that it
would be in the United States, and that I wouldn't be paid $5,000,
but $2,000 less, and insulted because I was pale and bruised; if I
had known that it was more than 30 minutes of filming, if I had
known any of that, just any one of those; if I had known that other
girls had been harassed and kicked out of school for it, if I had
known that I would be kicked off the cheer team; if I had known any
of that, I wouldn't have done it."

The defendants allege that the company conned them into making
porn.

5. Former assistant testifies
Valerie Moser, who was Pratt's administrative assistant, testified
about the lengths the company would go to convince women to do the
shoots. She and other employees were tasked with lying to women
about the videos being posted online. Moser said she would have
text conversations with prospective models and tell them that there
was no way the videos would be put on the website, even though the
release they were asked to sign said that was possible. She
recounted overhearing Pratt talking to women and assuring them that
the only distribution for their videos would be on DVD overseas.

Moser testified that women reached out to her and begged to remove
their videos. The Daily Beast reports that they would offer to
return their earnings or pay extra to get the videos taken down.
Pratt would order Moser to block their numbers. After the lawsuit
was filed, Pratt asked her to delete all the communications she had
had with women. Ultimately, Pratt fired her when he found out that
she was keeping a record of everything that happened at work. That
record became the basis of her testimony.

6. Pratt flees the country
The trial is expected to continue through the end of this month and
Pratt has been subpoenaed to testify. However, last month, he left
the US. The New York Post reported that an official confirmed that
he was gone on September 19. "We have been informed that [Pratt] is
no longer in the jurisdiction and is no longer available to
testify, even though he is under court order to here in court,"
attorney Ed Chapin said.

Lawyers for Pratt said he wasn't trying to evade justice; it was a
planned trip and he hadn't known what the trial schedule would be.
"It doesn't have anything to do with the trial," attorney Daniel
Kaplan told NBC San Diego. "The trial date was uncertain for a
number of months and the case has been going on for three years.
People still have their lives to lead, including the defendants."
Another defendant testified at trial that Pratt had returned to New
Zealand due to medical issues, after vacationing in South America.


Pratt may be in New Zealand.

The women are seeking a total of $22 million in damages.  The
company is expected to claim that they signed releases authorizing
the online distribution of the videos, and that supersedes the
verbal assurances otherwise.[GN]



GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: 11th Cir. to Rehear "No Concrete Injury" Issue
------------------------------------------------------------------
John C. Hawk IV, writing for The National Law Review, reports that
the Eleventh Circuit recently revealed that it would schedule an en
banc rehearing of its prior approval of a $6.3 million class action
settlement in Price v. Godiva Chocolatier Inc., et al., case number
16-16486.

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) states that
"no person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the
transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of
the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to
the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction." 16 USC
Section 1681c(g)(1). Statutory penalties range from $100 to $1000
per violation.

Godiva admitted that it was aware of 342,025 noncompliant receipts,
equating to potential exposure of over $342 million.  The parties
reached a settlement in 2016 and it was approved, first by the
district court and then by the Eleventh Circuit.  At the time, it
was reported as the third-largest FACTA settlement.

The Eleventh Circuit, addressing concerns that class members
suffered no concrete injury as required by the U.S. Supreme Court's
opinion in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, concluded that the lead plaintiff
had demonstrated a concrete injury, despite no proof of actual
identity theft, because "Godiva's FACTA violation subjected him to
a risk of real harm to the concrete interest in avoiding identity
theft, the very interest that Congress sought to protect with
FACTA."

Now, however, the Spokeo argument is back on the table. Two class
members petitioned for a rehearing, and the National Retail
Federation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the International
Franchise Association filed amicus curiae briefs. They warn that
allowing settlements of this magnitude for cases with no concrete
hard would create "annihilative class liability." [GN]

GOOGLE INC: UK Appeals Court Enters Data Protection Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Rigby, writing for Commercial Dispute Resolution, reports that
a significant UK appellate judgment in a major data protection and
privacy claim against US search giant Google also offers a window
of opportunity for major class actions claims.

With a unanimous decision in the case of Lloyd v Google, the
England and Wales Court of Appeal has issued a major ruling on both
key points of data protection law, and the procedural framework for
managing class actions in such cases.

The ruling comes almost a year to the day since the first instance
decision of the England and Wales High Court refused permission for
a class action to be brought on behalf of over four  million iPhone
users, over allegations that United States multinational technology
company Google had engaged in the illegal tracking of user data, to
which consent had not been given. Google, represented by Pinsent
Masons, denied the allegations and defended the claim. [GN]




GROUPON INC: 7th Cir. Orders Review of Dancel Suit Jurisdiction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled on Oct. 9 that the trial
court overseeing a suit alleging Groupon Inc. used consumers'
Instagram images needs to make sure the case is properly in federal
court

The appeals court agreed to review the lower court's denial of
class certification, not whether the trial court had Class Action
Fairness Act jurisdiction over the case, Judge Amy J. St. Eve wrote
for Seventh Circuit.

Even on interlocutory review, an appeals court must be sure the
trial court has jurisdiction, the Appellate Court said.

Christine Dancel sued Groupon in state court. [GN]


GROUPON: Ct. Remands Suit Over Unauthorized Use of Instagram Photos
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the Seventh Circuit remanded
a class action challenging Groupon's use of Instagram users' photos
without permission.

The case is remanded to the district court in order to patch a
jurisdictional hole.


GRUMA CORP: Herrera Seeks Minimum Wages for Employees
-----------------------------------------------------
TEODORO HERRERA, as an individual and on behalf of all other
aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, vs. GRUMA CORPORATION, a Nevada
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No.
19STCV36102 (Cal. Super., Oct. 8, 2019), seeks to recover civil
penalties under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly non-exempt
employee. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt
employee from approximately 2007 until approximately January 2019.

Defendants' facilities operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week,
and while Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees were typically
scheduled to work an eight-hour shift that began and ended at the
same time each day, the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees
were occasionally required to work hours beyond and outside of
their scheduled shifts.

During Plaintiff's and other aggrieved employees' employment,
Defendants paid their non-exempt employees at various rates of pay,
depending on the shift that was worked. However, when calculating
the wages to pay Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees,
Defendants used a weighted average, which systematically resulted
in Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees being paid less than all
wages they were owed for the work they performed, including all
required minimum wages and regular (agreed-rate) wages.

As a result of Defendant's failure to pay all minimum and
agreed-upon wages owed, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and
other aggrieved employees with accurate, itemized wage statements,
and failed to pay Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees all wages
owed at the time of their separation of employment with Defendants,
the lawsuit says.

Defendants own and operate the popular brand Mission Foods
Corporation, which manufactures tortillas, tortilla chips, and taco
shells, in addition to other food items.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
          Jamin Xu, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  sblakely@haineslawgroup.com
                  jxu@haineslawgroup.com

HERC HOLDINGS: Bid to File 5th Amended Complaint in Ramirez Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Herc Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court in Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., denied
plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment and leave to file a
fifth amended complaint.

In November 2013, a putative shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleged that Hertz Holdings made material
misrepresentations and/or omission of material fact in its public
disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through
November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
purported class and an award of costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees.

In June 2014, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. In October 2014, the court granted Hertz Holdings'
motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to
amend the complaint a second time. In November 2014, plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint which shortened the putative class
period and made allegations that were not substantively very
different than the allegations in the prior complaint.

In early 2015, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. In July 2015, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion
to dismiss without prejudice, allowing plaintiff to file a third
amended complaint. In August 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended
complaint which included additional allegations, named additional
then-current and former officers as defendants and expanded the
putative class period to extend from February 14, 2013 to July 16,
2015.

In November 2015, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the third amended
complaint. The plaintiff then sought leave to add a new plaintiff
because of challenges to the standing of the first plaintiff. The
court granted plaintiff leave to file a fourth amended complaint to
add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was filed on March 1,
2016.

Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the
fourth amended complaint with prejudice on March 24, 2016. In April
2017, the court granted Hertz Holdings' and the individual
defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the action with
prejudice.

In May 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and, in June 2018,
oral argument was conducted before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit. In September 2018, the court affirmed the
dismissal of the action with prejudice.

On February 5, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the
judgment against it, and for leave to file a fifth amended
complaint. The proposed amended complaint would add allegations
related to New Hertz's December 31, 2018 settlement with the SEC
that, among other things, ordered New Hertz to cease and desist
from violating certain of the federal securities laws and imposed a
civil penalty of $16.0 million.  On February 26, 2019, New Hertz
filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment
and leave to file a fifth amended complaint. On March 8, 2019,
plaintiff filed a reply in support of that motion.

On September 30, 2019, the court denied plaintiff's motion for
relief from judgment and leave to file a fifth amended complaint.

Herc Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
equipment rental supplier. It rents aerial, earthmoving, material
handling, trucks and trailers, air compressors, compaction, and
lighting equipment, as well as generators, and safety supplies and
expendables; and provides ProSolutions, an industry specific
solution based services, such as pumping solutions, power
generation, climate control, remediation and restoration, and
studio and production equipment. Herc Holdings Inc. is based in
Bonita Springs, Florida.


HERSHEY ENTERTAINMENT: Tips Used to Pay Wages, Sicklesmith Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
RANDY SICKLESMITH, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiff, v. HERSHEY ENTERTAINMENT & RESORTS
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01675-UN1 (M.D. Pa., Sept.
27, 2019), seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

During the past three years, the Defendant has employed at least 40
servers (a.k.a. waitresses/waiters) at its restaurant. From
approximately January 2017 until September 2019, the Plaintiff was
employed by Defendant as a server at the Restaurant.

The Defendant paid Plaintiff and other servers an hourly wage of
$2.83 plus tips from customers of the Restaurant.

In seeking to comply with the FLSA and PMWA mandate that employees
receive a minimum wage of $7.25/hour, the Defendant purports to
utilize a "tip credit" in the amount of $4.42 ($7.25 - $2.83) for
each hour worked by Plaintiff and other servers.

As part of their work at the Restaurant for Defendant, the
Plaintiff and other servers have been required to perform
non-tip-producing work. Such work includes, but is not limited to:
rolling silverware; setting up drink stations, cleaning the soda
machine, filing sauce containers, setting-up the salad cooler,
preparing food, slicing fruit, sorting silverware and ramekins, and
cleaning the Restaurant.

By utilizing the tip credit to pay Plaintiff and other servers for
time associated with non-tip-generating tasks, the Defendant has
violated the PMWA, the lawsuit contends.

The Defendant owns and operates the "Houlihan's" restaurant located
at 27 West Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491

HOMELAND SECURITY: Class Suit Over Marriage Trap Interview Launched
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Isabel Vincent, writing for New York Post, reports that a Maryland
couple claims immigration authorities in Baltimore unfairly lured
them into an interview--then moved to deport one of them back to
Central America.

They've now joined a class action lawsuit against the federal
government.

Earlier this year, Elmer and his wife Alyse Sanchez showed up for
an interview with immigration authorities to determine whether
Elmer, who was unlawfully in the country, could remain as a result
of their marriage.

But while the immigration authorities pronounced the marriage
legal, they shackled Elmer and threatened him with deportation to
his native Honduras, the AP reported.  According to authorities,
Elmer had missed a previous hearing, which he claims he did not
know about, in 2005 and had been ordered deported in absentia.

The Sanchezes, who have two small children, have joined five other
couples in a class action accusing US Department of Homeland
Security agents of luring families to marriage interviews in
Baltimore, only to detain the spouse who is illegally in the
country for deportation.

A spokesman for the ACLU in Maryland told the AP that Homeland
Security has been unlawfully using the green card interviews as
"bait" since 2017. [GN]



HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Faces Calcano Suit Alleging Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS CALCANO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. HOOTERS OF AMERICA, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09820 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019) is a
civil rights action brought against the Defendant for its failure
to sell to consumers store gift cards that contain writing in
Braille so they can be fully accessible and independently usable by
the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift
cards is a violation of his rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Plaintiff alleges. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its store
gift cards will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read
written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit
cards, etc.

Hooters owns, operates and/or controls multiple restaurant
locations in the State of New York and is one of the largest
restaurant chains in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
     GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
     150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003-2461
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Email: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
            danalgottlieb@aol.com


HP INC: Faces Pavilion Desktop False Advertising Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in Santa Clara
County Court that HP falsely advertises that its Pavilion desktop
computers and others can transfer data at up to 5 gigabits per
second.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

                       https://is.gd/h5mxAy


HYUNDAI: Faces Class Action Over Kia Maintenance Schedule
---------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Saltzman, writing for CBC News, reports that a class-action
lawsuit claiming car owners are being misled about their vehicle's
maintenance schedule is raising questions about how often Canadian
drivers need to service their cars or even change the oil.

The trial for the class action wrapped up in Montreal on Sept. 20
and is now in the hands of a judge.

It began back in 2012, when the lawsuit's complainant, Therese
Martel, went shopping for a new car with her partner, Michel
Lacasse. Wanting a vehicle that was economical and wouldn't require
frequent service, as they live far from an urban area, they ended
up buying a Kia Rio from a dealership in Sherbrooke, Que.

Martel and Lacasse believed the regularly scheduled maintenance
would come every 12,000 kilometres, as described in the manual's
normal service schedule.

But when Lacasse brought the car in for its first service, he said
he was told the oil had to be changed far more frequently and the
12,000-kilometre interval indicated owner's manual didn't apply to
vehicles sold in Quebec because the harsh climate requires more
intensive service.

Martel and Lacasse say they were ultimately told they had to follow
the manual's alternate, severe usage maintenance schedule, which
called for service every six months or 6,000 kilometres.

Martel is seeking $985 in damages -- the amount she claims the
couple paid in extra service costs in the two years they owned the
car. If the class action is successful, it could apply to other Kia
owners in Quebec.

Different climate, same policy

On the other side of the country, in Victoria, Nick La Riviere is
asking similar questions about his 2018 Hyundai Ioniq, a plug-in
hybrid.

Hyundai, which owns a controlling interest in Kia, also lists both
a normal and severe service schedule in its manuals.

La Riviere loves his car and says it's running great. A
professional musician, he mainly uses it to drive to gigs around
town.

Victoria is located in a temperate climate, where years have gone
by without a day below zero and it rarely gets above 30 C in the
summer. So La Riviere figured he would be able to follow the
12,000-kilometre schedule.

Yet when he called Hyundai Canada, he said a customer service
representative told him Canadian owners have to follow the severe
usage schedule in order to maintain their warranty.

"They told me I need to follow it because I might be driving in
negative 40 or plus 40, which of course is crazy for Victoria,
where we've got very mellow, gentle weather," he said.

In a statement to CBC News, Hyundai Canada said the customer
service agent made a mistake.

"Broadly speaking, most Canadians fall under severe conditions
simply due to weather and temperature," the company said. "Small
pockets, such as Vancouver Island, experience milder weather and
may be exempt. However, a vehicle on Vancouver Island could still
qualify for the severe schedule based on how it is used."

In the same statement, Hyundai said it generally considers all of
Canada to be a severe usage area when it comes to maintenance --
but only in terms of weather, which it says is one of many
considerations. Other considerations include regularly driving in
heavy traffic or driving mainly on dirt or gravel roads.

"Across the automotive industry, harsh weather/temperature is one
of the most important considerations for vehicle maintenance.
Canada's weather is largely considered to be severe due to our
harsh winters and vehicle maintenance should reflect that," it
said.

Others moving away from severe usage schedules
George Iny, director of the Automobile Protection Association
(APA), said he had not previously heard of an automaker designating
all of Canada as a severe usage area.

"That's very strange because, of course, the primary [maintenance]
schedule is the regular schedule. It would seem very odd that the
[severe usage] schedule would become the primary schedule for the
whole country," he said. "And in that case, why would you have a
regular schedule in your owner's manual?"

According to Iny, some automakers are rethinking severe usage
schedules altogether.

"Six thousand [kilometres] is probably the lowest that we've seen
to date. And in some cases, the manufacturer has actually gotten
rid of that interval -- they don't have a severe usage schedule for
severe usage," he said.

Most Canadians should probably follow a more frequent maintenance
schedule -- at least in the winter months, Iny said.

"For many of us in Canada, summer driving is not that hot and would
match the less rigorous schedule," he said. "But winter driving --
except Vancouver Island or in the southernmost parts of Ontario --
probably is a severe usage situation because of the cold, because
most of us live in a highly urbanized setting where we do a lot of
short trips."

What about oil?

When it comes to oil changes in particular, however, guidelines are
changing.

"It used to be a one-size-fits-all solution for oil changes.
Everybody change their oil at 3,000 miles or 5,000 kilometres was
pretty standard," said Kristen Huff, vice-president of Blackstone
Laboratories, an oil analysis company in Fort Wayne, Ind.

"Engines are better now. And oil is better too," she said.

And as that chemistry and technology has improved, Huff says oil
doesn't break down as much as it used to.

"So oil, in general, will hold up pretty well," she said. "And the
only reason it ever really needs to be changed is that it's getting
contaminated with metal or solids or contamination."

Using a kit sent to them by the company, Blackstone customers can
take samples of their engine oil and mail it back; for a $28 US
charge, the company will analyze the oil and email the results to
the owner.

"Think of it as sort of like a blood test, only for your car or
your truck or any kind of engine," said Huff.

People are often surprised to learn how much longer they can go
before needing to change their oil, she said.

"In my Subaru Outback, I run 10,000 miles (16,000 kilometres)
easily. I could go 12,000 miles or 15,000 (19,000 to 24,000
kilometres)," Huff said. "My husband has a Nissan Frontier, same
thing. He routinely goes 7,500 to 10,000 miles (12,000 to 16,000
kilometres) without a problem."

But at the same time, Huff says she has some sympathy for
automakers when it comes to doling out maintenance advice to car
owners.

"I feel for the manufacturers," she said, "because they can't print
a manual for every situation out there and they have no control
over where the car goes after it's sold." [GN]


IFINEX: Faces Class Action Over Fraudulent Cryptocurrency Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action claims
that Ifinex, Tether Holdings and others pushed a fraudulent
cryptocurrency scheme that was "part fraud, part pump-and-dump, and
part money laundering."

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

                     https://is.gd/LrWe34


IROBOT CORP: Faces Securities Suit Filed by Miramar Firefighters
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIRAMAR FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IROBOT CORPORATION, COLIN
M. ANGLE, and ALISON DEAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09837
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019), is a securities class action brought on
behalf of those who purchased iRobot stocks between November 21,
2016, and October 22, 2019, inclusive, arising from the Defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The matter arises from the Defendants' misrepresentations and
material omissions concerning their reasons for acquiring iRobot's
two major distributors and the demand for the Company's products.
iRobot's most popular product line is the Roomba series of vacuums,
which is comprised of autonomous robotic vacuum cleaners.
Throughout the Class Period, the Company reported explosive,
double-digit revenue growth, which it attributed to increasing
demand for its Roomba products, expanded gross margin due to
distributor acquisitions, greater brand awareness, and
technological innovation, the Plaintiff says. But in reality, the
Plaintiff asserts, iRobot was engaging in channel-stuffing in order
to inflate its sales and revenues figures, and had acquired two of
its largest distributors in order to facilitate and conceal this
deceptive practice.

On April 23, 2019, after the close of trading, iRobot surprised the
market by announcing quarterly revenues that were below analyst
expectations and also revealed surging inventory levels. In
response to this news, iRobot's stock price fell from $130.57 per
share on April 23, 2019, to $100.42 per share on April 24, 2019, on
unusually high trading volume, a decline of over 23% in one trading
day. Then, on July 23, 2019, after the close of trading, iRobot cut
its full-year earnings forecast. In response to this news, iRobot's
stock price fell from $89.63 per share on July 23, 2019, to $74.51
per share on July 24, 2019, on unusually high trading volume, a
decline of nearly 17% in one trading day.

On October 22, 2019, after the close of trading, iRobot cut the
high end of its revenue expectations for the year, from $1.25
billion to $1.21 billion, and said it rolled back price increases
after a "suboptimal" customer response. The Company reported
increased inventory levels once again, with third quarter 2019
ending inventory of $248 million or 149 days in inventory ("DII")
compared to the $161 million or 113 DII a year prior. In response
to this news, iRobot's stock price fell from $54.03 per share on
October 22, 2019, to $49.06 per share on October 23, 2019, on
unusually high trading volume, a decline of over 9% in one trading
day. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and
the resulting decline in the market value of iRobot's stock, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Miramar Firefighters' Pension Fund provides retirement
benefits to firefighters employed by the City of Miramar, Florida.
The Plaintiff purchased shares of iRobot stock during the Class
Period.

iRobot is a global consumer robot company based in Bedford,
Massachusetts. Founded in 1990, iRobot designs and builds robots to
assist with household tasks and has sold more than 25 million
robots worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hannah Ross, Esq.
     Avi Josefson, Esq.
     Michael D. Blatchley, Esq.
     BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
     1251 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10020
     Phone: (212) 554-1400
     Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
     Email: hannah@blbglaw.com
            avi@blbglaw.com
            michaelb@blbglaw.com

          - and –

     Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
     Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Phone: (610) 667-7706
     Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
     Email: namjed@ktmc.com
            rdegnan@ktmc.com

          - and –

     Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
     Bonni S. Jensen, Esq.
     KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON
     7080 Northwest 4th Street
     Plantation, FL 33317
     Phone: (954) 916-1202
     Email: bob@robertdklausner.com
            bonni@robertdklausner.com


JAOSUB INC: Montes et al Seek Overtime Wages for Restaurant Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIAS ROSALES MONTES and MARTINIANO GATICA SANCHEZ, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
JAOSUB INC. (D/B/A SUP THAI KITCHEN) and PETCHARAT MONGKOLVIKRAN,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05705 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 9, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the N.Y. Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs were employed as dishwashers and ostensibly as
delivery workers at the Thai restaurant.  However, they were
required to spend a considerable part of their work day performing
non-tipped duties, including but not limited to sweeping and
mopping, sweeping the street, taking out the garbage, cleaning the
kitchen, the windows, and the basement, preparing sauces, chicken,
and other food, changing the frying oil, and washing dishes.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they worked.

Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium.

Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10
hours a day.

The Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiffs as delivery
workers in their payroll, but in actuality their duties required a
significant amount of time spent performing the non-tipped duties,
the lawsuit says.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai restaurant, located
at 178-19 Union Tpke, Fresh Meadows, NY 11366 under the name "Sup
Thai Kitchen".[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Commits $107MM Verdict Calculation Error
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the
Oklahoma judge that awarded the state $572 million in a bellwether
opioid crisis verdict against Johnson & Johnson admitted on Oct. 15
to committing a $107 million calculation error.

After a two-hour-long, post-verdict hearing Cleveland County
District Judge Thad Balkman deadpanned: "That will be the last time
I use that calculator."

"I acknowledge the computing error in my Aug. 26 judgment," he
said. "The cost for Johnson & Johnson to pay for the development of
and dissemination of neonatal abstinence syndrome treatment
evaluation standards--including continuing education courses--is
$107,683."

It appears Balkman incorrectly entered three additional digits
while calculating that portion of the verdict.

Balkman said he will take the parties' remaining disputes over the
rest of the award under advisement and will include the corrected
calculation in a subsequent order. That order is expected to revise
the judgment against Johnson & Johnson down to $465 million.

In his August verdict, Balkman concluded Oklahoma successfully
proved Johnson & Johnson created a public nuisance by aggressively
pushing highly-addictive prescription opioids to doctors in the
state. He said Oklahoma met its burden to prove "the defendant's
misleading marketing and promotion of opioids created a nuisance"
resulting in a "public health crisis that must be abated
immediately."

The landmark case is the first of approximately 2,000 opioid cases
filed against drugmakers in federal and state courts nationwide to
go to trial and verdict.

Balkman said the company's marketing was commercial in nature,
rejecting arguments for protected speech under the First Amendment.


"They were told that the data they cited did not support their
claims before they made them, and then again by the FDA after they
had already started spreading that misleading message," the 42-page
judgment stated. "They knew the studies they were citing were
incomplete, unsound, or fraught with misrepresentations. The
defendants' sales reps delivered those messages, and as the call
notes and the sales trends demonstrate, Oklahoma physicians were
influenced by the misleading messages defendants were delivering."

