CAR_Public/191104.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, November 4, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 220

                            Headlines

3-D CAFE: Waldemar Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff
4BUSH HOLDINGS: Turizo Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
6TH CIRCUIT JUDGES: Faces Theriot Suit in E.D. Michigan
AERO OPCO: Wu Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ALLERGAN INC: ESE and KL Sue Over BIOCELL-Related Health Risks

ALLERGAN INC: Faces LYR Suit Over Health Risk From Use of BIOCELL
ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Personal Injury Suit in Fla.
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMERICAN DAIRY QUEEN: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMERICAN WATER WORKS: Talbert Brings Class Suit in E.D. Pa.

AN HAO 187 INC: Then Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
AUTOZONE INC: Wu Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BENIHANA NATIONAL: Camacho Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BNSF RAILWAY: Faces 25 Suits Over Fuel Surcharge Rate Scheme
BOSTON MARKET: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

BOUZOUKI: Hit With Class Suit Over Dancers' Unpaid Wages
BRINKET INTERNATIONAL: Camacho Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BURLINGTON STORES: Violates ADA, Wu Suit Asserts
CAPITAL GRILLE: Lopez Files Suit Under Disabilities Act
CCS SERVICES: Morrissey Seeks OT Pay for Settlement Officers

CLEARWAY INDUSTRIES: Suchite Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
CRISMELI DELI: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Soto Says
D&B OILFIELD: Wagner Seeks OT Pay for Water Disposal Operator
DARDEN RESTAURANT: Lopez Files ADA Suit in NY
DAVE & BUSTER'S: Camacho Brings ADA Suit in New York

DICK'S SPORTING GOODS: Wu Files ADA Class Action in New York
DUNKIN' BRANDS: Camacho Suit Alleges ADA Violation
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Class Certification in Leoni FCRA Suit Denied
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Jacobowitz Files FDCPA Suit in New York
FIVE GUYS: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

FORD MOTOR: Kaloustian Sues Over Inaccurate Fuel Economy Ratings
FULTON BANK: Kress Seeks Overtime for Teller Supervisors
GREAT LAKES CREDIT: Vocaty Sues over Non-Sufficient Fund Fees
GUITAR CENTER: Wu Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HILL'S PET: Faces Eichhorn-Burkhard Suit Over Toxic Dog Foods

HOME DEPOT: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
HY-VEE, INC: Perdue et al. Sue over Data Breach
HYDE PARK: Townsend Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
INDOCHINO APPAREL: Mietka Sues over Merchandise Deceptive Labeling
INSURIFY, INC: Sherman Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages

J.C. PENNEY: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JERSEY MIKE'S: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KOHL'S CORPORATION: Murphy Suit Asserts ADA Breach
KOZENY & McCUBBIN: Sevela Moves for Certification of FDCPA Class
MACY'S INC:  Violates ADA, Matzura Suit Says

MARKET DRIVEN: Martinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
MDL 2904: Whalen Suit over Sunrise Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2915: Aballo Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2915: Francis Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2915: Harn Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated

MDL 2915: Howitt Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2915: Labajo Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2915: Ouellette Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2915: Perdew Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
MEDCARE STAFFING: Progressive Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Cauley FDCPA Suit in Ohio
MIDWEST GAMING: Martin Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
MONROE COUNTY, WV: Bid to Dismiss Ambulance Fee Suit Denied
MORAN FOODS: Smith Says Vanilla-Flavored Ice Cream Misleading
NAT'L ASSOC. OF REALTORS: Justice Dep't. Probes Suit Over Fees

OLIVE GARDEN: Lopez Files ADA Class Action in NY
PAPA JOHN'S: Mendez Files ADA Suit in NY
PEAPOD LLC: Faces Lopez ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PHIA GROUP: Gets Summary Judgment Granted in Weyant Suit
PIRAMAL CRITICAL: Savakus-Malone Seeks to Certify Class

PREMIER FIXTURES: Mobley Sues over Abrupt Mass Layoff
QDOBA RESTAURANT: Violates ADA, Mendez Suit Alleges
RED LOBSTER: Matzura Sues Resto for ADA Breach
RED ROBIN: Court Denies Class Decertification Bid in Vigueras Suit
REGAL CINEMAS: Matzura Files Class Suit Under Disabilities Act

RIDE PLUS: Lynch Seeks Overtime Wages for Delivery Drivers
RUDSAK USA INC: Bunting Suit Asserts ADA Breach
SAVOYA LLC: Alabsi Seeks Initial Approval of $750,000 Settlement
SB DIRECTIONAL: Foutch Moves to Certify Class of Field Workers
SCOTT FARMS: Certification of 3 Classes in Mondragon Suit Sought

SEAWORLD ENBTERTAINMENT: Trial Closed to Public Amid Sealed Docs
SEMGROUP CORP: Thompson Says Merger Docs Misleading
SILVERTIP COMPLETION: Moreno Seeks Overtime Pay for NEEs
SPECTRUM REACH: Wilmore Sues over Promotions, Pay Policies
STOP & SHOP: Faces Lopez Suit Asserting ADA Violation

SUBWAY IP INC: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUNDT CONSTRUCTION: Removes Wirbick Suit to E.D. California
SUNPATH LTD: Faces Massey TCPA Suit in Illinois
SUPERIOR REAL ESTATE: Court Certifies Construction Laborers Class
TAMKO BUILDING: Snyder et al Suit Moved to District of Kansas

THOMAS DART: Hearing on New Class Certification Bid Set for Dec. 5
TRICOPIAN INC: Veasy Files Class Suit in S.D. Ca.
TWITTER INC: Faces Hasan Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. California
ULTRA SONIC: Cruz Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
UNITED STATES: Fleming Suit Transferred to District of Minnesota

UNITED STATES: ICE Releases 3 Detainees Part of Calderon Lawsuit
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Yu et al. Sue over Late Fees
VIESTE SPE: Court Allows Second Amended Complaint
WELLS FARGO: Removes Martin Case to Central Dist. of California
WENDYS COMPANY: Camacho Files ADA Class Action in New York

YOE CONCRETE: Hunnell Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA

                            *********

3-D CAFE: Waldemar Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff
----------------------------------------------------------
KORBAN WALDEMAR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the PLAINTIFF, vs. THE 3-D CAFE, LLC, and JOSE AYALA, the
DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:19-cv-00722-BSM (E.D. Ark., Oct. 16, 2019),
seeks declaratory judgment; monetary damages; liquidated damages;
prejudgment interest; costs; and a reasonable attorney's fee, as a
result of Defendants' policy and practice of failing to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals proper overtime
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act.

The Plaintiff is an individual and resident of Logan County. From
approximately July of 2019 until September of 2019, the Plaintiff
was an hourly-paid cook at Defendants' restaurant.

As a direct result of Defendant's policies, even though Plaintiff
and other hourly-paid, non-tipped employees worked more than 40
hours in many weeks that they worked for Defendants during time
period relevant to this Complaint, they were not paid an overtime
premium for all of their overtime hours worked, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant, The 3-D Cafe, located
at 105 East Harrell Drive, Russellville, Arkansas 72802.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

4BUSH HOLDINGS: Turizo Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
RYAN TURIZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 4BUSH HOLDINGS LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 0:19-cv-62565 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 15, 2019), contends that
the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by
sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To solicit new clients, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing with no regard for privacy rights of the recipients of
those messages.

The Defendant caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be
sent to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members,
causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion, the lawsuit says.

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

The Defendant is an on-line retailer of consumer cannabis products,
of which Defendant holds out to the public for general sale without
a prescription.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

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

6TH CIRCUIT JUDGES: Faces Theriot Suit in E.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Court of Appeal
Judges of the Sixth Circuit. The case is captioned as Kevin Theriot
and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. U.S. District
Court Judges of Michigan and U.S. Court of Appeal Judges of the 6th
Circuit, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-13000-AJT-PTM (E.D.
Mich., Oct. 11, 2019). The suit alleges violation of Prisoner's
civil rights. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge
Arthur J. Tarnow.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is a
federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts
in the following districts: Eastern District of Kentucky, Western
District of Kentucky, Eastern District of Michigan, Western
District of Michigan, Northern District of Ohio, Southern District
of Ohio, Eastern District of Tennessee, Middle District of
Tennessee, and Western District of Tennessee.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

AERO OPCO: Wu Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aero Opco LLC. The
case is styled as Kathy Wu on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aero Opco LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-06029 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

Aero OpCo is an operating partner to global brands, providing
retail and ecommerce management, sourcing, design and other
operational and administrative support.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLERGAN INC: ESE and KL Sue Over BIOCELL-Related Health Risks
--------------------------------------------------------------
E.S.E. and K.L., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ALLERGAN, INC. f/k/a INAMED CORPORATION;
ALLERGAN USA, INC.; ALLERFAN PLC; and DOES1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01735-HZ (D. Ore., Oct. 30, 2019),
arises from Allergan's manufacture and sale of BIOCELL textured
breast implants and tissue expanders that expose women to a higher
risk of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, a
deadly cancer of the immune system.

Although Allergan knew of the increased risks of breast
implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL") as
early as 2011, Allergan failed to warn women considering its
implants, the Plaintiffs allege. They contend that although
Allergan has now issued a recall pursuant to a directive by the
FDA, it refuses to take full responsibility and refuses to cover
significant costs associated with removal and replacement of the
defective devices and medical monitoring, among other damages. They
add that Allergan has refused to pay for the removal of the
recalled products or any consequences of additional surgery that
women, who choose removal will have to undergo, or for medical
monitoring of the substantially risk of BIA-ALCL that all women
implanted with the devices have been subjected to.

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

The Plaintiffs are individuals, who reside in Oregon and who
purchased and received the recalled BIOCELL implants.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Keith S. Dubanevich, Esq.
     STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
     209 S.W. Oak Street, Suite 500
     Portland, OR 97204
     Phone: (503) 227-1600
     Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
     Email: kdubanevich@stollberne.com

          - and -

     Tina Wolfson, Esq.
     AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
     10728 Lindbrook Drive
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Phone: (310) 474-9111
     Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
     Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com


ALLERGAN INC: Faces LYR Suit Over Health Risk From Use of BIOCELL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
L.Y.R., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLERGAN, INC. f/k/a INAMED CORPORATION;
ALLERGAN USA, INC.; ALLERFAN PLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-02064 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 30, 2019), is
brought against Allergan for manufacturing and selling BIOCELL
textured breast implants and tissue expanders that expose women to
a higher risk of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell
lymphoma, a deadly cancer of the immune system.

Although Allergan knew of the increased risks of breast
implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL") as
early as 2011, Allergan failed to warn women considering its
implants, the Plaintiff alleges. She contends that although
Allergan has now issued a recall pursuant to a directive by the
FDA, it refuses to take full responsibility and refuses to cover
significant costs associated with removal and replacement of the
defective devices and medical monitoring, among other damages. She
adds that Allergan has refused to pay for the removal of the
recalled products or any consequences of additional surgery that
women, who choose removal will have to undergo, or for medical
monitoring of the substantially risk of BIA-ALCL that all women
implanted with the devices have been subjected to.

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

Plaintiff L.Y.R. is an individual, who resides in Santa Barbara,
California, who purchased and received the recalled BIOCELL
implants.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Tina Wolfson, Esq.
     Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
     Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
     AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
     10728 Lindbrook Drive
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Phone: (310) 474-9111
     Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
     Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
            tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
            rglezakos@ahdootwolfson.com


ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Personal Injury Suit in Fla.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allergan PLC. The
case is styled as M. F., A. B., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allergan PLC, Allergan Inc.
Foreign Profit Corporation, Allergan Inc. Foreign Profit
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-24417-RNS (S.D. Fla., Oct.
25, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.

Allergan plc (NYSE: AGN), headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, is a
global pharmaceutical firm focused on developing, manufacturing and
commercializing branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical
and regenerative medicine products for patients around the
world.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Neal Allan Roth, Esq.
     Natasha Santiago Cortes, Esq.
     Rachel Wagner Furst, Esq.
     Grossman, Roth, Yaffa, Cohen, PA
     2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1150
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 442-8666
     Fax: 285-1668
     Email: nar@grossmanroth.com
            nsa@grossmanroth.com
            rwf@grossmanroth.com

          - and -

     Curtis Bradley Miner, Esq.
     Francisco Raul Maderal, Jr. , Esq.
     Julie Braman Kane, Esq.
     Lewis S. Eidson, Esq.
     Colson Hicks Eidson
     255 Alhambra Circle
     Penthouse
     Coral Gables, FL 33134-2351
     Phone: (305) 476-7400
     Fax: 476-7444
     Email: curt@colson.com
            frank@colson.com
            julie@colson.com
            Mike@colson.com


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMC Entertainment
Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as James Murphy on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMC
Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09919
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, provides theatrical exhibition,
movie screening, food distribution, online ticket booking, and
other related services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zare Khorozian, Esq.
     Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
     1047 Anderson Avenue
     Fort Lee, NJ 07024
     Phone: (201) 957-7269
     Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com



AMERICAN DAIRY QUEEN: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Dairy Queen
Corporation. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne On Behalf Of
Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
American Dairy Queen Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09933
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

Dairy Queen is an American chain of soft serve ice cream and
fast-food restaurants owned by International Dairy Queen, Inc., a
subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway. International Dairy Queen, Inc.,
also owns Orange Julius and Karmelkorn.[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


AMERICAN WATER WORKS: Talbert Brings Class Suit in E.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMERICAN WATER WORKS
COMPANY, INC. The case is styled as ERIC H. TALBERT, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, Plaintiff v.
AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC., PENNSYLVANIA-AMERICAN WATER
COMPANY, NEW JERSEY AMERICAN WATER, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-05010-GAM (E.D. Pa., Oct. 25, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

American Water is an American public utility company operating in
the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     THEODOR A. SWANSEN, ESQ.
     TASWANSEN LLC
     39 SPRING MILL LANE
     CHERRY HILL, NJ 08003
     Phone: (215) 260-8469
     Email: swansenllc@gmail.com


AN HAO 187 INC: Then Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sen Kong Then, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AN HAO 187 INC. (D/B/A AKIMOTO SUSHI), RUIN
AN WANG, and RUI HAO WANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10089
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
the the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation
for the hours that he worked, according to the complaint. Rather,
the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. The Defendants employed the policy and
practice of disguising the Plaintiff's actual duties in payroll
records by designating him as a delivery worker instead of a
non-tipped employee. This allowed the Defendants to avoid paying
the Plaintiff at the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay him
at the tip-credit rate (which they still failed to do). The
Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the
Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker at the Defendants'
restaurant.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Japanese restaurant,
located at 187 Church St., in New York City, under the name
"Akimoto Sushi."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AUTOZONE INC: Wu Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Autozone, Inc. The
case is styled as Kathy Wu on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Autozone, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-06030 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

AutoZone, Inc. is an American retailer of aftermarket automotive
parts and accessories, the largest in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BENIHANA NATIONAL: Camacho Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Benihana National
Corp. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Benihana National
Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06017 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 25,
2019).

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

Benihana Inc. is an American restaurant company based in Aventura,
Florida. It owns or franchises 116 Japanese cuisine restaurants
around the world, including its flagship Benihana Teppanyaki brand,
as well as the Haru (fusion cuisine) and RA Sushi restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BNSF RAILWAY: Faces 25 Suits Over Fuel Surcharge Rate Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the country's
top freight railroads were hit with more than two dozen lawsuits
alleging a nationwide conspiracy to rig fuel surcharge rates.

The 25 complaints, filed by individual shippers in multiple courts,
target BNSF Railway Co., CSX Transportation Inc., Norfolk Southern
Railway Co., and Union Pacific Railway Co., which together control
about 90% of the freight rail industry.

The suits accuse the railroads of a scheme to jack up the rates of
fuel surcharges, or "FSCs," beginning in 2003. Each of them had
previously tried to raise the surcharges on its own, but those
efforts failed. [GN]




BOSTON MARKET: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boston Market
Corporation. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne On Behalf Of
Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
Boston Market Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09932 (S.D.
N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

Boston Market Corporation owns and operates chain of restaurants.
It offers buffet, sandwiches and salads, soups, desserts,
rotisserie meals, chicken, cheese manicotti, beef roast, and
beefsteak. The company also provides home delivery and catering
services.[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


BOUZOUKI: Hit With Class Suit Over Dancers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Pinho, writing for Craig's Detroit Business, reports that
Detroit landlord and real estate investor Dennis Kefallinos has
been hit with a federal lawsuit because he didn't pay at least two
dancers at Bouzouki, the strip club he owns in the city's Greektown
neighborhood.

