CAR_Public/191106.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, November 6, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 222

                            Headlines

3M CO: Bair Hagger Suit Ongoing in Ontario, Canada
3M CO: Discovery Ongoing in Defective Earplugs-Related Class Suit
3M CO: Suit by Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Ongoing
ADOMANI INC: Mollik Class Suit Proceeds to Preliminary Discovery
AGENTRA LLC: Court Dismisses First Amended Pascal TCPA/CRLA Suit

AIR METHODS: Gretzinger Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT Rates
ALDER PROTECTION: Ennis et al. Seek to Certify Class of Sales Reps
ALL-WAYS PACIFIC: Diaz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
ALTRIA GROUP: Schall Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Dist. Ct. Upholds Dismissal in Krakowski Suit

APPLE INC: Zaluda Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Ruling in Artex Clients' Suit under Appeal
AUSTRALIA: PFAS Class Action Expected to Start on April 1
BITFINEX: BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses Class Action
BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Trial in Mishal & Berger Suit in Early 2021

BRISTOW GROUP: Kokareva Securities Fraud Class Suit Underway
CENTRAL FIRE: Guevara Seeks Conditional Class Certification
CHAMPION HOME: Removes Vizcarra Case to C.D. California
CLOROX COMPANY: Class Cert.-Related Bids in Gregorio Suit Tossed
CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Cunningham Sues Over Illegally Faxed Ads

CORNERSTONE RESEARCH: Whitaker Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
CR GRAND: Wills Sues over Illegal Towing of Vehicle
CUBESMART: Court Grants Final Approval to Settlement
DIAMOND CBD: Intends to Vigorously Defend Florida Class Action
DTE MIDSTREAM: Page Seeks Overtime Wages for Welding Inspectors

DYCKMAN ELECTRONICS: Denied Alvarez Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
EQUIFAX INC: Appeal in Saskatchewan Cybersecurity Suit Ongoing
EQUIFAX INC: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Class Suit Dismissed
EQUIFAX INC: Fulton County, Ga. Data Breach Suits Remains Stayed
EQUIFAX INC: Preliminary Objections Filed in Pa. Class Action

ERIE INDEMNITY: 3rd Cir. Denies Petition for Rehearing in Beltz
ESTATES LLC: Williams et al Allege Bid-Rigging Scheme
EXP REALTY: Wright Seeks to Certify Three Classes Under TCPA
FAMILY WU: Zhang Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Waiters
FIRST SOLAR: Trial in Smilovits Suit to Begin January 2020

FUYAO GLASS: Workers' Class Action May Have Been Settled
GENOMIC HEALTH: Faces Suits over Exact Sciences Merger Deal
GLOBAL WIDGET: Faces False Labeling Class Action in Massachusetts
GOGO INC: Pierrelouis Securities Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Faces Putative Securities Suit in California

HARD TACK: Shanahan Sues over Robocalls
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Still Defends Securities Suit in E.D. Pa.
HOUSE OF RAEFORD: Torres Seeks Overtime Pay for Line Supervisors
HOUSTON, TX: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Beckwith Suit
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Sued over Travel Insurance Deceptive Scheme

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss cART Antitrust Suit Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss TRACLEER(R)-Related Suit Granted
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Suit over Baby Powder Products Pending in Ill.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Summary Judgment in Contact Lens Suit Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: XARELTO Sales Class Suit in Louisiana Ongoing

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: ZYTIGA(R) Antitrust Class Suit Transferred to NJ
JONES LANDLEVELING: Pate Seeks OT Wages for Construction Workers
KRAFT: Judge Dismisses Capri Sun False Advertising Class Action
LEBANON, PA: State Court Faces Gass et al. Suit
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Summary Judgment Bid in Kemeny Suit Partly Granted

LOGMEIN INC: Wasson Class Action Still Ongoing
LOWE'S HOME: Court OKs “Hourly Managers” Certification
MAGELLAN HEALTH: Deakin May Amend Complaint to Add Party & Claims
MAPLE LEAF: Ct. to Hear Appeal in Mr. Sub Franchisees' Class Action
MASSAGE ENVY: Lapa Administrative Bid Denied in Drobnis Class Suit

MDL 2915: Ababseh Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2915: Atachbarian Suit over Capital One Data Breach Moved
MDL 2915: Janik Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2915: Tsirigos Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2915: Zimprich Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated

MICHIGAN: 200 Prisoners to Get Certified Kosher Meals
MIKE STINSON: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Decision in Gibbs Suit
MIKE STINSON: Sequoia Appeals Ruling in Gibbs Suit to 4th Circuit
MIRACLE AUTOSPORT: Hid Car Defects, Rumbarger Says
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Sitzer Antitrust Suit Dismissal Bids Denied

NC MUTUAL: Carlton Fields Attorneys Discuss Class Action
NEVADA: Summary Judgment in McKinley Civil Rights Suit Party Upheld
NEW SHANGHAI: Weng Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff
OMEL FLOWERS: Coronel to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Pay
ORGANOVO HOLDINGS: Rianhard Says Proxy Statement Misleading

OVERSTOCK.COM: Tsai Says Securities Statements Misleading
PACE SUBURBAN: Nelson Moves to Certify Class of Drivers
PIONEER CREDIT: Toney-Adkins Sues over Debt Collection Practices
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Suit Stalled Pending Deloitte Case Ruling
QIAGEN NV: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims

QUALITY MENTAL: Winters, et al. Seek OT Pay for Caretakers
RAYTHEON COMPANY: Ford Securities Suit Challenges Merger With UTC
RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Latifi Class Suit Against TDL Group Ongoing
RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Suits over Non-Compete Policy Ongoing
ROMI BAKERY: Robles Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA

SERVICES MANGIA: Denied De los Santos Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
SHANGHAI ORIGINAL: Court Retains Decertification in Jin Class Suit
SHREVEPORT, LA: Overcharged Residential Water Customers, Says Court
SIOUX HONEY: Tran's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission
SLEEP NUMBER: Tentative Settlement Reached in Fresno Class Suit

SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Arkansas Class Suits over Royalties Resolved
SPECTRUM SECURITY: Court Flips Memorandum 33 Class Decertification
ST MARY PARISH: Boudreaux Moves to Certify Class of Black Kids
STATE STREET: Still Defends Suit Over Invoicing Practices
SUNOCO INC: Bid to Exclude "Ley" Testimony in Cline Suit Denied

SUPERIOR REAL: Class of Laborers Certified in Rodriguez Suit
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Campbell, Neal & Mott TCPA Suits Underway
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Stichting Depositary APG Class Suit Ongoing
TENNESSEE: Adams Moves for Certification of DOC Prisoners Class
TIGER EYE: Class in Adkinson Labor Suit Conditionally Certified

TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Appeals Court Tosses AG's Settlement Challenge
TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT: Pederson Sues over Unwanted Text Messages
UNILEVER MANUFACTURING: Mislabels Magnum Products, Dashnau Says
UNITED COMMUNITY: Parshall Says Merger Documents Misleading
UP FINTECH: Lopez Says Registration Statement Misleading

URBAN GARDEN: Padilla Seeks OT & Minimum Wages for Landscapers
US BANK: Denial of Leave to File Counterclaim in Cabrera Overturned
VISALUS INC: Class Settlement in Harris Suit Gets Final Approval
VIVINT SOLAR: December 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Li Suit Alleging Securities Law Violations

WALLGREENS BOOTS: Court Narrows Claims in Illinois Securities Suit
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Response to Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 21
XPO LOGISTICS: Awaits Court OK to Dismiss Labul Consolidated Suit
XPO LOGISTICS: Settlement in Carter Suit Receives Final Approval
XPO LOGISTICS: Suits vs. Intermodal Drayage Subsidiaries Ongoing

YAHOO INC: July 20, 2020 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
[*] IMF Bentham Buys Dutch Rival to Boost Funding for Class Actions

                            *********

3M CO: Bair Hagger Suit Ongoing in Ontario, Canada
--------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend itself against a putative class action related to the
company's Bair Hugger(TM)patient warming system, pending before the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

In June 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action
filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for all Canadian
residents who underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular,
and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections
due to the use of the Bair Hugger(TM) patient warming system.

The representative plaintiff seeks relief (including punitive
damages) under Canadian law based on theories similar to those
asserted in the MDL.

No liability has been recorded for the Bair Hugger™ litigation
because the Company believes that any such liability is not
probable and estimable at this time.

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

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: Discovery Ongoing in Defective Earplugs-Related Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in the
class litigation alleging sales of defective Dual-Ended Combat Arms
– Version 2 earplugs.

Aearo Technologies sold Dual-Ended Combat Arms – Version 2
earplugs starting in about 2003. 3M acquired Aearo Technologies in
2008 and sold these earplugs from 2008 through 2015, when the
product was discontinued.

In December 2018, a military veteran filed an individual lawsuit
against 3M in the San Bernardino Superior Court in California
alleging that he sustained personal injuries while serving in the
military caused by 3M's Dual-Ended Combat Arms earplugs – Version
2.

The plaintiff asserts claims of product liability and fraudulent
misrepresentation and concealment. The plaintiff seeks various
damages, including medical and related expenses, loss of income,
and punitive damages.

As of September 30, 2019, the Company is a named defendant in
approximately 2,245 lawsuits (including 13 putative class actions)
in various state and federal courts that purport to represent
approximately 11,297 individual claimants making similar
allegations.

In April 2019, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted motions to transfer and consolidate all cases pending in
federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Florida to be managed in a multi-district litigation (MDL)
proceeding to centralize pre-trial proceedings. The court conducted
a case management conference in June 2019 on a discovery plan and
scheduling. Discovery is underway.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: Suit by Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Heavy & General Laborers'
Locals 472 & 172 Welfare Fund.

In July 2019, Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Welfare
Fund filed a putative securities class action against 3M Company,
its former Chairman and CEO, current Chairman and CEO, and current
CFO in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In August 2019, an individual plaintiff filed a similar putative
securities class action in the same district.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding 3M's exposure to liability associated with
PFAS, and bring claims for damages under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 against all
defendants, and under Section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 against the individual defendants.

The suit is in the early stages of litigation.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


ADOMANI INC: Mollik Class Suit Proceeds to Preliminary Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADOMANI, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the case entitled,
M.D. Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al., Case No. RIC 1817493,
will proceed to preliminary discovery.

On August 23, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit captioned M.D.
Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al., Case No. RIC 1817493, was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Riverside against the company, certain of its executive
officers, and the two underwriters of the company's offering of
common stock under Regulation A in June 2017.

This complaint alleges that documents related to the company's
offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017 contained
materially false and misleading statements and that all defendants
violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
(the "Securities Act"), and that the company and the individual
defendants violated Section 15 of the Securities Act, in connection
therewith.

The plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and all class members: (i)
certification of a class under California substantive law and
procedure; (ii) compensatory damages and interest in an amount to
be proven at trial; (iii) reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; (iv) awarding
of rescission or rescissionary damages; and (v) equitable relief at
the discretion of the Court.

On November 9, 2018, in response to a demurrer filed by defendant
Network 1 Financial Securities, Plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint, which was substantially similar to the original
complaint but refined certain allegations regarding the alleged
material omissions that form the basis of the complaint.

Defendants demurred to the first amended complaint. The court heard
defendants' demurrers to the first amended complaint on January 30,
2019. At this hearing the court granted plaintiff leave to file a
second amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint on January 31, 2019.

The second amended complaint attempts to substitute in two putative
class plaintiffs. Defendants jointly demurred to the second amended
complaint on March 4, 2019.

On May 7, 2019, the Court held a hearing and tentatively issued a
ruling indicating that the second amended complaint should be
dismissed, without prejudice.

A subsequent written order confirmed the dismissal, without
prejudice. On June 29, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint, seeking to address the issues raised in the court's oral
ruling. Defendants filed a joint demurrer to the third amended
complaint on July 29, 2019. The court heard defendants' joint
demurrer on August 29, 2019. On October 1, 2019, the court issued a
written order overruling defendants’ joint demurrer.

The case will proceed to preliminary discovery.

ADOMANI said, "We believe that the purported class action lawsuit
is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action."

ADOMANI, Inc. provides zero-emission electric and hybrid drivetrain
systems for integration in new and existing school buses and medium
to heavy-duty commercial fleet vehicles. ADOMANI, Inc. was founded
in 2012 and is headquartered in Corona, California.


AGENTRA LLC: Court Dismisses First Amended Pascal TCPA/CRLA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAWRENCE PASCAL, Plaintiff, v. AGENTRA, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02418-DMR (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted Agentra and Data Partnership Group, LP
("DPG")'s motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), to dismiss Pascal's first amended complaint.

In the putative class action, the Plaintiff challenges Defendants
Agentra, DPG, and I Health and Life Insurance Services ("IHL")'s
alleged practice of making unauthorized phone calls to telephones
of consumers nationwide and playing artificial or prerecorded voice
messages.

Agentra is a Texas company that sells health insurance plans.  DPG
provides financing and/or administration services for Agentra's
plans, and IHL is an authorized sales agent for Agentra and DPG's
products and services.  Defendant Doe is a company that performs
robocalls, or artificial or prerecorded voice message telemarketing
calls to cellular and residential phones.  IHL hired Doe on behalf
of Agentra and DPG to market their products and services.  Doe
placed robocalls on a mass scale to generate sales for IHL's health
insurance products and services from Agentra and DPG without the
recipients' consent.

On April 4, 2019, the Plaintiff received a call on his cell phone
from Doe at the number 970-713-2254.  When he answered the call, he
heard an artificial or prerecorded voice "advertising lower rates
on health insurance" and instructing him to "press one" to speak to
a representative.  After he "pressed one," the Plaintiff was
connected to a representative who hung up on him when he asked the
name of the company calling.

In order to identify the caller, the Plaintiff called 970-713-2254
and heard a message indicating that the company was selling health
insurance.  The Plaintiff then asked his attorney to investigate
the call.  His attorney called the number 970-713-2254 and spoke
with a live representative who "solicited a health plan" and
refused to disclose "the name of the company."  The Plaintiff's
attorney then purchased a health insurance policy from the
representative, and immediately received an email identifying
Defendants Agentra and IHL, copying the email address
'support@ilifeandhealth.com' stating 'Welcome to Agentra Healthcare
Solutions' and assigning a member identification number.  In a
welcome letter, DPG indicated it would be providing financing
and/or administration for billing purposes.

The Plaintiff never consented to receive calls from any of the
Defendants.  He alleges that Agentra, IHL and DPG knowingly and
actively accepted business that originated through the illegal
telemarketing calls placed by John Doe 1.  He brings two claims
against the Defendants on behalf of himself and a class and
subclass of individuals: 1) violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"); and 2) violation of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CRLA").

Defendants Agentra and DPG now move to dismiss the TCPA claim,
arguing that the FAC does not allege that either of them made the
calls in question and does not plausibly allege their liability for
the calls under a vicarious liability theory.  In response, the
Plaintiff concedes that Agentra and DPG did not make the calls in
question and so are not directly liable under the TCPA.  Instead,
he contends that Agentra and DPG are vicariously liable for the
calls.

Magistrate Judge Ryu finds that the FAC does not sufficiently
allege the existence of an agency relationship between Agentra
and/or DPG on the one hand and Doe, the purported caller, on the
other.  Nor does the operative complaint allege facts supporting an
inference that Doe had "actual authority" to make the robocalls on
their behalf.  The only allegations in the FAC connecting Agentra
or DPG with Doe are that IHL, as Agentra and DPG's authorized sales
agent, hired Doe to market Agentra and DPG's products and services
by calling thousands of phones at a time using an artificial or
prerecorded voice message.  The FAC also contains the conclusory
allegation that Agentra, IHL, and DPG knowingly and actively
accepted business that originated through the illegal telemarketing
calls placed by John Doe 1.  These allegations are insufficient to
support a theory of agency liability based on actual authority.

The FAC does not plead sufficient facts to support an apparent
authority theory that Agentra and/or DPG is vicariously liable for
the allegedly illegal telemarketing calls.   FAC further fails to
sufficiently allege an agency relationship between Agentra and/or
DPG on the one hand and Doe, the purported caller, on the other.
It also fails to allege facts that support the affirmance by
Agentra and/or DPG of a prior act done by Doe.  Therefore, it does
not state a ratification theory of agency.

The Magistrate Judge concludes that the FAC does not sufficiently
allege facts giving rise to a plausible inference that Agentra
and/or DPG "made" the calls under the meaning of the TCPA.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's section 227(b) claims are dismissed
without prejudice.

Finally, as to the CRLA claim, while it is improper to raise
arguments for the first time on reply, the Plaintiff does not
allege that Agentra and/or DPG made the calls in question.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's vicarious liability theory applies
equally to the CLRA claim.  For the same reasons discussed, the
Magistrate Judge concludes that the FAC does not sufficiently state
a vicarious liability theory as to Agentra and DPG.  Accordingly,
the CLRA claim is dismissed with leave to amend.

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Ryu granted with leave
to amend Agentra and DPG's motion to dismiss the TCPA and CRLA
claims.  Any amended complaint must be filed within 14 days of the
date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 16, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Tm33aQ from Leagle.com.

Lawrence Pascal, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Louis Javitch
--mark@javitchlawoffice.com.

Agentra, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, Defendant,
represented by William Scott Richmond -- brichmond@pcrfirm.com --
Platt Cheema Richmond PLLC, pro hac vice, Laura Elizabeth Brandt --
LBRANDT@PCRFIRM.COM -- Platt Cheema Richmond PLLC, pro hac vice &
Megan A. Shapiro -- megan@radshap.com -- Radoslovich Krogh, PC.

Data Partnership Group, LP, a Georgia limited partnership,
Defendant, represented by William Scott Richmond, Platt Cheema
Richmond PLLC, pro hac vice & Laura Elizabeth Brandt, Platt Cheema
Richmond PLLC, pro hac vice.

I Health and Life Insurance Services, a California corporation,
Defendant, represented by David L. Emerzian --
david.emerzian@mccormickbarstow.com -- McCormick Barstow Sheppard
Wayte & Carruth, LLP & Timothy John Buchanan --
Tim.Buchanan@mccormickbarstow.com -- McCormick Barstow et al.


AIR METHODS: Gretzinger Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT Rates
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Breslin, writing for Madison - St. Clair Record, reports that
an air ambulance service stands accused of denying their nurses and
paramedics rightful compensation by failing to pay proper overtime
rates.

A couple, including one who still works for the company, allege Air
Methods Corporation, which has locations across Illinois and the
country, had its employees sign an agreement where they were not
paid despite being on base and on call.

Michael Gretzinger, a flight paramedic who still works for the
company, and his wife Angela, a nurse, filed suit in Madison County
Circuit Court and have asked for the action to be certified as a
class, or collective, on behalf of themselves and all other
employees "similarly situated." [GN]


ALDER PROTECTION: Ennis et al. Seek to Certify Class of Sales Reps
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as SHADRACH ENNIS, SHAWN
HARDING, NICOLAAS VANLEEUWEN, and TERRANCE JESCLARD, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
ALDER PROTECTION HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; ADAM SCHANZ, an individual; ADAM CHRISTIAN, an individual;
KYLE DEMORDAUNT, an individual; DANE MCCARTNEY, an individual; and
DOES I-X, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00512-CW-DBP (D. Utah),
the Plaintiffs ask the Cour for an order conditionally certifying
the Fair Labor Standards Act class and authorizing Plaintiffs to
send the proposed notice and consent form to all putative class
members consisting of:

   "all persons who are currently or were previously employed by
   Alder as a Sales Representative at any time within the
   applicable three-year statutory period, excluding officers and
   directors."

The Plaintiffs brought this action under the FLSA on behalf of
themselves and similarly-situated Sales Representatives who are
currently or were previously employed by Alder. The FLSA mandates
that non-exempt employees are to receive at least minimum wage for
all hours worked and overtime compensation amounting to
one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of forty hours per week.

The Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint, among other claims, that
Alder failed to pay the legally-mandated minimum wage and overtime
compensation to the Plaintiffs through certain policies and
practices that were applied equally to the Named Plaintiffs and
other similarly-situated current and former Alder employees
throughout the United States.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Shaunda L. McNeill, Esq.
          Matthew A. Steward, Esq.
          Victoria B. Finlinson, Esq.
          CLYDE SNOW & SESSIONS, PC
          One Utah Center, Thirteenth Floor
          201 South Main Street
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: 801 433 2413
          Facsimile: 801 521 6280
          E-mail: vbf@clydesnow.com
                  mas@clydesnow.com
                  slm@clydesnow.com

ALL-WAYS PACIFIC: Diaz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evelyn Diaz on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. All-Ways Pacific LLC, Resource Employment Solutions,
LLC, Allways Trucking Freight Brokerage LLC, Trion Solutions I,
Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
19STCV35808,(Cal. Super., October 7, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime
wages and interest thereon, redress for failure to authorize or
permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to
provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the
form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all
wages due upon separation of employment, failure to maintain
time-keeping records, injunctive relief and other equitable relief,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California
Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.

Defendant operates a logistics company where Diaz worked as a
non-exempt worker. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
      Vanessa M. Rodriguez, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
      Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com


ALTRIA GROUP: Schall Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Oct. 14 disclosed that it is investigating claims on behalf of
investors of Altria Group, Inc. ("Altria" or "the Company")
(NYSE:MO) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

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

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

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

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.

CONTACT:

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Dist. Ct. Upholds Dismissal in Krakowski Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York affirmed a bankruptcy court's dismissal of
claims in the appellate case styled as In re: AMR CORPORATION, et
al., JOHN KRAKOWSKI, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICAN
AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-cv-06187
(LAK), (S.D.N.Y.).

The bankruptcy appeal arises from a dispute between three airline
pilots (TWA pilots), their labor union Allied Pilots Association
(APA), and their current employer American Airlines (AA). The TWA
pilots, who worked for Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA) until it
merged with AA, allege on behalf of a putative class of similarly
situated individuals that APA breached its duty of fair
representation throughout an arbitration process involving AA and
that APA colluded in this conduct.

In 2001, TWA sold many of its assets to AA.  At the time of the
sale, TWA employed about 1,300 pilots.  APA is a union authorized
to collectively bargain on behalf of AA pilots, a group that
includes, following the sale, former TWA pilots.  At the time of
the TWA sale, APA and AA added to their existing CBA an agreement
called "Supplement CC," which governed the integration of the TWA
pilots into AA's workforce.  Supplement CC specified that, for the
purpose of AA's "seniority list," a ranking of pilots by years of
experience that has significant implications for pay and scheduling
preferences, the pilots would not receive credit for the full
number of years they served at TWA.  The pilots would, however,
receive the benefit of a "protective fence" around the St. Louis
base.

In 2011, however, AA and its corporate parent, AMR, filed for
bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York.  In February 2012,
AA began the process of abrogating the CBS with its pilots.
Dissatisfied with the arbitration process, the TWA pilots filed a
compliant against APA and AA in the Eastern District of Missouri in
2012.  The case was transferred to the SDNY bankruptcy court in
2013.

In 2015, the New York bankruptcy court dismissed the TWA Pilots'
Modified Supplemental Class Action Complaint for Damages and
Declaratory Relief ("MSC") in part. Drawing from the MSC's own
organization, the bankruptcy court explained that the single breach
count relied on ten alleged breaches. Treating these as effectively
separate claims, the bankruptcy court dismissed the claims that
APA:

  1. Failed to bargain on behalf of the TWA pilots over the
     abrogation of Supplement CC under the CBA;

  2. Agreed with AA to abrogate Supplement CC without securing
     equivalent job protections;

  3. Falsely represented to the bankruptcy court that the
     LOA 12-05 arbitration's purpose was to replicate
     Supplement CC's protections;

  4. Precluded the panel from addressing the seniority list
     and failed to require that the panel replicate Supplement
     CC's protections.

However, the bankruptcy court allowed the TWA pilots to proceed
with their theories that APA:

  5. Selected the arbitrators without input from the TWA pilots;

  6. Selected the arbitration participants without such input;

  7. Selected the lawyers without such input;

  8. Hired Kennedy to represent the AA pilots despite his alleged
     conflicts;

  9. Pursued through the AA pilots committee a position adverse
     to the TWA pilots;

10. Objected to the TWA pilots committee's procedural proposals.

Following discovery, the bankruptcy court found on summary judgment
for the defendants on all six remaining claims.

The TWA pilots timely appealed.

On review, the District Court is not persuaded of the TWA pilots'
argument that the bankruptcy court failed to construe the complaint
as a whole by analyzing separately the ten components of the single
breach count.  The bankruptcy court in fact drew its organization
from the MSC itself, the District Court holds.

The District Court finds that the bankruptcy court correctly
dismissed the first four claims.

The District Court also finds that the bankruptcy court correctly
entered summary judgment for APA on the remaining six claims.

Claims Five, Six, Seven and Eight turn on APA's alleged role in
setting up the arbitration process. "None is meritorious," the
District Court opines.

Claims Nine and Ten turn on APA's alleged conduct during the
arbitration.  There is no merit to Claim Nine and the TWA pilots
have failed to show causation, the District Court holds.  As to
Claim Ten, the TWA pilots have abandoned the claim by not pursuing
it in their appellate brief.  In any event, the undisputed facts
would preclude a finding of causation, the District Court adds.

Lastly, the District Court holds that the bankruptcy correctly
entered summary judgment for AA on the Collusion Claim.  The
collusion claim against AA hinges on the existence of a breach of
duty by APA. As there was no breach, there was no collusion to
commit a breach, the District Court finds.

Accordingly, the District Court affirmed the bankruptcy court's
ruling.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 2, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/T0SMzT from Leagle.com

John Krakowski, Kevin Horner & M. Alicia Sikes, Appellants,
represented by Allen Press , Jacobson Press P.C., 168 North Meramec
Avenue Suite 150, Clayton, MO 63105, pro hac vice.

Allied Pilots Association, Appellee, represented by Steven K.
Hoffman , James & Hoffman, P.C., 1130 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite
950, Washington, District of Columbia 20036, pro hac vice.

American Airlines, Inc., Appellee, represented by Mark Wayne -
Robertsonmrobertson@omm.com - O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Robert A.
Siegel - rsiegel@omm.com - O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, pro hac vice &
Sloane Ackerman - sackerman@omm.com - O'Melveny & Myers LLP.


APPLE INC: Zaluda Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
--------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH ZALUDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2019CH11771 (Ill. Cir., Oct. 10, 2019), seeks to redress and
curtail Defendant's unlawful collection, capture, use, and storage
of Plaintiffs biometric data from approximately September 19, 2014
to the present in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

Siri is an artificial intelligence-driven software program
developed by Apple that allows individuals to, inter alia, use
their voice to retrieve information from the internet, interact
with internet-connected devices, place calls, send texts, and
schedule reminders. Apple preloads Siri on devices it designs and
manufactures, including Apple's iPhone smartphones, iPad tablets,
Apple Watches, AirPod headphones, HomePod smart speakers, MacBook
laptops, and iMac computers.

Before an individual can use a Siri Device, Siri asks the user to
repeat a set of five phrases. Siri records the individual as she or
he utters the phrases and analyzes the unique features of the
speaker's voice. Apple calls this process "User Enrollment." Siri
also records and analyzes the user's first forty requests in the
same way and stores the resulting data. Apple refers to this
dataset as a "User Profile." These User Profiles are voiceprints.

The BIPA regulates the collection, capture, retention, and
dissemination of biometric identifiers and biometric information by
private entities such as Apple. Pursuant to BIPA, biometric
identifiers specifically include voiceprints. Biometric information
is defined by BIPA as information based on an individual's
biometric identifier used to identify an individual.

Apple collects, captures, stores and disseminates voiceprints of
each individual who uses Siri.  Apple does not inform Siri users
prior to or after User Enrollment that it will capture, collect,
store, and/or disseminate their voiceprints, and does not obtain
Siri user consent to such capture, collection and storage of their
voiceprints, as BIPA requires, the lawsuit says.

Apple is a technology company that designs and manufactures
internet technology devices used by consumers worldwide. Apple
designs and manufactures smartphones (iPhone), tablet computers
(iPads), wearable technology (Apple Watch), laptop
computers(MacBook), desktop computers (iMac), and more. Apple also
designs and develops software, including operating systems and
other programs for each of its devices.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Daniel M. Feeney, Esq.
          Zachary J. Freeman, Esq.
          MILLER SHAKMAN LEVINE & FELDMAN LLP
          180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone. (312) 263-3700
          Facsimile. (312) 263-3270
          E-mail: dfeeney@millershakman.com
                  zfreeman@millershakman.com

               - and -

          David S. Golub, Esq.
          Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
          Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
          SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
          184 Atlantic Street
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 325-4491
          Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
          E-mail: dgolub@sgtlaw.com
                  sbloch@sgtlaw.com
                  isloss@sgtlaw.com

ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Ruling in Artex Clients' Suit under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the micro-captive
clients of Artex Risk Solutions, Inc. or Tribeca Strategic Advisors
filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

On December 7, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company, its subsidiary Artex Risk Solutions, Inc. ("Artex") and
other defendants including Tribeca, in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona.

The named plaintiffs are micro-captive clients of Artex or Tribeca
and their related entities and owners who had IRC Section 831(b)
tax benefits disallowed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The
complaint attempts to state various causes of action and alleges
that the defendants defrauded the plaintiffs by marketing and
managing micro-captives with the knowledge that the captives did
not constitute bona fide insurance and thus would not qualify for
tax benefits.

The named plaintiffs are seeking to certify a class of all persons
who were assessed back taxes, penalties or interest by the IRS as a
result of their ownership of or involvement in an IRS Section
831(b) micro-captive formed or managed by Artex or Tribeca during
the time period January 1, 2005 to the present. The complaint does
not specify the amount of damages sought by the named plaintiffs or
the putative class.

On August 5, 2019, the trial court granted the defendants' motion
to compel arbitration and dismissed the class action lawsuit.
Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Arthur J. Gallagher said, "We will continue to defend against the
lawsuit vigorously. Litigation is inherently uncertain, however,
and it is not possible for us to predict the ultimate outcome of
this matter and the financial impact to us, nor are we able to
reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss in connection
with this lawsuit."

Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., together with its subsidiaries, provides
insurance brokerage, consulting, and third party claims settlement
and administration services to entities in the United States and
internationally. The company offers its services through a network
of correspondent insurance brokers and consultants. Arthur J.
Gallagher & Co. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Rolling
Meadows, Illinois.


