CAR_Public/191108.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, November 8, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 224

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Guam Residents Sue over Contaminated Water
7-ELEVEN INC: Thorne Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
AACRES CA: Faces Perkins Employment Suit in California Super. Ct.
AARGON AGENCY: Harrison Alleges Violation under FDCPA
ABODE SYSTEMS: Guglielmo Files Suit in New York under ADA

ADAM GINSBERG: Bittlingmeyer Seeks to Stop Illegal Phone Calls
ADIDAS AMERICA: Calcano Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
AECOM INC: Murchison Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AERO AG HOLDINGS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in New York
ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Page Lawsuit Dismissed Without Prejudice

ALEPH OBJECTS: Hergenreder Wants to Collect Wages Under WARN Act
ALTRIA GROUP: Klein Law Reminds Investors of Class Action
ALTRIA GROUP: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Dec. 2 Deadline
ALTRIA GROUP: Vincent Wong Notes of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline
AMAG INC: Accused by Gill Suit of Misrepresenting Makena's Worth

AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS: Calcano Files Class Suit in New York
AMERIMEX COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Hernandez Class Action in California
ARBY'S FRANCHISOR: Lopez Files Class Suit Under Disabilities Act
AUTO WAX: Masias-Pena Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
BARCLAYS BANK: UBS Appeals Decision in Sonterra Antitrust Suit

BILLY REID: Tucker Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
BLAZIN WINGS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in New York
BLOOM ENERGY: Issued Misleading Public Statements, Bolouri Says
BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE: Thorne Alleges Violation under ADA
BRIDGESTONE INVESTMENT: 9th Cir. Denies Bid for Mandamus Relief

BSH HOME APPLIANCES: Guglielmo Files Class Suit under ADA
C & J: Tucker Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
CADENCE BANCORPORATION: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Evans Suit Over Unauthorized Credit Inquiries
CHEVRON CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clayborne Alleges

CJS SOLUTIONS: Court Denies Bid to Strike Rule 68 Offer of Judgment
COLLECTION BUREAU: Bid to Strike Class Claims in Roskelley Denied
CORPORATE AMERICA: Court OKs CUMIS' Motion to Dismiss in Terry Suit
COVETRUST INC: Vincent Wong Notes of Nov. 29 Plaintiff Deadline
CREDIT SUISSE: XIV Investor Appeals Decision in Securities Suit

DCM DASH ONE: Miller Files Class Suit in California
DELTA PACKING: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Perez Says
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Claims in Third Amended Lewis Suit Trimmed
DR.'S OWN INC: Sisk Files Class Suit in California
DSW SHOE: Morrison Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California

EPISCOPAL HEALTH: Dumay Suit Removed to Eastern Dist. of New York
ESPARZA ENTERPRISES: Balcarcel Files Suit in California
FCA US: Bid to File 2nd Amended Gilvin Suit Recommended for Denial
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Improperly Charges Closing Fees, Haines Claims
FINISH LINE INC: Calcano Files Class Suit under Disabilities Act

FORSTER & GARBUS: Leboeuf Seeks to Certify Class
FRONTPOINT SECURITY: Guglielmo Suit Alleges ADA Violation
GARY SMILEY: Can Compel Arbitration in Goss FDCPA Suit, Court Rules
GBJ INC: Underpays Drivers, Crider Suit Alleges
GEICO GENERAL: Interlocutory Appeal in Green Suit Denied

GROCERY-TAQUERIA MEXICANA: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
GYRO KING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chevez Suit Alleges
HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Ottesen Sues Over DMHA in Supplements
IBM CORP: Comin Seeks to Recover Damages for Withheld Commissions
ILLINOIS: Court Dismisses Nasello Medicaid Lawsuit

JMR REST CORP: Enciso Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LIDDLE & LIDDLE: Faces Perchlak Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA
MATCH GROUP: Crutchfield Sues over 2% Drop in Share Price
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces McCurdy Securities Suit in California
MDL 2472: Warner Chilcott Appeals Class Cert. Ruling to 1st Cir.

MDL 2779: FieldTurf's Bid to Dismiss Artificial Turf Suit Denied
MDL 2904: Aponte v. LabCorp. Over Data Breach Consolidated
MEREDITH CORPORATION: Vincent Wong Notes of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Davis Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA
MIDLAND CREDIT: Morgan Files FDCPA Class Action in Indiana

MISSOURI: Court Affirms Partial Summary Judgment in Hootselle Suit
MYRIAD GENETICS: Klein Law Reminds Investors of Class Action
NY FINE INTERIORS: Criollo Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
OLIVELA INC: Guglielmo Files Class Suit under Disabilities Act
PANDA EXPRESS: Thorne Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act

PARNELL & PARNELL: Pounders Files FDCPA Suit in Alabama
PEARSON PLC: Geroge D. Files Class Suit in Minn.
PERRIGO COMPANY: Koppell Sues Over High Levels of NDMA in Tablets
QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Engert Suit Endorsed
SAFESPEED LLC: Marso Files Suit in Kansas under ADA

SCIPLAY CORP: Gibbs Investigates Securities Law Violations
SCIPLAY CORPORATION: Faces Good Suit Alleging IPO-Related Claims
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Ordered to Start D'Ottavio Claims Prosecution
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Andres Sues over 44% Drop in Share Price
SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Dec. 6 Deadline

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TELCO: Bernstein Sues over Unsolicited Calls
SOVEREIGN SERVICES: Underpays Valet Supervisors, Avila Suit Says
SPECTRA360 INC: Flo-Tech Files TCPA Suit in Illinois
STATE FARM: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Connectors Suit
STUMP PRINTING: Guglielmo Files Suit under ADA

ULTA SALON: Faces Rowe Employment Suit in California Super. Court
UNITED STATES: Attorney General Faces Suit in D. Arizona
USHEALTH ADVISORS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Berg Suit Claims
VENUS FASHION: Jones Suit Seeks Stop Unsolicited Marketing Texts
VIVINT SOLAR: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit

VOLVO CARS: XC90s Not Compatible With Android Auto, Levine Says
WELLS FARGO: Herrera Files Class Action in Pa.
WERNER MEDIA: Guglielmo Files Suit in New York under ADA
WEST ELM: Lopez Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $288MM Accrual at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Paid $1.5MM for Lawsuits in 3Q 2019
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 675 Open Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.35-Bil. Net Reserves at Sept. 30


                            *********

3M COMPANY: Guam Residents Sue over Contaminated Water
------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND AGUON; JOHNNY ARCEO; BENNY BAZA; WILLIAM CASTRO; DAVID G.
CEPEDA; GREYORIO CRUZ; MICHAEL CUASITO; FRANCISCO C. DUENAS;
DELFINO V. GARCIA; STEVE HAGEN; ALFRED C. IGNACIO; JAMES T. LINNEL;
MARK MERFALEN; ANDREW R. MESA; VAN W. MURER; RUDY PACO; VICENTE
PEREZ; MICHAEL ROBERTO; RANDY SABLAN; LEWIS SANTOS; RAY TAITAGUE;
EDWARD TERLAJE; ANTHONY QUINENE; individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.); TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL,
INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE
NEMOURS AND CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC,
L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00141 (D. Guam, Oct. 3, 2019)
is an action for medical monitoring and monetary damages resulting
from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS"),
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"), or other per-and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (collectively with PFOS and PFOA, "PFAS") or from
exposure to groundwater, surface water, and affected areas
contaminated with PFOS and/or PFOA from AFFF products and chemical
feedstock used in AFFF that were manufactured, designed, sold,
supplied and distributed by each of the Defendants, individually or
through their predecessors or subsidiaries.

According to the complaint, the Defendants were aware of the toxic
nature of PFOS and PFOA and the harmful impact these substances
have on human health. Nevertheless, the Defendants knowingly and
willfully manufactured, designed, marketed, sold, and distributed
AFFF products and/or chemical feedstocks containing PFOS and PFOA
when they knew or reasonably should have known that these harmful
compounds would be released into the air, soil, and groundwater
during firefighting training exercises and in firefighting
emergencies, and would threaten the health and welfare of
firefighters and other individuals exposed to these dangerous and
hazardous chemicals.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James L. Ferraro, Esq.
          Janpaul Portal, Esq.
          James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
          Dick M. Ortega, Esq.
          600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone (305) 375-0111
          E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
                  jpp@ferrarolaw.com
                  jjr@ferrarolaw.com
                  dmo@ferrarolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Berman, Esq.
          BERMAN O'CONNOR & MANN
          111 W Chalan Santo Papa Ste 503
          Hagatna, Guam 96910
          Telephone: (671) 477-2778
          Facsimile: (671) 477-4366
          E-mail: mjberman@pacificlawyers.law


7-ELEVEN INC: Thorne Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
7-Eleven, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Braulio
Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10072 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019).

7-Eleven Inc. is a Japanese-American international chain of
convenience stores, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. The chain was
founded in 1927 as Tote'm Stores until it was renamed in 1946.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AACRES CA: Faces Perkins Employment Suit in California Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aacres CA, LLC, et
al. The case is captioned as Gail Perkins, Andrea Williams, and
Cayanne Willis-Walker, On behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Aacres CA, LLC, Does
1-100, and Embassy Management, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
34-2019-00267245-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Oct. 21, 2019).

The suit alleges violation of employment related laws.

Aacres CA provides supported living, 24-7 residential home supports
and competency restoration services in Los Angeles, San Diego and
Sacramento.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Ave., Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com


AARGON AGENCY: Harrison Alleges Violation under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aargon Agency, Inc.
The case is styled as Genevieve Harrison, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aargon
Agency, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-02073
(C.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Act.

Aargon Agency Inc is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
   Law Offices of Jonathan Stieglitz
   11845 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 800
   Los Angeles, CA 90064
   Tel: (323) 979-2063
   Fax: (323) 488-6748
   Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


ABODE SYSTEMS: Guglielmo Files Suit in New York under ADA
---------------------------------------------------------
Abode Systems, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Abode Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10055 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019).

Abode Systems, Inc. designs and produces security systems. The
Company offers door and window sensors, motion sensing camera,
automation engines, fire detectors, and home automation
systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADAM GINSBERG: Bittlingmeyer Seeks to Stop Illegal Phone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLY BITTLINGMEYER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ADAM GINSBERG INTERNATIONAL INC., and ADAM
GINSBERG, Case No. 0:19-cv-62554-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 14, 2019),
arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
the Defendants' illegal conduct in calling her cellphone to solicit
their services to her, namely, a series of seminars promoting their
"Internet Mastery" Amazon training program, as well the promise of
a trip to Cancun for all attendees, without her prior express
consent, written or otherwise.

Adam Ginsberg International, Inc., is a California corporation,
with a principal address of in Los Angeles, California.  Adam
Ginsberg is a resident of California.  The Defendants direct,
market, and conduct substantial business activities in
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADIDAS AMERICA: Calcano Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Adidas America, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Adidas America, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10060 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019).

Adidas America Inc designs and markets apparel products. The
Company provides shoes, apparel, and accessories for men, women,
boys, girls, and infants and toddlers, as well as offers sports
collections including basketball, football, and training
shoes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AECOM INC: Murchison Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AECOM Inc. The case
is styled as Timothy Murchison, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AECOM Inc., Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No.
34-2019-00268065-CU-WT-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct.
31, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Wrongful Termination".

AECOM is an American multinational engineering firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lisa L Bradner, Esq.


AERO AG HOLDINGS: Calcano Files ADA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
Aero AG Holdings, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aero AG Holdings, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10056 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019).

Aero AG Holdings, LLC operates in the footwear industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Page Lawsuit Dismissed Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge James A. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico dismissed without prejudice the case WILFRED
ALEXANDER PAGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALBUQUERQUE MUNICIPAL MENTAL
HEALTH COURT, BRETT LOVELACE, CHARLES BROWN, YVONNE ARCHULETTA,
DORA RUBIO, and KIM KENNEDY, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00763-JAP-JHR (D. N.M.), for lack of jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, alleges that the
Defendants violated his 5th and 14th Amendment rights in August
2019 during proceedings in Mental Health Court because his Public
Defender was not present and no other legal aid or representation
of any kind was given or offered.  He objected to the sanction of
16 hours of community service.  The Defendants are Mental Health
Court Judges and staff.  The Court construes the Complaint as a
civil action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for deprivation of
constitutional rights.

Judge Parker denied the Plaintiff's request that a class action
lawsuit be considered to rectify the severe violations towards not
only myself but Et Al at least 25 Mental Health Court Inductees
such as himself, because the Plaintiff, who is not an attorney
admitted to practice in the Court, may not assert claims on behalf
of others.

The Plaintiff filed his Complaint using the form "Complaint for a
Civil Case Alleging Negligence."  The form instructs the Plaintiff
to state briefly and precisely what damages or other relief the he
asks the Court to order.  The Plaintiff did not state precisely
what damages or other relief he seeks. Instead, he simply asked
that the Court "rectify the severe violations."

On Aug. 23, 2019, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to file a
supplement to his Complaint by Sept. 6, 2019 stating precisely what
damages or other relief he wants the Court to order and notified
him that failure to timely file a supplement may result in
dismissal of the case.  The Plaintiff did not file a supplement by
the Sept. 6 deadline.  As the party seeking to invoke the
jurisdiction of the Court, the Plaintiff bears the burden of
alleging facts that support jurisdiction.  

Judge Parker holds that the District Court does not have diversity
jurisdiction in the case.  The Complaint states that the Plaintiff
and the Defendants are citizens of New Mexico.  Consequently, there
is no properly alleged diversity jurisdiction.  Nor is there any
properly alleged federal question jurisdiction because the
Defendants are state court judges and staff involved in the
judicial process, and the Plaintiff has not alleged an ongoing
violation of federal law and is not seeking prospective relief.

For these reasons, Judge Parker dismissed Page's Complaint without
prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/B6e1GK from
Leagle.com.

Wilfred Alexander Page, Plaintiff, pro se.


ALEPH OBJECTS: Hergenreder Wants to Collect Wages Under WARN Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY HERGENREDER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ALEPH OBJECTS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-02914 (D. Colo.,
Oct. 14, 2019), seeks to collect unpaid wages and benefits for 60
calendar days pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act of 1988.

The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant until he was
terminated as part of, or as a result of a mass layoff and/or plant
closing ordered by the Defendant on October 11, 2019, and
thereafter.  As such, he contends, the Defendant is liable under
the WARN Act for the failure to provide him and the other similarly
situated former employees at least 60 days' advance written notice
of termination, as required by the WARN Act.

The Defendant was a Colorado corporation, which maintained a
facility at 626 W 26th St., in Loveland, Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
          182 Saint Francis Street, Suite 103
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433-8181
          E-mail: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com
                  vinccrary@thegardnerfirm.com

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 581-5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581-2122
          E-mail: sjm@lankmill.com


ALTRIA GROUP: Klein Law Reminds Investors of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Altria Group, Inc. (MO). There
is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you
have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Altria Group, Inc. (MO)
Class Period: December 20, 2018 to September 24, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019

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

Learn about your recoverable losses in MO:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/altria-group-inc-loss-submission-form?id=3980&from=1.

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.

Contact:

         J. Klein, Esq.
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue
         59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         Website: www.kleinstocklaw.com
         Email: jk@kleinstocklaw.com
[GN]



ALTRIA GROUP: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Dec. 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Altria Group, Inc. from Dec. 20,
2018 through Sept. 24, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the
important Dec. 2, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities
class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Altria
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Altria class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1683.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) Altria had conducted insufficient due diligence into JUUL
prior to the Company's $12.8 billion investment, or 35% stake, in
JUUL; (2) Altria consequently failed to inform investors, or
account for, material risks associated with JUUL's products and
marketing practices, and the true value of JUUL and its products;
(3) all of the foregoing, as well as mounting public scrutiny,
negative publicity, and governmental pressure on e-vapor products
and JUUL made it reasonably likely that Altria's investment in JUUL
would have a material negative impact on the Company's reputation
and operations; and (4) as a result, Altria'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
2, 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-1683.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 Information:

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



ALTRIA GROUP: Vincent Wong Notes of Dec. 2 Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following
companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Meredith Corporation (MDP)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/meredith-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=3974&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 5, 2019
Class Period: January 31, 2018 to September 5, 2019

Allegations against MDP include 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.

