CAR_Public/191101.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, November 1, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 219

                            Headlines

180 EXPRESS: Denied Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay, Gil Suit Says
50 EGGS INC: Duque Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
AETNA LIFE: Curtis Class Suit Seeks Redress for ERISA Breach
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Doe Suit in N.Y. Over BIOCELL Breast Implants
ALLIANCE FUNDING: Appeals Decision in Vandenberg Suit to 6th Cir.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Landy Suit Alleging of Violation TCPA
ALOHA POOL: Dunsavage Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
ALTRIA GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline
APPLEBEE'S: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ARG RESOURCES: Smith Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data

ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT: Shortchanges Resto Staff's Wages, Says Suit
AUTOMAX FINANCIAL: Medina Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay Under FLSA
BARRICK GOLD: Drywall Acoustic 675 Fund's $3BB Suit Gets Go Signal
BED BATH & BEYOND: Delacruz Files ADA Class Action in NY
BEN & JERRY'S: Misrepresents Ice Cream Products, Ehlers Alleges

BEST BUY CO: Delacruz Files Class Suit Under ADA
BHRAGS HOME CARE: Jean Sues Over Denied OT Pay, Wage Statements
BLUE CROSS: Houston Home Hits Illegal Price-fixing Scheme
BURGER KING: Mendez Brings ADA Class Suit in NY
BURTON CLAIM: Sloan Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA

CAPITAL BUILDING: Moreno Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Wilmore Sues Over Racial Discrimination
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Violates ADA, Thorne Suit Asserts
CITIZENS BANK: McAuliffe Suit Removed to Mass. Dist. Ct.

CLICK SALES: Faces Acosta Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Fennel Disputes Debt in Collection Letter
CORNERSTONE SUPPORT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lewis Claims
CRICUT INC: Reid Sues Over ADA Breach
CURO MANAGEMENT: Johnson Sues Over Unauthorized Credit Inquiries

CVS HEALTH: Thorne Brings ADA Class Action in New York
DELTA DENTAL: Fisher Sues Over Dental Insurance Antitrust Claims
DENNY'S CORPORATION: Faces Tucker ADA Class Suit in New York
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Calcano Class Suit Under ADA
EAGLE OILFIELD: Azure Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA

EVER AND COMPANY: Winston Seeks Overtime Pay for Accountants
EXPRESS INC: Faces Tucker Suit for ADA Breach
FIESTA LATINA: Mendez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
FORD MOTOR CO: F-150 Owners Sue Over Erroneous Fuel Economy Ratings
FRITO-LAY INC: Ct. Certifies Class in Sanchez; Settlement OK Denied

GAMESTOP CORP: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Breached Duties on BHI Merger, Providence Says
GEO GROUP: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Puga Suit Alleges
GILA LLC: Faces Federal Class Action for Overcharging Tolls
GROUPON INC: 7th Cir. Gives Limited Remand on Instagram Suit

HARO BICYCLE: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOLLISTER CO: Tucker Sues Over Inaccessible Store Gift Cards
IHOP RESTAURANTS: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN: Abbott Suit Removed to C.D. California
JD'S TOWING: Glenn Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA

JUUL LABS INC: M.D. Suit Transferred to N.D. California
KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM: Faces Class Action for Overcharging Tolls
KEY FIRE: Parham Seeks Overtime Wages for Construction Workers
KRISPY KREME: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KUYKENDAHL COUNTRY: Javed Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

LABRA TELECOM: Reyes Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LAND ORIGINS: Arias FLSA Suit Removed to District of New Jersey
LANDS END INC: Airline Staff Sue Over Substandard Uniforms
LAZER SPOT: Boyd Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MCT RESTAURANTS: O'Neill Seeks to Recoup Minimum & Overtime Wages
MDL 2913: Nessmith v. JUUL over E-cigarettes Consolidated
MDL 2915: Zosiak Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Miller Appeals S.D.N.Y. Decision to 2nd Cir.
MGM SPRINGFIELD: Faces Connors Wage and Hour Suit in D. Mass.

MITCHELL RESTAURANT: Fabelo Seeks Unpaid OT Pay, Wage Statements
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TN: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Perry Claims
MYRIAD GENETICS: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of Class Action Suit
MYRIAD GENETICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
NHK SPRING: Faces Integrity Suit Alleging Hard Drive Price Fixing

NIPPON TRENDS: Faces Damian Suit for Failing to Pay Proper Wages
NORDSTROM INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NORTH CAROLINA: Hodge Seeks Unpaid Wages for Corrections Officers
OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PANERA LLC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PEAK DEBT: Faces Phan Suit Alleging Violation of Consumer Laws
PICK 6 TAHOE: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Johnson Suit Says
PRO HARVESTING: Vasquez Seeks Proper Wages for Farm Labor Help
QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Faces Mantha Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
RED WING: Illegally Prints Debit/Credit Card Nos., Southam Says

SAM HOUSTON: Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted in Berry Suit
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Sherman Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
SEMGROUP CORP: Faces Lawrence Suit Over Energy Transfer Merger
SEPHORA USA INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Franchi Sues Over Decline of IPO Price

SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
STEKLEN & WALKER: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TALIA'S RESTAURANT: Hamilton Seeks to Recover Wages, Tips
TARGET CORPORATION: Delacruz Files Suit Under Disabilities Act
TENCENT MUSIC: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Nov. 25 Deadline

TESLA INC: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Wilson Wage and Hour Suit
THESY LLC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TIM HORTON'S: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRADER JOE'S: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TUTELIAN & CO: Jimenez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks

ULTA BEAUTY: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNILEVER: Culver Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Mustard Products
UNILEVER: Stewart Files Fraud Class Suit
VIEWRAY INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of Nov. 12 Plaintiff Deadline
VIEWRAY INC: Rosen Reminds Investors of Nov. 12 Plaintiff Deadline

VILLA PARK, IL: Ferrill Wants Parking Tickets Deemed Invalid
VTS STAFFING: Robinson Seeks OT Pay for Non-Exempt Employees
WALGREENS BOOTS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WEGMAN FOODS: Class Action Claims Vanilla Ice Cream a 'Fraud'
WWF OPERATING: Hyde Hits Artificial Vanilla Flavor in Drink

[*] Restaurants Back Law that Would Curb Class Suits by Servers

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6,461 Bendix Claims vs. Honeywell Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Had 118 Pending Talc Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BonDurant Claims vs. Gould Electronics Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. Ct. App. Remands Linsowe Case for New Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Lift Stay Issue Still Pending at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Colvin's Case Reversed On Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.5BB Bendix Liabilities at Sept.30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $2.4-Bil. Liabilities at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $895MM NARCO Liabilities at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. App. Affirms Denial of Bid to Dismiss Leavitt

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Corp. Defends PI Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Vazquez Case Stayed Pending Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WCERS Voluntarily Drops SEC Charges vs. Honeywell


                            *********

180 EXPRESS: Denied Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay, Gil Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lazaro Garcia Gil, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lukakila Cafe Inc., Declan Morrison and
John Moloney, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-05592 (S.D. N.Y., October
2, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and
redress for Defendants' failure to provide itemized wage statements
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor
Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a bar, "Austin Public House"
located at 70-28A Austin Street, Forest Hills where Gil has been
employed as a cook. He claims to have spent in excess of forty
hours per week but did not receive overtime pay for this. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


50 EGGS INC: Duque Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Duque, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 50 EGGS, INC., a Florida for-profit
corporation, SOUTHERN OPERATIONS, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, and JOHN KUNKEL, an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-24455-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 29, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff alleges that he and those similarly situated, were
required to share their tips with employees, who were not
customarily and regularly tipped, such as dishwashers, in an
illegal tip-sharing scheme in violation of the FLSA. He also
alleges that he and those similarly situated were regularly
required to engage in non-tip-producing sidework, in excess of
twenty percent of their work time. He adds that he regularly worked
in excess of 40 hours per seven-day week and was denied applicable
minimum and overtime wages under the FLSA.

Mr. Duque worked as a tipped employee (server) for the Defendants
from August 2017 to August 2019.

The Defendants operated a restaurant known as Yardbird restaurant
located at 1600 Lenox Avenue, in Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
     17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: 305.358.6800
     Fax: 305.358.6808
     Email: robert@kuvinlaw.com


AETNA LIFE: Curtis Class Suit Seeks Redress for ERISA Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS E. CURTIS, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
3:19-cv-01579-VLB (D. Conn., Oct. 8, 2019), is brought pursuant to
the Employee Income Retirement Security Act to redress Aetna's
breach of its obligations to administer the Plaintiff's and other
class members' claims for benefits under their ERISA group medical
benefits plans in accordance with the plans' provisions.

Mr. Curtis is a beneficiary of a group medical benefits plan
established by Yale University for its employees and their
beneficiaries.  The plan (the "Yale Plan") is an employee benefit
plan subject to ERISA.  Claims administration for the Yale Plan is
provided by Defendant Aetna, a Connecticut corporation that
performs claims administration services for ERISA plans funded by
third party employers (such as Yale), as well as for ERISA plans
that Aetna or its affiliated companies directly insure.

According to the complaint, Aetna has violated the fundamental
requirement of ERISA claims administration by denying benefits to
plan members based upon the definitions of "medically necessary"
contained in a series of internal Aetna Clinical Policy Bulletins
that are not a part of, or incorporated in, any of the ERISA plans
and that modify and limit, to plan members' detriment, the plans'
definition of "medically necessary."

Aetna is a corporation formed pursuant to the laws of the State of
Connecticut and has its principal place of business in
Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Golub, Esq.
          Sarah A. Ricciardi, Esq.
          SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
          184 Atlantic Street
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 325-4491
          Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
          E-mail: dgolub@sgtlaw.com
                  sricciardi@sgtlaw.com


ALLERGAN INC: Faces Doe Suit in N.Y. Over BIOCELL Breast Implants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLERGAN, INC. F/K/A INAMED CORPORATION,
ALLERGAN USA, INC., ALLERFAN PLC, MCGHAN MEDICAL CORPORATION, AND
INAMED CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09995 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 29, 2019), seeks relief for damages and harms caused by
Allergan's recalled products, BIOCELL breast implants.

On July 24, 2019, Allergan announced a worldwide recall of BIOCELL
after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration called for the action
following new information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were
tied to a vast majority of cases of breast implant-associated
anaplastic large cell lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other
textured implant. Allergan announced that BIOCELL would no longer
be sold or distributed in any market. BIA-ALCL is a type of
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (cancer of the immune system).

In violation of federal law requiring Allergan to report adverse
events to the FDA, in order to conceal from doctors and the public
the full extent of the risks of BIOCELL products, Allergan
submitted adverse event reports with incorrect manufacturer names,
including "Santa Barbara" and Costa Rica," instead of under the
name "Allergan," according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that Allergan received a substantial benefit
from selling thousands of the recalled BIOCELL products from 2006
through July 24, 2019, at the expense of the Plaintiff and the
Class, who are exposed to the risk of developing BIA-ALCL, a
serious and deadly disease. The Plaintiff, thus, brings this action
individually and on behalf of others in the United States, who have
recalled BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue expanders, to
seek relief for damages and harms caused by the Defendants' conduct
at their expense.

Plaintiff Jane Doe was implanted with a BIOCELL recalled product,
Natrelle 115 Silicone-filled breast implants.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew Mendelsohn, Esq.
     David A. Mazie, Esq.
     Christopher J. Geddis, Esq.
     MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
     103 Eisenhower Parkway
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Phone: (973) 228-9898
     Facsimile: (973) 228-0303
     Email: mrm@mazieslater.net
            dmazie@mazieslater.net
            cgeddis@mazieslater.net


ALLIANCE FUNDING: Appeals Decision in Vandenberg Suit to 6th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Alliance Funding Group filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Vandenberg & Sons Furniture, Inc. v.
Alliance Funding Group, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01255, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand
Rapids.

The nature of suit is stated as other statutory actions.

The appellate case is captioned as Vandenberg & Sons Furniture,
Inc. v. Alliance Funding Group, et al., Case No. 19-2164, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee VANDENBERG & SONS FURNITURE, INC., a Michigan
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, is represented by:

          Ross M. Good, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          Wallace Cyril Solberg, Esq.
          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: rgood@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com
                  wsolberg@andersonwanca.com
                  bwanca@andersonwanca.com

Defendant-Appellant ALLIANCE FUNDING GROUP is represented by:

          Herman Daniel Hofman, Esq.
          VARNUM LLP
          P.O. Box 352
          Grand Rapids, MI 49501
          Telephone: (616) 336-6000
          E-mail: hdhofman@varnumlaw.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Landy Suit Alleging of Violation TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allstate Insurance
Company. The case is captioned as Brennan Landy, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allstate
Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06830 (Ill. Cir.,
Oct. 15, 2019).

The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Holmes Burke, Esq.
          Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729-5288
          E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com
                  dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com


ALOHA POOL: Dunsavage Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DUNSAVAGE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ALOHA POOL SERVICES, INC., a Florida Profit
Corporation, MICHAEL A. FOLZ, individually, and PAMELA M. FOLZ,
individually, jointly, and severally, Case No. 0:19-cv-62509-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., Oct. 8, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wage
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Aloha Pool Services, Inc., is a Florida Profit Corporation
conducting business and headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Broward
County, Florida.  The Individual Defendants are/were supervisors,
manager or owners of the Company.

The Defendants run a pool service company, where the Plaintiff
worked as a pool technician.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah E. Storch, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          10368 West State Road 84, Suite 103
          Davie, FL 33324
          Telephone: (866) 344-9243
          Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
          E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com


ALTRIA GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuits has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded company
Altria Group, Inc. (NYSE: MO). Shareholders interested in serving
as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Altria Group, Inc. (NYSE: MO)
Class Period: December 20, 2018 - September 24, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/altria-group-inc-loss-form?wire=3

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

To learn more about the Altria Group, Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

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

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

Contact:

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


APPLEBEE'S: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Applebee's
Restaurants LLC. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Applebee's
Restaurants LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09861 (S.D. N.Y., Oct.
24, 2019).

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

Applebee's is an American company which develops, franchises, and
operates the Applebee's Neighborhood Grill + Bar restaurant
chain.[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



ARG RESOURCES: Smith Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY SMITH individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARG RESOURCES, LLC d/b/a Arby's, Defendant,
Case No. 2019CH12528 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Oct. 28, 2019), seeks
to put a stop to the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and
storage of the Plaintiff's and the putative Class members'
sensitive biometric data.

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

Specifically, ARG 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 the Plaintiff's
and the Class's fingerprints, as required by the BIPA; nor receive
a written release from the Plaintiff or the members of the Class to
collect, capture, or otherwise obtain fingerprints, as required by
the BIPA, says the complaint.

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

ARG operates under the popular name of Arby's. It is part of
Inspire Brands which has 11,200 restaurants, is the 4th largest
restaurant company in the United States, and has thousands of
employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Fish, Esq.
     John Kunze, Esq.
     Mara Baltabos, 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
            mara@fishlawfirm.com


ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT: Shortchanges Resto Staff's Wages, Says Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Garza, Christal King and Logan Blake, on behalf of all
past and present employees of Defendants at any Pizza Hut
franchises owned and/or operated by Atlantic, Plaintiffs, v.
Atlantic Development Corporation af Pennsylvania, Mike Washinger,
Bryan Biser, and ABC Entities 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-01664 (M.D. Pa., September 26, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and all other applicable relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection Law.

Defendants operate a Pizza Hut franchise restaurant in Waynesboro
where Garza, King and Blake were employed as shift manager, server
and prep cook, respectively. They claim that the Defendants
deliberately reduced their hours' work at their time-keeping
software. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jesse C. Klaproth, Esq.
      KLAPROTH LAW PLLC
      1500 Walnut Street, Suite 800
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Email: (215) 644-7463
      Email: jklaproth@klaprothlaw.com


AUTOMAX FINANCIAL: Medina Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Damita Medina, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOMAX FINANCIAL, LLC, CARNOW ACCEPTANCE
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01582-NJ (E.D. Wisc., Oct.
29, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

The Defendant operates an unlawful compensation system that
deprived current and former hourly paid, non-exempt employees of
their wages earned for all compensable work performed each
workweek, including overtime rate pay for each hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek, the Plaintiff alleges. The
Defendants' deliberate failure to compensate its hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees for hours worked and work perform at the
proper and legal rate of pay violated federal law as set forth in
the FLSA and state law as set forth in the WWPCL, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as an Account Manager
working primarily in a call center setting at Automax in August
2014.

The Defendants service automobile contract for customers, provide
financing to customers who purchase automobiles, and accept
customers' automobile payments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BARRICK GOLD: Drywall Acoustic 675 Fund's $3BB Suit Gets Go Signal
------------------------------------------------------------------
James Langton, writing for Investment Executive, reports that an
Ontario court has given the go-ahead for a pension fund's proposed
$3-billion securities class action against Barrick Gold Corp.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted a motion brought by
the trustees of the Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local
675 pension fund seeking leave to bring a class action against
Barrick for alleged misrepresentations in the company's financial
disclosure involving a massive mining project that ultimately
failed.

The allegations, which have not been proven, involve secondary
market misrepresentations regarding the construction of the
multi-billion-dollar Pascua Lama gold mining project in Chile and
Argentina.

According to the court ruling, the pension trustees are suing the
company over various disclosures it made about the project, which
was ultimately abandoned, resulting in billions worth of
shareholder losses.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave concerning an
alleged environmental misrepresentation that appeared in the
company's MD&A in its second quarter 2012 report.

"The proposed class action is confined to this single
representation," the court ruled, noting that the plaintiffs
established a "reasonable possibility" of success at trial on that
count.

However, it denied leave for various other alleged
misrepresentations in the company's financial disclosure.

The court also limited the claim to buyers of Barrick common
shares, not all securities, stating, "the plaintiff has presented
no evidence of materiality in relation to Barrick's debt
securities."

The ruling also notes that a U.S. class action has been settled.
[GN]


BED BATH & BEYOND: Delacruz Files ADA Class Action in NY
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bed Bath & Beyond
Inc. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz On Behalf Of Himself
And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Bed Bath &
Beyond Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09852 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24,
2019).

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

Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. is an American chain of domestic merchandise
retail stores. Bed Bath & Beyond operates many stores in the United
States, Puerto Rico, Canada, and Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


BEN & JERRY'S: Misrepresents Ice Cream Products, Ehlers Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Ehlers, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE INC., and CONOPCO
INC. d/b/a UNILEVER UNITED STATES, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00194-cr (D. Vt., Oct. 29, 2019), arises from the
Defendants' misrepresentations on the source of milk and cream in
their ice cream products.

To the detriment of consumers, operations and marketing for the Ben
& Jerry's brand are very different as a part of its multinational
parent, Unilever, than they were when Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc.,
was run in Vermont by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, the Plaintiff
states. Nevertheless, Unilever continues to capitalize on the
goodwill that Ben & Jerry's earned in Vermont and nationwide during
its earlier decades.

During the past several years, Unilever has breached consumer trust
by representing the Ben & Jerry's Products as being made with milk
and cream sourced exclusively from "happy cows" on Vermont dairies
that participate in a special, humane "Caring Dairy" program, Mr.
Ehlers contends. In reality and contrary to the message knowingly
conveyed by Unilever to consumers, he alleges, only a minority
percentage of the milk and cream in the Products actually is
sourced from these "happy cows" on Caring Dairy farms; the
remaining milk and cream originates from factory-style,
mass-production dairy operations, exactly what consumers, who
choose Ben & Jerry's products would like to avoid.

Unilever's misrepresentations about milk and cream sourced
exclusively from "happy cows" on "Caring Dairies" prompt consumers
to buy more Ben & Jerry's Products, and to pay more for them than
they otherwise would, Mr. Ehlers asserts.  Because Unilever's
labeling and advertising of the Ben & Jerry's Products are false
and misleading to reasonable consumers, the Plaintiff brings this
case on behalf of himself and the members of the class and subclass
seeking injunctive and monetary relief.

James Ehlers is a long-time purchaser of Ben & Jerry's Products.

The Defendants manufacture and/or cause the manufacture of the Ben
& Jerry's products, and market, distribute, and sell the Products
throughout the United States, including in Vermont.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua E. Simonds, Esq.
     THE BURLINGTON LAW PRACTICE, PLLC
     2 Church St., Ste. G
     New York, NY 10027
     Phone: 802-651-5370
     Fax: 802-651-5374
     Email: jls@burlingtonlawpractice.com

          - and -

     Kim E. Richman, Esq.
     RICHMAN LAW GROUP
     8 W. 126th Street
     New York, NY 10027
     Phone: 728.705.4579
     Fax: 728.228.8522
     Email: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com


BEST BUY CO: Delacruz Files Class Suit Under ADA
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Best Buy Co., Inc.
The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz On Behalf Of Himself And All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Best Buy Co., Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09860 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019).