It's the latest Fair Labor Standards Act complaint filed against a
local club owner, coming roughly around the same time that Alan
Markovitz, who owns The Flight Club in Inkster and The Coliseum and
Penthouse Club strip clubs on Eight Mile Road in Detroit, was
targeted with a similar lawsuit by two former dancers and a DJ from
the suburban Wayne County club.

The class action complaint filed in June by two former Bouzouki
dancers comes amid a wave of settlements nationally in which clubs
have paid millions in back-due wages, in general because they were
classifying dancers and other workers such as bouncers and DJs as
independent contractors rather than employees, allowing them to
skirt federal wage laws. Cases have been brought virtually all over
the country, from Las Vegas to Denver, Pittsburgh to Dallas.

The University of Illinois College of Law's Michael LeRoy, in "Bare
Minimum: Stripping Pay for Independent Contractors in the Share
Economy" published in 2017 in the William & Mary Journal of Race,
Gender, and Social Justice, writes that of 75 federal and state
court labor rulings he found, 38 determined that dancers were
employees while only three found that they are independent
contractors. (The other 34 were decided not on employment status,
but on a procedural ruling, he wrote.)

"When there is a challenge waged, it's very rare that it doesn't
prevail," said Megan Bonanni, Esq.--mbonanni@pitlawpc.com--equity
partner for Royal Oak-based law firm Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers
PC. She represents the plaintiffs in the Markovitz cases and
successfully sued strip club chain Déjà Vu, netting $6.5 million
for more than 28,000 workers in a case that wrapped earlier this
year when the U.S. Sixth Court of Appeals upheld a May 2017
decision.

Bonanni said even though she has been victorious in earlier cases
against the club owner, not much has changed.

"I asked at the time, I had made the request that they create an
education program, do a change-over, converting dancers from
independent contractors to employees, and I told their attorney
that's what I thought was the right thing to do, and also that I'd
be back if you don't correct these illegal employment practices,"
Bonanni said. "That's why we are back."

It's more complicated than just a demand for an hourly wage and
overtime pay, health benefits and worker's compensation, some
argue.

In California, a state Supreme Court ruling is making it more
difficult for dancers to be considered independent contractors,
which sparked concern from Stormy Daniels, who wrote in a February
op-ed in the Los Angeles Times that work status allowed for more
flexible hours, the ability to move to clubs where the pay is
better and increased ability to shield their identity. Daniels, the
adult film star and exotic dancer who says she had an affair with
President Donald Trump and was paid hush money, is also a
spokeswoman for Deja Vu.

"In this industry, classification (as employee or independent
contractor) is sometimes a very fact-specific inquiry and there is
not one size fits all," said Christopher Trebilcock,
Esq.--ctrebilcock@clarkhill.com--member for Detroit-based law firm
Clark Hill PLC specializing in labor and employment law. "There is
not one size fits all for clubs, or for entertainers. There may be
entertainers who dance at multiple clubs, as well as private gigs.
There are some that have established themselves as LLCs and run a
business by dancing. There are others that work solely for one
club."

Still, he said, independent contracting can work.

"There are lawful ways to compensate where entertainers are not
employees," Trebilcock said. "You could set it up in ways where
dancers establish their own schedule, come and go when they want.
They keep all their own money, set their own prices for dances. If
they have formed an LLC, that's always helpful."

Employees or contractors?
At issue in the Kefallinos case is whether the Bouzouki dancers
were treated as employees or independent contractors. The latter
would generally allow them to set their own hours, coming and going
as they please, and they would be able to dress as they wanted,
among other things.

However, according to the complaint, that was far from the case.

Bouzouki, which the lawsuit says has north of $500,000 in revenue
per year, set the two dancers' work hours, prevented them from
leaving early without permission, required them to wear specific
uniforms or types of clothing, and charged fees if they missed a
call to the stage or called off work, according to the complaint.

Based on the duration of employment and average number of hours
worked by just the two dancers, Carla Merriweather and Ami Coleman,
the lawsuit could cost Kefallinos at least $80,000. The plaintiffs
say there were compensated only in tips from the patrons of the
club, 432 E. Lafayette St.

Each shift, they were required to generally pay $155 to the club,
$10 to the "House Mom" (a sort of club manager) and $20 to the DJ,
according to the complaint, which is in front of Judge Victoria
Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan. The nightly fees can vary.

The lawsuit also says it seeks to "recover unpaid wages owed to
them and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees,
current or former."

Maia Johnson Braun, Esq., an attorney with the Troy-based law firm
Gold Star Law PC who is representing Merriweather and Coleman, said
the case is in the discovery phase and could be certified as a
class action complaint by March, which would then prompt Kefallinos
to provide the names and last known addresses of dancers. They
could then opt into the class action suit.

"It has been a pretty commonly brought suit in other jurisdictions
and almost across the board, there aren't any that I'm aware of as
of late where the individuals have not been deemed an employee,"
Johnson Braun said.

An email was sent to Kefallinos' attorney, Ben Gonek, Esq., seeking
comment, as well as Markovitz's attorneys.

Kefallinos said in his response to the lawsuit that Merriweather
and Coleman were independent contractors, not employees, and are
not owed any back pay. Kefallinos' court response denies the claims
the dancers made.

Markovitz has been sued no fewer than five times in federal court
in Michigan for violations of the FLSA with varying results by
former employees like bouncers and dancers at his clubs.

Sued before
The Kefallinos case is the first known time he has faced federal
litigation for his Bouzouki business, but he has been sued in
federal court before for his real estate enterprise.

Earlier this year, he agreed in January to a $300,000 consent order
with the nonprofit Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit
after more than two years in court arguing a federal lawsuit that
alleged his residential properties discriminated against people
with children, in violation of federal law.

He repeatedly denied running afoul of fair housing law, saying he
regularly rents to people with children.

In 2014, he was sued by people who claimed that they leased
apartments or lofts from him when he knew he had no certificates of
occupancy for any of the buildings and that there were safety
hazards.

He won that case on summary disposition and an appeals court upheld
the decision. The attorney representing the plaintiffs said because
it was a Michigan Consumer Protection Act complaint, it was thrown
out because activities sanctioned by the government--such as
renting properties, governed by Detroit city code--can't be the
basis of such complaints.

Kefallinos, who owns a large swath of commercial and residential
buildings around the city, is a lightning rod for criticism because
of what some perceive as a lack of upkeep at his buildings. Among
his real estate portfolio are the Roosevelt Hotel at 2250 14th St.
across from Michigan Central Station in Corktown, now owned by Ford
Motor Co. after a $90 million sale last year; the Russell
Industrial Center; the Michigan Building and former Michigan
Theatre at 220 Bagley St.; a former hospital at 2401 20th St.; a
large former Boy Scouts of America campground in Lupton about 10
miles from the Huron National Forest totaling 630 acres; and a
large Corktown building at 1448 Wabash St. totaling 437,000 square
feet.

He has also sold off assets in recent years, including a former
Wayne State University pharmacy school building ($16 million) in
Lafayette Park to a developer planning 374 residential units and
the Harvard Square building at 1346 Broadway St. ($6.25 million) to
Dan Gilbert, who plans a mixed-use redevelopment. [GN]



BRINKET INTERNATIONAL: Camacho Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brinker International
Inc. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Brinker International
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06018 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 25,
2019).

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

Brinker International, Inc. is an American multinational
hospitality industry company that owns Chili's and Maggiano's
Little Italy restaurant chains.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BURLINGTON STORES: Violates ADA, Wu Suit Asserts
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Burlington Stores,
Inc. The case is styled as Kathy Wu on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Burlington Stores,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06031 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 25,
2019).

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

Burlington Stores, Inc. owns and operates clothing retail stores.
The Company offers, through its stores and internet sites, men's,
women's, and children's apparels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAPITAL GRILLE: Lopez Files Suit Under Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Grille
Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Victor Lopez And On Behalf of
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, ADR Provider, v.
Capital Grille Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09891
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

The Capital Grille is an American restaurant chain of upscale
steakhouses owned by Darden 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


CCS SERVICES: Morrissey Seeks OT Pay for Settlement Officers
------------------------------------------------------------
JANE MORRISSEY, individually and on behalf of all
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. CCS SERVICES, PLLC
d/b/a/ SILVER TAX GROUP, d/b/a 1-800-LAW-FIRM FEDERAL TAX DEFENSE,
d/b/a 1-800-LAW-FIRM NATIONAL TAX DEFENSE, d/b/a 1-800-LAW-FIRM
NATIONAL TAX DEFENSE TEAM, d/b/a 1-800-LAW-FIRM TAX DEFENSE, CHAD
SILVER, and CHORUS HR GROUP, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-13027-PDB-MJH (E.D. Mich., Oct. 15, 2019), seeks to recover
hourly unpaid wages and/or overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity
Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
March 6, 2017 through February 15, 2019, as a Settlement Officer or
a Senior Settlement Officer. During the entirety of her employment,
Plaintiff worked remotely from her home in Florida using equipment
provided by Defendants. She routinely worked more than 40 hours
each workweek. Even though she was non-exempt and worked a
substantial number of overtime hours, the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff's job was to field incoming calls from potential
clients who owed back taxes to the Internal Revenue Service. It was
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated individuals' jobs to sell
Silver Tax Group's services to these individuals in order to get
them to retain Silver Tax Group to assist them with the IRS, the
lawsuit says.

Silver Tax Group is a law firm specializing in assisting
individuals in dealing with the IRS [BN].

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          David R. Deromedi, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: 313 223-2500
          E-mail: dderomedi@dickinsonwright.com

CLEARWAY INDUSTRIES: Suchite Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Josue Suchite, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLEARWAY INDUSTRIES, LLC, CUTTING EDGE LAWN
SERVICES & LANDSCAPING, LLC, and PERCY CARABALLO, Defendants, Case
No. 615082/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., Oct. 30, 2019), is brought
to recover unpaid overtime wages and prevailing wages and benefits
that the Plaintiff and others were statutorily and contractually
entitled to receive for work that they performed on
publicly-financed projects for government entities, including Metro
North Railroad and the Long Island Railroad.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of those who worked for the
Defendants performing landscaping, tree trimming, line clearing
removal, and other construction-related trades.  The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants paid their employees less than the
prevailing rates of wages and supplements to which the Named
Plaintiff and other member of the putative class were entitled. The
Defendants breached the Public Worked Contracts by failing to
ensure that the Plaintiff and others were paid the prevailing rates
of wages and supplemental benefits for all labor performed upon the
Public Works Project, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from the summer of 2014 to
the end of February 2019.

The Defendants are businesses incorporated in the State of New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
     Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
     VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
     40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: 212-943-9080
     Email: lambinder@vandallp.com

          - and –

     Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
     Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
     LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
     One Old Country Road, Suite 347
     Carle Place, NY 11514
     Phone: (516) 873-9550
     Email: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com


CRISMELI DELI: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Soto Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yorman Soto, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CRISMELI DELI GROCERY INC (D/B/A CRISMELI
GROCERY), DECATUR DELI FOOD CORP. (D/B/A DECATUR DELI FOOD CORP.),
JOSE DOLORES GARCIA, and REYMUNDO COSME, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-10053 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019), accuses the Defendants of
failing to pay minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that he worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime
compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, he asserts, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay him appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium.

The Plaintiff was employed as a general assistant at the
Defendants' delis.

The Defendants own, operate, or control two delis, located at 297
Brook Avenue, in Bronx, New York, under the name "Crismeli Grocery"
and at 365 East 193rd Street, in Bronx, New York, under the name
"Decatur Deli Food Corp."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


D&B OILFIELD: Wagner Seeks OT Pay for Water Disposal Operator
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM WAGNER, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. D&B OILFIELD SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-00947-F (W.D. Okla., Oct. 15, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Wagner worked for D&B as a Water Disposal Operator. He and other
workers like him regularly worked in excess of 40 hours each week.

But these workers never received overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.

D&B is a freight shipping Trucking Company from Ringwood,
Oklahoma.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

DARDEN RESTAURANT: Lopez Files ADA Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Darden Restaurants,
Inc. The case is styled as Victor Lopez And On Behalf of All Other
Persons Similarly Situated, ADR Provider, v. Darden Restaurants,
Inc. d/b/a Longhorn Steakhouse, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09888
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

Darden Restaurants, Inc. is an American multi-brand restaurant
operator headquartered in Orlando.[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


DAVE & BUSTER'S: Camacho Brings ADA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dave & Buster's
Entertainment Inc. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dave &
Buster's Entertainment Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06022
(E.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

Dave & Buster's is an American restaurant and entertainment
business headquartered in Dallas. Each Dave & Buster's has a
full-service restaurant and a video arcade.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DICK'S SPORTING GOODS: Wu Files ADA Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dick's Sporting
Goods, Inc. The case is styled as Kathy Wu on behalf of herself and
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dick's Sporting
Goods, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06033 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 25,
2019).

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

Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is an American sporting goods retail
company, based in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DUNKIN' BRANDS: Camacho Suit Alleges ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dunkin' Brands Group,
Inc. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dunkin' Brands Group,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06024 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 25,
2019).

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

Dunkin' Brands Group, Inc. is an American restaurant holding
company which runs two chains of fast-food restaurants: Dunkin'
Donuts and Baskin-Robbins.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Class Certification in Leoni FCRA Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied
class certification in the case captioned DAVID LEONI, and all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS INC., Defendant. Case No. 2:17-cv-01408-RFB-VCF. (D.
Nev.).

In its Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserted one cause of action
for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) on behalf of
Leoni and a proposed class and a second cause of action as to the
named plaintiff only for Defendant Experian's alleged FCRA
violations.

Both parties moved for summary judgment.  Both parties have opposed
and filed corresponding replies. Plaintiff has also filed an appeal
of the Honorable Cam Ferenbach's prior order on October 10, 2018
denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Defendant has opposed that
appeal. In addition, Plaintiff has also filed three motions to seal
or redact portions of the record, a motion to strike or leave to
seek surreply to Defendant's motion for summary judgment, a motion
for leave to submit supplemental evidence regarding the appeal of
the Court's October 10, 2018 order, and a motion for class
certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 that are also before
the Court. Defendant has responded to both the motion for class
certification and two of the motions to seal. Finally, Defendant
has also filed three motions to seal.

In March 2011, Plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in Nevada.
Leoni's debt obligation to nonparty Military Star was scheduled in
the bankruptcy. In May 2016, Leoni's Chapter 13 Plan was confirmed,
and Leoni's debt to Military Star was discharged on August 1, 2016.
On August 31, 2016, Leoni requested and received a copy of his
Experian consumer disclosure pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681g(a).
The initial Experian consumer disclosure listed in its trade line
for Military Star that the recent balance was "$5,932 as of
5/27/2013" and listed the account's status as: "Petition for
Chapter 13 Bankruptcy/Never late. $5932 written off."  Leoni sent a
dispute letter in October 2016 to consumer reporting agency
Experian, stating that the credit report was inaccurate and
asserted that he owed $0 balance at the time it was reported.
Experian made an investigation and reported back to Leoni that the
Military Star tradeline has been corrected to a $0 balance.
However, the account history stated that the debt had been
"included in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy on Nov 08, 2016," which was not
the date on which Plaintiff had actually filed his bankruptcy
petition.

As to Experian's liability as to Leoni's Initial Disclosure Claim,
the Court finds that Experian violated Section 1681g of the FCRA.
Experian's argument that listing the incorrect date is not
confusing or misleading to the consumer because the consumer knows
how many times he has filed for bankruptcy misstates the relevant
consideration, the Court states.  The relevant consideration is not
whether the consumer was subjectively misled or confused by the
information contained in the file, but whether the information
contained in the file is objectively inaccurate. The Court finds
that the tradeline was inaccurate and grants summary judgment to
Leoni as to Experian's liability on the 1681g claim.

As to Experian's Liability as to Leoni's Reasonable Procedures
Claim, the Court notes that the dispute letter does not mention
Leoni's previous bankruptcy petition or subsequent discharge. Thus,
Experian did not have any reason to believe that the dates listed
on Military Star's ACDV were incorrect, the Court notes. Both sides
do not dispute that Leoni did not follow up directly with Experian
after receiving the reinvestigation results, but instead filed the
instant lawsuit. The Court therefore finds that Experian's credit
reporting procedures as outlined in the case were reasonable, and
grants Experian summary judgment on this claim.