Altria Group, Inc. (MO)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/altria-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=3974&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019
Class Period: December 20, 2018 to September 24, 2019

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

Covetrus, Inc. (CVET)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/covetrus-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=3974&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 29, 2019
Class Period: February 8, 2019 to August 12, 2019

Allegations against CVET include that: (i) the Company had
overstated its capabilities with regard to inventory management and
supply chain services; (ii) Covetrus had understated the costs of
the integration of Henry Schein's Animal Health Business and VFC,
including the timing and nature of those costs; (iii) Covetrus had
understated its separation costs from Henry Schein; and (iv) the
Company understated the impact on earnings from online competition
and alternative distribution channels as well as the impact of the
loss of a large customer in North America just prior to the
Company's separation from Henry Schein.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.

Contact:

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel. 212.425.1140
         Fax. 866.699.3880
         E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com
[GN]



AMAG INC: Accused by Gill Suit of Misrepresenting Makena's Worth
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Gill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMAG, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-02681-DDC-JPO (D. Kan.,
Nov. 4, 2019), accuses the Defendant of misrepresentations under
the Kansas Consumer Protection Act in connection with its
marketing, sale, and manufacturing of the drug Makena, a
hydroxyprogesterone caproate.

Makena was and is marketed as an effective hormonal medication that
reduces the risks for pregnant mothers of giving birth before term.
The "New Drug Application" or NDA seeking accelerated approval for
Makena was approved by the FDA on February 3, 2011. However, the
data used to support Makena's fast-track application and subsequent
approval was insufficient to make a proper determination of the
risks of Makena, the Plaintiff contends.

The FDA relied heavily on a single clinical trial published in 2003
by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
However, the governments' Statistical Review and Evaluation found
that reliance on the 2003 NICHD study only was insufficient to
establish the efficacy of the drug in preventing preterm births,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff, who was prescribed, purchased and injected with
Makena, asserts that she suffered an ascertainable loss caused by
the Defendant's misrepresentations because she paid a premium price
for Makena when the product was worth zero to close to zero based
on its actual attributes.

AMAG is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Waltham,
Massachusetts. AMAG currently holds the exclusive rights to
Makena.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard M. Paul, III, Esq.
          Ashlea Schwarz, Esq.
          Sean Cooper, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Phone: 816-984-8100
          Email: Rick@PaulLLP.com
                 Ashlea@PaulLLP.com
                 Sean@PaulLLP.com


AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS: Calcano Files Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American Eagle Outfitters,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10062 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30,
2019).

American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., now known as simply American
Eagle, is an American lifestyle clothing and accessories retailer,
headquartered in the Southside Works Neighborhood of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



AMERIMEX COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Hernandez Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amerimex
Communications Corp. The case is styled as Karina Hernandez,
individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Amerimex Communications Corp. a Georgia Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-103076 (Cal. Super, Kern County, Oct.
29, 2019).

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

Amerimex Communications Corp. was founded in 1998. The company's
line of business includes providing telephone voice and data
communications services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
   Bradley/Grombacher, LLP
   2815 Townsgate Rd, Suite 130
   Westlake Village, CA 91361
   Tel: 866-586-5060



ARBY'S FRANCHISOR: Lopez Files Class Suit Under Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arby's Franchisor, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Victor Lopez and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Arby's Franchisor, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10074 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019).

Arby's is the second-largest sandwich restaurant brand in the world
with more than 3,400 restaurants in eight countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com



AUTO WAX: Masias-Pena Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis R. Masias-Pena, Maikel E. Velazquez-Hernandez, Yoandris
Gomez-Bautista, Alain Batista Aguilera, and other similarly
situated individuals v. AUTO WAX OF SOUTH FLORIDA INC., and JAVIER
MALDONADO, Case No. 1:19-cv-24559-KMM (S.D. Fla., Nov. 4, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs allege they worked over 40 hours per week without
being compensated overtime at time-and-one-half their regular rate,
or their proper minimum wages. The Defendants did not properly
compensate the Plaintiffs for hours that they worked in excess of
40 per week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants at Honda Dealerships.

The Defendants are Florida companies and are Florida
residents.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


BARCLAYS BANK: UBS Appeals Decision in Sonterra Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant UBS AG filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
consolidated lawsuit styled SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD.,
RICHARD DENNIS, and FRONTPOINT EUROPEAN FUND, L.P., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC, et
al., Case No. 15-CV-3538 (VSB), in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Foley Square).

The appellate case is titled as Sonterra Capital Master Fund Ltd.,
et al. v. Barclays Bank PLC, et al., Case No. 19-3187, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct 17, 2019, the
Plaintiffs appeal to the Second Circuit from the District Court's
August 16, 2019 Opinion and Order, and August 16, 2019 Judgment,
dismissing their consolidated cases, and all other orders entered
in the case that were adverse, either in whole or in part, to the
Plaintiffs.  That appellate case is captioned as Sonterra Capital
Master Fund, et al. v. Barclays Bank PLC, et al., Case No.
19-2979.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 1, 2019, District
Court Judge Vernon S. Broderick (i) denied FrontPoint's motion to
substitute Fund Liquidation Holdings, LLC ("FLH"), individually,
and as assignee of and attorney-in-fact for FrontPoint, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(3); and (ii) granted UBS'
request that FrontPoint's claims be dismissed in their entirety.

Plaintiff FrontPoint brings the putative antitrust class action
lawsuit against Defendant UBS for allegedly conspiring with other
financial institutions to manipulate the London Interbank Offered
Rate ("LIBOR") for British Pound Sterling.  The action arises out
of alleged manipulation and price fixing of the Sterling LIBOR by
numerous financial institutions, which allegedly harmed purchasers
and sellers of financial instruments that were in some way
connected to LIBOR.  In 2007, FrontPoint -- a Delaware limited
partnership -- entered into swap transactions with UBS, the price
of which was allegedly affected by UBS's manipulation of Sterling
LIBOR.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant UBS AG is represented by:

          Eric J. Stock, Esq.
          Jefferson E. Bell, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351-4000
          E-mail: estock@gibsondunn.com
                  jbell@gibsondunn.com


BILLY REID: Tucker Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Billy Reid, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Henry
Tucker, on Behalf Of Himself and All Other Persons Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. Billy Reid, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10030 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 29, 2019).

Billy Reid, Inc. designs apparels, bags, and accessories. The
company offers shirts, knits, sweaters, tees, shots, trousers,
ties, and shorts for men; and tops, dresses, jackets, and bottoms
for women. It also provides accessories, bags, and footwear. The
company offers its products online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



BLAZIN WINGS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------
Blazin Wings, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Victor Lopez and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Blazin Wings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10075
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019).

Blazin Wings, Inc. is an American casual dining restaurant and
sports bar.[BN]
  
The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


BLOOM ENERGY: Issued Misleading Public Statements, Bolouri Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bolouri, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BLOOM ENERGY CORPORTATION, KR SHRIDHAR, RANDY FURR, L.
JOHN DOERR, SCOTT SANDELL, EDDY ZERVIGON, COLIN L. POWELL, PETER
TETI, and MARY A. AYOTE, Case No. 5:19-cv-07259 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 4,
2019), is brought on behalf of all persons and entities other than
the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired Bloom
securities pursuant and/or traceable to Bloom's Registration
Statement issued in connection with its initial public offering, or
purchased the publicly traded securities of Bloom.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from their filing of
materially false and misleading public statements in support of the
IPO.

On July 24, 2018, Bloom filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission an amended registration statement on Form S-1, which was
signed by the Individual Defendants and was declared effective by
the SEC the same day. On July 26, 2018, Bloom filed the SEC the
final prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4, which forms part of the
Registration Statement, and sold 18 million shares of Bloom Class A
common stock to the investing public at $15 per share for gross
proceeds of approximately $284.3 million, net of underwriting
discounts, commissions, and estimated offering costs. The
Registration Statement emphasized that the Bloom's servers
delivered "clean" energy and reduced carbon emissions.

The Registration Statement were materially false and/or misleading
because they misinterpreted and failed to disclose adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operational and financial
results, which were known to the Defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them, the Plaintiff alleges. Specifically, the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements by failing to
disclose that: Bloom's technology produced emissions comparable to
that a modern natural gas plant; Bloom's estimates of useful life
for its energy servers and fuel cells were inaccurate; Bloom used
misleading accounting to mask the effect of future servicing
expenses; consequently, Bloom will potentially be liable for up to
$2.2 billion in undisclosed servicing liabilities; and as a result,
the Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Bloom securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period, according to the complaint.

Bloom designs, manufactures, and sells solid-oxide fuel cell
systems for on-site power generation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 686-1060
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE: Thorne Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------------------
Bob's Discount Furniture, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bob's Discount Furniture,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10100 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019).

Bob's Discount Furniture is an American furniture store
headquartered in Manchester, Connecticut. Bob's Discount Furniture
was founded in 1991 with its first store in Newington, Connecticut
and is ranked 12th in sales among United States furniture stores
according to Furniture Today's list of Top 100 Furniture
Stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRIDGESTONE INVESTMENT: 9th Cir. Denies Bid for Mandamus Relief
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re BRIDGESTONE INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,
BRIDGESTONE INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, Petitioner, v. UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN
FRANCISCO, Respondent, KALMAN ISAACS; et al., Real Parties in
Interest, Case No. 19-70031 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit denied Bridgestone's petition for writ of
mandamus.

In the securities class action suit, Bridgestone petitions for writ
of mandamus following the district court's selection of Glen
Littleton as the Lead Plaintiff.  Bridgestone argued that the
selection violated the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 ("PSLRA").

On review, the Ninth Court holds that the district court did not
clearly err in selecting a lead plaintiff so mandamus relief is not
warranted.  Consistent with the PSLRA, the district court ordered
the potential lead plaintiffs by the amount of losses they alleged.
Bridgestone and Littleton were ranked third and fourth
respectively.  Beginning at the top of the list, the district court
considered whether the potential lead having the largest asserted
loss, Tempus International Fund, satisfied the adequacy and
typicality requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
After it found that Tempus did not, the district court continued
down the list sequentially, checking each Plaintiff for adequacy
and typicality, and ultimately stopped at Littleton: the potential
Lead Plaintiff having the largest asserted loss that also satisfied
Rule 23's requirements.

The procedure was consistent with the PSLRA, the Ninth Circuit
opines.  Bridgestone's attempt to cast the process as freewheeling
relies heavily on questions posed by the district court during a
preliminary hearing on the selection motion.  But nothing in the
district court's information-gathering statements supplants its
subsequent order faithfully applying the PSLRA.

Nor did the district court clearly err in finding Bridgestone was
entangled with a unique defense and therefore atypical, the Ninth
Circuit states.  At this stage, the question is whether Bridgestone
must prepare to meet defenses that are not typical of the defenses
which may be raised against other members of the proposed class.
There is no evidence that the other Plaintiffs are subject to the
same rebuttal argument.  And, given that the call options make up a
significant amount of Bridgestone's asserted loss, it is likely to
be vigorously challenged by defendants.  Thus, it was not clear
error for the district court to conclude that a major focus of
litigation against Bridgestone will concern a defense unique to it,
the Ninth Circuit states.

Based on the foregoing, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for
writ of mandamus.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Oct. 8, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/NkHPni from Leagle.com.


BSH HOME APPLIANCES: Guglielmo Files Class Suit under ADA
---------------------------------------------------------
BSH Home Appliances Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BSH Home Appliances Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10065 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019).

BSH Home Appliances Corporation manufactures home appliances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


C & J: Tucker Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------
C. & J. Clark Retail, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Henry Tucker, on Behalf Of Himself and All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. C. & J. Clark Retail, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10031 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 29, 2019).

C&J Clark International Ltd. (Clarks) is a world-leading
manufacturer and retailer of footwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CADENCE BANCORPORATION: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Cadence Bancorporation (NYSE:CADE) for violations of Secs. 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. Cadence announced on July 22, 2019, that
the Company's financial results for the second quarter of 2019 were
"negatively impacted by higher credit costs including net
charge-offs of $18.6 million and loan provisions of $28.9 million."
Based on these issues, Cadence missed its second-quarter earnings
expectations. Based on this news, shares of Cadence fell by more
than 22% on the same day.

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

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

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

Contact:

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



CAPITAL ONE: Faces Evans Suit Over Unauthorized Credit Inquiries
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN EVANS, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No.
3:19-cv-01985-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal., Oct. 14, 2019), seeks to enjoin
the Defendant's violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act relating
to its systematic unauthorized credit inquiries.

Mr. Evans alleges that the Defendant acquired his credit
information through an unauthorized inquiry of his "consumer
report[s]" as that term is defined by the FCRA.  He alleges that
despite the fact that his financial obligation to the Defendant was
discharged as of May 23, 2017, the Defendant submitted an
unauthorized account review credit report inquiry to Trans Union.
He argues that the Defendant's inquiry for his consumer report
information, without his consent, falls outside the scope of any
permissible use or access included in the FCRA.

Capital One is a Virginia corporation located in Mclean, Virginia.
The Defendant is authorized to and regularly conducts business in
the state of California.  The Defendant is a credit furnisher
subject to the FCRA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108-3609
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: yana@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222-7429
          Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
          E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com


CHEVRON CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clayborne Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HAWN CLAYBORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHEVRON CORPORATION; CHERNE CONTRACTING
CORPORATION; NEWTRON, LLC; THE NEWTRON GROUP, LLC; and DOES 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-06313-DMR (N.D. Cal., Oct. 2, 2019) is
an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiff Clayborne was employed by the Defendants as hourly
paid, non exempt employee.

Chevron Corporation is an integrated energy company with operations
in countries located around the world. The Company produces and
transports crude oil and natural gas. Chevron also refines,
markets, and distributes fuels, as well as is involved in chemical
and mining operations, power generation, and energy services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jahan Sagafi, Esq.
          Moira Heiges-Goepfert, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
                  mhg@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Steven Elster, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN ELSTER
          785/E2 Oak Grove Road, No. 201
          Concord, CA 94518
          Telephone: (925) 324-2159
          E-mail: steve.elster.law@gmail.com


CJS SOLUTIONS: Court Denies Bid to Strike Rule 68 Offer of Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Timothy C. Borup, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The CJS Solutions Group,
LLC, d/b/a/The HCI Group, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-1647 (PAM/DTS)
(D. Minn.), Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota denied Borup's Motion to Strike
or Otherwise Invalidate Defendant's June 12, 2019 Rule 68 Offer of
Judgment.

Borup alleges that HCI misclassified him and other "at the elbow"
consultants as independent contractors and accordingly failed to
provide appropriate overtime pay.  He asserts two causes of action:
(1) a violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
filed on behalf of himself and a putative FLSA collective, and (2)
a violation of the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act, filed on
behalf of himself and a putative Minnesota class.  The case has
proceeded at something short of breakneck speed.  Stays, the result
of both stipulation and the revelation of an undisclosed, related
case in the Southern District of New York, as well as discovery
issues, have stalled the normal case progression.

On June 12, 2019, HCI served Borup with a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment
on his individual claim.  The pertinent terms of the Offer provide
that Judgment be entered in the Plaintiff's favor in the case for a
total sum of $10,000, as well as any amount for costs of suit,
attorneys' fees, and any and all other accrued costs that might be
recoverable against the Defendant in the action, to be determined
by the Court.  The Offer includes all valid claims for damages that
the Plaintiff has alleged against the Defendant, as well as
compensation for costs and reasonable attorneys' fees accrued up to
the date of the Offer.  The Offer further requires that as a
condition of the Offer, the Plaintiff agrees to execute a mutually
agreeable Settlement Agreement and Release for the purpose of
releasing any and all claims against the Defendant.

Before the 14-day period to accept HCI's Offer of Judgment elapsed,
Borup filed the present Motion to Strike or otherwise invalidate
the Offer.  That period elapsed, however, before the hearing on the
Motion took place.  Because Borup did not accept the Offer within
the 14 days, it is considered unaccepted and withdrawn.

Borup moves to strike or otherwise invalidate the purported Rule 68
Offer of Judgment HCI made on June 12, 2019.  Relying on authority
from the District and from other circuits and districts, Borup
argues that -- whatever the mechanism used -- the Court must
invalidate HCI's offer of judgment as premature in the context of a
putative class and collective action.  Offering competing
authority, HCI contends the Court must wait to decide the issue
later, if it has to decide it at all.

Judge Schultz holds that although a Rule 68 offer of judgment
offered solely to the named Plaintiff in a putative class and
collective action does not neatly square with the rules governing
those types of actions, there is no reason to declare HCI's offer
ineffective as the concern Borup raises does not exist and so will
not come to roost.  

