CAR_Public/191107.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, November 7, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 223

                            Headlines

88 MOTEL INC: Laufer Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York
ABEONA THERAPEUTICS: Majumdar Sues Over Securities Law Violations
ADTRAN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit
ADTRAN INC: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
ADTRAN INC: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Class Suit

ADTRAN INC: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
ADVANCED MICRO: $12.1MM Dickey Suit Settlement Gets Prelim Approval
AIRBNB INC: Quebec Court to Hear Pricing Suit Settlement on Dec. 3
ALLERGAN INC: Doe Sues Over Risks From BIOCELL Breast Implants
ALLIANCE COAL: Branson Sues Over Improper Overtime Pay Under FLSA

AMERICAN BOTTLING: Guzman-Lopez Seeks to Certify Class
AMERICAN HONDA: Woo Files Suit in N.D. California
ARCBEST CORPORATION: Faces Walters et al Suit in Cal. State Court
ARCONIC INC: Court Grants Bid for Discovery in Behrens Suit
AUTOZONE INC: Certification Denial in Wage&Hour Litigation Upheld

AXCESS STAFFING: Faces Wilbourn FCRA Class Suit in N.D. Georgia
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Rejects Dismissal of Velez FDCA Suit
BP AMERICA: Morrobel Class Lawsuit Dismissed with Prejudice
BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Court Denies Post-Trial Requests in Taha Suit
CADENCE BANCORPORATION: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline

CAPITAL ONE: Brodsky & Smith Notes of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline
CAPITAL ONE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
CAREERBUILDER LLC: Fongers Sues Over Failure to Pay Commissions
CBL CORPORATION: 2 Shareholders Lead Class Suit vs. Ex-Directors
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action

CHEMOURS COMPANY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Slater and Gordon Files Excessive Fees Complaint
CONDUENT STATE: Faces Yang Class Suit in California Super. Ct.
CONTINENTAL GENERAL: Court OKs Class Settlement Deal
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Brunett's Bid to Certify Class Denied

CS MARKETING: Barnes Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Campaign
DELTA DENTAL: Benton Sues Over Dental Insurance Monopsony
DERMA LASER: Koven TCPA Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Marketing
DIAMOND RESORTS: Securities Litigation Stayed Amid Settlement Talks
DJM LOGISTICS: Marquez, et. al Seek to Certify Class

DMG MORI: Bebault, et al. Seek to Certify Class
DOMO INC: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Action
ELECTROCORE INC: Kaskela Law Reminds of Nov. 25 Deadline
ENCINO ENERGY: Zehentbauer Alleges Underpayment of Royalties
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Kessler Topaz Notes of Class Action Settlement

FACEBOOK INC: Bid to Quash $35 Billion Class Suit Denied
FIGGERS COMMUNICATION: Patchen Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
FLORIDA KEYS: Buzzell Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
GENEVA ON THE LAKE: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
GKN DRIVELINE: Mebane Amends Move for Conditional FLSA Class Cert.

GKN DRIVELINE: Mebane Files Amended Class Cert Bid. Under Rule 23
GNH LUMBER: Faces James Jaeger Builders Suit in New York Sup. Ct.
GREENLAND ACQUISITION: Resolves Wheby Suit Via Confidential MOU
GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Class Action
HY-VEE INC: Customers Hit Chain With Class Suit Over Data Breach

IMPINJ INC: District Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
INTEGRAS CAPITAL: Antoine Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
J & J, INC: Alarcon, et al Seek Unpaid Wages for Painters
JAMES S. FARRIN: Garey, et al Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: AWP Suits in Illinois Settled After Trial

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Suits Over Ethicon Pelvic Mesh Devices Ongoing
JUUL LABS: Targeted Vaping Products to Youth, Says King County
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Junks Consolidated Securities Suit
KANSAS CITY LIFE: Karr Class Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
KINKISHARYO INT'L: Armendariz Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Florida Southern Dist. Narrows Glover Suit Claims
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Valley Sues over Insurance Premium Charges
MANITOWWOC COMPANY: Class Suit Filed Over Crane Toppled by Dorian
MATCH GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Notes of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline
MATCH GROUP: Brualdi Law Reminds Investors of Class Action

MDL 2672: Settlement in VW Clean Diesel Suit Gets Court Prelim. OK
MEDWELL LLC: Hopkins Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debts
MEREDITH CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
MYRIAD GENETICS: Brodsky & Smith Notes of Nov. 26 Deadline
MYRIAD GENETICS: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of Class Action

MYRIAD GENETICS: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit
NANO: Court Narrows Claims in First Amended Fabian Securities Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Failed to Protect Student-Athletes, Amell Says
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Fails to Protect Athletes, Alexander Claims
NN INC: Erie County ERS Sues Over Misleading SPO Statement

NPC INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Kelly Says
OHIO NATIONAL: Cook Appeals S.D. Ohio Decision to Sixth Circuit
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Class Action
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Kaskela Law Reminds of Nov. 18 Deadline
OPARC: Cisneros Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Non-Exempt Employees

OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Court Certifies Class in Nagan FDCPA Suit
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of Nov. 26 Deadline
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Kessler Topaz Disclose Filing of Class Action
PANDORA MEDIA: Appeals Court Gives Hope for Escaping Class Action
PROPETRO HOLDING: Hagens Berman Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline

PROPETRO HOLDING: Kaskela Law Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline
RUHNN HOLDING: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
SKY HOOK RIG: Rackley Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Nov. 18 Deadline
SOGOU INC: Wins Stay of Class Action Litigation in California

SOLITAIRE HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Woodmore Says
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Settlement in Huntsman Suit Gets Final Approval
SUBARU OF AMERICA: $6.25MM Udeen Class Settlement Gets Prelim. OK
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Wheeler Suit Moved to District of Minnesota
SUNDIAL GROWERS: Gulacsy Seeks Damages Over Drop in IPO Price

SUTTER HEALTH: California Settle Antitrust Case
T-MOBILE USA: Faces Craig Telephone Suit Over RICO Act Violations
TENCENT MUSIC: Bernstein Liebhard Notes Nov. 25 Deadline
TENCENT MUSIC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Nov. 25 Deadline
TENCENT MUSIC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 25 Deadline

TIMECLOCK PLUS: Fick Sues Over Illegal Storage of Biometric Info
TRAVELERS COMPANIES: Hallihan Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Braun Says IPO-Related Statements Misleading
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 3 Deadline
UNITED STATES: Chavez County to Get $82K From DOI Class Suit

UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class of Loan Borrowers
UNITED STATES: D.C. Circuit Appeal Filed in OA/SMSR Class Suits
VIVINT SOLAR: Brualdi Law Reminds Investors of Class Action
WAITR HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Nov. 26 Deadline
WE CARE HOMES: Class of Employees Certified in Migues FLSA Suit

WELLSPACE HEALTH: Faces Hewitt-King Suit in California Super. Ct.
WELTMAN WEINBERG: Faces Gibson Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA
ZAPPOS.COM: Settlement Gives Users 10% Discount, Lawyers $1.6MM
ZOUHAIR KABBARA: Sexual Assault Suit Denied Class Certification

                            *********

88 MOTEL INC: Laufer Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 88 Motel Inc. The
case is styled as Deborah Laufer, Individually, and on behalf of
all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 88 Motel
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01328-TJM-DJS (N.D. N.Y., Oct.
28, 2019).

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

88 Motel Inc. is a motel conveniently situated near so many of
Central New York's attractions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter Sverd, Esq.
     Law Offices of Peter Sverd, PLLC
     225 Broadway, Suite 613
     New York, NY 10007
     Phone: (646) 751-8743
     Email: psverd@sverdlawfirm.com


ABEONA THERAPEUTICS: Majumdar Sues Over Securities Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sudipta Majumdar, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ABEONA THERAPEUTICS INC., STEVEN H.
ROUHANDEH, JOAO SIFFERT, F. CARSTEN THIEL, CHRISTINE SILVERSTEIN,
and STEPHEN B. THOMPSON, Case No. 1:19-cv-10181 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1,
2019), is brought on behalf of persons, other than the Defendants,
who purchased or otherwise acquired Abeona securities between May
31, 2018, and September 23, 2019, seeking to recover damages caused
by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
polices, the Plaintiff alleges. Specifically, the Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
Abeona's Chemical, Manufacturing and Controls and internal controls
and procedures and/or compliance policies were inadequate; as a
result, the Company failed to provide sufficient data points on the
transport stability of EB-101 to clinical sites, or else such
transport was insufficient; consequently, it was foreseeable that
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would reject approval for the
start of the VITAL Study until such issues were addressed; and as a
result, the Company's public statement were materially false and
misleading.

On September 23, 2019, Abeona issued a press release announcing
receipt of a clinical hold letter from the FDA, "clarifying that
the FDA will not provide approval for the Company to begin its
planned Phase 3 clinical trial for EB-101 [a/k/a, the VITAL Study]
until it submits to the FDA additional data point on transport
stability of EB-101 to clinical sites."

On this news, Abeona's stock price fell $0.39 per share, or 11.96%,
to close at $2.87 per share on September 23, 2019. As a result of
the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the
Plaintiff, who owns Abeona securities, has suffered significant
losses and damages, says the complaint.

Abeona is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that purports
to develop cell and gene therapies for life-threatening rare
genetic diseases.[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

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


ADTRAN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
ADTRAN, Inc. (NASDAQ: ADTN) between February 28, 2019 and October
9, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased ADTRAN securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit ADTRAN Shareholder Class
Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414
or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, 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, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that there were material weaknesses in the Company's
internal control over financial reporting; (2) that, as a result,
certain E&O reserves had been improperly reported; (3) that, as a
result, the Company's financial results for certain periods were
misstated; (4) that there would be a pause in shipments to the
Company's Latin American customer; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On July 17, 2019, the Company announced "preliminary" earnings for
second quarter 2019 due to its ongoing assessment of the
reasonableness of its current and previously reported excess and
obsolete inventory reserves ("E&O reserves"). On this news, the
Company's share price fell $3.69 per share, over 23%, to close at
$12.13 per share on July 18, 2019, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on October 9, 2019, after-market, the Company announced that
its "revenue this quarter has been significantly impacted by a
pause in shipments to a Tier 1 customer in Latin America and the
continued slowdown in the spending at an international Tier 1
customer." On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.10 per
share, over 19%, to close at $8.81 per share on October 10, 2019,
thereby injuring investors further.

If you purchased ADTRAN securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/adtraninc-adtn-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-204/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 16, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

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

Contact:

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



ADTRAN INC: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased ADTRAN,
Inc. (NASDAQ: ADTN) securities between February 28, 2019 and
October 9, 2019 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until December
16, 2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in
the lawsuit.

On July 17, 2019, ADTRAN announced "preliminary" earnings for
second quarter 2019 due to its ongoing assessment of its current
and previously reported excess and obsolete inventory reserves
("E&O reserves").

On this news, the company's share price fell $3.69 per share, or
over 23%, to close at $12.13 per share on July 18, 2019.

Then, on October 9, 2019, the company announced that its "revenue
this quarter has been significantly impacted by a pause in
shipments to a Tier 1 customer in Latin America and the continued
slowdown in the spending at an international Tier 1 customer."

On this news, the company's share price fell $2.10 per share, or
over 19%, to close at $8.81 per share on October 10, 2019.

The complaint, filed October 17, 2019, alleges that throughout the
Class Period 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, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
there were material weaknesses in the company's internal control
over financial reporting; (2) that, as a result, certain E&O
reserves had been improperly reported; (3) that, as a result, the
company's financial results for certain periods were misstated; (4)
that there would be a pause in shipments to the company's Latin
American customer; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about the company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

If you purchased ADTRAN securities during the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon
Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com,
or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact
form. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm
concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For
additional information concerning the ADTRAN lawsuit, please go to
https://bespc.com/adtn. For additional information about Bragar
Eagel & Squire, P.C. please go to www.bespc.com.

Contact:

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Tel: (212) 355-4648
         Email: investigations@bespc.com, fortunato@bespc.com,  
                walker@bespc.com
         Website: www.bespc.com
[GN]



ADTRAN INC: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that it filed a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of those who acquired ADTRAN, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ADTN) securities during the period from Feb. 28, 2019 through Oct.
9, 2019 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until Dec. 16, 2019 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that ADTRAN failed to disclose to investors
that: (i) there were material weaknesses in the Company's internal
control over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, certain E&O
reserves had been improperly reported; (iii) as a result, the
Company's financial results for certain periods were misstated; and
(iv) there would be a pause in shipments to the Company's Latin
American customer.

On July 17, 2019, ADTRAN announced "preliminary" earnings for the
second quarter of 2019 due to the Company's assessment of its
current and previously reported E&O reserves. On this news, the
Company's share price fell $3.69 per share, or 23.3%, to close at
$12.13 on July 18, 2019.

Then, on Oct. 9, 2019, the Company announced that its "revenue this
quarter has been significantly impacted by a pause in shipments to
a Tier 1 customer in Latin America and the continued slowdown in
the spending at an international Tier 1 customer." On this news,
the Company's share price fell $2.10 per share, or 19.2%, to close
at $8.81 on October 10, 2019.

If you acquired ADTRAN securities, have information, or would like
to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of
Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: www.kmllp.com

Contact:

         Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney LLP
         Tel: (212) 371-6600
         Website: www.kmllp.com
         E-mail: investigations@kmllp.com
                 telrod@kmllp.com
[GN]


ADTRAN INC: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of ADTRAN, Inc. (ADTN) from February 28, 2019 through
October 9, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for ADTRAN investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the ADTRAN class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1692.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) there were material weaknesses in the Company's internal
control over financial reporting; (2) as a result, certain E&O
reserves had been improperly reported; (3) as a result, the
Company's financial results for certain periods were misstated; (4)
there would be a pause in shipments to the Company's Latin American
customer; and (5) as a result, ADTRAN's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
16, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1692.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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. [GN]




ADVANCED MICRO: $12.1MM Dickey Suit Settlement Gets Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TONY DICKEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED MICRO
DEVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-04922-HSG (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted Dickey and Paul Palmer's
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement.

The Plaintiffs bring the consumer class action against Defendant
Advanced Micro Devices ("AMD"), alleging that it engaged in
deceptive practices when it purportedly misrepresented the number
of central processing units ("CPUs") in its "Bulldozer Processors."
According to the Plaintiffs, AMD consistently advertised the
Bulldozer Processors as having eight cores to outmatch its
competitors.  However, the Bulldozer Processors allegedly did not
have eight cores, because the "cores" were actually sub-processors
that could not operate and simultaneously multitask as "actual
cores."  They contend that had they known the CPUs did not have
eight-core capabilities, they would not have purchased the
processors.

Based on those facts, the Second Amended Complaint asserts the
following six causes of action: (1) California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act; (2) California's Unfair Competition Law; (3)
California's False Advertising Law; (4) fraud in the inducement;
(5) breach of express warranties; and (6) negligent
misrepresentation.

On March 27, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The Court granted the motion, certifying the
following class:  All individuals who purchased one or more of the
following AMD computer chips either (1) while residing in
California or (2) after visiting the AMD.com website: FX-8120,
FX-8150, FX-8320, FX-8350, FX-8370, FX-9370, and FX-9590.

The Court appointed Named Plaintiffs Dickey and Parmer to represent
the class and appointed their attorneys at Edelson PC as the Class
Counsel.  

On Jan. 31, 2019, the Defendant filed a petition in the Court of
Appeals for permission to appeal the District Court's class
certification order, and the petition was denied.

The parties participated in a mediation session before the Hon.
James F. Holderman (Ret.) of JAMS in May 2019.  They were able to
reach an agreement in principle to settle the case on a class-wide
basis, and agreed to stay any pretrial and trial deadlines.
Following extensive formal discovery and with the assistance of a
mediator, the parties entered into a settlement agreement on Aug.
9, 2019.

The Settlement Class is defined as all Persons who purchased one or
more of the following AMD computer chips either (1) while residing
in California or (2) after visiting the AMD.com website: FX-8120,
FX-8150, FX-8320, FX-8350, FX-8370, FX-9370, and FX-9590.

The Defendant will make a $12.1 million non-reversionary payment.
The settlement payment includes settlement payments to the Class
Members, settlement administrative expenses estimated between
$350,000 to $700,000, incentive awards, and any attorneys' fees and
costs awards.  The individual settlement amounts are estimated to
average approximately $37.50 per purchased processor.

A third-party settlement administrator will send class notices via
U.S. mail and/or email based on information provided by certain
third-party resellers of the AMD processors at issue.  The
settlement administrator will also implement a digital media
campaign targeting approximately 6,713,000 potential purchasers.
The notice will include: the nature of the action, a summary of the
settlement terms, and instructions on how to object to and opt out
of the settlement, including relevant deadlines.

The deadline for a class member to submit a request for exclusion
is 45 days after the Notice Date and no sooner than 14 days after
papers supporting a fee award are filed with the Court and posted
to the settlement website.

The Named Plaintiffs will apply for incentive awards of no more
than $7,500.  The Class Counsel will file an application for
attorneys' fees not to exceed one third of the settlement fund
($3.63 million), as well as costs.

The Plaintiff moved for preliminary approval on Aug. 23, 2019.

Judge Gilliam preliminarily finds that the settlement agreement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate.  The Judge directed the parties to
include both a joint proposed order and a joint proposed judgment
when submitting their motion for final approval.  The Judge also
finds that the proposed notices are the best practicable forms of
notice under the circumstances.

Upon consideration, Judge Gilliam granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement.

The parties were directed to meet and confer and stipulate to a
schedule of dates for each event noted by the Court.

Judge Gilliam directed the parties to implement the proposed class
notice plan.

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

Tony Dickey & Paul Parmer, Plaintiffs, represented by Lily E.
Hough
-- lhough@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Benjamin Scott Thomassen --
bthomassen@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., Brandt Silver-Korn --
bsilverkorn@edelson.com -- Gregory Scott Dovel -- greg@dovel.com
--
Dovel and Luner, Rafey Sarkis Balabanian --
rbalabanian@edelson.com
-- Edelson PC, Simon Carlo Franzini -- simon@dovel.com -- Dovel
and
Luner & Todd M. Logan -- tlogan@edelson.com -- Edelson PC.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew
David Powers -- mpowers@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Edmundo
Clay Marquez -- cmarquez@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP & Kelsey
M. Larson -- klarson@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP


AIRBNB INC: Quebec Court to Hear Pricing Suit Settlement on Dec. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------
Global News reports that Quebec Airbnb users could be in line for
payments of up to $45 after the company reached a settlement in a
class-action lawsuit over misleading prices.

Customers represented by LPC Avocat Inc. launched the class action
case in 2017 over the company's practice of adding charges at
checkout, something the law firm said is illegal under Quebec's
Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiffs alleged Airbnb added between 13 and 17 per cent to the
total price as service fees at the last step of checkout, while
Airbnb denies the allegations and said it didn't violate the law.

As part of the settlement reached Sept. 23, any Quebec resident who
booked on the Airbnb platform between Aug. 22, 2014 and June 26,
2019 where there was a higher price at checkout than on the first
stage of browsing could be in line for the $45 payment in Airbnb
credits.

LPC Avocat says the settlement totals $3 million worth of Airbnb
credits.

The Superior Court of Quebec will hold a hearing on Dec. 3, 2019,
to determine if it will approve the settlement. [GN]


ALLERGAN INC: Doe Sues Over Risks From BIOCELL Breast Implants
--------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v.
ALLERGAN, INC. f/k/a INAMED CORPORATION; ALLERGAN USA, INC.;
ALLERFAN PLC; McGHAN MEDICAL CORPORATION and INAMED CORPORATION,
Case No. 2:19-cv-05138-PD (E.D. Pa., Nov. 1, 2019), seeks relief to
remedy the harms caused by the Defendants' sale of certain recalled
BIOCELL breast implants.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          Lori G. Kier, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
          555 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Phone: (610) 200-0580
          Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
          Email: jds@sstriallawyers.com
                 mds@sstriallawyers.com
                 jbk@sstriallawyers.com
                 lgk@sstriallawyers.com


ALLIANCE COAL: Branson Sues Over Improper Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Branson, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated v. ALLIANCE COAL, LLC, and WEBSTER COUNTY COAL,
LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-00155-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky., Nov. 1, 2019), is
brought for overtime claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act.

Mr. Branson alleges that the Defendants systematically and
willfully failed to pay him and similarly-situated employees the
correct overtime rate of pay. Instead of including an hourly amount
on account of promised bonus compensations with each employee's
hourly rate of pay as required by law before multiplying by 1.5 to
arrive at the employee's overtime rate of pay, the Defendants
illegally pretended as if the employees did not receive that bonus
compensation in calculating the overtime rate of pay, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Webster County, Kentucky, and an
employee of the Defendants.

The Defendants operated in the last five years the Dotiki coal mine
in Webster Country, Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark N. Foster, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
          P.O. Box 869
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Phone: (270) 213-1303
          Email: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com


AMERICAN BOTTLING: Guzman-Lopez Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Juan M. Guzman-Lopez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. The American Bottling Company; a Corporation;
Keurig-Dr. Pepper, Inc., and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-04358-R-GJS (C.D. Cal., Oct. 30, 2019), the
Plaintiff will move the court on Dec. 2, 2019, for an order
granting a motion for class certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule
23, and appointing Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel.[CC]

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

          Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
          Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
          KJT LAW GROUP LLP
          230 N. Maryland Ave., Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 91206
          Telephone: 818-507-8525
          E-mail: vache@kjtlawgroup.com
                  caspar@kjtlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
          ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
          4740 Calle Carga
          Camarillo, CA 93012
          Telephone: 818-425-1437
          E-mail: ca@AdamsEmploymentCounsel.com

               - and -

          Brian Short, Esq.
          Dorota A. James, Esq.
          SHORTLEGAL, APC
          350 10th Ave., Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 272-0720
          Facsimile: (619) 839-3129

AMERICAN HONDA: Woo Files Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Honda Motor
Co., Inc. The case is styled as Tony Woo, Daniel Rifkin, Douglas P.
Schwert, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-07042-DMR (N.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. manufactures and sells Honda
automobiles. It sells its products through automobile, motorcycle,
and power-equipment dealerships in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Trinette Gragirena Kent, Esq.
     Four Embarcadero Center, Ste. 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (480) 247-9644
     Fax: (480) 717-4781
     Email: tkent@lemberglaw.com


ARCBEST CORPORATION: Faces Walters et al Suit in Cal. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CHRISTI WALTERS and
GREGORY WALTERS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plainitiffs, vs. ARCBEST CORPORATION, A
DELAWARE CORPORATION; ARCBEST LOGISTICS INC,, AN ARKANSAS
CORPORATION; DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE; FAMOUS TRANSPORTS,
INC,, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION; and PANTHER II TRANSPORTATION, INC,,
AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. CGC19579980 (Cal.
Super., Oct. 15, 2019).

ArcBest Corporation is a multibillion dollar logistics company with
five subsidiaries that solve complex transportation and logistics
challenges: ABF Freight (TM), ABF Logistics (TM), Panther Premium
Logistics (TM), FleetNet America (TM) and ArcBest
Technologies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Taras P. Kick, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: 310 395.2988
          E-mail: info@kicklawfirm.com

ARCONIC INC: Court Grants Bid for Discovery in Behrens Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KRISTEN BEHRENS, ESQ., as Administratrix, et al., v.
ARCONIC, INC., et al, Civil Action No. 19-2664 (E.D. Pa.), Judge
Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (i) overruled the Arconic Defendants'
objection to producing any discovery, and (ii) granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for at least some discovery from the Arconic
Defendant.

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

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

On Sept. 13, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel against
all the Defendants asserting that the discovery which the
Plaintiffs initiated as relevant on the Defendants' Motions was not
forthcoming.  The Defendants opposed the Motion but the Plaintiffs'
reply brief stated that two of the three Defendants now have agreed
to produce some documents and produce some deposition testimony.
However, the Arconic Defendants have refused to produce any
discovery.

Judge Baylson finds that although both sides cite numerous cases
where courts have either allowed or denied discovery on a pending
motion to dismiss under the FNC doctrine, none of the cases have a
similarity to the present one, which is unique in the severity of
the injuries suffered and the number of Plaintiffs.  In a case
relied on by the Defendants decided by the Judge, Copia
Communications, LLC v. AM Resort, LP, the factual background was
totally different.

Considering the concept of proportionality, the Plaintiffs have by
far the better argument, the District Court opines.  The severity
of the tragic fire, which resulted in 72 deaths, and numerous cases
of sustained personal injury and property damage, is virtually
unprecedented.  Judge Baylson will allow the Plaintiffs fair
discovery in opposing the Defendants' Motions, but also in securing
documents and testimony located in the United States that may be
relevant on issues of liability and damages.

Many of the older cases denying discovery on the FNC doctrine were
before the era of electronically-stored information ("ESI").  Given
the ease of transferring data and information across borders, the
fact that the tragedy took place in England does not necessarily
mean that relevant information is not located in the United States.
Some documents and facts and testimony may only be available in
England, or available in the United States.  Ease of recovery,
through pretrial discovery as followed in the United States, but
not necessarily followed in England, may warrant important
discovery to take place in the Court, notwithstanding the existence
of other legal remedies, whether adequate or not, in England, the
District Court notes.

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

Judge Baylson directed the counsel for the Plaintiffs and the
Arconic Defendants commence a substantive "meet and confer" process
to determine whether a resolution can be achieved, at least on the
initial phase of document production and deposition testimony from
individuals who are knowledgeable about issues relevant to the
Defendants' Motions and/or about the ESI possessed by the Arconic
Defendants and/or available to them in the U.S.

At some point, either the Parties will agree, or the Court will
rule, what discovery is relevant before the Court decides on the
Defendants' Motions.

Although the Defendants assert that none of their products were
manufactured or sold within the United States, that fact does not
necessarily fully answer the FNC motion, but indeed is a relevant
factor.  Another relevant factor is what damages are available in
the United Kingdom.  The volume of materials submitted so far is
huge, and any quick decision is not feasible, the District Court
states.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 4, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/PMRhbo from Leagle.com.

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

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

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by LEON F. DEJULIUS,
Jr., JONES DAY, MATTHEW E. PAPEZ, JONES DAY & STEPHEN J. PEARSON,
JONES DAY.

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


AUTOZONE INC: Certification Denial in Wage&Hour Litigation Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, In re: AUTOZONE, INC., WAGE AND HOUR EMPLOYMENT
PRACTICES LITIGATION, JIMMY ELLISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
AUTOZONE INC, Defendant-Appellee; MARSHA DOLAND, successor in
interest to William Doland; individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AUTOZONE INC; DOES, 1-25, inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 17-17533, 18-55273 (9th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's denial of class certification, orders on summary judgment,
and denial of leave to amend the complaint.

Plaintiffs Ellison and Doland appealed the district court's denial
of class certification, its orders on summary judgment, and its
denial of leave to amend the complaint in the class action lawsuit
alleging wage and hour violations against AutoZone.  

AutoZone contended that the Ninth Court lacks jurisdiction over the
appeal because Ellison and Doland settled their individual claims
against AutoZone.  

The Ninth Court holds that a class representative who voluntarily
settles his individual claims may appeal the denial of class
certification so long as he retains a sufficient personal stake in
the class litigation.  Because the parties' settlement agreements
expressly reserved claims for attorney's fees and costs relating to
class certification, Ellison and Doland maintained a sufficient
personal stake in the class litigation to appeal the district
court's denial of class certification, the Ninth Circuit opines.

AutoZone argued in the alternative that even if the Ninth Circuit
can review the district court's denial of class certification, the
Ninth Circuit lacks jurisdiction over Ellison's and Doland's appeal
of the court's summary judgment orders, which were not specifically
mentioned in the parties' settlement agreements.  The Ninth Circuit
finds that the language of the agreements, however, does not
purport to limit the issues available on appeal, so AutoZone's
reliance on the agreements is misplaced.  Because the district
court entered final judgment, the court's summary judgment orders
are subject to appellate review, the Ninth Circuit holds.

The Ninth Circuit rejects Ellison's and Doland's first contention
on appeal -- namely, that the district court abused its discretion
by decertifying the rest break subclass.  The district court
concluded that Ellison and Doland had failed to show the existence
of a uniform policy denying class members rest breaks.  Without
substantial evidence of such a policy, the Ninth Circuit holds that
the district court correctly concluded that it would become
necessary to determine in each individual case why a given employee
missed a rest break, and that therefore individual, rather than
common, questions would predominate.  The district court did not
abuse its discretion by decertifying the rest break subclass, the
Ninth Circuit finds.

Nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying certification of
the meal break and off-the-clock subclasses on predominance
grounds, the Ninth Circuit states.  With respect to the meal break
subclass, Ellison and Doland presented no evidence of a uniform
policy of requiring employees to work through their meal periods.
Without such evidence, the district court's task would have
consisted of making individualized determinations regarding why any
given employee missed a meal period.

Similarly, with respect to the off-the-clock subclass, because
AutoZone had a written policy prohibiting off-the-clock work during
the class period, a determination of why some employees were
under-compensated would have entailed an employee-by-employee
analysis.  The district court therefore did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that Ellison and Doland failed to show the
existence of predominant common questions and properly denied
certification of the two subclasses, the Ninth Circuit finds.