As to Experian's Liability as to Leoni's Reasonable Reinvestigation
Claim, it is not disputed that Experian updated the tradeline to
reflect the zero balance as the consumer had requested. The Court
thus finds that Experian's reinvestigation, which included
contacting the original furnisher and updating the tradeline in
light of Military Star's ACDV response, was a reasonable
reinvestigation of the only issues raised in the dispute letter,
and grants summary judgment in favor of Experian on this claim.

The Court finds as a matter of law that, while Experian did violate
1681g(1)(a), Experian's violation was not willful. Leoni has failed
to show that Experian's policies either violated a reasonable
reading of the statutory requirements of section 1681g or that its
risk of violating the law was substantially greater than the risk
of a reading of the law that was merely careless.

The Court also finds that Leoni has not made a showing that he
suffered any actual damages pursuant pursuant to section 16810 of
the FCRA.

The Court further holds that Leoni has failed to allege any
out-of-pocket expenses other than pre-litigation costs. Because no
reasonable factfinder could find in favor of Leoni on the question
of damages, the Court awards Leoni no damages.

As to Leoni's Class Certification Motion, the Court opines that
Leoni has failed to show that he can meet either the predominance
or superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).

Accordingly, the District Court grants in part and denies in part
Plaintiff's and Defendant's respective motions for summary
judgment; and denies Plaintiff's Motion for class certification.

In light of the voluminous amounts of sensitive information
included in the case, including Leoni's social security number and
financially sensitive information and Experian's confidential
policy and procedure manuals, the Court grants all pending motions
to seal in the matter.

Because the Court's rulings on the summary judgment motions in the
case are dispositive and foreclose further discovery in this
matter, Plaintiff's Appeal of the Court's October 9, 2018 order is
denied as moot, as is Plaintiff's Motion for leave to submit
supplemental evidence, and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Experian's
Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2qquvc6 from Leagle.com

David Leoni, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew I. Knepper -
matthew.knepper@knepperclark.com -  Knepper & Clark LLC, Miles N.
Clark - miles.clark@knepperclark.com - Knepper & Clark LLC, Sean N.
Payne , PAYNE LAW FIRM LLC, 9550 S. Eastern Ave. Suite 253-A213,
Las Vegas,  NV, 89123 & David H. Krieger  -
dkrieger@hainesandkrieger.com - Haines & Krieger, LLC.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Cheryl L. O'Connor – coconnor@jonesday.com - Jones Day, Jennifer
L. Braster - jbraster@naylorandbrasterlaw.com - Naylor & Braster,
Jeremy Close,  Jones Day, Andrew J. Sharples -
asharples@naylorandbrasterlaw.com - Naylor & Braster Attorneys at
Law, PLLC, Richard Joseph Grabowski - rgrabowski@jonesday.com -
Jones Day, pro hac vice & Ryan D. Ball , Jones Day.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Jacobowitz Files FDCPA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. et al. The case is styled as Shimon Jacobowitz, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers,
Plaintiff v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., VW Credit, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06032 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

Experian is a global information services company that provides
information, analytical tools, and marketing services to help
clients manage their commercial and financial decisions. The
company helps organizations manage credit risk, prevent fraud,
target marketing offers, and automate decision making.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIVE GUYS: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Five Guys Enterprises
LLC. The case is styled as Steven Matzura, On Behalf of Himself And
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Five Guys
Enterprises LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09925 (S.D. N.Y., Oct.
25, 2019).

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

Five Guys Enterprises LLC is an American fast casual restaurant
chain focused on hamburgers, hot dogs, and French fries, and
headquartered in Lorton, Virginia, an unincorporated part of
Fairfax County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zare Khorozian, Esq.
     Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
     1047 Anderson Avenue
     Fort Lee, NJ 07024
     Phone: (201) 957-7269
     Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Kaloustian Sues Over Inaccurate Fuel Economy Ratings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Kaloustian, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-13197-MAG-EAS (E.D. Mich., Oct. 30, 2019), is brought on
behalf of current and former owners and leases of Ford vehicles
model years 2017-2019, which were marketed and sold with overstated
fuel economy.

Class Vehicles include 2018 Ford F-150 and 2019 Ford Rangers
trucks.

Automakers are responsible for testing their vehicles for fuel
economy and emissions ratings using a method that conform
Environmental Protection Agency rules and regulations. These fuel
economy testing procedures must be performed in order to receive
official Environmental Protection Agency fuel economy ratings. The
EPA allows vehicles manufacturers to determine their own methods
for calculating fuel economy, so long as those methods conform to
EPA rules. By doing so, a car manufacturer an reports its vehicles
are more fuel efficient that the actually are. Due to errors in
Ford's analytical model, its fuel economy testing procedures were
not accurate and, as a result of those inaccuracies, the Class
Vehicles' fuel economy have been overstated, the Plaintiff says.

Every Class Vehicle has a window sticker contain EPA-required
indications of fuel economy. These fuel economy ratings are one of
the most important factors in new-car buyer's purchase decisions
because they allow consumers to compare vehicles of various
manufacturers for purchase or lease. Ford knows the importance
consumers place on fuel economy ratings, and it used inaccurate
frag and resistance calculations in order to boost Class Vehicles'
EPA mileage ratings, thereby, making the Class Vehicles more
appealing to customers. Ford's misstatements regarding the fuel
economy of the Class Vehicles are material because Ford knows the
weight consumers place on fuel economy when making a new car
purchase, says the complaint.

The Defendant represented the accuracy of its EPA fuel economy
ratings on each of its Class Vehicles' federally mandated windows
stickers and in its various advertising statements regarding such
vehicles. In reality, these EPA fuel economy ratings materially
overstated the Class Vehicles' actual mileage per gallon and fuel
economy which the Defendant represented was based on the required
accurate testing pursuant to federal mandate. The Plaintiff says he
purchased a car with stated EPA fuel economy ratings and advertised
fuel efficiency ratings that were inaccurate, thereby, making his
Class Vehicle appear more efficient and economical in terms of gas
mileage than it actually was.

If Ford had followed the proper testing prosecutes and used
accurate mathematical modeling during laboratory testing, the EPA
fuel economy ratings represented to consumers would have been
materially different--the actual miles-per-gallon would have been
lower than the dales fuel economy ratings that the Defendant
represented as accurate on each Class Vehicles' windows sticker and
in advertising, says the complaint. This action seeks relief for
the injuries sustained as the result of the inaccurate testing
methods used by Ford to ascertain the fuel economy ratings of the
vehicles and the resulting misstatement of fuel economy used in the
marketing and sales of the Class Vehicles.

The Plaintiff purchased a Class Vehicle with inflated fuel economy
claims.

The Defendant designs, manufactures, advertises, distributes, and
sells vehicles throughout Delaware, the United States, and the
world, including the Class Vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     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


FULTON BANK: Kress Seeks Overtime for Teller Supervisors
--------------------------------------------------------
D. KRESS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FULTON BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-18985 (D.N.J., Oct. 15, 2019), seeks to recover
overtime and non-overtime wages under the the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage
Payment Law.

From in or around July 2018 until in or around August 2019, the
Defendant hired Plaintiff as a teller supervisor.

Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendant paid her an hourly
rate. The Plaintiff worked at least one workweek in which her
aggregate work hours, including both the time recorded by Defendant
and the off-the-clock time she worked as alleged, exceeded 40
hours, the lawsuit says.

Fulton Bank, N.A. operates as a bank. The Bank accepts deposits and
makes loans, as well as provides mortgage solutions, card
facilities, and online banking services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway N., Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417

GREAT LAKES CREDIT: Vocaty Sues over Non-Sufficient Fund Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carla Vocaty, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Great Lakes Credit Union, the
Defendant, Case No. 19L 00000727 (Ill. Cir., Oct. 10, 2019),
alleges that Great Lakes Credit Union engaged in routine practice
of:

     (a) assessing Overdraft Fees on transactions that did not
actually overdraw a checking account; and

     (b) assessing more than one non-sufficient funds fee ("NSF
Fee") on the same item.

Great Lakes misleadingly and deceptively misrepresents these
practices, including in its own account contracts. Great Lakes also
omits material facts pertaining to each of the above practices,
including its account contracts.

According to the complaint, the Defendant will continue to engage
in these schemes and cause substantial injury to its checking
account holder.

Ms. Vocaty seeks monetary damages, restitution, and declaratory and
injunctive relief.

Great Lakes is one of the largest credit unions in Illinois. It
has- 881 million in assets and maintains its headquarters in
Bannockburn, Illinois.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Plaintiff Classes are:

          Jeffrey A. Hammond, Esq.
          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          E-mail: ihammond@cohenandmalad.com
                  ltoops@cohenandmalad. com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 290-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

          Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH
          & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          THE JOHNSON FIRM
          2226 Cottondale Lane, Suite 210
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501)372-1300
          E-mail: chris@yourattomey.com

GUITAR CENTER: Wu Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guitar Center Stores,
Inc. The case is styled as Kathy Wu on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Guitar Center
Stores, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06034 (E.D. N.Y., Oct.
25, 2019).

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

Guitar Center Stores, Inc. retails musical equipment. The Company
offers guitars, amplifiers, drums, keyboards, t-shirts, picks,
stans, strings, tuners, books, bags, and recording equipment.
Guitar Center serves customers globally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HILL'S PET: Faces Eichhorn-Burkhard Suit Over Toxic Dog Foods
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Anja Eichhorn-Burkhard, an individual and a German resident,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC. and COLGATE-PALMOLIVE
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02672 (D. Kan., Oct. 30,
2019), arises from the Defendants' false and misleading labeling,
advertising, warranties and representations, negligence in adhering
to their duty to sell a safe and healthy dog food as they expressly
and/or implicitly promised, breach of express and implied
warranties, unfair practices, and other unlawful conduct.

The Defendants manufactured and sold certain canned dog food with
excessive and toxic levels of vitamin D in as many as 86 different
countries, including Germany and other European Union member
states. This dog food was subsequently ingested by, and caused harm
to, the pets of the Plaintiff and other Class members, says the
complaint.

Hill's presented itself in its labeling, marketing and advertising
as a provider of high quality, safe and healthy, elite-level pet
food. On January 31, 2019, Hill's announced an initial recall of
canned Prescription Diet and Science Diet products because they
contained excessive amounts of Vitamin D. Hill's added more
products to the list of Recalled Products on February 8, 2019, and
again on March 20, 2019.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Dusseldorf, Germany.
The Plaintiff, like other Class members, purchased the Recalled
Products from her veterinarian, and at the instructions of her
veterinarian, and fed it to the dog. Due to the excessive and toxic
levels of Vitamin D in the food, her pet experienced serious
adverse health effects and the Plaintiff incurred substantial
veterinary and related medical expenses as a result of her pet's
health problems and deteriorating condition, says the complaint.

Hill's has issued recalls covering Recalled Products sold and/or
distributes in the European Union. However, Hill's has not issued
refunds or compensation or purchase of the Recalled Products
purchased by consumers in the European unions, says the complaint.

Defendant Hill's, founded in 1939, manufactures and sells pet
nutrition products, including dog and cat food.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel K. Back, Esq.
     HUTTON & HUTTON
     8100 E 22nd Street North, Suite 1200
     Wichita, KS 67226
     Phone: 316-688-1166
     Email: daniel.back@huttonlaw.com

          - and -

     Ivy T. Ngo, Esq.
     FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     14426 E. Evans Avenue
     Aurora, CO 80014
     Phone: 303-757-3300
     Facsimile: 720-213-5131
     Email: ngoi@fdazar.com

          - and -

     Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     1100 Glendon Avenue
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Phone: 310-432-8492
     Email: jllurie@pomlaw.com


HOME DEPOT: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Home Depot, Inc.
The case is styled as James Murphy on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Home Depot,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09920 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25,
2019).

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

The Home Depot, Inc. is the largest home improvement retailer in
the United States, supplying tools, construction products, and
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zare Khorozian, Esq.
     Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
     1047 Anderson Avenue
     Fort Lee, NJ 07024
     Phone: (201) 957-7269
     Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com


HY-VEE, INC: Perdue et al. Sue over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------
NOREEN PERDUE and DUSTIN MURRAY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HY-VEE, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01330-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill., Oct. 15,
2019), seek to recover damages caused by Hy-Vee's negligence,
negligence per se, breach of contract, and violations of state
consumer protection statutes.

The Plaintiffs bring this action, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated whose personal and non-public
information, including credit card and debit card numbers,
expiration dates, cardholder names, and other card information was
compromised in a massive security breach of Hy-Vee's computer
servers.

As a result of the Data Breach, millions of consumers have
reportedly had their sensitive credit and debit card information
exposed to fraudsters resulting from purchases made at Hy-Vee's gas
pumps, restaurants, and its drive-through coffee shops.

Only on October 3, 2019, nearly two months after announcing the
Data Breach, did Hy-Vee share additional details with consumers.

The Data Breach was the inevitable result of Hy-Vee's inadequate
data security measures and cavalier approach to data security, the
lawsuit says.

Hy-Vee is a chain of more than 245 supermarkets located throughout
the Midwestern United States in Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class are:

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

               - and -

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
          C HIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com
                  awf@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
          ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY
          www.abingtonlaw.com
          320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 588 3400
          E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com

HYDE PARK: Townsend Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA D. TOWNSEND, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.THE ESTATES OF HYDE PARK,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH11849 (Ill. Cir., Oct. 15,
2019), seeks to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful
collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs sensitive
and proprietary biometric data.

Accordingly, when Defendant hires an employee, including Plaintiff,
he or she is enrolled in its employee database(s) using a scan of
his or her hand geometry. The Defendant uses the employee
database(s) to monitor the time worked by its employees.

While many employers use conventional methods for tracking time
worked (such as ID badges or punch clocks), Defendant's employees
are required, as a condition of employment, to have their hand
geometry scanned by a biometric timekeeping device.

Biometrics are not relegated to esoteric comers of commerce. Many
businesses -- such as Defendant's -- and financial institutions
have incorporated biometric applications into their workplace in
the form of biometric tirneclocks or authenticators, and into
consumer products, including such ubiquitous consumer products as
checking accounts and cell phones.

Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced
if stolen or compromised -- hand geometry is a unique, permanent
biometric identifier associated with each employee. This exposes
Defendant's employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks.
For example, if a database containing hand geometry scans or other
sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or
otherwise exposed -- like in the recent Yahoo, eBay, Equifax, Uber,
Horne Depot, MyFitnessPal, Panera, Whole Foods, Chipotle, Omni
Hotels & Resorts, Trump Hotels, and Facebook/Cambridge Analytica
data breaches or misuses -- employees have no means by which to
prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or
improper use of this highly personal and private information, the
lawsuit says.

Estates of Hyde Park owns and operates a short-term rehabilitation
and long-term care facility, located in Cook County.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

INDOCHINO APPAREL: Mietka Sues over Merchandise Deceptive Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------------
FILIP MIETKA, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. INDOCHINO APPAREL (US)
INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-08862-ODW-GJS (C.D. Cal., Oct. 16, 2019), alleges the
Defendant engaged in deceptive and misleading marketing and
labeling of its privately branded merchandise sold on its online
website and at its stores nationwide in violation of the California
False Advertising Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant misrepresented the
existence, nature and amount of price discounts on its privately
branded products offered for sale online and in its Indochino
stores by advertising and marketing fictitious prices and
corresponding discounts.

The Plaintiff would not have made such purchases, or would not have
paid the amount he did, but for Indochino's FRPs listed for the
items he purchased that corresponded with the artificially
discounted price at which Defendant offered the items for sale, th
lawsuit says.

