CAR_Public/191031.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, October 31, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 218

                            Headlines

$49.99 SEWER MAN: Labranche Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
3M COMPANY: Court Denies Product Liability Suit Dismissal
ACBP HOSPITALITY: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AEGIS SENIOR: Newirth Seeks to Certify Class of Facility Residents
AIME LEON DORE: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ALDER HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Security Systems Suit Partly Granted
ALFA 64 INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALLERGAN GROUP: Implant Patients Sue Over Product Recall
ALLERGAN INC: F.W. Sues over BIOCELL Textured Breast Implants
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Woodward Files FCRA Suit in S.D. Indiana

ALLORA 2 SPA: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMAZON WEB: Faces Summer Suit Over Breach of Confidential Data
AMBAC ASSURANCE: No Dismissal on “Military Housing Fraud” Suit
ANALOGIC CORP: Court Tosses Shareholders' Class Action
APRIL HUGHES: Calcano Suit Asserts ADA Violation

ARCONIC INC: Court Orders Parties in Behren Suit to Meet & Confer
ASCENDANT CAPITAL: Ma IRA Sues Over Improper Sale of LP Interests
AVEDRO INC: Kent Sues Over Sale to Glaukos Corporation
BC HOSPITALITY: Faces Calcano ADA Class Action in New York
BERRY CAMPBELL: Picon Suit Asserts ADA Breach

BITTER & ESTERS: Calcano Files Class Suit Under ADA
BMW: Court Denies Dismissal of Harris 'Defective Engines' Suit
BRIDGEWATER: Bunce Sues over Deceptive Non-Sufficient Fund Fees
BUDGET TRUCK: Kittle Hits Confidential Info on Credit Card Receipt
BURNING IN WATER: Picon Brings ADA Suit v. Art Gallery

CATHEDRAL ENERGY: $290K Settlement in Swanson Labor Suit Okayed
CENTURION SECURITY: Partial Certification in Sutherland Suit OK'd
CHEMOURS CO: Faces Electrical Workers Fund Securities Suit in Del.
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Court Clarifies Class in Norfolk Securities Suit
CONAM MANAGEMENT: Class and Subclass Certified in Cuevas Suit

COOK COUNTY, IL: Alicea's Bid for Class Certification Continued
CRACKER BARREL: LaRose Sues over Tip Credit Policy
DEAR FIELDBINDER: Violates Disabilities Act, Calcano Suit Asserts
DEBTVANTAGE INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Beaudet Suit Claims
DEDICATED FLEET: Underpays Drivers, Garcia Suit Alleges

DELTA AIR: Donoff Files Class Certification Bid
DELTA DENTAL: Dr. Dultz Sues Over Dental Insurance Monopsony
DELTA DENTAL: Dr. Lindley Sues Over Dental Insurance Monopsony
DELTA DENTAL: Kaufman Sues Over Dental Insurance Monopsony
DOVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Report on Sobi Sale Misleading, Wheby Says

DTR ART HOLDINGS: Picon Brings ADA Class Action in NY
ED F DAVIS: Hester Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
EQT CORPORATION: Rose Seeks OT Wages for Environmental Inspectors
EQUINOX COLLECTION: Court Certifies Class in Hargis FDCPA Suit
EQUITA GROUP: Settlement in Van Elzen Suit Gets Final Approval

FIELD RESEARCH: Illegally Sent Fax Ads, Advanced Dermatology Says
FOOT LOCKER: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
FREIGHT HANDLERS: Court Confirms Kraft's Class Cert. Bid Approval
GATOR'S DOCKSIDE: Tiger et al Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Court Narrows Claims on Adulterated Drugs Suit

GLOBAL CONTACT SERVICES: Call Center Reps Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Falberg Suit Alleging Violation of ERISA
GOOGLE LLC: Hubbard Sues Over Invasion of Children's Privacy
HARMAN HASHIMOTO: Picon Suit Asserts ADA Breach
HARMAN INT'L: Court Narrows Claims in Baum Securities Suit

HARVEST LANDSCAPE: Tellez Seeks Overtime Pay for Landscape Workers
HEINEKEN USA: Apple Cider Contains Malic Acid, Slowinski Says
HOMESIDE FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Henry Says
HOWARD HUGHES: Website not Accessible to Blind, Slade Says
HT MWD: Miller Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Oilfield Personnel

ILLINOIS TOOL: Monroe Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
INTEGRA AFFORDABLE: Cole Files FLSA Suit in Arkansas
J.A.V. FOOD: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JUUL LABS: Emidy Sues over Health Risks of Vape
JUUL LABS: Montgomery County Sues over Sale, Safety of Vape

KAIGHT INC: Faces Calcano ADA Class Action in New York
LANE BRYANT: Meo Obtains Conditional FLSA Collective Certification
LENOVO: Gisairo Sues Over Defective Laptops
LVNV FUNDING: Schafer Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
MARYAM NASSIRZADEH: Violates ADA, Calcano Suit Asserts

MASSAGE ENVY: Lapa's Administrative Bid Denied in Drobnis Suit
MAWKS EDELWEISS: Aniszewski Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
MIYABI INC: Seow Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Restaurant Staff
MONTERO GROUP: Danconia Management Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
NEW YORK: Court Certifies Class of DOCCS Prisoners in Shariff Suit

NEWPORT RIB: Wheeler Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
NORTHWOOD ASSET: Warner Sues over Debt Collections Practices
PACIFIC MARITIME: Ross FLSA Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
PAULA COOPER: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PAYCOM SOFTWARE: Rosetta Seeks OT Wages for Sales Professionals

PENN CREDIT: Guidry Suit Transferred to Middle District of Florida
PETISCO BRAZUCA: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PICTURE THIS: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
POST CONSUMER: Court Rejects Reconsideration of Lima Consumer Suit
PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL: Faces Sorwar Case in District of New Jersey

PROGRESSIVE COUNTY: Denial of Remand Bid in Lopez Suit Recommended
R&M PACIFIC: Lopez Seeks OT and Missed Meal Premiums for Cashiers
RAINBOW USA: Faces Kelley TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing
RCS RECOVERY: Wade Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
REP PROCESSING: Robertson Seeks OT Wages for Welding Inspectors

RITE AID: Labeling on Praline Pecans Is Deceptive, Henderson Says
SAHADI FINE: Violates ADA, Calcano Suit Asserts
SAN DIEGO, CA: Class Cert. Bid in Bloom Suit Due Jan. 20
SANDPIPER OF CALIFORNIA: Court Narrows Claims on False Advertising
SANTA MONICA: 9th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Rosenblatt Rental Suit

SARRELL REGIONAL DENTAL: Blahous Files Class Suit in Alabama
SCOTT FARMS: Certification of 3 Classes Sought in Mondragon Action
SEA NEW YORK: Calcano Brings ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SEIU PENNSYLVANIA: Court Dismissal Union Fees Suit
SHOPIFY INC: Sheski Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California

SPEEDY CASH: Court Stays Proceedings in Delisle Consumer Suit
STYLIST'S OWN: Faces Calcano Suit Under Disabilities Act
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Powell Sues Over Defective Windshields
SUN BASKET: Faces Carron Suit Alleging Violation of Illinois BIPA
SURESCRIPTS LLC: Falconer Pharmacy Sues Over Monopolistic Scheme

THIRD COAST: Kraft Files Securities Class Action in NY
TRANS UNION: Faces Hector Suit in Virginia Over FCRA Violation
ULLIANCE INC: Sanders Dismissed in Lucas Class Suit
UMAMI RESTAURANT: Calcano Files ADA Class Suit in New York
UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S: $21MM Class Deal in Lincoln Suit Okayed

UPSTART NETWORK: Rodriguez Sues over Unauthorized Credit Reviews
VISALUS INC: Settlement in Harris Suit Gets Final Approval
VSV BAKERY: Sanchez Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
WA SUSHI & THAI: Pan Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages
WALMART INC: Faces Espinoza Consumer Class Action in Calif.

WAREHOUSE DIRECT: Melendez Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
WESTERN UNION: Radulescu Sues Over Unredeemed Money Transfer
ZEFCO INC: Queen Sues Over Illegal Overtime and Tax Fraud Schemes

                            *********

$49.99 SEWER MAN: Labranche Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDEL LABRANCHE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. $49.99 SEWER MAN, INC.; and SAYED
AHMED, individually and as an Officer, Director, and/or Principal
of $49.99 SEWER MAN, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06005
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019), seeks damages and other legal and
equitable relief against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York Codes,
Rules and Regulations, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other technicians
consistently worked between 45 and 55 hours per workweek but were
never paid the overtime premium of one and a half times their
hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
Rather, they were solely paid on a commission basis, which did not
include an overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of 40
per workweek. Accordingly, throughout the relevant time period, the
Defendants failed to pay Technicians the proper overtime rate of
one and a half times their hourly rate for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek in violation of FLSA, the NYLL, and
NYCRR, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Plumbing
Technician, who provided plumbing services to the Defendants'
customers.

Sewer Man is a privately owned business organized under the laws of
the state of New York and has its principal place of business at
7318 69th Place, in Ridgewood, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq.
     Alexander M. White, Esq.
     VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
     600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7180
     Facsimile: (516) 706-0248


3M COMPANY: Court Denies Product Liability Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division issued an Opinion and Order denying Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned KEVIN D. HARDWICK,
Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Case No.
2:18-cv-1185. (S.D. Ohio)

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Joint Motion to
Dismiss.

Mr. Hardwick alleges that he is a citizen of the State of Ohio and
a resident of the Southern District of Ohio, and has "worked as a
firefighter for more than forty years, during which he has used
firefighting foams containing one of more Per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) materials, used equipment/gear treated and/or
coated with materials containing and/or contaminated with one or
more PFAS materials, and/or otherwise was exposed to one or more
PFAS materials, and now has one or more PFAS materials in his blood
serum.

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have
each marketed, developed, distributed, sold, manufactured,
released, trained users on, produced instructional materials for,
and/or otherwise handled and/or used one or more PFAS materials,
including in Ohio and this District, in such a way as to cause the
contamination of Plaintiff's and the class members' blood and/or
bodies with PFAS, and the resultant biopersistence and
bioaccumulation of such PFAS in the blood and/or bodies of
Plaintiff and other class members.

Defendants moved jointly to dismiss this case in its entirety for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Standard

A Rule 12(b)(1) motion can either attack the claim of jurisdiction
on its face, in which case all allegations of the plaintiff must be
considered as true, or it can attack the factual basis for
jurisdiction, in which case the trial court must weigh the evidence
and the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction
exists.

Defendants move for dismissal of Mr. Hardwick's negligence,
battery, and conspiracy claims, summarizing why they are entitled
to dismissal as follows:

The Court lacks Article III authority to resolve the dispute, the
complaint alleges no injury under Ohio law; it seeks relief
exceeding this Court's equitable and constitutional powers; it
fails to state a claim under the federal pleading standards and
Ohio law; and it runs headlong into the Ohio Product Liability
Act.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Injury Under Ohio Law, Pleading Under
Ohio and Federal Standards, and Requested Relief

Article III standing is the threshold question in every federal
case and if the plaintiff lacks standing, the federal court lacks
jurisdiction. Constitutional standing consists of three elements:
(1) an injury in fact (2) that is fairly traceable to the
challenged conduct of the defendant and (3) that is likely to be
redressed by a favorable judicial decision.

Defendants contend that Mr. Hardwick has failed to show that he
possesses standing under federal law and under Ohio law, exposure
to a toxic substance does not create an injury unless an
identifiable condition results.

Plaintiff disagreed, contending:

Defendants refuse to recognize that Mr. Hardwick has pleaded an
injury a significant one the unwanted presence of a man-made
chemical toxin in his blood, caused by Defendants' actions, without
his consent, that persists, continues to accumulate, and has
altered the structure of his blood. That concrete and present
injury, coupled with the additional imminent harm that will
continue to manifest as the chemicals continue to accumulate and
interact synergistically, is more than sufficient to establish an
injury in fact.

The trial court disagreed with the defendant and found that
physical injury is not required to demonstrate damages in an Ohio
tort claim. The Court explained:

While physical injury is not required to demonstrate damages
entitling a plaintiff to medical monitoring relief, a plaintiff
must demonstrate that because of defendant's actions, he has
incurred an increased risk of disease or illness. It is sufficient
for the Plaintiffs to show by expert medical testimony that they
have increased risk of disease which would warrant a reasonable
physician to order monitoring. Thus, a claim for medical monitoring
relief must sufficiently allege that defendant's conduct created an
increased risk of disease or illness.

To summarize, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that toxic
substances were on the train and were released because of the
derailment, they were exposed to these substances because of the
derailment, the toxic substances are associated with increased risk
of disease, and because Defendant's conduct caused them to be
exposed to these toxic substances they face an increased risk of
disease requiring medical monitoring. Since Plaintiffs' allegations
must be accepted as true when analyzing a 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, Plaintiffs have alleged injuries sufficient for a
negligence claim seeking medical monitoring relief.

Defendant's motion to dismiss as to these no injury representative
Plaintiffs is therefore denied.
Defendants further contend that, to the extent medical monitoring
is available as relief, Plaintiff has not sufficiently requested it
in his Amended Complaint, stating at oral argument:
And the fact is medical monitoring around the country in various
jurisdictions has taken on a variety of forms, some of which
require all of them require more than is pled here and far more
than is pled here.

The Court also finds that the Amended Complaint sufficiently
requests medical monitoring relief. Mr. Hardwick requests
monitoring deemed appropriate by the science panel and any other
equitable relief the Court deems suitable under the circumstances.
The Court need not make a determination as to the exact nature of
the requested relief as long as it has the power to provide some of
the requested relief, which is the case as to medical monitoring
only. Therefore, at this juncture the Court need not address the
exact parameters of the relief sought by Plaintiff in the form of a
science panel.

The Court here makes no final determination as to the
appropriateness of scientific studies in the present action. The
Court does find that Plaintiff has properly pleaded a plausible
claim for damages and medical monitoring sufficient to survive the
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motions.

Ohio Product Liability Act (OPLA)

Defendants move for dismissal of this case, claiming that artfully
pleaded claims of negligence and battery are in fact product
liability claims. A product liability claim' means a claim or cause
of action that is asserted in a civil action that seeks to recover
compensatory damages from a manufacturer or supplier that allegedly
arose from the design, formulation, production, construction,
creation, assembly, rebuilding, testing, or marketing of that
product.

In the instant action, nowhere in the Amended Complaint does
Plaintiff seek compensatory damages.

Further, in his briefing on this issue, he likewise states:

Neither Mr. Hardwick nor the class seeks compensatory damages for
personal injuries in this action. Hardwick and the class seek only
declaratory, equitable, and/or injunctive relief.
Defendants, however, contend that although Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief only, Plaintiff
is actually seeking compensatory damages in a disguised way.
Defendants maintain that the statutory language of OPLA does not
specify the way in which a claim must seek compensatory damages.
They continue: For example, Mr. Hardwick seeks declarations of
liability on each of his claims that serve no function other than
to lay the basis for a compensatory-damages award.

Defendants conclude that Mr. Hardwick seeks, in essence, a shortcut
on a future route to the courthouse to seek money damages,
predicated on potential declaratory judgments and science-panel
findings. He also seeks to have Defendants pay for his initial
investigative costs. Defendants caution the Court that if it
refuses to apply OPLA abrogation to complaints that seek
compensatory damages in roundabout or disguised ways, as Hardwick
would have it, it would open a massive loophole, allowing
plaintiffs to easily circumvent OPLA abrogation through artful
pleading.
Plaintiff responds:

Mr. Hardwick and the class do not seek compensatory damages, which
is fatal to Defendants' argument. Defendants contend, however, that
because Mr. Hardwick and the class might seek compensatory damages
in a future action, the Court should disregard his request for
relief and conclude that Mr. Hardwick is seeking compensatory
damages. No logical or legal basis supports this argument.
Defendants have not pointed to any instance where a court has found
that an action is a product liability claim despite the fact that
the claim does not seek compensatory damages.

Nor have Defendants identified any instance where a court has
concluded that a claim seeks compensatory damages because the
plaintiff might seek compensatory damages in a future case.
Defendants cannot point to such case law because the plain language
of Section 2307.71(A)(13) defines product liability claims as
claims that, among other things, seek to recover compensatory
damages. Nowhere in the statute is there a reference to potential
future claims for compensatory damages.

Plaintiff has requested only injunctive relief as that phrase is
interpreted under OPLA. Defendants have not presented, nor has the
Court found, any case that provides support for their proposition
that Plaintiff's requested relief constitutes compensatory damages.

Accordingly, because Plaintiff's requested relief is injunctive,
not compensatory damages, the Court finds that his claims are not
abrogated by OPLA.
Each individual Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction. They also move to dismiss the claims brought
on behalf of non-Ohio putative class members. The Court declines
Defendants' invitation to determine whether this Court has
jurisdiction over non-Ohio putative class members as there is
currently no class certified, nor a motion to certify, to which
such an opinion would pertain.
Standard
When faced with a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff bears the burden of
proving personal jurisdiction exists over each defendant.  

In the instant action, four Defendants filed affidavits to support
their motions and the remaining Defendants filed briefs unsupported
by evidence. The Court will review each group separately.

DuPont, Chemours, 3M, Solvay, Daiken America, and AGC Chemicals

DuPont, Chemours, 3M, Solvay, Daiken America, and AGC Chemicals
contend that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege that they
are responsible for the PFAS in Ohio and in Mr. Hardwick, and
therefore Defendants are not subject to personal jurisdiction in
Ohio. Thus, the Court will construe the facts in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff and determine whether he has sufficiently
made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over these
Defendants.

Under Ohio law, personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants
is available only if (1) the long-arm statute confers jurisdiction
and (2) jurisdiction is proper under the Federal Due Process
Clause.

Ohio's long-arm statute provides in relevant part:

(A) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who
acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from
the person's: (1) Transacting any business in this state (2)
Contracting to supply services or goods in this state (3) Causing
tortious injury by an act or omission in this state (4) Causing
tortious injury in this state by an act or omission outside this
state if he regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any
other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue
from goods used or consumed or services rendered in this state (6)
Causing tortious injury in this state to any person by an act
outside this state committed with the purpose of injuring persons,
when he might reasonably have expected that some person would be
injured thereby in this state.

Ohio's Long-Arm Statute

Plaintiff contends that he has sufficiently alleged jurisdiction
under Ohio's long-arm statute:
Mr. Hardwick's allegations satisfy sections (1) and (2) of the
long-arm statute. The Complaint pleads that each Defendant
transacted business in Ohio and contracted to supply goods or
services in Ohio. Each Defendant did so in the variety of ways
repeatedly described in the Complaint from marketing to
manufacturing to distributing to training in the use of PFAS
products. Their PFAS was used in the fire-fighting foams and on the
gear that Ohio firefighters, including Mr. Hardwick, use and are
exposed to. And each Defendant knew or should have known that their
manufacture, release, distribution, and use of PFAS would cause
harm in Ohio.  

Defendants maintain that, while Ohio's long-arm statute grants Ohio
courts personal jurisdiction over a non-resident if his conduct
falls within the nine bases for jurisdiction listed by the statute
there is a further requirement the long-arm statute allows
jurisdiction only for `causes of action arising from' these
enumerated bases.

Here, arising from means that there is a `proximate cause'
relationship between a plaintiff's claim and the defendant's
conduct in Ohio.  

Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint offers the exact same
boilerplate, vague, and conclusory allegations of wrongdoing as to
each of the Defendants, and thus pleads no specific facts that
could establish with reasonable particularity a basis for
jurisdiction. This Court, however, disagrees.

First, as to proximate cause, in Ohio it is defined as an act or
failure to act that was a substantial factor in bringing about an
injury and without which the injury would not have occurred.To be
considered the natural and probable consequence of an act,
Plaintiff must prove that Defendants should have foreseen or
reasonably anticipated that injury would result from the alleged
negligent act.  

In the case at bar, Plaintiff alleges that through their commercial
operations, each Defendant contaminated Ohio's air, surface waters,
ground water, soils, landfills and additionally that their PFAS was
used in the fire-fighting foams and on the gear that Ohio
firefighters, including Mr. Hardwick, used. He alleges that each
Defendant knew or should have known that their manufacture,
release, distribution, and use of PFAS would cause harm in Ohio and
that each Defendant conspired with the others to keep the dangers
associated with the PFAS secret, failing to inform Mr. Hardwick of
the danger associated with the PFAS to which he was subjected, and
that Defendants misled government agencies, refused to publish
relevant findings and information, and chose not to study the
injuries their own studies showed were potential harmful effects of
the PFAS materials.  

Second, Defendants contend that Mr. Hardwick's allegations are
vague and conclusory and are capable of multiple interpretations at
least one of which does not support personal jurisdiction in Ohio.

In short, even if conclusory allegations were enough to plead
personal jurisdiction which they are not, the conclusory
allegations contained in Plaintiff's complaint are capable of
multiple interpretations at least one of which does not support
personal jurisdiction in Ohio. And as a result, Plaintiff fails to
plead specific facts that could establish with reasonable
particularity a basis for jurisdiction.

Plaintiff has with reasonable particularity set forth specific
facts supporting personal jurisdiction over each Defendant.

Due Process

Defendants argue that Plaintiff alleges no facts to establish that
the assertion of specific jurisdiction over Defendants would
comport with due process. Defendants rely on Walden v. Fiore, 571
U.S. 277, 283 n.6 (2014) for the proposition that to exercise
specific jurisdiction consistent with due process, the claims must
arise out of Defendant's activities in the forum state.
The Sixth Circuit recently addressed Walden, explaining that it
stands for the proposition that a plaintiff cannot create
jurisdiction on the basis of his or her contacts with the forum;
jurisdiction is created by the relationship between a defendant and
the forum.  

Here, Mr. Hardwick does not allege that this Court possesses
personal jurisdiction over Defendants based only on his contacts
with Ohio and/or the contention that Defendants' actions affected
him in Ohio. Mr. Hardwick, as set out in detail above, alleges that
each Defendant has significant contact with Ohio, and his claims
arise out of that specific contact that Defendant has with Ohio.
Those allegations are sufficient to comport with due process.

Archroma, Daiken Industries, Arkema America, and Arkema France

Archroma, Daiken Industries, Arkema America, and Arkema France have
all supported their Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction with affidavits that they contend factually challenge
the allegations in the Amended Complaint. Archroma offers a
declaration that avers that it was established in 2013 and it has
not engaged in any of the activities in Ohio as alleged by
Plaintiff.   

Daiken Industries offers a declaration that states that it does not
currently engage in any of the activities in Ohio alleged in the
Amended Complaint.  Arkema and Arkema France have offered
declarations that aver that at least since 1998 they have not
engaged in any of the activities in Ohio as alleged in the Amended
Complaint. None of the affidavits addresses whether these four
Defendants or their predecessor companies engaged in any of the
activities alleged in the Amended Complaint during the 40 years
that Mr. Hardwick alleges he was subjected to their PFAS in Ohio.

These Defendants rely on the law that provides that in the face of
a properly supported motion for dismissal, the plaintiff may not
stand on his pleadings but must, by affidavit or otherwise, set
forth specific facts showing that the court has jurisdiction. These
Defendants argue that, because Plaintiff has failed to set forth an
affidavit to support his allegations made in the Amended Complaint,
they are entitled to dismissal.  

The Court here merely makes a threshold determination that personal
jurisdiction exists but it does not relieve the plaintiff at the
trial of the case-in-chief from proving the facts upon which
jurisdiction is based by a preponderance of the evidence. If after
discovery it is shown that personal jurisdiction is lacking, any
Defendant may, of course, move for dismissal on those grounds.

Accordingly, the Court DENES the Motions to Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction of Archroma, Daiken Industries, Arkema
America, and Arkema France.

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss.  

A full-text copy of the District Court’s September 30, 2019
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyn79zpz
from Leagle.com

Kevin D. Hardwick, Plaintiff, represented by David John Butler  -
dbutler@taftlaw.com - Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Jonathan N.
Olivito - jolivito@taftlaw.com - Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP,
Michael A. London , Douglas & London, PC, 59 Maiden Ln, 6th Floor,
New York, NY 10038, pro hac vice, Neil E. McWilliams,
Jr.-nmcwilliams@levinlaw.com - Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell,
Rafferty & Proctor, PA, pro hac vice, Rebecca G. Newman , Douglas &
London PC, 59 Maiden Ln, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10038, pro hac
vice & Robert A. Bilott - bilott@taftlaw.com - Taft Stettinius &
Hollister.

3M Company, Defendant, represented by Richard Donovan Schuster -
rdschuster@vorys.com - Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, Daniel Leslie
Ring - lcruz@mayerbrown.com - Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice, John
Joseph Kulewicz - jjkulewicz@vorys.com - Vorys Sater Seymour &
Pease, Joshua D. Yount -jdyount@mayerbrown.com - Mayer Brown LLP,
pro hac vice, Megan E. Stride- mstride@mayerbrown.com - Mayer Brown
LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Scodro - mscodro@mayerbrown.com - Mayer
Brown LLP, pro hac vice & Rosemary D. Welsh-rdwelsh@vorys.com -
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease LLP.


ACBP HOSPITALITY: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ACBP Hospitality
Group LLC. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACBP
Hospitality Group LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09711 (S.D.
N.Y., Oct. 21, 2019).

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

ACBP HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC is an entity registered at NEW YORK
county with company number 4734155.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
     Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
     100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 317-2453
     Fax: (516) 706-4692
     Email: ds@lawsolo.net


AEGIS SENIOR: Newirth Seeks to Certify Class of Facility Residents
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled June Newirth, by and through her Guardian ad
Litem, Frederick J. Newirth; Barbara Feinberg; and Elizabeth
Barber, Andrew Bardin, and Thomas Bardin as successors-in-interest
to the Estate of Margaret Pierce; on their own behalves and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Aegis Senior Communities,
LLC, dba Aegis Living; and Does 1 Through 100, Case No.
4:16-cv-03991-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs seek certification of
this class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:

    "All persons who resided or reside at one of the California
     assisted living facilities owned and/or operated by Aegis
     under the Aegis name from April 12, 2012 through the
     present, and who contracted with Aegis for services for
     which Aegis was paid money."

The Plaintiffs allege that Aegis has violated California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law and the Elder
Financial Abuse statute by making false and misleading statements
and nondisclosures regarding care services provided at Aegis' 15
assisted living facilities in California.  The Plaintiffs contend
that Aegis sets facility staffing based on a "checks and balances"
approach by which facilities seek to achieve a 35% profit margin on
care services.  They add that assessed points and "task times" for
promised services are disregarded.

The Court will commence a hearing on January 24, 2020, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq.
          George Kawamoto, Esq.
          Brian S. Umpierre, Esq.
          STEBNER AND ASSOCIATES
          870 Market Street, Suite 1212
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 362-9800
          Facsimile: (415) 362-9801
          E-mail: kathryn@stebnerassociates.com
                  george@stebnerassociates.com
                  brian@stebnerassociates.com

               - and -

          Guy B. Wallace, Esq.
          Mark T. Johnson, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: gwallace@schneiderwallace.com
                  mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Healey, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          4655 Executive Drive, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 235-3491
          Facsimile: (619) 645-5328
          E-mail: chris.healey@dentons.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Thamer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D. THAMER
          12444 South Highway 3
          Post Office Box 1568
          Callahan, CA 96014-1568
          Telephone: (530) 467-5307
          E-mail: mthamer@trinityinstitute.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Arns, Esq.
          Julie C. Erickson, Esq.
          THE ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 495-7800
          E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com
                  jce@arnslaw.com

               - and -

          W. Timothy Needham, Esq.
          Megan A. Yarnall, Esq.
          JANSSEN MALLOY LLP
          730 Fifth Street
          Eureka, CA 95501
          Telephone: (707) 445-2071
          E-mail: tneedham@janssenlaw.com
                  myarnall@janssenlaw.com

               - and -

          Craig Needham, Esq.
          Kirsten Fish, Esq.
          NEEDHAM, KEPNER, FISH & RICKARD, LLP
          1960 The Alameda, Suite 210
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 244-2166
          Facsimile: (408) 244-7815
          E-mail: cneedham@nkf-law.com
                  kfish@nkf-law.com


AIME LEON DORE: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aime Leon Dore Inc.
The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aime Leon Dore Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09712 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2019).

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

Aime Leon Dore is a lifestyle, sport and ready-to-wear brand based
out of Queens, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
     Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
     100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 317-2453
     Fax: (516) 706-4692
     Email: ds@lawsolo.net


ALDER HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Security Systems Suit Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALDER HOLDINGS, LLC,
and ALARM PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY, LLC, Defendants. Case No.
2:18-cv-00664 (D. Utah), Judge Clark Waddoups of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah (1) granted in part and denied in
part Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss and (2) granted
Defendants Motion to Dismiss and Strike Damages Class Action
Allegations.

Plaintiff is a Connecticut corporation that sells, services, and
monitors residential and commercial security alarm systems
throughout the United States. Plaintiff alleges that Alder
Holdings, LLC is the alter ego of Alarm Protection Technology, LLC
(APT), and that APT falsely misrepresented to at least 38 of
plaintiff's customers in at least eight states that (1) plaintiff
had gone out of business, (2) plaintiff had assigned its accounts
to APT, (3) plaintiff could not adequately monitor the customer's
alarm, and/or (4) plaintiff no longer services the area in which
the customer lives. As a result, Plaintiff alleges that its
customers were fraudulently induced to cancel their contracts with
plaintiff.

Plaintiff brings these claims:

  (1) a claim for violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
      Practices Act (CUTPA),
  (2) and claims for unfair competition,
  (3) intentional interference with economic relations,
  (4) injurious falsehood,
  (5) slander, and
  (6) unjust enrichment under Utah law.

Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion seeks dismissal of the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act and the unjust enrichment claim for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and
dismissal of the remaining Utah state law claims "sounding in
fraud" for failure to plead with particularity under Rule 9(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants' also seek to
dismiss and strike the class action damages allegations for failure
to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

Upon review, the Court dismisses claim one under the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, because the allegations are not "tied to a
form of trade or commerce intimately associated with Connecticut,"
and/or because Connecticut law does not apply under Utah choice of
law principles.

The Court also dismisses count six of the Complaint for failure to
state a claim for relief for unjust enrichment.

The Court further finds that Plaintiff's claims two (unfair
competition), three (intentional interference with economic
relations), four (injurious falsehood), and five (slander) all
"sound in fraud" and are not adequately pled with particularity
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).  The Court is not
persuaded by plaintiff's arguments that its claims are not grounded
in fraud and not subject to the heightened pleading requirements of
9(b), nor is it persuaded that counsel accurately represented the
case law it cited in support of its arguments.

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges no dates or even time frames for the
alleged misconduct, alleges only the states where alleged
misconduct occurred rather than specific locations within the
states, fails to identify the party making the false statements or
to whom the false statements were made, and does not identify which
allegedly false statements were made to which customers, nor what
the consequences were for each customer to whom such statements
were made, and how that is related to plaintiff's claims, the Court
cites.

After careful consideration, the Court grants plaintiff leave to
file, within 30 days of the decision and in compliance with local
rules, a motion to amend the Complaint to plead with particularity
its claims for unfair competition, intentional interference with
economic relations, injurious falsehood, and slander. The motion
must be accompanied by plaintiff's proposed amended Complaint. If
plaintiff fails to plead these claims with particularity, the Court
will consider a properly filed opposition memorandum by defendants
alleging futility.

As to the damages allegations, the Court holds that Plaintiff's
class action damages allegations fail to show that the questions of
law or fact common to potential class members predominates over
questions affecting only individual members and that a class action
is a superior means of adjudicating the alleged controversy.  In
the context of damages claims, the individual sales pitches,
individual reliance issues, and the variety of ways in which each
consumer was damaged based on these differences strongly suggest
that individual facts predominate over class facts, the Court
opines.

Accordingly, the Court strikes plaintiff's class action damages
allegations and dismisses the claim for a class action seeking
damages.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 3, 2019 Memorandum
Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyyek35p
from Leagle.com

Security Systems, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jon V. Harper -
jharper@jonharperlaw.com - HARPER LAW PLC, Joseph Lipari
-liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com - THE SULTER LAW GROUP & M. Denise
Dalton , HARPER LAW PLC, Post Office Box 581468 Salt Lake City,
Utah 84158

Alder Holdings & Alarm Protection Technology, Defendants,
represented by Jason R. Hull - jhull@mohtrial.com - MARSHALL OLSON
& HULL PC & Kevin M. Paulsen -kpaulsen@mohtrial.com - MARSHALL
OLSON & HULL PC.


ALFA 64 INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alfa 64 Inc. The case
is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alfa 64 Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09713 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2019).

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

Alfa 64 Inc. is one of the world's leading asset finance
software.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
     Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
     100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 317-2453
     Fax: (516) 706-4692
     Email: ds@lawsolo.net


ALLERGAN GROUP: Implant Patients Sue Over Product Recall
--------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Allergan, Inc. (previously named
Corporation), Allergan USA, Inc. and Allergan PLC, Defendants, Case
No. 19-cv-09151 (S.D. N.Y., October 2, 2019), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by negligence, unjust enrichment, breach
of implied and express warranty and violations of New York general
business laws, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Delaware
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL (C) saline-filled and
silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders. On July 24,
2019, Allergan announced a worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration reported of cases of breast
implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma.

Both Plaintiffs have BIOCELL implants that are subject to the said
recall. Jane Doe 1 was diagnosed with invasive lobular carcinoma
and underwent a bilateral mastectomy. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven L. Wittels, Esq.
      J. Burkett McInturff, Esq.
      Tiasha Palikovic, Esq.
      WITTELS LAW, P.C.
      18 Half Mile Road
      Armonk, NY 10504
      Telephone: (914) 319-9945
      Facsimile: (914) 273-2563
      Email: slw@wittelslaw.com
             jbm@wittelslaw.com
             tpalikovic@wittelslaw.com


ALLERGAN INC: F.W. Sues over BIOCELL Textured Breast Implants
-------------------------------------------------------------
F.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. ALLERGAN, INC. f/k/a INAMED CORPORATION; ALLERGAN
USA, INC.; ALLERGAN plc; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-24224-XXXX (S.D. Cal., Oct. 13, 2019),
alleges that Allergan manufactured and sold BIOCELL textured breast
implants and tissue expanders that expose women to a higher risk of
breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma
(BIA-ALCL), a deadly cancer of the immune
system.

Although Allergan knew of the increased risks of BIA-ALCL as early
as 2011, Allergan failed to warn women considering its implants.
Although Allergan has now issued a recall pursuant to FDA's
directive, it refuses to take full responsibility and refuses to
cover the significant costs associated with removal and replacement
of the defective devices and medical monitoring, among other
damages.

Allergan announced a worldwide recall of all BIOCELL textured
breast implants and tissue expanders on July 14, 2019, following a
request by the FDA.

The models included in the recall are:

-- Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants (formerly
McGhan RTV Saline-Filled Mammary Implant) approved under P990074;

-- Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants
(formerly Inamed Silicone-Filled Breast Implants) approved under
P020056;

-- Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone
Filled Breast Implants approved under P040046; and

-- Allergan tissue expanders for the breast that have BIOCELL
texturing originally cleared as:Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander
(K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs
(K102806).

Allergen has refused to pay for the removal of the recalled
products or any of the consequences of additional surgery that
women who choose removal will have to undergo, or for medical
monitoring of the substantially increased risk of BIA-ALCL that all
women implanted with the devices have been subjected to.

Prior to issuing a request for the recall, the FDA had received
reports establishing that BIOCELL implants and expanders were
associated with an increase in reported cases of BIA-ALCL: 573
cases of BIA-ALCL worldwide including 33 deaths.

Of the 573 known cases of BIA-ALCL, 481 (or about 84%) were
attributed to Allergan products, and of the 33 reported deaths, "12
of the 13 patients for which the manufacturer of the implant is
known are confirmed to have an Allergan breast implant."

According to the FDA, the risk of BIA-ALCL is six times higher with
Allergan's textured implants than textured implants from other
manufacturers.

