CAR_Public/191105.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, November 5, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 221

                            Headlines

120 ESSEX MARKET: Underpays Cooks and Servers, Montiel Suit Says
31-05 ASTORIA BLVD: Blanco Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
5060 AUTO SERVICE: Damian Seeks Unpaid OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
AGENT LEADS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Alves Suit Claims
ALLERGAN GROUP: Implant Patient Sues Over Complications

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settlement in Passenger Capacity Suit Appealed
AMP: Financial Planners Appoint Corrs to Explore Legal Options
ANTHEM BLUE: Denies Claims by Podiatric Doctors, Greenwald Says
ARIZONA: AZDHS Faces Baron-St. Laurent Civil Rights Class Suit
AT&T PENSION: Pension Benefit Plan Violates ERISA, Suit Alleges

ATLANTIC LOTTERY: CGA Can Intervene in Babstock Suit, Court Says
BLACK BEAR: Vatuvei Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Security Guards
BOEING CO: Faces Proposed 737 Max Class Actions Filed by Pilots
BOTTOM LINE SOLUTIONS: Candelario Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
BROTHER INT'L: Friedman Sues over Laser Toner Cartridges

CBL CORP: Glaister Ennor to Launch Shareholder Class Action
CHICAGO BREAD: Rivett Seeks Overtime Wages for Assistant Managers
CHIFFON'S KOSHER: Edmorin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
CITYGATE HOSPITALITY: Nelson Sues Over Use of Biometric data
COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE: Ladriye Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay

COMMUNICATIONS UNLIMITED: Fair Suit Gets Conditional Certification
CONNECTICUT: Court Certifies Osborne Inmates Class in Toliver Suit
CONOPCO INC: Been Product Suit Removed to E.D. Mo.
CONSUMERS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Suit Still Ongoing
CORELOGIC INC: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Feleciano Suit

CVS PHARMACY: Class Settlement in Worth Suit Gets Final Approval
DESIGNER BRANDS: Camacho Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards
DROPBOX, INC: IPO Documents Misleading, Pikal Says
DS SERVICES: Faces Hunter Suit Over Failure to Pay All Wages Due
EQUIFAX: Spent $1.4-Bil. on Cleanup Costs Following Data Breach

EURODESIGN AND STONE: Kel-Mar Designs Sues Over Contract Breach
EXTERIOR DESIGN: Herrera Suit Seeks Overtime Wages for Laborers
FEDERAL INSURANCE: Abramson Seeks Consumer Privacy Under TCPA
FIDATO PARTNERS: Underpays Consultants, Fajimolu Suit Alleges
FIRST CLASS: Faces Rodriguez Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA

FOOD MANAGEMENT: Underpays Waiters & Cooks, Gonzalez et al. Claim
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Urbinas Sue Over Excessive Pay-to-Pay Fees
FYRE MEDIA: Fans Seek to Rename Ja Rule as Class Action Defendant
GOOGLE INC: Recent Ruling Likely Beneficial to Litigation Funders
GORDON FOOD: Snellgrove's Restaurant Says Fuel Surcharge Deceptive

GP PROPERTY: Diaz Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA/NYLL
GRAND VIEW: Tenants' Class Action Over Unsanitary Housing Pending
GREGORY & COMPANY: Corner Seeks Minimum Wages for Delivery Drivers
HAMILTON COAL: 7th Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Leeper WARN Suit
HEADWAY TECH: Smotkin Sues over HDD Suspension Assembly Prices

HELP AT HOME: Underpays Employment Specialists, Barber Suit Says
HUNTINGTON INGALLS: McDonald Case Dismissed Without Prejudice
HYUNDAI: Settles US Class Action Over Defective Theta 2 Engines
IMPINJ INC: Securities Class Suit Survives Motion to Dismiss
INDEPENDENT BANK: Trial in BOH Holdings Merger Suit to Begin 2021

J COFFEY CONTRACTING: Castillo Seeks OT Wages for Laborers
JP MORGAN: Bouskos Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
JUUL: Montgomery County to Launch Legal Action Over Vaping
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Clark Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
KVK-TECH INC: Mejia Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages for Laborers

MENASHA PACKAGING: Faces Enriquez Wage-and-Hour Suit
METAL KINETICS: Narain Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MICHAEL STINSON: Ct. Denies Bid to Transfer Gibbs Suit to Texas
MIDLAND CREDIT: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Pierre Case
MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Faces Gompf Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA

MV TRANS: Refuses to Increase Drivers' Pay, Shafer Suit Claims
NAT'L ASSO. OF REALTORS: DOJ Probe Missouri Class Action
NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Luczak Appeals S.D. Fla. Ruling to 11th Cir.
NATIONS INFO CORP: Schultz Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Approves $108MM Settlement in Knurr Suit

NORTHWOOD INC: Patrick Sues over Data Beach
ONE WAY CHECK: Sued by Isidore Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PAPA SOUTH: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Garrett Suit Alleges
PHILIP MORRIS: ADESF Class Suit in Brazil vs. Unit Still Ongoing
PHILIP MORRIS: Canadian Appeals Court Cuts Damages Award in Blais

PHILIP MORRIS: Canadian Appeals Court Upholds Ruling in Letourneau
PHILIP MORRIS: Rebolledo Class Suit Underway
PHILIP MORRIS: Ringer Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice
PHILIP MORRIS: Still Defends Securities Litigation in New York
PINCHERS RESTAURANTS: Perez Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA

PME MORTGAGE: Trustee's $800K Cash Sale of Aguanga Property Okayed
PREMIER EMPLOYEE: Gordon Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
PRESIDIO INC: Bushansky Sues Over Sale to BC Partners
PRIOR GROUP: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Anderson Suit Claims
PURDUE: Opioid-Dependent Babies May Get Left Out of Settlement

RECONTRUST CO: 10th Cir. Vacates Cy Pres Award in Allred Class Suit
RENZENBERGER, INC: Marquez et al Seek Overtime Pay
REPP SPORTS: Faces Ringsmuth Suit in Middle District of Florida
RESULTS COMPANIES: Harden Sues Over Unpaid Regular & Overtime Pay
RUCON INC: Castrejon Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

SAN JOSE: Cal. App. Upholds Certification Denial in Blevins Suit
SEI INVESTMENTS: Fairness Hearing in Stevens Suit Set for Dec. 18
SEI INVESTMENTS: Motion in Support of Appeal Due Nov. 20
SEIU: Agrees to Free Workers from MMP Restrictions
SIRIUS XM: Parrella Suit Remanded to New Jersey Superior Court

SNAP INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Initial Public Offering
SONIM TECH: Malhotra Says IPO Registration Statement Misleading
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Hughes Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal
STC MANAGEMENT: Illegally Sent Unsolicited Texts, Shahzada Says
SURF CLUB: Underpays Housekeepers, Avalos Suit Says

SYDELL HOSTELL: Soper Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
SYNERGY INDUSTRIAL: Possi Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan Related Suit
T TEK-COLLECT: Velazquez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Securities Class Suit Survives Motion to Dismiss

TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Awaits Initial Approval of Isolde Settlement
TRIPOLIS ENTERPRISES: Hawkins Wants Back-Pay for Exotic Dancers
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Narrows Claims on Caldwell Insurance Suit
UNITED STATES: Couple Files Class Action v. Homeland Security
UNITED STATES: Marine Veteran Faces Deportation Amid Class Action

V MARCHESE INC: Christoffersen Seeks Continued Health Care Coverage
VIRGINIA COLLEGE: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Robinson Affirmed
WAKEFERN FOOD: Camacho Files Class Suit Under ADA
WAL-MART STORES: Form of Class Notice in Evans Labor Suit Approved
WELLS FARGO: Former Reps Wants Subpoenas to LPL, Et Al. Quashed

WHITE CASTLE: Matzura Files ADA Class Action in New York
XTO ENEGRY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Salmon Claims
YAHOO INC: May Be Liable to Email Users of $350+
YARD HOUSE: Lopez Files ADA Class Action in NY
[*] Corporate Australia Sees Rise of Class Actions


                            *********

120 ESSEX MARKET: Underpays Cooks and Servers, Montiel Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MAYELA J. ALVARADO MONTIEL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 120 ESSEX MARKET LLC; and
DAVID PERLMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-09203 (S.D.N.Y., Oct.
4, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Perlman was employed by the Defendants as cook and
server.

120 Essex Market LLC is a full-service restaurant doing business as
Essex Restaurant and located at New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007-2036
          Telephone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


31-05 ASTORIA BLVD: Blanco Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Galicia Blanco, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. 31-05 ASTORIA BLVD. DINER CORP. d/b/a NEPTUNE
DINER, and PETER KATSIHTIS and GEORGE KATSIHTIS, as individuals,
Case No. 2:19-cv-06147 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019), seeks to recover
damages arising from the Defendants' violations of the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

Although the Plaintiff worked for 70 or more hours per week during
his employment, the Defendants did not pay him time and a half for
hours worked over 40, which is a blatant violation of the overtime
provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at their Neptune Diner
from December 2011 until June 2019.

31-05 Astoria Blvd Corp., doing business as Neptune Diner, is a
corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal
executive office in Bronx, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Phone: 718-263-9591
          Fax: 718-263-9598


5060 AUTO SERVICE: Damian Seeks Unpaid OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valentin Damian, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 5060 Auto Service, Inc. and Leonid Bruk,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-09226 (S.D. N.Y., October 4, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and redress for
failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a garage, located at 4036 10th
Avenue New York under the name "5060 Auto Service" where Damian was
employed as a valet. He claims to have worked in excess of forty
hours per week but did not receive overtime pay for this, including
the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to
work over 10 hours a day. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AGENT LEADS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Alves Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
TERRI ALVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AGENT LEADS INC., and DOES 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-08492 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 10,2019), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Agent Leads Inc. provides web marketing firm services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLERGAN GROUP: Implant Patient Sues Over Complications
-------------------------------------------------------
C.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Allergan, Inc. (previously Inamed Corporation),
Allergan USA, Inc. and Allergan PLC, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-06347 (N.D. Cal., October 4, 2019), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by negligence, unjust enrichment, breach
of implied and express warranty and for violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law.

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

C.C. had BIOCELL implants that are subject to the said recall. She
was diagnosed with anaplastic large cell lymphoma and underwent a
bilateral mastectomy. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Theodore W. Maya, SBN 223242
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      10728 Lindbrook Drive
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
             tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
             rglezakos@ahdootwolfson.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settlement in Passenger Capacity Suit Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that three
objectors to the settlement in the class action related to
passenger capacity have taken an appeal from the preliminarily
approval order entered by the Federal District Court for the
District of Columbia.

The company along with Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines
Co., United Airlines, Inc. and, in the case of litigation filed in
Canada, Air Canada, have been named as defendants in approximately
100 putative class action lawsuits alleging unlawful agreements
with respect to air passenger capacity.

The U.S. lawsuits have been consolidated in the Federal District
Court for the District of Columbia (the DC Court).

On June 15, 2018, the company reached a preliminary settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs in the amount of $45 million that,
once approved, will resolve all class claims in the U.S. lawsuits.
That settlement was approved by the DC Court on May 13, 2019. Three
parties who objected to the settlement have appealed that decision
to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.


American Airlines said, "We believe these appeals are without merit
and intend to vigorously defend against them."

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

American Airlines Group Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
a network air carrier. It provides scheduled air transportation
services for passengers and cargo. American Airlines Group Inc. was
founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.


AMP: Financial Planners Appoint Corrs to Explore Legal Options
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Frost, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that
financial planners enraged by AMP's decision to thin its ranks and
renege on a buy-back agreement have been urged to stick together
after appointing Corrs Chambers Wesgarth to investigate its legal
options.

AMP Financial Planners Association chief executive Neil Macdonald
informed members of the appointment on Oct. 14 in a letter seen by
The Australian Financial Review, saying it was important the
association considered every available option.

"In these challenging times, it is important that we all make
careful and considered decisions," Mr. Macdonald said in the
letter.

"It is important that planners who have been affected by AMPFP's
actions work together in presenting a united front to AMPFP."

A survey of the group's members revealed a strong appetite for
legal action, with 93 per cent of respondents registering interest
in taking the financial services giant to court.

Mr. Macdonald said the association had met with a number of
Australia's top legal firms before arriving at its decision to
appoint Corrs Chambers Wesgarth.

"After considering the options and meeting with and interviewing a
number of tier one law firms, we believe Corrs meets the criteria
our members wanted," Mr. Macdonald said.

Among the options being considered by the law firm is the potential
for a class action. The AMPFPA has previously held introductory
talks with litigation funders to scope out the viability of such a
case.

AMP's network of around 2000 planners were shocked to learn the
company had unilaterally changed the terms of the buyer of last
resort (BOLR) scheme on August 7.

The changes were unveiled as part of a massive strategic overhaul
that would see the firm sell its life insurance business and ramp
up its banking operations.

The BOLR had been in place for many years at 4 times recurring
earnings but after the revamp it had been cut to 2.5 times, leaving
many advisers that had bought practices from AMP in significant
debt.

A spokeswoman for AMP said it remained in dialogue with the AMPFPA.
She said the decision to reset the terms of the BOLR was difficult
but necessary given the upheaval in the industry.

"Legal action is not AMP's preferred approach, however, we would
vigorously defend any legal action," AMP said.

"AMP also recognises that disruption and change of this nature can
be very challenging. We continue to provide a range of support and
transition options for advice practices."

The company has told many of its adviser force - who are not
employed but merely aligned with the company - their services are
no longer required and asked them to find a new licensee, sell the
business back to AMP at the lower multiple or sell or merge their
business with that of another AMP adviser.

Advisers have been given a Halloween deadline to choose a course of
action with many planners saying they are being pressured by AMP to
bulk up and buy other AMP practices in order to remain viable.

AMP shares rallied 3.7 per cent or 6.c to $1.67 at the close on a
stronger day for financial stocks following several strong sessions
on Wall Street.

The recovery followed a record low share price of $1.57 a share
reached on Oct. 10 and follows a $784 million capital raising at
$1.60 a share to fund and accelerate the transformation plan. [GN]


ANTHEM BLUE: Denies Claims by Podiatric Doctors, Greenwald Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LEONARD GREENWALD, D.P.M., individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE AND HEALTH
INSURANCE COMPANY, a California Corporation; BLUE CROSS OF
CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV37400 (Cal. Super., Oct. 17,
2019), alleges that Anthem Blue Cross follows a consistent practice
and procedure of wrongfully denying claims by Doctors of Podiatric
Medicine for reimbursement of claims for hospital inpatient
podiatry services.

According to the complaint, Anthem Blue Cross denies benefits for
hospital inpatient podiatry services solely because those services
were rendered by a podiatrist. The Plaintiff contends that such
denial of benefits is invalid and in violation of Anthem Blue Cross
published guidelines and in violation of the California Code
Regulations Title 22 Section 51310.

Dr. Greenwald is a licensed Doctor of Podiatric Medicine with the
Podiatric Medical Board of California.

Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, and Blue Cross
of California are referred as Anthem Blue Cross. Anthem Blue Cross
is the administrator for certain Medi-Cal Payment programs and the
services at issue with the case rendered pursuant to one such
program.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Keith Greer, Esq.
          C. Tyler Greer, Esq.
          GREER & ASSOCIATES, A.P.C.
          16855 West Bernardo Dr., Suite 255
          San Diego, CA 92127
          Telephone: (858) 613 6677
          Facsimile: (858) 613 6680
          E-mail: keith.greer@greerlaw.biz


ARIZONA: AZDHS Faces Baron-St. Laurent Civil Rights Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arizona Department of
Human Services, et al. The suit demands $3.5 million worth of
damages alleging violation of Prisoner Civil Rights related laws.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Diane J Humetewa.

The case is captioned as Ronald Rene Baron-St. Laurent also named
as Ronald Rene Baron-St. Laurent, Sr.; Edward Brown; Norris Gray;
Dushan Nickolich; Lonnie Bryant; Patrick Troutman; Tim Robinson;
Gordon Emond; Carl Snodgrass; Rick Kirkman; Ted Warner; Trinidad
Martinez; Todd Williams; Bo Allen; Rick Pedersen; Eric Pedersen;
Michael Geisler; Courtney Broadbent; and Patrick Fields, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Arizona Department of Human Services; Arizona Sex Offender Program;
and Doug Ducey, Aaron Bowen Unknown Bugby, Cara Crist, Shanda
Payne, Sheridan Miller, Kevin Galbreath, Bradley Johnson, Pascal
Koulemou, Shawn Anderson, Ernest Sunjo, Michelle Gutierrez, and
Leon Amouzouvi, in their individual and official capacity,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05443-DJH-JFM (D. Ariz., Oct. 17,
2019).

The Arizona Department of Health Services administers mental
health, disease control, environmental health, and family health
services in Arizona.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]


AT&T PENSION: Pension Benefit Plan Violates ERISA, Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMY ELIASON; ANGELA HUECKEL and LINDIE LAWRENCE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AT&T
INC.; AT&T SERVICES, INC.; and  AT&T PENSION BENEFIT PLAN,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06232-SK (N.D. Cal., Oct. 1, 2019)
targets the Defendants' violations of the actuarial equivalence
requirements and anti-forfeiture provision under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with respect to the AT&T
Pension Benefit Plan.

According to the complaint, the Early Retirement Factors and the
Joint and Survivor Annuity Factors in the AT&T Plan applicable to
the Class have not been updated in over a decade, despite dramatic
increases in longevity amongst the American public. Because the
Early Retirement and the Joint and Survivor Annuity Factors have
not been updated to be in line with reasonable actuarial
assumptions, they do not yield actuarially equivalent payments to
Class members as required by ERISA. As a result, the Defendants
have improperly reduced Class members' pension benefits in
violation of ERISA's actuarial equivalence requirements.

The Plaintiffs and the Class members received less than the
actuarial equivalent of their benefits, expressed as single life
annuities beginning at age 65, because the Plan's Reduction Factors
for Joint and Survivor Annuities and Early Retirement Benefits
provided them with less than the actuarial equivalent of their
ERISA-protected benefits.

AT&T Services, as the Plan Administrator, was and is responsible
for paying all Plan participants the full value of their
non-forfeitable retirement benefits. Instead, AT&T Services
determined benefits using outdated and non-actuarially equivalent
Reduction Factors for Joint and Survivor Annuities and Early
Retirement Benefits. As such, AT&T Services caused and causes Plan
participants to forfeit their ERISA-protected benefits.

AT&T Inc. is a media company comprised of multiple business units,
including AT&T Communications which provides mobile, broadband and
other communications services both domestically and abroad, and
Warner Media, which produces entertainment, news, and sports media
for film and television. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
          Mary J. Bortscheller, Esq.
          Daniel J. Sutter, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699

               - and -

          Todd Jackson, Esq.
          Nina Wasow, Esq.
          FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW, LLP
          2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 269-7998
          Facsimile: (510) 269-7994


ATLANTIC LOTTERY: CGA Can Intervene in Babstock Suit, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Casino Beats reports that the Supreme Court of Canada has granted a
Canadian Gaming Association motion to intervene in the Atlantic
Lottery Corporation Inc versus Babstock ongoing lawsuit.

In the case, the CGA will intervene in support of the appellants
and its video lottery machine and software suppliers, following an
application brought by Douglas Babstock and Fred Small.

The proposed class action alleged harm by video lottery terminals
which offered line games similar to slot machines, highlighting
seven causes of action, including breach of contract, negligence,
unjust enrichment and waiver of tort.

The Atlantic Lottery appeal involves a class action which alleges
that it must disgorge the profits it has earned from its video
lottery terminals on the theory that they violate the prohibition
on three-card monte, which is prohibited under the criminal code
without exception, and are not exempted by its conduct and manage
power.

"This will be an important appeal for the gaming industry as a
whole, and an excellent opportunity to persuade the Supreme Court
to implement a clear and balanced approach to this part of the
Criminal Code," explained Paul Burns, president and CEO of the
Canadian Gaming Association.

"I am pleased the association will be able to support our industry,
as the CGA's standing will ensure that the perspective of the
Canadian gaming community is represented, and we can ask the
Supreme Court to adopt a principled framework that benefits the
industry as a whole."

The CGA is represented by McCarthy Tetrault LLP, with Brandon Kain,
partner, Litigation Group at McCarthy Tetrault, commenting: "We are
very excited to represent the CGA in this important appeal. We look
forward to drawing on its deep expertise in the gaming industry to
craft a compelling submission to the Supreme Court."

The CGA has pointed to nationwide benefits of a legalised,
regulated gaming industry as the group backs calls made to see the
introduction of single-event sports betting.

This comes as the not-for-profit organisation welcomes comments
made by Windsor West Liberal candidate Sandra Pupatello, who has
called for an amendment to the criminal code to permit single-event
sports betting, stating "there is no reason to hold back on this
initiative." [GN]


BLACK BEAR: Vatuvei Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Security Guards
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAULO VATUVEI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff v. BLACK
BEAR SECURITY SERVICES, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-580062 (Cal.
Super., Oct. 17, 2019), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay
their security guards all minimum and overtime wages, failed to
provide meal and rest periods, and failed to pay wages due at
separation of employment, all in violation of the California Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a security guards in San
Francisco Count from October 2014 through October 2018.

Black Bear Security Services, Inc. provides high quality guard
services to businesses, property management associations and
government agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq.
          Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
          Alex F. Gaines, Esq.
          Sepideh Ardestani, Esq.
          GAINES & GAINES, APLC
          27200 Agoura Rd., Suite 101
          Calabasas, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 703 8985
          Facsimile: (818) 703 8984
          E-mail: ken@gaineslawfirm.com
                  daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
                  alex@gaineslawfirm.com
                  sepideh@gaineslawfirm.com


BOEING CO: Faces Proposed 737 Max Class Actions Filed by Pilots
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyunghee Park and Julie Johnsson, writing for Bloomberg, report
that two crashes within five months -- Lion Air Flight 610 in
October 2018 off the coast of Indonesia and Ethiopian Airlines
Flight 302 in March outside Addis Ababa -- killed 346 people and
led to a global grounding of Boeing Co.'s 737 Max jets, the fourth
generation of a venerable brand first flown in 1967. Uncertainty
over when it will fly again is rippling through the airline
industry and Boeing's finances. The U.S. manufacturer's bill is
$8.3 billion and rising, as it faces questions about the plane's
development and its own transparency.

1. When will the 737 Max fly again?

Unclear. Boeing says its best estimate is a return to service "that
begins early in the fourth quarter," but airlines including
Southwest -- the largest operator of the grounded jet -- American,
United and Air Canada have pulled Max flights through early
January. The aviation regulator in the United Arab Emirates also
raised doubts about Boeing's timetable, saying he expects the plane
to be back in the first quarter of 2020. One question on timing is
whether the Federal Aviation Administration will mandate simulator
training for pilots before the jet can fly again.

2. Will air travelers get back on board?

At least 20% of U.S. travelers said they would definitely avoid the
plane in the first six months after flights resume, according to an
April 2019 survey led by consultant Henry Harteveldt. More than 40%
said they'd even take pricier or less convenient flights to stay
off the Max. UBS Group AG's most recent survey about the 737 Max
found 12% of respondents saying "no amount of safe operation will
alleviate their concerns" about flying on the plane. To boost
public confidence, American says its executives and other staff
will take the first flights, before paying passengers, as soon as
the Max is certified fit to fly.

3. What has this meant for the airline industry?

The grounding of the fleet was less disruptive than it might have
been because far more jets were in Boeing's order backlog than in
service. In the U.S., for example, the Max makes up about 3% of the
mainline fleet. But the impact has piled up and could especially
hurt budget carriers. Ryanair Holdings Plc is scaling back growth
plans for summer 2020 because, it says, it's likely to get barely
half of the 58 Max planes it was expecting. FlyDubai has idled 14
Max planes that have been delivered out of 251 ordered, according
to Boeing. American said it's canceling about 140 flights a day; at
Southwest, that number is 200 on an average weekday. TUI AG, the
world's largest tourism service company, said a profit rebound was
wiped out by the grounding of its 15 Max aircraft. The hit to
Boeing's suppliers could be far worse if the company follows
through on warnings it might halt production. CFM International, a
joint venture between General Electric Co. and Safran SA, cut
output by about 5%, while Safran says it may lower its earnings
forecast.

4. What has this meant for Boeing?

The Chicago-based company took a $4.9 billion writedown it said
would cover potential costs incurred by airline customers due to
the grounding; already, Indian budget carrier SpiceJet Ltd. has
booked income it expects to receive as compensation from Boeing. In
April, Boeing abandoned its financial forecast for 2019 and missed
its quarterly earnings estimates for just the second time in five
years. (The entire 737 program accounts for almost one-third of
Boeing's operating profit.) On July 7, Saudi Arabia's Flyadeal
became the first airline to officially drop the 737 Max, reversing
a commitment to buy as many as 50. Virgin Australia has pushed back
delivery of its first 737 Max jets by almost two years. In
addition, there's the prospect of substantial payouts to the
families of passengers if Boeing is found responsible for the
crashes.

5. What legal action could Boeing face?

Claims have been filed by families of victims in both crashes.
Bloomberg Intelligence estimates Boeing's litigation risks in the
U.S. could amount to $1 billion. Boeing has offered $100 million
over several years as an "initial outreach" to support the families
of victims and others affected, and hired high-profile mediator
Kenneth Feinberg to distribute it. On other legal fronts, the U.S.
Justice Department expanded its probe to include a look into
manufacturing of another Boeing aircraft -- the 787 Dreamliner --
at a new plant in South Carolina. The U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission is investigating whether Boeing properly disclosed
issues tied to the 737 Max jetliners to investors. And Boeing faces
proposed class action lawsuits by pilots.

6. What does Boeing say?

Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg, who was criticized for a
subdued initial response to the tragedies, has apologized for the
accidents and said the situation "will continue to weigh heavily on
our hearts and on our minds for years to come." The company has
said it thinks the 737 Max will regain its position as the backbone
of its single-aisle fleet for many years to come.
7. How many 737 Maxes are out there?

Southwest says it has 34 in its fleet. Other major operators
include American (24) and Air Canada (24). Chinese airlines account
for about 20% of 737 Max deliveries globally. As of the end of
June, Boeing reported 387 deliveries of the single-aisle Max jets
to 48 airlines or leasing companies, with orders from around 80
operators for about 4,550 more. Most sales are the Max 8, the model
involved in both crashes. (There's also, from smallest to biggest,
a Max 7, 9 and 10.)

8. What do people think caused the crashes?

In both cases, pilots were likely overwhelmed by a new flight
control feature added to the Max known as the Maneuvering
Characteristics Augmentation System, or MCAS. The system kicked on
due to an erroneous sensor reading and pushed the plane's nose
downward. Pilots commanding the doomed Ethiopian Air jet were hit
with a cascade of malfunctions and alarms seconds after taking off
from the Ethiopian capital, according to a preliminary report.
Indonesia's preliminary report showed that maintenance and pilot
actions were also being reviewed.

9. What's the purpose of MCAS?

The system activates when the plane appears to be at risk of
stalling, a situation in which the wings are losing lift because
the jet is climbing too steeply. The use of new, bigger engines on
the 737 Max required Boeing's designers to mount the turbines
farther forward on the wings to give them proper ground clearance.
That changed the plane's center of gravity.

10. So what went wrong?

The software had a critical flaw: It relies on the reading from a
single sensor called the angle of attack vane, which measures the
nose of the plane against onrushing wind. Boeing said there was a
simple procedure for shutting off MCAS in case of malfunction. The
day before the Lion Air crash, an off-duty pilot on the same
aircraft recognized the problem and told the crew how to disable
the system, saving the plane.

11. Who approved this system?

The FAA gave final certification to the 737 Max in March 2017, and
it entered commercial service two months later. Under a program
established in 2005, the FAA had delegated to Boeing the authority
to perform some safety-certification work on its behalf. Some FAA
employees warned as far back as 2012 that Boeing had too much sway
over safety approvals of new aircraft. Boeing said in May that it
had known months before the Indonesia crash that the cockpit alert
wasn't working the way it had told buyers, but it didn't share that
with airlines or the FAA until after the Lion Air jet went down.
[GN]


BOTTOM LINE SOLUTIONS: Candelario Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Candelario, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bottom Line Solutions, Inc., Does 1-10, ABC
Corporations 1-10, ZYZ, LLC's 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01934
(S.D. Cal., October 5, 2019), seeks statutory damages, punitive
damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Bottomline specializes in organizational development. Candelario
claims to have received SMS Ads from Bottomline promoting their
services using an auto-dialer. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alex S. Madar, Esq.
      MADAR LAW CORPORATION
      14410 Via Venezia #1404
      San Diego, CA 92129
      Telephone: 858-299-5879
      Fax: 619-354-7281
      Email: alex@madarlaw.net


BROTHER INT'L: Friedman Sues over Laser Toner Cartridges
--------------------------------------------------------
ZEEV FRIEDMAN, ESQ. D/B/A THE FRIEDMAN LAW FIRM, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
BROTHER INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION C/O CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. CV 19 922736 (Ohio Common Pleas, Oct. 4,
2019), alleges that Brother denies users access to a significant
amount of toner in each laser toner cartridge it sells to maximize
profits on the sale of laser toner cartridges.