Indochino operates online and "brick-and-mortar" men's fashion
business, offering customers custom fit menswear, including
made-to-measure suits and shirts. Customers have a choice of either
following instructions from a video on how to measure one-self
at home or being measured in-person at Indochino showrooms around
the country.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:

          Donald S. Burris, Esq.
          Andrew T. Heldut, Esq.
          BURRIS & SCHOENBERG, LLP
          12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-1168
          Telephone: (310) 442-5559
          Facsimile: (310) 442-0353
          E-mail: don@bslaw.net
                  aheldut@mcgpc.com

               - and -

          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275-7895

INSURIFY, INC: Sherman Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
WHITTNEY SHERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. INSURIFY, INC., a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00133 (E.D. Tex., Oct.
15, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Defendant is an insurance comparison shopping website. To
promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing,
harming thousands of consumers in the process.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf
of herself and members of the class, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312-283-3814
          E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

J.C. PENNEY: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J.C. Penney
Corporation, Inc. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. J.C.
Penney Corporation, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09887 (S.D.
N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

J. C. Penney Company, Inc. is an American department store chain
with 865 locations in 49 U.S. states and Puerto Rico.[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


JERSEY MIKE'S: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jersey Mike's
Franchise Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne On
Behalf Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. Jersey Mike's Franchise Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-09934 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

Jersey Mike's Franchise Systems, Inc. owns and operates a chain of
sub sandwich restaurants. The Company provides roast beefs, fresh
grilled bacons, turkey breast and provolone, and Swiss cheese, as
well as franchising and catering services.[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


KOHL'S CORPORATION: Murphy Suit Asserts ADA Breach
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kohl's Corporation.
The case is styled as James Murphy on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kohl's Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09921 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

Kohl's Corporation operates a chain of family-oriented department
stores. The Company's stores feature apparel, footwear and
accessories for women, men and children, soft home products such as
sheets and pillows, and housewares targeted to middle income
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zare Khorozian, Esq.
     Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
     1047 Anderson Avenue
     Fort Lee, NJ 07024
     Phone: (201) 957-7269
     Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com



KOZENY & McCUBBIN: Sevela Moves for Certification of FDCPA Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JAMES SEVELA, Personal
Representative of the Estate of BRYCE J. BOLEN, deceased, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. KOZENY & McCUBBIN,
L.C., Case No. 8:18-cv-00390-LSC-SMB (D. Neb.), asks the Court to
enter an order certifying this case to proceed as a class action
for a class defined as:

     (i) all persons with addresses in Nebraska (ii) to whom
     Defendant Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C. ("K&M") sent a letter in
     the form of Exhibit A (iii) which were not returned as
     undeliverable; (iv) in an attempt to collect a debt incurred
     for personal, family, or household purposes as shown by
     Defendant's or the creditors' records (v) allegedly due for
     a home mortgage (vi) during the one year prior to the filing
     of this litigation, i.e. - August 16, 2017 through
     August 16, 2018.

The Plaintiff filed this purported class action for the Defendant's
purported violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  He
contends that the policy and practice of the Defendant is or was to
send letters in the form of Exhibit A (Filing No. 11-1) in an
attempt to collect alleged unpaid home mortgages.  He asserts that
the principal legal issue is whether the Defendant's practice and
procedure of sending those letters, which failed to inform the
consumer that the alleged debt would be assumed valid only "by the
debt collector," violated the FDCPA.

Mr. Sevela also asks the Court to name him class representative,
and to appoint O. Randolph Bragg, Esq., Pamela A. Car, Esq., and
William L. Reinbrecht, Esq., as class counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Pamela A. Car, Esq.
          William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
          CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO
          2120 South 72nd Street, Suite 1125
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Telephone: (402) 391-8484
          Facsimile: (402) 391-1103
          E-mail: pacar@cox.net
                  billr205@gmail.com

               - and -

          O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOC.
          25 East Washington St., Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-8822
          Facsimile: (312) 372-1673
          E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joshua C. Dickinson, Esq.
          Shilee T. Mullin, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP
          13520 California St., Suite 290
          Omaha, NE 68154
          Telephone: (402) 965-8600
          Facsimile: (402) 965-8601
          E-mail: jdickinson@spencerfane.com
                  smullin@spencerfane.com


MACY'S INC:  Violates ADA, Matzura Suit Says
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Macy's Inc. The case
is styled as Steven Matzura, On Behalf of Himself And All Other
Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Macy's Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09926 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

Macy's, Inc. is an American holding company founded by Xavier
Warren in 1929 and is one of the nation's premier retailers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zare Khorozian, Esq.
     Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
     1047 Anderson Avenue
     Fort Lee, NJ 07024
     Phone: (201) 957-7269
     Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com



MARKET DRIVEN: Martinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Owen Martinez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARKET DRIVEN LLC; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV38888 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Oct. 30, 2019), seeks to recover civil penalties for
the Defendant's Labor Code violations.

The Defendant regularly ordered the Plaintiff and other employees
to work during meal periods, while also regularly 30 minutes from
these employees' timecards, to give appearances of "off duty" meal
period, according to the complaint. As a result, these employees
regularly worked at least 30 minutes per shift "off the clock." The
Defendant wrongfully withheld minimum wages earned and forced the
Plaintiff and other employees to work "off the clock." Often, "off
the clock" work would be performed on days when employees worked at
least eight hours. This time should have been compensated at the
overtime water; however, as it was "off the clock", it was not,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a logistics manager in
March 2017, and terminated on February 19, 2019.

The Defendant operates a catering business in southern
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
     Dionisios Aliazis, Esq.
     MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
     249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Phone: (562) 590-5550
     Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
     Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
            daliazis@mahoney-law.net


MDL 2904: Whalen Suit over Sunrise Data Breach Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Kelley Whalen on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
Sunrise Medical Laboratories, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-04378 (July 30, 2019), was removed from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Oct. 16, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-19050 to the proceeding.

The Whalen case is being consolidated with MDL 2904 in re: AMERICAN
MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019. These
actions arise out of a data security breach on the systems of
American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a breach that reportedly
compromised patient data that various medical diagnostic testing
companies had provided to AMCA for billing and collection purposes,
including Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Quest), Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings (LabCorp), Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc.
(Bio-Reference), and others. Quest, LabCorp, and Bio-Reference
publicly announced the breach in early June 2019, and the putative
class actions now before the Panel soon followed.

In its July 31,2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common factual questions in all actions
unquestionably arise from the same recently-disclosed breach of
AMCA's systems from August 2018 through March 2019, through which
an unauthorized user allegedly gained access to patients' personal
and financial information, including social security numbers and
credit card and bank account information, and patients' medical
information. Thus, discovery and motions concerning AMCA's data
security practices, how the unauthorized access occurred, and the
investigation into the breach will be substantially the same in all
actions. The Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an
appropriate transferee district. All defendants and plaintiffs in
over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on
the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending.
Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there,
and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this
district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Madeline Cox
Arleo. The lead case is 2:19-md-02904-MCA-MAH.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff is:

          Brian Phillip Murray, Esq.
          Garth Avery Spencer, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Ariadne Anna Panagopoulou Alexandrou, Esq.
          Bradley J. Bartolomeo, Esq.
          Jeffrey Spiegel, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          77 Water Street, Suite 2100
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 232-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 232-1399
          E-mail: jeffrey.spiegel@lewisbrisbois.com

MDL 2915: Aballo Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as AIMEE ABALLO and SETH ZIELICKE,
individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
CAPITAL ONE, N.A., CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., and GITHUB, INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-04475 (Filed by Aug. 1, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia - (Alexandria) on Oct 15, 2019. The Eastern District of
Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02929-AJT-JFA to the
proceeding. The suit demands $5 million in damages. The case is
assigned to the Hon. District Judge Anthony J Trenga.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
          Sarah C. Kohlhofer, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 250-3370
          E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
                  skohlhofer@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Hassan Ali Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          George Ruben Morris, Esq.
          KING AND SPALDING LLP
          601 South California Avenue, Suite 100
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 422-6700
          Facsimile: (650) 422-6800
          E-mail: gmorris@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Graham Rhodes, Esq.
          Kyle Christopher Wong, Esq.
          Lauren Jessica Pomeroy, Esq.
          Whitty Somvichian, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP (CA N/A)
          101 California St., 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com
                  kwong@cooley.com
                  lpomeroy@cooley.com
                  wsomvichian@cooley.com

MDL 2915: Francis Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as LORIA FRANCIS, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE, N.A., and CAPITAL
ONE BANK (USA), N.A., the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01898 (Filed
Aug. 2, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia - (Alexandria) on Oct 15, 2019. The
Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02923-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge Anthony J Trenga.

The Francis 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:

          William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
          Heather H. Jones, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
          4030 Henderson Boulevard
          Tampa, FL 33629
          Telephone: (813) 500-1500
          Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
          E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
                  Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          John Anthony Love, Esq.
          KING AND SPALDING LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3500
          Telephone: (213) 443-4355
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
          E-mail: tlove@kslaw.com

MDL 2915: Harn Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Matthew Harn, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE, N.A., and CAPITAL
ONE BANK (USA), N.A., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02441 (Filed
July 31, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia (Alexandria) on Oct 15, 2019. The Eastern
District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02922-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge Anthony J Trenga.

The Harn 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:

          Boyd A. Byers, Esq.
          Daniel J. Buller, Esq.
          Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq.
          FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP - WICHITA
          1551 North Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100
          Wichita, KS 67206-4466
          Telephone: (316) 291-9716
          Facsimile: (866) 738-3152
          E-mail: bbyers@foulston.com
                  dbuller@foulston.com
                  snehrbass@foulston.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Anna-Katrina S. Christakis, Esq.
          PILGRIM CHRISTAKIS LLP
          321 North Clark Street, 26th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 939-6580
          E-mail: kchristakis@pilgrimchristakis.com

MDL 2915: Howitt Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Steven Jeffrey Howitt, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE, N.A., and CAPITAL
ONE BANK (USA), N.A., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07161 (Filed
July 31, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) on Oct 15, 2019. The
Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02924-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge Anthony J Trenga.

The Howitt 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:

          Lynda J. Grant
          THE GRANT LAW FIRM PLLC
          521 Fifth Avenue 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10175
          Telephone: (212) 292-4441
          Facsimile: (212) 292-4442
          E-mail: lgrant@grantfirm.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Peter Joseph Isajiw, Esq.
          Peter Manley Starr, Esq.
          Robert Warren Gray, Jr., Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1185 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 556-2235
          Facsimile: (212) 556-2222
          E-mail: pisajiw@kslaw.com
                  peter.starr@davispolk.com
                  bgray@kslaw.com

MDL 2915: Labajo Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Christina Labajo and Mary Yoon
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE,
N.A., and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., the Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-01431 (Filed Aug. 1, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) on
Oct 15, 2019. The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:19-cv-02928-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. District Judge Anthony J Trenga.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          Frederick John Klorczyk, III, Esq.
          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR AND FISHER PA
          1990 North California Boulevard Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com
                  fklorczyk@bursor.com
                  ltfisher@bursor.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          John R. Lawless, Jr., Esq.
          KING AND SPALDING LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3500
          Telephone: (213) 443-4355
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
          E-mail: jlawless@kslaw.com

MDL 2915: Ouellette Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as NATHAN OUELLETTE, JESIAN E.
RODRIGUEZ, GREGG STAPPAS, AND CB HOME, INC., individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CAPITAL
ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE, N.A., CAPITAL ONE BANK
(USA), N.A., AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01203 (Filed Aug. 1, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia - (Alexandria) on Oct 15, 2019. The Eastern District of
Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02927-AJT-JFA to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Anthony
J Trenga.

The Ouellette 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]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Classes are:

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
          Kaleigh N.B. Powell, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: 206-682-5600
          Facsimile: 206-682-2992
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
                  jdennett@tousley.com
                  kpowell@tousley.com

               - and -

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          Swathi Bojedla, Esq.
          Theodore F. DiSalvo, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: 202-540-7200
          E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
                  sbojedla@hausfeld.com
                  tdisalvo@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, 11th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          TelEephone: 312-214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevit.com
                  akeller@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
          Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
          Eric A. Kafka, Esq.
          Karina Puttievav
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: 202.408.4600
          E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
                  dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
                  ekafka@cohenmilstein.com
                  kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: 612-594-5933
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net

               - and -

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          Matthew A. Pearson, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: 818-788-8300
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
                  mapearson@pswlaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Daniel J. Oates, Esq.
          Kellen Andrew Hade, Esq.
          Steven A. Miller, Esq.
          MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN LLP
          2801 Alaskan Way
          Ste 300 Pier 70
          Seattle, WA 98121-1128
          Telephone: (206) 777-7537
          Facsimile: (206) 340-9599
          E-mail: Dan.Oates@millernash.com
                  kellen.hade@millernash.com
                  steven.miller@millernash.com

MDL 2915: Perdew Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as STEVEN PERDEW, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01421
(Filed July 30, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia - (Alexandria) on Oct 15,
2019. The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:19-cv-02925-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. District Judge Anthony J Trenga.

The Perdew 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]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Classes are:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. (SBN: 249203)
          Jason A. Ibey, Esq. (SBN: 284607)
          Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq. (SBN: 319105)
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  jason@kazlg.com
                  nicholas@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Hyde, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          bob@westcoastlitigation.com
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022

               - and -

          Matt Schultz, Esq.
          Bill Cash, Esq.
          Brenton Goodman, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY
          & PROCTOR, P.A.
          316 S Baylen St Ste 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502-5996
          Telephone: (850) 435-7140
          Facsimile: (850) 436-6140
          E-mail: mschultz@levinlaw.com
                 bcash@levinlaw.com
                 bvigodsky@levinlaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          John R. Lawless, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING
          633 W 5th Street, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4355
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
          E-mail: jlawless@kslaw.com



MEDCARE STAFFING: Progressive Files Placeholder Bid for Class Cert
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as PROGRESSIVE HEALTH AND REHAB
CORP., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs.
MEDCARE STAFFING, INC., a Georgia corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-04710-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff files a
"placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent
against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action Defendants
sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a
decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named
plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not
classwide) relief.

The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).

In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]

Attorneys for the Progressive Health and Rehab Corp., individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
are:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ McINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
          250 E. Broad St., 10 th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: 614-2221-4221
          Facsimile: 614-744-2300
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: 847-368-1500
          Facsimile: 847-368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Cauley FDCPA Suit in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Karen Cauley individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02493
(N.D. Ohio, Oct. 25, 2019).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. was founded in 1953. The company's
line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises
for relatively short periods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
     Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
     2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 575-8181 x116
     Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


MIDWEST GAMING: Martin Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEON MARTIN, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. MIDWEST GAMING &
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH11893 (Ill. Cir.,
Oct. 15, 2019), alleges that Defendant collected, stored, and used
the unique biometric facial geometry identifiers, or identifying
information derived from facial geometry, of Plaintiff and others
similarly situated without following the detailed requirements of
the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

In enacting the Biometric Information Privacy Act, the Illinois
legislature recognized that biologically unique identifiers, like
facial geometry, and information based on those identifiers, cannot
be changed when compromised, and thus subject a victim of identity
theft to heightened risk of loss.

As a result, Illinois restricted private entities, like Defendant,
from collecting, storing, using, or transferring a person's
biometric identifiers and information without adhering to strict
informed-consent procedures and data retention/destruction
policies.

Nonetheless, the Defendant uses facial recognition technology with
its video security cameras at Rivers Casino. The Defendant's facial
recognition technology identifies a person by scanning the geometry
of a person's facial features and comparing that scan against
databases of stored facial geometry templates.

The Plaintiff is a member of Defendant's rewards program who
gambled at Defendant's Rivers Casino during the limitations period.
The Defendant's facial recognition technology scanned Plaintiff's
and other rewards program members' facial geometry and stored
templates of their facial geometry in Defendant's databases.

Each time Plaintiff and other rewards program members gambled at
Defendant's casino the facial recognition technology scanned the
geometry of their faces to identify them against stored facial
geometry templates in Defendant's databases.

Facial geometry is a unique and permanent identifier.  As a result,
the Plaintiff and others similarly situated lost the right to
control their biometric identifiers and information, the lawsuit
says.

The Defendant operates Rivers Casino in Des Plaines, Illinois.
Rivers Casino had gross receipts of $441,010,586 and admitted
2,976,503 patrons in 2018, with an average daily admission of 8,155
patrons, according to the 2018 Annual Report by the Illinois Gaming
Board.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Dana Cimera, Esq.
          FITAPEL LI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375
          E-mail: dcimera@fslawfirm.com
                  Jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com

MONROE COUNTY, WV: Bid to Dismiss Ambulance Fee Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Boothe, writing for Bluefield Daily Telegraph, reports that
a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed against the Monroe County
Commission trying to stop an ambulance fee was denied.

Greenbrier County Circuit Court Judge Robert Richardson said the
motion to dismiss was based on the premise that the commission, as
a political subdivision, is immune to lawsuits.

That's the argument Beckley attorney J. Victor Flanagan, Esq., who
is representing the county, was making, saying the county
commission had the power and authority to pass an ordinance for a
fee in order to provide ambulance service to county residents.

As a political subdivision, the county is immune to a lawsuit for
adopting an ordinance that is in compliance with the law, he said,
and that if those impacted want a remedy they can go to the polls
and vote (if they are not happy with the ordinance).