Balkman said in August he is not persuaded by the state's claims
that it has taken at least 20 years to abate the public nuisance,
stating the $572 million only covers the first year. Oklahoma asked
the judge to review the case each year to determine if the public
nuisance has been abated and award more, if needed.

Oklahoma sued Johnson & Johnson, its subsidiary Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and OxyContin maker
Purdue Pharma in 2017 on claims of fraud, unjust enrichment, public
nuisance and violation of state Medicaid laws.

Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter blamed the drugmakers for
4,600 Oklahoman deaths from accidental prescription opioid
overdoses between 2007 and 2017. He has repeatedly called Johnson &
Johnson a drug cartel "kingpin," demanding $17 billion from the
company.

Purdue and its owners--the Sackler family--settled in March for
$270 million. Israel-based Teva reached a similar settlement for
$85 million two days before the trial began in May.

In the weeks before trial, the state dropped all claims except its
public nuisance claim to prevent further delays caused by defense
appeals.

Johnson & Johnson had repeatedly asked for the case to be tossed,
unsuccessfully arguing the state's use of a public nuisance claim
is invalid because it is intended to be used for property disputes.
It reasoned that if the state's claim succeeds, there is nothing
stopping a similar lawsuit against fast food restaurants regarding
their role in the obesity epidemic.

Neonatal abstinence syndrome is a group of medical conditions
resulting from an infant no longer being exposed to drugs in a
mother during pregnancy. Over 21,700 infants were diagnosed in the
United States in 2012--a five-fold increase over 12
years--according to a 2016 study published in The New England
Journal of Medicine. The rise in cases has mirrored the growth of
opioid abuse by pregnant mothers during that time.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Tucker Sues Over Erroneous Credit Reports
---------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS R. TUCKER, individually and on behalf of others, Plaintiff
v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-01995-JM-MSB (S.D. Cal., Oct. 16, 2019), challenges the
Defendant's reporting of erroneous, negative, and derogatory
information on the Plaintiff's credit report in violation of the
California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

The Plaintiff brings the complaint for damages arising out of the
systematic issuance of erroneous credit reports by the Defendant.
The Defendant has erroneously reported continual monthly payment
obligations and a remaining balance on an account that has been
discharged and subsequently closed, the lawsuit says.

J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., doing business as Chase Bank, is a
national bank headquartered in Manhattan, New York City, that
constitutes the consumer and commercial banking subsidiary of the
U.S. multinational banking and financial services holding company,
JPMorgan Chase.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: yana@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222-7429
          Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
          E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Minors, La Conner Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
La Conner School District, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated school districts v. Juul Labs, Inc., Altria
Group, Inc., Altria Client Services, Altria Group Distribution
Company, Nu Mark LLC, and Nu Mark Innovations, Ltd., Case No.
2:19-cv-01600 (W.D. Wash., Oct. 7, 2019), is brought on behalf of
school districts nationwide and in Washington State, who have been
injuriously affected by the Defendants' marketing of e-cigarettes
to minors.

La Conner School District is a school district located in Skagit
County, Washington.  La Conner School District employs over 100
people and serves over 600 students in preschool through twelfth
grade.

The Plaintiff brings this action for injunctive relief, abatement,
and damages arising out of the injuries to its property, students,
and employees caused by the Defendants' wrongful conduct.  The
Plaintiff contends it reasonably fears that the Defendants'
marketing strategy, advertising, and product design targets minors,
especially teenagers, and will increase the likelihood that minors,
like the students in its School District, will begin using
e-cigarettes and become addicted to the Defendants' e-cigarette
products.

JUUL is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of
business in San Francisco, California.  JUUL originally operated
under the name PAX Labs, Inc.  JUUL manufactures, designs, sells,
markets, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarettes, JUULpods and
accessories.

Altria Group, Inc. is a Virginia corporation, having its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.  Altria is one of the
world's largest producers and marketers of tobacco products.  On
December 20, 2018, Altria purchased a 35% stake in JUUL.  Altria
Client Services Inc. is a New York corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc. with its principal place of
business in Henrico County, Virginia.  Altria Client Services Inc.
provides Altria Group, Inc. and its companies with services in many
areas including digital marketing, packaging design & innovation,
product development, and safety, health, and environmental
affairs.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a Virginia corporation and
wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc. with its principal
place of business in Henrico County, Virginia.  Altria Group
Distribution Company provides sales, distribution and consumer
engagement services to Altria's tobacco companies.

Nu Mark LLC is a Virginia corporation and wholly owned subsidiary
of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in
Richmond, Virginia.  Nu Mark LLC was engaged in the manufacture and
sale of Altria's electronic vapor products.  Shortly before Altria
purchased a 35% stake in JUUL in December 2018, Altria Group, Inc.
announced that Nu Mark would be discontinuing the production and
sale of all e-vapor products.

Nu Mark Innovations, Ltd. is a subsidiary of Nu Mark LLC located in
Beit Shemesh, Israel.  Nu Mark Innovations, Ltd. provides digital
marketing and customer care services for Nu Mark LLC and Altria's
e-vapor brands, as well as product and technology development
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Dean Kawamoto, Esq.
          Alison S. Gaffney, Esq.
          Felicia J. Craick, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: dloeser@kellerrorhback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com
                  agaffney@kellerrohrback.com
                  fcraick@kellerrohrback.com


JUUL LABS: Ferraro Sues for Those Harmed by ENDS in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Giovanni Ferraro individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS INC.; ALTRIA GROUP INC.; and
PHILIPMORRIS USA, INC., JOHN DOES #1-25; JANE ROES #1-25; ABC
CORPORATION #1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04979-TJS (E.D.
Pa., Oct. 24, 2019), is brought on behalf of all Pennsylvania
citizens, who have purchased, used, become addicted to, or been
harmed by the Defendants' Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems.

The ENDS include electronic cigarettes, e-cigarettes, vaporizers,
pods, e-liquids, and their component parts manufactured, designed,
assembled, promoted, delivered, marketed, sold, and/or supplied by
the Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants designed their products
specifically targeting the Plaintiff and those similarly situated
through misleading, deceptive, and unconscionable practices and
exploiting images that resonate with teenagers and young adults,
including the use of popular animation, hiring of models and
influencers to promote e-cigarettes, social media advertising, and
manufacturing and promoting flavors that were designed to appeal to
minors and young adults while falsely denying doing so. The
Defendants' unlawful practices have led to an epidemic of
individuals addicted to e-cigarettes and vaping, to their severe
detriment, the Plaintiff alleges.

When the Defendants launched their products, they failed to warn of
any adverse effects that they knew, or should have known, would
likely occur, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff adds that the
Defendants fraudulently marketed their products as safer than
conventional cigarettes. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, along with
numerous recognized medical experts, have indicated that electronic
cigarettes should not be used by youth, young adults, pregnant
women, or adults who do not currently use tobacco products. JUUL
products have not been approved by the FDA for smoking cessation
therapy or in any other capacity, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased and used a ENDS manufactured, designed,
assembled, promoted, delivered, marketed, sold, and/or supplied by
the Defendants.

Juul Labs, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware, with its principal
place of business in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
     Zachary M. Green, Esq.
     JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN WIKSTROM & SININS, P.C.
     1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road, Suite 203
     Voorhees, NY 08043
     Phone: 856.596.4100
     Fax: 856.702.6640

          - and -

     Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
     Morgan M. Stacey, Esq.
     KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
     Two International Drive, Suite 350
     Rye Brook, NY 10573
     Phone: (914) 934-9200


JUUL: Collierville Man Files Deceptive Advertising Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
WMCActionNews5.com reports that a Collierville man has filed a
class action lawsuit against the country's leading e-cigarette
seller, JUUL, and tobacco companies Altria and Phillip Morris USA.

A Mississippi law firm filed the class action complaint Oct. 2 in
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The
filing says the companies "exploit themes that resonate with
teenagers" and use deceptive advertising practices that violate
Tennessee law, contributing to the epidemic of youth e-cigarette
use.

The lawsuit alleges 25-year-old John Emidy and others included in
the class action were exposed to significant toxic substances,
nicotine addiction and economic harm.

Among the claims in the suit, JUUL is alleged to have manipulated
its nicotine formula to make it more potent and more addictive than
cigarettes and used youth-focused marketing campaigns, flavors and
paid influencers to hook underage e-cigarette users.

The plaintiff is asking for a jury trial and a judgment including
compensatory and punitive damages to be determined by the court.
[GN]


KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM: Faces Class Action Over RiverLink Toll Bills
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Green, writing for WDRB, reports that an Indiana woman is
seeking class-action status for a federal lawsuit that claims she
and perhaps thousands of other drivers were improperly billed after
crossing the RiverLink toll bridges.

Melissa Barker of Noblesville, Ind., alleges the companies that
manage the toll network between Louisville and Southern Indiana
"routinely" failed to send drivers their first bill, which allows
payment without a late fee. Instead, she argues, a second invoice
that charges a $5 penalty arrived first.

The lawsuit says the practice is "widespread" and contends the
firms have "inappropriately charged motorists penalties as part of
a scheme with the intent to defraud and mislead, and/or have
otherwise failed to cure their misconduct . . ."    

Barker sued Kapsch TrafficCom USA Inc., which Kentucky and Indiana
state governments hired in 2015 to operate RiverLink, and its
billing subcontractor, Gila LLC, in February. The case was moved
from Marion Superior Court to U.S. District Court in Indianapolis
in March.

The previously unreported lawsuit focuses on a billing issue
RiverLink officials acknowledged in fall 2017, when at least 13,000
drivers were sent incorrect invoices. Some of those faulty bills
were blamed on a computer glitch, but officials said the problems
were fixed.

Among other claims, Barker says Kapsch and Gila violated the
Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, intentionally made "false
statements that prior invoices and notice had been sent" and didn't
carefully invoice her and others.

Kapsch and Gila have asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit. They
claim any fees Barker paid were waived or credited to her more than
a year before she filed suit. The companies also dispute her
argument that they received "unjust enrichment," noting that
Kentucky and Indiana  governments receive all toll revenues and
fees.

Barker's attorneys have until November 25 to formally ask U.S.
Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore to certify the lawsuit as a class
action, allowing others to join. They believe "hundreds or even
thousands of motorists who were wrongfully assessed administrative
penalties and fees without notice" could ultimately be part of it.

Jacob R. Cox, an Indianapolis attorney representing Barker, did not
immediately respond to a request for comment on Oct. 9.

The suit is seeking unspecified damages and a jury trial.

The case also threatens to involve politically-appointed members of
Kentucky and Indiana boards that monitor the toll network and its
revenue, as well as government officials with oversight roles.

Representatives of the Indiana Department of Transportation, the
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, the Indiana Finance Authority and
the Kentucky Public Transportation Infrastructure Authority are
among the witnesses Barker's attorneys indicate could be called at
a trial.

A Kapsch spokesman did not respond to requests for comment. The
company's Indianapolis-based lawyer did not return a voicemail
seeking comment.

Gila, which does business as Municipal Services Bureau and operates
an Austin, Texas-based call center, declined to comment.

Kentucky and Indiana transportation agencies declined to comment.

The states began charging drivers to cross three Ohio River bridges
in 2016. Branded as RiverLink, the toll spans include the
Interstate 65 Kennedy and Lincoln bridges between downtown
Louisville and Jeffersonville, Ind.; and the upriver Lewis and
Clark Bridge that connects eastern Jefferson County, Ky., and
Utica, Ind.

Instead of toll booths, cameras and scanners on the spans identify
license plates and pre-paid transponders. Drivers without accounts
are billed by mail.

Barker claims she used the toll bridges on June 29 and June 30,
2017, then received a mailed invoice dated August 19, 2017. That
invoice was a second toll notice and included a $5 late fee, which
isn't permitted on an initial bill, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit says she crossed the bridges again on September 4 and
November 26, 2017 and similarly got a second notice for those trips
on January 16, 2018. She maintains she didn't receive a first
notice for any of the crossings in 2017.  

Barker's lawyers have asked Gila for proof that all toll notices
were sent and documents showing that any toll bills weren't sent,
in addition to identifying all cases in which someone didn't
receive a first toll notice.

Gila objected to the requests, which are being done as part of the
lawsuit's fact-finding process known as discovery, court documents
show. On August 30, Judge Dinsmore overruled those objections and
wrote in an order that Gila had "advanced numerous boilerplate
objections without the necessary specific explanations to support
them."

He has ordered the discovery to be done by November 8.     

Late fees have helped RiverLink surge past its toll collection
goals, accounting for about 13 percent of all revenue during the
fiscal year that ended in June. The fees made up about 10.6 percent
of toll collections the year before, or about $10.2 million. [GN]


KIA MOTORS: N.J. Supreme Court Hears Argument in Brakes Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Emilee Larkin, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
lawyer for Kia Motors argued on Oct. 8 before the New Jersey
Supreme Court that thousands of plaintiffs in a case dating back
nearly 20 years should not be treated as a class for the purpose of
dividing up a $6.3 million award for faulty brakes.

"It is painfully clear that you cannot treat these people as if
they were a unified whole, because they are not," Kia attorney
Roberto Rivera-Soto -- riverasotor@ballardspahr.com -- a partner at
Ballard Spahr, told the judges.

Lead plaintiff Regina Little filed the class action back in 2001
alleging that the brake system in Kia Sephias purchased between
1997 and 2000 did not adequately distribute heat, causing brake
pads and rotors to wear down after only about 10,000 miles.

Because Kia's warranty did not cover brake repairs, the vehicle
owners had to pay out of pocket each time they needed new pads and
rotors.

In 2008, a jury found that Kia breached its express and implied
warranty to the car owners, and violated the terms of the 1975
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which regulates warranties on consumer
products.

After it was vacated by a judge, a New Jersey appeals court last
year reinstated the jury award of about $750 for each of the over
8,400 plaintiffs, for a total of $6.3 million.

At oral arguments before the state high court on Oct. 8, Justice
Barry Albin pressed Kia's attorney on the point that a defect
resulting in faulty brakes is an issue that has no end.

"There could never be a cure. Regardless of a new brake, you'd need
another brake after that and another brake after that," the judge
said. "There was a defect in the car and it went beyond the period
covered by the warranty, the manufacturer is still responsible."

Rivera-Soto pushed back, reminding the seven-judge panel that Kia
gladly fixed the brakes so long as they were under the warranty.

Justice Jaynee LaVecchia seemed skeptical as to why Kia would not
fix the cars out of warranty, given how often the defect caused a
need for new brakes.

"But isn't there a question still about whether or not a buyer
would have expected to get a brake system that caused so much heat
that you would have repairs as frequently as these cars seemed to
have demonstrated," she said.

Rivera-Soto agreed, but reminded the judges that his client helped
these customers by providing coupons and replacing the brake pads
for free until Kia changed the brake system in 2001.

"There were at least $1.4 million of repairs that were done totally
graciously on Kia's part, so it's not like we left these people out
there in the rain," the attorney said.

Defending the class, attorney Michael Donovan of Donovan Axler
stressed that his clients were entitled to the $750 because they
all received a defective car.

Albin asked Donovan why it would be fair if some of the class
members did not pay any money out of pocket for repairs but still
received a cut of the damages award.

"Because they all received a car that would not be restored to
non-defective condition," Donovan said. "There is no dispute that
Kia could ever fix this car."

On rebuttal, Rivera-Soto emphasized that any damages should be
awarded on an individual basis.

"To try to come up with some scheme whereby a windfall is provided
to people who never reasonably incurred one penny is contrary to
our basic notions of justice and cannot be allowed here," he said.

The panel was rounded out by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and
Justices Anne Patterson, Lee Solomon, Walter Timpone and Faustino
Fernandez-Vina.


KIA MOTORS: Settles Class Suits Over Engine Fires
-------------------------------------------------
Jackie Callaway and Erin Smith, writing for ABC Action News, report
that automakers Kia and Hyundai have agreed to settle class action
lawsuits with U.S. car owners over engine fires, the companies
announced early October 11.

The announcement could provide more than $760 million in cash
reimbursements for repairs and related expense to Americans who own
certain model vehicles, according to information provided to
investors by Kia Motors Corporation and Hyundai Motor Company.

The settlement would include 2.3 million Hyundai models and 1.8
million Kia models.

In February, the I-Team reported dozens of plaintiffs in Florida,
New Jersey and California filed lawsuits against the South Korean
carmakers in federal court, seeking damages for the vehicle fires.

But this is the first news of a potential settlement – and the
first time Hyundai and its sister company Kia have been willing to
acknowledge responsibility for the engine fires in federal court.

The settlement proposal includes the following vehicles:

    * 2011-2019 Hyundai Sonata
    * 2013-2018 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport
    * 2019 Hyundai Santa Fe
    * 2014, 2015, 2018 and 2019 Hyundai Tucson
    * 2011-2019 Kia Sportage, Sorento and Optima models with
2.0-liter and 2.4-liter GDI engines.

So far, the settlement deal does not include the Kia Soul, which
was involved in a fatal fire.

Carol Nash told the I-Team she watched her son, Keith, burn alive
inside her 2014 Kia Soul in an apartment parking just outside of
Cincinnati in 2017. Nash has called for federal regulators and the
courts to take action against the automaker.

Court records show the settlement is not a done deal yet, but in
federal filings, both class action attorneys and lawyers for the
Kia and Hyundai seemed to agree about the terms of the settlement,
which would include cash reimbursement for repairs, refunds for
towing and rental car expenses related to the fires and lifetime
warranty coverage for engine repairs.

Had the case gone to trial, hundreds of pages of internal documents
from Hyundai may have been released in open court.

One of the lawyers involved in the suit reported he personally took
depositions from two Hyundai Motor Company employees. In court
documents, class action attorney Matthew D. Schelkopf said both
Hyundai employees traveled from South Korea to Los Angeles for the
depositions, which lasted two days and covered hundreds of pages of
documents handed over by Hyundai during the court discovery
process.

In a presentation to investors dated Oct. 11, Kia said "expected
benefits" of the settlement meant the company could "refrain from
wasteful dispute, strengthen customer satisfaction/trust, and focus
on sales/new model cycle in US market."

Hyundai notified investors that it hoped to "Improve credibility of
the brand by early termination of lawsuits through voluntary
settlement."

The proposed court settlement would not clear up all ongoing legal
issues for Kia and Hyundai.

An Oklahoma family has filed a separate lawsuit against Kia after
their 2019 Kia Soul rental car caught fire on an Oahu highway in
June during a Hawaiian vacation. The family reported the brakes
weren't working and the car came to a stop next to a concrete
median, blocking the driver's side door – trapping 33-year-old
Jordan Carlton inside. Carlton remains in intensive care in a
Dallas hospital burn unit.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in New York City is also reportedly
investigating whether the carmakers handled recalls properly.

Federal regulators with the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration have open investigations into fires involving Kia
and Hyundai vehicles.

Earlier this year, prosecutors in South Korean announced
indictments against three former Kia and Hyundai executives for
delaying the recall process more than a year after they learned of
engine defects.

Since April 2018, the I-Team has uncovered thousands of Kia and
Hyundai fires and exposed fuel leaks resulting from improper
repairs during engine recalls may be sparking some of these fires.

Kia and Hyundai issued recalls earlier this year after I-Team
Investigator Jackie Callaway interviewed a whistleblower and former
employee at Kia headquarters who claimed the company has known
about the fire hazard since 2017. [GN]



KLLM TRANSPORT: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Swales Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Defendant KLLM Transport Services, L.L.C., filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the consolidated lawsuit styled Harry Swales, et
al. v. KLLM Transport Services, LLC, Case Nos. 3:17-CV-490 and
3:17-CV-517, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Mississippi, Jackson.

District Court Judge Daniel P. Jordan III granted the Plaintiffs'
Amended Motion for Conditional Certification, as reported in the
Class Action Reporter on Oct. 22, 2019.

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

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

The appellate case is captioned as Harry Swales, et al. v. KLLM
Transport Services, LLC, Case No. 19-90031, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents HARRY SWALES, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated; COREY LILLY, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated; KYLE SHETTLES, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; and JOHN MCGEE, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          MASON, L.L.P.
          1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 640-1160
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com

Plaintiff-Respondent MARCUS BRENT JOWERS, and others similarly
situated plaintiffs, are represented by:

          Joe Bradley Pigott, Esq.
          PIGOTT, REEVES, JOHNSON, P.A.
          775 N. Congress Street
          Jackson, MS 39202-0000
          Telephone: (601) 949-9450
          E-mail: bpigott@pjlawyers.com

Defendant-Petitioner KLLM TRANSPORT SERVICES, L.L.C., is
represented by:

          Grover Clark Monroe, II, Esq.
          DUNBARMONROE, P.A.
          270 Trace Colony Park
          Ridgeland, MS 39157-0000
          Telephone: (601) 898-2073
          E-mail: gcmonroe@dunbarmonroe.com


KOONS FORD: Thomas-Lawson Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMY THOMAS-LAWSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOONS FORD OF BALTIMORE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03031-SAG (D. Md., Oct. 16, 2019),
alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in
part, by placing unsolicited telemarketing calls to wireless phone
users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

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 herself and members of the class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.

The Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles to
individuals and businesses. To promote its services, the Defendant
engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in
the process.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrea Gold, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Jordan D. Utanski, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          19495 Biscayne Blvd., No. 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                  utanski@edelsberglaw.com


KRAFT HEINZ: Illinois Court Dismisses Capri Sun Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal court in Illinois
dismissed a consumer class action against Kraft Heinz relating to
the marketing of Capri Sun beverages as containing "no artificial
preservatives."

There is no evidence Kraft uses the "common industry practice" of
obtaining citric acid via an industrial fermentation process rather
than by natural means.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

                       https://is.gd/BlRIVK


LEXINGTON HEALTH: Webster Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA R. WEBSTER, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.  LEXINGTON HEALTH CARE CENTER
OF ORLAND PARK, INC., LEXINGTON HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS OF ORLAND PARK,
INC., and JAMES SAMATAS, the Defendants, Case No. 2019CH11673 (Ill.
Cir., Oct. 9, 2019), seeks to redress and curtail Defendants'
unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's
sensitive biometric data.

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

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

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

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

The Lexington of Orland Park is a Rehabilitation and Skilled
Nursing facility that is part of the Lexington Health Network. The
Lexington Health Network provides healthcare services, including
assisted living, rehabilitation, and hospice care, in Illinois.
Samatas is the owner and operator of the Lexington of Orland Park,
as well as other Lexington Health Network facilities.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the putative class are:

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

LIFELOCK: Settles Customers Class Action for $100 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
WGME reports that there has been a major settlement for thousands
of people who signed up for credit monitoring.

Federal regulators made a deal with LifeLock, and you could be
getting a check.

According to the terms of the settlement, LifeLock agreed to pay
$100 million to the Federal Trade Commission, and now more than 1
million checks, averaging about $29 each, are being sent out to
customers.

The FTC alleged that LifeLock violated an order that required the
company to secure the personal information of customers and also
made deceptive advertising claims.

Lifelock agreed to pay $100 million.

Of that, $68 million went to customers who were part of a class
action lawsuit.

The rest of the money will now go to provide refunds to consumers
who were LifeLock customers from 2012 to 2014, but didn't get a
payment from the class action settlement.

If you get a check, the FTC says it should be cashed within 60
days.

And it's also warning about scams associated with refunds like
this, the FTC never requires you to pay money or provide account
information to cash a refund check. [GN]


LIGHTNING OILFIELD: Underpays Truck Pushers, Brown Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIGHTNING OILFIELD SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00223 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 30, 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 Brown was employed by the Defendant as truck pusher.