Judge Schultz also will not grant Borup's motion not because the
Court lacks the power to do so or because the matter is unripe.
Rather, the sword of Damocles dangling over Borup's head does not
present the disproportionately coercive threat he claims -- or that
HCI likely hoped it would.

Finally, Borup does not face the threat of a disproportionate
liability for costs that animates his request for immediate relief.
The upshot is that Borup will not face a meaningfully greater
shift in costs than he would had he brought the action solely on
his own behalf.  As such, HCI's Rule 68 Offer of Judgment does not
create the conflict of interest that has troubled those courts to
have considered the issue before. Absent this conflict, there is no
basis for granting Borup the immediate relief he requests.  His
motion will be denied.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Schultz denies Borup's Motion to
Strike.

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

Timothy C. Borup, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kelly A. Lelo --
klelo@larsonking.com -- Larson King, LLP, T. Joseph Snodgrass --
jsnodgrass@larsonking.com -- Larson King, LLP & Thomas A.
Jacobson,
Swenson Lervick Syverson Anderson Trosvig Jacobson, PA, 710
Broadway, P.O. Box 787, Alexandria, MN 56308

The CJS Solutions Group, LLC, doing business as The HCI Group,
Defendant, represented byClaire B. Deason, Littler Mendelson,
P.A.,
Corey Christensen -- cchristensen@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson
P.C. & Jacqueline E. Kalk -- jkalk@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, PC.


COLLECTION BUREAU: Bid to Strike Class Claims in Roskelley Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEITH ROSKELLEY, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., an Idaho
corporation and MARK L. CLARK, an individual, and MARK L. CLARK,
PLLC, an Idaho professional limited liability company, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00561-CWD (D. Idaho), Magistrate Judge Candy W.
Dale of the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho (i)
denied the Defendants' Motion to Strike Class Allegations; (ii)
denied as moot the Defendants' Motion for Protective Order to Stay
Discovery Pending Resolution of Defendants' Motions; (iii) granted
in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend
Complaint.

Keith Roskelley alleges that on March 19, 2018, Collection Bureau
filed a complaint against him and his adult daughter, Amanda
Roskelley, in Idaho state court, claiming that they owed $5 to
Primary Health Medical Group, $46.13 to Saltzer Clinics, $200 to
Idaho Plumbing Company, and $11.55 to Primary Health Medical
Clinic.  The summons and complaint were delivered to Amanda
Roskelley at her residential address in Boise on March 3, 2018.
However, Roskelley has resided in, and still resides in, Meridian
and never resided with his 28-year-old daughter at her residence in
Boise.  Roskelley denies he had any responsibility to pay his
daughter's medical debts, but that nonetheless, CBI wrongfully sued
him together with his daughter in the collection action.

Roskelley contends he did not know of the collection complaint
filed against him until October 2018, when Roskelley received
notice from his employer that CBI was garnishing his wages.  He
asserts the wage garnishment notice was his first notice that a
collections complaint had been filed, and judgment had been entered
against him.  He retained local attorney Ryan Ballard for
assistance with setting aside the default judgment based upon
improper service.  According to Roskelley, CBI filed an unopposed
motion to set aside the default judgment entered against him,
averring that Roskelley is not responsible for the debts.  The
state court granted the motion.

Shortly after the collection action was resolved, on Dec. 20, 2018,
Roskelley filed the complaint before the Court alleging that
Defendants Collection Bureau, Mark L. Clark, PLLC, and Mark L.
Clark ("CBI") are debt collectors who employ policies that cause
the Defendants to violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA") in two ways: (1) by filing lawsuits against debtors who
are not responsible to pay each debt at issue; and (2) serving only
one defendant before seeking a default judgment, even if the
co-defendant resides at a different address.  Roskelley claims
these violations occur because of CBI's practice of suing people
with the same last name, based upon an assumption they are spouses,
to collect a debt that only one of the individuals owes.

Roskelley brings the matter as a potential class action on behalf
of the following persons similarly situated:  Each person named as
a defendant in a collection action filed by CBI in Idaho courts
within one year prior to the filing of the action, who does not
appear in the records provided to CBI by the original creditor for
each alleged debt as person responsible for the alleged debt.

The complaint contains two FDCPA claims asserted under 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692e and 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f, which prohibit debt
collectors from using false, deceptive or misleading
representations or means in connection with the collection of any
debt, and from using any unfair or unconscionable means to collect
any debt, respectively.

In support of its Motion to Strike, CBI submitted the declaration
of Mark L. Clark, setting forth facts that establish CBI's decision
to link the separate collection accounts of Keith and Amanda
Roskelley was a mistake, based upon an incorrect assumption that
the two were husband and wife such that community assets were
available to satisfy the debts.  This mistake was then perpetuated
when CBI served the summons and complaint upon Amanda Roskelley at
her residence, because CBI assumed she was Keith Roskelley's spouse
and they resided together.  

Clark stated also that, once the judgment against Keith Roskelley
was set aside, Mr. Roskelley acknowledged liability for two of the
four CBI accounts described in the collection complaint and he paid
CBI the balance due for those two accounts.  Mr. Roskelley does not
deny these facts, although he objects to the Court's consideration
of the Clark Declaration to the extent Clark sets forth his
findings related to his review of CBI's business records to locate
other instances when CBI sued individuals sharing the same last
name together in one collection action.

The Motion to Amend complaint seeks to add two Plaintiffs, Kevin
McGee and John Hennefer, whom Roskelley contends were subject to
the same debt collection practices as he was.  Roskelley asserts
that CBI sued Mr. McGee and Mr. Hennefer for recovery of debts they
did not individually incur.  He argues Mr. McGee and Mr. Hennefer
fall within the proposed class, because neither appeared in the
records provided to CBI by the creditor for each alleged debt as
the person responsible for the alleged debt.  He contends it was
improper to sue Mr. McGee and Mr. Hennefer together in the same
action as their wife for their wife's consumer debts.

In opposition to the motion to amend, CBI submitted the second
declaration of Mark Clark, which attaches copies of the complaints
CBI filed in the state district court in Ada County against the
McGees and the Hennefers.  CBI argues Mr. McGee and Mr. Hennefer
were properly sued together with their spouse, because the debts
were incurred while the couples were married.  CBI contends Mr.
McGee and Mr. Hennefer were properly named as defendants together
with their spouse to the extent CBI sought to satisfy the debts
from community property.  Roskelley, on the other hand, argues that
a creditor is not permitted to name, and sue, a non-debtor for
alleged debts incurred by his or her spouse, and that both Mr.
McGee and Mr. Hennefer therefore fall within the proposed class.

After careful examination, the Court understands Roskelley's class
action claim faults CBI for assuming individuals who share the same
last name are married and, based upon that assumption, proceeding
to name the two individuals as defendants in the same lawsuit even
if only one of the individuals incurred the debt.  CBI argues it
does so because it seeks to satisfy debts owed by one or the other
spouse from community property.

Keith Roskelley and his daughter represent one proposed subset in
this group, as they are related (father and daughter) and share the
same last name.  CBI assumed they were married, and sued them both
in the same action, individually and as husband and wife, to
recover two debts owed by Keith, and two debts owed by Amanda.  Two
other (and potentially more) subsets exist in the proposed class --
married couples who incurred individual debts, like Mr. and Mrs.
McGee; and divorced spouses who incurred individual debts prior to
the entry of the divorce decree, like Mr. and Ms. Hennefer, but who
were sued together, both individually and as husband and wife,
after their divorce was final.  

In each case, CBI assumed the individual debtors were married, and
joined them in the same lawsuit.  With regard to Mr. and Mrs.
McGee, CBI was correct. But with respect to the Roskelleys and the
Hennefers, CBI was not correct in assuming the two debtors were
married at the time the collection suits were filed.

Magistrate Judge Dale first examines the motion to amend the
complaint, because it asks the Court to determine a question of law
permeating the entirety of the action -- whether Idaho law permits
a creditor to sue and obtain a judgment against both members of a
marital community for a debt incurred by only one spouse.  CBI
argues the proposed amendment to add Mr. McGee and Mr. Hennefer is
futile, because Idaho law permits creditors to sue married
individuals, individually and as husband and wife, to the extent
the creditor seeks to satisfy the debt or debts from community
property.  Thus, CBI argues it correctly sued the two Hennefers
together and also the two McGees together; based on this, they are
not proper plaintiffs nor representative of the class, rendering
the proposed amendment futile.

The Magistrate concludes that out of the two potential Plaintiffs,
only one may be a proper Plaintiff based upon the proposed class
definition.  The Hennefers were divorced at the time CBI instituted
its collection action.  Accordingly, it appears Mr. Hennefer was
not a proper party defendant in an action to recover debts that Ms.
Hennefer owed, much in the same way that Mr. Roskelley was not a
proper party defendant in an action seeking recovery of debts his
daughter owed, based upon the assumption the debtors were married.
It was not improper, however, to name Mr. and Mrs. McGee as party
defendants in one suit to the extent CBI sought recovery of debts
incurred by one or both spouses from community property.  They were
married at the time the debts were incurred, and remained married
at the time the collection action was filed.  

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge granted in part the Motion to
Amend to allow the addition of Mr. Hennefer as a Plaintiff in the
matter.  The Judge makes no determination as to the merits of
Roskelley's claims, and declines to address the Defendants'
additional arguments, directed at the same.

Because the matter is in early stages of development, the
Magistrate Judge finds it would be premature to address the
Defendants' numerosity, commonality and other arguments, and to
rule that the case should not proceed as a class action, especially
given the opportunity exists to amend the class descriptions at the
close of discovery.  Should the Court reach the question of
certifying a class, and later find that Roskelley has not or cannot
adequately identify a class or classes which he can properly
represent, the Court may reconsider its preliminary decision to
allow the case to proceed as a class action.   CBI's Motion to
Strike, or in the alternative to deny class certification, is
denied.

Having now considered the Motion to Amend and the Motion to Strike,
the Magistrate Judge denied the Motion to Stay as moot.  To the
extent the parties require a protective order to address the
Defendants' claims that production of documents related to
Roskelley's class claims may violate the privacy interests of
nonparties, she will consider a proposal for the same.  And last,
because of Mr. Hennefer's addition as a party plaintiff and the
substitution of local counsel under the circumstances, the
Magistrate will conduct a status conference with the parties for
the purpose of discussing discovery and other deadlines.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://is.gd/HE7L9j from Leagle.com.

Keith Roskelley, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Beth E. Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC,
pro hac vice, Blythe H. Chandler -- bchandler@terrellmarshall.com
-- Terrell Marshall Law Group, PLLC, pro hac vice, Benjamin Andrew
Schwartzman -- info@aswdpllc.com -- Andersen Schwartzman Woodard
Dempsey, PLLC, Jennifer Schrack Dempsey, Andersen Schwartzman
Woodard Dempsey, PLLC & Wade L. Woodard, Andersen Schwartzman
Woodard Dempsey, PLLC.

Collection Bureau, Inc., a Idaho corporation, Mark L. Clark, PLLC,
an Idaho professional limited liability company & Mark L Clark, an
individual, Defendants, represented by Ryan Mayes Fawcett & Jeffrey
I. Hasson, Hasson Law, LLC, pro hac vice.


CORPORATE AMERICA: Court OKs CUMIS' Motion to Dismiss in Terry Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONALD E. TERRY, SR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CORPORATE
AMERICA FAMILY CREDIT UNION et al., Defendants, Civil No.
JKB-19-1065 (D. Md.), Judge James K. Bredar of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland granted (i) CUMIS' motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief, and (ii) CUMIS'
unopposed motion to seal Exhibits B and C to its motion to
dismiss.

Plaintiffs Donald E. Terry, Sr., and Shemika Terry, who are father
and daughter, respectively, filed suit against Corporate America
Family Credit Union ("CAFCU") and CUMIS Insurance Society
Incorporated, doing business as CUNA Mutual Group ("CUMIS") in
Baltimore City Circuit Court.  The Terrys asserted class action
allegations on behalf of the following class: All persons with
loans from CAFCU, whose loans are secured by the borrower's
personal vehicle, and who purchased Guaranteed Asset Protection
("GAP") coverage from CUNA in conjunction with their CAFCU loan.

In addition to declaratory and injunctive relief, the Plaintiffs
seek actual damages, forgiveness of all loan deficiencies claimed
by CAFCU following inadequate CUNA GAP coverage payouts,
reimbursement of sums paid by Class members on alleged
deficiencies, punitive damages in an amount determined by the trier
of fact, an award of their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in
the matter, plus such other and further appropriate relief.

Based upon minimal diversity pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act, the case was removed to the Maryland District Court.  After
both the Defendants filed answers, a scheduling order was entered,
pursuant to which the Terrys were granted leave to file an amended
complaint.

The amended complaint asserted five counts: (i) Count I —
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act; (ii) Count II — Illinois Deceptive
Trade Practices Act; (iii) Count III — Breach of Contract; (iv)
Count IV — Declaratory Judgment; and (v) Count V — Tortious
Interference with Contract.  All counts are brought against both
the Defendants except for the last count, tortious interference
with contract, which is only against CUMIS.  CAFCU has filed an
answer to the amended complaint.

Now before the Court is CUMIS's Motion to Dismiss for failure to
state a claim for relief as well as the Plaintiffs' opposition
thereto, and CUMIS's reply.  Also pending is CUMIS's unopposed
Motion to Seal Exhibits B and C to its motion to dismiss.

Judge Bredar finds that the first and second elements, existence of
a contract between the Terrys and CAFCU and CUMIS's knowledge of
the contract, have been plausibly pled.  Assuming arguendo the
Plaintiffs have also plausibly pled that CAFCU breached the GAP
contract and that the Terrys incurred damages from a breach --
elements four and five, Judge Bredar nevertheless does not find
that the Plaintiffs have provided sufficient factual content to
support an inference that CUMIS intentionally induced CAFCU to
breach or otherwise render impossible the performance of the GAP
contract without justification by CUMIS.

The Complaint resorts to "naked assertions devoid of further
factual enhancement," by merely alleging that CUMIS calculates GAP
benefits to minimize debt forgiveness, thereby inducing CAFCU to
breach its contractual obligations, the District Court finds. The
Terrys' allegations that CUMIS instructed CAFCU to adjust the
beginning value of the vehicle from $19,500 to $18,250 and employed
a different formula for amortizing the car loan from the one used
by CAFCU do not allow a reasonable inference that CUMIS acted
unjustifiably in its role as administrator of the GAP contract or
that it intended either to cause injury to the Terrys or to obtain
a benefit at the expense of the Terrys.  The complaint fails to
state a claim for relief on count five, Judge Bredar opines.

The District Court states that although the two exhibits at issue
were submitted to support CUMIS's motion to dismiss, they were
irrelevant to the Court's disposition of the motion and were not
even consulted by the Court.  The governmental interest in
protecting trade secrets is well established.  No benefit can be
found to unsealing of these two exhibits.  Hence, the Judge will
grant the motion.

Accordingly, Judge Bredar granted CUMIS' Motion to Dismiss and
unopposed Motion to Seal.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/n419QC from Leagle.com.

Donald E. Terry, Sr. & Shemika Terry, Plaintiffs, represented by
Thomas Joseph Minton -- tminton@charmcitylegal.com -- Goldman and
Minton PC.

Corporate America Family Credit Union, Defendant, represented by
Michael Kevin Hourigan -- mhourigan@fsb-law.com -- Ferguson
Schetelich and Ballew PA.


COVETRUST INC: Vincent Wong Notes of Nov. 29 Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following
companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Meredith Corporation (MDP)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/meredith-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=3974&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 5, 2019
Class Period: January 31, 2018 to September 5, 2019

Allegations against MDP include 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.

Altria Group, Inc. (MO)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/altria-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=3974&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019
Class Period: December 20, 2018 to September 24, 2019

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

Covetrus, Inc. (CVET)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/covetrus-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=3974&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 29, 2019
Class Period: February 8, 2019 to August 12, 2019

Allegations against CVET include that: (i) the Company had
overstated its capabilities with regard to inventory management and
supply chain services; (ii) Covetrus had understated the costs of
the integration of Henry Schein's Animal Health Business and VFC,
including the timing and nature of those costs; (iii) Covetrus had
understated its separation costs from Henry Schein; and (iv) the
Company understated the impact on earnings from online competition
and alternative distribution channels as well as the impact of the
loss of a large customer in North America just prior to the
Company's separation from Henry Schein.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.