AUSTRALIA: PFAS Class Action Expected to Start on April 1
---------------------------------------------------------
Roxanne Fitzgerald, writing for Katherine Times, reports that the
question of whether a dangerous chemical leak from the Tindal RAAF
Base has had an impact on property values in Katherine will be
stirred up again at a community meeting.

Hundreds of Katherine residents are part of a class action against
the Department of Defence for PFAS contamination of the town.

At the heart of the claim is property values have fallen
dramatically and business has been negatively impacted.

Leading the class action, Shine Lawyers was set to be in Katherine
on Oct. 16 to discuss the progress of the case, which is expected
to start on April 1 in Sydney.

Shine Lawyers plans to discuss the selection of their expert
witnesses, which have assessed the impact of PFAS contamination on
property values in Katherine--these experts are crucial to the
case.

Katherine Town Council, a late signup to the class action, is
believed to have received the latest Valuer General's advice on the
town's property values.

Rates bills have already been sent out for this year based on
pre-PFAS values but these are the new values which the next three
years' rates will be based on.

There is some concern these new values are based on a very limited
number of sales, which again, most believe is a result of the PFAS
issue.

That new valuation is expected to be mailed out some time this
month and residents have 30 days to object.

While repeatedly admitting fault in allowing dangerous chemicals to
leak from the Tindal RAAF Base, the Defence Department is
contesting the claim that PFAS contamination caused property values
in each area to drop.

Defence is said to have put aside $53 million of taxpayers' money
to fight the case.

There is also a strong possibility the court will briefly come to
Katherine next year to view the town's proximity to the Tindal RAAF
Base.

The meeting was set to be held at Knotts Crossing. [GN]


BITFINEX: BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Reynolds, Esq., of BakerHostetler, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that a class action lawsuit filed on Oct. 6, 2019,
against Bitfinex and its sister company, Tether, made waves in
cryptocurrency headlines. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants
manipulated cryptocurrency markets by issuing USDT, a stablecoin
that Tether claims is backed 1:1 by US dollars, in amounts that
exceeded Tether's fiat reserves. The lawsuit further alleges that
Tether purposefully issued unbacked USDT and the defendants used
the USDT to flood the Bitfinex exchange and purchase other
cryptocurrencies, thereby artificially inflating demand for
cryptocurrencies and creating the "largest bubble in human
history." The suit claims that as much as half of the growth of the
cryptocurrency market between 2017 and 2018 was driven by
Bitfinex's and Tether's "manipulative scheme," and cites economists
and numerous studies. The complaint alleges damages of more than
$1.4 trillion related to the crimes of Bank Fraud, Money
Laundering, Wire Fraud and more.

Also, prosecutors in the United States indicted Ho Jun Jia, who
stands accused of Wire Fraud, Access Device Fraud, and Identity
Theft for allegedly stealing the identities of multiple parties to
gain unauthorized access to cloud computing services, which the
defendant then used to run a large-scale cryptocurrency mining
operation. At one point, one of the fraudulent accounts constituted
a cloud provider's "largest consumer of data usage by volume." Ho
allegedly racked up in total more than $5 million in unpaid cloud
computing services. Ho allegedly executed the scheme by creating
false emails and web domains and obtaining personally identifiable
information, all used to execute a sophisticated social engineering
campaign that gave him access to retail cloud provider accounts.

In San Antonio, Texas, a federal judge sentenced 30-year-old Alaa
Mohammed Allawi to 30 years in prison for using cryptocurrencies to
sell narcotics, including fentanyl, on the dark web. Allawi was
ordered to pay a $14.32 million judgment based on the profits he
generated by operating the criminal enterprise, as well as forfeit
property worth around $28,000, multiple firearms, over $21,000 in
cryptocurrency and his rights to a coffee and tea franchise.

On Oct. 2, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced a
final judgment against PlexCoin proprietors Dominic Lacroix and
Sabrina Paradis-Royer, who were ordered to pay nearly $7 million
for selling unregistered securities to the public during an
unlawful Initial Coin Offering (ICO). The ICO lured investors by
disseminating false and misleading information about the size of
the company's operations, how the money raised would be used, and
the amount of funds that were raised. The money judgment reflects a
disgorgement of monies received by the parties, as well as civil
penalties.

And finally, yet another asset-backed token issuance has come under
regulatory scrutiny. Karatbars, a German company that previously
sold gold products online, raised $100 million in 2018 through an
ICO selling KaratGold Coins (KBCs), a cryptocurrency supposedly
backed by gold. There has been no independent verification that the
tokens are, indeed, backed by gold. The company announced plans to
launch a second ICO in December 2019, this time for the launch of a
coin connected to a "cryptocurrency bank" in Miami. This put the
company on the radar of the Florida Office of Financial Regulation,
which is currently investigating Karatbars. [GN]


BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Trial in Mishal & Berger Suit in Early 2021
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the class
action suit initiated by Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger will be set
for trial in early 2021.

On May 25, 2018, plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger (on
behalf of themselves and the purported class, Plaintiffs) initiated
a purported class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the Court) against the following defendants: the Company,
Boardwalk GP, LP (Boardwalk GP), Boardwalk GP, LLC and Boardwalk
Pipelines Holding Corp. (BPHC) (together, Defendants), regarding
the potential exercise by Boardwalk GP of its right to purchase the
issued and outstanding common units of the Company not already
owned by Boardwalk GP or its affiliates (Purchase Right).

On June 25, 2018, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, subject to
the approval of the Court (the Proposed Settlement). Under the
terms of the Proposed Settlement, the lawsuit would be dismissed,
and related claims against the Defendants would be released by the
Plaintiffs, if BPHC, the sole member of the general partner of
Boardwalk GP, elected to cause Boardwalk GP to exercise its
Purchase Right for a cash purchase price, as determined by the
Company's Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited
Partnership, as amended (the Limited Partnership Agreement), and
gave notice of such election as provided in the Limited Partnership
Agreement within a period specified by the Proposed Settlement.

On June 29, 2018, Boardwalk GP elected to exercise the Purchase
Right and gave notice within the period specified by the Proposed
Settlement. On July 18, 2018, Boardwalk GP completed the purchase
of the Company's common units pursuant to the Purchase Right.

On September 28, 2018, the Court denied approval of the Proposed
Settlement. On February 11, 2019, a substitute verified class
action complaint was filed in this proceeding. The Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss, which was heard by the Court in July 2019.

In October 2019, the Court ruled on the motion and granted a
partial dismissal, with certain aspects of the case proceeding to
trial. The case will be set for trial in early 2021.

Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates integrated natural gas and natural gas liquids and other
hydrocarbons (NGLs) pipeline and storage systems in the United
States. The company operates natural gas pipeline systems in the
Gulf Coast region, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, as well as the
Midwestern states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and
Ohio; and NGLs pipelines and storage facilities in Louisiana and
Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP was founded in 2005 and is
headquartered in Houston, Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP is
a subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipelines Holding Corp.


BRISTOW GROUP: Kokareva Securities Fraud Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Bristow Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the case, Kokareva v.
Bristow Group Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-0509, remains pending in Texas
district court.

Two purported class action complaints, Kokareva v. Bristow Group
Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-0509 and Lilienfield v. Bristow Group Inc.,
Case No. 4:19-cv-1064, were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas (the "Southern District of Texas
Court") on February 14, 2019 and March 21, 2019, respectively.

The complaints, which also name Jonathan E. Baliff and L. Don
Miller as defendants, allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of the Company's
disclosures and alleged failure to make timely disclosure of
inadequate monitoring control processes related to non-financial
covenants within certain of its secured financing and lease
agreements.

On May 17, 2019, the Southern District of Texas Court appointed BRS
Investor Group as Lead Plaintiff and consolidated both actions
under Kokareva v. Bristow Group Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-0509.

When the Company filed the Chapter 11 Cases on May 11, 2019, the
litigation against the Company was automatically stayed. The case
was not automatically stayed against the individual defendants, but
the parties agreed to a briefing schedule and submitted a
scheduling stipulation to the Southern District of Texas Court on
July 22, 2019.

The Court entered a scheduling order on September 5, 2019, and the
Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint was due on November
5, 2019.

After the plaintiffs file their Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, the defendants will have until January 6, 2020 to file
responsive pleadings, including a motion to dismiss. The defendants
believe that the claims are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against them.

Bristow Group Inc. provides industrial aviation services to the
offshore energy companies in Europe Caspian, Africa, the Americas,
and the Asia Pacific. The company was formerly known as Offshore
Logistics Inc. and changed its name to Bristow Group Inc. in
February 2006. Bristow Group Inc. was founded in 1955 and is
headquartered in Houston, Texas. On May 11, 2019, Bristow Group
Inc. along with its affiliates, filed a voluntary petition for
reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of Texas.


CENTRAL FIRE: Guevara Seeks Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as EDILBERTO ANTONIO GUEVARA,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 5:18-cv-01331-XR (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order granting conditional certification and approving a
Court-supervised notice to:

   "all individuals who -- at any time beginning three years
   before the date this lawsuit was filed -- were compensated on
   an hourly-rate basis by Central Fire Protection, Inc. for
   performing manual labor on fire protection systems on the
   premises of properties owned and/or managed by Central Fire's
   residential and commercial clients."

The Plaintiff alleged that he and Class Members regularly worked
more than 40 hours per week and that Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiff and Class Members the required time-and-one-half their
regular rates of pay as overtime compensation for all hours worked
in excess of 40 during each workweek.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Colleen Mulholland, Esq.
          EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
          8301 Broadway Street, Ste. 309
          San Antonio, TX 78209
          Telephone: (210) 308-6222
          Facsimile: (210) 308-6223
          E-mail: cmulholland@equaljusticecenter.org

               - and -

          Anna Bocchini, Esq.
          510 S. Congress Ave., Ste. 206
          Austin, TX 78704
          Telephone: (512) 474-0007
          Facsimile: (512) 474-0008
          E-mail: abocchini@equaljusticecenter.org

CHAMPION HOME: Removes Vizcarra Case to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
Champion Home Builders, Inc. removes case captioned as CHRISTIAN
VIZCARRA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. CHAMPION HOME BUILDERS, INC., formerly known as
SKYLINE HOMES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RIC1904594 (Filed Sept. 6,
2019), from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Riverside to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on Oct. 10, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-01946
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants failed to pay minimum wages;
failed to pay wages and overtime; failed to provide meal-period and
rest-break under the California Labor Code.

Champion Home Builders, Inc. is doing business in off-site
residential and commercial construction.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
          Julia A. Luster, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-239-9800
          Facsimile: 213-239-9045
          E-mail: alexander.chemers@ogletree.com
                  julia.luster@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Rabia Z. Reed Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: 916-840-3150
          Facsimile: 916-840-3159
          E-mail: rabia.reed@ogletree.com

CLOROX COMPANY: Class Cert.-Related Bids in Gregorio Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton administratively terminates certain
motions regarding class certification filed in the lawsuit titled
JOSEPH GREGORIO, et al. v. THE CLOROX COMPANY, Case No.
4:17-cv-03824-PJH (N.D. Cal.).

According to the Order, the Court has reviewed the parties'
stipulation to vacate "until further notice" the October 30, 2019
hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the
Defendant's motions to strike.

While the Court is amenable to vacating the hearing to permit the
parties to attempt to resolve this matter, the Court does not
permit motions to languish on its docket, Judge Hamilton notes.

Accordingly, the Court administratively terminates the motions at
docket numbers 104, 125, 133, 134, 135, 140, and 145. These motions
may be re-noticed for hearing, if necessary, on an available date
on the Court's calendar, Judge Hamilton rules.[CC]


CONSOLIDATED WORLD: Cunningham Sues Over Illegally Faxed Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Cunningham, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Consolidated World Travel, Inc.,
Ultimate Vacation Group, LLC and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 19-cv-81372 (S.D. Fla., October 7, 2019), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Defendants operate a cruise lines who faxed Cunningham their offers
in an attempt to promote its services using an automatic telephone
dialing system. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Wellikoff, Esq.
      ADLER WELLIKOFF PLLC
      1300 N. Federal Highway, Suite 107
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Phone: (561) 508-9591
      Email: swellikoff@adwellgroup.com


CORNERSTONE RESEARCH: Whitaker Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as David Whitaker DAVID WHITAKER,
et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Cornerstone Research and Arnold I
Barnett, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-mc-91454, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
Oct. 18, 2019.

The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-mc-24309-FAM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Federico A. Moreno.

Cornerstone Research is a litigation consulting firm based in the
United States and the United Kingdom. It provides economic and
financial analysis and expert testimony to attorneys, corporations
and government agencies involved in complex litigation and
regulatory proceedings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan R. Voegele, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
          26 South Main Street
          Hanover, NH 03755
          Telephone: (603) 643-9090
          Facsimile: (603) 643-9010
          E-mail: jvoegele@bsfllp.com

CR GRAND: Wills Sues over Illegal Towing of Vehicle
---------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WILLS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CR GRAND RESERVE LLC, and LIBERTY
RECOVERY, d/b/a AUTOMOTIVE TOWING No. 4, the Defendants, Case No.
97541731 (Fla. 13th Jud'l Cir., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks to recover
actual damages, statutory damages, plus pre-judgment interest, as
well as an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation
costs, due to the Defendants' willful failure to abide by F.S.
section 715.07 and the Hillsborough County Code of Ordinances.

CR Grand owned, maintained and operated a residential complex known
as Grand Reserve, located at or near 16616 Palm Royal Dr., Tampa,
Florida 33647.

Automotive Towing is a towing company that, as part of its business
model, removes and/or attempts to remove vehicles from private
property without the vehicle owner's consent in order to derive
profit therefrom.

Prior to July 10, 2019, the Grand Reserve entered into a towing
agreement with Automotive Towing authorizing it to remove vehicles
from the Property.

On July 10, 2019, Wills had his Vehicle parked at the Subject
Property. Automotive Towing non-consensually towed the Subject
Vehicle to its storage facility.

On August 2, 2019, Wills appeared at Automotive Towing's tow yard
to retrieve the Subject Vehicle.

Wills was presented with a copy of the receipt from Automotive
Towing that stated a total of $400 for the release of the Subject
Vehicle dated July 12, 2019.

Wills was not presented, handed or given an updated receipt showing
any additional fees.

Nevertheless, Wills was told at Automotive Towing's counter that
the fee to retrieve his vehicle was $800.

Left with no other option to retrieve the Subject Vehicle, Wills
paid the fee to Automotive Towing. Upon paying the towing fee of
$800.00, Wills regained possession of the Subject Vehicle.

Prior to the non-consensual tow of the Subject Vehicle, Grand
Reserve failed to display a Tow Away sign within 5 feet from the
public right-of-way line at the Subject Property, in violation of
F.S. section 715.07(2)(a)(5).

Further, Florida Statutes section 715.07(2)(a)(1.a) specifies in
pertinent part, that the owner or lessee of real property, may
cause any vehicle without liability for the costs of removal,
transportation, or storage or damages caused by such removal,
transportation, or storage, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Felipe B. Fulgencio, Esq.
          Courtney A. Umberger, Esq.
          Iasia B. Ward, Esq.
          FULGENCIO LAW, PLLC
          105 S. Edison Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: 813 463.0123
          Facsimile: 813 670.1288
          E-mail: Felipe@FulgencioLaw.com
                  CU@FulgencioLaw.com
                   IWard@FulgencioLaw.com

CUBESMART: Court Grants Final Approval to Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
CubeSmart said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that a court has granted final
approval to the settlement of a class action lawsuit.

On January 11, 2019, a settlement agreement was entered into for a
class action alleging violation of a state specific deceptive and
unfair trade practices act. During the year ended December 31,
2018, the Company recorded a $1.8 million charge related to this
legal action, which is included in General and administrative on
the Company's consolidated statements of operations.

On August 2, 2019, the court granted final approval of the
settlement for the class action.

CubeSmart is a self-administered and self-managed real estate
investment trust. The Company's self-storage properties are
designed to offer affordable, easily accessible and secure storage
space for residential and commercial customers. According to the
2019 Self-Storage Almanac, CubeSmart is one of the top three owners
and operators of self-storage properties in the United States.

DIAMOND CBD: Intends to Vigorously Defend Florida Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kristine Gill, writing for Miami New Times, reports that experts
say a recent class-action lawsuit filed in Florida signals a
growing need for more stringent regulation and enforcement of the
hemp and CBD industries in the state. The suit alleges the Fort
Lauderdale company Diamond CBD and the Denver-based First Capital
Venture Co. misrepresented the amount of CBD in their products.

The lawsuit, filed September 27 by Miamian Kathryn Potter, says
Potter purchased $119.97 worth of CBD gummies from Diamond CBD's
website, which purported that each product contained anywhere from
150 mg to 550 mg of CBD, short for "cannabidiol." The suit claims
the actual amount in at least one of those products was far less,
although it does not explain how the actual amount was determined.

"[T]he CBD industry has quickly become a billion-dollar-plus
industry," the lawsuit states. "Unfortunately, as is often the case
with emerging industries subject to minimal regulation, the CBD
market is ripe for exploitation by unscrupulous businesses, and it
has been compared to the 'Wild West.'"

Potter's attorneys declined to comment on the pending litigation
when reached by New Times. Diamond CBD, First Capital Venture, and
their parent company, PotNetwork Holdings, did not respond to
messages seeking comment.

Erin Smith Aebel, a Tampa-based health lawyer, often represents
companies looking to enter the growing CBD and hemp industries. She
says recent regulation at the state and federal levels has the
industry in flux — and the class-action lawsuit shows much more
work needs to be done.

"It's kind of a big fad right now, but, eventually, I think it's
going to be regulated and it's going to calm down," Aebel says.
"But, yes, if you're in the business of selling this stuff, you
need to be very careful about the accuracy of your claims."

In December 2018, the federal government made it legal to grow and
sell hemp under the Agriculture Improvement Act, better known as
the Farm Bill. The bill requires that CBD products contain less
than 0.3 percent THC (tetrahydrocannabinol, the primary intoxicant
in marijuana). In response, Florida set about to enact its own set
of regulations, which Aebel expects to be approved by the end of
the year.

These regulations would require that all CBD and hemp products sold
in the state have a scannable barcode linking consumers to a
certificate of analysis by an independent laboratory that has
tested the products' hemp extract levels. But while regulations are
in the works to enforce the amount of CBD in these products, Aebel
says regulation only indirectly holds companies accountable for
containing a specific amount of CBD promised to consumers within
that range.

Further, Aebel says CBD companies offering infused food products
could find themselves facing sanctions from the Food and Drug
Administration.

"The FDA does not want any of these products making any kind of
healthcare-related claims unless they've actually been tested," she
says. "The efficacy of the products, how they're advertised and
labeled, and what they're used for is also being looked at very
closely by the FDA right now."

A Naples food lab, for instance, was the subject of a recent letter
from the FDA demanding compliance. September 18, the FDA issued a
warning letter to Alternative Laboratories, which had listed its
Green Roads CBD oil as a dietary supplement. The FDA warned that
the product does not meet the definition of a dietary supplement
and said the company could face seizure of its supply unless the
packages are corrected. (Alternative Laboratories did not respond
to a request for comment from New Times.)

Even if the recent class action does not spark major change, Tara
Tedrow, a Central Florida attorney specializing in cannabis
regulations, says the suit proves uncharted territory on the
subject remains.

"The complexities of labeling requirements for hemp CBD products
involve not only Florida but federal regulations," Tedrow says.
"This lawsuit may not be a catalyst for specific regulatory changes
in Florida's new hemp rules, but it certainly underscores the
necessity for hemp companies to understand applicable state and
federal laws pertaining to product labeling and advertising."

On October 25, Diamond CBD provided the following statement to New
Times:

"As an innovator and pioneer in the cannabidiol industry, Diamond
CBD consistently provides its customers with high quality
hemp-based products that are tested by independent, third party
laboratories. We vehemently deny the allegations in the complaint.
We constantly strive for all our customers to be satisfied with our
products and our company has an extensive, happy customer base. We
are disappointed that someone sought to utilize the legal system
for their purported, alleged dissatisfaction with our product and
personal gain in the lawsuit against not only our company, but the
industry as evident from multiple similarly timed actions. We will
vigorously defend against the allegations in the lawsuit." [GN]


DTE MIDSTREAM: Page Seeks Overtime Wages for Welding Inspectors
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON PAGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DTE MIDSTREAM, LLC, AND DTE MIDSTREAM
APPALACHIA, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01345-LPL (W.D.
Pa., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages from DTE under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, Page and the other workers like him
regularly worked for DTE in excess of 40 hours each week. These
workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a single workweek.

Page worked for DTE from October 2017 until February 2018 as a
welding inspector, the lawsuit says.

DTE has substantial pipeline and crude storage facilities
throughout Western Pennsylvania including a large storage facility
in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

DYCKMAN ELECTRONICS: Denied Alvarez Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Garcia Alvarez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dyckman Electronics Center, Inc.,
Front Row Electronics LLC, Avraham Oz, Jackie Oz, Nuriel Guedalia
and Angela Torres, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-09255 (S.D. N.Y.,
October 7, 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 an electronics store, located
at 151 Dyckman Street, New York where Alvarez was employed as a
general helper and truck loader. He claims to have worked in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime,
and spread of hours compensation and denied an accurate
recordkeeping of his hours. [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


EQUIFAX INC: Appeal in Saskatchewan Cybersecurity Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the Court's order staying a
case in Saskatchewan related to a 2017 cybersecurity incident is
under appeal.

Eight Canadian class actions, six of which are on behalf of a
national class of approximately 19,000 Canadian consumers, have
been filed against the company in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Quebec,
British Columbia and Alberta.

Each of the proposed Canadian class actions asserts a number of
common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages and other
related relief in connection with the 2017 cybersecurity incident.


The plaintiffs in each case seek class certification/authorization
on behalf of Canadian consumers whose personal information was
allegedly impacted by the 2017 cybersecurity incident. In some
cases, plaintiffs also seek class certification on behalf of a
larger group of Canadian consumers who had contracts for
subscription products with Equifax around the time of the incident
or earlier and were not impacted by the incident.

The company has opposed Plaintiff's class certification motion in
the Ontario case, which is pending. The application for class
authorization in the Quebec proceeding has been dismissed by the
court. All remaining purported class actions are at preliminary
stages, and one of the cases in Ontario as well as the Saskatchewan
case have been stayed. The court's order staying the Saskatchewan
case is on appeal.

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

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


EQUIFAX INC: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the multi-district litigation
court has entered a Consent Order in the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico class action suit and the complaint has been dismissed with
prejudice.

In 2017, the company experienced a cybersecurity incident following
a criminal attack on the company's systems that involved the theft
of certain personally identifiable information of U.S., Canadian
and U.K. consumers.

Criminals exploited a software vulnerability in a U.S. website
application to gain unauthorized access to the company's network.
In March 2017, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security distributed
a notice concerning the software vulnerability. The company
undertook efforts to identify and remediate vulnerable systems;
however, the vulnerability in the website application that was
exploited was not identified by the company's security processes.

The company discovered unusual network activity in late July 2017
and upon discovery promptly investigated the activity. Once the
activity was identified as potential unauthorized access, the
company acted to stop the intrusion and engaged a leading,
independent cybersecurity firm to conduct a forensic investigation
to determine the scope of the unauthorized access, including the
specific information potentially impacted. Based on the company's
forensic investigation, the unauthorized access occurred from
mid-May through July 2017.

Hundreds of class actions were filed against the company in federal
and state courts relating to the 2017 cybersecurity incident. The
plaintiffs in these cases, who purport to represent various classes
of U.S. consumers and small businesses, generally claim to have
been harmed by alleged actions and/or omissions by Equifax in
connection with the 2017 cybersecurity incident and assert a
variety of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary
damages, injunctive relief and other related relief.

In addition, certain class actions have been filed by financial
institutions that allege their businesses have been placed at risk
due to the 2017 cybersecurity incident and generally assert common
law claims, such as claims for negligence, as well as, in some
cases, statutory claims. The financial institution class actions
seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief and other related
relief.

Furthermore, a lawsuit has been filed against the company by the
City of Chicago with respect to the 2017 cybersecurity incident
alleging violations of state laws and local ordinances governing
protection of personal data, consumer fraud, breach notice
requirements and business practices and seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief and the imposition of fines the aggregate amount
of which the complaint does not specifically quantify.

Three Indian Tribes filed suits in federal court asserting putative
class actions relating to the 2017 cybersecurity incident brought
on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated federally
recognized Indian Tribes and Nations. Additionally, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed an action on its own behalf and
on behalf of the people of Puerto Rico arising out of the 2017
cybersecurity incident.

Beginning on December 6, 2017 and pursuant to multiple subsequent
orders, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered
the consolidation and transfer for pre-trial proceedings with
respect to the U.S. cases pending in federal court discussed above,
including the City of Chicago action, the Indian Tribal suits, and
the Puerto Rico action, to the Northern District of Georgia as the
single U.S. District Court for centralized pre-trial proceedings
(the "MDL Court").

Based on these orders, consolidated proceedings with respect to
U.S. consumer, small business and financial institution federal
class actions and other lawsuits related to the 2017 cybersecurity
incident have been conducted in the MDL Court. The MDL Court has
established separate tracks for the consumer and financial
institution class action cases and appointed lead counsel on behalf
of plaintiffs in both tracks. The company refers to the consumer
class action cases, captioned In re: Equifax, Inc. Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2800 (Consumer Cases), as the
"U.S. Consumer MDL Litigation."

Certain plaintiffs with cases pending in the MDL consolidated
proceedings, including the Indian Tribe plaintiffs and the City of
Chicago, have sought the establishment of additional tracks and
other related relief. The MDL Court denied the various requests for
a separate track. The City of Chicago is seeking reconsideration of
the MDL Court's decision.

The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaints filed by the U.S. consumer, small business and financial
institution plaintiffs in their entirety. On January 28, 2019, the
MDL Court dismissed the small businesses' consolidated class action
complaint in its entirety.

The MDL Court dismissed certain claims brought by the consumer and
financial institution plaintiffs, while allowing other claims by
those plaintiffs to proceed. Pursuant to case management orders
issued by the MDL Court, consolidated pre-trial proceedings,
including discovery between the parties, have been proceeding on
the remaining claims of the U.S. consumer and financial institution
plaintiffs. In addition, the financial institution plaintiffs have
filed a motion to amend their class action complaint which is
pending.

As described above, in the third quarter of 2019, the Company
entered into a settlement agreement that, upon approval by the MDL
Court, will resolve and dismiss the claims asserted in the U.S.
Consumer MDL Litigation. Puerto Rico was part of the MSAG Group,
and a Consent Order was entered by the MDL Court on July 25, 2019
and its Complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


EQUIFAX INC: Fulton County, Ga. Data Breach Suits Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the single and consolidated
class action suit related to the 2017 cybersecurity incident
pending before the Fulton County Business Court in Georgia is still
stayed.

Four putative class actions arising from the 2017 cybersecurity
incident were filed against the company in Fulton County Superior
Court and Fulton County State Court in Georgia based on similar
allegations and theories as alleged in the U.S. Consumer MDL
Litigation and seek consumer class actions pending in the MDL Court
and seek monetary damages, injunctive relief and other related
relief on behalf of Georgia citizens.

These cases have been transferred to a single judge in the Fulton
County Business Court and three of the cases were consolidated into
a single action.

On July 27, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the
Company's motion to stay the remaining single case, and on August
17, 2018, the Fulton County Business Court granted the Company's
motion to stay the consolidated case.

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

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


EQUIFAX INC: Preliminary Objections Filed in Pa. Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that preliminary objections filed
in the class action suit pending before the Court of Common Pleas
of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania.

On July 12, 2019, one of the initial named plaintiffs in the
financial institutions track of the multi-district litigation filed
a purported class action suit against the company in the Court of
Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania on behalf of
financial institutions headquartered in Pennsylvania.

The claims being asserted in this matter are substantially similar
to those that were dismissed in the MDL proceeding for lack of
standing.

Equifax said, "We filed preliminary objections to the complaint on
September 5, 2019."

Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources
business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments,
and consumers. The company operates through four segments: U.S.
Information Solutions (USIS), International, Workforce Solutions,
and Global Consumer Solutions. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


ERIE INDEMNITY: 3rd Cir. Denies Petition for Rehearing in Beltz
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erie Indemnity Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has denied plaintiffs' petition for
rehearing of their appeal.

On February 6, 2013, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, captioned
Erie Insurance Exchange, an unincorporated association, by members
Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan and Anita Sullivan, and
Patricia R. Beltz, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situate v. Richard L. Stover; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W.
Cavanaugh; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Susan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen;
C. Scott Hartz; Claude C. Lilly, III; Lucian L. Morrison; Thomas W.
Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Elizabeth H. Vorsheck; and Robert C.
Wilburn, by alleged policyholders of Exchange who are also the
plaintiffs in the Sullivan lawsuit. The individuals named as
defendants in the Beltz lawsuit were the then-current Directors of
Indemnity.

As subsequently amended, the Beltz lawsuit asserts many of the same
allegations and claims for monetary relief as in the Sullivan
lawsuit. Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of all policyholders
of Exchange, or, alternatively, on behalf of Exchange itself.
Indemnity filed a motion to intervene as a Party Defendant in the
Beltz lawsuit in July 2013, and the Directors filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit in August 2013.

On February 10, 2014, the court entered an order granting
Indemnity's motion to intervene and permitting Indemnity to join
the Directors’ motion to dismiss; granting in part the Directors'
motion to dismiss; referring the matter to the Department to decide
any and all issues within its jurisdiction; denying all other
relief sought in the Directors' motion as moot; and dismissing the
case without prejudice.

To avoid duplicative proceedings and expedite the Department's
review, the Parties stipulated that only the Sullivan action would
proceed before the Department and any final and non-appealable
determinations made by the Department in the Sullivan action will
be applied to the Beltz action.

On March 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Indemnity filed a
motion to dismiss the appeal on March 26, 2014. On November 17,
2014, the Third Circuit deferred ruling on Indemnity's motion to
dismiss the appeal and instructed the parties to address that
motion, as well as the merits of Plaintiffs' appeal, in the
parties' briefing. Briefing was completed on April 2, 2015. In
light of the Department's April 29, 2015 decision in Sullivan, the
Parties then jointly requested that the Beltz appeal be voluntarily
dismissed as moot on June 5, 2015.