Lightning Oilfield Services, Inc. provides transportation services,
specifically to the oil & gas industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


MACROGENICS INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

MacroGenics, Inc. (MGNX)
Class Period: February 6, 2019 - June 3, 2019
Deadline: November 12, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/mgnx

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company had conducted the progression-free survival
("PFS") and first interim overall survival ("OS") analyses for the
SOPHIA trial by no later than October 10, 2018; (2) the October
2018 PFS analysis showed a 0.9 month improvement in PFS; and (3)
the October 2018 OS interim analysis did not produce a
statistically significant result and the interim OS Kaplan-Meier
curves (a non-parametric statistic used to estimate the survival
function from lifetime data) crossed in several spots (thereby
violating the constant hazard assumption) and separated late; and
(4) as a result, MacroGenic's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.


ViewRay, Inc. (VRAY)
Class Period: March 15, 2019 - August 8, 2019
Deadline: November 12, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/vray

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) demand for ViewRay systems had declined due in part to
changes being made to Medicare reimbursement approaches first
announced in November 2018 that could make purchases of new ViewRay
systems less profitable for customers; (2) the Company's reported
backlog was overstated due to the inclusion of orders with
insufficient surety as to permit for their inclusion in reported
backlog; and (3) as a result, ViewRay's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.


Cadence Bancorporation (CADE)
Class Period: July 23, 2018 - July 22, 2019
Deadline: November 15, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/cade

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

Contact:

       Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
       Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
       Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
       Tel: 212-697-6484
       E-mail: info@bgandg.com
               peretz@bgandg.com [GN]



MAGELLAN HRSC: Coffin Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled CHRISTIE COFFIN, on behalf of herself and all
other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. MAGELLAN HRSC, INC., an
Ohio Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
37-2019-00049475-CU-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. 24,
2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02047-W-LL to
the proceeding.

The complaint alleges violations of the California Private
Attorneys General Act.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Mara D. Curtis, Esq.
     Fatemeh S. Mashouf, Esq.
     Heather Martone, Esq.
     REED SMITH LLP
     355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
     Phone: 213 457 8000
     Facsimile: 213 457 8080
     Email: mcurtis@reedsmith.com
            hmartone@reedsmith.com


MARIOTT: King & Spalding Discusses 9th Cir. Ruling in Arias Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
King & Spalding, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on Sept.
3, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's remand of a
putative class action, holding that when a notice of removal
plausibly alleges a basis for federal court jurisdiction, the
district court must provide the defendant an opportunity to show by
a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional
requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") are
satisfied.

Arias v. Marriott is a putative class action brought on behalf of
employees of the hotel chain. According to the named plaintiff,
Marriott failed to compensate its employees for overtime and missed
meal breaks and failed to issue accurate, itemized pay stubs.

The lawsuit was originally filed in California state court.
Marriott removed the case, asserting federal jurisdiction under
CAFA because (1) at least one member of the class was diverse from
at least one defendant, (2) the class size was at least 100, and
(3) the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million.

Marriott based its amount-in-controversy estimate on employee data,
including the number of hourly employees who fit the proposed class
definition as well as estimates for how often the alleged
violations occurred.

The district court remanded the case to state court sua sponte,
discrediting Marriott's amount-in-controversy calculations as
speculative. Importantly, the district court did not conclude that
Marriott's allegations were implausible, instead finding that
"Marriott failed to meet its burden of proving the amount in
controversy."

The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that "[w]hen a notice of
removal plausibly alleges a basis for federal court jurisdiction, a
district court . . . [must] giv[e] the defendant an opportunity to
show by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional
requirements are satisfied." Thus, when the district court remanded
sua sponte, it "deprived Marriott of a fair opportunity to submit
proof."

The court also stated that Marriott could support its estimate of
the amount in controversy by making "reasonable assumptions" about
the frequency with which alleged pay violations occurred, rejecting
the district court's finding that Marriott's assumed violation
rates were "speculation and conjecture." Lastly, the Ninth Circuit
held that the district court erred by excluding prospective
attorneys' fees from the amount in controversy.

Arias thus reaffirms Ninth Circuit precedent holding that "Congress
intended CAFA to be interpreted expansively" and that the amount in
controversy reflects the maximum recovery the plaintiff could
reasonably recover -- a jurisdictional threshold that cannot be
defeated merely because it is "equally possible" that damages might
be less than the requisite amount. [GN]


MAX DELI: Faces Zaccaria Suit in New York Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Max Deli & Grill Inc.
The case is captioned as AMEDEO, ZACCARIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHER EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. MAX DELI
& GRILL INC., ET AL., D/B/A MAX DELI & GRILL, SHEN CHAI DELI
GROCERY CROP. D/B/A ZEE'S GOURMET DELI, CHEN BURNS AND YOUNG KIE
CHANG, Defendants, Case No. 714170/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Oct. 14, 2019).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Denis J. Butler.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 9E
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588

The Defendant is represented by:

          Wei Sun, Esq.
          ZHANG & SUN, P.C.
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite 3C
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 888-1553
          Facsimile: (631) 862-5092
          E-mail: wsun@zslawpc.com


MDL 2804: 6th Cir. Denies Ohio's Request to Halt Opioid Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the Sixth Circuit on Oct. 10 denied Ohio's request to stop an
opioid trial that will test the first of thousands of claims in the
state against pharmaceutical companies.

Led by Ohio Attorney General David Yost, the state had asked the
Cincinnati-based federal appeals court to halt or delay a trial
that was scheduled to begin in Cleveland on Oct. 21.

The three-judge panel refused in a four-page order, denying Ohio's
motion for an emergency stay that would have prevented the trial
from going ahead.

Ohio argued that it has sovereign authority to represent its
citizens, instead of the hundreds of municipalities that have
brought lawsuits. The multidistrict litigation threatens to prevent
the state from entering into global settlements with the
defendants, the state said.

Proponents for a stay argued that allowing thousands of
municipalities to move forward would cause unnecessary costs,
delays, and enrich the hundreds of lawyers litigating the cases.
That money and resources would be better spent on the victims of
drug addiction, they said.

The three-judge panel said U.S. District Judge Dan Polster, who is
presiding over the trial, had already rejected similar claims in
the multidistrict litigation last year.

"Despite having notice that the counties' claims would proceed to
trial, Ohio made no attempt to intervene in the MDL proceeding for
the limited purpose of raising the issues that it now asks us to
decide by extraordinary means," the court's unsigned order states.

Yost's office noted that the Sixth Circuit did not rule on the
merits of the state's argument but instead said the trial court
should address the issue.

"At this time, we are reviewing our options," Yost's office said in
a statement.

Polster is overseeing 2,600 cases. The trial will test Summit and
Cuyahoga counties' claims.

The Oct. 10 Sixth Circuit panel was made up of U.S. Circuit Judges
Alan Norris, Eugene Siler and Karen Nelson Moore.

A copy of the Order is available at:

                    https://is.gd/HLTsSs


MDL 2885: Griffin Suit Over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MARK C. GRIFFIN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY,
3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO
INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC, and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00061, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola) on
Oct. 17, 2019.

The Northern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-03754-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage he
allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military,
including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that
Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold
by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate
hearing protection.

3M denies these allegations. CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close
collaboration with the U.S. military, represented a revolutionary
breakthrough in hearing protection for service members. CAEv2
helped service members better maintain situational awareness (e.g.,
to hear nearby voice commands) while also maintaining some
protection from gunfire and other higher decibel sounds.  3M claims
CAEv2 met the U.S. military's specifications and helped the
military provide hearing protection to service members.

The Griffin case is being consolidated with MDL 2885 in re: 3M
Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on April 3, 2019. These actions share
common factual questions and centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on
Daubert issues and other pretrial matters; and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

In the April 3, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common questions arising out of allegations that
the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs were defective, causing
plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues
concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat
Arms earplugs are common to all actions. Presiding Judge in the MDL
is Hon. Judge M. Casey Rodgers. The lead case is
3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq.
          J. Gerrard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          515 Park Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Telephone: (502) 636–4333
          E-mail: davids@bsjfirm.com
                  gerards@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          Bryan Aylstock, Esq.
          AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS, & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
          17 E. Main Street, Suite 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 202–1010
          Facsimile: (850) 916–7449
          E-mail: baylstock@awkolaw.com


MDL 2915: Ruffino v. Capital One Over Data Breach Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Patrick Ruffino, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff v.
Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One N.A., and Capital
One Bank (USA), the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05234 (Filed Aug.
2, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia - (Alexandria) on Oct 16, 2019.

The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02930-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs and the Classes are represented by:

          Christopher Phillip Taylor Tourek, Esq.
          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL, LLP
          150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          Facsimile: (312) 782-4880
          E-mail: ctourek@caffertyclobes.com
                  dherrera@caffertyclobes.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jade R. Lambert, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          444 W. Lake Street, Suite 1650
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 995-6333
          E-mail: jlambert@kslaw.com


MERCY HOSPITAL: Illegally Collects Biometric Data, Webster Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA R. WEBSTER, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER
CHICAGO and TRINITY HEALTH CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
2019CH12362 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Oct. 24, 2019), seeks to redress
and curtail the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive biometric data.

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

Specifically, the Defendant has violated and continues to violate
BIPA because it did not and continues not to: a. properly inform
the Plaintiff and others similarly situated in writing of the
specific purpose and length of time for which their fingerprints
were being collected, stored, disseminated and used, as required by
BIPA; b. publish publicly available retention schedule and
guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff's and other
similarly-situated individuals' fingerprints, as required by BIPA;
c. receive a written release from the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated to collect, store, or otherwise use their
fingerprints, as required by BIPA; d. obtain consent from the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated to disclose, redisclose, or
otherwise disseminate their fingerprints to a third party as
required by BIPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Angela R. Webster is a natural person and a citizen of
the State of Illinois.

Mercy Chicago is a community of health care facilities that are
part of Trinity Health's network of health care providers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


METLIFE INC: Illegally Debits Accounts, Liberato Says
-----------------------------------------------------
MANUEL P. LIBERATO, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. METLIFE, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
BER-L-007029-19 (N.J. Super., Oct. 7, 2019), alleges that Defendant
made monthly withdrawals from the financial accounts of Plaintiff
and members of the Class without providing them with MetLife
insurance policies or insurance policy coverage, in violation of
the New Jersey consumer protection laws including the Consumer
Fraud Act.

MetLife, Inc.'s act of making monthly withdrawals from Plaintiff's
bank account without Plaintiff's permission makes said Defendant
liable for conversion, due to Defendant's intent to exercise
dominion and control over Plaintiff's bank account.

On March 3, 2017, Plaintiff discovered that MetLife had been making
withdrawals on a monthly basis from Plaintiff's personal 'PNC' bank
account from October 2015 to March 2017 without permission.

MetLife withdrew a total amount of $1,710.18 from Plaintiff's bank
account between October 2015 and March 2017, unbeknownst to
Plaintiff prior to March 3, 2017.

At no time relevant in the complaint did Plaintiff have or receive
coverage or services under, nor does he currently hold or receive
coverage under, any policy of insurance with MetLife.

On March 3, 2017, Plaintiff placed a telephone call to MetLife and
conversed with MetLife's agent/representative, "Cindy," to inquire
as to why MetLife was making monthly withdrawals from Plaintiff's
PNC account.

Cindy informed Plaintiff that she was unable to locate Plaintiff in
MetLife's records system upon conducting searches using Plaintiff's
name and social security number, and requested that Plaintiff
provide her with an "ETN" or transaction number.

Subsequently on March 3, 2017, Plaintiff obtained the
"ETN"/transaction number requested by Cindy and placed another
telephone call to MetLife, upon which he conversed with "Karen,"
another of MetLife's agents/representatives.

Plaintiff provided Karen with the "ETN"/transaction number and as
well as Plaintiff's social security number.

Karen was unable to locate Plaintiff's MetLife account. The
Plaintiff was then transferred to MetLife's "tier 2" division, and
conversed with a male agent/representative of MetLife.

After Plaintiff explained that MetLife had made withdrawals from
Plaintiff's PNC account, the male agent/representative of MetLife
transferred Plaintiff's telephone call to MetLife's "Auto/Home
Department."

MetLife provides individual insurance, employee benefits, and
financial services, with operations throughout the United States.
MetLife's products and services include life insurance, annuities,
automobile and homeowners' insurance, retail banking, and other
financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117

MICROSOFT CORP: Court Approval of Class Notice Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company is
awaiting court approval of the form of notice to be sent to class
members in an antitrust lawsuit.

Antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed
against the company in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec,
Canada. All three have been certified on behalf of Canadian
indirect purchasers who acquired licenses for Microsoft operating
system software and/or productivity application software between
1998 and 2010.

The trial of the British Columbia action commenced in May 2016.
Following a mediation, the parties agreed to a global settlement of
all three Canadian actions, and submitted the proposed settlement
agreement to the courts in all three jurisdictions for approval.

The final settlement has been approved by the courts in British
Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, and the claims administration
process will commence once the court approves the form of notice to
the class.

Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses, and supports software,
services, devices, and solutions worldwide. The company was founded
in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington.


MICROSOFT CORP: Oral Argument in Moussouris Set for Nov. 4
----------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that oral argument in
the interlocutory appeal in Moussouris v. Microsoft, is scheduled
on November 4, 2019.

Current and former female Microsoft employees in certain
engineering and information technology roles brought this class
action in federal court in Seattle in 2015, alleging systemic
gender discrimination in pay and promotions.

The plaintiffs moved to certify the class in October 2017.
Microsoft filed an opposition in January 2018, attaching an expert
report showing no statistically significant disparity in pay and
promotions between similarly situated men and women.

In June 2018, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. Plaintiffs sought an interlocutory appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was granted in
September 2018.

Oral argument is scheduled for November 4, 2019.

Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses, and supports software,
services, devices, and solutions worldwide. The company was founded
in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington.


MIDWEST SEALCOAT: Bowers Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIE A. BOWERS, on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. MIDWEST
SEALCOAT, INC., an Illinois corporation, MIDWEST DEVELOPMENT
LEASING, LLC, an Illinois limited AND liability corporation,
STEPHEN THUER PROPERTIES, STEPHEN THUER, Individually, and ROBERT
THUER, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07013 (N.D. Ill.,
Oct. 24, 2019), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

During her employment, Ms. Bowers says she frequently worked in
excess of 40 hours per week without compensation at a rate of one
and one-half her regular rate of pay because the Defendants engaged
in an "hour banking" practice. This practice resulted in overtime
eligible hours being "banked" and not paid at her applicable time
and one-half rate in the week the hours were worked and instead,
paid back at her straight time rate at a later date. Because of
this practice, the Plaintiff was denied overtime pay by the
Defendants for hours worked over 40 per work week, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from May 2016 to July
2019 as a receptionist and office assistant.

MIDWEST SEALCOAT, INC. operates a construction business that
performs asphalt and sealing construction services, including
installing new parking lots, personal driveways, private streets,
seal coating, crack filling and line marking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MKN WORLDWIDE: Smith Suit Seeks OT Wages for Delivery Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN SMITH and QUINTIN CAIN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiffs v. MKN WORLDWIDE, INC. and
MARCIA GARNER, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-04035 (S.D. Tex., Oct.
16, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as delivery drivers from
2015 until 2019. During their tenure with the Defendants, the
Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, the
lawsuit says.

MKN Worldwide operates in the business activities at non-commercial
site business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: 713-868-3388
          Facsimile: 713-683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                  vijay@buenkerlaw.com


MYRIAD GENETICS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Nov. 26 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
November 26, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Myriad
Genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ: MYGN) securities between September 2, 2016
and August 13, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors suffering losses on their Myriad investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On August 13, 2019, after the market closed, Myriad disclosed that
"[u]nfortunately, revenue in the fourth quarter was two percent
below expectations largely due to lower reimbursement for [the
Company's] expanded carrier screening test [called Foresight]."
Additionally, the Company revealed that, since at least late 2018,
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had increasingly
questioned the claims of marketed genetics tests, such as Myriad's
GeneSight. Myriad also disclosed that "the FDA requested changes to
the GeneSight test offering" after Myriad had provided the FDA with
clinical evidence and other information to support GeneSight
Psychotropic.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $19.05 per share, or
nearly 43%, to close at $25.50 per share on August 14, 2019,
thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Myriad's product, GeneSight, lacked evidence or
information sufficient to support the tests in their current form,
including their purported benefits; (2) that the FDA had requested
changes to GeneSight and questioned the validity of the test's
purported benefits; (3) that Myriad had been in ongoing discussions
with the FDA regarding the FDA's requested changes to GeneSight;
(4) that Myriad's acquisition of Counsyl—and thereby,
Foresight—caused the Company to incur the risk of suffering from
lower reimbursement for its expanded carrier screening tests, which
had the potential to, and actually did, materialize into a material
negative impact on the Company's revenue; and (5) that as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased Myriad securities during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than November 26, 2019 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take
any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If
you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

Contact:

         Howard G. Smith, Esq.
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847
         Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
[GN]



MYRIAD GENETICS: Silverman Says Securities Statement Misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------
ETHAN SILVERMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MYRIAD GENETICS, INC., MARK C. CAPONE,
and R. BRYAN RIGGSBEE, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00707-PMW
(D. Utah, Sept. 27, 2019), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Myriad securities between September 2, 2016 and
August 13, 2019, both dates inclusive

On September 1, 2016, during after-market hours, Myriad announced
that it had completed its acquisition of Assurex Health, Inc. on
August 31, 2016. Myriad acquired GeneSight through this
acquisition.

On July 31, 2018, Myriad announced that it had closed its
acquisition of Counsyl, Inc. The acquisition of Counsyl provided
Myriad with two new products -- ForeSight and Prelude -- in the
expanded carrier screening and non-invasive prenatal testing
markets, respectively. The Company estimated that these markets
would grow to approximately three million tests performed in the
U.S. and $1.5 billion over the next five years.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:


     (i) GeneSight lacked evidence or information sufficient to
support the tests in their current form, including their purported
benefits;

    (ii) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had
requested changes to GeneSight and questioned the validity of the
test's purported benefits;

   (iii) Myriad had been in ongoing discussions with the FDA
regarding the FDA's requested changes to GeneSight;

    (iv) Myriad's acquisition of Counsyl -- and thereby, Foresight
-- caused the Company to incur the risk of suffering from lower
reimbursement for its expanded carrier screening tests, which had
the potential to, and actually did, materialize into a material
negative impact on the Company's revenue; and

     (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 13, 2019, during after-market hours, Myriad issued an
earnings release, filed as an exhibit to a Current Report on Form
8-K with the SEC, wherein the Company reported its fiscal fourth
quarter and full year 2019 financial results. Therein, Mark C.
Capone, Myriad's President and Chief Executive Officer, disclosed
that "unfortunately, revenue in the fourth quarter was two percent
below expectations largely due to lower reimbursement for [the
Company's] expanded carrier screening test" -- i.e., Foresight.

Also later that day, Myriad filed an Annual Report on Form 10-K
with the SEC, reporting the Company's financial and operating
results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019. In the 2019 10-K,
Defendants disclosed that the FDA had questioned whether the
validity of GeneSight's purported benefits had been established.
The 2019 10-K also revealed that, since at least late 2018, the FDA
had increasingly questioned the claims of marketed genetics tests,
such as GeneSight.

On this news, Myriad's stock price fell $19.05 per share, or 42.76%
-- nearly half of the Company's total stock value -- to close at
$25.50 per share on August 14, 2019. As a result of Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class
members have suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit
says.

Myriad was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City,
Utah. Myriad is a molecular diagnostic company that develops and
markets predictive, personalized, and prognostic medicine tests
worldwide. Myriad offers, among other products, GeneSight, a DNA
genotyping test to aid psychotropic drug selection for depressed
patients; and Foresight, a prenatal test in the expanded carrier
screening market for future parents to assess their risk of passing
on a recessive genetic condition to their offspring.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jon V. Harper, Esq.
          HARPER LAW, PLC
          P.O. Box 581468
          Salt Lake City, UT 84158
          Telephone: (801) 910-4357
          E-mail: jharper@jonharperlaw.com

               - and -

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


NATURAL WELLNESS: Turizo Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN TURIZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATURAL WELLNESS CENTER LLC d/b/a
MIRACLE LEAF OF PEMBROKE PINES, the Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-62496-PCH (S.D. Fla., Oct. 7, 2019), contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

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

The Defendant is a for-profit pain control clinic and medical
marijuana prescriber. To solicit new clients, the Defendant engages
in unsolicited marketing with no regard for privacy rights of the
recipients of those messages.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

NEW BEGINNING: Rosario Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Stockers
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ROSARIO, on Behalf of Himself And All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. NEW BEGINNING 1883 CORP. d/b/a VITELIO'S
MARKET PLACE, RAMON DURAN and JOSE ALMONTE, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-05835 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2019), seeks to recover minimum
wage and overtime pay under the the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a produce stocker from
May 27, 2015, to February 21, 2019. Throughout his employment, the
Plaintiff alleges, the Defendants required him to work, and he did
work, at least 54 hours per week. However, the Defendants failed to
pay him at the minimum wage or overtime rate of pay of one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay for each hour that he worked
per week in excess of 40. The Defendants paid and treated of all
their non-managerial employees who worked for them in the same
manner, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Defendants own and operate a food market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit Over Lack of Tampons in Jails
------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for New York Post, reports that a woman
busted in Queens has filed a class action suit against the city
alleging that the Big Apple's 77 police precinct houses don't carry
tampons and pads for female prisoners.

Jennifer Flores, 24, was on her period when she was collared for
obstruction on Oct. 12, 2016, and says she was forced to bleed
through her clothes while being held in a detention cell at the
108th Precinct in Queens.

According to her suit filed in Brooklyn federal court October 11,
Flores asked officers for a replacement tampon or pad before cops
told her they didn't have one to spare.

After nearly 24 hours in detention, Flores said her underpants were
"completely soiled with blood and her clothes were ruined,"
according to the court documents.

Flores had to call her attorney to bring her pads six hours after
she was put behind bars--her experience reflecting the NYPD's
"indifference to woman's health," she said.

The incident also reflected on the department's "lack of training,
educating and properly familiarizing officers--both superior and
subordinate--as to the necessity of female feminine hygiene
products for pre-arraigned detainees," Flores argued.

The New York City Law Department did not immediately respond to a
request for comment. [GN]



NEW YORK: Ct. Narrows Claims in Dental Policy Case; Certifies Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Class Certification in the case captioned FRANK CIARAMELLA, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. HOWARD ZUCKER, as Commissioner of the Department of
Health, Defendant. No. 18-CV-6945 (JPO). (S.D.N.Y.)

Paintiffs bring this putative class action under the Medicaid Act,
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, against the Commissioner of the New York State
Department of Health. Plaintiffs are Medicaid recipients whose
dental services were deemed not reimbursable by New York's Medicaid
program because of the program's limits on dental implants,
replacement dentures, root canals, and crowns. Plaintiffs have
brought this action challenging those denials.

Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Plaintiffs moved for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), seeking to certify a class consisting
of: All New York Medicaid-eligible individuals whose expenses
associated with medically necessary dental services are not
reimbursable by New York Medicaid because of the Program's
categorical ban on dental implants and limits on replacement
dentures, root canals, and crowns.


Legal Standard

Class certification is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23. Section (a) of Rule 23 requires the party seeking certification
to establish four prerequisites:

(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class and(4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.

It is clear, and DOH does not dispute, that Plaintiffs satisfy the
numerosity and adequacy requirements pursuant to Rules 23(a)(1) and
23(a)(4). However, DOH argues that the Plaintiff class should not
be certified for four reasons: that Plaintiffs have failed to
establish commonality and typicality, that the proposed class is
not reasonably ascertainable, and that the action is not
maintainable under Rule 23(b)(2).  

Commonality

Rule 23(a)(2) mandates that the party seeking class certification
demonstrate that there are questions of law or fact common to the
class. It is true that the test for commonality is not demanding
and is met so long as there is at least one issue common to the
class. Indeed, when the plaintiff class seeks to enjoin a practice
or policy, rather than individualized relief, commonality is
assumed.

DOH's argument boils down to the notion that Medicaid coverage
decisions are an individualized endeavor, and therefore there is a
lack of commonality between denials of coverage in the putative
class. However, DOH's argument is unavailing. Plaintiffs are not
challenging their individual Medicaid denials; rather they are
mounting an argument that the DOH guidance set forth in the Manual
does not comport with federal law.  