Ellison and Doland next argued that the district court erred by
denying their motion for partial summary judgment on the rest break
claim.  They claim that they were entitled to judgment as a matter
of law on the question whether AutoZone had a uniform policy during
the class period.  But as explained by the Court, AutoZone's
evidence suggested the absence of any uniform rest break policy
during the class period.  Viewed in the light most favorable to
AutoZone, the non-moving party, such evidence created a genuine
issue of material fact regarding the existence of a uniform policy,
the Ninth Circuit says.  The district court therefore properly
denied the motion for partial summary judgment, the Ninth Circuit
finds.

Finally, Ellison's and Doland's remaining challenges on appeal
pertain to claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA"), contending that the district court abused its discretion
by denying leave to amend the complaint to reassert a cause of
action for PAGA penalties.  Because Ellison and Doland dropped
their PAGA claim in the Second Amended Complaint, AutoZone was
entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the question of PAGA
penalties.  The Ninth Circuit therefore rejects Ellison's and
Doland's second argument that the district court erred by granting
summary judgment in favor of AutoZone.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Oct. 4, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/vmX1Um from Leagle.com.


AXCESS STAFFING: Faces Wilbourn FCRA Class Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coworx Resources,
LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Elisha Wilbourn, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Axcess Staffing Services, LLC, A Foreign Limited Liability
Company; Coworx Resources, LLC, A Foreign Limited Liability
Company; Coworx Staffing Services, LLC, A Foreign Limited Liability
Company; and Coworx Personnel, LLC, A Foreign Limited Liability
Company, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04686-LMM-WEJ (N.D. Ga., Oct.
18, 2019).

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May.

Axcess Staffing Services, LLC provides as a employment agency. The
company provides placements services, staffing and other human
resource services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adeash Amarnauth Lakraj, Esq.
          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN AND MORGAN, PA
          191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4200
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 965-1909
          E-mail: alakraj@forthepeople.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Rejects Dismissal of Velez FDCA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GEORGE VELEZ and NANCY VELEZ on behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
and SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
8:18-cv-88-T-35SPF (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Sean P. Flynn of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division, (i) denied without prejudice the Defendant's Request for
Sanctions, and (ii) granted the Defendant's request as to the
motion to compel.

The Defendant initially served Interrogatories and Requests for
Production on the Plaintiffs on Sept. 11, 2018.  After numerous
attempts to obtain the Plaintiffs' discovery responses, the
Defendant filed its first Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from
the Plaintiffs, to which the Plaintiffs failed to respond.  The
Court granted the motion; ordered the Plaintiffs to serve the
Defendant with the requested discovery within 14 days of the date
of the Order; and granted the Defendant's request for costs and
attorney's fees incurred in filing the motion.

The Plaintiffs, however, failed to serve the Defendant with the
discovery within the 14-day deadline, and the Defendant filed its
Second Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from the Plaintiffs and
Request for Sanctions.  This time, the Plaintiffs responded to the
motion.  The Defendant confirmed in its Reply that as promised, the
Plaintiffs provided "a document dump of materials" as well as what
appears to be a joint response to its First Set of
Interrogatories.

The Court granted the Defendant's Second Motion to Compel and
ordered the Plaintiffs to serve the Defendant with complete
discovery responses, including proper reference to any documents
upon which they rely, within 30 days of the date of the Order.  It
additionally ordered that, within 45 days of the date of the Order,
the Defendant will file with the Court a status report regarding
the Plaintiffs' compliance, or lack thereof, with the Order, and
that, if the Defendant reports continued failure to comply with the
Court's Orders, the Plaintiffs will have 14 days from the filing of
the Defendant's status to show cause why the Court should not
recommend more stringent sanctions to the District Judge such as
dismissal of the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(b)(2).  The Court also granted the Defendant's request for costs
and attorney's fees incurred in filing the Second Motion to
Compel.

The Defendant subsequently filed a status report regarding the
Plaintiffs' continued non-compliance stating that they had provided
nothing to the Defendant or made any contact with its counsel since
entry of the Court's most recent Order.  The Court then entered a
Show Cause Order directed to the Plaintiffs as to why the action
should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's
Orders and set a Show Cause Hearing, which the Court held on May
16, 2019.

At the hearing, the Court entered an Order directing the Plaintiffs
to serve complete discovery responses by June 6, 2019, and advising
that failure to comply may result in a recommendation to the
District Judge that the case be dismissed.  It also ordered the
parties to submit a joint status report by June 13, 2019, regarding
compliance with the Order.

On June 13, 2019, the parties filed a joint status reporting
partial compliance with the Order and indicating that, while some
of the responses did a better job at identifying what was actually
being produced in response to the particular request, there were
still a number of issues with both of the Plaintiffs' updated
responses.  The Defendant's counsel attempted to resolve the
outstanding issues with the Plaintiffs and filed a Supplemental
Status Report regarding the outstanding insufficiencies.

The Defendant then filed the Request for Sanctions, and in the
Alternative, Third Motion to Compel, which is presently before the
Court.  It seeks an order dismissing the Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(b)(2)(A)(iii) & (v) and 41(b) due to the Plaintiffs' continued
pattern of willful disregard and failure to comply with the Court's
Orders in the case.  In the alternative, the Defendant requests an
order requiring the Plaintiffs to provide complete discovery
responses and enter an amended scheduling order providing the
Defendant the ability to depose the Plaintiffs once they provide
complete discovery responses and extending the dispositive motion,
pre-trial, and trial deadlines.  It also seeks an award of
attorney's fees and costs for bringing the motion.

Upon due consideration, Magistrate Judge Flynn finds that dismissal
would be an inappropriate sanction at this time.  Although the
Plaintiffs have not yet fully satisfied their discovery
obligations, they have provided answers to the Defendant's
Interrogatories and tendered discovery materials to the Defendant
in response to its Request for Production.  In addition, due to the
extension of the discovery deadline to Nov. 1, 2019, there is still
time to address the Defendant's remaining issues regarding the
Plaintiffs' responses.  As such, lesser sanctions are appropriate
such as costs and attorney's fees associated with bringing its
motion.  The Magistrate reiterates that failure to comply with the
Court's Orders may result in more severe sanctions such as a
recommendation to the District Judge of dismissal of the case.

With that in mind, the Judge turns the outstanding discovery issues
raised by the Defendant:

     A. Interrogatories:

          a. Request 1: The Defendant objects to the Plaintiffs'
             response that paragraph 43 of the Amended Complaint
             does not indicate the vacant property registration
             fee.  Paragraph 43 of the Amended Complaint does
             state, in pertinent part, "Subject to further
             discovery, the loan charges sought by SLS include
             the December 22, 2016 Vacant Property Registration
             fee."  As such, the Plaintiffs need to revise their
             response to Request #1.

          b. Request 8: If they intend to call the individuals
             listed as witnesses at trial, the Plaintiffs must
             provide contact information for those individuals
             to the Defendant.

     B. Requests for Production:

          a. Request 3: As to the portion of the Plaintiffs'
             response that "Notebooks are in process of being
             uploaded into Dropbox and you should be notified
             as each file is updated," this is insufficient.
             The Plaintiffs must either produce the documents
             or indicate that they have already produced all
             documents in their possession, custody and control
             as to that particular request.

          b. Requests 4, 7, 8, 16: The Plaintiffs must either
             produce the documents or indicate that they have
             already produced all documents in their possession,
             custody and control as to those particular requests.

          c. Requests 13, 14, 15, 27: The Plaintiffs' response
             of "Currently do not have those documents" is
             insufficient.  They must either produce the
             documents or indicate that they have already
             produced all documents in their possession, custody
             and control as to those particular requests.

          d. Request 23: The Plaintiffs claim attorney-client
             privilege as to the Defendant's request for
             production of documents related to retention of
             counsel in the litigation.  The Plaintiff is
             directed to send the responsive information to the
             Court for an in camera review.

          e. Request 31: The Plaintiffs must either produce the
             documents or indicate that they have already produced
             all documents in their possession, custody and
control
             as to those particular requests.  If they have
already
             produced the documents, they must specifically
identify
             which documents are responsive to the request and
where
             they are located in the folders provided.

          f. Request 32: The request is not related to the class
             action allegations and must be responded to by the
             Plaintiffs.  In addition, the Plaintiffs must either
             produce the documents or indicate that they have
             already produced all documents in their possession,
             custody and control as to that particular request.

          g. Requests 34, 35: The Plaintiffs must specifically
             identify which documents are responsive to the
             requests and where they are located in the folders
             provided.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Flynn (i) denied without prejudice
the Defendant's Request for Sanctions, and (ii) granted the
Defendant's request as to the motion to compel.  The Plaintiffs
were directed to serve their responses without delay.

The Magistrate granted the Defendant's request for costs and
attorney's fees incurred in filing its Request for Sanctions, and
in the Alternative, Third Motion to Compel.  

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 4, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/VQ65P9 from Leagle.com.

George Velez, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, pro se.

Nancy Velez, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, pro se.

Bank of America, NA, Defendant, represented by Allen Paige Pegg --
allen.pegg@Whoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP & Paige
Spencer Comparato -- paige.comparato@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP.

Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gabriel
Matthew Hartsell -- ghartsell@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey
Stafford, PLLC & Nicholas Mark New, II, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC.


BP AMERICA: Morrobel Class Lawsuit Dismissed with Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Terry F. Moorer of the U.S. District Cour for the Southern
District of Alabama, Southern Division, dismissed with prejudice
the case captioned CIRILO MORROBEL, Plaintiff, v. BP AMERICA
PRODUCTION COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
1:19-cv-330-TFM-MU (S.D. Ala.).

Parties to the class suit filed with the Court a Rule 41(a)
Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice.  Judge Moorer holds that
the Rules of Civil Procedure permit a plaintiff to voluntarily
dismiss the action without an order of the court by filing a notice
of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a
motion for summary judgment or a stipulation signed by all parties
who have appeared.  The joint stipulation is signed by both sides
and the Plaintiff reserves his remaining rights that he may have
under the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action
Settlement Agreement.

Consequently, by operation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, Judge Moorer
dismissed the action in accordance with the joint notice.  The
claims in the case are dismissed with prejudice with each party to
bear their own attorneys' fees and costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/qhiO5b from Leagle.com.

Cirilo Morrobel, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb Sugg --
csugg@downslawgroup.com -- Downs Law Group PA, pro hac vice, Craig
Thomas Downs -- info@downslawgroup.com -- Downs Law Group & Nathan
Lee Nelson , The Downs Law Group.

BP Exploration & Production Inc & BP America Production Company,
Defendants, represented by Harlan I. Prater, IV --
hprater@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot, Franklin & White & William
H. Morrow -- wmorrow@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot, Franklin &
White.


BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Court Denies Post-Trial Requests in Taha Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DARYOUSH TAHA, Plaintiff, v. BUCKS COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA, BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 12-6867 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the
Defendants' post-trial motions.

The certified class action arises from a decision by Defendants
Bucks County Correctional Facility ("BCCF") and Bucks County in
January 2011 to create an "Inmate Lookup Tool" ("ILT").  Through
the ILT, the Defendants published information online about 66,799
individuals who had been held or incarcerated at various times over
the course of decades at the BCCF.  

One of the individuals whose information was published, Plaintiff
Taha, filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and all persons whose
criminal history record information was made available on the ILT.
He claimed that by publishing this information, the Defendants
violated Pennsylvania's Criminal History Record Information Act
("CHRIA").

The Court granted the Plaintiff partial summary judgment on
liability.  At trial, the only issue for the jury was whether the
Defendants willfully violated the CHRIA.  At the close of evidence,
the jury returned a verdict finding the Defendants committed
willful violations and awarded each class member $1,000 in punitive
damages.

Prior to the case going to the jury, the Defendants had twice moved
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 for judgment as a
matter of law, which the Court denied in both instances.

Presently before the Court are the Defendants' post-trial motions,
including a renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, and a Motion for a New Trial
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, or, in the
alternative, a Motion for Remittitur.

The Defendants argue that with respect to the jury instruction on
willfulness, the Court should have instructed the jury that any
award of damages to the Plaintiffs was contingent upon the
Defendants possessing subjective knowledge that their conduct could
violate CHRIA, or, more specifically, that the Defendants were
subjectively aware that there was a risk that their conduct could
violate CHRIA.

Judge Beetlestone denied the Defendants' motion for a new trial.
She finds that CHRIA statute does not contain a definition of the
term "willful."  And, neither does Pennsylvania's Statutory
Construction Act.  The absence of any clear guidance on how the
word "willful" should be construed in the CHRIA, the Judge
ascertained the meaning of the legally technical term by reference
to case law.  Before trial, the Court predicted that the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court would define willfulness in the CHRIA as
a "showing of reckless disregard or indifference."

At least one Pennsylvania court has adopted the definition -- Long
v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth. -- defining willfulness as
whether the defendant either knew its actions violated the CURIA or
showed reckless disregard for their statutory duties, i e. as to
whether their actions were prohibited by statute.   The Third
Circuit recently confirmed that a statutory violation is willful if
there was a showing of "reckless disregard for the matter of
whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute."  For these
reasons, the jury instructions fairly and adequately submitted the
issues in the case to the jury.

With respect to the jury instruction regarding punitive damages,
the Defendants do not appear to be challenging the instruction
itself.  Rather, their point seems to be that the language in the
punitives instruction -- "you must consider whether the County
subjectively appreciated the risk of harm to individuals protected
by CHRIA" -- or something like it, should also have been included
in the jury instruction on willfulness.  They argue that by
including the language in the former, but not including it in the
latter, the jury may have been led to conclude that a subjective
appreciation of the risk was not relevant to the threshold question
of whether the Defendants' actions were willful.  But, if that was
the case, that was exactly the conclusion they should have reached
because, as set forth, it is the correct one.

The Judge holds that even if the Defendants are challenging the
punitives instructions, the argument has been waived.  While the
Defendants did make several objections to the jury instructions
during the charging conferences at trial, they failed to object to
the inclusion of the "subjective appreciation" language in the
punitive damages instruction at the proper time, as Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 51(c) requires.  Even assuming the objection is not
waived and the Court erred in instructing the jury, any error was
harmless because it is highly probable that the error did not
contribute to the judgment.  Thus, inclusion of the "subjective
appreciation of the risk of harm" language in the punitive damages
instruction did not prejudice the Defendants. In short, the charge,
even if any objection to it is not waived and even if erroneous,
was harmless error.

Next, the Defendants assert that they are entitled to judgment as a
matter of law or, in the alternative, a new trial, because the
trial record lacked evidence from which a jury might reasonably
conclude that the Defendants committed a willful violation.  The
Judge holds that the Defendants have not shown that the "great
weight of the evidence" is contrary to the verdict.

Judge Beetlestone finds that (i) the Defendants' lack of intent to
violate the CHRIA is not relevant to the jury's determination of
willfulness; (ii) the body of testimony provides a sufficient basis
to conclude that the Defendants understood the need for
confidentiality and had concerns about publicly posting
confidential information, but they forwent legal advice; (iii) the
Defendants cannot now use the Handbook to justify their conduct;
(iv) the testimony regarding cursory review of other counties'
practices could support a jury's finding that the Defendants were
recklessly indifferent to their statutory obligations; and (v) the
Defendants make no new arguments, instead pointing to the arguments
they made on the weight of the evidence in seeking judgment as a
matter of law.

Next, the Defendants argue for a new trial by challenging four of
the Court's evidentiary rulings: (1) allowing the Plaintiff to
present evidence and testimony related to expunged records; (2)
admitting evidence and testimony regarding FBI and State ID
numbers; (3) limiting the scope of the Defendants' expert witness's
testimony regarding the criminal justice community; and (4)
allowing Plaintiff's expert to testify to the nature and extent of
the victims' harm as it related to punitive damages.

The Judge finds that (i) there was no error in the Court's
admission of expunged records; (ii) the fact that Taha himself did
not have the FBI and State ID numbers (because he did not have a
criminal history and, thus, had not been assigned them) is of no
consequence in that if he had been assigned numbers, they would
have been put up on the ILT along with all of the other information
about him; (iii) the Court properly limited the scope of Snook's
testimony; and (iv) the admission of Lageson's testimony was
proper.  Therefore, the Judge denied the Defendants' motion for a
new trial on this basis.

In the alternative to a request for a new trial, the Defendants
move for remittitur on the ground that the jury's award was
excessive and inconsistent with the evidence.  The Judge finds that
contrary to the Defendants' argument that the jury's award violates
the Third Circuit's directive that any punitive damages imposed be
reasonable, the jury awarded the minimum statutory damages
authorized by the Pennsylvania legislature in the CHRIA.  By
awarding an amount within the statutory range, the jury ensured
there was a rational relationship between the specific injury
sustained and the amount awarded.  Given the dictates and the set
of circumstances at issue, an award of $1,000 per violation -- the
minimum award required under the statute for a willful violation --
does not shock the conscience and is not "plainly excessive and
exorbitant."  Accordingly, Judge Bettlestone denied the Defendants'
request for remittitur.  

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 4, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/lXU57D from Leagle.com.

DARYOUSH TAHA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by ALAN E. DENENBERG, ABRAMSON &
DENENBERG, JONATHAN SHUB -- jshub@kohnswift.com -- KOHN SWIFT &
GRAF PC, JOSEPH C. KOHN -- jkohn@kohnswift.com -- KOHN SWIFT &
GRAF
PC, KEVIN LAUKAITIS -- klaukaitis@kohnswift.com -- KOHN SWIFT &
GRAF PC & ROBERT J. LAROCCA -- rlarocca@kohnswift.com -- KOHN
SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.

BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA & BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Defendants, represented by FRANK A. CHERNAK -- fchernak@mmwr.com
--
MONTGOMERY McCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS LLP, BURT M. RUBLIN -- RUBLIN
BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP & ERIN
K. CLARKE -- eclarke@mmwr.com -- Montgomery McCracken Walker &
Rhoads LLP.

BENSALEM TOWNSHIP, Cross Claimant, represented by KATHRYN A. DUX,
GERMAN GALLAGHER & MURTAGH.

BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, TERRANCE P. MOORE, BUCKS COUNTY
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WARDEN & WILLIAM F. PLAINTIER, BUCKS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, Cross Defendants, represented
by ERIN K. CLARKE, Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP.

FRANK NOONAN, PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE COMMISSIONER, Cross
Defendant, represented by BARRY N. KRAMER, PA OFFICE OF ATTY
GENERAL.


CADENCE BANCORPORATION: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Cadence Bancorporation (NYSE: CADE)
from July 23, 2018 through July 22, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important November 15, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline
in securities class action lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Cadence investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Cadence class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1630.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Cadence lacked adequate internal controls to assess
credit risk; (2) certain of Cadence's loans posed an increased risk
of loss; (3) Cadence was reasonably likely to incur significant
losses for certain loans; (4) Cadence's financial results would
suffer a material adverse impact; and (5) as a result, Cadence's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
15, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1630.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact:

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



CAPITAL ONE: Brodsky & Smith Notes of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith, LLC reminds investors of important deadlines for
lead plaintiff application regarding class action lawsuits against
CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION (COF) for violations of federal
securities laws. If you purchased any of the below-listed stocks
during the referenced time periods and want to discuss your legal
rights, please contact Marc Ackerman, Esquire or Jordan Schatz,
Esquire at 877-534-2590. There is no cost or financial obligation
to you.

CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION (COF)

Shares purchased between February 2, 2018 and July 29, 2019

Deadline: December 2, 2019

On July 29, 2019, Capital One announced in a press release that it
had suffered a data breach affecting over 106 million individuals
in the United States and Canada. On this news, shares of Capital
One fell $5.71 or nearly 5.9% to close at $91.21 on July 30 2019.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company did not maintain robust information security
protections, and its protection did not shield personal information
against security breaches; (2) such deficiencies heightened the
Company's exposure to a cyber-attack; and (3) as a result, Capital
One's public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Additional information can be found at
http://www.brodskysmith.com/cases/capital-one-financial-corporation-nyse-cof/,
or call 877-534-2590. No cost or obligation to you.

Brodsky & Smith, LLC is a litigation law firm with extensive
expertise representing shareholders throughout the nation in
securities and class action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky &
Smith have been appointed by numerous courts throughout the country
to serve as lead counsel in class actions and have successfully
recovered millions of dollars for our clients and shareholders.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]


CAPITAL ONE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded company
Capital One Financial Corporation (COF). To determine your
eligibility and get free access to our shareholder support tools
that provide you with case updates, automated loss calculations and
claims recovery assistance, please contact the firm via the links
below. There will be no cost or obligation to you.

Capital One Financial Corporation (COF)

Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 2, 2018 -
July 29, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 2, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/capital-one-financial-corporation-loss-form?prid=3978&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Capital
One Financial Corporation made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company did not
maintain robust information security protections, and its
protection did not shield personal information against security
breaches; (2) such deficiencies heightened the Company's exposure
to a cyber-attack; and (3) as a result, Capital One's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

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

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

CONTACT:

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

CAREERBUILDER LLC: Fongers Sues Over Failure to Pay Commissions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Fongers, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. CAREERBUILDER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, INC. a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 2019CH12804 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Nov. 1, 2019), seeks
redress for the Defendants' unlawful failure to pay commissions
owed to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff and other CareerBuilder sales representatives were
paid monthly commissions of 4% of monthly net revenue recognized on
the sale of most CareerBuilder products and services. The Plaintiff
notes that CareerBuilder's new compensation plan applied
retroactively, meaning that sales representatives, who were
promised a commission of 4% on revenue from sales made under the
prior compensation plan were now going to be stripped of those
commissions and only paid a lesser amount (if anything) instead.
Then, in July 2019, CareerBuilder announced that it was changing
its compensation plan yet again, and reducing all commission for
sales made prior to implementation of the new plan to 0% for the
Plaintiff and other sales representative in his sales group. In
other words, these employees would be completely unable to recover
past commissions that they were still owed.

CareerBuilder's actions are not only unlawful under the Illinois
law, they are also unethical, unscrupulous, and have cause concrete
harm to its employees, the Plaintiff contends. In addition to
breaching their compensation contracts with the Plaintiff, the
Defendants have also violated the Illinois Sales Representative
Act, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Benjamin Fongers has been employed by the Defendants as
an inside sales representative.

CareerBuilder is a global technology company that operates the job
search website http://www.careerbuilder.com/.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Paul T. Geske, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 893-7002
          Fax: (312) 275-7895
          Email: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                 pgeske@mcgpc.com


CBL CORPORATION: 2 Shareholders Lead Class Suit vs. Ex-Directors
----------------------------------------------------------------
RNZ News reports that two shareholders of failed insurance firm
company CBL are leading a class action against the firm's former
directors seeking compensation for financial losses.

CBL Corporation was worth almost $750 million on the stock exchange
when it collapsed abruptly last year.

Institutional investor Harbour Asset Management along with
Australian-based Argo Investments were named as representative
plaintiffs in the class action, which was being funded by LPF
Group.

"The directors of CBL need to be held to account, and the out of
pocket shareholders must be compensated.

"Legal action is the only way shareholders can get any money back,"
said Andrew Bascand, the managing director of Harbour Asset
Managerment.

The parties said a number of other institutional shareholders had
also indicated their interest to sign up as plaintiffs in the
action.

The legal action would claim there were false or misleading
statements made in CBL's offer documents in September 2015, and
would allege ongoing breaches of the continuous disclosure
obligations.

CBL's directors have previously said the company could have been
saved by a restructuring plan, which was blocked by regulators.
[GN]



CHEMOURS COMPANY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded The Chemours
Company (CC). To determine your eligibility and get free access to
our shareholder support tools that provide you with case updates,
automated loss calculations and claims recovery assistance, please
contact the firm via the links below. There will be no cost or
obligation to you.

The Chemours Company (CC)

Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 16, 2017 -
August 1, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 9, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/the-chemours-company-loss-form?prid=3978&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, The
Chemours Company made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Chemours had not appropriately
accounted and accrued reserves for its environmental liabilities;
(2) the possibility of costs exceeding accrued amounts was greater
than the Company had represented to a point that could be material;
(3) the Company's policies, standards and procedures were not
properly designed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm to people
and the environment (4) Chemours' handling, manufacture, use, and
disposal of hazardous substances was not in accordance with
applicable environmental laws and regulations; and (5) as a result
of these misrepresentations, Chemours shares traded at artificially
inflated prices.

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

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

CONTACT:

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



CHEMOURS COMPANY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. To determine your eligibility and get
free access to our shareholder support tools that provide you with
case updates, automated loss calculations and claims recovery
assistance, please contact the firm via the links below. There will
be no cost or obligation to you.

Meredith Corporation (MDP)
Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased January 31, 2018 -
September 5, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 5, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/meredith-corporation-loss-form?prid=3987&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Meredith
Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Time, Inc. acquisition was
not as profitable as the Company had claimed; (2) the Company would
incur additional costs for strategic investments to improve the
Time business; (3) as a result, the Company's earnings would be
materially and adversely impacted; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

The Chemours Company (CC)
Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 16, 2017 -
August 1, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 9, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/the-chemours-company-loss-form?prid=3987&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, The
Chemours Company made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Chemours had not appropriately
accounted and accrued reserves for its environmental liabilities;
(2) the possibility of costs exceeding accrued amounts was greater
than the Company had represented to a point that could be material;
(3) the Company's policies, standards and procedures were not
properly designed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm to people
and the environment (4) Chemours' handling, manufacture, use, and
disposal of hazardous substances was not in accordance with
applicable environmental laws and regulations; and (5) as a result
of these misrepresentations, Chemours shares traded at artificially
inflated prices.

Ruhnn Holding Limited (RUHN)
Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased all persons or
entities who purchased Ruhnn American Depositary Shares pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's April 3, 2019 initial public
offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 6, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ruhnn-holding-limited-loss-form?prid=3987&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) at the time of the initial
public offering ("IPO"), the number of Ruhnn's online stores had
declined by nearly 40%; (2) at the time of the IPO, the number of
Ruhnn's full-service Key Opinion Leaders had declined by nearly
44%; (3) as a result, the Company's net revenues derived from its
full-service segment had declined by 46% on a sequential basis; and
(3) as a result, defendants' statements about Ruhnn's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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

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

CONTACT:

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



COMMONWEALTH BANK: Slater and Gordon Files Excessive Fees Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Commonwealth Bank's superannuation arm has been hit with another
class action relating to the fees it charged customers for
financial advice.

Slater and Gordon filed action in the Federal Court on October 18
accusing Colonial First State of charging excess fees and
commissions to clients in its FirstChoice super fund.

The law firm alleges that since 2013 Colonial failed to act in the
best interests of its members and acted unconscionably by charging
them higher fees to charge commissions to financial advisers.

It is the second class action to hit CBA in a matter of days. The
bank's Colonial superannuation arm was hit with a class action from
lawyers at Maurice Blackburn on October 17 for allegedly failing to
transfer customers to the low-cost MySuper product by the mandated
time.

Earlier this year, Colonial reduced the fees paid by 500,000
customers in a range of its FirstChoice and FirstWrap products.
Commissions to financial advisers were banned in 2013 for new
members.

"Ever since, Colonial continued to pay commissions with respect to
existing members under what became known as the 'grandfathering
exception', and because of this it continued charging those members
higher fees," Slater and Gordon special counsel Nathan Rapoport
said.

"The Hayne report found there was no justification for continuing
to pay commissions to financial advisers. We agree."

"Paying these commissions - and as a result charging members higher
fees - ripped hundreds of millions of dollars out of members'
retirement savings to profit the financial advisers or the
licensees they worked for who were not required to provide any
services in exchange."

The Commonwealth Bank confirmed it had received the claim.

It said in a statement late October 18 to the ASX: "CBA and CFSIL
(Colonial First State Investments Limited) are reviewing the claim
and will provide any update as required." [GN]



CONDUENT STATE: Faces Yang Class Suit in California Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conduent State &
Local Solutions Inc. The case is captioned as Kalia Yang, on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Conduent State &
Local Solutions Inc., Defendant, Case No.
34-2019-00267176-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Oct. 18, 2019).

The suit alleges violation of employment related laws.

The Defendant develops computer software and packaging.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          WILLIAM MARDER ATTORNEY AT LAW
          Web site: http://www.williammarderattorneyatlaw.com/
          Telephone: (831) 637-5521

               - and -

          Dennis Sangwon Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL, APC
          515 S Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com


CONTINENTAL GENERAL: Court OKs Class Settlement Deal
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
issued an Order granting Preliminary Approval of the Settlement
Agreement in the case captioned JOHN FASTRICH and UNIVERSAL
INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC. and REGINALD J. GOOD D/B/A REGINALD J.
GOOD AGENCY, Plaintiffs, v. CONTINENTAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
GREAT AMERICAN FINANCIAL RESOURCE, INC., AMERICAN FINANCIAL GROUP,
INC., LOYAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and AMERICAN
RETIREMENT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. Case No.
1:17-cv-00615-MRB. (S.D. Ohio)

This matter   before the Court, pursuant to the Order Preliminarily
Approving Settlement, for the purpose of determining: (i) whether
the settlement of this action, on the terms and conditions set
forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement between
Plaintiffs and Defendants (Settlement Agreement) should be finally
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best
interests of the Class.  

For settlement purposes only, the Court finds that the requirements
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are met and
certifies the following Settlement Class, as defined as follows:

all persons or entities that, from October 25, 2011 through the
Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement, lost or otherwise were
not paid commissions that were or would have been payable on, or
attributable to, insurance policies or products issued or sold by
the Defendants or Releasees as a result of Defendants or their
affiliates': (1) failing to pay Commissions on premiums paid by
policyholders due to premium rate increases on long-term care
insurance policies (2) failing to properly calculate and/or pay
Commissions in accordance with the vesting provisions of any
agreement(s) with any Defendants or (3) replacing any person or
entity as the agent of record in connection with a sale of any
insurance policy; provided, however, that Settlement Class or Class
Members shall not include: (i) persons or entities that previously
released any of the Claims raised in the Nebraska Action or the
Producer Class Action(ii) Defendants or (iii) Releasees. Also
excluded from the Settlement Class are the persons and/or entities
who request exclusion from the Settlement Class within the time
period set by this Order.