Brother laser printers will refuse to print once a laser toner
cartridge has completed a specific number of rotations. This is
true, even if the cartridge still has substantial additional
printing capacity.

Brother printers do not permit a consumer to disregard the
programming that requires the replacement of a toner cartridge,
despite the cartridge having substantial additional printing
capacity.

In other words, Brother printers do not simply advise consumers to
replace their toner cartridges, it requires them to do so.

In the context of consumer products that don't pose a substantial
risk of harm to the user, Brother's conduct appears unique. For
example, shingle manufacturers do not remove consumers' roofs after
the warranty on the shingles expires. Tire manufacturers do not
remotely deflate a consumer's tires after a certain number of
miles. Apple does not disable iPhones after they have processed a
specific amount of data. And, razor blade manufacturers do not
disable their razors after a certain number of shaves. But, when a
consumer purchases a Brother toner cartridge, Brother, without any
input from the consumer, decides exactly how many times that toner
cartridge will be permitted to rotate in the consumer's printer.

Brother has committed a trespass to chattels by denying Plaintiff
access to useable toner in his toner cartridges, the lawsuit says.

Brother sells laser printers and toner cartridges designed to be
used with its laser printers.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
          Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN C O., L.P.A.
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: (440)352-3391
          Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
          E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
                  nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
                  fbartela@dworkenlaw.com

CBL CORP: Glaister Ennor to Launch Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
BusinessDesk reports that an Australia-based litigation funder and
local law firm Glaister Ennor are about to launch a class action on
behalf of CBL Corp's shareholders, claiming failure to observe
disclosure rules from the time of the initial public offering in
September 2015.

CBL's shares were suspended from trading on both the NZX and ASX in
February last year after the company revealed the Reserve Bank had
been questioning its solvency for some time, certainly since July
2017, but that it had been bound by the central bank's
confidentiality order from telling the market any earlier.

CBL and its subsidiaries have since gone into liquidation.

CBL shares last traded at $3.17 on NZX before they were suspended,
valuing the company at $747.4 million.

ASX-listed IMF Bentham has agreed to fund the litigation against
CBL Corp and says it has support from a number of CBL's
institutional investors, although it won't name them. It is now
looking for retail shareholders to sign onto its action.

IMF Bentham investment manager Gavin Beardsell says the amount
sought will depend on how many shareholders sign onto the action,
the extent of their shareholdings, and the amount the courts deem
they have lost.

"It would be safe to say it would be tens of millions of dollars."

CBL had 1,071 shareholders as at Jan. 31, 2017, according to its
last filed annual report.

The last substantial shareholder notice filed by the largest
institutional shareholder, Harbour Asset Management, in
January 2018 showed it owned almost 17.3 million shares, or 7.3
percent of the company.

Companies Office records show that at Jan. 12, 2018, ACC owned
nearly 10.2 million shares, or 4.3 percent, while Forsyth Barr
Custodians held about 7.5 million shares, or 3.2 percent.

The 2015 float raised $125.3 million with 80.9 million shares sold
at $1.55 each.

The first liquidators' report filed in June by Neale Jackson and
Brendon Gibson of KordaMentha estimated CBL owed preferential
creditors $566,766, secured creditors $6.6 million and unsecured
creditors $172.8 million, including intercompany liabilities of
$26.2 million.

They said they were unable to reliably estimate CBL's assets but
that the amount that could be recovered from the subsidiaries would
be a key driver and two of the largest subsidiaries were under the
control of other insolvency officials.           

Beardsell says the litigation will proceed either with the
liquidators' consent or, failing that, Glaister Ennor will apply to
the New Zealand High Court for leave to proceed against the company
in liquidation.

"If we're successful, we anticipate there will be insurance to pay
any settlement or judgment," he says.

"We don't know who the insurer is and we intend to take steps at an
early stage" to find out.

He expects a statement of claim will be filed by the beginning of
November.

Glaister Ennor managing partner Jack Porus and his fellow partner
Mitch Singh will be the solicitors representing the shareholders
and they have engaged Philip Skelton, QC, as their barrister.

Skelton has been arguing the class action against Southern Response
on behalf of Brendan and Colleen Ross, who are represented by
solicitor Grant Cameron of GCA Lawyers.

Last month, the Court of Appeal ruled that that case could proceed
on an "opt-out" basis, meaning all the more than 3,000 people in
the same position as the Ross couple are automatically included
unless they actively opt out.

That's the first time a New Zealand court has allowed an opt-out
case and, if the Ross couple are successful, it will still require
an "opt-in" process to decide how much individual claimants are
entitled to.

However, the CBL case is being taken on an "opt-in" basis, meaning
only those shareholders who sign up to the suit will be entitled to
any settlement or judgment.

Beardsell says that's because New Zealand doesn't have "common fund
orders," the type of orders Australian courts generally make in
successful class action cases.

All the Australian class action cases to date have settled out of
court but settlements are still overseen by the courts.

By proceeding on an opt-in basis, "you know when you commence a
proceeding that you've already got sufficient sign-ups to make it
commercially viable. It removes the uncertainty that there
currently is in relation to common fund orders," Beardsell says.

One of CBL's likely defences will be the RBNZ confidentiality order
but the claim goes back much further than that to the IPO, he
says.

The Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013's disclosure requirements is
the particular law the case is based on. The claim will be that the
shareholders suffered loss and damage as a result of the company's
failure to abide by the act, particularly by failing to keep
shareholders properly informed about its French builders' insurance
business.

Beardsell says there may be causes of action against RBNZ and/or
the Financial Markets Authority - it became aware of the CBL
situation in 2017 - and against CBL's directors, but they're not
included in the action because "the short answer is we don't need
to" include them.

"It may be that there's also some fault by the regulators, but
there's no need for investors to complicate their claims at
increased cost," he says.

"The listed company had the statutory obligation of disclosure at
the time of the IPO" and subsequently.

One or more of the directors may be liable, "but if the company's
liable, that's all we need to establish."

Beardsell says he can't say what percentage of any settlement or
judgment his firm will collect if the suit succeeds but that will
depend on how long the case takes and the fees his firm incurs in
the meantime.

IMF Bentham claims an 89 percent success rate across 192 completed
cases over the past 17 years and Beardsell says claimants have
received more than 50 percent of the proceeds.

But without a funder such as IMF Bentham, it is unlikely such a
case would proceed.

"Typically, even institutional investors don't have any appetite to
pursue their own proceedings." [GN]


CHICAGO BREAD: Rivett Seeks Overtime Wages for Assistant Managers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA RIVETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHICAGO BREAD, L.L.C., a Missouri
limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06637
(N.D. Ill., Oct. 7, 2019), seeks to recover overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act  for Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees who have worked as Assistant Managers (AMs) for
Chicago Bread, L.L.C. in the State of Illinois.

The Defendant operates approximately 39 Panera Bread franchise
restaurant locations, all of which are located in Illinois. In each
of its restaurants, Defendant employs a combination of salaried and
hourly-paid employees. At the top of the store hierarchy are
"General Managers" who oversee and are responsible for day-to-day
store operations.

The Defendant also employs AMs such as Plaintiff, to work in its
restaurants. Ams report to, and are lower on the store hierarchy
than, the General Manager. Even though they are referred to by
Defendant as managers, AMs are not true managers and do not
exercise management authority. Instead, among other things, these
purported "managers" take customer orders, serve customers, cook
food, work the cash register, check inventory, clean the store, and
perform other non-managerial duties.

AMs, who are classified as exempt, are required to perform
non-exempt work in order to sufficiently service customers due to
Defendant's tight labor budgets.

The primary duty of the AM position is to perform non-exempt work
including manual labor and customer service tasks. The primary duty
of the AM position does not vary among Defendant's locations.

Despite the non-managerial nature of their job duties, at all
relevant times, Defendant improperly classified Plaintiff and
similarly situated AMs as exempt from federal overtime compensation
and, in the process, deprived them of overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

For much of her employment at Chicago Bread, the Plaintiff worked
approximately 45 hours per week but was not paid proper overtime
wages of time and a half for the hours that she worked in excess of
40 hours per week, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff and the putative FLSA Collective are:

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 0016
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com

CHIFFON'S KOSHER: Edmorin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Edmorin, on Behalf of himself And All Others Similarly
Situated v. CHIFFON'S KOSHER PASTRY SHOP II, INC. d/b/a CHIFFON'S
JOSHER CAKE CENTER, and LEVI KRAMER, Case No. 1:19-cv-06136
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019), is brought for damages and equitable
relief based upon the Defendants' violations of the Plaintiff's
rights guaranteed to him by the minimum and overtime wage
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Defendants required the Plaintiff to work, and the Plaintiff
did work, more than 40 hours per week. However, the Plaintiff
asserts, the Defendants failed to pay him at the minimum wage or
overtime rate of pay of one and one-half times his regular rate of
pay for each hour that he worked per week in excess of 40, as the
FLSA and the NYLL require. Furthermore, the Defendants failed to
pay the Plaintiff for his spread of hours in violation of NYLL,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from September 15, 2012, to
August 15, 2013.

The Defendants own and operate a Kosher Bakery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amit Kumar, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 583-7400
          Email: AKumar@Cafaroesq.com


CITYGATE HOSPITALITY: Nelson Sues Over Use of Biometric data
------------------------------------------------------------
LIDIA NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITYGATE HOSPITALITY LLC Formerly known as
CGC MANAGEMENT LLC and HOTEL ARISTA MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2019L001163 (Ill. Cir., Oct. 16, 2019), seeks
to put a stop to the Defendants' unlawful collection, use, and
storage of the Plaintiff's and the putative Class members'
sensitive biometric data.

According to the complaint, when employees work at Citygate, they
are required to scan their fingerprint in its biometric time
tracking system as a means of authentication, instead of using only
key fobs or other identification cards. While there are tremendous
benefits to using biometric time clocks in the workplace, there are
also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or identification cards, which
can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised, fingerprints
are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with the
employee. This exposes employees to serious and irreversible
privacy risks.

The Plaintiff notes that for example, if a fingerprint database is
hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed, employees have no means by
which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking. If a
database containing fingerprints or other sensitive, proprietary
biometric data is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed--like in
the recent Yahoo, eBay, Equifax, Uber, Home Depot, MyFitnessPal,
Panera, Whole Foods, Chipotle, Omni Hotels & Resorts, Trump Hotels,
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.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois
citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints.  Despite this law,
Citygate disregards its employees' statutorily protected privacy
rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric
data in violation of the BIPA, the lawsuit says.

Specifically, Citygate has violated (and continues to violate) the
BIPA because it did not:

   * properly inform the Plaintiff and the Class members in
     writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which
     their fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used,
     as required by the BIPA;

   * provide a publicly available retention schedule and
     guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff and the
     Class's fingerprints, as required by the BIPA; nor

   * receive a written release from the Plaintiff or the members
     of the Class to collect, capture, or otherwise obtain
     fingerprints, as required by the BIPA.

The Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages under BIPA as compensation
for the injuries Citygate has caused.

Citygate is an Illinois limited liability company. It operates
Hotel Arista, CityGate Grille, restaurant Che Figate, Zorba
Cocktail Bar, Tap in Pub, a Lavazza coffee and gelato shop, Kafenio
restaurant, Arista Spa & Salon, and Olympus Executive Fitness
Center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          Thalia Pacheco, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: 630 355 7590
          Facsimile: 630.778.0400
          E-mail: admin@fishlawfirm.com
                  dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  kunze@fishlawfirm.com
                  tpacheco@fishlawfirm.com


COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE: Ladriye Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Ladriye, and Joe Banks, On behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated v. COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE PROFESSIONALS INC., a
Florida Profit Corporation d/b/a TRIMAC OUTDOOR; TODD MURPHY,
Individually; and JOSH FLETCHER, Individually, Case No.
2:19-cv-00789-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla, Oct. 31, 2019), is brought to
recover from the Defendants overtime pay as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that they worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours within a workweek but they were not paid an overtime
premium for their overtime hours. The Defendants failed and/or
refused to properly compensate the Plaintiffs at a rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a single workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendants as non-exempt
laborers.

Defendant Trimac is a landscaping company, which operates n
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Rd., Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Phone: (954) 327-5369
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
          Email: amurthy@forthepeople.com


COMMUNICATIONS UNLIMITED: Fair Suit Gets Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case TACITA FAIR, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. COMMUNICATIONS UNLIMITED,
INC., et al., Defendant(s), Case No. 4:17CV02391 SRC, (E.D. Mo.),
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division:

   (i) granted Fair's Motion to Conditionally Certify FLSA
       Collective Action; and

  (ii) denied Fair's Second Motion to Toll FLSA Statute of
       Limitations.

In September 2017, Plaintiff Tacita Fair filed a collective action
and class action against Communications Unlimited Inc., et al.,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
Missouri Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff alleges Defendants
misclassified employees as independent contractors to avoid paying
overtime rates.

Defendants include C.U. Employment, Inc., Communications Unlimited
Contracting Services, Inc., Communications Unlimited Alabama, Inc.
("CUA"), and Martin Rocha (collectively "Defendants"). The Court
dismissed Communications Unlimited, Inc. from this case and it is
not included in "Defendants."

Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion to toll the statute of
limitations.  In February 2018, Plaintiff amended its Motion to
Toll.

Around September 2018, the Court partially granted Plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification.  The Court conditionally
certified a class of technicians who installed cable on behalf of
CUA.  The Court ordered Plaintiff to submit additional declarations
for technicians working for other subcontractors to determine if
they should be included in the class as well.

On July 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed 21 additional declarations in
support of her motion for conditional certification. The same day
she filed the pending motion to toll the statute of limitations.
The motions for conditional certification and to toll the statute
of limitations became fully briefed on August 5, 2019.

In her second motion to toll the statute of limitations, Plaintiff
asks the Court to toll the statute of limitations for potential
opt-in plaintiffs from September 11, 2017 (the date she filed her
motion for conditional certification) until the Court authorizes
dissemination of notice and consent to join forms in the case.

The Court opines, "The procedural history of the case indicates no
exceptional circumstances exist to warrant equitable tolling. The
delays in the case result from ordinary discovery disputes and time
allowed for court rulings, common in all types of litigation.
Plaintiff has not met her burden to satisfy that she diligently
pursued her rights and that some extraordinary circumstance,
sufficient to contravene the express statutory bar, stood in her
way." Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion to toll the
statute of limitations.

The Court states that as in the declarations submitted with the
Plaintiff's first motion for conditional certification, in each of
these declarations, the Technicians stated that they were issued
1099s for independent contractors; assigned one or two-hour time
frames in which to complete work; required to maintain and report
metrics; required to wear "Communications Unlimited" uniform shirts
and carry an identification badge; provided with equipment from a
Communications Unlimited facility; and denied overtime pay despite
working more than forty hours per week. These technicians worked in
14 different states and the District of Columbia. Together with the
complaint, these declarations provide "substantial allegations"
that Defendants had a "single decision, policy, or plan," to
classify Technicians at all of its offices and with all of its
subcontractors as independent contractors, the Court finds As a
result, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification of all Technicians who installed cable for
subcontractors of Defendants.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxupr649
from Leagle.com

Charter Communications, Inc., Movant, represented by John S.
Kingston -- jkingston@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN, LLP.

Tacita Fair, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin J. Dolley , LAW OFFICES
OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC & Michael G. Mueth , LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN
J. DOLLEY, LLC.

C.U. Employment, Inc., Communications Unlimited Contracting
Services, Inc. & Martin C. Rocha, Defendants, represented by Steven
H. Schwartz -- shs@kellerthoma.com -- BROWN AND JAMES, P.C.

Communications Unlimited Alabama, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Fredrick J. Ludwig , LUDWIG LAW FIRM, LLC.


CONNECTICUT: Court Certifies Osborne Inmates Class in Toliver Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
issued a Ruling granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
in the case captioned SEAN TOLIVER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SEMPLE,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-1899 (SRU), (D. Conn.).

Sean Toliver initiated the action against various members of the
Connecticut Department of Correction in November 2016, alleging
unconstitutional conditions of confinement at Osborn Correctional
Institution.  Since the filing of the Toliver complaint, 19 other
cases have been consolidated with the case and the consolidated
plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint in September 2018.
The consolidated plaintiffs are current or former inmates housed in
the "Q Buildings" at Osborne and allege unconstitutional conditions
of confinement because they were exposed to excessive levels of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), friable asbestos, and
contaminated water.

Plaintiffs moved for class certification on one class and one
sub-class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

After considering the motions and arguments presented, the District
Court granted the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and
the following classes and subclass are certified:

   (1) Contaminated Water Class comprised of all current and
       former inmates of Osborn who, from November 19, 2013
       through the present, have had to drink and shower in tap
       water from one or more of the onsite wells at Osborn,
       whether or not such current or former inmates were housed
       in the Q Buildings.

   (2) Q Buildings Subclass comprised of all current and former
       inmates of Osborn who were housed in the Q Buildings from
       November 19, 2013 through the closing of the Q Buildings
       in or around December 2016, who may have been exposed to
       PCBs and friable asbestos.

The named plaintiffs in the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint
are named as class representatives, the Court rules.

Furthermore, Attorney Lorey Rives Leddy and Attorney David Friedman
of Murtha Cullina LLP are appointed as class counsel, the Court
orders.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Ruling
is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y5enbp8f from Leagle.com

Sean Toliver, Plaintiff, represented by David Paul Friedman -
dfriedman@murthalaw.com - Murtha Cullina, LLP & Lorey Rives Leddy -
lleddy@murthalaw.com - Murtha Cullina.

Anthony C. Wade, Sr., Jeremy Louis Barney, Osbert TeekaSingh, Luis
Claudio, James Babulsky, Randal Licari, Jose Pesante, Roger
Johnson, Harold Rogers, John F. Moore, Anthony R. Johnson, Marcos
A. Rivera, Tyshun Williams, Zion T Webb, Williams Boo, Kenneth
Carter, Jose Rivera & Timothy Monroe, Consol Plaintiffs,
represented by David Paul Friedman , Murtha Cullina, LLP & Lorey
Rives Leddy , Murtha Cullina.

Courtney Green & Norman Jennings, Consol Plaintiffs, represented by
Lorey Rives Leddy , Murtha Cullina.

Semple, Commissioner, Lieutenant, Arnone, Commissioner, Cepelak,
Deputy Commissioner, Dzurenda, Deputy Commissioner, Maldonado,
Warden, Osborn, Gero, Fire Safety Officer, Kevin Roy, Plant
Facilities Engineer II, Stephen Link, Director, Rich Hardy, Head of
Maintance, Goodwin, GMO, Trapp, GMO, Chapdelaine, Warden, Martin,
GMO, Sullivan, GMO, Bassette, GMO & Bell, GMO, Defendants,
represented by Carmel A. Motherway , Attorney General's Office &
Steven M. Barry , Office of the Attorney General.

Marro Acosta, Defendant, represented by Carmel A. Motherway ,
Attorney General's Office.
Carol Chapdelaine, Warden, Rebecca Cutler, Analyst, Daniel Esty,
DEEP Commissioner, Collin Provost, President of Union (C/O's),
Rebecca Culter, Environmental Analyst II, Gary Johnson, Public
Health, Jewel Mullan, Commissioner of Public Health, Colon,
Captain, (Individual and Official Capacity), Jennotte, Captain,
(Individual and Official Capacity), Ce1/2elak, Deputy Commissioner,
Trap, GMO, David Bell, Maintenance Officer, Wlater Sullivan,
Correctional Officer, Miquel Acosta, Correctional Officer, Roger
Denino, Correctional Officer, Robert Jordan, Correctional Officer,
Richard Hardy, Steve Link, Director, Scott Semple, Commissioner,
Monica Rinaldi, Deputy Commissioner & Nick Rodriquez, Deputy
Warden, Consol Defendants, represented by Carmel A. Motherway ,
Attorney General's Office.

Carol Chapdelaine, Warden, Rebecca Cutler, Analyst, Daniel Esty,
DEEP Commissioner, Collin Provost, President of Union (C/O's),
Rebecca Culter, Environmental Analyst II, Gary Johnson, Public
Health, Jewel Mullan, Commissioner of Public Health, Colon,
Captain, (Individual and Official Capacity), Jennotte, Captain,
(Individual and Official Capacity), Ce1/2elak, Deputy Commissioner,
Trap, GMO, David Bell, Maintenance Officer, Wlater Sullivan,
Correctional Officer, Miquel Acosta, Correctional Officer, Roger
Denino, Correctional Officer, Robert Jordan, Correctional Officer,
Richard Hardy, Steve Link, Director, Scott Semple, Commissioner,
Monica Rinaldi, Deputy Commissioner & Nick Rodriquez, Deputy
Warden, Consol Defendants, represented by Carmel A. Motherway ,
Attorney General's Office.

Mario Costa, Dinino, Correctional Officer, Jordan, Correctional
Officer, Ward & Timothy Carey, Environmental Analyst III, Consol
Defendants, represented by Carmel A. Motherway , Attorney General's
Office & Steven M. Barry , Office of the Attorney General.


CONOPCO INC: Been Product Suit Removed to E.D. Mo.
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Carla Been, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Conopco, Inc. and Does 1
through 10, Defendants, Case No. 19SL-CC02857 filed in Missouri
Circuit Court on July 14, 2019 was removed to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri under Case No.
19-cv-02703.

Been's suit claims for breach of warranty, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, violations of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act and injunctive relief in connection
with the sale of Degree-branded MotionSense UltraClear Black +
White women's antiperspirant sprays that are manufactured by
Conopco.  Been alleges that these products contain aluminum
chlorohydrate that allegedly causes white marks and yellow stain on
clothes. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel F. Harvath, Esq.
      HARVATH LAW GROUP, LLC
      75 W. Lockwood
      Webster Groves MO 63119
      Email: (314) 550-3717
      Fax: (314) 450-8156
      Email: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com

Conopco is represented by

      James P. Muehlberger, Esq.
      Douglas B. Maddock, Jr., Esq.
      SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
      2555 Grand Boulevard
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Telephone: (816) 474-6550
      Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
      Email: jmuehlberger@shb.com
             dmaddock@shb.com


CONSUMERS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend itself in class action suits related to gas
index price reporting.

CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company
(CMS MST), CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and
Cantera Gas Company, were named as defendants in four class action
lawsuits and one individual lawsuit arising as a result of alleged
inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications that report
trade information.

Allegations include price‑fixing conspiracies, restraint of
trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in
Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin. In 2016, CMS Energy entities
reached a settlement with the plaintiffs in the Kansas and Missouri
class action cases for an amount that was not material to CMS
Energy. In 2017, the federal district court approved the
settlement. Plaintiffs are making claims for the following: treble
damages, full consideration damages, exemplary damages, costs,
interest, and/or attorneys' fees.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to a single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrict
litigation process. In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS Energy
defendants were dismissed by the district court based on FERC
preemption.

In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the district court decision. The appellate court found that FERC
preemption does not apply under the facts of these cases. The
appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of leave to
amend to add federal antitrust claims. The matter was appealed to
the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2015 upheld the Ninth Circuit's
decision. The cases were remanded back to the federal district
court.

In 2016, the federal district court granted the defendants' motion
for summary judgment in the individual lawsuit filed in Kansas
based on a release in a prior settlement involving similar
allegations; the order of summary judgment was subsequently
appealed. In March 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the lower court's ruling and remanded the case
back to the federal district court.

In 2017, the federal district court denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the two pending class action cases in
Wisconsin. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and in August 2018, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the matter back to
the federal district court for further consideration.

In January 2019, the judge in the multidistrict litigation granted
motions filed by plaintiffs for Suggestion of Remand of the actions
back to the respective transferor courts in Wisconsin and Kansas
for further handling.

In the Kansas action, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered the remand and the case has been transferred. In
the Wisconsin actions, oppositions to the remand were filed, but
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the remand
in June 2019.

Consumers Energy said, "These cases involve complex facts, a large
number of similarly situated defendants with different factual
positions, and multiple jurisdictions. Presently, any estimate of
liability would be highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's
reasonably possible loss would be based on widely varying models
previously untested in this context. If the outcome after appeals
is unfavorable, these cases could negatively affect CMS Energy's
liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations."

Consumers Energy Company operates as an electric and gas utility in
Michigan. The company operates Electric Utility and Gas Utility
segments. The Electric Utility segment generates, purchases,
transmits, distributes, and sells electricity. The company was
founded in 1886 and is based in Jackson, Michigan. Consumers Energy
Company is a subsidiary of CMS Energy Corporation.


CORELOGIC INC: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Feleciano Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company has
filed a petition for review of the certification order to the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the class action suit entitled,
Claudinne Feliciano, et. al., v. CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC, and the
same is pending.

In July 2017, Rental Property Solutions, LLC ("RPS") was named as a
defendant in Claudinne Feliciano, et. al., v. CoreLogic SafeRent,
LLC, a putative class action lawsuit in the US District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The named plaintiff alleges that RPS prepared a background
screening report about her that contained a record of a New York
Housing Court action without noting that the action had previously
been dismissed.

On this basis, she seeks damages under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act and the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act on behalf of herself
and a class of similarly situated consumers with respect to reports
issued during the period of July 2015 to the present.

In July 2019, the District Court issued an order certifying a class
of approximately 2,000 consumers.

CoreLogic said, "We have filed a petition for review of the
certification order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The
petition is pending."

CoreLogic, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides property
information, insight, analytics, and data-enabled solutions in
North America, Western Europe, and the Asia Pacific. The company
operates in two segments, Property Intelligence & Risk Management
Solutions (PIRM) and Underwriting & Workflow Solutions (UWS). The
company was formerly known as The First American Corporation and
changed its name to CoreLogic, Inc. in June 2010. CoreLogic, Inc.
was incorporated in 1894 and is headquartered in Irvine,
California.


CVS PHARMACY: Class Settlement in Worth Suit Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York has granted final approval of the proposed class settlement in
the matter of Jeffrey Worth and Robert Burns, Plaintiffs, v. CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., a Rhode Island Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-00498-SMG, (E.D.N.Y.).

The Court finds that all requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a),
(b)(2) and (b)(3) have been satisfied in the proposed settlement.

The Court certifies a Settlement Class of all consumers in the
United States who purchased one or more Algal-900 DHA Products,
containing, on the label, and/or on the packaging, the claim that
it is "clinically shown to improve memory" or offers "clinically
shown memory improvement," on or after November 15, 2008, through
September 30, 2016.

Excluded from membership of the Settlement Class are Defendant and
its past and present parents, subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates,
assignors, predecessors, successors and assigns; the past and
present partners, shareholders, managers, members, directors,
officers, employees, agents, attorneys, insurers, accountants and
representatives of any and all of the foregoing entities; any
government entities; and persons who purchased the Algal-900 DHA
Product for the purpose of resale.

The Court confirms plaintiffs Jeffrey Worth and Robert Burns as
Class Representatives. Based on the Settlement Agreement and the
declarations filed in support of final approval, the Court finds
that Class Representatives Worth and Burns are each entitled to an
incentive award for their time and risk in serving as Class
Representatives in the amount of $2,500 each, for a total in
incentive awards of $5,000.

Center for Science in the Public Interest; Kaplan, Fox &
Kilsheimer, LLP; Reese LLP; and, Mehri & Skalet, PLLC are appointed
as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g), the Court rules.  The
Court further awards the amount of $447,000 to Class Counsel for
fees and costs, to be apportioned as agreed among Class Counsel.

The Court confirms the appointment of KCC LLC to administer and
oversee, among other things, the processing, handling, reviewing,
and approving of claims made by Claimants; communicating with
Claimants; and distributing payments to qualified Claimants.

In order to receive a refund or reimbursement from CVS, members of
the Settlement Class must mail to the Claims Administrator, or
submit electronically online through the Settlement Website, a
properly executed Claim Form. To be effective, any such Claim Form
must be postmarked or submitted electronically online through the
Settlement Website no later than December 12, 2019, and must
otherwise comply with the procedures and instructions set forth in
the Claim Form.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Order
is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y3gyjhqj from Leagle.com

Jeffrey Worth & Robert Burns, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by George Volney
Granade, II - ggranade@reesellp.com - Reese LLP, Maia Caplan Kats -
mkats@kaplanfox.com - Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, pro hac vice,
Craig L. Briskin - mkats@kaplanfox.com - Mehri & Skalet, PLLC,
Matthew B. Simon - msimon@cspinet.org - Center for Science in the
Public Interest, William D. Thanhauser , Center for Science in the
Public Interest & Michael Robert Reese - mreese@reesellp.com -
Reese LLP.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Frank Thomas Spano ,
Polsinelli PC & Courtney Lynne Colligan , Hogan Lovells LLP.