It is true that Plaintiffs must show that their claims depend upon
a common contention of such a nature that it is capable of
classwide resolution which means that the determination of its
truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the
validity of each one of the claims in one stroke. Plaintiffs here
have done so.

Whether the challenged provisions of the Manual facially violate
federal law is an issue that can be resolved in one stroke.
Commonality is therefore satisfied pursuant to Rule 23(a)(2).

Typicality

Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims or defenses of the class
representatives are typical of the of the claims or defenses of the
class. Typicality is satisfied when each class member's claim
arises from the same course of events and each class member makes
similar legal arguments to prove the defendant's liability
irrespective of minor variations in the fact patterns underlying
the individual claims.

Medicaid managed care organizations (MCOs), rather than DOH itself,
make the initial individual determinations about whether a
beneficiary is eligible for dental implants, replacement dentures,
root canals, or crowns. DOH relies on the fact that MCOs have the
ability to adopt their own written criteria to determine whether a
particular service is medically necessary, but concedes that MCOs'
criteria cannot be more restrictive than that provided by DOH. DOH
argues that because MCOs potentially have different policies for
determining medical necessity, it is not clear that all members of
the class are harmed in the same way by the Manual.  

However, the facts that DOH's Manual establishes the baseline for
MCOs' eligibility determination, and that MCOs are allowed by the
Manual to adopt dental policies that Plaintiffs allege violate
federal law, impact all members of the class in the same way.
Because the MCOs are irrelevant for typicality purposes, it
similarly does not matter that all eighty-eight MCOs are not
represented among the named plaintiffs.

Therefore, like the commonality requirement, the typicality
requirement is satisfied.

Ascertainability

The implied requirement of ascertainability is a judicial creation
meant to ensure that class definitions are workable when members of
the class will be entitled to damages or require notice for another
reason.DOH argues that the court will be unable to determine
whether a particular individual is a member without a mini-hearing
on the merits, and therefore class certification should be denied.
However, because this is a putative Rule 23(b)(2) class seeking
only declaratory and injunctive relief, the Court does not need to
undertake such an analysis. The Second Circuit has approved of a
23(b)(2) class definition without precise ascertainability. Indeed,
it would be illogical to require precise ascertainability in a suit
that seeks no class damages. This Court declines to do so here.

The general contours of the proposed class, Medicaid beneficiaries
who require one of the services governed by the challenged
provisions of the Manual but are ineligible due to those provisions
is sufficient.

Motion to Dismiss

The DOH makes several arguments in support of its motion to
dismiss. First, it argues that Plaintiffs' implant policy claims
were mooted by the new Manual. Second, it argues that Plaintiff
Palazzolo's claims are moot. Third, it argues that Plaintiffs fail
to state a claim under the Availability Provision or Reasonable
Promptness Provisions of the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1396
et seq., the ADA, 42 U.S.C. Section 12132, or the RA, 29 U.S.C.
Section 794(a). Finally, it argues that Plaintiffs' claims are
barred by the Eleventh Amendment.  

The Court held that Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs' Reasonable Promptness
Provision claim is dismissed, and the ADA and Rehabilitation Act
claims are dismissed as to Plaintiff Adinolfi and Virtuoso.
Further, Plaintiff Palazzolo's claims are dismissed as moot.
Because Plaintiffs have not established standing to challenge the
operative implants and denture policies, those claims are dismissed
with leave to replead.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is GRANTED. The Court
directed Plaintiffs to file a letter informing the Court whether
they intend to file an amended complaint in accordance with this
opinion.

The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Richard Palazzolo as a
party to this action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4o7m4nh from
Leagle.com.

Frank Ciaramella, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mary Jane Eaton -
meaton@willkie.com - Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Wesley Railey
Powell  - wpowell@willkie.com - Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Bart
Robin Schwartz - bschwartz@willkie.com - Willkie Farr & Gallagher
LLP, Belkys Raquel Garcia, Bronx Neighborhood Office, 199 Water St
Fl 3, New York, NY 10038-3526, Rebecca Antar Novick, Legal Aid
Society & Timothy Gerard Fleming, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, 199
Water St Fl 3, New York, NY 10038-3526.

Christopher Russo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, AnneMarie Walker, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Antonio Martin, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Jody Virtuoso, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Matthew Adinolfi, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated & Lillian Velazquez,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Wesley Railey Powell, Willkie Farr &
Gallagher LLP.

Howard Zucker, as Commissioner of the Department of Health,
Defendant, represented by Cara Brown Chomski , New York State
Office of the Attorney General & Philip Marcel Black , NYS Office
of The Attorney General.

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Denial of Class Certification Upheld
------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia has upheld the District
Court's decision denying class certification in the fuel surcharge
related litigation.

In 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against the company
and other Class I railroads in various Federal district courts
regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the District of
Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

In 2012, the court certified the case as a class action.

The defendant railroads appealed this certification, and the Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the District
Court's decision and remanded the case for further consideration.
On October 10, 2017, the District Court denied class certification.
The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals on August 16, 2019.


Since that decision, various individual cases have been filed in
multiple jurisdictions.

Norfolk Southern said, "We believe the allegations in the
complaints are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the
cases. We do not believe the outcome of these proceedings will have
a material effect on our financial position, results of operations,
or liquidity."

Norfolk Southern Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
engages in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate
products, and finished goods. Norfolk Southern Corporation was
founded in 1883 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia.


NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL: Insurer Says It Has No Duty to Indemnify Co.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the Pennsylvania
Manufacturers' Association Insurance Co. asked a federal judge to
find that it has no duty to indemnify or defend North Carolina
Mutual Wholesale Drug Co., which is facing 69 opioid lawsuits in
Ohio, 56 of which were brought by counties in North Carolina.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

                       https://is.gd/jQAsXi


PALAKI, INC: Walden Seeks Minimum & OT Wages
--------------------------------------------
Danielle Walden individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated members of the Collective as permitted under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff, vs. Palaki, Inc. d/b/a Dairy
Queen, or DQ and Baldev Patel and "Bob" Patel, as an individual,
under FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02272-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., Oct. 9, 2019), seeks to receive
minimum wage for all hours worked and/or receive time and half for
all hours worked over 40 hours per week under the Fair Labor
Standards, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.

Palaki owns a chain of DQ ice cream shops and fast food restaurants
in Illinois and Wisconsin. The Plaintiff worked at Defendants' St.
Joseph, Illinois location.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff and Collective are:

          John C. Ireland, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
          636 Spruce Street
          South Elgin, IL 60177
          Telephone: 630-464-9675
          Facsimile: 630-206-0889

PARETEUM CORPORATION: Faces Mansur Securities Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAILA MANSUR, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. PARETEUM CORPORATION, ROBERT H. TURNER,
DENIS MCCARTHY VICTOR BOZZO and EDWARD O'DONNELL, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-09849 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019), is brought on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Pareteum Corporation between
December 14, 2017, and October 21, 2019, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Defendants published a series of materially false and
misleading statements that defendants knew and/or recklessly
disregarded were materially false and misleading at the time of
such publication, and that omitted to reveal material information
necessary to make the Defendants' statements, in light of such
material omissions, not materially false and misleading, according
to the complaint.

Each of the Defendants is liable as a participant in a fraudulent
scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on
purchasers of Pareteum common stock by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse
facts, the Plaintiff alleges. The scheme: (i) deceived the
investing public regarding Pareteum's business, operations,
management and the intrinsic value of Pareteum common stock; (ii)
enabled the Defendants to artificially inflate the price of
Pareteum shares; (iii) enabled Pareteum insiders to use at least
$30 million of Company stock as currency to acquire revenues, and
it enabled them to raise at least $50 million in capital necessary
to fund operations, while in possession of material adverse non-
public information about the Company; and (iv) caused the Plaintiff
and other members of the Class to purchase Pareteum common stock at
artificially inflated prices, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the common stock of Pareteum at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

Pareteum operates a communications cloud services platform in
Europe and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
     Melinda A. Nicholson, Esq.
     Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
     New Orleans, LA 70163
     Phone: 504-455-1400
     Facsimile: 504-455-1498
     Email: Lewis.Kahn@ksfcounsel.com
            Melinda.Nicholson@ksfcounsel.com
            Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com

          - and -

     J. Ryan Lopatka, Esq.
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     250 Park Ave., Suite 2040
     New York, NY 10177
     Phone: (212) 696-3730
     Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
     Email: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com


PIERRON PROPERTIES: Faces Mora Wage-and-Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------
LILLIAN MORA, individually and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PIERRON PROPERTIES, LLC, a
California limited liability company, KATHLEEN PIERRON MILLER, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. RG19037040 (Cal. Super., Sept. 26, 2019), alleges that
Defendants failed to reasonably accommodate disability, failed to
engage in interactive process, failed to prevent discrimination,
failed to pay minimum wages, and failed to pay overtime
compensation under the California Labor Code.

Throughout her employment, the Plaintiff cleaned apartment units
for which she was paid on an hourly basis and improperly classified
as an independent contractor.

Because of the demands of her job, Plaintiff was routinely unable
to take uninterrupted 10-minute rest periods for every 4 hours of
work and/or 30-minute minute uninterrupted meal periods for every 5
hours of work. The company further failed to reimburse Plaintiff
for all expenses she incurred in the performance of her duties,
including cell phone and transportation costs.

Plaintiff timely filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation
against Defendant with the California Department of Fair Employment
and Housing, and received a right-to-sue letter, thereby satisfying
all private, administrative and judicial prerequisites to the
institution of the action, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Arveh Leichter, Esq.
          Willshire Blvd., Suite 745
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: 213 381-6557
          Facsimile: 888 801-6629
          E-mail: ari@llfapc.com

PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Court Refuses to Designate Tran Suit Complex
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as NHUNG TRAN, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Pivotal
Software, Inc.; Robert Mee; Cynthia Gaylor; Paul Maritz; Michael S.
Dell; Zane Rowe; Egon Durban; William D. Green; Marcy Klevorn;
Khozema Z. Shipchandler; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; Goldman Sachs &
Co. LLC; C1tigroup Global Markets Inc.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Incorporated; Barclays Capital Inc.; Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC; RBC Capital Markets, LLC; UBS Securities LLC;
Wells Fargo Securities, LLC; KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc.; William
Blair & Company, LLC; Mischler Financial Group, Inc.; Samuel A.
Ramirez & Company, Inc.; Siebert Cisneros Shank & Co., LLC;
Williams Capital Group, L.P., Defendants, Case No. CGC19576806
(Cal. Super., Filed June 18, 2019), the Court entered an order on
Oct. 17, 2019, denying complex designation for failure to file
application requesting designation.

The Plaintiff brings the securities class action on behalf of all
who purchased or otherwise acquired Pivotal common stock pursuant
or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with Pivotal's April 2018 initial public offering.

The action asserts strict liability claims under sections 11, 12,
and 15 of the Securities Ace of 1933 against Pivotal, certain of
Pivotal officers and directors, and the underwriters of the IPO.

Pivotal is a cloud platform technology company headquartered in San
Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          2 Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415/766-3534
          Facsimile: 415/402-0058
          E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com

               - and -

          Brian Schall, Esq.
          THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
          1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 301-3335
          Facsimile: (310) 388-0192
          E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com


PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Files False Report on VMware Sale, Plumley Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK PLUMLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. PIVOTAL SOFTWARE, INC., PAUL MARITZ, MICHAEL
S. DELL, EGON DURBAN, WILLIAM D. GREEN, MARCY S. KLEVORN, MADELYN
LANKTON, ROBERT MEE, and ZANE ROWE, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01974-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 17, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising
from the false and misleading proxy statement filed in connection
with a proposed acquisition transaction.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on August
22, 2019, pursuant to which Pivotal Software, Inc. will be acquired
by VMware, Inc. ("Parent") and Raven Transaction Sub, Inc. ("Merger
Sub," and together with Parent, "VMware"). Pivotal and Parent are
majority-owned subsidiaries of Dell Technologies, Inc.

On August 22, 2019, Pivotal's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Vmware. Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Pivotal's Class A
stockholders will receive $15.00 in cash for each share of Pivotal
Class A common stock they own.

On October 10, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading.

The omitted material information includes information regarding the
process leading up to the execution of the Merger Agreement, and
information regarding potential conflicts of interest of the
Company's financial advisor, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC.  The Proxy
Statement also fails to disclose the nature of the past services
Morgan Stanley provided to VMware, Dell Technologies, and their
affiliates, the lawsuit says.

Pivotal Software, Inc. is an American multinational software and
services company based in San Francisco Pivotal provides cloud
platform hosting and consulting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


PNC MERCHANT: Ct. Narrows Claims in Fraudulent Sales Tactics Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in
part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned HEALING FOR
THE ABUSED WOMAN MINISTRIES; KELWIN INKWEL, LLC; ANITA'S SKIN &
BODY CARE; D.B. KOSIE & ASSOCIATES; CHOI'S BEER SHOP, LLC; and
ABRAMOFF LAW OFFICES, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PNC MERCHANT SERVICES COMPANY,
L.P., Defendant, No. 17-CV-6255 (NGG) (CLP), (E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs allege that low commissions coupled with poor training
has fostered a culture of deception among Defendant's sales agents.
For example, merchants who express interest in Defendant's services
are asked to sign a Merchant Payment Processing Application and
Agreement, which is typically filled out by the sales agent.  The
specific terms and conditions governing the parties' relationships
are detailed in separate documents known as the "Program Guide" and
"Interchange Qualification Matrix" (collectively, and together with
the Application, the "Merchant Agreement") which, according to
Plaintiffs, are typically not provided to applicants until after
the merchant has signed an Application. Plaintiffs further allege
that sales agents routinely deceive merchants regarding the terms
of the Merchant Agreement. According to Plaintiffs, once an
Application is submitted and approved, Defendant engages in various
tactics to increase its revenue at merchants' expense, including by
manipulating transactions to accrue additional fees and raising
fees levied on merchants.

To conceal these additional fees, sales agents allegedly opt
merchants out of receiving detailed account statements without
their consent or knowledge, which practice Plaintiffs characterize
as "statement suppression." Merchants who complain and demand full
statements are often sent "summary" statements, which are not
itemized. Meanwhile, dissatisfied merchants who wish to terminate
their contracts are told "to send a letter requesting termination
without being told that an early termination fee w[ill] be seized
from their checking account."

Plaintiffs assert four causes of action under New York law: (1)
breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing (2) conversion (3) fraudulent inducement and (4)
unjust enrichment.

Defendant filed motions to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and to strike jury demand.

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of a
plaintiff's claims for relief. A complaint will survive a motion to
dismiss if it contains sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported
by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.

Fraudulent Inducement

Plaintiffs bring a claim for fraudulent inducement based on alleged
misrepresentations and failure to disclose certain information to
Plaintiffs at the time each signed their respective Applications.
As set forth below, however, Plaintiffs allegations are
insufficient to state a claim for fraudulent inducement under New
York law.

Affirmative Misrepresentations

To plead a claim of fraudulent inducement to contract premised on
an affirmative misrepresentation under New York law, a plaintiff
must first allege the basic elements of a fraud claim, i.e., a
misrepresentation of material fact, which was false and known to be
false by the defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other
party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party, and
injury.

Because Plaintiffs have failed to plead justifiable reliance, their
fraudulent inducement claims cannot stand.

Plaintiffs identify a litany of misrepresentations allegedly made
by Defendant's sales agents. The problem for Plaintiffs, however,
is that nearly all of the misrepresentations they have identified
are misrepresentations of specific contractual terms. And it is a
longstanding rule of New York law that a party cannot rely on a
misrepresentation if its falsity would be revealed by the exercise
of ordinary diligence such as, in this case, by reading the
agreement.  

Fraudulent Concealment

Plaintiffs alternatively premise their fraudulent inducement claims
on Defendant's alleged failure to provide a copy of the Guide to
Plaintiffs until after they had signed their respective
Applications. This alleged concealment, however, is equally
insufficient to state a claim for fraudulent inducement.

New York law does not recognize a cause of action for fraudulent
concealment unless there is an independent duty of disclosure by
the party alleged to have concealed information.  Such a duty
arises either in the context of a fiduciary relationship or where
the party alleged to have concealed information possesses superior
knowledge not discoverable by its counterparty through the exercise
of reasonable diligence. Plaintiffs, however, do not allege any
facts that could conceivably support an assertion that Defendant
owed them fiduciary duties, and the existence of the Guide is set
forth in the Application documents that each Plaintiff reviewed and
signed. As such, a party exercising reasonable diligence would have
read the Application and been aware of the Guide prior to signing.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' fraudulent inducement claims are
dismissed.

Unjust Enrichment

Plaintiffs advance a claim for unjust enrichment based on
Defendant's involuntary deduction of the contractual early
termination fee (ETF) which Plaintiffs contend is void as a penalty
from their settlement accounts. While Plaintiffs do not specify on
whose behalf this claim is brought, only DBKA and Inkwel allege to
have paid the early termination fee. The court therefore dismisses
this claim insofar as HAWM, ASBC, Choi's LLC, and ALO purport to
assert it.

For the following reasons, the court holds that DBKA and Inkwel
have plausibly alleged that the ETF constitutes an unlawful penalty
and, accordingly, DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss the claims
unjust enrichment claims brought by these Plaintiffs.

To state a claim for unjust enrichment under New York law, a
plaintiff must allege (1) that the defendant benefitted (2) at the
plaintiff's expense and (3) that equity and good conscience require
restitution. Because unjust enrichment sounds in quasi-contract,
the existence of a valid contract between the parties ordinarily
precludes recovery in unjust enrichment. However, if a plaintiff
plausibly alleges that a liquidated damages provision is
unenforceable as a penalty, she may bring a claim in unjust
enrichment to recover any sums involuntarily paid pursuant to that
provision.  

As noted above, Plaintiffs DBKA and Inkwel have alleged that the
ETF was involuntarily debited from their account; accordingly, the
question that the court must resolve is whether they have plausibly
alleged that the ETF is an unenforceable penalty.

Under New York law, a contractual liquidated damages clause is
unenforceable if it does not serve the purpose of reasonably
measuring the anticipated harm, but is instead punitive in nature,
serving as a mere added spur to performance.

Further, while the enforceability of a liquidated damages clause is
a question of law for the court to resolve, the party seeking to
avoid enforcement of the clause ultimately bears the burden of
showing the inapplicability of one or both of the foregoing
conditions. However, at this stage of the proceedings, Defendant
bears the burden of showing that Plaintiffs have nót plausibly
alleged that the ETF amounts to an unenforceable penalty.

The court denies Defendant's motion as to DBKA and Inkwel's unjust
enrichment claims and grants the motion as to the remaining
Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims.

Unlawful Termination Penalties and Conversion

Plaintiffs also assert claims for conversion based on Defendant's
deduction of the contractual early termination fee. The court is
not aware of (and Plaintiffs have not provided) any precedent for
the proposition that a sum taken in accordance with a liquidated
damages provision subsequently adjudged unenforceable may be
recovered in an action for conversion. Moreover, the recovery
sought by this cause of action is duplicative of that sought by
Plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment.  

Consequently, the court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' conversion claims.

Breach of Contract and Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing

The court now turns to the most complex of Plaintiff's claims. For
the following reasons, the court GRANTS the motion to dismiss the
breach of contract claims brought by HAWM, DBKA, Inkwel, ALO, and
Choi's LLC, and DENIES the motion to dismiss the breach of contract
claim brought by ASBC. The court further GRANTS the motion to
dismiss all Plaintiffs' claims for breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing.

The Merchant Agreement's Notice-of-Dispute Provision

In urging this court to dismiss these claims, Defendant relies
heavily on Section 11.10 of the Merchant Agreement, which requires
a merchant to dispute charges in writing and within 60 days of such
charge.  

In response, Plaintiffs raise four arguments: (1) their fraudulent
inducement claims, if successful, would render the
notice-of-dispute provision void (2) compliance with the condition
should be excused because Defendant suppressed their merchant
statements (3) Defendant waived compliance by including language in
certain merchant statements directing Plaintiffs to contact
Defendant's customer service hotline if they had questions about
the annual fee or merchant account  and (4) in any event,
Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded compliance.

Plaintiffs' first contention is, of course, rendered moot by the
court's dismissal of their fraudulent inducement claims.
Plaintiffs' second contention is unpersuasive given that, even
setting aside the conclusory nature of the allegations regarding
Defendant's suppression of statements which allegations are belied
by the fact that none of the applications that Plaintiffs reviewed
and signed indicate that they wished to receive such statements
except that of Choi's LLC, which did receive statements.  

The court will address Plaintiffs' remaining two arguments below.

Waiver

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant waived its right to insist that
charges be disputed in writing within 60 days, both as a general
proposition and specifically with regard to the annual fee. While
the court does not believe that Defendant generally waived
compliance with this condition, it concludes that Plaintiffs have
plausibly stated a claim that Defendant has waived its right to
insist that a timely dispute relating to the annual fee be in
writing.

Under New York law, a party to a contract may waive a contractual
right by action or inaction
Plaintiffs first contend that Defendant waived its right to enforce
the notice-of-dispute provision by including language directing
Plaintiffs to contact Defendant's customer service hotline with any
questions regarding the annual fee or your merchant account on each
statement notifying Plaintiffs that the annual fee would be
assessed.  

Second, Plaintiffs argue that the fact that Defendant maintained a
customer service line through which it fielded merchant complaints
and, in some instances, refunded disputed charges also amounts to a
waiver. Defendant answers these contentions by arguing that any
finding of waiver is precluded by the Merchant Agreement's
no-waiver clause, and that, even if a waiver were found, a separate
clause providing that a party's waiver of a breach of any term or
condition of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any
subsequent breach of the same or another term and condition would
necessarily limit its scope.

Unfortunately for Defendant, under New York law, a no-waiver clause
does not preclude a waiver of contractual rights.

The question remains, however, whether the conduct alleged by
Plaintiffs plausibly sets forth waiver of the notice-of-dispute
provision by Defendant. The court is not persuaded that the mere
fact that Defendant maintained a customer service line plausibly
alleges such a waiver. As discussed above, under New York law, a
waiver cannot be found absent conduct that is explicit,
unmistakeable, and unambiguous. Defendant's maintenance of a
customer service line, without more, cannot be understood to imply
an intent on behalf of Defendant to relinquish a contractual right.
Indeed, New York courts have found similarly indirect behavior
insufficient to establish a waiver.  

Defendant's specific invitation to customers to contact customer
service with questions regarding the annual fee presents a closer
call. As Defendant notes, the term questions does not necessarily
embrace formal fee disputes. However, it would not be unreasonable
to infer that Defendant's invitation for merchants to contact it
telephonically to discuss the annual fee would be understood to
include disputes related to the annual fee, particularly given that
Defendant, aware of this invitation, offered at least some
merchants who called partial or total refunds of the annual fee.  

As such, and drawing all inferences in Plaintiffs' favor, this
language plausibly states a claim that Defendant waived compliance
with the notice-of-dispute provision's requirement that notice be
in writing as to disputes related to the annual fee.  

Rule 9(c)

Having concluded that compliance with the notice-of-dispute
provision is required except as to disputes concerning the annual
fee (for which prompt telephone notice will suffice), the court
will now determine what Plaintiffs must allege in order to
sufficiently plead such compliance. The pleading of conditions
precedent is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(c),
which provides, in relevant part, that in pleading conditions
precedent, it suffices to allege generally that all conditions
precedent have occurred or been performed.

Plaintiffs contend that the plausibility standard that broadly
governs federal pleading, As such, Plaintiffs argue, their
allegation that they have performed all conditions precedent to
suit  is sufficient to discharge their burden under Rule 9(c).

As the Second Circuit recently acknowledged, the applicability of
plausibility standard to Rule 9(c) is a question that it has yet to
resolve. As such, Plaintiffs must plausibly plead compliance with
the notice-of-dispute provision except as to their claims regarding
the annual fee.