The Court finds and concludes that for settlement purposes the
certification of the Settlement Class is warranted in light of the
Settlement under the prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) because: (1) the Members of the Settlement Class
are so numerous that joinder is impracticable (2) there are issues
of law and fact common to the Settlement Class (3) Plaintiffs'
claims are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class Members
and (4) Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel will fairly and
adequately represent the interests of the Settlement Class
Members.

The Court finds and concludes that for settlement purposes the
certification of the Settlement Class is warranted in light of the
Settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) because
common issues predominate over any questions affecting only
individual Members of the Settlement Class, and settlement of this
Action on a class basis is superior to other means of resolving the
Action.

In making these findings, the Court has considered, inter alia, (1)
the interests of the Settlement Class Members in individually
controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions (2) the
impracticality or inefficiency of prosecuting or defending separate
actions (3) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning
these claims already commenced and (4) the desirability of
concentrating the litigation of the claims in a particular forum.

The Court has personal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs, all Members of
the Settlement Class, Defendants, and the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction to approve the Settlement Agreement.

Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Court finds
that notice has been given to Class Members pursuant to and in
compliance with the Preliminary Approval Order and the Settlement
Agreement, and that the notice and the notice methodology adopted
pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order and the Settlement
Agreement was reasonable and the best notice practicable, satisfied
due process requirements; and provided Class Members with fair and
adequate notice of the certification of the Settlement Class and of
the Settlement Fairness Hearing; provided adequate information
concerning the hearing, the right to be excluded from the
Settlement Class, the settlement, and the right of counsel for
Plaintiffs to apply for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

Accordingly, the Notice and the Claim Form are finally approved as
fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The Court finds and concludes that due and adequate notice of the
pendency of this Action and of the Settlement Agreement has been
provided to Members of the Settlement Class, and the Court further
finds and concludes that notice of the settlement as described in
the Preliminary Approval Order and completed by the Parties
complied fully with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 and the requirements of due process under the Unites
States Constitution.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs and counsel for Plaintiffs and the
Settlement Class, Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, P.C.,
RoscaLaw LLC, Peiffer Wolf Carr & Kane, APLC, and Whitfield & Eddy
P.L.C. have fairly and adequately represented the interests of the
Settlement Class.

The Allocation Plan is approved as fair and reasonable, and in the
best interests of the Class, and Class Counsel and Strategic Claims
Services are directed to administer the Settlement Agreement in
accordance with its terms and provisions. Disbursements of the
Settlement Funds to eligible Class Members who timely submit proper
Claim forms shall be made by Strategic Claims Services in the
manner, within the time periods, and under the terms and conditions
provided in the Settlement Agreement and Allocation Plan.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s October 7, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/y5h7kxqq from Leagle.com

John Fastrich & Universal Investment Services, Inc., Plaintiffs,
represented by James Paul Booker-  jbooker@pwcklegal.com - Peiffer
Rosca Wolf Abdullah Carr & Kane, 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100,
West Des Moines, IA 50265, Lydia M. Floyd , Brandon M. Bohlman ,
Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, PC, 5015 Grand Ridge Drive,
Suite 100, West Des Moines, IA 50265, pro hac vice, Brian O. Marty
, Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, PC, 5015 Grand Ridge Drive,
Suite 100, West Des Moines, IA 50265, pro hac vice, J. Barton
Goplerud , Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, PC, 5015 Grand
Ridge Drive, Suite 100, West Des Moines, IA 50265, pro hac vice,
Thomas S. Reavely - reavely@whitfieldlaw.com - WHITFIELD & EDDY,
P.L.C., pro hac vice & Alan L. Rosca - rosca@lawgsp.com - RoscaLaw
LLC.

Reginald J. Good, doing business as Reginald J. Good Agency,
Plaintiff, represented by James Paul Booker , Peiffer Rosca Wolf
Abdullah Carr & Kane, Brian O. Marty , Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud
& Weese, PC, pro hac vice, J. Barton Goplerud , Shindler, Anderson,
Goplerud & Weese, PC, pro hac vice, Thomas S. Reavely , WHITFIELD &
EDDY, P.L.C., pro hac vice & Alan L. Rosca , RoscaLaw LLC.
Great American Financial Resources, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Brian P. Muething  - bmuething@kmklaw.com - Keating Muething &
Klekamp, Jacob DeNiro Rhode -  jrhode@kmklaw.com - Keating Muething
& Klekamp PLL & James R. Matthews  - jmatthews@kmklaw.com - Keating
Muething & Klekamp.

Continental General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Susanne M. Cetrulo - Susanne@cetrulolaw.com - Cetrulo, Mowery &
Hicks, PSC, Sheldon E. Eisenberg - sheldon.eisenberg dbr.com -
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, pro hac vice & Steven H. Brogan ,
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, 1800 Century Park East, Suite 1400 Los
Angeles, California 90067-1517, pro hac vice.


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Brunett's Bid to Certify Class Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lynn Adelman denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit titled DARLENE BRUNETT v. CONVERGENT
OUTSOURCING INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00168-LA (E.D. Wisc.).

Judge Adelman also ruled that: the Plaintiff's motion for leave to
file supplemental authority is granted; the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment is granted; and the Clerk of Court shall enter
final judgment accordingly.

Darlene Brunett filed this putative class action against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc., alleging that a collection letter it sent her
contained language that violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act ("FDCPA").

Because she has not provided and appears unwilling to provide
evidence of an essential element of her claim, Ms. Brunett has not
shown that she will adequately protect the interests of the
proposed class, Judge Adelman opines.  Hence, the Court denies Ms.
Brunett's motion for class certification.

Judge Adelman also opines that Ms. Brunett's claim fails as a
matter of law for the same reason that she failed to establish her
adequacy as a class representative: she has not presented extrinsic
evidence that might convince a trier of fact of the notice's
misleading nature.  Because the Plaintiff has not presented such
evidence, she cannot survive the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment, Judge Adelman stated.[CC]


CS MARKETING: Barnes Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Campaign
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANNETTE BARNES, MELISSA COOPER, ALFREDO CORTES, NANCY HADDEY,
KENTRELL HILLS, EDWARD MOSS, DESIREE NIEGSCH, MAIQUEL RODRIGUEZ,
and DEREK WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. CS MARKETING LLC, HEALTH INSURANCE
INNOVATIONS, INC., INSURANCE CARE DIRECT, INC., MANAGED BENEFIT
SERVICES, LLC, MHP INSURANCE SOLUTIONS LLC, SIMPLE HEALTH PLANS
LLC, USHEALTH ADVISORS, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-24218-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., Oct. 11, 2019), seeks to hold the Defendants accountable for
their violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act though a
nationwide telemarketing campaign designed to sell health insurance
to consumers.

The Plaintiffs bring this action to enforce the consumer-privacy
provisions of the TCPA.  They allege that the Defendants
commissioned automated telemarketing calls to them and other class
members without their prior express written consent.  Each of the
calls were made pursuant to an agreement between the Defendants and
non-party, All Web Leads, Inc., a company that the Defendants hired
to make telemarketing calls on their behalf and for their benefit.

CS Marketing is a limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.  Health Insurance
Innovations is a corporation with its principal place of business
in Tampa, Florida.  Insurance Care Direct is a corporation with its
principal place of business in Deerfield Beach, Florida.

MBS is a limited liability company with its principal place of
business in Carlsbad, California.  MHP Insurance is a limited
liability company with its principal place of business in San
Diego, California.  Simple Health is a limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Hollywood, Florida.
USHealth is a limited liability company with its principal place of
business in Fort Worth, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Cox, Esq.
          James D. Sallah, Esq.
          SALLAH ASTARITA & COX, LLC
          3010 North Military Trail, Suite 210
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 989-9080
          Facsimile: (561) 989-9020
          E-mail: jlc@sallahlaw.com
                  jds@sallahlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: (312) 283-3814
          Facsimile: (773) 496-8617
          E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com


DELTA DENTAL: Benton Sues Over Dental Insurance Monopsony
---------------------------------------------------------
B. Kyle Benton, P.A. v. Delta Dental Insurance Company, et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-06739 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 11, 2019), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated accusing
the Defendants of restricting competition in the market for dental
insurance.

The Defendants are Delta Dental Insurance Company; DeltaCare USA;
Delta USA Inc.; Delta Dental Plans Association; Delta Dental
Insurance Company Alabama; Delta Dental of Alaska; Delta Dental of
Arizona; Delta Dental of Arkansas; Delta Dental of California;
Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Connecticut; Delta Dental
of Delaware; Delta Dental of the District of Columbia; Delta Dental
of Florida; Delta Dental Insurance Company–Georgia; Hawaii Dental
Service; Delta Dental of Idaho; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta
Dental of Indiana; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of Kansas;
Delta Dental of Kentucky; Delta Dental Insurance
Company–Louisiana; Delta Dental of Maryland; Delta Dental of
Massachusetts; Delta Dental of Michigan; Delta Dental of Minnesota;
Delta Dental Insurance Company-Mississippi; Delta Dental of
Missouri; Delta Dental Insurance Company–Montana; Delta Dental of
Nebraska; Delta Dental Insurance Company–Nevada; Delta Dental of
New Jersey; Delta Dental of New Mexico; Delta Dental of New York;
Delta Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental of North Dakota;
Northeast Delta Dental (of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont); Delta
Dental of Ohio; Delta Dental of Oklahoma; Delta Dental of Oregon;
Delta Dental of Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico; Delta
Dental of Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Carolina; Delta
Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of Tennessee; Delta Dental
Insurance Company–Texas; Delta Dental Insurance Company–Utah;
Delta Dental of Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental
of West Virginia; Delta Dental of Wisconsin; and Delta Dental of
Wyoming.

The case involves Delta Dental's aggregation of unlawful monopsony
power in the market for dental insurance across the United States.
The Plaintiff alleges that Delta Dental secured this power through
its artificial territorial division of that market among the Delta
Dental State Insurers (which are all the Defendants except the
Association), and is abusing it to: (1) restrict competition
between the Delta Dental State Insurers when operating under the
"Delta Dental" brand (the "Market Allocation Conspiracy"); (2)
reduce the amounts of reimbursement paid by the Delta Dental State
Insurers to the dentists and dental practices, who provide services
to patients under Delta Dental insurance plans (the "Price Fixing
Conspiracy"), and (3) restrict competition between the Delta Dental
State Insurers when operating under non-"Delta Dental" brands (the
"Revenue Restriction Conspiracy").

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

Acting as a concerted entity, the Defendants are now the largest
providers of insurance for dental services in the U.S., and have
approximately 200,000 dental locations across the U.S.  By carving
the 50 U.S. States into 39 exclusive territories in which the Delta
Dental State Insurers are guaranteed to be free from competition
from other Delta Dental State Insurers, the Delta Dental State
Insurers have each secured monosopony control within their assigned
territories, and Defendants as a group have secured monosopony
control over the market for dental insurance across the U.S. Absent
the monopsony powers and territorial protections secured to
Defendants by the Market Allocation Conspiracy, dental plan
sponsors and members would have greater choice as to the dental
insurance they choose to purchase, and the Delta Dental Providers
would have greater choice in the dental insurance they choose to
accept from their patients, the Plaintiff contends.

Delta Dental Plans Association is located in Oak Brook, Illinois.
Delta Dental Plans Association is comprised of and managed by a
network of the Delta Dental State Insurers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


DERMA LASER: Koven TCPA Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elyse Koven, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DERMA LASER CENTER, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Case No. 1:19-cv-24523-XXXX (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2019), is
brought against the Defendant to secure redress for violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, says the
complaint. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted
in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption
of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also
seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the
class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a resident of Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Defendant is a medical facility that specializes in aesthetic
medical procedures.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


DIAMOND RESORTS: Securities Litigation Stayed Amid Settlement Talks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada stayed the case IN RE DIAMOND RESORTS
INTERNATIONAL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-01355-APG-EJY (D. Nev.).

Defendant Stephen J. Cloobeck filed his answer to the Amended
Complaint on March 25, 2019.  Defendants Diamond Resorts
International, Inc., David J. Berkman, Richard M. Daley, Frankie
Sue Del Papa, Jeffrey W. Jones, David Palmer, Hope S. Taitz,
Zachary D. Warren, Robert Wolf, and Jared T. Finkelstein moved to
dismiss the action on May 9, 2019, which motion remains pending.

The counsel for the Plaintiffs, the counsel for the Defendants, and
the counsel for the plaintiff in another putative class action
(related to the events at issue in the action) in the Delaware
Court of Chancery entitled Appel v. Berkman, C.A. No. 12844-VCMR,
have been engaged in discussions concerning a settlement that would
resolve both the action and the Delaware Action.  The discussions
concerning settlement have included discussion of the possibility
of administering a single settlement through the Delaware Action,
subject to approval by the court in the Delaware Action.

The parties, by and between their attorneys to the action, have
stipulated and Magistrate Judge Youchah approved that upon the
entry of their stipulation by the Court, the action is stayed.  In
addition, if any party moves the Court requesting the stay be
lifted, the Court will lift the stay.  For the avoidance of doubt,
the Court may also lift the stay at any time sua sponte.  The
counsel for the Class will file a letter updating the Court on the
status of settlement discussions promptly upon any settlement being
finally approved by any court or four months from the date the
stipulation is entered by the Court, whichever is sooner.

The stipulation does not admit or imply anything about any party's
ultimate willingness to settle the action, aside from the fact that
good faith discussions concerning settlement have occurred.  The
parties to the stipulation believe that staying the action would be
a prudent use of judicial resources.

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

In re Diamond Resorts International, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Plaintiff, represented by Mark Albright -- gma@albrightstoddard.com
-- Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright.

Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Pension Fund,
Plaintiff, represented by Mark Albright, Albright Stoddard Warnick
& Albright, Christopher Joseph Keller -- ckeller@labaton.com --
Labaton Sucharow LLP, Eric J. Belfi -- ebelfi@labaton.com --
Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Francis P. McConville --
fmcconville@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice &
Jorge L. Alvarez, Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright.

ODS Capital LLC, Designated Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented
by Jo Ann Palchak, The Law Office of Jo Ann Palchak, P.A., pro hac
vice & Mark Albright, Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright.

Nantahala Capital Management LLC, Designated Lead Plaintiff,
Plaintiff, represented by Carol Cecilia Villegas, Labaton Sucharow
LLP, pro hac vice, David J. Schwartz, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac
vice, Jake Bissell-Linsk, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Mark Albright,
Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright, Christopher Joseph Keller,
Labaton Sucharow LLP, Eric J. Belfi, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac
vice & Francis P. McConville, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice.

Diamond Resorts International, Inc. & Jared T. Finkelstein,
Defendants, represented by John S. Delikanakis --
jdelikanakis@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer LLP, Lewis R. Clayton --
lclayton@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Paretti -- mparetti@swlaw.com -- Snell &
Wilmer, LLP, Robert N. Kravitz -- rkravitz@paulweiss.com -- Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice & David L.
Edelblute -- dedelblute@swlaw.com -- c/o Snell & Wilmer.

David Berkman, Defendant, represented by Alan Stone, Milbank LLP,
pro hac vice, Scott Edelman, Milbank LLP, pro hac vice, Todd L.
Bice, Pisanelli Bice PLLC, Ava M. Schaefer, Pisanelli Bice &
Maximilien Fetaz, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.

Stephen J Cloobeck, Defendant, represented by James Joseph
Jimmerson, The Jimmerson Law Firm, P.C. & James M. Jimmerson, The
Jimmerson Law Firm, P.C.

Richard M. Daley, Defendant, represented by Adam K. Bult,
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck & Maximilien Fetaz, Brownstein
Hyatt Farber Schreck.

Frankie Sue Del Papa, Jeffrey W Jones, David Palmer, Hope S Taitz,
Zachary D Warren & Robert Wolf, Defendants, represented by Adam K.
Bult, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Brad Schoenfeldt, Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Brian M. Lutz, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Jefferson E. Bell, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Maximilien Fetaz, Brownstein Hyatt
Farber Schreck & Mitchell A. Karlan, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
pro hac vice.


DJM LOGISTICS: Marquez, et. al Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ERIC MARQUEZ AND BLAINE
SCHULTZ, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED
PLAINTIFFS, KNOWN AND UNKNOWN, the Plaintiff, v. DJM LOGISTICS, LLC
D/B/A MOLO SOLUTIONS, AN ILLINOIS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ANDREW
SILVER, INDIVIDUALLY AND MATTHEW VOGRICH, INDIVIDUALLY, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01264 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to grant their motion for stage-one conditional
certification and notice to putative class members.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

         John W. Billhorn, Esq.
         BILLHORN LAW FIRM
         53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Telephone: (312) 853-1450
         E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com

DMG MORI: Bebault, et al. Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BRANDON BEBAULT, STEVEN
ARNOLD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. DMG MORI USA, INC, an Illinois Corporation, and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02373-JD
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on Dec. 19, 2019,
for an Order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all natural persons residing in the United States
      (including all territories and other political subdivisions
      of the United States) who were the subject of a consumer
      report that was procured by Defendant (or that Defendant
      caused to be procured) within five years of the filing of
      this Complaint through the date of final judgment in this
      action under FCRA, 15 U.S.C. section 1681p."

   2. authorizing Plaintiffs to send Notice pursuant to Rule 23
      (in a form to be approved by the Court after a conference
      with defense counsel); and

   3. appointing Desai Law Firm, P.C., and Aashish Y. Desai and
      Adrianne De Castro, as class counsel, and the Plaintiffs as
      Class Representatives.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
          Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
          DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3200 Bristol St., Suite 650
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 614-5830
          Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
          E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com
                  adrianne@desai-law.com

DOMO INC: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Domo, Inc. (NASDAQ: DOMO) and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
District of Utah, and indexed under 19-cv-00781, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Domo common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
("IPO" or "Offering") commenced on or around June 29, 2018; or (b)
Domo securities between June 28, 2018 and September 5, 2019, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims
against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Domo common stock traceable
to the IPO commenced on or around June 29, 2018; or (b) Domo
securities between June 28, 2018, and September 5, 2019, you have
until December 16, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Domo was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in American Fork,
Utah. The Company was formerly known as Domo Technologies, Inc. and
changed its name to Domo, Inc. in December 2011. The Company
operates a cloud-based platform in the United States that
purportedly digitally connects everyone from the chief executive
officer to the frontline employee with the people, data, and
systems in an organization, giving them access to real-time data
and insights, and allowing them to manage business from
smartphones.

On June 1, 2018, Domo filed a registration statement on Form S-1
with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after amendment,
was declared effective by the SEC on June 28, 2018 (the
"Registration Statement"). On June 29, 2018, Domo filed a
prospectus in connection with the IPO on Form 424B4 (the
"Prospectus"), which incorporated and formed part of the
Registration Statement (collectively, the "Offering Documents"). On
or around June 29, 2018, pursuant to the IPO, Domo's Class B common
stock began trading on the Nasdaq Global Market ("NASDAQ"). On July
3, 2018, Domo closed the IPO, in which the Company issued and sold
10,580,000 shares of Class B common stock at $21.00 per share.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Domo was experiencing weakness in its enterprise and international
businesses; (ii) Domo's billings growth had dramatically slowed;
(iii) all of the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material
negative impact on the Company's financial results; and (iv) as a
result, the Offering Documents were materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein and the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 5, 2019, during after-market hours, Domo issued a
press release announcing its financial results for the second
quarter of 2020. Although Domo reported positive earnings news, the
Company also provided guidance for the third quarter and full
fiscal year 2020 that fell short of market expectations.
Specifically, Defendants revealed to investors that they expected
third-quarter revenue of $41.5-42.5 million versus a consensus of
$44.2 million and a loss of $1.04-1.00 per share versus a consensus
of a $0.91 loss per share. Additionally, Defendants revealed a full
year 2020 view with revenue of $168-169 million versus a consensus
of $173.7 million, and a loss of $4.10-4.00 per share versus a
consensus of a $3.82 loss per share.

Then, on September 6, 2019, during pre-market hours, JMP Securities
dropped its Domo target by $10.00 to $37.00, citing the
"disappointing" report and guidance, weakness in Domo's enterprise
and international businesses, and billings growth that was about
half of what was expected.

On this news, Domo's stock price fell $9.44 per share, or 37.45%,
to close at $15.77 per share on September 6, 2019, or 24.9% below
the IPO price of $21.00.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com.

Contact:

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
[GN]


ELECTROCORE INC: Kaskela Law Reminds of Nov. 25 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that shareholder class action lawsuits
have been filed against ProPetro Holding Corp. (PUMP), Ollie's
Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. (OLLI), and electroCore, Inc.
(ECOR).

ProPetro Holding Corp. (PUMP)

A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against ProPetro
Holding Corp. ("ProPetro") on behalf of investors who purchased
ProPetro securities between March 17, 2017 and August 8, 2019.
ProPetro investors may, no later than November 15, 2019, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the action. For
additional information please visit
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/propetro/.

Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. (OLLI)

A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Ollie's
Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. ("Ollie's") on behalf of investors
who purchased Ollie's securities between June 6, 2019 and August
28, 2019. Ollie's investors may, no later than November 18, 2019,
seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the
action. For additional information please visit
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/ollies/.

electroCore, Inc. (ECOR)

A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against
electroCore, Inc. ("electroCore") on behalf of investors who
purchased electroCore securities between June 22, 2018 and
September 25, 2019. electroCore investors may, no later than
November 25, 2019, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative in the action. For additional information please
visit http://kaskelalaw.com/case/electrocore-inc/.

Investors are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus
Kaskela, Esq.) for additional information about these actions.
Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities
fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation.
For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit
www.kaskelalaw.com.

Contact:

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
         Newtown Square, PA 19073
         Tel: (484) 258-1585, (888) 715-1740
         Website: www.kaskelalaw.com
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com
[GN]




ENCINO ENERGY: Zehentbauer Alleges Underpayment of Royalties
------------------------------------------------------------
Zehentbauer Family Land LP; Hanover Farms LP; and Evelyn Frances
Young, Successor Trustee of The Robert Milton Young Trust, on their
own behalf and on Behalf of the Class, the Plaintiffs, vs. EAP
OHIO, LLC; EAP OPERATING, LLC; ENCINO ACQUISITION PARTNER HOLDINGS,
LLC; and ENCINO ENERGY, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-2434
(N.D. Ohio, Oct. 18, 2019), seeks to obtain money damages against
the Defendants for systematically violating uniform oil and gas
leases and underpaying owed royalties.

Since production on or after October 29, 2018, the Defendants have
improperly made post production deductions of expenses from
Plaintiffs’ gross royalties owed under the uniform royalty
provisions in the Gross Royalty Leases despite direct lease
covenants forbidding these deductions.

The Defendants have levied improper deductions under the guise of
assessing costs for various activities, including but not limited
to, gathering, processing, dehydrating, transporting, marketing,
compression, third party deductions, system fuel, field fuel, and
other charges.

Encino Operating’s royalty statements openly show deductions
taken for gathering, processing, dehydrating, transporting,
marketing, and compression in violation of the express uniform
lease terms.

These improper deductions which are shown on the royalty statements
related to Defendants’ purported costs that substantially reduce
lessors' royalty payments.

Substantial deductions were taken, even though they were not
permitted under the uniform Gross Royalty Leases, the lawsuit
says.

The oil and gas lease agreements were entered into in the State of
Ohio and Ohio law governs. The oil and gas properties are located
in Columbiana County, and Carroll County, Ohio. The Defendants
continue to send royalty and other monetary payments to Plaintiff
Zehentbauer who resides in Columbiana County, Ohio. Pursuant to the
leases, Plaintiffs have made objection to Defendants' calculations
and incorrect payments of royalties.

Zehentbauer has been the fee simple title owner of oil and natural
gas estates in tracts of land located in Columbiana County, Ohio.

Zehentbauer leased the oil and gas for 655.99 acres and 296.361
acres, respectively, pursuant to written lease agreements with Ohio
Buckeye Energy, L.L.C.

The Defendants are oil and gas producing companies.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          Dennis E. Murray, Jr., Esq.
          William H. Bartle, Esq.
          MURRAY & MURRAY CO., LPA
          111 E. Shoreline Drive
          Sandusky, OH 44870-2517
          Facsimile: (419) 624-0707
          E-mail: dmj@murrayandmurray.com
                  whb@murrayandmurray.com

               - and -

          Scott M. Zurakowski, Esq.
          Terry A. Moore, Esq.
          Gregory W. Watts, Esq.
          KRUGLIAK, WILKINS, GRIFFITHS & DOUGHERTY CO. L.P.A.
          4775 Munson St. NW; P.O. Box 36963
          Canton, OH 44735-6963
          Telephone: 330-244-2878
          Facsimile: 330-497-4020
          E-mail: szurakowski@kwgd.com
                  tmoore@kwgd.com
                  gwatts@kwgd.com

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Kessler Topaz Notes of Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, in the class
action, SEB INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AB, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ENDO INTERNATIONAL
PLC, et al., Defendants, E.D. Pa. Civ. A. No. 2:17-CV-3711-TJS, all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Endo
International plc and/or Endo Health Solutions Inc. (together,
"Endo") common stock or ordinary shares[1] between November 30,
2012 and June 8, 2017, inclusive, and were damaged thereby
("Settlement Class"), are notified that the lawsuit has been
provisionally certified as a class action for the purposes of
settlement only and that the parties to the Action have reached a
proposed settlement for $82,500,000 in cash ("Settlement") that, if
approved, will resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on December 11, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Timothy J. Savage at the James A. Byrne U.S.
Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Courtroom
9A, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action
should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the
releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the
Notice described below) should be entered; (iii) whether the
Settlement Class should be certified for purposes of effectuating
the Settlement; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should
be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.

This notice provides only a summary of the information contained in
the detailed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed
Settlement; (II) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses; and (III) Settlement Fairness
Hearing ("Notice"). You may obtain a copy of the Notice, along with
the Claim Form, on the website for the Settlement,
www.EndoSecuritiesLitigationSettlement.com, or on Lead Counsel's
website, www.ktmc.com. You may also obtain copies of the Notice and
Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at SEB Investment
Management AB v. Endo International plc, et al. Settlement, c/o JND
Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91311, Seattle, WA 98111-9411;
1-844-961-0316; info@EndoSecuritiesLitigationSettlement.com.  

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online at
www.EndoSecuritiesLitigationSettlement.com, no later than February
7, 2020, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Claim
Form. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a
proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will
nevertheless be bound by any releases, judgments or orders entered
by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is postmarked no later than November 22,
2019, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you
will not be bound by any releases, judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in
the net proceeds of the Settlement. Excluding yourself is the only
option that may allow you to be part of any other current or future
lawsuit against Defendants or any of the other released parties
concerning the claims being resolved by the Settlement. Please
note, however, if you decide to exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, you may be time-barred from asserting the claims
covered by the Action by a statute of repose.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than November 22, 2019, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Contact:

       Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
       Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
       280 King of Prussia Road
       Radnor, PA  19087
       1-610-667-7706
       info@ktmc.com
       www.ktmc.com [GN]



FACEBOOK INC: Bid to Quash $35 Billion Class Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
Gulf News reports that a court in the U.S. has denied Facebook's
request to quash $35 billion (Dh129 billion) class-action lawsuit
against its alleged misuse of facial recognition data in Illinois.

A three-judge panel of the ninth circuit judges in San Francisco
rejected Facebook's plea and the case will now go to trial unless
the Supreme Court intervenes, TechCrunch reported on October 18.

"The suit alleges that Illinois citizens didn't consent to having
their uploaded photos scanned with facial recognition and weren't
informed of how long the data would be saved when the mapping
started in 2011," the report added.

Facebook could face $1,000 to $5,000 in penalties per user for
seven million people, which could reach a maximum of $35 billion.

Facebook started the facial recognition technology in 2011, when it
would ask users to identify if people tagged in photos were friends
they knew.

The facial recognition software "invades an individual's private
affairs and concrete interests," said the judges.

"Facebook's facial recognition technology violated Illinois's
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)," said the court
document.

"Violations of the procedures in BIPA actually harmed or posed a
material risk of harm to those privacy interests," it added.

BIPA provides for $1,000 dollars for each negligent violation and
$5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation.

The lawsuit could make Facebook face billions of dollars in
potential damages if it eventually loses the legal battle.

"Facebook has always told people about its use of face recognition
technology and given them control over whether it's used for them.
We are reviewing our options and will continue to defend ourselves
vigorously," Facebook said in a statement.

The class-action poses a greater penalty than the record-breaking
$5 billion settlement Facebook agreed to pay the US Federal Trade
Commission (FTC). [GN]



FIGGERS COMMUNICATION: Patchen Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Patchen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FIGGERS COMMUNICATION, INC., Case No. 8:19-cv-02097
(C.D. Cal., Nov. 1, 2019), is brought against the Defendant to
secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in aggressive
unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the
process, the Plaintiff contends. Through this action, the Plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct,
which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf
of herself and members of the class, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a resident of Orange
County, California.