The Plaintiff asserts that Allergan should take responsibility for
exposing women to a higher risk of BIA-ALCL and to make all women
implanted with these defective devices whole by covering all costs
associated with the removal, replacement, and recovery, medical
monitoring, and all damages arising out of the sale and implanting
of these defective devices, the lawsuit says.

Allergan, Inc. is an American global pharmaceutical company focused
on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical
aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and urologics.
Allergan, Inc. was formed in 1948, incorporated in 1950 and became
a public company in 1970.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated are:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 1140
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357-2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                  dhall@hedinhall.com

               - and -

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
          Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585

ALLIED INTERSTATE: Woodward Files FCRA Suit in S.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ALLIED INTERSTATE,
LLC. The case is styled as MICHAEL WOODWARD on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIED INTERSTATE,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04290-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., Oct. 21,
2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Allied Interstate LLC is a debt collection agency that provides
financial services. The Company offers accounts receivable,
customer retention, and debt collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David M. Marco, Esq.
     Larry Paul Smith, Esq.
     SMITHMARCO, P.C.
     55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 546-6539
     Fax: (888) 418-1277
     Email: dmarco@smithmarco.com
            lsmith@smithmarco.com


ALLORA 2 SPA: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allora 2 Spa Inc. The
case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allora 2 Spa Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09715 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2019).

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

Allora 2 Spa Inc is a privately held company in New York, NY and
categorized under Health Spas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
     Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
     100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 317-2453
     Fax: (516) 706-4692
     Email: ds@lawsolo.net



AMAZON WEB: Faces Summer Suit Over Breach of Confidential Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN SUMMER and KATELYN VITA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.
and CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02937-AJT-JFA (W.D. Wash., Oct. 19, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants failed to protect confidential information of the
Plaintiffs and millions of other consumers from theft by a
malicious hacker.

On July 29, 2019, Capital One announced that the sensitive personal
information (SPI) of more than 100 million United States citizens
had been stolen from its servers, including names, addresses, zip
codes, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth,
self-reported income, credit scores, credit limits, balances,
payment history, contact information, and some transaction data for
2006-2018, as well as bank account numbers and Social Security
numbers for approximately 220,000 people who applied for credit
card products at Capital One between 2005 and "early" 2019 were
affected.

Without greater specificity, Capital One states that small
businesses and consumers AWS, a subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc., is
the second-largest cloud computing services provider in the United
States by revenue. In 2018, it had more than $25 billion in
revenue. Capital One, as of 2017, was the fifth-largest credit card
issuer in the United States. Between them, the two are responsible
for the transmission of millions of peoples' sensitive personal
information each and every day.

On July 19, 2019, Capital One determined that the unauthorized
access had occurred, and after working with federal law
enforcement, announced the arrest of the hacker, Paige Thompson, on
July 29, 2019, concurrent with the breach. AWS stated that "the
perpetrator [Ms. Thompson] gained access through a misconfiguration
of the web application" Ms. Thompson was a former employee of AWS.
This misconfiguration allowed Ms. Thompson to access the SPI of
more than 100 million people and offer it for sale online, the
lawsuit says.

Capital One is a bank holding company which specializes in credit
cards and other forms of credit, such as car loans. 75% of Capital
One's revenue comes from credit cards. Customers must apply for
credit cards to receive them, and Capital One actively solicits
potential customers to supply Capital One with their SPI in order
to make a determination as to creditworthiness.

Cloud-based storage has grown explosively over the past decade as
data centers and contracted storage have replaced in-house servers
and storage devices.

As a result of the Defendant's negligent security practices, the
Plaintiffs and the Class have been exposed to fraud and face a
heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft, the
Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs and the Class must now and in
the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard
against identity theft and fraudulent charges and accounts.
Plaintiff and the Class may be faced with fraudulent debt or incur
costs for, among other things, paying monthly or annual fees for
identity theft and credit monitoring services and obtaining credit
reports, credit freezes, and other protective measures to deter,
detect, and mitigate the risk of identity theft and fraud. Some
have already incurred costs in doing so.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dan Drachler, Esq.
          Henry Avery, Esq.
          ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
          1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 223-2053
          Facsimile: (206) 343-9636
          E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com
                  havery@zsz.com

               - and -

          Fred T. Isquith, Esq.
          Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
                  guiney@whafh.com
                  malmstrom@whafh.com


AMBAC ASSURANCE: No Dismissal on “Military Housing Fraud” Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MONTEREY BAY MILITARY HOUSING, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. AMBAC ASSURANCE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 17-cv-04992-BLF. (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, denied the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Complaint.

The action arises from alleged wide-scale fraud in the financing of
military
housing projects. Plaintiffs are eighteen project entities that
were authorized to construct housing on military bases in fifteen
states. Plaintiffs claim that they were defrauded by the lenders
financing the construction, the company insuring the loans, and
others, in violation of RICO and state common laws.

Defendants are New York based companies and their employees: Ambac
Assurance Corporation ("Ambac"), the New York based company that
insured the construction loans; Chetan Marfatia ("Marfatia"), a New
York resident who served as Ambac's Managing Director; Jefferies
Mortgage Finance, Inc., Jefferies & Company, Inc., Jefferies LLC,
and Jefferies Group LLC (collectively, "Jefferies"),3 New York
based companies that provided Project financing; and Danny Ray
("Ray"), a former Managing Director of Jefferies and of its
predecessor, GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation ("GMAC").

Shortly after this lawsuit was filed, Defendants Ambac, Marfatia,
and Jefferies moved for transfer to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY Court") pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). The moving parties argued that
Plaintiffs had alleged a civil RICO conspiracy operated out of New
York, by Defendants residing and/or working in New York, who
negotiated the allegedly fraudulent agreements in New York. The
Court denied the Sec. 1404(a) motion based largely on the
significant weight it accorded Plaintiffs' choice of forum.

The parties thereafter engaged in substantial motion practice,
culminating in Defendants' current motion to dismiss the operative
second amended complaint ("SAC"), in which they argue first that
the SAC fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), and next that Plaintiffs cannot establish
personal jurisdiction over most Defendants under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).

Taking those arguments in the order presented by the parties, the
Rule 12(b)(6) motion is DENIED, as the claims are adequately pled,
Judge Freeman rules.  The Rule 12(b)(2) motion is well-taken in
part, as the Court has determined that it lacks personal
jurisdiction over all Defendants except Ambac.

However, in light of the latter determination, Judge Freeman finds
it appropriate to sua sponte reconsider its denial of Defendants'
prior motions to transfer. The Judge concludes that the balance of
the Sec. 1404(a) factors has changed and the interests of justice
now dictate transfer to the SDNY where most, if not all, Defendants
are subject to personal jurisdiction. The Rule 12(b)(2) motion
therefore is denied and the action is transferred to the Southern
District of New York, Judge Freeman orders.

A full-text copy of Judge Freeman's October 3, 2019 Order is
available at  https://is.gd/RDrANF at Leagle.com

Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Benjamin T. Kurtz -benjamin.kurtz@kirkland.com - Kirkland and Ellis
LLP, Donna Marie Welch - donna.welch@kirkland.com - Kirkland Ellis
LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Willian  -
jeffrey.willian@kirkland.com - Kirkland and Ellis LLP, pro hac
vice, Pratik Kumar Ghosh - pratik.ghosh@kirkland.com - Kirkland and
Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Yates McLaughlin French  -
yates.french@kirkland.com - Kirkland and Ellis & Michael Phillip
Esser - michael.esser@kirkland.com - Kirkland and Ellis LLP.

Monterey Bay Land, LLC, Meade Communities LLC, Fort Bliss/White
Sands Missile Range Housing LP, Riley Communities LLC, Fort
Leavenworth Frontier Heritage Communities, I, LLC, Fort Leavenworth
Frontier Heritage Communities, II, LLC, Carlisle/Picatinny Family
Housing LP, Bragg Communities LLC, Fort Detrick/Walter Reed Army
Medical Center LLC, Picerne-Fort Polk Funding, LLC, Rucker
Communities, LLC, Stewart Hunter Housing LLC, Sill Housing, LLC,
AMC West Housing LP, Lackland Family Housing, LLC & Vandenberg
Housing LP, Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin T. Kurtz , Kirkland
and Ellis LLP, Donna Marie Welch , Kirkland Ellis LLP, Jeffrey L.
Willian , Kirkland and Ellis LLP, Pratik Kumar Ghosh , Kirkland and
Ellis LLP, Yates McLaughlin French , Kirkland and Ellis & Michael
Phillip Esser , Kirkland and Ellis LLP.

AETC Housing LP, Plaintiff, represented by Donna Marie Welch ,
Kirkland Ellis LLP, Jeffrey L. Willian , Kirkland and Ellis LLP,
Pratik Kumar Ghosh , Kirkland and Ellis LLP, Yates McLaughlin
French , Kirkland and Ellis & Michael Phillip Esser , Kirkland and
Ellis LLP.

AMBAC Assurance Corporation, Defendant, represented by Steven
Geoffrey Madison -
stevemadison@quinnemanuel.com -Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan
LLP, Michael Barry Carlinsky - michaelcarlinsky@quinnemanuel.com -
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, pro hac vice, Noah Samuel
Helpern - nhelpern@bgrfirm.com  - Browne George Ross LLP, Rachel
Elizabeth Epstein - rachelepstein@quinnemanuel.com - Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Scott Mills, Jr.
- scottmills@quinnemanuel.com - Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and
Sullivan.


ANALOGIC CORP: Court Tosses Shareholders' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In In re ANALOGIC CORP. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION, Civil Action No.
18-cv-11301-ADB, (D. Mass.), District Judge ALLISON D. BURROUGHS of
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendants' motions to
dismiss.

This action was initiated by a complaint filed by Jeanette Carr on
June 21, 2018. On July 24, 2018, a similar complaint was filed in
this district by Russ Burcaw. On October 10, 2018, the two actions
were consolidated, and Buttny was appointed as lead plaintiff in
accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 ("PSLRA") upon the Court's determination that he was the "most
adequate plaintiff." On November 14, 2018, Buttny filed the Amended
Complaint.

Lead Plaintiff Buttny brings this shareholder class action against
the Company and several members of its board of directors for
violating federal securities laws in connection with the sale of
the Company to Altaris Capital Partners, LLC. Defendants arranged
the sale to Altaris for $84.00 per share and succeeded in obtaining
stockholders' approval. The sale price was well below Analogic's
stock closing price of $96.05 just hours before the merger was
announced.   

The PLSRA's safe harbor provision provides that a person shall not
be liable with respect to any forward-looking statement that is
identified as a forward-looking statement, and is accompanied by
meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that
could cause actual results to differ materially.

On March 22, 2018, Citi presented a revised discounted cash flow
analysis to the Board and Analogic's senior management that used a
more pessimistic set of projections and applied a 25 percent
reduction in annual revenue growth and in non-GAAP EBITDA margin
expansion (the "Case 2B Projections").

The Court finds that Analogic's assertion that the Case 2B
Projections were the best currently available estimates and
judgments of the management of Analogic as to the future financial
performance of Analogic was a forward-looking statement that falls
within the PSLRA safe harbor and bespeaks caution doctrine because
of the cautionary language included in the proxy. The projections
were identified as forward-looking and included sufficient language
to make that evident and to adequately caution shareholders.  

Moreover, Buttny has failed to plead that the proxy forecasts,
which incorporated Analogic's past performance, are objectively
false, rules the Court. Buttny's statements that blaming Analogic's
past performance was a sham and that the Board knew that Analogic's
past performance was not an indicator of future expectations, are
insufficient. The proxy explained that the lower estimate was based
on long-term macroeconomic trends in the maturing medical imaging
market, increasing global competition from larger and better
capitalized competitors, increasing industry consolidation and
Analogic's ability to develop new market channels for its
products.

Considering Defendants' transparency concerning the accuracy and
reliability of the assorted provided projections, the disclosed
interests of the defendants, and Defendants' statement that the
final sale price represented a discount as compared to Analogic's
closing stock prices, the statements in the proxy were not
misleading, the Court opines.

Thus, Judge BURROUGHS held that the motions to dismiss are GRANTED,
and the Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Court
finds that the challenged statements are protected under the PSLRA
safe harbor and the bespeaks caution doctrine as forward-looking
statements with sufficient cautionary language. In the alternative,
the Court has determined that the statements, as pled, were
nonactionable statements of opinion because they were not
objectively or subjectively false and were not misleading.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y3o7anr7
from Leagle.com.

Mr. Russ Burcaw, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Danielle S. Myers
- danim@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, David T. Wissbroecker - DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Eun Jin Lee - elee@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & Jason M. Leviton -
jason@blockesq.com - Block & Leviton LLP, pro hac vice.

Jeanette A. Carr, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jason M. Leviton ,
Block & Leviton LLP, pro hac vice.

Analogic Corporation, Defendant, represented by Antony S. Burt -
aburt@schiffhardin.com - Schiff Hardin LLP, pro hac vice, Eric D.
Wolkoff  - ERIC.WOLKOFF@WILMERHALE.COM - Wilmer Hale LLP, Jin Yan -
jyan@schiffhardin.com - Schiff Hardin LLP, pro hac vice, Molly L.
Wiltshire - mwiltshire@schiffhardin.com - Schiff Hardin LLP, pro
hac vice, Patrick P. Dinardo, Sullivan & Worcester LLP & Nicholas
M. O'Donnell , Sullivan & Worcester LLP, One Post Office Square
Boston, MA 02109.

Fred B Parks, Bernard C. Bailey, Jeffrey P. Black, James J. Judge,
Michael T. Modic, Stephen A. Odland & Joseph E. Whitters,
Defendants, represented by Daniel W. Halston -
DANIEL.HALSTON@WILMERHALE.COM - Wilmer Hale LLP, Eric D. Wolkoff -
ERIC.WOLKOFF@WILMERHALE.COM - Wilmer Hale LLP & Yavor L. Nechev
-YAVOR.NECHEV@WILMERHALE.COM - Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP.

Louis Buttny, Movant, represented by David T. Wissbroecker, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Eun Jin Lee, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP & Robert B. Carmel-Montes, The Carmel Law Group, Suite 240One
Center Plaza Boston, MA 02108

APRIL HUGHES: Calcano Suit Asserts ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against April Hughes, Inc.
The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. April Hughes, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09716 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2019).

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

April Hughes, Inc. is a Domestic Business Corporation located at
C/O CLIQUE STRATEGIC MNGMT., 29 W 38TH ST. 14TH FLOOR, NEW YORK,
NEW YORK, 10018.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
     Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
     100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 317-2453
     Fax: (516) 706-4692
     Email: ds@lawsolo.net


ARCONIC INC: Court Orders Parties in Behren Suit to Meet & Confer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case KRISTEN BEHRENS, ESQ., as Administratrix, et al. v.
ARCONIC, INC., et al. Civil Action No. 19-2664. (E.D. Pa.), Judge
Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania directs the parties to a meet and confer
process.

The Complaint in the case concerns 247 plaintiffs, following a
disastrous and tragic fire in London at an apartment complex known
as the Grenfell Tower on June 14, 2017.  The complaint was filed on
June 6, 2019 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and promptly
removed to Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act. The District Court convened a Rule 16
conference on July 17, 2019 and set a schedule for various
motions.

Following that schedule Defendants have filed motions to dismiss
under Rule 12, and, also under the doctrine of forum non conveniens
("FNC"). Defendants also filed a joint appendix containing 51
exhibits, including numerous declarations and other documents,
consisting of hundreds of pages.  Briefing has not been completed.

Discovery is relevant to the Defendants' Motions.  However, Arconic
Defendants have refused to produce discovery.

The Court said it is not necessarily endorsing all of Plaintiffs'
discovery requests at this time. However, the Court cannot ignore
the fact that two of the three defendant corporations have agreed
to produce some documents and at least some deposition testimony,
but the Arconic Defendants have refused to produce anything.

The Court states it will direct that counsel for Plaintiffs and
Arconic Defendants commence a substantive "meet and confer" process
to determine whether a resolution can be achieved, at least on the
initial phase of document production and deposition testimony from
individuals who are knowledgeable about issues relevant to the
Defendants' Motions and/or about the ESI possessed by the Arconic
Defendants and/or available to them in the country.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 2, 2019 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4bjqwva from Leagle.com

KRISTEN BEHERNS, ESQUIRE AS ADMINISTRATIX OF THE ESTATES OF KRISTEN
BEHERNS, GLORIA TREVISAN, FATEMEH AFRASEHABI, SAKIN AFRASEHABI,
AMAL AHMEDIN, AMAYA AHMEDIN, MOHAMMAD ALHAJALI, ALEXANDRA ATALA,
HUSNA BEGUM, LEENA BELKADI, MALAK BELKADI, OMAR BELKADI, RAYMOND
BERNARD, VINCENT CHIEJINA, BASSEM CHOUCAIR, FATIMA CHOUCAIR, MIERNA
CHOUCAIR, NADIA CHOUCAIR, SIRRIA CHOUCAIR, ZEINAB CHOUCAIR, JOSEPH
DANIELS, JEREMIAH DEEN, ZAINAB DEEN, ANTHONY DISSON, ESLAH
ELGWAHRY, MARIEM ELGWAHRY, FATHIA AHMED ELSANOUSI, ABDUL AZIZ
EL-WAHABI, FAOUZIA EL-WAHABI, MEHDI EL-WAHABI, NUR HUDA EL-WAHABI,
YASIN EL-WAHABI, LOGAN GOMES, MARCO GOTTARDI, BERKTI HAFTOM, BIRUK
HAFTOM, FARAH HAMDAN, MOHAMMED HAMID, MOHAMMED HANIF, YAHYA HASHIM,
FIRDAWS HASHIM, HASHIM KEDIR, YAQUB HASHIM, FETHIA HASSAN, HANIA
HASSAN, ABUFARS IBRAHIM, ISRA IBRAHIM, RANIA IBRAHIM, AMNA MAHMUD
IDRIS, ALI YAWAR JAFARI, NURA JEMAL, HAMID KANI, KHADIJA KHALLOUFI,
VICTORIA KING, DEBORAH LAMPRELL, GARY MAUNDERS, MARY MENDY, KAMRU
MIAH, LIGAYA MOORE, DENIS MURPHY, MOHAMED AMIED NEDA, ISSAC PAULOS,
MARIA DEL PILAR BURTON, STEVEN POWER, JESSICA URBANO RAMIREZ,
KHADIJA SAYE, SHEILA SMITH, MOHAMEDNUR TUCCU, ERNIE VITAL, MARJORIE
VITAL, AHMED ABDEL-RASOUL, MUSTAFA ABDU, SABAH ABDULLAH,
ABDUL-WAHAB ABDULHAMID, MARYAM ADAM, H/W, ABRAHAM ABEBE, TURUFAT
YILMA GIRMA, H/W INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS
OF ABEM ABRAHAM, KAREN BOUD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN OF ADEL ABOUD AND ADAM ABOUD, ELSA AFEWORKI, MOHAMED
AHMED, RANDA AL-ARASI, H/W INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS AND NATURAL
GUARDIANS OF TALEEN AHMED AND CRYEEN AHMED, FADUMO AHMED, KHALID
AHMED, OMAR ALHAJ ALI, MARIA DE FATIMA ALVES, MANUEL MIGUEL ALVES,
H/W, INES TAVARES ALVES, TIAGO ALVES, MERON ARAYA, ETHIOPIA ASSEFA,
SIED BAYAN, NADIA YOUSEF, H/W, JOHN BEADLE, SAFA HAMDAN, AS LEGAL
GUARDIAN OF TASNIM BELKADI, ELPIDIO BONIFACIO, ROSITA BONIFACIO,
H/W, NICHOLAS BURTON, VIRGILIO CASTRO, ANN CHANCE, LEE CHAPMAN,
CHIA-YUAN NAOMI LI, H/W, SALAH EDDINE CHEBIOUNI, ZAK CHEBIOUNI,
FUNG-HEE CHENUNG, CHIN-HSUAN LYDIA LIAO, JOSE COSTA COTELO, DORINDA
SUAREZ CHANS, H/W, KATARZYNA DABROWSKA, ROY SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF GEORGINA AND KRISTINA SMITH,
EDWARD DAFFARN, SAM DANIELS, HIWOT DAGNACHEW, WINTOM TEMESGEN, H/W
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF BIRUK HENOCK
AND YABSIRRA HENOCK, ALEMISHET DEMISSIE, PETRA DOULOVA, LEROY
AUGUSTUS, H/W, BELLAL EL-GUENUNI, RABIA YAHYA, H/W INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF NAILA EL-GUENUNI, AYEESHA
EL-GUENUNI, AND RANIYA EL-GUENUNI, HANAN WAHABI, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF SARA CHEBIOUNI, MOUNA EL-OGBANI,
YOUSSEF KHALLOUD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS
OF HAFAS KHALLOUD, NUSAYBAH KHALLOUD, AND ZAID KHALLOUD, NATASHA
ELCOCK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF SHAYLA
SMITH-ELCOCK, YEHUALASHET ENYEW, RICHARD FLETCHER, HIME GASHAW, H/W
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF SOPHIA LILLY
NATY FLETCHER, HELEN GEBREMESKEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT AND
NATURAL GUARADIAN OF LULYA BENYAM, CLARITA GHAVIMI, MARCIO GOMES,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF LUANA GOMES
AND MEGAN GOMES, ANDREIA PERESTRELO, CHARMAINE GREENRIDGE, DANIEL
GRIFFIN, SHARON HALEY, LINA HAMIDE, WILLIAM THOMSON, MARY HANLEY,
H/W, CATHERINE HANLEY, AVNI HAXHISEFA, ADRIANA ZYMBERAJ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF ALT HAXHISEFA,
ALK HAXHISEFA, MAKREM HARZI, RAWDA SAID, H/W INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF YUSF HARZI, ABDIRAHMAN SALAH
HIRSI, SUHAYB SALAH HIRSI, VAN QUANG HO, HOANG KHANH QUANG, EDUARDO
IGNACIO, ERLINDA IGNACIO, H/W, WESLEY IGNACIO, MADYLYN IGNACIO, H/W
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF MADISON RYLEE
IGNACIO, NADIA JAFARI, FATIMA JAFARI, MARIA JAFARI, JOSEPH JOHN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN FOR MALACHI ZION
JOSEPH JOHN, CORRINE JONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN OF AMIEL AND DANEL MILLER, BEHAILU GOBENA KEBEDE, FARSHID
KAFICHERAGHI, MILAD KAREEM, BETTY KASOTE, MESROB KASSEMDJIAN,
SHARON LACI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF
CHLOE LACI, MONICA LOKKO, DAVID LEWIS, OCTINIA LEWIS, MIRAN LOVSIN,
SUZANA LOVSIN, H/W, BRANISLAV LUKIC, HANIFE MACIT, SENER MACIT,
H/W, MOHAMMED RASOUL, MUNIRA MAHMUD, H/W INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF MOHAMMED ALHASSAN RASOUL AND ZAHRA
RASOUL, SEPIDEH MINAEI MOGHADDAM, AMINA MOHAMED, AMNA MOHAMED,
ALISON MOSES, NAGAWA PROSSY NALUKWAGO, RESHAD NAQSHBANDI, FARHAD
SHEKEB NEDA, SHAKILA FLORA NEDA, EMMA O'CONNOR, KERRY O'HARA,
GITARA PAHLAVANI, MICHAEL PARAMASIVAN, CHIRAAG PATEL, SHANTILAL
PATEL, KIRAN PATEL, H/W, ELISA RABAYA, AZIZA RAIHANI, RAMIRO URBANO
RODRIGUEZ, ADRIANA RAMIREZ, H/W, RHEA ROJO, ANTONIO RONCOLATO,
REBECCA ROSS, REBIN SABIR, GENET SHAWO, PAULOS TEKLE, H/W, ANTHONY
SMITH, ELIZABETH SOBIESZCZAK, MICHAEL SOBIESZCZAK, H/W, FLORENTYNA
SOBIESCZAK, ADAM SUPAREOGSANOND, CHALALAI SUPAROEKSANOND, WAEWTA
SUPAREOGSANOND, RITA TANKARIAN, LUKE TOWNER, MARIKO
TOYOSHIMA-LEWIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF
TAIYOU TOYOSHIMA-LEWIS, AOZORA TOYOSHIMA-LEWIS, AND KOHANA
TOYOSHIMA-LEWIS, CARMEN VIEIRO, JOSE VIEIRO, H/W, YOHANNES TESFAY &
MERON MEKONNEN, H/W INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS AND NATURAL
GUARDIANS OF LIYA YOHANNES AND YOHANA YOHANNES AND EAMON ZADA,
Plaintiffs, represented by ROBERT J. MONGELUZZI , SALTZ,
MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C., 1650 Market Street, 52nd
Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, ADAM J. LEVITT –
alevitt@dicellolevitt.com - DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC, JEFFREY P.
GOODMAN , SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C., 1650 Market
Street, 52nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, JOHN E. TANGREN,
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC, MARK A. DICELLO, DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER
LLC, 10 North Dearborn Street, 11th Floor, Chicago, IL 60602&
SAMUEL B. DORDICK , SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY PC, 1650
Market Street, 52nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103

ARCONIC, INC. & ARCONIC ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendants,
represented by JASON C. MURRAY - jason.murray@bartlit-beck.com -
BARTLIT BECK LLP, JOSEPH KERNEN-  joseph.kernen@dlapiper.com - DLA
PIPER LLP, NANCY SHANE RAPPAPORT -nancy.rappaport@dlapiper.com -
DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY US, LLP, SEAN C. GRIMSLEY -
sean.grimsley@bartlitbeck.com  - BARTLIT BECK HERMAN PALENCHAR &
SCOTT, ABIGAIL M. HINCHCLIFF - abigail.hinchcliff@bartlit-beck.com
- BARTLIT BECK LLP & ILANA H. EISENSTEIN -
ilana.eisenstein@dlapiper.com - DLA PIPER LLP.

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by LEON F. DEJULIUS,
Jr. – lfdejulius@jonesday.com - JONES DAY, MATTHEW E. PAPEZ –
mpapez@jonesday.com - JONES DAY & STEPHEN J. PEARSON –
sjpearson@jonesday.com - JONES DAY.

SAINT-GOBAIN CORPORATION, doing business as CELOTEX, Defendant,
represented by LINCOLN D. WILSON , DECHERT LLP, RACHEL
PASSARETTI-WU , DECHERT LLP, JUDY LEE LEONE , DECHERT LLP & MARK
CHEFFO , DECHERT LLP.


ASCENDANT CAPITAL: Ma IRA Sues Over Improper Sale of LP Interests
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KINNIE MA INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNT, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASCENDANT CAPITAL,
LLC; ASCENDANT ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES, LLC; GPB CAPITAL HOLDINGS,
LLC; AXIOM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC.; DJ PARTNERS LLC; MR RANGER
LLC; DAVID GENTILE; JEFFRY SCHNEIDER; MARK D. MARTINO; GPB
HOLDINGS, LP; GPB HOLDINGS II, LP; GPB AUTOMOTIVE PORTFOLIO, LP;
GPB COLD STORAGE, LP; GPB WASTE MANAGEMENT FUND, LP; GPB HOLDINGS
III, LP; GPB HOLDINGS QUALIFIED, LP; GPB NYC DEVELOPMENT, LP; RSM
US LLP (f/k/a McGLADREY LLP); PHOENIX AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC.; ADVISORY GROUP EQUITY SERVICES, LTD.; AEGIS CAPITAL CORP.;
AEON CAPITAL INC.; AMERICAN CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC; ARETE WEALTH
MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARKADIOS CAPITAL; AUSDAL FINANCIAL PARTNERS, INC.;
AVERE FINANCIAL GROUP LLC n/k/a PARSONEX CAPITAL MARKETS LLC; BCG
SECURITIES INC.; BRADLEY WEALTH MANAGEMENT LLC; CABOT LODGE
SECURITIES LLC; CALTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.; CAPE SECURITIES, INC.;
CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; CAPITAL INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.;
CASCADE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, INC.; CENTER STREET SECURITIES, INC.;
COASTAL EQUITIES, INC.; COLORADO FINANCIAL SERVICE CORPORATION;
CONCORDE INVESTMENT SERVICES, LLC; CROWN CAPITAL SECURITIES LP.;
DAVID A. NOYES & COMPANY; DAWSON JAMES SECURITIES, INC.; DEMPSEY
LORD SMITH, LLC; DETALUS SECURITIES, LLC; DFPB INVESTMENTS, INC.;
DH HILL SECURITIES, LLLP; DINOSAUR FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC; EMERSON
EQUITY LLC; FINANCIAL WEST GROUP; FSC SECURITIES CORPORATION;
GENEOS WEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC.; GREAT POINT CAPITAL LLC; GVC
CAPITAL LLC; HIGHTOWER SECURITIES, LLC; IBN FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC.; INNOVATION PARTNERS LLC; INTERNATIONAL ASSETS ADVISORY, LLC;
INVESTMENT ARCHITECTS, INC.; KALOS CAPITAL, INC.; KINGSBURY
CAPITAL, INC.; LANDOLT SECURITIES, INC.; LEWIS FINANCIAL GROUP
N/K/A DAI SECURITIES, LLC; LION STREET FINANCIAL, LLC; LOWELL &
COMPANY, INC.; LUCIA SECURITIES, LLC; MADISON AVENUE SECURITIES,
LLC; MCDONALD PARTNERS LLC; MCNALLY FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION;
MOLONEY SECURITIES CO., INC.; MONEY CONCEPTS CAPITAL CORP.; MORI
HUSTON PARTNERS LLC; MSC-BD, LLC; NATIONAL SECURITIES CORPORATION;
NEWBRIDGE SECURITIES CORPORATION; ORCHARD SECURITIES, LLC; PARITER
SECURITIES, LLC; PRIVATE CLIENT SERVICES, LLC; PURSHE KAPLAN
STERLING INVESTMENTS, INC.; ROYAL ALLIANCE ASSOCIATES, INC.;
SAGEPOINT FINANCIAL, INC.; SANDLAPPER SECURITIES, LLC; SCF
SECURITIES, INC.; SENTINUS SECURITIES LLC n/k/a SENTINUS HALO
SECURITIES, LLC; STEPHEN A. KOHN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.; TITAN
SECURITIES; TRIAD ADVISORS, LLC; UHLMANN PRICE SECURITIES, LLC;
UNITED PLANNERS' FINANCIAL SERVICES OF AMERICA LP; VANDERBILT
SECURITIES, LLC; VESTECH SECURITIES, INC.; WESTERN INTERNATIONAL
SECURITIES, INC.; WESTPARK CAPITAL INC.; WHITEHALL-PARKER
SECURITIES, INC.; WILMINGTON CAPITAL SECURITIES, LLC; WOODBURY
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; and JOHN DOE AUDITORS 1 THROUGH 10;
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01050 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 25, 2019),
arises out of the Defendants' improper conduct in selling
securities in the form of limited partnership interests in the
Funds at the direction of GPB Capital and Ascendant Capital.

The "GPB Funds" or the "Funds" refer to Defendants GPB Holdings,
LP, GPB Holdings Qualified, LP, GPB Holdings II, LP, GPB Automotive
Portfolio, LP, GPB Cold Storage, LP, GPB NYC Development, GPB Waste
Management, LP, and GPB Holdings III, LP. GPB Capital is an
alternative asset management firm that is the general partner of
each of the Funds.  Ascendant Capital is GPB Capital's primary
distribution agent.

The Defendants knowingly made numerous material misstatements and
omitted material facts in their Private Placement Memorandum and
other communications related to their offerings, or provided
substantial assistance in connection with the issuance of such
misstatements or omissions, the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendants
sold, or materially assisted with the sale of, these securities
through a series of massive improperly unregistered public
offerings in which they paid themselves and a network of brokers
exorbitant fees and falsely promised investors, including the
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, prompt investment
returns of 8% or more per annum, according to the complaint.

While deceiving investors into believing they were earning 8%
annual return, the Defendants attempted to mask the inevitable
failure of the partnership by telling the Class that they would
receive on a regular and continuous basis payments "fully covered
from funds from operations" and from "healthy cash flows" in an
amount of 8% annualized, the Plaintiff avers. Indeed, the Plaintiff
notes, as late as 2019, the Defendants continued to represent that
distributions were being based upon "performance results," which
was all a lie.

The Plaintiff contends that GPB played a game with the limited
partners, and that almost all (i.e., more than 95%) of the
distributions made to limited partners from GPB and its affiliates
were simply returns of the limited partners' own capital.  The
Plaintiff adds that certain of the Funds operated and controlled by
GPB, David Gentile and Jeffry Schneider Schneider failed to
register certain share classes under Section 12(g) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as their limited partnership
interests were held by more than 2,000 holders and were valued at
well over $10 million.

Because they failed to register the securities, GPB could no longer
legally operate these Funds. Moreover, GPB was in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act because the requirement to register under
12(g) also imposed on GPB and its control persons the obligation to
make public filings on a quarterly basis disclosing the financial
condition and business management of the Funds and their holding
company. This disclosure would have necessarily included disclosure
of the Ponzi scheme, says the complaint.

Kinnie Ma Individual Retirement Account, through Kinnie Ma, a
resident of California, purchased a $64,207 limited partnership
interest in GPB Holdings II, LP from GPS Capital Management, LLC.

Ascendant Capital is a "boutique alternative investment firm" that
was the lead distribution partner for GPB and through which
Gentile, Schneider and Martino structured, distributed, and
offered, or arranged for the Broker Defendants to offer, the
limited partnership interests in the GPB Funds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan Shelton, Esq.
     Jesse Z. Weiss, Esq.
     BROPHY, EDMUNDSON, SHELTON & WEISS, PLLC
     210 Barton Springs Rd., Suite 500
     Austin, TX 78704
     Phone: (512) 596-3622
     Facsimile: (512) 532-6637
     Email: ryans@beswlaw.com
            jesse@beswlaw.com

          - and -

     Peter S. Linden, Esq.
     KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
     250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
     New York, NY 10177
     Phone: (212) 371-6600
     Facsimile: (212) 699-1194
     Email: plinden@kmllp.com

          - and -

     Richard L. Stone, Esq.
     BLACKNER STONE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
     123 Australian Avenue
     Palm Beach, FL 33480
     Phone: (561) 804-9569
     Email: rstoneesq@aol.com


AVEDRO INC: Kent Sues Over Sale to Glaukos Corporation
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kent, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Avedro, Inc., Gil Kliman, Donald J. Zurbay, Jonathan
Silverstein, Hongbo Lu, Garheng Kong, Thomas W. Burns, Reza Zadno,
Robert J. Palmisano, Glaukos Corporation and Atlantic Merger Sub,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01845 (D. Del., October 1, 2019),
seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition
of Avedro, Inc. by Glaukos Corporation and Atlantic Merger Sub,
Inc.; rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger;
rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees; and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Avedro's
stockholders will receive 0.365 shares of Glaukos common stock for
each share of Avedro common stock they own.

The complaint asserts that the registration statement for the
merger failed to include critical financial analysis performed by
its financial advisor, Guggenheim Securities, LLC including all
line items used to calculate consolidated EBITDA; line items used
to calculate unlevered free cash flow; and a reconciliation of all
non-GAAP to GAAP metrics that support the fairness opinion needed
to make a fully informed decision on whether to vote in favor of
the proposed transaction or seek appraisal needed by the
shareholders to make an informed decision on the merger deal.

Avedro is a hybrid ophthalmic pharmaceutical and medical technology
company focused on treating corneal disease and disorders and
improving vision to reduce dependency on eyeglasses or contact
lenses. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800
      Email: rm@maniskas.com


BC HOSPITALITY: Faces Calcano ADA Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BC Hospitality Group
LLC. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BC Hospitality
Group LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09718 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21,
2019).

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

BC Hospitality Group is one of Denmark's leading businesses in the
hotel, conference, exhibition and hospitality industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
     Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
     100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 317-2453
     Fax: (516) 706-4692
     Email: ds@lawsolo.net


BERRY CAMPBELL: Picon Suit Asserts ADA Breach
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berry Campbell LLC.
The case is styled as Yelitza Picon and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Berry Campbell LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09707 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2019).