Breach of Contract

To plead a claim for breach of contract under New York law, a
plaintiff must allege (1) the existence of a contract (2)
performance by the party seeking recovery (3) breach by the other
party and (4) damages attributable to the breach. Where the
contract at issue contains an express condition precedent to
recovery, that condition must be literally performed; substantial
performance will not suffice. All Plaintiffs have sufficiently
pleaded the existence of a contract, and Defendant does not argue
otherwise.

DBKA, Inkwel, ALO, Choi's LLC, and HAWM

DBKA, Inkwel, ALO, and Choi's LLC do not allege that they provided
a written notice of dispute to Defendants within 60 days of the
charges for which they seek recovery, nor do they allege timely
telephonic notice of dispute with regard to the annual fee. These
Plaintiffs thus fail to plead performance by the party seeking
recovery and the court dismisses their claims for breach of
contract.

HAWM likewise fails to plead performance. While HAWM alleges to
have complained in writing about Defendant's practices to several
federal and state authorities and the Better Business Bureau and
that several of these writings were served on Defendant within 60
days, it does not allege that it notified Defendant directly and in
writing, as required by the Merchant Agreement. Such allegations of
actual notice are insufficient under New York law.  

Plaintiffs' allegations that the annual fee was not assessed in
accordance with the Merchant Agreement, however, state a plausible
breach attributable to Defendant. While the Merchant Agreement
accords Defendant discretion to charge an annual fee to defray the
cost of necessary systems technology upgrades, communication
requirements and reporting, Plaintiffs' allegations that the fee
was charged at the same time, in the same amount, year after year
are more than adequate to support the inference that Defendant
assessed the fee as a matter of course and solely for the purpose
of padding its bottom line, in violation of the terms of the
Merchant Agreement.

ASBC, having paid and timely disputed the allegedly wrongful
termination fee, may proceed with its breach claim if it has
plausibly alleged damages flowing therefrom. Because the complaint
does not allege any other compensable damages ASBC suffered as a
result of Defendant's assessment of the 2015 annual fee upon it,
the fact that this fee was refunded in full precludes any further
recovery.  Because, however, ASBC obtained no refund of the 2013
annual fee and only a partial refund of the 2014 annual fee, it may
proceed with its breach claim as to the annual fee assessed in
these years.

Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Plaintiffs also assert that, to the extent Defendant's various
alleged misdeeds did not actually breach the terms of the contract,
these acts nonetheless breached the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.  These claims are duplicative of Plaintiffs'
direct breach claims and are therefore dismissed.

New York law implies an obligation into every contract that neither
party to a contract shall do anything that has the effect of
destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the
fruits of the contract. However, the implied covenant can only
impose an obligation consistent with other mutually agreed upon
terms in the contract.

Here, Plaintiffs' claims for breach of the implied covenant seek
redress for the same conduct and resulting injury as the breach of
contract claims namely, the recovery of damages incurred as a
result of Defendant's charging unwanted fees. While Plaintiffs are
correct that New York law does, under certain circumstances, permit
an implied covenant claim to be to be pleaded in the alternative,
this has typically been applied only in situations where "there is
a dispute over the meaning of the contract's express terms. No such
dispute exists in this case and, for that reason, Plaintiffs'
implied covenant claims are duplicative of Plaintiffs' direct
breach claims. Accordingly, these claims are dismissed.

For these reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART.

The motion is granted as to: (1) all Plaintiffs' fraudulent
inducement claims (2) Plaintiffs Healing the Abused Woman
Ministries; Anita's Skin & Body Care; Choi's Beer Shop, LLC; and
Abramoff Law Offices' unjust enrichment claims (3) all Plaintiffs'
conversion claims (4) Plaintiffs Healing the Abused Woman
Ministries Kelwin Inkwel, LLC; D.B. Kosie & Associates; Choi's Beer
Shop, LLC; and Abramoff Law Offices' breach of contract claims; and
(5) all Plaintiffs' claims for breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing. The motion is denied as to: (1)
Plaintiffs Kelwin Inkwel, LLC and DB Kosie & Associates' unjust
enrichment claims and (2) Plaintiff Anita's Skin & Body Care's
breach of contract claim.

Defendant's motion to strike the jury demand is GRANTED.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y236o75m
from Leagle.com.

Kelwin Inkwel, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by E. Adam Webb , Webb,
Klase & Lemond, LLC, 1900 The Exchange S.E., Suite 480 Atlanta, GA
30339, pro hac vice.

Anita's Skin & Body Care & D.B. Kosie & Associates, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by E. Adam Webb , Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC.

PNC Merchant Services Company, L.P., Defendant, represented by
Casey D. Laffey , ReedSmith LLP, Perry A. Napolitano , Reed Smith
LLP, pro hac vice & Justin J. Kontul , Reed Smith LLP, 225 Fifth
Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222 , pro hac vice.


POTNETWORK HOLDINGS: Potter Sues over Cannabidiol Products
----------------------------------------------------------
KATHRYN POTTER on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. POTNETWORK HOLDINGS, INC., DIAMOND
CBD, INC., and FIRST CAPITAL VENTURE CO., the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-24017-RNS (S.D. Fla., Sept. 27, 2019), seeks monetary
damages, restitution, and injunctive relief from Defendants arising
from the purchase of cannabidiol ("CBD") products manufactured,
distributed, and sold by Defendants based upon their
misrepresentations of the quantity of CBD contained in those
products.

According to the complaint, CBD is one of the naturally occurring
cannabinoids found in cannabis plants, including hemp. Many CBD
products are derived from hemp. CBD generally does not contain
significant amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC"), which is
marijuana's psychoactive compound, and CBD has been touted as
having numerous positive health effects.

Specifically, CBD products have been used to treat medical
conditions such as anxiety, sleep disorders, and chronic pain.

Today, CBD is commonly used in combination with a number of
products including food and dietary supplements. CBD is generally
administered orally as either a capsule or dissolved in an oil
solution that may be mixed with other ingredients, but is also
administered by inhalation as a smoke or vapor.

In 2018, Congress passed the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018,
Pub. L. 115-334, known as the "Farm Bill," which legalized, at the
federal level, the production of industrial hemp, from which CBD
can be derived. The 2018 Farm Bill removed hemp from the definition
of marijuana in the Controlled Substances Act, thereby making it
legal to grow hemp that contains less than 0.3% THC.

The Farm Bill delegated broad authority to the states to regulate
the production and distribution of hemp, which Florida began in
June 2019, with its State Hemp Program. Since passage of the Farm
Bill, the CBD industry has quickly become a billion dollar plus
industry.

Unfortunately, as is often the case with emerging industries
subject to minimal regulation, the CBD market is ripe for
exploitation by unscrupulous businesses, and it has been compared
to the "Wild West."

There has been no shortage of news reports on CBD companies
committing all sorts of malfeasance -- from some companies selling
CBD products with significant levels of THC that cause users to
fail drug tests, to other companies making wholly unsubstantiated
health claims.

Companies are also misrepresenting the amount of CBD in their
products. The Defendants are a market leader in this Wild West of
CBD products, having sold as much as $200,000 in Products at a
single exposition in February 2019. News reports claim it is
one of the top 10 CBD sellers in the nation.

Unfortunately, Defendants' success has been partially fueled by
misrepresenting the levels of CBD contained in the Products.

To the detriment of consumers, their Products do not contain the
promised levels of CBD. Specifically, Defendants misrepresent the
amount of CBD contained in the Products on the product labeling and
packaging and they make the same misrepresentation on Diamond CBD's
website, where consumers can directly purchase the Products.

Defendants are selling the Products with a significantly lower
amount of CBD than represented, and are therefore cheating every
consumer who buys the Products by that amount.

CBD is the active ingredient in the Products at issue in the
complaint. Thus, any discrepancy between the listed CBD amount and
the actual CBD amount misrepresents what the consumer purchases,
and means that the consumer does not receive what was purchased,
the lawsuit says.

Defendants sell a variety of CBS products, including, but not
limited to, "CBD Oil," "CBD Edibles," "CBD Capsules," "CBD Drinks,"
"CBD Edibles," "CBD Vape Oil," as well as "Bath & Body" and
"Cosmetics" products.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes are:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Daniel Tropin, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          Joshua Levine, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-525-4100
          Facsimile: 954-525-4300
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  tropin@kolawyers.com
                  streisfeld@kolawyers.com
                  levine@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: 612-389-0600
          Facsimile: 612-389-0610
          E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com
                  jbourne@pswlaw.com


PRESIDIO INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case
No. 1:19-cv-09219-DLC, on behalf of shareholders of Presidio, Inc.
("Presidio" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:PSDO) who have been harmed by
Presidio's and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed
merger of the Company with BC Partners Advisors L.P. (the "Proposed
Transaction").

On September 25, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into
an agreement and plan of merger under which Presidio shareholders
stand to receive $16.60 in cash for each share of Presidio stock
they own.

The complaint alleges that the Proxy filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction
violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because it
provides materially incomplete and misleading information about the
Company and the Proposed Transaction, including information
concerning the Company's financial projections and certain
valuation analyses conducted by the Company's financial advisor, on
which the Board relied to recommend the Proposed Transaction as
fair to Presidio shareholders.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can
do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/PSDO.

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California,
Georgia, and Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 27, 2019. Any member of the putative class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please
contact:

         Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
         James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
         E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                 jwilson@faruqilaw.com

The defendant manufacturers in the proposed class action are the
five pharmaceutical companies whose products appear on Health
Canada's recall list: Sandoz Canada Inc., Apotex Inc., Pro Doc
Limited, Sanis Health Inc. and Sivem Pharmaceuticals ULC/Sivem
Produits Pharmaceutiques ULC. [GN]

PURDUE PHARMA: Hardin County Suit Moved to E.D. Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by Hardin County Fiscal Court against
Purdue Pharma L.P. et al. has been removed from the Franklin
Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Kentucky (Frankfort) on Sept. 29, 2019. The Eastern District of
Kentucky Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00068-GFVT to the
proceeding.  The suit alleges Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal
Injury Product Liability issues. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove.

The case is styled as Hardin County Fiscal Court, all other
similarly situated Kentucky counties on behalf of Hardin County;
Breckinridge County Fiscal Court, all other similarly situated
Kentucky counties on behalf of Breckinridge County; Green County
Fiscal Court, all other similarly situated Kentucky counties on
behalf of Green County;  Meade County Fiscal Court, all other
similarly situated Kentucky counties on behalf of Meade County;
Ohio County Fiscal Court all other similarly situated Kentucky
counties, on behalf of Ohio County, the Plaintiffs, vs. Purdue
Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma Inc.; Purdue Frederick Company; Rhodes
Technologies; Rhodes Technologies Inc.; Rhodes Pharmaceuticals
L.P.; Richard Sackler; Beverly Sackler; David Sackler; Ilene
Sackler Lefcourt; Jonathan Sackler; Kathe Sackler; Mortimer D.A.
Sackler; Theresa Sackler; Abbott Laboratories; Abbott Laboratories,
Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Cephalon, Inc.; Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Allergan, PLC Actavis PLC; Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Watson Laboratories, Inc.; Actavis Pharma,
Inc.; Actavis L; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals
Inc.; Endo International PLC; Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Par
Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.; Mallinckrodt PLC; Mallinckrodt LLC;
Specgx, LLC; Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;
Noramco, Inc.; Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Amneal Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp.;
KVK Tech, Inc.; Assertio Therapeutics, Inc.; Depomed Inc.;
Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation; H.D. Smith, LLC; Anda, Inc.;
Cardinal Health, Inc.; CVS Health Corporation LLC; McKesson
Corporation; Rite Aid Corporation; Smith Drug Company, Inc.;
Kentucky CVS Pharmacy LLC; Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc.; Kroger
Company; Rite Aid of Kentucky, Inc.; Walgreen Co.; Walmart Inc.,
the Defendants, Case No. 19-CI-940 (Ky. Cir., Franklin).

Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned
principally by descendants of Mortimer and Raymond Sackler. In
2007, it paid out one of the largest fines ever levied against a
pharmaceutical firm for mislabeling its product OxyContin, and
three executives were found guilty of criminal charges.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Andrew M. Grabhorn, Esq.
          Michael D. Grabhorn, Esq.
          GRABHORN LAW OFFICE, PLLC
          2525 Nelson Miller Pkwy, Suite 107
          Louisville, KY 40223
          Telephone: (502) 244-9331
          Facsimile: (502) 244-9334
          E-mail: a.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com
                  m.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com

               - and -

          William D. Nefzger, Esq.
          BAHE, COOK, CANTLEY & NEFZGER, PLC
          1041 Goss Avenue
          The BCCN Building
          Louisville, KY 40217
          Telephone: (502) 587-2002
          Facsimile: (502) 587-2006
          E-mail: will@bccnlaw.com

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: AMCA Data Breach Class Suits to Proceed in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that class
action lawsuits related to the AMCA Data Security Incident have
been transferred to and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
New Jersey by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

On June 3, 2019, the Company reported that Retrieval-Masters
Creditors Bureau, Inc./American Medical Collection Agency ("AMCA"),
informed the Company and Optum360 LLC, which provides revenue
management services to the Company, about a data security incident
involving AMCA (the "AMCA Data Security Incident").

AMCA (which provided debt collection services for Optum360)
informed the Company and Optum360 that AMCA had learned that an
unauthorized user had access to AMCA's system between August 1,
2018 and March 30, 2019. AMCA first informed the Company of the
AMCA Data Security Incident on May 14, 2019. AMCA's affected system
included financial information (e.g., credit card numbers and bank
account information), medical information and other personal
information (e.g., social security numbers).

Test results were not included. Neither Optum360's nor the
Company's systems or databases were involved in the incident. AMCA
has also informed the company that information pertaining to other
laboratories’ customers was also affected. Following announcement
of the AMCA Data Security Incident, AMCA sought protection under
the U.S. bankruptcy laws.

To date, approximately 39 lawsuits related to the AMCA Data
Security Incident have been filed against the Company, most of
which name other defendants, in federal courts in a number of
districts and in state courts.

Most of the cases are putative class actions in which the
plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes of consumers,
assert a variety of common law and statutory claims in connection
with the AMCA Data Security Incident and most of them have been
transferred to and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for New
Jersey by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, incorporated on September 20, 1996,
is a provider of diagnostic information services. The Company
operates through two businesses: Diagnostic Information Services
and Diagnostic Solutions. The company is based in Secaucus, New
Jersey.


ROMAINE EMPIRE: Holmon Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICK HOLMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROMAINE EMPIRE, INC. D/B/A FARMER'S FRIDGE,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH12398 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Oct. 24,
2019), seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful collection, use,
storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the proposed Class's
sensitive, private, and personal biometric data.

Unlike ID badges or time cards, which can be changed or replaced if
stolen or compromised, biometrics are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the
Defendant's employees, including the Plaintiff, to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its
citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric
Information Privacy Act, specifically to regulate companies that
collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics.

As an employee/worker of the Defendant, the Plaintiff was required
to "clock in" and "clock out" of work shifts by having his
fingerprint scanned by a biometric timeclock which identified each
employee, including the Plaintiff. Notwithstanding the clear and
unequivocal requirements of the law, the Defendant disregards
employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully
collects, stores, and uses employees' biometric data in violation
of BIPA, the Plaintiff alleges.

Specifically, the Defendant has violated and continues to violate
BIPA because it did not and, upon information and belief, continues
not to: a. properly inform the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for
which their fingerprint(s) were being collected, stored,
disseminated and used, as required by BIPA; b. provide a publicly
available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
destroying the Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated
individuals' fingerprint(s), as required by BIPA;
c. receive a written release from the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated to collect, store, disseminate or otherwise use
their fingerprint(s), as required by BIPA; and obtain consent from
the Plaintiff and others similarly situated to disclose,
redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their biometric identifiers
and/or biometric information to a third party as required by BIPA,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant at in Illinois.

Romaine Empire, Inc. d/b/a Farmer's Fridge is a Delaware
corporation with places of business in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
     Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
     PEIFFER WOLFCARR & KANE, APLC
     818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
     St. Louis, MO 63104
     Phone: 314-833-4825
     Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com
            plesko@pwcklegal.com


ROUND ROBIN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Allard Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW ALLARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROUND ROBIN OPERATIONS, LLC; ROUND ROBIN,
LLC; ROUND ROBIN OF CORBINS CORNER, LLC; ROUND ROBIN OF ENFIELD,
LLC; ROUND ROBIN OF HOLYOKE, LLC; ROUND ROBIN OF MANCHESTER, LLC;
ROUND ROBIN OF MILFORD, LLC; ROUND ROBIN OF MILLBURY, LLC; ROUND
ROBIN OF SOUTHINGTON, LLC; ROUND ROBIN OF WATERFORD, LLC; ROUND
ROBIN OF WILBRAHAM, LLC; and RICHARD SHELDON, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-01541 (D. Conn., Sept. 30, 2019) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Allard was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,
hourly paid employee.

Round Robin Operations, LLC is a Connecticut corporation operating
a restaurant known as Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Alexis H. Castillo, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com
                  fran@klafterolsen.com
                  alexis.castillo@klafterolsen.com

               - and –

          C. Andrew Head, Esq.
          Bethany A. Hilbert, Esq.
          HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
          4422 N. Ravenswood Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60640
          Telephone: (404) 924-4151
          Facsimile: (404) 796-7338
          E-mail: ahead@headlawfirm.com
                  bhilbert@headlawfirm.com


RUSS DARROW: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Allen Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RUSS DARROW GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01421-NJ (E.D. Wis., Sept. 30, 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 Allen was employed by the Defendant as non exempt
employee.

Russ Darrow Group, Inc. retails automobiles. The Company offers new
and used vehicles, automobile parts, and repair and maintenance
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SALVATORE PIZZA: Valladares Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR B. VALLADARES and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. SALVATORE PIZZA & PASTA INCORPORATED, MAXIMILIANO
SQUADRITO, and AUGUSTO V. SQUADRITO, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-24266-JLK (S.D. Fla., Oct. 16, 2019), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid half-time overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all other current and
former employees similarly situated to the Plaintiff worked in
excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after June 2017
without being properly compensated.

Salvatore Pizza is an Italian restaurant located at 1550 W 84th
St., in Hialeah, Florida. The restaurant sells pizza, burgers,
sandwiches, pitas, salads, and other fast-food preparations to
customers, whether they sit-down, carry out the food, or have it
delivered.[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


SAN GABRIEL: Ex-Driver Gets Another Chance to Certify Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
BloombergLaw reports that a former driver for San Gabriel Transit
will have another chance to certify his putative class action
alleging SGT failed to pay drivers minimum wage and overtime in
violation of California law, and misclassified employees as
independent contractors. A trial court denied certification of the
overtime and minimum wage claims of a proposed class of drivers
using dispatching services and equipment leased from SGT because it
found that he failed to demonstrate a "community of interest." A
California appeals court reverses and remands, instructing the
court to apply the "ABC Test".[GN]


SANDOZ CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Contaminated Ranitidine Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed national class action has been filed in Vancouver in
response to yet another national recall of medication contaminated
by a toxin. For more information, please visit:
http://www.ranitidineclassaction.com/.

"In 2018 it was the Valsartan recall, now it's Ranitidine--the
integrity of Canada's drug supply is now very much in question. How
is NDMA getting into our drug supply? Why isn't the Government of
Canada launching an inquiry?" said class counsel Theodore P.
Charney.

The action is brought against the pharmaceutical companies who
manufacture Ranitidine products for sale in Canada. It is alleged
the manufacturers were negligent because the drugs include a toxic
chemical, NDMA.

According to Health Canada, NDMA is a potential human carcinogen,
which means that it could cause cancer with long-term exposure.
NDMA has been detected in the Ranitidine products manufactured,
distributed and sold by the defendants.

The class action is also being advanced against national drug store
chains who sold the contaminated Ranitidine products
over-the-counter. It is alleged the goods are not fit for
consumption.

The defendant manufacturers in the proposed class action are the
five pharmaceutical companies whose products appear on Health
Canada's recall list: Sandoz Canada Inc., Apotex Inc., Pro Doc
Limitee, Sanis Health Inc. and Sivem Pharmaceuticals ULC/Sivem
Produits Pharmaceutiques ULC.

The defendant drug store chains are: London Drugs Limited, Shoppers
Drug Mart Inc., Rexall Pharmacy Group Ltd., Rexall/Pharma Plus
Pharmacies Ltd., McKesson Canada Corporation/La Corporation
McKesson Canada, McKesson Pharmacy Systems Canada ULC, Pharmasave
Drugs Ltd., Loblaws Inc. and Westfair Drugs B.C. Ltd.

Class Counsel are Charney Lawyers, a leading class action firm led
by senior counsel Theodore P. Charney and Rice Harbut Elliott a
firm of trial lawyers who exclusively represent people who have
been injured. The lawyers at Rice Harbut Elliott have a record of
relentlessly holding defendants accountable, including in product
liability cases. [GN]



SANOFI-AVENTIS: Zantac Defective & Unsafe, Dimesky et al. Say
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Dimesky, Mohamed Haridi, Michael Burke, Stephanie Frasier,
and Richard Harris, the Plaintiffs, vs. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC;
Sanofi US Services Inc.; Chattem, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01517-RNC
(D. Conn., Sept. 26, 2019), alleges that Boehringer intentionally
concealed that Zantac is defective and unsafe, and exposes
consumers to high levels of N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).

Zantac -- the brand-name version of the generic drug ranitidine --
is used to treat gastrointestinal conditions such as acid
indigestion, heartburn, sour stomach, and gastroesophageal reflux
disease. Zantac was first sold in the United States in 1983; three
years later, it became the first drug to total $1 billion in
sales.

As recently as 2018, Zantac was widely used and remained one of the
most popular tablet brands of antacid in the United States, with
sales of Zantac 150 (the over-the-counter tablets containing a 150
mg dose) totaling $128.9 million annually. Over-the-counter Zantac
also is sold in the form of tablets containing a 75 mg dose (Zantac
75).

But Zantac's unprecedented sales were possible only because of a
deception perpetrated by the drug's manufacturers on consumers who
have purchased Zantac since it hit the market in 1983. Sanofi and
Boehringer are only the most recent perpetrators of this
deception.

Sanofi has owned the U.S. rights to over-the-counter Zantac since
about January 2017, and has manufactured and distributed the drug
during that period. Previously, Defendant Boehringer owned the U.S.
rights to over-the-counter Zantac and manufactured and distributed
the drug from about October 2006 to January 2017.

But neither Sanofi nor Boehringer ever disclosed to consumers that
the drug has a critical defect: When ingested, Zantac produces in
the human body high quantities of NDMA, a chemical that the World
Health Organization has described as "clearly carcinogenic." The
dangers of NDMA have been publicly known for over 40 years. NDMA
itself belongs to a family of chemicals called N-nitrosamines,
which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency refers to as "potent
carcinogens."

Recent scientific testing conducted by Valisure LLC and ValisureRX
LLC "has detected extremely high levels of NDMA in all lots [of
ranitidine] tested, across multiple manufacturers of ranitidine
products," including Zantac.

Valisure has notified the FDA of its findings by filing a citizen
petition on September 13, 2019. Valisure is an "online pharmacy
currently licensed in 38 states and an analytical laboratory that
is ISO 17025 accredited by the International Organization for
Standardization."

Valisure also is registered with the Drug Enforcement
Administration and the FDA. The tests conducted by Valisure show
that "ranitidine can react with itself in standard analysis
conditions at high efficiency to produce NDMA at dangerous levels
well in excess of the permissible daily intake limit for this
probable carcinogen."