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

Best Buy Co., Inc. is an American multinational consumer
electronics retailer headquartered in Richfield, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com



BHRAGS HOME CARE: Jean Sues Over Denied OT Pay, Wage Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Jean, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. BHRAGS Home Care
Corp., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-05617, (E.D. N.Y., October 3,
2019), seeks unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and any other
statutory penalties as recoverable, compensatory damages sustained
as a result of Defendants' retaliation, including back pay, front
pay, punitive damages, redress for failure to provide wage
statements, costs and disbursements incurred in connection with
this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness
fees and other costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Laws.

BHRAGS Home Care is a Brooklyn-based home health care staffing
agency where Jean worked as a home health aide from February 1990
to the present. She regularly works more than forty hours in a
workweek, but was not paid the statutorily-required overtime rate
of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for any hours
that she has worked each week in excess of forty and was denied
accurate wage statements on each payday. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Tel. (516) 248-5550
      Fax. (516) 248-6027


BLUE CROSS: Houston Home Hits Illegal Price-fixing Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------
Houston Home Dialysis, LP on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama,
Anthem, Inc., Health Care Service Corporation, Cambia Health
Solutions, Inc., CareFirst, Inc., Premera Blue Cross, Premera Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Alaska, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona,
Inc., USAble Mutual Insurance Company, Blue Cross of California,
California Physicians' Service, Inc., Rocky Mountain Hospital and
Medical Service, Inc., Anthem Health Plans, Inc., Highmark, Inc.,
Highmark BCBSD, Inc., Group Hospitalization and Medical Services,
Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc., Hawaii Medical Service Association
d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Hawaii, Blue Cross of Idaho
Health Service, Inc., Regence BlueShield of Idaho, Inc., Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Illinois, Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.,
Wellmark, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc., Anthem
Health Plans of Kentucky, Inc., Louisiana Health Service and
Indemnity Company, Anthem Health Plans of Maine, Inc., CareFirst of
Maryland, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc.,
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, BCBSM, Inc., Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Mississippi, HMO Missouri, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Kansas City, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana,
Caring for Montanans, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska,
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nevada, Anthem Health Plans of
New Hampshire, Inc., Horizon Health Care Services, Inc., Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of New Mexico, HealthNow New York, Inc., Blue
Shield of Northeastern New York, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Western New York, Inc., Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc.,
Excellus Health Plan, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North
Carolina, Inc., Noridian Mutual Insurance Company, Community
Insurance Company, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma, Regence
BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon, Hospital Service Association of
Northeastern Pennsylvania, Capital Blue Cross, Highmark Health
Services, Inc., Independence Blue Cross, Triple-S Salud, Inc., Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Rhode Island, BlueCross BlueShield of
South Carolina Inc., Wellmark of South Dakota, Inc., BlueCross
BlueShield of Tennessee, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas,
Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Vermont, Anthem Health Plans of Virginia, Inc., Inc., Regence
BlueShield, Highmark West Virginia, Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Wisconsin, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wyoming, Consortium Health
Plans, Inc., National Account Service Company, LLC and Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-03791,
(S.D. Tex., October 2, 2019), seeks injunctive relief, statutory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs together with other relief for
violation of the Sherman Act.

Defendants are an Association and affiliated companies that operate
as Blue Cross and Blue Shield, providing health insurance coverage
for approximately 100 million people in the United States.
Defendants are alleged of engaging in an illegal horizontal market
allocation or price-fixing scheme under which Blue affiliates gets
the benefit of the artificially reduced prices that are paid to
healthcare providers through the established national programs,
thus reducing the competition.

Houston Home Dialysis provides staff-assisted home dialysis
treatments serving Harris and the surrounding counties. Many of
their patients are insured by Blue or are included in
employee-benefit plans administered by Blue. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Earnest W. Wotring, Esq.
      David George, Esq.
      Karen Dow, Esq.
      BAKER WOTRING LLP
      700 JPMorgan Chase Tower
      600 Travis Street
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 980-1700
      Facsimile: (713) 980-1701
      Email: ewotring@bakerwotring.com
             dgeorge@bakerwotring.com
             kdow@bakerwotring.com


BURGER KING: Mendez Brings ADA Class Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Burger King
Corporation. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Burger King
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09855 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24,
2019).

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

Burger King is an American multinational chain of hamburger fast
food restaurants.[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


BURTON CLAIM: Sloan Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SLOAN, KENDRA HAMILTON, and KLISA SAPP on behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BURTON CLAIM SERVICE,
INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-19-021309 (Fla. Cir., Oct. 15,
2019), seeks to recover overtime wages, damages, and reasonable
attorney's fee and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants at various times within
the last three years.

Throughout their work for the Defendant, the Plaintiffs were not
paid for their overtime hours worked at a rate not less than one
and one-half times the regular rate at which they were employed for
workweeks longer than 40 hours, the lawsuit says.

Burton Claim Service Inc. provides a variety of claim services and
specialized programs to meet your needs including the following:
Property and Casualty Claims Adjusting; Personal Lines; Commercial
Lines; Specialty Lines; Construction Defect; Transportation; Heavy
Equipment & Machinery; Large Loss; Professional Liability;
Litigation File Management; Flood; Workers Compensation;
Investigation; Catastrophe Services; Third Party Administration;
Appraisal & Mediation; Fraud Investigation; Audit & Re-inspection
Services; Subrogation; and Salvage.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C. Ryan morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave.
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com


CAPITAL BUILDING: Moreno Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
EFREN MORENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE & CLEANING
SERVICES, INC. Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-07087 (N.D. Cal., Oct.
28, 2019), is brought on behalf of similarly situated employees as
a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for
violations of federal overtime laws.

The lawsuit is also brought a class action lawsuit pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for violations of the
California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Orders, including
Wage Orders 5-2001 and 16-2001.

When the Plaintiff and similarly situated workers worked more than
40 hours in a week, their regular rate of pay for purposes of
computing overtime pay was not based on a weighted average of all
the hourly rates within the workweek. At various times relevant to
this action, the Defendants lowered overtime pay to an overtime
rate of just a few dollars more than the regular rate. The overtime
hours would also primarily be put in separate pay checks with
separate wage statements paid in the same pay period. The Defendant
had a pay system, used by all workers, in which they would not
properly record all hours worked, resulting in workers not being
paid for all hours worked and not being paid minimum wage for all
hours worked. The Defendant also violated California Labor Code
section 226 by issuing wage statements for overtime pay that did
not list the regular rate of pay and did not properly calculate
overtime wages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant.

The Defendant provides various labor services, including window
washing, construction clean up, floor maintenance, pressure
washing, trash and graffiti removal and other specialty services
described on its website
(http://www.capitalbldg.com/special-services/).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marco A. Palau, Esq.
     Joseph D. Sutton, Esq.
     Eric s. Trabucco, Esq.
     ADVOCATES FOR WORKER RIGHTS LLP
     212 9th Street, Suite 314
     Oakland, CA 94607
     Phone: (510) 269-4200
     Fax: (408) 657-4684

          - and -

     Tomas E. Margain, Esq.
     Huy Tran, Esq.
     JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP, LLP
     1550 The Alameda, Suite 302
     San Jose, CA 95126
     Phone: (408) 317-1100
     Facsimile: (408) 351-0105


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Wilmore Sues Over Racial Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
BEVERLY WILMORE, for and on behalf of herself and other persons
similarly situated v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS a/k/a SPECTRUM REACH,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09353 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 9, 2019), challenges the
Defendant's alleged discriminatory employment practices as they
relate to former and current African-American employees and
applicants.

Ms. Wilmore is an African American female resident of the state of
California and was last employed with the Defendant at its
Birmingham, Alabama location.  She worked for the Defendant from
October 2012 to June 27, 2018, and her last position was as Senior
Manager Digital Sales-Media.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in a demonstrable
policy of race discrimination in promotions, in violation of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.  She contends that Spectrum has followed
a general practice of discriminating against
African-Americans/blacks on the basis of race with respect to
promotions and lay-offs to high level senior management positions
by enforcing a corporate policy and practice that expressly and
impliedly discourages them from seeking higher paying and higher
responsibility positions.

Charter Communications, also known as Spectrum Reach, is a
corporation headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roderick T. Cooks, Esq.
          Lee D. Winston, Esq.
          WINSTON COOKS, LLC
          505 20th Street North, Suite #815
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 502-0970
          Facsimile: (205) 278-5876
          E-mail: rcooks@winstoncooks.com
                  lwinston@winstoncooks.com


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on Oct. 8, 2019, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware against The Chemours Company (NYSE: CC). The
complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or
false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is February 16, 2017 through August 1, 2019.

To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-the-chemours-company/.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all The Chemours
Company shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class
Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above.
You may move the Court no later than Monday, December 9, 2019 to
serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order
to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com
Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com

Contact:

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         Website: www.federmanlaw.com
         Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com
[GN]


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Violates ADA, Thorne Suit Asserts
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chipotle Mexican
Grill, Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne On Behalf Of
Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09867
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019).

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

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., often known simply as Chipotle, is an
American chain of fast casual restaurants in the United States,
United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France, specializing in tacos
and Mission-style burritos.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com



CITIZENS BANK: McAuliffe Suit Removed to Mass. Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Barbara McAuliffe on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Citizens Bank of
Massachusetts, Defendant, Case No. 1982CV01177 was removed from
Norfolk Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on Oct. 24, 2019, and assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-12197.

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

Citizens Bank offers personal and business banking, student loans,
home equity products, credit cards, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Michael E. Pastore, Esq.
     Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC
     One Financial Center, 42nd Flr.
     Boston, MA 02111
     Phone: (617) 542-6000
     Fax: (617) 897-0926
     Email: mepastore@mintz.com



CLICK SALES: Faces Acosta Suit Alleging Invasion of Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------
KHEMEELA ACOSTA, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CLICK SALES INC., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-08697 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 9, 2019), arises
from the Defendants' illegal actions in negligently contacting the
Plaintiff on her cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading her privacy.

Click Sales Inc. is an online retail company that conducted
business in the state of California and in the County of Los
Angeles.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are
currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Fennel Disputes Debt in Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aja A. Fennell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-05599 (E.D. N.Y., October 3, 2019), seeks damages,
and declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Convergent Outsourcing is a collection agency with its principal
office located in King County, Washington. It attempted to collect
a debt incurred by Fennel to Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC via
collection letter in the amount of $2,243.63. Fennel denied such
debt. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 203-7600
      Fax: (516) 706-5055
      Email: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com


CORNERSTONE SUPPORT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lewis Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Damon Lewis, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CORNERSTONE SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-04389-JPH-DML (S.D. Ind., Oct. 29, 2019), accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
Indiana Wage Claims Statute by failing to pay proper overtime
wages.

Cornerstone failed to pay him time and one-half his hourly rate for
hours worked in excess of 40, instead paying him only straight
time, Mr. Lewis alleges. In fact, in 2016, Cornerstone instructed
its former Human Resources Manager, Kristen DeLong, to pay
employees straight pay regardless of whether they worked overtime,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was originally hired by the Defendant in May 2016 in
the position of Direct Support Staff.

The Defendant is a domestic limited liability company that
maintains offices and conducts business within the Southern
District of Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig M. Williams, Esq.
     FOX WILLIAMS & SINK, LLC
     6177 North College Ave.
     Indianapolis, IN 46220
     Phone: 317-254-8500
     Email: cwilliams@fwslegal.com


CRICUT INC: Reid Sues Over ADA Breach
-------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cricut, Inc. The case
is styled as Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cricut, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-09811 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019).

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

Cricut is the leader in creative technology for makers, a company
dedicated to helping people live their most creative lives by
providing the tools they need to make beautiful, high-quality DIY
projects with ease.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq.
     Stein Saks PLLC
     285 Passaic St., Suite 5
     Hakensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500
     Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com


CURO MANAGEMENT: Johnson Sues Over Unauthorized Credit Inquiries
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID S. JOHNSON, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CURO MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-02061 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2019), seeks to enjoin the
deceptive business practices of the Defendant relating to its
systematic unauthorized credit inquiries.

Despite the fact that the Plaintiff did not have an account with
the Defendant and his debts were ordered discharged through
bankruptcy on November 14, 2016, the Defendant continued to submit
unauthorized account review credit report inquiries to Equifax.
Upon review of his Equifax credit report dated January 25, 2019,
the Plaintiff says he discovered the Defendant's multiple
unauthorized credit inquiries on November 10, 2018, September 4,
2018, and July 29, 2017--all of which were after his bankruptcy
discharge.

Mr. Johnson contends each of the Defendant's inquiries were
unauthorized and illegal. He says he had never heard of Curo
Management prior to reviewing his Equifax credit report.
Additionally, after he received the discharged order, there would
have been no debt owed to the Defendant and no account with the
Defendant by operation of the bankruptcy.

The Defendant's inquiries for his consumer report information,
without his consent, falls outside the scope of any permissible use
or access, the Plaintiff contends. He asserts that the Defendant
accessed his private and confidential information without his
consent or a permissible purpose.

The Plaintiff is a natural person who resided in the County of San
Bernardino, California.

The Defendant is a Nevada limited liability company located in
Wichita, Kansas, that is authorized to and regularly conducts
business in the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CVS HEALTH: Thorne Brings ADA Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CVS Health
Corporation. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne On Behalf Of
Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. CVS
Health Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09866 (S.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 24, 2019).

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

CVS Pharmacy is an American healthcare company that owns CVS
Pharmacy, a retail pharmacy chain, CVS Caremark, a pharmacy
benefits manager, Aetna, a health insurance provider, among other
brands, and CVS Health headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode
Island.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


DELTA DENTAL: Fisher Sues Over Dental Insurance Antitrust Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary M. Fisher, DDS, P.C., on behalf of itself and 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, Inc.; 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-07090 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 28,
2019), is a case involving Delta Dental's violation of federal
antitrust laws in the market for dental insurance across the United
States.

Delta Dental secured unlawful monopsony power through its
artificial territorial division of that market among the Delta
Dental State Insurers (which are all the Defendants except the
Association), and is abusing it to: (1) restrict competition among
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").

Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest
providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have
approximately 200,000 participating dental locations across the
U.S. By carving the 50 U.S. States into exclusive territories in
which the Delta Dental State Insurers are guaranteed to be free
from competition from other Delta Dental State Insurers, the Delta
Dental State Insurers have each secured monopsony control within
their assigned territories, and Defendants as a group have secured
monopsony control over the market for dental insurance across the
U.S. Absent the monopsony powers and territorial protections
secured to Defendants by the Market Allocation Conspiracy, dental
plan sponsors and members would have greater choice as to the
dental insurance they choose to purchase, and the Delta Dental
Providers, including the Plaintiff, would have greater choice in
the dental insurance they choose to accept from their patients. 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.

All three of the Market Allocation Conspiracy, the Price Fixing
Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy have reduced
competition in the market for dental insurance in each of the
territories in which the Delta Dental State Insurers are based and
across the U.S., the Plaintiff asserts. This decreased competition
has harmed the Delta Dental Providers (in the form of reduced
choice in the dental insurance plans they can accept from patients,
and lower reimbursement rates paid to them under those plans), and
has also harmed dental plan sponsors and members (in the form of
higher premiums paid to Delta Dental in a non-competitive market,
and through lower quality services offered to patients by the Delta
Dental Providers that have been starved of reimbursement revenue by
the Defendants' artificially low prices). While the Defendants are
predominantly non-profit entities, they have reaped the benefits of
their anticompetitive conspiracies in the form of lavish executive
compensation and by building up excessive capital reserves. 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 Mary M. Fisher, DDS, P.C. is a dental services provider
and a Michigan professional corporation, who provided dental goods
and services to consumers insured by Delta Dental pursuant to its
in network contract with Delta Dental of Michigan, Inc.

The Delta Dental State Insurers are 50 predominantly not-for-profit
dental services corporations that operate in 50 state territories,
multi-state territories, or territories (the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico) across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William H. London, Esq.
     Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
     Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
     Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
     FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
     2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
     Bannockburn, IL 60015
     Phone: (224) 632-4500
     Fax: (224) 632-4521
     Email: wlondon@fklmlaw.com
            dmillen@fklmlaw.com
            mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com
            bhogan@fklmlaw.com

          - and -

     Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
     Randall B. Weill
     Michael S. Smith, Esq.
     Elizabeth F. Quinby, Esq.
     PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, LLP
     P.O. Box 9546
     Portland, ME 04112-9546
     Phone: 207-791-3000
     Email: ghansel@preti.com
            rweill@preti.com
            msmith@preti.com
            equinby@preti.com


DENNY'S CORPORATION: Faces Tucker ADA Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Denny's Corporation.
The case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Denny's Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09843 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2018).

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

Denny's is an American table service diner-style restaurant
chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com



DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Calcano Class Suit Under ADA
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Domino's Pizza, Inc.
The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Domino's Pizza,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09823 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24,
2019).

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

Domino's Pizza, Inc., branded as Domino's, is an American
multinational pizza restaurant chain founded in 1960. The
corporation is headquartered at the Domino's Farms Office Park in
Ann Arbor, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


EAGLE OILFIELD: Azure Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW AZURE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EAGLE OILFIELD RENTALS, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00221-CRH
(D.N.D., Oct. 9, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees were flowback operators working at oilfield
sites within the state of North Dakota, but were not paid for all
the overtime hours they worked, as Eagle only paid a day rate for
all hours worked.

Eagle Oilfield Rentals, LLC, is a North Dakota limited liability
company.  Eagle provides flowback services and rental equipment to
oil and gas producers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
          700 West Summit Drive
          Wimberley, TX 78676
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com
                  edmond@morelandlaw.com


EVER AND COMPANY: Winston Seeks Overtime Pay for Accountants
------------------------------------------------------------
SIERRA WINSTON, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
vs. EVER AND COMPANY, P.A., an active Florida corporation; JUDAH
EVER, individually; and AARON EVER, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 0:19-cv-62534-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 11, 2019), alleges
that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is an accountant who worked for Defendant, from
February 2018, until she voluntarily resigned her employment on
July 22, 2019.  The lawsuit claims that the Plaintiff and similarly
situated accountants were not paid time and one half for all hours
worked over 40 in a given work week.

After her resignation, the Plaintiff learned that AE was, without
authorization, continually accessing her personal emails contained
in her personal Gmail account.   According to the lawsuit, AE used
the information gained from Plaintiff's personal Gmail account to
harass, defame, intimidate and bully Plaintiff.

Although Plaintiff worked as an accountant for EC, she Plaintiff
was paid by the hour. Therefore, Plaintiff was a non-exempt
employee. Other similarly situated accountants who worked for EC,
AE and JE were also paid by the hour. Therefore, these other
similarly situated accountants were non-exempt employees.

Ever & Company offers Business Tax Preparation, Tax Preparation for
Individuals, Tax Planning Services. IRS Tax Problem Resolution,
Financial and Business Consulting.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Michael L. Elkins, Esq.
          MLE LAW
          633 S. Andrews Ave., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 401-2608
          E-mail: melkins@mlelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joshua M. Entin, Esq.
          ENTIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          633 S. Andrews Ave., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 761-7201
          E-mail: josh@entinlaw.com

EXPRESS INC: Faces Tucker Suit for ADA Breach
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Express, Inc. The
case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Express, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-09840 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2018).

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

Express, Inc. is an American fashion retailer that caters mainly to
young men and women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


FIESTA LATINA: Mendez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FIESTA LATINA MARKET.
The case is styled as ALEJANDRO MENDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff v. FIESTA LATINA MARKET, AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS ENTITY,
ABDULLA MOHSEN, INDIVIDUALLY, SAEED SALEH, INDIVIDUALLY, ADAM
OBAID, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-103046 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Kern Cty., Oct. 24, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited".

Fiesta Latina Market is a Grocery Store in Bakersfield, CA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by DOUGLAS HAN, ESQ.


FORD MOTOR CO: F-150 Owners Sue Over Erroneous Fuel Economy Ratings
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosalynda Garza and Jeffrey Quizhpi, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ford Motor Company,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-12895 (E.D. Mich., October 3, 2019),
seeks redress for negligence, breach of express warranties and for
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Washington's Consumer
Protection Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Act.

Plaintiffs purchased 2018 Ford F-150 and claims that Ford's fuel
economy ratings were erroneous and overstated.

Ford engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,
marketing, warranting, distributing, selling, and leasing
automobiles. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul F. Novak, Esq.
      Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq.
      Diana Gjonaj, Esq.
      Tiffany Ellis, Esq.
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
      3011 West Grand Blvd., Suite 2150
      Detroit, MI 48202
      Telephone: (313) 800-4170
      Email: pnovak@weitzlux.com
             dgjonaj@weitzlux.com
             dstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com
             tellis@weitzlux.com

             - and -

      Howard T. Longman, Esq.
      Melissa Emert, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      6 East 45th Street
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 687-7230
      Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
      Email: memert@ssbny.com
             hlongman@ssbny.com

            - and -

      Gary S. Graifivan, Esq.
      Jay Brody, Esq.
      KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
      747 Chestnut Ridge Rd.
      Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
      Tel: (845) 356-2570
      Fax: (845) 356-4335
      Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
      Email: jbrody@kgglaw.com


FRITO-LAY INC: Ct. Certifies Class in Sanchez; Settlement OK Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge DALE A. DROZD of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California issued an order granting
preliminary class certification and denying motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement in the case captioned ELIAZAR
SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FRITO-LAY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:14-cv-00797-DAD-BAM, (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action in Kern County Superior
Court on April 11, 2014, alleging the following causes of action
under California law: (1) failure to pay regular hourly wages (2)
failure to pay overtime wages (3) failure to pay the correct
overtime rate of pay (4) failure to pay premium wages for denial of
meal and rest periods (5) failure to pay vested vacation wages (6)
illegal deductions of vested vacation wages (7) breach of contract
for failure to pay vested wages (8) failure to pay final wages due
upon termination (9) failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements and (10) violation of the Unfair Competition Law.