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

BERRY CAMPBELL features Post-War Modern art with a focus on
established and mid-career contemporary artists.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
     The Marks Law Firm PC
     175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
     New York, NY 10014
     Phone: (646) 770-3775
     Fax: (646) 867-2639
     Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


BITTER & ESTERS: Calcano Files Class Suit Under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bitter & Esters
Brewing Company LLC. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf
of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Bitter & Esters Brewing Company LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-09719 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2019).

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

Bitter & Esters is a homebrew shop in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
     Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
     100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 317-2453
     Fax: (516) 706-4692
     Email: ds@lawsolo.net


BMW: Court Denies Dismissal of Harris 'Defective Engines' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
Sherman Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Opinion denying
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned RODERICK
HARRIS, SHAWN WILSON, JOHN MAY, ZHEN LIN, DERRICK DUNLAP, GEORGE
WYNN, and ANDREW CARRIER, Plaintiffs, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:19-CV-00016. (E.D. Tex.).

Plaintiffs each own a BMW vehicle equipped with a V8,
twin-turbocharged engine, referred to as the N63. In particular,
purchasers of N63-powered vehicles, including Plaintiffs, claim
that the N63 consumes excessive amounts of engine oil, requiring
frequent oil changes and engine repairs. And this alleged oil
consumption defect, Plaintiffs claim, has diminished the value of
their vehicles.

Plaintiffs assert multiple grounds for relief. First, Plaintiffs
claim that Defendant made and subsequently breached express and
implied warranties as to each vehicle. Second, Plaintiffs claim
that Defendant's breach of warranty and failure to disclose the
engine defects despite having knowledge of the defects constituted
deceptive trade practices under the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices-Consumer Protection Act.

The District Court note that in the current case, the injuries
Plaintiffs allege in their complaint have already occurred.
Plaintiffs claim that their vehicles have lost substantial value
due to the alleged engine defect, and they claim out-of-pocket
expenses for extra engine oil and frequent oil changes. Plaintiffs
further ask the Court to, among other things, award money damages
for any economic losses sustained. Taking Plaintiffs' claims as
true, there is no doubt that Plaintiffs' complaint alleges economic
damages that satisfy Article III's injury in fact, causation, and
redressability requirements.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs have standing
to bring this action, the Court opines.

The Court finds that the parties are completely diverse and
Plaintiffs plausibly allege that their DTPA claims meet the
jurisdictional amount.  Accordingly, the Court holds that it has
diversity jurisdiction over the civil action.

Defendant moved the Court to dismiss the Complaint under Rule
12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiffs' claims are time barred or,
alternatively, that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.

On review, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged
timely breach of warranty claims or that the relevant statutes of
limitations were tolled under fraudulent concealment tolling,
discovery rule tolling, or class action tolling.

Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately stated at
least plausible claims upon which relief could be granted.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' pleadings are sufficient to survive a
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court opines.

Accordingly, the Court orders that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) or, in the Alternative, to
Sever Plaintiffs' Claims Pursuant to Rules 20 and 21 is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 2, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y37eupxm from
Leagle.com

Roderick Harris, Shawn Wilson, John May, Zhen Lin, Derrick Dunlap,
George Wynn & Andrew Carrier, Plaintiffs, represented by Jody Berke
Burton, Lemberg Law, LLC,  43 Danbury Rd, Wilton, Connecticut
01907.

BMW of North America, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joseph Anthony
Turano  - joseph.turano@clarkhillstrasburger.com - Clark Hill
Strasburger.


BRIDGEWATER: Bunce Sues over Deceptive Non-Sufficient Fund Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
LORI BUNCE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. BRIDGEWATER CREDIT UNION, the Defendant, Case No.
19-3084 (Mass. Super., Oct. 2, 2019), alleges that Defendant
breached contractual promises and violated the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing in connection with its routine practice of
charging two or more non-sufficient funds fees (NSF Fee) on a
single transaction.

The Plaintiff does not dispute Bridgewater's right to either (a)
reject a transaction andcharge a single NSF Fee or (b) pay a
transaction and charge a single overdraft fee on a transaction that
actually overdraws the account, but Bridgewater unlawfully
maximizes its already profitable account fees with deceptive
practices that also violate its contract.

Specifically, Bridgewater unlawfully assesses multiple NSF Fees on
a single Automated Clearing House transaction or check.

In Bridgewater's sole and undisclosed view, each time the Credit
Union processes an ACH transaction or check for payment after a
having been rejected for insufficient funds, it becomes a new,
unique item or transaction that is subject to another NSF Fee. But
Bridgewater's Account Documents never even hint that this
counterintuitive result could be possible.

Bridgewater's Account Documents indicate that only a single NSF Fee
will be charged for "checks, ACH, and ATM withdrawals" however many
times the request for payment is reprocessed. An electronic item
reprocessed after an initial return for insufficient funds cannot
and does not fairly become a new, unique item for NSF fee
assessment purposes, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jonathan M. Hixon, Esq.
          Hackett Feinberg, Esq.
          155 Federal Street, 9th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 422-0200
          E-mail: jmh@bostonbusinesslaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20009
          Telephone: (202)350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq
          Daniel Tropin, Esq
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone No. (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile No. (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  streisfeld@kolawyers.com

BUDGET TRUCK: Kittle Hits Confidential Info on Credit Card Receipt
------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Kittle, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Budget Truck Rental, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-81342, (S.D. Fla., October 1, 2019), seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages, attorneys' fees, costs together with other
relief pursuant to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act,
an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Budget Truck Rental is a truck rental company serving both the
consumer and light commercial sectors. Budget Truck Rental operates
through a network of more than 1,600 corporate-owned and dealer
locations throughout the continental U.S.

On September 19, 2018, Kittle rented a vehicle using her personal
credit card at the Budget Car and Truck Rental and was subsequently
provided an electronically printed receipt which revealed the
expiration date of her credit card and her full name, thus exposing
her to identity theft. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott D. Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235
      Hollywood, FL 33019
      Tel: (954) 589-0588
      Fax: (954) 337-0666
      Email: scott@scottdowens.com

             - and -

      Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
      KEOGH LAW, LTD.
      55 W. Monroe St, Suite 3390
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 726-1092
      Fax: (312) 726-1093
      Email: Keith@KeoghLaw.com

             - and -

      Bret L. Lusskin, Esq.
      BRET LUSSKIN, P.A.
      20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 302
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Tel: (954) 454-5841
      Fax: (954) 454-5844
      Email: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com


BURNING IN WATER: Picon Brings ADA Suit v. Art Gallery
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Burning In Water LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Burning In Water
LLC, Burning In Water II LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09709
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2019).

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

Malin Gallery (formerly Burning in Water) is a New York-based
contemporary art gallery featuring an innovative curatorial program
that highlights the work of living artists with reference to
broader issues confronting society.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
     The Marks Law Firm PC
     175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
     New York, NY 10014
     Phone: (646) 770-3775
     Fax: (646) 867-2639
     Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


CATHEDRAL ENERGY: $290K Settlement in Swanson Labor Suit Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court from the District of Colorado
approved the settlement agreement reached to resolve the case
captioned STUART SWANSON, and TRAVIS SAKOWSKI, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v.
CATHEDRAL ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Defendant. Case No.
17-cv-01578-DDD. (D. Colo.).

Plaintiffs Stuart Swanson and Travis Sakowski worked in the
oilfields for Defendant Cathedral Energy Services, Inc. as hourly
supervisors and operators.  They filed the putative class and
collective action in state court to recover unpaid overtime on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees.
Cathedral Energy then removed the lawsuit to the Colorado District
Court.

The parties' agreement provides that a claims administrator will
administer a settlement fund of $290,000 to resolve the claims of
the 71 class members.

Cathedral Energy also agrees to pay Plaintiffs' counsel 36% of the
total fund as attorneys' fees and $17,473.81 for incurred costs,
$17,105.81 of which was spent locating and notifying class members
of the action. To reflect their service to other class members in
bringing the lawsuit, each of the named Plaintiffs will receive
$6,000 as an additional service award. Any amounts not approved for
fees, costs or service awards will be redistributed on a
proportionate basis among the class members. After fees, costs and
service awards, the parties anticipate that $151,126.19 will be
distributed to the seventy-one class members an average of
$2,128.53 per member. The parties represent that fifteen of the
class members have time-barred claims and will receive the minimum
payment of $100.

After consideration, the District Court rules that:

  -- the joint motion for approval of settlement agreement is
granted;

  -- the settlement agreement is approved;

  -- the unopposed motion for leave to restrict the settlement
agreement
     is granted;

  -- the Court maintain restriction of the Settlement Agreement to
Level 1
     access; and

  -- the case is dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 2, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6qkqzgl from Leagle.com

Stuart Swanson & Travis Sakowski, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, represented by Brian David
Gonzales , Brian D. Gonzales, PLLC, 4845 Pearl East Circle, Suite
101, Boulder, CO 80301.

Cathedral Energy Services Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by David Bryce Jordan -  djordan@littler.com - Littler
Mendelson, PC.


CENTURION SECURITY: Partial Certification in Sutherland Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, issued an Opinion and Order
granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification in the
case captioned RYAN SUTHERLAND, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CENTURION SECURITY,
L.L.C., and PROFESSIONAL SECURITY, INC., Defendants, Case No.
5:19-CV-05071, (W.D. Ark.).

Plaintiff has worked as a security guard for the Defendants.
Security guards employed by Defendants provide security services to
Defendants' customers. Plaintiff contends that security guards
worked between thirty minutes and an hour before and after their
scheduled shift times because the outgoing security guard was
required to have a shift-change conference with the incoming
security guard. As a result of the shift-change conferences, guards
worked in excess of forty hours per workweek and Defendant did not
provide overtime compensation.

Plaintiff contends that because security guards were not paid
overtime compensation, Defendants have violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA).

Plaintiff sought conditional certification of his FLSA claim as a
collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b);
authorization to issue notice to putative class members; and
approval of the proposed notice and consent-to-join forms.

Defendants raise two arguments against conditional certification.
Defendants argued that Plaintiff lacks personal knowledge
sufficient to testify to the existence of similarly situated
plaintiffs and, therefore, Plaintiff's reliance solely on his own
affidavit does not satisfy the conditional certification burden.
Defendants also argued that Plaintiff does not have personal
knowledge regarding the work or overtime of other employees and
Plaintiff's allegations do not demonstrate a policy that, by
itself, implicates overtime.

The Court opines that Plaintiff only needs to show security guards
were required to work overtime without adequate compensation and
Plaintiff has done so here. Plaintiff's testimony, based on
experience and discussions with other guards, is that guards were
required to work up to 30 minutes before and after a shift and were
not paid overtime. Plaintiff's affidavit is based on his personal
knowledge of the de facto policy gained as Defendants' employee.
Plaintiff's evidence is sufficient to demonstrate Defendants'
common policy of not compensating security guards for overtime
work, the Court states.

The Court further notes that although not all putative members work
at the same location, all putative members are employed as security
guards by Defendants. Plaintiff identifies a policy that requires
guards to arrive early and stay after a shift for a shift-change
conference. As a result of this policy, Plaintiff alleges that he
and other putative plaintiffs regularly worked over forty hours per
week without overtime compensation. Plaintiff has met his burden of
establishing that he is similarly situated to other security guards
and has made factual allegations supporting his claim of FLSA
violations for overtime compensation, the Court holds.

Regarding the class definition, Plaintiff requests that the Court
conditionally certify and approve notice for the following class:
all individuals who worked as hourly-paid security guards for
Defendants at any time after April 11, 2016, which includes the
three years preceding the filing of Plaintiff's Complaint.

Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective
action and approval of notice is GRANTED, the Court orders.

The full-text copy of the District Court’s October 2, 2019
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2lhv5px from
Leagle.com

Ryan Sutherland, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Josh Sanford , Sanford Law Firm
PLLC & Joshua Lee West , Sanford Law Firm, One Financial Center,
650 South Shackleford, Suite 110, Little Rock, AR, 72211

Centurion Security, L.L.C. & Professional Security, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Joseph F. Gilker , Gilker and Jones,
9222 North Highway 71Mountainburg, AR 72946


CHEMOURS CO: Faces Electrical Workers Fund Securities Suit in Del.
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRICAL WORKERS PENSION FUND, LOCAL 103, I.B.E.W., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY, MARK P. VERGNANO, and MARK E. NEWMAN, Case No.
1:19-cv-01911-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 8, 2019), seeks to recover the
damages to investors caused by the Defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is about Chemours' alleged misrepresentations to investors
that concealed the true extent of the massive environmental
liabilities the Company incurred from decades of producing and
releasing a variety of chemicals that have been linked to cancer
and other serious health consequences by E.I. du Pont de Nemours,
Chemours' former parent company prior to its spin-off, and by
Chemours itself.

The Plaintiff is a pension fund based in Boston, Massachusetts,
that provides retirement benefits to active and retired Boston
electrical workers.  Local 103 purchased shares of Chemours stock
during the Class Period (February 16, 2017, and August 1, 2019) at
artificially inflated prices and suffered damages as a result of
the alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

Chemours is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of
Chemours.  Chemours is a spin-off of DuPont and produces a wide
range of industrial and specialty chemicals products for various
markets.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of
the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 364-3600
          E-mail: greg.varallo@blbglaw.com

               - and -

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


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Court Clarifies Class in Norfolk Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting
in part and denying in part Lead Plaintiff's Motion to Clarify
Class Definition in the case captioned NORFOLK COUNTY RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., WAYNE T. SMITH, and
LARRY CASH, Defendants, Case No. 3:11-cv-00433. (M.D. Tenn.).

Lead Plaintiff sought to to clarify (or, in Defendants' view, to
expand) the definition of the class the District Court recently
certified current class definition, namely:

   All persons who and entities who purchased the publicly traded
   common stock of CHS from July 27, 2006 through April 8, 2011,
   inclusive, and who were damaged thereby. Excluded from the
   Class are Defendants, the officers and directors of the
   company, at all relevant times, members of their immediate
   families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors
   or assigns and any entities in which Defendants have or had
   a controlling interest.

The District Court states that Lead Plaintiff's request for
clarification is well taken. To be sure, the clarification needed
actually relates to the claims subject to class treatment rather
than the persons or entities falling within the class.
Nevertheless, Plaintiff is entitled, in substance, to essentially
the relief it seeks. The Order certifying the class will be amended
to reflect that current class members may bring claims based on
purchases occurring up to and including October 26, 2011, the
District Court rules.  In this sense, the Motion to Clarify is
granted, the District Court orders.

The District Court clarifies that as for Lead Plaintiff's
ostensible request to clarify who is included in the class, that
request is denied because: (a) such clarification is unnecessary
because the current class definition unambiguously includes all
those whom Lead Plaintiff wishes to highlight as included in an
amended definition; (b) the requested clarification would result in
superfluous language that is not worth the marginal benefits of the
hyper-clarity the requested clarification is intended to promote
and (c) any marginal utility that might flow from Lead Plaintiff's
requested hyper-clarity on this issue in fact has been rendered
virtually non-existent due to the additional clarity brought to
this issue by the Court's clarification of the related issue of
which claims are included within class treatment. To this extent,
the Motion to Clarify is denied, the District Court rules.

A copy of the District Court's October 2, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y55yux5n from Leagle.com

Norfolk County Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of all
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J.
Keller - ckeller@labaton.com - Labaton Sucharow LLP, James Gerard
Stranch, IV - gerards@bsjfirm.com - Branstetter, Stranch &
Jennings, PLLC, Rachel A. Avan - ravan@labaton.com - Labaton
Sucharow LLP & William Michael Hamilton , Provost, Umphrey Law
Firm, LLP. 490 Park Street, Beaumont, TX 77701

General Retirement System of the City of Detroit, Plaintiff,
represented by David S. Hagy - dhagy@hagylaw.com - David S. Hagy,
Attorney at Law.

Community Health Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alison C.
Barnes -
abarnes@robbinsrussell.com - Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck,
Untereiner & Sauber LLP, Elizabeth O. Gonser - egonser@rwjplc.com
Riley - Warnock & Jacobson, Gary A. Orseck -
gorseck@robbinsrussell.com - Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck,
Untereiner & Sauber LLP, John R. Jacobson , Riley, Warnock &
Jacobson, 1906 West End Ave., Nashville, TN 37203, Matthew Madden -
mmadden@robbinsrussell.com, Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck,
Untereiner & Sauber LLP, Michael L. Waldman - Robbins, Russell,
Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP, Peter Duffy –
pdoyle@proskauer.com - Doyle , Proskauer Rose, LLP, Seth D. Fier
– sfier@proskauer - Proskauer Rose, LLP & Steven Allen Riley ,
Riley, Warnock & Jacobson,1906 West End Ave., Nashville, TN 37203

Wayne T. Smith & W. Larry Cash, Defendants, represented by Alison
C. Barnes , Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber
LLP, Elizabeth O. Gonser , Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, Gary A.
Orseck , Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber
LLP, John R. Jacobson , Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, Michael L.
Waldman , Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber
LLP, Peter Duffy Doyle , Proskauer Rose, LLP, Seth D. Fier ,
Proskauer Rose, LLP & Steven Allen Riley , Riley, Warnock &
Jacobson.


CONAM MANAGEMENT: Class and Subclass Certified in Cuevas Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel grants the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of collective action for a class and a
subclass in the lawsuit titled ELIZABETH CUEVAS, as an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONAM MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, a California corporation; and does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-01189-GPC-LL (S.D. Cal.).

The Class and Subclass are:

   1. All persons who are or have been employed by the Company in
      the United States as non-exempt employees at any time from
      June 6, 2015, through the present, who received overtime
      pay and non-discretionary incentive pay, including without
      limitation, bonuses (the "Class"); and

   2. All persons who are or have been employed by the Company in
      the United States as non-exempt employees at any time from
      June 6, 2015, through the present, who received overtime
      pay and non-discretionary incentive pay from the bonus
      program referred to as the "Winner's Circle" bonus program
      (the "Winner's Circle Subclass").

The Court directs the Defendant to produce potential class members'
names, job titles, dates of employment, last known mailing and
email addresses and phone numbers to the Plaintiff's counsel no
later than 14 days after the entry of this Order.  The Plaintiff
shall incorporate certain changes into her proposed Notice, and the
parties shall meet and confer and submit a joint proposed final
Notice and Consent to Join form to the Court within seven days of
filed date of this Order.

The hearing set for October 25, 2019 was vacated.

On September 6, 2019, Plaintiff Elizabeth Cuevas filed the
operative first amended complaint ("FAC") on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated employees of the Defendant alleging two
causes of action for its failure to pay overtime pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.,
and failure to timely pay overtime wages as required by 29 C.F.R.
Section 778.106.  Specifically, the Plaintiff claims that the
Defendant's failure to pay overtime is based on its failure to
calculate and/or factor non-discretionary bonuses into her regular
rate of pay in assessing overtime pay.[CC]


COOK COUNTY, IL: Alicea's Bid for Class Certification Continued
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Ronald A. Guzman entered and continued the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled
Elizabeth Alicea, et al. v. County of Cook, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-05381 (N.D. Ill.).

Upon review of the parties' supplemental filings regarding the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and without opining on
whether the Plaintiffs' proposed notice, discovery, and trial plan
demonstrates that a class is a superior method of resolving the
issues in this case, the Court has determined that the most
efficient and cost−effective manner of proceeding is to decide
the merits issues first, citing Leeper v. All. Res. Partners, L.P.,
356 F. Supp. 3d 761, 766 (S.D. Ill. 2018) ("The Seventh Circuit has
acknowledged . . . that there are situations where it might be
appropriate to rule on summary judgment prior to addressing class
certification.")

If the Plaintiffs are successful, then the Court can revisit the
class−certification issue.  If the Defendants are successful,
then, assuming arguendo that class treatment would have been
appropriate, the parties and the Court will have saved months, if
not years, of work and substantial costs associated with
implementing class notice, Judge Guzman notes.

The parties are, therefore, directed each to file a statement
within 14 days of the date of entry of this order, setting forth
the issues they believe are properly resolved at this stage and the
manner in which they propose doing so (i.e., motion for judgment on
the pleadings, motion for summary judgment, etc.).

The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is entered and
continued pending resolution of the merits on the identified
issues.[CC]


CRACKER BARREL: LaRose Sues over Tip Credit Policy
--------------------------------------------------
AMBER LAROSE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01604 (Conn.  Super., Harford
Cty., Oct. 11, 2019), contends that Connecticut restaurants are
permitted to take a 'tip credit' against the minimum wage for their
tipped employees' wages. However, a restaurant cannot take a tip
credit unless it complies with each mandatory condition outlined in
Conn. State Agencies Regs.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendant took the tip credit for the
Plaintiff, Amber LaRose, and all its other servers for all hours
they worked as servers during the period of this claim.

The Defendant failed to obtain weekly written tip statements signed
by Plaintiff or any of its other servers, containing the week
ending date of the payroll period for which the credit is claimed,
confirming that they had received tips totaling at least as much in
tips as the credit Defendant claimed for that payroll period.

The Defendant routinely assigned to Plaintiff and all its other
servers "non-service" tasks in addition to their "service" tasks
during each of their shifts. These tasks included, but were not
limited to, emptying and cleaning the tea machine, filling ice
bins, restocking cups, teas, coffees, milk, condiment shelves,
cleaning the juice machines, cleaning the coffee machines, cutting
fruits, cleaning coolers, mopping in the back of the house, rolling
silverware, washing dishes, and handling take out orders.

The Defendant failed to segregate and pay the time Plaintiff, or
any of its servers, spent on "non-service tasks" at the full
minimum wage, as is required by Connecticut law. Instead, the
Defendant took the full tip credit for all hours Plaintiff and
other servers worked during the period of this claim.

The Defendant did not comply with Connecticut regulations, and
should not have taken the tip credit at all. It should have paid
Plaintiff and all its other servers the full minimum wage -- $10.10
per hour for the period of this claim -- for their work.  Instead,
Defendant paid Plaintiff and its other servers only $6.38 per
hour.

As a result, the Defendant underpaid the Plaintiff and all its
other servers by $3.72 per hour for every shift worked during the
period of this claim.

The Defendant owns and operates two Cracker Barrel restaurants in
Connecticut located in East Windsor, Connecticut and Milford, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Thomas J. Durkin, Esq.
          HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC
          750 Main Street, Suite 904
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Juris No. 426871
          Telephone: (860) 522-8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
          E-mail: tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com

DEAR FIELDBINDER: Violates Disabilities Act, Calcano Suit Asserts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dear Fieldbinder,
Inc. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dear
Fieldbinder, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09720 (S.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 21, 2019).

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

Dear Fieldbinder is a Smith Street boutique  and is a local
favorite for brands like Collina Strada, Dolce Vita, Lauren
Moffatt, Surface to Air, Mink Pink, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
     Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
     100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 317-2453
     Fax: (516) 706-4692
     Email: ds@lawsolo.net


DEBTVANTAGE INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Beaudet Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
GALINA BEAUDET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DEBTVANTAGE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
8:19-cv-02405-MSS-AAS (M.D. Fla., Sept. 27, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Debtvantage, Inc. directs, markets, and provides business
activities throughout the State of Florida.

The 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
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

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


DEDICATED FLEET: Underpays Drivers, Garcia Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
ARNULFO PEREZ GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEDICATED FLEET SYSTEMS, INC.; and
DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV34307
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 27, 2019) is an action
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendants as driver.

Dedicated Fleet Systems, Inc. provides trucking or transfer
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Graham G. Lambert, Esq.
          Nicholas Myers, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2625
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
                  gl@haffnerlawyers.com
                  nm@haffnerlawyers.com


DELTA AIR: Donoff Files Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JUDITH MARILYN DONOFF, on Behalf of Herself
and All Others Similarly Situated v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case
No. 9:18-cv-81258-DMM (S.D. Fla.), Plaintiff Walter Cappillo moves
for certification of a class defined as:

     All persons who purchased a trip insurance policy on Delta's
     website from Florida within the applicable limitations
     period (the "Class Period").

Mr. Cappillo also asks the Court to appoint him as representative
of the Class and to appoint his counsel, Leon Cosgrove LLP and
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, as Class Counsel.

In violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act, Delta uniformly fails to tell each of its customers that it
receives illegal commission profits from each trip insurance policy
sold on its website, Mr. Cappillo asserts.[CC]

The Plaintiffs and the Class are represented by:

          Scott B. Cosgrove, Esq.
          Alec H. Schultz, Esq.
          John R. Byrne, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE, LLP
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1986
          Facsimile: (305) 437-8158
          E-mail: scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com
                  aschultz@leoncosgrove.com
                  jbyrne@leoncosgrove.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          Christopher C. Gold, Esq.
          Bradley M. Beall, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
                  sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com
                  cgold@rgrdlaw.com
                  bbeall@rgrdlaw.com

Defendant Delta Air Lines is represented by:

          Lazaro Fernandez, Jr., Esq.
          Denise B. Crockett, Esq.
          STACK FERNANDEZ & HARRIS, P.A.
          1001 Brickell Bay Drive, Suite 2650
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 371-0001
          E-mail: lfernandez@stackfernandez.com
                  dcrockett@stackfernandez.com

               - and -

          Gayle I. Jenkins, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
          Telephone: (213) 615-1863
          E-mail: gjenkins@winston.com

               - and -

          David L. Balser, Esq.
          Julia C. Barrett, Esq.
          Katherine P. Nobles, Esq.
          Edward Bedard, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          E-mail: dbalser@kslaw.com
                  jbarrett@kslaw.com
                  pnobles@kslaw.com
                  ebedard@kslaw.com


DELTA DENTAL: Dr. Dultz Sues Over Dental Insurance Monopsony
------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Steven P. Dultz DMD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Delta Dental Insurance Company;
DeltaCare USA; Delta USA Inc.; Delta Dental Plans Association;
Delta Dental Insurance Company Alabama; Delta Dental of Alaska;
Delta Dental of Arizona; Delta Dental of Arkansas; Delta Dental of
California; Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Connecticut;
Delta Dental of Delaware; Delta Dental of the District of Columbia;
Delta Dental of Florida; Delta Dental Insurance Company–Georgia;
Hawaii Dental Service; Delta Dental of Idaho; Delta Dental of
Illinois; Delta Dental of Indiana; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta
Dental of Kansas; Delta Dental of Kentucky; Delta Dental Insurance
Company-Louisiana; Delta Dental of Maryland; Delta Dental of
Massachusetts; Delta Dental of Michigan; Delta Dental of Minnesota;
Delta Dental Insurance Company-Mississippi; Delta Dental of
Missouri; Delta Dental Insurance Company– Montana; Delta Dental
of Nebraska; Delta Dental Insurance Company–Nevada; Delta Dental
of New Jersey; Delta Dental of New Mexico; Delta Dental of New
York; Delta Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental of North Dakota;
Northeast Delta Dental (of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont); Delta
Dental of Ohio; Delta Dental of Oklahoma; Delta Dental of Oregon;
Delta Dental of Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico; Delta
Dental of Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Carolina; Delta
Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of Tennessee; Delta Dental
Insurance Company-Texas; Delta Dental Insurance Company-Utah; Delta
Dental of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental of
West Virginia; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental of
Wyoming, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06758 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 11,
2019) is a case involving Delta Dental's aggregation of unlawful
monopsony power in the market for dental insurance across the
United States.

The complaint asserts that Delta Dental secured this power through
its artificial territorial division of that market among the Delta
Dental State Insurers, and is abusing it to: (1) restrict
competition between the Delta Dental State Insurers when operating
under the "Delta Dental" brand (the "Market Allocation
Conspiracy"); (2) reduce the amounts of reimbursement paid by the
Delta Dental State Insurers to the dentists and dental practices
who provide services to patients under Delta Dental insurance plans
(the "Price Fixing Conspiracy"), and (3) restrict competition
between the Delta Dental State Insurers when operating under
non-"Delta Dental" brands (the "Revenue Restriction Conspiracy").

The Delta Dental State Insurers are 48 predominantly not-for-profit
dental services corporations that operate in 39 state or
multi-state territories across the United States. They contract
with dentists and dental practices--like named Plaintiff--that
accept Delta Dental insurance to reimburse the providers for dental
services provided to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental
insurance contracts. The Delta bDental State Insurers are supported
in turn by the Delta Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity
that acts as an administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental
insurance plans offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their
patients via the Delta Dental State Insurers. Delta Dental Plans
Association is funded and controlled by the Delta Dental State
Insurers, and acts as a vehicle for their concerted activity,
including via a contract entered into by each Delta Dental State
Insurer with the Delta Dental Plans Association.

The Defendants have built upon the monopsony control achieved
through the Market Allocation Conspiracy to further unlawfully
lessen competition in the market for dental insurance through two
further conspiracies: the Price Fixing Conspiracy, and the Revenue
Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants' Price Fixing Conspiracy
takes the form of Defendants agreeing among themselves upon the
rates at which they will reimburse the Delta Dental Providers for
the services the providers offer to Delta Dental insureds. By
conspiratorial agreement, Defendants set these prices at lower than
market rates, and then abuse their monopsony control of the dental
insurance market to force these rates onto the Delta Dental
Providers. The Delta Dental Providers, faced with an overwhelming
majority of patients who have purchased Delta Dental insurance (and
naturally wish to be treated by a provider that accepts it) have
little or no choice but to acquiesce to Defendants' non-competitive
and artificially low reimbursement rates.  Absent the Price Fixing
Conspiracy--and the Market Allocation Conspiracy and Revenue
Restriction Conspiracy, which leaves providers few or no
alternative insurance plans to accept from patients--the Delta
Dental Providers would have greater choice in the dental insurance
they choose to accept, and thus greater choice in the reimbursement
rates received for their services.

All three of the Market Allocation Conspiracy, the Price Fixing
Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy also have given
Delta Dental unequalled dominance in the market for dental
insurance. Delta Dental's dominance in this market gives it
monopsonist control of the rates of reimbursement paid to the Delta
Dental Providers, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Steven P. Dultz DMD, is a dental services provider and a
citizen of the state of New Jersey, who provided dental goods and
services to consumers insured by Delta Dental pursuant to his
in-network contract with Delta Dental New Jersey.

The Delta Dental State Insurers are predominately not-for-profit
entities that provide insurance plans for dental goods and services
in their respective states or multi-state areas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John R. Malkinson, Esq.
     MALKINSON & HALPERN P.C.
     33 N. Dearborn Street-Suite 1540
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone (312) 427-9600
     Email: jmalkinson@mhtriallaw.com

          - and -

     Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq.
     Cassandra Postighone, Esq.
     WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP
     500 Fifth Avenue-12th Floor
     New York, NY 10110
     Phone: 212 382-3300
     Email: raranoff@wmd-law.com
            cpostighone@wmd-law.com


DELTA DENTAL: Dr. Lindley Sues Over Dental Insurance Monopsony
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Rick Lindley, DDS, FICD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Delta Dental Insurance
Company; DeltaCare USA; Delta USA Inc.; Delta Dental Plans
Association; Delta Dental Insurance Company Alabama; Delta Dental
of Alaska; Delta Dental of Arizona; Delta Dental of Arkansas; Delta
Dental of California; Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of
Connecticut; Delta Dental of Delaware; Delta Dental of the District
of Columbia; Delta Dental of Florida; Delta Dental Insurance
Company-Georgia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta Dental of Idaho;
Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental of Indiana; Delta Dental of
Iowa; Delta Dental of Kansas; Delta Dental of Kentucky; Delta
Dental Insurance Company–Louisiana; Delta Dental of Maryland;
Delta Dental of Massachusetts; Delta Dental of Michigan; Delta
Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental Insurance Company-Mississippi;
Delta Dental of Missouri; Delta Dental Insurance Company–Montana;
Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Insurance Company-Nevada;
Delta Dental of New Jersey; Delta Dental of New Mexico; Delta
Dental of New York; Delta Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental of
North Dakota; Northeast Delta Dental (of Maine, New Hampshire and
Vermont); Delta Dental of Ohio; Delta Dental of Oklahoma; Delta
Dental of Oregon; Delta Dental of Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of
Puerto Rico; Delta Dental of Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South
Carolina; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of Tennessee;
Delta Dental Insurance Company-Texas; Delta Dental Insurance
Company-Utah; Delta Dental of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington;
Delta Dental of West Virginia; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta
Dental of Wyoming, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06747 (N.D. Ill.,
Oct. 11, 2019) is a case involving Delta Dental's aggregation of
unlawful monopsony power in the market for dental insurance across
the United States.

The complaint asserts that Delta Dental secured this power through
its artificial territorial division of that market among the Delta
Dental State Insurers, and is abusing it to: (1) restrict
competition between the Delta Dental State Insurers when operating
under the "Delta Dental" brand (the "Market Allocation
Conspiracy"); (2) reduce the amounts of reimbursement paid by the
Delta Dental State Insurers to the dentists and dental practices
who provide services to patients under Delta Dental insurance plans
(the "Price Fixing Conspiracy"), and (3) restrict competition
between the Delta Dental State Insurers when operating under
non-"Delta Dental" brands (the "Revenue Restriction Conspiracy").

The Delta Dental State Insurers are 48 predominantly not-for-profit
dental services corporations that operate in 39 state or
multi-state territories across the United States. They contract
with dentists and dental practices--like named Plaintiff--that
accept Delta Dental insurance to reimburse the providers for dental
services provided to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental
insurance contracts. The Delta Dental State Insurers are supported
in turn by the Delta Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity
that acts as an administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental
insurance plans offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their
patients via the Delta Dental State Insurers. Delta Dental Plans
Association is funded and controlled by the Delta Dental State
Insurers, and acts as a vehicle for their concerted activity,
including via a contract entered into by each Delta Dental State
Insurer with the Delta Dental Plans Association.

The Defendants have built upon the monopsony control achieved
through the Market Allocation Conspiracy to further unlawfully
lessen competition in the market for dental insurance through two
further conspiracies: the Price Fixing Conspiracy, and the Revenue
Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants' Price Fixing Conspiracy
takes the form of Defendants agreeing among themselves upon the
rates at which they will reimburse the Delta Dental Providers for
the services the providers offer to Delta Dental insureds. By
conspiratorial agreement, Defendants set these prices at lower than
market rates, and then abuse their monopsony control of the dental
insurance market to force these rates onto the Delta Dental
Providers. The Delta Dental Providers, faced with an overwhelming
majority of patients who have purchased Delta Dental insurance (and
naturally wish to be treated by a provider that accepts it) have
little or no choice but to acquiesce to Defendants' non-competitive
and artificially low reimbursement rates.  Absent the Price Fixing
Conspiracy--and the Market Allocation Conspiracy and Revenue
Restriction Conspiracy, which leaves providers few or no
alternative insurance plans to accept from patients--the Delta
Dental Providers would have greater choice in the dental insurance
they choose to accept, and thus greater choice in the reimbursement
rates received for their services.

All three of the Market Allocation Conspiracy, the Price Fixing
Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy also have given
Delta Dental unequalled dominance in the market for dental
insurance. Delta Dental's dominance in this market gives it
monopsonist control of the rates of reimbursement paid to the Delta
Dental Providers, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Dr. Rick Lindley, DDS, FICD, is a dental services
provider and a citizen of the state of California, who provided
dental goods and services to consumers insured by Delta Dental
pursuant to his in-network contract with Delta Dental of
California.