The Defendant is a telecommunications company and cellular
telephone manufacturer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


FLORIDA KEYS: Buzzell Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Buzzell, Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. FLORIDA KEYS AMBULANCE SERVICE INC. and EDWARDS
BONILLA, individually, Case No. 4:19-cv-10190-JLK (S.D. Fla., Nov.
1, 2019), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to compensate the
Plaintiff and other employees the statutory rate of time and
one-half for all the hours they worked in excess of 40 in a week,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for FKAS from June 2014 until July 6, 2017, as
an On-Call Critical Care Licensed Paramedic.

Defendant FKAS is a Florida corporation located in Tavernier,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana M. Gallup, Esq.
          GALLUP AUERBACH
          4000 Hollywood Boulevard
          Presidential Circle, Suite 265 South
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Phone: (954) 894-3035
          Facsimile: (954) 894-8015
          Email: dgallup@gallup-law.com


GENEVA ON THE LAKE: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Geneva on the Lake
Resort, LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Geneva on the Lake Resort, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06044
(E.D. N.Y., Oct. 28, 2019).

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

Geneva On The Lake is a boutique hotel boasting 29 luxurious guest
accommodations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com



GKN DRIVELINE: Mebane Amends Move for Conditional FLSA Class Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JAMES MEBANE and ANGELA
WORSHAM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No.
1:18-cv-00892-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C.), filed with the Court their
amended motion for:

   (1) conditional certification of this action and for
       court-authorized notice pursuant to Section 216(B) of the
       Fair Labor Standards Act;

   (2) approval of the proposed notice of this action and the
       consent and out-out forms;

   (3) a production of names, last known mailing addresses,
       last-known cell phone numbers, email addresses, work
       locations, shift assignments, and dates of employment of
       all putative plaintiffs within fifteen (15) days of the
       Order; and

   (4) ability to distribute the Notice and Opt-in Form via first
       class mail, email, and text message to all putative
       plaintiffs of the conditionally certified collective, with
       a reminder mailing to be sent 45-days after the initial
       mailing to all non-responding putative plaintiffs.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
          Charlotte C. Smith, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741-8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Paul DeCamp, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
          1227 25th St., N.W., Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 861-1819
          Facsimile: (202) 296-2882
          E-mail: PDeCamp@ebglaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin S. Joyner, Esq.
          Regina W. Calabro, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100
          Raleigh, NC 27609
          Telephone: (919) 787-9700
          Facsimile: (919) 783-9412
          E-mail: Kevin.joyner@ogletree.com
                  regina.calabro@ogletreedeakins.com


GKN DRIVELINE: Mebane Files Amended Class Cert Bid. Under Rule 23
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JAMES MEBANE and ANGELA WORSHAM, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH
AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-00892-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the
Plaintiffs filed with the Court their amended motion for:

   (1) certification of this action as a class action under
       Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
       Procedure for the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act claims;

   (2) appointment of Plaintiffs Mebane and Worsham as class
       representatives;

   (3) appointment of The Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC
       as class counsel;

   (4) approval of the proposed notice of this action and
       attached forms;

   (5) a production of names, last known mailing addresses,
       last-known cell phone numbers, email addresses, work
       locations, shift assignments, and dates of employment of
       all putative plaintiffs within fifteen (15) days of the
       Order; and

   (6) ability to distribute the Notice and forms via first class
       mail, email, and text message to all members of the
       certified class, with a reminder mailing to be sent
       45-days after the initial mailing to all non-responding
       putative plaintiffs.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
          Charlotte C. Smith, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741-8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Paul DeCamp, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
          1227 25th St., N.W., Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 861-1819
          Facsimile: (202) 296-2882
          E-mail: PDeCamp@ebglaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin S. Joyner, Esq.
          Regina W. Calabro, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100
          Raleigh, NC 27609
          Telephone: (919) 787-9700
          Facsimile: (919) 783-9412
          E-mail: Kevin.joyner@ogletree.com
                  regina.calabro@ogletreedeakins.com


GNH LUMBER: Faces James Jaeger Builders Suit in New York Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GNH Lumber, Inc., et
al. The case is captioned as JAMES JAEGER D/B/A JAMES JAEGER
BUILDERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff v. GNH LUMBER, INC., A.W. HASTINGS & CO., AND
MARVIN, INC., Defendants, Case No. 654/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Oct 18,
2019).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Raymond Elliott III.

GNH Lumber is Greene County's contractor supplies and building
supplies headquarters, specializing in lumber and building supplies
in New York. A.W. Hastings & Co., L.L.C. was founded in 1990. The
company's line of business includes distributing lumber, plywood,
and millwork. Marvin's, Inc. provides home improvements products.
The Company offers lumber, electrical products, and other related
building materials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          KEVIN MALDONADO & PARTNERS
          5394 State Route 23
          Windham, NY 12496
          Telephone: (518) 734-4400

The Defendants are represented by:

          GOLDBERG SEGALLA
          8 Southwoods Blvd., Suite 300
          Albany, NY 12211
          Telephone: (518) 463-5400


GREENLAND ACQUISITION: Resolves Wheby Suit Via Confidential MOU
---------------------------------------------------------------
Greenland Acquisition Corporation (GLAC) announced it has entered
into a confidential memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with
the plaintiff and other parties in a purported class action,
captioned Wheby v. Greenland Acquisition Corporation, et al., Case
No. 19-1758-MN (D. Del.), which was filed on September 19, 2019,
against the Company and certain individuals (the "Action").
Pursuant to the MOU, a stipulation and order of dismissal of the
Action was filed by the plaintiff in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware on October 14, 2019, which was
approved and entered by the court on October 15, 2019.

"We are pleased that the case has been dismissed and we remain
focused on driving long-term value for our shareholders by working
toward advancing the proposed business combination with Zhongchai
Holding (Hong Kong) Limited," stated Yanming Liu, Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of the Company.

                 About Greenland

Greenland Acquisition Corporation is a blank check company formed
for the purpose of acquiring, engaging in a share exchange, share
reconstruction and amalgamation with, purchasing all or
substantially all of the assets of, entering into contractual
arrangements with, or engaging in any other similar business
combination with one or more businesses or entities.

        Forward-Looking Statements

As previously disclosed in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed on
July 12, 2019, Greenland entered into a share exchange agreement
(the "Share Exchange Agreement") with Zhongchai Holding, Greenland
Asset Management Corporation, a British Virgin Islands company with
limited liability, in the capacity thereunder as the purchaser
representative, and Cenntro Holding Limited, the sole member of
Zhongchai Holding, pursuant to which, among other things and
subject to the terms and conditions contained therein, Greenland
has agreed to acquire all of the outstanding capital stock of
Zhongchai Holding through a share exchange, with Zhongchai Holding
becoming a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Greenland (the
"Business Combination").

Contact:

         Yanming Liu
         Greenland Acquisition Corporation
         Tel: +(86) 010-53607082
[GN]


GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Investors have until the deadlines
listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

Greenlane Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: GNLN)
Class Period: Pursuant and/or traceable to April 2019 Initial
Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 12, 2019

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the
Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted to state: (1) that the City of San Francisco had introduced
a major initiative to ban the sale of e-cigarette products across
three major cities and prohibit the manufacture of products at the
headquarters of Greenlane's key partner, JUUL Labs; (2) that, if
approved, the initiative would materially and adversely impact the
Company's financial results and prospects; and (3) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: OLLI)
Class Period: June 6, 2019 - August 28, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 18, 2019

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, 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, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company suffered a supply chain issue that
impacted the initial inventory available at new stores; (2) that,
as a result, the Company lacked sufficient inventory to meet demand
at certain store locations; (3) that, as a result, the Company's
comparable store sales were likely to decrease
quarter-over-quarter; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

To be a member of these class actions you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member. If you wish to learn more about
these class actions, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

Contact:

         Howard G. Smith, Esquire
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
         Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com
[GN]




HY-VEE INC: Customers Hit Chain With Class Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Friestad, writing for The Gazette, reports that Hy-Vee
customers have named the grocer in a class-action lawsuit after a
cyber breach compromised payment card data at numerous locations in
eight states.

The legal complaint, filed October 15 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of Illinois, criticizes the West Des
Moines-based retailer for using encryption technology to protect
card data at its grocery stores, but not its breached fuel pump,
drive-through coffee shop and restaurant locations.

"Despite the well-publicized and ever-growing threat of security
breaches involving payment card networks and systems, and despite
the fact that these types of data breaches were and are occurring
throughout the restaurant and retail industries, Hy-Vee failed to
ensure that it maintained adequate data security measures causing
customer card information to be stolen," wrote attorneys
representing two named plaintiffs and national, Illinois and
Missouri classes of undetermined sizes.

"As a direct and proximate consequence of Hy-Vee's conduct and data
security shortcomings, a massive amount of customer information was
stolen from Hy-Vee and exposed to criminals."

The attorneys referenced a Krebs on Security report by Brian Krebs,
a former Washington Post computer security reporter, who wrote that
the carding bazaar Joker's Stash was listing Hy-Vee data for sale
online.

More than 5.3 million credit and debit card accounts in 35 states
were affected, Krebs reported, citing two unnamed sources,
including one at a major U.S. financial institution.

Among the complaint's named plaintiffs, an Avon, Ill., woman and a
Columbia, Mo., man had to close their debit card accounts and order
new cards after learning from their banks that their cards had been
compromised, after they respectively bought gas and food at a
Hy-Vee fuel pump and restaurant.

Later in the lawsuit, the plaintiffs' attorneys took Hy-Vee to task
for waiting seven weeks, over the course of an internal
investigation, before sharing more information about the breach,
and for telling customers to "closely monitor" their card
statements for unauthorized activity rather than offering card
monitoring service or fraud insurance.

Hy-Vee announced Aug. 14 it had detected unauthorized activity at
some of its payment processing systems and, on Oct. 3, released a
tool for customers to search affected stores - though, the
attorneys noted, it does not confirm the numbers of stores targeted
or customers and cards affected.

The class action lawsuit seeks "appropriate" monetary and
injunctive relief from Hy-Vee on counts of negligence, breach of
implied contract and unjust enrichment, plus Illinois and Missouri
laws governing fraud, deceptive business and merchandising
practices. [GN]


IMPINJ INC: District Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint, In re IMPINJ, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
C18-5704RSL (W.D. Wash.).

The Plaintiffs filed the litigation on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Impinj between
July 21, 2016 and Feb. 15, 2018.  Impinj's primary business is
selling a "platform" comprised of integrated circuits with memory
chips ("ICs"), connective devices, and software that can be used to
tag and wirelessly connect everyday items to the digital world.

The Plaintiffs allege that Impinj, its CEO (Chris Dorio), its CFO
(Evan Fein), and its President and COO (Eric Brodersen) made false
and misleading statements to the public regarding the platform's
ability to identify a tagged item's unique location.  They allege
that the platform's locationing capabilities were highlighted to
the public in various regulatory filings and investor
communications throughout the class period.  The Plaintiffs allege,
however, that the representations were false and that Dorio and
Brodersen were informed, prior to the company's initial public
offering and throughout the class period, that the platform was not
able to accurately locate tagged items.

The Plaintiffs allege that the platform's inability to identify the
unique location of tagged items made the product less valuable to
end users and had an adverse effect on market demand.  During the
first quarter of 2017, Impinj's sales team recognized a decline in
demand for platform components, including IC endpoints, and
reported the decline to Brodersen at weekly sales meetings.  The
decline was discussed in tandem with what the sales team thought
was the main cause: the fact that the platform had locationing
problems. Nevertheless, the Q1 and Q2 Forms 10-Q for 2017, signed
by Dorio and Fein, reported increased demand for IC endpoints.  The
Plaintiffs allege that Impinj was temporarily able to hide the
decline in demand from the market because Brodersen pressured
Impinj's sales people to pull future IC endpoint sales orders into
the current quarter throughout much of 2017.

On Aug. 3, 2017, Impinj announced a 10% reduction in its expected
IC unit shipments.  When the markets opened the next day, its stock
price dropped from $47.92 to $37.52 per share, a loss of 22%.
Impinj attributed the decline in IC endpoint shipments to its
customers' response to a change in manufacturing lead times.

On Nov. 1, 2017, the company announced weaker-than-expected
revenues for Q3 2017 and reduced its revenue projection for Q4
2017.  Impinj acknowledged that its revised outlook was the result
of a decline in IC demand.  The Company's share price, which had
dropped a bit since August to $32.80, fell another 34%.

On Feb. 1, 2018, Impinj announced its preliminary estimate of Q4
2017 revenue (two weeks before it was scheduled to make that
disclosure) and provided Q1 2018 guidance that was significantly
lower than Q1 2017 and Q4 2017.  The company also announced Fein's
resignation and did not name a replacement.  Analysts downgraded
Impinj's stock, noting alarm at Fein's abrupt departure.  The share
price tumbled again from $22.86 to $12.16.

On Feb. 15, 2018, Impinj missed the preliminary estimate of Q4 2017
revenue it had announced only two weeks and announced that it would
no longer provide annual forecasts of IC unit shipments.  Impinj's
stock price, which had rebounded slightly to $13.43 per share, fell
to $11.07.

The Plaintiffs allege that market commentators eventually linked
the decline in market demand to problems with the platform's
functionality.  They further allege that the executive team was
driven to exaggerate the functionality of the platform in order to
have a successful IPO, that Impinj has admitted material weakness
in its internal control over financial reporting, and that Impinj
has had to defend a number of whistleblower suits.

Based on their allegations of false and materially misleading
statements regarding the platform's ability to identify the unique
location of tagged items and increasing market demand of IC
endpoints, the Plaintiffs assert claims against all the Defendants
for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and against Dorio, Fein, and Brodersen under Section 20(a).

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.  They
argued that the Plaintiffs' allegations of falsity, scienter, and
loss causation do not satisfy the pleading standards of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").  The Defendants
also argued that the complaint fails to state a claim against
Defendants Eric Brodersen and/or Evan Fein.

Upon review of the record, Judge Lasnik granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims.
The Judge dismissed the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
claims against Defendant Brodersen, as are the claims related to
statements regarding increasing demand prior to Q1 2017.

Among other things, Judge Lasnik finds that with regards to
statements regarding increasing or accelerating demand prior to Q1
2017, there are no allegations that could support a finding that
demand had stalled or was in decline prior to that date.  The
Plaintiffs have not, therefore, adequately alleged falsity
regarding demand representations prior to Q1 2017, the District
Court opines.

The Plaintiffs' allegations support an inference that Brodersen had
the power to suggest what should be communicated to the public, but
the Supreme Court has said that is not enough.  They must allege
non-conclusory facts giving rise to a plausible inference that
Brodersen, as opposed to Dorio and Fein, possessed the ultimate
authority over the content and dissemination of the statements they
made.  They have not done so, the District Court opines.

As to scienter, although it is possible that Brodersen kept to
himself the sales data he was receiving and unilaterally decided to
mask the declining demand by future sales into the current quarter,
Judge Lasnik finds that such an inference is improbable given the
importance of the revenue stream.  Even if Dorio and Fein did not
have actual knowledge of the decline in demand, the allegations
give rise to a strong inference of deliberate indifference
regarding the truth of their joint representations regarding
increased demand for endpoint ICs after Q1 2017, the District Court
states.

Finally, the allegations that the stock price fell upon the
revelation of an earnings miss, even though the market was unaware
at the time that fraud had concealed the miss, raise a plausible
inference of causation, the District Court opines.  The Plaintiffs
may ultimately be unable to prove their theory of causation, but it
has been adequately alleged for purposes of the motion to dismiss,
the District Court states

Because the matter continues as to all other claims, leave to amend
will not be blindly granted.  If the Plaintiffs believe they can,
consistent with their Rule 11 obligations, amend the complaint to
remedy the pleading deficiencies identified, they may file a motion
to amend and attach a proposed pleading for the Court's (and the
Defendants') consideration, Judge Lasnik states.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 4, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/L3MoNR from Leagle.com.

Richard Montemarano, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Karl Phillip Barth --
karlb@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP & Steve W.
Berman -- steveb@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish
of East Baton Rouge, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Avi Josefson --
avi@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, pro hac
vice, Jonathan D. Uslaner -- jonathanu@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN
LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, pro hac vice, Lauren M. Cruz --
Lauren.Cruz@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMAN
LLP, pro hac vice, Michael D. Blatchley -- michaelb@blbglaw.com --
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, pro hac vice, Salvatore
Graziano -- sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
GROSSMANN, pro hac vice & Bradley S. Keller --
bkeller@byrneskeller.com -- BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP.

Impinj, Inc, Chris Diorio, Evan Fein & Eric Brodersen, Defendants,
represented by Christopher M. Petroni -- cpetroni@wsgr.com --
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, Barry M. Kaplan --
bkaplan@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, Gregory Lewis
Watts -- GWatts@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI &
Stephanie Lynn Jensen -- sjensen@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI
GOODRICH & ROSATI.

Anthony Katsune, Movant, represented by Colin M. George, ARDENT LAW
GROUP PLLC.

Foo Kwan, Movant, represented by Karl Phillip Barth, HAGENS BERMAN
SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP & Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP.

Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish
of East Baton Rouge, Movant, represented by Jonathan D. Uslaner,
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, pro hac vice, Lauren M.
Cruz, BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMAN LLP, pro hac vice &
Bradley S. Keller, BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP.


INTEGRAS CAPITAL: Antoine Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integras Capital
Recovery LLC, et al. The case is styled as Alfretta Antoine,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Integras Capital Recovery LLC, Hartford Casualty
Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02543-C (N.D. Tex.,
Oct. 28, 2019).

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

Integras Capital Recovery LLC is a specialty holding company based
in San Antonio, Texas. The company is a RMA Receivables Management
Association International Company focused on the acquisition of
Distressed Financial Assets for Consumer, Real Estate, Crowd
Lending, and Judgment portfolios for Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey D Wood, Esq.
     The Wood Firm PLLC
     209 Hubbard Dr.
     Heath, TX 75032
     Phone: (682) 651-7599
     Fax: (888) 598-9022
     Email: jeff@jeffwoodlaw.com


J & J, INC: Alarcon, et al Seek Unpaid Wages for Painters
---------------------------------------------------------
LEDVIN ALARCON, JOSE GARCIA, JOHN QUINCY OLIVER, RAMON CORRALES,
ALEJANDRO AGUDELO, and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. J & J, INC. d/b/a EAGLE PAINTING, a Florida
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. CACE-19-021370 (Fla. Cir.,
Broward County, Oct. 15, 2019), contends that the Defendant
routinely fails to compensate Plaintiffs for all hours worked.
Dozens of Painters, just like Plaintiffs, have been deprived of
wages during the relevant period.

The Plaintiffs have asserted claims of unpaid overtime wages
through a lawsuit currently pending in federal court. The state
court lawsuit does not seek double recovery. Plaintiffs acknowledge
that amounts recovered through the Federal Overtime Lawsuit may
serve as an offset to some of the damages sought in this action.

The state court lawsuit is broader than the Federal Overtime
Lawsuit. For example, some of the damages sought through this
lawsuit are not overtime related. In addition, the statute of
limitations period in this lawsuit differs from the statute of
limitations period applicable to the "Federal Overtime Lawsuit".

The Defendant operates a residential and commercial painting
company. The Defendant employed all Plaintiffs within the four
years prior to the filing of the lawsuit.[BN]


Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          J. Freddy Perera, Esq.
          Valerie Barnhart, Esq.
          Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
          Waynice Green-Musgrove, Esq.
          PERERA BARNHART ALEMAN
          12555 Orange Drive, 2nd Floor
          Davie, FL 33330
          Telephone: 786-485-5232
          E-mail: freddy@pba-law.com
                  valerie@ pba-law.com
                  brady@ pba-law.com
                  waynice@ pba-law.com

JAMES S. FARRIN: Garey, et al Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as WILLIAM PARKER GAREY, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. JAMES S. FARRIN, P.C. d/b/a LAW OFFICES OF JAMES
SCOTT FARRIN, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-542
(M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:

   1. appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class Counsel; and

   3. certifying these class and subclasses:

      General Class:

      "All natural persons listed as a driver on a North Carolina
      DMV-349 crash report; which driver held a North Carolina
      driver's license as recorded on the DMV-349; which driver's
      address on the DMV-349 is recorded as being the same as the
      address on the driver's license; which DMV-349 does not
      contain "17" in either block 10 or 11; which DMV-349 shows
      at least $500 of property damage to at least one vehicle or
      some injury to at least one person; and who qualifies as a
      member of at least one Subclass below";

      1. Farrin Subclass:

         "Persons listed as a driver on a DMV-349 report completed

         by an employee of the North Carolina State Highway Patrol

         (but only for wrecks which occurred in Wake County), the
         Raleigh Police Department, or the Greensboro Police
         Department who fall within one of the following two Sub-
         subclasses":

         a. Farrin Sub-subclass 1:

            "Persons who fall within the Farrin Subclass
            definition above for which the relevant DMV-349 report

            was prepared for an accident that occurred within four

            years prior to the filing of this action. This Sub-
            subclass applies to claims against Defendant Farrin
            Firm"; and

         b. Farrin Sub-subclass 2:

            "Persons who fall within the Farrin Subclass
            definitions above for which the relevant DMV-349
            report was prepared for an accident which occurred
            within four years prior to the filing of the First
            Amended Complaint in this action. This Sub-subclass
            applies to claims against Defendant James Scott
            Farrin."

      2. Marcari/Riddle Subclass:

         "Persons listed as a driver on a DMV-349 report completed
         by an employee of the Raleigh Police Department or the
         Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department who fall within
         one of the following two Sub-subclasses."

         a. Marcari/Riddle Sub-subclass 1:

            "Persons who fall within the Marcari/Riddle Subclass
            definition above for which the relevant DMV-349 report

            was prepared for an accident that occurred within four

            years prior to the filing of this action through July
            18, 2016. This Sub-subclass applies to claims against
            Defendant Riddle & Brantley."

         b. Marcari/Riddle Sub-subclass 2:

            "Persons who fall within the Marcari/Riddle Subclass
            definition above for which the relevant DMV-349 report

            was prepared for an accident that occurred within four

            years prior to the filing of this action through April

            30, 2016. This Sub-subclass applies to claims against
            Defendants Marcari Russoto";

         c. Marcari/Riddle Sub-subclass 3:

            "Persons who fall within the Marcari/Riddle Subclass
            definitions above for which the relevant DMV-349
            report was prepared for an accident which occurred
            within four years prior to the filing of the First
            Amended Complaint in this action through April 30,
            2016. This Sub-subclass applies to claims against
            Defendants Donald W. Marcari"; and

         d. Marcari/Riddle Sub-Subclass 4:

            "Persons who fall within the Marcari/Riddle Subclass
            definition above for which the relevant DMV-349 report

            was prepared for an accident that occurred within four

            years prior to the filing of the First Amended
            Complaint in this action through July 18, 2016. This
            Sub-subclass applies to claims against Defendant Sean
            A. Cole"

      3. Wallace Subclass:

         "Persons listed as a driver on a DMV-349 report completed
         by an employee of the North Carolina State Highway Patrol

         (but only for wrecks which occurred in Wake County) or
         the Raleigh Police Department who fall within one of the
         following two Sub-subclasses"

         a. Wallace Sub-subclass 1:

            "Persons who fall within the Wallace Subclass
            definition above for which the relevant DMV-349 report

            was prepared for an accident that occurred within four

            years prior to the filing of this action through
            October 1, 2017. This Sub-subclass applies to claims
            against Defendant Wallace Pierce"; and

         b. Wallace Sub-subclass 2:

            "Persons who fall within the Wallace Subclass
            definitions above for which the relevant DMV-349
            report was prepared for an accident which occurred
            within four years prior to the filing of the First
            Amended Complaint in this action through October 1,
            2017.This Sub-subclass applies to Defendant Jared W.
            Pierce";

      4. Van Laningham/Greve Subclass:

         "Persons listed as a driver on a DMV-349 report completed
         by an employee of the North Carolina State Highway Patrol

         (but only for wrecks which occurred in Wake County), the
         Raleigh Police Department or the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
         Police Department who fall within one of the following
         two Sub-subclasses";

         a. Van Laningham/Greve Sub-subclass 1:

            "Persons who fall within the Van Laningham/Greve
            Subclass definition above for which the relevant DMV-
            349 report was prepared for an accident that occurred
            within four years prior to the filing this action
            through September 30, 2017. This Sub-subclass applies

            to claims against Defendant R. Bradley Van Laningham";

         b. Van Laningham/Greve Sub-subclass 2:

            "Persons who fall within the Van Laningham/Greve
            Subclass definition above for which the relevant DMV-
            349 report was prepared for an accident that occurred
            within four years prior to the filing of this action.
            This Sub-subclass applies to claims against Defendant
            Greve & Associates";

         c. Van Laningham/Greve Sub-subclass 3:

            "Persons who fall within the Van Laningham/Greve
            Subclass definitions above for which the relevant DMV-
            349 report was prepared for an accident which occurred

            within four years prior to the filing of the First
            Amended Complaint in this action through September 30,

            2017. This Sub-subclass applies to claims against
            Defendant Van Laningham & Associates, PLLC"; adn

         d. Van Laningham/Greve Sub-subclass 4:

            "Persons who fall within the Van Laningham/Greve
            Subclass definitions above for which the relevant DMV-
            349 report was prepared for an accident which occurred

            within four years prior to the filing of the First
            Amended Complaint in this action. This Sub-subclass
            applies to claims against Defendant Ted A. Greve";

      5. Lanier/Crumley Subclass:

         "Persons listed as a driver on a DMV-349 report completed
         by an employee of the North Carolina State Highway Patrol

         (but only for wrecks which occurred in Wake County), the
         Raleigh Police Department, the Greensboro Police
         Department, or the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police
         Department who fall within one of the following two Sub-
         subclasses";

         a. Lanier/Crumley Sub-subclass 1:

            "Persons who fall within the Lanier/Crumley Subclass
            definition above for which the relevant DMV-349 report

            was prepared for an accident that occurred within four

            years prior to the filing of this action. Excluded
            from this Sub-subclass are individuals involved in
            accidents that occurred between September 1, 2017 and
            December 1, 2017 and between August 1, 2013 and
            October 1, 2013. This Sub-subclass applies to claims
            against Lanier Law Group.

         b. Lanier/Crumley Sub-subclass 2:

            "Persons who fall within the Lanier/Crumley Subclass
            definitions above for which the relevant DMV-349
            report was prepared for an accident which occurred
            within four years prior to the filing of the First
            Amended Complaint in this action. Excluded from this
            Sub-subclass are individuals involved in accidents
            that occurred between October 1, 2017 and February 1,
            2018. This Sub-subclass applies to claims against
            Defendants Crumley Roberts and Chris Roberts" and

         c. Lanier/Crumley Sub-subclass 3:

            "Persons who fall within the Lanier/Crumley Subclass
            definitions above for which the relevant DMV-349
            report was prepared for an accident which occurred
            within four years prior to the filing of the First
            Amended Complaint in this action. Excluded from this
            Sub-subclass are individuals involved in accidents
            that occurred between September 1, 2017 and December
            1, 2017 and between August 1, 2013 and October 1,
            2013. This Sub-subclass applies to claims against
            Defendant Lisa Lanier."

      6. Hardison Subclass:

         "Persons listed as a driver on a DMV-349 report completed
         by an employee of the Greensboro Police Department for an

         accident that occurred within four years prior to the
         filing of the First Amended Complaint in this action
         through June 14, 2016. This Subclass applies to claims
         against Defendants Hardison & Cochran and Benjamin T.
         Cochran";

      7. DeMayo Subclass:

         "Persons listed as a driver on a DMV-349 report completed

         by an employee of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police
         Department for an accident that occurred within four
         years prior to the filing of the First Amended Complaint
         in this action. Excluded from this Subclass are
         individuals involved in accidents that occurred in the 4
         months immediately after the filing of the First Amended
         Complaint. This Subclass applies to claims against
         Defendants DeMayo Firm and Michael A. DeMayo"; and

      8. Hardee Subclass:

         "Persons listed as a driver on a DMV-349 report completed

         by an employee of the Greensboro Police Department or the

         Raleigh Police Department for an accident that occurred
         within four years prior to the filing of the First
         Amended Complaint in this action through October 1, 2017.

         This Subclass applies to claims against Defendants Hardee

         & Hardee, Charles Hardee, and G. Wayne Hardee.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs are:

          J. David Stradley
          WHITE & STRADLEY, PLLC
          3105 Charles B. Root Wynd
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 844-0400
          E-mail: stradley@whiteandstradley.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: AWP Suits in Illinois Settled After Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
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 Average
Wholesale Price (AWP) Litigation in Illinois has been settled after
trial.

Johnson & Johnson and several of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries
(the J&J AWP Defendants), along with numerous other pharmaceutical
companies, were named as defendants in a series of lawsuits in
state and federal courts involving allegations that the pricing and
marketing of certain pharmaceutical products amounted to fraudulent
and otherwise actionable conduct because, among other things, the
companies allegedly reported an inflated Average Wholesale Price
(AWP) for the drugs at issue. Payors alleged that they used those
AWPs in calculating provider reimbursement levels.

The plaintiffs in these cases included three classes of private
persons or entities that paid for any portion of the purchase of
the drugs at issue based on AWP, and state government entities that
made Medicaid payments for the drugs at issue based on AWP. Many of
these cases, both federal actions and state actions removed to
federal court, were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a
multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, where all claims against the J&J AWP
Defendants were ultimately dismissed.