The putative class is comprised of non-exempt hourly employees of
defendant Frito-Lay, Inc., the owner and operator of several
distribution centers throughout California. Plaintiff alleges that
defendant implemented policies and practices that resulted in the
alleged violations of employment laws. On May 23, 2014, defendant
removed the case to this court.

Plaintiff is seeking preliminary settlement approval and
conditional class certification.

Pursuant to the proposed Revised Settlement, the class consists of
193 putative class members who are divided into two subclasses: (1)
the 4x10 Subclass and (2) the 5x8 Subclass. The 4x10 Subclass is
comprised of 131 current and former Maintenance Mechanics who
worked four ten-hour days a week.  The 5x8 Subclass is comprised of
62 current and former Maintenance Mechanics who worked five
eight-hour days a week. The class period begins on April 11, 2010
and ends June 24, 2015.

Under the Revised Settlement, defendant has agreed to increase the
maximum settlement amount from $600,000 to $710,473.33. The
agreement provides for the following allocation of that maximum
amount: (i) attorneys' fees of $177,618.33, or twenty-five percent
of the settlement fund; (ii) $20,000 to be paid to class counsel
for reasonable costs; (iii) an incentive award to plaintiff in the
amount of $7,500; (iv) a PAGA payment in the amount of $5,000; (v)
$10,000 for the fees and costs of the Settlement Administrator; and
(vi) the remaining payout fund of $490,3552 to be distributed to
class members. The payout fund of $490,355 will be divided between
the two subclasses, with the 4x10 Subclass receiving 90.1 percent
of the allocation, or $441,809.86 ($490,355 x 90.1%), and the 5x10
Subclass receiving 9.9 percent of the allocation, or $48,545.14
($490,355 x 9.9%). Each class member's settlement payment will be a
proportionate share of the payout fund based on weeks worked during
the class period. Any unpaid or unclaimed funds will be distributed
to the State Treasury's Trial Court Improvement and Modernization
Fund, the State Treasury Equal Access Fund of the Judicial Branch,
and The United Way. As such, no money will revert to defendant.

Plaintiff sought an order from this court: (i) preliminarily
certifying the class for purposes of settlement, with appointment
of plaintiff as class representative, appointment of plaintiff's
counsel as class counsel, and approval of ILYM Group, Inc. as the
settlement administrator; (ii) approving the proposed form and
method of notice to be disseminated to the class; and (iii)
scheduling the hearing date for the final approval of the class
settlement.

Rule 23(a) Requirements

Rule 23(a) establishes four prerequisites for class action
litigation: (1) numerosity (2) commonality (3) typicality  and (4)
adequacy of representation.

Numerosity

A proposed class must be so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable.  
Here, plaintiff asserts that there are 193 members in the
settlement class. The class is readily ascertainable because all
class members have worked for defendant and can be easily
identified through defendant's employee and payroll records. This
showing with respect to numerosity is adequate to meet the
requirements of Rule 23(a)(1).

Commonality

Rule 23(a) also requires questions of law or fact common to the
class. To satisfy the commonality requirement, the class
representatives must demonstrate that common points of facts and
law will drive or resolve the litigation.  

Here, plaintiff argues that the alleged California law violations
are common to each member of the class.   The proposed class action
stems from the same factual and legal issues centered on whether
defendant provided class members with second meal periods and third
rest breaks when they worked over ten hours. Because it appears
that the same conduct which defendant allegedly engaged in would
form the basis of each of the plaintiff's claims, the court finds
that commonality is satisfied.  

Typicality

Rule 23(a)(3) also requires that the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class. Typicality is satisfied when each class member's claim
arises from the same course of events, and each class member makes
similar legal arguments to prove the defendant's liability.  

Here, plaintiff Sanchez worked for defendant four ten-hour day a
week as a Maintenance Mechanic during the relevant class period.
Although plaintiff was a member of the 4x10 Subclass and did not
work five eight-hour days a week like the class members in the 5x8
Subclass, plaintiff's claims for meal and rest premiums for shifts
when he was not provided a second or third rest break are typical
of each subclass identified in the Revised Settlement. Plaintiff's
claims arise from the same course of conduct and are based upon the
same legal theories as those applicable to class members in each of
the two subclasses.

The court concludes that plaintiff's claims are reasonably
co-extensive with those of the settlement class, and that
typicality is therefore satisfied here.

Adequacy of Representation

The final Rule 23(a) prerequisite is satisfied if the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.

Plaintiff Sanchez, the proposed class representative, appears to
have no conflicts of interests adverse to those of the class
members in the 4x10 or the 5x8 Subclasses and is committed to
vigorously prosecuting the case on behalf of the class. Moreover,
plaintiff's counsel has provided declarations representing that
they have no conflicts of interest and are experienced class action
litigators who are fully qualified to pursue the interests of the
class.  

As such, the court finds that plaintiff Sanchez and plaintiff's
counsel satisfy the adequacy of representation requirement.

Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements

In addition to the requirements of Rule 23(a), Rule 23(b)(3)
requires: (i) that the questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members and (ii) that a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

Predominance

First, common questions must predominate over any individual
questions. While this requirement is similar to the Rule 23(a)(2)
commonality requirement, the standard is much higher at this stage
of the analysis.  

Plaintiff contends that all class members during the class period
were subjected to defendant's alleged practice of failing to
provide second meal breaks and third rest breaks when they worked
shifts of over ten hours. Thus, plaintiff and the putative class
share a common nucleus of operative facts and potential legal
remedies. Class actions in which a defendant's practices are
challenged generally satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule
23(b)(3).
   
The predominance requirement has therefore been met in this case.

Superiority

Rule 23(b)(3) also requires a court to find a class action is
superior to other available methods for the fair adjudication of
the controversy. In resolving the Rule 23(b)(3) superiority
inquiry, the court should consider class members' interests in
pursuing separate actions individually, any litigation already in
progress involving the same controversy, the desirability of
concentrating in one forum, and potential difficulties in managing
the class action although the last two considerations are not
relevant in the settlement context.

By consolidating approximately 193 potential individual actions
into a single proceeding here, plaintiff argues that the class
action device enables more efficient management of this litigation
for the court and the litigants alik. Plaintiff also argues that,
absent class treatment, the cost of litigation would far exceed the
potential recovery for each individual class member with small, but
potentially meritorious claims.  

These reasons are persuasive, and warrant finding that the
superiority requirement is also satisfied here.

Accordingly, Judge Drozd grants plaintiff's motion for preliminary
class certification; plaintiff's counsel Bisnar Chase, LLP is
appointed as class counsel; named plaintiff, Eliazar Sanchez, is
appointed as class representative; and ILYM Group Inc. is approved
as Settlement Administrator.

However, the court denies plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement.  

Judge Drozd said it appears that no PAGA claim was brought by
plaintiff on his behalf or on behalf of other aggrieved employees.
Although the proposed release of liability for the class includes
"violations of. . . [the] Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"),"
plaintiff has also not provided any evidence that he appropriately
commenced a civil action by serving notice of his PAGA claim to the
LWDA or to defendant so as to demonstrate he has authority to
settle any PAGA claim.

Accordingly, absent further explanation by the parties, the court
declines to preliminarily approve the PAGA penalties called for in
the Revised Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

"The court is mindful of the strong judicial policy favoring
settlements and this denial is without prejudice to plaintiff
renewing his motion for preliminary approval of the settlement yet
again to address the court's concerns regarding the purported PAGA
claim settlement, release of claims, and notice form," rules Judge
Drozd. In the event a renewed motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement is not filed first, the parties are once
again directed to file a joint status report within 21 days of
electronic service of this order informing the court how they
intend to proceed in this litigation.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y53zchzs
from Leagle.com.

Eliazar Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian D. Chase -
bchase@bisnarchase.com - Bisnar Chase, LLP & Jerusalem F. Beligan -
jbeligan@bisnarchase.com - Bisnar Chase, LLP.

Frito-Lay, Inc., Defendant, represented by Samantha D. Hardy -
shardy@sheppardmullin.com - Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Ashley Teiko Hirano - ahirano@sheppardmullin.com - Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP & Daniel Francisco De La Cruz
ddelacruz@sheppardmullin.com , Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP.

GAMESTOP CORP: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gamestop Corp. The
case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gamestop Corp., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09814 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019).

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

GameStop Corp. is an American video game, consumer electronics and
gaming merchandise retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marcos Calcano, Esq.
     150 E 18 St.
     New York, NY 10003
     c/o Gottlieb & Associates
     PRO SE


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Breached Duties on BHI Merger, Providence Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF PROVIDENCE, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GREGORY D.
BRENNEMAN, CLARENCE P. CAZALOT, JR., WILLIAM EASTER III, LYNN L.
ELSENHANS, ANTHONY G. FERNANDES, CLAIRE GARGALLI, PIERRE JEAN-MARIE
HENRI JUNGELS, JAMES A. LASH, J. LARRY NICHOLS, JAMES W. STEWART,
CHARLES L. WATSON, MARTIN S. CRAIGHEAD, AND KIMBERLY ROSS,
Defendants, Case No. 2019-0857- (Del. Ch., Oct. 28, 2019), is
brought on behalf of public stockholders of Baker Hughes
Incorporated against GE and Baker Hughes' former directors and
officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting
thereof and tortious manipulation of and fraud upon a board process
in connection with the combination of Baker Hughes with GE's Oil
and Gas sub-segment to form Baker Hughes, a General Electric
Company, which closed on July 3, 2017.

In this case, GE knowingly provided Baker Hughes, its Board and
advisors, false financial statements that significantly inflated
the prospects of its struggling oil and gas business, the Plaintiff
alleges. The Board approved a merger agreement and recommended that
shareholders do the same based on those false financials. After
signing the merger agreement and receiving audited financials that
portrayed a fundamentally less valuable deal for Baker Hughes
stockholders, the Board and GE inexplicably hid from investors the
massive divergence between the unaudited financials on which the
deal was negotiated and structured and those disclosed in Baker
Hughes' definitive proxy statement. Worse yet, the Plaintiff
contends, GE O&G was a non-publicly traded segment of GE, making it
difficult for Baker Hughes investors to value GE O&G independently
and further increasing stockholders' reliance on the Board's
recommendation.

In the fall of 2015, with its oil and gas business struggling under
the systemic oil and gas price slump, GE knew certain critical
facts that could give it leverage in any negotiation to acquire
Baker Hughes, including the fact the GE knew that Baker Hughes was
reeling on the heels of its dramatic and strategically damaging
failed sale to industry competitor Halliburton, and that GE knew
that its GE O&G business, not being publicly traded, did not have
audited financial statements reflecting its value as an independent
company separate from its GE parent.

The Plaintiff asserts that GE cannot escape liability because it
knowingly gave false financials to broker a multi-billion dollar
merger.  GE pressured the Baker Hughes Board into closing a deal
that would keep them from terminating or renegotiating the deal
upon learning the truth about GE O&G's financials.  The Plaintiff
points out that nobody forced GE to contribute information for the
issuance of public filings that falsely represent, among other
things, that GE O&G's audited financials did not materially differ
from the unaudited financials on which the deal was actually valued
and structured. Under these very unique circumstances, the Board
should be liable for breaching their duties, and GE should be
liable to Baker Hughes investors, who are the reasonably
foreseeable victims of GE's manipulation of the Baker Hughes
Board's process, fraud upon the Board and the Baker Hughes
stockholders alike, and aiding and abetting of the Baker Hughes
Board's breaches of duty, says the complaint.

Plaintiff City of Providence was a stockholder of Baker Hughes.

General Electric is a leading global high-tech industrial
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ned Weinberger, Esq.
     Thomas Curry, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1340
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 573-2540


GEO GROUP: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Puga Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Araya Puga on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., GEO CORRECTIONS AND DETENTION,
LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation, and DOES 1 - 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-at-01028 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 29,
2019), alleges that the Defendants violate the California Labor
Code, the California Business and Professions Code and the
California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders by failing to
pay their employees for all hours worked.

The Defendants knew that they had a duty to properly compensate her
and Class Members, and they willfully, knowingly, and intentionally
failed to do so in order to increase their profits, the Plaintiff
alleges. The Defendants knew that they had an obligation to pay for
all hours worked by Plaintiff and Class Members, without reduction
or rounding, but they willfully, knowingly and intentionally failed
to do, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former GEO employees and member of the
Defendants' non-exempt security personnel.

GEO Group is a for-profit corporation that operates private prisons
throughout the Unites States through many subsidiaries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James R. Patterson, Esq.
     Jennifer M. French, Esq.
     PATTERSON LAW GROUP APC
     1350 Columbia St., Suite 603
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 756-6990
     Fax: (619) 756-6991
     Email: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com
            jenn@pattersonlawgroup.com

          - and -

     James R. Hawkins, Esq.
     Gregory E. Mauro, Esq.
     JAMES HAWKINS APLC
     9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Phone: (949)387-7200
     Fax: (949)387-6676
     Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
            greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com


GILA LLC: Faces Federal Class Action for Overcharging Tolls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aprile Rickert, writing for Wave 3 News, reports that a federal
class-action lawsuit is pending against the companies responsible
for tolling three of the five bridges that span the Ohio River
between Indiana and Louisville.

Indiana resident Melissa Barker filed the lawsuit in February
against Kapsch TrafficCom USA, Inc. and Gila, LLC, the companies
which act as tolling and invoicing agents for the Ohio River
Bridges Project. Her complaint, initially filed in Marion County,
states that the two companies overcharged her for tolls in 2017 and
2018, and she wants compensation for herself and the others in the
lawsuit.

The number of plaintiffs is unclear, but it is over 100, because
the case has moved to federal court.

"The proposed case contains hundreds or even thousands of
motorists," according to the complaint.

The toll a driver pays to tolling company RiverLink for crossing
one of the three bridges varies, depending on the type of vehicle
and type of account. For drivers without a prepaid account or one
with insufficient funds, paper invoices are mailed to the drivers'
homes roughly two months after a crossing.

The first notice sent is expected to have only the toll charges,
with 30 days to pay them. The second notice includes a $5
administrative fee and if that isn't paid in 30 days, a violation
notice is sent out that includes the $5 fee plus $25 late fee. If
this is not remedied, a collection notice is sent which includes
the tolls and a total of $60 in fees - late fee, administrative fee
and a $30 collection fee.

The federal complaint states that on two instances, Barker received
second notices with late fees after never having received the first
notice. On Aug. 18, 2017, she received what was labeled as a second
toll notice for trips across a bridge on June 29 and June 30. On
Jan 16, 2018, she received the same type of notice for trips made
Sept. 4 and Nov. 26.

"These notices were falsely identified as "2nd Toll Notices" when
in fact no first toll notice had been provided to plaintiff and the
notices were not, in fact, "2nd" Toll Notices," the complaint
reads.

The charges alleged by the plaintiffs include fraud, violation of
the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, deception or intentional
misrepresentation and negligence. The plaintiffs have demanded a
jury trial and seek monetary damages to be determined by the court.
They have also requested preliminary and permanent injunction, the
purpose to ensure that the alleged overcharging is not happening
now. [GN]


GROUPON INC: 7th Cir. Gives Limited Remand on Instagram Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal appeals panel has given a fresh chance at life for a class
action against Groupon over its use of people's images posted on
Instagram.

On Oct. 9, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a
"limited remand" of a federal judge's decision rejecting the class
action attempt.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Guzman in March refused to grant class
action status to lead plaintiff Christine Dancel, who filed a 2016
suit in Cook County court alleging Groupon wrongly used Instagram
photos to promote deals for restaurants and other businesses. In
his decision, the judge said there are too many individualized
claims for a class action to be practical. Groupon had removed the
case to federal court and asked the judge to deny the class
certification.

Dancel appealed the decision.

Seventh Circuit Judge William Bauer wrote the opinion on Dancel's
appeal. Circuit judges Michael Brennan and Amy St. Eve concurred.

Dancel said she took a photograph of herself and her boyfriend in
August 2015 at a Vernon Hills restaurant, then posted it on
Instagram and tagged it with the restaurant's name. Groupon posted
the photo, along with others, on the restaurant's deal page in
January 2016. Dancel said she neither has a Groupon account nor
mentioned Groupon in her post. She alleged tens of thousands of
possible class members should each get $1,000 in statutory
damages.

Bauer wrote: "[Dancel] proceeded as though we gave her a free
ticket to redo her opposition to the removal of her suit from state
court. Although we refuse to entertain the bulk of her arguments,
she has drawn our attention to a critical hole in the notice of
removal — it does not allege the citizenship of even one diverse
member of the putative class."

In its motion to remove Dancel's complaint to federal court,
Groupon, which is incorporated in Delaware but is based in Chicago,
said the class "undoubtedly would include at least some
undetermined number of non-Illinois and non-Delaware citizens as
class plaintiffs," yet did not identify any one of these class
members or their citizenship.

However, Dancel's motion for a remand argued the "removal was
improper not because jurisdiction was lacking but because it had
always existed, and therefore Groupon had waived its right to
remove," Bauer wrote.

But in a later filing, Dancel argued that Groupon needed to
identify an absent class member who lives in neither state to show
minimal diversity. Groupon maintained it could cure that
deficiency, but found it unnecessary.

Although the panel said Groupon's allegations are deficient, Bauer
explained an immediate remand to state court would be inappropriate
so long as subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal court is
apparent in the record or if the notice of removal could be amended
to cure the shortcoming.

"The record does not currently reveal the existence of
jurisdiction, so Groupon must amend its allegations, as it may do
even on appeal," Bauer wrote. "We asked Groupon to correct the
jurisdictional statement in its appellate brief but it added only
that its system did not screen photos for their owners' citizenship
- still providing nothing but a guess of diversity, educated and
sensible though it may be."

The panel further acknowledged the bar to clear is low - Groupon
only needed to allege "on information and belief" the class
included at least one person who lived outside Delaware or Illinois
- and noted Groupon said during appellate arguments it could
identify a specific, diverse class member through discovery after a
remand to the federal court.

Bauer said the panel considered such a procedure earlier this year
in Miller v. Southwest Airlines Co., and elected to follow that
approach for Groupon, retaining its jurisdiction over Dancel's
appeal pending resolution.

"If the district court," Bauer wrote, "after a reasonable time, is
not convinced that Groupon can carry its burden, then it may enter
an indicative ruling that it is inclined to remand for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction, and we will take appropriate steps."

Dancel has been represented by Ari Scharg, Esq. --
ascharg@edelson.com -- Benjamin Richman, Esq. --
brichman@edelson.com -- Benjamin Thomassen, Esq. --
bthomassen@edelson.com -- and Jay Edelson, Esq. --
jedelson@edelson.com -- of the Chicago firm of Edelson PC, as well
as by Rafey Balabanian, Esq. -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- of the
firm's San Francisco office.

Groupon has been defended by Brian Cohen, Esq., Christopher Moore,
Esq. and Eric Macey, Esq. of the Chicago firm of Novack & Macey.
[GN]


HARO BICYCLE: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Haro Bicycle
Corporation. The case is styled as Valentin Reid, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Haro
Bicycle Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09818 (S.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 24, 2019).

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

Haro Bikes Corporation is an American BMX and Mountain bicycle
manufacturer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq.
     Stein Saks PLLC
     285 Passaic St., Suite 5
     Hakensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500
     Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com



HOLLISTER CO: Tucker Sues Over Inaccessible Store Gift Cards
------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY TUCKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOLLISTER CO., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10033-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's failure to sell store gift cards that contain writing
in Braille so they can be fully accessible and independently usable
by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

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

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

The Defendant operates Hollister retail stores, as well as stores
for various subsidiary companies.  The Defendant advertises,
markets, distributes and/or sells retail merchandises in the City
and State of New York and throughout the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
     GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
     150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003-2461
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284


IHOP RESTAURANTS: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IHOP Restaurants LLC.
The case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. IHOP Restaurants LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09854 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019).

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

IHOP is an American multinational pancake house restaurant chain
that specializes in breakfast foods.[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


INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN: Abbott Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit entitled JERAMIE ABBOTT, an
individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. RIC1904487, was removed on
Oct. 9, 2019, from the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-01941 to the
proceeding.