The Delta Dental State Insurers are predominately not-for-profit
entities that provide insurance plans for dental goods and services
in their respective states or multi-state areas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Leonid Feller, Esq.
     Athena Dalton, Esq.
     QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
     191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone (312) 705-7400
     Email: leonidfeller@quinnemanuel.com
            athenadalton@quinnemanuel.com

          - and -

     Stephen Neuwirth, Esq.
     Toby E. Futter, Esq.
     Joseph N. Kiefer, Esq.
     QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
     51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
     New York, NY 10010
     Phone: (212) 849-7000
     Email: stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com
            tobyfutter@quinnemanuel.com
            josephkiefer@quinnemanuel.com

          - and -

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


DELTA DENTAL: Kaufman Sues Over Dental Insurance Monopsony
----------------------------------------------------------
Kaufman & Kaufman Smile Design Studio LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Delta Dental
Insurance Company; DeltaCare USA; Delta USA Inc.; Delta Dental
Plans Association; Delta Dental Insurance Company Alabama; Delta
Dental of Alaska; Delta Dental of Arizona; Delta Dental of
Arkansas; Delta Dental of California; Delta Dental of Colorado;
Delta Dental of Connecticut; Delta Dental of Delaware; Delta Dental
of the District of Columbia; Delta Dental of Florida; Delta Dental
Insurance Company-Georgia; Hawaii Dental Service; Delta Dental of
Idaho; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental of Indiana; Delta
Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of Kansas; Delta Dental of Kentucky;
Delta Dental Insurance Company-Louisiana; Delta Dental of Maryland;
Delta Dental of Massachusetts; Delta Dental of Michigan; Delta
Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental Insurance Company-Mississippi;
Delta Dental of Missouri; Delta Dental Insurance Company–Montana;
Delta Dental of Nebraska; Delta Dental Insurance Company-Nevada;
Delta Dental of New Jersey; Delta Dental of New Mexico; Delta
Dental of New York; Delta Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental of
North Dakota; Northeast Delta Dental (of Maine, New Hampshire and
Vermont); Delta Dental of Ohio; Delta Dental of Oklahoma; Delta
Dental of Oregon; Delta Dental of Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of
Puerto Rico; Delta Dental of Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South
Carolina; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of Tennessee;
Delta Dental Insurance Company–Texas; Delta Dental Insurance
Company-Utah; Delta Dental of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington;
Delta Dental of West Virginia; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta
Dental of Wyoming, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06743 (N.D. Ill.,
Oct. 11, 2019) is a case involving Delta Dental's aggregation of
unlawful monopsony power in the market for dental insurance across
the United States.

The complaint asserts that Delta Dental secured this power through
its artificial territorial division of that market among the Delta
Dental State Insurers, and is abusing it to: (1) restrict
competition between the Delta Dental State Insurers when operating
under the "Delta Dental" brand (the "Market Allocation
Conspiracy"); (2) reduce the amounts of reimbursement paid by the
Delta Dental State Insurers to the dentists and dental practices
who provide services to patients under Delta Dental insurance plans
(the "Price Fixing Conspiracy"), and (3) restrict competition
between the Delta Dental State Insurers when operating under
non-"Delta Dental" brands (the "Revenue Restriction Conspiracy").

The Delta Dental State Insurers are 48 predominantly not-for-profit
dental services corporations that operate in 39 state or
multi-state territories across the United States. They contract
with dentists and dental practices--like named Plaintiff--that
accept Delta Dental insurance to reimburse the providers for dental
services provided to Delta Dental insureds under Delta Dental
insurance contracts. The Delta bDental State Insurers are supported
in turn by the Delta Dental Plans Association, a nationwide entity
that acts as an administrator and watchdog for the Delta Dental
insurance plans offered to the Delta Dental Providers and their
patients via the Delta Dental State Insurers. Delta Dental Plans
Association is funded and controlled by the Delta Dental State
Insurers, and acts as a vehicle for their concerted activity,
including via a contract entered into by each Delta Dental State
Insurer with the Delta Dental Plans Association.

The Defendants have built upon the monopsony control achieved
through the Market Allocation Conspiracy to further unlawfully
lessen competition in the market for dental insurance through two
further conspiracies: the Price Fixing Conspiracy, and the Revenue
Restriction Conspiracy. The Defendants' Price Fixing Conspiracy
takes the form of Defendants agreeing among themselves upon the
rates at which they will reimburse the Delta Dental Providers for
the services the providers offer to Delta Dental insureds. By
conspiratorial agreement, Defendants set these prices at lower than
market rates, and then abuse their monopsony control of the dental
insurance market to force these rates onto the Delta Dental
Providers. The Delta Dental Providers, faced with an overwhelming
majority of patients who have purchased Delta Dental insurance (and
naturally wish to be treated by a provider that accepts it) have
little or no choice but to acquiesce to Defendants' non-competitive
and artificially low reimbursement rates.  Absent the Price Fixing
Conspiracy--and the Market Allocation Conspiracy and Revenue
Restriction Conspiracy, which leaves providers few or no
alternative insurance plans to accept from patients--the Delta
Dental Providers would have greater choice in the dental insurance
they choose to accept, and thus greater choice in the reimbursement
rates received for their services.

All three of the Market Allocation Conspiracy, the Price Fixing
Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy also have given
Delta Dental unequalled dominance in the market for dental
insurance. Delta Dental's dominance in this market gives it
monopsonist control of the rates of reimbursement paid to the Delta
Dental Providers, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Kaufman & Kaufman Smile Design Studio LLC, is a dental
services provider and a citizen of the state of Illinois, who
provided dental goods and services to consumers insured by Delta
Dental pursuant to his in-network contract with Delta Dental of
Illinois.

The Delta Dental State Insurers are predominately not-for-profit
entities that provide insurance plans for dental goods and services
in their respective states or multi-state areas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Leonid Feller, Esq.
     Athena Dalton, Esq.
     QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
     191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone (312) 705-7400
     Email: leonidfeller@quinnemanuel.com
            athenadalton@quinnemanuel.com

          - and -

     Stephen Neuwirth, Esq.
     Toby E. Futter, Esq.
     Joseph N. Kiefer, Esq.
     QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
     51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
     New York, NY 10010
     Phone: (212) 849-7000
     Email: stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com
            tobyfutter@quinnemanuel.com
            josephkiefer@quinnemanuel.com

          - and -

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


DOVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Report on Sobi Sale Misleading, Wheby Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
EARL M. WHEBY, JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. DOVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., STEVEN
W. GOLDMAN, ROGER A. JEFFS, PAUL B. MANNING, ALFRED J. NOVAK, DAVID
ZACCARDELLI, SEAN STALFORT, NANCY WYSENSKI, SWEDISH ORPHAN
BIOVITRUM AB (PUBL), and DRAGONFLY ACQUISITION CORP., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01981-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 18, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the misleading solicitation statement filed
in connection with a proposed acquisition transaction.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on September
30, 2019, pursuant to which Dova Pharmaceuticals, Inc. will be
acquired by Swedish Orphan Biovitrum AB and Dragonfly Acquisition
Corp.

On September 30, 2019, Dova's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Sobi. Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender
offer to purchase all of Dova's outstanding common stock for $27.50
in cash plus one contingent value right per share, which represents
the right to receive $1.50 per share. The Tender Offer is set to
expire on November 8, 2019.

On October 11, 2019, the Defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the Solicitation Statement)
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Solicitation Statement omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation
Statement false and misleading.

The Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding the
Company's financial projections. The Solicitation Statement fails
to disclose: (i) all line items used to calculate unlevered free
cash flow; and (ii) a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP
metrics. The Solicitation Statement also omits material information
regarding the analyses performed by the Company's financial
advisors in connection with the Proposed Transaction, Jefferies LLC
and Evercore Group L.L.C. With respect to Jefferies' Selected
Public Companies Analysis, the Solicitation Statement fails to
disclose the individual multiples and metrics for the companies
observed by Jefferies in the analysis, the lawsuit says.

Dova Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical
company. The Company is focused on acquiring, developing and
commercializing drug candidates. The Company's initial focus is on
thrombocytopenia, a disorder characterized by a low blood platelet
count.[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


DTR ART HOLDINGS: Picon Brings ADA Class Action in NY
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DTR ART HOLDINGS,
LLC. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DTR ART HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09710 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2019).

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

DTR specializes in the sale of works by modern and contemporary
master artists.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
     The Marks Law Firm PC
     175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
     New York, NY 10014
     Phone: (646) 770-3775
     Fax: (646) 867-2639
     Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


ED F DAVIS: Hester Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE HESTER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ED F. DAVIS, INC., a/k/a Ed F. Davis of Oklahoma,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-00358-KEW (E.D. Okla., Oct. 25,
2019), arises from the Defendant's failure to pay wages, including
overtime wages, minimum wages and agreed upon wages, in violation
of the Oklahoma Protection of Labor Act and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant does not allow warehouse employees to maintain their
own records of hours worked, including through a time-card or other
system it provided, according to the complaint. Rather, the
supervisors of the Plaintiff and other warehouse employees track
the hours worked by warehouse employees and during most weeks do
not accurately record the hours worked by employees. During nearly
every week between January 2019 and the present, the Defendant has
required the Plaintiff to work more than 40 hours per week but it
has refused to pay him overtime compensation for any of the hours
he worked in excess of forty each work-week. The Plaintiff believes
the Defendant does not pay other warehouse employees overtime even
though such employees work more than forty hours during most
work-weeks.

The Defendant's failure to overtime compensation to the Plaintiff
and other warehouse employees violates the FLSA, which requires
employers to pay employees at least 1.5 times their regular rate of
pay for all hours worked in excess of forty in a work-week. As a
direct result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff along with
others similarly situated have suffered damages in the form of wage
loss, including overtime benefits, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant on July 3, 2019.

The Defendant is a distributor of alcoholic and non-alcoholic
beverages produced by out-of-state companies, including
Anheuser-Busch.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark E. Hammons, Esq.
     Amber L. Hurst, Esq.
     HAMMONS, HURST & ASSOCIATES
     325 Dean A. McGee Avenue
     Oklahoma City, OK 73102
     Phone: (405) 235-6100
     Facsimile: (405) 235-6111
     Email: mark@hammonslaw.com
            amber@hammonslaw.com


EQT CORPORATION: Rose Seeks OT Wages for Environmental Inspectors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD ROSE, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. EQT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01343-CRE
(W.D. Pa., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Mr. Rose worked for EQT as an Environmental Inspector from
approximately January 2018 until May 2018. He contends that he and
the Putative Class Members regularly worked more than 40 hours a
week but they never received overtime for hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a single workweek.

Instead of receiving overtime as required by the FLSA, EQT
classified Mr. Rose and the Putative Class Members as independent
contractors, and these workers received a flat amount for each day
worked (a day rate) without overtime compensation, the lawsuit
says.

EQT's uniform day rate scheme, depriving its employees of overtime
compensation for weeks in which these workers work over 40 hours
is, in of itself, a violation of the FLSA. EQT recently purchased
Rice Energy, and this collective action lawsuit covers all Putative
Class Members working for EQT and Rice Energy.

As an Environmental Inspector, Mr. Rose's primary job duties
included inspecting the environmental footprint or effects of oil
and case pipelines and facilities.

EQT is the largest producer of natural gas in the United States
with emphasis in the Appalachian Basin and operations in
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Taylor A. Jones, 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
                  tjones@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST PC
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: 412-766-1455
          Facsimile: 412-766-0300
          E-mail: ajosh@goodrichandgeist.com


EQUINOX COLLECTION: Court Certifies Class in Hargis FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma has certified the proposed class in the case captioned
MICHAEL HARGIS, Plaintiff, v. EQUINOX COLLECTION SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-410-JED-FHM, (N.D. Okla.).

Michael Hargis commenced the lawsuit under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), which provides a private right of action
against debt collectors that fail to comply with the statute. He
alleges that Defendant Equinox Collection Services, Inc., sent him
a form collection letter lacking certain disclosures mandated under
Section 1692g of the Act.   

Mr. Hargis seeks to certify a class consisting of Oklahoma
residents who received similar collection letters from Equinox over
the year preceding his filing of the complaint. For the reasons
stated, the Court finds that certification of such a class is
appropriate.

The Court finds and Equinox does not dispute that Mr. Hargis has
met the four threshold requirements for certification under Rule
23(a):

(1) Numerosity: The putative class consists of 17,756 Oklahoma
residents who received form collection letters from Equinox.
Joinder of so many plaintiffs is plainly impracticable.

(2) Commonality: The letters received by the class members were, in
all material respects, identical. And the central question whether
the letter received violated the FDCPA is the same for putative
class members. Thus, there are questions of law and fact common to
the class.

(3) Typicality: Mr. Hargis received the same form letter that
others in the class received, so his claim would be identical to
that of other members of the putative class.

(4) Adequacy: The question of adequacy under Rule 23(a)(4) turns on
whether the interests of the named plaintiff and his counsel are
fully aligned with those of class members and whether the named
plaintiff and his counsel will vigorously prosecute the action on
behalf of the class.

In the present case, Equinox has alleged no conflicts, and Mr.
Hargis has submitted a sworn declaration that he has no known
conflicts that would impair his ability to adequately represent the
class. His counsel, Robert Murphy, has signed a similar
declaration. Mr. Murphy's background in consumer advocacy and his
experience litigating class actions give every indication that he
will vigorously prosecute this action.

Furthermore, per Rule 23(b)(3), the Court finds (i) that questions
common to the class predominate over those affecting individual
members and (ii) that a class action represents the superior method
for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 3, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at https://preview.tinyurl.com/y6mqk83g from
Leagle.com

Michael Hargis, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert William Murphy
& Victor R. Wandres , Paramount Law, 1212 S.E. 2nd Ave Ft.
Lauderdale, FL 33316

Equinox Collection Services, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation,
Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Barton, III  -
dbarton@bartonlawllc.com  - Barton Law Group LLC & Kurt Geoffrey
Arras, 9 E 4th St.,Tulsa, OK
74103


EQUITA GROUP: Settlement in Van Elzen Suit Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin entered final approval of the proposed class action
settlement in the case DAVID VAN ELZEN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EDUCATOR GROUP
PLANS, INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. and EQUITA FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE
SERVICES OF TEXAS, INC. d/b/a THE EQUITA GROUP, Texas corporations,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01373-WCG. (E.D. Wis.).

The Settlement Agreement is finally approved in all respects as
fair, reasonable and adequate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).

The Court also finally certifies the Settlement Class, as
identified in the Settlement Agreement.

The Court finally appoints Avi R. Kaufman of Kaufman, P.A. and
Stefan Coleman of Stefan Coleman, P.A. as Class Counsel.

The Court finally designates Plaintiff David Van Elzen as the Class
Representative.

The Court finds that the requested Service Award is appropriate,
and awards a Service Award in the amount of $5,000 to Class
Representative David Van Elzen, payable pursuant to the terms of
the Settlement Agreement.

The Court also awards Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees and Expenses in
the amount of $300,675.98.

The Action, including all individual claims and class claims
presented, is DISMISSED on the merits and WITH PREJUDICE against
Plaintiff and all other Settlement Class Members, without fees or
costs to any party except as otherwise provided, the Court rules.
The case is CLOSED, and all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 2, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y67vj6hf from Leagle.com

David Van Elzen, Plaintiff, represented by Avi R. Kaufman , Kaufman
PA, 400 Northwest 26th Street, Miami FL 33127 & Stefan Coleman -
contact@stefancoleman.com - Law Offices of Stefan Coleman PA.

Educator Group Plans Insurance Services Inc & Equita Financial and
Insurance Services of Texas, Inc., Defendants, represented by Wendy
J. Stein Fulton - wsteinfulton@bonnerkiernan.com - Bonner Kiernan
Trebach & Crociata LLP.


FIELD RESEARCH: Illegally Sent Fax Ads, Advanced Dermatology Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY On behalf of itself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIELD RESEARCH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02501-PAB (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 25, 2019), is brought as a
nationwide class action accusing the Defendant of violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited facsimiles
to people and businesses, who have not given their consent.

The TCPA prohibits the use of a telephonic facsimile machine to
send unsolicited advertisements. The Defendant sent unsolicited
one-page facsimiles to the Plaintiff on May 5, 2019, on October 9,
2019. The Plaintiff says it has no prior or existing business
relationship with the Defendant, and it did not give the Defendant
its number or consent to be sent a facsimile. The Defendant's
facsimiles contain no opt-out notice. Those facsimiles is a form
facsimile that the Defendant uses to solicit participation in
surveys and to market the Defendant's services. The Defendant
continues to send such facsimiles nationwide without prior consent
to do so.

The Defendant's transmission of the facsimiles caused damaged to
the Plaintiff, including monetary loss due the costs of paper, ink
and toner; monetary loss due to work interruption and the loss of
employee time to review the facsimile; invasion of privacy;
nuisance; trespass to its chattel by interfering with its office
facsimile used to aid patients; stress; aggravation; and because a
violation of the TCPA is itself a concrete injury, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Ohio, who received multiple
unsolicited facsimiles from the Defendant on its office fax machine
without its consent.

The Defendant is a market research firm, that collects and
maintains data on an assortment of medical professionals, for
recruitment and reporting purposes throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
     Michael L. Berler, Esq.
     Michael L. Fine, Esq.
     FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
     767 East 185th Street
     Cleveland, OH 44119
     Phone: (216) 502-1055
     Fax: (216) 566-9400
     Email: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
            mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
            michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com


FOOT LOCKER: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued a Memorandum Decision and Order granting Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND
FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. FOOT LOCKER, INC., RICHARD A.
JOHNSON, and LAUREN B. PETERS, Defendants. No. 18-CV-1492 (AMD)
(SJB). (E.D.N.Y.)

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

The SAC alleges that beginning in August 2016, the defendants
misled investors by claiming that Foot Locker had strong
partnerships with its top vendors and continued to obtain premier
products from them, when in reality, its vendors had become
competitors through online sales and forced Foot Locker to purchase
large quantities of undesirable products as a condition of
acquiring premium merchandise. The plaintiffs claim that the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and that
defendants Johnson and Peters violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

Generally, in order to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint
must contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.

Section 10(b) Claim

Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 makes it
unlawful to use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale
of any security any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance
in contravention of [the] rules and regulations' that the SEC
prescribes.
To sustain claims under Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5, a complaint
must plausibly allege: (1) a material misrepresentation (or
omission) (2) scienter, i.e., a wrongful state of mind (3) a
connection with the purchase or sale of a security (4) reliance (5)
economic loss and (6) loss causation.

Material Misrepresentations or Omissions

The plaintiffs' allegations of misleading statements can be grouped
into three categories: (1) statements in which the defendants
misled the public about its competitive strength without disclosing
growing adverse market trends (2) statements in which the
defendants falsely touted Foot Locker's great partnerships with its
vendors and (3) statements in which the defendants discussed the
company's product allocation and inventory without mentioning that
vendors forced it to take on difficult to-sell non-premium
merchandise as a condition to obtaining premium products.

The defendants argue that the plaintiffs have not established 10(b)
liability. They say that the alleged misstatements are not
actionable because: they are not false or misleading; they are are
puffery, they were accompanied by meaningful cautionary language;
and because they are opinions.

Alleged Misstatements Concealing Adverse Market Trends

The plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period, the defendants
led investors to believe that Foot Locker continued to hold a
strong position in the market, when it was in reality suffering
from the increasing direct-to-consumer online sales of its vendors.
The plaintiffs claim that the defendants' statements that Foot
Locker continued to understand what our consumers want and that its
core consumers wanted to be in our stores masked the truth that
customers were, in larger numbers, defecting and buying directly
from vendors online.

The defendants argue that the plaintiffs have not pled with
particularity that the defendants' statements were false or
misleading by omission. To establish falsity, plaintiffs must do
more than simply assert that a statement is false, they must
demonstrate with specificity why that is so.

A violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 premised on
misstatements cannot occur unless an alleged material misstatement
was false at the time it was made. A statement or omission is
material when there is a substantial likelihood that the disclosure
of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable
investor as having significantly altered the total mix of
information made available to the market.  

The defendants argue that the plaintiffs offer no particularized
facts that contradict Foot Locker's optimistic statements about its
market performance and consumer understanding. (ECF No. 43 at 14.)
In addition, the defendants argue that none of the CW allegations
suggest that the issue of vendors turning into competitors was in
fact having a negative impact on Foot Locker.   
The Court agrees. The only allegations in the SAC that imply
falsity are general Confidential Witness (CW) observations that
vendors began to keep much of their premier products for themselves
and that CW2 saw Nike and Adidas selling special release products
through their own websites and apps. These claims are not
sufficiently particularized, and in any event, do not render the
defendants' statements about Foot Locker's consumer insight and
general market standing false or misleading.

Because the plaintiffs do not allege that vendors' direct sales to
customers had a negative effect on the company's sales, they cannot
meet the specific falsity pleading requirements. In short, the
statements are not actionable.

Alleged Misstatements About Foot Locker's Vendor Relationships

The plaintiff's allegations that Foot Locker misrepresented its
vendor relationships and thus misled investors do not withstand a
motion to dismiss. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants
misstated the strength of its vendor relationships, because vendors
like Nike and Adidas had become competitors by selling directly to
customers. For example, on the 2016 second quarter earnings call,
defendant Johnson stated that Foot Locker had great partnerships
that continue to fuel sneaker culture. So they're all working and
we're very positive about the vendor partnerships.

Again, the plaintiffs cite broad characterizations of Foot Locker's
vendor relationships as strong, positive and great: statements that
amount to puffery, and are insufficient to sustain a 10(b) action.


Nor have the plaintiffs alleged that the statements were false or
misleading. The plaintiffs do not explain why the statements about
working closely with vendors and having strong vendor relationships
are false, or allege facts to support their claim. Instead, the
plaintiffs rely on CW statements that vendors were not selling
especially popular products to Foot Locker, and were keeping those
products to sell themselves.

Without more, the plaintiffs have not put forth factual allegations
that render the defendants' statements false or misleading. The
statements touting the strength of Foot Locker's vendor
relationships are thus not actionable.

Alleged Misstatements About Foot Locker's Inventory and Product
Allocation

The plaintiffs claim that they have alleged an actionable
misstatement or omission with regard to the defendants' statements
about Foot Locker's inventory and product allocation. According to
the plaintiffs, these statements are false and misleading because
Foot Locker was not receiving sufficient quantities of premier
products due to vendors' growing online direct-to-consumer sales;
instead, it was saddled with difficult-to-sell merchandise.  

The plaintiff's theory of falsity is not supported by the CW
allegations. For example, the plaintiffs claim that statements that
Foot Locker was managing its inventory carefully were misleading,
but the CWs did not claim that Foot Locker was not being diligent
with its inventory. Instead, they reported only that Foot Locker
did not obtain exclusively premium merchandise through the 70/30
rule or otherwise.

Drawing all reasonable inferences from the allegations, the Court
finds that the plaintiffs have not pled enough particularized facts
to demonstrate that the defendants' claims were false or
misleading.

Scienter

Although the Court concludes that the allegations do not make out
an actionable statement or omission, I nevertheless consider
whether the plaintiffs have sufficiently pled scienter.
To sustain a Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5 action, the plaintiffs
must allege that each defendant acted with scienter, or a mental
state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud
investors. Plaintiffs must allege facts that give rise to a strong
inference of fraudulent intent. Astrong inference of scienter means
an inference that is cogent and at least as compelling as any
opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged.

The plaintiffs have not satisfied the scienter pleading
requirement.

Motive and Opportunity

The plaintiffs argue that the defendants had a motive to lie
because they profited from selling Foot Locker shares while the
stock price was artificially inflated.
  
While motive may be sufficiently pleaded where a plaintiff alleged
that defendants misrepresented corporate performance to inflate
stock prices while they sold their own shares, the defendant's
stock sales must be unusual to support such an allegation.

Here, the plaintiffs claim that during the Class Period, defendants
Johnson and Peters, along with non-defendant Foot Locker officers
and directors, sold 192, 162 shares for over $13.38 million. They
claim that these sales, compared with the 31,628 shares sold the
year before the Class Period, and the 73,442 shares sold the year
after the Class Period, sufficiently raise a strong inference of
scienter. Upon a closer examination of the specific sales, the
Court finds that the plaintiffs did not make a showing.

As an initial matter, the plaintiffs do not allege why defendants
Johnson and Peters would have been motivated to engage in fraud for
the benefit of other officers and directors.
  
Moreover, the plaintiffs have not established that the
non-defendants' sales were suspicious or unusual; for the most
part, they do not coincide with the dates the alleged misstatements
were made. In fact, one of these sales occurred after the May 19,
2017 corrective disclosures, in which the plaintiffs claim revealed
not concealed the alleged fraud.

The plaintiffs have not shown that insider stock sales during the
Class Period raise a strong inference that the defendants acted
with the requisite scienter.

Recklessness

Alternatively, the plaintiffs argue that the defendants acted with
conscious recklessness because they had access to periodic reports
of sell through data, sales numbers, products and inventory and
held weekly meetings to discuss sales earnings and cost trends,
thus, the argument goes when they made the statements, they must
have known that vendor relationships were deteriorating, and that
vendors' direct online sales to consumers had increased.

The plaintiffs may establish conscious recklessness by establishing
that the defendants knew facts or had access to information
suggesting that their public statements were not accurate. The
plaintiffs do not claim that the defendants discussed the alleged
deteriorating vendor relationships and competing online sales at
any meeting, that these issued were discussed in the defendants'
presence, or that these trends were reflected in the financial
reports to which the defendants had access.  

Nor can the plaintiffs rely only on the core operations doctrine to
meet the PSLRA's demanding scienter pleading requirement.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs have not established conscious
recklessness.

Loss Causation

Because the Court holds that the complaint fails to plead that the
defendants had the requisite scienter, the Court do not reach the
defendants' alternative argument that the plaintiffs have not
adequately alleged loss causation.  

Section 20(a) Claim

The plaintiffs also allege controlling person liability against
defendants Johnson and Peters pursuant to Section 20(a), 15 U.S.C.
Section 78t(a). A party cannot be held both primarily and
secondarily liable for Exchange Act violations, but a plaintiff may
allege both as alternative theories of liability at the pleading
stage.  

Since the plaintiffs have not identified any actionable
misstatements or adequately alleged scienter or loss causation,
they have not adequately pled a Section 10(b) claim. Therefore,
their Section 20(a) control person claim fails as well, as control
person liability under Section 20(a) depends on a primary violation
of Section 10(b).

The defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s September 30, 2019
Memorandum Decision and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y4dnl4hj from Leagle.com

Osman Kazan, Movant, represented by Phillip Kim –
pkim@rosenlegal.com - The Rosen Law Firm.
Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust, Movant, represented
by Stephen D. Bunch -
dbunch@cohenmilstein.com - Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Brian Rosenberg, Movant, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman -
jalieberman@pomlaw.com - Pomerantz LLP.

Integral Capital Management SARL, Movant, represented by Kim Elaine
Miller kimmiller225@yahoo.com - Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC.

New England Carpenters Guaranteed Annuity and Pension Funds,
Movant, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld - drosenfeld@csgrr.com -
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Erin Whitney Boardman
-eboardman@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Lindsay
K. La Marca -LLaMarca@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP & Samuel H. Rudman , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP.

Foot Locker, Inc., Richard A. Johnson & Lauren B. Peters,
Defendants, represented by Susan Leslie Saltzstein -
susan.saltzstein@skadden.com -Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
LLP, Michael Mary Powell  - michael.powell@skadden.com - Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Scott D. Musoff -
scott.musoff@skadden.com - Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP.


FREIGHT HANDLERS: Court Confirms Kraft's Class Cert. Bid Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Wendy W. Berger entered an order in the lawsuit captioned
JAMES KRAFT ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
FREIGHT HANDLERS, INC. and FHI, LLC, Case No. 6:18-cv-01469-WWB-GJK
(M.D. Fla.), ruling that:

   1. the Report and Recommendation filed September 30, 2019, by
      U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly recommending the
      granting of the Motion to Certify Class is adopted and
      confirmed and made a part of this Order;

   2. the Revised Notice and Consent to Join Form is approved for
      delivery to the putative class members;

   3. the Plaintiff's Revised Consent is approved;

   4. the deadline for the Plaintiff to issue notice to the Fair
      Labor Standards Act collective is extended to ten days from
      issuing this Order; and

   5. the Plaintiff's Submission Regarding Approval of Revised
      Notice and Consent to Join Form is granted.[CC]


GATOR'S DOCKSIDE: Tiger et al Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as MATTHEW TIGER and CASEY
FITZGERALD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. GATOR'S DOCKSIDE GROUP, INC., a
Florida Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61411
(Filed June 6, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando) on Oct. 10, 2019. The
Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
6:19-cv-01935-CEM-DCI to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Carlos E. Mendoza.

The Plaintiffs bring the class action complaint for damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in
negligently and/or willfully contacting Plaintiffs on their
cellular telephones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiffs' privacy.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave Ste 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com

               - and -

          Joshua Harris Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael James Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ PASCUCCI, PA
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com
                  mpascucci@Justiceearned.com

               - and -

          Jordan David Utanski, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JORDAN UTANSKI
          500 S. Federal Hwy #4613
          Hallandale Beach, FL 33009-6435
          Telephone: (305) 773-6732
          E-mail: utanski@jdu-law.com

               - and -

          Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
          Seth Michael Lehrman, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          1945 Biscayne Blvd. # 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                  seth@epllc.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Gary Scott Salzman, Esq.
          GARGANESE WEISS D'AGRESTA & SALZMAN PA
          111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 2000
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 425-9566
          Facsimile: (407) 425-9596
          E-mail: gsalzman@orlandolaw.net

               - and -

          Jeffrey Scott Weiss, Esq.
          BROWN, GARGANESE, WEISS & D'AGRESTA, P.A.
          111 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 2000
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 425-9566
          Facsimile: (407) 425-9596
          E-mail: jweiss@orlandolaw.net

GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Court Narrows Claims on Adulterated Drugs Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum granting in part and denying in
part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment BLUE CROSS BLUE
SHIELD ASSOCIATION, et al., v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC. Civil Action
No. 13-4663. (E.D. Pa.)

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

Plaintiffs, 38 private health insurance companies that purchased
billions of dollars' worth of adulterated pharmaceutical drugs from
Defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK), bring claims under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and
Pennsylvania law, alleging they purchased the drugs at issue based
on GSK's misrepresentations that the drugs were manufactured in
accordance with the Food and Drug Administration's current Good
Manufacturing Practices.

Plaintiffs claim the adulterated drugs were worthless and had they
known of the adulteration, they would not have included the drugs
in their formularies. GSK has moved for summary judgment as to all
claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

Summary judgment shall be granted if the movant shows that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Material facts are those
facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing
law. A factual dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving] party.

Having found GSK is not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs'
claims based on its global defenses, the Court turns to GSK's
individual, claim-specific defenses. The Court finds Plaintiffs'
RICO (Counts I-III) and unjust enrichment (Count VII) claims fail
as a matter of law. However, Plaintiffs' fraud (Count IV), civil
insurance fraud pursuant to 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 4117 (Count
V), negligent misrepresentation (Count VI), breach of express
warranty (Count VIII), and breach of implied warranty of
merchantability (Count IX) claims present factual disputes for
trial.

RICO Claims (Counts I & II)

Plaintiffs bring claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c)-(d)
of RICO Act. Under Section 1962(c), it unlawful for any person
employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the
activities of which affect, interstate commerce, to conduct or
participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such
enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or
collection of unlawful debt.

A claim alleging a pattern of racketeering under Section 1962(c)
requires proof of the following four elements: (1) the existence of
an enterprise engaged in or affecting interstate commerce (2) the
defendant was employed by or associated with the enterprise (3) the
defendant participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct or
the affairs of the enterprise and (4) the defendant participated
through a pattern of racketeering activity that must include at
least two racketeering acts.  

GSK contends Plaintiffs' Section 1962(c) claim fail as a matter of
law because they cannot prove the existence of a valid enterprise.
Plaintiffs assert two enterprise theories: (A) the Plaintiff
Enterprise Theory and (B) the SB Pharmco Enterprise Theory.

The Court agrees with GSK that Plaintiffs have failed to establish
a legally sufficient enterprise theory.

The Plaintiff Enterprise theory posits that each Plaintiff
constitutes an enterprise victimized by GSK's misconduct because
without exploiting the infrastructure, systems, and facilities
owned by Plaintiffs and operated by their many thousands of
employees, GSK could not have effectuated the pervasive, nationwide
distribution and sale of the At-Issue Drugs and reaped the
enormous, unlawful profits that resulted.

GSK argues the Plaintiff Enterprise Theory is foreclosed by Jaguar
Cars, Inc. v. Royal Oaks Motor Car Co., Inc., 46 F.3d 258 (3d Cir.
1995), in which the Third Circuit has determined enterprise
theories where the victim is the enterprise are no longer viable
under Section 1962(c). Plaintiffs dispute GSK's reading of Jaguar
Cars, arguing the decision did not categorically rule out victim
enterprises, but rather refined the standard for a plaintiff to
meet under the operation and management test. In Plaintiffs view,
the Plaintiff Enterprise Theory is viable so long as they prove GSK
participated in the operation and management of the enterprise.

Although this statement was in dictum, numerous district courts in
this Circuit have found the Court of Appeals' reasoning persuasive
and have determined the enterprise and the victim may not be the
same for Section 1962(c) claims.  

Therefore, Jaguar Cars precludes Plaintiffs from proceeding on
their Plaintiff Enterprise Theory because the victim and enterprise
may not be the same under Section 1962(c).

The Court next turns to, Plaintiffs' SB Pharmco Enterprise Theory,
which alleges SB Pharmco was the enterprise GSK used to harm
Plaintiffs. To establish RICO liability under Section 1962(c), a
plaintiff must prove the existence of two distinct entities: (1) a
person and (2) an enterprise that is not simply the same person
referred to by a different name.
\
At the outset, SB Pharmco and GSK are not sufficiently distinct
such that SB Pharmco could constitute an enterprise. Because GSK
and SB Pharmco are horizontal corporate affiliates. Pharmco cannot
be generally considered a distinct enterprise in the instant
action, unless the narrow, theoretical and rare exception to the
distinctiveness requirement is satisfied, i.e., if SB Pharmco
played a different role in the racketeering activity than GSK.  

However, Plaintiffs have not set forth evidence demonstrating GSK's
conduct was sufficiently distinct from SB Pharmco's conduct so as
to meet the narrow and rare exception. Plaintiffs argue (1) GSK
engaged in fraudulent marketing while SB Pharmco manufactured the
non-complaint At-Issue Drugs; and (2) both had distinct corporate
structures, i.e., SB Pharmco was a Puerto Rican corporation while
GSK was a Delaware limited liability company.

Nevertheless, these assertions fail to demonstrate GSK engaged in
more than its own corporate affairs or merely obtained benefits
from SB Pharmco's unlawful activity. Rather, Plaintiffs'
contentions regarding the distinction between GSK and SB Pharmco
are belied by their own arguments in this case. Plaintiffs' having
failed to prove the existence of an enterprise, under either the
Plaintiff Enterprise Theory or the SB Pharmco Theory, GSK is
entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs' RICO claims under
Section 1962(c).  

Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation (Counts IV & VI)

Next, Plaintiffs bring common law fraud and negligent
misrepresentation claims. Common law fraud and negligent
misrepresentation are sister claims under Pennsylvania law as the
only difference between them is the mental state the plaintiff must
prove to succeed. To prove common law fraud, a plaintiff must
establish:

(1) a representation (2) which is material to the transaction at
hand (3) made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity or
recklessness as to whether it is true or false (4) with the intent
of misleading another into relying on it (5) justifiable reliance
on the misrepresentation and (6) the resulting injury was
proximately caused by the reliance.

GSK argues Plaintiffs have not shown reliance on any statements GSK
made with regard to the At-Issue Drugs or the Cidra Plant because
Plaintiffs did not consider manufacturing issues in deciding what
drugs they would include in their formulary.  

Plaintiffs assert they have produced sufficient evidence of
reliance to withstand summary judgment, citing deposition testimony
from their corporate designees and experts that Plaintiffs rely on
a drug manufacturer's assurances that its drugs are manufactured in
compliance with cGMPs and, if cGMP violations occur, on the drug
manufacturer's assurances and statements that the problem will be
promptly resolved, Plaintiffs also point to evidence of instances
where GSK stated the problems at the Cidra Plant were limited to a
small subset of drugs and were being corrected.  
As the Court previously noted, genuine issues of material fact
exist as to (1) Plaintiffs' consideration of cGMPs in determining
the content of their formulary and (2) their reliance on GSK's
assurances that the At-Issue Drugs conformed to cGMPs and that the
problem's at the Cidra Plant were isolated and corrected. These
questions must be resolved by the jury.   