Contact:

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel. 212.425.1140
         Fax. 866.699.3880
         E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com
[GN]



CREDIT SUISSE: XIV Investor Appeals Decision in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff XIV Investor Group filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the consolidated securities lawsuit styled Rajan Chahal, Shaolei
Qiu, and Glenn Eisenberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs and XIV Investor Group, Movant v.
Credit Suisse Group AG, David R. Mathers, Tidjane Thiam, Credit
Suisse AG, Credit Suisse International, Janus Henderson Group PLC,
Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC, and Janus Distributors,
LLC, DBA Janus Henderson Distributors, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-2268, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 23,
2019, in the cases, SET CAPITAL LLC, et al., Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Plaintiff, v. CREDIT SUISEE
GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL, TIDJANE
THIAM, DAVID R. MATHERS, JANUS HENDERSON GROUP PLC, JANUS INDEX &
CALCULATION SERVICES LLC, and JANUS DISTRIBUTORS LLC d/b/a JANUS
HENDERSON DISTRIBUTORS, Defendants. GLENN EISENBERG, on Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT
SUISSE AG and JANUS INDEX & CALCULATION SERVICES LLC, Defendants.
SHAOLEI QIU, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG and JANUS INDEX &
CALCULATION SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case Nos. 18 Civ. 2268 (AT)
(SN), 18 Civ. 2319 (AT) (SN), 18 Civ. 4045 (AT) (SN) (S.D. N.Y.),
Judge Analisa Torres granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss.

The consolidated case arises out of the collapse of a complex
investment vehicle known as VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short
Term Exchange Traded Notes ("XIV notes" or "XIV ETNs").  XIV notes
provided a mechanism by which investors could profit from low
volatility in the stock market.  In purchasing an exchange traded
note ("ETN"), investors agree to pay money to the institution
sponsoring the ETN in return for a payment when the note matures,
the amount of which is determined by the value of a market index.

In the case, the value of XIV notes was derived from the VIX
Futures Index, an index that aggregates the price of "VIX futures,"
which in turn track a measure of market volatility.  To allow
investors to bet against market volatility, the value of XIV notes
was inverse to the value of the VIX Futures Index, such that when
the VIX futures contracts underlying the VIX Futures Index
decreased in value by 1%, the XIV notes' value increased by 1%, and
vice versa.  Credit Suisse AG issued and sold the notes, and Janus
Henderson Distributors, LLC placed and marketed them.

Several Plaintiffs filed suit against Credit Suisse AG (the
issuer), Credit Suisse International (one of the calculation
agents), Credit Suisse Group AG (their holding company), Tidjane
Thiam (Credit Suisse Group's CEO), David R. Mathers (Credit Suisse
Group's CFO); and Janus Henderson Distributors, LLC (the marketer),
Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC (the other calculation
agent), and Janus Henderson Group plc (their holding company).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) and the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), the suits were
consolidated, and the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Rajan Chahal, Shaolei Qiu, and
Glenn Eisenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs and XIV Investor Group, Movant-Appellant v.
Credit Suisse Group AG, David R. Mathers, Tidjane Thiam, Credit
Suisse AG, Credit Suisse International, Janus Henderson Group PLC,
Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC, and Janus Distributors,
LLC, DBA Janus Henderson Distributors, Defendants-Appellees, Case
19-3466, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          88 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
          E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          David G. Januszewski, Esq.
          Peter J. Linken, Esq.
          Herbert Scott Washer, Esq.
          CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
          80 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 701-3352
          Facsimile: (212) 378-4137
          E-mail: djanuszewski@cahill.com
                  plinken@cahill.com


DCM DASH ONE: Miller Files Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DCM Dash One Inc. The
case is styled as Diana Miller, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DCM Dash One Inc, a Corporation
doing business in California, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV38951 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles County, Oct. 30, 2019).

The case type is stated as Other Employment.

Dcm Dash One Inc is in the Labor Contractors (Employment Agency)
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Lo, Esq.
   Law Offices of Justine Lo
   22939 Hawthorne Blvd, Ste 202
   Torrance, CA 90505
   Tel: (424) 355-8535



DELTA PACKING: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Perez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandra Perez, Araceli Magdaleno, Martin Prudencio Diaz, Jaime
Espinoza, Martin Mendoza Carrillio, Saul Toleno, Luis Torres, Felix
Rafael, Nicolas Bolanos, Marisol Cuevas R., Augosto Pablo Chales,
and Miguel Andres, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. DELTA PACKING COMPANY OF LODI, a California
Corporations, JONNY DIAZ FLORES, PABLO DIAZ FLORES, LUCIANO DIAZ
BERNABE, individuals, and DOES ONE through TWENTY inclusive, Case
No. 2:19-at-01041 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for their violations of the Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act, and the California Labor Code,
including the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act
and applicable Wage Orders.

The Defendants violated the wages and hours laws by failing to pay
all wages owed, including piece-rate wages, minimum and overtime
rates, to provide separate compensation for rest and recovery
period, and to provide proper rest periods and meal periods or pay
additional compensation in lieu thereof, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were non-exempt employees of the Defendants.

The Defendants operated an agricultural operation in San Joaquin
County, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
          Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
          Matthew S. Turnbull, Esq.
          Liliana Garcia, Esq.
          Natalia Ramirez Lee, Esq.
          MALLISON & MARTINEZ
          1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
          Oakland, CA 94612-3547
          Phone: (510) 832-9999
          Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
          Email: Stanm@TheMMLAwFirm.com
                 Hectorm@TheMMLAwFirm.com
                 Matt@TheMMLAwFirm.com
                 Lgarcia@TheMMLAwFirm.com
                 Nramirezlee@TheMMLAwFirm.com


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Claims in Third Amended Lewis Suit Trimmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case KAYLA DIONNE LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOVERNMENT
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-352
(RBW) (D. D.C.), Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant District of Columbia's Motion to Dismiss the Third
Amended Complaint.

Named Plaintiffs Kayla Lewis and Felton Hill commenced the putative
class action against the Defendant, the District of Columbia,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (2018), alleging constitutional
violations arising from their arrests and subsequent detentions.

The District Court discussed the factual background of the case in
its Memorandum Opinion issued on June 27, 2016, see Lewis v.
District of Columbia ("Lewis I"), 195 F.Supp.3d 53, 56-57 (D.D.C.
2016) (Walton, J.), and it will not reiterate those facts again
here. The Court will, however, discuss the procedural posture of
the case, which is relevant to the resolution of the pending
motion.

In Lewis v. District of Columbia ("Lewis I"), the Court granted in
part and denied in part the District's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.  It granted the District's motion to
dismiss Hill's claims pertaining to the length of his detention
because he had not asserted a constitutional deprivation. The Court
concluded that the only reason proffered by Hill for the Court to
find an unreasonable delay -- that the judicial officer
affirmatively concluded at his initial appearance that the
government lacked probable cause to effect the arrest -- was belied
by the transcript of that proceeding, and that Hill failed to offer
any other reason for the Court to find an unreasonable delay in his
release.

Regarding Lewis's claims pertaining to the length of her detention,
the Court denied the District's motion to dismiss and concluded
that, because the District concede[d] that it held her for more
than 48 hours without a judicial finding of probable cause, and
ultimately acknowledged that it was ordered to release Lewis after
failing to submit evidence substantiating probable cause, these
concessions alone are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

The Court also denied the District's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claim that the District violated their Fourth and Fifth
Amendment rights by subjecting them to blanket strip searches at
the District of Columbia Jail after presentment.

The current operative complaint in the case -- the Third Amended
Complaint, which was filed on March 12, 2018 -- asserts three
claims that challenge the District's policies regarding probable
cause determinations and detainee strip searches.  Specifically,
the Plaintiffs claim that the District (1) violated their Fourth
Amendment rights under Gerstein v. Pugh, by holding them after
presentment after the administrative steps incident to their
arrests had been completed without an affirmative finding of
probable cause ("Count One"); (2) violated the Fourth Amendment
rights of Lewis under County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, by holding
her for more than 48 hours after her arrest without a finding of
probable cause by a judicial officer ("Count Two"); and (3)
violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs by
subjecting them to blanket strip searches at the District of
Columbia Jail after presentment (after the administrative steps
incident to their arrests had been completed) without an
affirmative finding of probable cause ("Count Three").

On March 26, 2018, the District filed its motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint.  It argues that (1) Counts One
and Two should be dismissed because they are premised on official
acts by judges for the Superior Court for the District of Columbia
who are not policymakers for the District, and as such, the
Plaintiffs cannot establish municipal liability under Section 1983;
(2) Count One should be dismissed as to Hill because his detention
of less than 48 hours does not give rise to a Fourth Amendment
violation; and (3) Count One should be dismissed as to Lewis
because it is duplicative of her allegations in Count Two --
namely, that she was unreasonably held for over 48 hours without a
finding of probable cause by a judicial officer to allow the
'perfection' of the Gerstein affidavit.

Because the Third Amended Complaint largely mirrors the Amended
Complaint on the matter, compare Amended Complaint for Judgment and
Money Damages and Injunctive Relief and Equitable Relief and
Declaratory Relief and Jury Demand, and because the District has
not presented any new arguments to warrant a different ruling,
Judge Walton, for the same reasons indicated in Lewis I, must deny
the District's motion to dismiss on the basis of its argument that
the Third Amended Complaint does not establish a basis for finding
municipal liability under Section 1983.

Next, Hill's proffered reason for the Court to find an unreasonable
delay is insufficient to resurrect his claim regarding the length
of his detention.  Therefore, the Judge concludes that Hill has not
sufficiently alleged that the Magistrate Judge's deferral of his
probable cause determination resulted in an unreasonable delay and
thus must again grant the District's motion to dismiss Hill's claim
challenging the length of his detention.

The Judge agrees with the District's third argument that Lewis
cannot maintain both Counts One and Two against the District.
Because Count One is indistinguishable from Count Two, Lewis is
doing nothing more than pursuing the same claim in separate counts.
However, instead of dismissing Count One as the District suggests,
the Judge will dismiss Count Two since Count Two does not present
any legal or factual theories that are not already subsumed in
Count One.

Finally, the Judge grants the District's motion to dismiss Count
Three of the Third Amended Complaint to the extent that the
Plaintiffs rely on the Fifth Amendment to maintain their strip
search claim.  He opines that Fourth Amendment, in prohibiting
unreasonable searches, is clearly the explicit textual source of
constitutional protection against the governmental conduct alleged
in the case.  Therefore, because the Plaintiffs' strip search claim
is "covered by" the Fourth Amendment's guarantee to be free from an
unreasonable search, the Plaintiffs' challenge to the
reasonableness of the strip searches is properly analyzed under the
Fourth Amendment, not the Fifth.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Walton concludes that Hill has failed
to allege sufficient facts in support of his claim regarding the
length of his detention.  He further concludes that Count Two is
duplicative of Count One and that Count Two is therefore dismissed.
He also concludes that the Plaintiffs cannot maintain their claim
regarding the District's alleged blanket strip searches under the
Fifth Amendment.  Accordingly, the Judge granted in part and denied
in part the District's Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/e53QS3 from Leagle.com.

KAYLA DIONNE LEWIS, On behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Bruckheim
-- michael@brucklaw.com -- BRUCKHEIM & PATEL, LLC & William Charles
Cole Claiborne, III, CLAIBORNELAW.

FELTON HILL, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by William Charles Cole Claiborne,
III, CLAIBORNELAW.

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, represented by
Fernando Amarillas, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, Michael A. Tilghman, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL &
Scott Patrick Kennedy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

JESSIE K. LIU, THE HONORABLE, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY ONLY,
Defendant, represented by Denise M. Clark, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.


DR.'S OWN INC: Sisk Files Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr.'s Own, Inc. The
case is styled as Renee Sisk, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dr.'s Own, Inc, a Delaware
Corporation and Good Feet Worldwide LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02079-BEN-MSB (S.D.
Cal., Oct. 30, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed as a Diversity Action.

The company's line of business includes the manufacturing of
surgical appliances and supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John J. Nelson, Esq.
   FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
   555 West C Street, Suite 1760
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 238-1333
   Fax: (619) 238-5425
   Email: jjn@classactionlaw.com


DSW SHOE: Morrison Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jill Morrison, individually, and on behalf of
all other members of the general public similarly situated and on
behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California
Private Attorneys General Act v. DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE, INC., a
Missouri Corporation; DESIGNER BRANDS, INC., a California
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
19STCV26422, was removed 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 on Nov. 4, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-09477 to the
proceeding.

The complaint alleges eleven causes of action, which are: (1)
Unpaid Overtime; (2) Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; (3) Unpaid Rest
Periods Premium; (4) Unpaid Minimum Wages; (5) Final Wages Not
Timely Paid; (6) Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; (7)
Non-Compliant Wage Statements; (8) Failure to Keep Requisite
Payroll Records; (9) Unreimbursed business Expenses; (10) Violation
of California business & Professions Code; and (11) Violation of
California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian Sinclair, Esq.
          Peter Hering, Esq.
          RUTAN & TUCKER
          611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1931
          Phone: 714-641-5100
          Fax: 714-546-9035
          Email: bsinclair@rutan.com
                 phering@rutan.com


EPISCOPAL HEALTH: Dumay Suit Removed to Eastern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Lorrell Dumay, Dian Dumay, and Jodi Wolfson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
EPISCOPAL HEALTH SERVICES INC., Case No. 715629/2019, was removed
from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Queens County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
Nov. 4, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-06213 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs purport to assert seven causes of action against the
Defendant: (1) negligent handling of Plaintiffs' Sensitive
Information; (2) negligent hiring and training of employees; (3)
breach of implied contract; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5)
violation of New York General Business Law; and (6) a cause of
action for an injunction requiring the Defendant to implement
certain cybersecurity and email protocols.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          John Sardesai-Grant, Esq.
          Andrew C. White, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Ave., Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone (914) 298-3290
          Email: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
                 tgarber@fbfglaw.com
                 jsardesaigrant@fbfglaw.com
                 awhite@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          Paul M. Sod, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAUL M. SOD
          337R Central Avenue
          Lawrence, NY 11559
          Phone (516) 295-0707
          Email: paulmsod@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paul Ferrillo, Esq.
          William A. Wargo, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Phone: (212) 801-9200
          Fax: (212) 801-6400
          Email: FerrilloP@gtlaw.com
                 WargoW@gtlaw.com


ESPARZA ENTERPRISES: Balcarcel Files Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Esparza Enterprises,
Inc a California corporation. The case is styled as Marleny
Balcarcel, an individual on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Esparza Enterprises, Inc,
Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-103107 (Cal. Super., Kern County, Oct.
30, 2019).

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

Esparza Enterprises, Inc is a Farm Labor Contractor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
   
   David Yeremian, Esq.
   David Yeremian & Associates
   535 N Brand Blvd #705
   Glendale, CA 91203
   Tel: +1 818-230-8380


FCA US: Bid to File 2nd Amended Gilvin Suit Recommended for Denial
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MELISSA GILVIN, Plaintiff, v. FCA USA, LLC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-107 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate
Judge Stephanie K. Bowman of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, recommended that the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint be
denied.

The Plaintiffs reside in Clermont County, Ohio.  Defendant FCA
distributes, markets, and sells FCA motor vehicles to persons in
Ohio.  Defendant ISG is an agent of FCA.

In May 2016, the Plaintiffs leased a new 2016 Ram 1500 truck which
was sold, manufactured or distributed by FCA.  They leased the
motor vehicle from Jeff Wyler, Eastgate Auto Mall in Batavia, Ohio,
at which time they received a written statement of their rights
under the Ohio Lemon Law.  Upon initially leasing the truck, the
Plaintiffs did not pay the costs of the taxes, security deposit, or
title fees.  They claim that their vehicle was out of service by
reason of repair for a cumulative total of 30 or more calendar
days.  They further assert that their motor vehicle was possessed
substantially the same nonconformity, which was subject to repair
three or more times, and the nonconformity either continued to
exist or was recurring.  According to the Plaintiffs, FCA, their
agents and/or their authorized dealer, were unable to conform the
Plaintiffs motor vehicle to any applicable express warranty by
repairing or correcting the nonconformity after a reasonable number
of repair attempts

In January 2017, the Plaintiffs were forwarded to Defendant FCAC's
agent, ISG, to facilitate an informal dispute resolution to the
nonconforming motor vehicle issue.  During the informal
negotiations, ISG made a "refund" offer to the Plaintiffs.  ISG
explained to the Plaintiffs that, as a matter of course, the amount
of an offer made for the return of a vehicle included a deduction
for the costs for taxes, title fees, and security deposits if the
consumer had not paid the costs of these items at the outset of the
consumer's dealings with FCA US LLC.  The Plaintiffs were told that
since FCA US LLC had paid the costs of taxes, title fees, and
security deposits (or simply waived these costs), they were not
included in the offer being made.  After ISG explained that FCA was
entitled to these costs, ISG gave the Plaintiffs a few days to
either accept the settlement offer or ISG would close the case.
The Plaintiffs did not accept the settlement offer from ISG.