The FDA recently announced a permissible intake limit of 96 ng of
NDMA per day. But even this limit may be too high: A public health
statement issued 30 years ago by the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry warned of the dangers posed by NDMA, noting
among other things that "high level short-term and low level
long-term exposures [to NDMA] caused non-cancerous liver damage
and/or cancer in animals [and] also usually resulted in internal
bleeding and death."[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Proposed Class are:

          Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          E-mail: :craabe@ikrlaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Ave., Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jason A. Zweig, Esq.
          Zoran Tasic, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (708) 628-4949
          E-mail: jasonz@hbsslaw.com
                  zorant@hbsslaw.com

SCIPLAY CORP: Faces Police Fund Suit Alleging IPO-Related Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ST. LOUIS, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. SCIPLAY CORPORATION;
JOSHUA J. WILSON; MICHAEL D. CODY; MICHAEL F. WINTERSCHEIDT; BARRY
L. COTTLE; GERALD D. COHEN; JAY PENSKE; M. MENDEL PINSON; WILLIAM
C. THOMPSON, JR.; FRANCES F. TOWNSEND; BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL
LYNCH; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.;
GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; MACQUARIE
CAPITAL (USA) INC.; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; STIFEL, NICOLAUS &
COMPANY, INCORPORATED; and WEDBUSH SECURITIES INC., Defendants,
Case No. 655984/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Oct. 14, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of the Defendants'
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to a misleading
registration statement filed in connection with their initial
public offering.

On April 5, 2019, the Defendants filed a draft Registration
Statement on Form S-1 with the Securities Exchange Commission.
Thereafter, SciPlay filed a series of amendments to the Form S-1 in
response to SEC comments. On April 29, 2019, the Defendants filed a
final amendment to the Registration Statement.

On May 2, 2019, the SEC declared the Registration Statement
effective. Each of the Individual Defendants signed the
Registration Statement. The Registration Statement was subsequently
utilized in the Offering.

On May 2, 2019, SciPlay announced the pricing of its IPO of 22
million shares of its Class A common stock at $16.00 per share and
that Underwriter Defendants had been granted a 30-day option to
purchase up to an additional 3.3 million shares of its Class A
common stock (Over-allotment Option). The Company also announced
that shares of SciPlay's Class A common stock were expected to
begin trading on The NASDAQ Global Select Market on May 3, 2019,
under the ticker symbol "SCPL."

On May 7, 2019, SciPlay completed the Offering of 22,000,000 shares
of Class A common stock at a public offering price of $16.00 per
share. The Company received $330.9 million in proceeds, net of
underwriting discounts, but before offering expenses of
approximately $10.0 million.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement was
negligently prepared, and as a result, contained untrue statements
of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the
statements not misleading, and failed to make adequate disclosures
required under the rules and regulations governing the preparation
of such documents.  The Plaintiff contends that the Registration
Statement purported to warn of numerous potential risks that, "if"
they were to occur, "could" or "may" adversely affect the Company,
while failing to disclose that these very "risks" had already begun
to materialize before the IPO.

The Plaintiff also alleges, among other things, that the risk
disclosures were false and misleading because--prior to the
IPO--SciPlay's platform was experiencing technical issues that
slowed it to the point where all of its core games were
unplayable.

On September 19, 2019, Bank of America Merrill Lynch double-
downgraded its recommendation on the Company's stock from "Buy" to
"Underperform." The bank also cut its price target on SciPlay stock
from $17.00 per share to $12.00 per share. In doing so, the bank's
analysts cited "lack of catalysts in terms of new games/markets to
surprise to the upside" along with softer than expected growth
after the IPO, as the reason for the cut.

In the five months since the IPO, SciPlay's share price has
declined almost 40 percent from the IPO price, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff purchased SciPlay Class A common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Offering and has been damaged thereby.

SciPlay develops and publishes interactive casino games for mobile
and web platforms. The Company generates nearly all of its revenue
from the sale of virtual gambling currency to its users.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10017-5563
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  ebelfi@labaton.com
                  afatale@labaton.com


SHRI JI: Sullivan Seeks Overtime Compensation for Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUSANNE SULLIVAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff,  vs. SHRI JI ENTERPRISES, LLC,
and AMITKUMAR T. PATEL, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01201
(W.D. Tex., Oct. 8, 2019), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary
damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs,
including a reasonable attorney's fee, as a result of Defendants'
failure to pay proper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff began her employment with Defendants in April 2019
and continues to work for the Defendants.

Shri Ji is an owner and operator of multiple hotels including
Microtel Inn & Suites, Quality Inn, and Sure Stay in San
Antonio.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Credit Card Info
----------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation (Six Flags) said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 23, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019, that the company continues to defend itself from four
potential class action complaint relate to its violation of a
federal by printing more than the last five digits of a credit or
debit card number on customers' receipts, and/or the expiration
dates of those cards.

During 2017, four potential class action complaints were filed
against Six Flags Entertainment Corporation or one of its
subsidiaries. Complaints were filed on August 11, 2017 in the
Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois, on September 1, 2017 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
on September 11, 2017, in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
California, and on November 30, 2017, in the Superior Court of
Ocean County, New Jersey.

The complaints allege that the company, in violation of federal
law, printed more than the last five digits of a credit or debit
card number on customers' receipts, and/or the expiration dates of
those cards. A willful violation may subject a company to liability
for actual damages or statutory damages between $100 and $1,000 per
person, punitive damages in an amount determined by a court, and
reasonable attorneys' fees, all of which are sought by the
plaintiffs. The complaints do not allege that any information was
misused.

Six Flags said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against
this litigation. Since this litigation is in an early stage, the
outcome is currently not determinable, and a reasonable estimate of
loss or range of loss in excess of the immaterial amount that we
have recorded for this litigation cannot be made."

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

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.


SIX FLAGS: Suit over Collection of Biometric Data Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation (Six Flags) said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 23, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019, that the company continues to defend a potential class action
suit related to Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

On January 7, 2016, a potential class action complaint was filed
against Six Flags Entertainment Corporation in the Circuit Court of
Lake County, Illinois. On April 22, 2016, Great America, LLC was
added as a defendant.

The complaint asserts that the company violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") in connection with the
admission of season pass holders and members through the finger
scan program that commenced in the 2014 operating season at Six
Flags Great America in Gurnee, Illinois, and seeks statutory
damages, attorneys' fees and an injunction.

An aggrieved party under BIPA may recover (i) $1,000 if a company
is found to have negligently violated BIPA or (ii) $5,000 if a
company is found to have intentionally or recklessly violated BIPA,
plus reasonable attorneys' fees in each case.

The complaint does not allege that any information was misused or
disseminated. On April 7, 2017, the trial court certified two
questions for consideration by the Illinois Appellate Court of the
Second District.

On June 7, 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court granted the company's
motion to appeal. Accordingly, two questions regarding the
interpretation of BIPA were certified for consideration by the
Illinois Appellate Court. On December 21, 2017, the Illinois
Appellate Court found in company's favor, holding that the
plaintiff had to allege more than a technical violation of BIPA and
had to be injured in some way in order to have a right of action.

On March 1, 2018, the plaintiff filed a petition for leave to
appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. On May 30, 2018, the Illinois
Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal
and oral arguments were heard on November 20, 2018.

On January 25, 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court found in favor of
the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff does not need to allege
an actual injury beyond the violation of his rights under BIPA in
order to proceed with a complaint.

Six Flags said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend
ourselves against this litigation. Since this litigation is still
in an early stage, the outcome is currently not determinable and a
reasonable estimate of loss or range of loss in excess of the
immaterial amount that we have recorded for this litigation cannot
be made."

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

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.


SIXT RENT: Wrongly Truncates Credit/Debit Cards Info, Siglin Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PARKER SIGLIN, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SIXT RENT A CAR, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. CACE-19-021308 (Fla.
Cir., Oct. 11, 2019), alleges that the Defendant improperly
truncated credit and debit card information on receipts, in
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's receipt, instead of
concealing 11 digits, only truncated six. The resulting harm from
the statute's violation is concrete in the sense that it involves a
clear de facto injury, i.e., the unlawful disclosure of legally
protected information, the Plaintiff contends.  Despite the clear
language of the statute, the Defendant, in willful, knowing or
reckless disregard of the statute, has failed to comply, the
lawsuit says.

The Defendant is a car rental company in the United States with
rental locations in more than fifty airports and cities in more
than a dozen states.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P .A.
          3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: 954-589-0588
          Facsimile: 954-337-0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com

               - and -

          Kira M. Rubel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KIRA M. RUBEL
          3615 Harborview Drive, Suite C
          Gig Harbor, WA 98332-2129
          Telephone: 800 836-6531
          Facsimile: 206-238-1694
          E-mail: krubel@kmrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Bret L. Lusskin, Esq.
          BRET LUSSKIN, P.A.
          20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 302
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 954 454-5841
          Facsimile: 954-454-5844
          E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com

               - and -

          Seth Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER, LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954 524-2820
          E-mail: seth@epllc.com


SKANSKA INC: Peters Seeks OT Wages for Straight Time Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
LONNIE PETERS, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees v. SKANSKA, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-19027-CCC-MF
(D.N.J., Oct. 16, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime under the
New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Peters and other Straight Time Workers like him worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single workweek with no overtime
compensation, the lawsuit says.

SKANSKA bills itself as a world leading project development and
construction. It employs thousands of professional and technical
employees in various positions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Cimera, Esq.
          Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


SOMERSET PHASE: Trevisan Seeks OT Pay for Maintenance Technicians
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HUDSON TREVISAN, RODNEY BROCK, and All others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. SOMERSET PHASE IV & PHASE V, LLC, a Florida
For-Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-62503 (Fla.
17th Jud'l Cir., Oct. 8, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to compensate
similarly situated maintenance technicians.

The Defendant is in the business of providing luxury condominiums
and apartments and connecting individuals with its rentals
properties and, after a lease is executed, providing continued
services for tenants.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs are:

          J. Freddy Perera, Esq.
          Valerie Barnhart, Esq.
          Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
          Waynice A. Green, Esq.
          PERERA BARHART P.A.
          12555 Orange Drive, 2nd Floor
          Davie, FL 33330
          Telephone: (786) 485 5232
          E-mail: freddy@pererebarnhart.com
                  valerie@pererebarnhart.com
                  brody@pererebarnhart.com
                  waynice@pererebarnhart.com

SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on October 7, 2019, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against Sonim Technologies,
Inc. (NASDAQ: SONM). The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1933, including allegations of issuing a series of material or
false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's May 2019
initial public offering.

To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-sonim-technologies-inc/

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Sonim
Technologies, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during
the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as
described above. You may move the Court no later than Friday,
December 6, 2019 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.
However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal
requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

        Robin Hester
        FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
        10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
        Oklahoma City, OK 73120
        E-mail: rkh@federmanlaw.com
        Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/
[GN]




SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: Hagens Berman Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman reminds investors in Sonim Technologies Inc. (SONM)
of the federal securities class action pending against the company
and urges SONM investors who have suffered losses in excess of
$25,000 to contact the firm.

Relevant Period: May 6, 2019 - Sep. 10, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Dec. 6, 2019
Sign Up: www.hbsslaw.com/cases/SONM

Contact An Attorney Now: SONM@hbsslaw.com

510-725-3000

SONIM Class Action:

On May 10, 2019, Sonim conducted its IPO, selling over 3.5 million
shares of stock individually priced at $11.00. Integral to the
IPO's success was the company's Registration Statement, which made
positive statements concerning the features and functionality of
Sonim's mobile phones and accessories. Thereafter, Sonim made
similar representations about its mobile phone devices and its
stock steadily climbed, trading over $18 in June 2019.

According to the Complaint, contrary to Sonim's hyping of its
mobile phones' reliability and superior software configurations and
performance, Sonim was experiencing severe software and technical
challenges with its flagship smartphone, the XP8, as well as its
XP5 and XP3 models.

The truth emerged on September 10, 2019, when Sonim's management
disclosed that "the company has experienced technical challenges
related to its [flagship] XP8 smartphone . . ., which cumulatively
resulted in lost sales momentum." The company also lowered guidance
and also announced the abrupt resignation of CFO Jim Walker. On
this news, the price of SONM shares plummeted $3.30, or 47%, in a
single trading day.

On October 7, 2019, a federal securities class action was filed on
behalf of all Sonim investors that purchased shares in the May 2019
IPO, and alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933.

Hagens Berman, however, is also investigating whether Sonim and its
senior officials engaged in a more expansive securities fraud
giving rise to additional claims under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

If you invested in Sonim between May 10, 2019 and Oct. 7, 2019 and
suffered significant losses ($25,000+), you may qualify to be a
lead plaintiff--one who selects and oversees the attorneys
prosecuting the case. Contact Hagens Berman immediately to learn
more about the case and being a lead plaintiff.

"We're focused on investors' losses and whether senior management
concealed problems with Sonim's XP8 smartphones and other devices,"
said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Sonim
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or
email SONM@hbsslaw.com.

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw.

Contact:

         Reed Kathrein, Esq.
         Tel: 510-725-3000
         Email: reed@hbsslaw.com
[GN]



SPARK ENERGY: Amended Removal Notice Filing in IUE-CWA Due Today
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IUE-CWA, LOCAL 901, on behalf of itself and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SPARK ENERGY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00389-HAB-SLC (N.D. Ind.), Magistrate
Judge Susan Collins of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, denied without prejudice
the Defendant's motion for leave to file an amended notice of
removal filed on Sept. 23, 2019.

On Sept. 9, 2019, the Defendant removed the case from Allen County
Superior Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441, 1446, on the
grounds of diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332.
The Plaintiff, in its state court complaint, alleges that the
Defendant engaged in a series of unfair and deceptive marketing and
pricing practices.  As such, it seeks relief for itself and a
putative class of the Defendant's customers under the Indiana
Consumer Sales Act.

In its initial notice of removal, the Defendant asserts that it is
a limited liability company ("LLC") and is a citizen of Texas and
Delaware for purposes of diversity.  Both the initial notice and
the proposed notice, however, only state that Plaintiff IUE-CWA
Local 901 is a labor union of workers located in Fort Wayne,
Indiana.

Before the Court is the Defendant's motion for leave to file an
amended notice of removal.  Specifically, it requests to amend its
notice of removal to explicitly state the amount in controversy at
issue.

Magistrate Judge Collins however finds that neither the Defendant's
initial notice of removal, nor its proposed amended notice of
removal, properly establishes that the Court has diversity
jurisdiction over the matter.  The Defendant's assertion that the
Plaintiff is a labor union of workers located in Fort Wayne,
Indiana is obviously insufficient to establish minimal diversity.
As such, the Defendant has failed to meet its burden of
demonstrating that CAFA's diversity requirements are met in either
its initial notice of removal or its proposed amended notice,

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Collins denied Defendant's motion
without prejudice; ordered the Defendant to file an amended notice
of removal that satisfies CAFA's diversity requirements; and
afforded up to and including Oct. 30, 2019, to do so.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 16, 2019 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/dY9uQZ from Leagle.com.

IUE-CWA Local 901, on behalf of itself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lynn A. Toops --
LTOOPS@COHENANDMALAD.COM -- Cohen & Malad LLP.

Spark Energy, LLC, Defendant, represented by Krissy A. Katzenstein
-- krissy.katzenstein@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP.

SPRINGBIG INC: Averts Washington TCPA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Susan Nikdel, Esq. -- susan.nikdel@wbd-us.com -- of Womble Bond
Dickinson, in an article for JDSupra, reports that generally, text
message platform providers are not considered the "sender" or
"maker" of a text message or call unless they are so involved in
placing the call as to be deemed to have "made or initiated" it
themselves. The Eastern District of Washington recently dismissed
Springbig, Inc. -- a text message platform provider -- from a TCPA
class action on grounds that the complaint failed to allege that
Springbig "was the maker or initiator of the text message," at
issue.  Frank v. Cannabis & Glass, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
17081, No. 2:19-cv-00250-SAB (E.D. Wa. Oct. 1, 2019).

According to the court's ruling in the Frank case, Plaintiff
visited a cannabis dispensary operated by Defendants Cannabis &
Glass, LLC, NXNW Retail, LLC, and Tate Kapple ("Dispensary
Defendants"), and provided her phone number to an employee of the
dispensary during the visit.  The following day, Plaintiff began to
receive text messages from Dispensary Defendants which were sent
using Springbig's SMS short codes. Plaintiff subsequently filed a
putative class action against the Dispensary Defendants and
Springbig for sending unsolicited text messages in violation of the
TCPA. Springbig moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule
12(b)(6).

Under the TCPA, it is unlawful to "make any call" to a cellphone
using an ATDS, and a text message is generally considered a "call"
within the meaning of the TCPA.  In determining whether Springbig
could be deemed the "maker" of the text in question, the court
started with guidance provided by the Federal Communications
Commission ("FCC") on the term "make." In its 2015 Omnibus Ruling,
the FCC clarified that "application providers that play a minimal
role in sending text messages are not per se liable" for making a
call.  The court further recognized that the FCC explained that in
determining whether an app or user is the "maker" of the call
depends upon on the "totality of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the placing of a particular call to determine: 1) who
took the steps necessary to physically place the call; 2) whether
another person or entity was so involved in placing the call as to
be deemed to have initiated it, considering the goals and purpose
of the TCPA."

Based upon this FCC guidance, the court then articulated its own
seven factor test in evaluating whether Springbig could be
considered the "maker" of the text at issue:

   (1) the extent to which the provider/host controls the
       messaging;

   (2) the extent to which the provider/host controls the timing
       or sending of the message;

   (3) the extent to which the provider/host controls the
       recipient list;

   (4) the extent to which the provider/host "willfully enables
       fraudulent spoofing of telephone numbers;"

   (5) the extent to which the provider/host assists customers
       in blocking Caller ID;

   (6) whether the provider/host knowingly allows its customers
       to use the platform in a way that violates the TCPA;

   (7) whether the service or platform is purely reactive in
       nature, sending messages as proscribed and arranged by
       the customer.

Here, the court found that Plaintiff's complaint did 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." The
complaint merely alleged that Defendant Springbig "made" or
"initiated" the call and included several sample text messages
found on Defendant's website. The court determined that this was
not sufficient to allege a TCPA claim against Defendant. There were
no allegations that Defendant Springbig exercised any discernible
involvement in deciding whether, when, or to whom the text message
is sent, or the content of the text message. Moreover, the examples
alleged by Plaintiff in her complaint could not lead to liability,
given that there were no allegations stating that the Dispensary
Defendants used Springbig's suggested content. Based upon the
court's evaluation of these various factors, it concluded that
Plaintiff had failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that
Defendant Springbig was the maker or initiator of the text
messages. As such, the court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss
and held that Plaintiff failed to state a TCPA claim against
Defendant Springbig.

This case provides a valuable guideline to platform providers on
the what it means to be a "maker or initiator" of a call, and
provides helpful parameters for providers to be cognizant of in
furnishing calling or text message services to their clientele.
Ultimately, the Frank case is a good reminder that the greater the
involvement of the platform provider in the process of creating and
sending a text message, the greater the risk it might be found to
be the "maker" of that text for purposes of determining liability
under the TCPA. [GN]


STATE FARM: Arndt Sues Over Repossessed Vehicles' Deceptive Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY ARNDT and SHIRLEY SILKISS, individually and o/b/o all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs v. TWENTY-ONE EIGHTY-FIVE, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, and STATE FARM BANK, F.S.B.,
a federal savings bank, the Defendants, Case No. CACE-19-021264
(Fla. Cir.), seeks to redress an unlawful and deceptive wrongdoing
perpetuated by State Farm Bank with respect to the sale of vehicles
after repossession without providing the proper notices to vehicle
owners in contravention of the requirements of the Uniform
Commercial Code.

Particularly, the Plaintiffs contend, the Defendants failed to:

   -- clearly identify the type of sale to be conducted and, if
      public, the time and place of a public disposition or the
      time after which any other disposition is made;

   -- disclose that the Plaintiffs and other class members were
      entitled to an accounting of the unpaid indebtedness and
      the charge, if any, for an accounting;

   -- disclose the correct time period for redemption of the
      vehicle at any time prior to disposition; and

   -- provide the secondary borrower with notice before
      disposition of the collateral.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated Florida consumers, who purchased vehicles
financed by State Farm Bank that were "consumer goods," whose
vehicles were repossessed and as to whom State Farm Bank failed to
comply with the disclosure requirements of Florida Statutes, the
lawsuit says.

State Farm is an equal housing lender, which offers credit and loan
tips. Twenty-One Eighty-Five, LLC is a State Farm Holder.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY, ESQ.
          1212 S.E. 2nd Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 763-8660
          Facsimile: (954) 763-8607
          E-mail: rphyu@aol.com
                  rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com

               - and -

          Cary I. Flitter, Esq.
          FLITTER LORENZ, P.C.
          450 Narberth Avenue, Suite 101
          Narberth, PA 19072-1 822
          Telephone: (610) 822-0782
          Facsimile: (610) 667-0552
          E-Mail: cflitter@consumerslaw.com


SUPERIOR GLOBAL: Siela Sues over Continuous Service Schemes
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SIELA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SUPERIOR GLOBAL MARKETING INC., an
Oregon corporation, d/b/a PRIMITIVE SURVIVORS; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01943-L-MSB (Cal.
Super., Oct. 8, 2019), alleges that Defendant violated California
law by employing deceptive "free" or "risk-free" offers and by
enrolling consumers in a continuous service subscription program
without making the legally required disclosures and without the
consumers' affirmative consent to an agreement containing those
disclosures.

When a consumer responds to one of SGM's "free" or "risk-free"
offers, SGM requires the consumer to provide his or her credit card
or debit card billing information, purportedly to pay nominal
shipping and handling fees (typically less than $5.00).

However, approximately two weeks after the order is submitted, SGM
posts a charge to the consumer's credit or debit card in the amount
of the full retail price of the item. Moreover, when the order is
submitted, SGM enrolls the consumer in what SGM calls the
"Survivor's Club." Enrollment in the Survivor's Club results in
ongoing and recurring charges to the consumer's credit or debit
card.

Marketing schemes such as those utilized by SGM have been described
as a "scam" by the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC has sought to
educate consumers to be able to avoid such scams, but the agency
continues to receive numerous consumer complaints.

The action alleges that in the course of carrying out its deceptive
marketing and continuous service schemes, SGM violates the
Automatic Renewal Law, the False Advertising Law, the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, and the Unfair Competition Law. The action also
asserts a cause of action for violation of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act. The action seeks a public injunction and other
equitable relief, including full restitution to affected California
consumers, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

         James T. Hannink, Esq.
         Zach P. Dostart, Esq.
         DOSTART HANNINK & COVENEY LLP
         4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530
         La Jolla, CA 92037-1474
         Telephone: 858-623-4200
         Facsimile: 858-623-4299
         E-mail: jhannink@sdlaw.com
                 zdostart@sdlaw.com

TCV V LP: Gibbs Suit Questions Loans With Usurious Interest Rates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DARLENE GIBBS, STEPHANIE EDWARDS, LULA WILLIAMS, PATRICK INSCHO,
and LAWRENCE MWETHUKU, on behalf of themselves and all individuals
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TCV V, L.P., and JOHN DOE NOS.
1-15, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00789-MHL (E.D. Va., Oct. 24,
2019), seeks to hold the Defendants liable for their violations of
state usury laws and federal laws, including the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, in the collection of
loans with usurious interest rates.

Since at least 2011, Defendant TCV, L.P. owned approximately 20% of
the interest in Think Finance. Through its ownership of Think
Finance, the Defendant participated in the business's key
decisions, strategies, and objectives and, in return, generated
large profits from its ownership interest in Think Finance. In
addition, TCV provided a large portion of the investment capital
used by Think Finance to carry out the scheme. Defendants John Doe
Nos. 1-15 are the directors, officers, and owners of TCV who
participated in the operation and management of Think Finance; and
received profits associated with the illegal loans through their
ownership of TCV. TCV received millions of dollars derived from the
collection of unlawful debt. Further, TCV acquired and maintained
interests in the rent-a-tribe enterprise and were aware of its
scheme to repeatedly violate state lending statutes resulting in
the collection of unlawful debt from the Plaintiffs and the class
members, says the complaint.