Summary judgment is denied as to Plaintiffs' common law fraud and
negligent misrepresentation claims.

Unjust Enrichment (Count VII)

The Court next turns to Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim. To
prove unjust enrichment under Pennsylvania law, the plaintiff must
prove the following elements: (1) benefits conferred on defendant
by plaintiff (2) appreciation of such benefits by defendant and (3)
acceptance and retention of such benefits under such circumstances
that it would be inequitable for defendant to retain the benefit
without payment of value.

GSK contends Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim fails as a matter
of law because they failed to quantify the benefit" GSK received
from its allegedly improper conduct as Plaintiffs paid for the
At-Issue drugs by reimbursing third-party intermediaries.
Plaintiffs assert their unjust enrichment claim may proceed because
unjust enrichment claims do not require a direct relationship
between the parties.

This case presents an issue similar to Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, 52 A.3d at 498. In that case, the Commonwealth
Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's
unjust enrichment claim where the plaintiff failed to quantify the
benefit the defendant received. The Commonwealth Court noted the
plaintiff, who paid for the at-issue drugs by reimbursing
healthcare providers, failed to identify any fund retained by the
drug manufacturer to which a common law equitable remedy would
apply.

Similarly here, Plaintiffs have failed to identify any fund
retained by GSK to which a common law equitable remedy would apply.
Plaintiffs do not dispute that they did not pay GSK directly for
the At-Issue Drugs. As a result, Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claim fails as a matter of law and GSK is entitled to summary
judgment on this count.  

Breach of Express Warranty and Implied Warranty of Merchantability
(Counts VIII & IX)

Finally, the Court turns to Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty
and breach of implied warranty of merchantability claims. Both
express and implied warranty claims are governed by Pennsylvania
statute.  

A breach of an express warranty exists where a defendant makes an
actual affirmation of fact or a promise, the affirmation of fact or
promise formed the basis of the bargain between the defendant and
the plaintiff, and the product does not conform to that affirmation
of fact or promise. A breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability exists where the product purchased from the
defendant is unfit for its ordinary use.

The Court begins with an analysis of Plaintiffs' breach of implied
warranty claims.

GSK contends Pennsylvania does not recognize breach of implied
warranty claims in the context of prescription drugs. In support of
its argument, GSK points to cases where patients are harmed by
using prescription drugs but were precluded from bringing breach of
implied warranty claims against the drug manufacturer pursuant to
comment k to Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.  

Plaintiffs argue Pennsylvania law does not bar implied warranty
claims relating to prescription drugs, pointing to cases where
patients are harmed by medical devices and were permitted to
proceed on breach of implied warranty claims against the medical
device manufacturer based on the theory that the device had a
manufacturing defect.  

The parties have not cited, and the Court has not found, any
authority addressing implied warranty claims where, as here, an
insurer asserts that a drug manufacturer has breached an implied
warranty that the drug was manufactured in compliance with
applicable standards. Much of the authority the parties cite is
inapposite because the decision whether to allow a breach of
implied warranty claim to proceed turns on scenarios where a doctor
prescribes a drug or medical device for the plaintiff and the
plaintiff is physically harmed by its use or side-effects, which
directly implicates comment k's guidance. This is not the case here
as the issue is whether GSK breached a warranty that the At-Issue
Drugs were manufactured in compliance with cGMPs, which therefore
rendered them unfit for their ordinary use.

Whether Plaintiffs' breach of implied warranty claim is precluded
under Pennsylvania law presents the Court with a close issue with
no clear guidance.  Therefore, summary judgment will be denied as
to Plaintiffs' breach of implied warranty claim.

Last, the Court turns to Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty
claim. GSK argues Plaintiffs cannot maintain this claim because
Pennsylvania does not recognize it in the context of prescription
drugs. See GSK Mot. 44. Federal courts in Pennsylvania are split on
whether there is a viable breach of express warranty claim against
manufacturers of prescription drugs and devices.  

In Doughtery, Doughtery, 2012 WL 294727, at *8 (collecting cases),
the court found that a breach of express warranty claim against
drug manufacturers exists under Pennsylvania law.  
In discussing the issue, the court stated:

A claim for breach of express warranty thus sounds more in contract
than in tort. While the reasoning of comment k may prevent certain
warranties or promises from being implied by law, [there is] no
basis for declining to enforce a contractual promise expressly and
voluntarily made by a manufacturer of prescription drugs or
devices.

The courts that have found that Pennsylvania law does not recognize
a breach of express warranty claim in the context of prescription
drugs or medical devices have relied on the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court's decision in Hahn v. Richter, 673 A.2d 888 (Pa. 1996). In
deciding whether a plaintiff could maintain a strict liability
failure-to-warn claim, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Hahn held
where the adequacy of warnings associated with prescription drugs
is at issue, the failure of the manufacturer to exercise reasonable
care to warn of dangers, i.e., the manufacturer's negligence, is
the only recognized basis of liability.

The Court is again presented with a difficult decision with
compelling arguments on both sides and no clear guidance from the
Pennsylvania courts. The Court is nevertheless unpersuaded by the
authority relying on Hahn to hold that Pennsylvania does not
recognize a breach of express warranty claim in the context of
prescription drugs. Accordingly, summary judgment will be denied as
to Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claim.

The Court will grant GSK's motion for summary judgment in part and
deny it in part. Based on the undisputed facts, Plaintiffs' RICO
(Counts I-III) and unjust enrichment (Count VII) claims fail as a
matter of law, and GSK is entitled to summary judgment as to those
claims. However, genuine issues of material fact remain as to
Plaintiffs' fraud (Count IV), civil insurance fraud pursuant to 18
Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 4117 (Count V), negligent misrepresentation
(Count VI), breach of express warranty (Counts VIII), and breach of
implied warranty of merchantability (Count IX). GSK's motion for
summary judgment will therefore be denied as to those claims.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s September 30, 2019
Memorandum is available at  https://tinyurl.com/yxszub95 from
Leagle.com

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION, AETNA, INC., AMERIGROUP/HMS,
AVMED HEALTH PLANS, BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF ALABAMA, BLUE CROSS
BLUE SHIELD OF DELAWARE, BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA,
INC., BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF KANSAS CITY, BLUE CROSS BLUE
SHIELD OF MASSACHUSETTS, BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MINNESOTA, BLUE
CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MONTANA, INC., BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF
NORTH CAROLINA, BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF RHODE ISLAND, BLUE
CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF SOUTH CAROLINA, BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF
TENNESSEE, CAREFIRST OF MARYLAND, INC., doing business as CAREFIRST
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD, CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
EMBLEM HEALTH, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HEALTH ASSOCIATION, GROUP
HEALTH COOPERATIVE, GROUP HOSPITALIZATION AND MEDICAL SERVICES,
INC., doing business as CAREFIRST BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD, HEALTH NET,
INC., HEALTHNOW NEW YORK, HIGHMARK INC., HIGHMARK WEST VIRGINIA
INC., doing business as HIGHMARK BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD WEST
VIRGINIA, HMO PARTNERS, INC., doing business as HEALTH ADVANTAGE,
KPS HEALTH PLANS, MEDICAL MUTUAL OF OHIO, NORIDIAN, PREMERA BLUE
CROSS, PRIORITY HEALTH, THE REGENCE GROUP, USABLE MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, doing business as ARKANSAS BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD,
WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS, INC., WELLCARE HEALTH PLAN OF IOWA, INC.,
WELLMARK, INC., doing business as WELLMARK BLUE CROSS AND BLUE
SHIELD OF IOWA & WELLPOINT, INC., Plaintiffs, represented by G.
ROBERT BLAKEY , GEOFFREY M. HORN , LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC, GERALD
LAWRENCE, Jr. , LOWEY DANNENBERG PC, 44 South Broadway Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601, LESLEY ANN SKILLEN –
lskillen@getnicklaw.com - GETNICK & GETNICK LLP, MARK D. FISCHER ,
RAWLINGS & ASSOC., NEIL V. GETNICK – ngetmick@getnicklaw.com -
GETNICK & GETNICK LLP, PETER D. ST. PHILLIP , LOWEY DANNENBERG,
P.C., 44 South Broadway Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601, ROBERT
C. GRIFFITH , RAWLINGS & ASSOC PLLC, STUART ALTSCHULER –
saltschuler@getnicklaw.com - GETNICK & GETNICK LLP, URIEL
RABINOVITZ , LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.,44 South Broadway Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601

GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, Defendant, represented by DAVID H. PITTINSKY -
PITTINSKY ALLARDSPAHR.COM - BALLARD, SPAHR, ANDREWS AND INGERSOLL,
EDWARD D. ROGERS , BALLARD, SPAHR, ANDREWS AND INGERSOLL, 1735
Market Street, 51st Floor, Philadelphia, PA19103,  JOSEPH E. O'NEIL
, Campbell Conroy & O'Neil, LESLIE E. JOHN , BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS
& INGERSOLL LLP, 1909 K Street, Nw 12th Floor, Washington, DC
20006-1157, MARK H. LYNCH - mlynch@cov.com - COVINGTON & BURLING,
MATTHEW F. DUNN -mdunn@cov.com - COVINGINTON & BURLING LLP, MATTHEW
J. O'CONNOR - moconnor@cov.com - COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, MICHAEL
M. MAYA - mmaya@cov.com - COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, STEPHEN J.
KASTENBERG - KASTENBERG BALLARDSPAHR.COM - BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS &
INGERSOLL, DANIEL MULLIN , BALLARD SPAHR LLP, 1909 K Street, Nw
12th Floor, Washington, DC 20006-1157


GLOBAL CONTACT SERVICES: Call Center Reps Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
Larita Finisterre and Songhai Woodard, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Global Contact
Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 521437/2019, (N.Y. Sup., October
1, 2019), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation and
other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and under the New
York Labor Law.

Plaintiffs worked as customer service representatives at the
Defendant's Long Island City location from January 7, 2019 until
March 8, 2019. Global Contact Services allegedly failed to pay them
overtime and spread-of-hours pay for work shifts of more than 10
hours. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
     Arsenio D. Rodriguez, Esq.
     FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
     28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Telephone: (212) 300-0375

Global Contact Services is represented by:

     Aaron Warshaw, Esq.
     OGELTREE DEAKINS
     599 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Telephone: (212) 492-2509
     Email: aaron.warshaw@ogeltree.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Falberg Suit Alleging Violation of ERISA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leonid Falberg as representative of a class of similarly situated
persons and on behalf of The Goldman Sachs 401(k) Plan, Plaintiff
v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., The Goldman Sachs 401(k) Plan
Retirement Committee, and John Does 1–20, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-09910 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019), accuses the Defendants of
breaching their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties and engaged in unlawful self-dealing with respect
to the Plan in violation of ERISA, to the detriment of the Plan and
its participants and beneficiaries. The Plaintiff brings this
action to remedy this unlawful conduct, prevent further
mismanagement of the Plan, and obtain equitable and other relief as
provided by ERISA.

The Defendants failed to administer the Plan in the best interest
of participants and failed to employ a prudent process for managing
the Plan, the Plaintiff contends. Instead, the Plaintiff argues,
the Defendants managed the Plan in a manner that benefited Goldman
Sachs at the expense of participants.

The interests of Goldman Sachs interfered with their Defendants'
management of the Plan in a number of ways, the Plaintiff points
out. Among other things, the Defendants retained underperforming
proprietary mutual funds that an objective fiduciary in the
Defendants' position would have removed. The Defendants also failed
to obtain lower-cost separate accounts or collective trusts in
place of proprietary mutual funds, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff resides in New Jersey and is a current participant in
the Plan.

Goldman Sachs exercises discretionary authority or discretionary
control respecting management of the Plan, and/or has discretionary
authority or responsibility in the administration of the Plan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
     Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
     Kai H. Richter, Esq.
     Brock J. Specht, Esq.
     Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
     Brandon T. McDonough, Esq.
     Ben J. Bauer, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
     4600 IDS Center
     80 S 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: 612-256-3200
     Facsimile: 612-338-4878
     Email: fisher@nka.com
            lukas@nka.com
            krichter@nka.com
            bspecht@nka.com
            cengstrom@nka.com
            bmcdonough@nka.com
            bbauer@nka.com

          - and -

     Major Khan, Esq.
     MKLLC LAW
     1120 Avenue of the Americas, 4th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: 646-546-5664
     Facsimile: 646-546-5755
     Email: mk@mk-llc.com


GOOGLE LLC: Hubbard Sues Over Invasion of Children's Privacy
------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLE HUBBARD, as parent and guardian of C.H., a minor;
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC; YOUTUBE LLC; CARTOON NETWORK, INC.;
CARTOON NETWORK STUDIOS, INC.; CHUCHU TV STUDIOS, COOKIESWIRLC;
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION LLC; DREAMWORKS ANIMATION TELEVISION, LLC;
HASBRO, INC.; HASBRO STUDIOS LLC; MATTEL, INC.; POCKETWATCH, INC.;
REMKA, INC.; RTR PRODUCTION LLC; AND RFR ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-07016 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 25, 2019),
arises out of the Defendants' unlawful invasion of the right to
privacy and reasonable expectation of privacy of millions of
children under the age of 13 from July 1, 2013, through September
4, 2019.

The Plaintiff brings claims, on behalf of her child and for all
other similarly-situated children under the age of thirteen injured
by the Defendants' conduct, pursuant to California's and other
states' common law right to be free from intrusion upon seclusion;
pursuant to the California Unfair Competition Law, and, for her
child and other California residents; pursuant to the right to
privacy enumerated in the California Constitution; and for relief
from Defendants' unjust enrichment at the expense of minor
children.

The Plaintiff's minor child, C.H., watched many of the monetized
YouTube channels during the Class Period, including those owned by
the Channel Owner Defendants. While C.H. viewed videos on the
YouTube Platform, the Defendants unlawfully collected C.H.'s
Personal Information, including persistent identifiers, and
delivered targeted advertisements to C.H. intended to influence
C.H.'s behavior, the Plaintiff alleges.  The Defendants' actions
violated the privacy rights and reasonable expectations of privacy
of C.H. and other similarly-situated young children under thirteen,
and constituted unfair and deceptive trade practices, the Plaintiff
avers.

On September 4, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission and New York
State Office of the Attorney General filed a Complaint for
Permanent Injunction, Civil Penalties, and Other Equitable Relief
against the Google Defendants, complaining of the Google
Defendants' wrongful collection and misuse of minors' Personal
Information. The Google Defendants entered into a Judgment on
September 4, 2019, agreeing to pay $170 million as a civil penalty
for their misconduct, but did not agree to immediately cease the
misconduct and have publicly stated that they will continue their
tracking practices for up to four more months, enabling them to
collect and misuse Personal Information about millions of minors
for continuing improper financial gain.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action, and the claims for
relief asserted, on behalf of C.H. and the Classes and Subclass of
similarly-situated minors under the age of thirteen whose privacy
rights have, like C.H.'s, been violated by the Defendants, for
injunctive and/or equitable relief to stop the Defendants' unlawful
practices and sequester their unlawfully obtained information, and
for compensatory and punitive damages.

Plaintiff Nichole Hubbard is a natural person and is a resident and
citizen of the State of California. The Plaintiff is the parent and
legal guardian of C.H.

Google LLC is a business incorporated under the laws of the State
of Delaware with its principal place of business in Mountain View,
California. Google is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alphabet, Inc.
and is the parent company of Defendant YouTube LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
     Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
     Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq.
     Caroline C. Corbitt, Esq.
     PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
     180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (415) 692-0772
     Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
     Email: jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
            ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
            bc@pritzkerlevine.com
            ccc@pritzkerlevine.com


HARMAN HASHIMOTO: Picon Suit Asserts ADA Breach
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harman Hashimoto
Enterprises, LLC. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Harman
Hashimoto Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09706 (S.D.
N.Y., Oct. 21, 2019).

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

Harman Hashimoto Enterprises, LLC is a privately held company in
Berkeley, CA and is a Single Location business, categorized under
Business Services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
     The Marks Law Firm PC
     175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
     New York, NY 10014
     Phone: (646) 770-3775
     Fax: (646) 867-2639
     Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


HARMAN INT'L: Court Narrows Claims in Baum Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the case PATRICIA B. BAUM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES,
INC., DINESH C. PALIWAL, ADRIANE M. BROWN, JOHN W. DIERCKSEN, ANN
M. KOROLOGOS, ROBERT NAIL, ABRAHAM N. REICHENTAL, KENNETH M. REISS,
HELLENE S. RUNTAGH, FRANK S. SKLARSKY, and GARY G. STEEL,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00246 (RNC), (D. Conn.).

The lawsuit is a proposed class action under the federal securities
brought by and on behalf of shareholders of Harman International
Industries, Inc. The amended complaint alleges that Harman and
members of its board used a false and misleading proxy statement to
solicit support for Harman's acquisition by Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for defendants'
alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule
14a-9. Defendants move for dismissal on the ground that plaintiff
has failed to state a claim.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants sought to downplay Harman's value
in order to make the Samsung acquisition seem fair to shareholders.
She claims that the proxy statement ("the proxy") was false and
misleading in four specific ways. (1) First, she asserts that the
proxy omitted the material fact that Harman's financial projections
did not account for future acquisitions, even though Harman's
growth strategy was built on acquisitions. (2) Second, plaintiff
argues that the proxy falsely stated that Harman management
determined that its financial projections included more downside
risk than likely upside potential, thereby justifying the
development of a less optimistic set of financial forecasts. These
forecasts, in turn, helped to justify a lower sale price to
Samsung. (3) Third, she claims that the proxy inaccurately stated
that Harman does not as a matter of course release financial
projections and that the projections contained in the proxy were
not prepared for public disclosure. (4) Fourth, plaintiff argues
that the proxy was false and misleading by omitting a material fact
relevant to a potential conflict of interest on the part of a
financial advisor who recommended that shareholders approve the
acquisition.

On review, the Court opines that plaintiff's first and third
arguments are unavailing. Plaintiff does, however, sufficiently
allege that the proxy was misleading as to the reason that Harman
revised its financial projections and as to a potential conflict of
interest on the part of a financial advisor, the Court holds.
Additionally, plaintiff has adequately pled loss causation by
asserting that Harman shareholders did not receive adequate
compensation in the acquisition, the Court states.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in
part, the Court rules.  Plaintiff's claims based on defendants'
opinion statement regarding the Management Projections and J.P.
Morgan's potential conflict of interest may proceed under Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, the Court
specifies.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 3, 2019 Ruling and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yx93lvjz from Leagle.com


Patricia B. Baum, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Knotts -
dknotts@rgrdlaw.com - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Mathew P. Jasinski - mjasinski@motleyrice.com - Motley Rice
LLC & William H. Narwold - bnarwold@motleyrice.com - Motley Rice
LLC.

Harman International Industries, Incorporated, Dinesh C. Paliwal,
Adriane M. Brown, John W. Diercksen, Ann M. Korologos, Robert Nail,
Abraham N. Reichental, Kenneth M. Reiss, Hellene S. Runtagh, Frank
Sklarsky & Gary G. Steel, Defendants, represented by Caitlin A.
Donovan   - CADonovan@wlrk.com -Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, pro
hac vice, Ryan A. McLeod - RAMcLeod@wlrk.com - Wachtell, Lipton,
Rosen & Katz, pro hac vice, Stephen R. DiPrima - SRDiPrima@wlrk.com
- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, pro hac vice & Joseph C.
Merschman -jmerschman@wiggin.com - Wiggin & Dana.


HARVEST LANDSCAPE: Tellez Seeks Overtime Pay for Landscape Workers
------------------------------------------------------------------
GERARDO TELLEZ, as an individual, and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. HARVEST LANDSCAPE ENTERPRISES,
INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-09015 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 18, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all wages, including
overtime, failed to provide rest and meal periods, and failed to
pay wages upon ending employment under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and Class members are identifiable, current and/or
former similarly situated persons, who were employed as non-exempt
hourly employees, maintenance workers, laborers, and other related
positions for the Defendant during the Class Period.

The Defendant is landscape management firm. It offers maintenance,
tree trimming & management, concrete & masonry, concept, design,
installation, and beautifcation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          John A. Young, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: 562-590-5550
          Facsimile: 562-590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  jyoung@mahoney-law.net


HEINEKEN USA: Apple Cider Contains Malic Acid, Slowinski Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE SLOWINSKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HEINEKEN USA INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06764 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 11, 2019),
claims that Defendant intentionally labeled its apple cider
products with false and misleading claims that they contain no
artificial flavors.  In fact, Defendant's products contain
synthetic Malic Acid, a common food additive associated with tart
flavors.

According to the complaint, Defendant's products advertised as
containing no artificial flavors when they in fact contained
synthetic Malic Acid are:

a. Gold Apple;
b. Original Dry;
c. Pear Secco;
d. Rose Apple;
e. Artisanal Blend;
f. Orange Blossom; and
g. Cherry Blossom.

The Defendant manufactures, advertises, markets, sells, and
distributes hard apple cider products throughout Illinois and the
United States under the brand name Strongbow Cider.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff are:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          David B. Levin, Esq.
          Steven G. Perry, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  dlevin@toddflaw.com
                  sperry@toddflaw.com

HOMESIDE FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Henry Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Henry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOMESIDE FINANCIAL, LLC, DAN SNYDER, BRIAN
ZIEMER, and LAUREN RANDALL, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05024-CDJ
(E.D. Pa., Oct. 25, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act of 1968 by misclassifying their inside sales Loan Officers as
exempt employees and failing to pay them required minimum and
overtime wages.

Pursuant to their common policies, the Defendants knowingly
suffered or permitted the Plaintiff and the Collective/Class
members to arrive early for work, stay late at work and perform
work-related tasks on weekends. As a result, the Plaintiff and the
Collective/Class members worked over 40 hours in given workweeks.
The Defendants did not make or maintain accurate, contemporaneous
records of the actual time worked by the Plaintiff and the
Collective/Class members. Pursuant to the Defendants' common
policies, the Plaintiff and the Collective/Class members did not
receive overtime pay when the worked more than 40 hours in any
given workweek, and they also did not receive applicable minimum
wage, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an adult citizen of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, who the Defendants employed as an inside sales Loan
Officer in State College, Pennsylvania.

Homeside is a national mortgage bank that provides mortgage banking
services to consumer in Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lee Albert, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     230 Park Ave., Suite 530
     New York, NY 10169
     Phone: (212) 682-5340
     Email: lalbert@glancylaw.com

          - and -

     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: (312) 233-1550
     Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com

          - and –

     Erik H. Langeland, Esq.
     733 Third Avenue, 15th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 354-6270
     Email: elangeland@langelandlaw.com

          - and -

     John A. Tostrud, Esq.
     TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 278-2600
     Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com


HOWARD HUGHES: Website not Accessible to Blind, Slade Says
----------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SLADE, Individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. THE HOWARD HUGHES
CORPORATION and HOWARD HUGHES MANAGEMENT CO., LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09431 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 11, 2019), alleges that
Defendants are denying blind and visually-impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Howard Hughes provides to non-disabled customers through
its web site at http://www.Seaportdistrict.nyc.

Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. By
failing to make the website accessible to blind persons, Defendants
are violating basic equal access requirements under both state and
federal law.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired"
to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal
definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who
meet this definition have limited vision; others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind’s 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York, the
lawsuit says.

The Defendants own and operate the Seaport District, a retail
shopping and entertainment district located in downtown Manhattan,
which is a place of public accommodation. Seaport District are
located in New York State. Seaport District provide to the public
important and enjoyable goods and services such as shops,
restaurants, and entertainment venues.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class are:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Telephone. (917) 373-9128
          E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com

HT MWD: Miller Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Oilfield Personnel
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HT MWD SOLUTIONS, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-03979 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 11, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from HT MWD
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, HT employs oilfield personnel, like
Plaintiff, to carry out its work. Miller, and the other workers
like him, was typically scheduled for 12 hour shifts, 7 days a
week, for weeks at a time.  But HT does not pay all of these
workers overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek.  Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, HT
pays these workers a day-rate and improperly classifies them as
independent contractors.

HT MWD Solutions has their corporate headquarters at 900 Old
Highway 105 W, Montgomery County, Conroe, Texas 77304.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

ILLINOIS TOOL: Monroe Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROSALINDA MONROE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH12053 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., Oct.
17, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint against Defendant to put a
stop to its unlawful collection, use, and storage of 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, ITW
disregards its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and
unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in
violation of the BIPA, asserts the complaint.

Specifically, ITW has violated (and continues to violate) the BIPA
because it did not properly inform 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 Plaintiff and
the Class's fingerprints, as required by the BIPA; nor receive a
written release from Plaintiff or the members of the Class to
collect, capture, or otherwise obtain fingerprints, as required by
the BIPA.

Accordingly, this Complaint seeks an order: (i) declaring that
Defendant's conduct violates the BIPA; (ii) requiring Defendant to
cease the unlawful activities; and (iii) awarding liquidated
damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class, says the complaint.

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

ITW is a leader in the manufacturing of specialized industrial
equipment, consumables, and related service businesses.[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: admin@fishlawfirm.com
            dfish@fishlawfirm.com
            jkunze@fishlawfirm.com


INTEGRA AFFORDABLE: Cole Files FLSA Suit in Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integra Affordable
Management, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Tony Cole,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Integra Affordable Management, LLC, PF Hillsboro, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01051-SOH (W.D. Ark., Oct. 21, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Integra Affordable Management, LLC is a firm specializing in
affordable housing management and development across the United
States.[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
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Fax: (888) 787-2040
     Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com



J.A.V. FOOD: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J.A.V. Food Corp. The
case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J.A.V. Food Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09721 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2019).

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

Jav Food Corp. was founded in 1988. The Company's line of business
includes the retail sale of specialized foods such as eggs,
poultry, health foods, spices, herbs, coffee, and tea.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
     Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
     100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 317-2453
     Fax: (516) 706-4692
     Email: ds@lawsolo.net


JUUL LABS: Emidy Sues over Health Risks of Vape
-----------------------------------------------
JOHN SCOTT EMIDY, Individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, the PLAINTIFFS v. JUUL LABS, INC., ALTRIA GROUP, INC. and
PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., the DEFENDANTS, Case No.
2:19-cv-02671-MSN-cgc (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 2, 2019), contends that the
Defendants use fraudulent and deceptive youth marketing business
practices to sell 'JUUL' e-cigarette products.  The Defendants
exploit themes that resonate with teenagers while falsely denying
doing so.  Tennessee prohibits the promotion of merchandise through
false,  deceptive or misleading advertising.

Emidy is 25 years old and addicted to an "JUUL" e-cigarette
product." Health authorities consider youth e-cigarette use an
epidemic. Mimicking Big Tobacco's past marketing practices, the
Defendants prey on youth to recruit replacement smokers for
financial gain.

Altria recently acquired a 35% stake in JUUL which is the country's
lead e-cigarette seller. Altria also owns Philip Morris, which
sells Marlboro, the country's most popular cigarette. Now that JUUL
has Altria's infrastructure, progress in nicotine cessation stands
to erode, the lawsuit says.

According to the CDC, about 4.9 million middle and high school
students were current users of a tobacco product in 2018, meaning
that they used such products within the past 30 days. This
represents an increase of 1.3 million users just since 2017.
The FDA has described the increase in e-cigarette consumption as an
"epidemic."

The lawsuit claims that the JUUL e-cigarette's defective design
poses unprecedented risks of abuse and The JUUL device does not
have a manual or automatic "off" switch. Neither the JUULpod nor
the programming of the JUUL device's temperature or puff duration
settings limit the amount of nicotine JUUL delivers each puff to
the upper bound of a cigarette.

Thus, in contrast to a traditional cigarette, which
self-extinguishes as each cigarette is consumed, the JUUL product
allows non-stop nicotine consumption, which is limited only by the
device's battery. As a result, the JUUL is able to facilitate
consumption of levels of nicotine that a cigarette cannot match.
This makes it easier for the user to become addicted to nicotine,
the lawsuit says.

JUUL manufactures and distributes its nicotine formulation as
JUULpods, which contain JUUL's nicotine liquid. JUUL sells its pods
in four-packs, in a variety of flavors.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          R. Keith Morgan, Esq.
          Owen P. Lalor, Esq.
          LALOR ABY& MORGAN, PLLC
          230 Trace Colony Park Drive, Suite 4
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: 601-898-2000
          E-mail: kmorgan@lalorbaileyaby.com
                  hbailey@lalorbaileyaby.com
                  olalor@lalorbaileyaby.com

JUUL LABS: Montgomery County Sues over Sale, Safety of Vape
-----------------------------------------------------------
Montgomery County, Maryland Executive Office Building 101 Monroe
Street, 2nd Floor Rockville, MD 20850, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JUUL LABS,
INC. 560 20th Street San Francisco, CA 94107; and ALTRIA GROUP,
INC. 6601 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230, the Defendants,
Case No. 8:19-cv-02981-PX (D. Md., Oct. 11, 2019), asserts that
Defendants violated the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, the
Montgomery County Consumer Protection Act, and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in connection with the
sale of e-cigarette.

The action arises out of Defendants' creation of a nationwide
epidemic -- based on numerous fraudulent activities -- of underage
nicotine addiction caused by "vaping" with JUUL's popular
electronic cigarette or "e-cigarette," which has directly resulted
in Plaintiff and other similarly-situated counties and
municipalities in Maryland and across the country to expend their
limited resources to attempt to curb the severe public nuisance
Defendants created, and which is ongoing.

According to the complaint, the Defendants created the public
nuisance by, among other things:

     (a) designing the JUUL e-cigarette and its packaging to
aesthetically appeal to kids and to be easily concealable;

     (b) selling nicotine cartridges or "JUULpods" in multiple
fruity flavors that appeal to kids (e.g. fruit medley, creme
brulee, mango, cool cucumber, and cool mint);

     (c) designing its patented nicotine formula to be
significantly more addictive than cigarettes;

     (d) directly marketing the JUUL e-cigarette to children
through youthful, colorful, and vibrant images in print
advertising, by saturating social media channels frequented by
children, by paying young "influencers" to endorse JUUL's products,
by hosting "popup" parties in trendy cities to provide free samples
of its fruity JUULpods, and by making "educational" presentations
to kids on school campuses to falsely represent the purported
"safety" of JUUL's e-cigarette; and

     (e) making false and misleading statements about the safety of
the JUUL e-cigarette and downplaying or omitting disclosure of the
risks of addiction associated with its use.

The current epidemic of underage nicotine addiction that JUUL
created is no accident, the lawsuit ntoes.  JUUL founders and
executives closely studied the Big Tobacco playbook and
successfully implemented the techniques that Big Tobacco used to
hook a prior generation to nicotine in order to mislead a new
generation into believing that e-cigarettes, unlike traditional
cigarettes, are safe and not addictive. With this unconscionable
strategy, JUUL experienced a meteoric rise in the popularity of its
e-cigarette and secured a 76% share of the e-cigarette market in
only a few short years, the lawsuit says.

Juul Labs, is an American electronic cigarette company which spun
off from Pax Labs in 2017. It makes the Juul e-cigarette, which
packages nicotine salts from leaf tobacco into one-time use
cartridges.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:

          Marc P. Hansen, Esq.
          John P. Markovs, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
          101 Monroe Street, 3rd Floor
          Rockville, MD 20850
          Telephone: 240 777-6725
          Facsimile: 240 777-6705 (fax)
          E-mail: marc.hanson@montgomerycountymd.gov
                  john.markovs@montgomerycountymd.gov

               - and -

          Christopher C. Gold, Esq.
          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 561 750-3000
          Facsimile: 561 750-3364
          E-mail: jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com
                  mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                  sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  dantullis@rgrdlaw.comcgold@rgrdlaw.com

KAIGHT INC: Faces Calcano ADA Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kaight Inc. The case
is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kaight Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09722 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2019).

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

Kaight is an independently-owned boutique located in New York City
and a pioneer retailer in the eco-fashion movement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
     Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
     100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 317-2453
     Fax: (516) 706-4692
     Email: ds@lawsolo.net


LANE BRYANT: Meo Obtains Conditional FLSA Collective Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AMANDA MEO, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LANE BRYANT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. CV-18-6360, (E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge A.
KATHLEEN TOMLINSON of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York issued a Memorandum and Order granting
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification as an FLSA
collective action pursuant to Section 216(b), subject to the
limitations and directives in the Memorandum and Order.

The Court conditionally certifies the collective defined as:

All non-exempt hourly Store Managers employed by Lane Bryant at any
retail store location in New York, Illinois, Iowa, Tennessee,
Nevada, Connecticut, California, Ohio, Idaho, Kansas, Rhode Island,
or Pennsylvania, however variously titled, on or after November 8,
2015, who have not been paid for all overtime hours worked.

The Court further orders that: (1) within 21 days of this Order,
Defendant is to provide Plaintiff's counsel, in a standard
electronic format, a list of the names, last known mailing
addresses, and last known telephone numbers for all potential
collective members employed by Defendant during the relevant time
period; and (2) within 21 days of this Order, the parties are to
meet and confer in good faith, and submit a revised joint proposed
Notice or contact Chambers to set up a telephone conference.

Plaintiff commenced this action asserting claims under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant willfully violated the FLSA and
NYLL by: (1) failing to pay non-exempt hourly Store Managers (SMs)
for overtime hours worked (2) failing to credit and compensate SMs
for hours worked off-the-clock and (3) otherwise failing to pay SMs
for non-overtime hours worked.  Plaintiff also alleges that
Defendant failed to accurately log hours worked or to provide SMs
with accurate wage statements in violation of the NYLL.  Plaintiff
moved to certify this litigation as a collective action under the
FLSA.  Plaintiff seought an order: (1) conditionally certifying the
collective action; (2) requiring Defendant to furnish the names and
contact information for all hourly SMs employed by Defendant since
November 8, 2015; and (3) requiring Defendant to post and Plaintiff
to circulate a Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join form to all
SMs.

Based on Plaintiff's submissions, including the declarations of
Plaintiff and the Potential Opt-ins  as well as Defendant's uniform
job postings for SM positions across Defendant's store locations,
the Court finds that Plaintiff has made a modest factual showing'
that she and potential opt-in plaintiffs together were victims of a
common policy or plan that violated the law.

In opposing certification, Defendant challenges the validity and
accuracy of the declarations, asserting that the Court should not
consider them and arguing that Plaintiff fails to meet her burden.
However, the Defendant's merit-based arguments at this
pre-certification stage are premature, rules the Court.

As stated in the Court's order denying Defendant's motion seeking
an evidentiary hearing on this very issue, the Court does not weigh
the merits of the plaintiffs' underlying claims, resolve factual
disputes, or evaluate credibility at this stage. The Court declined
to conclude at this juncture that the declarations of the Plaintiff
and the other eight store managers are false while the declarations
of the Lane Bryant representatives are true and stands by its
decision.

For the same reasons, the Court rejects Defendant's argument that
even if the declarations submitted by Plaintiff are accepted as
true, Plaintiff has at best only established that overtime
practices vary widely from store to store. Although Defendant
argues that its counter-declarations reveal SMs who state that they
consistently adhered to Defendant's express written policy
regarding overtime, which prohibited off-the-clock work, again this
argument would require the Court to evaluate the parties' competing
declarations. It is inappropriate for the Court to do so at this
first stage of conditional certification, opined Mag. Judge
Tomlinson.
   
A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y5lsko9q
from Leagle.com.

Amanda Meo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Garrett D. Kaske, Shulman Kessler LLP,
534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275, Melville, NY 11747, Gregg I.
Shavitz - gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com - Shavitz Law Group, P.A., pro
hac vice, Michael John Palitz - mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - Shavitz
Law Group, P.A., Troy L. Kessler, Shulman Kessler LLP, 534
Broadhollow Road, Suite 275, Melville, NY  11747, Logan A. Pardell
- lpardell@shavitzlaw.com - Shavitz Law Group, P.A, pro hac vice &
Tamra Givens, Shavitz Law Group, P.A., 830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10022, pro hac vice.