On August 29, 2019, Plaintiff Jeramie Abbott filed this complaint
in the Superior Court.  The Plaintiff purports to bring the
Complaint as a class action on his own behalf, as well as on behalf
of each and all other persons similarly situated seeking, on behalf
of all class members dating back to August 29, 2015, payment of
allegedly unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages plus liquidated
damages, meal break premium wages, and rest break premium
wages.[BN]

Defendant INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN CORPORATION is represented by:

          Thomas H. Petrides, Esq.
          VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 204-7700
          Facsimile: (424) 204-7702
          E-mail: tpetrides@vedderprice.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Goldberg, Esq.
          VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP
          275 Battery Street, Suite 2464
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 749-9500
          Facsimile: (415) 749-9502
          E-mail: mgoldberg@vedderprice.com


JD'S TOWING: Glenn Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Glenn, Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. JD'S TOWING OF
NASHVILLE, LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00961 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 29, 2019), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that he regularly worked for JD's Towing
without receiving overtime compensation as required by the FLSA. He
was regularly required to work and performed work for the Company
for more than 40 hours in a workweek. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is
entitled to receive overtime pay under the FLSA for all time worked
beyond 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is employed by JD's Towing primarily as a tow truck
driver.

JD's Towing provides tow truck services in addition to general road
side assistance such as wench outs and tire changes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Nina H. Parsley, Esq.
     MICHAEL D. PONCE & ASSOCIATES
     400 Professional Park Drive
     Goodlettsville, TN 37072
     Phone: (615) 851-1776
     Fax: (615) 859-7033
     Email: nina@poncelaw.com


JUUL LABS INC: M.D. Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as M.D., individually and as legal guardian
of her minor grandchild, M.E.D; on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs Inc.,
Altria Group Inc., Philip Morris USA Inc., Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00180 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Oct. 24, 2019, and assigned Case
No. 3:19-cv-06928-WHO.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury.

Juul Labs, Inc. 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]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     F. Hall Bailey, Esq.
     LALOR BAILEY & ABY, PLLC
     2506 Lakeland Drive, Suite 203
     Jackson, MS 39232
     Phone: (601) 714-1150
     Fax: (601) 326-9746
     Email: hbailey@lalorbaileyaby.com

          - and -

     Robert Keith Morgan, Esq.
     LALOR BAILEY & ABY, PLLC
     230 Trace Colony Park Drive, Suite 4
     Ridgeland, MS 39157
     Phone: (601) 714-1153
     Fax: (601) 326-9743
     Email: kmorgan@lalorbaileyaby.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     R. David Kaufman, Esq.
     BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES
     P. O. Drawer 119
     Jackson, MS 39205-0119
     Phone: (601) 948-3101
     Email: dkaufman@brunini.com


KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM: Faces Class Action for Overcharging Tolls
------------------------------------------------------------
Aprile Rickert, writing for Wave 3 News, reports that a federal
class-action lawsuit is pending against the companies responsible
for tolling three of the five bridges that span the Ohio River
between Indiana and Louisville.

Indiana resident Melissa Barker filed the lawsuit in February
against Kapsch TrafficCom USA, Inc. and Gila, LLC, the companies
which act as tolling and invoicing agents for the Ohio River
Bridges Project. Her complaint, initially filed in Marion County,
states that the two companies overcharged her for tolls in 2017 and
2018, and she wants compensation for herself and the others in the
lawsuit.

The number of plaintiffs is unclear, but it is over 100, because
the case has moved to federal court.

"The proposed case contains hundreds or even thousands of
motorists," according to the complaint.

The toll a driver pays to tolling company RiverLink for crossing
one of the three bridges varies, depending on the type of vehicle
and type of account. For drivers without a prepaid account or one
with insufficient funds, paper invoices are mailed to the drivers'
homes roughly two months after a crossing.

The first notice sent is expected to have only the toll charges,
with 30 days to pay them. The second notice includes a $5
administrative fee and if that isn't paid in 30 days, a violation
notice is sent out that includes the $5 fee plus $25 late fee. If
this is not remedied, a collection notice is sent which includes
the tolls and a total of $60 in fees - late fee, administrative fee
and a $30 collection fee.

The federal complaint states that on two instances, Barker received
second notices with late fees after never having received the first
notice. On Aug. 18, 2017, she received what was labeled as a second
toll notice for trips across a bridge on June 29 and June 30. On
Jan 16, 2018, she received the same type of notice for trips made
Sept. 4 and Nov. 26.

"These notices were falsely identified as "2nd Toll Notices" when
in fact no first toll notice had been provided to plaintiff and the
notices were not, in fact, "2nd" Toll Notices," the complaint
reads.

The charges alleged by the plaintiffs include fraud, violation of
the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, deception or intentional
misrepresentation and negligence. The plaintiffs have demanded a
jury trial and seek monetary damages to be determined by the court.
They have also requested preliminary and permanent injunction, the
purpose to ensure that the alleged overcharging is not happening
now. [GN]


KEY FIRE: Parham Seeks Overtime Wages for Construction Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM PARHAM and CHRISTOPHER STEPHENS, on behalf of themselves
and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. KEY FIRE
PROTECTION ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00180-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., Oct. 15, 2019), seeks unpaid
straight time wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

The Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated current and former employees of the Defendant:
Foremen, Helpers, Fitters, and other workers whom the Defendant
compensated on an hourly basis, whose primary duties consisted of
manual labor for installing fire protection systems, and whom the
Defendant directed, suffered, or permitted to work off the clock
without compensation, including without overtime compensation.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant applied policies and
practices to the Collective under which the Defendant: (a)
compensated Collective members on an hourly basis, (b) directed,
suffered, or permitted them to work off the clock, including in
excess of 40 hours per work week, and (c) intentionally failed to
pay them for their off the clock work hours, including failing to
pay them 1.5 times their regular hourly rates for hours in excess
of 40 per week.

Parham was employed by the Defendant as a Foreman from 2014 through
September 2019. Stephens was employed by the Defendant as a Helper
from October 2016 through August 2018.

The Defendant is primarily in the business of installing fire
protection systems, such as sprinkler systems.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lee W. Brigham, Esq.
          BELL & BRIGHAM
          457 Greene Street
          Post Office Box 1547 (30903)
          Augusta, GA 30901
          Telephone: (706) 722-2014
          Facsimile: (706) 722-7552
          E-mail: lee@bellbrigham.com


KRISPY KREME: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Krispy Kreme Doughnut
Corporation. The case is styled as Victor Lopez And On Behalf of
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Krispy Kreme
Doughnut Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09859 (S.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 24, 2019).

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

Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation operates as a restaurant. The
Company offers milk shakes, doughnuts, cookies, buns, sundaes,
coffee, fruit beverages, and other related products.[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


KUYKENDAHL COUNTRY: Javed Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mukhmoor Ahmed Javed, and All Others Similarly Situated Plaintiffs
v. Anil Jewanee, and Kuykendahl Country Pines LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 4:19-cv-04232 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 28, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

During his period of employment, Mr. Javed says he worked an
average of 14 hours a day, seven days a week. At the outset of his
employment, Mr. Javed was promised pay at $12.00 per hour. In fact,
Mr. Javed only received $12.00 per hour, and received no overtime
pay despite working well in excess of 40 hours a week. Defendant
Jewanee consistently failed to pay overtime wages to Mr. Javed and
to all similarly situated clerks for which they now collectively
sue under the FLSA. Mr. Javed contends he seeks collective action
certification in order to litigate the unpaid overtime wages of all
similarly situated clerks at all Gas Stations that are/were owned,
operated and/or controlled by Defendant Jewanee during the Relevant
Period.

The Plaintiff was an employee, who worked as a clerk at a gas
station and convenience store owned, operated, controlled by the
Defendants from March 1, 2018, until May 27, 2019.

The Defendant owns (or owned), operates (or operated) and controls
(or controlled) gasoline stations and convenience stores engaged in
interstate commerce or in the production of goods for interstate
commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
     ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
     430 W. Bell Street
     Houston, TX 77019
     Phone: (713) 898-0982
     Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
     Email: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


LABRA TELECOM: Reyes Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE REYES, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. LABRA TELECOM, INC., STERLING TELECOM,
INC., PAUL CONTINO and VERONICA HONOR, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-09955 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2019), alleges that pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the
Plaintiff and others are entitled to recover from the Defendants:
unpaid wages; unpaid wages at the overtime wage rate; statutory
penalties; liquidated damages; prejudgment and post-judgment
interest; and attorney's fees and costs.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals were not properly
compensated wages at the overtime wage rate for all hours worked
over 40 in a work week, according to the complaint. The Defendants
knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of
not paying the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals' wages
for the hours worked over 40 hours in a week at the overtime wage
rate, in violation of the FLSA and NYLL and the supporting Federal
and New York State Department of Labor Regulations, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a public pay phone
technician from November 10, 2015, to September 27, 2019.

LABRA TELECOM INC., AND STERLING TELECOM, INC., are domestic
business corporations and they are existing under the laws of the
State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James F. Sullivan, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN, P.C.
     52 Duane Street, 7th Floor
     New York, NY 10007
     Phone: (212) 374-0009
     Facsimile: (212) 374-9931


LAND ORIGINS: Arias FLSA Suit Removed to District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled JUAN RAMIREZ ARIAS, JAVIER
ANGEL, MIGUEL RAMIREZ ARIAS, and all other similarly situated
employees of LAND ORIGINS, LLC v. LAND ORIGINS, LLC, and JASON
BEATRICE, individually, Case No. UNNL-003030-19, was removed on
Oct. 9, 2019, from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Union County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-18823 to the
proceeding.

On August 28, 2010, Plaintiffs Juan Ramirez Arias, Javier Angel,
and Miguel Ramirez Arias commenced this civil action in the
Superior Court.  The Plaintiffs seek recovery of overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs
also assert causes of action relating to wages under New Jersey
laws, i.e., the New Jersey State Wage Payment Law, and associated
New Jersey Administrative Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregg H. Salka, Esq.
          SALKA LAW LLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 516
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 880-6220
          Facsimile: (201) 882-6065
          E-mail: ghs@salkalaw.com


LANDS END INC: Airline Staff Sue Over Substandard Uniforms
----------------------------------------------------------
Gwyneth Gilbert and Michael Marte, on behalf of themselves and the
Putative Class, Plaintiffs, v. Lands' End, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-00823 (W.D. Wisc., October 3, 2019), seeks actual
damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other
relief for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Gilbert and Marte are flight attendants and customer service agents
for Delta Air Lines and have been required to wear uniforms
manufactured by Lands' End, Inc. They claim that said uniforms
cause skin rashes, headaches, fatigue, breathing difficulties, hair
loss, low white blood cell counts and nausea. Additionally, the
dyes used in coloring the textile is not colorfast and result in
stains. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Zoeller, Esq.
      Caitlin M. Madden, Esq.
      Nicholas E. Fairweather, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      Post Office Box 2155
      Madison, WI 53701-2155
      Telephone: (608) 257-0040
      Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
      Email: cmadden@hq-law.com
             dzoeller@hq-law.com
             nfairweather@hq-law.com

             - and -

      Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
      Randee M. Matloff, Esq.
      NAGEL RICE, LLP
      103 Eisenhower Parkway
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Tel: (973) 618-0400
      Email: bnagel@nagelrice.com
             rmatloff@nagelrice.com

             - and -

      Edward Cerasia II, Esq.
      CERASIA & DEL REY-CONE LLP
      150 Broadway, Suite 1517
      New York, NY 10038
      Tel: (646) 525-4231
      Email: ed@cdemploymentlaw.com


LAZER SPOT: Boyd Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BOYD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAZER SPOT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2019CH12511 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Oct. 28, 2019), seeks to redress
and curtail the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive biometric data.

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

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

Plaintiff James Boyd is a natural person and a citizen of the State
of Illinois.

Lazer Spot, Inc. is a North American logistics company that
provides yard management services and is headquartered at 6525
Shiloh Road, in Alpharetta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McDonald's
Corporation. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
McDonald's Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09836 (S.D.
N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019).

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

McDonald's Corporation is an American fast food company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


MCT RESTAURANTS: O'Neill Seeks to Recoup Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James O'Neill, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. M.C.T. RESTAURANTS INC. d/b/a FINN MAC
COOL and CORENELIUS O'REILLY, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06087
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2019), alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the Plaintiff and others
are entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid wages at the
minimum wage rate; unpaid wages at the overtime wage rate for all
hours over 40 hours in a work week; spread of hours pay; liquidated
damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorney's
fees and costs.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was not paid at a minimum wage rate
and was not paid the overtime rate for all hours worked over 40 in
a work week. The Defendants' knowingly and willfully operated their
business with a policy of not paying the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals a wage at the minimum wage rate and overtime
wages for the total hours worked over 40 hours in a work week in
violation of the FLSA and NYLL and the supporting Federal and New
York State Department of Labor Regulations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in October 2002 to work
as a bartender.

M.C.T. RESTAURANTS INC. d/b/a FINN MAC COOL is a domestic business
corporations and existing under the laws of the State of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James F. Sullivan, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN, P.C.
     52 Duane Street, 7th Floor
     New York, NY 10007
     Phone: (212) 374-0009
     Facsimile: (212) 374-9931


MDL 2913: Nessmith v. JUUL over E-cigarettes Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as RIN NESSMITH and JARED NESSMITH,
individually, and as guardians of their minor child, A.N., on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. JUUL LABS INC., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., and PHILIP
MORRIS USA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00884 (Filed
March 15, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District California (San Francisco) on Oct 4, 2019. The
Northern District California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-06344-WHO to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of
the Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Act.

The Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in unfair,
unlawful, and deceptive trade practices in Florida. In particular,
Defendants have knowingly developed, sold, and promote a product
that contained nicotine levels in excess of cigarettes with the
intention of creating and fostering long-term addiction to JUUL
products for minors to continue that addiction into adulthood;
selling a product that aggravates nicotine addiction; creating
advertising to target youth into using JUUL e-cigarettes, and
disseminating that advertising through unregulated social media
platforms commonly used by youth.

The  Plaintiffs and class members reasonably relied to their
detriment on Defendants' unlawful conduct in that they purchased
JUUL not knowing the true propensity of its dangers. They have
sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
tortious conduct and seek injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants
from continuing to engage in the unfair and deceptive advertising
and marketing practices.

JUUL e-cigarettes and JUULpods deliver dangerous toxins and
carcinogens to users, especially teenage users. Nicotine itself is
a carcinogen, as well as a toxic chemical associated with
cardiovascular, reproductive, and immunosuppressive problems, the
lawsuit says.

The Nessmith case is being consolidated with MDL 2913 in RE: JUUL
LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 2, 2019. The
actions in this litigation involve allegations that JLI has
marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed
to attract minors, that JLI's marketing misrepresents or omits that
JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that
JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their
attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine addiction.
The actions include both putative class actions and individual
personal injury cases.

In its Oct. 2, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
share multiple factual issues concerning the development,
manufacture, labeling, and marketing of JUUL products, and the
alleged risks posed by use of those products. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery, the possibility of inconsistent
rulings on class certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial
matters, and conserve judicial and party resources. The Panel
select the Northern District of California as the transferee
district. JLI is headquartered in that district, and it represents
that most of the key evidence and witnesses are located there.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge William H. Orrick III. The
lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Jonathan Robert Gdanski, Esq.
          Scott Schlesinger, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
          SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, PA
          1212 SE 3rd Ave
          Ft Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 320-9507
          Facsimile: (954) 320-9509
          E-mail: jonathan@schlesingerlawoffices.com
                  scott@schlesingerlaw.com
                  JHaberman@schlesingerlaw.com

Attorneys for Altria Group, Inc., and Philip Morris USA, Inc. are:

          Geoffrey Jonathan Michael, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER, LLP
          601 Massachusetts Ave NW
          Washington, DC 20001-3743
          Telephone: (202) 942-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 942-5999
          E-mail: geoffrey.michael@aporter.com

               - and -

          William J. Schifino , Jr., Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN, LLP
          201 N Franklin St Ste 3200
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 221-2626
          Facsimile: (813) 221-7335
          E-mail: bschifino@gunster.com

Attorneys for JUUL Labs Inc. are

          George S. LeMieux, Esq.
          GUNSTER YOAKLEY & STEWART
          450 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 468-1339
          Facsimile: (954) 523-1722
          E-mail: glemieux@gunster.com- and -

               - and -

          George Charles Nierlich, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission St Ste 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
          Telephone: (415) 393-8200
          E-mail: GNierlich@gibsondunn.com

MDL 2915: Zosiak Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Kevin Zosiak individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital One
Financial Corporation; Capital One, National Association; and
Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02265,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia (Alexandria) on Oct. 11, 2019.

The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02916-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

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

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Miller Appeals S.D.N.Y. Decision to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Dale Miller and John F. Barton, Jr., filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit entitled Dale Miller
and John F. Barton, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a New
York Corporation, Metlife, Inc., a Delaware Corporation and Does
1-10, inclusive, Case No. 17-cv-7284, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 15,
2019, District Court Judge Analisa Torres granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint
("SAC").

Plaintiffs Miller and Barton are commercial airline pilots.  At all
relevant times, Miller resided in California and Barton resided in
Colorado.  Miller has been a commercial airline pilot with United
Airlines since 1990.  As part of his employee benefits package,
Miller enrolled in a life insurance program with MetLife.  Around
March 2000, Miller was notified that his life insurance policy was
changing to a Group Variable Universal Life ("GVUL") policy.

As part of enrolling in the GVUL policy, Miller completed a GVUL
Special Enrollment Change Form.  Section 1 of this enrollment form
was labeled "Smoker/Non-Smoker Status Change."  Miller left both of
these options blank because he did not smoke and had not smoked
during the relevant period, so there was no change to report.
Shortly thereafter, MetLife began charging Miller a smoker rate for
his life insurance policy.

In October 2016, Miller decided to change the coverage on his GVUL
policy through the United Airlines employee benefits website.  He
was required to complete an online form that included a question
regarding his tobacco use for the previous five years.  He answered
that he was not a smoker.  After noting that the new price of
insurance was lower than what he had been previously paying, he
contacted MetLife customer service.

The customer service agent told Miller that he had been designated
a smoker since his GVUL policy went into effect.  Miller contacted
his union and MetLife to request a refund. Miller estimates that
MetLife's decision to designate him as a smoker resulted in a 19.7%
overcharge in premium payments.

Miller informed Barton about this experience.  After his own
investigation, Barton too realized that he had been charged smoker
rates for his life insurance.  Unlike with Miller, MetLife declined
to provide Barton with his enrollment form for the GVUL policy.
Barton, like Miller, was a non-smoker during the relevant five-year
lookback period under the policy.

The Plaintiffs initiated the action on Sept. 25, 2017.  They filed
their first amended complaint on Feb. 20, 2018, bringing claims for
breach of contract and fraud.  MetLife moved to dismiss the first
amended complaint, arguing that the claims were precluded by the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA"), that the
Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim, and that the Plaintiffs'
claims were time-barred.

The District Court referred the motion to the Hon. Sarah Netburn.
In the report and recommendation, the District Court found that the
Plaintiffs' fraud claim was precluded by SLUSA and that the
Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for breach of contract.  The
District Court gave the Plaintiffs an opportunity to file an
amended complaint in order to identify which specific contractual
provision was allegedly breached and/or to assert a breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on Jan. 4,
2019.  The SAC asserts claims for breach of contract, contractual
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
tortious breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and
negligence.  

The Plaintiffs bring these claims on behalf of themselves as well
as putative California, Colorado, and nationwide classes,
consisting of all persons who resided in California, Colorado, or
the United States, and who entered into a contract with MetLife in
response to a Group Variable Universal Life insurance offer in
replacement of their Optional Term Life or Group Universal Life
policy, wherein the enrollment form provided for a change in smoker
status section which was left blank, and where [MetLife] charged
smoker rates despite the class members never having enrolled as
smokers.

The appellate case is captioned as Dale Miller and John F. Barton,
Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a New
York Corporation, the Defendant-Appellee, and Metlife, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 19-3383, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

MetLife, Inc. is the holding corporation for the Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, better known as MetLife, and its affiliates.
MetLife is among the largest global providers of insurance,
annuities, and employee benefit programs, with 90 million customers
in over 60 countries.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Joshua Fields, Esq.
          KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
          1638 South Pacific Coast Highway
          Redondo Beach, CA 90277
          Telephone: (310) 536-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
          E-mail: jf@kirtlandpackard.com

The Defendant-Appellee is Represented by:

          Edward Morris Holt, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P. C.
          2400 Regions Harbert Plaza
          1901 6th Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254-1102
          E-mail: tholt@maynardcooper.com


MGM SPRINGFIELD: Faces Connors Wage and Hour Suit in D. Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN CONNORS, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. MGM SPRINGFIELD, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-30144 (D. Mass., Oct. 28, 2019), alleges violation
of state and federal wage-and-hour laws under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends the wage-and-hour violations include MGM
implementing and enforcing illegal policies of: (1) calculating
overtime rates for tipped employees based on service rates instead
of the basis minimum wage, (2) paying its tipped employees less
than the basic minimum wage, (3) taking a tip credit towards its
minimum wage obligations for tipped employees without providing
required notice that it was doing so and (4) deducting gaming
employee license fees (a/k/a "Badge/Card" fees) from employees'
wages.