The Third Circuit did not rule on the Parties' request for
dismissal and instead held oral argument as scheduled on June 8,
2015. On July 16, 2015, the Third Circuit issued an opinion and
judgment dismissing the appeal. The Third Circuit found that it
lacked appellate jurisdiction over the appeal, because the District
Court's February 10, 2014 order referring the matter to the
Department was not a final, appealable order.

On July 8, 2016, the Beltz plaintiffs filed a new action labeled as
a "Verified Derivative And Class Action Complaint" in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The action is captioned Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan, and
Anita Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Erie
Insurance Exchange v. Erie Indemnity Company; Kaj Ahlmann; John T.
Baily; Samuel P. Black, III; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W.
Cavanaugh; Wilson C. Cooney; LuAnn Datesh; Patricia A. Goldman;
Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen; C. Scott Hartz; Samuel P.
Katz; Gwendolyn King; Claude C. Lilly, III; Martin J. Lippert;
George R. Lucore; Jeffrey A. Ludrof; Edmund J. Mehl; Henry N.
Nassau; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Seth E. Schofield;
Richard L. Stover; Jan R. Van Gorder; Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck;
Harry H. Weil; and Robert C. Wilburn (the "Beltz II" lawsuit). The
individual defendants are all present or former Directors of
Indemnity (the "Directors").

The allegations of the Beltz II lawsuit arise from the same
fundamental, underlying claims as the Sullivan and prior Beltz
litigation, i.e., that Indemnity improperly retained Service
Charges and Added Service Charges. The Beltz II lawsuit alleges
that the retention of the Service Charges and Added Service Charges
was improper because, for among other reasons, that retention
constituted a breach of the Subscriber's Agreement and an Implied
Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing by Indemnity, breaches of
fiduciary duty by Indemnity and the other defendants, conversion by
Indemnity, and unjust enrichment by defendants Jonathan Hirt Hagen,
Thomas B. Hagen, and Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck, at the expense of
Exchange.

The Beltz II lawsuit requests, among other things, that a judgment
be entered against the Defendants certifying the action as a class
action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
declaring Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class and
Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class; declaring the conduct
alleged as unlawful, including, but not limited to, Defendants'
retention of the Service Charges and Added Service Charges;
enjoining Defendants from continuing to retain the Service Charges
and Added Service Charges; and awarding compensatory and punitive
damages and interest.

On September 23, 2016, Indemnity filed a motion to dismiss the
Beltz II lawsuit. On September 30, 2016, the Directors filed their
own motions to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit. On July 17, 2017, the
Court granted Indemnity's and the Directors' motions to dismiss the
Beltz II lawsuit, dismissing the case in its entirety.

The Court ruled that "the Subscriber's Agreement does not govern
the separate and additional charges at issue in the Complaint" and,
therefore, dismissed the breach of contract claim against Indemnity
for failure to state a claim.  

The Court also ruled that the remaining claims, including the
claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Indemnity and the
Directors, are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation or
fail to state legally cognizable claims. On August 14, 2017,
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

On May 10, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the Beltz II
lawsuit. On May 24, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a petition seeking
rehearing of their appeal before the Third Circuit. The Third
Circuit denied that petition on June 14, 2018.

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

Erie Indemnity Company operates as a managing attorney-in-fact for
the subscribers at the Erie Insurance Exchange in the United
States. The company provides sales, underwriting, and policy
issuance services for the policyholders on behalf of the Erie
Insurance Exchange. Erie Indemnity Company was founded in 1925 and
is based in Erie, Pennsylvania.


ESTATES LLC: Williams et al Allege Bid-Rigging Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------
BRIAN C. WILLIAMS, MARICOL YUNAIRA TINEO DE LEON, JAIRO VENSRIQUE
LEON DA COSTA, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
THE ESTATES LLC, THE ESTATES (UT), LLC, THE ESTATES REAL CLASS
ACTION ESTATE GROUP, LLC, TIMBRA OF NORTH CAROLINA, LLC, VERSA
PROPERTIES, LLC, RED TREE HOLDINGS, LLC, MALDIVES, LLC, TONYA
NEWELL, CAROLYN SOUTHER, DOES 1 – 100, the DEFENDANTS, Case No.
1:19-cv-01076 (M.D.N.C., Oct. 18, 2019), wants to enjoin Defendants
and their co-conspirators, including their directors, officers,
employees, agents and all other persons acting or claiming to act
on their behalf, from selling any property purchased at a
foreclosure sale in North Carolina, from bidding at any foreclosure
sale in North Carolina, and from engaging in any other contract,
combination, or conspiracy having a similar purpose or effect.

The Estates is a membership organization (or group of membership
organizations) that has engaged, and continues to engage, in a
bid-rigging scheme in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.

The Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated homeowners and
property owners, lost their homes and properties through the
Estates' illegal bidding practices or otherwise were deprived of
proceeds in excess of the foreclosed debt because when properties
are sold at foreclosure auctions, the proceeds are used to pay off
the mortgage and other debt attached to the property, with any
remaining proceeds paid to the homeowner.

The Plaintiffs suffered serious harm, losing valuable equity in
their homes if not their homes themselves, because of Defendants'
anti-competitive behavior, which distorted the process in North
Carolina foreclosure sales. Defendants unfairly and unjustly
profited from their wrongdoing, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Maricol Yunaira Tineo De Leon and Jairo Vensrique
Leon Da Costa, are:

          James C. White, Esq.
          J.C. WHITE LAW GROUP
          100 Europa Drive, Suite 401
          Chapel Hill, NC 27517
          Telephone: (919) 246-4676
          Facsimile: (919) 246-9113
          E-mail: jwhite@jcwhitelaw.com

               - and -

          Dhamian A. Blue, Esq.
          Daniel T. Blue, Esq.
          BLUE LLP
          205 Fayetteville Street, Suite 300
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 833-1931
          Facsimile: (919) 833-809
          E-mail: dab@bluellp.com

EXP REALTY: Wright Seeks to Certify Three Classes Under TCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned BRUCE WRIGHT, JORGE VALDES, EDWIN DIAZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EXP
REALTY, LLC, Case No. 6:18-cv-01851-PGB-EJK (M.D. Fla.), Plaintiff
Edwin Diaz seeks certification of three classes:

   1. Prerecorded No Consent Class:

      All persons in the United States who from four years prior
      to the filing of this action through class certification
      (1) one or more eXp realtors called (2) using a prerecorded
      voice message transmitted using a Mojo Power Dialer or a
      Vulcan7 Power Dialer, and (3) for whom the lead source for
      the call is identified as either Mojo, Landvoice, or
      Vulcan7;

   2. Autodialed No Consent Class:

      All persons in the United States who from four years prior
      to the filing of this action through class certification
      (1) one or more eXp realtors called (2) on the person's
      cellular telephone number, (3) using a Mojo Power Dialer or
      a Vulcan7 Power Dialer, and (4) for whom the lead source
      for the call is identified as either Mojo, Landvoice, or
      Vulcan7; and

   3. Do Not Call Registry Class:

      All persons in the United States who from four years prior
      to the filing of this action through class certification
      (1) one or more eXp realtors called two or more times in
      the aggregate (2) on the person's residential telephone
      number, (3) within any 12-month period (3) where the
      person's telephone number had been listed on the National
      Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days, (4) for
      substantially the same reason Defendant called Plaintiffs
      Valdes and Diaz, and (4) for whom the lead source for the
      call is identified as either Mojo, Landvoice, or Vulcan7.

Mr. Diaz also asks the Court to appoint him as representative of
the Classes; appoint Kaufman P.A. and Law Offices of Stefan Coleman
P.A. as class counsel; and establish a deadline for submission of a
proposed class notice and notice plan.

Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Mr. Diaz moves to certify classes with respect to three claims
against Defendant eXp Realty for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, arising from (1) prerecorded voice calls,
(2) autodialed calls, and (3) calls to telephone numbers registered
on the National Do Not Call Registry made by eXp's realtors to
leads lists purchased for the purpose of soliciting real estate
listings.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are 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

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


FAMILY WU: Zhang Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Waiters
-----------------------------------------------------
NING ZHANG, RUOPENG CHE, YUZHOU WANG, YONGHONG GUO, XUESONG LIU,
JIASHENG ZHANG, GUANGXIANG QU, LIANPENG ZOU and NIANCHUN ZHANG on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees,
the Plaintiffs, vs. FAMILY WU 1, LLC. d/b/a FIRST LAMB SHABU, LAO
CHENG YI GUO, YIJING WANG and PENG WU, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-05723 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2019), alleges that Defendants
have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of
the the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law by
engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees,
including Plaintiffs, compensation for all hours worked, unpaid
wages, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 hours
for each workweek, and unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each
day they worked 10 or more hours, and failure to provide
undisrupted and adequate meal breaks.

The Plaintiffs were employed as a waiter and team leader by  First
Lamb Shabu, located at 136-72 Roosevelt Avenue, Flushing New York
11354.

First Lamb Shabu is an eatery with contemporary Chinese decor,
offering traditional hot pot options.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the proposed FLSA are:

          Carter R. Qi, Esq.
          HEIFERMAN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38 th Avenue, Suite 10E
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 888-9545
          Facsimile: (718) 690-3865
          E-mail: Carter@Heifermanlaw.com

FIRST SOLAR: Trial in Smilovits Suit to Begin January 2020
----------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 25, 2019, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that the trial in the case, Smilovits v. First
Solar, Inc., et al., is slated to begin on January 7, 2020.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-DGC,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers.

The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between
April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012. The complaint generally
alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial performance and
prospects.

The action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative
class. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will
vigorously defend this action.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the Class Action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively, the "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012.

On December 17, 2012, the court denied defendants’ motion to
dismiss. On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the
Pension Schemes' motion for class certification and certified a
class comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of the Company between April 30, 2008
and February 28, 2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding
defendants and certain related parties. Merits discovery closed on
February 27, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2015.
On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted defendants'
motion in part and denied it in part, and certified an issue for
immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Ninth
Circuit"). First Solar filed a petition for interlocutory appeal
with the Ninth Circuit, and that petition was granted on November
18, 2015.

On May 20, 2016, the Pension Schemes moved to vacate the order
granting the petition, dismiss the appeal, and stay the merits
briefing schedule. On December 13, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied
the Pension Schemes' motion. On January 31, 2018, the Ninth Circuit
issued an opinion affirming the Arizona District Court's order
denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment.

On March 16, 2018, First Solar filed a petition for panel rehearing
or rehearing en banc with the Ninth Circuit. On May 7, 2018, the
Ninth Circuit denied defendants' petition. On August 6, 2018,
defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court. Meanwhile, in the Arizona District Court, expert
discovery was completed on February 5, 2019. On June 24, 2019, the
U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition. Following the denial of the
petition, the Arizona District Court ordered that the trial begin
on January 7, 2020.

First Solar said, "This lawsuit asserts claims that, if resolved
against us, could give rise to substantial damages, and an
unfavorable outcome or settlement may result in a significant
monetary judgment or award against us or a significant monetary
payment by us, and could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, and results of operations. Even if
this lawsuit is not resolved against us, the costs of defending the
lawsuit and of any settlement may be significant. These costs would
likely exceed the dollar limits of our insurance policies or may
not be covered by our insurance policies. Given the uncertainties
of trial, at this time we are not in a position to assess the
likelihood of any potential loss or adverse effect on our financial
condition or to estimate the range of potential loss, if any."

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

First Solar, Inc. provides photovoltaic (PV) solar energy solutions
in the United States and internationally. It operates in two
segments, Modules and Systems. The company was formerly known as
First Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to First Solar,
Inc. in 2006. First Solar, Inc. was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Tempe, Arizona.


FUYAO GLASS: Workers' Class Action May Have Been Settled
--------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Gnau, writing for WHIO, reports that a class action lawsuit
by more than 600 current and former Fuyao Glass America workers
involving the company's pay and scheduling practices may have been
settled, the case's legal docket indicates.

"This civil consent case came before the court for a telephone
status conference with counsel on 10/8/2019," a recent docket entry
in the federal lawsuit states. "Counsel advised the court that the
case settled at mediation. A dismissal entry will issue by separate
entry."

A  message seeking comment was sent to involved attorneys on Oct.
14.

By August 2018, Fuyao, one of the Dayton area's fastest growing
manufacturers, was being sued by 636 current and former workers to
change the way the company schedules and pays employees.

The case goes back to the original plaintiff, Julia Staggs, who
filed the suit in June 2017 in Dayton's federal court.

Staggs worked at Fuyao from September to December 2016, according
to the suit. Staggs alleged that she worked overtime at Fuyao
without being paid a time-and-a-half wages for that overtime work.
She also claimed that she and others were not completely relieved
of duties during what were supposed to be breaks from work.

Plaintiffs' attorney Bob DeRose said that Fuyao automatically
deducts from workers' payroll for lunch breaks -- whether or not
employees actually take those breaks.

Some employees work through lunch or they don't take the entire 30
minutes as an uninterrupted break from work, they claim. "They're
not paying for all the hours worked," DeRose told the Dayton Daily
News in 2018. "We are maintaining this is a company-wide policy."

Fuyao has more than 2,300 workers in Moraine. [GN]


GENOMIC HEALTH: Faces Suits over Exact Sciences Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Genomic Health, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on October 28, 2019, that
the company has been named as a defendant in five Exact Sciences
merger-related suits.

On July 28, 2019, Genomic Health, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Genomic Health" or the "Company"), entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Exact Sciences Corporation, a Delaware
corporation ("Exact Sciences"), and Spring Acquisition Corp., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Exact
Sciences ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge
with and into Genomic Health, with Genomic Health surviving as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Exact Sciences (the "Merger").  

In connection with the Merger, Genomic Health filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a definitive proxy
statement of Genomic Health that also constitutes a prospectus of
Exact Sciences, dated October 4, 2019 (the "Proxy
Statement/Prospectus"), which Genomic Health commenced mailing to
stockholders of Genomic Health on or about October 7, 2019.

In connection with the Merger, five actions, including two putative
class action lawsuits, were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California and two actions,
including one putative class action lawsuit, were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

The five lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California are captioned Wang v. Genomic
Health, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-05556 (filed September 4, 2019),
Seligman v. Genomic Health, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-05710 (filed
September 11, 2019), Rice v. Genomic Health, Inc., et al.,
3:19-cv-05929 (filed September 23, 2019), Martak v. Genomic Health,
Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-06065 (filed September 25, 2019) and Litwin
v. Genomic Health, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-06511 (filed October 10,
2019), and the two lawsuits filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware are captioned Plumley v. Genomic
Health, Inc., et al., 1:19-cv-01719 (filed September 12, 2019) and
Shasheva v. Genomic Health, Inc., et al., 1:19-cv-01942 (filed
October 14, 2019) (all seven lawsuits, collectively, the "Merger
Litigation").

The complaints allege, among other things, claims under Section
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act asserting that the preliminary
or final proxy statement filed by Genomic Health in connection with
the Merger is materially incomplete and misleading, and the
Seligman complaint also alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty
relating to the merger. The Seligman, Plumley and Rice actions seek
to allege claims on behalf of a putative class of stockholders of
Genomic Health.

The complaints purport to seek to enjoin the planned special
meeting of Genomic Health’s stockholders unless and until the
allegedly missing material information is disclosed or, in the
event the merger is consummated, to recover damages from the
defendants.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Merger
Litigation are without merit and that no supplemental disclosure is
required under applicable law. However, in order to avoid the risk
of the Merger Litigation delaying or adversely affecting the Merger
and to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the
Company has determined to voluntarily supplement the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus.

A copy of the Supplemental Disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/2pBsQxy.

Genomic Health, Inc. operates as a life science company focused on
the development and commercialization of genomic-based clinical
diagnostic tests for cancer. The Company offers diagnostic services
and information on the likelihood of disease recurrence and
response to certain types of therapy.


GLOBAL WIDGET: Faces False Labeling Class Action in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J Guite, Esq. -- rguite@sheppardmullin.com -- and
Abby Meyer, Esq. -- ameyer@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton, in an article for Mondaq, report that in what
may be the first of its kind, a putative class of Massachusetts
consumers filed a false labeling class action complaint against
Global Widget LLC, d/b/a Hemp Bombs ("Hemp Bombs") (Ahumada v.
Global Widget LLC, D. Mass. Case No. 1:19-cv-12005), challenging
the labeling of numerous Hemp Bombs products, including gummies,
lollipops, capsules, syrup, vape and pet products.

The lawsuit is primarily based on the allegations that Hemp Bombs
makes numerous false and misleading claims on the product labels
and on its website "to illustrate and convey to consumers, the
level of potency associated with benefits that consumers can expect
to receive through their consumption. Specifically, Defendant
misrepresents that the CBD Products have specific amounts of CBD
when, in fact, the Products do not contain the amount of CBD as
advertised and are instead grossly under-dosed."

The complaint also alleges that Hemp Bombs markets certain of its
products as "pure" and "certified pure", allegedly because Hemp
Bombs "knew that consumers would pay more for" products labeled as
such.

All of the claims alleged sound in warranty for delivering lesser
doses of CBD than promised on the labels and/or marketing
materials. The complaint seeks refunds, disgorgement of all of Hemp
Bombs' profits for the sale of the products along with treble or
punitive damages.

Class action litigation regarding label claims has been an on-going
trend in the food industry and has spread into the health, beauty
and cosmetics spaces. Given that CBD products tend to overlap with
these, companies in this space and their marketing personnel should
be aware that this litigation could have some real staying power
and engage with their supply chains accordingly. [GN]


GOGO INC: Pierrelouis Securities Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ASHLEY PIERRELOUIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOGO, INC., MICHAEL J.
SMALL, NORMAN SMAGLEY, BARRY ROWAN, and JOHN WADE, Defendants, Case
No. 18 C 4473 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Jorge Alonso of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
granted the Defendants motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint.

Lead Plaintiffs Maria Zingas and Daniel Rogers, have filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint For Violation of the Federal
Securities Laws, asserting violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Commission.  

Gogo provides in-flight internet connectivity services to customers
traveling by airplane.  The individual Defendants are current and
former Gogo executives.  The lawsuit centers on the Defendants'
public statements concerning the performance of Gogo's new 2Ku
system.

Gogo's service works by integrating hardware and software installed
on airplanes with satellite and ground-based networks.  To provide
internet access, it relies for each flight on one of two systems --
the "air to ground" ("ATG") system or its new 2Ku
antenna-and-satellite-based system, first deployed in 2016.  The
2Ku system, an upgrade on Gogo's earlier "Ku-band" satellite
system, relies on the Ku open-architecture satellite network, from
which Gogo purchases capacity as needed, to deliver in-flight
internet connectivity at up to twice the speed of its earlier
Ku-band system, as well as significantly faster than the ATG
systems. Gogo announced the 2Ku system in 2014 and began marketing
it to airlines.  By the end of 2016, 2Ku had been installed on 94
airplanes.  By the end of 2017, it had been installed on
approximately 550 airplanes.

In November or December 2017, Delta Airlines, a major partner that
accounted for 25% of Gogo's revenue in 2014, 2015, and 2016, placed
calls to Gogo complaining that its 2Ku systems were not working and
threatening to shut them down if they were not fixed.  Gogo reacted
promptly, and its employees worked overtime to address the problem.
Gogo first attempted to change the antennas and install a part
known as a deflector, a folded piece of rubber surrounding the
antennas, to prevent the de-icing fluid from reaching the antennas.
The deflectors did not fix the problem.

Between Feb. 27, 2017, and Feb. 22, 2018, the Defendants made
numerous statements to investors and analysts on conference calls,
at conferences, and in documents filed with the SEC, in which, the
Plaintiffs allege, the Defendants omitted to fully disclose that a
defect in the 2Ku system or its installation was inhibiting its
performance or concealed the defect's seriousness.  The Plaintiffs
contend that the Defendants' omissions made the latter's statements
materially misleading.

On Feb. 22, 2018, in announcing Gogo's 2017 fourth quarter and
year-end results, the Defendants acknowledged the de-icing fluid
infiltration issue.  When an analyst asked for more detail, Wade
replied that the "reliability issues" were "actually really caused
by the de-icing fluid, the fix to that was very easy to do, and
they've deployed that on a number of aircraft and they're not
seeing any further issues around that at that time.  According to
the Plaintiffs, the explanation failed to convey how costly the 2Ku
repairs were and how likely they were to affect earnings figures in
subsequent reporting periods.

The Plaintiffs allege that it was only on May 4, 2018, that Gogo's
new CEO, Oakleigh Thorne, disclosed the full truth about the 2Ku
defect and the associated installation and repair issues.  Based on
Thorne's May 4, 2018 revelations, Gogo's shares fell $1.73 per
share to close at $7.86 on May 7, 2018 (a drop of over 18%).  The
same day, after the market closed, Moody's downgraded Gogo's credit
rating, and the share price fell an additional $2.80 per share to
close at $5.06.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' omission to fully
disclose the defect in the 2Ku system before May 4, 2018, had
inflated Gogo's share price, and the news of the full extent of the
de-icing fluid issue caused the share price to fall, to the
detriment of the Plaintiffs and other investors, and in violation
of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 of the SEC.
Additionally, they claim that the individual Defendants are liable
as "controlling persons" of Gogo under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.

Defendants, Gogo, Michael J. Small, Norman Smagley, Barry Rowan,
and John Wade, move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim under
Rule 8, Rule 9(b), and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995 ("PSLRA").  In support of their motion to dismiss, the
Defendants argue that (1) the Plaintiff does not meet its burden to
plead falsity and (2) the Plaintiff's complaint fails to raise a
strong inference of scienter.

Judge Alonso holds that without more "specific facts," to
demonstrate when the 2Ku problems showed themselves to be of "a
sufficient magnitude," the Plaintiffs' allegations do not support a
reasonable belief that the Defendants' statements were false,
misleading, or without a reasonable basis at the time they were
made.  Merely alleging that (a) Gogo could and did track service
outages, (b) the Defendants had access to outage reports, and (c)
at some time prior to May 4, 2018, during or after the "winter,"
the 2Ku system's availability plunged down to the mid 80s, without
other details, does not provide sufficiently specific and
particularized information about when the data revealed that the
de-icing problem had caused a precipitous drop in availability, or
when it became clear that costly remediation efforts were
necessary.  He concludes that the Plaintiffs have not made
sufficiently particularized allegations to make plausible, rather
than merely possible, that teh Defendants' statements were
misleading when made.

Judge Alonso also holds that even apart from the particularity
requirement, the Plaintiffs' allegations do not support a strong
inference of scienter that is cogent and at least as compelling as
any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent.  Because the
Plaintiffs have not alleged that, before or during the class
period, the Defendants were presented with any specific information
that demonstrated the scope and magnitude of the de-icing problem,
the inference that the Defendants recklessly disregarded a serious
problem in omitting to disclose it to investors is not "cogent and
compelling" in light of opposing, nonfraudulent inferences.  The
Judge concludes that the case is one in which, even if fraud is one
possible explanation for why the Defendants did not disclose the
issue earlier, the fraudulent inference is not "cogent" because it
could equally well have been due to any number of other things.

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Alonso granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.  He dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by Nov. 15, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 16, 2019 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/fV0Vmh from Leagle.com.

Ashley Pierrelouis, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carl V. Malmstrom --
malmstrom@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC.

Maria Zingas, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Apton --
aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, pro hac vice, James
Vincent DiTommaso, DiTommaso Law LLC, Patrick Doyle Austermuehle,
Lubin Austermuehle, P.C., Peter Scott Lubin, Lubin Austermuehle,
P.C. & Vincent Louis DiTommaso -- vdt@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso
Law LLC.

Daniel Rogers, Plaintiff, represented by Casey E. Sadler --
CSADLER@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice,
Adam M. Apton, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Elizabeth Camper Lyons,
Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders, & Uhlenhop, Llc, John Scott Monical,
Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop, Marielise Fraioli, Lawrence
Kamin Saunders & Uhlenhop, LLC, Mitchell Benjamin Goldberg --
mgoldberg@lawrencekaminlaw.com -- Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders &
Uhlenhop & Peter E. Cooper -- pcooper@lawrencekaminlaw.com --
Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop.

Gogo Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Gordon May --
amay@nge.com -- Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP, Brian H. Polovoy --
bpolovoy@shearman.com -- Shearman & Sterling Llp, pro hac vice,
Jerome Steven Fortinsky -- jfortinsky@shearman.com -- Shearman &
Sterling, Llp, pro hac vice & Jonathan Stuart Quinn --
jquinn@nge.com -- Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg.

Michael J Small, Oakleigh Thorne, Norman Smagley, Barry Rowan &
John Wade, Defendants, represented by Andrew Gordon May, Neal,
Gerber & Eisenberg LLP, Brian H. Polovoy, Shearman & Sterling Llp,
Jerome Steven Fortinsky, Shearman & Sterling, Llp & Jonathan Stuart
Quinn, Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg.

GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Faces Putative Securities Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Granite Construction Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
company has been named as a defendant in a putative securities
class action suit in the Northern District of California.

On August 13, 2019, a putative securities class action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company, James H. Roberts, our President and
Chief Executive Officer, and Jigisha Desai, the company's Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.

The complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of persons
or entities that acquired the company's common stock between
October 26, 2018 and August 1, 2019, and alleges claims arising
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The complaint seeks damages based on allegations that in the
Company's SEC filings the defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations and prospects.

Granite Construction said, "We are in the preliminary stages of
reviewing the allegations made in the complaint and, as a result,
we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case, which
we intend to defend vigorously.

Granite Construction Incorporated is one of the largest diversified
infrastructure companies in the United States, engaged in
heavy-civil infrastructure projects including the construction of
streets, roads, highways, mass transit facilities, airport
infrastructure, bridges, trenchless and underground utilities,
power-related facilities, water-related facilities, well drilling,
utilities, tunnels, dams and other infrastructure-related projects,
site preparation, mining services, and infrastructure services for
residential development, energy development, commercial and
industrial sites, and other facilities, as well as construction
management professional services. The company had four reportable
business segments: Transportation, Water, Specialty and Materials.
The company is based in Watsonville, California.


HARD TACK: Shanahan Sues over Robocalls
---------------------------------------
TERRANCE SHANAHAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. HARD TACK INC., a Delaware
Corporation, DEALER RENEWAL SERVICES., an unknown Florida business
entity, BUDCO BUSINESS TO BUSINESS INC., D/B/A BUDCO FINANCIAL
SERVICES, a Michigan Corporation, ROYAL ADMINISTRATION SERVICES,
INC., a Florida Corporation, AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF
FLORIDA, a Florida corporation, Doe 1, an unknown business entity,
and DOES 2-5, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-00441-BCB-SMB (D. Neb., Oct. 9, 2019), contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
prerecorded voice messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In the course of selling their services, Defendants and/or their
agents placed thousands of automated calls to consumers' cell
phones nationwide using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Unfortunately, Defendants failed to obtain consent from Plaintiff
and the Class before bombarding their cell phones with these
illegal voice recordings, the lawsuit says.

Defendants are companies that market, sell, finance and provide
vehicle service contracts to consumers.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff are:

          Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
          JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
          480 S. Ellsworth Ave
          San Mateo, CA 94401
          Telephone: 650-781-8000
          Facsimile: 650-648-0705
          E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com

HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Still Defends Securities Suit in E.D. Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Healthcare Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a securities class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On March 22, 2019, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The initial complaint, which was filed by a plaintiff purportedly
on behalf of all purchasers of our securities between April 11,
2017 and March 4, 2019, alleges violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the matters related to the
company's earnings per
share (EPS) calculation practices.

On September 17, 2019, the complaint was amended to, among other
things, extend the Class Period to cover the period between April
8, 2014 and March 4, 2019, and to name additional individuals
affiliated with the Company as defendants. The lead plaintiff seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of the
plaintiff class.

Healthcare Services said, "While the Company is vigorously
defending against all litigation claims asserted, this litigation
-- along with the ongoing SEC investigation -- could result in
substantial costs to the Company and a diversion of the Company's
management's attention and resources, which could harm its
business. In addition, the uncertainty of the pending lawsuit or
potential filing of additional lawsuits could lead to more
volatility and a reduction in the Company's stock price. Given the
early stage of the litigation, at this time the Company is unable
to reasonably estimate possible losses or form a judgment that an
unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote."

Healthcare Services Group, Inc., incorporated on November 22, 1976,
provides management, administrative and operating services to the
housekeeping, laundry, linen, facility maintenance and dietary
service departments of the healthcare industry, including nursing
homes, retirement complexes, rehabilitation centers and hospitals
located throughout the United States. The Company operates through
two segments: housekeeping, laundry, linen and other services
(Housekeeping), and dietary department services (Dietary). The
company is based in Bensalem, Pennsylvania.


HOUSE OF RAEFORD: Torres Seeks Overtime Pay for Line Supervisors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Torres, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc. a/k/a
Columbia Farms, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02956-CMC (D.S.C.,
Oct. 17, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and for other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff was a Line Supervisor who worked for Defendant. He
consistently worked but was not paid for overtime.

The Defendant willfully and intentionally mischaracterized
Plaintiff and many other similarly situated employees as exempt
rather than non-exempt, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant is a North Carolina-based corporation that
specializes in poultry-related agribusiness, specifically the
processing, packaging, and transport of live poultry for intrastate
and interstate commerce.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Janet Rhodes, Esq.
          BURNETTE SHUTT & McDANIEL, PA
          912 Lady Street, Second Floor
          Post Office Box 1929
          Columbia, SC 29202-1929
          Telephone: (803) 904-7915
          Facsimile: (803) 904-7910
          E-mail: janetrhodes@burnetteshutt.law

HOUSTON, TX: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Beckwith Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEJENAY BECKWITH, on her Own Behalf and Others
Similarly Situated; BEVERLY FLORES, on her Own Behalf and Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF HOUSTON;
MAYOR SYLVESTER TURNER; POLICE CHIEF ART ACEVEDO; HOUSTON FORENSIC
SCIENCE CENTER; PETER STOUT; ANNISE PARKER; LEE P. BROWN; KATHY
WHITMIRE; CHIEF CHARLES McCLELLAND; CHIEF CLARENCE BRADFORD; CHIEF
SAM NUCHIA, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-20611 (5th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district
court's judgment granting the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

The case is a putative class action based on claims by Plaintiffs
Beckwith and Beverly Flores that the City of Houston and individual
city policy makers failed to test Sexual Assault Kits ("SAKs")
following their sexual assaults by non-party perpetrators.  The
Plaintiffs filed suit against the following Defendants: the City of
Houston, Texas; Dr. Peter Stout, the 2017-appointed CEO of the
Houston Forensic Science Center; the former Mayors of the City of
Houston, Annise Parker (2010-2016), Bill White (2004-2010), Lee P.
Brown (1998-2004), and Bob Lanier (deceased) (1992-1998); and
former Police Chiefs of the City of Houston, Charles McClelland
(2010-2016), Harold Hurtt (2004-2009), Clarence Bradford
(1997-2004), Sam Nuchia (1992-1997), and Lee P. Brown (1982-1990).