DESIGNER BRANDS: Camacho Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Camacho, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DESIGNER BRANDS INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-06173 (E.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 31, 2019), arises from the Defendant's failure to sell to
consumers store gift cards that contain writing in Braille so they
will be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

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

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

The Defendant owns, operates and/or controls multiple retail store
locations in the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darryn Solotoff, Esq.
          Jonathan Bell, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DARRYN SOLOTOFF PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 208
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 280-3008
          Email: ds@lawsolo.net
                 JW@BellLG.com

               - and -

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


DROPBOX, INC: IPO Documents Misleading, Pikal Says
--------------------------------------------------
BRYAN PIKAL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. DROPBOX, INC., ANDREW W. HOUSTON, AJAY
V. VASHEE, TIMOTHY J. REGAN, ARASH FERDOWSI, ROBERT J. MYLOD, JR.,
DONALD W. BLAIR, PAUL E. JACOBS, CONDOLEEZZA RICE, R. BRYAN
SCHREIER, MARGARET C. WHITMAN, SEQUOIA CAPITAL XII, L.P., SEQUOIA
CAPITAL XII PRINCIPALS FUND, LLC, SEQUOIA TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS XII,
L.P., SC XII MANAGEMENT, LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., MERRILL LYNCH,
PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, RBC
CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, JEFFERIES LLC, MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC.,
CANACCORD GENUITY LLC, JMP SECURITIES LLC, KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS
INC., and PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-06360-JSW (N.D. Cal., Oct. 4, 2019), is a federal
securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities,
other than Defendants, who purchased Dropbox Class A common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement
issued in connection with the Company's March 23, 2018 initial
public offering.

On February 23, 2018, Dropbox filed a registration statement for
the IPO on Form S-20, which, after several amendments, was declared
effective on March 22, 2018. On March 23, 2018, Dropbox filed the
prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4, which incorporated and formed
part of the Registration Statement. By way of the Registration
Statement, Defendants offered and sold 41.4 million Class A shares
at $21 per share for over $869 million in gross offering proceeds,
which included the full exercise of the Underwriter Defendants'
over-allotment option to sell an additional 5.4 million shares. In
addition, the Company conducted a private offering of Class A stock
concurrently with the IPO in which it sold over 4.7 million shares
to an institutional investor for an additional $100 million in
gross proceeds. Numerous Company insiders, including certain of the
Individual Defendants, also sold stock in the IPO, raking in more
than $184 million after applicable underwriting discounts. The
Underwriter Defendants received more than $38.6 million in
underwriting discounts and fees from the IPO proceeds, and several,
including lead underwriters Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan, received
tens of millions of dollars more as a result of payments by Dropbox
towards a revolving credit facility maintained by these investment
banks.

The Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a
result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to
state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and
regulations governing its preparation.

Since the IPO, and as a result of the disclosure of material
adverse facts omitted from Dropbox's Registration Statement,
Dropbox’s stock price has fallen below its IPO price, damaging
Plaintiff and Class members, the lawsuit says.

Dropbox is a file-sharing service that allows users to store and
share files over the Internet.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

DS SERVICES: Faces Hunter Suit Over Failure to Pay All Wages Due
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHAD HUNTER v. DS SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., a Delaware
corporation, formerly doing business as DS WATERS OF AMERICA, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV39110 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 31, 2019), is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all similarly-situated employees, seeking relief
against the Defendants for its failure to:

   * pay all wages due, including regular and overtime wages;
   * provide meal periods or premium compensation in lieu thereof;
   * provide rest periods or premium compensation;
   * provide accurate itemized wage statements; and
   * pay wages due upon termination of employment.

The Defendants knew or should have known that the Plaintiff and
Aggrieved Employees were entitled to receive wages for all hours
worked, including minimum, regular, and overtime wages, and that
they were not receiving all wages earned for work that was required
to be performed, says the complaint.

Mr. Hunter began his employment with the Defendant in January as a
route sales representative.

The Defendant provides distribution services to clients throughout
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


EQUIFAX: Spent $1.4-Bil. on Cleanup Costs Following Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joash Fruhlinger, writing for CSO, reports that in March 2017,
personally identifying data of hundreds of millions of people was
stolen from Equifax, one of the credit reporting agencies that
assess the financial health of nearly everyone in the United
States.

As we'll see, the breach spawned a number of scandals and
controversies: Equifax was criticized for everything ranging from
their lax security posture to their bumbling response to the
breach, and top executives were accused of corruption in the
aftermath. And the question of who was behind the breach has
serious implications for the global political landscape.

How did the Equifax breach happen?

Like plane crashes, major infosec disasters are typically the
result of multiple failures. The Equifax breach investigation
highlighted a number of security lapses that allowed attackers to
enter supposedly secure systems and exfiltrate terabytes of data.

Most of the discussion in this section and the subsequent one comes
from two documents: A detailed report from the U.S. General
Accounting Office, and an in-depth analysis from Bloomberg
Businessweek based on sources inside the investigation. A top-level
picture of how the Equifax data breach happened looks like this:

   * The company was initially hacked via a consumer complaint web
portal, with the attackers using a widely known vulnerability that
should have been patched but, due to failures in Equifax's internal
processes, wasn't.

   * The attackers were able to move from the web portal to other
servers because the systems weren't adequately segmented from one
another, and they were able to find usernames and passwords stored
in plain text that then allowed them to access still further
systems.

   * The attackers pulled data out of the network in encrypted form
undetected for months because Equifax had crucially failed to renew
an encryption certificate on one of their internal security tools.

   * Equifax did not publicize the breach until more than a month
after they discovered it had happened; stock sales by top
executives around this time gave rise to accusations of insider
trading.

To understand how exactly all these crises intersected, let's take
a look at how the events unfolded.

When did the Equifax breach happen?

The crisis began in March of 2017. In that month, a vulnerability,
dubbed CVE-2017-5638, was discovered in Apache Struts, an open
source development framework for creating enterprise Java
applications that Equifax, along with thousands of other websites,
uses. If attackers sent HTTP requests with malicious code tucked
into the content-type header, Struts could be tricked into
executing that code, and potentially opening up the system Struts
was running on to further intrusion. On March 7, the Apache
Software Foundation released a patch for the vulnerabilities; on
March 9, Equifax administrators were told to apply the patch to any
affected systems, but the employee who should have done so didn't.
Equifax's IT department ran a series of scans that were supposed to
identify unpatched systems on March 15; there were in fact multiple
vulnerable systems, including the aforementioned web portal, but
the scans seemed to have not worked, and none of the vulnerable
systems were flagged or patched.

While it isn't clear why the patching process broke down at this
point, it's worth noting what was happening at Equifax that same
month, according to Bloomberg Businessweek: Unnerved by a series of
incidents in which criminals had used Social Security numbers
stolen from elsewhere to log into Equifax sites, the credit agency
had hired the security consulting firm Mandiant to assess their
systems. Mandiant warned Equifax about multiple unpatched and
misconfigured systems, and the relationship devolved into in
acrimony within a few weeks.

Forensics analyzed after the fact revealed that the initial Equifax
data breach date was March 10, 2017: that was when the web portal
was first breached via the Struts vulnerability. However, the
attackers don't seem to have done much of anything immediately. It
wasn't until May 13, 2017 - in what Equifax referred to in the GAO
report as a "separate incident" — that attackers began moving
from the compromised server into other parts of the network and
exfiltrating data in earnest. (We'll revisit this time gap later,
as it's important to the question of who the attackers were.)

From May through July of 2017, the attackers were able to gain
access to multiple Equifax databases containing information on
hundreds of millions of people; as noted, a number of poor data
governance practices made their romp through Equifax's systems
possible. But how were they able to remove all that data without
being noticed? We've now arrived at another egregious Equifax
screwup. Like many cyberthieves, Equifax's attackers encrypted the
data they were moving in order to make it harder for admins to
spot; like many large enterprises, Equifax had tools that
decrypted, analyzed, and then re-encrypted internal network
traffic, specifically to sniff out data exfiltration events like
this. But in order to re-encrypt that traffic, these tools need a
public-key certificate, which is purchased from third parties and
must be annually renewed. Equifax had failed to renew one of their
certificates nearly 10 months previously - which meant that
encrypted traffic wasn't being inspected.

The expired certificate wasn't discovered and renewed until July
29, 2019, at which point Equifax administrators almost immediately
began noticing all that previously obfuscated suspicious activity;
this was when Equifax first knew about the breach.

It took another full month of internal investigation before Equifax
publicized the breach, on September 8, 2017. Many top Equifax
executives sold company stock in early August, raising suspicions
that they had gotten ahead of the inevitable decline in stock price
that would ensue when all the information came out. They were
cleared, though one lower-level exec was charged with insider
trading.

What data was compromised and how many people were affected?

Equifax specifically traffics in personal data, and so the
information that was compromised and spirited away by the attackers
was quite in-depth and covered a huge number of people. It
potentially affected 143 million people -- more than 40 percent of
the population of the United States -- whose names, addresses,
dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and drivers' licenses
numbers were exposed. A small subset of the records -- on the order
of about 200,000 -- also included credit card numbers; this group
probably consisted of people who had paid Equifax directly in order
to order to see their own credit report.

According to an analysis released by OpenAI, the demand for
computing power has increased by more than 300,000 times in the six
years after 2012.

This last factor is somewhat ironic, as the people concerned enough
about their credit score to pay Equifax to look at it also had the
most personal data stolen, which could lead to fraud that would
then damage their credit score. But a funny thing happened as the
nation braced itself for the wave of identity theft and fraud that
seemed inevitable after this breach: it never happened. And that
has everything to do with the identity of the attackers.

Who was responsible for the Equifax data breach?

As soon as the Equifax breach was announced, infosec experts began
keeping tabs on dark web sites, waiting for huge dumps of data that
might be connected to it. They waited, and waited, but the data
never appeared. This gave rise to what's become a widely accepted
theory: that Equifax was breached by Chinese state-sponsored
hackers whose purpose was espionage, not theft.

Equifax breach by the numbers

76 days: Amount of time during which the attackers were active
within Equifax's networks without being discovered

143 million: Number of consumers whose data was potentially
affected by the breach

$125: The most you can expect to get in compensation if your data
was exfiltrated from Equifax's systems

$1.4 billion: Amount Equifax has spent on upgrading its security in
the wake of the incident

0: Number of fraud or identity theft cases that can be traced back
to this incident

The Bloomberg Businessweek analysis follows these lines and points
to a number of additional clues beyond the fact that the stolen
data never seems to have leaked. For instance, recall that the
initial breach on March 10 was followed by more than two months of
inactivity before attackers began abruptly moving onto high-value
targets within Equifax's network. Investigators believe that the
first incursion was achieved by relatively inexperienced hackers
who were using a readily available hacking kit that had been
updated to take advantage of the Struts vulnerability, which was
only a few days old at that point and easy to exploit. They may
have found the unpatched Equifax server using a scanning tool and
not realized how potentially valuable the company they had breached
was. Eventually, unable to get much further beyond their initial
success, they sold their foothold to more skilled attackers, who
used a variety of techniques associated with Chinese state-backed
hackers to get access to the confidential data.

And why would the Chinese government be interested in Equifax's
data records?

Investigators tie the attack into two other big breaches that
similarly didn't result in a dump of personally identifying data on
the dark web: the 2015 hack of the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management, and the 2018 hack of Marriott's Starwood hotel brands.
All are assumed to be part of an operation to build a huge "data
lake" on millions of Americans, with the intention of using big
data techniques to learn about U.S. government officials and
intelligence operatives.

How did Equifax handle the breach?

At any rate, once the breach was publicized, Equifax's immediate
response did not win many plaudits. Among their stumbles was
setting up a separate dedicated domain, equifaxsecurity2017.com, to
host the site with information and resources for those potentially
affected. These sorts of lookalike domains are often used by
phishing scams, so asking customers to trust this one was a
monumental failure in infosec procedure. Worse, on multiple
occasions official Equifax social media accounts erroneously
directed people to securityequifax2017.com instead; fortunately,
the person who had snapped up that URL used it for good, directing
the 200,000 (!) visitors it received to the correct site.

Meanwhile, the real equifaxsecurity2017.com breach site was judged
insecure by numerous observers, and may have just been telling
everyone that they were affected by the breach whether they really
were or not. Language on the site (later retracted by Equifax)
implied that just by checking to see if you were affected meant
that you were giving up your right to sue over it. And in the end,
if you were affected, you were directed to enroll in an Equifax ID
protection service -- for free, but how much do you trust the
company at this point?

What happened to Equifax after the data breach?

What, ultimately, was the Equifax breach's impact? Well, the upper
ranks of Equifax's C-suite rapidly turned over. Legislation
sponsored by Elizabeth Warren and others that would've imposed
fines on credit-reporting agencies that get hacked went nowhere in
the Senate.

That doesn't mean the Equifax breach cost the company nothing,
though. Two years after the breach, the company said it had spent
$1.4 billion on cleanup costs, including "incremental costs to
transform our technology infrastructure and improve application,
network, [and] data security." In June 2019, Moody's downgraded the
company's financial rating in part because of the massive amounts
it would need to spend on infosec in the years to come. In July
2019 the company reached a record-breaking settlement with the FTC,
which wrapped up an ongoing class action lawsuit and will require
Equifax to spend at least $1.38 billion to resolve consumer
claims.

Was I affected by the Equifax breach?

This was a lot of anguish just to find out if you were one of the
unlucky 40 percent of Americans whose data was stolen in the hack.
Things have settled down in the subsequent years, and now there's a
new site where you can check to see if you're affected, with yet
another somewhat confusing name:
eligibility.equifaxbreachsettlement.com/en/Eligibility.

That settlement eligibility website actually isn't hosted by
Equifax at all; instead, it's from the FTC.

How does the Equifax settlement work?

The Equifax settlement dangles the prospect that you might get a
check for your troubles, but there are some catches. The settlement
mandates that Equifax compensate anyone affected by the breach with
credit monitoring services; Equifax wants you to sign up for their
own service, of course, and while they will also give you a $125
check to go buy those services from somewhere else, you have to
show that you do have alternate coverage to get the money (though
you could sign up for a free service).

More cash is available if you've actually lost money from identity
theft or spent significant amounts of time dealing with the
fallout, but here, too, documentation is required. And that $125 is
just a maximum; it almost certainly will go down if too many people
request checks.

What are the lessons learned from the Equifax breach?

If we wanted to make a case study of the Equifax breach, what
lessons would we pull from it? These seem to be the big ones:

Get the basics right. No network is invulnerable. But Equifax was
breached because it failed to patch a basic vulnerability, despite
having procedures in place to make sure such patches were applied
promptly. And huge amounts of data was exfiltrated unnoticed
because someone neglected to renew a security certificate. Equifax
had spent millions on security gear, but it was poorly implemented
and managed.

Silos are defensible. Once the attackers were inside the perimeter,
they were able to move from machine to machine and database to
database. If they had been restricted to a single machine, the
damage would've been much less.

Data governance is key -- especially if data is your business.
Equifax's databases could've been stingier in giving up their
contents. For instance, users should only be given access to
database content on a "need to know basis"; giving general access
to any "trusted" users means that an attacker can seize control of
those user accounts and run wild. And systems need to keep an eye
out for weird behavior; the attackers executed up to 9,000 database
queries very rapidly, which should've been a red flag. [GN]


EURODESIGN AND STONE: Kel-Mar Designs Sues Over Contract Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEL-MAR DESIGNS, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated as Lien Law Trust Beneficiaries of the Trust which
EURODESIGN AND STONE LLC and/or EURODECOR AND STONE LLC are
Trustees v. EURODESIGN AND STONE LLC, EURODECOR AND STONE, SONER
KONAKCI, KADIR SALIH OZEN, and SERHAN "SERGIO" YARAR, Case No.
656425/2019 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Oct. 31, 2019), is brought
for breach of contract and violation of Article 3-A of the New York
State Lien Law.

The Plaintiff and Eurodesign entered into a written trade contract,
date June 6, 2019, pursuant to which the Plaintiff, as general
contractor, hired Eurodesign as a masonry subcontractor to perform
masonry contracting work and to supply labor material for the
improvement of certain real property in connection with a
construction project in Brooklyn, New York. The total contract
price for the Trade Contract was $1,069,314.

The Plaintiff paid Eurodesign the sum of $244,536.32 of the total
contract price for materials to be furnished and supplied on the
Project. Eurodesign acknowledged the payment and executed a Partial
Affidavit and Waiver of Lien in exchange for the payment.
Notwithstanding the Defendants' execution of the Waivers of Lien,
the Plaintiff subsequently learned that Eurodesign had not paid at
least one of its supplier for which the first payment of
$244,536.32 had been expressly paid to of $244,536.32 for that
purpose.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have caused $1,000,000 in
damages to it as a result of their breach of a construction trade
contract. In addition, the Defendants have ignored their trust
obligations under Article 3-A of the New York State Lien Law, such
that each of the Individual Defendants is personally liability for
the tortious act of converting Lien Law trust funds, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of New York.

Eurodesign and Stone LLC is a limited liability company duly
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Albert Rizzo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALBERT RIZZO, P.C.
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 679-5799


EXTERIOR DESIGN: Herrera Suit Seeks Overtime Wages for Laborers
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO MEJIA HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXTERIOR DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP
INC. d/b/a CROSS ATLANTIC WALL SYSTEMS, and SALVATORE MATTIOLI and
LARRY ALEXANDER, as individuals, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-05847-ARR-ST (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2019), seeks compensatory
damages and liquidated damages as a result of the Defendants'
failure to pay overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from April 2005 until
July 2019. The Plaintiff's primary duties were as a stucco worker
and general laborer, while performing other miscellaneous duties.

The Plaintiff alleges that he worked 60 or more hours per week
during his employment by the Defendants but they did not pay him
time and a half for hours worked over 40--a blatant
violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and
NYLL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: 718 263-9591
          Facsimile: 718 263-9598


FEDERAL INSURANCE: Abramson Seeks Consumer Privacy Under TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEWART ABRAMSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and BAY AREA HEALTH, LLC,
Case No. 8:19-cv-02523 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 10, 2019), is brought to
enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Mr. Abramson alleges that Federal Insurance commissioned automated
telemarketing calls to consumers, including him, without their
prior express written consent.  He asserts that these calls were
made pursuant to an arrangement between Federal Insurance and Bay
Area Health, LLC, a telemarketing agent for Federal Insurance.

Federal Insurance Company is a domestic corporation with its
principal place of business located in Indianapolis, Indiana.  Bay
Area Health, LLC is a Florida limited liability company with a
principal place of business in New Port Richey, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


FIDATO PARTNERS: Underpays Consultants, Fajimolu Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
OLAMIDE FAJIMOLU, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIDATO PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-04550-MAK (E.D. Pa., Oct. 1, 2019) is an action
against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Plaintiff Fajimolu was employed by the Defendant as
consultant.

Fidato Partners, LLC provides accounting, audit and information
technology consulting and recruiting services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Michael Murphy, Esq.
           Michael Groh, Esq.
           MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
           1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.,
           Philadelphia, PA 19103
           Telephone: (267) 273-1054
           Facsimile: (215) 525-0210
           E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
                   mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
                   ec@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


FIRST CLASS: Faces Rodriguez Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Class
Management Contracting Corp. The case is captioned as Richard
Moreno Rodriguez and Henry Pimentel individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. First Class Management
Contracting Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05848-KAM-VMS
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2019).

The suit alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is
assigned Hon. Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto.

First Class Management Contracting Corp. is a freight shipping
trucking company located in Corona, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman M. Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          E-mail: avshalumovr@yahoo.com


FOOD MANAGEMENT: Underpays Waiters & Cooks, Gonzalez et al. Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REINA GONZALEZ; MARIA AGUILAR; ROSARIO FELIX; and ESPERANZA
JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. FOOD MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, INC.; BUFFETS,
LLC; FMP-OVATION PAYROLL LLC; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-08496 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 1, 2019), seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed by the Defendants as waitress.
The Plaintiffs Aguilar, Felix and Jimenez as cook.

Food Management Partners, Inc. is a Texas corporation, owning and
operating restaurants. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          Ian W. Forgie, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
                  iforgie@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
          MOORADIAN LAW, APC
          24007 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 210
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 487-1998
          Facsimile: (888) 783-1030
          E-mail: zorik@mooradianlaw.com


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Urbinas Sue Over Excessive Pay-to-Pay Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
NERI URBINA and LEONILA URBINA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01471-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal.,
Oct. 16, 2019), alleges breach of contract and violations of the
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, borrowers in California struggle enough
to make their regular mortgage payments without getting charged
extra, illegal fees when they try to pay by phone or online
(Pay-to-Pay fees). Federal and state debt collection laws strictly
prohibit these charges unless expressly agreed to by the borrower,
but these Pay-to-Pay fees are found nowhere in any standard deed of
trust. Here, FMC charges borrowers between $10.00–15.00 for
making their mortgage payments online or over the phone. The
Urbinas believe the vast majority of that fee is pure profit for
FMC.

FMC services mortgages across the country and must know the terms
of the standard loan agreements it services, none of which
expressly allow Pay-to-Pay fees as a type of service fee that FMC
can charge. The Plaintiffs allege that FMC's practice of charging
and profiting from excessive Pay-to-Pay fees violates the Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and, therefore, the California
Unfair Competition Law, and breaches the provisions of every
FHA-insured mortgage it services. They assert that FMC must be held
accountable for assessing these excessive fees to its borrowers.

FMC is one of the largest mortgage lenders in the United States
and, more specifically, one of the largest originators and
servicers of FHA-insured mortgages.

The Classes in the lawsuit are believed to consist of hundreds of
thousands of members. To date, the Plaintiffs have incurred no less
than $45.00 in improper Pay-to-Pay fees. Plaintiffs Neri and
Leonila Urbina are natural persons residing in California, who have
a mortgage loan that was serviced by FMC on their home located in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


FYRE MEDIA: Fans Seek to Rename Ja Rule as Class Action Defendant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GrouchyGreg, writing for All Hip Hop News, reports that rap star Ja
Rule may have rejoiced a little too early when he was dismissed
from a $100 million lawsuit over the disastrous Fyre Fest.

A group of fans have filed an amended complaint seeking to have Ja
Rule re-named as a defendant in the class-action lawsuit.

In May 2017, celebrity attorney Mark Geragos filed the massive
class-action lawsuit against Billy McFarland, Ja Rule, and Grant
Margolin.

In July 2019, a federal judge dismissed Ja Rule and Fyre Fest's
Chief Marketing Officer Grant Margolin from the class action
lawsuit, which was filed by celebrity attorney Mark Geragos.

The judge ruled that insufficient evidence was provided to prove
that Ja Rule and Grant Margolin were involved in a fraud to
deliberately deceive the public.

On October 10, lawyers for Geragos' firm filed their amended
complaint with evidence they claim proves Ja Rule and Margolin were
in on the scam.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue Ja Rule was promoting the doomed
party just 24-hours before the entire event was scrapped altogether
even though he had told the artists to stay away.

Ticket holders paid between $1,000 and $100,000 to attend the
event, which was supposed to start on April 28, 2017.

Guests arrived on Great Exuma island in The Bahamas to discover the
luxury accommodation they were promised did not exist.

Instead of partying with social media influencers like Kendall
Jenner and rappers like Migos and Pusha T, the unlucky patrons in
class action lawsuit were forced to stay in disaster relief tents
until they could be shutted off the island.

"Defendant Atkins knew, at the time of this post, that the
representation in the social media post was false as the stage was
not set as the performers had either been told by Defendants,
including Atkins, not to attend or had cancelled," said attorney
Ben J. Meiselas, who is representing the angry festival goers on
behalf of Geragos' law firm.

Furthermore, the amended complaint points to Ja Rule's statements
he made in "Fyre Fraud," one of the two documentaries about the
failed festival.

"Atkins clearly held himself out as co-founder of the Festival, and
the public reasonably interpreted his public statements regarding
the Festival as a reliable source of information," Meiselas said.

To make matters worse, lawyers representing disgruntled fans say
they have proof Ja Rule called some of the rappers he was friendly
with to give them a heads up about the impending disaster.

"Troublingly, before Plaintiffs and other ticketholders had
arrived, these Defendants urged artists to not attend due to the
dangerous and uninhabitable conditions that were present at the
event venue . . . Defendant Atkins knew, at the time of this post,
that the representation in the social media post was false as the
stage was not set as the performers had either been told by
Defendants, including Atkins, not to attend or had cancelled,"
according to Meiselas.

But the same courtesy was not given to the people who had shelled
out thousands of dollars to attend the Fyre Festival.

As a result of Ja Rule's actions, several people who bought tickets
for the Fyre Festival claim they did so after looking at the rap
star's social media posts.

One plaintiff claims he made his decision to purchase tickets to
the doomed festival solely based on the messages posted to Ja
Rule's Twitter account.

"As a result of relying on the tweet, Mr. Abbas Ali had to spend a
frightening evening on the island, where the Fyre Festival campsite
was full of frantic attendees who were fighting over tents, where
there was a basic lack of provisions, and where attendees were
exposed to the elements," attorney Ben J. Meiselas wrote.

Ja Rule appeared on "The Wendy Williams Show" and again claimed he
had nothing to do with the Fyre Fest turn out.

But the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit say Ja Rule is
simply trying to cover his tracks to avoid being a part of the $100
million lawsuit.

"Defendant Atkins was the founder, funder, organizer, chief
artistic leader and front and center promotor of the Fyre Festival.
He was also a controlling owner and officer of Fyre Media and Fyre
Festival LLC. In the aforesaid roles, he directed and was actively
involved in policies and business strategy, including marketing,
advertising, and promotion content, strategy, and delivery," said
the plaintiff's attorney Ben J. Meiselas.

The lawsuit also says the Bahamian government has banned Ja Rule
from ever producing an event on the island again.

In October 2018, Billy McFarland, the founder of the Fyre Festival,
was sent to prison for six years for blowing millions of dollars in
investment money earmarked for the event.

The Fyre Festival organizers are accused of fraud, breach of
contract, breach of covenant of good faith, and negligent
misrepresentation over the ruined festival in the class-action
lawsuit filed by Geragos and his office. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Recent Ruling Likely Beneficial to Litigation Funders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Rothwell, writing for Law Gazette, reports that recent Court
of Appeal (CoA) ruling could prove highly beneficial not just to
millions of consumers, but also to claimant litigators and
litigation funders.

The CoA overturned the High Court decision of Mr. Justice Warby a
year earlier, which had seemingly snuffed out a huge class action
against Google over alleged data breaches. Following this month's
CoA decision, the claim -- brought by consumer rights champion
Richard Lloyd on behalf of more than 4 million iPhone users -- can
now proceed. It is being backed by funder Therium to the tune of
GBP15.5 million, with after-the-event insurance in place to cover
adverse costs of up to GBP12 million. The ramifications of the
judgment go well beyond the individual case -- huge as it is -- and
could lead to a new wave of mass data breach claims, which would be
grist to the mill of litigation funders.

At the root of the claim against Google are allegations that the
tech giant used a 'Safari workaround' to secretly track the online
behaviour of iPhone users between August 2011 and February 2012.
Google is alleged to have bypassed privacy settings and collected
data on people's surfing habits to create groups with labels such
as 'football lovers', so that advertisers could then be offered the
chance to target these groups.

Lloyd's action has been brought by City firm Mishcon de Reya using
a representative action procedure under CPR 19.6(1). The enormous
class of 4 million iPhone users do not need to actively sign up to
this US-style 'opt-out' class action, but they must have the 'same
interest' in the claim. This was considered a stumbling block by
Warby J at first instance, but the CoA took a different approach.
It held that a person's personal data has an economic value, and
loss of control of this data violates their right to privacy. That
counts as 'damage' under data protection laws, without the
individual needing to show financial loss or distress. Everyone in
the class can therefore be found to have suffered the same loss,
and awarded a uniform amount per head.

All this means these claims will now be much easier to bring and
litigation funders certainly seem keen to provide the financial
firepower to support them. But it could be bad news for businesses
that are obliged to disclose their data or security breaches; they
can sit back and wait for the claim.