The Plaintiff says he worked more than forty hours in at least one
workweek and was not paid overtime wages at the rate of
one-and-one-half times the basic minimum wage for all hours worked
in excess of forty during each workweek, as required by the FLSA
and Massachusetts law. The Plaintiff was not paid at least the
basic minimum wage for all hours worked under forty in a workweek
as required by the FLSA and Massachusetts law; instead, he was paid
a service rate during his employment with MGM. The Defendant took a
tip credit related to the payment of the Plaintiff's wages, and
also failed to properly inform its employees, including the
Plaintiff, about the tip credit as required by Massachusetts law,
says the complaint.

the Plaintiff is a resident of Uncasville, Connecticut, and was
employed by the Defendant.

MGM is a casino with approximately 125,000 square feet of gaming
space, 2,500 slot machines, 93 gaming tables, 23 poker tables and a
high limit VIP gambling area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin Knox Steffans, Esq.
     STEFFANS LEGAL LLC
     7 North Street, Suite 307
     Pittsfield, MA 01201
     Phone (413) 418-4176
     Email: bsteffans@steffanslegal.com


MITCHELL RESTAURANT: Fabelo Seeks Unpaid OT Pay, Wage Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Muhammad Fabelo, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mitchell Restaurant Deli, Inc., Mokthar M
Issah and Michael Issah, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-05573 (E.D.
N.Y., October 2, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage,
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest and attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
unpaid spread of hours premium and statutory damages for failure to
provide required wage and hour law notices pursuant to New York
Labor Laws and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendants own and operate a latin cuisine restaurant under the
trade name "Piquant Restaurant," where Fabelo worked as a server.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
      675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810
      New York, NY
      Tel: (718) 669-0714
      Email: mgangat@gangatllc.com


MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TN: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Perry Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
GARY M. PERRY, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TENNESSEE, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00952 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 28, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Tennessee state law.

Mr. Perry was a non-exempt employee who was entitled to be paid
time and a half for hours over 40 worked in any workweek. In his
role as the Captain District Chief Paramedic, Perry was required to
work 120 hours for two weeks, 120 hours for the next two weeks, and
then 96 hours for the final two-week period. This work cycle
repeated every six weeks for Perry and the Collective Class. The
Plaintiff was paid $38.61 per hour for all worked performed,
regardless if the work exceeded 40 hours per week. The Defendant's
failure to pay overtime compensation as required by the FLSA
results from a policy or practice applicable to Perry and the
Members of the Class. The Defendant knowingly, willfully, or with
reckless disregard carried out its illegal pattern or practice of
failing to properly pay overtime compensation with respect to Perry
and the Members of the Class, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in 1990. Most recently, he
served as the Captain District Chief Paramedic for the Montgomery
County EMS.

The Defendant's Montgomery County EMS is the sole 911 provider for
Clarksville-Montgomery County, providing 24-hour emergency medical
transportation, rope rescue, dive rescue/recovery, trench rescue,
tactical medics and many other specialized rescue operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kyle F. Biesecker, Esq.
     BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC
     3200 West End Avenue, Suite 500
     Nashville, TN 37203
     Phone: (615) 783-2171
     Facsimile: (812) 424-1005
     Email: kfb@bdlegal.com


MYRIAD GENETICS: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that class action complaints have
been filed on behalf of shareholders of MYGN, TME, and OSTK. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court by the
lead plaintiff deadlines listed below. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no
action, you may remain an absent class member.

To discuss the cases below, please contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll
free at (877) 779-1414.

Myriad Genetics (MYGN)
CLASS PERIOD: 09/2/2016-08/13/2019
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: November 26, 2019

Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) GeneSight lacked evidence or information
sufficient to support the tests in their current form, including
their purported benefits; (ii) the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) had requested changes to GeneSight and
questioned the validity of the tests purported benefits; (iii)
Myriad had been in ongoing discussions with the FDA regarding the
FDA's requested changes to GeneSight; (iv) Myriad's acquisition of
Counsyl and thereby, Foresight caused the Company to incur the risk
of suffering from lower reimbursement for its expanded carrier
screening tests, which had the potential to, and actually did,
materialize into a material negative impact on the Company's
revenue; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

To get additional information about the Myriad Genetics Shareholder
Class Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME)
CLASS PERIOD: 12/12/2018-08/26/2019
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: November 25, 2019

Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Tencent Music's exclusive licensing arrangements
with major record labels were anticompetitive; (ii) consequently,
sublicensing such content from Tencent Music was unreasonably
expensive, in violation of Chinese antimonopoly laws; (iii) these
anticompetitive efforts were reasonably likely to lead to
regulatory scrutiny; and (iv) as a result, defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

To get additional information about the Tencent Shareholder Class
Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK)
CLASS PERIOD: 05/09/2019-09/23/2019
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: November 26, 2019

Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (i) that the Defendants had engineered the tZERO offering
as revenge upon short sellers and tried to create a short squeeze
by offering a digital token dividend that would not be registered
and could not be resold for at least 6 months; and (ii) that there
were substantial risks to this plan; (iii) that Overstock's
incredibly high Directors & Officers insurance rates and other
problems were causing the Company to miss earnings projections for
the year.

To get additional information about the Overstock Shareholder Class
Action contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

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

Contact:

         Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: http://www.bernlieb.com  
         Tel: (877) 779-1414
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
[GN]


MYRIAD GENETICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Myriad
Genetics, Inc. (MYGN). To determine your eligibility and get free
access to our shareholder support tools that provide you with case
updates, automated loss calculations and claims recovery
assistance, please contact the firm. There will be no cost or
obligation to you.

Myriad Genetics, Inc. (MYGN)

Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 2, 2016 -
August 13, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 26, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/myriad-genetics-inc-loss-form?prid=3894&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Myriad
Genetics, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Myriad's product, GeneSight,
lacked evidence or information sufficient to support the tests in
their current form, including their purported benefits; (ii) the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had requested changes to
GeneSight and questioned the validity of the test's purported
benefits; (iii) Myriad had been in ongoing discussions with the FDA
regarding the FDA's requested changes to GeneSight; (iv) Myriad's
acquisition of Counsyl-and thereby, Foresight-caused the Company to
incur the risk of suffering from lower reimbursement for its
expanded carrier screening tests, which had the potential to, and
actually did, materialize into a material negative impact on the
Company's revenue; and (v) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

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

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

Contact:

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


NHK SPRING: Faces Integrity Suit Alleging Hard Drive Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
INTEGRITY FINANCIAL SERVICES OF TAMPA BAY INC. d/b/a INTEGRITY
FINANCIAL SERVICES and COWDEN ASSOCIATES, INC., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NHK
SPRING CO. LTD.; NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; TDK CORPORATION;
NAT PERIPHERAL (HONG KONG) CO., LTD.; NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN)
CO., LTD.; NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD.; TDK CORPORATION;
MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD.; SAE MAGNETICS
(H.K.) LTD; HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-10
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-07046-MMC (E.D. Mich., Oct. 28, 2019),
is an antitrust lawsuit arising from the Defendants' unlawful
agreement to eliminate competition, fix prices, and allocate
markets for hard disk drive suspension assemblies sold in the
United States.

The action is brought against the Defendants--manufacturers and
suppliers of HDD Suspension Assemblies--for engaging in a
years-long conspiracy to unlawfully raise the prices of those
products to artificial levels and allocate markets for those
products. HDD Suspension Assemblies are a critical component of
hard disk drives, which are used to store electronic information.
HDDs are either incorporated into electronic devices, such as
desktop computers, laptops, gaming consoles, and MP3 players, or
sold as stand-alone storage devices.

Pursuant to their anticompetitive agreements not to compete, the
Defendants exchanged pricing information, including anticipated
pricing quotes, which they used to inform their negotiations with
U.S. and foreign customers that purchased suspension assemblies and
produced hard disk drives for sale in, or delivery to, the U.S. and
elsewhere. Competition authorities in the U.S. and across the globe
have been investigating the Defendants' conspiracy since at least
2016. In as early as July 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice
opened an investigation relating to HDD Suspension Assemblies. NHK
Spring disclosed later that on July 26, 2016, DOJ performed an
on-sight inspection of an NHK company. In July 2019, DOJ filed a
one-count information in this court against NHK Spring Co. Ltd,
charging the company with fixing prices on HDD Suspension
Assemblies. NHK Spring has agreed to plead guilty and pay a $28.5
million criminal fine, subject to court approval. In 2016, the
Japanese Fair Trade Commission ("JFTC") also raided Defendants NHK
Spring and TDK on suspicion that the companies were colluding in
the supply of HDD components, including HDD Suspension Assemblies.
In 2018, NHK Spring and one of its subsidiaries were fined 1.1
billion yen (nearly $10 million) for price fixing HDD Suspension
Assemblies; TDK cooperated with the Japanese regulators. South
Korean and Brazilian competition authorities have also been
investigating the cartel.

The conspiracy engaged in by the Defendants and their
co-conspirators was an unreasonable restraint of interstate and
foreign trade and commerce in violation of state antitrust, unfair
competition, and consumer protection laws. As a direct result of
the anticompetitive and unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and
members of the Class paid artificially inflated prices for HDD
Suspension Assemblies and have been injured in their business and
property for the period beginning at least as early as May 2008 and
continuing until at least April 2016, says the complaint. To
redress the economic injury the Defendants caused, the Plaintiffs,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, seek
damages under state antitrust, consumer protection, and common
laws.

Plaintiff Integrity Financial Services is a full-service
residential and commercial lending company. Integrity Financial
Services purchased HDD Suspension Assemblies indirectly from one or
more Defendants.

NHK Spring manufactured and/or supplied HDD Suspension Assemblies
during the Class Period.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jay L. Himes, Esq.
     Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
     Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
     Domenico Minerva, Esq.
     Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq.
     Tianran Song, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 907-0700
     Email: gasciolla@labaton.com
            jhimes@labaton.com
            kgarvey@labaton.com
            dminerva@labaton.com
            jcrevier@labaton.com
            tsong@labaton.com

          - and -

     Paul F. Novak, Esq.
     Diana Gjonaj, Esq.
     Gregory Stamatopoul, Esq.
     Tiffany Ellis, Esq.
     WEITZ & LUXENBERG P.C.
     3011 West Grand Blvd., Suite 2150
     Detroit, MI 48202
     Phone: (313) 800-4170
     Email: pnovak@weitzlux.com
            dgjonaj@weitzlux.com
            gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com
            tellis@weitzlux.com


NIPPON TRENDS: Faces Damian Suit for Failing to Pay Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
TEOFILA DAMIAN v. NIPPON TRENDS FOOD SERVICE, INC.; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19CV356328 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., Oct. 8, 2019), is brought by the Plaintiff,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
employees, accusing the Defendants of violating the California
Labor Code.

Ms. Damian was a packager for the Defendant.  She alleges that the
Defendants violated the Labor Code by, among other things, failing
to pay her and other employees all wages owed, including minimum
wage and overtime wage.

Nippon Trends Food Service, Inc. is a California corporation that
manufactures authentic Japanese-style noodles, whose facilities are
located in San Jose, California.  The Plaintiff is ignorant of the
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Berkeh Alemzadeh, Esq.
          Emily Stewart, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  balem@mahoney-law.net
                  estewart@mahoney-law.net


NORDSTROM INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nordstrom, Inc. The
case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nordstrom, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09817 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019).

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

Nordstrom, Inc. is a fashion retailer of apparel, shoes, and
accessories for men, women, and children. It is an American chain
of luxury department stores, also operating in Canada and
headquartered in Seattle, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


NORTH CAROLINA: Hodge Seeks Unpaid Wages for Corrections Officers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW HODGE, DAVID HOLBROOK, PHILIP KAY, JACOB FRANCKOWIAK,
BROOKS DICKERSON, and RALPH BROWN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY and DIVISION OF ADULT CORRECTION AND
JUVENILE JUSTICE, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00478-D (E.D.N.C.,
Oct. 28, 2019), is a collective/class action brought on behalf of
current and former Corrections Officers employed by the Defendants
to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs and the Class members are and were paid pursuant to
Section 7(k) of the FLSA, which allows payment of overtime to "any
employee in law enforcement activities (including security
personnel in correctional institutions)" based on a 28-day work
period, known as a "tour of duty" rather than the traditional
40-hour work week. The Plaintiffs and the Class members are,
therefore, entitled to receive overtime pay (or compensatory time)
at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay
for all hours worked over 171 hours in their 28-day tours of duty,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Corrections
Officers, a Corrections Sergeant, and Corrections Officers II.

DPS owns and/or operates correctional facilities across the State
of North Carolina, where the Plaintiffs and the Class members work
or have worked.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
     Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
     WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
     900 W. Morgan Street
     Raleigh, NC 27603
     Phone: 919-600-5000
     Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
     Email: dan@wbmllp.com
            pat@wbmllp.com

          - and –

     Gary E. Mason, Esq.
     Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
     WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
     5101 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 305
     Washington, DC 20016
     Phone: (202) 429-2290
     Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
     Email: gmason@wbmllp.com
            dperry@wbmllp.com

          - and -

     Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
     Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
     DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
     Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: 312-214-7900
     Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
            lreasons@dicellolevitt.com

          - and -

     Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
     R. Michael Smith, Esq.
     Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200
     Washington, DC 20016
     Phone: (202) 789-3960
     Email: charles@cuneolaw.com
            mike@cuneolaw.com
            kvandyck@cuneolaw.com

          - and –

     Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675
     St. Louis, MO 63105
     Phone: (314) 226-1015
     Facsimile: 202) 789-1813
     Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

          - and -

     Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
     Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
     Shoshana Savett, Esq.
     Krysten Connon, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 875-3000
     Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
     Email: scarson@bm.net
            sschalman-bergen@bm.net
            stsavett@bm.net
            kconnon@bm.net


OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Outback Steakhouse of
Florida, LLC. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Outback
Steakhouse of Florida, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09858 (S.D.
N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019).

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

Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC owns and operates a chain of
steakhouse restaurants in the United State.[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


PANERA LLC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Panera, LLC. The case
is styled as Victor Lopez And On Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Panera, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-09862 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019).

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

Panera Bread Company is an American chain store of bakery-cafe fast
casual restaurants with over 2,000 locations, all of which are in
the United States and Canada.[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


PEAK DEBT: Faces Phan Suit Alleging Violation of Consumer Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed against Peak Debt Consumption,
LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Vickie Phan, individually and
Behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Peak Debt
Consumption, LLC; Chris McCormick; Credit Precision, Inc.; Mark
Miller; Fisher Law Group, PLLC; David Fisher; and Hegemon Group
International, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-04613-JPB (N.D. Ga., Oct. 15,
2019).

The lawsuit alleges violation of consumer credit related laws. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge J. P. Boulee.

The Defendant in the nonresidential building operators
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Eliot DeWoskin, Esq.
          DEWOSKIN LAW FIRM, LLC
          535 N. McDonough Street
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 987-0026
          Facsimile: (404) 378-0717
          E-mail: dan@atlantatrial.com

               - and -

          James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq.
          HURT STOLZ, P.C.
          1551 Jennings Mill Road
          Suite 3100-B
          Watkinsville, GA 30677
          Telephone: (706) 395-2750
          Facsimile: (866) 766-9245
          E-mail: jhurt@hurtstolz.com

               - and -

          Sam S. Han, Esq.
          DEWOSKIN LAW FIRM, LLC
          535 N. McDonough Street
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 987-0026
          E-mail: prof.sam.han@gmail.com


PICK 6 TAHOE: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Johnson Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Johnson, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff v. PICK 6 TAHOE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-02186-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2019), alleges that in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
California Labor Code, the Defendant fails to properly pay the
Plaintiff and other employees.

Specifically, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendant did not pay
wages on time with respect to the regularly scheduled paydays, and
it wrote bad checks with insufficient funds to cover pay checks.
The Defendant also failed to reimburse employees for costs of such
violations, including bank fees and statutory damages/wages. The
Defendant also failed to pay wages for all hours worked, and did
not provide rest breaks in which employees were free of work
duties. Moreover, the Defendant altered time cards to change start
and end time to reduce wages recorded being due to employees, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from May 5, 2019,
through August 1, 2019.

The Defendant is a private business and employer doing business in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
     CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFFESIONAL LAW CORPORATION
     865 Howe Avenue
     Sacramento, CA 95825
     Phone: (916) 777-7777
     Fax: (916) 924-1829
     Email: jwatson@justice4you.com


PRO HARVESTING: Vasquez Seeks Proper Wages for Farm Labor Help
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA VASQUEZ and JUAN RODRIGUEZ, as individuals and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PRO HARVESTING,
INC., a California corporation; BEE SWEET CITRUS, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants,
Case No. 19CECG03614 (Cal. Super., Oct. 4, 2019), alleges that
Defendants failed to pay minimum wage, failed to pay overtime wage,
and failed to provide meal period and rest period in violation of
the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Order.

The Plaintiffs have worked for Defendant Pro Harvesting, Inc. as a
non-exempt seasonal farm labor employees. Pro Harvesting assigned
Plaintiffs to work in agriculture fields owned by Bee Sweet Citrus,
Inc., where Plaintiffs harvested fruits such as lemons, oranges,
grapefruit, and mandarins.

The Plaintiffs were compensated on a piece-rate basis, whereby they
were paid a predetermined amount per bin of produce they filled.

The Defendants have not boarded or lodged Plaintiffs during their
employment. The Defendants have failed to maintain accurate records
of Plaintiffs' actual hours worked. Defendants utilize no timeclock
or timecard system for employees, and do not provide employees with
any opportunity to verify or affirm their hours worked. As a
result, the Defendants have failed to maintain accurate records,
and Plaintiffs and other non-exempt employees were not credited
with the correct number of hours worked, leading to unpaid minimum
and overtime wages, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
          Brittaney D. de la Torre, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                  mmoen@haineslawgroup.com
                  bdelatorre@haineslawgroup.com

QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Faces Mantha Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Mantha, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. QUOTEWIZARD.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-12235 (D. Mass., Oct. 29, 2019), seeks to enforce the
consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The TCPA is a federal statute enacted in 1991 in response to
widespread public outrage about the proliferation of intrusive,
nuisance telemarketing practices.

Quotewizard.com sent automated text message calls to cellular
telephone numbers, including the Plaintiff, which is prohibited by
the TCPA. The calls were also made to some individuals despite
their presence on the National Do Not Call Registry, such as the
Plaintiff. The Plaintiff says he never consented to receive the
calls, which were placed to him for telemarketing purposes. Because
telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of
thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide
class of other persons, who received illegal telemarketing calls
from or on behalf of the Defendant.

Joseph Mantha is a Massachusetts resident located in this
District.

The Defendant sells its services to insurance agents, and provides
those agents with potential customers and new business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony Paronich, Esq.
     PARONICH LAW, P.C.
     350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
     Hingham, MA 02043
     Phone: (617) 485-0018
     Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com

          - and -

     Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq.
     Jeremy Cohen, Esq.
     CW LAW GROUP, P.C.
     188 Oaks Road
     Framingham, MA 01701
     Email: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com

          - and -

     Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
     BRODERICK LAW
     99 High St., Suite 304
     Boston, MA 02110
     Phone: (617) 738-7080
     Email: ted@broderick-law.com

          - and -

     Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
     1 South Avenue, Suite 3
     Natick, MA 01760
     Phone: (508) 655-1415
     Email: mmccue@massattorneys.com


RED WING: Illegally Prints Debit/Credit Card Nos., Southam Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES LUCAS SOUTHAM, individually, and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. RED WING SHOE COMPANY, INC., a
Minnesota corporation, Defendant, Case No. 97994376 (Fla. Cir.,
Broward Cty., Oct. 28, 2019), arises from the Defendant's violation
of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendment to the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires persons that accept debit
cards or credit cards for the transaction of business to truncate
certain card number information on printed receipts provided to
consumers.

Despite the clear language of the statute, the Defendant knowingly
or recklessly failed to comply with FCRA by printing 10 digits of
its customers' credit card and/or debit card numbers on transaction
receipts, the Plaintiff alleges. As a result of the Defendant's
unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class who conducted
business with the Defendant during the time frame relevant to this
action have suffered a violation of their substantive rights, an
invasion of their privacy, breach of their confidence in the safe
handling of their account information, exposure to an elevated risk
of identity theft, and were unfairly burdened with the need to keep
or destroy the receipt, to prevent further disclosure of their
account information, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was and is a citizen of the
state of Florida.

The Defendant is a well-known retailer of men's and women's
footwear that owns and operates more than retail 100 stores located
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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

          - and -

     Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
     KEOGH LAW, LTD.
     55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3390
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: 312.726.1092
     Facsimile: 312.726.1093
     Email: keith@keoghlaw.com


SAM HOUSTON: Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted in Berry Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case IN RE SAM HOUSTON ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Case No.
09-19-00285-CV, (Tex. App.), the Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth
District, Beaumont, issued an Memorandum Opinion conditionally
granting Defendant's Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Joe D. Berry, individually, on behalf of the surviving heirs and
children of Lester B. Berry, as next friend of Kevin M. Berry, and
as administrator of the Estate of Lester B. Berry, filed a lawsuit
against Relator Sam Houston Electric Cooperative, Inc. (SHEC),
alleging that SHEC shut off power to the home of Lester B. Berry
without proper notice, causing horrendous suffering to and
ultimately the awful death of Lester Berry. According to Berry,
Lester was disabled and required an oxygen concentrator around the
clock, and to work properly the oxygen concentrator needed a
constant supply of electricity. Berry asserted causes of action for
negligence, gross negligence, survival, and wrongful death.