But Richardson referred to a lawsuit against the City of Charleston
and related rulings, saying that regardless of the merits of the
case, citizens can seek injunctive relief through the court
system.

"It is beyond any doubt the plaintiff has the right . . . in at
least seeking an injunctive relief," he said.

The commission enacted the fee, $100 a year for each residential
property owner in the county, in August 2017 to raise funding
needed to provide ambulance service to residents, a service the
county is required by state Code to provide.

But the fee was met with opposition by some county residents,
leading to the lawsuit, which was filed earlier this year by
Pearisburg, Va. attorney Jason Ballard.

At October 11's hearing, attorney Jonathan Matthews, Esq.
represented the firm.

The lawsuit is on behalf of Monroe County resident Gary Campbell,
"individually, and . . . all others similarly situated," and seeks
"injunctive relief, declaratory judgment and monetary recovery for
the damages . . ."

Richardson made it clear his decision to deny the dismissal was
based on the immunity assertion and not the merits of the case.

Richardson also ruled that the plaintiffs can establish a civil
action case involving all Monroe County residents who own property
and pay the tax. However, that is pending his request that the
attorneys representing Campbell provide background information on
their experience and qualifications to handle class action suits.

Flanagan argued there was not enough "commonality" among those
impacted by the fee because some pay it, some don't; and some
oppose the fee, but most support it. He also said only about 50
people had been involved in the lawsuit, a number Matthews said has
risen to more than 200.

About 7,000 residents could potentially be impacted by the fee.
Matthews said with 200 already on board, another 6,800 could be
involved.

Richardson said whether property owners agree or disagree with the
fee, all are subject to it, creating enough commonality for the
class action suit.

However, he also asked Matthews if the plaintiff was ready to pay
for notifying all of those impacted, a requirement for a class
action suit that falls on the plaintiff.

After conferring with Campbell, Matthews said any costs would be
taken care of.

Richardson said that, pending the information required concerning
the attorneys' class action qualifications, those letters do not
have to be mailed out until after Dec. 2, the next hearing set to
consider the defense's summary judgment dismissal motion.

Two other key issues of the lawsuit that came up related to whether
the county established a separate fund for the fees and if the
county can legally appoint a board to oversee some aspects of the
ambulance fee but not be an ambulance authority.

According to the lawsuit, county commission "improperly" handled
the fees and did not "deposit its collected fees into a special
ambulance fund as required by statute . . . Instead, the commission
deposited the collected fees into its general fund."

"Since August of 2017, the commission has operated and continues to
operate its ordinance in direct contravention of W.Va. Code," the
lawsuit says.

The lawsuit also says the commission is required by the state to
appoint a board of five to 15 people for "management and control of
any authority, its operations, business and affairs . . ."

However, the lawsuit alleges, prior to enacting the ordinance "the
commission did not create or otherwise assemble a board" to
"operate the affairs of the ambulance service authority… Instead
the commission itself directly managed, controlled, and operated
all related affairs including, but not limited to, its collected
fees pursuant to the enacted ordinance . . . the commission
continues to directly manage, control, and operate numerous affairs
directly related to the ordinance . . . The foregoing is in direct
contravention of the Emergency Ambulance Service Act of 1975 . .
."

The lawsuit said residential property owners in Monroe County "have
been and continue to be wrongfully subjected to the imposition of
the fee as presently imposed by the commission."

Flanagan said the commission did establish a separate account for
ambulance fees and "the commission is not required to establish an
Ambulance Service Authority or board."

When Richardson asked Matthews if he had enough "discovery" on the
separate account issue to move forward, Matthews said some
documents were still missing but also said the bank statements and
documents obtained so far indicate the county does appear to have
established a separate account for the fees.

Matthews said he did not know the specific records that have not
yet been received or examined.

Flanagan said all requests for information and documents from the
plaintiff have been fulfilled and he knows of none that have not
yet been addressed.

"They have all the bank records," he said.

"If I understand it, that is a central factual issue upon which the
plaintiff's case relies," Richardson told Matthews. "If funds have
been deposited into a separate account then an entire portion of
your case would fail just based on the facts."

Richardson asked if any more documents are examined and the
plaintiff sees that the fees are in a separate account, what would
then be the argument that the county's enactment of the fee is
unlawful.

Matthews said that would go to the argument based on whether there
is an ambulance authority.

But Richardson said it is clear there is no ambulance authority,
that the county commission elected not to create an ambulance
authority.

He asked if the plaintiff is saying there must, by law, be one.

"I don't think so," Matthews said. "But the county commission has
blurred the lines" by creating a quality assurance board which
"looks and acts like an ambulance authority."

Richardson said the board was created to evaluate the services
provided with the fee, something akin to what an auditor may do,
and does not perform functions, like contracting for services, an
ambulance authority would do but the county is doing instead.

"What did they (commissioners) do wrong?" he asked.

"We believe the quality assurance board is ultimately an ambulance
authority," Matthews said.

Richardson asked if there is any evidence to show it is an
ambulance authority.

"That is what we are discovering right now," Matthews said. "We are
looking for specifics."

"I am having a heck of time understanding what you are saying,"
Richardson told Matthews. "They did not want to create an ambulance
authority and demonstrated that by not creating an authority."

"But we believe the creation of this quality assurance board is, in
effect, an ambulance authority," Matthews said. "No matter what
they call themselves, they have created an ambulance authority . .
."

Richardson said he would like to "resolve this matter as promptly
as possible" for residents of the county and it is of no benefit
for anyone to "drag it out."

The summary judgment to dismiss motion filed by the defense will be
heard on Dec. 2, he said.

After the hearing, Flanagan said the summary judgment hearing will
include all documents and details related to why the case should be
dismissed all together.

Matthews said the main objective of denying the dismissal based on
immunity was accomplished and went well, and now they will prepare
for the Dec. 2 hearing.

"All of that will be laid out to the court on that issue (ambulance
authority)," he said.

Campbell said the judge was "in our favor today."

"I think we are going to work this out for all of our citizens," he
said. "We need to keep our EMTs … but we want to make it fair for
everyone."

The ambulance service issue surfaced in early 2017 when the Union
Rescue Squad was going out of business over financial problems and
sold out to Greenbrier Ambulance Service.

In an article earlier this year, Monroe County Commission President
Bill Miller said that "Greenbrier took all their debt and their
equipment. We had no power over that."

Greenbrier (based in Lewisburg) then came to Monroe County, he
said, and told commissioners they would continue to provide service
and "make it work," but then came back three months later and said
"no money can be made."

Not enough calls came in to pay for the service.

"Then we had to start looking to serve the population of the county
on the Union end," Miller said, referring to the fact that the
county is obligated by law to provide an ambulance service if one
is not available.

Peterstown Fire and Rescue covers the eastern/southern portion of
the county, but that also presented a problem.

"We met with Peterstown and they said they will be in the same
shape as Union was in three to four years," he said, referring to
the difficulty in receiving enough calls to pay for the service.
"It is easier to put it on the whole county (rather than on the
Union side only). That is what we agreed to on this."

Ambulance services were asked to estimate the needed annual
supplements to be able to run in the county, providing a crew ready
to go 16 hours a day.

"We worked off those figures and came up with $100," he said. "If
we collect all of it maybe we could lower it (the $100)."

Public meetings had been held before the ordinance was passed, he
added.

The plan was to use the money from the fee to supplement Greenbrier
and Peterstown with $260,000 a year each, with $40,000 going to
Alderson for backup when needed and $5,000 to Paint Bank, another
reserve squad when needed.

The county has experienced problems collecting the fees and earlier
this year hired the firm Feuchtenberger & Barringer Legal Corp. of
Princeton to collect unpaid fees. [GN]

MORAN FOODS: Smith Says Vanilla-Flavored Ice Cream Misleading
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dewight Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Moran Foods, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 7:19-cv-09453 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2019), alleges that
Defendant's vanilla-flavored ice cream is not flavored exclusively
from the characterizing ingredient but from flavor compounds
blended together and then labeled as "natural flavor."  The lawsuit
calls the Defendant's practice "fraudulent," saying the Defendant
failed to accurately indicate the Products contained flavor from
non-vanilla sources on the front label, because it knows consumers
prefer foods that are flavored from food ingredients instead of
added flavor ingredients and contain enough of the characterizing
food ingredients to flavor the Products.

Moran Foods, through its chain of Save-A-Lot grocery stores,
manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells ice cream
products purporting to contain flavor from their natural
characterizing flavor, vanilla under their Crown Creamery and
World's Fair brands.

According to the complaint, the Products are available to consumers
from Defendant's approximately 1300 Save-A-Lot grocery stores in 36
states including in New York and/or and directly from Defendant's
website.  The Products are sold in containers including 1.5 and
1.75 quarts and represented as containing vanilla ice cream on the
labels, in point-of-sale marketing, store display ads and print
circulars and promotions, websites, television and/or radio ads.

The tropical orchid commonly known as "vanilla" does not develop
its prized flavor on its own. By law, vanilla refers to the "the
total sapid and odorous principles extractable from one-unit weight
of vanilla beans."

"There is at least three times as much vanilla consumed [in the
United States] as all other flavors together.", E. M. Chace,
Assistant Chief of the Foods Division of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Bureau of Chemistry, noted.  The demand could not be
met by the natural sources of vanilla, leading manufacturers to
devise methods to imitate vanilla's flavor and appearance, the
lawsuit says.

Vanilla is considered a "high-risk [for food fraud] product because
of the multiple market impact factors such as natural disasters in
the source regions, unstable production, wide variability of
quality and value of vanilla flavorings," second only to saffron in
price.  The efforts at imitating vanilla offers a lens to the types
of food fraud regularly employed across the spectrum of valuable
commodities, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

NAT'L ASSOC. OF REALTORS: Justice Dep't. Probes Suit Over Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Vockrodt, writing for South Coast Today, reports that lawyers
in the Justice Department's antitrust division are taking a keen
interest in a Missouri class action lawsuit that alleges a
conspiracy among national real estate brokers to charge inflated
fees, noting in a filing that it is investigating the matter.

A pair of Kansas City law firms earlier this year sued major
residential real estate brokerage firms on behalf of Missourians
who sold a house since April 2015, arguing that common practices
among real estate agents stifle competition and harm owners.

Specifically, the lawsuit took aim at requirements that sellers pay
the buyer's broker a commission, often an amount at or around 6% of
the sale price of a house. It also accuses brokerage firms of
charging inflated commissions more generally.

The lawsuit also challenges multiple listing services, which are
databases of houses that are bought and sold and only accessible to
buyers and sellers represented by real estate agents.  Those agents
have to follow National Association of Realtors rules, including
the agreement that sellers pay commissions of a buyer's agent.

The Missouri lawsuit is similar to one filed in Illinois that some
observers have said could put the business model of residential
real estate brokerages at risk.

The NAR, a trade group for real estate brokers, filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit.  The NAR claimed in part that the Justice
Department had given its blessing to the rules that limit access to
multiple listing services when the two parties resolved a dispute
in 2008.

The Justice Department, in a rare filing of its type in a civil
case, recently said the NAR had inaccurately portrayed the 2008
settlement.

A spokesperson for the NAR did not return a message seeking comment
on the matter.

"It cannot be overstated how damaging this is to the NAR's
credibility with the court," said Brandon Boulware, Esq., a Kansas
City attorney representing plaintiffs against NAR and other
brokerage houses.

A footnote in that filing acknowledged that the Justice Department
had issued a civil investigative demand--an official request for
records or information in an investigation--relating to an
investigation into residential real estate brokerages.

The footnote did not specify the precise nature of the demand, but
the Justice Department does not usually disclose the existence of
its investigations.

The Justice Department's interest in the case, as well as its
initial steps taken to investigate the matter, suggests that it's
watching the Missouri case closely. [GN]



OLIVE GARDEN: Lopez Files ADA Class Action in NY
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Olive Garden
Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez And On Behalf of
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Olive Garden
Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09909 (S.D. N.Y., Oct.
25, 2019).

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

Olive Garden is an American casual dining restaurant chain
specializing in Italian-American cuisine.[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


PAPA JOHN'S: Mendez Files ADA Suit in NY
----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Papa John's USA, Inc.
The case is styled as Himelda Mendez and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Papa John's USA, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09892 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

Papa Johns is an American pizza restaurant franchise.[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


PEAPOD LLC: Faces Lopez ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peapod, LLC. The case
is styled as Victor Lopez And On Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Peapod, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-09906 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

Peapod Online Grocer, LLC is an American online grocery delivery
service. The company is based in Chicago, IL and operates in
several U.S. cities.[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


PHIA GROUP: Gets Summary Judgment Granted in Weyant Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment in the case captioned JESSICA WEYANT, Plaintiff,
v. THE PHIA GROUP LLP, et al., Defendants. No. 17 Civ. 8230 (LGS).
(S.D.N.Y.)

The class action was commenced by Jessica Weyant against Defendants
Phia Group, LLC and INDECS Corporation (collectively,
"Defendants"), on behalf of herself and those similarly situated.
During the relevant period, Plaintiff was a participant in the
Orange-Ulster School Districts Health Plan (the "Plan"). Defendant
INDECS is the claims administrator for the Plan. Defendant Phia is
the authorized agent of INDECS for the purposes of subrogation and
reimbursement efforts on behalf of the Plan.

In April 2012, Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident
in Maryland. As a result of Plaintiff's injuries from the accident,
the Plan provided health benefits to Plaintiff. After Plaintiff
settled the underlying personal injury case, Phia, acting on behalf
of INDECS, asserted rights to repayment of benefits paid by the
Plan and demanded repayment of $16,057.19 from the settlement.

Plaintiff did not file an internal grievance with the Plan
disputing the reimbursement claim either before or after delivering
her check to Phia. Plaintiff commenced the lawsuit against Phia and
INDECS only. She has never sued the Plan on whose behalf Defendants
were acting.

The Court holds that summary judgment is granted to Defendants
because Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.
Indeed, as far as the record shows, she has never sought to recover
from the Plan the monies that she claims that the Plan, through its
agents the Defendants here, wrongfully took from her.

The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff did not attempt to appeal
Phia's request for reimbursement through the Plan's appeal process.


The Court is not persuaded by arguments the Plaintiffs asserted as
to why Defendants' defense of failure to exhaust administrative
remedies should fail.

The Court holds that Plaintiff cannot evade exhaustion due to
ambiguity in the Plan. Plaintiff argued that she was not required
to exhaust her administrative remedies because the Plan does not
contain an exhaustion requirement for disputes regarding the Plan's
right to reimbursement.  Although the ambiguity of the Plan's
guidance on how Plaintiff should have appealed Phia's request for
reimbursement is arguable, Plaintiff made no attempt to determine
which appeals process to use for her dispute regarding the
reimbursement demand, the Court cites.

The Court further holds that Plaintiff cannot evade exhaustion due
to the statutory nature of her claim. Plaintiff argued that she was
not required to exhaust her administrative remedies because her
claim requires application of a statute, N.Y. General Obligations
Law Sec. 5-335 ("GOL 5-335"), rather than interpretation of the
Plan.  The Court maintains that Plaintiff's dispute is about the
correct application of the Plan to her claims, and therefore
judicial efficiency dictates that Plaintiff be required to exhaust
her administrative remedies with the Plan.

Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED and Defendants'
motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, the Court ruled

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y66jan23 from
Leagle.com

Jessica Weyant, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Thomas Kannebecker ,
Law Office of Charles Kannebecker, 104 W. High Street, Milford PA
18337

The Phia Group LLC & INDECS Corporation, Defendants, represented by
Ryan L. Woody – rwoody@mwl-law.com - Matthiesen Wickert & Lehrer,
S.C. & Thomas John Luz , KLG Luz & Greenberg. 211 E 43rd St Fl 24,
New York, NY 10017-4714

The Orange Ulster School District Health Plan, ThirdParty
Defendant, represented by Daniel Eduardo Guzman , Harris Beach PLLC
& David James Edwards , Harris Beach PLLC. 99 Garnsey Rd.,
Pittsford, New York

INDECS Corporation & The Phia Group LLC, ThirdParty Plaintiffs,
represented by Ryan L. Woody , Matthiesen Wickert & Lehrer, S.C. &
Thomas John Luz , KLG Luz & Greenberg.
The Orange Ulster School District Health Plan, Counter Claimant,
represented by Daniel Eduardo Guzman , Harris Beach PLLC & David
James Edwards , Harris Beach PLLC.
INDECS Corporation & The Phia Group LLC, Counter Defendants,
represented by Ryan L. Woody , Matthiesen Wickert & Lehrer, S.C. &
Thomas John Luz , KLG Luz & Greenberg.