Beckwith was sexually assaulted on April 2, 2011.  She immediately
notified the Houston Police Department ("HPD") and went to Memorial
Hermann Southwest Hospital where the hospital staff collected a
SAK.  An HPD police officer then transported Beckwith's SAK to HPD
for testing.  HPD did not contact her again until 2015, when HPD
told her that it had a suspect in her sexual assault case.  She
phoned HPD several months later to talk about the sexual assault
but HPD did not call back.

HPD next contacted her in 2016 to tell her the suspect's name.
Later that year, the Harris County District Attorney's Office
notified her that her SAK had been tested and matched with HPD's
suspect, David Lee Cooper.   Cooper had a long history of sexually
assaulting women, including a minor child, dating back to 1991.
Cooper's previous sexual assault cases bear a similar fact pattern
to Beckwith's assault.  Had the City of Houston entered any of
Cooper's victims' genetic evidence from the untested SAKs, Cooper
would have been stopped before he had a chance to sexually assault
Beckwith.  HPD had her identifying information and should have
informed her that her SAK had gone untested for many years.

On Sept. 20, 2011, Flores was raped by a home intruder.  Flores
contacted HPD after the perpetrator fled.  She insisted that
charges be filed against the perpetrator and "a SAKS was done,"
although she does not provide the name of the facility that
administered her SAK.  Two weeks after the sexual assault, an HPD
detective visited Flores and told her that her SAK would be
processed within three months.  

Flores' perpetrator, Domeka Donta Turner, had committed a prior
sexual assault on Sept. 9, 2011.  In August 2014, a routine DNA
database run showed that there was a match between Flores' SAK and
Turner.  Had Houston run the results of her test on the DNA
database sooner, Turner would have been apprehended earlier and
Flores would not have spent several years worried and concerned
about the threat to herself and her children.  The City of Houston
never notified Flores prior to 2017 that her SAK had been delayed
in testing or that any other Houston rape victim had their SAKs
delayed in testing.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, with deliberate
indifference, maintained a policy, practice and/or custom for the
past 30 years of not submitting SAKs for testing, not reviewing
test results, and failing to preserve evidence.  They add that this
policy has a discriminatory purpose and adverse impact on females.

On Sept. 24, 2017, Beckwith filed her original putative class
action complaint against the Defendants.  On Dec. 20, 2017,
Beckwith filed her first amended complaint, adding Flores as an
additional named Plaintiff.  In their second amended complaint, the
Plaintiffs sued all the Defendants in their individual and official
capacities for alleged violations of the Due Process and Equal
Protection Clauses.  They further asserted alleged violations of
substantive due process, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment
"Takings" Clause, and negligence claims under state law.  

The Plaintiffs also brought claims for conspiracy to interfere with
their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985 and for negligently
failing to prevent civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. Section
1986.  The Plaintiffs seek damages for violation of civil rights
under color of law, injunctive relief requiring Defendants to
change the methods used to investigate sexual assault and for the
award of attorney fees and costs.

The Defendants filed an amended motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
second amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), or, in the alternative, a motion for summary
judgment.  The district court granted the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1)
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under Section 1983 for
alleged violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses
and the Plaintiffs' state law negligence claims.  It also granted
the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
remaining claims asserting 42 U.S.C. Sections 1985 and 1986 claims
along with alleged violations of substantive due process, the
Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment "Takings" Clause.

The appeal ensued.

The Plaintiffs advance four theories for why the limitations period
should not apply to them: (1) a more specific, five-year
limitations period applies; (2) the limitations period was tolled
for fraudulent concealment; (3) the limitations period was tolled
under the discovery rule; and (4) the limitations period was tolled
because the Defendants' conduct constituted a continuing tort.

The Fifth Circuit holds that the two-year statute of limitations
bars the Plaintiffs' state law negligence claims and their claims
under Section 1983.  First, it finds that the Plaintiffs' claims
under Section 1983, like their state law negligence claims, are
governed by a two-year statute of limitations.  Second, it finds
that the the doctrine of fraudulent concealment does not apply in
the case.  Third, it agrees with the district court that the
Plaintiffs did not exercise diligence in their cases, and
therefore, the discovery rule does not apply to toll the statute of
limitations.  Fourt, the Plaintiffs also can only show one instance
of allegedly wrongful conduct that was not repeated against them
and that occurred outside the limitations period.

The Plaintiffs also contest the accrual date of their Section 1983
and negligence claims.  Accrual of a Section 1983 claim is governed
by federal law.  The Plaintiffs' second amended complaint alleges
that the Defendants should have tested their SAKs within 30 days of
collection.

The Fifth Circuit finds that Beckwith's SAK was collected on April
2, 2011.  Flores' SAK was collected on Sept. 20, 2011.  Therefore,
Beckwith's claim would have accrued in May 2011 and Flores' in
October 2011, regardless of when the Defendants notified them of
the delay in testing.  Because they brought their state law causes
of action approximately six years later, on Sept. 24, 2017, the
two-year statute of limitations bars the Plaintiffs' state law
causes of action.

The Plaintiffs also claim that the Defendants conspired to
interfere with the Plaintiffs' civil rights in violation of 42
U.S.C. Section 1985 and negligently failed to prevent a known
conspiracy to interfere with their civil rights in violation of
Section 1986.

The Fifth Circuit holds that because there is no federal statute of
limitations for actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983
and 1985, federal courts borrow the forum state's general personal
injury limitations period.  In a Section 1985 claim, the actionable
civil injury to a plaintiff results from the overt acts of the
defendants, not from the mere continuation of a conspiracy.  Thus,
any cause of action against the Defendants accrued as soon as the
Plaintiffs knew or should have known of the overt acts involved in
the alleged conspiracy.  For the reasons already stated regarding
the Plaintiffs' claims under Section 1983, the Plaintiffs' claims
brought under Section 1985 are also dismissed.

Finally, the Plaintiffs aver that the district court erred in its
Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of their remaining claims for violations of
substantive due process, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth
Amendment Takings Clause.  They brought these claims separate and
apart from their other constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.

However, the Fifth Circuit holds that it must consider these claims
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 because a private right of action is
needed to assert a constitutional claim.   It has already held that
the Section 1983 claims are subject to the applicable statute of
limitations.  Likewise, it holds that these claims are also subject
to the applicable two-year statute of limitations and are therefore
time-barred for all of the reasons already stated in its foregoing
analysis.  Accordingly, these remaining constitutional claims are
dismissed.

Based on the foregoing, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district
court's judgment.

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

Collyn Ann Peddie, for Defendant-Appellee.

Roy Joseph Rodney, Jr. -- rjr@rodneylaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Suzanne Reddell Chauvin -- Suzanne.Chauvin@houstontx.gov -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Randall Lee Kallinen -- attorneykallinen@aol.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Charles Henry Peckham -- cpeckham@peckhampllc.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Deidra Norris Sullivan -- Deidra.Sullivan@houstontx.gov -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Sued over Travel Insurance Deceptive Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
RANDY O'KANE, on behalf of herself and a class of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION,
the Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-09662 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2019),
seeks monetary damages that Plaintiff and consumers residing
nationwide have suffered as a result of purchasing travel insurance
through Defendant's website in violations of New York's General
Business Law.

Defendant engages in a deceptive scheme to induce its customers to
purchase travel-insurance policies, while concealing its own
financial interest in policy sales.

Specifically, Defendant encourages its customers to protect their
trip with travel insurance provided by Allianz Global Assistance, a
third-party insurer that has partnered with JetBlue to offer travel
insurance through JetBlue's website.

JetBlue does not disclose, however, that despite lacking a license
to broker insurance policies, it has a financial interest in the
travel insurance and receives an illegal kickback from the insurer
in exchange for brokering the insurance sale.

These activities have harmed Plaintiff and the proposed class, as
Plaintiff and each member of the proposed class have suffered an
out-of-pocket loss through the payment of undisclosed and illegal
commission kickbacks.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's website misled her into
paying for the cost of that illegal kickback, and that Defendant is
therefore liable for these damages, among other things, the lawsuit
says.

JetBlue Airways Corporation, stylized as jetBlue, is a major
American low cost airline, and the sixth largest in the United
States by passengers carried.[BN]

Counsel for Randy O'Kane are:

          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45 th St.-5th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 954-341-5561
          Facsimile: 954-341-5531
          E-mail: memert@ssbny.com

               - and -

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-373-1671
          Facsimile: 415-484-1294
          E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Kevin Landau, Esq.
          TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
          80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
          New York, New York 10038
          Telephone: (212) 931-0704
          E-mail: klandau@tcllaw.com

               - and -

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss cART Antitrust Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that defendants in the
class action antitrust suit related to combination antiretroviral
therapies (cART), have filed motions to dismiss the complaint.

In May 2019, a class action antitrust complaint was filed against
Janssen R&D Ireland (Janssen) and Johnson & Johnson.

The complaint alleges that Janssen violated federal and state
antitrust and consumer protection laws by agreeing to exclusivity
provisions in its agreements with Gilead concerning the development
and marketing of combination antiretroviral therapies (cART) to
treat HIV.

The complaint also alleges that Gilead entered into similar
agreements with Bristol-Myers-Squibb and Japan Tobacco. The case is
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Northern California.

The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the complaint.  Those
motions are pending.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss TRACLEER(R)-Related Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that the Court granted
Actelion's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the class
action suit related to TRACLEER(R).

In October 2018, two separate putative class actions were filed
against Actelion Pharmaceutical Ltd., Actelion Pharmaceuticals US,
Inc., and Actelion Clinical Research, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland and United States
District Court for the District of Columbia.  

The complaints allege that Actelion violated state and federal
antitrust and unfair competition laws by allegedly refusing to
supply generic pharmaceutical manufacturers with samples of
TRACLEER(R).  

TRACLEER(R) is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation
Strategy, which imposes restrictions on distribution of the
product.  

In January 2019, the plaintiffs dismissed the District of Columbia
case and filed a consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland. In October 2019, the
Court granted Actelion's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Suit over Baby Powder Products Pending in Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson is defending against a class action suit in
Illinois over the health risks posed by its talcum-powder based
products, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 29, 2019.

In May 2014, two purported class actions were filed in federal
court, one in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California and one in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois, against Johnson & Johnson
and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (now known as
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.) (JJCI) alleging violations of
state consumer fraud statutes based on nondisclosure of alleged
health risks associated with talc contained in JOHNSON'S(R) Baby
Powder and JOHNSON'S(R0 Shower to Shower (a product no longer sold
by JJCI).

Both cases seek injunctive relief and monetary damages; neither
includes a claim for personal injuries.

In October 2016, both cases were transferred to the United States
District Court for the District Court of New Jersey as part of a
newly created federal multi-district litigation. In July 2017, the
district court granted Johnson & Johnson's and JJCI's motion to
dismiss one of the cases.

In September 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed this dismissal. In September 2017, the plaintiff
in the second case voluntarily dismissed the complaint. In March
2018, the plaintiff in the second case refiled in Illinois State
Court.

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

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Summary Judgment in Contact Lens Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that defendants' motions
for summary judgment in the contact lens-related class action suit
remain pending in federal district court in Florida.

In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints
were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around
the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.
(JJVCI) and other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the
retail prices of contact lenses.

The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached agreements
with each other and certain distributors and retailers concerning
the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief.

All of the class action cases were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015. The
plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in November
2015. In December 2018, the district court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

Defendants filed two motions for interlocutory appeal of class
certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.

Both motions were denied. Defendants' motions for summary judgment
are pending in the Florida District Court.

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

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: XARELTO Sales Class Suit in Louisiana Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana related to its improper
marketing and promotion of XARELTO(R).

In August 2015, two third-party payors filed a purported class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana against Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen
Ortho LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (as well as certain
Bayer entities), alleging that the defendants improperly marketed
and promoted XARELTO(R) as safer and more effective than less
expensive alternative medications while failing to fully disclose
its risks.

The complaint seeks damages.

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

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: ZYTIGA(R) Antitrust Class Suit Transferred to NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 29, 2019, that the class action
suit related to ZYTIGA(R) has been transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In April 2019, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO
Louisiana, Inc. filed a class action complaint against Janssen
Biotech, Inc, Janssen Oncology, Inc, Janssen Research &
Development, LLC and BTG International Limited in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Sherman Act
and the antitrust and consumer protections laws of several states
by pursuing patent litigation relating to ZYTIGA(R) in order to
delay generic entry.

The case has been transferred to the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JONES LANDLEVELING: Pate Seeks OT Wages for Construction Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
TRACE PATE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. JONES LANDLEVELING, LLC, TERRY JONES and
JOHN DUCKWORTH, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 3:19-cv-00280-DPM (E.D.
Ark., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs and a reasonable
attorney's fee as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff
minimum and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid employee for Defendants from
May of 2018 until November of 2018, and then worked as an
hourly-paid employee for Duckworth from March of 2019 until May of
2019.

During the first tenure, Defendants directly hired Plaintiff to
work at construction sites, paid him wages and benefits, controlled
his work schedules, duties, protocols, applications, assignments
and employment conditions, and kept at least some records regarding
his employment.

During the second tenure, Duckworth directly hired Plaintiff to
work at construction sites, paid him wages and benefits, controlled
his work schedules, duties, protocols, applications, assignments
and employment conditions, and kept at least some records regarding
his employment.

During both tenures, the Plaintiff regularly worked thirteen hours
a day, seven days a week with alternating weekends off, resulting
in far more than 40 hours worked each workweek.

Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff one and one-half times
Plaintiff's regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants operate as "landlevelers" at construction sites to
prepare the ground for building. Jones Landleveling, LLC is a
limited liability company registered in Arkansas. Jones
Landleveling's registered agent for service is Terry Jones at 1947
South Cypress Avenue, Piggott, Arkansas 72454. Duckworth and Jones
co-owned and co-managed Jones Landleveling.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

KRAFT: Judge Dismisses Capri Sun False Advertising Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge agreed to dismiss a class action accusing Kraft of
falsely advertising that its Capri Sun drinks were free of
artificial preservatives.

Judge Charles Kocoras of the U.S. District Court Northern Division
of Illinois issued his ruling Oct. 10.

Katrina Tarzian and Senia Hardwick sued Kraft Heinz Foods in March
alleging the 10-packs of Capri Sun they purchased contained citric
acid, a preservative they allege has been artificially produced
since 1917 on an industrial scale more economical than the
original, organic process of fresh fruit extraction. Their
complaint alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act as well as violations of New York
consumer protection laws.

Kraft moved to dismiss the entire complaint on March 21.

Although Kraft has one of its two headquarters in the state, the
company argued that Illinois law does not apply to customers from
other places. The plaintiffs alleged the deceptive claims came from
headquarters and any ensuing profits returned to Illinois, but
Kocoras said the plaintiffs have not satisfied the requirements
residents of other states must meet to sue under the Illinois
consumer fraud law.

"The misrepresentations alleged here were made on product labels
during straightforward retail purchases across the nation," Kocoras
wrote. "Kraft correctly points out that the complaint does not
contain any allegations to support the plaintiffs' argument that
profits or complaints that ensued from the alleged
misrepresentation flowed back to Illinois."

Kraft further agued that the plaintiffs cannot seek an injunction
-- which they did under New York's General Business Law -- because
they already know the drinks have citric acid and, therefore, are
unlikely to experience the same alleged harm. Kocoras said courts
in the Northern District of Illinois have allowed plaintiffs to
pursue injunctions only if it is plausible that the same person
again would buy the contested product. He further ruled that the
complaint plainly alleges the plaintiffs wouldn't have bought the
Capri Sun had they known about the citric acid, which underscores
the unlikeliness of a repeat purchase.

Kocoras also rejected the allegations that Kraft violated New
York's fraud laws because the complaint lacked specificity. The
plaintiffs said the Capri Sun they bought contained "industrially
manufactured citric acid, and industrial citric acid is artificial
because it is usually produced through the industrial fermentation
process," Kocoras wrote, thus negating any advertising the drinks
contain "no artificial preservatives."

However, the plaintiffs only described the common manufacturing
practice and concluded Kraft is deploying that process.

"That is too great of an inferential leap," Kocoras ruled.
"Plaintiffs need to draw a connection between the common industry
practice and the actual practice used by Kraft. Even drawing all
reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs' favor, the complaint fails
to draw this nexus, and the court cannot draw it for plaintiffs."

The plaintiffs have been represented by attorney C.K. Lee, of the
Lee Litigation Group PLLC, of Chicago.

Kraft has been defended by attorneys Kara L McCall --
kmccall@sidley.com -- and Daniel A. Spira -- dspira@sidley.com --
of Sidley Austin LLP, in Chicago. [GN]


LEBANON, PA: State Court Faces Gass et al. Suit
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 52nd Judicial
District, Lebanon County. The case is captioned as Andrew Koch,
Melissa Gass, and Ashley Bennett, the Petitioners, vs. 52nd
Judicial District, Lebanon County, the Respondent, Case No.
118-MM-2019 (Pa. Super., Oct. 8, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Petitioners are:

          Geri Romanello St. Joseph, Esq.
          Witold J. Walczak, Esq.
          Sara Jeannette Rose, Esq.
          Andrew Chapman Christy, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA
          P.O. Box 60173
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 592-1513

Attorneys for the Respondent are:

          Robert Joseph Krandel, Esq.
          ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PENNSYLVANIA COURTS
          Admin Ofc Of Pa Court
          1515 Market St Ste 1414
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 560-6300

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Summary Judgment Bid in Kemeny Suit Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MALCOLM KEMENY, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Docket No. 656267/2016, Motion Seq. Nos. 004,
005, 006 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Debra A. James of the New York County
Supreme Court (i) granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing the Third
Cause of Action in Plaintiff's First Amended Verified Complaint;
and (ii) withdrew without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment.

The action stems from the non-payment of an arbitration award in
the sum of $75,000, plus $250 for arbitration costs, issued in
favor of the Plaintiff on Nov. 7, 2016.  The arbitrator concluded
that the Plaintiff's injuries to his left ankle met the serious
injury threshold of Insurance Law Section 5102(d).

The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant refused to pay the
arbitration award because he and his wife would not agree to
provide the Defendant with a release.  He claims that the
Defendant's conduct of demanding a release prior to paying an
arbitration award, constitutes an illegal insurance practice and is
against public policy which favors alternative dispute resolution
over litigation.

As a result of the Defendant's non-payment of the arbitration
award, the Plaintiff commenced the action by filing a verified
complaint on Dec. 1, 2016, seeking, inter alia, to confirm the
arbitration award, pursuant to CPLR 7501.  The Defendant's answer
contained nine affirmative defenses.  

The Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on his first and second
causes of action on Dec. 23, 2016.  On Feb. 22, 2017, prior to the
actual submission of the Plaintiff's motion, the Defendant paid the
Plaintiff $75,250, which constituted the full amount of the
arbitration award, plus arbitration costs.  By court order, the
Plaintiff was permitted to amend his verified complaint to add a
sixth cause of action for a declaratory judgment.

The Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on his first cause of
action which seeks a judgment in the sum of $75,000, plus $250 in
arbitration costs, plus interest, legal fees and additional costs.
As per his correspondence dated Nov. 5, 2018, the Plaintiff's
summary judgment motion is deemed withdrawn.

The Defendant moves for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's
first amended verified complaint on the grounds that 1) it paid the
arbitration award and all no-fault benefits to which the Plaintiff
is entitled; and 2) the remainder of the Plaintiff's claims
including attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting the action,
interest on interest, and punitive and consequential damages are
without merit.

Judge James finds that the Dfendant has established its right to
contest the arbitration award.  On the other hand, the Plaintiff
has established its right to interest on the arbitration award.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the Defendant's conduct in
requesting a release was frivolous.  Therefore, that portion of the
Defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the
Plaintiff's first cause of action for attorney's fees and
additional costs will be granted.  Likewise, as the Plaintiff made
a colorable claim for relief in terms of payment of interest, the
Defendant has not met its burden to show that the Plaintiff's
conduct was frivolous.

The Plaintiff's second cause of action demands judgment in the sum
of $4,258.93, plus interest, costs and attorney's fees.  The
Defendant moves for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action
as moot.  Based on the facts pleaded, the Judge finds that the
payments for the Plaintiff's medical expenses, by which Liberty was
purportedly enriched, were not made by the Plaintiff, but rather by
his unidentified employee insurance carrier.  Hence, that portion
of the Plaintiff's request for costs and attorneys' fees is denied
as without merit.

The Plaintiff's third cause of action seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs.  The Defendant moves
to dismiss the Plaintiff's third cause of action on the grounds
that the Plaintiff has not set forth a viable cause of action for
the relief requested.  The Judge finds that since there is no basis
for determining that the Defendant's conduct constituted a tort
independent of its obligations under the insurance contract, the
Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages is dismissed.  Contrary to
the Plaintiff's contentions, he does not have a claim for
consequential damages beyond the limits of the policy.

In his sixth cause of action, the Plaintiff seeks a declaratory
judgment that the no-fault provisions of his motor vehicle
insurance policy with defendant remain in full force and effect,
and that he may continue to submit no-fault claims for related
medical expenses pertaining to the underlying accident.  The
Defendant moves for summary judgment dismissing the sixth cause of
action on the grounds that no justiciable controversy exists in the
case, and therefore, the Court is without jurisdiction to render a
declaratory judgment.

The Judge finds that the Defendant concedes that the Plaintiff's
motor vehicle insurance policy remains in full force and effect and
that the Plaintiff may continue to submit no-fault claims to
defendant for related medical expenses necessitated by the subject
motor vehicle accident.  Thus, that portion of the Defendant's
cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's
sixth cause of action is granted.

Finally, that portion of the Defendant's cross motion seeking costs
and disbursements from the Plaintiff is denied.

In the Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiff
moves pursuant to CPLR 3025 for leave to file a second amended
complaint.  The proposed second amended complaint seeks to add an
eighth cause of action for class action certification pursuant to
CPLR 901.  The Plaintiff's proposed eighth cause of action
ultimately seeks class certification to the extent of certifying a
subclass to be represented on his cause of action for bad faith
claims handling.  

The Judge holds that the Plaintiff's request to amend his complaint
to include an eighth cause of action for class certification must
be denied.  As she stated, there is no compelling authority
indicating that a separate, non-contractual claim exists for "bad
faith claims handling" by the Defendant.  The Plaintiff's motion
pursuant to CPLR 3025 to amend his first amended verified complaint
will be denied.

In light of the her decision on the Plaintiff's motion, the Judge
denied as moot the Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment
dismissing the Plaintiff's third cause of action in the first
amended complaint which seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
attorney's fees and costs.

Based on the foregoing, Judge James (i) denied the motion of the
Defendant for costs and sanctions; (ii) withdrawn without prejudice
the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; (iii) granted the
portion of the Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment
seeking dismissal of the Plaintiff's first cause of action,
pursuant to CPLR 7501, for an order confirming the arbitration
award and awarding arbitration costs; (iv) denied the portion of
the Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal
of the Plaintiff's first cause of action seeking interest on the
arbitration award; (v) granted the portion of the Defendant's cross
motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Plaintiff's
first amended complaint seeking additional costs and attorney's
fee; (vi) granted the portion of Defendant's cross motion for
summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Plaintiff's second cause
of action is granted; (vii) granted the portion of the Defendant's
cross motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the
Plaintiff's third cause of action; (viii) granted the portion of
the Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal
of the Plaintiff's sixth cause of action; (ix) denied the
Plaintiff's motion for an order granting leave to serve a second
amended verified complaint; (x) denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the first cause of action; and (xi) rendered academic the
portion of the Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment
seeking dismissal of the Plaintiff's third cause of action in the
first amended complaint as set forth.

The Plaintiff is entitled to a money judgment in the sum of
$1,975.31 which represents interest owed by the Defendant on the
arbitration award, from the date of the award (Nov. 7, 2016) to the
date of attempted payment (Feb. 22, 2017).

The Clerk is directed to enter a judgment in favor of the
Plaintiff.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 16, 2019 Decision + Order is
available at https://is.gd/oPupG4 from Leagle.com.


LOGMEIN INC: Wasson Class Action Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
LogMeIn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a securities class action suit entitled, Wasson
v. LogMeIn, Inc. et al.

On August 20, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit, referred to
herein as the Securities Class Action, was initiated by purported
stockholders of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against the Company and certain of
its officers, entitled Wasson v. LogMeIn, Inc. et al. (Case No.
2:18-cv-07285). On November 6, 2018 the case was transferred to the
District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:18-cv-12330).

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged misstatements
or omissions concerning renewal rates for the Company's
subscription contracts.

The Company believes the lawsuit lacks merit and intends to defend
it vigorously.

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

LogMeIn, Inc. provides a portfolio of cloud-based communication and
collaboration, identity and access, and customer engagement and
support solutions. LogMeIn, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with additional locations in
North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.


LOWE'S HOME: Court OKs “Hourly Managers” Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Statesville Division, granted in part
and denied in part Plaintiff's Motion for Collective Certification
in the case captioned DANIEL DANFORD, HARRY HOUTMAN, Plaintiffs, v.
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC LOWE'S COMPANIES INC., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 5:19-CV-00041-KDB-DCK, (W.D.N.C.).

Plaintiffs allege in their Amended Complaint that Defendants
willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing
to compensate Hourly Managers for all hours worked. Plaintiffs also
claim Lowe's violated the California Labor Code and IWC Wage
Orders, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, and assert claims for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment. All of these claims are
asserted as class actions.

Having considered the parties' arguments and the limited record
before the Court, Judge Bell grants Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional collective certification with regards to the following
defined class:

   All current and former hourly managers, including but not
   limited to: Department Managers; Overnight Managers; Product
   Service Department Managers; Installed Sales Department
   Managers; Loss Prevention Managers; Service Managers; Support
   Managers; Back-End Department Supervisors; Front-End Department
   Supervisors; Night-Ops Supervisors; and Sales Floor Department
   Supervisors(hereinafter collectively referred to as Hourly
   Managers), who work or have worked for Lowe's Companies, Inc.
   and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (Lowe's) at any of their retail
   stores at any time on or after April 11, 2016 and have
   performed off-the-clock work in connection with opening or
   closing the store or in connection with receiving or
   responding to work related communications on one or more
   smartphone applications (including, but not limited to:
   WhatsApp and GroupMe) and was not paid for such work.

The Court grants Plaintiffs' request for notification by U.S. Mail
and e-mail to all Hourly Managers who worked at Lowe's on or after
April 11, 2016 but denies Plaintiffs' request for text message
notice, unless initial notice is undeliverable.

The Court also denies Plaintiff's request to send a reminder notice
by e-mail 30 days into the 60-day opt-in period.

Lowe's is ordered to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel an electronic
list of all Hourly Managers who worked at Lowe's on or after April
11, 2016 that includes members' full names, last known addresses,
phone numbers, email addresses, and dates and location of
employment without delay.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 2, 2019 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yychn8ua from
Leagle.com

Daniel Danford, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin J. Stoops -
kstoops@sommerspc.com - Sommers Schwartz, pro hac vice, Rod M.
Johnston - rjohnston@sommerspc.com - Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro
hac vice & James Jenkins Mills – jmills@bdppa.com - Burns Day &
Presnell, PA.

Lowe's Companies Inc & Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Benjamin Paul Fryer - benjaminfryer@mvalaw.com -
Moore & Van Allen PLLC, Paul Javier Peralta -
paulperalta@mvalaw.com - Rachael McMillan Coe  -
rachaelcoe@mvalaw.com - Moore & Van Allen & Scott M. Tyler -
scotttyler@mvalaw.com  - Moore & Van Allen, PLLC.


MAGELLAN HEALTH: Deakin May Amend Complaint to Add Party & Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAUREEN DEAKIN, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. MAGELLAN HEALTH, INC., MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE, INC.,
MAGELLAN HEALTH SERVICES OF NEW MEXICO, INC., MERIT BEHAVIORAL CARE
CORPORATION, & MAGELLAN HSRC, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:17-CV-00773-WJ-KK (D. N.M.), Judge William P. Johnson of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Add Party and
Claims.

The case is a class action wherein the Plaintiff asserts that she,
and other employees like her, were misclassified by the Defendants
as exempt employees and thus not paid overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 per week in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").  The action, like many of those before it,
combines the FLSA claims with similar claims under analogous state
laws.

Plaintiff Deakin has made a claim under New Mexico state law and
proposed newly named Plaintiffs, Rachel Clerge, Cheryl Johnson,
Lesly Mitchell, May Wojcik, and Dale Kessler ("Proposed Newly Named
Plaintiffs"), seek to add claims under Massachusetts, Maryland,
Missouri, New York, and Pennsylvania state laws, respectively.

These Plaintiffs, while newly proposed as Named Plaintiffs, are not
"new" to the litigation in the strictest sense of the word.  The
Proposed Newly Named Plaintiffs have each affirmatively opted-in
and are thus already part of the litigation as members of the FLSA
class.  The issue, then, is whether the Court should grant leave to
amend to allow these Plaintiffs to bring state claims on behalf of
themselves and their state-specific classes and, if so, whether
those claims would relate back to the filing of the original
complaint.

Judge Johnson concludes that the Plaintiff filed her Motion to
Amend before the deadline to amend expired.  The amendments relate
to the same underlying facts as the original complaint, i.e.,
whether the Plaintiff and others like her were properly classified
as exempt and thus not entitled to overtime wages.  As such, the
Plaintiff's motion was timely and relates back to the original
complaint.  The Defendants also will suffer no undue prejudice if
amendment is allowed.  Therefore, he granted the Plaintiff's Motion
for Leave to Amend Complaint to Add Party and Claims.