In the case against Google, however, there is still a big question
over how much the claim is actually worth, vast as the category of
claimants may be. While Lloyd has previously said he is seeking
GBP750 per individual -- a total liability of up to GBP3 billion --
the CoA ruling appeared to suggest that damages would be much
lower, based on the 'lowest common denominator' of damages suffered
by any individual within the class.

Google has already said that it will appeal to the Supreme Court,
adding: "Protecting the privacy and security of our users has
always been our number one priority. This case relates to events
that took place nearly a decade ago and that we addressed at the
time. We believe it has no merit and should be dismissed." If
Google's appeal is unsuccessful the case will proceed to a
substantive hearing, which will then decide on liability and any
damages. The two court rulings handed down so far relate to Lloyd's
application for permission to serve the claim on Google in the US,
which must be granted before the substantive claim can get off the
blocks.

Google's appeal is not the only collective redress case that will
be coming before the Supreme Court justices. Moving from data
protection to the world of competition law, there is another
mammoth action coming up: Merricks v Mastercard is worth an
estimated GBP14bn. It is being brought by solicitor and former
financial services ombudsman Walter Merricks on behalf of 46
million consumers, backed by litigation funding. The claim stems
from a finding by the European Commission in 2014 that certain
credit card fees were set at an unlawfully high level, which
artificially raised prices for British consumers over a 16-year
period.

Mastercard continues to disagree fundamentally with the basis of
the claim.

In 2017, the claim was struck out by the Competition Appeal
Tribunal (CAT), in a blow to the fledgling opt-out collective
action regime created by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The CAT
rejected the claim on a number of counts, including that it did not
consider that Merricks could accurately quantify the individual
loss to different claimants. In April this year, however, the CoA
reversed the CAT decision and the claim was revived. The CoA
rejected the CAT approach that damages would need to be shared out
according to individual loss, which would make such cases hard to
bring. It noted that the new regime was 'obviously' intended to
create a 'means of redress which could attract and be facilitated
by litigation funding'.

This case will now be heard by the Supreme Court before Christmas.
Several other big collective actions -- including two litigation
funding-backed 'truck cartel' claims -- are currently on hold,
awaiting the ruling. If the Supreme Court justices agree with their
CoA colleagues, this could prove to be a lucrative new area for
claimant lawyers and funders alike; not to mention the humble
consumer. [GN]


GORDON FOOD: Snellgrove's Restaurant Says Fuel Surcharge Deceptive
------------------------------------------------------------------
SNELLGROVE'S RESTAURANT, INC., the Plaintiff, v. GORDON FOOD
SERVICE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 97457384 (Fla. 13th Jud'l
Cir., Oct. 17, 2019), seeks actual and consequential compensatory
damages, and restitution from the Defendant for violation of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

In addition to the amount Gordon charges its customers for the sale
and delivery of food products, Gordon charges its customers a fee
it calls a "Fuel Surcharge". The term "Fuel Surcharge" has an
understood meaning and in using this term, Gordon represents that
it charges the Fuel Surcharge to recover the increased fuel costs
it incurs in delivering products to its customers.

Gordon represents that the Fuel Surcharge varies in accordance with
Gordon's increased fuel costs and that the revenue from the Fuel
Surcharge is used to offset those increased costs.

Gordon's representations, omissions, and practices in charging the
Fuel Surcharge are deceptive and unfair. The Fuel Surcharge bears
absolutely no relation to Gordon's actual increased fuel costs (or
its actual fuel costs) and Gordon does not use the proceeds from
the FuelSurcharge to offset its increased fuel costs (or its actual
fuel costs). The amount of the Fuel Surcharge generally does not
change, despite fluctuations in Gordon's fuel costs.

Further, Gordon includes any increases in fuel costs it might incur
in delivering products in the standard prices it charges customers.
Gordon uses the Fuel Surcharge simply to generate extra profit at
its customers' expense, all the while deceiving customers into
believing that the fee is a legitimate charge directly related to
actual increased fuel costs it incurs, which it falsely claims it
cannot control.

Gordon has been unjustly enriched through its conduct related to
the Fuel Surcharges in that it obtained money which, in equity and
good conscience, belongs to Snellgrove's and putative class
members.

Further, this case presents a prototypical situation for class
treatment. Gordon's conduct -- including all relevant practices,
deception, representations, and omissions -- is uniform among all
customers. The application of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act to all similarly situated class members to this
shared course of conduct will determine liability for the
respective classes as a whole, ensuring that the rights of
thousands of small businesses and individuals are vindicated
through the efficiency of a single trial.

Gordon is a food distribution company headquartered in Wyoming,
Michigan. Gordon markets, sells, and distributes food products to
restaurants, healthcare and educational facilities, lodging
establishments and other customers like Snellgrove's.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Ryan B. Hobbs, Esq.
          BROOKS, LEBOEUF, FOSTER, GWARTNEY, LEACE & HOBBS, P.A.
          909 East Park Avenue
          Tallahassee, FL 32301
          Telephone: 850 222-2000
          Facsimile: 850 222-9757
          E-mail: rhobbs@tallahasseeattorneys.com
                  jeanetta@tallahasseeattorneys.com

GP PROPERTY: Diaz Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA/NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Fernandez Diaz and Mesias Juca Caguana, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. G.P. PROPERTY
DEVELOPMENT INC. and GREGORIO PICCA, as an individual, Case No.
2:19-cv-06143 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019), seeks to recover damages
arising from the Defendants' violation of the overtime provisions
contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

Although the Plaintiffs worked for 60-72 hours per week during
their employment, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs time
and a half for hours worked over 40, which is a blatant violation
of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants from May 2010 until
July 2019.

G.P. PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT INC. is a corporation organized under the
laws of New York with a principal executive office in Center
Moriches, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Phone: 718-263-9591
          Fax: 718-263-9598


GRAND VIEW: Tenants' Class Action Over Unsanitary Housing Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Tribune reports that it's bad enough that the 200-or-so tenants
of the Grand View Apartments in Paso Robles have been living in
squalid, moldy, vermin-infested housing for the past few years. At
least they had a roof over their heads, even though it often
leaked. Soon, they may not even have that.

As The Tribune reported, the Santa Barbara owners of this
shamefully neglected, 54-unit apartment complex have decided to
shut it down rather than make necessary upgrades.

Residents have been given 60- and 90-day notices to vacate,
depending on how long they've been living there. They'll receive
$1,000 for relocation expenses and their security deposits will be
returned. Oh, and they'll be able to be reimbursed a measly $200
for fumigating their apartments.

But wait, it gets worse.

Unless all the buildings in the complex are professionally
fumigated -- one estimate puts that cost at $45,518 -- they won't
be allowed to bring their belongings with them if they're lucky
enough to find another apartment.

And that's going to be incredibly difficult, given the lack of
affordable housing in the area.

That means dozens of families, including 62 school-aged children,
could wind up out on the street right around the holidays.

That can't happen.

Local officials cannot just throw up their hands and say there's
nothing they can do.

These tenants have been complaining for years about bedbugs,
cockroaches, rats, mold, leaky roofs, gaping holes in walls and
ceilings, and backed-up plumbing.

Conditions are so bad that a judge ruled in May that tenants no
longer had to pay the $1,480 to $1,750 a month they had been
shelling out for the privilege of living in these rat-infested hell
holes.

WHAT DID PUBLIC OFFICIALS KNOW?

Records show that both the city of Paso Robles and the county of
San Luis Obispo knew about problems at the complex and requested
management to make improvements, yet the situation dragged on and
on.

In response to complaints, the city arranged in May 2017 to inspect
the buildings, and according to an email from city staff, found
"broken windows, missing smoke alarms, carbon monoxide alarms and
fire extinguishers, infestation, accumulation of trash, general
deterioration and lack of maintenance."

Grand View staff agreed to take care of the problems, and the city
did some follow-up to make sure the work was done.

Yet in September 2017, a county environmental health specialist
inspected a single unit and found cockroaches crawling up wall and
around the floor, cockroach fecal matter and "evidence of empty
bedbug skins, blood spots and stains on bedding and corners of
mattresses."

"Tenant habits do not appear to be contributing to the
infestation," the letter says.

It also requests the owner and manager "to abate the above
violations as quickly as possible."

That didn't happen; the property was declared a substandard
building under the California Health and Safety Code.

"County Environmental Health referred the matter to the city of
Paso Robles, the controlling jurisdiction, for commencement of code
enforcement action," the County Counsel's Office told The Tribune
via email.

Yet according to attorneys now representing the tenants, it appears
the city took no further action. (The city did require repair of
some units damaged by fire in September 2018.)

No further action, even though officials were aware that the
tenants -- many of whom speak limited English -- were reluctant to
come forward to file formal complaints.

No further action, even though the fed-up tenants eventually filed
a class-action lawsuit in May 2019 that featured a laundry list of
unsanitary and dangerous conditions, including this gem: "Raw
sewage outside of the apartment units on the common ground
attracting vermin and rodents."

No further action, even though local media, including The Tribune,
toured the apartments and took photos and videos of the squalor.

We don't get it.

Once officials became aware of the recurring problems —
regardless of how they found out — they should have intervened,
rather than simply waiting for formal complaints from residents.

What more could have been done?

Here's one example: San Luis Obispo County once filed criminal
charges against an 89-year-old landlord who repeatedly failed to
make necessary repairs to some rentals in Nipomo. He was placed on
probation, and when that failed, a judge ordered him to spend four
days in jail.

Yet for the owners of Grand View, not even a slap on the wrist.

This can't happen again.

Officials may be reluctant to take action that could result in the
condemnation of scarce affordable housing units, but gross
violations like bedbugs and rats and raw sewage can't be ignored.

Every city in the county, as well as the county itself, should
re-examine its policies for dealing with building code and health
and safety code violations to ensure tenants are protected.

WHAT NEXT FOR GRAND VIEW TENANTS?

Public officials could still take action to provide at least a
small measure of relief for families stuck at Grand View.

Even now, those residents are at risk, and they will be as long as
they remain in rundown buildings crawling with bugs.

An attorney representing the tenants in the class-action lawsuit
has suggested a number of remedies.

First on the list: The city could begin an immediate abatement
action to force the landlords to take at least some minimal action
to resolve the worst health problems, including fumigating the
entire complex.

Residents also should be given more time to find other housing.

As horrible as conditions at the apartment complex may be, it's
better than being out on the street. That would be an even bigger
public health crisis, since there's not enough room in emergency
shelters for so many families.

The attorney for the tenants also has suggested other temporary
housing solutions, such as tents, local hotels or even the old,
state-owned Paso Robles Boy's School, though that would likely
involve too much red tape.

Ideally, though, families would be able to move immediately into
permanent housing.

Housing advocates like Peoples' Self Help Housing and the Housing
Authority of SLO County are doing as much as they can, but they
have a limited number of units available, and there's the problem
of the vermin infestation.

Until that's resolved, renters won't be allowed to transfer their
belongings to other apartments.

Down the road, there may be financial compensation for the tenants.
The class-action lawsuit is wending its way through court, but that
could take months, possibly even years, to decide.

These residents can't wait that long.

Public officials have a legal -- and humanitarian -- duty to act on
behalf of these tenants who have endured nightmarish conditions far
too long.

We strongly urge the city of Paso Robles to immediately pursue
every available housing opportunity or legal remedy to find safe
residences for these tenants.

After that, they need to take a close look at how to prevent this
from happening again. [GN]


GREGORY & COMPANY: Corner Seeks Minimum Wages for Delivery Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE CORNER, On behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. GREGORY & COMPANY, INC., JAMES GREGORY, JOHN DOE
CORPORATION 1-10, and JOHN DOE 1-10, Defendants, Case
3:19-cv-00173-KRG (W.D. Pa., Oct. 17, 2019), seeks monetary,
declaratory, and equitable relief based on the Defendants' failure
to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals with
minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Pennsylvania laws.

The Defendants have repeatedly and willfully violated the FLSA and
Pennsylvania laws by failing to adequately reimburse delivery
drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby, failing to
pay delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wages for all
hours worked, Ms. Corner alleges.

The Defendants operate or have operated at least seven Domino's
Pizza franchises in Pennsylvania since 1996. Stores are located in
Lock Haven, DuBois, Clearfield, and Clarion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory G. Paul, Esq.
          MORGAN & PAUL, PLLC
          100 First Avenue, Suite 1010
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 259 8375
          Facsimile: (888) 822 9421
          E-mail: gregpaul@morgan-paul.com


HAMILTON COAL: 7th Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Leeper WARN Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued
an Opinion affirming the district court judgment granting
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned CARL
LEEPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAMILTON COUNTY COAL, LLC, and
ALLIANCE RESOURCE PARTNERS, L.P., Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
19-1109, (7th Cir.).

In February 2016, Hamilton County Coal, LLC, announced a temporary
layoff at its Illinois coal mine with an expected end date of
August 1, 2016.  In response to the layoff, Carl Leeper, a
full-time maintenance worker at the mine, responded with a class
action complaint under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act (WARN Act), which requires employers to give
affected employees 60 days' notice before imposing a mass layoff.
The Act defines a mass layoff as an event in which at least 33% of
a site's full-time workforce suffers an "employment loss."  

The district court entered summary judgment for Hamilton because
the work site did not experience a "mass layoff" as defined in the
WARN Act.  The district judge rejected Leeper's theory that the
mine workers experienced an employment termination within the
meaning of the Act. Relying on regulatory guidance distinguishing
an employment termination from a layoff, the district court judge
placed this work stoppage in the latter category. And because the
layoff did not exceed six months and 56 workers returned to
full-time employment within that time, the workers hadn't suffered
an employment loss and the WARN Act's 33% threshold was not met.

The district court ruling was appealed.

On a de novo review, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district
court's ruling.  The Seventh Circuit holds that the record contains
no evidence of a mass layoff. The term "employment loss" is defined
as a permanent termination, a layoff exceeding six months, or an
extended reduction of work hours. None of those events occurred
here, the Seventh Circuit finds. Instead, Hamilton initiated a
temporary layoff of under six months.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's September 26, 2019
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y66tgzh9 from
Leagle.com

Kevin P. Green , 2227 S State Rte 157, Edwardsville, IL 62025-3646,
for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Thomas Paul Rosenfeld , 2227 S. State Route 157, Edwardsville, IL
62025, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Elizabeth Smith Muyskens - elizabeth.muyskens@skofirm.com - for
Defendant-Appellee.
Thomas C. Horscroft - thorscroft@ghalaw.com - for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Richard Garrett Griffith - richard.griffith@skofirm.com - for
Defendant-Appellee.
Kif H. Skidmore – kif.skidmore@skofirm.com - for
Defendant-Appellee.
Allison Crutcher Cooke – allison.cooke@skofirm.com - for
Defendant-Appellee.


HEADWAY TECH: Smotkin Sues over HDD Suspension Assembly Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM SMOTKIN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON
TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD.,
NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO.,
LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK
SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO.,
LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06674 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 17, 2019),
seeks damages, injunctive relief and any other relief available as
a result of Defendants' violations of federal antitrust, state
antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection and unjust
enrichment laws.

The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants -- who, at all
relevant times, are manufacturers and suppliers of Hard disk drives
(HDD) suspension assemblies throughout and into the United States
-- and their co-conspirators as a result of their unlawful conduct
in contracting, combining, or conspiring to fix, raise, maintain,
and/or stabilize prices of HDD suspension assemblies from
approximately May 2008 to at least April 2016.

Defendants' illegal and anticompetitive conduct resulted in their
exchange of pricing information with one another, which they used
to their advantage in their negotiations with U.S. and foreign
customers for the sale of HDD suspension assemblies, which
ultimately became the critical component in HDDs for sale in, or
delivery to, the U.S. and elsewhere.

According to the complaint, NHK and TDK Defendants, along with
their affiliates and/or subsidiaries, have maintained a 90%
dominance of the global market for HDD suspension assemblies.

The potential price-fixing of HDD suspension assemblies have been
the subject of investigations by the United States government as
well as foreign governments since at least 2016, the lawsuit says.

Suspension assemblies are an important component of the HDD because
they hold the recording heads close to the disks and provide the
electrical connection from the recording heads to the hard disk
drives' circuitry.

According to Assistant Attorney General of the Department of
Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division Makan Delrahim, HDD suspension
assemblies are "critical to the operation and performance of
electronic devices, and their impact on American consumers and
business is direct and substantial."

HDD are incorporated into electronic devices, such as desktop
computers, laptops, gaming consoles, MP3 players, printers, and
copy machines, or sold as stand-alone storage devices. An HDD uses
a magnetic recording head to read from, and write onto, a spinning
disk contained in the hard drive.

Headway Technologies provides recording head products to the
computer harddisk drive industry. The Company provides solutions to
the server, mobile, and desktop segments of the hard disk drive
industry for customers throughout the United States.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          Lee Albert, Esq.
          Gregory Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: kruf@glancylaw.com
                  bmurray@glancylaw.com
                  lalbert@glancylaw.com
                  glinkh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
          768 Plandome Road
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Telephone: (516) 426-6870
          E-mail: paul@paulwhalen.com

HELP AT HOME: Underpays Employment Specialists, Barber Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARRIE BARBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HELP AT HOME, LLC; and STATEWIDE HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06620 (N.D. Ill., Oct.
10, 2019) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the
minimum wage rate for all hours worked and by failing to pay the
required overtime premium rate for all hours worked over 40 per
week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Barber was employed by the Defendants as employment
specialist.

Plaintiff is a resident of Pulaski County, Kentucky and has been
employed by Defendants as an employment specialist since on or
around June 1, 2019.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Bank of America Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          J. Chris Sanders, Esq.
          CHRIS SANDERS LAW PLLC
          517 West Ormsby Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40203
          Telephone: (502) 814-0094
          E-mail: csanders@chrissanderslaw.com


HUNTINGTON INGALLS: McDonald Case Dismissed Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division, dismissed
without prejudice the case, LEO McDONALD, JR., Plaintiff, v.
HUNTINGTON INGALLS INDUSTRIES, Defendant, Cause No.
1:18cv281-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss.).

The Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se, filed the Complaint on Aug. 24,
2018, alleging claims for hostile work environment, and race, age,
and national origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.  On Nov. 5, 2018, the Court determined that the
Plaintiff was not legally indigent and denied his request to
proceed in forma pauperis.  The Plaintiff paid the filing fee but
took no further action to complete service of process until
prompted by Magistrate Judge Walker, who issued an Order on March
13, 2019 that informed the Plaintiff of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(m)'s 90-day period for service of process and gave him
until April 15, 2019 to serve the Defendant.

On April 10, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of
Time to Serve Process.  Magistrate Judge Walker granted the
requested 18-day extension, setting a deadline of May 3, 2019 for
the Plaintiff to complete service of process.  Judge Walker,
however, reminded the Plaintiff that he had exceeded Rule 4(m)'s
timeframe and cautioned him that no further extensions would be
granted absent a showing of good cause.

The Plaintiff caused summons to be issued on April 29, 2019 and
returned executed summons demonstrating he had attempted service of
process by mailing the Complaint and Summons via certified mail.
On July 1, 2019, Magistrate Judge Walker issued a Show Cause Order
explaining that the Plaintiff's attempted service by certified mail
was inadequate under either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or
the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure.  Again reiterating that
the Plaintiff had far exceeded the 90 day's afforded to serve under
Rule 4(m), Judge Walker directed him to serve Industries by July
29, 2019 or, alternatively, show good cause in writing why the
complaint should not be dismissed for failure to effect timely
service of process.

The Plaintiff caused summons to be reissued on July 24, 2019.  He
returned executed summons on July 30, 2019, demonstrating that
"Robert 'Bob' Fraser" at "Huntington Ingalls Industries" had
personally been served the Complaint and Summons on July 26, 2019.


On Aug. 20, 2019, Defendant Industries filed the instant Motion to
Dismiss.  Industries contends that the Plaintiff failed to properly
effect service because Robert Fraser is neither an employee nor a
registered agent for service of process.  Furthermore, says
Industries, the Plaintiff is not entitled to an additional
extension of time to serve Industries in the lawsuit because the
Plaintiff failed to comply with the Show Cause Order and more than
a year has now elapsed since the Plaintiff filed the Complaint.

Judge Guirola agrees.  He concludes that the Plaintiff has failed
to serve Industries.  Robert Fraser is not an officer, a managing
or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment of
law to receive service of process" on behalf of Industries.
Darrell Crawford's sworn statements do not contradict the
declarations of Glenna Hoyle or Robert Fraser, thus no issue of
fact precludes the Court's resolution of the matter.  The delivery
of the Complaint and Summons to Fraser was of no legal effect.

Having determined that Industries was not properly served, Judge
Guirola turns to resolving the proper remedy.  He says that the
Plaintiff has been afforded numerous extensions of time to complete
service of process.  Indeed, mindful of the leniency due to pro se
litigants, the Court has given the Plaintiff every opportunity to
carry out his responsibility to serve Industries.  The Plaintiff
still failed to carry out his responsibility under Rule 4(m) to
effect service of process within a reasonable period of time.  He
also failed to comply with the Show Cause Order.  More than a year
has now lapsed since he filed the Complaint on Aug. 24, 2018.
Dismissal without prejudice is therefore appropriate under Rule
4(m).

The Court must be able to clear its calendars of cases that remain
dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties
seeking relief, so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases.  Such a sanction is necessary in order to
prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to
avoid congestion in the calendars of the Court.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Guirola (i) granted Industries'
Motion to Dismiss, and (ii) dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiff's claims.  Further, the Judge denied as moot the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 16, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/GOfVO5 from Leagle.com.

Leo McDonald, Jr., Plaintiff, pro se.

Huntington Ingalls Industries, Defendant, represented by Adam H.
Gates -- agates@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC.

HYUNDAI: Settles US Class Action Over Defective Theta 2 Engines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lim Kyeong-eop, writing for Chosun, reports that Hyundai and
affiliate Kia said on Oct. 11 that they reached a settlement in a
class-action lawsuit in the U.S. over defective Theta 2 GDi
engines.

The two automakers agreed to give lifetime warranties to owners of
cars equipped with the engines in the U.S. and Korea. Once the
agreement is approved, they will also compensate owners of the 4.69
million cars for repair costs and losses.

U.S. consumers filed the suit around four years ago. A separate
trial is in progress in the U.S. on charges that Hyundai knew about
the defects but hid them from consumers, while an executive in
charge of the matter has been indicted.

Hyundai and Kia developed the Theta 2 GDi engine in 2008. The
gasoline engine underwent a number of upgrades since then, but
since 2011 several cars equipped with the engine mysteriously
caught fire, leading to the recall of 1.66 million cars sold in the
U.S. and 170,000 sold in Korea.

Hyundai and Kia are expected to shoulder around W834 billion worth
of warranty and repair expenses (US$1=W1,187). Models made between
2010 to 2019 are eligible for the lifetime warranty. [GN]


IMPINJ INC: Securities Class Suit Survives Motion to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles, who has been leading the fight
to protect shareholder rights for over 18 years, on Oct. 14,
disclosed that Impinj, Inc. (PI) may face damages caused by a
pending securities lawsuit action lawsuit. Impinj operates a
platform that enables wireless connectivity to items by delivering
each item's identity, location, and authenticity to applications.

Impinj, Inc. (PI) Securities Class Action Survives Motion to
Dismiss

According to the complaint, throughout the relevant period, Impinj
continuously touted the strong demand for its Endpoint ICs and
repeatedly stated that customer inventory levels were low. As a
result, Impinj reported increased sales and increased customer
product adoption. However, Impinj's claims of "accelerated" demand
were materially false, as it was actually experiencing long lead
times for its products due to production delays, resulting in
customers stockpiling inventory to avoid extended lead times. In
the second half of 2017, Impinj began reducing its lead time;
however, sales were significantly reduced due to customers'
previously amassed inventories. Then, on August 2, 2018, Impinj's
officers and directors issued a press release stating that Impinj
would be delaying the filing of its quarterly report on Form 10-Q
for the second quarter of 2018 and its corresponding results. The
press release also revealed that Impinj had received a complaint
from a former employee and the Audit Committee of the board had
commenced an investigation. On this news, Impinj's stock price fell
13.7%, wiping out $64.55 million in market capitalization. On
October 4, 2019, the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, denied, in
part, Impinj's motion to dismiss, paving the way for litigation to
proceed.

Impinj Shareghoders Urged to Contact the Firm

If you purchased Impinj securities, have information, or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Timothy L. Miles, Esquire, at 615-587-738,
Toll-Free at 855-846-6529, or by email to tmiles@timmileslaw.com.
If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number, and the number shares owned.

                      About Timothy L. Miles

Timothy L. Miles is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
attorney raised in Nashville, Tennessee. Mr. Miles was recentley
selected as a 2019 Elite Lawyer of The South by
Martindale-Hubbell(R)and ALM and maintains the AV Preeminent Rating
by Martindale-Hubbell(R), their highest rating for both legal
ability and ethics. Mr. Miles is a member of the prestigious Top
100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyers: The National Trial Lawyers
Association, a superb rated attorney by Avvo, and recognized as a
Distinguished Lawyer, Recognizing Excellence in Securities Law, by
Lawyers of Distinction (2019). Awards: 2019 Elite Lawyer of The
South by Martindale-Hubbell(R)and ALM (2019); Member of the Top 100
Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyers: The National Trial Lawyers
Association (2017-2019); AV(R)Preeminent(TM) Rating by
Martindale-Hubble(R)(2014-2019); PRR AV Preeminent Rating on
Lawyers.com (2017 & 2019); The Top-Rated Lawyer in Litigation(TM)
for Ethical Standards and Legal Ability (Martindale-Hubble(R)2015);
Distinguished Lawyer, Recognizing Excellence in Securities Law,
Lawyers of Distinction (2019); Superb Rated Attorney (Avvo); Avvo
Top Rated Lawyer for 2017 & 2018 (Avvo). [GN]


INDEPENDENT BANK: Trial in BOH Holdings Merger Suit to Begin 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Bank Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Court
has amended the scheduling order to now provide that the case
related to the acquisition of BOH Holdings, Inc., is ready for
trial on January 11, 2021.

Independent Bank is a party to a legal proceeding inherited by
Independent Bank in connection with the Company's acquisition of
BOH Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH,
that was completed on April 15, 2014.

Several entities related to R. A. Stanford, or the Stanford
Entities, including Stanford International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL, had
deposit accounts at BOH.

Certain individuals who had purchased certificates of deposit from
SIBL filed a class action lawsuit against several banks, including
BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, in a case styled Peggy Roif
Rotstain, et al. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. Trustmark National Bank, et al., Civil Action No.
3:09-CV-02384-N-BG.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were
victims of fraud by SIBL and other Stanford Entities and seeks to
recover damages and alleged fraudulent transfers by the defendant
banks.

On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting permission
to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this case, which
motion was subsequently granted. The Second Amended Class Action
Complaint asserted previously unasserted claims, including aiding
and abetting or participation in a fraudulent scheme based upon the
large amount of deposits that the Stanford Entities held at BOH and
the alleged knowledge of certain BOH officers.

The plaintiffs seek recovery from Independent Bank and other
defendants for their losses.

The case was inactive due to a court-ordered discovery stay issued
March 2, 2015 pending the Court's ruling on plaintiff's motion for
class certification and designation of class representatives and
counsel. On November 7, 2017, the Court issued an order denying the
plaintiff's motion. In addition, the Court lifted the previously
ordered discovery stay.

On January 11, 2018, the Court entered a scheduling order providing
that the case be ready for trial on January 27, 2020. However, due
to agreed upon extensions of discovery on July 25, 2019, the Court
amended the scheduling order to now provide that the case be ready
for trial on January 11, 2021.

Independent Bank said, "The Company has experienced an increase in
legal fees associated with the defense of this claim and
anticipates further increases in legal fees as the case proceeds to
trial."

Independent Bank Group, Inc. operates as a national commercial
bank. The Bank offers personal and business banking services.
Independent Bank provides personal checking accounts, loans, debit
and credit cards, mobile banking, and investment services.
Independent Bank Group serves customers in the State of Texas. The
company is based in McKinney, Texas.


J COFFEY CONTRACTING: Castillo Seeks OT Wages for Laborers
----------------------------------------------------------
MARCELINO QUIROZ CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J COFFEY CONTRACTING INC., and
JOHN COFFEY and CONNOR COFFEY, as individuals, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-05845-ILG-CLP (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2019), seeks compensatory
damages and liquidated damages as a result of the Defendants'
violations of the  Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from May 2009 until
July 2019. The Plaintiff's primary duties involved general
construction labor, while performing other miscellaneous duties.
The Plaintiff says he worked approximately 51 hours or more per
week during his employment by the Defendants.