Thereafter, the Plaintiffs initiated the action for alleged
violations of Ohio's Lemon Law.   Notably, the Plaintiffs
originally filed the action in the Court of Common Pleas for
Clermont County, Ohio in January 2018.  They seek relief for, inter
alia, damages in excess of $25,000 for the refund of the full
purchase price of their nonconforming motor vehicles.  In addition
to compensatory damages, the Plaintiffs also seek punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, and injunctive and declaratory relief.  They also
seek to bring the action on behalf of themselves as well as two
classes of persons.

Thereafter, the Defendants filed a notice of removal with the Court
on Feb. 14, 2018.  Their notice of removal asserted jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2), which is commonly referred to
as the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), as well as diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a).

The Plaintiffs then sought to remand the matter back to state
court.  The Defendants also asked the Court to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims.  The Plaintiffs' motion to remand was denied.
The Defendants motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in
part. Namely, the Plaintiffs' class allegations relating to a
"fail-safe" class were dismissed and Defendant Ally Financial was
dismissed from the action.

The Plaintiffs now move for leave to amend their Amended Complaint
to modify class definitions that were deemed to be fail-safe
classes, add a subclass to include consumers who financed their
motor vehicle purchase through former Defendant Ally, and add
again, formally, as a Defendant in the case, Ally, based on
clarified allegations and new information provided by Plaintiffs.


Defendant FCA contends that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend should
be denied because they made the voluntary choice to sit and wait
until after a final, nonappealable Order was entered by the Court
dismissing their class allegations, and they admit that they waited
hoping that the Court's final Order would provide them with some
guidance for repleading.  Under Sixth Circuit law, Defendant FCA
contends that the Plaintiffs' wait-and-see approach was improper.
The Plaintiffs simply cannot wait for a final adverse ruling before
seeking leave to amend so that they can use the district court as
"as a sounding board to discover holes in their arguments."

Magistrate Judge Bowman agrees.  Additionally, the Plaintiffs'
proposed amendments are also futile.  It is axiomatic that a
plaintiff must be a member of the class defined in the complaint
for the class to be legally viable.  In the Plaintiffs' proposed
amendment, the Plaintiffs are not members of the defined class and
therefore cannot be an adequate representative.

In addition, the Plaintiffs' proposed second amended complaint
asserts that they have suffered financial hardship because Ally has
not cancelled the lease associated with the alleged nonconforming
vehicle.  But Ally has not received the "full purchase price" for
the vehicle or consented to a new lease.  As such, Ally asserts
that it has not violated Ohio Lemon Law by failing to cancel the
Plaintiffs' lease because the express conditions precedent to Ally
having an obligation to do so have indisputably not happened.

Notably, a proposed amended complaint is "futile" and thus leave to
file it should be denied when the statute at issue "does not
provide for a private right of action" for the plaintiff against
the proposed defendant.  Magistrate Judge holds that the statute
does not provide a private right of action against the "lessor" of
a vehicle under Ohio Lemon Law, such as Ally.

For the reasons stated, Magistrate Judge Bowman recommends that the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint be
denied.  Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and
file specific, written objections to the Report & Recommendation
("R&R") within 14 days of the filing date of the R&R.  That period
may be extended further by the Court on timely motion by either
side for an extension of time.  All objections will specify the
portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and will be accompanied by a
memorandum of law in support of the objections.  A party will
respond to an opponent's objections within 14 days after being
served with a copy of those objections.  Failure to make objections
in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/AvSy8s from
Leagle.com.

Melissa Gilvin & Jamie Gilvin, Plaintiffs, represented by
Kristopher David Burgess -- kristopher@theburgessfirm.com -- T.
David Burgess Co., L.P.A & Daniel T. Monk, T. David Burgess Co.,
L.P.A., pro hac vice.

FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Carolyn Ann Taggart --
ctaggart@porterwright.com -- Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, LLP,
Terrance Michael Miller -- tmiller@porterwright.com -- Porter
Wright Morris & Arthur, Kathy Wisniewski --
kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac
vice
& Stephen Anthony D'Aunoy -- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com --
Thompson
Coburn LLP, pro hac vice.

Impartial Services Group, also known as Stericycle Expert
Solutions, Defendant, represented by Alex S. Rodger, STRAUSS TROY
CO., LPA.

Ally Financial Inc., Defendant, represented by Joel E. Sechler --
sechler@carpenterlipps.com -- Carpenter & Lipps LLP.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Improperly Charges Closing Fees, Haines Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John P. Haines, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE OF FLORIDA, INC., Case No.
98336447 (Fla. Cir., Pinellas Cty., Nov. 4, 2019), arises from
closing fees improperly charged and collected by the Defendant from
buyers of real estate in the state of Florida.

The Plaintiff entered into a real estate purchase and sale contract
with the owner of certain real estate located in Pinellas, Florida.
Pursuant to the terms of the Contract, the Plaintiff agreed to pay
cash for the Seller's Property. The Defendant was the designated
Closing Agent for the procurement of title insurance and to perform
closing services in connection with the transaction. The Defendant
performed Closing Services for which the Defendant charged a fee.

The Contract provided that the Closing Services Fee would only be
charged to, and collected from, the Seller. Because the sale was a
cash transaction, there was no lender's policy, endorsement or
related loan closing services required to be paid by the Plaintiff,
the Buyer. The closing fee of $350 was improperly charged by the
Defendant to the Plaintiff despite explicit language in the
Contract that "Seller shall pay for Owner's Policy and Charges,"
which included the Defendant's Closing Services Fee, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Pinellas County,
Florida.

The Defendant is in the business of selling credit health savings
and/or health insurance policies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          EGGNATZ PASCUCCI
          7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Email: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com

               - and -

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-524-2820
          Facsimile: 954-524-2822
          Email: seth@epllc.com

               - and –

          Richard B. Feinberg, Esq.
          FLORIDA LEGACY LAW, LLC
          600 Cleveland Street, Suite 313
          Clearwater, FL 33755
          Phone: 727 231-6400
          Email: ricfeinberg@hotmail.com


FINISH LINE INC: Calcano Files Class Suit under Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Finish Line, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Finish Line, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10064 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019).

Finish Line is an American retail chain that sells athletic shoes
and related apparel and accessories. The company operates 660
stores in 47 states, mostly in enclosed shopping malls, as well as
Finish Line-branded athletic shoe departments in more than 450
Macy's stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORSTER & GARBUS: Leboeuf Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MYRLE S. LEBOEUF, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FORSTER
& GARBUS LLP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00845-WBV-JVM (E.D.
La.), Ms. Leboeuf asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
      Practices Act consisting of:

      "all persons (a) with a Louisiana address, (b) to whom
      Forster & Garbus LLP mailed an initial written communication

      not known to be returned as undeliverable, (c) in connection

      with the collection of a consumer debt, (d) between February

      4, 2018 and February 4, 2019, (e) that included a minimum
      amount due date that was within 30 days of the date of the
      initial written communication";

   2. appointing her as the class representative; and

   3. appointing her counsel as class counsel.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed class are:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Katherine Z. Crouch, Esq.
          Crouch Law, LLC
          2372 St. Claude Avenue, Suite 224
          New Orleans, LA 70117
          Telephone: (504) 982-6995
          Facsimile: (888) 364-5882
          E-mail: katherine.crouch@crouchlawnola.com

FRONTPOINT SECURITY: Guglielmo Suit Alleges ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Frontpoint Security Solutions, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Frontpoint Security Solutions,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10076 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019).

Frontpoint home security systems offer customized wireless alarm
system and automation solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GARY SMILEY: Can Compel Arbitration in Goss FDCPA Suit, Court Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KARICE GOSS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GARY A. SMILEY, Defendant, Case
No. 18 C 7407 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Gary Feinerman of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, granted Smiley's motion to compel arbitration under the
Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA").

Plaintiff Karice Goss brings the putative class action under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), alleging that Smiley
sent her a collection letter threatening to charge unlawful late
fees.  

Goss defaulted on a debt incurred on a AAA Checkmate consumer loan
account.  Smiley, an attorney, sent Goss a collection letter on AAA
Checkmate's behalf.  On this and other matters that AAA Checkmate
referred to Smiley, AAA decided whether Smiley could file suit on
any given claim, AAA had the final word regarding whether, and for
how much Smiley may settle any claims on its behalf, and AAA
decided whether to withdraw any given claim from Smiley.0.

Smiley's letter to Goss stated, in relevant part: "Because of
interest, late charges, attorney fees, if any, and other charges
that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay
may be greater."  In the operative complaint, Goss alleges under
the FDCPA that the statement was false and misleading because late
fees could not accrue given the acceleration of Goss' debt under an
acceleration provision in the Consumer Loan Agreement governing her
relationship with AAA Checkmate.

Smiley moved to compel arbitration under the FAA.  In moving to
compel arbitration, Smiley invokes the Consumer Loan Agreement's
arbitration provision.  Smiley demanded arbitration, and Goss
refused.

Judge Feinerman concludes that because Goss' FDCPA claim falls
within the arbitration provision's scope' because Smiley may
enforce the provision; and because Smiley has not waived his right
to arbitrate, Smiley's motion to compel arbitration is granted.  If
Goss wishes to pursue her claim against Smiley, she must do so in
arbitration.

Judge Feinerman stayed the suit pending resolution of the
arbitration.  If Goss does not expeditiously take the steps
necessary to commence arbitration, the suit will be dismissed.

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

Karice Goss, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Celetha Chatman, Community
Lawyers Group, Ltd. & Michael Jacob Wood --
info@communitylawyersgroup.com -- Community Lawyers Group, Ltd.

Gary A. Smiley, Attonrney At Law, Defendant, represented by Eric D.
Kaplan -- ekaplan@kpglaw.com -- Kaplan Papadakis & Gournis, LLP &
Stacie Elaine Barhorst -- sbarhorst@kpglaw.com -- Kaplan Papadakis
& Gournis PC.


GBJ INC: Underpays Drivers, Crider Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------
JASON CRIDER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. GBJ, INC. d/b/a AFC TRANSPORTATION; ECHO TOUR &
CHARTERS, L.P. d/b/a ECHO TRANSPORTATION; and TBL GROUP, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-03793 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 2, 2019) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

The Plaintiff Crider was employed by the Defendants as driver.

GBJ, Inc., doing business as AFC Transportation provides
transportation services. The Company offers airport transfer,
school bus, transit services, sightseeing tour, and other
solutions. AFC Transportation serves customers in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX77018
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


GEICO GENERAL: Interlocutory Appeal in Green Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Below,
Appellant, v. YVONNE GREEN, WILMINGTON PAIN & REHABILITATION
CENTER, and REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES, P.A. on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees,
Case No. 389, 2019 (Del.), Justice Gary F. Traynor of the U.S.
Supreme Court of Delaware refused GEICO's application for
certification of an interlocutory appeal.

Plaintiffs Yvonne Green, Wilmington Pain, and Rehabilitation
Associates filed a complaint, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, against GEICO.  The Plaintiffs alleged that
GEICO used two computerized models to deny valid personal injury
protection ("PIP") claims of its insureds without evaluating the
facts underlying the claims.  They argued that the practice
violated Delaware law and the terms of GEICO's insurance policies.


After briefing and a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, the Delaware Superior Court certified a class for
the limited purpose of determining whether GEICO's use of the two
different models was a breach of contract or bad faith breach of
contract and to rule on a declaratory judgment. The Superior Court
ruled that it would not determine individual liability or damages.

On Sept. 5, 2019, GEICO filed an application for certification of
an interlocutory appeal.  It argued that the Superior Court's
decision determined a substantial issue of material importance.  As
to the Rule 42(b)(iii) criteria, GEICO argued that the Superior
Court decision: (i) involved a question of law decided for the
first time in Delaware—certification of a contested PIP class
action; (ii) conflicted with decisions of the Superior Court, the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; and (iii) related to the
construction and application 21 Del. C. Section 2118 and Superior
Court Civil Rule 23, which has not been settled, but should be,
before an appeal from a final order.  It also contended that review
of the interlocutory order could terminate the litigation and would
serve the interests of justice.

The Plaintiffs opposed the application for certification, arguing
that GEICO's attacks on the Superior Court's analysis lacked merit
and that the Superior Court's decision did not involve a novel
question of law, did not conflict with other cases, and did not
relate to the unsettled construction of 21 Del. C. Section 2118 or
Rule 23.  Finally, they contended that interlocutory review would
not terminate the litigation or serve considerations of justice.

On Sept. 23, 2019, the Superior Court granted the application for
certification.  It found that the class certification determined a
substantial issue.  As to the Rule 42(b)(iii) criteria, the
Superior Court concluded that the class certification arguably
related to the construction of a statute and that interlocutory
review could terminate the class portion of the litigation and
would serve the interests of justice.

On review, Justice Traynor holds that applications for
interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of the
Delaware Supreme Court.  In the exercise of the Supreme Court's
discretion and despite the Superior Court's granting of the
application for certification, Justice Traynor concluded that the
application for interlocutory review does not meet the strict
standards for certification under Supreme Court Rule 42(b).  The
case is not exceptional, review of the order will not terminate the
litigation, and the potential benefits of interlocutory review do
not outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs
caused by an interlocutory appeal, the Justice opines.  For these
reasons, Justice Traynor refused the interlocutory appeal.

A full-text copy of the Delaware Supreme Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Order
is available at https://is.gd/TOsD3F from Leagle.com.


GROCERY-TAQUERIA MEXICANA: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARISELA FLORES GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. GROCERY-TAQUERIA MEXICANA CORP. (D/B/A
GROCERY LA MEXICANA), RAUL SAAVEDRA MORENO, and ANA MARIA PANTLE
PALMA, Case No. 1:19-cv-09482 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2019), alleges
that the Plaintiff previously worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime
pay and spread of hours compensation, as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Grocery-Taqueria Mexicana Corp. (d/b/a Grocery La Mexicana) is a
domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of New York.  The Individual Defendants serve or served as
owners, managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant
Corporation.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Mexican Restaurant,
located at 118 E 183rd St., in The Bronx, New York, under the name
"Grocery La Mexicana."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GYRO KING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chevez Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA CHEVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GYRO KING, LLC; GYRO KING, INC.; GYRO KING
3, LLC; GYRO KING 4, LLC; and DANISH ALI, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-03801 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 3, 2019) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Chevez was employed by the Defendants as hourly paid,
non exempt employee.

Gyro King, LLC is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

               - and -

          Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX77018
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: vijay@buenkerlaw.com


HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Ottesen Sues Over DMHA in Supplements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Ottesen, Sean Allen, and Lauren Accardi, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HI-TECH
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-07271 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 4,
2019), asserts claims for fraud, breach of warranty, and violations
of the consumer protection laws of California and New York on
behalf of purchasers of the Defendant's supplements containing the
stimulant DMHA.

DMHA is illegal and not generally recognized among experts to be
safe under the conditions of its intended use, the Plaintiffs
contend. The Defendant is breaking the law by manufacturing and
distributing supplements that contain the stimulant DMHA and
failing to disclose that they contain an ingredient that is illegal
and not recognized as safe, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are purchasers of the supplements manufactured by
the Defendant.

The Defendant manufactures, distributed, and sold the supplements
thought the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Phone: (925) 300-4455
     Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
     Email: ltfisher@bursor.com

          - and -

     Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Suite 220
     Miami, FL 33133-5402
     Phone: (305) 330-5512
     Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
     Email: scott@bursor.com


IBM CORP: Comin Seeks to Recover Damages for Withheld Commissions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Comin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Case No.
3:19-cv-07261-JCS (N.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2019), seeks to recover
damages from the Defendant's wrongful withholding of sales
commissions and to stop its deceptive and unlawful practices in how
it structures and administers commission for all of its employees.

The Defendant employs thousands of sales representatives and
managers throughout California, who earn sales commissions.
However, the Defendant does not provide those employees with a
written, signed, enforceable contract regarding their commissions.
Instead, the Defendant provides its sales representatives with a
letter that expressly states it is not a contract or promise by the
Defendant to pay any sales commissions. As a result, it has been
sued over two dozen times around the country for failing to pay
sales representatives the commissions they were due, says the
complaint.