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

Maureen Deakin, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Jack L. Siegel -- jack@siegellawgroup.biz –
Siegel
Law Group PLLC, Travis Andrew Gasper, Lee & Braziel, LLP & J.
Derek
Braziel, Lee & Braziel LLP.

Magellan Health, Inc., Magellan Healthcare, Inc., Magellan Health
Services of New Mexico, Inc., Merit Behavioral Care Corporation &
Magellan HSRC, Inc., Defendants, represented by  Mark D. Temple --
mtemple@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Randy S. Bartell --
abartell@montand.com -- Montgomery & Andrews, P.A. & Paige T.
Bennett -- pbennett@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, LLP, pro hac
vice.

MAPLE LEAF: Ct. to Hear Appeal in Mr. Sub Franchisees' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rafal Gerszak, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that
Canada's top court was set to hear an appeal in Oct. in a
class-action lawsuit by Mr. Sub franchisees seeking compensation
from Maple Leaf Foods Inc. for loss of sales and reputational
damage during the 2008 listeriosis crisis, a case lawyers say could
significantly increase financial liability for manufacturers of
almost any product. [GN]



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

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

Accordingly, the Court denied Lapa's administrative motion.

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

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

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

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

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


MDL 2915: Ababseh Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Amjed Ali Ababseh, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff v.
Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One N.A., Capital One
Bank (USA), Amazon.com Inc.,and Amazon Web Services, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01397 (Filed Aug. 3, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia (Alexandria) on Oct 18, 2019.

The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02940-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Duncan Calvert Turner, Esq.
          BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC
          19929 Ballinger Way Ne, Ste 200
          Seattle, WA 98155
          Telephone: (206) 621-6566
          E-mail: dturner@badgleymullins.com

               - and -

          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
          One America Plaza
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0800
          Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
          E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com

Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One N.A., Capital One
Bank (USA), are represented by:

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

The Amazon.com Inc., and Amazon Web Services, Inc. are represented
by:

          Jeffrey A. Ware, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST (WA)
          1191 Second Ave., 10th Floor
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 389-4531
          E-mail: jware@fenwick.com

MDL 2915: Atachbarian Suit over Capital One Data Breach Moved
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Abraham Atachbarian,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff v. Capital One Financial Corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-06965 (Filed Aug. 9, 2019), was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia -
(Alexandria) on Oct 18, 2019.

The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02944-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          STULL STULL AND BRODY
          9430 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 209-2468
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2087
          E-mail: service@ssbla.com

Capital One Financial Corporation is represented by:

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

MDL 2915: Janik Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Marsha Janik, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff v.
Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, National
Association, and Capital One Bank (U.S.A.), N.A., the Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01242 (Filed Aug. 9, 2019), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia -
(Alexandria) on Oct. 18, 2019.

The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02941-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          SHEPERD FINKELMAN
          MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          65 Main St.
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (860) 526-1100
          Facsimile: (860) 526-1120
          E-mail: lrubinow@sfmslaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph J. Cherico, Esq.
          MCCARTER & ENGLISH-STMFD
          One Canterbury Green
          201 Broad Street
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 399-5900
          Facsimile: (203) 399-5800
          E-mail: jcherico@mccarter.com

MDL 2915: Tsirigos Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Nicholas Tsirigos, Vaseleke
Inembolidis,James Arnold, and Jane Doe, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff v. Capital One Bank
(U.S.A.), N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04507 (Filed Aug.
6, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) on Oct. 18, 2019.

The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02933-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer I. Sheehan
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: Spencer@spencersheehan.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Peter Joseph Isajiw, Esq.
          Robert Warren Gray, Jr., Esq.
          KING AND SPALDING LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3500
          Telephone: (213) 443-4355
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
          E-mail: pisajiw@kslaw.com
                  bgray@kslaw.com

MDL 2915: Zimprich Suit over Capital One Data Breach Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Randy Zimprich, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff v.
Capital One Financial Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
8:19-cv-01689 (Filed Sept. 4, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) on
Oct 18, 2019.

The Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-02943-AJT-JFA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel S. Robinson, Esq.
          Michael Willard Olson, Esq.
          Wesley K. Polischuk, Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS INC
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: drobinson@rcrsd.com
                  molson@robinsonfirm.com
                  wpolischuk@rcrsd.com

The Defendant is represented by:

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

MICHIGAN: 200 Prisoners to Get Certified Kosher Meals
-----------------------------------------------------
Paul Egan, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that as many as
200 Michigan prisoners would start receiving meals that are
certified kosher under a proposed settlement reached over the
weekend to a class-action lawsuit backed by the Michigan American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The Michigan Department of Corrections in 2013 introduced a vegan
meal that was supposed to serve as a religious meal for prisoners
from all non-Christian religions.

That provoked a lawsuit from Gerald Ackerman and other Jewish
prisoners, who said a vegan diet and a kosher diet are not the
same.

A vegan diet lacks kosher meat and dairy products and the
department uses non-kosher items in preparing the meals and
non-kosher equipment, utensils, and areas to prepare and serve
them, the prisoners alleged.

Under the proposed settlement, which will be subject to a fairness
hearing before U.S. District Judge Linda Parker in Detroit, the
meals would have to either be prepared in prison kitchens that are
certified kosher or purchased from an outside kosher vendor.

"A vegan diet . . . is based on Buddhist beliefs and practices,"
former prisoner Michael Arnold said in the original lawsuit, filed
in 2013. "The plaintiffs do not hold such beliefs."

Arnold, who was dropped from the lawsuit when he was released from
prison, said "the policy of enforced vegetarianism is targeted
specifically at prisoners . . . who are Jewish."

The proposed settlement, agreed to by the department, requires the
department to provide a certified kosher lunch and dinner each day
to the class members. The meals must either be prepared at a
certified kosher kitchen -- which the attorney for the prisoners
says the department does not now have -- or be purchased from a
certified kosher vendor.

Not covered by the settlement is a demand that the prisoners
receive kosher meat and dairy products on the Sabbath and certain
Jewish holidays. That demand was the subject of a recent bench
trial before Parker. A ruling is pending.

Daniel Manville, director of the civil rights clinic at MSU's
College of Law, said many of the prisoners he represents have
suffered since 2013 by being forced to eat meals that are
non-kosher.

"It was stupid to do it that way without also certifying the
kitchen as kosher," Manville said of the department using one vegan
meal for all non-Christian prisoners of religious faith. "For six
years, they have violated all these people's right and have not
cared about it."

The suit was also backed by the ACLU of Michigan.

Though the settlement does not include monetary damages, the case
will cost the department about $100,000 in plaintiff attorney fees,
he said.

The department earlier attempted to have the case thrown out,
citing costs and other reasons.

"The MDOC has substantial measures in place to protect against
cross-contamination of food," the Attorney General's Office argued
on behalf of the department in 2015.

"The increased costs associated with enacting additional measures
to stop cross-contamination would do substantial harm to others,
particularly the overburdened taxpayers of the state of Michigan,"
said assistant Attorney General John Thurber.

Also, while some Jewish prisoners "may want a greater variety of
food and and to consume dairy products and kosher meat, the MDOC is
not obligated to provide . . . them," he said.

Prisoners covered by the settlement are listed as Jewish in prison
records and requested religious meals. [GN]


MIKE STINSON: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Decision in Gibbs Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Mike Stinson, et al., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Darlene Gibbs, et al. v. Mike
Stinson, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00676-MHL, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond.

The lawsuit's controversy arises out of the Defendants' involvement
in an allegedly unlawful lending operation.  The lending operation,
which the Plaintiffs describe as a "rent-a-tribe" scheme, allegedly
offered loans to the Plaintiffs and charged interest rates ranging
from 118% to 448%.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit was filed against Mike Stinson, 7HBF NO. 2, Sequoia
Capital Operations, LLC, John Drew and Technology Crossover
Ventures on October 4, 2018.

The Plaintiffs filed the case under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

Mike Stinson is an American singer-songwriter and musician. He is a
native of Virginia. Mike Stinson moved to Los Angeles in 1991.
Inspired by the country rock of Gram Parsons, as well as more
traditional country artists such as Johnny Cash and George Jones,
he began to write songs and eventually formed his own band.

Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC operates as a venture capital firm.
The Firm invests in energy, financial services, healthcare,
internet, mobile, outsourcing, and technology sectors. Sequoia
Capital Operations serves clients worldwide.

Technology Crossover Ventures is a private equity and venture
capital firm specializing in investments in leveraged buyouts,
minority growth equity, full or partial recapitalizations for both
diversification of capital structure and modifying shareholder
equity, acquisition financings to supplement complementary add-on
acquisitions, public market transactions, and public deal
constructs. The firm seeks to invest in growth stage, early, mid,
and late venture stages, mature, and later stages of development in
private and public companies.

The appellate case is captioned as Darlene Gibbs, et al. v. Michael
Stinson, et al., Case No. 19-2113, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on November 19, 2019;
      and

   -- Response Brief is due on December 19, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees DARLENE GIBBS, STEPHANIE EDWARDS, LULA
WILLIAMS, PATRICK INSCHO, LAWRENCE MWETHUKU, GEORGE HENGLE, TAMARA
PRICE and SHERRY BLACKBURN, on behalf of themselves and all
individuals similarly situated, are represented by:

          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  elizabeth@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7576
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7570
          Facsimile: (703) 591-9285
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
                  casey@kellyandcrandall.com

Defendants-Appellants MICHAEL STINSON, 7HBF NO. 2, LINDA STINSON,
THE STINSON 2009 GRANTOR RETAINED ANNUITY TRUST, STARTUP CAPITAL
VENTURES, L.P., and STEPHEN SHAPER are represented by:

          Jonathan Peter Boughrum, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS
          1735 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 772-7228
          E-mail: jboughrum@mmwr.com

               - and -

          John Michael Erbach, Esq.
          Maurice Francis Mullins, Jr., Esq.
          SPOTTS FAIN, PC
          411 East Franklin Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 697-2044
          E-mail: jerbach@spottsfain.com
                  cmullins@spottsfain.com

               - and -

          David Foster Herman, Esq.
          Richard L. Scheff, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP
          2005 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 780-2015
          E-mail: dherman@armstrongteasdale.com
                  rlscheff@armstrongteasdale.com

Defendants SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS, LLC; SEQUOIA CAPITAL
FRANCHISE PARTNERS, L.P.; SEQUOIA CAPITAL IX, L.P.; SEQUOIA GROWTH
FUND IIII, 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 III PRINCIPALS FUNDS, LLC; SEQUOIA
CAPITAL GROWTH III PRINCIPALS FUND, L.P.; and SEQUOIA CAPITAL
GROWTH FUND III, L.P., are represented by:

          Todd Raymond Geremia, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          250 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281-1047
          Telephone: (212) 326-3429
          E-mail: trgeremia@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Stephen Douglas Hubbard, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104-0000
          Telephone: (415) 875-5809

               - and -

          William George Laxton, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-2113
          Telephone: (202) 879-3939
          E-mail: wglaxton@jonesday.com


MIKE STINSON: Sequoia Appeals Ruling in Gibbs Suit to 4th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC, et al., filed an appeal
from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Darlene Gibbs, et al. v.
Mike Stinson, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00676-MHL, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond.

The lawsuit's controversy arises out of the Defendants' involvement
in an allegedly unlawful lending operation.  The lending operation,
which the Plaintiffs describe as a "rent-a-tribe" scheme, allegedly
offered loans to the Plaintiffs and charged interest rates ranging
from 118% to 448%.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit was filed against Mike Stinson, 7HBF NO. 2, Sequoia
Capital Operations, LLC, John Drew and Technology Crossover
Ventures on October 4, 2018.

The Plaintiffs filed the case under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

Mike Stinson is an American singer-songwriter and musician. He is a
native of Virginia. Mike Stinson moved to Los Angeles in 1991.
Inspired by the country rock of Gram Parsons, as well as more
traditional country artists such as Johnny Cash and George Jones,
he began to write songs and eventually formed his own band.

Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC operates as a venture capital firm.
The Firm invests in energy, financial services, healthcare,
internet, mobile, outsourcing, and technology sectors. Sequoia
Capital Operations serves clients worldwide.

Technology Crossover Ventures is a private equity and venture
capital firm specializing in investments in leveraged buyouts,
minority growth equity, full or partial recapitalizations for both
diversification of capital structure and modifying shareholder
equity, acquisition financings to supplement complementary add-on
acquisitions, public market transactions, and public deal
constructs. The firm seeks to invest in growth stage, early, mid,
and late venture stages, mature, and later stages of development in
private and public companies.

The appellate case is captioned as Darlene Gibbs, et al. v. Sequoia
Capital Operations LLC, et al., Case No. 19-2108, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on November 19, 2019;
      and

   -- Response Brief is due on December 19, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees DARLENE GIBBS, STEPHANIE EDWARDS, LULA
WILLIAMS, PATRICK INSCHO, LAWRENCE MWETHUKU, GEORGE HENGLE, TAMARA
PRICE and SHERRY BLACKBURN, on behalf of themselves and all
individuals similarly situated, are represented by:

          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  elizabeth@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7576
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7570
          Facsimile: (703) 591-9285
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
                  casey@kellyandcrandall.com

Defendants-Appellants SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS, LLC; SEQUOIA
CAPITAL FRANCHISE PARTNERS, L.P.; SEQUOIA CAPITAL IX, L.P.; SEQUOIA
GROWTH FUND IIII, 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 III PRINCIPALS FUNDS, LLC;
SEQUOIA CAPITAL GROWTH III PRINCIPALS FUND, L.P.; and SEQUOIA
CAPITAL GROWTH FUND III, L.P., are represented by:

          Todd Raymond Geremia, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          250 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281-1047
          Telephone: (212) 326-3429
          E-mail: trgeremia@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Stephen Douglas Hubbard, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104-0000
          Telephone: (415) 875-5809

               - and -

          William George Laxton, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-2113
          Telephone: (202) 879-3939
          E-mail: wglaxton@jonesday.com

Defendants MICHAEL STINSON, 7HBF NO. 2, LINDA STINSON, THE STINSON
2009 GRANTOR RETAINED ANNUITY TRUST, STARTUP CAPITAL VENTURES,
L.P., and STEPHEN SHAPER are represented by:

          Jonathan Peter Boughrum, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS
          1735 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 772-7228
          E-mail: jboughrum@mmwr.com

               - and -

          John Michael Erbach, Esq.
          Maurice Francis Mullins, Jr., Esq.
          SPOTTS FAIN, PC
          411 East Franklin Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 697-2044
          E-mail: jerbach@spottsfain.com
                  cmullins@spottsfain.com

               - and -

          David Foster Herman, Esq.
          Richard L. Scheff, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP
          2005 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 780-2015
          E-mail: dherman@armstrongteasdale.com
                  rlscheff@armstrongteasdale.com


MIRACLE AUTOSPORT: Hid Car Defects, Rumbarger Says
--------------------------------------------------
RICHARD RUMBARGER, INDIVIDUALLY SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY AND ON
BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY LAW DIVISION: MERCER COUNTY
SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. MIRACLE AUTOSPORT, ERIC NUEMAN, and
JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. MER-L-001999-19 (N.J.
Super, Oct 10, 2019), alleges that Defendants violated the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and the
Uniform Commercial Code, and committed common law fraud for which
the plaintiff has sustained a measurable loss and ascertainable
loss.

According to the complaint, all vehicles that the Defendant
acquires at auction are inspected either before during or after
their acquisition.  They also acquire vehicles from wholesalers and
by trade.

At every part of this process the dealer arranges for inspection
and appraisal of vehicles that are purchased or acquired for
resale. The Defendant performs an appraisal to determine whether
the vehicle is worthy of trade and or resale.

The Defendant is aware that the vehicle they were acquiring will be
sold to a customer who tends to drive the vehicle personally and/or
place their family in the vehicle for travel purposes as the
Defendant is in the business of buying and selling automobiles.

Knowledge of any defects not apparent on inspection would, however,
without need for express agreement and in keeping with the
underlying reason impose an obligation that for material but hidden
defects be fully disclosed.

The dealer has a legal obligation under New Jersey law to inspect
all vehicles that are sold to customers and specifically the
vehicle that was sold to the plaintiff.

The Defendant allegedly omitted material facts with the intention
that the plaintiff be misled. The Defendants affirmatively
misrepresented certain facts to induce the Plaintiff to sign a
contract and purchased the vehicle from the Defendant.

The Defendant was aware that the vehicle had significant defects
needing over $15,000 in repairs. The Defendant falsely advertised
the car, the lawsuit says.

Miracle AutoSport is licensed to buy and sell cars in the state of
New Jersey and Eric Nueman is the owner and personally operates the
dealership.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jonathan Rudnick, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RUDNICK, L.L.C.
          788 Shrewsbury Avenue
          Building 2, Suite 204
          Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
          Telephone: 732 842-2070
          Facsimile: 732 879-0213


NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Sitzer Antitrust Suit Dismissal Bids Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSHUA SITZER AND AMY WINGER, SCOTT AND RHONDA
BURNETT, and RYAN HENDRICKSON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF REALTORS, REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP., HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA, INC.,
BHH AFFILIATES, LLC, HSF AFFILIATES, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and KELLER
WILLIAMS REALTY, INC. Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00332-SRB (W.D.
Mo.), Judge Stephen R. Bough of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, Western Division, (i) denied National
Association of Realtors ("NAR")'s Motion to Dismiss the Association
for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and to Dismiss the Complaint for
Failure to State a Cause of Action; (ii) denied the Corporate
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

A vast majority of residential real estate sales and purchases in
the United States occur on a Multiple Listing Service ("MLS")
marketplace.  An MLS is a database of properties listed for sale
within a defined geographic region accessible to real estate
brokers, their realtors, and agents.  In a standard real estate
transaction, the home seller retains a seller-broker and a home
buyer separately retains a buyer-broker.  Both brokers utilize a
regional MLS listing to sell or locate a given property for their
client.

Generally, real estate brokers receive compensation in the form of
a commission calculated as a percentage of a home's sale price.  A
seller-broker's compensation is set forth in a listing agreement, a
contract between the home seller and broker containing the terms of
the listing.  A home buyer enters a similar contract with a
buyer-broker, which typically states the buyer-broker's
compensation will be paid out of the seller-broker's total
commission -- a commission paid by the home seller once the
property is sold.

Plaintiffs Sitzer and Winger, Scott and Rhonda Burnett, and Ryan
Hendrickson filed their First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on June 21,
2019.  The Plaintiffs are home sellers who listed their homes on
one of four MLS marketplaces: Kansas City MLS ("Heartland MLS"),
St. Louis MLS ("MARIS MLS"), Springfield, Missouri MLS ("Southern
Missouri Regional MLS"), and Columbia, Missouri MLS ("CBOR MLS")
("Subject MLS").  The Subject MLS are governed by local realtor
associations that are members of NAR and must adhere to NAR rules
and policies.  

Defendant NAR is a trade association for the real-estate industry
that promulgates professional standards and policies its members
and affiliates must abide by, including specific guidelines for
listing properties on MLS marketplaces.  The Corporate Defendants
are national real estate broker franchisors who each operate
brokerage subsidiaries, franchisees, and/or affiliates within the
geographic regions covered by the Subject MLS: Realogy Holdings
Corp.; Homeservices of America, Inc.; BHH Affiliates, LLC; HSF
Affiliates, LLC; RE/MAX, LLC; and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.

The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants adopted and imposed
anticompetitive restraints that inflated residential real estate
commissions throughout Missouri, focusing primarily on Section
2-G-1 of NAR's MLS Listing Handbook -- what the Plaintiffs refer to
as the "Adversary Commission Rule."  The Plaintiffs allege the
cornerstone of the Defendants' conspiracy is NAR's adoption and
implementation of a rule that requires all seller's brokers to make
blanket, unilateral and effectively non-negotiable offer of buyer
broker compensation ("Adversary Commission Rule") when listing a
property on a MLS.

The Plaintiff's FAC includes three counts against the Defendants:
(1) Count I: Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (2) Count
II: Violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; and (3)
Count III: Violation of the Missouri Antitrust Law.

NAR asks the Court to dismiss it from the action for lack of
personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) or, alternatively, to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim.  The Corporate Defendants seek dismissal of the
Plaintiffs' FAC only pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

Only NAR argues that dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(2)
for lack of personal jurisdiction.  In an Order previously denying
NAR's Motion to Transfer, the Court found personal jurisdiction
existed under Section 12 of the Clayton Act.  The result in the
intant motion is the same.  For the reasons discussed in the
Court's prior Order, Judge Bough holds that Court may properly
exercise personal jurisdiction over NAR and its motion to dismiss
due to lack of personal jurisdiction is accordingly denied.

Turning to Count I, Judge Bough holds that the Plaintiffs satisfy
their burden under Rule 12(b)(6) for each element of their federal
antitrust claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  He finds that
(i) the Plaintiffs adequately define the relevant market impacted
by Section 2-G-1; (ii) the Plaintiffs demonstrate the significant
influence exerted by the Defendants and their listing policies in
the Subject MLS; and (iii) the Plaintiffs must present enough
factual allegations to plausibly show the Defendants' alleged
anticompetitive actions are a "material cause" of their alleged
injuries.  NAR and Corporate Defendants' motions to dismiss Count I
for failure to state a claim are accordingly denied.

As to Count II, Judge Bough finds that the Plaintiffs present
sufficient factual allegations to plausibly support their MMPA
claims against the Defendants.  He finds that (i) in light of
precedent describing MMPA's language regarding unlawful
merchandising as unrestricted, allen-compassing and exceedingly
broad and a scope which covers every practice imaginable and every
unfairness to whatever degree, the Plaintiffs have pled enough as
to this element to survive dismissal; and (ii) the Plaintiffs'
allegations adequately and plausibly attribute the inflated
commissions they paid to Section 2-G-1 and its related provision
and, thus, allege an ascertainable loss.  NAR and the Corporate
Defendants' motions to dismiss Count II for failure to state a
claim are accordingly denied.

Finally, as to Count III, based on the Court's earlier analysis
regarding the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' allegations with
respect to their federal antitrust claim under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, Judge Bough holds that the Plaintiffs' Count III may
proceed against NAR and the Corporate Defendants.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bough denied the Defendants'
motions to dismiss.

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

Joshua Sitzer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Amy Winger, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated & Ryan Hendrickson, Plaintiffs, represented
byAmy R. Jackson -- amy@williamsdirks.com -- Williams Dirks
Dameron
LLC, Eric L. Dirks -- dirks@williamsdirks.com -- Williams Dirks
Dameron LLC, Erin D. Lawrence -- erin@boulware-law.com -- Boulware
Law LLC, Jeremy M. Suhr, Boulware Law LLC, 1600 Genessee Suite 416
Kansas City, MO 64102, Matthew Lee Dameron --
matt@williamsdirks.com -- Williams Dirks Dameron LLC & Brandon
J.B.
Boulware -- brandon@boulware-law.com -- Boulware Law LLC.

Scott Burnett & Rhonda Burnett, Plaintiffs, represented by Amy R.
Jackson, Williams Dirks Dameron LLC, Eric L. Dirks, Williams Dirks
Dameron LLC, Erin D. Lawrence, Boulware Law LLC,Jeremy M. Suhr,
Boulware Law LLC & Brandon J.B. Boulware, Boulware Law LLC.

National Association of Realtors, Defendant, represented by
Charles
W. Hatfield -- chuck.hatfield@stinson.com -- Stinson LLP, Gregory
Dickinson- gdickinson@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP, pro
hac vice, Jack R. Bierig -- jbierig@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff
Hardin LLP, pro hac vice & Alex Barrett --
alexander.barrett@stinson.com -- Stinson LLP.

HomeServices of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian C.
Fries -- bfries@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop Gage LLP, Jay N. Varon
-- jvaron@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner, pro hac vice --
jkeas@foley.com, Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew B.
Barr, Barnes & Thornburg, 11 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis,
IN 46204-3535, pro hac vice, Matthew T. Ciulla, Barnes &
Thornburg,
11 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535, pro hac
vice
& Robert D. MacGill, Barnes & Thornburg, 11 South Meridian Street,
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535, pro hac vice.

NC MUTUAL: Carlton Fields Attorneys Discuss Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Andres Chagui, Esq. -- achagui@carltonfields.com -- and Brooke
Patterson, Esq. -- bpatterson@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton
Fields, in an article for JDSupra, report that in McClendon v.
North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance Co. (M.D. Tenn. 2019), the
plaintiff's mother purchased a whole life insurance policy to
insure the plaintiff's brother, and subsequently took out a loan on
the policy. When the brother died, the plaintiff assigned the
policy proceeds to a funeral home. The plaintiff was not satisfied
with the policy benefit calculation and filed a class action
complaint, claiming that similar problems affected thousands of
policyholders.

The plaintiff alleged that the insurer breached the contract in
three ways: (1) by charging premiums for riders past their term;
(2) by applying an incorrect amount of interest to policy loans;
and (3) by failing to properly credit payments to the loan
balance.

The insurer did not dispute that it applied an incorrect interest
rate to the loan amount. Indeed, the insurer admitted that it
attempted to correct the mistake by sending the plaintiff a check,
which he did not cash. Because the insurer did not contest that it
breached the contract with respect to the calculation of interest
on the loan, the court granted summary judgment in the plaintiff's
favor as to interest calculations made within the six-year statute
of limitations.

The court otherwise denied summary judgment to the plaintiff on his
breach of contract claims. With respect to the plaintiff's claim
that the insurer continued to charge the plaintiff for waiver of
premium and accidental death riders after their terms ended, the
court held that the continuing payment and acceptance of premiums
extended the benefits under the riders beyond their original terms.
If the plaintiff had suffered a qualifying event, the court
reasoned, his beneficiary would have been entitled to payment
pursuant to the rider. That kind of "mutual extension" did not
constitute a breach of contract under Alabama law. In addition,
because the parties disputed whether the insurer properly credited
loan payments to the policy loan's balance, the plaintiff failed to
establish that there was no dispute of material fact to warrant
entry of summary judgment.

The insurer also moved to dismiss the plaintiff's Alabama and North
Carolina deceptive trade practices claims. The court dismissed the
North Carolina claim because Alabama had the most significant
relationship to the policy. The court also dismissed the Alabama
claim because life insurance loans were subject to the Alabama
Insurance Code and exempt from Alabama's deceptive trade practices
statute. Finally, the court dismissed the plaintiff's unjust
enrichment claim because the existence of a valid contract
forecloses such a claim, and neither party contested the existence
or validity of the insurance policy or loan agreement.

Goostree v. Liberty National Life Insurance Co. (N.D. Ala. 2019)

In Goostree, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging
that the insurer operated a scheme to sell low face-value life
insurance policies to low-income consumers. According to the
plaintiffs, the insurer targeted undereducated consumers and
charged premiums that far exceeded the policies' face value,
thereby generating profits for the insurer and its agents but
providing no economic benefit to the plaintiffs.

In particular, the plaintiffs claimed that their agent induced them
to purchase multiple insurance policies -- for which the collective
premium exceeded $14,000 a year -- even though one plaintiff earned
less than $16,000 a year and the other was retired and receiving
Social Security benefits. When the plaintiffs sought to cash out a
policy because they could no longer afford the premiums, the agent
allegedly explained that a cash out was not permitted and suggested
they instead convert their policies to a "reduced paid-up policy,"
which would no longer obligate the plaintiffs to pay premiums but
would reduce their death benefit from $134,000 to $45,000. The
plaintiffs alleged that, by this time, they had paid $188,000 in
premiums.

The plaintiffs asserted various individual and class action claims
against the insurer, including breach of contract; breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; conversion;
rescission; unjust enrichment; declaratory and injunctive relief;
negligence, willfulness and/or wantonness in the recommendation and
sale of life insurance policies; and negligent and/or wanton
training and supervision. The plaintiffs also asserted claims for
breach of contract; breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing; declaratory and injunctive relief; and negligence,
willfulness, and/or wantonness in the recommendation and sale of
life insurance policies against the agent.

The insurer removed the case to federal court, arguing that the
plaintiffs had fraudulently joined their agent. The court concluded
that the complaint did not allege a special relationship between
the plaintiffs and their agent; thus, the plaintiffs failed to
plead that the agent owed them any duty. And no contract existed
between the plaintiffs and the agent. Because the plaintiffs failed
to state any claim against the agent, the court held that the
plaintiffs had fraudulently joined their agent. The court dismissed
the agent from the action, which allowed the court to hold that it
had diversity jurisdiction. The court also concluded that it had
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) because the
alleged amount in controversy exceeded CAFA's $5 million minimum
and because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that CAFA's local
controversy exception applied. [GN]


NEVADA: Summary Judgment in McKinley Civil Rights Suit Party Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY E. MCKINLEY, Appellant, v. MEGAN MCCLELLAN;
ROBERT LEGRAND, WARDEN; S.L. FOSTER; STARLIN GENTRY; J.
HILDERBRAND; QUENTIN BYRNE; AND S. BAROS, Respondents, Case No.
75340-COA (Nev. App.), Judge Michael P. Gibbons of the Court of
Appeals of Nevada affirmed in part and reversed in part the
district court order granting the Respondents' motion for summary
judgment in the civil rights action.

McKinley, an inmate, filed a civil rights complaint against
respondents Megan McClellan, Robert Legrand, Sheryl Foster, Starlin
Gentry, Jeffory Hilderbrand, Quentin Byrne, and Susan Baros, who
are employees of the Nevada Department of Corrections.  His
complaint alleged violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution relating to
allegations that his privileged mail was improperly opened,
allegations he was retaliated against for grieving the allegedly
improper opening of his mail, an allegedly retaliatory disciplinary
hearing, and the refusal to allow him to watch dvds of his criminal
proceedings.  He also asserted claims for negligent infliction of
emotional distress ("NIED") and intentional infliction of emotional
distress ("IIED").  With respect to the dvd issue, the complaint
was also jointly filed with another inmate, who later voluntarily
dismissed his claim, and was purportedly filed as a class action on
behalf of other prisoners.