In his second amended petition, Berry purported to assert a class
action "as representative of all others similarly situated," and he
added individual defendants, who he alleged were current officers,
directors, advisory directors, or advisory directors-at-large of
SHEC. Berry pleaded, among other things, that SHEC had breached its
fiduciary duties by failing to return margins periodically to its
members as required by statute, and that rather than operating as a
nonprofit entity, SHEC was confiscating each member's equity.
Additionally, Berry asserted that SHEC had failed to retire capital
credits.

SHEC and the individual defendants moved to compel arbitration and
to stay the class action claims pending arbitration. The trial
court signed an order denying the motion, and the defendants
appealed. On appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the trial
court's order and remanded the cause for entry of an order
compelling arbitration and staying further proceedings as to the
class action claims pending arbitration.  The trial judge signed an
order severing the class action from the wrongful death and
survival claims.

Berry then filed a motion in the wrongful death and survival
portion of the lawsuit to compel the depositions of the members of
SHEC's Board of Directors. In the motion, Berry asserted that he
had a right to take the depositions because the Board grants an
applicant membership into SHEC and the Board would have knowledge
of Lester's membership.  

SHEC responded to the motion to compel depositions and argued that
the plaintiffs were effectively ignoring the court ordered
severance of the class action claims from the current survival and
wrongful death actions. SHEC alleged that the depositions were
unrelated to the pending lawsuit and constituted an abuse of
process. Additionally, SHEC asserted that the plaintiffs had not
explained the relevance of the Board members' depositions and that
the depositions were impermissible under the apex doctrine.  

Berry responded and asserted that he has a right to take the
depositions of the Board members because it is permitted by the
rules, despite the Board of Directors' status as a nonparty in the
case. In addition, Berry asserted that the requested depositions
were reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.

SHEC then filed an application for writ of mandamus, in which it
asks the Appellate Court to  compel the trial court to vacate its
order compelling the depositions of its Board of Directors and to
grant its motion for protection from the depositions.

The Appellate Court agrees with SHEC that the trial court abused
its discretion by compelling the depositions of SHEC Board members
when Berry did not show that the Board members had unique or
personal knowledge about Berry's alleged wrongful death cause of
action. In addition, potential knowledge of capital credits, which
Berry advanced as one of the subjects of the depositions, is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence in the underlying wrongful death cause of action, the
Appellate Court holds.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court conditionally granted the writ of
mandamus and ordered the trial court to vacate its orders
compelling the depositions of the members of SHEC's Board of
Directors and orders denying the motions for protection against the
apex depositions.

The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to do so.

A full-text copy of the Texas Court of Appeals' October 3, 2019
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y28ujhz7
from Leagle.com

Frederick L. McGuire , for Joe D. Berry, Real party in interest.

Mark Davis , Theresa Wanat , L. Bradley Hancock , for Sam Houston
Electric Cooperative, Inc., Relator.


SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Sherman Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Randall Sherman filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Randall Sherman v. Schneider National Carriers,
Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-08609-AB-JC, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The nature of suit is stated as other labor litigation.

The appellate case is captioned as Randall Sherman v. Schneider
National Carriers, Inc., Case No. 19-56183, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 7, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on December 9, 2019;

   -- Appellant Randall Sherman's opening brief is due on
      January 16, 2020;

   -- Appellee Schneider National Carriers, Inc.'s answering
      brief is due on February 18, 2020; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant RANDALL SHERMAN, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, is
represented by:

          David Mara, Esq.
          Tony Roberts, Esq.
          MARA LAW FIRM PC
          2650 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 205
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
          E-mail: dmara@maralawfirm.com
                  troberts@maralawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., is
represented by:

          Sabrina Alexis Beldner, Esq.
          Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
          Matthew Kane, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 956-3419
          E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
                  abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com
                  mkane@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Sylvia Kim, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 844-9944
          E-mail: skim@mcguirewoods.com


SEMGROUP CORP: Faces Lawrence Suit Over Energy Transfer Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
PETER LAWRENCE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. SEMGROUP CORPORATION, THOMAS R. MCDANIEL,
CARLIN G. CONNER, JAMES H. LYTAL, SARAH M. BARPOULIS, KARL F. KURZ,
WILLIAM J. MCADAM and RONALD A. BALLSCHMIEDE, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02035-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 28, 2019), is brought on behalf of
the public holders of the common stock of SemGroup for the
Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in
connection with the proposed merger  between SemGroup and Energy
Transfer LP.

On September 15, 2019, the Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the
Company's shareholders stand to receive a combination of $6.80 in
cash and 0.7275 units of Energy Transfer common units for each
share of SemGroup stock they own. Upon completion of the merger,
SemGroup shareholders will own approximately 2.2% and Energy
Transfer unitholders will own approximately 97.8% of the common
units outstanding.

On October 3, 2019, in order to convince SemGroup shareholders to
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4
Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, the
Plaintiff alleges. The materially incomplete and misleading S-4
violates both Regulation G and SEC Rule 14a-9, each of which
constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the S-4, the Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, the Plaintiff asserts. In particular, the S-4 contains
materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i)
the financial projections for the Company that were prepared by the
Company and relied on by the Defendants in recommending that
SemGroup shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction;
and (ii) the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by
SemGroup's financial advisor, Jefferies LLC ("Jefferies") in
support of its opinion that the Merger Consideration is fair to
shareholders, on which the Board relied.

It is imperative that the material information that has been
omitted from the S-4 is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to
allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision
regarding the Proposed Transaction, the Plaintiff contends.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from
holding the shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction and taking
any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless, and until,
the material information is disclosed to SemGroup shareholders
sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed Transaction or,
in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover
damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange
Act.

The Plaintiff is a holder of SemGroup common stock.

SemGroup provides gathering, transportation, storage, distribution,
marketing and other midstream services primarily to producers,
refiners of petroleum products and other market participants
located in the Gulf Coast, Midwest, and Rocky Mountain regions of
the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 482-3182
     Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

          - and -

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


SEPHORA USA INC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sephora USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sephora USA, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09819 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019).

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

Sephora is a Paris–based French multinational chain of personal
care and beauty stores founded in Limoges in 1969. Featuring nearly
300 brands, along with its own private label, Sephora offers beauty
products including cosmetics, skincare, body, fragrance, nail
color, beauty tools, and haircare.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com



SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Franchi Sues Over Decline of IPO Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, INC., DAVID KATZMAN, KYLE
WAILES, STEVEN KATZMAN, JORDAN KATZMAN, ALEXANDER FENKELL, RICHARD
SCHNALL, SUSAN GREENSPON RAMMELT, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, INC.,
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., BOFA SECURITIES, INC., JEFFERIES
LLC, UBS SECURITIES LLC, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC,
GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC, STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY,
INCORPORATED, WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., and LOOP CAPITAL
MARKETS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09794 (M.D. Tenn., Oct.
29, 2019), is brought on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired SmileDirectClub Class A common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connections with the Company's September 2019
initial public offering.

The Plaintiff pursues claims against Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933.

On September 13, 2019, the Company filed the prospectus on Form
434B4 with the SEC, which forms part of the IPO's Registration
Statement. In the IPO, the Company sold approximately 58.5 million
shares of Class A common stock at a price of $23.00 per share.

On September 24, 2019, a class action complaint was filed by
dentists, orthodontists, and consumers against SmileDirectClub,
alleging false advertising, fraud, negligence, and unfair and
deceptive trade practices. The complaint disputed the accuracy of
several statements in the Registration Statement and highlighted
that the Company is subject to litigation for operating as a
dentist without proper licensing in several states, as well as
other litigation.

On the news, the Company's share price fell $1.47, or nearly 9%, to
close at $15.68 per share on September 24, 2019, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The price stock continued to decline over the next
two trading sessions by $2.74, or over 17%, to close at $12.94 per
share on September 26, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. The
Company's stock would close on October 21, 2019 at $9.13 per share,
a 60% decline from the $23 per share IPO price.

The Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to
state material adverse facts. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges,
the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
administrative personnel, rather than licensed doctors, provided
treatment of the Company's customers and monitored their progress;
(2) that, as a result, the Company was subject to regulatory
scrutiny for the unlicensed practice of dentistry; (4) that the
efficacy of the Company's treatment was overstated; (5) that the
Company had concealed these deceptive marketing practices prior to
the IPO; and (6) that as a result, the Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a
result of the Defendants' wrongful act and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have differed
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff acquired SmileDirectClub securities at artificially
inflated prices in the IPO.

SmileDirectClub purports to be the "first direct-to consumer
medtech platform for transforming smiles" that manufactures,
markets, and sells clear aligner treatments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Wade B. Cowan, Esq.
     DAVIES HUMPHREYS & REESE, PLC
     85 White Bridge Road, Suite 300
     Nashville, TN 37205
     Phone: 615-256-8125
     Facsimile: 615-242-7853
     Email: wcowan@dhhrplc.com

          - and -

     Christopher L. Nelson, Esq.
     James M. Ficarp, Esq.
     THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
     22 Cassatt Avenue
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Phone: (610) 225-2677
     Facsimile: (610) 408-8062
     Email: cln@weiserlawfirm.com
            jmf@weiserlawfirm.com

          - and -

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


SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Sonim Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: SONM) pursuant and/or traceable
to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively,
the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with Sonim's May
2019 initial public stock offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Sonim investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Sonim class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1687.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's XP8
was experiencing material software challenges; (2) these software
issues adversely affected how the device's Qualcomm chipset, which
supported Band 14 access, connected to AT&T's carrier network
configuration; (3) the Company's XP5 and XP3 devices were
experiencing material software defects that adversely affected
their optimization with certain accessories; (4) as a result, the
Company was reasonably likely to delay the launch of new products;
(5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results
would be materially and adversely impacted; and (6) as a result,
defendants' statements about Sonim's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
6, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1687.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.

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

Contact:

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


STEKLEN & WALKER: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steklen & Walker CO.,
Inc. The case is styled as Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Steklen & Walker Co.,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09831 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24,
2019).

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

Steklen & Walker Co., Inc, doing business as Wine Library, provides
alcohol beverage. The Company offers wine, spirits, and other
alcoholic beverage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq.
     Stein Saks PLLC
     285 Passaic St., Suite 5
     Hakensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500
     Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com


TALIA'S RESTAURANT: Hamilton Seeks to Recover Wages, Tips
---------------------------------------------------------
NIKOLA HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. TALIA'S RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC d/b/a TALIA'S STEAKHOUSE,
and EPHRAIM NAGAR, Case No. 1:19-cv-09311 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 8, 2019),
seeks to recover under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law unpaid minimum wages and unlawfully misappropriated
tips for the Defendants' food service worker.

Talia's New York is a limited liability company.  Ephraim Nagar is
an owner and operator of Talia's.

The Defendants own and operate Talia's Steakhouse, a restaurant
located at 668 Amsterdam Ave., in New York City, where the
Plaintiff worked as a server.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
          THE KLEIN LAW GROUP PC
          39 Broadway, Suite 1530
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 344-9022
          Facsimile: (212) 344-0301
          E-mail: Darren@thekleinlawgroup.com


TARGET CORPORATION: Delacruz Files Suit Under Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TARGET CORPORATION.
The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz On Behalf Of Himself And All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09851 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019).

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

Target Corporation is the eighth-largest retailer in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


TENCENT MUSIC: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Nov. 25 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Tencent
Music Entertainment Group (TME). To determine your eligibility and
get free access to our shareholder support tools that provide you
with case updates, automated loss calculations and claims recovery
assistance, please contact the firm. There will be no cost or
obligation to you.

Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME)

Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 12, 2018 -
August 26, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 25, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tencent-music-entertainment-group-loss-form?prid=3894&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Tencent
Music Entertainment Group made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tencent Music's
exclusive licensing arrangements with major record labels were
anticompetitive; (2) consequently, sublicensing such content from
Tencent Music was unreasonably expensive, in violation of Chinese
antimonopoly laws; (3) these anticompetitive efforts were
reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (4) as a
result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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

CONTACT:

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


TESLA INC: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Wilson Wage and Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Carrie Hughes, Katia Segal and Brian Wilson filed an
appeal from a Court ruling issued in their lawsuit entitled Brian
Wilson, et al. v. Tesla, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-03763-JSC,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco.

The District Court issued an Order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Reconsideration, the Class Action Reporter reported on Sept 23,
2019.

The Plaintiffs have sought reconsideration of the District Court's
order on attorneys' fees and costs and the class representative
incentive award under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and
(6).

Plaintiffs Brian Wilson, Carrie Hughes, and Katia Segal filed this
wage and hour class action against their employer, Tesla, Inc. and
Tesla Motors, Inc. alleging that Tesla misclassified them as exempt
employees and failed to provide them overtime, rest and meal
breaks, wage statements, and final wages.

The Plaintiffs then filed a motion for preliminary approval of a
class action settlement. The Court filed its order granting final
approval of the class action settlement and granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs
and incentive awards for the class representatives.

The appellate case is captioned as Brian Wilson, et al. v. Tesla,
Inc., et al., Case No. 19-16998, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by November 8, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on December 9, 2019;

   -- Appellants Carrie Hughes, Katia Segal and Brian Wilson's
      opening brief is due on January 17, 2020;

   -- Appellees Tesla Motors, Inc. and Tesla, Inc.'s answering
      brief is due on February 18, 2020; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants BRIAN WILSON, CARRIE HUGHES and KATIA SEGAL,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Alisa Ann Martin, Esq.
          AMARTIN LAW
          600 West Broadway, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 308-6880
          E-mail: alisa@amartinlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees TESLA, INC., a corporation, DBA Tesla Motors,
Inc., and TESLA MOTORS, INC., a corporation, are represented by:

          Jack Steven Sholkoff, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 S. Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-9800
          E-mail: jack.sholkoff@ogletreedeakins.com


THESY LLC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thesy, LLC. The case
is styled as Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Thesy, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-09827 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019).

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

Thesy, LLC or Element Vape is a progressive online retail
establishment serving the vaping and e-cigarette community with
vape mods, pod systems, starter kits, and premium vape juice.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq.
     Stein Saks PLLC
     285 Passaic St., Suite 5
     Hakensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500
     Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com


TIM HORTON'S: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tim Horton's USA Inc.
The case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Tim Horton's USA Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09863 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019).

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

Tim Hortons USA Inc., doing business as Restaurant Brands
International Inc., owns and operates restaurant franchisees. The
Company offers coffee, baked goods, and homestyle lunches.[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



TRADER JOE'S: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trader Joe's Company.
The case is styled as Braulio Thorne On Behalf Of Himself And All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Trader Joe's
Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09865 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24,
2019).

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

Trader Joe's is an American chain of grocery stores headquartered
in Monrovia, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com



TUTELIAN & CO: Jimenez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Jimenez on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Tutelian & Co., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19CECG03572
(Cal. Super., October 3, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime wages and
interest, redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal
periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment, failure to maintain time-keeping records,
injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's
fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Wage Orders.

Defendant operates a shopping center in Fresno where Jimenez worked
as a non-exempt cleaner. He routinely worked in excess of 8 hours
per work day and/or more than 40 hours per work week but did not
receive overtime compensation, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
      STAINSBURY BROWN LAW
      Venice, CA 9029
      Tel: (310) 420-0158
      Fax: (310) 410-8400
      Email: dbrown@stansburybrownlaw.com


ULTA BEAUTY: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ulta Beauty, Inc. The
case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ulta Beauty, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-09845 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2018).

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

Ulta Beauty Inc., formerly known as Ulta Salon, Cosmetics &
Fragrance Inc., is an American chain of beauty stores in the United
States, headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


UNILEVER: Culver Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Mustard Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS CULVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-09263 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2019), is a consumer
protection and false advertising class action lawsuit brought
against the Defendant based on its deceptive business practices
with respect to the sale of its "Maille" brand mustard products
that, even though appear to be made in France, are not from
France.

The Plaintiff alleges that Unilever has systematically marketed and
sold the "Maille" brand mustard Products with labeling, packaging,
and advertising that indicate the Products are made in France, such
that any United States consumer who purchased the Products, or who
purchases the Products today or in the future, is exposed to the
Defendant's uniform representations indicating that the Products
are made in France. Each of the Product labels bear references to
France and makes use of the French language. For example, the label
of Maille Old Style Mustard, which is actually made in Canada,
bears the following representations: "Paris," a Paris emblem,
"Depuis 1747," and "Que Maille." Based on these representations,
consumers reasonably believe the
Products are made in France. The Products' labeling, packaging, and
marketing led the Plaintiff and the Class members to reasonably
believe they were purchasing mustard that was made in France.

In reality, the Products are not made in France, but instead are
made in Canada. Thus, Defendant misleads, deceives, and confuses
reasonable consumers, including the Plaintiff and the Class
members, by portraying the Products as being made in France, when
in fact they are made in Canada. The Defendant's conduct harms
consumers by inducing them to purchase the Products at a premium
price on the false premise that the Products are made in France (as
they are in fact made in Canada), when the consumers would not have
otherwise purchased the Products, or would have paid substantially
less for them had they known the truth, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff now brings this action individually and on behalf of
the members of the proposed Class stop Unilever's unlawful
practices, seeking injunctive and monetary relief and such
additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

The Plaintiff purchased the Maille Old Style Mustard Product and
the Maille Traditional Dijon Originale Mustard Product in 2018 and
2019.

Unilever United States, Inc., is a corporation organized under the
laws of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
     Joshua Nassir, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Phone: (424) 256-2884
     Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
     Email: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
            jnassir@faruqilaw.com

            - and -

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

            - and -

     George V. Granade, Esq.
     REESE LLP
     8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
     Los Angeles, CA 90211
     Phone: (212) 643-0500
     Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
     Email: ggranade@reesellp.com


UNILEVER: Stewart Files Fraud Class Suit
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unilever United
States, Inc. and Conopco, Inc. The case is styled as Robert Bryce
Stewart III individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Unilever United States, Inc., Conopco, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05993 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 24, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

Unilever United States, Inc. manufactures personal care products.
The Company offers, laundry detergents, shampoos, soaps,
fragrances, and body washes. as well as provides ice creams, oils,
mayonnaise, spreads, sauces, tea. Unilever United States serves
customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua D Arisohn, Esq.
     Bursor & Fisher PA
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (646) 837-7150
     Email: jarisohn@bursor.com


VIEWRAY INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of Nov. 12 Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of purchasers of ViewRay, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRAY) common stock
between March 15, 2019 and August 8, 2019 (the "Class Period") in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The case
is captioned Corwin v. ViewRay, Inc., No. 19-cv-2115, and is
assigned to Judge James S. Gwin. The ViewRay class action lawsuit
charges ViewRay and three of its executive officers with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lead plaintiff motions for
the ViewRay class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no
later than November 12, 2019.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased ViewRay common stock during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the ViewRay class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members
in directing the ViewRay class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff
can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the ViewRay class
action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential
future recovery of the ViewRay class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff of the ViewRay class action lawsuit or have
questions concerning your rights regarding the ViewRay class action
lawsuit, please visit our website by clicking here or contact
counsel Brian E. Cochran or Mary K. Blasy at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com or
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com.

ViewRay specializes in the development of MRI-guided radiation
therapy technology for the treatment of cancer. The ViewRay class
action lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements that failed to
disclose adverse facts concerning ViewRay's business, operations,
and financial results. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose:
(a) that demand for ViewRay systems had declined due in part to
changes being made to Medicare reimbursement approaches first
announced in November 2019 that could make purchases of new ViewRay
systems less profitable for customers; (b) that ViewRay's reported
backlog was overstated due to the inclusion of orders with
insufficient surety as to permit for their inclusion in reported
backlog; and (c) that as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about ViewRay's business metrics and financial
prospects during the Class Period were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 8, 2019, after the close of trading, ViewRay disclosed
operational issues and slashed its previously issued full fiscal
year 2019 financial guidance. In response to this news, the price
of ViewRay common stock declined by more than 50% to close at $3.10
per share on August 9, 2019.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For six
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations, and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more
information.

Contact:

         Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
         Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Tel: 800-449-4900
         https://www.linkedin.com/company/rgrdlaw
         https://twitter.com/rgrdlaw
         https://www.facebook.com/rgrdlaw
         Email: mblasy@rgrdlaw.com, bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
[GN]


VIEWRAY INC: Rosen Reminds Investors of Nov. 12 Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of ViewRay, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRAY) from
March 15, 2019 through August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important November 12, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline
in the class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
ViewRay investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the ViewRay class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1676.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
12, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1676.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

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

Contact:

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


VILLA PARK, IL: Ferrill Wants Parking Tickets Deemed Invalid
------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT FERRILL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VILLAGE OF VILLA PARK, ILLINOIS, an Illinois
municipality, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06809 (N.D. Ill.,
Oct. 15, 2019), seeks a declaration that the Plaintiff's and class
members' parking tickets are invalid and unenforceable, damages in
connection with Villa Park's deprivation of their constitutional
rights, and a refund of any monies they paid to Villa Park in
connection with their Tickets.