The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff time and a half for hours
worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions
contained in the FLSA and NYLL, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: 718 263-9591
          Facsimile: 718 263-9598


JP MORGAN: Bouskos Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled MICHAEL BOUSKOS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 19CECG03020, was removed on
Oct. 10, 2019, from the Superior Court of California for the County
of Fresno to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-at-00727 to the
proceeding.

On August 20, 2019, Plaintiff Michael Bouskos filed this putative
class action complaint alleging six causes of action: (1) failure
to pay wages; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to
permit rest breaks; (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; (5) failure to pay all wages due upon separation of
employment; and (6) violation of Business and Professions Code
Sections 17200, et seq.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          Fawn F. Bekam, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          E-mail: swong@aegislawfirm.com
                  khaque@aegislawfirm.com
                  jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
                  fbekam@aegislawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
          LEBE LAW, APC
          777 South Alameda Street, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90021
          Telephone: (213) 358-7046

Defendant JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., is represented by:

          Carrie A. Gonell, Esq.
          Alexander L. Grodan, Esq.
          Sarah J. Allen, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 830-0600
          Facsimile: (714) 830-0700
          E-mail: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com
                  alexander.grodan@morganlewis.com
                  sarah.allen@morganlewis.com


JUUL: Montgomery County to Launch Legal Action Over Vaping
----------------------------------------------------------
Kate Masters, writing for Bethesda Magazine, reports that
Montgomery County plans to sue manufacturers of electronic
cigarettes, more commonly known as vape pens.

It's the latest move in a countywide campaign to curb the spread of
vaping, a trend that's reportedly resulted in hundreds of cases of
lung injury across the country. Many of those cases have involved
minors or young adults, a demographic reportedly targeted by
e-cigarette manufacturers.

County Executive Marc Elrich and Council President Nancy Navarro
were scheduled on Oct. 14 to announce the lawsuit, but a press
conference was canceled because a police officer was shot.

This month, the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
announced it was investigating 1,299 cases of lung injury across 49
states, including 26 deaths associated with vaping products. At
least one person in Montgomery County has been hospitalized with a
vaping-related lung illness, according to a statement by county
Health Officer Travis Gayles in a September press conference. The
person was between the ages of 18 and 24.

Last school year, five Montgomery County students lost
consciousness and required a drug antidote after vaping in school,
Gayles added during the conference. Statewide, the Maryland Health
Department is investigating 29 cases of severe lung illness linked
to e-cigarette use.

The case will involve the company Juul, one of the predominant
vaping manufacturers in the country. Juul has disputed the dangers
of its products in previous lawsuits and denied efforts to market
to teens, describing vape pens as an alternative for adults trying
to quit smoking.

"We have never marketed to youth and do not want any non-nicotine
users to try our products," Juul said in a previous statement.

The county announced plans for legal action in a press release on
Oct. 13, but gave few details on the case. Neither Elrich nor
Navarro immediately responded to requests for more information.

On Oct. 15, the County Council was scheduled to approve the
appointment of a special counsel to investigate and prosecute
claims against the manufacturers and distributors of electronic
cigarettes, according to the meeting agenda.

The agenda item includes a memo from County Attorney Marc Hansen,
who requests that the county confirm the appointment of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP -- a national law firm with offices in
nine cities, including Washington, D.C.

The same firm is representing the county in ongoing opioid
litigation pending in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio.

If confirmed, the firm would investigate and prosecute claims
against Juul Labs, which owns more than 75% of shares in the
e-cigarette market, according to the law firm TorHoerman, which
filed the first lawsuit against Juul in Illinois.

The investigation would also involve Altria Group, the parent
company of cigarette and tobacco manufacturer Philip Morris USA,
which owns 35% of Juul. Phillip Morris is best known for Marlboro
cigarettes, one of its best-selling products.

"Robbins Geller believes that Juul . . . and Altria Group have
violated Maryland and federal law by aggressively marketing their
highly addictive Juul electronic cigarettes and flavored nicotine
cartridges directly to minors as a trendy and safe alternative to
traditional cigarettes," Hansen wrote in the memo. "This has
created a national problem of underage nicotine addiction that is
negatively impacting schools and local governments around the
country."

Montgomery County would pay legal fees on a contingency basis, but
Robbins Geller would be responsible for out-of-pocket costs in
investigating and prosecuting e-cigarette-related claims, he
added.

Local health officials report that vaping rates in Montgomery
County align with national averages, which vary depending on the
age of the user. Around 16.2% of high school seniors reported using
e-cigarettes in the past month, according to data from the National
Institute on Drug Abuse.

Montgomery County has been one of the most proactive jurisdictions
in the country for deterring vaping. In 2015, it implemented the
first-ever excise tax on e-cigarette dealers and distributors - an
additional 30 percent on the wholesale cost of vaping products.

This year, council members introduced a zoning amendment that would
ban the sale of e-cigarettes within half a mile of middle and high
schools -- legislation that would affect 19 of the 22 vape shops in
Montgomery County, according to Council Member Gabe Albornoz.

He also proposed a new bill that would ban e-cigarette
manufacturers from selling their product to any retailer within
half a mile of middle or high schools. At least 600 retailers in
the county sell vaping-related products, council members said.

Juul is facing several class-action lawsuits for its marketing,
which experts say was deliberately designed to appeal to young
adults. A January 2019 study from the Stanford University School of
Medicine found that the company's launch campaign featured models
in their 20s who were "more evocative of underage teens than mature
adults."

The company also emphasized sweet and fruity flavors, especially
mango, researchers found. In September, President Donald Trump's
administration announced plans to ban the sale of most flavored
e-cigarettes.

Teens in several states, including Illinois and New Jersey, have
pursued lawsuits against the company for promoting nicotine
addiction or presenting vaping as a safe alternative to cigarettes.
Less common are suits by individual states or jurisdictions,
including the planned legal action by Montgomery County.

In May and August, North Carolina filed statewide lawsuits against
eight e-cigarette companies, including Juul. [GN]


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Clark Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit captioned THADNISHA CLARK, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING, LLC, a California limited liability
company; THC - ORANGE COUNTY, LLC, a California limited liability
company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
30-2019-01094781-CU-OE-CXC, was removed on Oct. 10, 2019, from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-08736 to the
proceeding.

On September 5, 2019, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, commenced this action asserting causes
of action on behalf of the Plaintiff and the putative class against
all Defendants, including recovery of unpaid minimum wages and
liquidated damages, and recovery of unpaid overtime
compensation.[BN]

Defendants KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING, LLC and THC - ORANGE
COUNTY, LLC, are represented by:

          Elizabeth Staggs-Wilson, Esq.
          James Payer, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4300
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
          E-mail: estaggs-wilson@littler.com
                  jpayer@littler.com

               - and -

          Maggy Athanasious, Esq.
          Jyoti Mittal, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
          Telephone: (310) 553-0308
          Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
          E-mail: mathanasious@littler.com
                  jmittal@littler.com


KVK-TECH INC: Mejia Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages for Laborers
---------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR MEJIA and FRANCISCO RAMIREZ, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KVK-TECH, INC., 110 TERRY
DR. LP, ANTHONY T ABASSO, and MURTY VEPURI, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-04841-JDW (E.D. Pa., Oct. 16, 2019), alleges that laborers,
who performed mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and other
construction work, on the Defendants' behalf regularly worked 45-65
hours per workweek but were only paid a day-rate.

The Defendants did not compensate the Laborers for hours worked
over 40 each week at a rate of 1.5 times their regular hourly rate
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act, the Plaintiffs contend.

Specifically, Mejia has been employed from the winter of 2013
through the present and Ramirez has been employed from November
2010 through the present.

The Plaintiffs perform general maintenance work and other manual
labor throughout the Newtown Complex. Their work tasks include
welding pipes, setting up sprinkler systems, constructing walls,
windows, and doors, installing insulation, and other mechanical,
electrical, plumbing, and construction work. As such, the
Plaintiffs contend, the work they performed is integral to the
Defendant's business operations at the Newtown Complex.

KVK-Tech manufactures generic drugs from a manufacturing complex
located in Newtown, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MENASHA PACKAGING: Faces Enriquez Wage-and-Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------
LEONARD ENRIQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MENASHA PACKAGING COMPANY, LLC, a
Wisconsin limited liability company; MENASHA CORPORATION, a
Wisconsin corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No.
19STCV35689 (Cal. Super., Oct. 7, 2019), alleges that Defendants
have had a consistent policy or practice of failing to pay wages,
including minimum and overtime wages, to Plaintiff and other
non-exempt aggrieved employees in the State of California in
violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of,
including but not limited to, unevenly rounding time worked.

Menasha Packaging produces paper and paper related products for
various industries. The company offers the manufacturing of paper
for packaging, printing, brand management, and service groups.
Menasha Packaging offers their products throughout the United
States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          Melissa M. Kurata, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310)553-3600
          Facsimile: (310)553-3603

METAL KINETICS: Narain Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mohan Narain, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. METAL KINETICS, LLC, Case No. 160598/2019 (N.Y. Sup.,
New York Cty., Oct. 31, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
including unpaid overtime wages, and non-overtime wages, and
compensation, costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant 42.5-45 hours a week, for
five days a week, but was not paid overtime pay for each and all
hours worked in excess of 40 in a week, according to the complaint.
The Plaintiff is owed wages, including overtime wages for about 2.5
or more unpaid overtime hours each week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a manual worker,
working as a technician on June/July 2018 to September/October
2018.

The Defendant was engaged in the business of manufacturing and
selling jewelry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Phone: 718-740-1000
          Fax: 718-740-2000
          Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


MICHAEL STINSON: Ct. Denies Bid to Transfer Gibbs Suit to Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned DARLENE GIBBS, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL
STINSON, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-676, (E.D.
Va.) came before the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, on ten motions:

  (1) Defendants' Motion to Transfer;

  (2) Sequoia's Motion to Dismiss;

  (3) Sequoia's Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration (Sequoia's
Motion to Compel Arbitration);

  (4) Defendants Michael C. Stinson; 7HBF NO. 2; Linda Stinson; The
Stinson 2009 Grantor Retained Annuity Trust; Startup Capital
Ventures, L.P.; and, Stephen Shaper's Motion to Compel
Arbitration;

  (5) The 7HBF Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction,;

  (6) The 7HBF Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim;

  (7) The Shaper Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction;

  (8) The Shaper Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State
a Claim;

  (9) Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority
In Support of Their Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Compel
A[rb]itration and Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration, (the First
Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority); and

(10) Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority
Related to Defendants' Motion to Transfer, (the Second Motion for
Leave to File Supplemental Authority).

On February 1, 2019, Plaintiffs filed this putative class action
Amended Complaint against Defendants, asserting numerous federal
and state violations associated with an allegedly unlawful lending
operation. The lending operation, which Plaintiffs describe as a
"rent-a-tribe" scheme, allegedly offered loans to Plaintiffs and
charged interest rates ranging from 118% to 448%. Plaintiffs pursue
this suit on behalf of Virginia residents who entered into loan
agreements with the Tribal lending entities Plain Green, Great
Plains, or MobiLoans. They bring six class counts:

-- Count I: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants received income
derived, directly and indirectly, through  collection of unlawful
debt, and used and reinvested parts of such income to acquire
interests in and to further establish and assist the operations of
the enterprise. (The RICO Income Derived Claim.)

-- Count II: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants acquired and
maintained interests in and control of the enterprise involved in
the unlawful collection of debt. (The RICO Enterprise Interest and
Control Claim.)

-- Count III: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated §
1962(c) through the collection of unlawful debt. (The RICO
Collection of Unlawful Debt Claim.)

-- Count IV: Plaintiffs allege Defendants entered into several
agreements to violate Sections 1962(a)-(c). (The RICO Conspiracy
Claim.)

-- Count V: Plaintiffs allege the loans violate Virginia's usury
laws because the interest rates exceed 12%. Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants unlawfully received revenues collected on the loans.

-- Count VI: Plaintiffs allege they conferred a benefit on
Defendants when they repaid the allegedly unlawful loans; that
Defendants knew or should have known about the benefit; and that
the Defendants have been unjustly enriched through their receipt of
any amounts in connection with the unlawful loans.

Plaintiffs seek: (1) class certification; (2) declaratory and
injunctive relief and damages; and, (3) attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs of suit. Defendants moved to transfer this case
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas. The 7HBF Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Personal Jurisdiction and their Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim. The Shaper Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and their Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim. The 7HBF Defendants and the Shaper
Defendants also jointly filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration.
Sequoia filed its Motion to Compel Arbitration. Additionally,
Sequoia moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule
12(b)(3)27 and Rule 12(b)(6).28 The motions are ripe. Plaintiffs
later filed the First Motion for Leave to File Supplemental
Authority and the Second Motion for Leave to File Supplemental
Authority, which the Court will grant.

According to the Court, the matters are ripe for disposition. The
Court dispenses with oral argument because the materials before it
adequately present the facts and legal contentions, and argument
would not aid the decisional process. The Court exercises
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 133116 and 1367(a). The
Court will grant Plaintiffs' First Motion for Leave to File
Supplemental Authority and Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Leave to
File Supplemental Authority. The Court will also grant in part and
deny in part Sequoia's Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Court will
deny the remaining motions.

The Court concluded that ample special circumstances commend
proceeding in this forum and denying Defendants' Motion to
Transfer.

Accordingly, the Court will:

(1) DENY Defendants' Motion to Transfer;

(2) DENY Sequoia's Motion to Dismiss;

(3) GRANT in part and DENY in part Sequoia's Motion to Compel
Arbitration;

(4) DENY the 7HBF and Shaper Defendants' Motion to Compel
Arbitration;

(5) DENY the 7HBF Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction;

(6) DENY the 7HBF Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim;

(7) DENY the Shaper Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction;

(8) DENY the Shaper Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim;

(9) GRANT Plaintiff's First Motion for Leave to File Supplemental
Authority; and

(10) GRANT Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Leave to File
Supplemental Authority.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 30, 2019
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3ta7bnz
from Leagle.com.

Darlene Gibbs, on behalf of themselves and all individual similarly
situated, Stephanie Edwards, on behalf of themselves and all
individual similarly situated, Lula Williams, on behalf of
themselves and all individual similarly situated, Patrick Inscho,
on behalf of themselves and all individual similarly situated &
Lawrence Mwethuku, on behalf of themselves and all individual
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Joseph Guzzo
- aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com - Kelly Guzzo PLC, Casey Shannon Nash -
casey@kellyguzzo.com - Kelly Guzzo PLC, Kristi Cahoon Kelly  -
kkelly@kellyguzzo.com - Kelly Guzzo PLC, Craig Carley Marchiando,
Consumer Litigation Associates, Elizabeth W. Hanes , Consumer
Litigation Associates & Leonard Anthony Bennett, Consumer
Litigation Associates, 763 J Clyde Morris Blvd Ste 1 A, Newport
News, VA, 23601-1533.

George Hengle, Tamara Price & Sherry Blackburn, Plaintiffs,
represented by Leonard Anthony Bennett , Consumer Litigation
Associates, Andrew Joseph Guzzo , Kelly Guzzo PLC & Kristi Cahoon
Kelly , Kelly Guzzo PLC.

Michael Stinson & 7HBF NO. 2, Defendants, represented by David
Foster Herman - dherman@armstrongteasdale.com - Armstrong Teasdale
LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Peter Boughrum
-jboughrum@armstrongteasdale.com - Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro hac
vice, Richard Lawrence Scheff - rlscheff@armstrongteasdale.com -
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, pro hac vice, John Michael Erbach -
jerbach@spottsfain.com - Spotts Fain PC & Maurice Francis Mullins -
cmullins@spottsfain.com - Spotts Fain PC.

Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC, Defendant, represented by Stephen
Douglas Hibbard  - sdhibbard@jonesday.com  - Jones Day, pro hac
vice, Todd Raymond Geremia – trgeremia@jonesday.com - Jones Day,
pro hac vice & William V. O'Reilly , Jones Day.

TCV V, L.P., Sequoia Capital Franchise Partners, L.P., Sequoia
Capital IX, L.P., Sequoia Entrepreneurs Annex Fund, L.P., Sequoia
Capital Growth III Principals Fund, LLC, Sequoia Capital Franchise
Fund, L.P., Sequoia Capital Growth Partners III, L.P., Sequoia
Capital Franchise Partners, LLC, Sequoia Capital Growth Fund III,
LP & Sequoia Capital Growth Fund III, L.P., Defendants, represented
by William V. O'Reilly , Jones Day.

Linda Stinson, The Stinson 2009 Grantor Retained Annuity Trust,
Startup Capital Ventures, L.P. & Stephen Shaper, Defendants,
represented by Maurice Francis Mullins , Spotts Fain PC & John
Michael Erbach , Spotts Fain PC.

MIDLAND CREDIT: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Pierre Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Midland Credit Management, Incorporated, filed an appeal
from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Renetrice Pierre v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-02895, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 18, 2019, the
District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case.

Plaintiff Renetrice Pierre, individually and on behalf of a class,
alleges that the Defendant sent debt collection letters that
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Pierre
raised two FDCPA claims: (1) a class claim that the Defendant
falsely represented the status of the debt, used deceptive means to
attempt to collect the debt, and used unfair or unconscionable
means to attempt to collect the debt and (2) an individual claim
that the Defendant falsely represented the amount of Pierre's
debt.

The Defendant, then, moved to dismiss Count I under Rule 12(b)(1)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of standing.

The appellate case is captioned as Renetrice Pierre v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 19-2993, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellant's brief is due on or before November 19, 2019, for
Midland Credit Management, Incorporated.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee RENETRICE R. PIERRE, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Paul F. Markoff, Esq.
          MARKOFF LEINBERGER LLC
          134 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60602-0000
          Telephone: (312) 726-4162
          E-mail: paul@markleinlaw.com

Defendant-Appellant MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED, a
Kansas corporation, is represented by:

          David M. Schultz, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          151 N. Franklin Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 704-3000
          E-mail: dschultz@hinshawlaw.com


MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Faces Gompf Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Gompf and Kaila Jackson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC; DOES
1-10, and each of them, Case No. 8:19-cv-02071 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 31,
2019), arises from the illegal actions of the Defendants in
negligently contacting the Plaintiffs on their cellular telephone
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby,
invading their privacy.

The Plaintiffs purchased a dog through the Defendant. On June 27,
2017, the Plaintiffs called the Defendant to get a payoff on one of
their service dogs. The Plaintiffs received the payoff and were to
pay off the service dog by July 2017. On the same day, the
Plaintiffs allege, the Defendant continued to autodial them all
day, continuing on a daily basis in order to harass them to make a
payment on the dog.

The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place
its daily calls to the Plaintiffs seeking to collect debt allegedly
owed. The Plaintiffs says they never agreed to be contacted using
an automated telephone dialing system. Accordingly, the Defendant
never received the Plaintiffs' "prior express consent" to receive
calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial
or prerecorded voice on their cellular telephone, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs are natural persons residing in Aliso Viejo,
California.

The Defendant is a company engaged in the business of collecting
debt.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com


MV TRANS: Refuses to Increase Drivers' Pay, Shafer Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY SHAFER, an individual; CARLOS SALAZAR, an individual; and
DOLORES FIERRO, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MV TRANSPORTATION, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 9STCV37102 (Cal. Super., Oct. 16, 2019), seeks
penalties on behalf of drivers arising from the Defendants'
violations of the Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs bring this representative action on behalf of
themselves and all other current and former employees injured by
the Defendant's violations of the Labor Code, under California's
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

Tammy Shafer is a former employee of the Defendant, employed as a
Driver out of the Defendant's La Mirada, California facility.
Shafer was employed by the Defendant from February 2018 to July
2019. Carlos Salazar is a current employee of the Defendant,
employed as a Driver out of the Defendant's Whittier, California
facility. Salazar has been employed by the Defendant since March
2016. Dolores Fierro is a current employee of the Defendant,
employed as a Driver out of the Defendant's Whittier, California
facility. Fierro has been employed by the Defendant since May
2012.

The Plaintiffs and other similarly aggrieved employees are members
of Teamsters Local 848 (Local 848), the exclusive bargaining
representative for all Drivers, Road Supervisors, and Dispatchers
employed by the Defendant at its Paramount, La Mirada, and
Whittier, California facilities.  Local 848 and the Defendant are
parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which is in
effect from July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2020. As members of
Local 848, the Plaintiffs are subject to the terms and conditions
set forth in the CBA.

The Defendant willfully and unlawfully failed and/or refused to
increase the Plaintiffs' and other similarly aggrieved employees'
hourly rates of pay consistent with the wage tables set forth in
the CBA, according to the complaint.

As a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the appropriate
hourly rate of pay based on the wage tables set forth in the CBA,
as well as its consequent failure to pay the appropriate overtime
rate of pay, the Defendant violates the Labor Code of
California.[BN]

MV Transportation, Inc., based in Dallas, Texas, is the largest
privately-owned passenger transportation contracting services firm
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dennis J. Hayes, Esq.
          Renee Q. Sanchez, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Kierig, Esq.
          HAYES, ORTEGA & SANCHEZ, LLP
          3625 Ruffin Road, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92123
          Telephone: (619) 297-6900
          E-mail: djh@sdlaborlaw.com
                  rqs@sdlaborlaw.com
                  sak@sdlaborlaw.com


NAT'L ASSO. OF REALTORS: DOJ Probe Missouri Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that the Justice Department is looking
into a Missouri class-action lawsuit accusing national real estate
brokers of conspiring to charge excessive fees.

Attorneys in the department's antitrust division noted in a recent
court filing that it is investigating the matter, The Kansas City
Star reported.

A pair of Kansas City law firms sued major residential real estate
brokerage companies this year on behalf of Missouri residents who
sold a house since April 2015, contending the real estate agents'
common practices stifle competition and harm owners.

The suit took aim at mandates that sellers pay the buyer's broker a
commission, regularly an amount at or around 6% of the sale price
of a house. It also alleges brokerage firms regularly charge
inflated commissions. The lawsuit also challenges numerous listing
services, which are databases of houses that are purchased and sold
and only accessible to buyers and sellers represented by real
estate agents. Those agents must follow the National Association of
Realtors' rules, including the agreement that sellers pay
commissions of a purchaser's agent.

The association, a trade group for real estate brokers, and other
brokerage houses, has filed a motion seeking to have the lawsuit
dismissed. The group alleges, in part, that the Justice Department
had given its approval to the rules that limit access to multiple
listing services when the two parties resolved a dispute in 2008.

The Justice Department, in an unusual filing of its type in a civil
case, said the association erroneously portrayed the 2008
settlement.

"It cannot be overstated how damaging this is to the NAR's
credibility with the court," said Brandon Boulware, a Kansas City
attorney representing plaintiffs against the real estate group.

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

A spokesperson for the National Association of Realtors didn't
return a message from the newspaper seeking comment.

The Missouri suit is comparable to one filed in Illinois that some
spectators have said could put the business model of residential
real estate brokerages in jeopardy. [GN]


NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Luczak Appeals S.D. Fla. Ruling to 11th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Thomas W. Luczak filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit styled THOMAS W. LUCZAK v. NATIONAL BEVERAGE
CORPORATION, NICK A. CAPORELLA, and GEORGE R. BRACKEN, Case No.
0:18-cv-61631-KMM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 13,
2019, the District Court issued an order granting the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the case.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, brings the instant securities class action against
Defendants pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The Plaintiff alleges that during the
designated, he acquired National Beverage stock at artificially
inflated prices due to repeated material misrepresentations and
omissions in National Beverage's publicly issued statements, and
that these misrepresentations and omissions caused the Plaintiff
and other class members significant losses and damages. The
Plaintiff identifies the following four categories of statements or
omissions that eventually led to a precipitous decline in the value
of National Beverage's securities.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to
Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
arguing that the Plaintiff fails to establish standing and
adequately allege falsity, scienter, and loss causation for each of
the statements.

The appellate case is captioned as THOMAS W. LUCZAK v. NATIONAL
BEVERAGE CORPORATION, NICK A. CAPORELLA, and GEORGE R. BRACKEN,
Case No. 19-14081-GG, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The Appellant's brief must be filed on or before
      November 25, 2019; and

   -- The Appellant's appendix must be served and filed no later
      than seven days after filing of the Appellant's brief.[BN]

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Corey Holzer, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashford Pkwy Ste 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338-2666
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090
          E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


NATIONS INFO CORP: Schultz Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Schultz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONS INFO CORP, a California corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-02813 (D. Minn., Oct. 30, 2019), seeks
to stop the Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by sending unsolicited text messages.

The Defendant has sent unsolicited, autodialed text messages to
consumers, including the Plaintiff, who have registered their phone
numbers on the national Do Not Call registry. To avoid suspicion of
its illegal text message telemarketing, the Defendant has created a
series of different websites to solicit memberships while at the
same time hiding its identity in an attempt to shield itself of
liability for violating the TCPA, says the complaint.

In the Plaintiff's case, the Defendant sent at least two autodialed
text messages to her cellular phone without having her consent and
despite the fact that she had registered her phone number on the
DNC more than 30 days prior to receiving the text messages, Ms.
Schultz alleges. The Plaintiff, on behalf of all others, seeks
injunctive and monetary relied for all persons similarly injured by
the Defendant's conduct.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Zimmerman, Minnesota, which is
located in Shurburne County.

Nations Info is a provider of real estate and financial information
services to consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan D. Peterson, Esq.
     PETERSON LEGAL, PLLC
     5201 Eden Avenue, Suite 300
     Edina, MN 55436
     Phone: (612) 367-6568
     Fax: (612) 295-0415
     Email: ryan@peterson.legal

          - and -

     Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
     Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
     WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
     3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
     Denver, CO 80210
     Phone: (720) 213-0675
     Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
     Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
            ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com

          - and -

     Stefan Coleman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
     201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (877) 333-9427
     Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
     Email: Law@StefanColeman.com


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Approves $108MM Settlement in Knurr Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northrop Grumman Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has
approved the parties' proposal to resolve the case, Steven Knurr,
et al. v. Orbital ATK, Inc., No. 16-cv-01031 (TSE-MSN), for $108
million, subject to certain terms and conditions.

The putative class action complaint, naming Orbital ATK and two of
its then-officers as defendants, Steven Knurr, et al. v. Orbital
ATK, Inc., No. 16-cv-01031 (TSE-MSN), was filed on August 12,
2016.

The complaint asserts claims on behalf of purchasers of Orbital ATK
securities for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, allegedly arising out of false and
misleading statements and the failure to disclose that: (i) Orbital
ATK lacked effective control over financial reporting; and (ii) as
a result, it failed to record an anticipated loss on a long-term
contract with the U.S. Army to manufacture and supply small caliber
ammunition at the U.S. Army's Lake City Army Ammunition Plant.

On April 24, 2017 and October 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed
amended complaints naming additional defendants and asserting
claims for alleged violations of additional sections of the
Exchange Act and alleged false and misleading statements in Orbital
ATK's Form S-4 filed in connection with the Orbital-ATK Merger. The
complaint seeks damages, reasonable costs and expenses at trial,
including counsel and expert fees, and such other relief as deemed
appropriate by the Court.

On June 7, 2019, the court approved the parties' proposal to
resolve the litigation for $108 million, subject to certain terms
and conditions.

The company continues to negotiate with and pursue coverage
litigation against various of its insurance carriers.

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

Northrop Grumman Corporation, a security company, provides products
in the areas of autonomous systems, cyber, space, strikes, and
logistics and modernizations in the United States, the Asia
Pacific, and internationally. The company operates through four
segments: Aerospace Systems, Innovation Systems, Mission Systems,
and Technology Services. Northrop Grumman Corporation was founded
in 1939 and is based in Falls Church, Virginia.


NORTHWOOD INC: Patrick Sues over Data Beach
-------------------------------------------
JOHNNY PATRICK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTHWOOD INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-12932-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich., Oct. 7, 2019), asserts claims
for negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract,
unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and violation of the
Michigan Consumer Protection Act and seeks to compel Defendant to
adopt reasonably sufficient security practices to safeguard patient
personally identifiable information (PII) that remains in its
custody in order to prevent incidents like Data Breach from
reoccurring in the future.

On July 12, 2019, Northwood announced that an unauthorized third
party had gained unfettered access over a three-day period to an
employee email account which contained the sensitive personally
identifiable information and protected health information of
patients who received medical equipment and/or services supplied by
Northwood.

The exposed PII included patient names, dates of birth, medical
record numbers, member health plan identification, diagnoses and
codes, treatment details, medical device information, Social
Security and driver’s license numbers ("Data Breach"). The Data
Breach affected approximately 15,000 patients.

Although the Data Breach occurred on May 3, 2019, and was
discovered three days later, Northwood took more than two months to
notify affected patients, depriving them of the ability to promptly
mitigate potential adverse consequences.