McKinley filed motions for appointment of counsel and to certify
the case as a class action, which were ultimately denied.  The
Respondents then filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment,
which McKinley opposed.  He also filed a countermotion for summary
judgment, requested that the motion be continued in order to
conduct discovery, and moved to strike some of the evidence
attached to the Respondents' motion.  After a hearing on the
matter, the district court granted the Respondents' motion for
summary judgment.

The appeal followed.

As an initial matter, Judge Gibbons concludes that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification
as the record indicates McKinley failed to meet his burden of
proving that the case was appropriate for class certification.
Moreover, because McKinley is not an attorney and is proceeding pro
se, he could not represent other purported class members.  And to
the extent McKinley argues that the district court should have
appointed counsel, the Judge discerns no impropriety in the denial
of his request to appoint counsel.  As a result, he affirms the
orders denying class certification and denying appointment of
counsel.

Turning to the district court's order granting summary judgment,
the Judge examines the claims related to the viewing of dvds.
McKinley argues that the evidence before the district court did not
establish that his claims pertaining to the dvds of his criminal
proceedings were barred by res judicata.  The Jugde agrees.  As a
threshold matter, while the Respondents argued that res judicata
applied to bar the dvd claims based upon McKinley's previously
obtained writ of mandamus, based upon the record before the Court,
it does not appear that the writ was ever presented to the district
court and therefore, it is not clear how the district court could
have reached its conclusion that the decision barred McKinley's
claims in the instant matter if the order granting the writ was not
presented to the district court.  As a result, he necessarily
reverse and remands that portion of the district court's order that
found res judicata applied to bar these claims.

Next, McKinley argues that there are genuine issues of material
fact precluding summary judgment as to his retaliation claims.  The
Respondents maintain that McKinley could not establish that the
adverse action was taken because of the protected conduct and that
the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional
goal.  However, there are genuine issues of material fact remaining
as to both of these elements, which preclude summary judgment.

First, there is a factual dispute as to whether or not McKinley
became aggressive and/or threatening while addressing the law
librarian's allegedly improper opening of his mail, and in response
to correctional officer Main telling him to leave.  Construing the
facts in McKinley's favor, there is sufficient evidence to raise a
genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether the adverse
action was taken because of McKinley's exercise of protected
conduct.

Similarly, there are issues of fact remaining related to whether
McKinley received a notice of charges because of his behavior or
because he exercised protected conduct, i.e., filing a grievance.
Again, the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to
McKinley and when that is done, there is enough evidence to show a
genuine issue of material fact as to the motivation for the notice
of charges.

Likewise, these same factual issues are relevant to the issue of
whether the adverse action reasonably advanced a legitimate
correctional goal.  The Judge holds that because there are disputed
material facts regarding the retaliation claims, summary judgment
was improper and he therefore reverses that portion of the district
court's order.

Turning to McKinley's due process claims, he argues that he was
denied due process during the disciplinary hearing because he
wanted to call certain witnesses but was not allowed to do so.
While McKinley was not allowed to call all of his witnesses, he was
allowed to call one witness, which did not run afoul of his
qualified right to call witnesses.  Additionally, he was given
advance written notice of the charges and a statement by the
fact-finder of the evidence relied upon.  And the record shows
there was some evidence to support the outcome of the hearing.  As
such, summary judgment was proper on his due process claims
relating to the disciplinary hearing and that part of the district
court's order is affirmed.

Next, the district court appears to have granted summary judgment
to respondents on McKinley's First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
claims that were raised under part three of his complaint relating
to the allegedly improper opening of his legal mail.  But in
addressing these claims, the Judge finds that the district court
mixed the standards for granting summary judgment and dismissal for
failure to state a claim by stating that, after reviewing the
motions and testimony, the court finds McKinley failed to state a
claim.  Because the challenged order was necessarily granting
summary judgment on McKinley's legal mail based claims, reversal is
required because the order fails to set out the undisputed material
facts and legal conclusions upon which the district court was
basing its determination.  As a result, the Judge reverses the
grant of summary judgment as to McKinley's legal mail based claims
and remands the issue for further proceedings.

Turning to McKinley's NIED and IIED claims, while he baldly asserts
that there were genuine issues of material fact remaining with
regard to these claims, the Judge holds that McKinley fails to
provide any cogent argument regarding the same in his briefs.  As a
result, the Judge need not consider these issues.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Gibbons affirmed in part and reversed
in part the judgment of the district court, and remanded the matter
to the district court for proceedings consistent with the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 16, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/XRz5qQ from Leagle.com.


NEW SHANGHAI: Weng Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff
----------------------------------------------------------
Jie Weng, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. New Shanghai Deluxe Corp.,
Yu Lin Zhu Mei Fang Wu, and Rong Yang Zhu, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-09596 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 17, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
and overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs,
interest and attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant operates a restaurant.
The Plaintiff was employed primarily as an assistant for the chef
at the restaurant, whose primary tasks consisted of preparing food
and vegetables for the chef to use to cook the dishes served at the
restaurant. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from
approximately August 28, 2010, to October 2, 2019.

The Defendants willfully violated Plaintiff's rights by failing to
pay his overtime compensation at rates at least one-and-one-half
times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the the Plaintiff are:

          Vincent S. Wong. Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT S. WONG
          39 East Broadway, Suite 306
          New York, NY 10002
          Telephone: (212) 349-6099
          Facsimile: (212) 349-6599

OMEL FLOWERS: Coronel to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aylen Coronel, and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Omel
Flowers & Design Corp. and Maria Andrade, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-24128, (S.D. Fla., October 7, 2019), seeks to
recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and
attorney's fees for willful violations of minimum and overtime wage
statutes under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Omel operated a flower shop where Coronel was employed as a florist
from May 10, 2019 to September 5, 2019. She claims to be denied
minimum and overtime wages. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
     2847 Hollywood Blvd.
     Hollywood, FL 33020
     Tel: (305) 308 - 5619
     Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

            - and -

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     MAMANE LAW LLC
     1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor
     Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
     Telephone (305) 773 - 6661
     E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


ORGANOVO HOLDINGS: Rianhard Says Proxy Statement Misleading
-----------------------------------------------------------
HENRY RIANHARD, individually on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated stockholders of Organovo Holdings, Inc., the
Plaintiff, vs. TAYLOR CROUCH, KIRK MALLOY, MARK KESSEL, RICHARD
MAROUN, DAVID SHAPIRO, CAROLYN BEAVER, and ORGANOVO HOLDINGS, INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01922-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 10,
2019), seeks to remedy false and misleading disclosures made by
Organovo and its Board of Directors in the Company's proxy
statement related to its 2019 annual meeting of stockholders.

On July 26, 2019, the Company filed a Schedule 14A Proxy Statement
with the SEC for the Annual Meeting. In the Proxy, the Board sought
stockholder authorization for the Board to adopt an amendment to
the Company's Certificate of Incorporation to effect a reverse
stock split of the Company's common stock, at a ratio in the range
of 1-for-5 to 1-for-20, with the exact ratio being determined by
the Board at a later date.

In the Proxy, the Company and Board affirmatively represented that
brokers, banks or other nominees could not vote shares that they
held on behalf of stockholders in connection with the Reverse Split
Proposal unless that party gave specific instructions to a Broker
concerning how to vote. The Company and Board further stated that
any shares held by Brokers on behalf of stockholders and for which
such stockholders did not give voting instructions would be counted
as a "broker non-vote" and treated as "Against" votes with respect
to the Reverse Split Proposal.

Notwithstanding these disclosures, however, the Company and Board
allowed Brokers to vote shares with respect to the Reverse Split
Proposal that they held on behalf of stockholders and for which the
Brokers were not given voting instructions. In fact, the Company
and Board counted such votes as "Yes" votes with respect to the
Reverse Split Proposal.

As such, the Proxy was materially false and misleading. The
misrepresentations in the Proxy prevented Organovo stockholders
from making an informed decision about whether to approve the
Reverse Split Proposal. On the basis of these false and misleading
disclosures, Organovo stockholders "voted" to approve the proposal
with 84.4 million affirmative votes (with the majority being broker
non-votes) and 12 million "Against" votes.

Had the vote concerning the Reverse Split Proposal been tabulated
as represented in the Proxy, the Reverse Split Proposal would not
have been approved. If the broker non-votes were properly counted
as "Against" votes, then the Reverse Split Proposal would have only
received approximately 28.7 million affirmative votes versus
approximately 67.9 million "Against" votes.

Organovo is an early-stage medical laboratory and research company
which designs and develops functional, three dimensional human
tissue for medical research and therapeutic applications. Organovo
was established in 2007 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          William J. Fields, Esq.
          Samir Shukurov, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          55 Broadway, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171

               - and -

          Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
          Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
          FARNAN LLP
          919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 777-0300
          E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
                  mfarnan@farnanlaw.com

OVERSTOCK.COM: Tsai Says Securities Statements Misleading
---------------------------------------------------------
TSUNGYING TSAI, Individually and On behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OVERSTOCK.COM, INC., GREGORY J.
IVERSON, and PATRICK M. BYRNE, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00772-CMR (D. Utah, Oct. 17, 2019), seeks to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a
federal class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Overstock.com, Inc. between May 9, 2019, and September 23, 2019,
inclusive.

The Defendants published a series of materially false and
misleading statements which defendants knew and/or deliberately
disregarded were false and materially misleading at the time of
such publication, and which omitted to reveal material information
necessary to make defendants' statements, in light of such material
omissions, not materially false and misleading.

Realizing the market dynamics made it nearly impossible for
Overstock to return to profitability, Overstock embarked on a
blockchain strategy several years ago that was designed to profit
on new markets for crypto currency. In fact, it was recently
reported that, for the last several years, defendant Patrick M.
Byrne spent no fewer than 220 days a year on the road, "spreading
his blockchain gospel, despite the fact that Overstock was
hemorrhaging cash."

By the inception of the Class Period, however, the Company's
fortunes suddenly seemed to change. First, Overstock had suddenly
returned to profitability on an EBITDA basis and not only was the
Company EBITDA positive for the first time in recent times, but
profitability was suddenly increasing at such a torrid pace that
Overstock had raised year-end guidance by 50% at the inception of
the Class Period.

Moreover, not only had the Company purported to return to producing
positive cash flow, but it had done so at the most critical time --
at the launch of Overstock's crypto currency project tZERO, which
theretofore had reportedly cost shareholders over $100 million to
get to launch.

By the time shareholders realized the scope of the
misrepresentations that had been made to them during the short five
months of the Class Period, shares of Overstock collapsed, falling
from just below $15.00 per share on September 20, 2019, the trading
day prior to September 23, 2019, to as low as $11.05 per share,
before closing at $11.19 per share -- a one day decline of over
25%.

The Defendants were motivated to and did conceal the true
operational and financial condition of Overstock, and materially
misrepresented and failed to disclose the conditions that were
adversely affecting the Company throughout the Class Period, the
lawsuit says.

Overstock is as an online retailer in the United States and
internationally, operating through Retail and tZERO segments.
Through its on-line Retail division, the Company offers furniture,
home decor and other related products. Recently, the Company has
also shifted its focus to include the development and
commercialization of financial applications of blockchain
technologies, through tZERO.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs are:

          David W. Scofield, Esq.
          PETERS | SCOFIELD
          7430 Creek Road, Suite 303
          Sandy, UT 84093-6160
          Telephone: (801) 322-2002 Ext. 102
          Toll Free: (888) 296-3998
          Facsimile: (801) 912-0320
          E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com

               - and -

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

PACE SUBURBAN: Nelson Moves to Certify Class of Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MAURICE NELSON AND CHRISTI MARSHALL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PACE
SUBURBAN BUS AND MARGARET MURRY, in her individual capacity and in
her official capacity of Division Manager of Pace Suburban Bus -
Heritage Division, Case No. 1:17-cv-07697 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to:

   (a) certify a class of all current or former non-supervisory
       African American employees of Pace who worked at the
       Heritage Garage at any point since January 1, 2011, and
       who drive/drove or move/moved Pace buses as part of their
       job duties ("drivers");

   (b) appoint Plaintiffs Maurice Nelson and Christi Marshall as
       class representatives; and

   (c) appoint their counsel as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of African American
employees, who work or worked at Defendant Pace's Heritage Garage
and were subject to the same disciplinary process implemented by
the same key decisionmaker, Defendant Margaret, Pace's Division
Manager of its Heritage Division.  The Plaintiffs seek redress on
behalf of themselves and a putative class for systemic race
discrimination.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Bryan Wood, Esq.
          Ryan O. Estes, Esq.
          THE WOOD LAW OFFICE, LLC
          303 W. Madison St., Suite 2650
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 554-8600
          E-mail: bryan@jbryanwoodlaw.com
                  restes@jbryanwoodlaw.com

               - and -

          Quinton Osborne, Esq.
          OSBORNE EMPLOYMENT LAW
          799 Roosevelt Road, Suite 3-201
          Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
          Telephone: (331) 702-1538
          Facsimile: (331) 465-0450
          E-mail: quinton@osborneemploymentlaw.com


PIONEER CREDIT: Toney-Adkins Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARMAINE TONEY-ADKINS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PIONEER CREDIT RECOVERY,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06868 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 17,
2019), seeks to recover damages under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

In April 2019, Plaintiff received a Notice of Potential
Administrative Wage Garnishment Process from Defendant (Notice). In
the Notice, Defendant represented that the amount owed included
$3,278.62 in collection charges. The Collection Charges represent a
contingency fee agreement between Defendant and the Department of
Education.

The Plaintiff did not owe the Collection Charges because Defendant
had not yet collected anything from Plaintiff and, therefore, under
the contingency agreement, was not entitled to any Collection
Charge.

By including the Collection Charges in the Notice, Defendant
falsely represented the amount that Plaintiff actually owed, the
lawsuit says.

Pioneer Credit is a debt collector.[BN]


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Suit Stalled Pending Deloitte Case Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Wootton, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that a major class action against big four firm PwC has been
stalled, pending a judgment in a case involving Deloitte that has
the potential to end the growing trend of class actions against
auditors of failed companies.

PwC, Deloitte and EY, all of which are up against shareholder or
investor class actions over the quality of their audits, have told
courts their partners should not have to hand over documents
associated with those audits as they are protected by the privilege
against self-incrimination.

The privilege allows individuals to refuse court orders to submit
evidence that puts them at a real risk of criminal prosecution or
penalty.

The privilege does not normally extend to documents of a corporate
nature as it is an individual protection, McCullough Robertson
partner Scarlet Reid said, making this an "unusual" stance.

Deloitte already successfully argued the privilege extends to audit
partners in a case regarding failed construction company Hastie,
but now wants the privilege extended to the entire partnership.

Such a finding would mean no partner could be compelled to hand
over evidence about their audits.

This could significantly limit the evidence available to groups
suing auditors and comes as shareholders realise that, according to
Sydney Law School professor of corporate law Jason Harris, "the big
accounting firms are a good option to sue".

Multiple cases hang in the balance of a judgment from the Full
Federal Court on Deloitte's case, which is expected this year, with
Justice John Middleton on Friday putting off a case against PwC
over its audits of collapsed education provider Vocation until a
decision is handed down.

The judge had cleared 2 1/2 months in his busy calendar to hear the
case early next year.

He said "it goes against the grain" for him to vacate the trial
dates, but "there is an inevitability" in this case.

"We've still got an evidence fight relating to self-incrimination,
and I'm waiting on a full court to assist me," he said, describing
making a call before the Deloitte judgment as "the tail wagging the
dog".

"One approach is to go boldly in and see what happens, but if I get
it wrong there will be an appeal."

The judge noted that "this decision of mine doesn't impact just one
or two documents, it impacts a whole lot . . . If I say they [the
shareholders] can't get them, I don't know how far advanced the
matter can be."

The documents PwC is trying to limit access to are related to its
2014 audit of Vocation.

Vocation closed in 2015 after the government stripped it of almost
$20 million in funding and almost 94 per cent of its stock value
was wiped off.

All four firms declined to comment.

Are auditors fair game?
With insurance often limiting the amount shareholders or investors
can claim from directors of failed companies, and the
often-liquidated businesses themselves offering scant sources of
compensation, class actions are increasingly targeting auditors
over incorrect valuations or assessments in audited financial
statements.

"There's a lot of money behind the big accounting firms and
presumably a lot of insurance," Professor Harris said, explaining
the appeal of targeting them for damages.

He warned that classes pursuing this option face a tough legal
battle, however.

To make a claim in negligence, they "need to prove that each
investor who invested in the company relied on the
misrepresentations"--a high bar. As a result, some are now looking
at legal actions where no such duty of care is needed, such as
misleading and deceptive conduct.

The class actions usually settle. Professor Harris thinks this
could be because, having seen "the embarrassment" PwC experienced
in the Centro litigation in 2012, "the firms don't want the
scrutiny" of court. [GN]


QIAGEN NV: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to
investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of Qiagen N.V. (NYSE: QGEN) resulting from allegations that Qiagen
may have issued materially misleading business information to the
investing public.

On October 7, 2019, Qiagen announced that its third quarter results
would come in far below previous estimates and its long-time CEO,
Peer M. Schatz, who served Qiagen for 27-years, would resign as CEO
and Chairman of the Board effective immediately.

Qiagen also announced a restructuring to shift more operations to
Poland and the Philippines. Finally, to free up more resources, the
Company announced a long-term deal with Illumina, Inc., ending
development of its own next-gen genome sequencing machines.

On this news, Qiagen's stock price fell over 20% and closed at
$25.41 on October 8, 2019.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Qiagen investors. If you purchased shares of
Qiagen please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1694.htmlto join the
class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

Contact Information:

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


QUALITY MENTAL: Winters, et al. Seek OT Pay for Caretakers
----------------------------------------------------------
CELESTE WINTERS, et al., the Plaintiffs, vs. QUALITY MENTAL HEALTH,
INC., f/k/a LIFE HELP, INC., BEACON HARBOR, INC., BEACON HARBOR II,
INC., & REGION VI COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION d//a LIFE
HELP, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:19cv155-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss., Oct.
18, 2019), seeks overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs have been employed by Defendants as caretakers with
non-exempt status for several years, at a facility owned and/or
operated by Defendants in Greenwood, Leflore County, Mississippi.

Defendants have required Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
employees to reside and remain on Defendants' premises for extended
periods of time in excess of 120 hours per week, during which time
the employees are not completely relieved from duty.

However, Defendants have not compensated Plaintiff or those
similarly situated for time required to be spent on Defendants'
premises, of up to eight hours per night.

In addition, the Plaintiffs regularly worked overtime as employees,
both before, during and after their scheduled shifts.

Defendants have not paid Plaintiffs straight time or overtime at
1.5 times their regular hourly rates of pay when the employees
worked overtime for Defendants, as required by federal law, the
lawsuit says.

Defendants operate assisted living, addiction treatment and other
community living and managed care facilities in Mississippi and
throughout the South.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
          JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C.
          221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 789-9700
          E-mail: jeff@jgbrownlaw.com

               - and -

          Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
          GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 546-5056
          E-mail: gdunn@gjdlaw.com

RAYTHEON COMPANY: Ford Securities Suit Challenges Merger With UTC
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Ford, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. RAYTHEON COMPANY and THOMAS A. KENNEDY, Case No.
0:19-cv-02818 (D. Minn., Oct. 31, 2019), is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and other former Raytheon stockholders against the
Defendants for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the merger and related transactions between
Raytheon, Light Merger Sub Corp., and United Technologies
Corporation.

On June 9, 2019, Raytheon announces it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which Merger Sub would
merge with and into Raytheon. At the meeting of the stockholders
held on October 11, 2019, a majority of Raytheon Stockholders voted
to approve the Merger after being solicited via a materially
misleading and incomplete definitive proxy statement that was filed
with the SEC on September 10, 2019. Pursuant to the Merger, the
Company's shareholders received 2.3348 fully paid and nonassessable
share of UTC common stock in exchange for each share of Raytheon
common stock they owned.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy contained materially
misleading information concerning the financial projections for
Raytheon, UTC, and the Combined Company. The Proxy entirely omitted
the financial projections for the pro forma combined company giving
effect to the Merger. Despite omitting the Pro Forma Projections,
the Defendants elected to tout the benefits Raytheon shareholders
would receive as a result of the Transaction and their continued
ownership stake in the Combined Company.

The Proxy was an essential link in accomplishing the Merger, which
undervalued the Raytheon and caused the Plaintiff and the Class to
suffer financial loss in that they did not retain a fair equity
stake in the post-Merger Combined Company, says the complaint.
Hence, the Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff is a holder of Raytheon common stock.

Raytheon is a technology company, which specializes in defense and
other government markets through the development of integrated
products, services and solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Phone: 212-971-1341
          Fax: 212-202-7880
          Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
                 mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com

               - and -

          Garret B. Blacnhfield, Esq.
          Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORK & BLANCHFIELD
          332 Minnesota Street, Suite W-1050
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Phone: 651-287-2100
          Facsimile: 651-287-2103
          Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com


RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Latifi Class Suit Against TDL Group Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 28, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019, that the class action suit initiated by Samir Latifi against
The TDL Group Corp., (TDL), a subsidiary of the company, is still
ongoing.

In July 2019, a class action complaint was filed against The TDL
Group Corp., (TDL) in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by
Samir Latifi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated.

The complaint alleges that TDL violated the Canadian Competition
Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring
clause in the standard form franchise agreement all Tim Hortons
franchisees are required to sign.

The plaintiff seeks damages and restitution, on behalf of himself
and other members of the class.

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

Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership operates and
franchises quick service restaurants. The company operates through
three segments: Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes. The company
was formerly known as New Red Canada Limited Partnership and
changed its name to Restaurant Brands International Limited
Partnership in December 2014. The company was founded in 1954 and
is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Restaurant Brands
International Limited Partnership is a subsidiary of Restaurant
Brands International Inc.


RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Suits over Non-Compete Policy Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 28, 2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2019, that the company continues to defend four class action suits
alleging violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by incorporating
an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the standard
form franchise agreement all Burger King franchisees.

On October 5, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against
Burger King Worldwide, Inc. ("BKW") and Burger King Corporation
("BKC") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida by Jarvis Arrington, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated.

On October 18, 2018, a second class action complaint was filed
against the Company, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Monique Michel, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.

On October 31, 2018, a third class action complaint was filed
against BKC and BKW in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida by Geneva Blanchard and Tiffany Miller,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

On November 2, 2018, a fourth class action complaint was filed
against the Company, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Sandra Muster, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.

These complaints allege that the defendants violated Section 1 of
the Sherman Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and
no-hiring clause in the standard form franchise agreement all
Burger King franchisees are required to sign.

Each plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for himself or
herself and other members of the class.

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

Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership operates and
franchises quick service restaurants. The company operates through
three segments: Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes. The company
was formerly known as New Red Canada Limited Partnership and
changed its name to Restaurant Brands International Limited
Partnership in December 2014. The company was founded in 1954 and
is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Restaurant Brands
International Limited Partnership is a subsidiary of Restaurant
Brands International Inc.


ROMI BAKERY: Robles Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregorio Ceron Robles, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. ROMI BAKERY INC. (D/B/A GIAN PIERO BAKERY),
and MICHAEL DELLA POLLA, Case No. 1:19-cv-06153 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31,
2019), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that he worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime
compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and
failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of
requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40
hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a baker at the Defendants' bakery.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a bakery, located in Island
City, New York, under the name "Gian Piero Bakery."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SERVICES MANGIA: Denied De los Santos Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo De los Santos, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Services Mangia, Inc., Mangia 57,
Inc., Joanna Sasha & Friends Food SVC Inc., Sasha Muniak, Pawell
Koszalka, Margaret Doe and Silvia Doe, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-09262 (S.D. N.Y., October 7, 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 an Italian restaurants in New
York under the "Mangia" brand where De los Santos was employed as a
delivery worker. He claims to have spent more than 20% of his time
performing non-tipped duties such as opening and closing the
restaurant, rolling silverware, performing side work, and other
non-tipped duties, which usually is in excess of forty hours per
week but did not receive overtime pay for this. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SHANGHAI ORIGINAL: Court Retains Decertification in Jin Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Allyne Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York rejects reconsideration of a class
decertification order in the case captioned Jianmin Jin, Plaintiff
v. Shanghai Original, Inc. d/b/a Joe's Shanghai et al Defendants,
Case No. 16-cv-5633 (ARR) (JO), (E.D.N.Y.).

In October 2016, Jinanmin Jin and Chunyou Xie filed suit against
Joe's Shanghai on behalf of themselves and others similar situated
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law
(NYLL).  

Previously, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
certify a NYLL class of all non-managerial employees at Joe's
Shanghai restaurant in Flushing, Queens (Flushing restaurant).
However, Judge Ross decertified that class in a July 10, 2019
decision. The decertification decision was precipitated by various
actions by counsel which led the Court to conclude that that
counsel was not able to provide adequate class representation.  The
issue was referred to Judge Orenstein, who reopened discovery to
allow plaintiffs to conduct dozens of depositions.  The judge found
that the plaintiffs' counsel decided not to complete the remaining
depositions or prosecute motions for sanctions, without notice to
the court.  Subsequent red flags about counsel's competency
continued to appear, including failure to adequately respond to the
court's orders regarding witness lists, and apparent attempts to
delay trial.  

Plaintiff moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for
reconsideration of  Judge Ross's July 10, 2019 decertification
decision.  In support of this motion, plaintiff submits affidavits
by Joe's Shanghai employees Aragon Cardoso Cruz and Maximino
Raymundo.

Upon consideration, Judge Ross opines, "The Cruz and Raymundo
affidavits have no bearing on my determination that the class
decertification was, and remains, necessary because of inadequate
representation. My decision to decertify the class was based on my
conclusion that requirements for a class action were no longer met
because class counsel was failing to "fairly and adequately
represent the interests of the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(4).
The new affidavits do not change the fact that counsel failed to
conduct a single deposition of an employee during the allotted
discovery time and repeatedly failed to respond to court orders.
After decertification, counsel continued to ignore court orders,
and delayed in submitting a proposed decertification notice, an
essential step for protecting the legal rights of individual class
members. My decision was based not based on prejudice against small
law offices, but rather, counsel's actual conduct in this case."

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for relief from the decertification
order is denied, Judge Ross rules.

A full-text copy of Judge Ross' October 2, 2019 Opinion and Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyhufdbe from Leagle.com

Jianmin Jin, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
& Chunyou Xie, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron Schweitzer , Troy Law,
PLLC, Kibum Byun , Troy Law, PLLC & John Troy , Troy & Associates,
PLLC, 4125 Kissena Blvd Ste 119, Flushing, NY 11355-3150.

Shanghai Original, Inc., doing business as Joe's Shanghai, East
Brother Corp, doing business as Joe's Shanghai, Shanghai City Corp,
doing business as Joe's Shanghai, Shanghai Duplicate Corp, doing
business as Joe's Shanghai, Kiu Sang Si, also known as Joseph Si,
Yiu Fai Fong & Tun Yee Lam, Defendants, represented by David B.
Horowitz – dh@fwatty.com - Fong & Wong, P.C., Fiona M. Dutta ,
Fong & Wong, P.C. & Robert W. Wong – rww@fwatty.com -, Fong &
Wong, P.C..


SHREVEPORT, LA: Overcharged Residential Water Customers, Says Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KSLA reports that Caddo Parish District Judge Michael Pitman made
an important ruling on behalf of the citizens of Shreveport. Judge
Pitman ruled that the residential water and sewer customers in
Shreveport have been overcharged for years.

On Monday, Oct. 14, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Summary Judgment and denied the City's Motion for Summary
Judgment.

Judge Pitman had previously certified this lawsuit as a class
action suit to include all 60,000 residential water & sewer
customers.

This ruling brings the citizens of Shreveport one step closer to
getting refunds for overcharges on their water and sewer bills.
Class legal representatives, Jerry Harper and Anne Wilkes of the
Harper Law Firm will be contacting counsel for the City and the
Perkins Administration in an effort to resolve any outstanding
issues and to encourage the City Council members, on behalf of
their constituents, to assist in the process. "With the ruling and
the assistance of the Perkins Administrations, we hope to swiftly
move forward toward resolving a longstanding city-wide problem that
affects every family in Shreveport," Harper said. Wilkes said, "we
have been working towards this day for over two years. This was an
important victory for the people of Shreveport."

Harper and Wilkes told the Court after the ruling that they will be
filing an injunction against the City to prevent it from sending
out water bills that violate the Ordinance and the Court's order.
[GN]


SIOUX HONEY: Tran's Bid to Certify Class Taken Under Submission
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Josephine L. Staton has taken under submission the
Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit styled Susan Tran v.
Sioux Honey Association, Cooperative, Case No. 8:17-cv-00110-JLS-SS
(C.D. Cal.).

According to the Court's Civil Minutes, hearing was held and oral
arguments were heard on the Motion for Class Certification.  The
Court subsequently took the matter under submission.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kim Richman, Esq.
          THE RICHMAN LAW GROUP
          81 Prospect St.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (718) 705-4579
          Facsimile: (212) 687-8292
          E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Noah Geldberg, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC
          644 S Figueroa St.
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
          Telephone: (213) 625-3900
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3255
          E-mail: noah@geragos.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edward Lenci, Esq.
          HINSHAW AND CULBERTSON LLC
          800 Third Ave., 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 417-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
          E-mail: elenci@hinshawlaw.com


SLEEP NUMBER: Tentative Settlement Reached in Fresno Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sleep Number Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that a tentative
settlement has been reached in the class action suit initiated by
two former Home Delivery team members in the Superior Court in
Fresno County, California.

On September 18, 2018, two former Home Delivery team members filed
suit, now venued in Superior Court in Fresno County, California,
alleging representative claims on a purported class action basis
under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act.

While the two representative plaintiffs were in the Home Delivery
workforce, the Complaint does not limit the purported plaintiff
class to that group. The plaintiffs allege that Sleep Number failed
or refused to adopt adequate practices, policies and procedures
relating to wage payments, record keeping, employment disclosures,
meal and rest breaks, among other claims, under California law.

The Complaint sought damages in the form of civil penalties and
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and expressly disclaims the recovery
of any purported individual specific relief or underpaid wages.

The parties tentatively reached a settlement pending Court
approval, which includes the settlement and release of certain
additional related claims.

Sleep Number said, "We intend to continue vigorously defending this
matter in the event it does not settle."