Lane Bryant, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sean P. Lynch -
sean.lynch@morganlewis.com - Morgan Lewis & Brockius LLP.

LENOVO: Gisairo Sues Over Defective Laptops
-------------------------------------------
MARTIN GISAIRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Defendant,
Case No. 0:19-cv-02727 (D. Minn., Oct. 17, 2019) is a consumer
class action alleging that Lenovo misled consumers about the
quality and functionality of certain laptop computers that it
designed, manufactured, marketed, sold, and distributed to
thousands of consumers in Minnesota and throughout the United
States. Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's breaches of
warranties and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and
Minnesota's Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Unlawful Trade
Practices Act, Deceptive Trade Practices Act, False Statements in
Advertising Act, Private Attorney General Statute, and the common
law of the state.

According to the complaint, these laptop computers possess a
material defect the prevents them from being used as portrayed in
Lenovo's advertising materials. Lenovo concealed, failed to
disclose, or otherwise engaged in deceptive marketing with respect
to this defect. As a result, many consumers purchased computers
that became practically unusable after months or even days of use.
In May 2017, Lenovo introduced a new model of laptop computer
marketed in North America as the Flex 5 and in other regions as the
Yoga 520. In April of the following year, Lenovo began selling the
Yoga 730 laptop computer (the "Class Laptops").

Within only a few months of his purchase, Plaintiff noticed a
problem that has plagued other purchasers of the Class Laptops:
during ordinary use of the machine, part or all of the monitor
display flickers, freezes, blacks out, and/or displays corrupted
visuals (e.g., a grey screen marked by vertical lines). Contrary to
Lenovo's representations, the Class Laptops are designed and
manufactured with an inherent defect that over time compromises the
monitor display (the "Defect"), impairing the computer's graphical
user interface. As a result, the user's ability to input
information into the computer and to view program output (which is
to say, the primary modes of user interaction with a computer) is
dramatically reduced. Thus, the Defect renders the computer
partially or wholly unusable. According to Plaintiff and other Flex
5 and Yoga 730 laptop owners who have experienced the Defect, the
display problems are triggered and exacerbated when the display is
opened or moved, such as when the user folds the monitor into "tent
mode" or "tablet mode."

Lenovo concealed from and/or failed to disclose to Plaintiff and
the Class the defective nature of the Class Laptops, and failed to
remove the Class Laptops from the marketplace or take adequate
action to remedy the Defect. Instead, Lenovo sold and serviced the
Class Laptops even though it knew, or was reckless in not knowing,
that the Defect impacted the display of the Class Laptops and would
ultimately result in Plaintiff's and Class members' inability to
use their Class Laptops for their intended purpose. As a result of
Lenovo's unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, misleading, and deceptive
practices, Plaintiff and other consumers have purchased Lenovo's
products under the mistaken belief that the Flex 5 and Yoga 730
laptops possessed high quality, functional monitor displays that
were capable of folding without damaging the machine. Had Plaintiff
and the Class known the facts regarding the Defect in the Class
Laptops, those facts would have been material to their and any
reasonable consumer's decisions to purchase the Class Laptops at
the price they paid for them, says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased a Flex 5 manufactured by Defendant on December
29, 2017, for $799.99.

Lenovo is a subsidiary of Lenovo Group Limited, a global Fortune
500 company and one of world's largest manufacturers and sellers of
computers, with its global headquarters located in Beijing,
China.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David A. Goodwin, Esq.
     Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
     Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 333-8844
     Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
     Email: dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
            dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
            dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
            mstevens@gustafsongluek.com

          - and -

     Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
     Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
     Erick J. Quezada, Esq.
     Migliaccio & Rathod LLP
     412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
     Washington, DC 20002
     Phone: 202-470-3520
     Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
            jrathod@classlawdc.com
            equezada@classlawdc.com

          - and -

     Kevin Landau, Esq.
     Evan Rosin, Esq.
     TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
     80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
     New York, New York 10038
     Phone: (646) 873-7654
     Fax: (212) 931-0703
     Email: klandau@tcllaw.com
            Erosin@tcllaw.com


LVNV FUNDING: Schafer Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LISA J. SCHAFER, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. HON.
JANET T. NEFF ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC, LVNV FUNDING LLC, and
RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES L.P., the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00233-JTN-ESC (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an order:

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "all persons in Michigan, whom during a time period from
      March 14, 2016, to March 14, 2017, were sent the subject
      form letter, and it was not returned, where the debt sought
      to be collected was in default for more than six years and
      no payment had been received for more than six years";

   2. certifying a subclass consisting of:

      "all persons in Michigan, whom during a time period from
      March 14, 2016, to March 14, 2017, were sent the subject
      form letter, and it was not returned, where the debt sought
      to be collected was in default for more than six years and
      no payment had been received for more than six years and
      whom either made a payment, disputed the debt or requested
      verification; and

   3. appointing herself as the class representative and
      appointing Curtis C. Warner as class counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
          5 E. Market St., Suite 250
          Corning, NY 14830
          Telephone: (888) 551-8685
          E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal

               - and -

          B. Thomas Golden, Esq.
          GOLDEN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          318 E. Main St., Ste. L, P.O. Box 9
          Lowell, MI 49331
          Telephone: (616) 897-2900
          E-mail: btg@bthomasgolden.com

MARYAM NASSIRZADEH: Violates ADA, Calcano Suit Asserts
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maryam Nassirzadeh
Corp. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Maryam
Nassirzadeh Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09724 (S.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 21, 2019).

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

Maryam Nassir Zadeh founded its eponymous brand and store in
2008.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
     Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
     100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 317-2453
     Fax: (516) 706-4692
     Email: ds@lawsolo.net


MASSAGE ENVY: Lapa's Administrative Bid Denied in Drobnis Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Maxine Chesney of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California has denied David Lapa's
Administrative Motion in the case captioned BAERBEL
McKINNEY-DROBNIS, JOSEPH B. PICCOLA, and CAMILLE BERLESE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MASSAGE ENVY FRANCHISING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
16-cv-06450-MMC. (N.D. Cal.).

Previously, on June 7, 2019, the District Court preliminarily
approved a class action settlement in the class action case, which
order sets forth the procedure for persons who fall within the
class definition to submit a claim, to object to the settlement,
and to exclude themselves from the settlement.
  
In his Administrative Motion, Lapa "requests to be excluded" and to
be afforded the right to appear at the final approval hearing to
object to the settlement.  Such proposed procedure however is
precluded by the Court's June 7 Order, and Lapa fails to identify
any cognizable basis for reconsideration of that order, Judge
Chesney states.  Moreover, as Lapa acknowledges, he has already
"timely notified the settlement administrator of his request for
exclusion" and, consequently, he lacks standing to object to the
settlement, the Judge adds.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 2, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3ea87k7 from Leagle.com

Baerbel McKinney-Drobnis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Joseph B. Piccola, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated & Camille Berlese, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Jeffrey R. Krinsk - jrk@classactionlaw.com -
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP & Trenton Ross Kashima -
trk@classactionlaw.com - Finkelstein Krink LLP.

Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, represented by Luanne Sacks - lsacks@srclaw.com
- Sacks, Ricketts & Case, LLP, Cynthia A. Ricketts
-cricketts@srclaw.com - Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP, pro hac vice,
Kahn Abrahm Scolnick -kscolnick@gibsondunn.com - Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP, Robert Brett Bader -rbader@srclaw.com - Sacks,
Ricketts & Case LLP & Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. -
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com - Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

David Lapa, Interested Party, represented by Ishan Dave -
Ishan@dereksmithlaw.com - Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC & Jack
Fitzgerald - jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com - The Law Office of Jack
Fitzgerald, PC.

Kurt Oreshack, Objector, represented by Theodore Harold Frank -
tfrank@gmail.com - Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute.


MAWKS EDELWEISS: Aniszewski Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MONICA ANISZEWSKI, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated as class representative under Illinois
Law and/or as members of the Collective as permitted under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff, vs. MAWKS EDELWEISS, LTD. et
al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07195 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a collective action and allowing an opt-in period
      of 90 days, beginning from the date of mailing/posting and
      other means of communications;

   2. directing the Defendants to produce the full names, aliases,

      addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and last date(s)
      of all potential Collective members, and

   3. approving notice of FLSA Collective; and

   4. approving transmittal of the Notice to members of the class
      via: US Mail, Posted Message at Mawks's work site, email,
      and text message.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff, Collective and Class 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
          E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com

MIYABI INC: Seow Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Restaurant Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------
KOK HAUT SEOW a/k/a Calvin Seow, JISOO KIM, and NAE KYONG YOM, on
behalf of themselves, the proposed FLSA Collective, and the
putative Rule 23 Class, the Plaintiffs, vs. MIYABI INC. d/b/a
Miyabi, LIN SUSHI INC. d/b/a Miyabi, CHER LEONG YONG a/k/a Stanley
Yong, ZHONGZI ZHEN a/k/a Nick Zhen, KEVIN YONG, and YOUYAN CHEN
a/k/a Ken Chen, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-02692 (D. Minn.,
Oct. 11, 2019), seeks damages and other relief relating to
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Minnesota Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants regularly engaged in
unlawful pay practices, including failure to pay Plaintiffs and
similarly situated employees at the minimum wage for some or all
hours worked, failure to pay overtime, and retention of tips.

The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and as
representatives on behalf of all other current and former
non-exempt sushi chefs, servers and other restaurant workers who
have been or were employed by the Defendants for up to the last
three years.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, proposed FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and proposed Class are:

          Daniel J. Cragg, Esq.
          ECKLAND & BLANDO LLP
          800 Lumber Exchange
          10 S 5th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: 612-236-0160
          E-mail: dcragg@ecklandblando.com

               - and -

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

MONTERO GROUP: Danconia Management Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANCONIA MANAGEMENT, LLC, Individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. MONTERO GROUP,
INC., MONTERO GROUP S.T., LLC, CARLOS J. MONTERO, and JOHN DOES
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06003 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019),
is brought to secure redress from the Defendants for their
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendants recently caused to be sent out thousands of
unsolicited fax advertisements for goods and/or services without
the proper opt out notice required by the TCPA and the New York
General Business Law. The Defendants are, therefore, liable to the
Plaintiff and the proposed Class of similarly situated persons
under the TCPA and GBL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a New York Domestic Limited Liability Company with
a place of business located in the County of New York, state of New
York.

Montero Group, Inc. is a New York Domestic Business Corporation
with a principal place of business located at 135-10 Horace Harding
Expressway, in Queensborough Hill, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
     14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
     Scarsdale, NY 10583
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com


NEW YORK: Court Certifies Class of DOCCS Prisoners in Shariff Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABDUL SHARIFF, DIVINE ALLAH and JAMES WEST,
Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GLENN S. GOORD, WILLIAM PHILLIPS, J. PETER GREGOIRE,
M.D., STEPHEN BERNARDI, LESTER N. WRIGHT, MPH, BRIAN S. FISHER,
ROBERT RAYMOND, JOHN H. NUTTALL, THOMAS G. EAGEN, THOMAS M. POOLE,
LAWRENCE WEINGARTNER, SHERYL ZENZEN, DANIEL WEINSTOCK, MENALLY,
WINEGARDNER, NAPOLI RITCHIE-CARTER, LAWRENCE SEARS, JOHN R. DEMARS,
GLEN CHAMPAGNE, M.D., LORI MANTORY, MICHAEL GIAMBRUNO, GERALD
ELMORE, HABIB SHIEKY, M.D., DAVE UNGER, JIM LINDSAY, SHERRY
MONTANARI, ROBINSON, R.N., JAMES CONWAY, SANDRA DOLCE, RICHARD
APPS, ROBERT ERCOLE, ROBERT CUNNINGHAM, DELORES THORNTON, FREDERICK
BERNSTEIN, TOTTEN, KAISER, ROBERT K. WOODS, MARIA B. TIRONE, EVELYN
WEISSMANN, THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,
CHARLES DEVANE, PIPPEN, R.N., and MOHRNING, Defendants, Case No.
05-CV-6504 CJS-JWF (W.D. N.Y.), Judge Charles J. Siragusa of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York granted
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class filed on March 30, 2009.

The three named Plaintiffs are New York State Department of
Correctional and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") inmates who are,
or have been, incarcerated in one or more of the correctional
facilities under DOCCS' control, and who are partially paralyzed
and need wheelchairs for mobility.  The Plaintiffs claim that
DOCCS' correctional facilities, or parts of them, are inaccessible
to them.

The Plaintiffs have moved for class certification pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  Their proposed class is
described in the complaint as follows: ". . . all individuals with
ambulatory disabilities that substantially limit one or more of
their major life activities.  The Plaintiffs, and members of the
putative class are currently incarcerated, or may become
incarcerated in the future, under the custody and control of
defendants at the Five Points, Franklin, Wyoming, Orleans, Attica,
Green Haven and Upstate Correctional Facilities."

After reviewing the third amended complaint and the memoranda of
law, Judge Siragusa concludes that the Plaintiffs have met the
criteria for class certification under Rule 23.  Furthermore, he is
not persuaded that the limitations expressed by the Defendants,
with the exception of limiting the class to declaratory and
injunctive relief, are necessary.  

Judge Siragusa certified the following class: The Plaintiffs and
all prisoners in the custody of the New York State Department of
Correctional and Community Supervision who suffer from a mobility
disability limiting one or more of the prisoner's major life
activities and that requires the use of a wheelchair.

The Judge finds no basis at this juncture to limit the class to
only the facilities alleged in the complaint.  

Accordingly, Judge Siragusa granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 4, 2019 Decision & Order is
available at https://is.gd/VthpPI from Leagle.com.

Abdul Shariff, Divine Allah & James West, Individually And On
Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly, Situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by David L. Cook, LeClairRyan & Jared Kimball Cook --
jcook@adamsleclair.law -- Adams Bell Adams, P.C.

Glenn S. Goord, William Phillips, J. Peter Gregoire, M.D., Stephen
Bernardi, Lester N. Wright, MPH, Brian S. Fischer, Robert Raymond,
John H. Nuttall, Thomas G. Eagen, Thomas M. Poole, Lawrence
Weingartner, Sheryl Zenzen, Daniel Weinstock, Winegardner, Napoli,
Ritchie-Carter, Lawrence Sears, John R. Demars, Glen Champagne,
M.D., Lori Mantory, Michael Giambruno, Gerald Elmore, Habib Shieky,
M.D., Dave Unger, Jim Lindsay, Sherry Montanari, Robinson, R.N.,
James Conway, Sandra Dolce, Richard Apps, Robert Ercole, Robert
Cunningham, Delores Thornton, Frederick Bernstein, Totten, Kaiser,
Robert K. Woods, Maria B. Tirone, Evelyn Weissman, the New York
State Department of Correctional Services, Charles Devane, Pippen,
R.N. & Mohrning, Defendants, represented by Gary M. Levine, New
York State Office of the Attorney General.


NEWPORT RIB: Wheeler Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS WHEELER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NEWPORT RIB COMPANY, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-08777 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 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.

On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff received a spam or solicitation text
message from Defendant. The Plaintiff did not provide Defendant or
its agents with prior express consent to receive unsolicited text
messages.

Mr. Wheeler seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently contacting Plaintiff
on his cellular telephone, thereby invading his privacy.

Newport Rib Company operates restaurants, with locations in Long
Beach and Costa Mesa offerring catering services, banquet services
and takeout dining.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Steven S. Soliman, Esq.
          THE SOLIMAN FIRM
          245 Fischer Avenue, Ste. D-1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: 714-491-4111
          Facsimile: 714-491-4111
          E-mail: ssoliman@thesolimanfirm.com

NORTHWOOD ASSET: Warner Sues over Debt Collections Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Warner individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Northwood Asset Management Group LLC
and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04691-RBS
(E.D. Pa., Oct. 9, 2019), seeks damages and declaratory relief
under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

On or about February 20, 2019, Northwood sent Plaintiff an initial
contact notice.

The lawsuit contends that the Letter does not meet the required
requirements of the FDCPA, as interpreted by the Third Circuit,
because it falsely omitted the requirement of the '"G Notice" in
the first sentence by leaving out the requirement that a consumer
must dispute in writing.

In omitting the writing requirement, Defendants falsely
communicated the consumer's requirements under the FDCPA.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
County of Philadelphia.

Northwood is a debt collector.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Antranig Garibian, Esq.
          GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES PA
          1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 326-9179
          E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com

PACIFIC MARITIME: Ross FLSA Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as MARLENA ROSS, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC
MARITIME ASSOCIATION (PMA); SEATTLE JOINT PORT LABOR RELATIONS
COMMITTEE (JPLRC); and SSA TERMINALS, LLC, Defendants, and
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION (ILWU) LOCAL 19,
Intervenor-Defendant, Case No. 18-2-20277-9 SEA, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of Washington, in and for the
County of King, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington on Oct. 18, 2019.

The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-01676 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Thomas S. Zilly.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The
Plaintiff alleges claims for sex discrimination, pregnancy
discrimination, and hostile work environment against the
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Washington. She has
performed work for PMA and been employed by the Defendant in the
state of Washington as a longshore worker since 2006.

PMA is a foreign association of shipping and warehouse companies
incorporated in the State of California and operating in the ports
of the State of Washington, including the ports of Tacoma and
Seattle. The Defendant's Washington state registered agent is
located in Thurston County. The Defendant employs longshore workers
on behalf of its members, shipping and warehouse companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Breskin, Esq.
          Cynthia J. Heidelberg, Esq.
          Chiedza Nziramasanga, Esq.
          BRESKIN JOHNSON TOWNSEND, PLLC
          1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 652-8660


PAULA COOPER: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paula Cooper Fine Art
LLC. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Paula Cooper Fine Art LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09705 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2019).

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

Paula Cooper Fine Art LLC is an art gallery in New York City
founded in 1968 featuring Minimalist and Conceptual works by
artists.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
     The Marks Law Firm PC
     175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
     New York, NY 10014
     Phone: (646) 770-3775
     Fax: (646) 867-2639
     Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com



PAYCOM SOFTWARE: Rosetta Seeks OT Wages for Sales Professionals
---------------------------------------------------------------
CAMERON ROSETTA, on behalf of himself and all others similar
situated, Plaintiff v. PAYCOM SOFTWARE, INC. and PAYCOM PAYROLL,
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-08994 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 18,
2019), seeks for damages, restitution, disgorgement, penalties,
declaratory judgment, an injunction, and other appropriate relief
under the California Labor Code.

Mr. Rosetta alleges that Paycom treats its California-based "sales
professionals" as exempt from California's overtime laws although
they are not. He adds that Paycom's other employment practices
violate numerous provisions of California statutory, common, and
constitutional law.

Paycom requires all Sales Professionals to attend an intensive
eight-week training program. This training program includes
instruction in accounting, business metrics, application features,
and tax matters relevant to Paycom's actual or potential customers.
Time spent on the training program during this eight-week period is
at least four hours each day, four days a week. When not engaged in
the training program during this eight-week period, Sales
Professionals spend the remainder of their time engaged in cold
calling and office work. They rarely, if at all, leave their sales
or home offices for the purpose of engaging in outside sales.

During the eight-week training program, Sales Professionals work
daily and weekly overtime. They typically start the day between
7:00 and 8:00 a.m., and end the day after 6:00 p.m. Sales
Professionals are not paid overtime during this eight-week training
period, the Plaintiff asserts.

Paycom focuses on selling its products and services to clients with
between 50-50000 employees. It seeks to increase its client base
within existing and additional markets through centralized and
aggressive sales efforts. Paycom has multiple sales offices that
are typically staffed with one sales team, with each team comprised
of a sales manager and pproximately six to eight "Sales
Professionals." These Sales Professionals work in inside sales,
field sales, and as client relations representatives.

From December 2018 through April 2019, Plaintiff Cameron Rosetta
worked as a Sales Professional for Paycom in Los Angeles,
California. Paycom was the Plaintiff's second job out of college.
The Plaintiff's work, job duties, and terms and conditions of
employment were similar to all other Sales Professionals.

Paycom Software, Inc. is a publicly-traded human resources company
headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. It provides recruiting,
payroll, human resources, and talent management services to other
companies. Among other things, Paycom provides a "human capital
management" solution for "Managing Employees from Recruitment to
Retirement." As of December 31, 2018, Paycom Software, Inc. had at
least 3,050 employees across the United States, including the
Plaintiff. Paycom Payroll, LLC is a direct or indirect subsidiary
of Paycom Software.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris Baker, Esq.
          Michael Curtis, Esq.
          BAKER CURTIS & SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          California Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-1064
          Facsimile: (415) 366-2525
          E-mail: cbaker@bakerlp.com
                  mcurtis@.bakerlp.com


PENN CREDIT: Guidry Suit Transferred to Middle District of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
TERRANCE GUIDRY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PENN CREDIT CORPORATION, the
Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-00997 (Filed July 31, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
for Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida (Orlando) on Oct. 10, 2019. The Middle District of
Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:19-cv-01936-CEM-LRH to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Carlos E.
Mendoza.

The Plaintiff brings the class action for damages and other
equitable and legal remedies resulting from the unlawful conduct of
Defendant in negligently or knowingly and/or willfully placing
calls to the cellular telephones belonging to Plaintiff and
putative Class Members for non-emergency purposes, using an
automatic telephone-dialing system without their prior express
consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Penn Credit is a nationwide accounts receivables management
firm.[BN]

Attorneys  for the Plaintiff are:

          Rene Fernandez Rocha, Esq.
          John Allen Yanchunis, Esq.
          Jonathan Betten Cohen, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          909 Poydras St Ste 1625
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (305) 989-8688
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  jcohen@forthepeople.com
                  rrocha@forthepeople.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Blake Edward Oakes, Esq.
          OAKES LAW FIRM
          110 Veterans Blvd ste 560
          Metairie, LA 70005
          Telephone: (504) 367-3479

PETISCO BRAZUCA: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Petisco Brazuca LLC.
The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Petisco Brazuca LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09725 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2019).

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

Petisco Brazuca is the first Brazilian snack shop in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
     Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
     100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 317-2453
     Fax: (516) 706-4692
     Email: ds@lawsolo.net


PICTURE THIS: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Picture This
Publication, Inc. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Picture This
Publication, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09704 (S.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 21, 2019).

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

Picture This Publications is a small fine art and photography
publishing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
     The Marks Law Firm PC
     175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
     New York, NY 10014
     Phone: (646) 770-3775
     Fax: (646) 867-2639
     Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com



POST CONSUMER: Court Rejects Reconsideration of Lima Consumer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued a Memorandum and Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration in the case captioned ANITA S. LIMA and SUSAN
WRUBLEWSKI, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. POST CONSUMER BRANDS, LLC, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-12100-ADB, (D. Mass.)

Anita S. Lima and Susan Wrublewski brought a putative class action
against Defendant Post Consumer Brands, LLC, alleging that Post's
advertising and packaging of its Honey Bunches of Oats cereal was
deceptive. Plaintiffs claimed that Post violated state consumer
protection laws and unjustly enriched itself by creating the false
impression that Honey Bunches of Oats was primarily sweetened with
honey.  

On Aug. 13, 2019, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the Court's August 2019 Order
granting Post's motion to dismiss.  Plaintiffs claimed that the
Court committed errors of law in its dismissal of both Plaintiffs'
consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims.  

In the case, the Court did not consider the factual matter of
whether Plaintiffs were misled by Post's packaging and marketing,
which is a jury issue. The Court appropriately considered, however,
whether the complaint's allegations made it plausible that, on a
full factual record, a factfinder could reasonably regard the label
as having the capacity to mislead. The Court analyzed whether the
packaging could be understood as misleading both under 21 C.F.R.
Section 101.22, which provides requirements for identifying food's
primary recognizable flavors and 21 C.F.R. Section 101.18, which
provides guidance on misbranding of food, such as when packaging
references an ingredient that the food does not contain. Because
Honey Bunches of Oats contains honey, the Court found that under
those relevant regulations, the packaging was not objectively
misleading as a matter of law.  

Similarly, Plaintiffs argue that the Court should not have
determined whether Post's branding and marketing unambiguously
conveyed the message that honey was the primary sweetener, and
should have instead relied on Plaintiffs' allegation that Post's
labeling conveyed the unambiguous message that honey was the
primary sweetener.

The Court adds that it made legal determinations concerning the
sufficiency of Plaintiffs' pleading. Whether the Plaintiffs were
misled by the allegedly ambiguous packaging is a question of fact.
Whether that packaging was ambiguous is a question of law. Though
whether the label had the capacity to mislead customers, acting
reasonably under the circumstances" is one of fact, the Court must
still define the boundaries and determine the point at which a
juror could reasonably find only one way. The Court determined
that, because Honey Bunches of Oats does actually contain honey,
its use of imaging and branding was permissible under the
regulations discussed, so long as the packaging did not make any
misleading reference to the amount of honey or use of honey as a
sweetener.  

Therefore, Plaintiffs would need to demonstrate why a reasonable
consumer could be led to believe that Honey Bunches of Oats not
only contained honey, but used honey as the primary sweetener, the
Court states.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs request for reconsideration of its
dismissed consumer protection claims is therefore DENIED, the Court
rules.

The Court further maintained that it was explicit in its analysis
of the use of the Honey Bunches of Oats brand name and the imagery
on the packaging to determine whether Post made an express
warranty. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the Court's
analysis depended on a misinterpretation of law. Their motion to
reconsider their express warranty claims is therefore DENIED, the
Court rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 2, 2019 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ru3m98 from
Leagle.com

Anita S. Lima, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated & Susan Wrublewski, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Carlos F. Ramirez -
cramirez@reesellp.com - Reese LLP, pro hac vice, Kenneth D. Quat ,
Quat Law Offices,  929 Worcester Road, Framingham, MA 01701 &
Michael R. Reese - mreese@reesellp.com - Reese LLP, pro hac vice.

Post Consumer Brands, LLC, Defendant, represented by Aaron D.
VanOort -aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com - Faegre & Benson LLP,
Christine R.M. Kain -christine.kain@FaegreBD.com - Faegre Baker
Daniels, LLP, pro hac vice, Emily R. Zambrana
-emily.zambrana@faegrebd.com - Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP, pro hac
vice, Kara G. Thorvaldsen - kara.thorvaldsen@wilsonelser.com -
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, Sarah L. Brew -
sarah.brew@FaegreBD.com - Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP, pro hac vice &
Tyler A. Young -tyler.young@FaegreBD.com - Faegre Baker Daniels.


PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL: Faces Sorwar Case in District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Medical
Management, Inc. The case is captioned as RAYHAN SORWAR on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, INC., doing business as: FINANCIAL
RECOVERIES, and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-18821-RMB-AMD (D.N.J., Oct. 8, 2019). The suit alleges
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Renee Marie Bumb.

Professional Medical Management,Inc. is the oldest and largest
medical practice management company in southern Arizona.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          280 Prospect Ave. 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 803-6611
          Facsimile: (866) 596-4973
          E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com

PROGRESSIVE COUNTY: Denial of Remand Bid in Lopez Suit Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case RICHARD LOPEZ, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED; AND GLORIA LOPEZ, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; Plaintiffs, v. PROGRESSIVE COUNTY
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APRIL HAGER, Defendants, Case No.
SA-19-CV-00380-FB. (W.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Chestney
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San
Antonio Division, recommended that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand
be denied.

Plaintiffs Richard Lopez and Gloria Lopez did not originally file
the suit as a class action.  Their Original Petition against the
Defendants alleged individual claims for violations of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud. Plaintiffs amended their
Petition twice prior to removal. It was in Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Petition that Plaintiffs first raised class action
allegations seeking recovery on behalf of other individuals.
Progressive promptly removed Plaintiffs' Second Amended Petition
under CAFA to the Western District of Texas, and Plaintiffs filed
an Amended Complaint.

By their class action, Plaintiffs, who are insureds of Progressive,
seek to recover damages for the allegedly unlawful assertion by
Defendants of a right to reimbursement based on a purported
subrogation lien under the auto insurance contracts between
Progressive and Plaintiffs.

By their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs maintain that Defendants do
not have a contractual right of reimbursement to payments made
directly to health-care providers, as opposed to payments made
directly to Plaintiffs as the insureds.

Plaintiffs now sought for a remand of the action to state court,
arguing that their case must be remanded under the
local-controversy and home-state exceptions to CAFA.  Defendants
have moved to strike a portion of Plaintiffs' reply or for leave to
file a sur-reply, arguing that Plaintiffs raised an entirely new
basis for remand in their reply brief - the
discretionary-jurisdiction exception to CAFA.

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendants'
Motion to Strike.  The Judge state that Plaintiff has not filed a
reply within the time given. Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(e), if
there is no response filed within the time period prescribed by the
rules, the court may grant the motion as unopposed.

As to the Motion to Remand, Plaintiffs argue that the
local-controversy and home-state exceptions set forth in CAFA,
which are mandatory, apply and the District Court therefore must
decline jurisdiction and remand Plaintiffs' case to state court.

Defendants oppose remand on three bases: (1) Plaintiffs'
post-removal conduct in filing an Amended Complaint waived their
right to object to CAFA jurisdiction; (2) Plaintiffs' proposed
class, which is not limited to Texas residents or even Progressive
insureds, is too expansive to satisfy the "greater than two-thirds"
and "two-thirds or more" local-citizenship requirements of either
exception; and (3) the fact that Plaintiffs named Hager, a Florida
citizen, as a Defendant prevents them from satisfying the
home-state exception's requirement that the "primary defendants"
are citizens of Texas.

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand.  The Judge relates that even if the Court were to
find that Plaintiffs did not waive their right to move for remand
by filing their Amended Complaint after removal, Plaintiffs cannot
prevail on their motion because they have not proven by a
preponderance of the evidence that the proposed class is comprised
of "greater than two thirds" or "two-thirds or more" of Texas
citizens. The Magistrate Judge declines to address Defendants'
third argument in opposition of remand regarding whether or not
Hager is a primary defendant, whose Florida citizenship prevents
the application of the home-state exception here.

A full-text copy of the Magistrate Judge's October 2, 2019 Report
and Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxl9aeql
from Leagle.com

Richard Lopez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated & Gloria Lopez, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by John R. Fabry -
JFabry@carlsonattorneys.com - The Carlson Law Firm, P.C. & Stephen
Saunders Dummitt , The Carlson Law Firm, PC, 1717 N. I-35 Suite
305, Round Rock, TX 78664

Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented
by Alexander P. Fuchs - alexfuchs@eversheds-sutherland.com -
Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, pro hac vice, Ian Scott Shelton  -
IanShelton@eversheds-sutherland.com - Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
& Kymberly Kochis  - kymberlykochis@eversheds-sutherland.com -
Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, pro hac vice.
April Hager, Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Peterson -
greg@ljglaw.com - Goldman & Peterson, PLLC & Larry J. Goldman –
larry@ljglaw.com -  Goldman & Peterson PLLC.


R&M PACIFIC: Lopez Seeks OT and Missed Meal Premiums for Cashiers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHANN M. LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. R&M PACIFIC RIM, INC., a California
corporation; FREDERICK KIM, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2013-01107374-CU-OE-CXC (Cal.
Super., Orange Cty., Oct. 25, 2019), seeks to recover for
non-exempt employees, including cashiers, premium compensation for
unpaid overtime and missed meal and rest periods under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants did not pay the
Plaintiff and Class Members all overtime premium owed; did not
provide off-duty, timely meal and rest periods or compensation; did
not provide accurate wage statements; and did not provide all wages
due and owing upon employees' separation from their employment in a
timely manner.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was employed by the
Defendants as a non-exempt cashier at one of their gas station and
retail convenience stores.

R&M PACIFIC RIM, INC. is a registered California Corporation in the
business of operating gas stations and retail convenience stores in
the State of California.  The Company is headquartered in La
Mirada, within the County of Los Angeles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin R. Allen, Esq.
     ALLEN ATTORNEY GROUP
     2121 N. California Blvd, Suite 290
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Phone: 925.695.4913
     Fax: 925.334.7477
     Email: kevin@allenattorneygroup.com

          - and -

     Joshua Park, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA PARK
     2372 Morse Ave., Suite 150
     Irvine, CA 92614
     Phone: 714.202.6861
     Fax: 714.475.3594
     Email: jpark@joshuaparklaw.com


RAINBOW USA: Faces Kelley TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
DARLENE KELLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RAINBOW USA INC., a New York Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06004 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019), seeks
to secure redress from the Defendant's violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, the
Plaintiff avers. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which
has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation,
and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and a resident of Jefferson
County, Alabama.

The Defendant is a retail apparel chain that sells primarily
women's clothing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
     MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
     701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
     Asbury Park, NJ 07712
     Phone: (732) 695-3282
     Fax: (732) 298-6256
     Email: Ari@MarcusZelman.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

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


RCS RECOVERY: Wade Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RCS Recovery
Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Anthony Wade on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RCS
Recovery Services, LLC, Brian Dawson doing business as: Dawson &
Ozanne, Attorneys at Law, Brendan Ozanne doing business as: Dawson
& Ozanne, Attorneys at Law, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-02016-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal., Oct. 21, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

RCS Recovery Services, LLC is a debt collection agency doing
business in Deerfield Beach, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     L. Paul Mankin, Esq.
     The Law Offices of L. Paul Mankin IV
     4655 Cass Street, Ste. 410
     San Diego, CA 92109
     Phone: (800) 219-3577
     Fax: (323) 207-3885
     Email: pmankin@paulmankin.com


REP PROCESSING: Robertson Seeks OT Wages for Welding Inspectors
---------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARIAH ROBERTSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plantiff, vs. REP PROCESSING, LLC d/b/a
RIMROCK ENERGY PARTNERS, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02910 (D.
Colo., Oct. 11, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Robertson and the other workers like him regularly worked for
Rimrock in excess of 40 hours each week. But these workers never
received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
single workweek.

Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Rimrock paid
these workers a daily rate with no overtime pay, the lawsuit says.


Robertson has been performing work for Rimrock as a welding
inspector from approximately March 2019 through the present.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

RITE AID: Labeling on Praline Pecans Is Deceptive, Henderson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Henderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Rite Aid Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-09870 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019), seeks remedies under
consumer protection statutes relating to the deceptive labeling on
the Defendant's praline pecans products.

Rite Aid Corporation manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells pecan halves with sweet and salty coating under their
Dreamhouse Fine Foods brand ("Products").

The Products' front labels state "Gourmet Praline Pecans," "made
with pecan halves and a sweet and salty glaze." The Products'
ingredient list states: INGREDIENTS: PECANS, EVAPORATED CANE JUICE,
WATER, SEA SALT. "Evaporated cane juice," according to the FDA,
"suggests that the ingredients are made from or contain fruit or
vegetable "juice." By declaring the ingredient commonly known as
"evaporated cane juice," the Plaintiff and consumers receive the
impression that the "sweet glaze" is an actual juice in which the
Products are coated. This results in the impression that the
Products are a better nutritional choice than other comparable
products which truthfully and non-deceptively identify "sugar" as
their second most predominant ingredient. "Evaporated cane juice"
does not describe the basic nature of the food because it is not a
type of "juice."

The Product's deceptive labeling is especially egregious because
the Defendant is at its core a pharmacy--it dispenses medication to
cure and treat ailments and maladies, the Plaintiff contends. The
Plaintiff asserts that no reasonable consumer would expect that a
store, which provides prescription medications would disregard its
responsibility to accurately and adequately identify the
ingredients in its Products.

The misleading terms used on the Products have a material bearing
on price or consumer acceptance of the Products because they will
pay more for products with positive qualities, of which real juice
has many nutrients, naturally occurring sugar and vitamins. Had the
Plaintiff and class members known the truth about the Products,
they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for
it, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAHADI FINE: Violates ADA, Calcano Suit Asserts
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sahadi Fine Foods
Inc. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sahadi Fine
Foods Inc., Sahadi Importing Co., Inc., Sahadi's LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09726-AJN (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2019).