The J&J AWP Defendants also prevailed in a case brought by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Other AWP cases have been resolved
through court order or settlement. The case brought by Illinois was
settled after trial. In New Jersey, a putative class action based
upon AWP allegations is pending against Centocor, Inc. and Ortho
Biotech Inc. (both now Janssen Biotech, Inc.), Johnson & Johnson
and ALZA Corporation. All other cases have been resolved.

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: Suits Over Ethicon Pelvic Mesh Devices 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 has
established accruals with respect to product liability litigation
associated with Ethicon's pelvic mesh products.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Ethicon, Inc. and
Johnson & Johnson arising out of Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices used
to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.

The Company continues to receive information with respect to
potential costs and additional cases.

Cases filed in federal courts in the United States had been
organized as a multi-district litigation (MDL) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

The MDL Court is remanding cases for trial to the jurisdictions
where the case was originally filed and additional pelvic mesh
lawsuits have been filed, and remain, outside of the MDL.

The Company has settled or otherwise resolved a majority of the
United States cases and the estimated costs associated with these
settlements and the remaining cases are reflected in the Company's
accruals.

In addition, class actions and individual personal injury cases or
claims have been commenced in various countries outside of the
United States, including claims and cases in the United Kingdom,
the Netherlands and Belgium, and class actions in Israel, Australia
and Canada, seeking damages for alleged injury resulting from
Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices.

In Australia, a trial of class action issues has been completed and
the parties are awaiting a decision. The Company has established
accruals with respect to product liability litigation associated
with Ethicon's pelvic mesh products.

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.


JUUL LABS: Targeted Vaping Products to Youth, Says King County
--------------------------------------------------------------
State of Reform reports that in a lawsuit filed in federal district
court in Seattle, King County, will hold JUUL accountable for
deliberately using advertising and product design to target youth
with addictive nicotine.

King County is joining a growing number of schools and communities
taking action against JUUL for its marketing practices. The
County's complaint alleges that these marketing practices were
deceptive and specifically targeted to youth, likely contributing
to the dramatic increase in vaping rates and addiction among young
people in King County.

King County youth are vaping at an all-time high and rates continue
to climb. One in every four King County high school seniors vaped
in the past 30 days and vaping has led to severe lung illness among
young people locally and across the country.

As of October 16, 2019, Public Health - Seattle & King County has
identified three additional confirmed cases and one probable case
of severe lung disease associated with vaping in King County. This
brings the total number of cases in King County to five confirmed
and one probable since the first King County patient was identified
with vaping-related lung illness on September 20, 2019.

"As we allege in the complaint, it is clear that JUUL, like Big
Tobacco before it, targeted youth to hook a whole new generation on
candy-flavored nicotine," said Executive Dow Constantine. "JUUL was
well aware that their products would appeal to youth -- driving an
ever-increasing epidemic of nicotine addiction and severe lung
illness. The taxpayers of King County must not be stuck with the
tab for a public health crisis that has lined the pockets of JUUL
and their shareholders."

Among many other misleading practices, Altria and JUUL allegedly
exploited grey areas in tobacco law to specifically reach youth
such as providing free samples of nicotine vape cartridges.
Altria, less than two months after criticizing JUUL's conduct in a
letter to the FDA, made a nearly $13 billion investment in the
company.

King County's complaint alleges that Altria is working to maintain
and expand JUUL's market share despite knowing it is based on
epidemic levels of youth vaping.

Public Health Seattle - King County has issued several warnings
about vaping, including a post on the Public Health Insider
specifically about Juul.

"Fully addressing the harms to King County and counties across the
nation that were caused by Defendants' conduct will require a
comprehensive approach, one that includes addiction counselors
trained in youth vaping, prevention education that includes
information about the health consequences of JUUL use on
adolescents' bodies and minds, developing refusal skills, and
addiction treatment options," according to the lawsuit.

"Without the resources to fund these measures, King County and
others similarly situated will continue to be harmed by the ongoing
consequences of Defendants' conduct." [GN]


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Junks Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint ("CAC") in IN RE KANDI TECHNOLOGIES
GROUP, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 17 Civ. 1944 (ER) (S.D.
N.Y.), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for failure to state a claim.

Co-Lead Plaintiffs Gary Vatter and Gerald Klein asserted causes of
action to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 individually and on
behalf of similarly situated shareholders against Kandi in the
class action.  Current and/or former Kandi executives XiaoMing Hu,
Bing Mei, XiaoYing Zhu and Cheng Wang are also named as Defendants.
The CAC asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) (and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Co-Lead Plaintiffs purchased Kandi common stock throughout the
Class Period (Nov. 15, 2013 through March 13, 2017).  Kandi is a
Delaware corporation with its headquarters at Jinhua City
Industrial Zone, Jinhua, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of
China.  Kandi went public in June 2007 and trades on NASDAQ under
the ticker symbol "KNDI."  The individual Defendants were all
executives at Kandi throughout the Class Period.  Xiaoming Hu has
been Kandi's CEO, President and Chairman of the Board since June
2007.  Bing Mei has been Kandi's CFO since Nov. 14, 2016 and a
director of Kandi since Dec. 16, 2016.  Xiaoying Zhu was Kandi's
CFO from June 2007 to April 30, 2015.  Cheng Wang was Kandi's CFO
from May 1, 2015 to Nov. 14, 2016, when he resigned as CFO and
became Kandi's new Chief Strategy Officer.  Wang was also a
director of Kandi from May 20, 2015 to Nov. 14, 2017.

Kandi designs, produces, manufactures and distributes electric
vehicles ("EV"), EV parts and off-road vehicles, mostly in China.
In September 2013, the Chinese government announced an expansion of
government subsidies for EV manufacturers and purchasers.  Kandi
thereafter devised a strategy to benefit from the EV subsidies.
Kandi sold its EV parts to a joint venture company ("JV Company"),
in which Kandi held 50% interest.

The JV Company manufactured EV vehicles, received the government
subsidies for EV manufacturers, and sold them to a third company --
Zhejiang ZuoZhongYou Vehicle Service Co. ("ZZY Company").  Kandi
indirectly held 9.5 percent interest in the ZZY Company through its
ownership in the JV Company.   The ZZY Company received the EV
subsidies from the Chinese government as purchaser of the EV
vehicles.

Throughout the Class Period, Kandi's business model was based on
the ZZY Company and the JV Company's prompt receipt of the EV
subsidies.  As a result, Kandi's EV operations started to grow in
2012 and 2013.  By 2015, Kandi's annual revenues and profits had
doubled, a majority of which came from its sale of EV parts and
products.

In early 2016, the Chinese government conducted an investigation
into its EV subsidy program and suspended the subsidies for those
vehicles sold in 2015 and 2016.  This negatively impacted Kandi's
business model and ability to pay its vendors and suppliers.  As a
result, Kandi began to assign its outstanding notes receivable,
mostly from the JV Company, to its vendors and suppliers.  Kandi
also extended the credit terms offered to the JV Company from the
original 90-210 days to 210-720 days.

On March 16, 2015, Kandi filed its 2014 Annual Report Form 10-K
reporting that EV parts sales had increased from $1.6 million to
$116.4 million and the total revenues had grown from $94.5 million
to $170.2 million in 2014.  In relevant part, the 2014 10-K stated
that Kandi had received $29,354,492 in cash from repayment of notes
receivable and had paid out $24,705,489 in cash by issuing notes
receivable.

The Plaintiffs allege that these representations were false and
misleading because Kandi's 2016 10-K later disclosed that more than
half of the $29,354,492 were not repayment to Kandi in cash, but
actually represented either Kandi's collection of notes receivable
or Kandi's assignment of notes receivable to its suppliers to
settle accounts payable.  Additionally, more than half of the
$29,354,492 actually represented Kandi's use of notes receivable
instead of payment in cash, to settle its trades receivable.

The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants failed to properly
reflect related-party transactions in Kandi's financial documents
as required by SEC Regulation S-X, or to file separate financial
statements for the JV Company as a significant majority-owned
subsidiary in 2014 and 2015 as required by regulation S-X.  In
addition, they allege that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements in stating that Kandi had effective internal controls in
place in its 2013 Third Quarter 10-Q, 2014 Third Quarter 10-Q, 2014
10-K, 10-Q for all quarters in 2015 and 2016 and 2015 10-K, because
their misrepresentations and omissions in violation of the
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") show Kandi's weak
internal controls.  The Plaintiffs further allege that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements in each of their
financial statements throughout the Class Period, except for
Kandi's 2013 10-Q, because they failed to disclose that the
previous financial statements had not materially conformed with
GAAP.

On March 16, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the instant action.  On May
29, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing Gary Vatter and
Gerald Klein as the Co-Lead Plaintiffs.  On Aug. 31, 2018, the
Plaintiffs filed the CAC.  On Nov. 15, 2018, the Court entered an
order on stipulation consolidating the case with two related
actions, 17 Civ. 2932 and 17 Civ. 3049, into one consolidated
action captioned "In re Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation" pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action on Dec. 14,
2018.  The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs fail to adequately
plead scienter and falsity.  They further argue that the
Plaintiffs' section 20(a) claims are predicated on their section
10(b) claims and thus should be dismissed for failure to state a
claim.

The Plaintiffs' core allegations concern two sets of
misrepresentations by the Defendants.  First, the Plaintiffs aver
that the Defendants mislabeled hundreds of millions of dollars'
worth of accounts receivable as cash activity and improperly
included them in Kandi's statement of cash flows throughout the
Class Period.  Second, they aver that the Defendants misrepresented
that they had effective disclosure controls when they had failed to
properly disclose related-party transactions and file separate
financial statements for the JV Company as required by Regulation
S-X.

Judge Ramos considers the Plaintiffs' allegations as a whole with
respect to each set of misrepresentations by the Defendants to
determine whether they support a strong inference of scienter.   

The Plaintiffs argue that that CAC adequately pleads strong
circumstantial evidence of the Defendants' knowledge of facts
indicating that their classification of Kandi's accounts receivable
was not accurate.  Judge Ramos finds that the Plaintiffs fail to
"specifically identify the reports or statements" that contradict
the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations.  They nevertheless fail
to point to any specific fact that the Individual Defendants either
"knew or should have known" that they were misclassifying the
accounts receivable from the JV Company.

The Plaintiffs' only allegation concerning the SEC comment letter
states that the letter raised questions about Kandi's outstanding
accounts receivable.  However, their own pleadings show that Kandi
only began to either receive or assign notes receivable in the year
2014.  The SEC letter could not have provided contradictory facts
to the Defendants' later misclassification of notes receivable.  As
such, Plaintiffs' reliance on In re Bear Stearns Companies, Inc.
Sec. Derivatives, & ERISA Litig., is misplaced as the defendants
did not dispute that the SEC memorandum provided contradictory
facts to their alleged misrepresentations in the complaint in that
case.

The Plaintiffs' allegations regarding Defendants'
misrepresentations of their disclosures controls suffer similar
defects.  Judge Ramos finds that the SEC comment letter in 2013
similarly could not provide any contradictory facts because the
Plaintiffs' own pleadings show that Kandi only supplemented
corrective disclosures on related-party transactions in restating
their financial statements for 2016, 2015 and 2014.  The
Plaintiffs' allegations regarding the Defendants' disclosures of
their weak internal controls similarly fail to specifically
identify any Individual Defendants' knowledge of facts that Kandi's
disclosure controls were not effective.  The Plaintiffs' argument
that the Defendants' awareness of some weak aspects of their
internal controls, without more, necessarily suggest their
awareness of other internal control problems and their impact on
Kandi's financial statements is unpersuasive.

Therefore, Plaintiffs' allegations, viewed collectively, do not
support a strong inference of scienter as compelling as any
opposing inference, Judge Ramos states.  Because failure to plead a
strong inference of scienter alone is a sufficient basis for
dismissal, the Judge grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss on
this basis.

To survive a motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs must establish that
the Defendants made a statement that was misleading as to a
material fact.  Judge Ramos finds that the Plaintiffs' factual
allegations have not specifically shown that the Defendants were
aware of any facts contradicting the statements regarding internal
controls when made.  As such, Judge Ramos finds that the Plaintiffs
have failed to plausibly allege that the Defendants' statements
regarding internal controls were false when made.  The Plaintiffs'
pleadings regarding the Defendants' misclassifications of Kandi's
notes receivable also fail for substantially the same reasons.

Finally, in light of the Plaintiff's failure to adequately plead a
primary violation, the Section 20(a) claims against the Individual
Defendants cannot stand, the District Court opines.  Judge Ramos
thus grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
Section 20(a) claim.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Ramos granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  

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

Scott Cashen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy Alan Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Murielle Jacqueline
Steven, Pomerantz LLP.

Gerald W. Klein, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Thomas
James McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- Gainey McKenna & Egleston
& Murielle Jacqueline Steven, Pomerantz LLP.

Igor Tavrovsky, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Joseph
Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz
LLP & Murielle Jacqueline Steven, Pomerantz LLP.

Michelle Thai, Movant, pro se.

James O'Toole, Movant, represented by Richard William Gonnello --
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP.

Gary Vatter, Movant, represented by Aatif Iqbal --
aiqbal@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Murielle Jacqueline Steven,
Pomerantz LLP.

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc., Xiaoming Hu, Bing Mei, Xiaoying Zhu
& Cheng Wang, Defendants, represented by Richard Joseph lamar
Lomuscio -- rlomuscio@riker.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP &
Ronald Zachary Ahrens -- rahrens@riker.com -- Riker, Danzig,
Scherer, Hyland & Perretti LLP.


KANSAS CITY LIFE: Karr Class Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled David B. Karr, on behalf of herself and all
other aggrieved employees v. KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 1916-CV26645, was removed from the Circuit Court of
Jackson County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on Nov. 1, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00882-BCW to the
proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          John W. Shaw, Esq.
          BERKOWITZ OLIVER LLP
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 561-7007
          Fax: (816) 561-1888
          Email: jshaw@berkowitzoliver.com


KINKISHARYO INT'L: Armendariz Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled NOE ARMENDARIZ individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. KINKISHARYO INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 19STCV32237, was removed on Oct. 11, 2019, from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-08757 to the
proceeding.

Plaintiff Noe Armendariz is a former employee of Kinkisharyo.  He
was employed by the Defendant from July 2017 to August 2019 as a
burning technician.  On September 11, 2019, the Plaintiff
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, filed
a Complaint in the Superior Court.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts eight causes of action
arising out of his employment with the Defendant: (1) failure to
pay minimum and regular rate wages; (2) failure to pay overtime
compensation; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to
authorize and permit rest breaks; (5) failure to indemnify
necessary business expenses; (6) failure to timely pay final wages
at termination; (7) failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; and (8) unfair business practices.[BN]

Defendant KINKISHARYO INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C., is represented by:

          Ronald J. Holland, Esq.
          Philip Shecter, Esq.
          Alice Kwak, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
          415 Mission St., Suite 5600
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
          Telephone: (628) 218-3800
          Facsimile: (628) 877-0107
          E-mail: rjholland@mwe.com
                  pshecter@mwe.com
                  akwak@mwe.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Florida Southern Dist. Narrows Glover Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LESSIE GLOVER, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No.
19-21900-CIV-ALTONAGA/Goodman (S.D. Fla.), Judge Cecilia M.
Altonaga of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted in part and denied in part Defendants Liberty
Mutual Insurance and LM General Insurance Co.'s Motion to Dismiss
Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiff brings the putative class action alleging a single
breach of contract claim against both Defendants.  The Plaintiff
was a named insured on a LibertyGuard Auto Insurance Policy
effective July 25, 2016 through July 25, 2017.  She alleges that
the Defendants have a practice of refusing to pay full Actual Cash
Value ("ACV"), including state and local title transfer and vehicle
registration fees, to first-party total loss insureds like
Plaintiff, on physical damage policies containing comprehensive and
collision coverages.  The Defendants' failure to pay full ACV
damaged the Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Florida class
of insureds.

Massachusetts-based Liberty Mutual handles and adjusts insurance
claims and is responsible for policy language and claims
adjustments.  Illinois-based LM General is a wholly-owned
underwriter of Liberty Mutual, entirely directed and controlled by
Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual, including by and through LM
General, uses the same form language in the Plaintiff's Insurance
Policy as it does in the policies of all the Class Members.

The Defendants' standardized policy language promises, upon the
occurrence of a total loss to an insured vehicle, to pay the ACV of
the insured vehicle to the insured.

The Plaintiff alleges the promise to pay ACV allows for deductions
based on the vehicle's depreciation and condition but does not
require the costs be incurred.  The promise to pay ACV is a
predictable amount upon which the Defendants and insureds can rely.
The ACV of a vehicle is independent from the amount originally
paid, if any, for the total-loss vehicle; and the amount paid, if
any, to replace the total-loss vehicle.

The Plaintiff owned a vehicle insured under the Defendants'
Insurance Policy and was involved in an accident.  Defendant LM
General paid the Plaintiff an amount that did not include title
transfer or tag transfer fees.  Title transfer fees and tag
transfer fees are mandatory fees that must be paid to replace any
vehicle in Florida.  The Defendants, pursuant to a standard and
uniform business practice, never pays insureds FTLP, including
title and tag transfer fees, after a total-loss to an insured
vehicle, notwithstanding its contractual obligation to do so.  They
breached its Insurance Policy with the Plaintiff by failing to pay
any amount for title transfer fees and tag transfer fees when it
paid her what it purported to be the ACV of the total loss of the
Insured Vehicle.

The Amended Complaint contains a single breach-of-contract claim,
alleging the Plaintiff was a party to a contract, the Insurance
Policy, with the Defendants.  The Insurance Policy shows the
insurer is LM General and not Liberty Mutual.

The matter came before the Court for a hearing on Sept. 25, 2019,
on Defendants Liberty Mutual and LM General's Motion to Dismiss.
The Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion.

The Defendants first argue the Court should dismiss the Amended
Complaint's single breach-of-contract claim because an insurer is
not required to pay title and tag transfer fees as part of the
actual cash value of a total loss of a motor vehicle.  In support
of its case-dispositive argument, the Defendants assert Florida
Statutes section 626.9743(5) governs whether the payment of title
and tag transfer fees is part of an actual cash value payment on a
total loss settlement; and section 626.9743(5) does not require
title and tag transfer fees be included in actual cash value.
Second, Defendants argue the Court should dismiss Liberty Mutual
because it did not issue the Insurance Policy and no valid
alter-ego or other theory is stated to keep Liberty Mutual in the
case.

Judge Altonaga granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.  First, the Judge finds that under Florida law,
the absence of an alternative definition means that the statutory
definition fills the gap.  Thus, the Judge agrees with the
Defendants that section 626.9743(5) is incorporated into the
Insurance Policy and the Court must look to how the statute directs
the ACV of a total loss be calculated.

Second, Judge Altonaga notes that because of the well-accepted
construction given a statute's use of the word "includes," the
undersigned does not agree the Florida Legislature intended to
exclude from "actual cost to purchase a comparable motor vehicle,
including sales tax, if applicable," ancillary fees as part of
"actual cash value."  The Florida Legislature understood by using
"includes," it was providing a non-exhaustive definition of the
term ACV.  The Judge holds that the Defendants' construction of the
statute is contrary to canons of statutory construction and
misreads its plain text.  While the statue is certainly
incorporated in the Insurance Policy and helps to define the
undefined ACV, it does not provide an exhaustive definition that
excludes the Plaintiff's proposed construction as offered in her
pleading.

Third, in asserting her breach-of-contract claim, the Plaintiff
plausibly alleges -- consistent with the statute that is
incorporated in the Insurance Policy -- the failure to include
mandatory state fees constitutes a breach of the promise to pay
ACV, the District Court notes.  The statute the Defendants ask the
Court to use to define ACV provides a non-exhaustive definition.
Consequently, while that statutory "definition" applies, it is also
appropriate to look to how Florida case law defines ACV to
determine if the Plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim is plausible,
bearing in mind ACV should be construed liberally in favor of the
Plaintiff and strictly against the insurer who failed to define the
term in its Insurance Policy.

Finally, the Plaintiff relies on AA Suncoast Chiropractic Clinic,
P.A. v. Progressive American Insurance Company, where the court
allowed a claim against the parent corporation on the theory it
could be held liable for its own direct participation in its own
wrongful policies and procedures through the direction and control
of its subsidiaries.  While that may have been the case in AA
Suncoast Chiropractic Clinic, where the plaintiff was seeking
injunctive relief to stop the parent and subsidiary from their
routine practice of avoiding the PIP statute, the Plaintiff merely
states a single breach-of-contract claim against both the
Defendants, the District Court points out.  The Plaintiff does not
allege the existence of a contract with Liberty Mutual upon which
it can obtain relief should it prevail in proving a breach of the
Insurance Policy.  Consequently, Judge Altonaga agrees that Liberty
Mutual must be dismissed from the action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 4, 2019 Order is
available at https://is.gd/lJ4zD2 from Leagle.com.

Lessie Glover, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Lynch,
Christopher J. Lynch, P.A., Edmund Alonso Normand, Normand PLLC,
Jacob Lawrence Phillips, Normand PLLC, Scott Adam Edelsberg ,
Edelsberg Law PA, Andrew John Shamis --
ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com -- Garrett O. Berg , Shamis,
Gentile, P.A., Jordan David Utanski -- utanski@jdu-law.com --
Edelsberg Law P.A. & Rachel N. Dapeer -- rachel@dapeer.com --
Dapeer Law, P.A.

LM General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Cassandra
K. Johnson -- cassie.johnson@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, LLP, pro
hac vice, Daniel F. Diffley, Alston & Bird, LLP, pro hac vice,
David B. Carpenter -- david.carpenter@alston.com -- Alston & Bird,
LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew John Lavisky -- mlavisky@butler.legal
-- Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Valley Sues over Insurance Premium Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
Valley Container Company, Inc., Individually And On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Liberty Mutual
Group, Inc.; Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.; Liberty Insurance
Corporation; LM Insurance Corporation; The First Liberty Insurance
Corp.; Liberty County Mutual Insurance Corporation; Wasusau General
Insurance Corporation; Wasusau Underwriters Insurance Corporation;
Employers Insurance Corporation; Employers Insurance Company of
Wasusau; Peerless Insurance Company; collectively d/b/a Liberty
Mutual Insurance, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-12133-DJC (D.
Mass., Oct. 15, 2019), alleges that Defendants unlawfully
overcharged companies in at least 35 states for workers'
compensation insurance, and have engaged in misconduct which has
caused Liberty Mutual and other workers compensation insurers to
overcharge companies for workers' compensation insurance.

Specifically, Liberty Mutual has used and continues to use the
National Council on Compensation Insurance and its knowing and
complicit lack of oversight and diligence to help facilitate
reporting deficiencies and the corresponding use of inaccurate data
in calculating insurance premiums for insureds.

The Plaintiff alleges Breach of Contract, Unjust Enrichment, and
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act
and the Massachusetts Consumers Protection Act.

Liberty Mutual Group, is an American diversified global insurer,
and the third-largest property and casualty insurer in the United
States. It ranks 68th on the Fortune 100 list of largest
corporations in the United States based on 2017 revenue.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Michael P. Thorton, Esq.
          David J, McMorris, Esq.
          Christian F. Uehlcin, Esq.
          Brian J. Freer, Esq.
          THORTON LAW FIRM LLP
          One Lincoln Street
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 720 1333
          Facsimile: (617) 620 2445
          E-mail: cuehlein@tenlaw.com

MANITOWWOC COMPANY: Class Suit Filed Over Crane Toppled by Dorian
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed class action lawsuit is looking to recover losses
sustained by businesses and residential tenants displaced by the
collapse of a construction crane in downtown Halifax last month
during post tropical storm Dorian.

A notice of action was filed in Nova Scotia Supreme Court on
October 18, 2019, by lawyer Ray Wagner, Esq.

The proposed representative plaintiff in the statement of claim is
Thornbloom Boutique, Ltd., which is the operator of a home decor
and furniture store on South Park Street.

The named defendants, who have not yet been served by the
plaintiff's lawyer, are Halifax-based site developers W.M. Fares
Architects Inc., and W.M. Fares and Associates Inc., Lead
Structural Formwork Ltd., of Moncton, N.B.--the owner, operator and
installer of the crane--and The Manitowwoc Company Inc., the
Milwaukee, Wis.-based designer of the crane.

In the statement of claim, the plaintiffs say they have suffered
financial and psychological harm and they say the defendants are
responsible "for the losses, injuries and damage" alleged in the
document.

They allege the defendants breached the applicable standard of care
by negligently "designing, fabricating, installing, operating,
maintaining, and using the crane." None of the allegations have
been proven in court.

The court document says the plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
general and special damages as well as recovery of other costs.

"This is having a devastating impact on us," Thornbloom owners
Debbie Morgan and Elaine Shortt said in a news release sent out by
the law firm.

"We simply can't operate without customers having access to our
store. We have no choice but to recover our losses this way because
it's been going on too long, and there have been no concrete
commitments made to provide assistance to us."

In an interview, Wagner said the claim will be served to the
defendants in the coming weeks. He said he is in talks with four
other affected businesses about joining the class action. No
residential tenants have joined yet.

"This is necessary because the businesses are very concerned about
their livelihood and their ability to be able to survive through
this," Wagner said.

The crane collapsed onto a residential condominium tower under
construction on Sept. 7. An evacuation order was issued by Halifax
Regional Fire and Emergency that affected about 30 residents of the
Trillium Building on South Park Street and at least six commercial
businesses, according to the statement of claim.

The provincial government declared a localized state of emergency
at the crane site on Sept. 18. It was extended twice and remains in
place until Oct. 30.

The Transportation Department said the next phase of the crane's
removal will begin with the cutting and removing of the main
tower.

Other parts of the twisted structure were removed over the
Thanksgiving weekend. That work allowed residents from two nearby
buildings to return home earlier.

The remaining removal work is expected to take 10 working days to
complete, weather permitting, the department said. Once that
happens the evacuation order will be lifted for the remaining
residents and business owners affected.

Site cleanup is expected to conclude in early to mid-November.
[GN]



MATCH GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Notes of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith, LLC reminds investors of important deadlines for
lead plaintiff application regarding class action lawsuits against
the following companies for violations of federal securities laws.
If you purchased any of the below-listed stocks during the
referenced time periods and want to discuss your legal rights,
please contact Marc Ackerman, Esquire or Jordan Schatz, Esquire at
877-534-2590. There is no cost or financial obligation to you.

MATCH GROUP, INC. (MTCH)

Shares purchased between August 6, 2019 and September 25, 2019

Deadline: December 2, 2019

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, 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, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company used fake love interest ads to
convince customers to buy and upgrade subscriptions; (2) that the
Company made it difficult and confusing for consumers to cancel
their subscriptions; (3) that, as a result, the Company was
reasonably likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny; (4) that
the Company lacked adequate disclosure controls and procedures; and
(5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Additional information is available at
http://www.brodskysmith.com/cases/match-group-inc-nasdaq-mtch/.No
cost or obligation.

MYRIAD GENETICS, INC. (MYGN)

Shares purchased between September 2, 2019 and August 13, 2019

Deadline: November 26, 2019

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

Additional information can be found at
http://www.brodskysmith.com/cases/myriad-genetics-inc-nasdaq-mygn/,
or call: 877-534-2590. No cost or obligation.

CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION (COF)

Shares purchased between February 2, 2018 and July 29, 2019

Deadline: December 2, 2019

On July 29, 2019, Capital One announced in a press release that it
had suffered a data breach affecting over 106 million individuals
in the United States and Canada. On this news, shares of Capital
One fell $5.71 or nearly 5.9% to close at $91.21 on July 30 2019.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company did not maintain robust information security
protections, and its protection did not shield personal information
against security breaches; (2) such deficiencies heightened the
Company's exposure to a cyber-attack; and (3) as a result, Capital
One's public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Additional information can be found at
http://www.brodskysmith.com/cases/capital-one-financial-corporation-nyse-cof/,
or call 877-534-2590. No cost or obligation to you.

Brodsky & Smith, LLC is a litigation law firm with extensive
expertise representing shareholders throughout the nation in
securities and class action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky &
Smith have been appointed by numerous courts throughout the country
to serve as lead counsel in class actions and have successfully
recovered millions of dollars for our clients and shareholders.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]


MATCH GROUP: Brualdi Law Reminds Investors of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. reminds shareholders of these recently
commenced class action lawsuits on behalf of investors of MTCH and
VSLR. If you purchased shares in any of these companies during the
class periods below, and suffered losses in excess of $50,000,
please contact David Titus at (212) 952-0602 if interested in
acting as lead plaintiff for either of these cases.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. In general, the lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from its
investments during the Class Period. You do not need to seek
appointment as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.

Match Group, Inc. (MTCH)
Class period: Aug 06, 2019 through Sep 25, 2019, inclusive
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019
The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about Match's business,
operations, and prospects. The complaint alleges that, as a result,
Match's securities traded at artificially inflated prices during
the class period, and that members of the purported class purchased
or otherwise acquired Match's securities relying upon the integrity
of the market price of the Company's securities and market
information relating to Match, and were damaged thereby.

Vivint Solar, Inc. (VSLR)
Class period: March 5, 2019 through September 26, 2019, inclusive
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 10, 2019

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, 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. The complaint alleges that, as
a result, purported class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.

If you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact The Brualdi
Law Firm, P.C. at the contact information below.