PIRAMAL CRITICAL: Savakus-Malone Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CALLUM SAVAKUS-MALONE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. PIRAMAL CRITICAL CARE, INC., MASIS STAFFING
SOLUTIONS, LLC, and DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No.
5:18-cv-05063-JFL (E.D. Pa., Nov. 21, 2018), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:

   1. granting his motion for conditional certification;

   2. certifying a collective action under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act;

   3. approving Plaintiff's proposed Notice and Consent to Sue
      form;

   4. facilitating the issuance of notice to potential collective
      members; and

   5. appointing Johnson Becker, PLLC as interim Class counsel.

The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime wages under federal and state
law.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennell K. Shannon, Esq.
          Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
                 jshannon@johnsonbecker.com

               - and -

          Thomas R. Anapol, Esq.
          Shayna Slater, Esq.
          ANAPOL WEISS, PC
          130 N. 18th Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia PA 19103
          Telephone: 215 735 1130
          E-mail: tanapol@anapolweiss.com
                  sslater@anapolweiss.com

PREMIER FIXTURES: Mobley Sues over Abrupt Mass Layoff
-----------------------------------------------------
TYNIQUA MOBLEY on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PREMIER FIXTURES, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00756-MHL (E.D. Va., Oct. 15, 2019), seeks to
collect unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.

The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant until she was
terminated as part of, or as a result of a mass layoff and/or plant
closing ordered by the Defendant.

The Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff and the other
similarly situated former employees at least 60 days' advance
written notice of termination, as required by the WARN Act.

On or about September 11, 2019, the Defendant ordered the
termination of the Plaintiff's employment together with the
termination of approximately 300 other employees who worked at or
reported to the Facilities as part of a mass layoff and/or plant
closing as defined by the WARN Act, for which they were entitled to
receive 60 days' advance written notice under the WARN Act, the
lawsuit says.

Premier Fixtures is a Hauppauge-based architectural woodwork &
mill-work manufacturer.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          132 Nassau Street, Suite1100
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 581-5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581-2122

               - and -

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
          210 S. Washington Ave.
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433-8181

               - and -

          Angela N. Neiman, Esq.
          Ellen P. Ray, Esq.
          MAIN STREET LAW OFFICE
          1701 W. Main Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 355-1800
          Facsimile: (804) 355-1700

QDOBA RESTAURANT: Violates ADA, Mendez Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Qdoba Restaurant
Corporation. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Qdoba Restaurant
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09894 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25,
2019).

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

Qdoba Mexican Eats is a chain of fast casual restaurants in the
United States and Canada serving Mexican-style cuisine.[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


RED LOBSTER: Matzura Sues Resto for ADA Breach
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Red Lobster
Hospitality LLC. The case is styled as Steven Matzura, On Behalf of
Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Red
Lobster Hospitality LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09929 (S.D.
N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

Red Lobster Hospitality LLC is an American casual dining restaurant
chain headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zare Khorozian, Esq.
     Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
     1047 Anderson Avenue
     Fort Lee, NJ 07024
     Phone: (201) 957-7269
     Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com


RED ROBIN: Court Denies Class Decertification Bid in Vigueras Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable James V. Selna denies the Motion to Decertify, or in
the alternative to Modify, the First Meal Period, Second Meal
Period, Rest Period and Indemnification Subclasses filed by the
Defendant in the lawsuit styled Manuel Vigueras v. Red Robin
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-01422-JVS-DFM (C.D.
Cal.).

On July 14, 2017, Mr. Vigueras filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the Superior Court for the County of Orange against Red
Robin alleging various wage and hour, meal and rest break, and
related employment claims.  Red Robin removed the lawsuit to the
Court, and Vigueras subsequently filed the operative First Amended
Complaint ("FAC").

On October 23, 2018, the Court issued an order certifying this
class:

     All persons who are employed or have been employed by [Red
     Robin] as non-exempt, hourly employees, however titled, in
     [Red Robin's] restaurants in the state of California from
     July 14, 2013 to the present.

The Court also certified these subclasses:

   1. First Meal Period Subclass:

      All Class Members who worked more than five (5) hours in a
      workday, and were not provided with a lawful, timely
      uninterrupted thirty (30) minute meal period or
      compensation in lieu thereof;

   2. Second Meal Period Subclass:

      All Class Members who worked more than ten (10) hours in a
      workday, and were not provided with a lawful, timely
      uninterrupted thirty (30) minute meal period or
      compensation in lieu thereof;

   3. Rest Period Subclass:

      All Class Members who worked more than three and one-half
      (3 1/2) hours in a workday and were not authorized or
      permitted to take one net ten (10) minute rest period for
      every four hours worked or major fraction thereof, or
      compensation in lieu thereof;

   4. Indemnification Subclass:

      All Class Members who were not reimbursed for necessary
      expenditures incurred to perform their job duties; and

   5. Unfair Business Practices Subclass:

      All Class Members who (1) were subject to unlawful,
      illegal, unfair or deceptive business acts or practices by
      Defendant and, (2) are entitled to restitution for unpaid
      wages, unpaid meal or rest premiums or unreimbursed
      expenses from Defendant based on conduct occurring at any
      time from July 14, 2013 to the present.

Regarding the Indemnification Subclass, Mr. Vigueras' failure to
reimburse cause of action is based on three types of expenses for
which he alleges he and the Certified Class did not receive
reimbursement: (1) uniform costs, (2) expenses for pens, and (3)
expenses for paper, according to the Order.

"Issues regarding which class members purchased pens and paper, or
went unreimbursed for pre-August 2015 uniforms, and how much they
spent, do not warrant decertification," Judge Selna opines, citing
Sevilla v. Aaron's, Inc., 2019 WL 2879874 (C.D. Cal. March 25,
2019).

The Court also finds, among other things, that the Meal and Rest
Period Subclasses should not be modified to exclude employees, who
waived their break on a particular day.  What is at issue is the
lawfulness of Red Robin's break policies, and the common questions
of law and fact they present, rather than the individual choices of
employees, which cannot be separated from the environment these
policies may have engendered, Judge Selna notes.  Judge Selna adds
that the fact that class members may waive their meal or rest
period does not prevent Mr. Vigueras from satisfying the
predominance requirement.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sean Francis Daley, Esq.
          FISHER AND PHILLIPS LLP
          444 South Flower St., Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 330-4500
          Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
          E-mail: sdaley@fisherphillips.com


REGAL CINEMAS: Matzura Files Class Suit Under Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regal Cinemas, Inc.
The case is styled as Steven Matzura, On Behalf of Himself And All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Regal Cinemas, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09930 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

Regal Cinemas, formerly known as Regal Entertainment Group, is an
American movie theater chain headquartered in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Regal operates the second-largest theater circuit in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zare Khorozian, Esq.
     Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
     1047 Anderson Avenue
     Fort Lee, NJ 07024
     Phone: (201) 957-7269
     Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com


RIDE PLUS: Lynch Seeks Overtime Wages for Delivery Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------
MARIA LYNCH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs RIDE PLUS, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; DAVE ACOSTA, an Individual; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-000-CU-OE-CTL
(Cal. Super., Oct. 15, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay
minimum, regular, and/or overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately June
19, 2019 until approximately September 18, 2019 as a purported
"independent contractor" delivery driver. However, the Defendants
engaged in a practice of willfully misclassifying Plaintiff and
other Plaintiff Class Members as independent contractors.

According to the complaint, the Defendants claim that Plaintiff and
the proposed Plaintiff Class are independent contractors when, in
reality, they:

     (A) are/were subject to the control and direction of the
Defendants in connection with the performance of their work, both
under contract and in fact;

     (B) performed work that was the core business of the
Defendants, and therefore the Proposed Plaintiff Class's tasks were
not outside the usual course of Defendants' business; and

     (C) were not customarily engaged in an independently
established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as
the work performed by Defendants.

Specifically, the Defendants' entire business is to provide
medication delivery and non-emergency patient transport services in
a timely, expedient, and an identical fashion to customers, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated are:

          Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
          J. Jason Hill, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com
                  jhill@ckslaw.com

               - and -

          Brad Nakase, Esq.
          NAKASE LAW FIRM, INC.
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 550-1321
          E-mail: brad@NakaseLawFirm.com

RUDSAK USA INC: Bunting Suit Asserts ADA Breach
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rudsak USA Inc. The
case is styled as Rasheta Bunting individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Rudsak USA Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06019 (E.D. N.Y.,
Oct. 25, 2019).

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

RUDSAK has been anchored by a rebellious spirit. Travelling
seamlessly between art, music and design, the brand creates edgy,
elegant footwear, outerwear, apparel, bags and accessories grounded
in the brand's Canadian heritage and Montreal roots.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAVOYA LLC: Alabsi Seeks Initial Approval of $750,000 Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled BILLY ALABSI, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. SAVOYA, LLC, and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:18-cv-06510-KAW (N.D. Cal.),
files his unopposed motion for preliminary approval of $750,000
class action settlement with Savoya.

A hearing will be held on December 5, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., in the
Courtroom of the Honorable Kandis A. Westmore to consider the
Motion.  At the hearing, the Parties will request that the Court:

   (a) preliminarily approve the Settlement;

   (b) certify the proposed class for settlement purposes only;

   (c) name Bryan Schwartz Law as Class Counsel, and Billy Alabsi
       as Class Representative;

   (d) name Rust Consulting, Inc. as Settlement Administrator;

   (e) approve the Class Notice to be sent to the Settlement
       Class; and

   (f) and schedule a final approval hearing date.

The lawsuit is a collective and class action against the Defendant
brought by drivers allegedly misclassified as independent
contractors.  In this Unopposed Motion, the Plaintiff seeks
preliminary approval of a $750,000 settlement of this matter on
behalf of 44 drivers, who worked for Savoya as drivers in
California at any time between January 1, 2016, through the date of
Preliminary Approval.

The Settlement also provides for $187,500 in attorneys' fees and
out-of-pocket expenses, $7,500 in penalty payments to the Labor and
Workforce Development Agency, $7,500 as an incentive award to
representative the Plaintiff, and up to $10,000 to compensate the
proposed Settlement Administrator, Rust.

Each class member's allocation will be a pro rata share of the net
settlement sum based on the number of workweeks completed during
the relevant class period.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan Schwartz, Esq.
          Ryan Chin, Esq.
          BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 444-9300
          Facsimile: (510) 444-9301
          E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
                  rchin@bryanschwartzlaw.com


SB DIRECTIONAL: Foutch Moves to Certify Class of Field Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CLAYTON FOUTCH, CLINT STALLWORTH, JOBIN SIMS
and Robert F. Winters II, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. SB DIRECTIONAL
SERVICES, LLC, and SCOTT BURCH, Case No. 5:19-cv-00362-C (W.D.
Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant class certification
and to approve their proposed Notice & Consent Form and opt-in
procedures.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that SB and its founder
and owner Scott Burch misclassified Directional Driller and
Measurement While Drilling ("MWD") Engineer or Logging While
Drilling ("LWD") Engineer as independent contractors in order to
avoid paying them overtime wages required under federal law.
Because the relationship between the Field Workers with SB rise to
that of an employee/employer relationship, SB's day-rate
independent contractor classification flagrantly violates the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiffs seek to notify this group of putative class
members:

     Field Workers and completions Field Workers employed by, or
     working on behalf of, SB Energy Corp. as independent
     contractors and paid a day-rate any time between three years
     prior to the date of the Court's order granting conditional
     certification and the present.

The Plaintiffs also seek an order from the Court adopting this
schedule:

   * 10 days from order approving notice to Potential Class
     Members -- Defendant to provide to the Plaintiffs' counsel
     in Excel (.xlsx) format the following information regarding
     all Putative Class Members: full name; last known
     address(es) with city, state, and zip Code; last known
     e-mail address(es) (non-company address if applicable); last
     known telephone number(s); beginning date(s) of employment;
     and ending date(s) of employment (if applicable);

   * 20 days from orderapproving notice to Potential Class
     Members -- Plaintiffs' Counsel shall send a copy of the
     Court-approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class
     Members by First Class U.S. Mail and by email.  The
     Defendant shall be required to post the Notice and Consent
     Forms on all jobsites for 60 days in an open and obvious
     location.  The Plaintiffs' Counsel may follow-up the mailed
     Notice and Consent Forms with contact by telephone of former
     employees or those Putative Class Members whose mailed
     contact information is not valid;

   * 60 days from mailing of Notice and Consent Forms to
     Potential Class Members -- The Putative Class Members shall
     have 60 days to return their signed Consent forms to the
     Plaintiff's Counsel for filing with the Court.  The
     Defendant may remove the posted Notice and Consent forms;
     and

   * 20 days from mailing of Notice and Consent Forms to
     Potential Class Members -- The Plaintiff's Counsel is
     authorized to mail and email a second, identical copy of the
     Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class Members
     reminding them of the deadline for the submission of the
     Consent forms.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jacque Pearsall, Esq.
          PEARSALL LAW GROUP, LLC
          920 Majestic Avenue
          Yukon, OK 73099
          Telephone: (405) 354-5536
          Facsimile: (405) 673-5785
          E-mail: JacquePearsall@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tanya S. Bryant, Esq.
          Mary P. Snyder, Esq.
          CROWE & DUNLEVY, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          Braniff Building
          324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235-7700
          Facsimile: (405) 239-6651
          E-mail: tanya.bryant@crowedunlevy.com
                  mary.snyder@crowedunlevy.com


SCOTT FARMS: Certification of 3 Classes in Mondragon Suit Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RICARDO MONDRAGON, EUSTORGIO ESPINOBARROS
FELICIANO, JUAN CONTRERAS, CUTBERTO ORTIZ HERNANDEZ, ALEJANDRO
JIMENEZ GONZALEZ, RENATO ROMERO ACUNA, JOSE TAPIA, ANASTACIO LOPEZ
SOLIS, and ABDON QUIRASCO SIXTECO, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated persons v. SCOTT FARMS, INC., ALICE H.
SCOTT, LINWOOD H. SCOTT, JR., LINWOOD H. SCOTT III, DEWEY R. SCOTT,
JFT HARVESTING INC., JUAN F. TORRES OASIS HARVESTING, INC., and
RAMIRO B. TORRES, Case No. 5:17-cv-00356-FL (E.D.N.C.), the parties
file a joint motion for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Parties jointly move the Court for an order certifying three
plaintiff classes pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).  The proposed classes
include two classes described in the Plaintiffs' Third Amended
Complaint pursuant to the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act
("NCWHA"), and an additional class pursuant to the Migrant and
Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act ("AWPA").

A class represented by all Plaintiffs, referred to as the "AWPA
Class," is defined as:

     All non-H-2A migrant and seasonal agricultural workers (as
     the terms "migrant agricultural worker" and "seasonal
     agricultural worker" are defined in 29 U.S.C. Sections
     1802(8) and 1802(10) and 29 C.F.R. Sections 500.20(p) and
     500.20(r)) who were employed by one or more of the
     Defendants to work at Scott Farms in corresponding
     employment from September 15, 2014 through August 14, 2019.

A class represented by all Plaintiffs, referred to as the NCWHA #1
Class, is defined as:

     All non H-2A farmworkers who were employed by one or more of
     the Defendants to perform work at Scott Farms in
     corresponding employment from July 17, 2015 to August 14,
     2019.

A class represented by Plaintiffs Espinobarros Feliciano,
Contreras, Romero Acuna, and Quirasco Sixteco, referred to as the
NCWHA Class #2, is defined as:

     All employees of Defendants who were not paid all wages when
     due on their regular payday at the wage rate disclosed to
     them pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. Sections 95-25.13(1)-(2)
     for hours worked by those same employees for varying periods
     of time totaling in excess of 40 hours in the same workweek
     when that work included in part the unloading, packing
     and/or processing of sweet potatoes that were and are
     produced by person(s) or entities other than Defendants.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert J. Willis, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT J. WILLIS
          P.O. Box 1269
          Raleigh, NC 27602
          Telephone: (919) 821-9031
          Facsimile: (919) 821-1764
          E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com

               - and -

          Carol Brooke, Esq.
          Clermont Fraser Ripley
          NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER
          PO Box 28068
          Raleigh, NC 27611-8068
          Telephone: (919) 856-2144
          E-mail: carol@ncjustice.org
                  clermont@ncjustice.org

Defendants Scott Farms, Inc., Alice H. Scott, Linwood H. Scott,
Jr., Linwood H. Scott, III and Dewey R. Scott are represented by:

          F. Marshall Wall, Esq.
          Laura E. Dean, Esq.
          CRANFILL SUMNER & HARTZOG LLP
          Post Office Box 27808
          Raleigh, NC 27611-7808
          Telephone: (919) 828-5100
          Facsimile: (919) 828-2277
          E-mail: mwall@cshlaw.com
                  ldean@cshlaw.com


SEAWORLD ENBTERTAINMENT: Trial Closed to Public Amid Sealed Docs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that a court hearing to decide
whether a class-action lawsuit against SeaWorld should move
forward, was closed to the public because of sensitive financial
documents that might be discussed, a federal judge decided.