For more than eight years, Think Finance and its subsidiaries
operated a rent-a-tribe scheme, which sought to evade the usury
laws of certain states by using the Chippewa Cree and
Otoe-Missouria Tribes for their loans. Even though regulatory
enforcement efforts and private lawsuits uncovered their misconduct
as early as December 2014, Think Finance and others continued to
engage in the scheme even though "no one appeared to seriously
dispute" that these rent-a-tribe "loans violated a host of state
and federal lending laws." Under the rent-a-tribe model, loans were
made in the name of Plain Green, LLC and Great Plains Lending,
LLC--two entities formed under tribal law to serve as the fronts to
disguise Think Finance's role and to ostensibly shield the scheme
by exploiting tribal sovereign immunity. In return for the use of
their name, the tribal companies received a nominal flat-fee of the
revenue from the loans, but they otherwise had no control over the
income, expenses, or day-to-day operations of the businesses.

Plaintiffs are each a natural person residing in this District and
Division.

TCV V, L.P. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business in California..[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
     Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
     Casey S. Nash, Esq.
     KELLY GUZZO, PLC
     3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
     Fairfax, VA 22030
     Phone: (703) 424-7572
     Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
     Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
            aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
            casey@kellyguzzo.com

          - and -

     Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
     Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
     Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq
     CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1-A
     Newport News, VA 23601
     Phone (757) 930-3660
     Facsimile (757) 930-3662
     Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com
            craig@clalegal.com
            elizabeth@clalegal.com


TEAM ST. PETE: Diehl Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSH DIEHL, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEAM ST. PETE, INC. d/b/a DOMINO'S
PIZZA, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-02649 (M.D., Fla., Oct. 24,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The lawsuit arises from the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff all lawfully earned and due wages, specifically unpaid
overtime. Additionally, the Plaintiff alleges, the Defendant
regularly changed the hours that he worked that resulted in a
shortage of his hours each work week. The Defendant knows that its
hourly-paid employees regularly do not receive all wages due to
them for hours worked beyond the threshold of forty hours per
workweek because, in fact, the Defendant changes the employees'
time records. Hence, the Defendant owes the Plaintiff
one-and-a-half times his regular rate of pay for work performed
beyond the threshold of forty hours per workweek, says the
complaint.

Josh Diehl worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt Assistant
Manager.

The Defendant is a franchisee of Domino's restaurants, and operates
approximately 16 Domino's stores located in and around St.
Petersburg, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
     WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
     1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Main No: 813-224-0431
     Direct Dial: 813-337-7992
     Facsimile: 813-229-8712
     Email: bhill@wfclaw.com


TEDESCO COUNTRY CLUB: Must Remit Service Charge, Curcis Argues
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE CURCIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TEDESCO COUNTRY CLUB, LUKE G. TSOKANIS,
and PETER W. HOWE, the Defendants,  Case No. 1977CV01406 (Mass.
Super, Oct. 7, 2019), alleges that Defendants charge certain
restaurant customers a service fee that they fail to remit to their
service staff in violation of Massachusetts wage laws.

Tedesco offered food and beverage services to its members. Tedesco
allows members of certain other country and golf clubs access to
its facilities and food and beverage services. Tedesco employs
servers and bartenders whose job responsibilities include taking
orders and serving food and beverages to members.

In or around September 2016, Tedesco hired Ms. Curcis as a server.
Tedesco pays Ms. Curcis $15.50 per hour and permits her to retain
tips paid directly to her.

Tedesco pays its other service staff an hourly rate of pay and
permits them to retain tips paid directly to them. During the
course of Ms. Curcis' employment, Tedesco has charged its
reciprocal members a 20% service fee on the food and drink
services.

Depending on the type of service, the 20% fee appears on the
reciprocal members' receipts as either an "administrative fee" or
"clubhouse charge".

Under the Massachusetts Tips Act, employers are permitted to charge
service fees to patrons and retain those fees provided the employer
informs the patrons in writing that the service fee is not a tip.

Tedesco's service fee contains no description on the reciprocal
members' receipts. Tedesco fails to inform reciprocal members that
the service fee would not be remitted to service staff.

At times, reciprocal members have indicated to Tedesco employees
that they believe the service fee is a tip, even though it is not
actually a tip paid to service staff. . Rather than remit the
service fee to its service staff, Tedesco retains the fee for. As a
result, Tedesco has deprived the plaintiff and other service staff
of a itself. significant amount of earned wages, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants operate a private country club that employs a large
restaurant service staff.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

TELECHECK SERVICES: Huff Wants More Time to File Cert. Petition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James Huff filed with the Supreme Court of the United
States an application for extension to file a petition for writ of
certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit in the matter titled JAMES HUFF, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Applicant v. TELECHECK SERVICES,
INC.; TELECHECK INTERNATIONAL INC.; FIRST DATA CORPORATION,
Respondents.

Mr. Huff asks the Honorable Elena Kagan, as Circuit Justice for the
Sixth Circuit, for a 60-day extension of time in which to file a
petition for writ of certiorari from a final judgment of the Sixth
Circuit, up to and including December 16, 2019.

A petition for writ of certiorari is currently due on October 17,
2019, which is ninety days from July 19, 2019, when the Sixth
Circuit denied Huff's petition for rehearing en banc.

The petition for writ of certiorari will request the Supreme
Court's review of the judgment of the Sixth Circuit in James Huff
v. Telecheck Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-5438, decided on
May 3, 2019.

The lawsuit is a putative class action alleging that TeleCheck, a
check verification company, systematically violated Section 1681g
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by omitting linked information
from required disclosures to consumers, the substance of which
TeleCheck relies on to make credit determinations about those
consumers.

In Huff's case, the omitted information included bank accounts that
are erroneously linked to him.  In a split decision, the Sixth
Circuit held that Huff had not suffered a concrete injury, as
needed to confer Article III standing, because the erroneously
linked accounts that TeleCheck failed to disclose have never been
associated with any debt and, consequently, the presence of those
accounts in Huff's file have never resulted in a check decline. In
other words, the Sixth Circuit reasoned, Huff could not have
avoided any additional consequential harm had he received his
entire credit file as statutorily required.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Samuel H. Mays, Jr. entered an order in the lawsuit titled James
Huff, et al. v. Telecheck Services, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:14-cv-01832 (M.D. Tenn.), on March 30, 2018, granting the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and denying as moot the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.[BN]

Plaintiff-Applicant James Huff is represented by:

          Martin D. Holmes, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          Fifth Third Center, Suite 800
          424 Church Street
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-6538
          E-mail: mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com


TETHER LTD: Faces Class Action Over Stablecoin
----------------------------------------------
Alex Lielacher, writing for Brave New Coin, reports that
market-leading stablecoin Tether (USDT) is under renewed pressure
after a class action lawsuit was filed against Bitfinex and Tether
in the United States District Court.

Tether (USDT) was launched in 2014 as the first dollar-pegged
stablecoin. Tether has since established itself as the leading
stable digital currency for traders who want to remain in crypto
but move to cash during times of market volatility.

What is Tether?

Issued by Tether Limited, a sister company of Bitfinex owner iFinex
Inc., the digital currency first claimed to be backed one-to-one by
US dollars in a bank account. However, many industry experts
questioned whether that was really the case as no third-party
audits were conducted in the early years of the stablecoin.

In April 2019, following growing market unease, a lawyer for the
company confirmed that the stablecoin is not fully collateralized.
Instead, only 74% of USDT tokens are backed by cash and cash
equivalents. This means the fact that USDT is trading at $1.00 per
token is partly based on the trust that it will continue to do so,
even without full fiat currency backing.

However, this was not the only controversy surrounding the
stablecoin. A 2018 study suggested that the issuance of USDT may
have played a key role in the Bitcoin bull market, suggesting it
was used to inflate the price of the leading digital currency.
Defenders of Tether have pointed out that the suggested correlation
between new issuance of Tether leading to an increase in the
Bitcoin price is simply the natural function of traders moving from
fiat, to Tether, to Bitcoin.

Additionally, the Tether Limited parent company, iFinex, had issues
with its banking partner, which has added to the stablecoin's
reputational decline.

Earlier this year, it was revealed that $850 million of the
Bitfinex reserve had been seized by authorities who targeted
Bitfinex payment processor Crypto Capital. To make up the
shortfall, Bitfinex took a loan from its sister company Tether,
which meant Tether was no longer backed one to one. To make up the
shortfall, Bitfinex went on to raise $1 billion through an Initial
Exchange Offering (IEO).

Despite the controversy, USDT overtook Bitcoin in daily trading
volumes in October 2019 amid market volatility that led traders to
flee into USDT for safety.

A $1.4 trillion dollar class action lawsuit

Now a new class action lawsuit has been filed against Tether and
Bitfinex by the same lawyers to successfully sue Craig Wright. The
plaintiffs claim that Tether's operators ran a "sophisticated
scheme that co-opted a disruptive innovation -- cryptocurrency --
and used it to defraud investors, manipulate markets, and conceal
illicit proceeds."

Tether responded to the class-action lawsuit in a blog post,
calling it "meritless" and "a mercenary lawsuit based on [a] bogus
study."

"Tether is aware of an unpublished and non-peer reviewed paper
falsely positing that Tether issuances are responsible for
manipulating the cryptocurrency market. Tether vigorously disputes
the findings and conclusions claimed by that source. [. . .] We
want to make clear our position that any claims based on these
insinuations are meritless, reckless and a shameless attempt at a
money grab," the company stated.

Lawsuits of this size and scale can take years to play out and it's
possible that one outcome could be some form of negotiated
settlement between the company and the plaintiffs. What is clear,
however, is that the lawsuit is another blow to Tether's
reputation. And reputation is vital for a stablecoin.

USD Coin - the new contender

Following Tether, the second-largest stablecoin by market
capitalization is USD Coin (USDC).

USD Coin was launched in September 2018 by CENTRE, a consortium led
by Circle and Coinbase. Only a year later, the ERC20 token has
managed to grow into a digital asset with a market capitalization
of around $500 million.

USD Coin is fully collateralized by US dollars held in a regulated
financial institution. The issuing entity is also a regulated
financial institution. Moreover, leading accounting firm Grant
Thornton LLP attests USDC's dollar reserves every month to ensure
full transparency.

The regulated and transparent nature of USDC has been one of the
two key driving forces of its high adoption rate.

The other factor driving USDC adoption has been the sheer amount of
partnerships CENTRE has managed to engage in with exchanges, wallet
providers, and decentralized applications. USDC can currently be
traded on over 45 centralized and decentralized exchanges,
including Binance, Bitfinex, Kraken, Poloniex, and Uniswap.

USD Coin more than a trading asset

While the number one use case for USDC is as a stable base currency
for traders, USD Coin has a range of other uses.

Through its integration with Coinbase Commerce, USDC can be used by
online retailers to accept US dollars in tokenized form. In the
same way that merchants can accept Bitcoin payments, they can also
accept USDC using Coinbase's merchant payments platform.

USDC is also actively used in the DeFi market as a lending asset.
According to the USD Coin Report 2019 published in September, over
$40 million in crypto-backed loans have been originated using USDC
and around 15 percent of outstanding crypto loans are denominated
in the fiat-backed stablecoin. As USDC is an ERC20 token, it has
managed to integrate swiftly in the largely Ethereum-powered DeFi
market.

The stablecoin contenders

There are currently around 150 stablecoins in the crypto asset
markets. Stable digital currencies are pegged against a range of
fiat currencies, have different stability mechanisms, market
capitalizations, and adoption rates. But, as is often the case in
the crypto markets, not all stablecoins are created equal.

While a substantial amount of recently launched stablecoins are yet
to make an impact in terms of trading volumes and market adoption,
there are five stablecoins in the top 55 crypto assets by market
capitalization -- Tether (USDT), USD Coin (USDC), Paxos Standard
(PAX), TrueUSD (TUSD), and Dai (DAI).

PAX and TUSD have market capitalizations of $250 and $200 million
respectively and are also US dollar-backed stablecoins. DAI, which
has a market value of $80 million, is a different type of
stablecoin. It uses crypto-collateral in the form of ETH to create
price stability with the US dollar.

While these three stablecoins are experiencing slower adoption than
USD Coin, they could potentially become a threat to Tether in the
coming years. For now, however, USD Coin is best positioned to
dethrone Tether, which has now has a large court case to try and
shake off. [GN]


TEVA PHARMA: Investor Class Action to Be Moved to Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a proposed investor class action against Teva
Pharmaceuticals will be moved from Pennsylvania to Connecticut,
where it will join other investor suits over the drugmaker's
alleged price-fixing after a Philadelphia federal judge said the
suit was not sufficiently tied to antitrust multidistrict
litigation in his district.  U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond
said on Oct. 8 that the lawsuit currently being led by the
Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Petersburg was
better off being tried in Connecticut. [GN]


TEXARKANA IDS: Pynes Seeks OT Wages for Food Service Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
JEMALYN PYNES INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff v. TEXARKANA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00134-RWS (E.D. Tex., Oct. 17, 2019),
seek to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Texarkana ISD suffered or permitted its
workers to work more than 40 hours in a work week but did not pay
them overtime wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by Texarkana ISD as a food service
worker at the DeKalb schools from November 2005 until the present.
The Plaintiff and the putative class members were hired to perform
the work personally and were not able to assign another to do the
job in their place, the lawsuit says.

Texarkana IDS is an urban school district serving 34 square miles
in the Northeast corner of Texas. It serves the majority of
Texarkana, Texas and the surrounding communities of Wake Village
and Nash.[BN

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
          HOMMEL LAW FIRM
          5620 Old Bullard Road, Ste. 115
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone: 903 596-7100
          Facsimile: 469 533-1618
          E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com


TEXTRON INC: Building Trades Pension Fund's Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Textron Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 28, 2019, that the company has been named as
a defendant in a purported shareholder class action suit initiated
by Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania.

On August 22, 2019, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court in the Southern
District of New York against Textron, its Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer.

The suit, filed by Building Trades Pension Fund of Western
Pennsylvania, alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and concealing material adverse facts related to the
Arctic Cat acquisition and integration. The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages.

Textron intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

Textron Inc. is one of the world's best known multi-industry
companies, recognized for its powerful brands such as Bell, Cessna,
Beechcraft, E-Z-GO, Arctic Cat and many more. The company leverages
its global network of aircraft, defense, industrial and finance
businesses to provide customers with innovative products and
services. The company is bases in Providence, Rhode Island.


THC ORANGE: Faces Bouzelev Suit in Central District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against THC Orange County,
LLC. The case is captioned as Yuriy Bouzelev, an individual, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
THC Orange County, LLC and Does 1 thru 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01846-DMG-DFM (C.D. Cal., Sept. 26,
2019). The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee.

THC - Orange County, Inc. provides healthcare services. The company
offers medical and surgical care services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          DAVTYAN PLC
          5959 Topanga Canyon Boulevard Suite 130
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone (818) 875-2008
          Facsimile: (818) 722-3974
          E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com

               - and -

          Eric B Kingsley, Esq.
          Kelsey M Szamet
          KINGSLEY AND KINGSLEY APC
          16133 Ventura Boulevard Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                 kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com

TM HEALTHCARE: Illegally Collects Biometric Info, Bounds Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LATASHA BOUNDS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TM HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, and TRANSITIONAL CARE
MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 2019CH11580 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Oct. 7,
2019), alleges violation of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy
Act arising from the Defendants' unlawful collection, use, storage,
and disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary
biometric data.

TM Healthcare is a healthcare management company in Oakbrook
Terrace, Illinois, that provides consultation and management
services to a variety of healthcare facilities throughout Illinois,
including Cook County.

Transitional Care likewise is a healthcare management company in
Lisle, Illinois, that provides consultation and management
services, such as financial management, marketing, workforce
management, customer service, and regulatory management, to
post-acute care facilities.

Until approximately August 2019, TM Healthcare managed the
Southview Manor Nursing Center where the Plaintiff was employed as
an administrative employee.  Southview Manor has been in Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceedings since October 30, 2017.  When TM Healthcare
or the facilities it manages hire an employee, including the
Plaintiff, he or she is enrolled in an employee database shared and
maintained by and between TM Healthcare and its affiliate
facilities to monitor the time worked by employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  tbecvar@stephanzouras.com


TOTAL CARD: Smith Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------
Alayna Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Total Card, Inc., a South Dakota
corporation, the  Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04375-SDG-CCB (N.D.
Ga., Sept. 27, 2019), alleges that Defendant's form debt collection
letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  Plaintiff
seeks to recover damages for those violations.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Georgia, from whom
Defendant attempted to collect a defaulted consumer debt, which she
allegedly owed for a Citibank credit card account.

According to the complaint, Ms. Smith fell behind on paying her
bills, including a debt she allegedly owed for a Citibank credit
card account. On October 6, 2018, Total Card sent Ms. Smith an
initial form collection letter demanding payment of this debt.

The collection letter repeatedly asked her to resolve/satisfy the
debt, and offered various settlement plans.

The Defendant's letter, however, was false -- the debt at issue was
not time-barred. In fact, Unifund CCR thereafter sued Ms. Smith to
collect the debt at issue, the lawsuit says.

Total Card operates a nationwide debt collection business and
attempts to collect defaulted debts from consumers in virtually
every state. In fact, Total Card was acting as a debt collector as
to the defaulted consumer debt it attempted to collect from
Plaintiff.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Steven H. Koval, Esq.
          THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
          3575 Piedmont Road
          Building 15, Suite 120
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 513-6651
          E-mail: Steve@KovalFirm.com

               - and -

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com

TOYOTA MOTOR: Ct. Narrows Claims in Defective Heating, A/C Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case captioned
JAVIER CARDENAS and KURT KIRTON, Plaintiffs, v. TOYOTA MOTOR
CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., TOYOTA MOTOR
ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING, INC., and SOUTHEAST TOYOTA
DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-22798-CIV-MORENO, (S.D.
Fla.).

This class action lawsuit is about whether certain Toyota entities
defrauded consumers and engaged in unfair trade practices by
concealing a defect in the Heating, Ventilation, and Air
Conditioning Systems installed in 2012-2017 Toyota Camrys and Camry
Hybrids.

The Plaintiffs claim the Toyota entities' conduct constitutes
common law fraud or fraudulent concealment, and violates the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The
Plaintiffs also claim the Defendants have breached the implied
warranty of merchantability.

District Judge FEDERICO A. MORENO held that for the reasons below,
the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART. Specifically, the Motions are GRANTED as to Counts III, IV
(fraud or fraudulent concealment), V (implied warranty), and VI
(Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act), and thus these Counts are DISMISSED.
The Motions are DENIED as to Counts I, II (RICO), VII (Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act), and VIII (Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act).

LEGAL STANDARD

A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.

RACKETEERING INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT

Racketeering (Count I)

In Count I, the Plaintiffs assert a federal RICO claim under 18
U.S.C. Section 1962(c) against the Toyota Defendants.

To state a plausible Section 1962(c) claim, a plaintiff must allege
that defendants: (1) engaged in conduct (2) of an enterprise (3)
through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.  

In this case, the Plaintiffs' racketeering claim is predicated on
mail and wire fraud. Thus, the allegations in the Complaint must
comply not only with the plausibility criteria articulated in
Twombly and Iqbal, but also with Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading
standard.
  
Racketeering Activity

The Plaintiffs' racketeering claim is predicated on mail and wire
fraud, and thus they must allege: (1) intentional participation in
a scheme to defraud and (2) the use of the interstate mails or
wires in furtherance of that scheme.  

In this case, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs adequately allege
mail and wire fraud against the Toyota Defendants. The Complaint
sets forth numerous allegations establishing the Toyota Defendants'
exclusive and superior knowledge of the Defect. By way of examples,
the Complaint alleges the Toyota Defendants were aware of the
Defect based upon numerous complaints filed with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by consumers complaining
about foul, moldy odors coming from the Heating, Ventilation, and
Air Conditioning System in their vehicle.

Taking all these allegations as true, as the Court must at the
dismissal stage, the Court finds the Complaint sufficiently alleges
a scheme to defraud based on material misrepresentations or the
omission or concealment of material facts from the Plaintiffs and
the putative class members.  

Enterprise

The Supreme Court has ruled that from the terms of RICO, it is
apparent that an association-in-fact enterprise must have at least
three structural features: a purpose, relationships among those
associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit
these associates to pursue the enterprise's purpose. An
association-in-fact enterprise is simply a continuing unit that
functions with a common purpose.

Here, the Complaint sufficiently alleges a RICO enterprise. The
Complaint alleges the Toyota RICO enterprise includes the following
entities and roles: the Toyota Defendants (who designed,
manufactured, and sold millions of Class Vehicles equipped with the
Defect2); Southeast Toyota, non-party Gulf Coast Toyota, and other
distributors (who distributed, marketed, and sold the Class
Vehicles); non-party DENSO (who designed, manufactured, and sold
the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Systems with the
Toyota Defendants' guidance and instructions); various Toyota
authorized dealers (who sold, leased, and serviced the Class
Vehicles); and the officers, executives, and engineers of the
Defendants, non-parties, distributors, and dealers (who
collaborated and colluded with each other to conceal the Defect and
its health hazards).

These allegations, taken as true, sufficiently allege an
association-in-fact enterprise under Rule 8 pleading standards.  

Scienter

To plead the necessary scienter for a racketeering claim premised
on mail and wire fraud, a plaintiff must allege that defendants
knowingly devised or participated in a scheme to defraud plaintiffs
and that they did so willingly with an intent to defraud.

The Complaint alleges the Toyota Defendants had extensive and
superior knowledge of the Defect, yet did not disclose it to the
public, but rather concealed it, in order to avoid Lemon Law
liability, recall obligations, and negative publicity, all the
while promoting the quality, comfort, and safety of the Class
Vehicles. The Court finds that these allegations, in conjunction
with several internal communications which ranged from informing
dealers there was no way to eliminate these odors, to a
conversation about charging customers for repairs anyway, to
discussions about actions taken to get around Lemon Law liability
are sufficient to give rise to a reasonable inference of scienter.

The Toyota Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count I is DENIED.

Conspiracy (Count II)

In Count II, the Plaintiffs assert a RICO conspiracy claim under
Section 1962(d) against all Defendants. Section 1962(d) makes it
unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the
provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of Section 1962.

Unlike racketeering claims predicated on fraud under Section
1962(c), conspiracy claims under Section 1962(d) only need to
satisfy Rule 8 pleading requirements. Here, the allegations in the
Complaint, which are discussed in depth above, enable the Court to
draw the reasonable inference of a RICO agreement between the
Defendants.

Therefore, the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Count II are DENIED.

FRAUD OR FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT (COUNTS III AND IV)

Next, Cardenas asserts an individual and Florida-class claim
against Southeast Toyota for fraud or fraudulent concealment under
Florida law (Count IV), and collectively, the Plaintiffs assert the
same claim on behalf of a nationwide class against the Toyota
Defendants (Count III). Together, the Defendants argue that Counts
III and IV are barred by the economic loss rule.

Florida Law

The Florida Supreme Court has defined economic loss as damages for
inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of the defective
product, or consequent loss of profits without any claim of
personal injury or damage to other property.

Cardenas seeks economic loss damages for his fraud or fraudulent
concealment claim, which alleges precisely what his breach of
warranty claim alleges that his Toyota Camry did not work as
promised. Therefore, the Court finds that the economic loss rule
bars Cardenas's fraud or fraudulent concealment claim under Florida
law. Therefore, Counts IV (in the entirety) and III (as to Florida
law) are DISMISSED.

Tennessee Law

The Toyota Defendants assert this doctrine bars Kirton's fraud or
fraudulent concealment claims. Countering, Kirton argues there is a
fraud or fraud in the inducement exception to the economic loss
doctrine.

The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging fraud, in addition to
alleging breach of contract, breach of warranty, and violations of
the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The fraud claim was based on
the defendant providing false information to the plaintiff about
the performance capabilities, fuel economy, and overall fitness of
the purchased trucks.

Likewise here, Kirton's fraud or fraudulent concealment claim
alleges the Toyota Defendants intentionally and knowingly
misrepresented, concealed, suppressed, and/or omitted material
facts including the standard, quality, or grade of the Class
Vehicles.

Therefore, Kirton's fraud or fraudulent concealment claim is barred
by the Tennessee economic loss doctrine.