CONTACT:

         Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
         Gaitri Boodhoo, Esq.
         David Titus, Esq.
         The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 952-0602
         Website: www.brualdilawfirm.com
         Email: dtitus@brualdilawfirm.com,  
                gboodhoo@brualdlawfirm.com,
                rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm,.com    
[GN]



MDL 2672: Settlement in VW Clean Diesel Suit Gets Court Prelim. OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and Direction of Notice
under Rule 23(e) in IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION and in relation
to Audi CO2 Cases, MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC), MDL Dkt. No. 6634 (N.D.
Cal.).

A proposed class action settlement was reached between the
Court-appointed Lead Counsel and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
on behalf of a proposed Settlement Class of owners and lessees of
certain Audi, Volkswagen, Porsche, and Bentley branded vehicles.
The Settlement resolves certain claims against the Defendants
pertaining to the represented fuel economy and emissions for the
Class Vehicles.

Judge Breyer held a Preliminary Approval Hearing on Oct. 4, 2019.
He has presided over and managed these MDL proceedings as
Transferee Judge since the Dec. 8, 2015 Transfer Order, including
the subset of cases commenced in November 2016 and styled as the
"Audi CO2 Cases."  The Judge considered all of the presentations
and submissions related to the Motion as well as the facts,
contentions, claims and defenses as they have developed in these
proceedings, and is otherwise fully advised of all relevant facts
in connection therewith.

Judge Breyer finds that the proposed Settlement appears to be the
product of intensive, thorough, serious, informed, and
non-collusive negotiations; has no obvious deficiencies; does not
improperly grant preferential treatment to the Settlement Class
Representatives or segments of the Class; and appears to be fair,
reasonable, and adequate, such that notice of the Settlement should
be directed to the Class Members, and a Final Approval Hearing
should be set.

Accordingly, Judge Breyer granted the Motion for Preliminary
Approval.  The "Class" or "Settlement Class" means a nationwide
class, including Puerto Rico, of all persons (including individuals
and entities) who own, owned, lease, or leased a Class Vehicle in
the United States or its territories as of August 30, 2019, the
date of the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement.

The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel, appointed by the Court in Pretrial
Order No. 7, has applied for appointment as Interim Settlement
Class Counsel, and the proposed Settlement Class Representatives
are those named as the Plaintiffs in the Amended Consolidated
Consumer Class Action Complaint.

For purposes of identifying current and former owners and lessees
of Class Vehicles, Judge Breyer authorized R.L. Polk & Co. to
provide the names, most current mailing addresses, most current
email addresses, dates of purchase, lease or registration, and
dates of sale or other disposition (if any) of such owners and
lessees to the Interim Class Counsel, the Defendants and their
designee(s).  Any governmental agency in possession of names,
mailing addresses, email addresses, dates of purchase, lease or
registration, or dates of sale or other disposition (if any) of
current and former Class Vehicle owners or lessees is authorized
and directed to release that information to R.L. Polk & Co. upon
request.

The Judge adopted the following schedule:

     a. Oct. 4, 2019     Claims Period begins

     b. Oct. 15, 2019    Class Notice Program begins

     c. Dec. 13, 2019    Motions for Final Approval and
                         Attorneys' Fees and Expenses filed

     d. Jan. 17, 2020    Objection and Opt-Out Deadline

     e. Feb. 7, 2020     Reply Memoranda in Support of Final
                         Approval and Fee/Expense Application
                         filed

     f. Feb. 28, 2020    Final Approval Hearing

     g. March 29, 2020   Claims Period ends (assumes final
                         approval on Feb. 28, 2020)

The Final Approval Hearing is scheduled to take place on Feb. 28,
2020 at 10:00 a.m.

The Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel is appointed as the Interim Settlement
Class Counsel.

The Interim Class Counsel and the Defendants' Counsel are
authorized to use all reasonable procedures in connection with
approval and administration of the Settlement that are not
materially inconsistent with the Preliminary Approval Order or the
Class Action Settlement.

A full-text copy of Judge Breyer's Oct. 4, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/QLaCnU from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rcarey@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com
-- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G.
Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro ,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Nicholas Allen, Daniel Carroll, Giancarlo Ceci, Dominic Troffer,
Paul Linnee, Sarah Hayden, Dario Medina, Shanice Boyette, Isaac
Hoover, John Mazur & Forrest Tinsler, Plaintiffs, represented by
Caleb Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP,
pro hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman -- csz@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague, Lightfoot Franklin &
White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com
-- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker --
chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable,
Dana Woodrum Lang, Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M.
Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Baker, Sterchi, Cowden &
Rice, LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com --
Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer,
Conrad and Scherer, LLP633 South Federal Highway, Eighth Floor,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.


MEDWELL LLC: Hopkins Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debts
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROSA M. WILLIAMS-HOPKINS AND RANDY HOPKINS, on behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEDWELL, LLC; and JOHN
DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No. BER-L-007294-19 (N.J. Sup., Oct
18, 2019), alleges that the Defendants engaged in unlawful
collection practices in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act.

The Defendants have demanded amounts from the Plaintiffs that
conflate individual debts allegedly owed to joint debts, include
interest charges well in excess of twice the lawful rate of
interest and generally demands amounts not due under the alleged
contracts that they rely on for their claims, according to the
complaint. The Defendants also make private medical information
public in violation of their duty of care owed to patients.

The Plaintiffs seek an injunction against the Defendants'
collection practices. Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek monetary
damages on behalf of a subclass of consumers from whom the
Defendants collected any money on void and unenforceable medical
debts.

Medwell, LLC is a medical practice company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yoongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273 7117
          E-mail: ykm@kimlf.com

               - and -

          Scott Borison, Esq.
          LEGG LAW FIRM, LLP
          1900 S. Norfolk St., Suite 350
          San Mateo, CA 94403
          Telephone: (301) 620 1016
          E-mail: borison@legglaw.com


MEREDITH CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. To determine your eligibility and get
free access to our shareholder support tools that provide you with
case updates, automated loss calculations and claims recovery
assistance, please contact the firm via the links below. There will
be no cost or obligation to you.

Meredith Corporation (MDP)
Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased January 31, 2018 -
September 5, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 5, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/meredith-corporation-loss-form?prid=3987&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Meredith
Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Time, Inc. acquisition was
not as profitable as the Company had claimed; (2) the Company would
incur additional costs for strategic investments to improve the
Time business; (3) as a result, the Company's earnings would be
materially and adversely impacted; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

The Chemours Company (CC)
Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 16, 2017 -
August 1, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 9, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/the-chemours-company-loss-form?prid=3987&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, The
Chemours Company made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Chemours had not appropriately
accounted and accrued reserves for its environmental liabilities;
(2) the possibility of costs exceeding accrued amounts was greater
than the Company had represented to a point that could be material;
(3) the Company's policies, standards and procedures were not
properly designed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm to people
and the environment (4) Chemours' handling, manufacture, use, and
disposal of hazardous substances was not in accordance with
applicable environmental laws and regulations; and (5) as a result
of these misrepresentations, Chemours shares traded at artificially
inflated prices.

Ruhnn Holding Limited (RUHN)
Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased all persons or
entities who purchased Ruhnn American Depositary Shares pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's April 3, 2019 initial public
offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 6, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ruhnn-holding-limited-loss-form?prid=3987&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) at the time of the initial
public offering ("IPO"), the number of Ruhnn's online stores had
declined by nearly 40%; (2) at the time of the IPO, the number of
Ruhnn's full-service Key Opinion Leaders had declined by nearly
44%; (3) as a result, the Company's net revenues derived from its
full-service segment had declined by 46% on a sequential basis; and
(3) as a result, defendants' statements about Ruhnn's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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

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

CONTACT:

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



MYRIAD GENETICS: Brodsky & Smith Notes of Nov. 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith, LLC reminds investors of important deadlines for
lead plaintiff application regarding class action lawsuits against
MYRIAD GENETICS, INC. for violations of federal securities laws. If
you purchased any of the below-listed stocks during the referenced
time periods and want to discuss your legal rights, please contact
Marc Ackerman, Esquire or Jordan Schatz, Esquire at 877-534-2590.
There is no cost or financial obligation to you.

MYRIAD GENETICS, INC. (MYGN)

Shares purchased between September 2, 2019 and August 13, 2019

Deadline: November 26, 2019

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

Additional information can be found at
http://www.brodskysmith.com/cases/myriad-genetics-inc-nasdaq-mygn/,
or call: 877-534-2590. No cost or obligation.

CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION (COF)

Shares purchased between February 2, 2018 and July 29, 2019

Deadline: December 2, 2019

On July 29, 2019, Capital One announced in a press release that it
had suffered a data breach affecting over 106 million individuals
in the United States and Canada. On this news, shares of Capital
One fell $5.71 or nearly 5.9% to close at $91.21 on July 30 2019.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company did not maintain robust information security
protections, and its protection did not shield personal information
against security breaches; (2) such deficiencies heightened the
Company's exposure to a cyber-attack; and (3) as a result, Capital
One's public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Additional information can be found at
http://www.brodskysmith.com/cases/capital-one-financial-corporation-nyse-cof/,
or call 877-534-2590. No cost or obligation to you.

Brodsky & Smith, LLC is a litigation law firm with extensive
expertise representing shareholders throughout the nation in
securities and class action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky &
Smith have been appointed by numerous courts throughout the country
to serve as lead counsel in class actions and have successfully
recovered millions of dollars for our clients and shareholders.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]


MYRIAD GENETICS: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman reminds investors in Myriad Genetics, Inc. (MYGN) of
the pending securities class action and urges MYGN investors who
have suffered losses in excess of $50,000 to contact the firm.

Class Period: Sept. 2, 2016 - Aug. 13, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Nov. 26, 2019
Sign Up: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/MYGN
Contact An Attorney Now: MYGN@hbsslaw.com
(510) 725-3000

MYGN Securities Class Action:

According to the Complaint, Defendants misled investors about
Myriad Genetics' GeneSight(R), a DNA genotyping test to aid
psychotropic drug selection for depressed patients.

The Complaint alleges Defendants repeatedly promoted the
GeneSight(R) product, while concealing that GeneSight(R) lacked
evidence or information sufficient to support tests in its current
form, including the validity of its purported benefits. On August
13, 2019, Defendants disclosed that the FDA requested changes to
GeneSight(R) and the Company had been in ongoing discussions with
the FDA about the request. Defendants revealed that the FDA had
specifically questioned the company as to whether the validity of
GeneSight's purported benefits had been established.

This news drove the price of Myriad shares down $19.05, or down
almost 43%, to close at $25.50 on August 14, 2019, erasing $1.4
billion in market capitalization.

"We're focused on investors' losses and whether Myriad
misrepresented GeneSight(R)'s benefits," said Hagens Berman partner
Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Myriad should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 510-725-3000 or email MYGN@hbsslaw.com.

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classaction

Contact:

         Reed Kathrein, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN
         Tel: 510-725-3000
         Email: reed@hbsslaw.com
[GN]



MYRIAD GENETICS: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that securities fraud class action litigation has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Myriad Genetics, Inc. ("Myriad" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: MYGN) between September 2, 2016 and August 13, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Myriad
during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff by no later than November 26, 2019. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the
action will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

Myriad investors may contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser
toll-free at 1-800-541-7358 to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

Background on the Myriad Securities Class Litigation

Myriad, incorporated and headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, is
a molecular diagnostic company that develops and markets
predictive, personalized, and prognostic medicine tests. Myriad
offers, among other products, GeneSight, a DNA genotyping test to
aid psychotropic drug selection for depressed patients, and
Foresight, a test for future parents to assess their risk of
passing on a recessive genetic condition to their offspring.

The action alleges that during the Class Period, Myriad
misrepresented and failed to disclose that: (1) GeneSight lacked
sufficient evidence or information to support the tests in their
current form and their purported benefits; (2) the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") had requested that Myriad make changes
to GeneSight and questioned the validity of the test's purported
benefits; (3) the Company had been in discussions with the FDA
regarding the changes to GeneSight that the agency requested; and
(4) Myriad's acquisition of Counsyl, Inc. and its product Foresight
had caused the Company to risk receiving lower reimbursement for
its expanded carrier screening tests, which could potentially, and
did in fact result in a material negative impact on Myriad's
revenue.

On August 13, 2019, Myriad revealed that the FDA requested changes
to the GeneSight test offering and that the Company has "been in
ongoing discussions with the FDA regarding its request." In
addition, Myriad disclosed that the FDA had questioned whether the
validity of GeneSight's purported benefits had been established and
that the agency had increasingly questioned the claims of marketed
genetics tests such as GeneSight since at least late 2018. On this
news, the price of Myriad common stock fell $19.05 per share, or
42.76%, from a closing price of on $44.55 on August 13, 2019, to
close at $25.50 per share on August 14, 2019, on extremely heavy
trading volume.

    About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."

For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/

Contact:

         Sharon M. Lee, Esq.
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         Telephone: 1-800-541-7358
[GN]


NANO: Court Narrows Claims in First Amended Fabian Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES FABIAN, Plaintiff, v. COLIN LEMAHIEU, ET AL.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00054-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the Nano
Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint ("FAC").

Fabian brings the putative class action against Defendants Nano,
Colin LeMahieu, Mica Busch, Zack Shapiro, and Troy Retzer, as well
as B.G. Services SR ("BitGrail") and Francesco "The Bomber" Firano,
for securities fraud and related claims in connection with the
Defendants' promotion of and statements regarding a cryptocurrency
or digital asset referred to as NANO, formerly known as RaiBlocks
("XRB" or "Nano Tokens").

Nano is, according to its own published promotional materials, a
"low-latency payment platform" that utilizes a novel block-lattice
architecture" on which "each account has its own blockchain as part
of a larger directed acyclic graph.  The Nano Defendants developed
Nano Tokens, or XRB, which they each promoted, offered, traded, and
sold to the public for their personal financial benefit.  

XRB has never been registered as a security with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and is not exempt from registration.  The Nano
Defendants worked with the BitGrail Defendants to create BitGrail's
"RaiBlocks dedicated exchange" in approximately December 2016.
BitGrail was a cryptocurrency exchange operating in Italy that was
primarily focused on creating and sustaining a market for Nano
Tokens.

The case is the second lawsuit against the Nano Defendants in
connection with the XRB asset.  The first action was filed on April
6, 2018 by one of the Plaintiff's firms, Silver Miller of Florida,
in the Eastern District of New York -- Brola v. Nano, et al, Case
No. 1:18-cv-02049-NG-RML (E.D.N.Y.).  The complaint in the Brola
Action articulated allegations filed on behalf of a class that
included the Plaintiff in the action.  The Brola Action was
dismissed pursuant to voluntary dismissal on Sept. 28, 2018.  No
substantive motion work occurred.

The Plaintiff filed the initial complaint in the action on Jan. 3,
2019.  The Nano Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that complaint
on March 29, 2019.  Following a hearing on June 25, 2019, the
California District Court granted the motion with leave to amend.
During the June 25 hearing, the Court went through each of the
Plaintiff's claims and explained why the Plaintiff's complaint
failed to state a claim in each instance.

Of the 11 causes of action articulated in in the FAC, the Plaintiff
asserts 10 against the Moving Defendants: Federal Securities Claims
(Counts I and II).  In addition to the federal securities law
claims addressed above, the Plaintiff asserts eight state-law
causes of action against the Moving Defendants; (i) Breach of
Implied Contract Claim (Count IV); (ii) Breach of Fiduciary Duty
(Count V); (iii) Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty
(Count VI); (iv) Negligence (Count VII); (v) Fraud (Count VIII);
(vi) Negligent Misrepresentation (Count IX); (vii) Constructive
Fraud (Count X); and (viii) Quasi-Contract Claim or Unjust
Enrichment (Count XI).

Judge Rogers granted in part and denied in part the Nano
Defendants' motion to dismiss.  In summary, the following
Plaintiff's claims against Nano Defendants remain: negligence
(Count VII), fraud (Count VIII), and negligent misrepresentation
(Count IX), Judge Rogers clarified.

Judge Rogers finds that Nano Defendants correctly note that the
Plaintiff's generic allegation does not suffice, nor did the
Plaintiff refute or otherwise contest the argument.  During the
September 24 hearing, the Plaintiff relied on paragraphs 160 and
171 of the FAC, which incorporate statements in the Italian Court
Documents, as allegations of causation based on "double
withdrawals," which permitted the alleged theft, as the result of
an exploited fault in the Nano Protocol developed by Nano
Defendants.  Judge Rogers agrees and declines to adopt the factual
findings of the Italian bankruptcy court as the Moving Defendants
suggest.  Accordingly, Judge Rogers denied the Nano Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's negligence claim.

The Nano Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has failed to allege
reliance because of the 36 statements identified in the FAC, only
two were made prior to the Plaintiff's final purchase of Nano
Coins.  However, Judge Rogers finds that this argument ignores the
Plaintiff's allegation that he relied on the Nano Defendant's false
statements and representations in "staking" or holding his XRB on
the BitGrail Exchange.  Accordingly, Judge Rogers denied the Nano
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's fraud claim.

The Judge denied the Nano Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claim.  She holds that the
Nano Defendants' arguments with respect to the Plaintiff's
negligent misrepresentation claim replicate those discussed
regarding fraud and fail for the same reasons.  Like intentional
fraud, negligent misrepresentation must be pled with specificity.
Where a business entity is involved, a plaintiff must allege the
names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent
representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what
they said or wrote, and when it was said or written.

A full-text copy of the California District Court's Oct. 4, 2019
Order is available at https://is.gd/b6WAb8 from Leagle.com.

James Fabian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Carriel --
jcarriel@zlk.com -- Levi and Korsinsky, LLP, pro hac vice, Todd
Rapp Friedman -- TFriedman@SilverMillerLaw.com -- pro hac vice &
Rosanne L. Mah, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

Colin Lemahieu, Mica Busch, Troy Retzer & Nano f/k/a RaiBlocks
f/k/a Hieusys, LLC, Defendants, represented by Peter Scoolidge --
peter@sprfllp.com -- pro hac vice, Paul Joseph Byrne, Esq. --
pbyrne@cornerlaw.com -- Cornerstone Law Group & Peter Fox --
pfox@sprfllp.com -- Scoolidge Peters Russotti and Fox LLP, pro hac
vice.

Zach Shapiro, Defendant, represented by Shawn P. Naunton --
snaunton@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro hac vice,
Vanessa Isabel Garcia -- vgarcia@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder
LLP, pro hac vice & Paul Joseph Byrne, Esq., Cornerstone Law
Group.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Failed to Protect Student-Athletes, Amell Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JARED AMELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and ST.
LAWRENCE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:19-cv-04189-JRS-DLP (S.D. Ind.,
Oct. 11, 2019), is brought to obtain redress for injuries sustained
as a result of the Defendants' reckless disregard for the health
and safety of generations of SLU student-athletes, including the
Plaintiff.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms, according to the complaint.
For decades, NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of
concussions, concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive
injuries (referred to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that
resulted from playing college football, but recklessly disregarded
this information to protect the very profitable business of
"amateur" college football.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those he experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect him and other ASU football players from the
long-term dangers associated with them, the Plaintiff alleges.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located in Indianapolis, Indiana.  NCAA is not organized
under the laws of any State, but is registered as a tax-exempt
organization with the Internal Revenue Service.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees 23 college sports and over 400,000 students, who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at ASU.

St. Lawrence University is a private university located at 23
Romoda Drive, in Canton, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Fails to Protect Athletes, Alexander Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCELIOUS ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Case No. 1:19-cv-04190-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., Oct. 11, 2019), seeks to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as a result of the
Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Albany State University student-athletes, including
the Plaintiff.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms, according to the complaint.
For decades, NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of
concussions, concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive
injuries (referred to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that
resulted from playing college football, but recklessly disregarded
this information to protect the very profitable business of
"amateur" college football.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those he experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect him and other ASU football players from the
long-term dangers associated with them, the Plaintiff alleges.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located in Indianapolis, Indiana.  NCAA is not organized
under the laws of any State, but is registered as a tax-exempt
organization with the Internal Revenue Service.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees 23 college sports and over 400,000 students, who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at ASU.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NN INC: Erie County ERS Sues Over Misleading SPO Statement
----------------------------------------------------------
ERIE COUNTRY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. NN, INC., RICHARD D. HOLDER,
THOMAS C. BURWELL, JR., ROBERT E. BRUNNER, WILLIAM DRIES, DAVID K.
FLOYD, DAVID L. PUGH, STEVEN T. WARSHAW, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES
LLC, ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED, KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS
INC., SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., LAKE STREET CAPITAL
MARKETS, LLC, STEPHENS INC., WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., CJS
SECURITIES, INC., and REGIONS SECURITIES LLC, Case No. 656452/2019
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Nov. 1, 2019), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Securities Act of 1933 in connection
with the misleading statement used for the Company's second public
offering.

On September 12, 2018, NN commences a second public offering,
issuing 14,375,000 share of NN common stock to the investing public
at $16.00 per share, for anticipated gross proceeds of over $216
million. The SPO Registration Statement and Prospectus that NN and
the other Defendants used to secure this sum from investors,
however, concealed massive problems at the Company, including that
as of the SPO, NN's earning and profitability were being negatively
impacted by fluctuation in the Chinese auto market and problems in
the Power Solutions sector, according to the complaint.

Since the SPO, the price of NN's common stock has plummeted. On
October 31, 2019, the trading date immediately preceding the filing
of this complaint, the stock closed at $7.22 per share, which
amounts to a nearly 55% decline from the Offering Price. This
lawsuit seeks to recover on behalf of investors, who purchased
stock in the SPO pursuant to the misleading Offering Documents used
by the Defendants to conduct the SPO.

Plaintiff Erie County purchased shares of NN common stock directly
in the SPO and was damaged thereby.

NN is a diversified company that designs and manufactures
high-precision metal and plastic components and assemblies for
automotive and medical manufacturers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
          Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Jacobson, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: 212-223-6444
          Facsimile: 212-223-6334
          Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
                 dbroggi@scott-scott.com
                 jjacobson@scott-scott.com


NPC INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Kelly Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Kelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NPC INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-00776-BSM
(E.D. Ark., Nov. 1, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act arising from the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and all other delivery
drivers the legal minimum hourly and overtime compensation for all
hours worked.

The Defendant does not track their delivery drivers' actual
expenses, and does not keep records of all those expenses, the
Plaintiff alleges. The Defendant also does not reimburse delivery
drivers at a reasonable approximation of their actual expenses.

The Plaintiff, who was employed as an hourly-paid delivery driver
at the Defendant's pizza store, frequently worked more than 40
hours per week but the Defendant refuses to pay the Plaintiff or
other delivery drivers overtime premium for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek, says the complaint.

The Defendant owns and operates two or more pizza delivery
establishments under the name Pizza Hut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OHIO NATIONAL: Cook Appeals S.D. Ohio Decision to Sixth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Stephen Cook filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Stephen Cook v. Ohio National Life Insurance, et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00195, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.

The appellate case is captioned as Stephen Cook v. Ohio National
Life Insurance, et al., Case No. 19-3984, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
is a securities representative affiliated with Triad Advisors LLC,
a brokerdealer that has signed a Selling Agreement with Ohio
National to promote, sell, and service variable annuity policies
with guaranteed income benefit riders issued by Ohio National. The
policies sold by Plaintiff feature a guaranteed minimum income
benefit ("GMIB") rider, offered by Ohio National.

Pursuant to the Selling Agreement entered into by Ohio National and
Triad, Triad and its affiliated securities representatives,
including the Plaintiff, marketed and sold the Ohio National GMIB
variable annuities to customers, with all customer premiums from
those sales being paid directly to Ohio National.  In return for
promoting, selling, and servicing these complex Annuities, Triad
and its affiliated securities representatives received commissions,
including "trailing commissions," that were paid to Triad and
affiliated securities representatives on a regular basis until and
unless the Annuities were surrendered or annuitized.

In September 2018, Ohio National announced that it was terminating
the Selling Agreement with Triad, and numerous other
broker-dealers, with regard to the Annuities.  As part of that
termination, it also announced that it would no longer pay trailing
commissions stemming from Annuities that were already in existence.
Effective Dec. 12, 2018, Ohio National stopped paying Triad and
its affiliated securities representatives any trailing commissions
on the Annuities.

Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed the instant action for breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.  The Plaintiff also seeks an
injunction to require Ohio National to live up to its obligations
under the Selling Agreement and cease causing damage and
irreparable harm, including the loss of goodwill and the negative
impact to the business relationships and reputation of the
Plaintiff and the proposed class.  The Plaintiff additionally seeks
declaratory relief resolving Ohio National's future obligations
pursuant to the Selling Agreement with Triad.

The Plaintiff also brings the suit as a class action pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
himself and all members of the following Class: All securities
representatives who: (1) sold an individual variable annuity with a
guaranteed minimum income benefit rider pursuant to any and all
Selling Agreements by and between the Defendants and the
broker-dealers, provided that such annuity had not been surrendered
or annuitized by Dec. 12, 2018; (2) received commission
compensation from such sale in the form of trail commissions; and
(3) ceased receiving such trail commissions pursuant to the
Defendants' 2018 unilateral decision to terminate the Selling
Agreements.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant STEPHEN COOK, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          James B. Helmer, Jr., Esq.
          HELMER, MARTINS, RICE & POPHAM LPA
          600 Vine Street, Suite 2704
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 421-2400
          E-mail: jhelmer@fcalawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees OHIO NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; OHIO
NATIONAL LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION; OHIO NATIONAL EQUITIES, INC.;
and OHIO NATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., are represented by:

          Christopher J. Hogan, Esq.
          ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE LLP
          41 S. High Streeet, Suite 3500
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 365-9900
          E-mail: hogan@litohio.com


OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Investors have until the deadlines
listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

Greenlane Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: GNLN)
Class Period: Pursuant and/or traceable to April 2019 Initial
Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 12, 2019

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the
Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted to state: (1) that the City of San Francisco had introduced
a major initiative to ban the sale of e-cigarette products across
three major cities and prohibit the manufacture of products at the
headquarters of Greenlane's key partner, JUUL Labs; (2) that, if
approved, the initiative would materially and adversely impact the
Company's financial results and prospects; and (3) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: OLLI)
Class Period: June 6, 2019 - August 28, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 18, 2019

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, 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, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company suffered a supply chain issue that
impacted the initial inventory available at new stores; (2) that,
as a result, the Company lacked sufficient inventory to meet demand
at certain store locations; (3) that, as a result, the Company's
comparable store sales were likely to decrease
quarter-over-quarter; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

To be a member of these class actions you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member. If you wish to learn more about
these class actions, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

Contact:

         Howard G. Smith, Esquire
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
         Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com
[GN]




OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Kaskela Law Reminds of Nov. 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that shareholder class action lawsuits
have been filed against ProPetro Holding Corp. (PUMP), Ollie's
Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. (OLLI), and electroCore, Inc.
(ECOR).

ProPetro Holding Corp. (PUMP)

A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against ProPetro
Holding Corp. ("ProPetro") on behalf of investors who purchased
ProPetro securities between March 17, 2017 and August 8, 2019.
ProPetro investors may, no later than November 15, 2019, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the action. For
additional information please visit
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/propetro/.

Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. (OLLI)

A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Ollie's
Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. ("Ollie's") on behalf of investors
who purchased Ollie's securities between June 6, 2019 and August
28, 2019. Ollie's investors may, no later than November 18, 2019,
seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the
action. For additional information please visit
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/ollies/.

electroCore, Inc. (ECOR)

A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against
electroCore, Inc. ("electroCore") on behalf of investors who
purchased electroCore securities between June 22, 2018 and
September 25, 2019. electroCore investors may, no later than
November 25, 2019, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative in the action. For additional information please
visit http://kaskelalaw.com/case/electrocore-inc/.

Investors are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus
Kaskela, Esq.) for additional information about these actions.
Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities
fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation.
For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit
www.kaskelalaw.com.

Contact:

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
         Newtown Square, PA 19073
         Tel: (484) 258-1585, (888) 715-1740
         Website: www.kaskelalaw.com
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com
[GN]




OPARC: Cisneros Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Non-Exempt Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SYLVIA CISNEROS, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OPARC, a California domestic
nonprofit; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 19STCV36648 (Cal. Super., Oct. 15, 2019), seeks to recover
civil penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
non-exempt employees within Los Angeles County, among other
counties, and the state of California.

The Defendants maintained no payroll code or other mechanism for
paying rest period premiums when Defendants failed to provide a
legally compliant rest period.

As a result of the Defendants' failure to pay all minimum and
overtime wages, as well as meal and rest period premium wages, the
Defendants maintained inaccurate payroll records and ssued
inaccurate wage statements to Plaintiff. As a further result of
Defendants' failure to pay all minimum and overtime wages, as well
as meal and rest period premium wages, Defendants failed to timely
pay all wages to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees upon
termination of emplacement, the lawsuit says.

OPARC is a non-profit 501(c)3 organization established in 1950 at a
time when education, services and employment were not available for
people with disabilities.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          Milan Moore, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322-4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322-4775
          E-mail: slidman@lidinanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com
                  mmoore@lidmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com

OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Court Certifies Class in Nagan FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STACY NAGAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OPTIO SOLUTIONS LLC, d/b/a Qualia
Collection Services, Defendant, Case No. 19-C-170 (E.D. Wis.),
Judge William C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin granted Nagan's motion for class
certification.

Nagan filed the action alleging Defendant Optio violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by sending her a debt
collection letter dated Feb. 5, 2018 that was deceptive and
misleading to an unsophisticated consumer.  Nagan claims the letter
is a "template form letter" used to collect defaulted credit card
debt from Wisconsin residents.  The letter stated that the balance
due was $663.28 and itemized the "balance due" as follows:
Principal - $357.77, Fees - $235, Interest - $70.51, Balance Due -
$663.28, and Settlement Amount: $331.64.