Sleep Number Corporation designs, manufactures, and markets a line
of air bed mattresses. The Company provides a variety of beds,
bedding, pillows, mattress pads and layers, sheets, duvets, bed
skirts, bases, furniture, bed accessories, and kids blankets. Sleep
Number serves customers in the United States. The company is based
in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Arkansas Class Suits over Royalties Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that as of September 30,
2019, all certified class actions against the Company regarding
royalty payments in Arkansas have been resolved favorably to the
Company or settled.

Some actions filed on behalf of mineral interest owners who opted
out of the class actions remain pending, but the Company does not
expect these cases to have a material impact on its financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Southwestern Energy Company, an independent energy company, engages
in the exploration, development, and production of natural gas and
oil in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Exploration and Production, and Midstream. Southwestern Energy
Company was founded in 1929 and is headquartered in Spring, Texas.

SPECTRUM SECURITY: Court Flips Memorandum 33 Class Decertification
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four,
affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court order in the
case captioned GUSTAVO NARANJO, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. SPECTRUM SECURITY SERVICES INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case
No. B256232 (Cal. App.).

Spectrum contracts exclusively with federal agencies. Its officers
take temporary custody of federal prisoners and ICE (Immigration
and Customs Enforcement) detainees who must travel offsite for
medical treatment or other appointments. For the relevant time
period before October 1, 2007, Spectrum had two different employee
manuals.  In October 2007, a "Memorandum 33" was issued, a one-page
document addressed only meal and rest breaks. Unlike the other
employee manuals, Memorandum 33 advised, "Meal and rest periods
must be taken." It reaffirmed Spectrum's longstanding policy that
meal and rest periods were "on duty."

In June 2007, Plaintiff Gustavo Naranjo and a certified class of
former and current employees filed a lawsuit against Spectrum
Security Services, Inc., alleging Labor Code section 226.7 meal
break violations and sought premium wages, derivative remedies
pursuant to sections 203 (waiting time penalties) and 226 (itemized
wage statement penalties), and attorney fees. The results were
mixed, and both sides appealed.

Naranjo's class certification motion was heard before the
California Supreme Court, where the trial judge granted the motion
in part and denied it in part. A class of "all non-exempt detention
officers and security officers employed by Spectrum in California
during the Class Period of June 4, 2004 to the present" was
certified as to the first cause of action (meal period violations
(Sec. 226.7)); third cause of action (waiting time penalties (Sec.
203)); and fourth cause of action (itemized wage statements (Sec.
226)). The trial court qualified Naranjo as the class
representative and the law firm of Posner & Rosen as class
counsel.

The trial court however declined to include the second cause of
action for alleged rest break violations in the class certification
order. The trial court acknowledged Spectrum's companywide policy
not to permit duty-free rest breaks; but nevertheless found that
common questions did not predominate, which meant Naranjo's claims
were not typical and the class action format was not the superior
means to resolve the rest break claim. The following year, the new
trial judge declined to revisit the denial of Naranjo's motion to
certify a rest break class.

The parties stipulated to try the lawsuit in three phases.  At the
close of the testimony, the trial court granted a directed verdict
in favor of the pre-Memorandum 33 meal break subclass.  The parties
stipulated the pre-Memorandum 33 meal break subclass was owed
$1,393,314 in premium pay for the period from June 2004 until
September 2007.  The parties also stipulated that the section 226
penalty was $399,950.

Also, the trial court determined Spectrum's failure to include the
meal break premium wage in the final paychecks of employees who
separated from the company was not willful and ruled in Spectrum's
favor on the section 203 waiting time penalties claim.

Judgment was entered January 31, 2014. The trial court awarded
prejudgment and postjudgment interest, each at 10 percent. As named
plaintiff and class representative, Naranjo received a $10,000
service/enhancement payment. Class counsel Posner & Rosen were
awarded attorney fees as part of the judgment pursuant to section
226, subdivision (e), albeit in an amount less than requested.

Both sides appeal from the judgment. Spectrum challenges its
liability for premium wages to the pre-Memorandum 33 meal break
subclass and for section 226 itemized wage statement penalties, the
stipulated premium wage award, the award of prejudgment interest,
and the section 226, subdivision (e) award of attorney fees to
class counsel. The pre-Memorandum 33 meal break subclass attacks
the denial of section 203 waiting time penalties and the trial
court's decision to apportion and reduce the attorney fees.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 906, Naranjo also seeks
review of the intermediate order denying certification of the
proposed rest break class.

On review, the California Appeals Court rules that:

(1) The portion of the judgment awarding the meal break subclass
premium
     wages, but denying section 203 penalties, is affirmed;

(2) The portion of the judgment assessing section 226 penalties
and
     awarding the meal break subclass attorney fees is reversed;

(3) The meal break subclass is entitled to prejudgment interest on
the
     premium wages award at the rate of seven percent;

(4) The interlocutory order denying certification of a rest break
class
     is reversed.

The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to award
prejudgment interest at seven percent on the premium wages award
and to certify a rest break class.

In the interests of justice, the meal break subclass and Naranjo
are awarded costs on appeal, the Appellate Court orders.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' September 26, 2019
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y42hcjhu from
Leagle.com

Marsili Rapp, Howard Z. Rosen - hzrosen@rmrllp.com - Brianna M.
Primozic - brapp@rmrllp.com  - and Jason C. Marsili  -
jmarsili@rmrllp.com - for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger, Dave Carothers  -
dcarothers@cdflaborlaw.com-  and Steven A. Micheli -
smicheli@cdflaborlaw.com - for Defendant and Appellant.


ST MARY PARISH: Boudreaux Moves to Certify Class of Black Kids
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff Class in the lawsuit styled CLAUDE BOUDREAUX, et al.
v. SCHOOL BOARD OF ST. MARY PARISH, et al., Case No.
6:65-cv-11351-RGJ-CBW (W.D. La.), moves for class certification.

On September 30, 2019, the Court wrote that this case "should be
formally recertified as a class action in accordance" with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c) and invited briefing addressing the
requirements of Rule 23(c).

Accordingly, the Plaintiff Class moves the Court to issue an
order:

   (a) declaring this pre-1966 class action to be recertified
       under the amended 1966 version of Rule 23, with the class
       defined as:

       "all Black children eligible to attend the public schools
        in St. Mary Parish and their parents and/or guardians";
        and

   (b) appointing the Plaintiff Class' current counsel of record
       as class counsel.

According to the Motion, counsel for the Plaintiff Class has
conferred with counsel for Defendant School Board of St. Mary
Parish.  The Defendant does not oppose this Motion, except: (a)
with regard to how the class is defined, and (b) insofar as the
Defendant does not believe it has sufficient information to take a
position about whether the Plaintiff Class Representatives are
adequate representatives of the class.

As the Defendant concedes, the Plaintiff Class satisfies the Rule
23(a) requirements of numerosity, commonality, and typicality, as
well as the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2), the Plaintiffs assert.
The Plaintiff Class seeks comprehensive relief for the over three
thousand Black students, who are eligible to attend schools
operated by the District and their parents/guardians.

The Plaintiff Class claims a common, class-wide injury resulting
from the District's ongoing failure to eliminate the vestiges of
segregation.  The Plaintiffs contend all claims or defenses are
typical, and any relief obtained shall benefit the entire
class.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michaele N. Turnage Young, Esq.
          NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
          700 14th Street N.W., Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 682-1300
          E-mail: mturnageyoung@naacpldf.org

               - and -

          Samuel Spital, Esq.
          Deuel Ross, Esq.
          NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
          40 Rector Street, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10027
          Telephone: (212) 965-2200
          Facsimile: (212) 226-7592
          E-mail: sspital@naacpldf.org
                  dross@naacpldf.org

               - and -

          Gideon T. Carter, III, Esq.
          Post Office Box 80264
          Baton Rouge, LA 70898-0264
          Telephone: (225) 214-1546
          Facsimile: (225) 341-8874
          E-mail: gideontcarter3d@gmail.com


STATE STREET: Still Defends Suit Over Invoicing Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend itself against a purported class action suit
related to the company's invoicing practices.

In March 2017, a purported class action was commenced against the
company alleging that its invoicing practices violated duties owed
to retirement plan customers under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

In addition, the company received a purported class action demand
letter alleging that its invoicing practices were unfair and
deceptive under Massachusetts law.

State Street said, "A class of customers, or particular customers,
may assert that we have not paid to them all amounts incorrectly
invoiced, and may seek double or treble damages under Massachusetts
law."

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

State Street Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides a
range of financial products and services to institutional investors
worldwide. State Street Corporation was founded in 1792 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.


SUNOCO INC: Bid to Exclude "Ley" Testimony in Cline Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John Gibney Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Oklahoma issued an Opinion denying Defendant's Motion
for Exclude Testimony in the case captioned PERRY CLINE, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNOCO,
INC. (R&M), and, SUNOCO PARTNERS MARKETING & TERMINALS, L.P.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 6:17-cv-313-JAG, (E.D. Okla.).

Perry Cline owns a royalty interest in oil wells in Oklahoma. Cline
sued Sunoco for not paying him statutory interest when Sunoco pays
the late proceeds. Cline seeks to maintain a class action on behalf
of those to whom Sunoco paid production proceeds late and did not
pay statutory interest.

To support his motion for class certification, Cline offered the
testimony and expert reports of Barbara A. Ley, a certified public
accountant. Ley has developed a model by which she says that she
can identify the individual class members and calculate class-wide
damages using information from Sunoco's business records.

Sunoco moved to exclude Ley's reports and testimony for the
purposes of the class certification motion.

Sunoco asserts that that Cline overstates Ley's qualifications and
distinguishes the cases in which Ley has testified, but it does not
argue that Ley lacks the necessary qualifications to render an
opinion. Ley, a certified public accountant licensed to practice in
Oklahoma and Texas, has over forty years of experience. Her
expertise includes oil and gas issues. Ley has testified in a
number of oil and gas cases in both state and federal courts in
Oklahoma.  Thus, Ley has adequate qualifications to testify as an
expert in the matter, the Court opines.

The Court also determines whether Ley's testimony is reliable under
the principles set forth in Daubert.

Sunoco first argues that Ley's methodology does not accurately
identify the proposed class members. Sunoco points to a number of
payments Ley excludes primarily, those payments falling under the
exceptions to the PRSA and says that, by excluding the payments
from the model but not from the definition, the model does not
cover the entire class. In response, Cline says that he has
proposed a revised class definition in his reply to the motion to
certify that excludes those categories. The Court accepts Cline's
proposed class definition, so Sunoco's first argument fails.

Sunoco secondly describes Ley's model as inaccurate and unreliable,
and says that Ley's model does not reliably identify Untimely
Payments and does not properly calculate statutory interest.  The
Court finds that Ley's testimony and expert reports demonstrate
that Ley's model, although not fully developed, provides a reliable
way to identify untimely payments and calculate damages sufficient
to satisfy the Daubert standard.

Judge Gibney opines, "Ley's testimony is admissible, so the Court
will consider it when making its class certification decision."
Thus, the Court denies the defendant's Motion to Exclude.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 3, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4kmcskr from Leagle.com

Perry Cline, on behalf of himself & Perry Cline, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew G.
Pate  - dpate@nixlaw.com - Nix Patterson & Roach, Bradley E.
Beckworth -  bbeckworth@nixlaw.com - Nix Patterson, LLP, Jason A.
Ryan -  jryan@ryanwhaley.com - Ryan Whaley Coldiron Jantzen Peters
& Webber, PLLC, Jeffrey J. Angelovich  - jangelovich@npraustin.com
- Nix Patterson, LLP, Lawrence R. Murphy, Jr. , Lawrence R. Murphy,
Jr., PC, 624 South BostonSuite 900Tulsa, OK 74119, Lisa P. Baldwin
- lbaldwin@nixlaw.com - Nix Patterson & Roach, pro hac vice,
Michael Burrage , Whitten Burrage, Patrick M. Ryan -
pryan@ryanwhaley.com - Ryan Whaley Coldiron Jantzen Peters &
Webber, PLLC, Paula M. Jantzen  - pjantzen@ryanwhaley.com - Ryan
Whaley Coldiron Jantzen Peters & Webber, PLLC, Phillip G. Whaley -
pwhaley@ryanwhaley.com - Ryan Whaley Coldiron Jantzen Peters &
Webber, PLLC

Sunoco, Inc. & Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals, LP,
Defendants, represented by Daniel M. McClure -
dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com - Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP,
Kevin W. Yankowsky - kevin.yankowsky@nortonrosefulbright.com -
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice, Mark D. Christiansen ,
McAfee & Taft & Rebecca J. Cole -
rebecca.cole@nortonrosefulbright.com - Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, pro hac vice.


SUPERIOR REAL: Class of Laborers Certified in Rodriguez Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. D.P. Marshall, Jr., conditionally certifies a class in the
lawsuit entitled ALBERT RODRIGUEZ, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. SUPERIOR REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS,
LLC; ALVIN FRANKS, JR., Case No. 4:19-cv-00405-DPM (E.D. Ark.).

The class/group is defined as:

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

Albert Rodriguez worked as a construction worker for Superior and
Franks between November 2018 and June 2019.  Mr. Rodriguez says he
was paid hourly, worked more than forty hours a week, and was not
paid any extra for his overtime work.  He says the Company usually
had between ten and fifteen construction workers on the payroll,
who were all paid the same way.  He moved to conditionally certify
a collective action. Superior and Franks haven't responded to the
motion for a group, according to the Order.

Judge Marshall directs Superior and Franks to provide the
Plaintiff's counsel (on an electronic spreadsheet) a list of names,
addresses, and e-mail addresses of the group members.

The notice, proposed consent forms, e-mail, and reminder postcard
are approved with certain tweaks.  "Please name the employer in the
group description.  Remove 'Court' from the subject line of the
email.  Delete the dash in 'hourly paid' each time that phrase
appears," Judge Marshall notes.

The Plaintiff's counsel may send these messages by regular mail and
e-mail.  There's no need for texts or a bulletin board notice,
Judge Marshall adds.

The Court also sets this schedule:

   * Superior and Franks to produce spreadsheet by November 8,
     2019;

   * Notice period opens on November 15, 2019; and

   * Opt-in period closes on February 14, 2020.[CC]


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Campbell, Neal & Mott TCPA Suits Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend class action lawsuits alleging Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations.

The Bank or the Company is, or has been, defending a number of
putative class actions alleging claims under the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") as a result of phone calls made by
the Bank.

The complaints generally have alleged that the Bank or the Company
placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system
or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their
consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation, without
specifying an aggregate amount.

Campbell et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on January 25, 2017 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. The
original complaint named only J.C. Penney Company, Inc. and J.C.
Penney Corporation, Inc. as the defendants but was amended on April
7, 2017 to replace those defendants with the Bank.

Neal et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Synchrony Bank, for which
the Bank is indemnifying Wal-Mart, was filed on January 17, 2017 in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.
The original complaint named only Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. as a
defendant but was amended on March 30, 2017 to add Synchrony Bank
as an additional defendant.

Mott et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on February 2, 2018 in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

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

Synchrony Financial, incorporated on September 12, 2003, is a
consumer financial services company. The Company provides a range
of credit products through programs it has established with a group
of national and regional retailers, local merchants, manufacturers,
buying groups, industry associations and healthcare service
providers. The Company's revenue activities are managed through
three sales platforms: Retail Card, Payment Solutions and
CareCredit. It offers its credit products through its subsidiary,
Synchrony Bank (the Bank). The company is based in Stamford,
Connecticut.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Stichting Depositary APG Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Stichting
Depositary APG Developed Markets Equity Pool and Stichting
Depositary APG Fixed Income Credit Pool v. Synchrony Financial et
al.

On November 2, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit, Retail
Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund v.
Synchrony Financial, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut, naming as defendants the Company
and two of its officers.

The lawsuit asserts violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly
making materially misleading statements and/or omitting material
information concerning the Company's underwriting practices and
private-label card business, and was filed on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between October 21, 2016 and November 1, 2018.

The complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages,
costs and expenses.

On February 5, 2019, the court appointed Stichting Depositary APG
Developed Markets Equity Pool as lead plaintiff for the putative
class. On April 5, 2019, an amended complaint was filed, asserting
a new claim for violations of the Securities Act in connection with
statements in the offering materials for the Company's December 1,
2017 note offering.

The Securities Act claims are filed on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Company bonds in or traceable to
the December 1, 2017 note offering between December 1, 2017 and
November 1, 2018. The amended complaint names as additional
defendants two additional Company officers, the Company's board of
directors, and the underwriters of the December 1, 2017 note
offering.

The amended complaint is captioned Stichting Depositary APG
Developed Markets Equity Pool and Stichting Depositary APG Fixed
Income Credit Pool v. Synchrony Financial et al.

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

Synchrony Financial, incorporated on September 12, 2003, is a
consumer financial services company. The Company provides a range
of credit products through programs it has established with a group
of national and regional retailers, local merchants, manufacturers,
buying groups, industry associations and healthcare service
providers. The Company's revenue activities are managed through
three sales platforms: Retail Card, Payment Solutions and
CareCredit. It offers its credit products through its subsidiary,
Synchrony Bank (the Bank). The company is based in Stamford,
Connecticut.


TENNESSEE: Adams Moves for Certification of DOC Prisoners Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled CHRISTOPHER ADAMS, et al. v.
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION COMMISSIONER TONY PARKER, et al.
(sued in official capacity only), Case No. 1:19-cv-00296-HSM-SKL
(E.D. Tenn.), ask the Court to certify the case sub judice as a
class action on behalf of a prisoners class.

"The case sub judice is literally a life or death case.  It is not
a matter of if a class member will be injured, they have already
been injured and continued future injury is imminent," the
Plaintiffs contend.  The Plaintiffs note that the Defendants have
caused identification wristbands to be permanently secured to the
arms of inmates that are serving long terms of incarceration.  The
Plaintiffs allege that the wristbands cannot be removed for
thorough cleaning and sanitizing, thereby, making them a breeding
ground for dangerous bacteria that may cause foodborne illnesses,
they may aid in spreading communicable diseases, and they are a
safety hazard for these working on live energized electrical
circuits and machinery/equipment with moving parts.

The class is defined as:

    "All similarly situated persons, current and future, who are
     committed to the custody of the Tennessee Department of
     Correction for incarceration under its control and
     supervision, housed in public and privately owned and
     managed facilities, as well as correctional employees,
     volunteers who work thereat, and visitors to said
     facilities, for whom the Tennessee Department of Correction
     has the ultimate responsibility for their health, safety,
     and well being while incarcerated therein, or, while on each
     respective prison's property in relation to the food
     consumed thereat which is handled, prepared, and served by
     inmate's wearing wristbands, those who physically interact
     with inmates wearing wristbands, and those who share common
     areas of each respective prison with inmates wearing
     wristbands; as well as inmate class members who are required
     to operate machinery/equipment with moving parts, or, work
     on electrically energized circuits and/or components while
     wearing wristbands."

Plaintiffs Christopher Adams, et al., of Pikeville, Tennessee,
appear pro se.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Herbert Harrison Slatery, III, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TENNESSEE
          425 5th Avenue N.
          Nashville, TN 37202
          Telephone: (615) 741-3491


TIGER EYE: Class in Adkinson Labor Suit Conditionally Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONALD ADKINSON and KERRY WIMLEY, Individually And on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TIGER EYE
PIZZA, LLC and KEN SCHROEPFER, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-4007
(W.D. Ark.), Judge Susan O. Hickey of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division, granted in
part and denied in part Plaintiffs Adkinson and Wimley's Motion for
Conditional Certification, for Approval and Distribution of Notice
and for Disclosure of Contact Information.

On April 23, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the action, seeking relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA").  The Plaintiffs allege that they were
formerly employed by the Defendants as hourly paid delivery drivers
at the Defendants' pizza stores in Texarkana, Arkansas and
Texarkana, Texas.  They claim that the Defendants failed to pay
them, and others similarly situated, proper minimum wage and
overtime compensation.  Their complaint indicates that they bring
their FLSA claims for collective-action treatment on behalf of all
others similarly situated.  The Plaintiffs likewise indicate that
they bring their AMWA claims for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
class-action treatment on behalf of all others similarly situated.

In the instant motion, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify,
pursuant to the FLSA, the following collective: All Delivery
Drivers employed by the Defendants since Jan. 23, 2016.  They also
ask for a ninety-day period to distribute notice and consent forms
and for the potential Plaintiffs to opt into the case.  The
Plaintiffs further ask the Court to order the Defendants to provide
the names, current and/or last known mailing addresses, and cell
phone numbers, or alternatively email addresses, of the potential
opt-in Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs ask the Court to authorize a
distribution plan involving notice being delivered to potential
opt-ins via U.S. mail, text message, and alternatively, email for
the potential Plaintiffs who have no known cell phone number, with
a follow-up email being sent three weeks after the delivery of
initial notice.

The Defendants oppose the motion.  They mount a two-pronged attack
on the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification.  First,
they attack the viability of the Plaintiffs' unsworn declarations
submitted in support of conditional certification.  Second, they
argue that the facts of the case are such that conditional
certification is improper.

The Court is faced with two tasks.  First, it must determine
whether conditional certification of the proposed collective is
proper under the FLSA.  Second, if it finds that conditional
certification is appropriate, the Court must outline the correct
means of providing notice to the potential opt-in Plaintiffs and
set procedures by which a potential collective member may opt in.

Judge Hickey finds that it seems unreasonable to impose a higher
evidentiary standard for affidavits at the lenient conditional
certification stage than would later be imposed at the summary
judgment stage.  As the Eighth Circuit has explained, a decision to
certify a class is far from a conclusive judgment on the merits of
the case, so it is of necessity not accompanied by the traditional
rules and procedure applicable to civil trials.  Although In re
Zurn Pex Plumbing Prod. Liab. Litig. related to a Rule 23 class
certification action, these statements are particularly true of a
conditional class certification of an FLSA action.  A conditional
class certification is by its very nature 'conditional' and subject
to revision by a decertification motion that often follows.
Accordingly, the Judge will consider the Plaintiffs' provided
declarations in support of conditional certification even if, as
the Defendants argue, some statements in the declarations would not
constitute admissible evidence at trial.

Next, Judge Hickey is satisfied that the Plaintiffs have made a
modest showing that they and other delivery drivers are similarly
situated in that, while employed as delivery drivers for Defendants
in Texarkana during the relevant period, they were subjected to a
common policy which deprived them of requisite minimum wage and
overtime.  Thus, the case will be conditionally certified as a
collective action.

As to the Notice Plan, Judge Hickey does not agree that the header
of the notice, containing the full case caption, implies judicial
endorsement of the merits of the action.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs' notice form may bear the case caption.  However, out of
an abundance of caution, the Judge agrees with the Plaintiffs that
a judicial disclaimer would prevent any potential confusion related
to judicial endorsement.  She cannot locate judicial disclaimer
language in the Plaintiffs' proposed notice form, so she will
require the Plaintiffs to revise their notice form to include the
following language in numbered paragraph 2: "The Court does not
encourage or discourage participation in this case."  The
additional language will ensure that the notice respects judicial
neutrality and avoids even the appearance of judicial endorsement
of the merits of the action.

Judge Hickey finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed anti-retaliation
provision is appropriate to provide as much information as possible
from which putative collective members "can make informed decisions
about whether to participate" in the case.  Thus, she approves the
proposed anti-retaliation provision for use in the notice form.
However, the Defendants raise a fair point that the case does not
involve claims or allegations of past retaliatory conduct.  To
avoid the potential of misleading or confusing putative collective
members into believing that Defendants have been accused of
retaliatory conduct, the Plaintiffs will include the following
language at the beginning of their anti-retaliation provision:
"This case does not involve claims or allegations that Defendants
have retaliated against former or current employees."

Judge Hickey finds it reasonable and appropriate to allow
Plaintiffs to send email notice to the putative collective members.
Thus, email notice dissemination will be allowed, and the
Plaintiffs' proposed email notice form is approved, with the caveat
that the Plaintiffs must add the judicial disclaimer language
discussed: "The Court does not encourage or discourage
participation in this case."  However, it would be needlessly
repetitive to also allow notice dissemination via text message.
Thus, the Plaintiffs' request to also send notice via text message
is denied.

Judge Hickey also finds that one follow-up email is sufficient and
that a second, sent only nine days later, is unnecessary.  The
Plaintiffs may send a follow-up email 21 days after initial notice
dissemination to the potential opt-ins who have not responded to
the mailed or emailed notice.  There is no need for the
RightSignature service to send yet another follow-up email 30 days
after initial dissemination.  The Judge declines to require that
the defense counsel be copied on all email notice dissemination.

Finally, Judge Hickey finds that a 14-day deadline for providing
the contact information is more reasonable than the seven days
suggested by the Plaintiffs. Thus, the Defendants will provide to
the Plaintiffs the names, current and/or last known mailing
addresses, and all known email addresses of any individual who
meets the collective definition.  The list must be produced in a
usable electronic format, such as Microsoft Word or Excel.  The
Defendants will deliver this information to the Plaintiffs' counsel
within 14 days of the entry of the Order.

For the stated reasons, Judge Hickey granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification, for
Approval and Distribution of Notice and for Disclosure of Contact
Information.  Accordingly, she conditionally certified the case as
a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Judge Hickey approved (i) the proposed notice of right to join
lawsuit form, once edited to comply with the Order; (ii) the
proposed consent to join collective action form; (iii) sending the
notice packet to the potential opt-in Plaintiffs via U.S. Mail;
(iv) the use of email to provide notice to the potential opt-in
Plaintiffs, as well as the proposed language of the notice email
message, once edited to comply with the Order; (v) the utilization
of www.rightsignature.com as a means for the potential opt-in
Plaintiffs to sign the consent documents; and (vi) the
dissemination of one follow-up email, sent 21 days after initial
dissemination to any potential opt-in Plaintiff who has not
responded to the initial notice.

The Defendants are directed to produce the names, current and/or
last known mailing addresses, and all known email addresses of any
individual who meets the collective definition.  The list must be
produced in a usable electronic format.  The Defendants will
deliver the information to the Plaintiffs' counsel within 14 days
of the entry of the Order, with the understanding that the
Plaintiffs' counsel is to treat this information as confidential.

The Plaintiffs will have 90 days from the date the Defendants
deliver the requisite contact information in which to distribute
the notice and consent documents and to file signed consent forms
of the opt-in Plaintiffs with the Court.

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

Donald Adkinson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated & Kerry Wimley, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Josh Sanford --
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Sanford Law Firm PLLC & Merideth Queen
McEntire, Sanford Law Firm, PLLC.

Tiger Eye Pizza, LLC & Kenneth Schroepfer, Defendants, represented
by Raymond Douglas Rees, Cooper & Scully PC, pro hac vice, Benton
Williams, II -- Benton.Williams@bentonwilliamspllc.com -- Benton
Williams PLLC & Shabaz Aslam Nizami --
shabaz.nizami@cooperscully.com -- Cooper & Scully P.C.

TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Appeals Court Tosses AG's Settlement Challenge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Fischer, writing for Arizona Capitol Times, reports that a
federal appeals court has slapped down a bid by Attorney General
Mark Brnovich to undo a class-action settlement of a lawsuit over
allegedly defective pressure cookers.

In a unanimous decision on Oct. 10, a three-judge panel of the 6th
Circuit Court of Appeals did not address Brnovich's contention that
the nationwide settlement is unfair to the vast majority of
consumers who had purchased the product, including Arizona
residents.

That deal reserves the lion's share of the cash for the attorneys
who sued. And the best that most consumers will get is a coupon for
a future purchase from the company and a one-year extension on
their existing warranties--and only if they watch a
company-produced video on pressure cooker safety.

But appellate Judge John Bush, writing for the court, concluded all
those arguments about fairness from Brnovich are legally
irrelevant. He said the attorney general has no legal standing to
come in, after a deal was cut, and argue to have it nullified as
unfair.

Assistant Attorney General O.H. Skinner, who presented the legal
arguments, told Capitol Media Services that an appeal is being
weighed--and not just in a bid to get a better settlement for those
who bought the device.

He said the ruling, if left undisturbed, could undermine the
practices of the attorney general's office in interceding in other
class-action lawsuits, particularly in consumer fraud cases, where
it appears that the main beneficiaries are the attorneys who
brought the claim and not the people who were actually harmed
financially.

"We think that what we did here is the same as in innumerable
consumer protection cases every day out of our office," Skinner
said. "We think that protecting consumers from class-action
settlements where they don't get any money is a core part of
protecting consumers."

The 2016 lawsuit filed in Ohio charges that certain pressure
cookers manufactured by Tristar Products had defective lids that
could open while the cookers were in use, exposing the user to
possible injury from the hot, pressurized contents spilling out.

Bush said that after the first day of trial it appeared things were
not going well for the plaintiffs. Even the trial judge said it was
not obvious that a defect existed or that, even if it did, it made
the company's pressure cookers worthless.

That resulted in a settlement which covered not just those in the
states where the original plaintiffs were from but also anyone in
the country who had bought the items.

That settlement, according to the court, was worth about $1 million
to consumers, primarily in the coupons and warranty extensions, and
nearly $2 million in legal fees.

In fact, the vast majority of the 3.2 million people who purchased
the pressure cooker nationwide--the number that wound up in Arizona
is unknown--won't even get the $73 coupons because they didn't file
a claim, either because they were unaware of the settlement or
concluded that the offer was not worth their time.

Only when the trial judge held a hearing to review the fairness did
Brnovich file legal papers, along with the U.S. Department of
Justice, arguing the settlement was unfair and should put more
aside for those who bought the items. Rejected by the trial judge,
Skinner filed an appeal, telling the judges that Arizona has a
legitimate interest--and legitimate right--to intercede.

He said the state is acting to protect the interests of its
residents who had purchased the pressure cookers but, under the
terms approved by the trial court, are being denied compensation.
Skinner also said the deal was worded in a way to deny not just
financial compensation for an allegedly defective product but also
to preclude lawsuits over actual injuries.

Bush, however, said the state had not shown any indirect effects on
Arizona as a whole.

The judges were no more persuaded by arguments that the attorney
general's office regularly participates in class-action lawsuits to
protect the interests of its residents, working for "improved
settlement terms." [GN]


TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT: Pederson Sues over Unwanted Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAN PEDERSON, CONNOR OLSON and SHELL WHEELER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC., a principal campaign
committee, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-02735 (D. Minn., Oct.
18, 2019), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal
actions of the organization, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.,
in negligently, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiffs through text
messages on Plaintiffs' cellular telephones, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiffs'
privacy.