The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect patient PII.

As a result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic
security procedures, patient PII is now in the hands of thieves.
Plaintiff and Class Members have had to spend, and will continue to
spend, significant amounts of time and money in an effort to
protect themselves from the adverse ramifications of the Data
Breach and will forever be at a heightened risk of identity theft
and fraud, the lawsuit says.

Northwood is specialized provider of durable medical equipment,
prosthetics, orthotics and medical supplies to patient members of a
various healthcare plans such as Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Michigan, Blue Care, Health New England, and Security Health Plan
of Wisconsin among others.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
          Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
          Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (313) 251-1399
          E-mail: mhanna@forthepeople.com
                  jeanmartin@forthepeople.com
                  rmcgee@forthepeople.com

ONE WAY CHECK: Sued by Isidore Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Markanna Isidore, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v.
ONE WAY CHECK ADVANCE OF LOUISIANA, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-13368-CJB-JCW (E.D. La., Oct. 31, 2019), is brought to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages.

The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff, and other workers like
her, overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, Ms.
Isidore asserts. Instead, the Defendant paid her the same hourly
rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a
workweek, she says.

Markanna Isidore was an hourly employee of the Defendant.

The Defendant is a pay-day lending company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          Amanda E. McGowen, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Phone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                 scott@bohrerbrady.com
                 amcgowen@bohrerbrady.com


PAPA SOUTH: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Garrett Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN GARRETT, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAPA SOUTH, LLC d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA; and
F.H. WIYGUL III, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00174-GHD-DAS (N.D.
Miss., Sept. 30, 2019), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Garrett was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.

Papa South, LLC, d/b/a Papa John's Pizza, a Mississippi LLC, owns
and operates numerous Papa John's pizza stores in Mississippi.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Van D. Turner, Jr., Esq.
          BRUCE TURNER, PLLC
          2650 Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 2140A
          Memphis, TN 38118
          Telephone: (901) 290-6613
          E-mail: vturner@bruceturnerlaw.net

               - and -

          Joe P. Leniski,Jr., Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH &
          JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: joeyl@bsjfirm.com


PHILIP MORRIS: ADESF Class Suit in Brazil vs. Unit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
company's subsidiary, Philip Morris Marketing, S.A., continues to
defend a class action suit in Brazil entitled, The Smoker Health
Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A.

In a class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health Defense
Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central Courts
of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July 25,
1995, PMI's subsidiary and another member of the industry are
defendants.

The plaintiff, a consumer organization, is seeking damages for all
addicted smokers and former smokers, and injunctive relief. In
2004, the trial court found defendants liable without hearing
evidence and awarded "moral damages" of R$1,000 (approximately
$243) per smoker per full year of smoking plus interest at the rate
of 1% per month, as of the date of the ruling.

The court did not award actual damages, which were to be assessed
in the second phase of the case. The size of the class was not
estimated. Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals,
which annulled the ruling in November 2008, finding that the trial
court had inappropriately ruled without hearing evidence and
returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

In May 2011, the trial court dismissed the claim. In February 2015,
the appellate court unanimously dismissed plaintiff's appeal. In
September 2015, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of
Justice. In February 2017, the Chief Justice of the Superior Court
of Justice denied plaintiff's appeal. In March 2017, plaintiff
filed an en banc appeal to the Superior Court of Justice.

In addition, the defendants filed a constitutional appeal to the
Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis that plaintiff did not have
standing to bring the lawsuit. Both appeals are still pending.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Canadian Appeals Court Cuts Damages Award in Blais
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Court
of Appeals in Canada has issued a decision largely affirming the
trial court's findings of liability and the compensatory and
punitive damages award while reducing the total amount of
compensatory damages to approximately CAD 13.5 billion including
interest (approximately $10.3 billion) due to the trial court's
error in the calculation of interest.

In a class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac
Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior
Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc. (RBH) and other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco
Canada Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants.

The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual
smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of
the class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related
diseases. The class was certified in 2005. The trial court issued
its judgment on May 27, 2015.

The trial court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers
liable and found that the class members' compensatory damages
totaled approximately CAD 15.5 billion, including pre-judgment
interest (approximately $11.8 billion).

The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and several
liability basis, allocating 20% to the company's subsidiary
(approximately CAD 3.1 billion, including pre-judgment interest
(approximately $2.36 billion)). In addition, the trial court
awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately $68,530) in punitive damages,
allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately $22,840) to RBH. The trial
court estimated the disease class at 99,957 members. RBH appealed
to the Court of Appeal of Quebec.

In October 2015, the Court of Appeal ordered RBH to furnish
security totaling CAD 226 million (approximately $172.1 million) to
cover both the Letourneau and Blais cases, which RBH has paid in
installments through March 2017. The Court of Appeal ordered
Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. to furnish security totaling CAD 758
million (approximately $577.2 million) in installments through June
2017. JTI Macdonald Corp. was not required to furnish security in
accordance with plaintiffs' motion.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the security is payable upon a
final judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the trial court's
judgment or upon further order of the Court of Appeal. On March 1,
2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely affirming the
trial court's findings of liability and the compensatory and
punitive damages award while reducing the total amount of
compensatory damages to approximately CAD 13.5 billion including
interest (approximately $10.3 billion) due to the trial court's
error in the calculation of interest. The compensatory damages
award is on a joint and several basis with an allocation of 20% to
RBH (approximately CAD 2.7 billion, including pre-judgment interest
(approximately $2.06 billion)).

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's findings that
defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of
Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act
by failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking and by
conspiring to prevent consumers from learning of the dangers of
smoking.

The Court of Appeal further held that the plaintiffs either need
not prove, or had adequately proven, that these faults were a cause
of the class members' injuries. In accordance with the judgment,
defendants are required to deposit their respective portions of the
damages awarded in both the Letourneau case and the Blais case,
approximately CAD 1.1 billion (approximately $837.6 million), into
trust accounts within 60 days. RBH's share of the deposit is
approximately CAD 257 million (approximately $195.7 million).

PMI recorded a pre-tax charge of $194 million in its consolidated
results, representing $142 million net of tax, as tobacco
litigation-related expense, in the first quarter of 2019. The
charge reflects PMI's assessment of the portion of the judgment
that represents probable and estimable loss prior to the
deconsolidation of RBH and corresponds to the trust account deposit
required by the judgment.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Canadian Appeals Court Upholds Ruling in Letourneau
------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Court
of Appeals in Canada has issued a decision largely affirming the
trial court's findings of liability and the total amount of
punitive damages awarded allocating CAD 57 million including
interest (approximately $43.6 million) to Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc. (RBH).

In a class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial
Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald
Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September 1998, RBH
and other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and
JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants.  

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought compensatory and
punitive damages for each member of the class who is deemed
addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005. The trial
court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found
RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and awarded a total
of CAD 131 million (approximately $99.8 million) in punitive
damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $35.0 million) to
RBH.

The trial court estimated the size of the addiction class at
918,000 members but declined to award compensatory damages to the
addiction class because the evidence did not establish the claims
with sufficient accuracy. The trial court found that a claims
process to allocate the awarded punitive damages to individual
class members would be too expensive and difficult to administer.

On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely
affirming the trial court's findings of liability and the total
amount of punitive damages awarded allocating CAD 57 million
including interest (approximately $43.4 million) to RBH.

RBH and PMI believe the findings of liability and damages in both
Letourneau and the Blais cases were incorrect and in contravention
of applicable law on several grounds including the following: (i)
defendants had no obligation to warn class members who knew, or
should have known, of the risks of smoking; (ii) defendants cannot
be liable to class members who would have smoked regardless of what
warnings were given; and (iii) defendants cannot be liable to all
class members given the individual differences between class
members.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Rebolledo Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that preliminary
motions are pending in the purported class action suit entitled,
Ana Ferrero Rebolledo vs. Philip Morris Colombia S.A., et al.

In Colombia, an individual filed a purported class action, Ana
Ferrero Rebolledo vs. Philip Morris Colombia S.A., et al., in April
2019 against the company's subsidiaries with the Civil Court of
Bogota related to the marketing of the company's Platform 1
product.

Plaintiff alleges that the company's subsidiaries advertise the
product in contravention of law and in a manner that misleads
consumers by portraying the product in a positive light, and
further asserts that the Platform 1 vapor contains many toxic
compounds, creates a high level of dependence, and has damaging
second-hand effects. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages
on her behalf and on a behalf of two classes (class 1 - all
Platform 1 consumers in Colombia who seek damages for the purchase
price of the product and personal injuries related to the alleged
addiction, and class 2 - all residents of the neighborhood where
the advertising allegedly took place who seek damages for exposure
to the alleged illegal advertising).

Philip Morris said, "Our subsidiaries have been served with the
complaint. Preliminary motions are pending."

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Ringer Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that plaintiff
in Ringer v. Philip Morris Ltd. and Globrands Ltd., has voluntarily
withdrawn the class certification motion, and the trial court has
dismissed the case with prejudice.

An individual plaintiff filed a purported class action
certification motion, Aharon Ringer v. Philip Morris Ltd. and
Globrands Ltd., on July 18, 2017, in the Central District Court of
Israel.

The company's Israeli affiliate and an Israeli importer and
distributor for other multinational tobacco companies are
defendants. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of smokers in
Israel who have purchased cigarettes imported by defendants since
July 18, 2010. Plaintiff estimates the class size to be 7,000,000
smokers.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants misled consumers by not
disclosing sufficient information about carbon monoxide, tar, and
nicotine yields of, and tobacco contained in, the imported
cigarettes. Plaintiff seeks various forms of relief, including an
order for defendants to label cigarette packs in accordance with
plaintiff's demands, and damages for misleading consumers, breach
of autonomy and unjust enrichment.

In September 2019, plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the class
certification motion, and the trial court dismissed the case with
prejudice.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Still Defends Securities Litigation in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a putative shareholder class action suit
entitled, In re Philip Morris International Inc. Securities
Litigation.

A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, In re Philip Morris
International Inc. Securities Litigation, is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Philip Morris International
Inc. stock between July 26, 2016 and April 18, 2018.  

The lawsuit names Philip Morris International Inc. and certain
officers and employees as defendants and includes allegations that
the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose information about PMI's business, operations,
financial condition, and prospects, related to product sales of,
and alleged irregularities in clinical studies of, PMI's Platform 1
product.  

The lawsuit seeks various forms of relief, including damages.

In November, 2018, the court consolidated three putative
shareholder class action lawsuits with similar allegations
previously filed in the Southern District of New York (namely, City
of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. Philip Morris
International Inc., et al, Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension
Fund v. Philip Morris International Inc., et al., and Gilchrist v.
Philip Morris International Inc., et al.) into these proceedings.

A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, Rubenstahl v. Philip
Morris International Inc., et al., that had been previously filed
in December, 2017 in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff
due to similar allegations in these proceedings.

Philip Morris said, "We believe that this lawsuit is without merit
and intend to defend it vigorously."

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PINCHERS RESTAURANTS: Perez Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Perez, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated Plaintiff v. Pinchers Restaurants, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 4:19-cv-04280 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 30, 2019), is an opt-in
collective action brought to recover overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members routinely worked for more than 40 hours in a work week
during the relevant period but were not paid time and one-half
their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a work week. The Defendants knowingly, willfully, or with reckless
disregard carried out their illegal pattern or practice of failing
to pay overtime compensation with respect to the Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a cook and as a
manager.

The Defendant owns and operates a restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
     1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
     Southlake, TX 76092-4322
     Office: 817-416-5060
     Fax: 817-416-5062
     Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com


PME MORTGAGE: Trustee's $800K Cash Sale of Aguanga Property Okayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Scott H. Yun of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central
District of California authorize the Asset Purchase Agreement of
Nicholas Rubin, the Liquidating Trustee of the PME Mortgage Fund,
Inc. Liquidating Trust, with Russell L. Pogue in connection with
the sale of all of the Liquidating Trust's interest in the real
property located at 50005 Bradford Road, Aguanga, California,
together with all rights, privileges, easements and appurtenances
pertaining thereto, together with all of the Liquidating Trust's
right, title and interest in any fixtures or improvements located
on or in the Land, for $800,000, cash.

A hearing on the Motion was held on Oct. 10, 2019 at 1:30 p.m.

The sale is free and clear of any and all liens and Interests.

All time periods set forth in the Order will be calculated in
accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a).

The stay of the order approving the Motion imposed by Federal Rule
of Bankruptcy Procedure 6004(h) and any other applicable bankruptcy
rules is waived.

                   About PME Mortgage Fund

PME Mortgage Fund Inc. is a privately held company in Big Bear
Lake, California.  It is an affiliate of hard-money lender Pacific
Mortgage Exchange, Inc., which has provided hard money loan
programs for over 30 years.

PME Mortgage Fund sought protection under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Case No. 17-15082) on June 19,
2017.  In the petition signed by CRO Nicholas Rubin, the Debtor
estimated assets and liabilities of $10 million to $50 million.

Judge Scott H. Yun oversees the case.  

The Debtor hired Zolkin Talerico LLP as its bankruptcy counsel.

On July 17, 2017, the Office of the U.S. Trustee appointed an
official committee of unsecured creditors.  The committee retained
Smiley Wang-Ekvall, LLP as its legal counsel.

On July 24, 2018, the Court confirmed the Debtor's Chapter 11 Plan,
the went effective on Aug. 21, 2018.

PREMIER EMPLOYEE: Gordon Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shavel Gordon and Andre Houston, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PREMIER EMPLOYEE
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH12672 (Ill. Cir., Cook
Cty., Oct. 30, 2019), seeks to put a stop to the Defendant's
unlawful collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiffs' and the
putative Class members' sensitive biometric data.

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

Specifically, Premier has violated (and continues to violate) the
BIPA because it did not: properly inform the Plaintiffs and the
Class members in writing of the specific purpose and length of time
for which their fingerprints were being collected, stored, and
used, as required by the BIPA; provide a publicly available
retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the
Plaintiffs' and the Class members' fingerprints, as required by the
BIPA; nor receive a written release from the Plaintiffs or the
members of the Class to collect, capture, or otherwise obtain
fingerprints, as required by the BIPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are natural persons residing in the state of
Illinois.

Premier is an Arizona limited liability company that is
headquartered in Utah. It provides third-party staffing, industrial
staffing, employee relations management and risk management
programs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


PRESIDIO INC: Bushansky Sues Over Sale to BC Partners
-----------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. PRESIDIO, INC., ROBERT CAGNAZZI, HEATHER BERGER,
CHRISTOPHER L. EDSON, SALIM HIRJI, STEVEN LERNER, MATTHEW H. NORD,
PANKAJ PATEL, MICHAEL REISS, and TODD H. SIEGEL, Case No.
3:19-cv-06513 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2019), seeks to enjoin the vote
on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Presidio will be
acquired by BC Partners Advisors L.P. through BCEC - Port Holdings
(Delaware), LP and Port Merger Sub, Inc.

On August 14, 2019, Presidio issued a press release announcing that
it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (as amended on
September 25, 2019, the "Merger Agreement") to sell Presidio to BC
Partners. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each Presidio
stockholder will receive $16.60 in cash for each share of Presidio
common stock they own (the "Merger Consideration").

On October 7, 2019, Presidio filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement with the SEC.  The Proxy Statement, which recommends that
Presidio stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) the background process leading to the Proposed
Transaction; (ii) Company insiders' potential conflicts of
interest; and (iii) the Company's financial projections and the
data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that
support the fairness opinion provided by Presidio's financial
advisor, LionTree Advisors LLC, the Plaintiff alleges.

Unless remedied, Presidio's public stockholders will be irreparably
harmed because the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations
and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed
voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction, the
Plaintiff contends.  The Plaintiff brings this stockholder class
action against the Defendants for their violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 seeking to
enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and
until such Exchange Act violations are cured.

The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Presidio.

Presidio is a Delaware corporation, with its principal executive
offices located in New York City.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Presidio is a North American information technology ("IT")
solutions provider delivering Digital Infrastructure, Cloud and
Security solutions to create agile, secure infrastructure platforms
for commercial and public sector customers.  The Company offers
digital infrastructure solutions that enable clients to deploy IT
infrastructure, as well as focuses on networking, collaboration,
enterprise mobility, Internet of Things, and data analytics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
          E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com


PRIOR GROUP: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Anderson Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
CONNOR ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE PRIOR GROUP, INC.; and LEE PRIOR,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00452-NT (D. Maine, Oct. 4, 2019)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Anderson was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.

The Prior Group, Inc. is a Maine corporation maintaining its
principal place of business in this District and may be served via
its registered agent, Lee Prior who may be served at 10 Brooklyn
Heights Rd., Thomaston, ME 04861, or wherever he may be found.

The Prior Group, Inc. is a Maine corporation owning and operating
Domino's franchise stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Mancuso, Esq.
          Andrew Schmidt, Esq.
          ANDREW SCHMIDT LAW PLLC
          97 India Street
          Portland, ME 04101
          Telephone: (207) 619-0884
          E-mail: Peter@MaineWorkerJustice.com

               - and -

          Jay Forester, Esq.
          1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909


PURDUE: Opioid-Dependent Babies May Get Left Out of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Eyre, writing for The Logan Banner, reports that HD Media
babies born with opioid dependency are in danger of being left
behind from the massive national litigation that seeks to hold drug
companies accountable for the addiction crisis, according to West
Virginia lawyers who are renewing a push to move the cases from
federal court in Cleveland to Charleston.

Attorneys for the opioid-dependent babies want their cases
separated from the complex national lawsuit against opioid
manufacturers and distributors. More than 2,000 local governments
are suing the drug companies, alleging they flooded the nation with
powerful painkillers and downplayed the risk.

Since February, the babies' cases have been lumped into the
national litigation, which has been consolidated in federal court
in Cleveland.

The babies' lawyers say the most vulnerable victims of the opioid
crisis have been left out of ongoing settlement talks, with the
first of several trials set to begin Oct. 21. The drug companies'
attorneys argue the opioid litigation must be kept in one courtroom
for efficiency sake.

Charleston lawyer Booth Goodwin filed a motion asking a federal
judge to send the opioid-dependent babies' lawsuits back to
Charleston. The babies' cases have stagnated in recent months while
the local government lawsuits have progressed, Goodwin said in the
filing.

He described the pace of the babies' cases as "glacial."

"Innocent babies are in real danger of being left behind as
government entities seek recoveries that will spread far and wide,"
Goodwin wrote to U.S. District Judge Dan Polster in Cleveland. "The
best place for this suit is back in the Southern District of West
Virginia."

Legal experts have speculated an opioid settlement could rival the
$240 billion tobacco settlements of the 1990s.

In previous statements, Polster has suggested it might make sense
to carve out the babies' cases from the massive national
litigation. At a recent hearing, Polster remarked the two groups of
plaintiffs -- the local governments and the drug-dependent babies
-- were "dramatically different," Goodwin's motion noted.

The lawsuits brought by towns, cities and counties are trying to
recoup money for damages caused by the opioid crisis, while the
babies' cases focus on "individual harm -- how the individual was
born addicted, from whom prescriptions were obtained, where the
prescriptions were filled, and how legal prescriptions were
diverted and contributed to the individual's injuries," Goodwin
wrote.

In West Virginia, the state hit hardest by the opioid epidemic,
about 5% of all babies are born dependent on opioids.

"Given the developmental nature of their injuries, time is of the
essence for these children," Goodwin said in his motion. "As these
babies become children and young adults, the window for seeking
remedial medical attention slams shut."

Goodwin, a former federal prosecutor and 2016 Democratic
gubernatorial candidate, said his law firm, Goodwin & Goodwin, is
evaluating nearly 200 cases of children -- most from Southern West
Virginia -- who had withdrawal symptoms after being born to
addicted mothers.

The defendants in the case include opioid makers like Purdue Pharma
and national distributors like McKesson and Cardinal Health.

Local governments are seeking a settlement that will allow them to
spend the funds any way they see fit. They could use settlement
monies to plug budget holes, shore up pension funds, give pay
raises to government employees or pave roads. And that would leave
babies' needs unmet.

"Children deserve individual treatment and individual recoveries
which address their individual harm," Goodwin wrote.

Two other Charleston law firms -- the Calwell Practices and the Law
Offices of P. Rodney Jackson
-- are assisting Goodwin with the class-action lawsuit. [GN]


RECONTRUST CO: 10th Cir. Vacates Cy Pres Award in Allred Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued an
Order and Judgment vacating a district court's approval of the
class settlement in the case captioned ERIC ALLRED, on his own
behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff-Appellee, and STATE OF UTAH; SEAN D. REYES, Plaintiff
Intervenors-Appellants, v. RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 18-4006, (10th Cir.).

In 2013, Eric Allred filed a class action lawsuit against
ReconTrust in Utah state court, alleging that ReconTrust Company
N.A., a national bank, had illegally served as the trustee in
hundreds of non-judicial foreclosures against Utah residents.
ReconTrust removed the lawsuit to federal court, where the Utah
State intervened seeking a declaration that Utah law, rather than
federal law, governed and prohibited ReconTrust's actions.

The parties eventually settled the lawsuit with two agreements.
First, Allred and ReconTrust entered into an agreement requiring
ReconTrust to establish a $1,242,500 fund to pay class members'
claims, attorney fees, and administration fees.  Allred and
ReconTrust also agreed to the creation of a cy pres fund: "The
Parties agree that the amount of any Benefit Checks not timely
negotiated and any amount of the Settlement Amount remaining shall
belong to the State of Utah, to be used for programs related to
housing, housing loans, and homelessness."  Second, ReconTrust and
the State executed a separate agreement that settled the State's
declaratory relief claim, paid the State's attorney fees, and
acknowledged the cy pres fund's creation.

The district court preliminarily approved the class settlement.
After notice of the class-action settlement was sent to class
members and no member objected or opted out, the district court
held a final fairness hearing, where it inquired about the cy pres
fund, as the proposed order drafted by Allred's attorney stated
only that "any residue of the Common Fund shall be contributed as
cy pres award."  Upon hearing arguments, the district court focused
on giving any unclaimed money to the United States, explaining that
"they need all the money they can get" and that "we're not in the
charity business." At the conclusion of the hearing, the district
court approved the class settlement agreement in all respects
except for the parties' cy pres provision.

The State appealed, challenging the district court's cy pres award
to the United States.

On review, the Tenth Circuit sees no indication that the district
court considered whether the cy pres agreement between Allred and
ReconTrust was fair, reasonable, and adequate. Indeed, it appears
that the district court may have rejected the very premise of a cy
pres remedy, given the district court's inclination to give the
money to the United States for an economic reason and its
opposition to the money being used for a charitable purpose.

Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit vacates the district court's cy pres
award to the United States and remands the matter so the district
court may (1) conduct the requisite analysis of the cy pres award
contained in the Allred/ReconTrust settlement agreement and (2) set
forth its analysis in written findings and conclusions.

A full-text copy of the Tenth Circuit's September 26, 2019 Order
and Judgment is available at  https://tinyurl.com/yyzhs9hb from
Leagle.com


RENZENBERGER, INC: Marquez et al Seek Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
PAUL MARQUEZ, and ABRON JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. RENZENBERGER, INC.,
D/B/A HALLCON, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-03865 (S.D. Tex.,
Oct. 7, 2019), alleges that Hallcon failed to pay overtime as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees are
non-exempt hourly employees who worked for Hallcon and received a
shift differential in any workweek in which overtime was worked
within the preceding statutory period.

The Plaintiffs worked at Hallcon's location in Houston, Texas as
non-exempt hourly employees who received shift differentials when
working certain hours.

Pursuant to Hallcon's company-wide policies, practices, and/or
procedures, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated non-exempt hourly employees the proper amount of overtime
compensation due and owing pursuant to the FLSA.

Defendant's systematic violations of the FLSA were willful in that
Defendant either knew that its policies, practices, and/or
procedures violated the FLSA or acted with reckless disregard as to
whether or not its policies complied with the law, the lawsuit
says.

Hallcon is a provider of transportation and maintenance services
for public and private transit sectors.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs are:

          Michelle Mishoe Miller, Esq.
          MISHOE MILLER LAW, PLLC
          4309 Yoakum Blvd.
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 521-6575
          Facsimile: (832) 550-2073
          E-mail: Michelle.Miller@mishoemillerlaw.com

REPP SPORTS: Faces Ringsmuth Suit in Middle District of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Repp Sports, LLC. The
case is captioned as Matthew C. Ringsmuth, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Repp
Sports, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00752-SPC-MRM (M.D.
Fla., Oct. 17, 2019).[BN]

The Plaintiff's Attorney is:

          Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
          CHAIKIN LAW FIRM PLLC
          2338 Immokalee Road, Suite 170
          Naples, FL 34110

The Defendant is represented by:

          LM ADVISORY GROUP, LLC
          1540 International Parkway, Suite 2000
          Lake Mary, FL 32746

RESULTS COMPANIES: Harden Sues Over Unpaid Regular & Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Harden and Chamille Bagby, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE RESULTS COMPANIES, LLC, Case No.
1:19-cv-01353-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill., Oct. 31, 2019), arises under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
Illinois Wage payment and Collection Act, for the Defendant's
failure to pay the Plaintiffs all earned regular and overtime pay
for all time worked.

The Defendant knowingly required and/or permitted the Plaintiffs to
perform unpaid work before the start times of their shifts,
including booting up computers, logging in to the Defendant's
computer network and more. The amount of uncompensated time the
Plaintiffs spend or have spent on these required unpaid work
actives averages 15 minutes per day per person, says the complaint

The Plaintiffs worked as telephone-dedicated employees.

The Defendant manages, controls and operates customer service call
centers within this judicial district and manages and controls the
telephone-based workers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-726-3400
          Email: tom@tomryanlaw.com

               - and -

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES P.C.
          8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 201-0575
          Fax: (312) 332-0600
          Email: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                 cpsons@bormeslaw.com


RUCON INC: Castrejon Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Castrejon and Merari Antonio, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rucon, Inc., Jerry
Nunez and Bobby Nunez, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-03843 (S.D. Tex.,
October 4, 2019), seeks all available relief, including
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

Rucon is a government general services contractor where Plaintiffs
worked as laborers. They claim to routinely work in excess of 40
hours per workweek but were denied overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: (713) 868-3388
      Fax: (713) 683-9940
      Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
             vijay@buenkerlaw.com


SAN JOSE: Cal. App. Upholds Certification Denial in Blevins Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District, upheld the
district court's denial of class certification in the case
captioned LISA BLEVINS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN
JOSE, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. H044068, (Cal. App.).

Plaintiff Lisa Blevins filed a putative class action against
respondent City of San Jose, alleging that the City intentionally
misidentified her and other employees as contract or temporary
employees instead of classified civil service employees, which
reduced certain employment benefits, including retirement
benefits.

Plaintiff moved to certify a class of "all past and current
employees of the City of San Jose who signed written employment
agreements after January 1, 1988 which identified them as contract
employees or temporary employees."

Plaintiff supported the motion with contracts from a few City
employees who had also worked at Grace.

The trial court found that plaintiff had satisfied several of the
necessary requirements for class certification, but ultimately
determined that individual factual issues predominate over common
ones. The trial court reasoned that even if the City engaged in an
unlawful misclassification scheme, the Court will then need to
examine the individual circumstances of each class member's
employment to determine if that class member was misclassified as
part of the scheme or whether the City had a proper basis for
classifying the employee as a contract employee or temporary
employee. The trial court also found that a class action would not
be superior to individual lawsuits because of the need to determine
individual factual issues for each class member and also because
plaintiff was not seeking such a small recovery that she will not
have an incentive to pursue this action on her own if the class is
not certified.

On review, the Appellate Court finds that, "Not all members of the
proposed class had the same or even substantially similar job
duties. The proposed class includes any City employee who was
deemed a contract or temporary employee from 1988 onward. Though
plaintiff provided contracts for Grace employees to support her
motion, it is undisputed that the City's temporary and contract
workforce includes individuals performing widely varied work.
Potential class members could include electricians, tree trimmers,
public art installers, information technology professionals, mental
health providers, and any number of fields where a municipality
might need assistance. The only method of determining the existence
of the alleged scheme would be an employee-by-employee (or at least
job-by-job) review. The need for individualized determinations
supports the trial court's decision that individual factual issues
predominate over common ones."

"The trial court here considered the facts of the case before it,
and we see no error in its conclusion that individual factual
issues predominate over common ones," the Appellate Court holds.