Although U.S. District Judge Michael Anello already has issued a
tentative ruling in the case, he allowed attorneys on both sides to
present their arguments in advance of a final decision.

At issue in the hearing was a motion by SeaWorld Entertainment to
effectively kill a lawsuit claiming the Orlando-based theme park
company defrauded investors about negative financial impacts that
the documentary "Blackfish" may have had after it was released in
2013.  Anello's preliminary ruling concluded there is enough
evidence to warrant the case going to trial.

Because a number of documents in the longstanding case have been
redacted or sealed, Anello said it made sense to not have the court
hearing open to the public.  While SeaWorld, as a publicly traded
company, is required to publicly file financial information, some
internal information is not subject to disclosure for competitive
reasons.

Investors in the class-action suit, initially filed in 2014, claim
that by the time SeaWorld executives acknowledged in August of 2014
that the anti-animal captivity film "Blackfish" had a role in
dampening theme park attendance, shareholders lost nearly 33
percent of the value of their SeaWorld stock in a single day.

SeaWorld counters that there is no evidence that the company's
attendance figures were ever misreported or that it failed to
disclose internal information that "actually determined
‘Blackfish' was negatively impacting attendance." In his
preliminary written ruling, Anello said a jury could conclude that
"there has been a primary violation of federal securities law."

On October 11, before closing the hearing, Anello characterized the
case as "very significant" and noted, as an aside, that there have
been some 20,000 pages of briefs filed to date. He added, that if
all those pages were stacked vertically, the height would reach 7
feet 6 inches.

Anello, who said he expected the hearing to last three hours, said
that a final ruling will be issued "hopefully soon." [GN]

SEMGROUP CORP: Thompson Says Merger Docs Misleading
---------------------------------------------------
JOHN THOMPSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SEMGROUP CORPORATION, THOMAS R.
MCDANIEL, KARL F. FURZ, RONALD A. BALLSCHMIEDE, JAMES H. LYTAL,
SARAH M. BARPOULIS, WILLIAM J. MCADAM, CARLIN G. CONNER, ENERGY
TRANSFER LP, and NAUTILUS MERGER SUB LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01948-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 15, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a  Registration Statement
that omits material information with respect to a proposed merger
transaction.

On September 15, 2019, SemGroup's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Energy
Transfer. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, SemGroup's
stockholders will receive $6.80 in cash and 0.7275 common units of
Parent for each share of SemGroup common stock they own.

On October 3, 2019, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction.  The Registration
Statement is false and misleading because it omits material
information regarding:

     -- the Company's and Energy Transfer's financial projections;
and

     -- the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor
in connection with the Proposed Transaction, Jefferies LLC.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' conduct, the
Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with irreparable harm, the
lawsuit says.

SemGroup transports oil, natural gas and other products across
North America through a network of pipelines, processing plants,
refinery-connected storage facilities and deep-water marine
terminals.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

SILVERTIP COMPLETION: Moreno Seeks Overtime Pay for NEEs
--------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO MORENO, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER 29 U.S.C.
216(B), the Plaintiff, v. SILVERTIP COMPLETION SERVICES OPERATING,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00240 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 15,
2019), alleges that Defendant employed Plaintiff and other
individuals to directly and indirectly provide its oilfield
services to Defendant's customers and pays them on a non-exempt
basis -- Non-Exempt Employees or 'NEEs' -- but fails to pay them
overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act

NEEs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, but were
not paid overtime at the legally required rate for all overtime
hours worked. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an NEE from
approximately January 2019 to August 2019.  

According to the complaint, the Defendant specifically
miscalculated overtime by failing to include all required
remuneration earned by NEEs into the regular rate of pay to
determine overtime compensation.

The Defendant is a Midland-based oilfield services company that
provides case-hole wireline services to its customers throughout
the Permian Basin.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          4925 Greenville, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 790-4454
          E-mail: www.4overtimelawyer.com

               - and -

          Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
          THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
          3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (281) 572-0727
          Facsimile: (281) 572-0728
          E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com

SPECTRUM REACH: Wilmore Sues over Promotions, Pay Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
BEVERLY WILMORE, for and on behalf of herself and other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS a/k/a
SPECTRUM REACH, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09353 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 9, 2019), alleges that the Defendant engaged in a demonstrable
policy of race discrimination in promotions in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. section 1981. The
case challenges discriminatory employment practices of Spectrum as
they relate to former and current African-American employees and
applicants.

According to the complaint, 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 which has
systematically denied African-American/blacks the same
opportunities as those received by white employees.

The continuing systemic pattern and practice of race discrimination
in employment has affected the Class Representative and the class
members she seeks to represent, the lawsuit says.

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. Her last position was as Senior
Manager Digital Sales-Media.

Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass
media company that offers its services to consumers and businesses
under the branding of Spectrum.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Proposed Class are:

          Roderick T. Cooks, Esq.
          Lee D. Winston, Esq.
          WINSTON COOKS, LLC
          505 20th Street North, Suite No. 815
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 502-0970
          Facsimile: (205) 278-5876

STOP & SHOP: Faces Lopez Suit Asserting ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Stop & Shop
Supermaket Company LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez And On
Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. The
Stop & Shop Supermaket Company LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-09913 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company, known as Stop & Shop, is a
chain of supermarkets located in the northeastern United
States.[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


SUBWAY IP INC: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Subway IP Inc. The
case is styled as James Murphy on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Subway IP Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09918 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

Subway IP Inc. is the owner of the intellectual property for the
restaurant system. Franchise World Headquarters, LLC leads
franchising operations. FWH Technologies, LLC owns and licenses
Subway's point of sale software.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zare Khorozian, Esq.
     Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
     1047 Anderson Avenue
     Fort Lee, NJ 07024
     Phone: (201) 957-7269
     Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com

SUNDT CONSTRUCTION: Removes Wirbick Suit to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sundt Construction, Inc. removed the case captioned CODY WIRBICK,
as an individual and on Behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. SUNDT CONSTRUCTION, INC., an Arizona
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. FC5053488 (Filed Aug. 29, 2019), from the Superior Court of the
State of California in and for the County of Solano, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on Oct. 11,
2019). The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:19-cv-02067-MCE-CKD to the proceeding.

The complaint challenges systemic illegal employment practices
resulting in violations of the California Labor Code against
individuals who worked for Defendant.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a project manager from
on or about April 3 4, 2019 until on or about June 14, 2019.

Sundt is a full-service building contractor with expertise that
spans the entire lifecycle of construction. The company offers
Construction Management at Risk, Design-Build and Build to Suit
Contracting, and can work within your preferred delivery system,
including the traditional Design-Bid-Build approach.[BN]

Attorneys for Sundt Construction, Inc. are:

          Charles S. Painter, Esq.
          Graham M. Cridland, Esq.
          Gabriel Ullrich, Esq.
          ERICKSEN ARBUTHNOT
          100 Howe Avenue, Suite 110 South
          Sacramento, CA 95825-8201
          Telephone: (916) 483-5181
          Facsimile: (916) 483-7558
          E-mail: cpainter@ericksenarbuthnot.com
                  gcridland(2iericksenarbuthnotcom
                  gijich@ericksenarbuthnot.com

SUNPATH LTD: Faces Massey TCPA Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunpath, Ltd. The
case is styled as Tracey L. Massey on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sunpath, Ltd., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-07056 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 27, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

SunPath is an Administrator of Vehicle Service Contracts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alejandro Emmanuel Figueroa, Esq.
     Eric Donald Coleman, Esq.
     Taxiarchis Hatzidimitriadis, Esq.
     Nathan Charles Volheim, Esq.
     Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
     2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 575-8181 x116
     Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
            alejandrof@sulaimanlaw.com
            ecoleman@sulaimanlaw.com
            nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com



SUPERIOR REAL ESTATE: Court Certifies Construction Laborers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ALBERT RODRIGUEZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
PLAINTIFF, vs. SUPERIOR REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS, LLC; AL VIN FRANKS,
JR., the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:19-cv-00405-DPM (E.D. Ark.), the
Hon. D.P. Marshall Jr. entered an order on Oct. 24, 2019:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all current and former construction laborers who work or
      worked for Superior Real Estate Solutions, LLC, and Alvin
      Franks Jr. and who were paid an hourly rate at any time
      since June [11], 2016";

   2. directing Superior and Franks to provide Plaintiff's counsel

      (on an electronic spreadsheet) a list of names, addresses,
      and e-mail addresses of group members’

   3. approving notice, proposed consent forms, email, and
      reminder postcard; and

   4. setting the following schedule:

      -- Superior and Franks produce spreadsheet November 8, 2019
      -- Notice period opens November 15, 2019
      -- Opt-in period closes February 14, 2020

The Court held that Rodriguez has made the modest factual showing
required under the fairly lenient legal standard. He and his
co-workers were similarly situated. Even though they worked on
different projects at various locations, they were all construction
workers subject to the same pay structure, the Court said.

Rodriguez worked as a construction worker for Superior and Franks
between November 2018 and June 2019. Rodriguez says he was paid
hourly, worked more than 40 hours a week, and was not paid any
extra for his overtime work.  He says the company usually had
between 10-15 construction workers on the payroll, who were all
paid the same way. He moves to conditionally certify a collective
action. Superior and Franks haven't responded to the motion for a
group.[CC]

TAMKO BUILDING: Snyder et al Suit Moved to District of Kansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as JEFFREY SNYDER and MARTIN and
BETH MELNICK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TAMKO BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a
Missouri Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-01892 (Filed
Dec. 18, 2015), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
Eastern District for California, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas (Kansas City) on Oct. 15, 2019. The District of
Kansas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02630-JWL-KGG to the
proceeding. The suit demands $5 million in damages. The case is
assigned to the Hon. District Judge John W. Lungstrum.

The case is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs on behalf
of themselves and a Class of individuals and entities who own or
have owned homes, residences, buildings and other structures on
which fiberglass roofing shingles, sold under the name "Heritage"
and manufactured by TAMKO, are or have been installed.

Defendant's Heritage shingles are plagued by design and/or
manufacturing flaws that result in the shingles becoming brittle,
cracking, curling, blistering, degranulating, growing algae,
generally deteriorating and leaking. Yet Defendant continues to
sell the shingles to the public and continues to make false
representations and warranties despite the fact that the shingles
are defective and will prematurely fail -- causing property damage
and costing consumers substantial removal and replacement costs.

The Defendant has failed to disclose these problems to consumers,
including Plaintiffs and the Class, and has breached its warranty
by refusing to adequately compensate property owners who have been
injured as a result of the latent defects.

The class action seeks damages, punitive damages, injunctive
relief, costs, attorneys’ fees, and other relief as a result of
Defendant's willful, wanton, reckless, and/or grossly negligent
conduct in causing consumers' homes, residences, buildings and
other structures to be in a defective, unsafe and unfit condition
for habitation.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Richard N. Sieving, Esq.
          THE SIEVING LAW FIRM, A.P.C.
          100 Howe Avenue, Suite 220N
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 444-3366
          Facsimile: (916) 444-1223
          E-mail: rsieving@sievinglawfirm.com

               - and -

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
          Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  ldeutsch@bm.net
                  jpolakoff@bm.net

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

THOMAS DART: Hearing on New Class Certification Bid Set for Dec. 5
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Preston Bennett, the
Plaintiff, v. Thomas Dart, et al., the Defendant, Case No.
1:18−cv−04268 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge John Robert Blakey
entered ruling on a renewed motion to certify class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on October 24,
2019, Plaintiff's renewed motion to certify class is briefed as
follows:

-- response shall be filed on or before Nov. 7, 2019;
-- reply shall be filed on or before Nov. 14, 2019; and
-- motion hearing is set for Dec. 5, 2019 at 9:45 a.m. in
   Courtroom 1203.

Bennett sues Defendants Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart and Cook
County. He alleges that Defendants violated Section 202 of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Section 12132, and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Rehab Act), 29 U.S.C.
Section 794(a), in connection with their shower and toilet
facilities in Division 10 of the Cook County Department of
Corrections.  Plaintiff is an amputee who relies upon crutches to
ambulate.  He is a former detainee at CCDOC who seeks, individually
and on behalf of the proposed class, injunctive relief as well as
monetary damages.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' failure to
provide grab bars in Division 10's shower and toilet facilities, as
well as a fixed bench in Division 10's shower facilities, deprived
him, and other detainees prescribed a crutch, cane, or walker, of
rights guaranteed under Section 202 of the ADA and Section 504 of
the Rehab Act. Plaintiff entered CCDOC on March 29, 2018.

In a September 23, 2019 order, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion
to certify the following class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3): "All inmates housed in Division 10 at the Cook
County Department of Corrections from June 27, 2016 to the date of
entry of judgment, who were prescribed either a walker, crutch, or
cane by the medical staff and were denied an accommodation for
toileting and showering."  A copy of the Court's decision is
available at https://is.gd/rTkQIH from PacerMonitor.com.[CC]

TRICOPIAN INC: Veasy Files Class Suit in S.D. Ca.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tricopian, Inc. The
case is styled as Tyler Veasy, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tricopian, Inc. formerly
known as: Tricopian, LLC doing business as: Saveme Products doing
business as: Saveme Batteries North America doing business as:
Tricopian (Switzerland) Sarl, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-02060-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal., Oct. 25, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Tricopian offers battery solutions servicing a wide range of
product applications from cell phones and tablets, to flashlights
and remote-control toys.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Francis J Flynn, Jr., Esq.
     Law Office of Francis J. Flynn, Jr.
     422 South Curson Avenue
     Los Angeles, CA 90036
     Phone: (314) 662-2836
     Email: francisflynn@gmail.com



TWITTER INC: Faces Hasan Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Khan M. Hasan, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TWITTER, INC., JACK DORSEY, and NED SEGAL,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-07149 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2019), is a
securities fraud action brought under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and on behalf of all those who purchased the publicly
traded common stock of Twitter from August 6, 2019, through October
23, 2019, inclusive.

On August 6, 2019, Twitter publicly disclosed through a tweet that
it recently found issues where certain user settings choices
designed to target advertising were not working as intended.
Twitter represented that "We recently discovered and fixed issues
related to your settings choices for the way we deliver
personalized ads and when we share certain data with trusted
measurement and advertising partners." However, unknown to
investors, while Twitter represented that it "fixed" certain issues
relating to user choice settings, the Defendants failed to disclose
that the changes implemented to fix these issues adversely affected
Twitter's ability to target advertising, including the targeting of
advertising through its Mobile App Promotion product, which caused
a material decline in advertising revenue, the Plaintiff alleges.

On October 24, 2019, before the market opened, the Company
disclosed its financial results for the quarter ended September 30,
2019, and conducted a conference call with investors. Twitter's
revenue of $823.7 million was over 5% lower than analysts' estimate
of $874.0 million. Weaker-than-expected advertising revenues caused
this revenue shortfall. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful
acts and omission, and the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's common stock, the Plaintiff and other Class
members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Twitter common stock.

Twitter describes itself as a global platform for public
self-expression and conversation in real time.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence D. King, Esq.
     Mario M. Choi, Esq.
     KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
     350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 772-4700
     Facsimile: (415) 772- 4707
     Email: lking@kaplanfox.com
            mchoi@kaplanfox.com

          - and -

     Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
     Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
     Donald R. Halll, Esq.
     Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
     Matthew P. McCahill, Esq.
     KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
     850 Third Ave., 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 687-1980
     Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
            ffox@kaplanfox.com
            dhall@kaplanfox.com
            jcampisi@kaplanfox.com


ULTRA SONIC: Cruz Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Cruz, Eleanor Soliz, and Jose Mancia, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ULTRA SONIC INC.,
DONALD CELESTINO, ULTRA SONIC RVC, INC., ULTRA SONIC EXPRESS, INC.
ABC CORP. d/b/a ULTRA SONIC HAND CAR WASH, and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06093 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2019),
alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law, the Plaintiffs and other current and former
employees are entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid wages
for overtime work performed; unpaid spread of hours wages for each
day the Plaintiffs worked 10 or more hours; liquidated damages for
failure to pay overtime premium and spread hours pay; liquidated
damaged for failure to furnish the Plaintiffs a notice and
acknowledgment at the time of hiring; attorney's fees; interest;
and costs and disbursements.