Trump For President is the official candidate committee that
facilitates and financially supports Mr. Trump's campaign for
office. Trump For President is registered with the Federal
Elections Commission.

Trump For President routinely sends text messages to wireless
telephones with automatic telephone dialing equipment without the
wireless users prior express consent.

Trump For President violations caused Plaintiffs and members of the
Class actual harm, including aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of
privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unsolicited
text messages, as well as the violation of their statutory rights,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are:

          Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com

               - and -

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
          Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
          The Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  alexis@consumeradvocates.com
                  kas@consuneradvocates.com

UNILEVER MANUFACTURING: Mislabels Magnum Products, Dashnau Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Dashnau, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Unilever Manufacturing (US), Inc., Case No.
7:19-cv-10102-KMK (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019), seeks damages under
consumer protection laws from the Defendant's misleading
representations on their vanilla ice cream products' packaging.

The Defendant sells ice cream products purporting to contain flavor
from their natural characterizing flavor, vanilla, under their
Magnum brand ("Products"). The Products are misleading because they
do not contain the amount, type and percentage of vanilla as a
component of the flavoring in the product, which is required and
consistent with consumer expectations. The representations of
"vanilla (bean)" describing the ice cream products are unqualified,
and the labels and packaging do not disclose that addition of
non-vanilla flavors as part of the Products, the Plaintiff
contends.

Had the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth about the
Products, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid
less for it, the Plaintiff avers. The Products contain other
representations, which are misleading and deceptive. As a result of
the false and misleading labeling, the Products are sold at premium
prices, approximately no less than $6.59, per 9.12 OZ calculated on
an average per ounce basis across the Products, excluding
tax--compared to other similar products represented in a
non-misleading way, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Products for personal
use and consumption.

Unilever Manufacturing (US), Inc. manufactures, distributes,
markets, labels and sells ice cream products purporting to contain
flavor from their natural characterizing flavor, vanilla under
their Magnum brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


UNITED COMMUNITY: Parshall Says Merger Documents Misleading
-----------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. UNITED COMMUNITY FINANCIAL CORP.,
MARTIN E. ADAMS, LEE J. BURDMAN, SCOTT D. HUNTER, RICHARD J.
SCHIRALDI, GARY M. SMALL, ELLEN J. TRESSEL, LOUIS M. ALTMAN,
PATRICK W. BEVACK, SCOTT N. CREWSON, and FIRST DEFIANCE FINANCIAL
CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01989-UNA (D. Del., Oct.
18, 2019), alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a
registration statement.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on September
9, 2019, pursuant to which United Community Financial Corp. will
merge with First Defiance Financial Corp.

On September 9, 2019, United Community's Board of Directors caused
the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
First Defiance. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
shareholders of United Community will receive 0.3715 shares of
First Defiance common stock for each share of United Community they
own.

On October 9, 2019, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Registration Statement omits material information with respect
to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration
Statement false and misleading.  

     -- The Registration Statement omits material information
regarding the Company's and First Defiance's financial projections.
With respect to the Company's financial projections, the
Registration Statement fails to disclose projected cash flow and
all underlying line items.

     -- The Registration Statement omits material information
regarding the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor
in connection with the Proposed Transaction, Sandler O'Neill +
Partners, L.P. With respect to Sandler's Comparable Company
Analyses, the Registration Statement fails to disclose the
individual multiples and metrics for the companies observed by
Sandler in the analyses.

     -- The Registration Statement fails to disclose the nature of
the other potential strategic alternatives to the Proposed
Transaction as discussed at the July 23, 2019 Board meeting. The
Company's stockholders are entitled to an accurate description of
the process leading up to the execution of the Merger Agreement,
the lawsuit says.

United Community Financial Corp., a publicly traded financial
services company, provides a wide array of consumer, commercial,
wealth and insurance products and services through its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Home Savings Bank.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plainitff are:

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

               - and -

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

UP FINTECH: Lopez Says Registration Statement Misleading
--------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. UP FINTECH HOLDING LIMITED, TIANHUA
WU, JOHN FEI ZENG, YONGGANG LIU, LEI FANG, DAVID ERIC FRIEDLAND,
VINCENT CHUN HUNG CHEUNG, BINSEN TANG, XIN FAN, XIAN WANG, JIAN
LIU, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.,
AMTD GLOBAL MARKETS LIMITED, CHINA MERCHANTS SECURITIES (HK) CO.,
LIMITED, TIGER BROKERS (NZ) LIMITED (F/K/A TOP CAPITAL PARTNERS
LIMITED), and SKY FINTECH HOLDING LIMITED, the Defendants, Case No.
655882/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Oct. 8, 2019), asserts strict liability
claims under sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
against UP Fintech's underwriters for the Company's initial public
offering (IPO), and certain officers, directors, and controlling
shareholders of UP Fintech.

The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased UP Fintech American Depositary Shares in or
traceable to the Company's March 20, 2019 IPO.

On March 20, 2019, UP Fintech completed the IPO of its ADSs. In
connection with the IPO, UP Fintech filed a final amended
Registration Statement on Form F-1 and a related Prospectus on Form
424B4 with the SEC on March 18, 2019 and March 20, 2019,
respectively (collectively, the "Registration Statement"). As of
December 31, 2018, UP Fintech had 446 employees.

On February 22, 2019, the Company filed its Registration Statement
on Form F-l for the IPO, which after two amendments was declared
effective on March 19, 2019. On March 20, 2019, the Company filed
its Prospectus with the SEC on Form 424B4. In the IPO, defendants
sold 14.95 million UP Fintech shares at $8 per share, generating
nearly $120 million in offering proceeds, not including
underwriting discounts.

The Registration Statement was negligently prepared, and, as a
result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted
material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein
not misleading, and failed to make necessary disclosures required
under the rules and regulations governing the preparation of such
documents.

The Registration Statement repeatedly discussed UP Fintech's
operating costs and expenses, employee compensation and benefits,
and the Company's employees, including 2018's growth in the amount
of employees.

These representations were materially false and misleading because
UP Fintech's operating costs and expenses had already drastically
increased during the Company's first quarter of the 2019 fiscal
year due to the massive increase in employees that occurred in
2018, especially employee compensation and benefits.

Rather than disclose this known adverse historical fact, the
Registration Statement provided boilerplate risk statements about
potential contingent future issues that may or could occur. While
these risk statements acknowledged the material importance to
investors of UP Fintech's operating costs, they were themselves
materially misleading because they failed to disclose that employee
compensation had ballooned well beyond the historical growth
amounts contained in the Registration Statement.

These representations in the Registration Statement contained
untrue statements of material fact because, at the time of the IPO,
the number of UP Fintech employees had already nearly doubled and
its operating costs and expenses materially increased.

As of market close on October 3, 2019, the price of UP Fintech ADSs
was trading at just $4.18 per share, 48% below the IPO price, the
lawsuit says.

Lopez purchased shares of the Company's ADSs pursuant and traceable
to the IPO and has been damaged thereby.

UP Fintech is an online brokerage firm focusing on global Chinese
investors. Defendants conducted the IPO in New York, and the
Company's ADSs trade on the Nasdaq. It is a Cayman Islands exempted
company with principal executive offices located at 18/F, Grandyvic
Building, No. 16 Taiyanggon Middle Road, Chaoyang District,
Beijing, People's Republic of China. Through its proprietary
trading platform, UP Fintech's customers are able to trade equities
and other financial instruments on multiple stock exchanges
worldwide.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Thomas G. Amon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS G. AMON
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1402
          New York, NY 10170
          Telephone: (212) 810 2430
          E-mail: tamon@amonlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Bobak, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          5040 Shoreham Place
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (619) 525 3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525 3991
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
                  soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
                  jobabak@robbinsarroyo.com

URBAN GARDEN: Padilla Seeks OT & Minimum Wages for Landscapers
--------------------------------------------------------------
HARRY PADILLA, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, vs. URBAN GARDEN
CENTER, INC., and DIMITRI GATANAS, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09660 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks damages and
equitable relief based upon Defendants' violations of Plaintiff's
rights guaranteed to him by the overtime and minimum wage
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a landscaper from in or
around May 2016 until on or around June 10, 2019. From the
beginning of his employment until May 21, 2019, at which time
Plaintiff was injured and unable to work, the Defendants willfully
failed to pay Plaintiff the overtime wages lawfully due to him.

Specifically, the Defendants required Plaintiff to work over 40
hours per week at Defendants' various job sites, but failed to
compensate him at the statutorily required overtime rate of at
least one and one-half times the minimum wage rate, or one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay when greater, for any hours
that he worked each week in excess of 40.

Instead, the Defendants paid Plaintiff at his straight-time rate of
pay for all hours worked each week -- which often fell below the
minimum rate that the NYLL requires for each hour worked --
including those that he worked in excess of 40 in a week. The
Defendants have paid and treated all of their landscapers in the
same manner, the lawsuit says.

Urban Garden Center, Inc. operates a landscaping company and garden
center in Manhattan.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Caitlin Duffy, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 679-5000
          Facsimile:. (212) 679-5005

US BANK: Denial of Leave to File Counterclaim in Cabrera Overturned
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ZACARIAS CABRERA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as trustee, successor in interest to BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as
successor by merger to LASALLE BANK, N.A., as trustee RAMP
2007-RS-1, and SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., a corporation, Appellees,
Case No. 4D18-3537 (Fla. App.), Judge Martha C. Warner of the
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District reversed in
part and dismissed in part the nonfinal order of the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit Court that denied Cabrera's motion for leave to
file a class action counterclaim.

Borrower Cabrera timely appeals a nonfinal order of the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit Court that denied his motion for leave to file a
class action counterclaim in the foreclosure case.  In 2017, the
Appellee, U.S. Bank National Association, sued the Borrower to
foreclose on a mortgage.  This was the third attempt to foreclose
on the same mortgage, the Bank or its predecessor having
voluntarily dismissed the prior two complaints.  The Borrower
answered, raising affirmative defenses.  The Borrower served a
motion to amend to add a class action counterclaim against the Bank
and SunTrust Mortgage, as the loan servicer, seeking declaratory
judgment and injunctive relief.

In his amended counterclaim, the Borrower claimed that the Bank and
SunTrust routinely added to the debt secured by the mortgage the
attorney's fees and costs incurred in dismissed or unsuccessful
prior foreclosure actions.  Thus, the Borrowers were being charged
fees even though the Bank did not prevail in the prior actions,
despite the fact that the provisions of the mortgage allowed the
Bank to include attorney's fees only if it prevailed.  

The proposed counterclaim designated the class as consisting of
homeowners who may have been serviced by SunTrust but whose
mortgages were owned or held by the Bank or by other lenders.  The
counterclaim included the necessary allegations to support a class
action: numerosity, typicality, representative status, predominance
of common questions of law and fact. It sought a declaratory
judgment against the Bank and SunTrust, as well as damages to
compensate borrowers for this improper practice by the Bank as to
borrowers.  It also added a count against SunTrust for violation of
the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, pursuant to section
559.72, Florida Statutes (2017), in connection with the
unauthorized inclusion of attorney's fees in the amounts due.  The
counterclaim demanded damages incurred by the entire class for the
statutory violations.

In response, the Bank filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its
foreclosure complaint.  However, it did not deprive the court of
jurisdiction, as the filing of a motion to amend to add a
counterclaim is treated the same as a pending counterclaim for
purposes of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(2).

In response to the motion for leave to file class action
counterclaim, the Bank argued that the counterclaim would
unnecessarily complicate a simple foreclosure, that it added a
third party, and that the claims failed to state a viable claim for
relief under Florida law.

After a short non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered an
order granting the Borrower's motion to amend insofar as it allowed
him to amend to assert compulsory counterclaims, but it denied the
motion to assert those claims as a class action.  From that order,
the Borrower appeals.

First, Judge Warner holds that although the Bank contends that
allowing a class action counterclaim would unfairly prejudice it by
increasing the complexity of a common foreclosure complaint, that
same concern would be true of almost any counterclaim asserting a
class action.  Furthermore, any class counterclaim would bring
additional "parties" into a lawsuit.  Yet Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.220(c) specifically includes a "counterclaim" within
its terms.  Therefore, these differences in and of themselves do
not prevent the assertion of a class counterclaim.

Next, in Count I of the counterclaim attached to the motion to
amend, the class representative seeks a declaration that the
practice of adding attorney's fees and costs from unsuccessful
foreclosure actions against borrowers to the balance of their
mortgages violates Florida law and requires that the Bank and
SunTrust compensate borrowers to whom it occurred.  

The Judge holds that these claims relate to the operative facts of
the foreclosure, because the Borrower alleges that his mortgage was
increased by adding attorney's fees from the prior unsuccessful
actions to his balance.  The complaint is against the Bank and
SunTrust, its servicer.  They all relate to the inclusion of
attorney's fees from unsuccessful attempts to foreclose on the
mortgage in the amount due on the mortgage and promissory note.
The counterclaim is compulsory, because it involves the same
aggregate operative facts of the main claim and defense, i.e.,
whether the attorney's fees from unsuccessful suits had been
included inappropriately in the amount claimed due under the
mortgages.

Count II is asserted against SunTrust only and as a class action.
Thus it is not a true counterclaim but a third party claim.  The
Judge holds that the class action rule does not include third party
claims within its provisions.  Even if this may be loosely
determined to be a counterclaim asserted against the loan servicer
as an agent of the Bank, it is not a compulsory counterclaim.  The
counterclaim seeks damages for breach of the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act by adding attorney's fees to the balance
of mortgages, similar to Count I.  However, Count II is also filed
on behalf of borrowers on any mortgage SunTrust serviced, thus
involving lenders other than the Bank in the suit.  

Such a claim would require review of mortgages held by other
lenders.  It further alleges that SunTrust used various means of
communication and attempted to collect debts involving interstate
commerce, which is a different element than the foreclosure
proceeding.  It would require proof that the debts were "consumer
debts" within the meaning of section 559.55(6), Florida Statutes
(2006).  These elements are all beyond the operative facts of the
foreclosure complaint.  Therefore, as to Count II, the Judge holds
that the order is not an appealable final order.  She dismissed the
appeal as to the denial of the motion to amend to include Count II
of the counterclaim.

As the Count I counterclaim is compulsory, and the trial court
allowed the Borrower to file his compulsory counterclaim, the issue
remains as to whether it could be asserted as a class action for
all borrowers similarly situated.  Since rule 1.220 permits the
assertion of class actions by way of counterclaims, as a matter of
law, the Judge finds that the claim may be asserted.  Motions to
amend should be liberally granted.

Once filed, whether it should proceed as a class claim depends upon
an analysis of the factors for maintaining a class action set forth
in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220.  The rule requires a
trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law
supporting its ruling to either certify a class or deny
certification.  The trial court truncated the review by denying the
motion to amend.  Yet to determine whether the court has abused its
discretion, the appellate court must have the benefit of the
findings of fact and conclusions of law by the trial court.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Warner reversed and remanded for the
trial court to grant the amendment to assert Count I as a class
action and then to consider whether the counterclaim can and should
be asserted as a class action.  As to Count II, she dismissed the
appeal because it is a nonappealable order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 16, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/uut3Be from Leagle.com.

Jon Herskowitz of Baron & Herskowitz, Miami, Rachel Bentley, of
Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, West Palm Beach, Jeffrey M.
Liggio -- jliggio@liggiolaw.com -- and Geoff S. Stahl --
gstahl@liggiolaw.com -- of Liggio Law, P.A., West Palm Beach, and
Philip M. Burlington -- pmb@flappellatelaw.com -- and Adam
Richardson -- ajr@flappellatelaw.com -- of Burlington & Rockenbach,
P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Sara F. Holladay-Tobias -- stobias@mcguirewoods.com -- Emily Y.
Rottmann -- erottmann@mcguirewoods.com -- and Brittney L. Difato --
bdifato@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuire Woods LLP, Jacksonville, for
appellee U.S. Bank, N.A., as trustee, successor in interest to Bank
of America, N.A., as Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank, N.A., as
trustee Ramp 2007-RS-1.


VISALUS INC: Class Settlement in Harris Suit Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, gave final approval of the proposed
class settlement in the case captioned ERIC J. HARRIS, SR.,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
CAPRECE BYRD, BRYANT WATTS, RENAE WHITE, LAURA HERL, DR. FRANK
McWHORTER, ERIC J. HARRIS, SR. and CONNIE BATES, individually on
their own behalf, Plaintiffs, v. VISALUS, INC., a corporation, et
al, Case No. 17-cv-12626, (E.D. Mich.).

The Court finds the Settlement fair, adequate and reasonable.

For purposes of the Final Approval Order and Judgment, the
Settlement Class is:  All U.S. Independent Promotors of ViSalus,
Inc. who qualified for units in the Founders' Equity Incentive Plan
between January 1, 2015 through March 1, 2017.

The Named Plaintiff, Eric J. Harris, Sr., has, in the opinion of
the Court, worked hard on behalf of the Settlement Class. The Court
therefore approves an incentive to Eric J. Harris, Sr. in the
amount of $15,000.

The Court further awards $115,000 in attorneys fees and costs.
Attorneys at Sommers Schwartz, P.C.; Prebeg, Faucett & Abbott PLLC;
and Wexler Wallace have served fairly and adequately as Class
Counsel, the Court finds.

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

Caprece Byrd, Bryant Watts & Renae White, Plaintiffs, represented
by Brent Caldwell , Pregeg Faucett & Abbott PLLC, Mark R. Miller -
mrm@wexlerwallace.com - Wexler Wallace, Matthew J.M. Prebeg –
mprebeg@pfalawfirm.com - Prebeg, Faucett & Abbott PLLC, Patrick E.
Cafferty - pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com - Cafferty Clobes
Meriwether & Sprengel LLP & Andrew Kochanowski -
akochanowski@sommerspc.com - Sommers Schwartz, P.C.

Dr Frank McWhorter, Connie Bates & Laura Herl, Plaintiffs,
represented by Mark R. Miller , Wexler Wallace, Patrick E. Cafferty
, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP & Andrew Kochanowski ,
Sommers Schwartz, P.C.

Eric J Harris Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Brent Caldwell , Pregeg
Faucett & Abbott PLLC, Mark R. Miller , Wexler Wallace, Patrick E.
Cafferty , Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP & Andrew
Kochanowski , Sommers Schwartz, P.C.

VISALUS, INC., Nick Sarnicola, Ashley Sarnicola, Blake Mallen, Ryan
Blair, Todd Goergen & Gary J. Reynolds, Defendants, represented by
Andrew Clark - aclark@honigman.com - Honigman LLP, Brian A. Howie -
brian.howie@quarles.com - Quarles & Brady LLP, Edward A. Salanga
-edward.salanga@quarles.com - Quarles & Brady LLP, Kevin D. Quigley
- kevin.quigley@quarles.com - Quarles & Brady LLP, Michael S.
Catlett - michael.catlett@quarles.com - Quarles & Brady LLP &
Nicholas B. Gorga - ngorga@honigman.com -  Honigman LLP.

Vincent Owens, Defendant, pro se.

Michael Craig, Defendant, represented by Andrew Clark , Honigman
LLP & Nicholas B. Gorga , Honigman LLP.


VIVINT SOLAR: December 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on Oct. 14 disclosed that on October 11, 2019,
a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York against Vivint Solar,
Inc. (NYSE: VSLR). The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is March 5, 2019 through
September 26, 2019.

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

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Vivint Solar,
Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class
Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above.
You may move the Court no later than Wednesday, December 11, 2019
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in
order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

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

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


VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Li Suit Alleging Securities Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZHAOER LI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. VIVINT SOLAR, INC., DAVID BYWATER, and ANA RUSSEL, Case
No. 1:19-cv-06165 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019), is brought on behalf
of persons, who purchased or otherwise acquired Vivint securities
between March 5, 2019, and September 26, 2019, against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On September 27, 2019, Marcus Aurelius Value published a report
alleging that "28 undisclosed lawsuits . . . specifically allege
Vivint forged customer contracts or otherwise engaged in fraud or
deception." On this news, Vivint's share price fell $0.14 per
share, or over 2%, to close at $6.55 per share on unusually high
trading volume.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to the
investors that: the Company engaged in fraudulent practice,
including forging customer contract; as a result the Company's
reported sales and megawatts installed were overstated; these
practices were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; as
a result, the Company's earnings would be materially adversely
impacted; and as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants'
positive statement about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. As a result of the Defendants wrongful act and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Vivint securities during the Class Period.

Vivint offers solar energy systems to residential customers through
a direct-to-home sales model.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


WALLGREENS BOOTS: Court Narrows Claims in Illinois Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28,
2019, for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2019, that the Court has
issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants'
motion to dismiss the securities class action suit in the Northern
District of Illinois against Walgreen Co. and certain former
officers of Walgreen Co.

On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class
action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co.

The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities
laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made
regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. On June 16, 2015, the Court
entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff.

Pursuant to the Court's order, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
class action complaint on August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint on October 16, 2015. On September 30, 2016,
the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.

Defendants filed their answer to the complaint on November 4, 2016
and filed an amended answer on January 16, 2017. Plaintiff filed
its motion for class certification on April 21, 2017. The Court
granted plaintiffs' motion on March 29, 2018 and merits discovery
is proceeding. On December 19, 2018, plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint and defendants moved to dismiss the new complaint
on February 19, 2019. On September 23, 2019, the Court issued an
order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to
dismiss.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health
and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail
Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical
Wholesale. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. was founded in 1901 and
is based in Deerfield, Illinois.


WALLGREENS BOOTS: Response to Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28,
2019, for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2019, that the company
has until November 21, 2019, to respond to plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the class action suit in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

On December 11, 2017, purported Rite Aid shareholders filed an
amended complaint in a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the
"M.D. Pa. action") arising out of transactions contemplated by the
merger agreement between the Company and Rite Aid.

The amended complaint alleged that the Company and certain of its
officers made false or misleading statements regarding the
transactions.

The Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on April 15, 2019. The Company filed an answer and
affirmative defenses, discovery commenced, and plaintiffs have
filed a motion for class certification.

The Company's response to that motion is due on November 21, 2019.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health
and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail
Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical
Wholesale. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. was founded in 1901 and
is based in Deerfield, Illinois.


XPO LOGISTICS: Awaits Court OK to Dismiss Labul Consolidated Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the defendants in
the consolidated Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., class action
suit filed a motion to dismiss and awaits court's decision.

On December 14, 2018, two putative class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain of its current and former executives, alleging
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based on
alleged material misstatements and omissions in the Company's
public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On January 7, 2019, the plaintiff in one of the class actions,
Leeman v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-11741 (S.D.N.Y.),
voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice.

In the other putative class action, Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et
al., No. 3:18-cv-02062 (D. Conn.), which is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, on April 2, 2019,
the court appointed Local 817 IBT Pension Fund, Local 272
Labor-Management Pension Fund, and Local 282 Pension Trust Fund and
Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund (together, the "Pension Funds") as
lead plaintiffs.

On June 3, 2019, the Pension Funds, with additional plaintiff
Norfolk County Retirement System, filed a consolidated class action
complaint against the Company and certain of its current and former
executives, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, based on alleged
material misstatements and omissions in the Company's public
filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint
on August 2, 2019 and await a decision from the court.

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.


XPO LOGISTICS: Settlement in Carter Suit Receives Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the settlement in
the class action suit entitled, Ron Carter, Juan Estrada, Jerry
Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald and Joel Morales v. XPO
Logistics, Inc. ("Carter"), has received final court approval.

Certain of the Company's last mile logistics subsidiaries are party
to several putative class action litigations brought by independent
contract carriers who contracted with these subsidiaries.

In these litigations, the contract carriers, and in some cases the
contract carriers' employees, assert that they should be classified
as employees, rather than independent contractors. The particular
claims asserted vary from case to case, but the claims generally
allege unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, or failure to provide meal
and rest periods, and seek reimbursement of the contract carriers'
business expenses.

The cases include four related matters pending in the Federal
District Court, Northern District of California:

Ron Carter, Juan Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald
and Joel Morales v. XPO Logistics, Inc. ("Carter"), filed in March
2016;

Ramon Garcia v. Macy's and XPO Logistics Inc. ("Garcia"), filed in
July 2016;

Kevin Kramer v. XPO Logistics Inc. ("Kramer"), filed in September
2016; and

Hector Ibanez v. XPO Last Mile, Inc. ("Ibanez"), filed in May 2017.


The Company has reached agreements to settle the Carter, Garcia,
Kramer and Ibanez matters and has accrued the full amount of the
settlements.

The Carter settlement has received final court approval, and the
parties await final approval in the other matters.

XPO Logistics said, "With respect to other pending claims, the
Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the potential
impact of loss contingencies that are probable and reasonably
estimable. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the
amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of
its accrued liability that it may incur as a result of these claims
given, among other reasons, that the number and identities of
plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain and the range of
potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by
the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims."

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.


XPO LOGISTICS: Suits vs. Intermodal Drayage Subsidiaries Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that certain of the
Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries are party to putative
class action litigation and other administrative claims in
California brought by independent contract carriers who contracted
with these subsidiaries.

Certain of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries received
notices from the California Labor Commissioner, Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement (the "DLSE"), that a total of approximately
150 owner-operators contracted with these subsidiaries filed claims
in 2012 with the DLSE in which they assert that they should be
classified as employees, rather than independent contractors.

These claims seek reimbursement for the owner-operators' business
expenses, including fuel, tractor maintenance and tractor lease
payments. Decisions were rendered in June 2015 by a DLSE hearing
officer with respect to claims of five plaintiffs, resulting in
awards in an aggregate amount of approximately $1 million,
following which the Company appealed the decisions in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

On May 16, 2017, the Central District Court issued judgment finding
that the five claimants were employees rather than independent
contractors and awarding an aggregate of approximately $1 million
plus post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees to the claimants.

The Company appealed this judgment, but on February 20, 2019, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to
consider the appeal on technical grounds.

In addition, separate decisions were rendered in April 2017 by a
DLSE hearing officer in claims involving four additional
plaintiffs, resulting in an award for the plaintiffs in an
aggregate amount of approximately $1 million.

The Company appealed the DLSE award to the California Superior
Court, Long Beach, and the court ultimately entered judgment in
favor of the four plaintiffs for approximately $812 thousand on
September 27, 2019.

The remaining DLSE claims (the "Pending DLSE Claims") were
transferred to California Superior Court, Los Angeles in three
separate actions involving approximately 170 claimants, including
the claimants mentioned above who originally filed claims in 2012.


The Company has reached an agreement to settle the majority of the
Pending DLSE Claims, the settlement payment has been made, and the
settled claims have been dismissed. In addition, certain of the
Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries are party to putative
class action litigation and other administrative claims in
California brought by independent contract carriers who contracted
with these subsidiaries. In these litigations, the contract
carriers assert that they should be classified as employees, rather
than independent contractors.

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the
potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and
reasonably estimable relating to the claims. The Company is unable
at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range
of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it may
incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons, that
the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by
future rulings by the courts involved, including on the merits of
the claims.

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.


YAHOO INC: July 20, 2020 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Taylor, writing for WSIL, reports that Yahoo users can
now file a claim for a piece of a $117 million class-action
settlement related to massive data breaches within the company.

If you had a Yahoo account between January 2012 and December
2016--including traditional Yahoo email, an accounts on Yahoo
Sports, Yahoo Finance, tumblr or flickr--you can get two years of
free credit monitoring services by All-Clear-ID.

If you can prove that you spent time dealing with some issues
related to the data breach or if you already have credit monitoring
or protections services, you can receive a payment of $100.

The deadline for filing a claim is July 20, 2020. To opt in to the
settlement, you can go to:

           https://yahoodatabreachsettlement.com/en
[GN]


[*] IMF Bentham Buys Dutch Rival to Boost Funding for Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jemima Whyte, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that
IMF Bentham has formed an alliance with a Dutch rival that will
boost its funding for class actions to more than $2 billion, just
as concern mounts in corporate Australia at rapidly growing numbers
of these suits.

Litigation funder IMF Bentham is buying Netherlands-based Omni
Bridgeway in a deal worth up to $141 million at a time of
intensifying scrutiny of class actions, many bankrolled by
litigation funders.

The $770 million ASX-listed company says the deal will help it
diversify where it bankrolls class actions on behalf of investors.

IMF Bentham is among the world's largest litigation funders, and
had previously said it is keen to expand in Europe.

The company says the deal marks the end of its five-year plan,
which has also included restructuring how it finances class action
claims as it tries to evolve from "a principal investor to a fund
manager".

"While the transaction involves IMF Bentham buying Omni Bridgeway's
business, it is a merger of equals," said IMF Bentham managing
director Andrew Saker.

To fund the transaction, IMF Bentham is seeking to raise $19
million in a placement of new shares at $3.50 each and $120 million
in a rights issue at $3.40. Shares in IMF have rallied from their
lows in April this year, and climbed further after short seller
Muddy Waters criticised its UK-based rival Burford Capital for its
accounting practices.

The Omni Bridgeway transaction is payable in three tranches.

The first tranche is EUR35 million ($57 million) in cash, with the
next EUR20 million payable in shares and subject to performance
hurdles over three years. The final tranche after five years is
worth up to EUR32.5 million, and is also payable in shares.

In pro-forma statements released to the exchange, $61.2 million is
attributed to goodwill.

Cross-border specialist
Founded in the Netherlands in 1986, Omni Bridgeway is known as a
leading financier of high-value claims and a global specialist in
cross-border enforcement against sovereign governments.

For the year to December 2018, Omni Bridgeway reported revenue and
other income of EUR20 million and net profit of EUR5 million. The
company has more than 320 pending cases, with more than EUR2.5
billion in total claim values.

Omni Bridgeway has 45 employees in three countries, and Singapore
is the only overlapping jurisdiction between the two companies.

As part of the merger, some of Omni Bridgeway's key executives will
join IMF's board and management team, including Omni managing
director Raymond van Hulst.

IMF first met with the company last year, introduced by investment
bank Houlihan Lokey. Transaction and advisory costs were about $11
million, the company said.

IMF shares remain in a trading halt. [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 ***