Plaintiff argued the trial court's decision could lead to
inconsistent rulings and competing injunctions, and that the
availability of defenses that would apply against all class members
should have been weighed in favor of certifying the class action.
The Appellate Court opines, "The lack of common factual issues
lessens the risk of inconsistent rulings and competing injunctions,
because any future rulings or injunctions would be based on
determinations related to specific employees or job types rather
than to the proposed class as a whole. And even if certain factors
support class certification, we review the trial court's decision
for abuse of discretion. We are not permitted to substitute our
judgment for that of the trial court. Given the lack of common
factual issues, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's
decision to deny class certification."

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's September 26, 2019
Opinion  is available at  https://tinyurl.com/yy7cqsrw from
Leagle.com


SEI INVESTMENTS: Fairness Hearing in Stevens Suit Set for Dec. 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Court in the
class action suit initiated by Gordon Stevens has scheduled a
fairness hearing for December 18, 2019.

On September 28, 2018, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania by Gordon Stevens, individually and as the
representative of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the
SEI Capital Accumulation Plan (the "Plan") naming the Company and
its affiliated and/or related entities SEI Investments Management
Corporation, SEI Capital Accumulation Plan Design Committee, SEI
Capital Accumulation Plan Investment Committee, SEI Capital
Accumulation Plan Administration Committee, and John Does 1-30 as
defendants (the "Stevens Complaint").

The Stevens Compliant seeks unspecified damages for defendants'
breach of fiduciary duties under The Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) with respect to selecting and
monitoring the Plan's investment options and by retaining
affiliated investment products in the Plan.

Although SEI believes its defenses against the plaintiff's
allegations were valid, the Company agreed to settle this matter in
the very early stages of the litigation in order to avoid the high
cost of protracted class-action litigation and internal
distractions such cases bring.

The written settlement agreement was submitted to the Court on July
26, 2019, and is a matter of public record. A Preliminary Approval
Order approving the settlement agreement was issued by the Court
and the Court has scheduled a fairness hearing for December 18,
2019. The settlement agreement will not be finalized until the
Court has issued a final approval after the December 18, 2019.

SEI Investments said, "The Company expects final Court approval of
the settlement by year-end. The Company expects the financial
impact of the settlement agreement to be immaterial."

SEI Investments Company is a publicly owned asset management
holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides wealth
management, retirement and investment solutions, asset management,
asset administration, investment processing outsourcing solutions,
financial services, and investment advisory services to its
clients. SEI Investments Company was founded in 1968 and is based
in Oaks, Pennsylvania.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Motion in Support of Appeal Due Nov. 20
--------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that Plaintiffs' Motion
in Support of the Notice of Appeal in the Ahders Complaint must be
filed with the Court by November 20, 2019.

SEI has been named in seven lawsuits filed in Louisiana courts;
four of the cases also name SEI Private Trust Company (SPTC) as a
defendant. The underlying allegations in all actions relate to the
purported role of SPTC in providing back-office services to
Stanford Trust Company. The complaints allege that SEI and SPTC
participated in some manner in the sale of "certificates of
deposit" issued by Stanford International Bank so as to be a
"seller" of the certificates of deposit for purposes of primary
liability under the Louisiana Securities Law or so as to be
secondarily liable under that statute for sales of certificates of
deposit made by Stanford Trust Company.

Two of the actions also include claims for violations of the
Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy, and a third
also asserts claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law,
negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of
the Louisiana Racketeering Act, and conspiracy.

The procedural status of the seven cases varies. The Lillie case,
filed originally in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish
of East Baton Rouge, was brought as a class action and is
procedurally the most advanced of the cases. SEI and SPTC filed
exceptions, which the Court granted in part, dismissing claims
under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and permitting the
claims under the Louisiana Securities Law to go forward.

On March 11, 2013, newly-added insurance carrier defendants removed
the case to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana. On August 7, 2013, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the matter to the Northern
District of Texas where MDL 2099, In re: Stanford Entities
Securities Litigation ("the Stanford MDL"), is pending.

On September 22, 2015, the District Court on the motion of SEI and
SPTC dismissed plaintiffs' claims for primary liability under
Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability under Section
714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law based on the allegations
pled by plaintiffs.

On November 4, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Section 712(D) of the
Louisiana Securities Law.

Consequently, the only claims of plaintiffs remaining in Lillie are
plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability against SEI and SPTC
under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law. On May 2,
2016, the District Court certified the class as being "all persons
for whom Stanford Trust Company purchased or renewed Stanford
Investment Bank Limited certificates of deposit in Louisiana
between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009". Notice of the
pendency of the class action was mailed to potential class members
on October 4, 2016.

On December 1, 2016, a group of plaintiffs who opted out of the
Lillie class filed a complaint against SEI and SPTC in the United
States District Court in the Middle District of Louisiana ("Ahders
Complaint"), alleging claims essentially the same as those in
Lillie. In January 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred the Ahders proceeding to the Northern
District of Texas and the Stanford MDL.

During February 2017, SEI filed its response to the Ahders
Complaint, and in March 2017 the District Court for the Northern
District of Texas approved the stipulated dismissal of all claims
in this Complaint predicated on Section 712(D) or Section 714(A) of
the Louisiana Securities Law. In both cases, as a result of the
proceedings in the Northern District of Texas, only the plaintiffs'
secondary liability claims under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana
Securities Law remain. Limited discovery and motions practice have
occurred, including SEI and SPTC's filing of a dispositive summary
judgment motion in the Lillie proceeding. On January 31, 2019, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remanded the Lillie and
Ahders proceedings to the Middle District of Louisiana.

On July 9, 2019, the District Court issued an order granting SEI's
Summary Judgment Motion to dismiss the remaining Section 714(B)
claim in the Lillie proceeding and denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Continuance of SEI and SPTC's Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant
to Rule 56(d).

On July 16, 2019, SEI and SPTC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
pursuant to Rule 56(d) in the Ahders proceeding to have the
remaining Section 714(B) claim dismissed.  On July 17, 2019,
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial as
to the July 9, 2019 Ruling and Order (ECF 146) by the Honorable
Brian A. Jackson denying a continuance of SEI's Motion for Summary
Judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d).

The Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion and entered a Final Judgment in
favor of SEI on August 15, 2019.

On August 27, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit of the District
Court's dismissal of the matter. Plaintiffs' Motion in Support of
the Notice of Appeal must be filed with the Court by November 20,
2019. If Plaintiffs' Motion in Support of Appeal is filed, SEI
intends to contest the Plaintiffs' appeal.

SEI Investments Company is a publicly owned asset management
holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides wealth
management, retirement and investment solutions, asset management,
asset administration, investment processing outsourcing solutions,
financial services, and investment advisory services to its
clients. SEI Investments Company was founded in 1968 and is based
in Oaks, Pennsylvania.


SEIU: Agrees to Free Workers from MMP Restrictions
--------------------------------------------------
Yuichiro Kakutani, writing for The Washington Free Beacon, reports
that some of Pennsylvania's most powerful labor unions have removed
a key hurdle for workers who wish to resign their membership
following a series of class action lawsuits.

Pennsylvania unions have long used maintenance of membership
provisions (MMP) embedded in collective bargaining agreements to
collect dues from government workers. Workers were only given a two
week period to resign from the union ranks if they wished to cut
ties. In response, several public-sector workers sued, arguing that
the provisions are unconstitutional infringements on their freedom
of speech. The unions agreed to suspend MMP, rather than run the
risk of a lawsuit -- even if they could lose tens of thousands of
dollars in dues and fees.

David Osborne, president and general counsel of the Fairness
Center, which represented the workers, said the contract provisions
infringed on the First Amendment rights of workers. He said the
government agencies that negotiated the contracts placed the
interests of organized labor ahead of their own employees.

"People should have the First Amendment right not to associate with
their unions and they shouldn't have a waiting period before they
do that," Osborne said. "First Amendment rights should not be
limited to 15 days every three or four years."

Pennsylvania, a traditional union stronghold, is the latest state
to see the influence of organized labor recede in the wake of the
landmark 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, which ruled
that mandatory public-sector union membership violates the First
Amendment. The decision motivated public-sector workers around the
country to resign from their unions and stop paying dues.

Despite the ruling, however, three of Pennsylvania's public-sector
unions -- local branches of the Service Employees International
Union (SEIU), United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union, and
Pennsylvania State Correctional Officers Association (PSCOA) --
cited MMP to prevent employees from withdrawing their memberships,
prompting workers to file suit.

"The narrative. . .  following the Janus ruling was that union
memberships would be largely unaffected," said Jessica Barnett,
manager of policy research at the Commonwealth Foundation, a
free-market think tank. "But union membership [rules show] that
even if members want to leave, they are not allowed to." She added
that the practice violates the First Amendment right to free
association.

None of the unions returned requests for comment.

All three unions agreed to allow workers to leave the unions and
stop paying membership fees, according to court documents filed
during the summer. In total, 22,500 workers were freed from the MMP
restrictions.

"Any employee of the Commonwealth who is or in the future becomes a
member of Local 668 'may, at any time, resign from the Union,
regardless of any window period which may be specified in the
collective bargaining agreement or the Public Employee Relations
Act,'" read an SEIU court filing.

Osborne told the Washington Free Beacon that he suspects the unions
gave in to the workers' demands to convince the judge to dismiss
the lawsuit. However, Osborne said his clients remained committed
to the cases because "the promises aren't legally enforceable"
unless a court victory definitively declares such provisions
unconstitutional.

"They are not looking to settle with our clients," Osborne said.
"They are looking to tell the court that 'we've fixed the problem
and there's no need to address it.' I think they are terrified that
the maintenance of membership is unconstitutional."

Pennsylvania's branch of AFSCME has also dropped MMP from its 2019
collective bargaining agreement. By pre-emptively suspending MMP,
the unions could avoid some of the harsher penalties and
settlements that labor organizations have suffered in other states.
A Washington state SEIU chapter had to pay back more than $3
million in union dues that it collected from non-consenting home
care workers, after losing a post-Janus class-action lawsuit.

"[The] settlement is a long-overdue vindication of caregivers'
rights and is one of many steps necessary to hold SEIU 775
accountable for its illegal and unacceptable practices," the
Freedom Foundation, a pro-free market organization that launched
the lawsuit, said in a press statement.

Osborne is convinced that his clients will convince the court to
pursue the case and set a new precedent barring the practice.

"To be clear, these cases are not over," Osborne said.
"Pennsylvania really needs a ruling from the courts on the ruling
that finally strikes down the maintenance of membership provision
as unconstitutional. Everyone knows it already, we need a ruling
from the court." [GN]


SIRIUS XM: Parrella Suit Remanded to New Jersey Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY PARRELLA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a
SIRIUS XM SATELLITE RADIO, SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC., and JAMES E.
MEYER, Defendants, Civ. No. 19-15778 (D. N.J.), Judge Anne E.
Thompson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.

The case arises from Defendant Sirius XM's alleged failure to honor
an offer in an advertisement.  Defendant Sirius XM transmits radio
channels on a subscription fee basis.  In or around December 2017,
it sent the Plaintiff an advertisement offering to reactivate
service on his deactivated account.  The Defendant offered to sell
the Plaintiff its "Select service" package at a cost of $99 per
year, which would "lock in" three years of "uninterrupted Sirius XM
Select service."  The advertisement included a letter sent by
Defendant James E. Meyer, CEO of Defendant Sirius XM.  

The Plaintiff went online to accept the offer, only to find a "less
attractive and more expensive offer" appear on screen: a "limited
offer" of one year for $60.  He then called a customer service
representative ("CSR") at Defendant Sirius XM's office.  The
Plaintiff accepted the "limited offer," but maintained that he
wanted Defendant Sirius XM to honor the offer that he received in
the mail.

The Plaintiff is a resident of New Jersey.  The other potential
class members are also residents of New Jersey.  Defendant Sirius
XM Holdings and Defendant Sirius XM are incorporated in Delaware,
with their headquarters in New York.  Defendant Meyer is a resident
of Indiana.

The Plaintiff initially filed the putative class action on June 19,
2019 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer
County.  He defines the class as all New Jersey consumers to whom
Sirius XM offered a Select service package the same as or similar
to the Select service package offered to the Plaintiff at any time
on or after the day six years prior to the date the Complaint was
filed, who timely responded to the offer and subsequently purchased
a more expensive service package.  On behalf of the class, the
Plaintiff alleges four counts under New Jersey state law.

On July 24, 2019, the Defendants timely removed to the Court.  They
argue that the Court has jurisdiction over the case under the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  On Aug. 23, 2019, the Plaintiff
moved to remand the case back to the Superior Court of New Jersey.

Judge Thompson finds that it is less apparent, on the face of the
Plaintiff's pleadings and the Defendants' Notice of Removal, that
the case satisfies CAFA's jurisdictional requirement that the
Plaintiff's proposed class have no fewer than 100 members.  The
Plaintiff does not allege a specific class size in his state court
Complaint.  The Defendants also acknowledge that they have been
unable to determine the exact number of customers who received the
advertisement because of the Plaintiff's very broad definition of
the class and the individualized nature of the investigation.

The Defendants' assertion that the amount in controversy exceeds $5
million--the third requirement for federal subject-matter
jurisdiction under CAFA--stands on even less stable ground.  The
Judge opines that it is unclear what evidence the Defendants
contend the Plaintiff should submit that would be helpful to the
Court in its assessment of the amount in controversy.  The
information that is relevant to determining whether the amount in
controversy is satisfied in the case is largely information related
to the size of the class: how many people received Defendant Sirius
XM's offer, how many people attempted to accept the offer, and how
many people subsequently purchased a more expensive service
package.  This information is not within the Plaintiff's possession
or control.

In addition, the Defendants have not provided a persuasive reason
to use a class size of 2,788 when calculating the amount in
controversy.  Without more information, it is unclear why it is
plausible that the class size would be 1.4% of the people to whom
Defendant Sirius XM initially sent its advertisement.  Also, the
Defendants calculate the alleged damages per class member as up to
$1,434.85, including treble damages, plus attorneys' fees of 25%.
This amount is far below the requisite $75,000 per class member,
rendering the Court without diversity jurisdiction over the case.

Judge Thompson held that he will not order the parties to engage in
jurisdictional discovery in lieu of remanding the case.  While he
has occasionally ordered parties to engage in jurisdictional
discovery where remand may be appropriate and where a defendant has
not satisfied its burden, a grant of jurisdictional discovery
should be made largely on the basis of readily available
information.  

Jurisdictional discovery in the case would require inquiries into
(i) the specific people who received Defendant's advertisement;
(ii) which of those people attempted to act on Defendant Sirius
XM's offer online, over the phone, or otherwise; and (iii) which of
those people were denied the original offer and purchased more
expensive service packages.  These inquiries are unlike those that
led the Court to grant jurisdictional discovery in Canseven and
Lee, both of which involved analysis of diversity of citizenship to
assess the applicability of CAFA's exceptions.  The Defendants have
already highlighted the protracted nature of their own attempt to
answer the first of these questions.  Consequently, the parties are
not directed to conduct jurisdictional discovery at this time.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Thompson granted the Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand.  An appropriate Order will follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 16, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/dXN6La from Leagle.com.

JEFFREY PARRELLA, on behalf of HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by BHARATI O. SHARMA --
bsharma@wolflawfirm.net -- THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC.

SIRIUS XM HOLDINGS, INC., doing business as SIRIUS XM SATELLITE
RADIO, SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC. & JAMES E. MEYER, Defendants,
represented by MICHAEL JAMES GESUALDO -- mgesualdo@rwmlegal.com --
Robinson Miller LLC.

SNAP INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Initial Public Offering
----------------------------------------------------------------
Snap Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend itself against class action suits related to its initial
public offering.

Beginning in May 2017, the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters for its IPO were named as
defendants in securities class actions purportedly brought on
behalf of purchasers of the company's Class A common stock,
alleging violation of securities laws in connection with its IPO.

Snap said, "Management believes these lawsuits are without merit
and intend to vigorously defend them. Based on the preliminary
nature of the proceedings in this case, the outcome of this matter
remains uncertain."

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

Snap Inc. operates as a camera company in the United States and
internationally. The company offers Snapchat, a camera application
that helps people to communicate through short videos and images.
The company was formerly known as Snapchat, Inc. and changed its
name to Snap Inc. in September 2016. Snap Inc. was founded in 2010
and is headquartered in Santa Monica, California.'


SONIM TECH: Malhotra Says IPO Registration Statement Misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------
AJAY MALHOTRA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SONIM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ROBERT
PLASCHKE, JAMES WALKER, MAURICE HOCHSCHILD, ALAN HOWE, KENNY YOUNG,
SUSAN G. SWENSON, JOHN KNEUER, JEFFREY D. JOHNSON, OPPENHEIMER &
CO., INC., LAKE STREET CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, and NATIONAL
SECURITIES CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-06416
(N.D. Cal., Oct. 7, 2019), is a class action on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Sonim common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's May 2019 initial
public offering (IPO).

Sonim provides ultra-rugged mobile phones and accessories for task
workers who are physically engaged in their work environments. The
Company's phones and accessories connect workers with voice, data
and workflow applications in two end markets: industrial enterprise
and public sector.

On May 13, 2019, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4
with the SEC, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In
the IPO, the Company sold approximately 4.07 million shares of
common stock at a price of $11.00 per share. The Company received
proceeds of approximately $37.5 million from the Offering, net of
underwriting discounts and commissions.

The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly to be used for general
corporate purposes, including 25 working capital, expanded sales
and marketing activities, increased research and development
expenditures and funding the Company's growth strategies.

On September 10, 2019, Sonim stated that it expected fiscal 2019
net revenues to be flat or slightly below 2018 net revenues of
$135.7 million, citing "significant delays" in the  aunch of new
products as well as software issues related to these new
introductions. Moreover, the Company disclosed that James Walker
"will cease serving as the Company's Chief Financial Officer."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.30, or nearly 47%,
to close at $3.76 per share on September 10, 2019, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

By the commencement of the action, Sonim stock was trading as low
as $3.39 per share, a nearly 70% decline from the $11 per share IPO
price.

The Registration Statement was false and misleading, and omitted to
state material adverse facts. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose to investors that:

     (1) the Company's XP8 10 was experiencing material software
challenges;

     (2) the software issues adversely affected how the device's
Qualcomm chipset, which supported Band access, connected to AT&T's
carrier network configuration;

     (3) the Company's XP5 and XP3 devices were experiencing
material software defects that adversely affected their
optimization with certain accessories;

     (4) as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to delay
the launch of new products;

     (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
results would be materially and adversely impacted; and

     (6) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Hughes Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Brian Hughes filed an appeal from a Court ruling issued
in the lawsuit titled Brian Hughes v. Southwest Airlines Company,
Case No. 1:18-cv-05315, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

District Court Judge Sara L. Ellis dismissed with prejudice the
amended complaint in the lawsuit, as reported in the Class Action
Reporter on Oct. 15, 2019.

On Feb. 11, 2018, Defendant Southwest canceled Plaintiff Hughes'
flight from Phoenix, Arizona, to Chicago, Illinois, because it ran
out of de-icer fluid.  Hughes ended up flying to Omaha, Nebraska,
and incurred additional costs for lodging, food, and parking,
before flying to Chicago the next day.

Hughes subsequently brought the putative class action lawsuit
alleging breach of contract and negligence and seeking
consequential damages on behalf of all Southwest customers whose
flights were similarly canceled on that date, as well as on Dec. 8,
24, and 28, 2017, and Jan. 12 and 15, 2018.

The appellate case is captioned as Brian Hughes v. Southwest
Airlines Company, Case No. 19-3001, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellant's brief is due on or before November 19, 2019, for Brian
Hughes.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant BRIAN HUGHES, Individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Terrence Buehler, Esq.
          DITOMMASO LUBIN, P.C.
          17W220 22nd Street
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181-0000
          Telephone: (312) 372-2209

Defendant-Appellee SOUTHWEST AIRLINES COMPANY, a Foreign
Corporation, is represented by:

          Leonard A. Gail, Esq.
          MASSEY & GAIL LLP
          50 E. Washington Street
          Chicago, IL 60602-2100
          Telephone: (312) 283-1590
          E-mail: lgail@masseygail.com


STC MANAGEMENT: Illegally Sent Unsolicited Texts, Shahzada Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owais Shahzada, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STC MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01378 (E.D. Va., Oct. 30, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's routine practice of sending unsolicited text messages
to cell phones of its customers in violation the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

One component of STC's advertising its sending thousands of
unsolicited SMS messages, commonly referred to as text messages, to
customers, who visit its franchise locations. As part of its
routine check-in and check-out procedures, STC employees ask
customer for their phone number without disclosing that the number
will later be used to send unsolicited text messages to customer
and without receiving their prior express written consent, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is an adult individual and a resident of Leesburg,
Virginia.

STC provides various automotive preventive maintenance services at
14 locations in Virginia and Maryland as a franchise of Jiffy Lube
International, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven T. Webster, Esq.
     WEBSTER BOOK LLP
     300 N. Washington St., Suite 404
     Alexandria, VA 22314
     Phone & Fax: (888) 987-9991
     Email: swebster@websterbook.com


SURF CLUB: Underpays Housekeepers, Avalos Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------
TERESA AVALOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE SURF CLUB ON THE SOUND, LLC; GAETANO
GIZZO; and ANTHONY MARTELLO, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-09182
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2019) is an action against the Defendants'
failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Avalos was employed by the Defendants as laundress
and housekeeper.

The Surf Club on the Sound, LLC is a New York limited liability
company with its office in Westchester County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007-2036
          Telephone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
                  jazeller@zellerlegal.com


SYDELL HOSTELL: Soper Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------
BASIL SOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYDELL HOSTEL MANAGER LLC d/b/a FREEHAND
CHICAGO, Defendants, Case No. 2019CH11519 (Il. Cir., Cook Cty.,
Oct. 14, 2019) alleges violation of the Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that despite the substantial privacy risks
created by the collection and storage of biometric data, and the
prohibition on collecting and retaining biometric data  without
informed consent, the Defendant uses a biometric time-tracking
system that requires its employees to use their fingerprints as a
means of authentication. When the Defendant's employees begin their
employment, the Defendant requires them to scan their fingerprints
into an employee database.

The Defendant's scanning and retention of the Plaintiff's
fingerprints without informed consent violates the Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

Sydell Hostel Manager LLC d/b/a Freehand Chicago is a limited
liability company existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.
The company's line of business includes operating public hotels and
motels. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
          Ashley C. Keller, Esq.
          Travis D. Lenkner, Esq.
          Alex J. Dravillas, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
          Chicago, Il 60606
          Telephone: (312) 741-5220


SYNERGY INDUSTRIAL: Possi Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Possi, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYNERGY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, WARREN K.
HAEBERLE, and BRIAN DEMURI HAEBERLE, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01599-JPS (E.D. Wis., Oct. 30, 2019), is brought pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory and injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a common policy
and practice of failing to compensate their hourly employees for
all hours worked in excess of 40 in a given workweek at the
applicable overtime premium rate. As result of these common
policies and practices, the Defendants have failed to compensate
the Plaintiff and the putative class members for overtime wages
dues in violation of the FLSA and Wisconsin wage and hour laws,
says the complaint.

Stephen Possi is a former hourly employee of the Defendants, who
worked as a Service Technician and I.T. Manager from January 8,
2017, through September 23, 2019.

Synergy buy, sells, and offers repair services for hard drives and
solid-state drives for computer and other electronic devices out of
its location in Brookfield, Wisonsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Larry a Johnson, Esq.
     Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
     Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
     HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
     222 East Erie Street, Suite 210
     PO Box 442
     Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
     Phone: 414-271-8650
     Facsimile: 414-271-8442
     Email: ljohnson@hq-law.com
            smurshid@hq-law.com
            tmaynard@hq-law.com


T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend itself from a class action suit pending before
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland over its
401(k) Plan.

On February 14, 2017, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price
Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Trust Company, current and former
members of the management committee, and trustees of the T. Rowe
Price U.S. Retirement Program were named as defendants in a lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland.

The lawsuit alleges breaches of Employee Retirement Income Security
Act's (ERISA's) fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction
provisions on behalf of a class of all participants and
beneficiaries of the T. Rowe Price 401(k) Plan from February 14,
2011, to the time of judgment. The matter has been certified as a
class action.

T. Rowe Price believes the claims are without merit and is
vigorously defending the action.

T. Rowe Price said, "This matter is in the discovery phase of
litigation and we cannot predict the eventual outcome, or whether
it will have a material negative impact on our financial results,
or estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from
any negative outcome."

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

T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2000, is a
financial services holding company. The Company provides global
investment management services through its subsidiaries to
investors across the world. The Company provides an array of
Company-sponsored mutual funds, other sponsored pooled investment
vehicles, sub advisory services, separate account management,
recordkeeping, and related services to individuals, advisors,
institutions, financial intermediaries and retirement plan
sponsors. The firm was previously known as T. Rowe Group, Inc. and
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. was
founded in 1937 and is based in Baltimore, Maryland.
                                                                   
                                                                   
                                                                   
                                                                   
                                                                   
                                                                   
                                                                   
                                                                   
                                                                   
                                                                   
                                                                   
                                                                   
                                                                   
                                                                   
                                                                   
                                                                   
                                               

T TEK-COLLECT: Velazquez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against T Tek-Collect
Incorporated. The case is styled as Maria Velazquez individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. T
Tek-Collect Incorporated doing business as: Tekcollect, Inc., Does
1 through 10 inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02059-JM-MDD
(S.D. Cal., Oct. 26, 2019).

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

TekCollect provides business owners with comprehensive accounts
receivable management, collections and customer retention
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew Paul Rundquist, Esq.
     Law Office of Andrew P Rundquist
     501 W Broadway, Suite A144
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 992-9148
     Email: andrew@rundquistlaw.com


TREEHOUSE FOODS: Securities Class Suit Survives Motion to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles, who has been leading the fight
to protect shareholder rights for over 18 years, on Oct. 14
disclosed that Treehouse Foods, Inc. (THS) may face damages caused
by a pending securities lawsuit action lawsuit. TreeHouse operates
as a food and beverage manufacturer in the United States, Canada,
and Italy.

Treehouse Foods, Inc. (THS) Securities Class Action Survives Motion
to Dismiss

The complaint alleges that between January 20, 2016 and November 2,
2016, Treehouse deceitfully cultivated a reputation that the
company could smoothly integrate its acquired companies into the
broader organization without significant problems. Despite
Treehouse's repeated assurances that it was taking great steps
toward synergizing its various acquisitions, Treehouse was unable
to successfully integrate its acquired companies, which suffered
from serious growth and profitability problems. Treehouse finally
disclosed on November 3, 2016 that its operating results would be
substantially below analysts' expectations and lowered its earnings
per share forecast due to the underperformance of one of its
acquisitions. After revealing the bad news, the company's shares
fell nearly 20% to close at $69.72 per share on November 3, 2016
and currently trades at $53.36. On February 12, 2018, the Honorable
Samuel Der-Yeghiayan of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division denied Treehouse's motion to
dismiss, paving the way for litigation to proceed.

Treehouse Shareghoders Urged to Contact the Firm

If you purchased Treehouse securities, have information, or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Timothy L. Miles, Esquire,
at 615-587-738, Toll-Free at 855-846-6529, or by email to
tmiles@timmileslaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and the number shares owned.

                       About Timothy L. Miles

Timothy L. Miles is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
attorney raised in Nashville, Tennessee. Mr. Miles was recentley
selected as a 2019 Elite Lawyer of The South by
Martindale-Hubbell(R)and ALM and maintains the AV Preeminent Rating
by Martindale-Hubbell(R), their highest rating for both legal
ability and ethics. Mr. Miles is a member of the prestigious Top
100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyers: The National Trial Lawyers
Association, a superb rated attorney by Avvo, and recognized as a
Distinguished Lawyer, Recognizing Excellence in Securities Law, by
Lawyers of Distinction (2019). Awards: 2019 Elite Lawyer of The
South by Martindale-Hubbell(R)and ALM (2019); Member of the Top 100
Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyers: The National Trial Lawyers
Association (2017-2019); AV(R)Preeminent(TM) Rating by
Martindale-Hubble(R)(2014-2019); PRR AV Preeminent Rating on
Lawyers.com (2017 & 2019); The Top-Rated Lawyer in Litigation(TM)
for Ethical Standards and Legal Ability (Martindale-Hubble(R)2015);
Distinguished Lawyer, Recognizing Excellence in Securities Law,
Lawyers of Distinction (2019); Superb Rated Attorney (Avvo); Avvo
Top Rated Lawyer for 2017 & 2018 (Avvo). [GN]


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Awaits Initial Approval of Isolde Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that an Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Approval of Notice to
the Class has been filed in the class action suit entitled, Thomas
Nemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated
v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E.
Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) ("Nemky") and Richard J. Isolde,
Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v.
Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry,
Case No. (3:15-CV-2093).