Nagan alleges that describing the amount owed as a "Balance Due"
combined with the itemization of specific amounts of accrued
interest and fees led consumers to believe that the amount of debt
was continuing to accrue interest, late charges, and other charges,
even though the debt was static and had been charged-off by the
creditor 18 months prior to the date of the letter.  She claims
that as a result, the letter is materially false, deceptive, and
misleading.

Nagan also claims that the phrase the offer will expire 45 days
from the date of the letter is false, deceptive, and misleading
because Optio was authorized to make and accept the settlement
offer as long as Optio was collecting the debt.  She alleges that
the letter created a false sense of urgency in the unsophisticated
consumer to accept the settlement offer as quickly as possible.
Nagan seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and the proposed
class for these purported violations.

Presently before the Court is Nagan's motion for class
certification.  She proposes to represent a class consisting of all
persons with a Wisconsin address to whom Optio Solutions, LLC
mailed an initial written communication, in the form of Exhibit A
to the Complaint, between Feb. 1, 2018 and Feb. 22, 2019, which was
not returned as undeliverable.

Judge Griesbach finds that Nagan has satisfied the four
requirements of Rule 23(a) by a preponderance of the evidence.  She
finds that (i) Nagan's allegations that Optio mailed the same
allegedly offending letter to the purported class members gives
rise to each member's claim that Optio violated the FDCPA; and (ii)
Nagan has demonstrated a basic understanding of the claims
contained in the lawsuit and a willingness to participate.

The Judge also finds that Nagan has satisfied the predominance and
superiority requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).  She notes that (i) the
significant issue in the case -- whether Optio violated the FDCPA
by sending standardized form letters that were materially false,
deceptive, and misleading -- predominates over any individual
questions of the purported class members; and (ii) a class action
would be superior to the large number of individual lawsuits
regarding the same legal issue and facts that would otherwise
result.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Griesbach concludes that Nagan has
fulfilled the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Court therefore granted
Nagan's motion for class certification.  The Judge certified the
class of all persons with a Wisconsin address to whom Optio
Solutions, LLC mailed an initial written communication, in the form
of Exhibit A to the Complaint, between Feb. 1, 2018 and Feb. 22,
2019, which was not returned as undeliverable.

The counsel of record for the Plaintiff is appointed as the class
counsel.  Within 30 days of the date of the order, the class
counsel will provide the court with a proposed notice to be
provided to the potential class members consistent with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B).  The class counsel will
consult with the counsel for the Defendant before submitting the
proposed notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 4, 2019 Decision & Order is
available at https://is.gd/Q2JWyu from Leagle.com.

Stacy Nagan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew T. Thomasson --
Andrew@SternThomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP, Philip D. Stern
-- Philip@SternThomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP & Francis R.
Greene -- Francis@SternThomasson.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP.

Optio Solutions LLC, doing business as Qualia Collection Services,
Defendant, represented by Brendan H. Little -- blittle@lippes.com
-- Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman LLP & Sean O'Brien --
sobrien@lippes.com -- Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman LLP.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of Nov. 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that class action complaints have
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Myriad Genetics (MYGN),
Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME), and Overstock.com, Inc.
(OSTK). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the
court by the lead plaintiff deadlines listed below. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you
take no action, you may remain an absent class member.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact:

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


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Kessler Topaz Disclose Filing of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds that an
investor securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed
against Overstock.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: OSTK) ("Overstock") on behalf
of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Overstock securities
between May 9, 2019 and September 23, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Overstock investors who purchased or otherwise acquired securities
during the Class Period may, no later than November 26, 2019, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class.

Investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class action
lawsuit or request additional information about this litigation are
encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check attorneys James
Maro, Jr. or Adrienne Bell at (844) 887-9500 (toll free) or online
at: www.ktmc.com/newcases/overstock.

According to the complaint, Overstock is an online retailer of
furniture, home décor and other products that recently shifted its
focus to include the development and commercialization of the
financial applications of blockchain cryptocurrency technologies
through its tZERO platform.

The Class Period commences on May 9, 2019, when the defendants
published a release announcing purported results for the first
quarter of 2019. The release announced that, after spending $100
million of shareholder funds over the last four years, Overstock's
tZERO product was ready to launch, and critically, that Overstock
Retail department was performing so well that EBITDA guidance could
be increased by 50%. As defendants explained in the release, the
return of Overstock Retail to positive cash flow was imperative in
supporting the launch of tZERO.

According to the complaint, on Sunday, September 22, 2019,
MarketWatch published a report titled, "Overstock founder tried to
squeeze short sellers, then sold out when the SEC cracked down."
The report stated, in part, "One of Patrick Byrne's last acts at
Overstock.com Inc. appears to have forced a short squeeze that
warranted the attention of the Securities and Exchange Commission,
and the sell-off of his entire stake over the last three days is
now raising questions about whether he tried to manipulate the
market." The report also noted the implications of the unusual
timing and amount of defendant Byrne's stock sales. The report
concluded, "[e]ven if Byrne escapes charges of market manipulation
or insider trading, this is still a horrible look: Amid an ongoing
investigation by the SEC's enforcement division into Overstock's
tZERO platform and its token offering, the chief executive quit and
sold his entire stake while seemingly hiding out in an unidentified
Asian country, with plans to invest the money in ways that it may
not be recoverable by U.S. authorities."

On September 23, 2019, Overstock belatedly reported that its Chief
Financial Officer, defendant Gregory Iverson, had left Overstock in
an unscheduled departure a week before, on September 17, 2019, and
that Overstock would lower guidance to break even EBITDA for the
year, eliminating the projected $17.5 million that Overstock had
only recently guided to expect. Following this news, the price of
Overstock shares fell from just below $15.00 per share on September
20, 2019, the trading day prior to September 23, 2019, to $11.19
per share.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) it was not true that Overstock would be able to
support the launch of its tZERO cryptocurrency with earnings or
cash flow from its Retail operations; (ii) the foreseeable
likelihood that Overstock's ability to accomplish its intended
short squeeze would embolden the SEC or even market participants,
such as major brokerage houses, to act to prevent this market
manipulation; (iii) it was also not true that Overstock contained
adequate systems of internal operational or financial controls; and
(iv) the defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that
Overstock was operating according to plan, or that Overstock could
achieve guidance sponsored and/or endorsed by defendants.

Overstock investors may, no later than November 26, 2019, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class
through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class
members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's
claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to
share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was
not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.

View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191017005924/en/

Contact:

         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Tel: (844) 887-9500 (toll free), (610) 667-7706
         Email: info@ktmc.com, jmaro@ktmc.com, abell@ktmc.com
[GN]



PANDORA MEDIA: Appeals Court Gives Hope for Escaping Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, on Oct. 17, 2019, directed a
lower federal court to reconsider Pandora's bid to escape a class
action lawsuit over the music service's streaming of pre-1972 sound
recordings. The move is largely attributable to Congress' recent
enactment of the Music Modernization Act, which for the first time,
made these earlier works eligible for digital performance
royalties.

Back in 2013, Flo & Eddie of The Turtles attempted to do something
about the lack of payment for performance of their hit songs such
as "Happy Together." Given that federal law didn't then cover
pre-1972 sound recordings, the two couldn't sue for copyright
infringement. Instead, they alleged that services like SIriusXM and
Pandora were violating various state laws. In 2014, Flo & Eddie
scored success by convincing a judge that California did protect
public performance. That would eventually lead to a different judge
rejecting Pandora's attempt to strike a class action.

Then, the tide began to shift.

After other appellate courts in the nation came to the conclusion
that states including New York and Florida didn't protect public
performance, the Ninth Circuit certified a question about
California's scope of protection to the California Supreme Court.

Before an answer came, however, federal lawmakers passed the MMA
with some knowledge about how the controversy over pre-1972 sound
recordings had created widespread confusion.

In an order October 17, the federal appellate court notes that the
MMA preempts state-based claims provided that a service like
Pandora pays the requisite royalties.

The panel of appellate judges write they can't answer whether the
MMA applies to and preempts Flo & Eddie's claims without a factual
record about Pandora's compliance. But the Ninth Circuit sees fit
to revive Pandora's attempt to strike the lawsuit and sets up the
company's potential escape from the class action altogether upon
remand. [GN]

PROPETRO HOLDING: Hagens Berman Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman reminds ProPetro Holding Corp. (PUMP) investors of
the pending securities fraud class action and urges PUMP investors
who have suffered losses in excess of $50,000 to contact the firm.

Class Period: Mar. 17, 2017 - Aug. 8, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Nov. 15, 2019
Sign Up: https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/PUMP
Contact An Attorney Now: PUMP@hbsslaw.com
510-725-3000

PUMP Securities Class Action:

According to the Complaint, Defendants misled investors about
ProPetro's expense reimbursements to senior executives,
transactions involving related parties or potential conflicts of
interests, and the adequacy of the Company's internal controls over
financial reporting. On August 8, 2019, the market learned the
truth when Defendants announced the Company would be unable to
timely file its quarterly report for the quarter ended June 30,
2019, citing an ongoing internal review of the expense
reimbursements and related party transactions. In response, the
price of PUMP shares crashed over 26% the next day.

On October 9, 2019, PUMP announced it replaced Dale Redman and
Jeffrey Smith in their capacities as PUMP's principal executive and
financial officers, respectively. As such, they will no longer be
responsible for certifying PUMP's financial statements.

If you invested in ProPetro Holding Corp. between Mar. 17, 2017 and
Aug. 8, 2019 and suffered significant losses (in excess of $50,000)
you may qualify to be a lead plaintiff - one who selects and
oversees the attorneys prosecuting the case. Contact Hagens Berman
immediately to obtain additional information about this case or
being a lead plaintiff.

"We are focused on investors' losses and the extent to which
management may have misled investors about the Company's internal
controls and previously-issued financial statements," said Hagens
Berman partner Reed Kathrein.

If you purchased shares of ProPetro and suffered significant
losses, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens
Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
ProPetro should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 510-725-3000 or email PUMP@hbsslaw.com.

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw.

Contact:

      Reed Kathrein, Esq.
      Tel: 510-725-3000
      E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com
[GN]


PROPETRO HOLDING: Kaskela Law Reminds of Nov. 15 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that shareholder class action lawsuits
have been filed against ProPetro Holding Corp. (PUMP), Ollie's
Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. (OLLI), and electroCore, Inc.
(ECOR).

ProPetro Holding Corp. (PUMP)

A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against ProPetro
Holding Corp. ("ProPetro") on behalf of investors who purchased
ProPetro securities between March 17, 2017 and August 8, 2019.
ProPetro investors may, no later than November 15, 2019, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the action. For
additional information please visit
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/propetro/

Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. (OLLI)

A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Ollie's
Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. ("Ollie's") on behalf of investors
who purchased Ollie's securities between June 6, 2019 and August
28, 2019. Ollie's investors may, no later than November 18, 2019,
seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the
action. For additional information please visit
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/ollies/.

electroCore, Inc. (ECOR)

A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against
electroCore, Inc. ("electroCore") on behalf of investors who
purchased electroCore securities between June 22, 2018 and
September 25, 2019. electroCore investors may, no later than
November 25, 2019, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative in the action. For additional information please
visit http://kaskelalaw.com/case/electrocore-inc/

Investors are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus
Kaskela, Esq.) for additional information about these actions.
Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities
fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation.
For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit
www.kaskelalaw.com.

Contact:

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
         Newtown Square, PA 19073
         Tel: (484) 258 – 1585, (888) 715 – 1740
         Website: www.kaskelalaw.com
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com
[GN]




RUHNN HOLDING: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. To determine your eligibility and get
free access to our shareholder support tools that provide you with
case updates, automated loss calculations and claims recovery
assistance, please contact the firm via the links below. There will
be no cost or obligation to you.

Meredith Corporation (MDP)
Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased January 31, 2018 -
September 5, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 5, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/meredith-corporation-loss-form?prid=3987&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Meredith
Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Time, Inc. acquisition was
not as profitable as the Company had claimed; (2) the Company would
incur additional costs for strategic investments to improve the
Time business; (3) as a result, the Company's earnings would be
materially and adversely impacted; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

The Chemours Company (CC)
Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 16, 2017 -
August 1, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 9, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/the-chemours-company-loss-form?prid=3987&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, The
Chemours Company made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Chemours had not appropriately
accounted and accrued reserves for its environmental liabilities;
(2) the possibility of costs exceeding accrued amounts was greater
than the Company had represented to a point that could be material;
(3) the Company's policies, standards and procedures were not
properly designed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm to people
and the environment (4) Chemours' handling, manufacture, use, and
disposal of hazardous substances was not in accordance with
applicable environmental laws and regulations; and (5) as a result
of these misrepresentations, Chemours shares traded at artificially
inflated prices.

Ruhnn Holding Limited (RUHN)
Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased all persons or
entities who purchased Ruhnn American Depositary Shares pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's April 3, 2019 initial public
offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 6, 2019
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ruhnn-holding-limited-loss-form?prid=3987&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) at the time of the initial
public offering ("IPO"), the number of Ruhnn's online stores had
declined by nearly 40%; (2) at the time of the IPO, the number of
Ruhnn's full-service Key Opinion Leaders had declined by nearly
44%; (3) as a result, the Company's net revenues derived from its
full-service segment had declined by 46% on a sequential basis; and
(3) as a result, defendants' statements about Ruhnn's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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

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

CONTACT:

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



SKY HOOK RIG: Rackley Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Austin Lane Rackley, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. SKY HOOK RIG SUPPLY, LLC d/b/a SKY HOOK
SERVICES, Case No. 4:19-cv-04312 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 1, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

The Defendant violated the FLSA by employing the Plaintiff and
other nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours
but refusing to compensate them for their employment in excess of
forty hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the
regular rate at which they are or were employed," the Plaintiff
asserts. The Defendant also violated the FLSA by failing to
maintain accurate time and pay records for the Plaintiff as
required by the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a service technician
for oil rigs from March 7, 2019, to July 28, 2019.

The Defendant provides surface rental equipment, solids control,
and water production in the oil and gas industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Centre
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Nov. 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming November 18, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Slack Technologies, Inc.
("Slack" or the "Company") (NYSE: WORK) investors who purchased
Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") for the resale of up to 118,429,640
shares of its Class A common stock whereby Slack began trading as a
public company on or around June 20, 2019 (the "Offering").

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.

In June 2019, Slack went public through the Offering of its Class A
common stock with a reference price of $26.00.

On September 4, 2019, Slack reported its second-quarter fiscal 2019
results and issued guidance for the third quarter, expecting a
wider loss than analysts predicted. The Company also stated that
revenue "was negatively impacted by $8.2 million of credits related
to service level disruption in the quarter."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.69, or nearly 12%,
over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $27.38 per share
on September 6, 2019, thereby injuring investors.

By the commencement of this action, the Company's stock was trading
as low as $25.72 per share, a significant decline from the $26 per
share reference price for the Offering.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the
Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to
state material adverse facts. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's Slack Platform was
susceptible to recurring service-level disruptions; (2) that such
disruptions were increasingly likely to occur as the Company scaled
its services to a larger user base; (3) that the Company provides
credits even if a customer was not specifically affected by
service-level disruptions; (4) that, as a result, any service-level
disruptions would have a material adverse impact on the Company's
financial results; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Slack Class A common stock
pursuant to the Registration Statement, you may move the Court no
later than November 18, 2019 to request appointment as lead
plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of
the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about
this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the
pending class action lawsuit, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by
email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

Contact:

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com, lportnoy@glancylaw.com

[GN]


SOGOU INC: Wins Stay of Class Action Litigation in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that on Oct. 7, 2019, Goulston & Storrs obtained a
stay of a putative class action filed in California state court
against clients Sogou Inc. (Sogou) and Sohu.com (Sohu).  Sogou's
Sogou Search is the second largest search engine in China by mobile
queries.

The class action complaint alleged that Sogou and others made
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with Sogou's 2017
initial public offering (IPO) in violation of Section 11 of the
1933 Securities Act. A putative class action alleging similar
violations was filed and is pending in federal court in New York.
Goulston is defending Sogou and Sohu in both the New York and
California actions.

Goulston moved to stay the California action in favor of the
pending New York action and to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction on the grounds (among others) that the alleged claims
lacked any substantial connection to California. The IPO was
prepared and conducted primarily in China, New York and/or Boston,
and Sogou's American depositary shares (ADSs) were listed on the
New York Stock Exchange. In granting Sogou's request for a stay,
the court found that "the balance of interests weighs heavily in
favor of adjudicating this lawsuit in New York, rather than
California," concluding that "the evidence is strong that the locus
of the claims regarding the IPO and the ADSs and the location of
the Defendants (and potential witnesses) are in China and New
York."

Given the trend of securities class actions being filed in
California state court, this important ruling highlights the need
for careful consideration of forum and personal jurisdiction
related issues when defending Section 11 claims filed in state
court.

The Goulston & Storrs team is led by Directors Richard Rosensweig,
Esq. -- rrosensweig@goulstonstorrs.com -- and Nicholas Cutaia, Esq.
-- ncutaia@goulstonstorrs.com -- and included Counsel Andrew
O'Connor, Esq. -- aoconnor@goulstonstorrs.com -- and Associates
Josh Looney, Esq. -- jlooney@goulstonstorrs.com -- and Joel Antwi,
Esq. -- jantwi@goulstonstorrs.com. [GN]



SOLITAIRE HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Woodmore Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHONTA WOODMORE, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. SOLITAIRE
HOLDINGS, LLC dba KNOCKOUTS, a Delaware Limited; and Liability
Company; LONG KIM HUOT, an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES
4-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-09017 (C.D.
Cal., Oct. 18, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay minimum
and overtime wages, and unlawfully take tips.

The Defendants categorized all dancers/entertainers employed by the
Defendants as "independent contractors" and have failed and refused
to pay wages to such dancers. The Defendants did not pay
entertainers on an hourly basis.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately 2017
until 2018, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility
located at 1580 Clark Street, Arcadia, California, 91006.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
          Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
          www.kristensenlaw.com
          12540 Beatrice St No. 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Telephone: 310 507-7924
          Facsimile: 310-507-7906
          E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
                  jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
                  jacob@kristensenlaw.com

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Settlement in Huntsman Suit Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAYSON HUNTSMAN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-03972-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James
Donato of the U.S District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division:

    (i) granted the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the
        class settlement, and

   (ii) the  Plaintiff's and his counsel's motion for awards of
        the Class Representative Service Payment and the Class
        Counsel Attorneys' Fees and Costs Payment.

At the June 20, 2019 hearing on the motions, the Court directed the
Plaintiff's counsel to file supplemental briefing to address two
issues: (1) the proposed reimbursement amount for the settlement
administrator's costs; and (2) the legal basis and accounting of
the reimbursement requested for the named Plaintiff's hours spent
in service to the class.  It also ordered the Plaintiff's counsel
to file a revised proposed Final Approval Order.

On July 2, 2019, the Plaintiff submitted supplemental briefing and
a revised Final Approval Order.  The Parties also submitted their
Settlement Agreement, which the Court preliminarily approved in its
Dec. 5, 2018 order.  In accordance with the Preliminary Approval
Order, the Class Members have been given notice of the terms of the
Settlement and the opportunity to submit a claim form, comment on
the settlement, and/or opt out of its provisions.

In addition, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
("CAFA"), Southwest has given the Attorney General of the United
States and the appropriate state officials in the states in which
the Class Members reside timely notice of the Settlement.

Having received and considered the Settlement, the supporting
papers filed by the Parties, including the post-hearing
supplemental briefing, and the evidence and argument received by
the Court at June 20, 2019 hearing, Judge Donato granted final
approval to the Settlement.  The Settlement Class is finally
approved and certified as a Class for purposes of settlement of the
action.

Judge Donato excludes Robert J. Waltz from the Settlement and
Release on the basis of his opt-out request, which was timely
provided to the Settlement Administrator on March 12, 2019, in
accordance with the procedure set forth in the Class Notice.

For good cause shown, the Judge permits consideration of the late
Claim Form postmarked May 23, 2019.

The Court further confirmed as final the appointment of Jayson
Huntsman as the Class Representative of the Rule 23 Class.  A
$9,969.60 service award to Plaintiff Huntsman based on his time
spent in service to the Class is approved, the Court ruled.

Judge Donato gave final approval to $1.5 million in attorneys' fees
and $33,761.32 in litigation costs and expenses, and ordered that
payment be made to the Class Counsel out of the Gross Fund Value in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement.

Judge Donato also determined that reimbursement of Settlement
Administrator costs in the amount of $54,000 is reasonable and gave
final approval to that amount.

By virtue of the Final Approval Order, the action is deemed
dismissed with prejudice, each side to bear its own costs and
attorneys' fees except as provided by the Settlement and the
Court's orders.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 4, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/vxC89t from Leagle.com.

Jayson Huntsman, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Vincent Cheng --
vincent@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP, Matthew Zachary
Crotty
-- matt@crottyandson.com -- Attorney at Law, pro hac vice, Peter
Romer-Friedman -- prf@outtengolden.com -- Outten and Golden LLP,
pro hac vice, R. Joseph Barton -- jbarton@blockesq.com
-- Block & Leviton LLP & Thomas G. Jarrard -- Tjarrard@att.net --
Attorney at Law, pro hac vice.

Southwest Airlines Co., Defendant, represented by Brian Davis
Berry
-- brian.berry@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Douglas J. Farmer --
doug.farmer@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart,
P.C. & Jason Phillip Brown -- jason.brown@ogletreedeakins.com --
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C..


SUBARU OF AMERICA: $6.25MM Udeen Class Settlement Gets Prelim. OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHAD UDEEN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.,
and SUBARU CORPORATION, Defendants, Civil No. 18-17334 (RBK/JS) (D.
N.J.), Judge Robert B. Kugler of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

The lawsuit began on Nov. 28, 2018, when representative Plaintiffs
Udeen and Mary Jane Jeffery filed suit in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Camden County.  Defendant Subaru of America,
Inc. ("SOA") then removed the case to the New Jersey District Court
on Dec. 18, 2018, claiming jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d).  Later, the District Court appointed Chimicles Schwartz
Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP and Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A.
as the Interim Co-Lead Counsel.

On Jan. 31, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class
Action Complaint, adding Lydia Runkel, Michael Bolick, Gary Gilpin,
Alicia Smith, and Susan Williams as the representative Plaintiffs,
and Subaru Corp. ("SBR") as Defendant.  The amended complaint was
brought on behalf of all persons in the United States who bought or
leased various Subaru models equipped with the Starlink
infotainment system, and alleged violations of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, common law fraud,
breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, unjust enrichment, and violations of the consumer
protection laws of various states.

On Feb. 28, 2019, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.  The
parties subsequently participated in two mediation sessions with
retired U.S. District Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh, where they engaged
in arm's-length negotiation and reached a settlement.  The motion
to dismiss has since been terminated.

The matter is before the District Court on the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement.  

The proposed settlement class is defined as all residents of the
continental United States or Hawaii or Alaska who currently own or
lease, or previously owned or leased, a Settlement Class Vehicle
originally purchased or leased in the continental United States,
including Alaska or Hawaii.

In turn, "Settlement Class Vehicle" is defined as Model year 2017
Subaru Impreza, 2018 Subaru Impreza, 2018 Subaru Outback, 2018
Forester, 2018 Subaru Legacy, 2018 Subaru Crosstek, and 2018 Subaru
BRZ vehicles equipped with a Generation 3.0 Starlink Infotainment
System, manufactured by Harman International Industries, Inc.

The Defendants do not admit any wrongdoing, and the class members
will relinquish any qualifying claims related to the Starlink
infotainment system.  In exchange, the Defendants agree to: (1)
extend existing warranty coverage related to the Starlink system to
five years or 100,000 miles, with monetary compensation provided to
class members who previously purchased extended warranty coverage;
(2) provide monetary or coupon compensation to the class members
who made multiple trips to authorized Subaru dealers complaining of
Starlink malfunctions; (3) provide monetary compensation to class
members who had to wait more than one full day to receive a
replacement Starlink unit during a specified period; and (4)
reimburse class members for certain repair-related expenses,
including rental car and ride-hailing expenses.  The parties
estimate that value of these forms of relief will exceed $6.25
million.

The class members will automatically receive the warranty extension
but will need to submit a Claim Form and supporting documentation
in order to receive monetary compensation.  

JND Legal Administration Co. will serve as Settlement
Administrator, and will process submitted claims, with the class
members having the right to appeal any adverse determinations to
the Better Business Bureau.  The Defendants will be responsible for
the costs of settlement administration.

Judge Kugler finds that the proposed settlement does not appear to
unfavorably benefit the class representatives or any segment of the
class.  The Judge therefore finds, as a preliminary matter, that
the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

Having preliminarily approved the parties' Agreement, the Judge
next considers whether to provisionally certify the class for
settlement purposes only.  He finds that (i) the proposed class
preliminarily satisfies the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)
and the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3); (ii) the
Plaintiffs cite evidence that there are approximately 514,000 class
vehicles in the United States, indicating that there are hundreds
of thousands of potential Plaintiffs; (iii) the Plaintiffs and the
class members claims all originate from the same allegedly
defective product and the Defendants' alleged actions to conceal
that defect, relying on the same legal theories; (iv) the Interim
Co-Lead Counsel adequately represent the class as counsel; and (v)
a class action is the most efficient manner of resolving the
claims.

Turning to the Class Notice, Judge Kugler finds that the forms
fairly, accurately, and neutrally describe the claims and parties
in the litigation as well as the terms of the proposed settlement
and the identity of persons entitled to participate in it.  Rule 23
and due process are both satisfied by the notice forms.

For the reasons stated, Judge Kugler grants the Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary class settlement approval.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 4, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/hDp0kQ from Leagle.com.

CHAD UDEEN & MARY JANE JEFFERY, Plaintiffs, represented by ANDREW
W. FERICH -- AndrewFerich@chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz
Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, BENJAMIN F. JOHNS --
benjohns@chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner &
Donaldson-Smith LLP, DANIEL R. LAPINSKI -- dlapinski@wilentz.com
--
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, PC, J. LLEWELLYN MATHEWS, KEVIN PETER
RODDY -- kroddy@wilentz.com -- WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, PA &
ALEX M. KASHURBA, CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP.

SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, represented by CASEY GENE
WATKINS -- WATKINSCBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD SPAHR LLP & NEAL D.
WALTERS -- WALTERSNBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD, SPAHR LLP.

FUJI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD., Defendant, represented by NEAL D.
WALTERS, BALLARD, SPAHR LLP.


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Wheeler Suit Moved to District of Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as James Wheeler, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
Subaru of America, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 04-cv-19-2893, was
removed from the Beltrami County District Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota on Oct 15, 2019.

The District of Minnesota Court Clerk assigned Case No.
0:19-cv-02715-NEB-LIB to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation
of Contract Product Liability related laws. The case demands $5 M
worth of damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Nancy E.
Brasel.

Subaru of America, Inc., based in Camden, New Jersey, is the United
States-based distributor of Subaru's brand vehicles, a subsidiary
of Subaru Corporation of Japan. The company markets and distributes
Subaru vehicles, parts and accessories through a network of more
than 600 dealers throughout the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          80 S. 8th St., Ste 4600
          Mpls, MN 55402-2242
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
          E-mail: aprakash@nka.com

               - and -

          Charles A Delbridge, Esq.
          Matthew H Morgan, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          80 S. 8th St., Ste 4600
          Mpls, MN 55402-2242
          Telephone: (612) 256-3234
          Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
          E-mail: cdelbridge@nka.com
                  morgan@nka.com

               - and -

          Eric Dirks, Esq.
          Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 221-3241
          E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com
                  matt@williamsdirks.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Isaac W. Messmore, Esq.
          Nathan J. Marcusen, Esq.
          BOWMAN & BROOKE LLP
          150 S 5th St Ste 3000
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 339-8682
          Facsimile: (612) 672-3200
          E-mail: ike.messmore@bowmanandbrooke.com
                  nathan.marcusen@bowmanandbrooke.com

SUNDIAL GROWERS: Gulacsy Seeks Damages Over Drop in IPO Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Gulacsy, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SUNDIAL GROWERS INC., TORSTEN KUENZLEN, JAMES KEOUGH,
EDWARD, HELLARD, GREG MILLS, GREGORY TURNBULL, LEE TAMKEE, and
ELIZABETH CANNON, Case No. 1:19-cv-10157 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2019),
is brought on behalf of persons, who purchased or otherwise
acquired Sundial common shares pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's registration statement issued in connection with
Sundial's August 1, 2019 initial public share offering, seeking to
recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of
the Securities Act of 1933.

In August 2019, the Defendants held the IPO, issuing 11 million
Sundial common shares to the investing public per share, pursuant
to the Registration Statement.

The Registration Statement represented that Sundial was a producer
of "high-quality cannabis in small batches" and that "we produce
high-quality, consistent cannabis" and that the Company's operating
model results in "strong customer loyalty." These representations
were untrue statement of material fact because, before the IPO, due
to material quality issues, Zenabis Global Inc., a Sundial
customer, had returned or rejected a total of 554 kg of cannabis to
Sundial, the Plaintiff contends. Moreover, the Registration
Statement purported to warn investors about the risks of failure of
Sundial's quality control systems, contamination of, or damage to,
its cannabis inventory, while failing to disclose that a material
failure had already occurred, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Sundial common shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the IPO. The Plaintiff contends that since the IPO,
and as a result of the disclosure of material adverse facts omitted
from Sundial's Registration Statement, Sundial's stock price has
fallen substantially below its IPO price, damaging the Plaintiff
and Class members.