According to the complaint, the Defendants were aware of the
Plaintiffs' work hours but failed to pay them the full and proper
amount of wages they were entitled to each week. The Defendants
have operated under a decision, policy and plan of willfully
failing and refusing to pay the Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs at one and one half times the minimum wages for work in
excess of 40 hours per workweek, and willfully failing to keep
records required by the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as car cleaners and
dryers, and they vacuumed cars.

ULTRA SONIC INC. is a domestic corporation duly licensed to conduct
business in the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Marcos Monteiro, Esq.
     MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
     91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
     Hempstead, NY 11550
     Phone: 516/280.4600
     Facsimile: 516/280.4530


UNITED STATES: Fleming Suit Transferred to District of Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed against the United States Department
of Justice, et al., was removed from the U.S. District for the
District of Columbia, to the U.S. District Court for the U.S.
District of Minnesota on Oct. 15, 2019. The District of Minnesota
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:19-cv-02713-SRN-KMM to the
proceeding. The suit involves prison conditions issues and demands
$9.9 million in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Susan Richard Nelson.

The case is captioned as Rhonda Fleming, all similarly situated
federal female inmates, the Plaintiff, vs. United States Department
of Justice, all in their official and individual capacities;
Director of the Bureau of Prisons all in their official and
individual capacities; Angela Dunbar, BOP Regional Director, all in
their official and individual capacities; Warden Fredrick Entzel,
all in their official and individual capacities; Captain Shannon
Bauserman, all in their official and individual capacities;
Lieutenant Kuhn all in their official and individual capacities;
Nurse Sines, all in their official and individual capacities; Eight
Unknown BOP Correctional Officers – Hazelton, all in their
official and individual capacities; Friend all in their official
and individual capacities; Jeremy Sparks, Unit Counselor, all in
their official and individual capacities; Tompkins Hazelton
Administrator, all in their official and individual capacities;
Carswell, Captain of FMC, all in their official and individual
capacities; Three Unknown BOP Correctional Officers – Carsell all
in their official and individual capacities; Lieutenant Riehm,
Waseca, all in their official and individual capacities Six Unknown
BOP Correctional Officers – Waseca, all in their official and
individual capacities;  Health Services Administrator, all in their
official and individual capacities, Case No. 1:18-cv-03029 (D.
Colo., Filed Dec. 18, 2018).

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

UNITED STATES: ICE Releases 3 Detainees Part of Calderon Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steph Solis, writing for Mass Live, reports that Immigration and
Customs enforcement officials said October 10 in Boston federal
court that they would release three detained immigrants who are
part of a class-action lawsuit over the agency's detention of
people applying for green cards.

Halfway into a four-hour hearing, government attorney Mary L.
Larakers, Esq. said ICE Boston is willing to release Kendal Leon,
Sambu Sisse and Amadeu Semedo under certain conditions.

Romilson Ferreira, Ana Rodriguez and Elton Moniz, who were the
other three detainees at the center of October 10's proceeding,
will remain in custody.

"Rather than fight that out, the government agreed today to let
these three people go home and be with their families, which is
enormously important," Matthew Siegal, Esq., attorney at the
American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, told reporters
after the hearing. "What we're continuing to do is fight for the
reunification of three other families and also to get to the bottom
of what we think happened here."

But the questions at the heart of the matter, chiefly whether ICE
violated certain regulations when reviewing whether detainees were
eligible for release, remain unanswered.  Judge Mark L. Wolf took
testimony from one official, Acting Field Office Director Marcos
Charles, but issued a continuance till October 11 morning.

The class-action lawsuit has morphed into a web of questions about
immigration law since the attorneys first filed a complaint about
two undocumented mothers detained during interviews with U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, a separate arm of the
Department of Homeland Security.

The women, Lilian Calderon and Lucimar de Souza, were interviewing
to obtain green cards through their spouses, who are U.S. citizens,
a process referred to as an "adjustment of status."

Emails released during the lawsuit show that USCIS and ICE agents
coordinated meetings with undocumented immigrants who were seeking
to gain legal status in this matter, which the ACLU described as a
"trap" for immigrants.

Calderon and de Souza, who were headed for deportation, were
released and have since been approved for green cards.

Others have also been released, but attorneys identified several
other class members and are calling for their release.

Immigrant detainees who are in custody for more than 90 days
typically get a Post-Order Custody Review, a process in which ICE
officers determine whether to release or continue to detain
someone. The detainee is allowed to submit affidavits and other
documents to argue for release by a given deadline.

Attorneys representing the detainees say that ICE agents have
violated the POCR regulations, not reviewing letters of support
submitted before the deadline, and not properly considering
irreparable harm caused by separating families, even after Wolf
issued a decision stating that would need to be a factor taken into
consideration.

Attorneys representing the government, however, say that ICE agents
have considered all the necessary factors, and that they felt the
detainees should be removed because the agency had travel documents
ready to send them back to where they were born.

Wolf called on four ICE officials to testify Octoebr 10 about how
they made their decisions for each detainee. The court only got
through Charles before Wolf ordered a recess.

Charles, the ICE Boston director, said he took multiple factors
into consideration based on the detainees' files: whether a travel
document can be issued, the danger posed to a community, the
possibility of flight risk, history of violence and ability to
remain nonviolent.

One detainee, Romilson Ferreira, was deemed a danger to the
community because he was convicted of assaulting an officer, though
he's appealing the conviction, Charles said. He said the arrest and
conviction outweigh the public interest in keeping him and his
family together. [GN]



UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Yu et al. Sue over Late Fees
------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN RECINOS, HANS YU, ROBIN HEINONEN, HAREE AK.KALA, NEELANSH
JAIN, and DANIEL ROIZEN, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, the Defendant, Case No. RG19038659 (Cal.
Super., Oct. 10, 2019), alleges that Defendant charges its students
late fees pursuant to Enrollment Contracts.

Students that enroll for classes at the University and pay tuition
are bound by the Enrollment Contracts by virtue of their
enrollment. The Enrollment Contracts remain in effect as of the
date of the complaint.

The Late Fees have generated substantial revenues and profits for
Defendant and its affiliates. By this complaint, the Plaintiffs
seek to permanently enjoin the enforcement and threat of collection
of the Late Fees and to recover as damages and/or restitution all
Late Fees paid by members of the plaintiff class.

The Late Fees constitute unlawful penalties that are void and
unenforceable under California Civil Code; unlawful and unfair
under California's Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code; and
unconscionable under California Civil Code, the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed plaintiff Class are
individuals who are or were Defendant's students in California, and
who paid or were charged Late Fees in connection with Defendant's
services rendered in the State of California.

The Regents of the University of California oversees California's
public university system and its ten University campuses: UC
Berkeley, UC Davis, UC Irvine, UCLA, UC Merced, UC Riverside, UC 8
San Diego, UC San Francisco, UC Santa Barbara, and UC Santa Cruz.
Although the University is a public institution, it takes advantage
of its students by charging exorbitant and unlawful late charges to
increase revenue and profit margins.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          Yeremey 0. Krivoshey, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com
                  ykrivoshey@bursor.com

VIESTE SPE: Court Allows Second Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona issued
an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Complaint in the case captioned Crossfirst Bank, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. Vieste SPE LLC, et al., Defendants. No.
CV-18-01637-PHX-DLR. (D. Ariz.)

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint.

Plaintiffs bring this putative class action relating to their
purchase of $28,935,000 in industrial development bonds (Bonds)
described in Defendants' Official Statement (OS).

Legal Standard

Leave to amend should be given freely when justice so requires.
When assessing the propriety of a motion for leave to amend, the
court considers factors such as: (1) bad faith (2) undue delay (3)
prejudice to the opposing party (4) futility of amendment and (5)
whether plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.

Plaintiffs filed their SAC in accordance with the Court's prior
order. The Court finds no evidence that leave is sought in bad
faith or that further amendment would unduly prejudice Defendants.
Defendants instead argue that the proposed amendments are futile
and unduly delayed.

ASA Claims

Plaintiffs' proposed SAC includes the previously dismissed ASA
claims. Plaintiffs do not allege new facts that change the Court's
previous determination that the ASA claims are time-barred, nor
have Plaintiffs properly sought reconsideration of that prior
order.

However, it is the law of this circuit that a plaintiff waives all
claims in the alleged dismissed complaint which are not realleged
in an amended complaint. If a plaintiff fails to include dismissed
claims in an amended complaint, the plaintiff is deemed to have
waived any error in the ruling dismissing the prior complaint.

Accordingly, although Plaintiffs will not be permitted to proceed
with the ASA claims, the Court will not strike the allegations from
the SAC because Plaintiffs must include them to preserve rights on
appeal.

Futility of Common Law Claims

Fraud

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' proposed fraud claim is futile
because it is barred by the three-year statute of limitations.

The Court disagrees.

Plaintiffs fraud claim arises from Defendants' production of the OS
and the alleged misstatements and omissions contained therein.
These allegations also were the basis for Plaintiffs' ASA claims.
In its prior order, the Court determined that Plaintiffs were on
notice of possible misstatements and omissions in the OS by no
later than July 24, 2015. By then, Plaintiffs would have known
enough to investigate the alleged fraud. Plaintiffs filed this
action within three years of that time, and the allegations in
their proposed SAC relate back to that initial filing.  
Amendment therefore would not be futile.

Aiding and Abetting Fraud

Plaintiffs seek to add an aiding and abetting fraud claim against
the Underwriters and the Law Firm Defendants. The Underwriters and
Law Firm Defendants argue that the claim is futile because the
predicate fraud claim is futile and because Plaintiffs failed to
allege the required scienter.

The Court disagrees.

First, because the Court has found Plaintiffs' proposed fraud claim
is not futile, their proposed aiding and abetting claim does not
fail for want of a predicate tort.

Second, drawing all inferences in favor of granting the motion,
Plaintiffs have alleged enough facts indicating that the
Underwriters and Law Firms knew of the fraudulent conduct.
Plaintiffs' proposed aiding and abetting fraud claim therefore is
not futile.

Negligent Misrepresentation

Plaintiffs seek to add a claim for negligent misrepresentation
against all Defendants based on their respective participation in
the creation of the OS. All Defendants argue that these claims are
futile because they are barred by the two-year statute of
limitations.  

The Court finds that the negligent misrepresentation claims are not
futile both because application of the discovery rule requires
factual determinations, and because of the liberal policy favoring
amendment.

The Court will grant Plaintiffs permission to revise the SAC to
state the need for an expert opinion before they file the final
SAC.

Undue Delay

Finally, the Sims Defendants argue that the Court should deny
Plaintiffs' motion because the common law claims could have been
raised earlier. But undue delay by itself is insufficient to
justify denying a motion to amend and the Court does not find that
Defendants will be prejudiced by the proposed SAC. The parties have
not yet conducted discovery and, because the additional claims
emerge largely from the same factual background as the original ASA
claims, Defendants need not take an entirely new course of defense
in addressing them.

Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is
GRANTED.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s September 30, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxrzsx2q from Leagle.com

Crossfirst Bank, a Kansas banking corporation & Crossfirst
Investments Incorporated, a Kansas corporation, Plaintiffs,
represented by Bryce Ethan Langford  - bryce.langford@stinson.com -
Stinson Leonard Street LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher M. Hack -
chris@krislovlaw.com - Krislov & Associates Limited, pro hac vice,
Clinton Arthur Krislov - clint@krislovlaw.com - Krislov &
Associates Limited, pro hac vice, Jeffrey J. Goulder -
jeffrey.goulder@stinson.com - Stinson Leonard Street LLP & Stefan
Mark Palys -stefan.palys@stinson.com - Stinson LLP.

Nancy Hanna, wife, Frank B Hanna Sr & Nancy B Hanna Revocable
Trust, trustee of Frank Hanna, Sr., Wesley Hanna Trust, trustee of
Frank Hanna, Sr. trustee of Henry H Hanna, III trustee of Wesley
Hanna, Leigh Hanna Trust, trustee of Frank Hanna, Sr. trustee of
Henry H Hanna, III trustee of Leigh Hanna, Frank Hanna Jr Trust,
trustee of Frank Hanna, Sr. trustee of Henry H Hanna, III trustee
of Frank Hanna, Jr. & Frank Hanna, Sr., husband, Plaintiffs,
represented by Christopher M. Hack , Krislov & Associates Limited,
pro hac vice, Clinton Arthur Krislov , Krislov & Associates
Limited, pro hac vice, Jeffrey J. Goulder , Stinson Leonard Street
LLP & Stefan Mark Palys , Stinson LLP.

Vieste SPE LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Vieste Energy
LLC, an Indiana corporation, Vieste LLC, an Indiana limited
liability corporation, Mark Branaman, husband, Michael A Comparato,
Sr., husband, Joseph A Cook, husband & Donald W Currise, husband,
Defendants, represented by Jessica Ann Wilson - jwilson@kflawaz.com
- Kercsmar & Feltus PLLC & Todd Feltus - tfeltus@kflawaz.com -
Kercsmar & Feltus PLLC.

Joshua D Rogers, husband, Defendant, represented by John M. George,
Jr. – jgeorge@kattentemple.com - Katten & Temple LLP, pro hac
vice & Nancy Anne Temple, Katten & Temple LLP, The Rookery
Building,209 South LaSalle St, Suite 950, Chicago, IL 60604 pro hac
vice.

Herbert J Sims & Company Incorporated, a Connecticut corporation,
Timothy Xan Smith & William B Sims, Defendants, represented by
Hutson B. Smelley - hutson.smelley@mhllp.com - McDowell
Hetherington LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Charles Matura -
jmatura@barrettmatura.com -, Barrett & Matura PC & Thomas F.A.
Hetherington - tom.hetherington@mhllp.com - McDowell Hetherington
LLP, pro hac vice.


WELLS FARGO: Removes Martin Case to Central Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. removes the case captioned Ricardo Martin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and
Guadalu2e Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association; and Does 1 through 25, the Defendants, Case No.
RIC-1904522 (Filed Aug. 30, 2019), from the Riverside County
Superior to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on Oct. 15, 2019. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-01969 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to provide compliant
wage statements pursuant to California Labor Code Section 226 on
behalf of the class of all non-exempt employees of Defendant who
were paid "Overtime Pay-Override" wages.

Wells Fargo Bank is a national banking association.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Glenn L. Briggs, Esq.
          Theresa A. Kading, Esq.
          KADING BRIGGS LLC
          100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 450-8040
          Facsimile: (949) 450-8033
          E-mail: gbriggs@kadingbriggs.com
                  tkading@kadingbriggs.com

WENDYS COMPANY: Camacho Files ADA Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Wendys Company.
The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Wendys Company,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06027 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

The Wendy's Company is an American holding company for the major
fast food chain, Wendy's. Its headquarters are in Dublin,
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


YOE CONCRETE: Hunnell Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Hunnell, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YOE CONCRETE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES,
INC. t/a YOE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01874-CCC (M.D. Pa., Oct. 29, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, damages and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendant's wage and hours practices and policies included a
policy, which sets forth that Defendant will not pay the Plaintiff
for the first hour of travel time in each day worked from the
Defendant's Dallastown, Pennsylvania facility to the jib site, and
will not pay the Plaintiff for the first hour of travel time in
each day worked from the job site to the Dallastown Facility,
according to the complaint. The Plaintiff routinely worked 40 or
more hours per week during the statutory time period but has not
always received all overtime compensation earned as a direct result
of the Defendant's unlawful Travel Time Policy. As a result of this
unlawful practice, the Plaintiff suffered a loss of wages, says the
complaint.

Mr. Hunnell was employed by the Defendant between October 29, 2018,
and August 23, 2019.

The Defendant engages in general construction, concrete
construction, steel fabrication and construction, and excavation
services in more than 10 states in the mid-Atlantic and mid-west
regions of the United States of America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Samuel A. Dion, Esq.
     DION & GOLDBERGER
     1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1199
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: 215-546-6033
     Fax: 215-546-6269
     Email: samueldion@aol.com



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***