The Plaintiff alleges that Villa Park continues to engage in the
tire chalking practices. He also seeks to enjoin Villa Park from
engaging in tire chalking and issuing any further Tickets that are
based on evidence obtained from tire chalking.

Villa Park's municipal code establishes time limits, which restrict
the length of time that vehicles may be parked on certain streets
and in particular parking lots. For example, pursuant to Section
14-209 of the Code, "no person shall park a motor vehicle for in
excess of 30 minutes at any of the following locations:" (1)
"Oakland Avenue, west side, from St. Charles Road southward a
distance of 258.3 feet between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, legal holidays excepted" and (2) "Villa Avenue,
west side, from Wildwood Avenue to Central Boulevard from 9:00 a.m.
to 8:00 p.m."

To determine whether a particular vehicle has been parked in excess
of an applicable Time Limit, Villa Park authorizes and commands its
police officers and/or other agents tasked with enforcing parking
restrictions (Enforcement Officers) to engage in the practice of
"tire chalking."  Tire chalking is "a common parking enforcement
practice" whereby "parking enforcement officers use chalk to mark
the tires of parked vehicles to track how long they have been
parked. Parking enforcement officers return to the car after the
posted time for parking has passed, and if the chalk marks are
still there--a sign that the vehicle has not moved--the officer
issues a citation."

Villa Park, by and through its agents (i.e., its Enforcement
Officers), has a common policy and practice of placing chalk marks
on parked vehicles' tires, and then using those "chalk marks for
the purpose of identifying vehicles that have been parked in the
same location for a certain period of time. That information is
then used by [Villa Park] to issue" tickets for alleged parking
time limit violations.

Mr. Ferrill contends that Villa Park's practice of tire chalking
constitutes a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. Because Article 1, Section 6 of the
Illinois Constitution is coextensive with the Fourth Amendment to
the United States Constitution, Villa Park's practice of tire
chalking constitutes a violation of Article 1, Section 6 of the
Illinois Constitution, he argues.

When the government conducts a search as defined by the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section
6 of the Illinois Constitution, that search must be reasonable.
Villa Park's use of tire chalking constitutes an unreasonable
search in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Article 1, Section 6 of the Illinois, the lawsuit
says.

The Plaintiff was a resident and citizen of the state of Illinois.

The Defendant is an Illinois municipal corporation located in
DuPage County, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
          Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
          Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                  sharon@attorneyzim.com
                  matt@attorneyzim.com
                  nick@attorneyzim.com


VTS STAFFING: Robinson Seeks OT Pay for Non-Exempt Employees
------------------------------------------------------------
JANELLE ROBINSON, an individual on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VTS STAFFING, INC., a CA
Corporation, BON APPETIT MANAGEMENT CO., a CA Corporation and DOES
1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-VOE-2019-13591 (
Cal. Super., Oct. 15, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated
the California Labor Code by failing to pay for all hours worked,
including overtime hours worked; to timely provide and/or authorize
meal breaks and rest breaks; and to timely pay earned wages upon
discharge incurring waiting time penalties.

The case is an employment class action on behalf of over 100
hourly, non-exempt employees against their co-employers for
violations of numerous wage and hour laws.

The Plaintiff worked for VTS for four years until her separation on
October 24, 2018. The Plaintiff and the proposed class earn at or
near minimum wage. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees.

VTS is a staffing company. Bon Appetit is an on-site restaurant
company offering full food-service management to corporations,
universities, and museums throughout the California. VTS and Bon
Appetit are co-employers of the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
          KOUL LAW FIRM
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 761 5484
          Facsimile: (818) 561 3938
          E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Venturaa Blvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609 0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609 0892


WALGREENS BOOTS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walgreens Boots
Alliance, Inc. The case is styled as Victor Lopez And On Behalf of
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Walgreens Boots
Alliance, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09853 (S.D. N.Y., Oct.
24, 2019).

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

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is an American holding company
headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois, that owns Walgreens, Boots,
and a number of pharmaceutical manufacturing, wholesale, and
distribution companies. It is the first global pharmacy-led, health
and wellbeing enterprise.[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


WEGMAN FOODS: Class Action Claims Vanilla Ice Cream a 'Fraud'
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Duncan, writing for The News & Observer, reports that a
class-action lawsuit says Wegmans' vanilla ice cream is a fraud
because it doesn't actually use real vanilla extract. The ice cream
instead uses natural flavors to make it taste like vanilla,
misleading customers, the lawsuit argues.

The lawsuit includes side-by-side comparisons with other ice cream
brands, showing pictures of the packaging and reciting ingredient
lists as the plaintiffs accuse Wegmans of ripping off its ice
cream-loving patrons.

The natural flavors listed in Wegmans-brand vanilla ice cream are
compared to the likes of Haagen Dazs and Publix, which include real
vanilla, according to the lawsuit.

Wegmans denied the claims to TV station WHAM. "We believe that the
labeling of our ice cream fully complies with all regulations and
industry standards, and is not misleading in any way." spokeswoman
Jo Natale told the station.

The grocery store chain has, in some markets, a cult-like
following, as Bloomberg News describes it. But nonetheless, the
attorneys argue that the store-brand ice cream is a fraud. "While
'food fraud' has no agreed-upon definition, its typologies
encompass an ever-expanding, often overlapping range of techniques
with one common goal: giving consumers less than what they
bargained for," the lawsuit said.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs filed the suit Oct. 4 in the Southern
District of New York. The 41-page court filing asks a judge to
certify the lawsuit as a class action.

Beyond the dry legal arguments over injured parties and breaches of
express warranty, the attorneys took pains to show they did their
homework on the background and modern-day use of ice cream.

"Ice cream is a year-round treat enjoyed by 96% of Americans," the
lawsuit says. "Its popularity is attributed 'to the perfect
combination of elements - sugar, fat, frozen water, and air - that
make up the mouthwatering concoction.'"

"Ice cream is defined by a minimum of 10 percent milkfat, weighing
no less than 4.5 pounds to the gallon and containing less than 1.4
% egg yolk solids," the court filing says.

The lawsuit includes this anecdote: "According to ice cream lore,
Thomas Jefferson may have discovered vanilla ice cream when a
bottle of vanilla extract accidentally spilled into the frozen milk
and cream dessert he was preparing during the summer he wrote our
Constitution."

And in another paragraph, the lawyers explain in the suit: "The
applications of vanilla ice cream include its centerpiece between
chocolate wafers ('sandwich'), enrobed in chocolate on a stick
(‘bar'), topping a warm slice of fresh-baked pie ('a la Mode'),
drizzled with hot fudge and sprinkled with crushed nuts and topped
by a maraschino cherry (‘sundae') or dunked in a cold frothy
glass of root beer (‘float')."

The plaintiffs want the court to make Wegmans label its ice cream
properly, along with monetary damages that could total more than $5
million.

Attorneys Spencer Sheehan, Esq. of Great Neck, New York, and
Michael Reese, Esq. of New York City are representing named
plaintiffs Quincy Steele and Jimmy Arriola in the lawsuit.[GN]


WWF OPERATING: Hyde Hits Artificial Vanilla Flavor in Drink
-----------------------------------------------------------
Janicia Hyde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WWF Operating Company, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-05566 (E.D. N.Y., October 2, 2019), seeks restitution and
disgorgement of inequitably obtained profits, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, monetary and punitive damages and
interest, costs and expenses, including reasonable fees for
attorneys and experts and such other and further relief resulting
from unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation and violation
of New York general business laws and various state consumer
protection statutes.

WWF Operating Company, LLC manufactures, distributes, markets,
labels and sells soymilk beverages purporting to be characterized
by vanilla under the "Silk" brand. Plaintiffs allege that their
vanilla-flavored drinks contain vanilla flavor or vanilla extract
despite its labelling indicating "natural flavor." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
      SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      891 Northern Blvd., Suite 201
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Tel: (516) 303-0552
      Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

             - and -

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


[*] Restaurants Back Law that Would Curb Class Suits by Servers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart, writing for CT Post, reports that a hundred
restaurant owners packed a legislative hearing room October 10 to
hear about draft legislation that would limit the ability of
servers and bartenders to bring class action lawsuits against
them.

The draft legislation would require the state Department of Labor
to create new regulations and rules regarding how restaurants
segregate the hours of service and non-service work, such as
rolling silverware and filling salt shakers.

More than a dozen class action lawsuits have been filed, mostly by
one law firm against a number of restaurants for not appropriately
keeping track of servers' hours based on Department of Labor
guidance.

Jessurun said for many years restaurants had been following the
80/20 rule the Department of Labor outlined on page 13 of its
guidance to the industry.

That guidance, which has been removed from the DOL's website,
essentially said restaurants can pay their employees the lower
tipped credit of $6.38 an hour for servers and $8.38 an hour for
bartenders if the non-service duties "compromise 20 percent or less
of the service persons total working time on a particular shift."

"Restaurants across the state are being accused of not segregating
time to tipped servers while performing non-service duties,"
Jessurun said. "While the regulatory and enforcement agency gave
the industry advice to the contrary."

Sal Luciano, head of the AFL-CIO, pointed to a poster of the
disclaimer language attached to that guidance during a separate
press conference. Labor opposes the draft legislation because while
it would allow an individual server to bring a lawsuit it makes it
harder for them to get a certification for a class action lawsuit.
Also it makes it harder for an individual server to get attorneys'
fees paid through the courts.

"How can a server spend a few thousand dollars on attorney fees and
then not get the attorneys' fees trying to recover $100 or $200?"
Luciano asked.

Rep. Michael Winkler, D-Vernon, said this type of "wage theft" has
been going on forever, but the workers just figured out how to
organize class actions. He said no attorney is going to take an
individual wage case to recover a few hundred dollars because the
contingency is not high enough.

Ryan O'Donnell, Esq., the attorney for the Connecticut Restaurant
Association, said the legislation doesn't prevent class actions,
but makes them much harder to pursue, a safeguard to make sure
"restaurant owners aren't crushed by a litigious process from the
beginning."

The current regulations are based on a law that's been on the books
since the 1950s. That law requires restaurants to keep track of
service and non-service work.

The Labor Department supports the legislation.

"We are in firm belief that determining the amount of minimum wage
for workers in the restaurant industry can be fairly addressed by
making revisions to existing regulations," Department of Labor
Commissioner Kurt Westby told the legislature's Labor and Judiciary
Committees October 10.

Westby said they would consult with "interested stakeholders"
before writing those regulations.

Sen. Gary Winfield, D-New Haven, asked why the department is
supporting legislation that doesn't impact how it operates
internally regarding wage and hour complaints but will change how
servers can pursue class action lawsuits against these restaurant
owners.

The lawsuits prompted the Connecticut Restaurant Association to
lobby for the change. Both chambers of the General Assembly
unanimously passed legislation that would have prohibited the class
actions. It was vetoed by Gov. Ned Lamont. The draft legislation
discussed at the public hearing October 10 was a compromise worked
on by lawmakers and Lamont's administration.

Stephen Lattanzio, Esq., an attorney at the labor department, told
Winfield that the class actions and the court cases are not within
the purview of the Connecticut Labor Department. Lattanzio said the
department supports the change in legislation because it will get
to a point where the internal enforcement policy of the agency
mirrors what the regulation will actually say.

Officials said of the 4,000 wage and hours claims made annually to
the department, over the last year, 10 concerned segregation of
wages with a restaurant.

Rep. Robyn Porter, D-New Haven, said there would be a lot more
claims if not for fear of retaliation.

Several lawmakers asked how the labor department plans to include
an unorganized group of workers like servers and bartenders in
their regulatory process.

Westby assured lawmakers they would be at the table.

It's unclear when a special session would be scheduled to vote on
the legislation.

Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, pointed out the restaurant owners are
being sued for more than the segregation of service-related and
non-service work.

"It seems like there's a little bit of a cottage industry out
there," Kissel said.

Chicago Sam's restaurant chain in Kissel's district just lost a
lawsuit filed by a server, however, it wasn't lost on the issue of
segregation of service and non-service related duties.

The restaurant, according to summary judgment, failed to record on
a weekly basis "the amount received in gratuities claimed as a
credit for part of the minimum fair wage." Nor did it "obtain
weekly a statement signed by the employee attesting that he has
received in gratuities the amount claimed as credit for part of the
minimum fair wage."

Essentially, the court documents say the restaurant failed to have
their servers sign for their checks and declare weekly how much was
claimed in tipped wages even though the servers used their personal
identification number to log in to the respective computer systems
at each Chicago Sam's to declare all of their tips at the end of
each and every shift.

The issue of how servers receive their checks and vouch for their
tips was not part of the discussion Oct. 10, 2019. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6,461 Bendix Claims vs. Honeywell Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. had 6,461 unresolved asbestos-related
claims at September 30, 2019, involving predecessor company Bendix
Friction Materials (Bendix) business, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

Of the 6,461 unresolved claims, 3,138 of which are for nonmalignant
claims while the remaining 3,323 are for mesothelioma and other
cancer claims.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Had 118 Pending Talc Suits at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
There were 118 individual personal injury cases pending as of June
30, 2019 against Avon Products, Inc. related to allegations that
certain talc products the Company sold in the past were
contaminated with asbestos, according to Natura & Co Holding S.A.'s
Form 6-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the month of October, 2019.

Avon Products states, "The Company has been named a defendant in
numerous personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging
that certain talc products the Company sold in the past were
contaminated with asbestos.  Many of these actions involve a number
of co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including
manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other products
that, unlike the Company's products, were designed to contain
asbestos.  As of June 30, 2019, there were 118 individual cases
pending against the Company.  During the three months ended June
30, 2019, nine new cases were filed and nine cases were dismissed,
settled, or otherwise resolved.  The value of our settlements in
this area thus far has not been material, either individually or in
the aggregate.  Additional similar cases arising out of the use of
the Company's talc products are reasonably anticipated.

"We believe that the claims asserted against us in these cases are
without merit.  We are defending vigorously against these claims
and will continue to do so.  To date, the Company has not proceeded
to trial in any case filed against it and there have been no
findings of liability enforceable against the Company.  However,
nationwide trial results in similar cases filed against other
manufacturers of cosmetic talc products have ranged from outright
dismissals to very large jury awards of both compensatory and
punitive damages.  Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
we cannot predict any overall trends in the outcome of the cases
pending against the Company, and we are only able to make a
reasonable estimate for a small number of individual cases that
have advanced to the later stages of legal proceedings.  Any
accruals currently recorded on the Company's balance sheet with
respect to these individual cases are not material.  Other than
these accruals, we are at this time unable to estimate our
reasonably possible or probable losses.  However, any adverse
outcomes, either in an individual case or in the aggregate, could
be material.  Future costs to litigate these cases, which we
expense as incurred, are not known but may be significant, though
some costs will be covered by insurance."

A full-text copy of the Form 6-K is available at
https://is.gd/luaPgl


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BonDurant Claims vs. Gould Electronics Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Carl J. Barbier granted Defendant Gould Electronics
Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss and dismissed Plaintiff Terry L.
Bondurant's claims against Defendant without prejudice.

In its Motion to Dismiss, Gould asserts the Court lacks general
jurisdiction over it because neither its principal place of
business nor place of incorporation are in Louisiana. Further,
Gould contends that the Court lacks specific jurisdiction over it
because Plaintiff's alleged exposure to Gould's products only
occurred in Texas.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the Court has personal
jurisdiction over Gould because it sold, distributed, and marketed
its products in Louisiana and he was exposed to asbestos from
Defendant's products while working in Louisiana. In the
alternative, Plaintiff requests an opportunity for jurisdictional
discovery before Gould is dismissed from the case.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie
showing of jurisdiction because he has not shown that his cause of
action arises out of Gould's contacts with Louisiana. Rather, the
evidence Plaintiff submitted supports Gould's contention that any
exposure to asbestos he experienced from working with or around
Gould products occurred in Texas, not Louisiana -- Plaintiff
alleges he worked at two facilities in Louisiana but did not
testify that he worked around Gould products at those sites, yet he
did testify that he worked around Gould products at a third,
unidentified site.

Because Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to asbestos while
working at two facilities in Louisiana and two facilities in Texas,
it is reasonable to conclude that this third, unidentified site was
in Texas, not Louisiana, as Plaintiff has failed to present any
evidence to the contrary.

The Court denied Plaintiff's request for further jurisdictional
discovery. The Court said jurisdictional discovery is not required,
as Plaintiff has failed to make a preliminary showing of
jurisdiction. Plaintiff has had an opportunity for discovery and
fails to allege with reasonable particularity the facts that
additional discovery is likely to uncover that would support the
exercise of jurisdiction over Gould, as his allegations and
testimony tend to exclude the possibility that he was exposed to
asbestos from Gould products in Louisiana.

Terry L. Bondurant, Plaintiff, represented by Lindsey A. Cheek ,
Bridget B. Truxillo , Cheek Law Firm LLC & Jeanne Louise St.
Romain, The Cheek Law Firm.

Anco Insulation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Margaret M. Joffe
-- mjoffe@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Douglas R. Elliott --
delliott@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC & Jamie Hebert Baglio
-- jbaglio@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, LLC.

Eagle Inc. & McCarty Corporation, Defendants, represented by Susan
Beth Kohn -- Suek@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP, April Ann McQuillar -- Aprilm@spsr-law.com -- Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler --
Dkinler@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP,
James R. Guidry -- jamesg@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP, Janice M. Culotta -- jculotta@spsr-law.com -- Simon,
Peragine, Smith and Redfearn, LLP & Louis Oliver Oubre --
louiso@spsr-law.com -- Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Lamons Gasket Company, Defendant, represented by Kenan Slade Rand,
Jr. -- krand@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP, Lauren
B. Dietzen -- ldietzen@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson,
LLP, Meredith R. Durham -- mdurham@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli,
Parkerson, LLP & Scott H. Mason -- smason@pmpllp.com -- Plauche,
Maselli, Parkerson, LLP.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
Kelly Lightfoot -- rsimmons@hmhlp.com -- Hailey, McNamara, Hall,
Larmann & Papale, LLP, Edward J. Lassus, Jr. , Hailey, McNamara,
Hall, Larmann & Papale, LLP & Richard J. Garvey, Jr. --
rgarvey@hmhlp.com -- Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale,
LLP.

General Electric Company & CBS Corporation, formerly known as
Viacom, Inc. successor-by-merger with CBS Corporation, Westinghouse
Electric Corporation, Defendants, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III -- jhainkel@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Angela M.
Bowlin -- abowlin@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr.
-- jbrown@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long --
klong@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan --
keagan@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C., Lacey Taylor McCoy --
LMcCoy@frilot.com -- Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin ,
Frilot L.L.C.

Hercules, LLC, Individually and as successor-in-interest to Haveg
Industries, Inc. successor-by-merger to Haveg Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Jeanette Seraile-Riggins , MGM The Law
Firm, Adam D. Whitworth -- awhitworth@leakeandersson.com -- Leake &
Andersson, LLP, Bradley Adam Hays -- ahays@mgmlaw.com -- MGM The
Law Firm, Brandie Mendoza Thibodeaux -- bthibodeaux@mgmlaw.com --
MG + M The Law Firm, Christopher O. Massenburg --
cmassenburg@mgmlaw.com -- MGM The Law Firm, Glenn Lyle Maximilian
Swetman , MG+M The Law Firm, Meghan B. Senter -- msenter@mgmlaw.com
-- MG+M The Law Firm, Michael D. Goggans , MG+M The Law Firm &
Vikram S. Bhatia -- vbhatia@mgmlaw.com -- MG+M The Law Firm.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by McGready Lewis
Richeson -- mricheson@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker
& Carey, David M. Stein -- dstein@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo,
Haas, Radecker & Carey, Francis Xavier DeBlanc, III --
fdeblanc@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey &
Kathleen Erin Jordan -- kjordan@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo,
Haas, Radecker & Carey.

Eaton Corporation, Individually and as successor-in-interest to
Culter-Hammer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeanette
Seraile-Riggins , MGM The Law Firm, Bradley Adam Hays --
ahays@mgmlaw.com -- MGM The Law Firm, Christopher O. Massenburg --
cmassenburg@mgmlaw.com -- MGM The Law Firm, Meghan B. Senter --
msenter@mgmlaw.com -- MG+M The Law Firm & Michael D. Goggans , MG+M
The Law Firm.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Individually and as
successor-in-interest to Square D Company, Defendant, represented
by Stacey Leigh Strain , Hubbard, Mitchell, Williams & Strain,
PLLC, Lauren B. Dietzen -- ldietzen@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli,
Parkerson, LLP, Meredith R. Durham -- mdurham@pmpllp.com --
Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP & Scott H. Mason --
smason@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP.