Sundial purports to be a producer and marketer of premium cannabis
for the adult-use market.[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


SUTTER HEALTH: California Settle Antitrust Case
-----------------------------------------------
Catherine Ho, writing for San Francisco Chronicle, reports that
Sutter Health has reached an agreement to settle a class-action
lawsuit brought by thousands of employers, and later joined by
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Esq., that sued the
health care system for allegedly abusing its market power to raise
prices for consumers.

The details of the settlement are confidential. Court hearings for
preliminary approval of the agreement will likely take place in
February or March, said San Francisco Superior Judge Anne-Christine
Massullo, who is overseeing the case.

The agreement was announced October 16 just as the case was nearing
trial and attorneys were preparing to present opening statements to
jurors.

The United Food and Commercial Workers and Employers Benefit Trust,
a union trust that pays for its workers' health care costs, sued
Sutter in 2014, and the case was later certified as a class action
on behalf of 1,500 self-insured employers and trusts in California.
Becerra's office filed a nearly identical suit in 2018, and it was
combined with the original case for purposes of a trial.

The agreement resolves both cases.

The suits accused Sutter, Northern California's largest health
system with 24 hospitals and 35 outpatient centers, of using its
market power to drive up health care costs for employers, insurers
and, ultimately, consumers. The complaints focused on Sutter's
contracting practices, alleging that the health system pressured
insurers and employers to accept all or nothing terms that
compelled them to contract with all Sutter hospitals or none.
Experts say this practice prevents insurers and employers from
negotiating with individual hospitals for lower prices.

Sutter has denied engaging in anticompetitive behavior.

Attorneys and spokespeople for the union and Sutter declined to
elaborate on the settlement beyond saying one has been reached. A
spokeswoman for Becerra said the office cannot comment until the
final agreement is approved by the court.

The class of employers and trusts had been seeking damages of up to
$500 million, which under antitrust law could have made Sutter
liable for $1.5 billion.

Becerra's office was seeking injunctive relief to prevent Sutter
from engaging in anticompetitive behavior in the future. [GN]


T-MOBILE USA: Faces Craig Telephone Suit Over RICO Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Telephone Co., d/b/a Adams Wells Internet Telecom TV and
Consolidated Telephone Company d/b/a CTC, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated companies v. T-MOBILE USA
INC., and INTELIQUENT, INC., DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:19-cv-07190
(N.D. Ill., Nov. 1, 2019), seeks damages, including disgorgement of
illegal savings generated by the Defendants, triple damages,
punitive damages and attorneys' fees under the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

T-Mobile is a disruptive force, and one of its signature
initiatives has been to illegally disrupt billions of calls as part
of a nationwide fraud perpetuated against its own customers in
order to deter them from making phone calls to rural America,
according to the complaint. In April 2018, T-Mobile admitted that
it engaged in a protracted and illegal scheme, which cheated its
customers, and carriers like the Plaintiffs. T-Mobile has also
admitted that this protracted scheme included a cover up--the
insertion of fake ring tones into calls before the calls were
connected to the intended recipient of the calls. This practice has
the effect of confusing the caller into wrongfully believing their
call has been successfully connected but that the recipient of the
call is simply not answering.

T-Mobile consciously used this illegal practice to mask its
intermediate carriers' routine failure to deliver high cost calls
routed to rural areas of the United States that create a negative
margin for T-Mobile, the Plaintiffs allege. They contend that the
use of the fake ring tones deceived customers into believing the
calls were reaching their intended destination and, thereby,
shifted blame for those call failures onto local phone companies,
particularly rural carriers, even though the calls never even made
it to these rural carriers' networks. T-Mobile has admitted that
its conduct violated rules expressly adopted by the Federal
Communications Commission that prohibits these practices, and that
it also violated the Communications Act of 1934.

In furtherance of their illegal scheme, the Defendants and their
fake ring tone enterprise have committed multiple acts of wire
fraud and engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity in
violation of the RICO. In addition to violating the Communications
Act and RICO, the Defendants have also violated Illinois law.
T-Mobile has tortuously interfered with the Plaintiffs' business
relationships, and both T-Mobile and Inteliquent, as well as the
Doe Defendants, have violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practice Act by deceiving consumers and the
Plaintiffs with fake ringtones in order to mask their shoddy
service and unscrupulous practice aimed at avoiding completion of
high cost calls, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are corporations in Craigville, Indiana, and
Brainers, Minnesota respectively.

T-Mobile International groups is one of the world's largest mobile
communications companies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David T.B. Audley, Esq.
          Mia D. D'Andrea, Esq.
          CHAPMAN AND CUTLER LLP
          111 West Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60603-4080
          Phone: (312) 845-2971
          Fax: (312) 516-3971
          Email: audley@chapman.com
                 dandrea@chapman.com

               - and -

          Cathy A. Hinger, Esq.
          G. David Carter, Esq.
          WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
          1200 19th Street, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-857-4489
          Fax: 202-261-0029
          Email: cathy.hinger@wbd-us.com
                 david.carter@wbd-us.com

               - and -

          Kurt Weaver, Esq.
          WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
          555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1100
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Phone: 919-755-8163
          Fax: 919-755-6770
          Email: kurt.weaver@wbd-us.com


TENCENT MUSIC: Bernstein Liebhard Notes Nov. 25 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that class action complaints have
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Myriad Genetics (MYGN),
Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME), and Overstock.com, Inc.
(OSTK). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the
court by the lead plaintiff deadlines listed below. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you
take no action, you may remain an absent class member.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact:

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


TENCENT MUSIC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Nov. 25 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
November 25, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Tencent
Music Entertainment Group ("Tencent" or the "Company") (NYSE: TME)
securities between December 12, 2018 and August 26, 2019, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

Investors suffering losses on their Tencent investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On August 27, 2019, Bloomberg reported that China's antitrust
authority is investigating exclusive licensing deals between
Tencent and major record labels including, Universal Music Group,
Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group.

On this news, Tencent's American depositary receipt price fell
$0.92 per share, or nearly 7%, to close at $12.57 per share on
August 27, 2019, thereby injuring investors.

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

If you purchased Tencent securities during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than November 25, 2019 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take
any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If
you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

Contact:

         Howard G. Smith, Esquire
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
         Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com
[GN]




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

Tencent Music Entertainment Group (TME)

Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 12, 2018 -
August 26, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 25, 2019

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tencent-music-entertainment-group-loss-form?prid=3968&wire=1

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

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

Contact:

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


TIMECLOCK PLUS: Fick Sues Over Illegal Storage of Biometric Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Fick, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. TIMECLOCK PLUS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
corporation, Case No. 2019CH12769 (Ill., Cir., Cook Cty., Nov. 1,
2019), is brought against the Defendant for its violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and to obtain redress
for all persons injured by its conduct.

The Defendant captured, stored, used, and/or disseminated her and
other Class members' biometrics without their informed written
consent as required by law, Ms. Fick alleges. The Defendant did not
obtain consent from the Plaintiff for any dissemination of her
biometrics to third parties. By failing to comply with BIPA, the
Defendant has violated the Plaintiff's substantive state rights to
biometric privacy, says the complaint.

Ms. Fick has worked for one of the Defendant's commercial customers
in Cook County, Illinois.

Timeclock is a leading provider of payroll, timekeeping, HR, tac
and compliance services for businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
          Andrew T. Heldut, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 893-7002
          Fax: (312) 275-7895
          Email: jsheikali@mcgpc.com
                 tkingbury@mcgpc.com
                 aheldut@mcgpc.com


TRAVELERS COMPANIES: Hallihan Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Travelers
Companies, Inc. The case is styled as Kenneth Hallihan individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The
Travelers Companies, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-09961-CS
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 28, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

The Travelers Companies, Inc., commonly known as Travelers, is an
American insurance company. It is the second-largest writer of U.S.
commercial property casualty insurance, and the third-largest
writer of U.S. personal insurance through independent agents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
     Bursor & Fisher, P.A.
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (646) 837-7150
     Email: pfraietta@bursor.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Braun Says IPO-Related Statements Misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------
IRVING S. BRAUN and JUDITH BRAUN, Individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
DARA KHOSROWSHANI, NELSON CHAI, GLENN CEREMONY, RONALD SUGAR,
URSULA BURNS, GARRETT CAMP, MATT COHLER, RYAN GRAVES, ARIANNA
HUFFINGTON, TRAVIS KALANICK, WAN LING MARTELLO, H.E. YASIR
AL-RUMAYYAN, JOHN THAIN, DAVID TRUJILLO, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC,
GOLDMAN SACHS & CO., LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH,
INC., BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., ALLEN &
COMPANYC LLC, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY,
INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES AMERICA INC., MIZUHO SECURITIES USA
LLC, NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC, LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, ACADEMY
SECURITIES, INC. BTIG, LLC, CANACCORD GENUITY LLC, CASTLEOAK
SECURITIES, LP., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, EVERCORE GROUP LLC, JMP
SECURITIES LLC, MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC., MISCHLER FINANCIAL
GROUP, INC., OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES,
INC., WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY LLC, THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP LP,
TPG CAPITAL BD, LLC, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. CGC-19-580137 (Cal. Super., Oct. 18, 2019), asserts
liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933 arising from
certain untrue statements supporting Uber's initial public
offering.

The Plaintiffs bring the securities class action on behalf of all
those who purchased or otherwise acquired Uber common stock
pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with Uber's May 2019 IPO.

In May 2019, the Defendants commenced the IPO, issuing over 207
million shares of Uber common stock to the investing public at $45
per share, all pursuant to the Registration Statement.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Registration Statement contained
untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state material
facts both required by governing regulations and necessary to make
the statements made not misleading.

The Registration Statement touted Uber's purported "margin
advantage" opportunities for growth, including increasing
ridesharing and Uber Eats category penetration in existing markets;
expanding ridesharing and Uber Weats into new markets; increasing
monthly active platform consumers (MAPCs) and trips per MAPC;
investing in and expanding its new mobility products, including
dockless e-bikes and e-scooters; and investing in and expanding
Uber Freight.

The Plaintiffs contend that the representations were false and
misleading because, in truth, by the time of IPO: (1) Uber was
already rapidly increasing subsidies for customers' rides and meals
in a bid for market share, which caused the Company's sales and
marketing expenses to swell; and (2) Defendants were cutting (or
planned to cut) costs in key areas that undermined the Company's
central growth opportunities.

Since the revelation of material adverse facts omitted from Uber's
Registration Statement, Uber's stock price has fallen substantially
below its IPO price. Investors have suffered severe losses as a
result, the lawsuit says.

Uber is a technology company that provides a mobile application for
ridesharing.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James I. Jaconnette, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231 7423
          E-mail: james@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
          39 Sintsink Drive West, 1st Floor
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone: (516) 883 1437
          E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 3 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Uber Technologies Inc. To
determine your eligibility and get free access to our shareholder
support tools that provide you with case updates, automated loss
calculations and claims recovery assistance, please contact the
firm via the links below. There will be no cost or obligation to
you.

Uber Technologies, Inc. (UBER)

Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased on behalf of all
persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Uber securities pursuant and/or traceable to
Uber's registration statement issued in connection with Uber's May
10, 2019 initial public stock offering.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 3, 2019

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/uber-technologies-inc-loss-form?prid=3968&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) at the time of the initial
public offering, Uber was rapidly increasing subsidies for
customer's rides and meals in a bid for market share, which caused
the Company's sales and marketing expenses to swell; and (2)
Defendants were cutting (or planned to cut) costs in key areas that
undermined the Company's central growth opportunities.

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

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

Contact:

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


UNITED STATES: Chavez County to Get $82K From DOI Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Dunlap, writing for RDR News, reports that Chaves County will
get a one-time $82,000 payment from the federal government as
settlement from a class-action lawsuit it joined in July 2018.

County Manager Stanton Riggs explained during the October 17
meeting of the Chaves County Board of Commissioners that the
lawsuit filed against the U.S. Department of Interior regarding the
federal government's underfunding of Payment in Lieu of Taxes
(PILT) has been settled and funds disbursed.

"We received notification yesterday that we will be receiving,
after attorney fees and everything, we will be receiving $82,000,"
said Riggs. "We didn't really budget that because we weren't sure
we would ever be receiving that, so that is a nice addition."

But Riggs added that the money probably will be applied to current
expenditures, such as overtime hours paid to Road Department crews
for work during flooding in early October.

Two lawsuits had been filed by Kane County, Utah, alleging that the
U.S. Department of Interior improperly paid only a fraction of the
monies owed to counties for several years because Congress had not
appropriated the full amount for the PILT program, which is money
the federal government pays to local governmental entities for
federal land within the local entities' borders. One lawsuit
covered 2015 and 2016, and the other covered 2017.

The lawsuits filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in
Washington D.C. asserted that federal law required full funding of
PILT payments, regardless of what Congress appropriated. The court
ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in November 2018, but the federal
government appealed in early 2019. It dropped the appeals in May
2019.

Chaves County had been underpaid by $123,934 during the three-year
period, according to documents from the law firm of Smith, Currie
and Hancock LLP in Washington D.C.

Forty-nine U.S. states and two territories were eligible to
participate in the legal proceedings as PILT recipients, although
not all decided to join. In New Mexico, 30 counties became parties
to the action. The total amount awarded in the two cases was $17.22
million.

During the meeting, the Board of Commissioners also heard some
presentations and voted on some items.

   * The board accepted a $13,637 grant from the state of New
Mexico Tourism Department on behalf of the Keep Chaves County
Beautiful program. The state Clean and Beautiful Grant Program
provides funds until June 2020 for cleanups and beautification
efforts, litter prevention projects and educational and promotional
efforts.

   * Commissioners approved awarding a $193,802 contract to Waide
Construction Inc. of Roswell to add a metal building to Station #3
of the Berrendo Volunteer Fire Department. The addition is for
storage of vehicles, equipment, tools and other items. Upgrades to
the current station facility to meet Americans with Disabilities
Act standards also are planned. Waide Construction submitted the
lowest of three bids, with the next closest bid coming in at
$235,000.

  * Commissioners voted to approve a special use permit for a
property in the 6400 block of Alabama Road to allow a property
owner to place a second manufactured home on the acreage to be used
by an elderly relative needing living assistance.

   * Tim Coughlin, chief executive officer with the Boys and Girls
Clubs of Chaves and Lincoln counties, provided an update to
commissioners about the organization and its service to the local
area. The Lincoln organization and the Chaves County organizations
merged in October 2017, Coughlin said, and the group has been
working to rebuild relationships, programs and operations since. He
said membership in Chaves County has increased from 23 youth to 87,
and that the organization served more than 350 free meals in the
county at a Thanksgiving dinner. The Roswell location also started
Wake Up! Wednesdays to provide care for students before school
since the Roswell Independent School District implemented later
start times for that day. About 19 students are enrolled.

   * Michael Espiritu, the new president of the Roswell-Chaves
County Economic Development Corp., introduced himself to the board
and expressed his appreciation for the group's support of economic
development efforts.

   * A county proclamation was made for Character Counts! Week. The
week begins Sunday and involves programs in the schools,
recognition of students and first responders, and the start of Red
Ribbon Week, which provides drug abuse and violence prevention
efforts in schools. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class of Loan Borrowers
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as THERESA SWEET, CHENELLE
ARCHIBALD, DANIEL DEEGAN, SAMUEL HOOD, TRESA APODACA, ALICIA DAVIS,
and JESSICA JACOBSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ELISABETH DEVOS, in her
official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of
Education, and THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, the
Defendants, Case no. 3:19-cv-03674-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
William Alsup entered an order on Oct. 30, 2019:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:

      "all people who borrowed a Direct Loan or FFEL loan to pay
      for a program of higher education, who have asserted a
      borrower defense to repayment to the U.S. Department of
      Education, whose borrower defense has not been granted or
      denied on the merits, and who is not a class member in
      Calvillo Manriquez v. DeVos, No. 17-7106 (N.D. Cal.)." The
      class definition shall apply for all purposes, including
      settlement.

   2. appointing Theresa Sweet, Chenelle Archibald, Daniel Deegan,

      Samuel Hood, Tresa Apodaca, Alicia Davis, and Jessica
      Jacobson as class representatives;

   3. appointing Harvard Legal Service Center’s Project on
      Predatory Student Lending and the Housing and Economic
      Rights Advocates as class counsel; and

   4. directing parties to jointly submit a proposal on Nov. 6 at
      noon, a proposal for class notification with a plan to
      distribute notice, including by first-class mail.

The Court said, "Defendants ultimately have not sufficiently shown
otherwise that "crafting uniform injunctive relief will be
impossible." It does not matter whether crafting appropriate
injunctive relief will be difficult or not. Those merits questions
do not preclude certification as a matter of law unless crafting
niform injunctive relief will be impossible. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2)
and 65(d) are satisfied.[CC]

UNITED STATES: D.C. Circuit Appeal Filed in OA/SMSR Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Donald Trump, et al., seek review of a decision entered
by the District Court in the lawsuit entitled O.A., et al. v.
Donald Trump, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02718-RDM, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 18, 2019, in the
cases, O.A., et al. v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., and S.M.S.R., et
al. v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case Nos. 18-2718 (RDM), 18-2838
(RDM) (D.D.C.), District Court Judge Randolph D. Moss (i) granted
in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motions for summary
judgment and class certification; (ii) denied the Defendants'
cross-motion; and (iii) denied as moot the Plaintiffs'
earlier-filed motions for temporary and preliminary injunctive
relief.

On Nov. 9, 2018, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland
Security jointly issued an interim final rule adding a new
mandatory bar on eligibility for asylum for certain aliens who are
subject to a presidential proclamation suspending or imposing
limitations on their entry into the United States and who enter the
United States in contravention of such a proclamation.  That same
day, the President issued a proclamation suspending for a period of
90 days the entry of any alien into the United States across the
international boundary between the United States and Mexico, except
by aliens who enter the United States at a port of entry and
properly present for inspection and entries by lawful permanent
residents of the United States.

Since that proclamation expired, the President has issued two
subsequent proclamations suspending entries across the southern
border, except at a port of entry, for additional 90-day periods.
It is uncontested that together, these actions make aliens (with
the sole exception of lawful permanent residents) ineligible for
asylum if they enter the United States from Mexico outside a
designated port of entry.

The Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases are nineteen individuals
from Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala who entered
the United States from Mexico outside ports of entry after Nov. 9,
2018, and two non-profit organizations that provide legal services
to refugees.  All but one of the individual Plaintiffs seek asylum,
and the remaining Plaintiff was granted asylum during the pendency
of the proceeding but fears revocation if the Rule is enforced.
Together, the Plaintiffs challenge the lawfulness of the Rule on
multiple grounds.

The appellate case is captioned as O.A., et al. v. Donald Trump, et
al., Case No. 19-5272, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit.

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

   -- Appellants' docketing statement is due on November 12,
      2019;

   -- Appellants' certificate as to parties is due on
      November 12, 2019;

   -- Appellants' statement of issues is due on November 12,
      2019;

   -- Appellants' underlying decision is due on November 12,
      2019;

   -- Appellants' deferred appendix statement is due on
      November 12, 2019;

   -- Appellants' notice of appearance is due on November 12,
      2019;

   -- Appellants' transcript status report is due on November 12,
      2019;

   -- Appellants' procedural motions are due on November 12,
      2019;

   -- Appellants' dispositive motions are due on November 25,
      2019;

   -- Appellees' certificate as to parties is due on November 12,
      2019;

   -- Appellees' entry of appearance is due on November 12, 2019;

   -- Appellees' procedural motions due is due on November 12,
      2019; and

   -- Appellees' dispositive motions are due on November 25,
      2019.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees O.A., et al., are represented by:

          Thomas G. Hentoff, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 12th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5000
          E-mail: thentoff@wc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee S.M.S.R., 18-cv-02838, is represented by:

          Elizabeth Hagerty, Esq.
          Craig A. Hoover, Esq.
          Neal Katyal, Esq.
          Mitchell Reich, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          Columbia Square
          555 13th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-1109
          Telephone: (202) 637-5600
          E-mail: elizabeth.hagerty@hoganlovells.com
                  craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com
                  neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com
                  mitchell.reich@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Thomas Schmidt, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          390 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 918-3000
          E-mail: thomas.schmidt@hoganlovells.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees R.S.P.S., 18cv2838; On behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated; Capital Area Immigrants' Rights
Coalition, 18cv2838; Refugee and Immigrant Center For Education and
Legal Services, Inc., 18cv2838; L.C.V.R.; C.S.C.C.; R.G.G.;
N.A.G.A.; A.J.A.C.; A.J.E.A.M.; K.P.P.V.; R.D.P.V.; and Y.A.L.P.
are represented by:

          Craig A. Hoover, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          Columbia Square
          555 13th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-1109
          Telephone: (202) 637-5600
          E-mail: craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com

Defendants-Appellants Donald J. Trump, as President of the United
States, et al., are represented by:

          DOJ APPELLATE COUNSEL
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-2000


VIVINT SOLAR: Brualdi Law Reminds Investors of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. reminds shareholders of these recently
commenced class action lawsuits on behalf of investors of MTCH and
VSLR. If you purchased shares in any of these companies during the
class periods below, and suffered losses in excess of $50,000,
please contact David Titus at (212) 952-0602 if interested in
acting as lead plaintiff for either of these cases.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. In general, the lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from its
investments during the Class Period. You do not need to seek
appointment as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.

Match Group, Inc. (MTCH)
Class period: Aug 06, 2019 through Sep 25, 2019, inclusive
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about Match's business,
operations, and prospects. The complaint alleges that, as a result,
Match's securities traded at artificially inflated prices during
the class period, and that members of the purported class purchased
or otherwise acquired Match's securities relying upon the integrity
of the market price of the Company's securities and market
information relating to Match, and were damaged thereby.


Vivint Solar, Inc. (VSLR)
Class period: March 5, 2019 through September 26, 2019, inclusive
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 10, 2019

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, 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. The complaint alleges that, as
a result, purported class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.

If you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact The Brualdi
Law Firm, P.C. at the contact information below.

CONTACT:

         Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
         Gaitri Boodhoo, Esq.
         David Titus, Esq.
         The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 952-0602
         Website: www.brualdilawfirm.com
         Email: dtitus@brualdilawfirm.com,  
                gboodhoo@brualdlawfirm.com,
                rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm,.com    
[GN]



WAITR HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Nov. 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming November 26, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Waitr Holdings, Inc.
(NASDAQ: WTRH) investors who purchased securities between May 17,
2018 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com

On August 8, 2019, after the market closed, the Company revealed
that its Chief Executive Officer had resigned; that the integration
of BiteSquad.com, LLC, which Waitr had acquired in January 2019,
was not proceeding according to plan; and that the Company was
laying off personnel.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.87, or roughly 50%
to close at $1.89 per share on August 9, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, 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, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Defendants had artificially bolstered profits
and revenues by unilaterally raising prices in breach of customer
contracts and failed to properly reimburse drivers for expenses;
(2) that providing services at the low take rate of 15% was not
sustainable; (3) that its labor model was inefficient and resulted
in rising, unsustainable costs; (4) that its financial statements
were not true, accurate or reliable; and (5) that the Company's
software provided little or no competitive advantages.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Waitr securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than November 26,
2019 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

Contact:

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
                 lportnoy@glancylaw.com [GN]


WE CARE HOMES: Class of Employees Certified in Migues FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Hanna grants the Plaintiff's
Motion to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective Action, Approve
Notice and Expedited Consideration filed in the lawsuit captioned
NELLIE MIGUES v. WE CARE HOMES INC., ET AL., Case No.
6:19-cv-00976-MJJ-PJH (W.D. La.).

Judge Hanna also rules that the Defendants shall have 21 days from
the date of this ruling to provide names, addresses, phone numbers,
email addresses, dates of birth, and last four digits of Social
Security numbers for current and former We Care employees of the
last three years.  The Plaintiff shall have 14 days from receipt of
the employee information to disseminate the approved notice.[CC]


WELLSPACE HEALTH: Faces Hewitt-King Suit in California Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wellspace Health. The
case is captioned as Vanessa Hewitt-King, and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Does 1-50 and Wellspace Health, Defendant,
Case No. 34-2019-00267199-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Oct. 18, 2019).

The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws.

WellSpace Health provides care and support to individuals and
families throughout the Sacramento region since 1953.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Harmik Yeremian, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203-1989
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com


WELTMAN WEINBERG: Faces Gibson Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Gibson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., Case No.
1:19-cv-00920 (W.D. Mich., Nov. 1, 2019), accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly
or indirectly, debts owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due,
another. In connection with the collection of the Debt, the
Defendant placed a telephone call to the Plaintiff on May 9, 2019.
The Plaintiff says the Defendant did not disclose in its message
that it was attempting to collect a debt and that any information
obtained would be used for that purpose. As a result of this
omission, the least sophisticated consumer may contact the
Defendant and unwittingly reveal information to the Defendant that
the consumer might otherwise not reveal, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's violation deprived him
of the concrete interest on being reminded that any future
communications with the Defendant will be adversarial in nature and
that he may wish to be careful about what information he provides.

The Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a
debt.

The Defendant is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Phone: 602-388-8898
          Facsimile: 866-317-2674
          Email: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com


ZAPPOS.COM: Settlement Gives Users 10% Discount, Lawyers $1.6MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Catalin Cimpanu, writing for ZD News, reports that Zappos users who
had their data stolen in a 2012 data breach will receive only a
meager 10% discount to use on the Zappos online store, as part of a
proposed class-action lawsuit settlement.

Their lawyers, on the other hand, are set to receive $1,620,000 in
attorneys' fees and other legal costs, according to a preliminary
settlement filed last month.

The settlement marks yet another case where data breach victims
walk away with nothing following devastating data breaches -- such
as the Yahoo settlement (where user cash compensation was maxed at
$358.80) and the Equifax settlement (where user cash compensation
was maxed at $125, and possibly lower).

The Zappos settlement is not final and is still pending a judge's
approval, scheduled for December 20.

However, this is the first settlement on which both parties have
formally agreed following a drawn-out, seven-years-old lawsuit that
almost reached the US Supreme Court, and is very likely to receive
formal approval from the case judge.

ZAPPOS 2012 DATA BREACH

The class-action lawsuit stems from a security breach at Zappos, an
online shoe retail store that Amazon bought in 2009. Hackers
breached Zappos servers and stole the personal data, excluding
payment card details, for more than 24 million customers [1, 2,
3].

Impacted users filed a class-action lawsuit following the hack,
claiming that Zappos did not adequately protect their data, and
demanding reparations.

Zappos initially managed to have the class-action dismissed, but
plaintiffs won on the appeal. Zappos' attempt to have the case
heard at the US Supreme Court failed earlier this year, forcing the
company to enter a settlement with the victims.

PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT

Following months of negotiations and back and forward, the two
parties finally reached a preliminary settlement on September 19.
As part of the proposed settlement, Zappos will not be admitting to
any fault in the security breach.

The preliminary settlement's terms have been published on the
class-action lawsuit's website.

According to court documents, class lawyers will be emailing
impacted Zappos users this month to inform them of the settlement's
terms, ways they can opt-out and file a new lawsuit, or ways in
which they can file objections to deny the settlement's approval.

Barring any major development on December 20, which usually doesn't
happen, the settlement is as good as final.

Following its formal approval by the class-action judge, users will
have 60 days to request and use their 10% discount. Probably not
the outcome many Zappos users were expecting.

Zappos could not be immediately reached for comment. [GN]


ZOUHAIR KABBARA: Sexual Assault Suit Denied Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Moore, writing for WVVA News, reports that it was a war of
words inside a Raleigh County courtroom on Oct. 18, 2019 as
attorneys fought over whether a class action lawsuit should be
pursued against a physician and Beckley Appalachian Regional
Hospital (BARH).

Dr. Zouhair Kabbara and the hospital are the subject of a civil
suit by multiple women and teens who say they were either sexually
assaulted or harassed by the physician.

At October 18's hearing on class action certification, an attorney
for the women, Stephen New, Esq., said he believes the hospital
knew of the inappropriate behavior by Dr. Kabbara, but did nothing
to stop him.

"If they're going to leave out a stalking claim by a 17-year-old
volunteer, what else is it we don't know yet? And they want to come
in and say we haven't met the numerousity requirement yet," said
New during the hearing.

New called the doctor a "violent sexual predator" with a pattern of
behavior against at least nine different women.

Attorneys for BARH fired back during the hearing, saying the case
did not meet two critical requirements for a class action
suit--numerousity and commonality when it came to the infliction of
emotional distress.

"Every single case is going to involve different witnesses,
different facts, what they were going to do about. Every case is
different," said BARH attorney Ashley Pack, Esq.

In the end, Judge Darl Poling agreed, but did not close the door to
a class action suit later on as the discovery process unfolds.

"The court is going to deny class certification based on the lack
of numerousity and commonality without even addressing the
remaining issues," Judge Poling said in the ruling. "Mr. New, I
will leave the door open as discovery goes on, that you have the
right to re-certify the class."

New said his law office will proceed with the case on an individual
basis.

Meanwhile, Dr. Kabbara is the subject of another civil suit for
sexual assault at Raleigh General Hospital that happened just weeks
after his departure from BARH. [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 ***