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

Sahadi Fine Foods Inc. is a privately held company in Brooklyn, NY
and is a Single Location business, categorized under Nuts: Dried,
Dehydrated, Salted or Roasted.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
     Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
     100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 317-2453
     Fax: (516) 706-4692
     Email: ds@lawsolo.net


SAN DIEGO, CA: Class Cert. Bid in Bloom Suit Due Jan. 20
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MICHAEL BLOOM, et al.,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, the Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-02324-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Defendant moves the
Court for an order granting a 30-day extension on the Class
Discovery Cut-Off Date and Class Certification motion filing
deadline.

Accordingly, the Parties agreed that the new Class Discovery
Cut-Off Date should be December 22, 2019, and the Class
Certification motion filing deadline should be January 20,
2020.[CC]

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Mara W. Elliott, Esq.
          George F. Schaefer, Esq.
          Marni Von Wilpert, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
          1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1100
          San Diego, CA 92101-4100
          Telephone: (619) 533-5800
          Facsimile: (619) 533-5856
          E-mail: MVonWilpert@sandiego.gov

SANDPIPER OF CALIFORNIA: Court Narrows Claims on False Advertising
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Jacksonville Division issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in the case
captioned ADVANTUS, CORP., Plaintiff, v. SANDPIPER OF CALIFORNIA,
INC., n/k/a DBJ Enterprises, Inc., PIPERGEAR USA, INC., and
INNOVAPRO CORPORATION, Defendants. Case No. 3:18-cv-1368-J-34JRK.
(M.D. Fla.)

Defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal.

The claims Advantus asserts in this action arise out of Defendants'
alleged false advertising that their products were manufactured in
the United States of America. According to Advantus, beginning in
at least 2013, Sandpiper and PiperGear began advertising that their
products were made in the USA.

Defendants argue that dismissal is warranted because this Court
lacks personal jurisdiction over them.  Innovapro also moves to
dismiss the Complaint for improper venue and pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), for failure
to state a claim.

Standard of Review

In ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the
Court must accept the factual allegations set forth in the
complaint as true. In addition, all reasonable inferences should be
drawn in favor of the plaintiff. Nonetheless, the plaintiff must
still meet some minimal pleading requirements. Indeed, while
specific facts are not necessary, the complaint should give the
defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.

Further, the plaintiff must allege enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.

Personal Jurisdiction

Applicable Law

A federal district court in Florida may exercise personal
jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to the same extent that a
Florida court may, so long as the exercise is consistent with
federal due process requirements.

Florida's Long-Arm Statute

Florida's long-arm statute provides in pertinent part:

(1)(a) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this
state, who personally or through an agent does any of the acts
enumerated in this subsection thereby submits himself or herself
and, if he or she is a natural person, his or her personal
representative to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for
any cause of action arising from the doing of any of the following
acts:

1. Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or
business venture in this state or having an office or agency in
this state. 2. Committing a tortious act within this state.

Constitutional Due Process

In Licciardello, F.3d at 630-31 (11th Cir. 1996), the Eleventh
Circuit explained that:
the Constitution prohibits the exercise of personal jurisdiction
over a nonresident defendant unless his contact with the state is
such that he has fair warning that he may be subject to suit there.
This fair warning requirement is satisfied if the defendant has
purposefully directed his activities at residents of the forum, and
the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or
relate to those activities. In this way, the defendant could have
reasonably anticipated being sued in the forum's courts in
connection with his activities there.

Sandpiper

Advantus brings five claims against Sandpiper. Counts I-III are all
premised on the same conduct that Sandpiper falsely represented on
its website, in catalogs, on social media, and directly to
consumers and retailers that its products were made in the United
States. Based on these allegations, Advantus brings claims for
false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
1125(a)(1)(B) (Count I) and Florida state law, Fla. Stat. Section
817.41 (Count II), as well as a claim for violating the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Fla. Stat.
Section 501.201 et seq. (Count III).

In addition, Advantus alleges that Sandpiper formed a civil
conspiracy (Count IV) with Innovapro and PiperGear to import
products and engage in this false advertising. Last, Advantus
asserts that Sandpiper's sale of its assets to Innovapro violated
the California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, Cal Civ. Code
Section 3439 (Count V).  

Long-Arm Statute

Advantus contends that the Florida long-arm statute permits the
exercise of personal jurisdiction over Sandpiper because Sandpiper
was carrying on a business in Florida, and committed a tortious act
in this state.  

Sandpiper disagrees, maintaining that these contacts are
insufficient to establish that it was carrying on a business in
Florida because the merchandisers in Florida engaged in only a very
basic, minimal level of work.  

Upon review, the Court finds that Sandpiper was conducting business
in Florida sufficient to satisfy section 48.193(1)(a)(1.). It is
undisputed that Sandpiper had at least one salaried employee and
three merchandising representatives who lived in Florida and
provided services on Sandpiper's behalf in Florida. These employees
visited stores in Florida to stock Sandpiper products and
facilitate the sale of Sandpiper goods to Florida consumers. The
employees also engaged with store managers to promote the sale of
Sandpiper products and solicit additional sales of Sandpiper
products to the store.   

Indeed, Sandpiper fails to cite any authority to suggest that a
business with actual employees located in Florida, who work on
behalf of that business as to Florida customers, is nevertheless
not conducting business in Florida merely because it conducts more
business elsewhere.

In light of the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that Advantus has
shown that Sandpiper engaged in a general course of business
activity in Florida for Sandpiper's pecuniary benefit. Because the
Court finds that Advantus has carried its burden of showing that
Sandpiper's activities satisfied section 48.193(1)(a)(1.) with
respect to Counts I-IV, the Court need not consider whether
Sandpiper committed a tortious act in Florida within the meaning of
section 48.193(1)(a)(2.) as to those claims.

However, in addition to the false advertising and conspiracy
claims, Advantus also brings a claim against Sandpiper under the
California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act. Although Sandpiper
seeks dismissal of all counts, neither Sandpiper nor Advantus
address the issue of personal jurisdiction as to this claim
specifically. Upon review, the Court finds that Florida's long-arm
statute does not extend jurisdiction over this state law voidable
transaction claim. First, under Florida law, a claim seeking to
void a fraudulent transfer is not an independent tort upon which
long-arm jurisdiction can be premised. Second, while the Court
finds that Sandpiper was carrying on a business in Florida,
Advantus' California state law voidable transaction claim does not
arise from those activities.  

Thus, because Advantus has not shown any nexus between the alleged
voidable transaction in California and Sandpiper's business
activities in Florida, the Court finds no basis to exercise
long-arm jurisdiction over Sandpiper with respect to Count V.

Innovapro

With respect to Counts I-III, Advantus contends that the Court may
exercise personal jurisdiction over Innovapro on two theories.
First, Advantus contends that personal jurisdiction is proper
because Innovapro is subject to successor liability for Sandpiper's
tortious activity.  

In addition, Advantus argues that Innovapro is directly liable for
continuing to engage in false advertising after the asset purchase,
and this conduct subjects Innovapro to personal jurisdiction in
Florida.  

Advantus also brings a claim against Innovapro for civil conspiracy
(Count IV). According to Advantus, Innovapro imported goods from
China to facilitate Sandpiper and PiperGear's false claims that
their various goods and products were Made in the USA. The
conspiracy culminated in Innovapro's purchase of Sandpiper's assets
following the FTC investigation.  

Last, Advantus alleges that Innovapro's purchase of Sandpiper's
assets violated California state law under the Uniform Voidable
Transactions Act (Count V). Advantus fails to directly address the
basis for personal jurisdiction over Innovapro as to Counts IV and
V in its Response.  

Direct Liability — Counts I-III

As to Counts I-III of the Complaint, Advantus contends that this
Court has personal jurisdiction over Innovapro for its continued
misrepresentations about the manufacture of Sandpiper products
after it purchased the Sandpiper brand. Advantus contends that
because Innovapro distributed false representations in Florida and
maintained Sandpiper's Florida contacts, the Court may exercise
personal jurisdiction over Innovapro as to these direct claims.  

In Count I of the Complaint, Advantus alleges a claim for false
advertising under the Lanham Act. A plaintiff must allege the
following elements to state a false advertising claim under Section
43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act:

(1) the advertisements of the opposing party were false or
misleading (2) the advertisements deceived or had the capacity to
deceive, consumers (3) the deception had a material effect on
purchasing decisions (4) the misrepresented product or service
affects interstate commerce and (5) the movant has been or is
likely to be injured as a result of the false advertising.

The Court is satisfied that Advantus has pled a prima facie case of
false advertising under the Lanham Act based on allegations that
after Innovapro purchased Sandpiper's assets: the Sandpiper website
and social media pages continued to represent that Sandpiper was
affiliated with PiperGear which manufactured products that were
made in the USA and/or Berry Amendment compliant, such
advertisements were false because Innovapro's products were not
made in the United States, these advertisements had a tendency to
deceive consumers who believed they were purchasing goods made in
the United States, the representations concerning the origin of the
products were material in that they likely influenced purchasing
decisions, the products and advertisements were distributed
nationwide and Advantus, as a direct competitor, was damaged by
these false advertisements.
Conspiracy — Count IV

Next, Advantus alleges that Innovapro participated in a conspiracy
with Sandpiper and PiperGear. The conspiracy pertains to different
conduct than that supporting Advantus' claims for direct liability,
as it covers Innovapro's conduct as an importer of Sandpiper's
goods and then purchaser of its asset.
Significantly, Innovapro's conduct in support of the conspiracy
occurred entirely in California. Nevertheless, the Florida long-arm
statute can support personal jurisdiction over any alleged
conspirator where any other co-conspirator commits an act in
Florida in furtherance of the conspiracy, even if the defendant
over whom personal jurisdiction is sought individually committed no
act in, or had no relevant contact with, Florida.

In its Response to the Motion, Advantus does not cite to any
evidence to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over
Innovapro based on its participation in the alleged conspiracy.
Indeed, Advantus does not specifically address whether the Court
may exercise personal jurisdiction over the conspiracy claim as to
Innovapro.

As stated above, Advantus, as the plaintiff, bears the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over
Innovapro. Advantus' allegations of conspiracy are largely
conclusory, and to the extent Advantus does plead specific facts in
support of its conspiracy claim, Innovapro has come forward with
evidence rebutting those allegations. As such, the burden shifted
back to Advantus to present sufficient evidence of personal
jurisdiction to withstand a motion for directed verdict. Upon
consideration of the evidence presented, even viewing the
inferences in favor of Advantus, the Court finds that Advantus
fails to meet its burden.
The Court emphasizes that this is not a finding on the merits, as
Advantus has not had a full opportunity to conduct discovery at
this stage of the proceedings. Indeed, Advantus is free to pursue
its conspiracy claim in a court with personal jurisdiction over
Innovapro. Nonetheless, absent evidence sufficient to raise a
material issue of fact on this issue, Advantus has failed to carry
its burden of establishing that this Court has personal
jurisdiction over Innovapro as to the alleged conspiracy claim.

Voidable Transaction — Count V

For the same reasons stated above as to Sandpiper, the Court finds
that the Florida long-arm statute does not extend so far as to
provide personal jurisdiction over the voidable transaction claim.
A claim to void a transfer of assets is not a tort within the
meaning of the long-arm statute, and even to the extent Innovapro
has conducted some business activities in Florida, the purported
voidable transaction did not arise out of those contacts.

PiperGear

In the Complaint, Advantus alleges that Sandpiper and PiperGear
jointly engaged in false advertising. In addition, Advantus asserts
that Sandpiper, PiperGear, and Innovapro operated as a common
enterprise, and Advantus names PiperGear in the civil conspiracy
claim set forth in Count IV.

PiperGear moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
arguing that PiperGear does not conduct business in Florida, does
not have an office, agent, or property in Florida, does not
advertise or solicit business in Florida; and does not nor, create,
control, or employ the distribution system that brings their
products into Florida.

Advantus responds that PiperGear is subject to personal
jurisdiction in this Court based solely on its contention that
PiperGear engaged in a conspiracy with Sandpiper and Innovapro.  

PiperGear does not present any evidence refuting Advantus'
allegations supporting its claim that the companies formed a
conspiracy to engage in false advertising. In his Declaration on
behalf of PiperGear, Jacobs asserts that PiperGear has no influence
or right regarding where the products manufactured by PiperGear on
behalf of other companies] are then taken or delivered to be sold
and that PiperGear has no knowledge, influence, or right regarding
the location, identity, or other characteristics of the final end
user of the products.

However, Jacobs does not refute the contention that PiperGear was
involved in the allegedly false or misleading advertising and
promotion of Sandpiper products as being manufactured in the USA.
Indeed, Sandpiper's pervasive use of PiperGear's name and
trademarks supports the inference of an agreement between Sandpiper
and PiperGear to engage in the allegedly false advertising.

Accordingly, at this stage of the proceedings, the Court finds that
Advantus has satisfied its burden of presenting evidence of a
conspiracy between Sandpiper and PiperGear.  

Accordingly, not prejudging the ultimate merit of Advantus' claim,
the Court finds Advantus has met its burden of establishing
personal jurisdiction over PiperGear as a co-conspirator with
Sandpiper.

Defendant PiperGear USA, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss and Defendant
Sandpiper of California, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss are GRANTED, in
part, and DENIED, in part. Defendant Innovapro Corporation's Motion
to Dismiss is GRANTED.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s September 30, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3k88gxe  from Leagle.com

Advantus, Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Alan S. Wachs -
awachs@sgrlaw.com - Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP & Richard Dean
Rivera - rrivera@sgrlaw.com - Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP.
Sandpiper of California, Inc., now known as DBJ Enterprises, Inc. &
PiperGear USA, Inc., Defendants, represented by John A. Carlisle -
jcarlisle@lilesgavin.com - The Liles Firm, P.A. & Rutledge
Richardson Liles - rliles@lilesgavin.com - The Liles Firm, P.A.

Innovapro Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amy Lynn Judkins
– ajudkins@deanmead.com - Dean, Mead, Egerton, Bloodworth,
Capouano & Bozarth, PA & Michael J. Furbush - mfurbush@deanmead.com
- Dean, Mead, Egerton, Bloodworth, Capouano & Bozarth, PA.


SANTA MONICA: 9th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Rosenblatt Rental Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned ARLENE
ROSENBLATT, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, a
municipal corporation; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA, a governing body, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-55879,
(9th Cir.).

Santa Monica resident Arlene Rosenblatt used to rent out her house
on Airbnb when she and her husband went on vacation. Santa Monica
passed an ordinance prohibiting property rentals of 30 days or less
(vacation rentals) with an exception for rentals where a primary
resident remained in the dwelling (home sharing). Rosenblatt
brought a putative class action against the city of Santa Monica
and Santa Monica's City Council (Santa Monica), arguing that the
ordinance violated the dormant Commerce Clause. Rosenblatt
contended that the ordinance directly and indirectly regulated and
burdened interstate commerce.

The district court dismissed the amended complaint without leave to
amend, concluding that Rosenblatt failed to allege a Commerce
Clause violation as a matter of law.

Plaintiffs appealed.

On review, the Ninth Circuit finds that the Complaint does not
allege per se violation of the dormant Commerce Clause.

The Ninth Circuit notes that Santa Monica's ordinance does not
directly regulate interstate commerce by prohibiting vacation
rentals for Santa Monica homes. At most, Rosenblatt alleges that
the ordinance has an interstate effect because it "makes travel
lodging in Santa Monica less accessible, available, and
affordable." The ordinance penalizes only conduct in Santa Monica,
regardless of whether the visitors are in-state or out-of-state.
Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit concludes that the complaint does
not sufficiently allege that the vacation-rental ban itself is a
direct regulation of interstate commerce.

The Ninth Circuit also rejects Rosenblatt's broader construction of
the ordinance's advertising ban because nothing in the ordinance
suggests that it was intended to have extraterritorial
application.

The Ninth Circuit also finds that the ordinance does not
discriminate against interstate commerce. It relates that insofar
as the ordinance might favour owners by allowing them to live in
residential neighbourhoods, it does not discriminate against
persons outside of Santa Monica, who stand on equal footing with
Santa Monica residents in their ability to purchase Santa Monica
property and reside there.  It also notes that the ordinance
applies equally to Santa Monica residents who wish to rent a hotel
room or vacation rental.

Lastly, the Ninth Circuit finds that the Complaint does not
plausibly allege that the ordinance unduly burdens interstate
commerce through its incidental effects.

Rosenblatt's complaint fails to sufficiently allege that the
ordinance's effect on interstate commerce clearly outweighs the
ordinance's local benefits, the Ninth Circuit opines.

Rosenblatt fails to plausibly allege that Santa Monica's ordinance
directly or indirectly discriminated against or burdened interstate
commerce, the Ninth Circuit maintains. Accordingly, the Ninth
Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of those claims.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's October 3, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y48d6btu from Leagle.com

Robert L. Esensten  - resensten@esenstenlaw.com -  (argued) and
Jordan S. Esensten - jesensten@esenstenlaw.com - Esensten Law, Los
Angeles, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Yibin Shen (argued), Chief Deputy City Attorney; Heidi Von Tongeln
and Michael R. Cobden , Deputy City Attorneys; Lane Dilg , City
Attorney; Santa Monica City Attorney's Office, Santa Monica,
California; for Defendants-Appellees.


SARRELL REGIONAL DENTAL: Blahous Files Class Suit in Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sarrell Regional
Dental Center for Public Health, Inc. The case is styled as Lindsey
Blahous on behalf of herself, as guardian of her minor children
L.B., F.B., and D.I. and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Sarrell Regional Dental Center for Public
Health, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00798-ECM-SMD (M.D. Ala.,
Oct. 21, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

Sarrell Dental Center offers oral health care.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SCOTT FARMS: Certification of 3 Classes Sought in Mondragon Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RICARDO MONDRAGON, EUSTORGIO
ESPINOBARROS FELICIANO, JUAN CONTRERAS, CUTBERTO ORTIZ HERNANDEZ,
ALEJANDRO JIMENEZ GONZALEZ, RENATO ROMERO ACUÑA, JOSE TAPIA,
ANASTACIO LOPEZ SOLIS, and ABDON QUIRASCO SIXTECO, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiffs, v. SCOTT FARMS, INC., ALICE H. SCOTT, LINWOOD H. SCOTT,
JR., LINWOOD H. SCOTT III, DEWEY R. SCOTT, JFT HARVESTING INC.,
JUAN F. TORRES OASIS HARVESTING, INC., and RAMIRO B. TORRES, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:13-CV-447-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Parties jointly
move the Court for an order certifying three plaintiff classes.

The proposed classes include two classes described in Plaintiffs'
Third Amended Complaint pursuant to the North Carolina Wage and
Hour Act, and an additional class pursuant to the Migrant and
Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act:

   AWPA Class:

   "All non-H-2A migrant and seasonal agricultural workers (as the
   terms 'migrant agricultural worker' and 'seasonal agricultural
   worker' are defined in 29 U.S.C. section 1802(8) and 1802(10)
   and 29 C.F.R. sections 500.20(p) and 500.20(r)) who were
   employed by one or more of the Defendants to work at Scott
   Farms in corresponding employment from September 15, 2014
   through August 14, 2019."


   NCWHA No. 1 Class:

   "All non H-2A farmworkers who were employed by one or more of
   the Defendants to perform work at Scott Farms in corresponding
   employment from July 17, 2015 to August 14, 2019."


   NCWHA Class No. 2: (Class represented by Plaintiffs
   Espinobarros Feliciano, Contreras, Romero Acuña, and Quirasco
   Sixteco)

   "All employees of Defendants who were not paid all wages when
   due on their regular payday at the wage rate disclosed to them
   pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. Sections 95-25.13(1)-(2) for hours
   worked by those same employees for varying periods of time
   totaling in excess of 40 hours in the same workweek when that
   work included in part the unloading, packing and/or processing
   of sweet potatoes that were and are produced by person(s) or
   entities other than Defendants".[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs are:

          Robert J. Willis, Esq.
          WILLIS LAW
          P.O. Box 1269
          Raleigh, NC 27602
          Telephone: (919) 821-9031
          Facsimile: (919) 821-1764
          E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com

               - and -

          Carol Brooke, Esq.
          Clermont Fraser Ripley
          NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER
          PO Box 28068
          Raleigh, NC 27611-8068
          E-mail: carol@ncjustice.org
                  clermont@ncjustice.org

Attorneys for Scott Farms, Inc., Alice H. Scott, Linwood H. Scott,
Jr., Linwood H. Scott, III and Dewey R. Scott are:

          F. Marshall Wall, Esq.
          Laura E. Dean, Esq.
          CRANFILL SUMNER & HARTZOG LLP
          Post Office Box 27808
          Raleigh, NC 27611-7808
          Telephone: (919) 828-5100
          Facsimile: (919) 828-2277
          E-mail: mwall@cshlaw.com
                  ldean@cshlaw.com

SEA NEW YORK: Calcano Brings ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sea New York, Inc.
The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sea New York, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09728 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2019).

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

Sea New York, Inc. is a privately held company in New York, NY and
is a Single Location business, categorized under Women's Clothing
Stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
     Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
     100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 317-2453
     Fax: (516) 706-4692
     Email: ds@lawsolo.net



SEIU PENNSYLVANIA: Court Dismissal Union Fees Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania issued an Memorandum granting Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned BETHANY LASPINA, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SEIU PENNSYLVANIA
STATE COUNCIL, et al., Defendants Civil Action No. 3:18-2018. (M.D.
Pa.)

Pending before the court is Defendants’ the motions to dismiss
the second amended complaint.
Plaintiff is an employee of SPL, which is a Pennsylvania non-profit
corporation and represented in collective bargaining by Local 668.
Plaintiff joined Local 668 in October 2015 and was a dues-paying
member of this union until she resigned her membership.

In this case, plaintiff essentially claims that she was
unconstitutionally required to pay union dues. She raises three
federal claims in her SAC pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section1983. In
Count 1, a putative class action claim, plaintiff alleges that she
and other public employees were employed in unconstitutional agency
shops before the Court decided Janus because non-union members were
required to pay fair-share fees for union representation.

In Count 2, plaintiff alleges that Local 668 and SPL violated her
constitutional rights and state law by failing to stop deductions
for dues from her pay after she resigned from the union.

In Count 3, plaintiff alleges that the receipt of membership dues
by all of the union defendants is unconstitutional until the unions
obtain affirmative consents from employees authorizing them to
deduct dues pursuant to Janus, and obtain new agreements to allow
them to deduct dues from the pay of their members.

Defendants' motion are filed pursuant to Fed.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for
lack of jurisdiction and lack of standing, and for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6).

Local 668 and SPL contend that plaintiff lacks standing with
respect to her claim in Count 1since she did not pay fair-share
fees, she did not pay union dues and, that she lacks standing to
pursue class action claims on behalf of former fair-share fee
payers and union members who allegedly joined the union because of
the fair-share fee requirement.

Local 668 and SPL also contend that since plaintiff already
received all available relief for her claims in Count 2, regarding
post-resignation dues, and since deduction for dues cannot re-start
without her written authorization, these claims should be dismissed
as moot.

Further, Local 668 and SPL argue that plaintiff lacks standing to
pursue her claim in Count 3, in which she seeks an order requiring
the union to obtain post-Janus authorizations from its members
before receiving future due since plaintiff no longer has an actual
controversy before the court regarding this claim.

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must meet two
threshold requirements. She must allege: 1) that the alleged
misconduct was committed by a person acting under color of state
law and 2) that as a result, she was deprived of rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of
the United States.  

Defendants contend that they cannot be considered state actors
under either category. First, they state that their alleged conduct
cannot be considered activity significantly encouraged by the state
or in which the state acted as a joint participant since at all
relevant times union membership was optional under Pennsylvania law
and it was unlawful for either SPL or Local 668 to coerce plaintiff
into becoming a union member.

Secondly, defendants contend that plaintiff has not alleged that
they acted on behalf of the state regarding her membership in Local
668, and that their management practices cannot be characterized as
any kind of state function.

In her SAC, plaintiff has alleged that SPL acted under color of
state law by enforcing the unconstitutional agency shops permitted
by Pennsylvania law and that SPL is liable under Section 1983 on
the same basis as Local 668 is. Plaintiff has alleged that although
Local 668 and SPL were private defendants, they were acting under
color of state law, namely, Pennsylvania's law authorizing the
agency-shop arrangements and the payment by non-union members of
fair-share fees. Plaintiff states that SPL forced her to pay money
to Local 668 based on the stated policy that was imposed under
color of state law because it was explicitly authorized by
Pennsylvania's statues.
Therefore, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Local 668 and
SPL were state actors and her claims against them under Section
1983 will not be dismissed on this basis pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6).

Defendants argue that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over Count 2 since plaintiff already received all of the relief
potentially available regarding her claim for retrospective
monetary relief. They state that before receiving notice of this
lawsuit, Local 668 instructed SPL to cease deducting membership
dues from plaintiff's wages, and SPL has already stopped deductions
and refunded all dues deducted subsequent to plaintiff's
resignation date.

Thus, defendants contend that the retrospective relief plaintiff
seeks in Count 2 is moot and that there is no live controversy
regarding her claim since they have shown that Local 668 accepted
plaintiff's resignation, terminated dues deductions, and refunded
the dues received from [plaintiff] following her resignation.

Further, defendants state that plaintiff's request for prospective
relief seeking the court to order Local 668 and SPL to honor her
decision to resign from the union and to stop deducting dues from
her paycheck is moot since Local 668 already accepted plaintiff's
request to resign in August 2018, and then in October 2018, before
learning of plaintiff's lawsuit, Local 668 directed SPL to
discontinue the payroll deductions for union dues for plaintiff
effective immediately. SPL then indicates that it complied with
Local 668's directive and ceased deducting dues from plaintiff's
pay.

Thus, Local 668 and SPL argue that plaintiff's claims for
prospective and retrospective relief against them in Count 2 are
moot and should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1).

Finally, plaintiff lacks standing to proceed with her claim in
Count 3 against Local 668 and SPL. In Count 3, plaintiff seeks the
court to require defendants to obtain post-Janus authorizations to
deduct union dues from the paychecks of existing union members or
to provide them with additional information before their
authorizations can be obtained. Plaintiff requests the court to
declare Local 668's ongoing receipt of voluntary membership dues by
current union members unconstitutional unless Local 668 receives
post-Janus dues deduction authorizations from each union member,
and to enjoin Local 668 from collecting any dues until each union
member sign a new authorization form that contains specific
language proposed by plaintiff.  

The court finds that Count 3 must be dismissed since plaintiff is
not suffering and will not suffer in the future any injury due to
defendants' alleged conduct. Plaintiff is no longer a member of
Local 668. Plaintiff no longer has standing to request that SPL and
Local 668 obtain post-Janus authorizations from other employees and
members of the union and, to request that the other employees be
advised of their right to resign from the union and withhold the
payments of dues to the union, since she resigned her membership in
August 2018 and has no intention of rejoining the union. Further,
as indicated, the CBA between Local 668 and SPL does not allow SPL
to deduct any future dues from plaintiff's pay without her written
authorization, and plaintiff does not allege that she has any
intention of giving such authorization.

Thus, she has no injury that she is suffering from or will suffer
from if SPL and Local 668 do not obtain the authorizations or
waivers from current union members or future members. The law is
clear that plaintiff must have standing regarding each of her
claims throughout the case, and that if developments occurring
during the course of adjudication eliminate a plaintiff's personal
stake in the outcome of a suit, then a federal court must dismiss
the case as moot.

Further, even though plaintiff alleges that she was previously not
aware of her right not to join the union when she began working for
SPL and that SPL failed to inform her of this right, plaintiff was
subsequently well aware of her right not to join Local 668, before
she filed her action on October 18, 2018, since she sent the union
her resignation on August 21, 2018. This demonstrates that
plaintiff's request for relief in Count 3 does not redress any
injury from which she is currently suffering or will likely suffer
from in the future.  

Thus, plaintiff lacks standing with respect to the relief she seeks
in Count 3 and it will be dismissed against Local 668 and SPL under
Rule 12(b)(1).

The motions to dismiss of Local 668 and SPL under Rule 12(b)(1)
will be granted as to Counts 1-3. Plaintiff's federal claims
against Local 668 and SPL in her SAC will be dismissed with
prejudice since plaintiff has already filed three complaints in
this case and, it would be futile, as discussed above, to allow her
to file another complaint against Local 668 and SPL.

The court will GRANT the Rule 12(b)(1) motions to dismiss
plaintiff's SAC.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s September 30, 2019
Memorandum  is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y4eusozf  from
Leagle.com

Bethany LaSpina, on behalf of herself and all othr similarly
siutated, Plaintiff, represented by Edmond R. Shinn , Law Offices
of Edmond R. Shinn, Esq., Ltd., 353 West Lancaster Avenue, Suite
300, Fort Washington, PA 19087, Jonathan F. Mitchell , Mitchell Law
PLLC, 106 East Sixth Street, Suite 900 Austin, Texas 78701, Shannon
W. Conway - sconway@talcottfranklin.com - Talcott Franklin P.C.,
Talcott J. Franklin -tal@talcottfranklin.com - Talcott Franklin
P.C. & Walter S. Zimolong , Zimolong LLC, Suite 1360,1515 Market
Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19102

SEIU Local 668, Defendant, represented by Lauren M. Hoye -
lhoye@wwdlaw.com - Willig, Williams & Davidson, P. Casey Pitts -
cpitts@altshulerberzon.com - Altshuler Berzon LLP & Scott A.
Kronland - skronland@altshulerberzon.com - Altshuler Berzon LLP.

Scranton Public Library, Defendant, represented by J. Timothy
Hinton , Haggerty Hiinton & Cosgrove, 203 Franklin Ave., Scranton,
PA 18503 LLP.


SHOPIFY INC: Sheski Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shopify (USA) Inc.
The case is styled as David Sheski individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Shopify (USA) Inc.,
Shopify Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-06858-KAW (N.D. Cal.,
Oct. 21, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Shopify Inc. is a Canadian multinational e-commerce company
headquartered in Ottawa, Ontario. Shopify offers online retailers a
suite of services "including payments, marketing, shipping and
customer engagement tools to simplify the process of running an
online store for small merchants".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason Matthew Wucetich, Esq.
     Dimitrios Vasiliou Korovilas, Esq.
     Wucetich Korovilas LLP
     222 N. PCH Blvd., Ste 2000
     El Segundo, CA 90245
     Phone: (310) 335-2001
     Fax: (310) 364-5201
     Email: jason@wukolaw.com
            dimitri@wukolaw.com


SPEEDY CASH: Court Stays Proceedings in Delisle Consumer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Stay
Proceedings in the case captioned CINDY DELISLE and ROBERT
DOUGHERTY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SPEEDY CASH, Defendant, Case No.
3:18-CV-2042-GPC-RBB. (S.D. Cal.).

In October 2016, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint
alleging claims under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL")
and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), on behalf of
themselves and all others similar situated. By October 2018,
Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay
proceedings, which it later amended on November 13, 2018.  The
Defendant's motion was however denied on June 6, 2019. Defendant
subsequently filed notice that it would appeal the District Court's
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Defendant then filed a second motion requesting to stay proceedings
during the pendency of its appeal. Parties since then have filed
their respective responses.

The question for the Court is whether Defendant has made a strong
showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits.

In considering the parties' arguments, the Court notes that
Defendant need not prove that "ultimate success is probable and
need only show a reasonable probability of succeeding." In the
present case, the Court finds that though Defendant's arguments are
unlikely to prevail, Defendant raises more than a mere possibility
of relief, and thus has made a sufficient showing that he is likely
to succeed on the merits.

Defendant alleges that, if they succeed on appeal, a decision to
not stay proceedings would deprive them of the increased speed and
reduced cost stemming from arbitration. Defendants contend that
this harm is especially acute where the suit involves a class
action because further proceedings would require Defendant to
litigate class certification and engage in class-wide discovery.
As a general matter, Defendants' arguments regarding the burden of
discovery are well taken, the Court states.  Consequently, the
Court holds that Defendant will suffer irreparable harm absent a
stay.  

Defendant claims that Plaintiffs would not be substantially injured
if the proceedings were stayed and that any harm resulting from a
stay can be remedied later. Plaintiffs claim, to the contrary, that
a stay would harm Plaintiff, the putative class, and the general
public by allowing Defendants' predatory lending practices to
continue.

To these arguments, the Court finds that parties interested in this
litigation, other than the Defendant, would not suffer a
substantial injury. As an initial matter, Plaintiffs fail to
articulate a specific and particular harm. There is also little
risk that granting this temporary stay will substantially delay
Plaintiffs' day in court as the litigation is still in a nascent
phase, the Court adds.  

Accordingly, Speedy Cash's motion to stay proceedings is granted,
the Court rules.

All proceedings in the matter, including discovery proceedings
before the magistrate judge which pertain to the putative class (as
opposed to the named plaintiffs exclusively), will be stayed. The
stay will last the lesser of two periods from the date upon which
the current order is issued: either (A) a period of ninety (90)
days or (B) until the plaintiffs in Blair v. Rent-A-Ctr., Inc., 928
F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 2019), and its companion cases, exhaust their
opportunity to appeal the Ninth Circuit's final decision.

The Parties are directed to file  a status report on or about
November 22, 2019 appraising the Court of the progress made in
Blair.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 3, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/y38jxz5w from Leagle.com

Cindy Delisle, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian -
ak@kazlg.com - Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Ahren A. Tiller -
ahren.tiller@blc-sd.com - BLC Law Center, APC, Jason A. Ibey-
jason@kazlg.com - Kazerouni Law Group, APC & Nicholas Ryan Barthel
- nicholas@kazlg.com - Kazerouni Law Group APC.

Celine D. Dougherty, Successor in Interest to Claims of Robert
Doughtery, Plaintiff, represented by Ahren A. Tiller , BLC Law
Center, APC & Jason A. Ibey , Kazerouni Law Group, APC.

Speedy Cash, Defendant, represented by James Barton Manley, Jr. -
jbartonjr@johnstonbarton.com - Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice,
Lindsey Bowen Mann - lindsey.mann@troutman.com - Troutman Sanders
LLP, pro hac vice, Paul L. Gale - paul.gale@troutman.com - Troutman
Sanders & William Alexander Smith - alex.smith@troutman.com -
Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice.


STYLIST'S OWN: Faces Calcano Suit Under Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stylist's Own LLC.
The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Stylist's Own LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09730 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2019).

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

Stylist's Own LLC offers handmade objects designed and made by
Elaine Green, specialising in unique Copper Sculpture and exquisite
Enamel pieces for the household.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
     Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
     100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 317-2453
     Fax: (516) 706-4692
     Email: ds@lawsolo.net


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Powell Sues Over Defective Windshields
---------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE POWELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-19114-NLH-JS (D.N.J., Oct. 18, 2019),
alleges that the Defendant is manufacturing, marketing and selling
new vehicles with defective and dangerous windshields that are
spontaneously and/or unreasonably cracking, chipping and otherwise
breaking.

The replacement windshields provided by the Defendant and paid for
by the Plaintiff and the Class suffer from the same defect and,
therefore, are equally defective and dangerous, Ms. Powell avers.
She demands that the Defendant accept responsibility for replacing
damaged windshields under its new vehicle warranty at no charge to
her and the Class and reimburse them for losses suffered as a
result of the defect and/or that Subaru be required to buyback the
Class Vehicles.

The Plaintiff brings her claims individually and on behalf of all
persons or entities in the United States and/or Wisconsin who own
or lease a 2017-2019 Subaru Forester or 2017-2019 Subaru Outback,
as well as those who owned or leased a Class Vehicle and suffered
losses as a result of the defect during their period they possessed
the vehicle.

Ms. Powell notes that complaints of the defect are widespread and
have been brought to the the Defendant's attention but it is
forcing consumers to bear the costs and expenses associated with
the defect.

Among the dangers and damages associated with the defective
windshields is the fact that cracks in the windshield prevent the
safe and proper operation of Subaru's "EyeSight (TM) Driver Assist
Technology."

When the broken windshields in the Class Vehicles are replaced,
vehicle owners incur substantial additional expense beyond the cost
of replacing the windshield to have the Eyesight system
recalibrated. In addition to having their personal safety and that
of the public put at risk, owners of Class Vehicles are incurring
substantial monetary losses because the Defendant refuses to
replace the broken windshields under warranty or to reimburse
consumers for the broken windshields and other losses resulting
from the defect, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff and Class members assert claims for breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraud, breach of the consumer
protection statute and unjust enrichment.