Rockwell Automation, Inc., Individually and as
successor-in-interest to Allen-Bradley Company LLC, Defendant,
represented by Richard P. Sulzer -- rsulzer@sulzerandwilliams.com
-- Sulzer & Williams, LLC & Robert Edward Williams, IV --
rwilliams@sulzerandwilliams.com -- Sulzer & Williams, LLC.

Texaco Inc & Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Individually and as
successor-in-interest to Cities Refining Corporation, Cities
Services Oil Company, Citgo Petroleum Corporation and Oxy USA,
Inc., Defendants, represented by Tim D. Gray --
tim.gray@formanwatkins.com -- Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Chelsea
Elizabeth Gaudin -- chelsea.gaudin@formanwatkins.com -- Forman,
Watkins & Krutz LLP, McCann Elizabeth LeFeve --
McCann.LeFeve@formanwatkins.com -- Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP,
Melissa Desormeaux Fuller -- Melissa.Fuller@formanwatkins.com --
Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Michael H. Abraham --
michael.abraham@formanwatkins.com -- Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP &
Michelle Miller Roy , Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP.

CanadianOxy Offshore Production Co., Defendant, represented by
Jeffery D. Fruge , Spears & Gary, LLC, Claudia Hugill Gary , Spears
& Gary, LLC & Kenneth Ray Spears , Spears & Gary, LLC.

Certain Underwriters LLoyd's London, As the liability insurer of
Cities Service Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Stephen
Porter Hall -- stephen.hall@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP &
Barbara Lee Arras -- barbara.arras@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar,
LLP.

Century Indemnity Company, as the liability insurer for Cities
Service Oil Company and as successor to CCI Insurance Company, as
successor to Insurance Company of North America and successor to
Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, Defendant,
represented by William Thomas McCall , Guillory & McCall, LLC &
Drury B. Cunningham , Guillory & McCall, LLC.

Lamorak Insurance Company, erroneously referred to as OneBeacon
Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton
Rosamond, III , Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin
DeMahy , Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Travis Layne
Simmons , Port of South Louisiana.

Lamons Gasket Company, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Kenan
Slade Rand, Jr. -- krand@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson,
LLP, Lauren B. Dietzen -- ldietzen@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli,
Parkerson, LLP, Meredith R. Durham -- mdurham@pmpllp.com --
Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP & Scott H. Mason --
smason@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. Ct. App. Remands Linsowe Case for New Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Second District of the Court of Appeals of California affirmed
the trial court's postjudgment orders granting the motion for a new
trial and denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict.

The appealed case LAOSD Asbestos Cases. Sharron Linsowe et al.,
Plaintiffs, Respondents and Cross-Appellants, v. Hennessy
Industries, Inc., Defendant, Appellant and Cross-Respondent. No.
B276252, (Cal. Ct. App. 2nd).

Plaintiffs Sharron Linsowe and her sons, Henry Linsowe, Jr., and
Eric Linsowe, sued a number of defendants for the wrongful death of
Henry Linsowe (father and husband). The complaint alleged Mr.
Linsowe, a brake mechanic at Downey Ford, died of mesothelioma
after years of asbestos exposure as a result of working with a
brake shoe grinder manufactured by Ammco Tools, Inc. Hennessy
Industries, Inc. was Ammco's corporate successor.

In this case, the jury rendered a special verdict in favor of one
plaintiff, awarding substantial economic and noneconomic damages.
The trial court, however, signed a judgment in favor of defendant.
Postjudgment, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but granted their motion for
a new trial, finding the verdict inconsistent and against the law.


The special verdict findings on all the negligence theories and the
punitive damages questions were in Hennessy's favor. The jury
determined Mr. Linsowe and a number of nonparties were not
negligent; but that Downey Ford was, although its negligence was
not a substantial factor in contributing to his death. The jury
nonetheless apportioned fault between Hennessy and Downey Ford at
60 percent/40 percent.

The trial court sustained the Linsowes' objections to the
declarations, denied the motion for JNOV, and ordered a new trial
on the ground that the jury returned an inconsistent verdict and
the judgment was against the law. The trial court specifically
found substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict.

On appeal, Hennessy insists the special verdict is entirely
consistent and asserts "the jury clearly, explicitly and
unequivocally found for it on all five theories of recovery."
Hennessy asks the Court to reinstate the jury's verdict.

The Court agreed with the trial court that the proper remedy was a
new trial. Where the special verdict is inconsistent and against
the law, there is no way to tell which party prevailed and which
inconsistent answers should be accepted. The inconsistencies in the
special verdict that require a new trial preclude the Court from
ordering a JNOV on the issue of liability. The Court maintains that
the Linsowes are "no more entitled than Hennessy to have the
favorable aspects of the verdict credited and the unfavorable ones
disregarded."

In addition, the Court explained that an order granting a new trial
will be affirmed on appeal "unless the opposing party demonstrates
that no reasonable finder of fact could have found for the movant
on the trial court's theory." But Hennessy has not done so.
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the postjudgment orders and
remanded the case for a new trial.

Gordon & Rees, James G. Scadden -- jscadden@grsm.com -- Don
Willenburg -- dwillenburg@grsm.com -- and Robert A. Rich --
rrich@grsm.com -- for Defendant, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent
Hennessy Industries.

Heubeck Law, John C. Heubeck -- john@heubecklaw.com -- and Marc A.
Lowe , for Plaintiffs, Respondents, and Cross-Appellants Sharron
Linsowe and Henry Linsowe, Jr.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Lift Stay Issue Still Pending at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to lift stay is remains pending in the bankruptcy cases of
Kaanapali Land, LLC's subsidiary, D/C Distribution Corporation,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "On or about April 28, 2015, eight litigants
who filed asbestos claims in California state court (hereinafter,
"Petitioners") filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in
the D/C bankruptcy (hereinafter "life stay motion").  Under
relevant provisions of the bankruptcy rules and on the filing of
the D/C bankruptcy action, all pending litigation claims against
D/C were stayed pending resolution of the bankruptcy action.  In
their motion, Petitioners asked the bankruptcy court to lift the
stay in the bankruptcy court to name D/C and/or its alternate
entities as defendants in their respective California state court
asbestos actions and to satisfy their claims against insurance
policies that defend and indemnify D/C and/or their alternate
entities.  The Petitioner's motion to lift stay thus in part has as
an objective ultimate recovery, if any, from, among other things,
insurance policy proceeds that were allegedly assets of both the
D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estates.

"Kaanapali, the EPA, and the Navy are claimants in the Oahu Sugar
bankruptcy and the Fireman's Fund policies are allegedly among the
assets of the Oahu Sugar bankruptcy estate as well.  For this and
other reasons, Kaanapali, the EPA and the Navy opposed the motion
to lift stay.

"After briefing and argument, on May 14, 2015, the United States
Bankruptcy Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, in In Re D/C Distribution, LLC, Bankruptcy Case No.
07-12776, issued an order lifting the stay.  In the order, the
court permitted the Petitioners to "proceed in the applicable
nonbankruptcy forum to final judgment (including any appeals) in
accordance with applicable nonbankruptcy law.  Claimants are
entitled to settle or enforce their claims only by collecting upon
any available insurance Debtor's liability to them in accordance
with applicable nonbankruptcy law.  No recovery may be made
directly against the property of Debtor, or property of the
bankruptcy estate." Kaanapali, Firemen's Fund and the United States
appealed the bankruptcy court order lifting the stay.

"In March 2016, the district court reversed the bankruptcy court
order finding that the bankruptcy court did not apply relevant law
to the facts in the case to arrive at a reasoned decision.  On
appeal the district court noted that the law requires consideration
of a number of factors when lifting a stay to permit certain claims
to proceed, including consideration of the adequacy of remaining
insurance to meet claims still subject to the stay.  Among other
things, the court noted that the bankruptcy court failed to explain
why it was appropriate for the petitioners to liquidate their
claims before the other claimants whose claims remained subject to
the stay.  The district court remanded the case for further
proceedings.  It is uncertain whether such further proceedings on
the lift stay will take place.

"The parties in the D/C and Oahu Sugar bankruptcies have reached
out to each other to determine if there is any interest in pursuing
a global settlement of the claims in the Oahu Sugar and D/C
bankruptcies insofar as the Fireman's Fund insurance policies are
concerned.  If such discussions take place, they may take the form
of a mediation or other format and involve some form of resolution
of Kaanapali's interest in various of the Fireman's Fund insurance
policies for Kaanapali's various and future insurance claims.
Kaanapali may consider entering into such discussions, but there is
no assurance that such discussions will take place or prove
successful in resolving any of the claims in whole or in part."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/FzM25Z


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Colvin's Case Reversed On Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland issued an opinion
reversing the judgment of the circuit court and remanding the case
styled Carole Colvin, et al., v. Eaton Corporation, et al., No.
2103, September Term, 2016, (Md. Ct. Spec. App.) for further
proceedings.

Carole Colvin has appealed from a judgment of the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City that dismissed, with prejudice, her civil action
against Eaton Corporation, PACCAR, Inc., and other defendants based
upon what the court perceived to be a discovery violation.

The Court finds that the circuit court's decision was not
consistent with the rubric for the imposition of discovery
sanctions set out in Maryland Rules -- which encourages parties to
reach an agreement for the scheduling and completion of discovery.
As a general matter, the first step in obtaining a judicial
resolution of a discovery dispute is to seek a court order
compelling discovery. However, in the absence of an order to compel
discovery, a party may request for an immediate imposition of
sanctions for certain types of discovery failures.

The case was subject to numerous scheduling orders, and a series of
depositions, interrogatories, and other discovery-related matters
were conducted. Three Fact Witnesses, who worked with Mr. Colvin at
the Safeway plant, were deposed during the initial discovery
period.

In their motion filed on Sept. 4, 2014, appellees set out the
history of Jason Weiner, Esq.'s (Colvin's counsel) untimely and
incomplete responses to their discovery requests. They sought
dismissal of Ms. Colvin's action or, in the alternative, an order
to compel discovery, to re-open discovery, sanctions, and related
relief.

Several months later, after a hearing, Judge John M. Glynn declined
to dismiss Ms. Colvin's case but severed it from its trial group
and continued the case. In addition, the court ordered the parties
to develop a jointly acceptable discovery plan. They were unable to
do so and, ultimately, Judge Glynn approved appellees' proposed
discovery plan, reserved on the question of awarding costs to
appellees, and informed Ms. Colvin's counsel that "you're going to
comply with appellees' discovery plan."

The Court concludes that Judge Glynn's order adopting the discovery
plan, when viewed in the context of the substantive provisions of
the plan itself, constituted, at most, an order compelling Ms.
Colvin to produce herself and her experts for additional
depositions within the time limits set out in the scheduling
orders.

The discovery plan, however, contained no deadlines for the
completion of discovery but the circuit court periodically entered
scheduling orders that did set out deadlines for the completion of
various forms of discovery. Moreover, appellees' discovery plan did
not require Ms. Colvin to produce the Fact Witnesses, or to canvass
the Fact Witnesses to find out if they were willing to be
re-deposed, or, indeed, to do anything whatsoever regarding the
Fact Witnesses.

Further, it is clear beyond cavil that appellees' discovery plan
also did not require Ms. Colvin to subpoena the Fact Witnesses to
compel their attendance at depositions to be conducted by
appellees' counsel. The Court points out that if appellees desired
that Ms. Colvin be required to produce the Fact Witnesses, they
could have included such language in their discovery plan.

The Court finds that the scheduling orders provided two separate
dates regarding depositions of plaintiffs' witnesses. The first
deadline for those witnesses Ms. Colvin was able to produce, and a
second, later deadline for those witnesses Ms. Colvin was unable to
produce. Such that, once the first deadline had passed, appellees
were on notice that Ms. Colvin could not produce the Fact
Witnesses, and they had until the later deadline to depose them,
with or without a subpoena. However, appellees have overlooked
their own role in the discovery process.

Thus, when the circuit court later construed Judge Glynn's order as
imposing such obligations on Ms. Colvin, it erred. Both the
language of the discovery plan itself and the procedural context
within which it was approved undercut the circuit court's ultimate
conclusion that Judge Glynn's approval of the discovery plan had
the effect of requiring Ms. Colvin to produce the Fact Witnesses
for re-deposition. Because Ms. Colvin was under no such obligation,
the circuit court erred when it dismissed her case with prejudice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.5BB Bendix Liabilities at Sept.30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded total liabilities of US$1,545
million at September 30, 2019, in asbestos-related liabilities
involving predecessor company Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix)
business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Bendix manufactured automotive brake linings
that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form.
Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to
asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the
vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements.

"It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for
Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or stabilize
in the future.

"Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated
liability for resolution of asserted (claims filed as of the
financial statement date) and unasserted Bendix-related asbestos
claims and excludes the Company's legal fees to defend such
asbestos claims which will continue to be expensed by the Company
as they are incurred.  We have valued Bendix asserted and
unasserted claims using average resolution values for the previous
five years.  We update the resolution values used to estimate the
cost of Bendix asserted and unasserted claims during the fourth
quarter each year.

"Honeywell reflects the inclusion of all years of epidemiological
disease projection through 2059 when estimating the liability for
unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims.  Such liability for
unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic and
anticipated claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease
classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the
previous five years.

"Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of asserted and unasserted Bendix asbestos claims
reflects coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market.  Based on
our ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance
receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous
with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying
asbestos claims.  This determination is based on our analysis of
the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with
our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers,
judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and our
consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with our
insurers.

"Reimbursements associated with the indemnification and
reimbursement agreement with a Garrett subsidiary (the "Agreement")
were US$114 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2019
and offset operating cash outflows incurred by the Company.  As the
Company records the accruals for matters covered by the
indemnification and reimbursement agreement, a corresponding
receivable from Garrett for 90 percent of such accrual is also
recorded.  This receivable amount was US$25 million in the nine
months ended September 30, 2019.  As of September 30, 2019, Other
Current Assets and Other Assets includes US$164 million and US$932
million representing the short-term and long-term portion of the
receivable amount due from Garrett under the indemnification and
reimbursement agreement.

"In our ongoing communications with Garrett with respect to the
Agreement and Garrett's associated material weakness disclosure in
its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, Garrett has
taken the position that (i) Honeywell has not satisfied all of its
obligations under the Agreement, and (ii) the Agreement is
unenforceable either in whole or in part.  We strongly believe that
Garrett's allegations have no merit, nor are they material to
Honeywell.  We believe we have fully complied with our obligations
under the Agreement and that the Agreement is enforceable in its
entirety.  We intend to continue to have ongoing discussions with
Garrett to try to resolve this matter."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $2.4-Bil. Liabilities at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded total liabilities of US$2,440
million related to asbestos matters at September 30, 2019,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos related
personal injury actions related to North American Refractories
Company ("NARCO"), which was sold in 1986, and Bendix Friction
Materials ("Bendix") business, which was sold in 2014."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $895MM NARCO Liabilities at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$895 million at September
30, 2019, in asbestos-related liabilities involving predecessor
company North American Refractories Company (NARCO), according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019.

The Company states, "Honeywell's predecessor, Allied Corporation
owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986.  When the NARCO business was sold,
Honeywell's predecessor entered into a cross-indemnity agreement
with NARCO which included an obligation to indemnify the purchaser
for asbestos claims.  Such claims arise primarily from alleged
occupational exposure to asbestos-containing refractory brick and
mortar for high-temperature applications.  NARCO ceased
manufacturing these products in 1980, and the first asbestos claims
were filed in the tort system against NARCO in 1983.  Claims
filings and related costs increased dramatically in the late 1990s
through 2001, which led to NARCO filing for bankruptcy in January
2002.  Once NARCO filed for bankruptcy, all then current and future
NARCO asbestos claims were stayed against both NARCO and Honeywell
pending the reorganization of NARCO.

"Following the bankruptcy filing, in December 2002 Honeywell
recorded a total NARCO asbestos liability of US$3.2 billion, which
was comprised of three components: (i) the estimated liability to
settle pre-bankruptcy petition NARCO claims and certain
post-petition settlements (US$2.2 billion, referred to as
"Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability"), (ii) the estimated liability
related to then unasserted NARCO claims for the period 2004 through
2018 (US$950 million, referred to as "NARCO Trust Liability"), and
(iii) other NARCO bankruptcy-related obligations totaling US$73
million.

"As of September 30, 2019, our total NARCO asbestos liability of
US$895 million reflects Pre-bankruptcy NARCO liability of US$152
million and NARCO Trust Liability of US$743 million.  Through
September 30, 2019, Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability has been reduced
by approximately US$2 billion since first established in 2002,
largely related to settlement payments.  The remaining
Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability principally represents estimated
amounts owed pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the
pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the
right to submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification
under the terms of the settlement agreements and Trust Distribution
Procedures.  The other NARCO bankruptcy-related obligations were
paid in 2013 and no further liability is recorded.

"As of September 30, 2019, Honeywell has not made any payments to
the NARCO Trust for Annual Contribution Claims as any Annual
Contribution Claims which have been paid since the Trust became
operational have been funded by cash dividends from HWI.

"Honeywell continues to evaluate the appropriateness of the US$743
million NARCO Trust Liability.  Despite becoming effective in 2013,
the NARCO Trust has experienced delays in becoming fully
operational.  Violations of the Trust Distribution Procedures and
the resulting disputes and challenges, a standstill pending dispute
resolution, and limited claims payments, have all contributed to
the lack of sufficient normalized data based on actual claims
processing experience in the Trust since it became operational.  As
a result, we have not been able to further update the NARCO Trust
Liability.  The US$743 million NARCO Trust Liability continues to
be appropriate because of the unresolved pending claims in the
Trust, some portion of which will result in payouts in the future,
and because new claims continue to be filed with the NARCO Trust.
When sufficiently reliable claims data exists, we will update our
estimate of the NARCO Trust Liability and it is possible that a
material change may need to be recognized.

"Our insurance receivable of US$298 million as of September 30,
2019, corresponding to the estimated liability for asserted and
unasserted NARCO asbestos claims, reflects coverage which
reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity and
defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market.  We conduct
analyses to estimate the probable amount of insurance that is
recoverable for asbestos claims.  While the substantial majority of
our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers
are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis of
probable recoveries.  We made judgments concerning insurance
coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our
historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency
issues surrounding insurers."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. App. Affirms Denial of Bid to Dismiss Leavitt
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The First Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
of New York affirmed the order denying defendant Rogers
Corporation's motion to dismiss filed in the case styled In Re New
York City Asbestos Litigation. Russell Leavitt, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co., et al.,
Defendants, Rogers Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, 9959,
190240/17, (N.Y. App. Div.).

Although the record before the Court was not sufficient to warrant
a finding of personal jurisdiction over defendant, plaintiffs made
a "sufficient start" in demonstrating such jurisdiction, and
accordingly, jurisdictional discovery is warranted with respect to
Rogers.

Additionally, Rogers failed to make a prima facie showing that its
product could not have contributed to the causation of plaintiff's
injury. The Court, having considered Rogers's remaining
contentions, found them unavailing.

Goldberg Segalla, LLP, New York ( Andrew J. Scholz --
ascholz@goldbergsegalla.com -- of counsel), for appellant.

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York ( Jason P. Weinstein of counsel),
for respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Corp. Defends PI Suits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------
Parsons Corporation is still facing lawsuits alleging personal
injuries as a result of contact with asbestos products at various
project sites, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "The Company is subject to certain lawsuits,
claims and assessments that arise in the ordinary course of
business.  Additionally, the Company has been named as a defendant
in lawsuits alleging personal injuries as a result of contact with
asbestos products at various project sites.  Management believes
that any significant costs relating to these claims will be
reimbursed by applicable insurance and, although there can be no
assurance that these matters will be resolved favorably, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of any of these claims will
not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows.  A liability is
recorded when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and
the amount of loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated.
When using a range of loss estimate, the Company records the
liability using the low end of the range.  The Company records a
corresponding receivable for costs covered under its insurance
policies.  Management judgment is required to determine the outcome
and the estimated amount of a loss related to such matters.
Management believes that there are no claims or assessments
outstanding which would materially affect the consolidated results
of operations or the Company's financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/V5CNLN


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Vazquez Case Stayed Pending Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
The First Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
of New York issued an order staying the trial in the case styled In
Re: New York City Asbestos Litigation. Danielle Vazquez and
Brittany Vazquez, as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Jose L.
Vazquez, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. A.O. Smith
Corporation, et al., Defendants, Burnham LLC, Defendant-Appellant,
Index No. 190389/17, (N.Y. App. Div. 1st), pending hearing and
determination of the appeals taken from the March 14, 2019, March
15, 2019 and May 6, 2019 orders of the New York County Supreme
Court.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: WCERS Voluntarily Drops SEC Charges vs. Honeywell
------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that on August 26, 2019, Wayne
County Employees' Retirement System (WCERS) voluntarily dismissed
its complaint without prejudice, in light of its motion to be
appointed as substitute lead plaintiff in the Kanefsky action.

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

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

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

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

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

"We believe neither complaint has any merit."

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



                            *********

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 ***