On January 11, 2016, the previously reported cases styled Thomas
Nemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated
v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E.
Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) ("Nemky") and Richard J. Isolde,
Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v.
Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry,
Case No. (3:15-CV-2093) ("Isolde"), were consolidated in the
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, with all future
filings to be filed in the Isolde case.

On May 11, 2016, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated
Complaint alleging defendants Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R.
Wallace, James E. Perry, and Gregory B. Mitchell violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and defendants Mr. Wallace and Mr. Perry
violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making materially false and misleading statements and/or by failing
to disclose material facts about Trinity's ET Plus and the FCA case
styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States of America,
Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.).

The parties reached an agreement to settle all claims in this case
without any admission of liability or fault for $7.5 million, and
on September 23, 2019, entered into a Stipulation of Settlement.
Defendants have denied and continue to deny specifically each and
all of the claims and contentions alleged by Lead Plaintiffs in
this case. The settlement is subject to final court approval.

On September 24, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs filed with the Court an
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and
Approval of Notice to the Class. "We have accrued a $2.5 million
charge for these claims, net of insurance recoveries," the Company
said.

Trinity Industries, Inc. provides rail transportation products and
services in North America. It operates through three segments:
Railcar Leasing and Management Services Group, Rail Products Group,
and All Other. Trinity Industries, Inc. was founded in 1933 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


TRIPOLIS ENTERPRISES: Hawkins Wants Back-Pay for Exotic Dancers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jasmine Hawkins, on Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. TRIPOLIS ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a THE PALACE
MEN'S CLUB, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-01287 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 30,
2019), seeks to recover for female exotic dancers back-pay,
restitution, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and
costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated female exotic dancers as "independent contractors" rather
than as employees at its Gentleman's Club. As a result of this
misclassification, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated female exotic dancers required wages under
the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an exotic at its
Gentleman's Club in San Antonio, Texas, from August 2017 through
June 2019.

Tripolis Enterprises, Inc., doing business as The Palace Men's
Club, is a corporation formed in Texas that operates as a
gentleman's club featuring female exotic dancers located at 2482 NE
Interstate 410 Loop, in San Antonio, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Hodges, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
     4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: (713) 523-0001
     Email: dhodges@kennedyhodges.com

          - and -

     Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
     ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
     8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
     Silver Spring, MD 20910
     Phone: (301) 587-9373
     Email: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Narrows Claims on Caldwell Insurance Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned MARY CALDWELL, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE
INSURANCE COMPANY; and UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. C 19-02861 WHA, (N.D. Cal.).

Lipedema is a chronic, progressive, painful, and immobilizing
condition involving an abnormal buildup of adipose tissue. After
plaintiff Mary Caldwell was diagnosed with Stage 3 lipedema, her
physician proposed treatment with specialized liposuction. Caldwell
alleges that specialized liposuction is the only available therapy
for lipedema. Defendants UnitedHealthCare Insurance Company and
United HealthCare Services, Inc. denied her coverage.

United moved to dismiss both claims for failure to state claims.
  
Caldwell brings a civil action under Section 1132(a)(1)(B) to seek
the payment of medical expenses, interest thereon, a clarification
of rights, and attorneys fees.

Upon consideration, the District Court holds that Caldwell does not
adequately allege the existence of an ERISA Plan.  Caldwell alleged
that (1) she was covered under an employee benefit plan (2)
established or maintained (3) through her employer and insured or
administered by United, (4) for the purpose of providing health
care benefits (5) to Caldwell and other beneficiaries around the
country.  The District Court agrees with United Healthcare that
those allegations are conclusory and insufficient to meet the
pleading standard. Caldwell does nothing more than recite the
generic elements constituting an ERISA plan without alleging any
facts about her plan itself.  Because she makes blanket statements,
the motion to dismiss the Section 1132(a)(a)(B) claim is granted,
the District Court rules.
  
The Court also finds that Caldwell does not identify a plan
provision that entitles her to benefits. Even if Caldwell shows
that specialized liposuction should be considered a proven
procedure, rather than unproven, she does not show that the service
is covered under any specific terms in her plan, the Court holds.
Because Caldwell fails to plead facts that, if true, would
establish that specialized liposuction is a covered benefit under
her plan, the motion to dismiss the Section 1132(a)(a)(B) claim is
granted, the Court rules.

Under Section 1132(a)(3), Caldwell asserts her second claim for
breach of fiduciary duty seeking declaratory, equitable, and
remedial relief. Caldwell may plead alternate theories of relief
without obtaining duplicate recoveries.

Because these claims may proceed simultaneously so long as there is
no double recovery, the motion to dismiss this claim is denied, the
Court rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 26, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxu2psa6 from Leagle.com

Mary Caldwell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adrian Jorge Barrio -
adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com - Gianelli & Morris, ALC, Joshua Seth
Davis  joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com, Gianelli & Morris, ALC & Robert
Steven Gianelli - rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com - Gianell & Morris,
ALC.

UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company & United HealthCare Services,
Inc., Defendants, represented by David William Skaar -
david.skaar@hoganlovells.com - Hogan Lovells US LLP, Harmony
Roselina Gbe - harmony.gbe@hoganlovells.com - Hogan Lovells US LLP
& Michael McDonald Maddigan - michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com -
Hogan Lovells US LLP.


UNITED STATES: Couple Files Class Action v. Homeland Security
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roshan, writing for Herald Publicist, reports that a Maryland
couple claims immigration authorities in Baltimore unfairly lured
them into an interview and then moved to deport one among them
again to Central America.

They've now joined a category motion lawsuit towards the federal
authorities.

Earlier this 12 months, Elmer and his spouse Alyse Sanchez
confirmed up for an interview with immigration authorities to find
out whether or not Elmer, who was unlawfully within the nation, may
stay on account of their marriage.

However whereas the immigration authorities pronounced the wedding
authorized, they shackled Elmer and threatened him with deportation
to his native Honduras, the AP reported.  In response to
authorities Elmer had missed a earlier listening to, which he
claims he didn't find out about, in 2005 and had been ordered
deported in absentia.

The Sanchezes, who've two babies, have joined 5 different in a
category motion accusing US Division of Homeland Safety brokers of
luring households to marriage interviews in Baltimore, solely to
detain the  partner who's illegally within the nation for
deportation.

A spokesman for the ACLU in Maryland informed the AP that Homeland
Safety has been unlawfully utilizing the inexperienced card
interviews as "bait" since 2017. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Marine Veteran Faces Deportation Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roxana Kopetman, writing for Pasadena Star-News, reports that a
large tattoo of the Statue of Liberty is spread across the left
side of Jose Segovia Benitez's body.  A second tattoo memorializes
his service to the U.S. Marines.

Neither will serve him well in El Salvador.

But that's where the honorably discharged veteran from Long Beach
is apparently headed, as the U.S. government readies to deport him
in the next few days.

Benitez faces imminent deportation, according to a team of
supporters who have been fighting for his release from an immigrant
detention center in San Bernardino County. Immigration officials
have told him he will be in El Salvador, a country he left when he
was 3 years old, by next Wednesday, Oct. 23. They've already
secured him a visa.

"His mother is packing his bag," said Pat Alviso, national
coordinator for Military Families Speak Out, an organization that
advocates for returning troops from the Middle East and supports
ending the deportation of U.S. veterans.

Segovia served five years in the military -- tacking on an extra
year to return to Iraq for a second combat tour.  But he wasn't the
same when he returned home in 2004 with a brain injury and
post-traumatic stress disorder. He committed several felonies and
served time in prison for drug and domestic violence offenses. A
legal permanent resident when he joined the Marines, immigration
agents picked him up in January 2018 after he completed his last
prison term.

Now 38, he's been at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center ever since,
awaiting possible deportation while his case went through a series
of legal maneuverings. Last month, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled against a request to stay his deportation.

His supporters are hoping for a Hail Mary -- possibly via a pardon
from the governor. The country owes him as much, they said.

"Here is someone this country is supposed to revere as a hero,"
said Brandee Dudzic, an Oregon resident who heads a group called
Repatriate our Patriots, which advocates for returning deported
U.S. veterans to America.

"If Jose had died over there, we would all be talking about Jose
the American soldier who was willing to give his life for his
country. He didn't die. He just got hurt," Dudzic said on
Oct. 11.

"At some point, he was the American hero. But then he became a guy
from El Salvador," she said. "At what point did he lose his label?

"We dressed him up in our flag. At what point does that go away? I
think it's because he's no longer useful. I think that's the story
of all deported vets. And then we can throw them away like
garbage."

His case is one of many -- it's unclear how many exactly --
involving immigrant veterans booted from the country after serving
in the military. Organizations representing deported veterans have
documented hundreds of cases. In 2017, the Congressional Hispanic
Caucus put the number closer to 3,000.

Segovia's case is complicated but also representative of what some
veterans face when they return home, his advocates said. He
suffered a brain injury from close proximity to a blast while in
Iraq but he did not receive proper treatment, they said. He turned
to alcohol and "self-medicated," his mother, Marta Garcia, said in
an interview earlier this year. (She could not be reached.) That,
in turn, led to trouble, which landed him in prison.

On Saturday, Oct. 12, his family planned to drive from its home in
Long Beach to the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, where he has been
detained for nearly two years.

They planned to say goodbye.

His mother, Long Beach resident Marta Garcia, may fly to El
Salvador to meet him -- just so that he's not alone when he first
arrives, Alviso said.

Dudzic, of the Repatriate our Patriots group, speaks with him daily
and flies to Southern California regulary to visit. She filed a
522-page application seeking a pardon for him from California Gov.
Gavin Newsom.

The governor's office on Oct. 11 said it could not discuss pardon
applications. Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragan (D-San Pedro) said through
a spokesman that her office "has been in contact with the
Governor's office regarding his family's request for a pardon."

"Veterans who serve our country honorably should receive fastrack
to citizenship and those in combat, should receive automatic
citizenship," Barragan wrote in an email.

His stint at the Adelanto prison has been difficult, relatives and
friends said.

"He's had a bizarre swelling in his leg, pain from not seeing a
dentist and he's developed a heart condition," said Liza Diniakos,
a Ventura County resident who first met him through a detainee
visitation program through the non-profit Freedom for Immigrants
group and continues to stay in touch.

In August, several national civil rights organizations -- including
Disability Rights Advocates and the Inland Coalition for Immigrant
Justice -- filed a class-action lawsuit against the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and others, alleging that
immigrants are not receiving proper medical and mental health care
at its facilities. Segovia was one of 15 plaintiffs cited in the
lawsuit.

Dudzic said she's seen him deteriorate all year.

"It's taken an extreme toll on him, mentally, physically," she
said. "This is what it looks like to be tortured."

"We have a disabled combat veteran with a traumatic brain injury in
a facility that puts people in isolation and pepper sprays them,"
Dudzic said of the controversial Adelanto facility, which has also
been criticized by state and federal officials in recent years.

Segovia's attorney, Wayne Spindler of Encino, said there may be
other legal action available but that won't necessarily prevent the
government from deporting Segovia.

Ironically, Segovia, who was brought to the U.S. as a child, filed
for citizenship while he was still serving in the Marines. The
government bungled that application, Spindler said. Spindler and
others believe the Marine was scheduled for an interview, which is
the last step of the process before the naturalization ceremony,
but did not make it there.

"Even today, his application for citizenship has not been denied,"
Dudzic said. "It's been administratively closed and should be
reopened."

Like his family and other supporters, Dudzic said she worries for
Segovia. On Oct. 11, she also was looking for airline tickets to
possibly meet him in El Salvador.

His tattoos alone could make him a high profile target among
violent gang members, she said.

Segovia's patriotism, so far, has not served him well. [GN]


V MARCHESE INC: Christoffersen Seeks Continued Health Care Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GORDON D. CHRISTOFFERSEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. V. MARCHESE, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01481
(E.D. Wisc., Oct. 10, 2019), alleges that the Defendant failed to
provide required notices of its employees' right to continued
health care coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985.

On behalf of himself and similarly situated present and former
employees, the Plaintiff bring this class action against the
Defendant for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 ("COBRA").  He alleges that the
Defendant, the plan sponsor of the Health Plan, has repeatedly
violated ERISA by failing to provide participants and beneficiaries
in the Plan with adequate notice, as prescribed by COBRA, of their
right to continue their health coverage upon the occurrence of a
"qualifying event" as defined by the statute.

Mr. Christoffersen is a Wisconsin resident and former employee of
the Defendant.  He was a covered employee and participant in the
Plan the day before the termination of his employment on January 7,
2019, which was a qualifying event within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.
Section 1163(2), rendering him a qualified beneficiary of the Plan
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1167(3).

The Defendant is a Wisconsin corporation with its headquarters in
Milwaukee.  The Defendant is the Plan sponsor and the administrator
of the Plan, which provides medical benefits to employees and their
beneficiaries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert O'Reilly, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: roreilly@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


VIRGINIA COLLEGE: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Robinson Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEVEN ROBINSON, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VIRGINIA COLLEGE, LLC,
EDUCATION CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellants, Case No.
19-11864, Non-Argument Calendar (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's
denial of a motion to compel arbitration and to strike the class
action allegations in Robinson's complaint.

Virginia College and its parent company, Education Corporation,
appeal the denial of their motion to compel Robinson to arbitrate
his complaint against the entities and to strike the class
allegations from his complaint.  Robinson earned three degrees from
Virginia College, and later he became its employee and signed an
arbitration agreement.  After the College lost its accreditation
and closed several of its campuses, Robinson sued the College and
Education Corporation for allegedly awarding worthless degrees,
deceiving former and current students, and depriving students of
postgraduation services and employment opportunities.

According to Robinson, between 2000 and 2011, he obtained an
associates degree, a bachelor's degree, and a master's degree from
the College.  The College and Education Corporation promised to
provide students credentials necessary to obtain a job following
graduation.  And Robinson amassed a student debt of more than
$100,000 to pay for his education.

In 2015, the College hired Robinson as an employee.  He signed an
arbitration agreement that referred to him as "Employee" and to
Education Corporation, its "affiliates, and subsidiaries" as "the
Company" and defined Robinson's "Employment with the Company as
at-will."  The agreement required the arbitration to be
administered under the American Arbitration Association Employment
Arbitration Rules, a copy of which Robinson could obtain from his
"HR representative.  And the agreement required Robinson to comply
with employment laws that required him to "exhaust administrative
remedies" with labor organizations such as the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the
U.S. Department of Labor.

The agreement delineated what employment-related claims were
included and excluded from arbitration. Robinson and the company
agreed Robinson filed a complaint in an Alabama court against
Education Corporation and the College which removed the action to
the district court.  Robinson complained, on behalf of himself and
a putative class of all similarly situated persons, of negligence,
wantonness, breach of contract, breach of implied warranties,
unjust enrichment, and violations of the Alabama Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.  Robinson sought monetary damages and injunctive
relief.

Education Corporation filed a motion to compel Robinson to
arbitrate his complaint and to strike his class allegations, which
he opposed.  Education Corporation argued that Robinson had
specifically agreed to arbitrate any claims he may have against it
and had waived his right to participate in any class proceeding
against it and submitted a copy of his arbitration agreement.
Robinson responded that the arbitration agreement was expressly
limited to employment disputes, postdated his education at the
College, and in no way required him to arbitrate his claims in
exchange for employment.

The district court denied the motion filed by Education Corporation
on the ground that the dispute was not within the scope of the
arbitration agreement and the class action waiver is inapplicable.
It ruled that the language in the subject arbitration agreement was
limited to any and all employment-based or employment-related
claims.  The district court also ruled that, because Robinson's
class claims arising from his role as a student (a role that
predates the parties' arbitration agreement) are beyond the scope
of the employment arbitration agreement, the class action waiver
cannot obligate him to pursue his claims individually.

The Eleventh Circuit holds that the district court correctly denied
the motion to compel Robinson to arbitrate.  Education Corporation
cannot force Robinson to arbitrate claims about his education when
their arbitration agreement applies exclusively to
employment-related disputes.  Because employment is the sole
subject matter of the arbitration agreement, it does not encompass
Robinson's dispute with the company as his educator.  Robinson's
claims concerning a worthless degree from the company are not
founded in or intertwined with his later employment with the
company.  Robinson's complaint concerning claims unrelated to his
employment is not arbitrable.

The district court also correctly refused to strike the class
action allegations in Robinson's complaint, rules the  Eleventh
Circuit.  By its terms, the class action waiver applies only to
claims governed by the arbitration agreement.  Because Robinson's
complaint is not subject to arbitration under the agreement, its
class action waiver does not govern the dispute.

Finally, Education Corporation argues that the severability
provision in the arbitration agreement salvages the class action
waiver, but its argument is irreconcilable with the plain text of
the severability provision.  That provision states, if any
provision(s) of the Arbitration Agreement is declared overbroad,
invalid, or unenforceable such provisions will be severed, and the
remaining provisions of the Arbitration Agreement will remain in
full force and effect and will be construed in a fashion which
gives meaning to all of the other terms of this Arbitration
Agreement.  The Eleventh Circuit holds that the arbitration
agreement is inapplicable, so by "the plain language of the
contract," a condition required for severability does not exist.

For these reasons, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the
motion to compel arbitration and to strike the class action
allegations in Robinson's complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 16, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/EkJPZs from Leagle.com.

William Lewis Garrison, Jr. -- wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Taylor Bartlett -- taylor@hgdlawfirm.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Brandt P. Hill -- bhill@maynardcooper.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Ollie A. Cleveland, III -- tcleveland@maynardcooper.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

WAKEFERN FOOD: Camacho Files Class Suit Under ADA
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wakefern Food Corp.
The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wakefern Food Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06025 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

The Wakefern Food Corporation, founded in 1946 and based in
Keasbey, New Jersey, U.S., is the 20th largest private company and
the largest retailers' cooperative group of supermarkets in the
United States, the fourth-largest cooperative of any kind in U.S.,
and the largest private employer in New Jersey.[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


WAL-MART STORES: Form of Class Notice in Evans Labor Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon consideration of the Proposed Notice of Pending Class Action
Lawsuit filed on October 7, 2019, in the case captioned CHARDE
EVANS, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., and DOES 1 through 50,
Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:10-cv-01224-JCM-VCF (D. Nev.),
Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada approved the parties' stipulated form of Class
Notice.  

The Court directed the parties to comply with the schedule of the
distribution of the Class Notice as provided in Joint Discovery
Plan and Scheduling Order, issued on Sept. 30, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 16, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/8MAIms from Leagle.com.

Charde Evans, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Markham --
CONTACT@MARKHAM-LAW.COM -- The Markham Law Firm, pro hac vice,
James M. Treglio, Clark & Markham LLP, pro hac vice, Mark R.
Thierman -- info@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP, R. Craig
Clark, Clark & Markham LLP, pro hac vice & Joshua D. Buck,
Thierman
Buck, LLP.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian L. Duffy --
duffyb@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, pro hac vice, Eric W.
Swanis, Greenberg Traurig, Naomi Beer -- beern@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, pro hac vice & Mark E. Ferrario --
ferrariom@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig.

WELLS FARGO: Former Reps Wants Subpoenas to LPL, Et Al. Quashed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Financial Advisor IQ, reports that
ex-Wells Fargo Advisors reps, pitted in a class-action legal battle
with their former employer about its deferred compensation plan,
have asked the court to quash subpoenas the wirehouse issued to LPL
Financial, Raymond James and Hilliard Lyons.

With those subpoenas, issued in late September, WFA is seeking to
uncover how much compensation the reps receive from their new
employer -- irrelevant information for the dispute in the pending
class-action, according to the Oct. 10 court request filed by a
group that includes LPL representative Robert Berry.

In their federal lawsuit, Berry and the others represent a class of
ex-WFAs which the court could eventually decide has 1,400 members.
Berry and the others have argued that WFA owes those advisors
deferred compensation based on allegations that it miscategorized
its plan as exempt from federal rules under Erisa governing vesting
rules for such compensation.

The litigation may ultimately have broad consequences for FAs'
deferred compensation across the industry.

In March 2020, the two sides are scheduled to begin selecting a
jury to hear Berry and the other ex-WFA FAs' claims that their
former employer owes them as much as $300 million.

A Wells Fargo spokesperson declined to comment for this story.

When a federal judge in March 2018 approved certification of the
class of ex-advisors -- setting the stage for a trial -- a Wells
Fargo spokesperson told FA-IQ the ruling had not addressed "the
merits of the underlying claims." The spokesperson further added:
"The Company denies the claims in the lawsuit and will defend its
position on the merits."

According to Berry and the others' request to the court, each WFA
subpoena seeks the same categories of information about the former
WFA FAs -- their compensation agreements, any documents related to
when they were recruited by their new employers, and evidence about
what they told their new employers about their previous WFA
compensation.

Berry worked at WFA and its predecessor firms from 1994 until 2014,
according to an order issued in October 2018 by U.S. District Judge
Joseph F. Anderson in Columbia, S.C., who presides over the
litigation.

During the last nine years of his employment at WFA, Berry
participated in the wirehouse's award program, which offered
deferred compensation bonuses. The WFA plan has a forfeiture clause
which calls for exiting advisors to give up their deferred awards
when they leave.

According to Anderson's order, WFA categorizes its deferred
compensation as a top hat plan, available only to a select group of
employees. Such top hat deferred compensation plans are exempt from
certain requirements of Erisa, including its vesting provisions.
But the plaintiffs argue the WFA plan should not be exempted from
the Erisa vesting rules.

"The central issue in the case is whether the Deferral Plan is a
'top hat' plan," Anderson writes in his order.

If Berry and his fellow plaintiffs persuade the court that the WFA
plan is not top hat, the implications could be broad for other
wirehouses' deferred compensation plans. All the major wirehouses
-- including Morgan Stanley, UBS, and Merrill Lynch -- offer
deferred compensation as part of their advisors' packages.

To determine if a deferred compensation plan qualifies as top hat
under Erisa rules, courts look at both the percentage of the
workforce invited to join the plan and the pay level disparities
between plan participants and other employees.

Berry worked at Wells Fargo and its predecessors for 20 years,
until he was 62. According to BrokerCheck, he is now a registered
representative of LPL Financial in Lexington, S.C.

Under WFA's forfeiture requirements, Berry lost $200,000 in
deferred compensation, according to Anderson's order.

In the past, deferred compensation used to be a voluntary option
employers presented to advisors
-- a way for them to defer their income tax obligations.

But in recent years, wirehouses have made participation in deferred
compensation plans mandatory and used them as iron-clad golden
handcuffs to keep advisors from bolting. [GN]


WHITE CASTLE: Matzura Files ADA Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against White Castle System,
Inc. The case is styled as Steven Matzura, On Behalf of Himself And
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. White Castle
System, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09927 (S.D. N.Y., Oct.
25, 2019).

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

White Castle System, Inc. owns and operates a chain of restaurants.
The Company offers hamburgers, french fries, soft drinks, sliders,
desserts, and other fast food products.[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


XTO ENEGRY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Salmon Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Salmon, Angela Landers and Billy Tate, each individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. XTO
ENEGRY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00768-BSM (E.D. Ark.,
Oct. 30, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay
the Plaintiffs and other employees, who were scheduled to work on
call, lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
per week.

The Plaintiffs allege they and other similarly situated employees
frequently worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but the
Defendant failed to pay them one and one-half times their regular
rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.  They
argue that the Defendant was aware of the minimum wage and overtime
requirements of the FLSA and the AMWA.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as an operations
supervisor, a measurement technician and a pipeline systems
operator.

The Defendant own and operates a petroleum and natural gas
production business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


YAHOO INC: May Be Liable to Email Users of $350+
------------------------------------------------
ABC7.com reports that Yahoo could owe their email users $350 or
more as part of a privacy breach settlement.

Anyone with a Yahoo account any time between January 1, 2012 and
December 31, 2016, is eligible to take part in a class action
settlement.

The company said over several years, hackers got into Yahoo user
accounts, stole private emails, calendars and contacts in at least
three separate attacks. [GN]



YARD HOUSE: Lopez Files ADA Class Action in NY
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yard House USA, Inc.
The case is styled as Victor Lopez And On Behalf of All Other
Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Yard House USA, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09908 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 25, 2019).

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

Yard House is an American sports bar chain, with 80+ locations
across the United States, mostly located west of the Mississippi
River.[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


[*] Corporate Australia Sees Rise of Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Hewett, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that Australia has another new growth industry. It means big money
for relatively low risk. It already employs thousands of people,
with job opportunities increasing. Its cost is relatively invisible
to most people and usually borne by businesses with deep pockets.

Welcome to the rise and rise of class actions in Australia.

The rationale for class actions seems only fair and reasonable, of
course. They provide people with strength in numbers -- the chance
for justice or compensation they would be unable or unlikely to
pursue as individuals. From dangerous airbags to dodgy financial
products to unsafe medical treatments, it offers a welcome "win for
the little guy" against corporate wrongdoing or negligence.

But a flood of litigation funders, many of them international, able
to earn huge fees for reasonably low risk mean class action
lawsuits against corporate Australia have become high fashion.

These litigation funders were behind over 70 per cent of the 54
class actions filed last financial year, for example. As well as
the banks and AMP, companies involved included Lendlease, RCR
Tomlinson, IOOF, Sims Metals, BHP, Woolworths, Murray Goulburn and
Brambles.

That number is only expected to climb. The number of class actions
underway compares to just 18 class actions filed in 2012-2013. Many
companies now have specialist class action units.

Australia is still well behind the home of class actions in the US.
But the direction is clear. Australia's continuous disclosure
obligations are proving fertile territory for the growing number of
proceedings based on losses due to share price drops -- on the
grounds the reasons should have been made public earlier.

Many boards are also concerned about the burgeoning area of
environmental, social and governance issues -- such as adequate
preparation for climate change. M&A that doesn't go well will
become an obvious target. And a more litigious approach by the
regulators means class actions will inevitably accompany any of
their wins in court.

A class action against Westpac over responsible lending laws is now
likely to be put on hold until after the results of an ASIC appeal
over its recent Federal Court loss, for example. If the appeal
succeeds, other banks can expect to be targeted.

Yet a key reason for the growth in class actions is because so few
make it to trial -- less than 10 per cent. Most cases are settled
instead and then approved by a judge.

Even if businesses believe they have a strong defence, they also
believe it's not worth the risk of going to court. They not only
face legal fees, share price declines due to uncertainty and the
protracted distraction of directors and employees, the prospect of
losing and facing a huge and uncertain payout is worse.

Even a modest amount of financial compensation for each member of a
class can add up if the numbers of individuals are large.
Quantifying that loss via a "compromise" deal is seen as safer,
especially for insurers who can in turn lift their premiums for
corporate customers, with insurance costs now soaring.

On average the litigation funders take about 30 per cent of the
payout, the plaintiff lawyers recoup all their costs plus a handy
margin while the "class" members receive "compensation". In many
cases, the money available to claimants comes to only a little over
half of that awarded in the settlement.

But most would have not considered seeking any money without a
class action on their behalf - often without their knowledge, let
alone agreement. Class actions here operate on an opt-out basis,
greatly multiplying the overall cost to companies as well as
returns to funders.

Under "common fund orders", the amount shared by all individuals is
reduced by the litigation costs whether or not they signed up to
proceedings. The use of these common fund orders is now being
appealed in the High Court.

But class action funding has become a high return asset class for
sophisticated investors, with Australia seen as a particularly
lucrative market. According to Herbert Smith Freehills, Australia
is the "second most attractive class action jurisdiction
globally".

A review of trends by King & Wood Mallesons found 22 class action
settlements were approved by the court last year for an estimated
total of over $500M, with 10 more settlements pending approval.

"Is this higher level of class action activity the 'new normal'?"
the review asks, citing the "greater certainty and returns for
litigation funders" due to common fund orders as well as a general
increase in the supply of litigation funding.

Business leaders are blunter. "Australia has become the 'Treasure
Island' of class actions," says one.

The increase in litigation funders doing business in Australia --
now about 25 -- is adding to competition on fees while the courts
are taking much greater interest in what is charged and in
consolidating similar class actions into one.

But the tendency to settle undermines one of the purposes of class
actions, namely deterrence, because there is no finding of
wrongdoing. It also removes the potential liability of the
litigation funder to pay the legal costs of the targeted company
should it lose.

Professor Michael Legg from UNSW, an expert on class actions,
acknowledges their benefits but maintains the biggest problem is
the size of legal fees and litigation funders fees.

"What sort of access to justice is it if 40 or 50 per cent goes in
transaction costs?" he says.

Stuart Clark, former president of the Law Council of Australia,
says class actions are a valuable tool when used appropriately.

"But the link with litigation funding means it has been corrupted
or prostituted into a business model which was never intended and
with rates of return that are unconscionable," he says. [GN]



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***