Mr. Comin worked for IBM from January 2001 to February 2018.

IBM is a global technology company that provides hardware,
software, cloud-based services, and cognitive computing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex R. Straus, Esq.
          TENSOR LAW, P.C.
          2716 Ocean Park Blvd.
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Phone: 310-450-9689
          Fax: 310-496-3176
          Email: astraus@tensorlaw.com


ILLINOIS: Court Dismisses Nasello Medicaid Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, entered an order
dismissing the case MARY NASELLO, KATHERINE STEPHENS, VIRGINIA
AYDELOTTE, KAREN S. STANFORD, RALPH HERMAN LAKE, BERT LOUIS MESTEL,
BECKY A. LONG, JULIA A. BAKER, LUCY M. EMERICK, and DELORES E.
O'DEAR, individually and as the representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. THERESA A. EAGLESON, in
her official capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of
Healthcare and Family Services, and GRACE B. HOU, in her official
capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Human Services,
Defendants, Case No. 18 C 7597 (N.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiffs are all nursing home residents with serious medical
conditions that require 24-hour medical care.  Although not
providing any specifics, the complaint alleges that each Plaintiff
has one or more medical conditions that substantially limits one or
more major life activities.  The Plaintiffs are all financially
needy, falling within the requirements for Medicaid assistance.
Each has been approved for Medicaid Long Term Care Benefits.  Each
had incurred medical expenses prior to becoming eligible for
Medicaid and for which they remain financially liable.  They claim
that under Medicaid regulations these "prior" expenses should be
offset from the calculation of their income for purposes of
determining the amount they must contribute to the cost of their
nursing home care.

The Plaintiffs have brought a four-count amended putative class
action complaint against Defendants Eagleson, Director of the
Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services and Hou,
Director of the Illinois Department of Human Services, alleging
that the Defendants have violated the Medicaid Act, the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities
Act, and the Supremacy Clause by failing to deduct the Plaintiffs'
pre-eligibility medical expenses when calculating their income for
purposes of determining their patient pay amount for long term
care.

Count I seeks a declaration that the Defendants' practice of
refusing to allow what the Plaintiffs interchangeably call
"deviated liability" or "deviated income" of non-covered medical
expenses incurred prior to eligibility for Medicaid benefits for
Illinois nursing home residents violates the Medicaid Act, and an
order that the Defendants adopt a process by which they will bring
the calculation of patient liability into compliance with federal
law.  Count II alleges that the Defendants are violating Medicaid's
"reasonable promptness" requirement.  Count III alleges that
defendants' actions violate the ADA and Rehabilitation Acts.  In
Count IV, the Plaintiffs seek a temporary and permanent injunction.


The Defendants have moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss
for failure to state a claim.

Judge Gettleman opines that Count I fails to identify which
provision of the federal law is violated, and, as the Defendants
point out, the Declaratory Judgment Act provides only a form of
relief, not an independent claim for relief.  The Plaintiffs appear
to be attempting to bring a private action to enforce Section
1396a(a)(17) and/or Section 1396a(r)(1)(A), either directly or
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  Neither provision, however,
allows a private right of action.

Count II fails to state a claim, Judge Gettleman states.  The Judge
opines that in Count II, the Plaintiffs attempt to assert a claim
under Section 1396a(a)(8), which requires a state plan to provide
that all individuals wishing to make an application for medical
assistance under the plan will have the opportunity to do so, and
that such assistance will be furnished with reasonable promptness
to all eligible individuals.  As the Defendants note, courts have
held that this section is privately enforceable, but the
Plaintiffs' complaint contains no allegation that any of them have
been denied any medical assistance.  They complain about the costs
of those benefits, not that the benefits have not been furnished
promptly.

In Count III, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have
violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Acts by failing to inform them
of their right to an off-set and by failing to provide sufficient
time to comprehend and challenge the Defendants' failure to off-set
income.  Judge Gettleman holds that the crux of the Plaintiffs'
complaint is that the Defendants failed to follow federal Medicaid
law when calculating post-eligibility income.  Nothing in the
complaint alleges or, more importantly, raises a right to relief
above the speculative level, that the state calculates
post-eligibility income differently for individuals with a
disability than it does individuals without a disability.  As a
result, Count III is dismissed.

Finally, because the Plaintiffs have not alleged a substantive
violation of federal law, Count IV, which seeks injunctive relief,
is also dismissed, the Court holds.

For the reasons stated, Judge Gettleman grants the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/6ZR696 from
Leagle.com.

Ralph Herman Lake, Dolores E. O'Dear, Bert Louis Mestel, Karen S.
Stanford, Becky A. Long, Virginia Aydelotte, Mary Nasello, Lucy M.
Emerick, Katherine Stephens & Julia A. Baker, Plaintiffs,
represented by Kimberly M. Watt, Sb2, Inc.

Thresa A. Eagleson, in her official capacity as Director of the
Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services & Grace B.
Hou, in her official capacity as Director of the Illinois
Department of Human Services, Defendants, represented by Michael T.
Dierkes -- mdierkes@kirkland.com -- Illinois Attorney General's
Office.


JMR REST CORP: Enciso Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Santiago Hernandez Enciso, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JMR REST CORP. d/b/a RORY DOLAN'S RESTAURANT,
BARS & CATERERS, AND RORY DOLAN, as an individual, Case No.
1:19-cv-10250 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 4, 2019), seeks to recover damages
for the Defendants' egregious violations of the overtime provision
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Although the Plaintiff worked for 72 or more hours per week during
his employment, the Defendants did not pay him time and a half for
hours worked over 40, which is a blatant violation of the overtime
provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from July 2017 until
January 2018.

JMR REST CORP. d/b/a RORY DOLAN'S RESTAURANT, BARS & CATERERS is a
corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal
executive office in Yonkers, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIDDLE & LIDDLE: Faces Perchlak Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Perchlak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Liddle & Liddle, a Professional Corporation, Case No.
2:19-cv-09461 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2019), accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant is a debt collector and 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 a certain debt, the Defendant
sent the Plaintiff two letters dated August 7, 2019, entitled
"Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit" and "Sixty Day Notice To
Quit." The Plaintiff ordinarily pays his rent to "Angie Franco Real
Estate Options." The Defendant's letters are signed "Attorneys for:
Maria Mata, as Trustee of Maria Aurora L. Mara Revocable Living
Trust, Owner/lessors."

Read as a whole, the Defendant's letters do not effectively
communicate the name of the creditor to whom the Plaintiff's debt
is owed and, therefore, violate the FDCPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a
debt.[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


MATCH GROUP: Crutchfield Sues over 2% Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP R. CRUTCHFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MATCH GROUP, INC.; AMANDA W.
GINSBERG; and GARY SWIDLER, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02356-C
(N.D. Tex., Oct. 3, 2019) is a class action on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Match securities
between August 6, 2019 and September 25, 2019, inclusive. The
Plaintiff seeks to pursue claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and 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.

On September 25, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission announced that
it had sued Match.com for, among other things, using artificial
love interest ads to deceive consumers into buying or upgrading
subscriptions, failing to resolve disputed charges, and
intentionally making it difficult to cancel subscriptions.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.39 per share, or
nearly 2%, to close at $71.44 per share on September 25, 2019, on
unusually high trading volume.

Match Group, Inc. provides internet based services. The Company
owns and operates several online dating web sites including
okcupid, plentyoffish, tinder, and hinge, as well as a number of
other brands. Match Group serves clients worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160


MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces McCurdy Securities Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MCCURDY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD., HOWARD L. LANCE;
ANIL WIRASEKARA; ANGELA LAU; ROBERT L. PHILLIPS; DENNIS H.
CHOOKASZIAN; LORI B. GARVER; JOANNE O. ISHAM; C. ROBERT KEHLER;
BRIAN G. KENNING; ERIC ZAHLER; and JEFFREY R. TARR, Defendants,
Case No. 19CV357070 (Cal. Super., Oct. 21, 2019), asserts strict
liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933.

In October 2017, Maxar merged with imagery company DigitalGlobe. In
connection with the merger, Maxar issued approximately 21 million
shares of Maxar common stock directly to shareholders of
DigitalGlobe pursuant to an F-4 registration statement and
prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Registration Statement allegedly contained material
misrepresentation and omissions. It failed to disclose, among other
things, that Maxar was already likely to discontinue or suffer an
impairment on its GEO communications satellite business, and that
Maxar's financial results and trends were, therefore, inflated. The
Registration Statement also described certain risk factors as if
they were possibilities in the future rather than events that were
already occurring, according to the complaint.

On Oct. 31, 2018, Maxar disclosed the truth, announcing a $432
million net loss, largely attributable to impairment and losses in
its GEO communication satellite business. Maxar's stock plummeted
45% in a day, and it has continued to decline. Maxar's stock price
fell to about 93% less than it was the time of the Merger, the
lawsuit says.

Michael McCurdy owned DigitalGlobe stock before the Merger and
acquired maxar stock pursuant to the misleading Registration
Statement in the Merger.

Maxar is a space technology company that specializes in the
manufacture of satellites and provision of satellites-related
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981 4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981 4846
          E-mail: Apolk@girardsharp.com
                  dgirard@girardsharp.com

               - and -

          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 766 3534
          Facsimile: (415) 402 0058
          E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com


MDL 2472: Warner Chilcott Appeals Class Cert. Ruling to 1st Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, Warner Chilcott Company, LLC,
Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company, Warner Chilcott Sales (US),
LLC, Watson Laboratories, Inc. and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the multidistrict litigation
entitled IN RE LOESTRIN 24 FE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No.
1:13-md-02472-WES-PAS, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Rhode Island.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 1, 2019, the Hon.
William E. Smith granted in part and denied in part the End-Payor
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the MDL.

For reasons that will be fully explained in a forthcoming Opinion,
the District Court granted in part and denied in part the Motion,
insofar as the Court certifies a Third-Party Payor ("TPP") Class,
but does not certify an EPP class inclusive of consumers.

In the forthcoming Opinion, the District Court said it will rule on
the Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Opinion and Testimony of
EPPs' Expert Gary L. French; EPPs' Motion to Exclude the Testimony
and Opinions of James W. Hughes, Ph.D.; Defendants' Motion to
Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs' Experts Eric Miller, Laura Craft, and Myron Winkelman;
EPPs' Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Mr. Timothy
Kosty and Dr. Bruce Strombom; and Defendants' Renewed Motion to
Dismiss and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Claims in
EPPs' Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

The Court certified the following "TPP Class":

     All Third-Party Payor entities in the United States and its
     territories that indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided
     reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for
     Loestrin 24 Fe and/or its AB-rated generic equivalents in
     any form, and/or Minastrin 24 Fe and/or its AB-rated generic
     equivalents in any form, for consumption by their members,
     employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries, other
     than for resale, during the period September 1, 2009 through
     and until the anticompetitive effects of Defendants'
     unlawful conduct cease. For purposes of the Class
     definition, entities "purchased" Loestrin 24 Fe, Minastrin
     24 Fe, or their generic equivalents if they indirectly
     purchased, paid and/or reimbursed for some or all of the
     purchase price.

Expressly excluded from the TPP Class are these entities:

   a. Defendants and their subsidiaries, or affiliates;

   b. All federal or state governmental entities, excluding
      cities, towns or municipalities with self-funded
      prescription drug plans;

   c. All entities who purchased Loestrin 24 Fe or its AB-rated
      generic equivalent, and/or Minastrin 24 Fe or its AB-rated
      generic equivalent, for purposes of resale or directly from
      Defendants or their affiliates;

   d. Fully insured health plans (i.e., Plans that purchased
      insurance from another third-party payor covering 100% of
      the Plan's reimbursement obligations to its members); and

   e. Pharmacy Benefit Managers.

The appellate case is captioned as City of Providence, et al. v.
Warner Chilcott Public Limited, et al., Case No. 19-8026, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents PROVIDENCE, RI, individually and on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, et al., are
represented by:

          Michael Morris Buchman, Esq.
          Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq.
          John Andrew Ioannou, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          777 3rd Ave., 27th Flr
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 577-0040
          E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com
                  mclerkin@motleyrice.com
                  jioannou@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Robert J. McConnell, Esq.
          Donald Alan Migliori, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          55 Cedar St., Suite 100
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 457-7700
          E-mail: bmcconnell@motleyrice.com
                  dmigliori@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Donna M. Evans, Esq.
          Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine St., 14 Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          E-mail: devans@cohenmilstein.com
                  srobertson@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Laura Hayes, Esq.
          Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
          Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
          Edward Notargiacomo, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          E-mail: lhayes@hbsslaw.com
                  kristenj@hbsslaw.com
                  tom@hbsslaw.com
                  ed@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Bonnie A. Kendrick, Esq.
          Douglas Robert Plymale, Esq.
          David Scott Scalia, Esq.
          DUGAN LAW FIRM LLC
          365 Canal St., Suite 1000
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 648-0180
          E-mail: bonnie@dugan-lawfirm.com
                  dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com
                  dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          David F. Sorensen, Esq.
          Ellen T. Noteware, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
                  enoteware@bm.net

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Padwa, Esq.
          DARROWEVERETT LLP
          1 Turks Head Pl., Suite 1200
          Providence, RI 02903-0000
          Telephone: (401) 453-1200
          E-mail: Jpadwa@darroweverett.com

               - and -

          Matthew Charles Weiner, Esq.
          Hilliard & Shadowen LLP
          1135 W 6th St., Suite 125
          Austin, TX 78703
          Telephone: (845) 323-8036
          E-mail: matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners WARNER CHILCOTT PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, et
al., are represented by:

          Danielle Audette, Esq.
          Demetra Frawley, Esq.
          Michael J. Gallagher, Esq.
          Bryan D. Gant, Esq.
          Daniel Grossbaum, Esq.
          Michael E. Hamburger, Esq.
          Stefan M. Mentzer, Esq.
          Robert A. Milne, Esq.
          Kristen O'Shaughnessy, Esq.
          Jack E. Pace, III, Esq.
          Martin Toto, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020-1905
          Telephone: (212) 819-8902
          E-mail: daudette@whitecase.com
                  demetra.frawley@whitecase.com
                  mgallagher@whitecase.com
                  bgant@whitecase.com
                  dan.grossbaum@whitecase.com
                  mhamburger@whitecase.com
                  smentzer@whitecase.com
                  rmilne@whitecase.com
                  kristen.oshaughnessy@whitecase.com
                  jpace@whitecase.com
                  mtoto@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Noah Austin Brumfield, Esq.
          Peter J. Carney, Esq.
          Eileen M. Cole, Esq.
          David Courchaine, Esq.
          Alyson M. Cox, Esq.
          Amanda Lee Czocher, Esq.
          John Mark Gidley, Esq.
          Matthew Sterrett Leddicotte, Esq.
          Holly Letourneau, Esq.
          Celia Anne McLaughlin, Esq.
          Jaclyn Phillips, Esq.
          Emily Renzelli, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          701 13 St., NW
          Washington, DC 20005-3807
          Telephone: (202) 626-3698
          E-mail: nbrumfield@whitecase.com
                  pcarney@whitecase.com
                  ecole@whitecase.com
                  dcourchaine@whitecase.com
                  alyson.cox@whitecase.com
                  lee.czocher@whitecase.com
                  mgidley@whitecase.com
                  mleddicotte@whitecase.com
                  hletourneau@whitecase.com
                  cmclaughlin@whitecase.com
                  jaclyn.phillips@whitecase.com
                  emily.renzelli@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Angela Daker, Esq.
          Zachary Dickens, Esq.
          Christopher Swift-Perez, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          200 S Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4900
          Miami, FL 33131-2352
          Telephone: (305) 995-5297
          E-mail: adaker@whitecase.com
                  zdickens@whitecase.com
                  cswift-perez@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Katherine Dyson, Esq.
          Lauren M. Papenhausen, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          75 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109-1814
          Telephone: (617) 979-9330
          E-mail: kate.dyson@whitecase.com
                  lauren.papenhausen@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Don Zhe Nan Wang, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          3000 El Camino Real
          5 Palo Alto Sq., 9th Floor
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 213-0391
          E-mail: don.zhenan.wang@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Nicole J. Benjamin, Esq.
          Patricia K. Rocha, Esq.
          John A. Tarantino, Esq.
          William K. Wray, Jr., Esq.
          ADLER POLLOCK & SHEEHAN PC
          1 Citizens Plaza, 8th Floor
          Providence, RI 02903-1345
          Telephone: (401) 274-7200
          E-mail: nbenjamin@apslaw.com
                  procha@apslaw.com
                  jtarantino@apslaw.com
                  wwray@apslaw.com


MDL 2779: FieldTurf's Bid to Dismiss Artificial Turf Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey denied FieldTurf's Motion to Dismiss the Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in IN RE: FIELDTURF
ARTIFICIAL TURF MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, Civil
Action No. 3:17-md-2779 (MAS) (TJB) (D. N.J.).