Accordingly, the remaining claims in Count III are DISMISSED.

FLORIDA'S DECEPTIVE & UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT (COUNT VII)

In Count VII, Cardenas asserts an individual and Florida-class
claim against the Defendants for violations of Florida's Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act. To state a claim under this Act, a
plaintiff must allege: (1) a deceptive act or unfair practice (2)
causation and (3) actual damages.  

Here, Cardenas's claim is premised on the Defendants' nondisclosure
and concealment of the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
System Defect. As discussed above, the Complaint includes numerous
allegations highlighting the Defendants' exclusive and superior
knowledge of the Defect, showing the continued marketing of the
Camry and Camry Hybrids as quality, comfortable, and safe vehicles,
and outlining the Defendants' failure to disclose, or efforts to
conceal, the Defect.  

Taking these allegations as true, the Court finds the Complaint
plausibly alleges a claim under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act. Therefore, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count
VII is DENIED.

TENNESSEE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (COUNT VIII)

In Count VIII, Kirton asserts an individual and Tennessee-class
claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The Toyota
Defendants argue Count VIII should be dismissed: (1) as to the
class claim because the Act only allows individual actions (2) as
to Kirton's individual claim because it is time-barred and (3) as
to both claims because the factual allegations are deficient.

Class Claims Under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act

The Toyota Defendants argue Kirton's Tennessee-class claim should
be dismissed because the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act does not
permit class actions. The Toyota Defendants direct the Court to
Section 47-18-109 of the Tennessee Code, which provides: any person
who suffers an ascertainable loss as a result of an unfair or
deceptive act or practice may bring an action individually to
recover actual damages and no class action lawsuit may be brought
to recover damages for an unfair or deceptive act or practice
declared to be unlawful by this part.

In their Reply memorandum, the Toyota Defendants invite the Court
to dismiss Count VIII by following a ruling from the Middle
District of Tennessee in Bearden v. Honeywell Int'l Inc., No.
3:09-1035, 2010 WL 3239285 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 16, 2010). There, the
district court ploughed through the Supreme Court's fragmented
opinions in Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins.
Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) and ruled that under the approach taken in
the concurring opinion by Justice Stevens in the district court's
view, the controlling opinion under Marks v. United States, 430
U.S. 188 (1977), the plaintiffs could not maintain their Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act class action claim because the class-action
limitation contained in the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act is so
intertwined with that statute's rights and remedies that it
functions to define the scope of the substantive rights, thereby
preventing a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.


Despite the Middle District of Tennessee's thoughtful and thorough
analysis of the opinions in Shady Grove, this Court is bound by
Eleventh Circuit precedent. And in Lisk v. Lumber One Wood
Preserving, LLC, the Eleventh Circuit answered in the affirmative
the question of whether Rule 23 allows a plaintiff to assert a
class action claim under a state statute that disallows private
class actions. Unlike the district court in Bearden, the Eleventh
Circuit found that in Shady Grove, five justices agreed that
applying Rule 23 to allow a class action for a statutory penalty
created by New York law did not abridge, enlarge, or modify a
substantive right. The Eleventh Circuit emphasized that Rule 23
controlled and that regardless of which Shady Grove opinion is
binding, the holding is binding.
  
Both the Tennessee statute here, and Alabama statute in Lisk,
create a cause of action for deceptive trade practices. Because the
Eleventh Circuit ruled that applying Rule 23 did not result in an
abridgment, enlargement, or modification of a substantive right to
relief for deceptive trade practices under the Alabama statute
which disallowed private class actions this Court must find that
Rule 23 also does not abridge, enlarge, or modify a substantive
right under the Tennessee statute, which likewise disallows class
actions.

Therefore, the Court finds that in this Circuit, Rule 23 permits
Kirton to assert a class claim under the Tennessee Consumer
Protection Act.

Statute of Limitations on Kirton's Individual Claim

Next, the Toyota Defendants argue that Kirton's individual claim
under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act should be dismissed as
time-barred by the statute of limitations. In the Eleventh Circuit,
a statute of limitations bar is an affirmative defense; and a
plaintiff is not required to negate an affirmative defense in their
complaint. As such, Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on statute of
limitations grounds is appropriate only if it is  apparent from the
face of the complaint that the claim is time-barred. The statute of
limitations for a Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claim is one
year from a person's discovery of the unlawful act or practice.

Here, Kirton alleges he purchased a used 2015 Toyota Camry around
March 2017. Based on this allegation, the Toyota Defendants argue
that, from the face of the Complaint, Kirton's claim is
time-barred. But Kirton's claim accrued at time of the discovery of
the unlawful act or practice, not at the time he purchased his used
2015 Camry. And Kirton alleges that at the time he purchased his
vehicle, he was unaware his Class Vehicle contained the Defective
HVAC System and the Toyota Defendants never informed or warned him
of the Defective HVAC System and corresponding health and safety
hazard associated with his Class Vehicle.

As such, the Court cannot conclude from the face of the Complaint
that Kirton's claim is time-barred.

Sufficiency of Allegations Under the Tennessee Consumer Protection
Act

Lastly, the Toyota Defendants contend the individual and
Tennessee-class claims should be dismissed because the Complaint
fails to plead sufficient factual matter to state a Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act claim. To state such a claim, a plaintiff
must allege: (1) that the defendant engaged in an unfair or
deceptive act or practice declared unlawful by the Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act and (2) that the defendant's conduct caused
an ascertainable loss of money or property.   

Here, as discussed above, the Complaint asserts numerous
allegations highlighting the Defendants' knowledge of the Defect,
showing the continued marketing of the Camry and Camry Hybrids as
quality, comfortable, and safe vehicles, and outlining the
Defendants' failure to disclose, or efforts to conceal, the Defect.
Kirton also alleges that when he purchased his vehicle he was
unaware his Class Vehicle contained the Defective HVAC System and
that had he known of the Defect, he would not have purchased his
Class Vehicle or would have paid significantly less for it.  The
Complaint further alleges that as a result of the negative
publicity following disclosure of the Defect, the value of the
Class Vehicles has greatly diminished and the Class Vehicles are
now worth significantly less than they otherwise would be.

In short, the Court finds the Complaint states a plausible claim
under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, the
Toyota Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count VIII is DENIED.

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY (COUNT V)

In Count V, Cardenas alleges the Toyota Defendants breached the
implied warranty of merchantability under Florida law. The Toyota
Defendants argue Count V should be dismissed because Cardenas
cannot establish contractual privity.

Contractual Privity

Under Florida law, a plaintiff cannot recover economic losses for
breach of implied warranty in the absence of privity.

Time and again, Florida courts have dismissed breach of implied
warranty claims under Florida law for lack of contractual privity
where the plaintiff purchaser did not purchase a product directly
from the defendant.  

Here, Cardenas did not purchase his new 2014 Camry directly from
any of the Toyota Defendants. Instead, Cardenas purchased his
vehicle from Kendall Toyota, a Toyota authorized Dealer of Toyota
vehicles. Accordingly, Cardenas lacks contractual privity with the
Toyota Defendants, and his implied warranty claim necessarily
fails.

Third-Party Beneficiary Exception

Without citation to authority, Cardenas argues the Toyota
Defendants involved themselves in the transaction" by publishing
brochures and other marketing materials, and by providing warranty
and maintenance schedules showing no service would be required on
the evaporator. But this argument, and the allegations it relies
upon, still falls short under because the plaintiff there was given
a limited express warranty, the terms of which were negotiated by
the parties as part of the sale.

For these reasons, the Court finds that Cardenas cannot state a
claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under
Florida law. Therefore, Count V is DISMISSED.

MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT (COUNT VI)

In Count VI, the Plaintiffs assert individual and class claims
against the Toyota Defendants for violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act. The Toyota Defendants argue Count VI must be
dismissed because Cardenas's implied warranty claim fails under
Florida law, and because Kirton fails to even allege an implied
warranty claim under state law, let alone sufficiently allege the
contractual privity required to state such a claim.

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act gives consumers a private right of
action against warrantors for a breach of warranty, as defined by
state law. To state a claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
though, a plaintiff must also state a valid breach of warranty
claim. Indeed, where a plaintiff fails to state a breach of implied
warranty claim, courts routinely dismiss the correlating
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim.  

Here, Cardenas's breach of implied warranty claim has been
dismissed; thus, his correlating Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim
must also be dismissed. As for Kirton, he does not even allege a
breach of implied warranty claim so his Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
claim must be dismissed as well.

Count VI is DISMISSED.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2patf7d from Leagle.com

Javier Cardenas, Plaintiff, represented by Alissa Del Riego ,
Podhurst Orseck P.A., 1 SE 3rd Ave Ste 2300, Miami, FL, 33131-1716,
Jeffrey A. Koncius - koncius@kiesel.law - Kiesel Law LLP, pro hac
vice, John Gravante, III , Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Matthew Weinshall
, Podhurst Orseck,1 SE 3rd Ave Ste 2300, Miami, FL, 33131-1716,
Natalie Lesser - nlesser@ktmc.com - Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, pro hac vice, Nicole Ramirez - ramirez@kiesel.law - Kiesel Law
LLP, pro hac vice, Paul R. Kiesel -kiesel@kiesel.law- Kiesel
Boucher Larson LLP, pro hac vice, Peter A. Muhic -
pmuhic@levanlawgroup.com - LeVan Law Group, LLC, Tyler S. Graden -
tgraden@ktmc.com - Kessler Topza Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice
& Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 1 SE 3rd Ave Ste 2300, Miami,
FL, 33131-1716.

Kurt Kirton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey A. Koncius , Kiesel Law
LLP, pro hac vice, Natalie Lesser , Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, pro hac vice, Nicole Ramirez , Kiesel Law LLP, pro hac vice,
Paul R. Kiesel , Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP, pro hac vice, Peter A.
Muhic , LeVan Law Group, LLC, Tyler S. Graden , Kessler Topza
Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice & Peter Prieto , Podhurst
Orseck, P.A.

Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. & Toyota
Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Brian Michael Ercole - brian.ercole@morganlewis.com
- Morgan Lewis, Bockius & Melissa Marie Coates -
melissa.coates@morganlewis.com - Morgan Lewis.

Southeast Toyota Distributors, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian
Michael Ercole, Morgan Lewis, Bockius, David J. DePiano, Shapiro,
Blasi, Wasserman & Hermann, P.A. & Robert Eric Sacks, Shapiro,
Blasi, Wasserman & Hermann, P.A., 7777 Glades Road, Suite 400, Boca
Raton, Florida 33434.

TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Bid to Undo Class-Action Settlement Rejected
--------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Fischer, writing for Verde News, reports that a federal
appeals court has slapped down a bid by Attorney General Mark
Brnovich, Esq. to undo a class-action settlement of a lawsuit over
allegedly defective pressure cookers.

In a unanimous decision Oct. 10, 2019, a three-judge panel of the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals did not address Brnovich's
contention that the nationwide settlement is unfair to the vast
majority of consumers who had purchased the product, including
Arizona residents.

That deal reserves the lion's share of the cash for the attorneys
who sued. And the best that most consumers will get is a coupon for
a future purchase from the company and a one-year extension on
their existing warranties--and only if they watch a
company-produced video on pressure cooker safety.

But appellate Judge John Bush, writing for the court, concluded all
those arguments about fairness from Brnovich are legally
irrelevant. He said the attorney general has no legal standing to
come in, after a deal was cut, and argue to have it nullified as
unfair.

Assistant Attorney General O.H. Skinner, who presented the legal
arguments, told Capitol Media Services that an appeal is being
weighed--and not just in a bid to get a better settlement for those
who bought the device.

He said the ruling, if left undisturbed, could undermine the
practices of the attorney general's office in interceding in other
class-action lawsuits, particularly in consumer fraud cases, where
it appears that the main beneficiaries are the attorneys who
brought the claim and not the people who were actually harmed
financially.

"We think that what we did here is the same as in innumerable
consumer protection cases every day out of our office," Skinner
said. "We think that protecting consumers from class-action
settlements where they don't get any money is a core part of
protecting consumers."

The 2016 lawsuit filed in Ohio charges that certain pressure
cookers manufactured by Tristar Products had defective lids that
could open while the cookers were in use, exposing the user to
possible injury from the hot, pressurized contents spilling out.

Bush said that after the first day of trial it appeared things were
not going well for the plaintiffs. Even the trial judge said it was
not obvious that a defect existed or that, even if it did, it made
the company's pressure cookers worthless.

That resulted in a settlement that covered not just those in the
states where the original plaintiffs were from but also anyone in
the country who had bought the items.

That settlement, according to the court, was worth about $1 million
to consumers, primarily in the coupons and warranty extensions, and
nearly $2 million in legal fees.

In fact, the vast majority of the 3.2 million people who purchased
the pressure cooker nationwide--the number that wound up in Arizona
is unknown--won't even get the $73 coupons because they didn't file
a claim, either because they were unaware of the settlement or
concluded that the offer was not worth their time.

Only when the trial judge held a hearing to review the fairness did
Brnovich file legal papers, along with the U.S. Department of
Justice, arguing the settlement was unfair and should put more
aside for those who bought the items. Rejected by the trial judge,
Skinner filed an appeal, telling the judges that Arizona has a
legitimate interest--and legitimate right--to intercede.

He said the state is acting to protect the interests of its
residents who had purchased the pressure cookers but, under the
terms approved by the trial court, are being denied compensation.
Skinner also said the deal was worded in a way to deny not just
financial compensation for an allegedly defective product but also
to preclude lawsuits over actual injuries.

Bush, however, said the state had not shown any indirect effects on
Arizona as a whole.

The judges were no more persuaded by arguments that the attorney
general's office regularly participates in class-action lawsuits to
protect the interests of its residents, working for "improved
settlement terms." [GN]



TYSON FOODS: Robinson et al. Allege Conspiracy to Fix Hourly Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tyson Foods, Inc., et
al. The Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of the Class,
bring the antitrust action to enjoin Defendants from continuing
their Conspiracy and to recover actual, compensatory and treble
damages, as well as costs, attorneys' fees and interest. The
conspiracy to fix and depress wages and benefits has unreasonably
restrained trade in violation of the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have conspired and
combined to fix and suppress compensation to non-supervisory
production and maintenance employees at chicken processing plants.

The "Defendant Processors" -- i.e., all Defendants other than
Defendants Agri Stats, Inc. and Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company,
Inc. ("WMS") -- process and produce approximately 95% of the
chicken sold in the United States. The other two Defendants, Agri
Stats and WMS, are consultants that facilitate the Conspiracy by
serving as a conduit for Defendant Processors to exchange highly
sensitive, non-public business information, including, without
limitation, wage information for Processing Employees, the lawsuit
says.

The Defendants have participated in the unlawful Conspiracy in
order to maximize their profits by unlawfully reducing labor costs,
one of the largest components of each Defendant Processor's
operating costs.

The case is captioned as GLENDA ROBINSON, 979 Oliver Drive Forest,
Mississippi 39074; and MICHAEL DEWAYNE PATRICK, 107 Waverly
Crescent Street Newton, Mississippi 39345, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TYSON FOODS,
INC., 2200 West Don Tyson Parkway Springdale, AR 72762; TYSON
PREPARED FOODS, INC., 2200 West Don Tyson Parkway Springdale, AR
72762; THE HILLSHIRE BRANDS COMPANY, 400 S. Jefferson Street
Chicago, IL 60607; TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC., 800 Stevens Port Drive
Dakota Dunes, SD 57049; TYSON PROCESSING SERVICES, INC., 2200 West
Don Tyson Parkway Springdale, AR 72762; TYSON REFRIGERATED
PROCESSED MEATS, INC., 2200 West Don Tyson Parkway Springdale, AR
72762; KEYSTONE FOODS, LLC, 905 Airport Road, Suite 400 West
Chester, PA 19380; EQUITY GROUP EUFAULA DIVISION, LLC, 57 Melvin
Clark Road Bakerhill, AL 36027; EQUITY GROUP GEORGIA DIVISION, LLC,
7200 Highway 19 PO Box 369 Camilla, GA 31730; EQUITY GROUP KENTUCKY
DIVISION, LLC, 2294 KY Highway 90 W Albany, KY 42602; PILGRIM'S
PRIDE CORPORATION, 1770 Promontory Circle Greeley, CO 80634;
PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC., 129 Potomac
Avenue Moorfield, WV 26836; SANDERSON FARMS, INC., 127 Flynt Road
Laurel, MS 39443; SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (FOODS DIVISION), 127 Flynt
Road Laurel, MS 39443; SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (PROCESSING DIVISION),
127 Flynt Road Laurel, MS 39443; PERDUE FARMS, INC., 31149 Old
Ocean City Road Salisbury, MD 21804 County of Residence: Wicomico
County; PERDUE FOODS LLC, 31149 Old Ocean City Road Salisbury, MD
21804 County of Residence: Wicomico County; KOCH FOODS, INC., 1300
West Higgins Road, Suite 100 Park Ridge, IL 60068; JCG FOODS OF
ALABAMA, LLC, 1300 West Higgins Road, Suite 100 Park Ridge, IL
60068; JCG FOODS OF GEORGIA, LLC, 1300 West Higgins Road, Suite 100
Park Ridge, IL 60068; JCG INDUSTRIES, INC., 1300 West Higgins Road,
Suite 100 Park Ridge, IL 60068; KOCH FOODS LLC, 1835 Kerr Street
Chattanooga, TN 37408; KOCH FOODS OF ALABAMA, LLC, 1300 West
Higgins Road, Suite 100 Park Ridge, IL 60068; KOCH FOODS OF
ASHLAND, LLC, 515 Tyson Road Ashland, AL 36251; KOCH FOODS OF
GADSDEN, LLC, 501 Paden Road Gadsden, AL 35903; KOCH FOODS OF
CUMMING LLC, 221 Meadow Drive Cumming, GA 30040; KOCH FOODS OF
GAINESVILLE LLC, 950 Industrial Boulevard Gainesville, GA 30501;
KOCH FOODS OF MISSISSIPPI LLC, 4688 Highway 80 East Morton, MS
39117; WAYNE FARMS, LLC, 4110 Continental Drive Oakwood, GA 30566;
WFSP FOODS, LLC, 112 Plugs Drive Decatur, AL 35601; MOUNTAIRE
FARMS, INC., 29005 John J. Williams Highway Millsboro, DE 19966;
MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC., 29005 John J. Williams Highway
Millsboro, DE 19966; HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS, INC., 3425 U.S.
Highway 117 South Rose Hill, NC 28458; HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS OF
LOUISIANA, LLC, 3867 2nd Street Arcadia, LA 71001; PECO FOODS,
INC., 1101 Greensboro Avenue Tuscaloosa, AL 35401; ALLEN HARIM
FOODS, LLC, 29984 Pinnacle Way Millsboro, DE 19966; AMICK FARMS,
LLC, 2079 Batesburg Highway Batesburg, SC 29006; CASE FOODS, INC.,
385 Pilch Road Troutman, NC 28166; CASE FARMS PROCESSING, INC., 385
Pilch Road Troutman, NC 28166; FIELDALE FARMS CORPORATION, 558
Broiler Boulevard Baldwin, GA 30511; GEORGE'S, INC., 402 West
Robinson Avenue Springdale, AR 72764; OZARK MOUNTAIN POULTRY, INC.,
1000 North 2nd Street Rogers, AR 72756; GEORGE'S CHICKEN, LLC,
19992 Senedo Road Edinburg, VA 22824; GEORGE'S FOODS, LLC, 19992
Senedo Road Edinburg, VA 22824; GEORGE'S PROCESSING, LLC, 402 West
Robinson Avenue Springdale, AR 72764; HARRISON POULTRY, INC., 107
East Star Street Bethlehem, GA 30620; MAR-JAC POULTRY, INC., 1020
Aviation Blvd. Gainesville, GA 30501; MAR-JAC POULTRY MS, LLC, 1301
James Street Hattiesburg, MS 39401; MAR-JAC POULTRY AL, LLC, 3301
2nd Place South Jasper, AL 35501; MAR-JAC POULTRY, LLC, 1020
Aviation Blvd. Gainesville, GA 30501; MAR-JAC HOLDINGS, INC., 1020
Aviation Boulevard Gainesville, GA 30501; O.K. FOODS, INC., 4601
North Sixth Street Fort Smith, AR 72904; SIMMONS FOODS, INC., 601
North Hico Street Siloam Springs, AR 72761; SIMMONS PREPARED FOODS,
INC., 601 North Hico Street Siloam Springs, AR 72761; AGRI STATS,
INC., 6510 Mutual Drive Fort Wayne, IN 46825; WEBBER, MENG, SAHL
AND COMPANY, INC. d/b/a WMS AND COMPANY, INC., 1200 E. High Street,
Suite 104 Pottstown, PA 19464, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02960-ELH (D. Md., Oct. 9, 2019).[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are:

          James P. Ulwick, Esq.
          KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A.
          One South Street, Suite 2600
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 752-6030
          E-Mail: julwick@kg-law.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          David Langer, Esq.
          Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
                  dlanger@bm.net
                  pmadden@bm.net

               - and -

          Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 559-9745
          E-mail: dwalker@bm.net

               - and -

          J. Dudley Butler, Esq.
          BUTLER FARM & RANCH LAW GROUP, PLLC
          499-A Breakwater Drive
          Benton, Mississippi 39039
          Telephone: (662) 673-0091
          E-mail: jdb@farmandranchlaw.com

UNITED STATES: Classes of Immigrants in A-Files Suit Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge on Oct. 15
certified two nationwide classes of immigrants and their attorneys
who claim federal immigration agencies take way too long--generally
months--to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests seeking
alien registration files, or A-files.

A copy of the Order Granting Certification is available at:

                      https://is.gd/lKQSRr


VIEWRAY INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.


MacroGenics, Inc. (MGNX)
Class Period: February 6, 2019 - June 3, 2019
Deadline: November 12, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/mgnx

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company had conducted the progression-free survival
("PFS") and first interim overall survival ("OS") analyses for the
SOPHIA trial by no later than October 10, 2018; (2) the October
2018 PFS analysis showed a 0.9 month improvement in PFS; and (3)
the October 2018 OS interim analysis did not produce a
statistically significant result and the interim OS Kaplan-Meier
curves (a non-parametric statistic used to estimate the survival
function from lifetime data) crossed in several spots (thereby
violating the constant hazard assumption) and separated late; and
(4) as a result, MacroGenic's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.


ViewRay, Inc. (VRAY)
Class Period: March 15, 2019 - August 8, 2019
Deadline: November 12, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/vray

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) demand for ViewRay systems had declined due in part to
changes being made to Medicare reimbursement approaches first
announced in November 2018 that could make purchases of new ViewRay
systems less profitable for customers; (2) the Company's reported
backlog was overstated due to the inclusion of orders with
insufficient surety as to permit for their inclusion in reported
backlog; and (3) as a result, ViewRay's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.



Cadence Bancorporation (CADE)
Class Period: July 23, 2018 - July 22, 2019
Deadline: November 15, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/cade

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

Contact:

       Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
       Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
       Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
       Tel: 212-697-6484
       E-mail: info@bgandg.com, peretz@bgandg.com [GN]



VIVINT SOLAR: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York captioned Crumrine v. Vivint Solar,
Inc., et al., (Case No. 19-cv-05777), on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Vivint Solar, Inc.
(NYSE: VSLR) ("Vivint" or the "Company") securities between March
5, 2019 and September 26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

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

On September 27, 2019, Marcus Aurelius Value published a report
alleging that "28 undisclosed lawsuits . . . specifically allege
Vivint forged customer contracts or otherwise engaged in fraud or
deception."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.14 per share, or
over 2%, to close at $6.55 per share on September 27, 2019, thereby
injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company engaged in fraudulent practices,
including forging customer contracts; (2) that, as a result, the
Company's reported sales and megawatts installed were overstated;
(3) that these practices were reasonably likely to lead to
regulatory scrutiny: (4) that, as a result, the Company's earnings
would be materially and adversely impacted; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Vivint securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice
to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member
of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

Contact:

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