Subaru of America, Inc. (commonly known as SOA), based in Camden,
New Jersey, is the United States-based distributor of Subaru's
brand vehicles, a subsidiary of Subaru Corporation of Japan. In
1967, Malcolm Bricklin approached Subaru with the idea of bringing
the tiny Subaru 360 to the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          Peter H. LeVan Jr., Esq.
          LeVAN LAW GROUP LLC
          One Logan Square - 27th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6933
          Telephone: 215 561 1500
          Facsimile: 215 827 5390
          E-mail: pmuhic@levanlawgroup.com
                  plevan@levanlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          111 W. Washington Street, Ste. 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312.750.1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          James P. McGraw, III, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: 412 322.9243
          Facsimile: 412 231.0246
          E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
                  jmcgraw@carlsonlynch.com


SUN BASKET: Faces Carron Suit Alleging Violation of Illinois BIPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY CARRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUN BASKET INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH12433 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Oct. 25,
2019), accuses the Defendant of violating the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act by scanning and storing its workers'
fingerprints into a database.

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

Kelly Carron is a natural person and a citizen of the State of
Illinois residing in St. Clair County.

The Defendant operated a storage and office facility in the Rock
City cavern complex, at 1429 Boulder Blvd., in Valmeyer, Illinois,
until August 2019.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SURESCRIPTS LLC: Falconer Pharmacy Sues Over Monopolistic Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
FALCONER PHARMACY, INC., on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situation, Plaintiff v. SURESCRIPTS, LLC; RELAYHEALTH;
and ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-07035 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 25, 2019), is brought under the
Sherman Act to restrain anticompetitive conduct by Surescripts and
to remedy the harms of its decade-long anticompetitive scheme.

The Plaintiff alleges that Surescripts, the nation's largest
provider of "e-prescribing" services, has engaged in a long-running
anticompetitive scheme to maintain its monopolies over two
separate, complementary markets: (1) electronic prescription
routing and (2) eligibility, which are often collectively referred
to as "e-prescribing." Routing is the transmission of prescription
and prescription-related information from a prescriber (via the
prescriber's electronic health record to a pharmacy. Eligibility is
the transmission of a patient's formulary and benefit information
from a payer (usually the patient's pharmacy benefit manager) to a
prescriber's EHR.

In 2009, Surescripts had monopolies over routing and eligibility.
To neutralize competitive threats, Surescripts took a series of
anticompetitive actions to protect and maintain its monopolies, the
Plaintiff alleges. This multifaceted anticompetitive scheme has
been remarkably successful: despite a massive increase in e
prescribing over the past decade, Surescripts has prevented any
meaningful competition, maintaining at least a 95% share (by
transaction volume) in each market, the Plaintiff contends.

Falconer tells the Court that Surescripts changed its pricing
policies to require long-term exclusivity from nearly all of its
routing and eligibility customers. Surescripts designed its new
pricing to ensure that its customers would pay a higher price on
all of Surescripts's transactions unless they were "loyal" to
Surescripts. Falconer adds that, among other things, Surescripts
engaged in a long-running campaign of threats and other
non-merits-based competition to ensure that no other competitor
could get a toehold in either market.

Due to the Defendants' ongoing conduct, there is no meaningful
competition in the markets for routing or eligibility. The
decade-long monopolies in these markets have produced predictable
effects: higher prices, reduced quality, stifled innovation,
suppressed output, and stymied alternative business models,
Falconer contends. Pharmacies, like Falconer, typically pay at
least 17 cents per routing transaction under Surescripts'
monopolistic regime. Surescripts has admitted that competitive
prices in the routing market would be between 1 and 3 cents a
transaction. Had Surescripts' 1.9 billion e-prescriptions in 2018
been routed at competitive prices instead of monopoly prices, the
Plaintiff and the Class would have saved millions of dollars in
that year alone, says the complaint.

Falconer Pharmacy, Inc. is a pharmacy located in Falconer, New
York. The Plaintiff has paid Surescripts e-prescription routing
charges.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
     Justin N. Boley, Esq.
     Tyler J. Story
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: 312-346-2222
     Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
            jnb@wexlerwallace.com
            tjs@wexlerwallace.com

          - and -

     Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
     Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
     Elana Katcher, Esq.
     Matthew P. McCahill, Esq.
     KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
     850 Third Ave., 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 687-1980
     Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
            jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
            ekatcher@kaplanfox.com
            mmccahill@kaplanfox.com

          - and -

     Gary Specks, Esq.
     KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
     681 Prestwick Lane
     Wheeling, IL 60090
     Phone: 847.831.1585
     Fax: 847.831.1580
     Email: gspecks@kaplanfox.com


THIRD COAST: Kraft Files Securities Class Action in NY
------------------------------------------------------
PAUL C. KRAFT AND LINDA E. KRAFT JTWROS, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. THIRD COAST
MIDSTREAM, LLC f/k/a/ AMERICAN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, LP, ARCLIGHT
CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC STEPHEN W. BERGSTROM, JOHN F. ERHARD, DANIEL
R. REVERS, JOSEPH W. SUTTON, and LUCIUS H. TAYLOR Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-09398 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 10, 2019) is a securities class
action brought on behalf of all former owners of American Midstream
common units who sold their units, and were damaged thereby, during
the period from July 27, 2018, through July 23, 2019, both dates
inclusive.

This case revolves around an undisclosed scheme set in place by
Defendants to take American Midstream private for a fraction of its
value. In order to effectuate their plans, Defendants abused their
control over the Company by first reducing, and then withholding,
American Midstream's quarterly distribution, which caused its unit
price to plummet. By artificially depressing the Company's unit
price, Defendants were able to take American Midstream private at a
substantial discount. Therefore, American Midstream's minority
unitholders were harmed as they did not receive fair value for
their units. In 2011, American Midstream conducted an initial
public offering of its common units, which offering closed on
August 1, 2011. Following the IPO, American Midstream consecutively
issued a quarterly distribution of $0.4125 per common unit, or
$1.65 per unit annually. This distribution, therefore, was material
to investors seeking a reliable return on their investments.

By virtue of its status as the majority unitholder of the Company
and its interested relationship with the General Partner, ArcLight
had complete control over American Midstream. During this time,
ArcLight ensured that the majority of American Midstream's Board of
Directors were all affiliated with ArcLight. In addition, ArcLight,
through its power over the General Partner, had the ability to
control the day-to-day operations of American Midstream, including
whether to cut or suspend cash distributions to American Midstream
unitholders. On July 27, 2018, Defendants initiated the first step
of their scheme to take American Midstream private for a fraction
of its value. On this date, American Midstream--at the behest of
ArcLight--declared a 75 percent reduction in the Company's
quarterly common unit distribution to $0.1031, or $0.4125 annually.


As a result of this massive reduction, American Midstream's unit
price declined over 42 percent, falling precipitously from $11.55
to $6.60 on July 27, 2018. This distribution cut was part of a
scheme by ArcLight to artificially depress the trading price of
American Midstream's common units in order to take American
Midstream private for nearly half of the pre-cut trading price. On
July 23, 2019, American Midstream announced the closing of the
Merger, and the Company's unitholders received $4.50 in cash in
exchange for each of their units. On August 2, 2019, American
Midstream announced that its units had been delisted. Therefore, as
a result of the distribution cut put in place by virtue of
ArcLight's de facto status as the true controlling force behind the
Company, American Midstream minority unitholders received
approximately 60 percent less consideration for their units than
the common unit price immediately prior to the distribution cut on
July 27, 2018, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs sold American Midstream common units during the Class
Period.

American Midstream was a publicly-traded master limited partnership
formed to own, operate, develop, and acquire a diversified
portfolio of midstream energy assets.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
     Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
     David J. Schwartz
     Francis P. McConville, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 907-0700
     Email: ckeller@labaton.com
            ebelfi@labaton.com
            dschwartz@labaton.com
            fmcconville@labaton.com


TRANS UNION: Faces Hector Suit in Virginia Over FCRA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
KAILA HECTOR, on behalf of herself an all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRANS UNION RENTAL SCREENING SOLUTIONS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00790 (E.D. Va., Oct. 25, 2019),
is a consumer class action brought for damages, costs and
attorneys' fees resulting from the Defendant's widespread
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Despite the public availability of court records that conclusively
demonstrate that eviction cases have been dismissed, withdrawn,
vacated, or which resulted in judgments for tenants, the Defendant
routinely fails to obtain up-to-date information pertaining to the
disposition of those cases and publishes harmful, inaccurate
"tenant screening" reports about consumers like herself to
potential landlords, the Plaintiff asserts. Additionally, the
Defendant fails to report accurate information by reporting a
single eviction as multiple evictions, and otherwise misreporting
information related to eviction cases, says the complaint.

Kaila Hector is an adult individual, who previously resided in
Hampton.

The Defendant is a consumer reporting agency that compiles and
maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
     Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq
     Craig C. Marchiando, 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
            elizabeth@clalegal.com
            craig@clalegal.com


ULLIANCE INC: Sanders Dismissed in Lucas Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Arthur Tarnow of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, dismissed
Scott Sanders as plaintiff in the case CAROL LUCAS, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, v. ULLIANCE, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No.
15-10337, (E.D. Mich.).

Scott Sanders, along with three other Plaintiffs, brought the
lawsuit as a class action against Michigan's Department of
Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA); Ulliance, Inc., the
private entity LARA contracted to oversee its Health Professional
Recovery Program; and several individuals.  The Court denied class
certification on December 6, 2018, and the case proceeded as to the
four Plaintiffs only.  

In June 2019, Ulliance filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff's
Responses to Interrogatories and Document Requests and for
Production of Record Authorizations.  The Court referred that
motion to Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. After a July 23, 2019
hearing, the Magistrate Judge Granted in Part and Denied in Part
Defendant's Motion and ordered Plaintiff Scott Sanders to provide
responses to Ulliance's Interrogatories and Requests for Documents.
The Order included that if Sanders doesn't comply, he may be
sanctioned with dismissal.

Mr. Sanders still did not comply with the Order.

Accordingly, upon the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the
District Court dismisses Plaintiff Sanders from the case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 2, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3hkwwys from Leagle.com

Carol Lucas, Tara Vialpando & Kelly M Schultz, Plaintiffs,
represented by Aaron J. Kemp , Chapman Law Group, Ronald W. Chapman
, Chapman Law Group & Ronald William Chapman, II , Chapman Law
Group, 1441 W Long Lake Rd., Suite 310, Troy, MI 48098

John/Mary Doe, Healthcare Professionals, Plaintiff, represented by
Aaron J. Kemp , Chapman Law Group & Ronald William Chapman, II ,
Chapman Law Group.

Ulliance, Inc., Defendant, represented by William Reed Thomas -
wthomas@starrbutler.com - Starr, Butler, Alexopoulos & Stoner, PLLC
& Kay R. Butler - kbutler@starrbutler.com - Starr, Butler,
Alexopoulos & Stoner, PLLC.

Carole H. Engle & Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs,
Defendants, represented by Bruce C. Johnson , Michigan Department
of Attorney General, Erik A. Grill , Michigan Department of
Insurance and Financial Srvs, John G. Fedynsky , State of Michigan
Attorney General's Office Complex Litigation Division, Joshua O.
Booth , State of Michigan Department of Attorney General & Neil
Anthony Giovanatti , Michigan Department of Attorney General.


UMAMI RESTAURANT: Calcano Files ADA Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Umami Restaurant
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Umami Restaurant Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09731
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2019).

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

Umami Restaurant Group is an American restaurant chain that
specializes in serving hamburgers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
     Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
     100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 317-2453
     Fax: (516) 706-4692
     Email: ds@lawsolo.net


UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S: $21MM Class Deal in Lincoln Suit Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LINCOLN ADVENTURES LLC and MICHIGAN
MULTI-KING INC., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly
situated, v. THOSE CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON MEMBERS,
et al. Civil Action No. 08-00235 (CCC). (D.N.J.), the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted both the motion for
final approval of partial class action settlement and the motion
for an award of attorneys' fees, expenses/charges and service
awards.

The settlement is with the following thirteen Lloyd's Syndicates:
0033, 0102, 0382, 0435, 0570, 0609, 0623, 0958, 1183, 1886, 2001,
2623, and 2987 (the Defendants).

The Court preliminarily certified the class as:

[A]ll persons and entities in the United States (including its
territories) who, between January 1, 1997, and March 25, 2019,
purchased or renewed a Contract of Insurance with any Lloyd's
Syndicates named as a Defendant in the Action.

The District Court holds that the lawsuit satisfies the numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation
requirements of Rule 23(a).  The Court further holds that the
lawsuit satisfies the predominance and superiority standards of
Rule 23(b)(3).

The most significant questions in the case concern the fact that
"Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class allegedly paid
supra-competitive prices for insurance" and as a result,
"Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class have the same interest in
establishing liability, and they all seek damages for the ensuing
overcharges."

The Court notes that the settlement agreement provides for the
resolution of  individual questions through (1) a monetary relief
fund of $21,950,000, which will be distributed to "Settlement Class
Members who submit timely and valid Claim Forms to the Claims
Administrator" and (2) the implementation of business reforms "in
the Lloyd's Market for five years."

Finally, the Court finds that the notice provided to potential
class members complies with Rule 23 and due process and was the
best notice practicable under the circumstances. Class Notices were
mailed out to 197,000 addresses. 35,926 were returned as
undeliverable, but the Claims Administrator subsequently located
updated addresses for 7,319 of the returned notice recipients. In
addition, a "robust print publication and online media campaign"
served to notify potential class members through ten national print
ads and "more than 20 million Internet advertisements," which in
combination had "an estimated reach of approximately 71.6% of U.S.
adults who are involved in the purchase of business insurance."
Therefore, the Court certifies the class for settlement purposes
and approves the settlement.

Under the settlement agreement, class counsel would receive
"one-third of the cash component of the Partial Settlement," which
is $21,950,000, and would therefore result in fees of $7,317,000.

The Court finds that the fees are fair and reasonable especially
with, among other things, the size of the fund created and persons
benefitted; the skill and efficiency of the attorneys; the
complexity and duration of the litigation; and the amount of time
devoted by plaintiffs' counsel to the case.

The Court also grants litigation expenses requested totaling
$1,850,000.

Finally, the Court finds the proposed $15,000 service awards to
each of the two named plaintiffs to be fair and reasonable.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 3, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4nwzp5q from Leagle.com

Stephen G. Aquilina, Luciana J. Aquilina, Audra M. Lane & Scott K.
Lane, Objectors, represented by JONATHAN MICHAEL ZIMMERMAN -
jzimmerman@scott-scott.com - SCOTT SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP.

LINCOLN ADVENTURES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiff, represented by ANA M. CABASSA , ANDREW S. FRIEDMAN ,
BONNETT FAIRBOURN, 41 Madison A venue New York, NY 10010,  DAN
DRACHLER - ddrachler@zsz.com - ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP,
DAVID M. FOSTER , DAVID J. GEORGE , LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER
RUDMAN & ROBBINS, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA
94111, EDITH M. KALLAS - ekallas@whatleykallas.com - WHATLEY
KALLAS, LLP, JOE R. WHATLEY - jwhatley@whatleykallas.com - WHATLEY
KALLAS, LLP, JOHN J. STOIA , ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, PAUL
J. GELLER , ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, 100 Pine Street,
Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111, PETER S. PEARLMAN -
psp@njlawfirm.com - COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP,
RACHEL L. JENSEN , COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP,
RACHEL LYNN JENSEN , ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, 100 Pine
Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111, ROBERT FOOTE
rmf@fmlaw.com - FOOTE & MEYERS, ROBERT S. SHACHTER -
rs@rschachterlaw.com - & THOMAS R. MERRICK, 1601 Fifth Avenue,
Suite 2300, Seattle, WA 98101

MICHIGAN MULTI-KING INC, a Michigan Corporation on Behalf of
Themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented
by ANA M. CABASSA , ANDREW S. FRIEDMAN , BONNETT FAIRBOURN, DAN
DRACHLER , ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP, DAVID M. FOSTER ,
DAVID J. GEORGE , LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS,
EDITH M. KALLAS , WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP, JOE R. WHATLEY , WHATLEY
KALLAS, LLP, JOHN J. STOIA , ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, PAUL
J. GELLER , ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, PETER S. PEARLMAN ,
COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP, RACHEL L. JENSEN ,
COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP, RACHEL LYNN JENSEN ,
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, ROBERT FOOTE , FOOTE & MEYERS,
ROBERT S. SCHACHTER , ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING & THOMAS R.
MERRICK .

THOSE CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON MEMBERS OF SYNDICATES,
Defendant, represented by JOHN M. TORIELLO -
john.toricllo@hklaw.com - HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP, MARC D. HAEFNER -
mhaefner@walsh.law - WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP, THOMAS F.
BUSH - tbush@freeborn.com - Freeborn & Peters LLP & MATTHEW M.
BURKE - MBurke@RobinsKaplan.com - ROBINS KAPLAN LLP.

MARSH PRIVATE CLIENT SERVICES, MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES, INC.,
AON CORPORATION, WILLIS GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED, WILLIS LIMITED &
Syndicates, Defendants, represented by MARC D. HAEFNER , WALSH
PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP.
MARSH LIMITED & AON LIMITED, Defendants, represented by GREGORY W.
HERBERT -
herbertg@gtlaw.com - GREENBERG TRAURIG & MARC D. HAEFNER , WALSH
PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP.


UPSTART NETWORK: Rodriguez Sues over Unauthorized Credit Reviews
----------------------------------------------------------------
GLORIA RODRIGUEZ, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. UPSTART NETWORK, INC., LENDINGPOINT,
LLC., and GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-01971-BEN-KSC (S.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 2019), alleges that
Defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, arising out of
Defendants' systematic unauthorized credit pulls and reviews.

According to the complaint, the Defendants acquired Plaintiff's
credit information through an unauthorized account review of
Plaintiff's "consumer reports".

The Plaintiff was not an accountholder of any of the Defendants.
Nonetheless, on October 16, 2018, all three Defendants
simultaneously reviewed Plaintiff's Trans Union credit report
without a permissible purpose, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants accessed Plaintiff's private and confidential
information without Plaintiff's consent or a permissible purpose.
Much like trespassing on real property, an invasion of privacy may
not cause monetary damages, but it is an invasion none the less.
Privacy is a long-protected right in the United States and
Plaintiff has suffered concrete harm resulting from Defendants'
willful invasion of privacy, the lawsuit says.

Upstart is an online lending marketplace that provides personal
loans using non-traditional variables, such as education and
employment, to predict creditworthiness.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          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

VISALUS INC: Settlement in Harris Suit Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, entered final approval of the proposed
settlement in the case styled as ERIC J. HARRIS, SR., individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and CAPRECE BYRD,
BRYANT WATTS, RENAE WHITE, LAURA HERL, DR. FRANK McWHORTER, ERIC J.
HARRIS, SR. and CONNIE BATES, individually on their own behalf,
Plaintiffs, v. VISALUS, INC., a corporation, et al. Case No.
17-cv-12626. (E.D. Mich.).

For purposes of the Final Approval Order, the Settlement Class is:

   All U.S. Independent Promotors of ViSalus, Inc. who
   qualified for units in the Founders' Equity Incentive
   Plan between January 1, 2015 through March 1, 2017.

The Named Plaintiff, Eric J. Harris, Sr., has, in the opinion of
the Court, worked hard on behalf of the Settlement Class. The Court
therefore approves an incentive to Eric J. Harris, Sr. in the
amount of $15,000.

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

Caprece Byrd, Bryant Watts & Renae White, Plaintiffs, represented
by Brent Caldwell – bcaldwell@pfalawfirm.com - Pregeg Faucett &
Abbott PLLC, Mark R. Miller - mrm@wexlerwallace.com - Wexler
Wallace, Matthew J.M. Prebeg - mprebeq@pfalawfirm.com- Prebeg,
Faucett & Abbott PLLC, Patrick E. Cafferty -
pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com - Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &
Sprengel LLP & Andrew Kochanowski  -  akochanowski@sommerspc.com -
Sommers Schwartz, P.C.

Dr Frank McWhorter, Connie Bates & Laura Herl, Plaintiffs,
represented by Mark R. Miller , Wexler Wallace, Patrick E. Cafferty
, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP & Andrew Kochanowski ,
Sommers Schwartz, P.C.

Eric J Harris Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Brent Caldwell , Pregeg
Faucett & Abbott PLLC, Mark R. Miller , Wexler Wallace, Patrick E.
Cafferty , Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP & Andrew
Kochanowski , Sommers Schwartz, P.C.

VISALUS, INC., Nick Sarnicola, Ashley Sarnicola, Blake Mallen, Ryan
Blair, Todd Goergen & Gary J. Reynolds, Defendants, represented by
Andrew Clark - aclark@honigman.com - Honigman LLP, Brian A. Howie -
brian.howie@quarles.com - Quarles & Brady LLP, Edward A. Salanga -
edward.salanga@quarles.com - Quarles & Brady LLP, Kevin D. Quigley
- kevin.quigley@quarles.com - Quarles & Brady LLP, Michael S.
Catlett - michael.catlett@quarles.com - Quarles & Brady LLP &
Nicholas B. Gorga - ngorga@honigman.com -  Honigman LLP.

Vincent Owens, Defendant, pro se.

Michael Craig, Defendant, represented by Andrew Clark , Honigman
LLP & Nicholas B. Gorga , Honigman LLP.


VSV BAKERY: Sanchez Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX ENCINAS SANCHEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. V.S.V. BAKERY INC d/b/a RUSSO'S
BAKERY, VINCENZO RUSSO, ANTONIO SAL RUSSO, and VICTORIA RUSSO,
Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06007
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages
and overtime premium pay owed to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff also brings claims for unpaid spread-of-hours
premiums, and failure to provide proper wage notices and wage
statements pursuant to NYLL and the supporting regulations.

The Defendants paid the Plaintiff a weekly salary that did not
provide the equivalent of the statutory minimum wage for all hours
worked, much less overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of
40 per week. In addition, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff spread-of-hours premiums when he worked a spread of more
than 10 hours in a day and failed to provide him with a wage
statement or wage notice at any time during his employment, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former counter clerk employee at the Defendants'
bakery and pastry shop located in Maspeth, New York.

V.S.V. Bakery, Inc., is an active New York Corporation doing
business as "Russo's Bakery" and "Russo's Pane & Dolci
Bakery."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WA SUSHI & THAI: Pan Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Zhi Jiang Pan, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wa Sushi & Thai Inc, Jiang Zhu
Inc, Thai & Sushi Inc, Guo Dong Chi, and Jiang Zhu a/k/a Jiang Yo,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05864 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 17, 2019) is an
action brought against the Defendants to recover damages.

Plaintiff asserts that he is: (i) entitled to unpaid wages from
Defendants for work performed for which they received no
compensation at all or less compensation then required by minimum
wage law; (ii) unpaid wages for overtime work for which they did
not receive overtime premium pay, as required by law, and (iii)
liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs, interest and
attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law, and other appropriate rules, regulations, statutes
and ordinance governing minimum and overtime wages, spread of
hours, and notices and statements of rates of pay.

According to the complaint, the Defendants paid Plaintiff in cash.
In addition to his pay, Plaintiff sometimes received tips for his
delivery work. However, Defendants never provided Plaintiff with
any notices or information regarding "tip credit." The Defendants
did not keep records of the tips received by Plaintiff; did not pay
Plaintiff minimum wage, overtime compensation, and spread of hours
compensation required by both the FLSA and NYLL; and failed to pay
Plaintiff any overtime "bonus" for hours worked beyond 40 hours in
a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, the NYLL, and the supporting
New York State Department of Labor regulations, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was employed primarily as a delivery person for
Defendants, but was also required to perform other tasks.

WA SUHSI, ZHU INC, and/or Thai & Sushi Inc. operates as a
restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Vincent S. Wong, Esq.
     Law Offices of Vincent S. Wong
     39 East Broadway, Suite 306
     New York, NY 10002
     Phone: (212) 349-6099
     Fax: (212) 349-6599


WALMART INC: Faces Espinoza Consumer Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
GUILLERMO ESPINOZA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. WALMART INC.; GREEN DOT
CORPORATION; GREEN DOT BANK DBA BONNEVILLE BANK; and DOES 1-50;
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01972-MMA-RBB (S.D. Cal.,
Oct. 11, 2019) is a class action complaint against Defendants for
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law.

On February 27, 2019, Plaintiff went to a Walmart retail store
located at 732 Center Dr., San Marcos, CA 92069, and purchased 2
pre-paid Greendot VISA debit cards for $500.00 each. Plaintiff
intended to use Plaintiff's Greendot Cards to pay his rent due on
March 1, 2019. The next day, Plaintiff attempted to use Plaintiff's
Greendot Cards to pay two payments of $500.00 towards his rent, and
they were denied several times for having insufficient funds.
Plaintiff went back to the San Marcos Walmart and asked an
unidentified female Walmart Associate Checker to assist him. When
Plaintiff described the issue and showed his receipt for the
purchases, the Walmart Checker advised him to try again later or
the following day, stating that she believed it may just take a few
days for the cards to activate. Later that same day, Plaintiff
called the toll-free number on the back of the Plaintiff's Greendot
Cards to check the balances for the cards and the automated systems
stated that the available balances were $499.00 for one of the
cards and $500.00 for the other.

Upon seeing the charges to the Plaintiff's Greendot cards,
Plaintiff was furious, confused, and anxious as he needed the funds
to pay his rent. On that same day, the Plaintiff called Defendant
Greendot to dispute the fraudulent charges, but the Greendot
employee Plaintiff spoke to stated that the cards were
unregistered, and that Plaintiff must first register them before
Greendot could provide any customer service regarding the
Plaintiff's Greendot cards. Plaintiff then ended the call, went
online and registered the cards per the Greendot employee's
instructions. Once the cards had been registered, Plaintiff then
placed a second call to Greendot and spoke to another Greendot
employee, whereby he requested that the fraudulent charges be
reversed. The Greendot employee told Plaintiff that since the
charges had been made prior to Plaintiff registering the cards,
Greendot would not process any disputes for the transactions, and
advised Plaintiff that his only recourse was to address the issue
with Walmart, stating it was a "Walmart issue."

Plaintiff was recently laid off prior to this event with Walmart
regarding Plaintiff's Greendot Cards, and therefore was unable to
timely maintain his rent payments as a result of the Defendants'
joint conduct. Walmart chooses to sell its Greendot funded Visa
Debit Cards in unsecure packaging, wherein the identifying
information is exposed to any third parties who come in contact
with the Visa Debit Card prior to selling the cards to unsuspecting
consumers. The end result of their negligent packaging and unfair
business practice is that a Greendot funded Visa Debit Card that's
packaging has been tampered with and therefore said Card's
information is exposed to fraud resembles a Greendot funded Visa
Debit Card that does not appear to be tampered with by the
potential customer and/or the Walmart's cashiers. Walmart's
unsecure packaging allows third parties to also easily steal the
Visa Debit Card's PIN and identifying information, while replacing
the tape covering the PIN with a virtually indistinguishable
replacement, making the Visa Debit Card appear to any bona-fide
good faith purchaser as if it were an untampered Greendot Visa
Debit Card. The Defendants collectively engage in a pattern and
practice of selling gift cards it knows, or should know, have been
tampered with and/or compromised, says the complaint.

Plaintiff GUILLERMO ESPINOZA is a natural person residing in the
County of San Diego, in the State of California.

WALMART, INC. is a Delaware Corporation whose primary business
purpose is the sale goods and services to consumers, and is
registered to do business in the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ahren A. Tiller, Esq.
     BLC LAW CENTER, APC
     1230 Columbia Street, Suite 1100
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (800) 492-4033
     Facsimile: (866) 444-7026
     Email: ahren.tiller@blc-sd.com

         - and -

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
     Costa Mesa, California 92626
     Phone: (800) 400-6808
     Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
     Email: ak@kazlg.com


WAREHOUSE DIRECT: Melendez Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NTONIO MELENDEZ, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. WAREHOUSE DIRECT, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 2019CH12130 (Ill. Cir., Oct. 18,
2019), seeks to obtain redress for persons injured by the
Defendant's violations of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

The case concerns the misuse of individuals' biometrics by the
Defendant, a leading supplier of workplace products, equipment, and
related services. Using biometrically-enabled technology, the
Defendant is capturing, collecting, disseminating, or otherwise
using the biometrics of the Plaintiff and other Class members,
without their informed written consent as required by law.

While biometric technology allows companies to reduce timekeeping
fraud and increase workplace efficiency and profitability, the
unregulated use of biometric technology brings grave privacy risks.
The permanent and irreplaceable nature of one's biometrics makes
the illegal collection of the same a significant public problem
with far-reaching consequences, including irreversible identify
theft, the lawsuit says.

Warehouse Direct, Inc. provides business products and related
services. The Company offers office supplies, technology products,
furniture and design, document imaging, coffee and breakroom,
cleaning and janitorial supplies, promotional products, and legal
and medical products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  jsheikali@mcgpc.com
                  tkingsbury@mcgpc.com


WESTERN UNION: Radulescu Sues Over Unredeemed Money Transfer
------------------------------------------------------------
IBOLYA RADULESCU, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE WESTERN UNION COMPANY, a
Delaware Corporation headquartered in Colorado; WESTERN UNION
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., A Delaware Corporation headquartered in
Colorado, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02980 (D. Colo., Oct. 18,
2019), addresses what Western Union does with customers' money when
Western Union knows a money transfer did not go through and the
customer's money has not been redeemed.

The case is a putative class action brought by the Plaintiff
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons, who between
April 2013 and the date of trial attempted to transfer money using
Western Union, whose money transfers were unredeemed, whose money
was kept and utilized by Western Union for its own benefit and who
were never notified by Western Union (until applicable law required
notice to the customers that the money would escheat to the
state).

According to the complaint, when Western Union agrees to wire money
for a customer, it takes the customer's contact information.
Sometimes the money transfer does not go through for any number of
reasons, which are not germane to the allegations against Western
Union.

What Western Union should do is immediately notify the customer and
inform them of the fact the money transfer has not been redeemed
and give the customer an opportunity to correct the error or get a
refund of the funds deposited with Western Union, the Plaintiff
contends. What Western Union does instead is an entirely different
story: Western Union purposely does not notify the customer and
holds onto the customer's money and makes use of it by using it to
make financial investments and earn interest for its own benefit
until applicable state statutes require the funds escheat to the
state unless otherwise claimed by the customer, the Plaintiff
alleges.

Only then, many years later and after making use of that money for
its own benefit and financial gain, does Western Union attempt to
notify the customer the transaction they paid for never transpired,
or the money went unredeemed, and the customer has only a limited
amount of time to claim the money--minus a fee charged by Western
Union against the funds--because state law requires it under
unclaimed property statutes in advance of escheat.

Under such circumstances not only does Western Union benefit
financially from holding onto the customers' money for years,
Western Union then charges the customer a separate fee to get their
money back; Western Union not only has its cake and gets to eat it
too, but the customer suffers double-the-harm by not having the use
of their money for years and then has to pay a fee to get it back,
the Plaintiff avers.

Western Union brags about this unfair and deceptive business
practice in its publicly filed financial statements, telling
investors it always has access to more than $100 million in cash
from these unremitted funds that is essentially better than an
interest free loan because Western Union gets to both make use of
the money and then ultimately, after using the money for years,
charge the customer a fee to return the money instead of paying the
customer interest.

According to Western Union's Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2007, such unredeemed funds, or "unsettled money
transfers," are classified as "settlement assets" and "are not used
to support [Western Union] operations" but are utilized to "earn
income" for the company. Western Union reported $203.5 million of
such "settlement assets" on hand in 2007 and $348.8 million on hand
in 2006. Id. At 85.

The Plaintiff says Western Union has previously been successfully
sued in this Court in an earlier class action lawsuit for the same
alleged conduct. See, Tennille v. Western Union Company,
2009-cv-00938-JLK (Tennille Action). The Tennille Action was filed
on April 23, 2009. The Plaintiff notes that Western Union has not
remedied, corrected or changed its business practices complained of
in the Tennille Action as of April 11, 2013 (the date when the
Plaintiff used Western Union to send funds) through August 2018,
when Western Union notified the Plaintiff that funds she attempted
to send through Western Union were never received by the intended
recipient. That notification was more than five (5) years after she
used Western Union to send funds, the Plaintiff asserts.

Ibolya Radulescu was not a member of the Tennille Action class
action settlement and is, thus, not barred by any settlement of the
Tennille Action from pursuing her claims and claims for all others
similarly situated.

Western Union is an American worldwide financial services and
communications company. Its headquarters is in Denver, Colorado. Up
until it discontinued the service in 2006, Western Union was
globally the best-known American company in the business of
exchanging telegrams.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Radulescu, Esq.
          ROMANCORE LAW, P.C.
          401 W A St., No. 1100
          San Diego, CA , 92101
          Telephone: (619) 766-2626
          E-mail: robert@romancorelaw.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Waller, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT A. WALLER, JR.
          P.O. Box 999
          Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007
          Telephone: (760) 753-3118
          Facsimile: (760) 753-3206
          E-mail: robert@robertwallerlaw.com


ZEFCO INC: Queen Sues Over Illegal Overtime and Tax Fraud Schemes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cody Queen, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Zefco, Inc., William Zearley,
and Lanette Zearley, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-02966-TMC
(D.S.C., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks to recover damages for the
Defendants' willful filing of fraudulent information returns with
respect to his and other similarly situated individuals' wages
under the Internal Revenue Code.

According to the complaint, Lanette Zearley enforced and
implemented Zefco's pay policies, including Zefco's illegal
overtime and tax fraud schemes.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff, a twenty-eight-year-old
male, from March 2015 to February 2019 as an account manager, while
he worked toward an accounting degree at Clemson University. The
Defendants paid him $16 to $20 per hour through a weekly paycheck.
The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked in excess of
forty hours per workweek.

Mr. Queen alleges that the Defendants paid him and similarly
situated employees "overtime per diem" for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours within a workweek, meaning he and similarly situated
employees received an untaxed lump sum payment based on the
estimated hours of overtime worked in a week. The Defendants paid
other similarly situated employees their straight hourly wage for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours within a workweek.

The Defendants intentionally misclassified such similarly situated
employees as independent contractors to avoid paying overtime
premiums and providing healthcare insurance, workers' compensation
coverage, Family and Medical Leave protection, and other employee
rights and benefits, Mr. Queen contends. The Defendants also
routinely issued bonus checks without deducting taxes to the
Plaintiff and other employees from 2015 until the IRS audit in
2018. He alleges that the Defendants failed to report these
separate and distinct bonus checks as wages to the IRS on W2s or
1099s for the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees.

During the 2018 audit, Defendants William Zearley and Lanette
Zearley ordered the Plaintiff to falsify records in furtherance of
their scheme to conceal information from the IRS. The Plaintiff,
therefore, had no alternative but to resign from his position
shortly thereafter, the lawsuit says.

Zefco is a construction company that specializes in industrial
foundations and flooring. Zefco participates in large-scale and
small-scale construction projects throughout South Carolina and
across the United States. Lanette Zearley is a vice president and
serves as office manager of Zefco.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          M. Malissa Burnette, Esq.
          Grant Burnette LeFever, Esq.
          BURNETTE SHUTT & McDANIEL, PA
          912 Lady Street (29201)
          P.O. Box 1929
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: 803.904.7911
          Facsimile: 803.904.7910
          E-mail: MBurnette@BurnetteShutt.Law
                  GLeFever@BurnetteShutt.Law

               - and -

          Richard Neuworth, Esq.
          LABAU & NEUWORTH, LLC
          606 Baltimore Avenue - Suite 201
          Baltimore, MD 21204
          Telephone: 410.296.3030
          Facsimile: 410.296.8660
          E-mail: RN@joblaws.net



                            *********

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 ***