After the cases were centralized before the New Jersey District
Court, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint, which included named Plaintiffs Carteret, Newark, and
Hudson of New Jersey; Fremont and Santa Ynez of California;
Levittown of New York; and Neshannock of Pennsylvania.  The First
Complaint proposed a nationwide class, comprising all persons or
entities in the United States and its territories who purchased one
or more Duraspine Turf fields for their own use and not for resale.
On behalf of the nationwide class, the Plaintiffs brought claims
for fraud, fraudulent concealment, fraud in the inducement, and
unjust enrichment in the alternative.

The First Complaint also proposed 47 subclasses -- one for each of
46 states and one for the District of Columbia -- comprising all
persons or entities who purchased one or more Duraspine Turf fields
for their own use and not for resale within the state or who
purchased one or more Duraspine Turf fields for their own use and
not for resale and reside in the state.  On behalf of each
subclass, the Plaintiffs sought to bring claims for breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranties, and breach of the
consumer protection laws of the respective jurisdiction.  Because
the Plaintiffs resided in and purchased Duraspine Turf fields in
California, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, 43 proposed
subclasses had no named Plaintiff as a member.

FieldTurf moved to dismiss portions of the First Complaint on two
bases.  First, FieldTurf sought to dismiss all statutory claims in
the 43 jurisdictions where the Plaintiffs did not reside or
suffered no injury.  Second, it sought to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
unjust enrichment claims as precluded by the Plaintiffs' breach of
express warranty claims.

The Court deferred consideration of the Plaintiffs' standing for
the nationwide class, holding the inquiry inappropriate prior to
class certification.  It followed the line of cases holding that
named plaintiffs in a class action need not have standing to assert
all claims under all state statutes of all putative class members
so long as at least one named plaintiff is a member of every class
and has standing to assert each of his or her claims.  The Court,
however, dismissed the 43 subclasses and their respective claims
because it was clear from the face of the complaint that none of
the Plaintiffs could represent any of the subclasses, as the
Plaintiffs were not members of any of the subclasses.  The Court
denied FieldTurf's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for
unjust enrichment and granted them leave to amend the complaint.

The Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint with the same claims for the same nationwide class as the
First Complaint, including claims for unjust enrichment.  The
Second Complaint does not propose 47 subclasses for each
jurisdiction, but a single Subclass of the National Class on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased one or more Duraspine Turf
fields for their own use and not for resale within the same 47
jurisdictions identified in the First Complaint, or who purchased
one or more Duraspine Turf fields for their own use and not for
resale and reside in these jurisdictions.

Unlike the First Complaint, where each state statutory claim was
brought on behalf of the respective State] Class, the Second
Complaint brought each state statutory claim on behalf of all
members of the National Class and/or the Subclass that purchased
Duraspine Turf fields in each state and on behalf of the Subclass.

Judge Shipp finds that whether the Subclass is duplicative of the
nationwide class is also immaterial at this stage and is an issue
better addressed at class certification.  FieldTurf cites Brewer v.
General Nutrition Corp., in support of dismissing the Subclass
based on its redundancy.  But Brewer addressed the redundancy issue
at the class certification stage, which supports the Judge's
conclusion that these issues should not be decided prior to class
certification.  He , accordingly, denies FieldTurf's motion to
dismiss claims brought on behalf of the Subclass.

FieldTurf urges the Court to reconsider its decision denying its
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims in light
of the recent decision of the Southern District of New York.  It
offers no new evidence, no new controlling law from the New Jersey
state legislature or the New Jersey state courts, and no
illustration of manifest injustice.  Because none of the
traditional extraordinary circumstances apply, the Judge declines
to revisit its prior decision denying FieldTurf's motion to dismiss
the unjust enrichment claims because it is the law of the case.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Shipp denied FieldTurf's Motion to
Dismiss.  

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/va6aQ2 from Leagle.com.

BOROUGH OF CARTERET, Plaintiff, represented by CURTIS M. PLAZA --
cplaza@riker.com -- RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND & PERRETTI, LLP,
JEFFREY ALLEN BEER, JR. -- jbeer@riker.com -- RIKER DANZIG SCHERER
HYLAND & PERRETTI LLP, LANCE J. KALIK -- lkalik@riker.com -- RIKER
DANZIG SCHERER HYLAND & PERRETTI, LLP, MICHAEL M. DICICCO , Maggs &
McDermott, LLC, RYAN SETH MALC , BATHGATE WEGENER & WOLF PC,
ANGELICA M. ORNELAS -- aornelas@girardsharp.com -- GIRARD SHARP
LLP, DANIEL C. GIRARD -- dgirard@girardsharp.com -- GIRARD SHARP
LLP & CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER -- cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- SEEGER
WEISS LLP.

STATE-OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, Plaintiff,
represented by CURTIS M. PLAZA , RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND &
PERRETTI, LLP, JEFFREY ALLEN BEER, JR. , RIKER DANZIG SCHERER
HYLAND & PERRETTI LLP, LANCE J. KALIK , RIKER DANZIG SCHERER HYLAND
& PERRETTI, LLP, MICHAEL M. DICICCO , Maggs & McDermott, LLC, RYAN
SETH MALC , BATHGATE WEGENER & WOLF PC & CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER ,
SEEGER WEISS LLP.

COUNTY OF HUDSON, RANNEY SCHOOL & RICHARD GENTILE, Plaintiffs,
represented by MICHAEL D. CRITCHLEY , Critchley, Kinum & DeNoia,
LLC & CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER , SEEGER WEISS LLP.

SANTA YNEZ VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, a political
subdivision of the State of California, Plaintiff, represented by
ALEXANDER ROBERTSON, IV , ROBERTSON & ASSOCIATES LLP, Daniel K.
Bryson , Whitfield Bryson and Mason LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Joe
Uyeno , Robertson and Associates LLP, PATRICK M. WALLACE ,
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP, pro hac vice & CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER
, SEEGER WEISS LLP.

NESHANNOCK TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT, 17-4391, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
ALEXANDER ROBERTSON, IV , ROBERTSON & ASSOCIATES LLP, D. Aaron Rihn
, Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C. & CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER , SEEGER
WEISS LLP.

FIELDTURF USA, INC., a Florida Corporation, FIELDTURF, INC., a
Canadian Corporation, FIELDTURF TARKETT SAS, a French Corporation &
TARKETT INC., a Canadian Corporation, Defendants, represented by
CORREY ANN KAMIN -- ckamin@sc-harris.com -- Harris St. Laurent LLP,
DIANE P. SULLIVAN -- diane.sullivan@weil.com -- WEIL GOTSHAL &
MANGES LLP, ALLISON HEATHER SEMAYA -- allison.semaya@weil.com --
WEILL GOTSHAL AND MANGES, HARRIS MICHAEL FISCHMAN --
hfischman@paulweiss.com -- PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON
LLP & LARA BUESO BACH -- lara.bach@weil.com -- WEIL GOTSHAL &
MANGES LLP.


MDL 2904: Aponte v. LabCorp. Over Data Breach Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as JOANN APONTE, PAMELA DRISKELL,
LEO GALLAGHER-KOWIT, JEFFREY GRUSHKA, KIMMIE MARTIN, KIM PARROTT,
GARY SCHWALL, CATLIN STANFORD, KERRY STEED, TODD STONE, and MEGAN
STOREY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, doing
business as: LABCORP; LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, doing
business as: LABCORP; and AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00824 (Filed Aug. 12, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey (Newark) on Oct. 21, 2019.

The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-19149 to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LFSB LAW
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: CSCHAFFER@LFSBLAW.COM

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 605
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 640-1160
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2290

               - and -

          Daniel Kent Bryson, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 West Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com


MEREDITH CORPORATION: Vincent Wong Notes of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announces that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following
companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Meredith Corporation (MDP)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/meredith-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=3974&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 5, 2019
Class Period: January 31, 2018 to September 5, 2019

Allegations against MDP include 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.

Altria Group, Inc. (MO)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/altria-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=3974&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019
Class Period: December 20, 2018 to September 24, 2019

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

Covetrus, Inc. (CVET)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/covetrus-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=3974&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 29, 2019
Class Period: February 8, 2019 to August 12, 2019

Allegations against CVET include that: (i) the Company had
overstated its capabilities with regard to inventory management and
supply chain services; (ii) Covetrus had understated the costs of
the integration of Henry Schein's Animal Health Business and VFC,
including the timing and nature of those costs; (iii) Covetrus had
understated its separation costs from Henry Schein; and (iv) the
Company understated the impact on earnings from online competition
and alternative distribution channels as well as the impact of the
loss of a large customer in North America just prior to the
Company's separation from Henry Schein.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.

Contact:

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel. 212.425.1140
         Fax. 866.699.3880
         E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com
[GN]



MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Davis Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is captioned as Brian K. Davis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01490-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal., Oct. 21, 2019).

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas Michal Wajda, Esq.
          WAJDA LAW GROUP, APC
          6167 Bristol Parkway, Suite 200
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (310) 997-0471
          Facsimile: (866) 286-8433
          E-mail: nick@wajdalawgroup.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Morgan Files FDCPA Class Action in Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Amy Morgan, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04401-JMS-DML
(S.D. Ind., Oct. 30, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a financial institution in San
Diego, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James Constantine Vlahakis, Esq.
   SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
   2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Fax: (630) 575-8188
   Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


MISSOURI: Court Affirms Partial Summary Judgment in Hootselle Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case THOMAS HOOTSELLE, JR., et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and MISSOURI CORRECTIONS
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Respondents, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, Appellants, Case No. WD82229 (Mo. App.), Judge Mark D.
Pfeiffer of the Court of Appeals of Missouri for the Western
District affirmed (i) the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cole
County, Missouri, granting partial summary judgment to the class
Plaintiffs corrections officers and their collective bargaining
representative, Missouri Corrections Officers Association ("MCOA")
on their breach of contract claim as to the issue of the
compensability of the officers' pre- and post-shift required tasks;
and (ii) the amended judgment awarding past damages in favor of the
officers in accordance with the jury verdict; and granting
declaratory judgment ordering DOC to compensate the officers for
the pre- and post-shift tasks at issue prospectively.

The Missouri Department of Corrections ("DOC") executed a labor
agreement ("CBA") with MCOA in 2007 and again in 2014.  In
addition, DOC promulgated a Procedure Manual.  These collective
documents govern various rights and duties of the officers and DOC.
The CBA and Manual are both consistent in the stated purpose of
ensuring compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The CBA states that the DOC "will comply with the FLSA," and the
Manual states that it is intended to ensure departmental compliance
with FLSA rules.

In 2012, the officers brought a class action against DOC alleging,
among other things, breach of contract for failure to pay for pre-
and post-shift activities performed, and for declaratory judgment
regarding their right to compensation for these activities in the
future under the contract.  The circuit court certified a class of
more than 13,000 current and former corrections officers in
February of 2015, and subsequently amended the class definition in
September of 2015.

The daily pre- and post-shift activities which in the aggregate
added an additional 30 minutes to the officers' daily work routine,
and for which they alleged they were not being compensated include:
(i) electronically logging their arrival or departure from the
facility by either scanning a Bar Coded or Radio Frequency
Identification, and/or manually signing in or initialing a paper
entry/exit record, and/or submitting to biometric identification
such as a finger print or palm scanning instrument, or a
combination of these things; (ii) utility officers may be required
to report to the Central Observation Post to receive assignments;
(iii) passing through security gates/entry-egress points, including
passing through a metal detector on arrival and through an airlock
when entering and exiting the security envelope; (iv) presenting
themselves before a custody supervisor who communicated to the
officers their daily post/duty assignment; (v) picking up or
returning equipment such as keys or radios from electronic key
boxes or key/radio issue rooms; (vi) walking to and from the
entry/egress points to duty post and possibly waiting in line if
one has formed for any of the above activities; (vii) in the case
of vehicle patrol officers, inventorying the vehicle patrol's
issued weapons, ammunition, and equipment prior to and at the end
of each shift; and (viii) passing of pertinent information from one
shift to another.

The circuit court granted the officers' motion for partial summary
judgment on their breach of contract claim in August 2018, finding
there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the
existence and terms of the contract, that the officers had
performed pursuant to the contract, that DOC had breached the
contract, and that the officers had been damaged by DOC's failure
to compensate the officers as required pursuant to the contract.
The suit then proceeded to a jury trial solely to determine the
officers' damages, and the jury returned a verdict against DOC for
past damages of $113,714,632.  The court entered an amended
judgment reflecting the jury's past damages award, as well as
granting declaratory judgment for the officers as to the parties'
contractual rights and obligations pursuant to the contract moving
forward.

DOC timely appeals.  DOC's first three points on appeal assert the
granting of summary judgment in favor of the class Plaintiffs and
denying summary judgment for DOC on the Plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim were erroneous because (Points I and II) the class
members' pre- and post-shift activities are "preliminary" and
"postliminary" activities, the time spent on them is de minimis,
and they are therefore not compensable under FLSA or under state
laws or contracts that incorporate FLSA standards; and (Point III)
the private Plaintiffs may not pursue a statutory or regulatory
claim against the state under the guise of a breach of contract
claim.

Judge Pfeiffer denied Points I and II.  Given DOC's undisputed
knowledge of, and expectation for, the officers' requirement to
utilize their training to guard against prisoner fights and escape
attempts during shift changes, he concludes that the preliminary
and postliminary activities of the officers are not "pre" or "post"
at all; instead, these shift change activities are "integral and
indispensable" to the officers' "principal activities" for which
they are hired by DOC, that is, guarding against and protecting the
public from prison riots and escape attempts.  According to Supreme
Court precedent, these activities are, indeed, part of the
officers' "principal activities" of employment by DOC and must be
compensated pursuant to FLSA.

The Judge also denied Point III.  He finds that the officers'
present breach of contract claim depends on the contract's
provisions as to "hours worked" and "physically worked" and
provisions regarding DOC's compliance with FLSA.  Whether or not
those contractual terms are interpreted by reference to FLSA, the
officers' claim is a breach-of-contract claim under state law, and
it is not preempted by FLSA.

Point IV is denied as well.  At a hearing in which one of the
issues related to a motion to strike expert witness testimony was
the issue of DOC's late expert witness disclosure, the circuit
court noted its frustration with DOC's late disclosure, expressed
disbelief that DOC would not have thought it important to have
their expert witness "on line and ready to go" years earlier, and
noted disdain for DOC's admission that the 1,000 pages of expert
witness supporting documentation should have been produced months
earlier and prior to the close of discovery.  The circuit court
subsequently issued its ruling striking DOC's proffered expert
witness testimony.  On this record, the Judge refuses to conclude
that the circuit court's ruling was an abuse of discretion.

In DOC's fifth point on appeal, it claims that refusing to
decertify the class of the Plaintiffs was an abuse of discretion
because individual questions predominated and a class action was
not superior to other available methods of adjudication.  Among
other things, the Judge holds that a court has abused its
discretion in refusing to decertify a class only where that
decision is based on an erroneous application of the law or the
evidence provides no rational basis for certifying the class.  DOC
challenges only the requirements of Rule 52.08(b)(3) that the
questions of law or fact common to the members of the class
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Pfeiffer affirmed the judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/R4Rci4 from Leagle.com.

Gary K. Burger, Jr., St. Louis, MO, Attorney for Respondents.

Eric S. Schmitt, Attorney General; D. John Sauer, Solicitor
General; Julie Marie Blake and Peter T. Reed, Deputy Solicitors;
and Mary L. Reitz, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO,
Attorneys for Appellant.


MYRIAD GENETICS: Klein Law Reminds Investors of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Myriad Genetics, Inc. (MYGN).
There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a
loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that
the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Myriad Genetics, Inc. (MYGN)
Class Period: September 2, 2016 to August 13, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 26, 2019

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

Learn about your recoverable losses in MYGN:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/myriad-genetics-inc-loss-submission-form?id=3980&from=1.

Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
         
Contact:

         J. Klein, Esq.
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue
         59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         Website: www.kleinstocklaw.com
         Email: jk@kleinstocklaw.com
[GN]



NY FINE INTERIORS: Criollo Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO CRIOLLO on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NY FINE INTERIORS INC., NY FINE INTERIORS &
WOODWORK INC., and DAMIAN CEJNOG, Case No. 1:19-cv-05794 (E.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 14, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages,
liquidated damages, interest and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.

Mr. Criollo worked for the Defendants as cabinet maker from June
2018 until February 14, 2019.  He alleges that he regularly worked
57 hours a week but the Defendants refused to pay him for every
hour he worked in excess of 40 hours at the overtime premium rate.

NY Fine Interiors Inc. is a domestic business corporation duly
organized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State
of New York, and having its principal place of business in Maspeth,
New York.  NY Fine Interiors & Woodwork Inc. is a domestic business
corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, the
laws of the State of New York, and having its principal place of
business in Howard Beach, New York.  Damian Cejnog is the owner,
member, majority shareholder, officer, director, and/or manager of
each Corporate Defendant.

The Corporate Defendants are contractors engaged in the business of
manufacturing and installing upmarket custom-made cabinetry and
woodwork.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Wisniewski, Esq.
          ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C.
          40 Wall Street, Suite 2833
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 267-2101
          E-mail: rw@rwapc.com


OLIVELA INC: Guglielmo Files Class Suit under Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Olivela Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Joseph
Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Olivela Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10087 (S.D.
N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019).

Olivela, Inc., is a luxury fashion and beauty retail company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PANDA EXPRESS: Thorne Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------
Panda Express, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Panda Express, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10101 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019).

Panda Express is a fast food restaurant chain which serves American
Chinese cuisine. With over 2,200 locations, it is the largest Asian
segment restaurant chain in the United States, where it was founded
and is mainly located.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PARNELL & PARNELL: Pounders Files FDCPA Suit in Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parnell & Parnell,
P.A. The case is styled as John Pounders, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Parnell & Parnell,
P.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00834-ECM-SMD (M.D. Ala., Oct.
29, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Parnell & Parnell, P.A. is a law firm in Montgomery, Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph Panvini, Esq.
   Thompson Consumer Law Group PLLC
   5235 E Southern Avenue / D106-618
   Mesa, AZ 85206
   Tel: (602) 388-8875
   Fax: (866) 317-2674
   Email: JPanvini@consumerlawinfo.com




PEARSON PLC: Geroge D. Files Class Suit in Minn.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pearson, PLC, d/b/a
Pearson Clinical Assessments. The case is styled as George D.,
individually and as legal guardian of his minor child G.D.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Pearson, PLC, d/b/a Pearson Clinical Assessments and NCS
Pearson, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-02814 (D. Minn., Oct.
30, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Fraud filed as
a Diversity Action.

Pearson's clinical assessments provide valuable insights for
professionals in psychology, education, speech language pathology
and occupational therapy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
   Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP
   800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
   Minneapolis, MN 55402
   Tel: (612) 389-0600
   Fax: (612) 389-0610
   Email: mweiner@pswlaw.com


PERRIGO COMPANY: Koppell Sues Over High Levels of NDMA in Tablets
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Koppell and Dan Zhovtis, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. PERRIGO COMPANY PLC, PERRIGO RESEARCH
& DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, CVS HEALTH CO., and WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10253 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 4, 2019), arises from
Perrigo's manufacturing and distribution, and CVS and Walmart's
sale of, ranitidine-based over-the-counter medication that contain
dangerously high levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine, a carcinogenic
and liver-damaging impurity.

Ranitidine is an over-the-counter medication that is designed to
decrease the amount of acid created by the stomach. CVS and Walmart
sell ranitidine medication manufactured and distributed by Perrigo
under the brand names CVS Health Acid Reducer (CHAR) and Equate
Ranitidine Tablets.

The Plaintiffs contend that Perrigo's manufacturing process has
caused the CHAR and Equate medication to contain dangerously high
levels of NDMA. NDMA is not listed as an ingredient in either the
CHAR or Equate ranitidine products because the presences of NDMA
manifested from a manufacturing defect in the creation of the
medications, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs, who purchased and consumed CHAR and Equate
medication, bring this action to recover damages and restitution
for: breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, violation of New York's General Business Law,
violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, unjust
enrichment, fraudulent concealment, fraud and conversion.

The Defendants have been engaged in the manufacturing,
distribution, and sale of defective ranitidine throughout the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: jmarchese@bursor.com
                 aobergfell@bursor.com

               - and -

          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ndeckant@bursor.com


QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Engert Suit Endorsed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned  MAX ENGERAT, JACK PURCHASE, AND RONALD
ATKINSON, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. QUINCY BIOSCIENCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-CV-183-LY (W.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Division,
recommended that the District Court deny the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint.

Defendant Quincy Bioscience, LLC, a foreign limited liability
company organized under the laws of Wisconsin, manufactures,
markets, sells, and distributes Prevagen, a dietary supplement made
with the protein apoaequorin.  Its advertising and labeling state
that Prevagen will "improve memory within 90 days" and support a
"sharper mind," "clearer thinking," and "healthy brain function."

Plaintiffs Engert, Purchase, and Atkinson are Texas residents who
acquired and consumed Prevagen.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendant's advertisements regarding Prevagen are false and
misleading and designed to dupe consumers into purchasing a
supplement that has no effect whatsoever on the brain.  They allege
that the Defendant made and continues to make numerous false
statements regarding Prevagen on its website, through its
commercials, on the packing, and on the bottle itself.  They allege
that Prevagen does not work as represented and contend that
Defendant has repeatedly made, and continues to make, false
statements about its ability to improve memory and affect the
brain.

On Feb. 25, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the class action lawsuit
against the Defendant, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, alleging claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act ("DTPA"); breach of express and implied warranties;
and a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.  

The Plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of the "Texas Class,"
consisting of all citizens of Texas who, within the last four years
prior to the filing of the Complaint, purchased the Defendant's
product Prevagen, as well as the "National Class," consisting of
all citizens of the United States who, within the last four years
prior to the filing of this Complaint, purchased the Defendant's
product Prevagen.

They seek to recover their economic losses, treble damages,
exemplary damages, attorney's fees, costs and interests, and all
other relief to which they and the Class Members are entitled.

On June 21, 2019, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the
Plaintiffs fail to state a claim because the clinical trial on
which Defendant premised its advertisements for Prevagen
conclusively demonstrates that the Defendant's marketing statements
about Prevagen were both truthful and fully substantiated.
Alternatively, it argues that all of the Plaintiffs' claims fail to
meet the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
9(b).

Magistrate Judge Hightower finds that the results of a private
corporation's study on a supplement produced by that company and
posted on that company's website is not a matter of public record.
Nor is the Study admissible under Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules
of Evidence.  The Study fails to satisfy either requirement.
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge will not consider the Study in
ruling on the Motion to Dismiss.

The Magistrate Judge says that even if she did consider the Study
in ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, she would not find that the
Study precludes all of the Plaintiffs' claims in the case, as the
Defendant argues.  While the Defendant claims that the Study
conclusively proves that its advertisements regarding Prevagen are
accurate, the Plaintiffs argue the opposite and claim that the
Study is unreliable and does not support Defendant's claims
regarding Prevagen.  Thus, the reliability of the Study is a
disputed issue of fact and therefore not appropriate for
determination in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.  Accordingly,
the Defendant's argument that all of the Plaintiffs' claims should
be dismissed based on the Study is meritless, the Magistrate Judge
holds.

Addressing the Defendant's alternative argument that the Plaintiffs
have failed to state plausible claims for relief in the case, the
Magistrate Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have pled their claims
with sufficient specificity to give the Defendant notice of the
theory of misconduct it must defend against, and no more is
required at this stage.  Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' DTPA
claim be denied.

As to the breach of express warranty claim, the Magistrate Judge
finds that the only argument that the Defendant has made with
regard to the Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claim is that
the Study precludes the claim.  As she stated, this argument fails.
Like the Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claim, the sole
argument made by the Defendant against this claim is that the
statements made by the Defendant are true as evidenced in the
Study.  Again, the Defendant's argument is without merit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim of breach
of implied warranty under Texas law.

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act confers federal question
jurisdiction over breach of warranty claims where the amount in
controversy exceeds $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs.  The
Defendant's sole argument against the Plaintiffs' claim under the
Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act is that it fails because their state
law claims fail.  Because the Plaintiffs' state warranty claims do
not fail, this argument is without merit, the Magistrate Judge
states.

Finally, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs cannot bring a
lack of substantiation claim in the case because only the
government can bring such claims.  However, as the Plaintiffs
clarify in their Response, the Magistrate Judge finds that the
Plaintiffs' FAC does not raise a lack of substantiation claim in
the case; nor are they attempting to bring a claim under the FTC
Act.  Accordingly, this argument is also without merit, the
Magistrate Judge states.

Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Hightower recommends that
the District Court deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint.  The parties may
file objections to the Report and Recommendation.

A full-text copy of the Magistrate Judge's Oct. 8, 2019 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/89Xuj2 from
Leagle.com.

Max Engert, on behalf of themself and all others similarly
situated, Jack Purchase, on behalf of themself and all others
similarly situated & Ronald Atkinson, on behalf of themself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by David Wayne
Hodges, Kennedy Hodges, L.L.P. & Don Foty --
DFoty@kennedyhodges.com -- Kennedy Hodges LLP.

Quincy Bioscience, LLC, Defendant, represented by Geoffrey W.
Castello -- gcastello@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP,
Glenn T. Graham -- ggraham@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren
LLP, pro hac vice, Jaclyn M. Metzinger -- jmetzinger@kelleydrye.com
-- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Jeffrey S. Jacobson --
jeffrey.jacobson@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP & William
Creeger Petit, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP.


SAFESPEED LLC: Marso Files Suit in Kansas under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
SafeSpeed, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Andrew
Marso, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. SafeSpeed, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-02671-KHV-KGG (D. Kan., Oct. 30, 2019).

SafeSpeed is a provider of red light enforcement systems that are
used with the goal of providing safer roadways for
communities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeremy E. Koehler, Esq.
   FoulstonSiefkin LLP - Wichita
   1551 North Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100
   Wichita, KS 67206-4466
   Tel: (316) 267-6371
   Email: jkoehler@foulston.com


SCIPLAY CORP: Gibbs Investigates Securities Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
SciPlay Corporation shares have fallen dramatically since the
company's IPO in May 2019. Gibbs Law Group is investigating a
potential SciPlay Class Action Lawsuit on behalf of investors who
lost money in SciPlay Corporation (NASDAQ: SCPL) stock.

To speak with an attorney regarding this class action lawsuit
investigation, click here or call (888) 410-2925.

SciPlay Corporation, Scientific Games' mobile and web gaming arm,
is a developer and publisher of digital games. In May 2019, SciPlay
conducted its initial public offering, selling 22 million shares
priced at $16 a share and raising $352 million in new capital.
Since the IPO, SciPlay's share price has fallen over 44%, dropping
as low as $8.55 per share on October 18, 2019. This drop has caused
significant harm to investors.

What Should SciPlay Investors Do?

If you invested in SciPlay Corporation, visit our website or
contact our securities team directly at (888) 410-2925 to discuss
how you may be able to recover your losses. Our investigation
concerns whether SciPlay Corporation and certain of its officers
and/or directors have violated federal securities laws.

Gibbs Law Group represents individual and institutional investors
throughout the country in securities litigation to correct abusive
corporate governance practices, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
proxy violations. The firm has recovered over a billion dollars for
its clients against some of the world's largest corporations, and
our attorneys have received numerous honors for their work,
including "Best Lawyers in America," "Top Plaintiff Lawyers in
California," "California Lawyer Attorney of the Year," "Top Class
Action Attorneys Under 40," "Consumer Protection MVP," and "Top
Cybersecurity/ Privacy Attorneys Under 40."

Contact:

         CONTACT: EILEEN EPSTEIN
         PHONE: 510.350.9728
         EMAIL: EJE@CLASSLAWGROUP.COM
[GN]



SCIPLAY CORPORATION: Faces Good Suit Alleging IPO-Related Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Good, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SCIPLAY CORPORATION, JOSHUA J. WILSONS, MICHAEL D.
CODY, MICHAEL F. WINTERSCHEIDT, BARRY L. COTTLE, GERALD D. COHEN,
JAY PENSKE, M. MENDEL PINSON, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, JR., FRANCES F.
TOWNSEND, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, J.P.
MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., GOLDMAN SACHS
& CO. LLC, MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC,
STIFEL, NICHOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, WEDBUSH SECURITIES INC.,
and SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORPORATION, (Nev. Dist., Clark Cty., Nov. 4,
2019), is brought on behalf of all persons, who purchased SciPlay
Class A common stock in or traceable to the Company's initial
public offering that it completed on May 7, 2019, asserting strict
liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933.

On April 5, 2019, the Company filed its Registration Statement on
Form S-1 for the IPO. In the IPO, the Defendants sold twenty-two
million SciPlay shares of Class A common stock at $16 per share.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement was
negligently prepared, and, as a result, contained untrue statements
of material fact, omitted material facts, necessary to make the
statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make
necessary disclosure required under the rules and regulations
governing the preparation of such documents. In particular, Item
303 of SEC Regulation S-K, required disclosure of any known events
or uncertainties that had caused, or were reasonably likely to
cause SciPlay's disclosed financial information not to be
indicative of future results.  The Statement fails to disclose the
Company's platform was experiencing technical issues.

As of market close on October 29, 2019, the price of SciPlay stock
was trading below $9 per share, which is more than 40% below the
IPO price, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased shares of the Company's Class A common
stock pursuant and traceable to the IPO.

SciPlay develops, market, and operate a portfolio of social games
played on various mobile and web platforms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. O'Mara, Esq.
          COMP O'MARA LAW
          316 E. Bridger Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Phone: (775) 323-1321
          Facsimile: (775) 323-4082
          Email: david@omaralaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Bobak, Esq.
          ROBBINS LLP
          5040 Shoreham Place
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Phone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          Email: brobbins@robbinsllp.com
                 soddo@robbinsllp.com
                 jbobak@robbinsllp.com


SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Ordered to Start D'Ottavio Claims Prosecution
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GINO D'OTTAVIO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SLACK
TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant/Counter-Claimant, Case No.
1:18-cv-09082-NLH-AMD (D. N.J), Judge Noel L. Hillman of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey ordered Slack to
commence prosecution of its claims against the Plaintiff consistent
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

D'Ottavio filed a putative class action alleging that Slack
transmitted dozens of unsolicited commercial text messages to him
on his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), thereby invading his privacy.  Slack filed
an answer to the Plaintiff's complaint denying his claims and
lodging a counterclaim, claiming that he abused a feature on
Slack's website to deliberately send himself the texts at issue.

On April 15, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to
dismiss his claims against Slack, but denied without prejudice
Slack's motion for sanctions, as well as the Plaintiff's counsel's
motion to withdraw as the counsel.  On July 3, 2019, the Court
granted the Plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw.

Because Slack's counterclaim remained pending for separate
adjudication, in that same Order, the Court directed that within 20
days, the Plaintiff was to either (1) enter his appearance pro se;
or (2) obtain new counsel.  To date, the Plaintiff has failed to
respond to the Court's Order, and has not otherwise contacted the
Court.

Therefore, Judge Hillman ordered Slack to commence prosecution of
its claims against the Plaintiff.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Oct. 8, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/Y9ImJ1 from
Leagle.com.

GINO D'OTTAVIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by YITZCHAK ZELMAN --
Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus Zelman, LLC & ARI HILLEL MARCUS
-- Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN LLC.

SLACK TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant, represented by MARK S. MELODIA --
Mark.Melodia@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, PAUL JEFFREY BOND
-- Paul.Bond@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP & ZALIKA T. PIERRE
-- Zalika.Pierre@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP.

SLACK TECHNOLOGIES, Counter Claimant, represented by MARK S.
MELODIA, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, PAUL JEFFREY BOND, HOLLAND & KNIGHT
LLP & ZALIKA T. PIERRE, Holland & Knight LLP.

GINO D'OTTAVIO, Counter Defendant, represented by ARI HILLEL
MARCUS, MARCUS ZELMAN LLC.


SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Andres Sues over 44% Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD ANDRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, INC.; DAVID KATZMAN; KYLE
WAILES; STEVEN KATZMAN; JORDAN KATZMAN; ALEXANDER FENKELL; RICHARD
SCHNALL; SUSAN GREENSPON RAMMELT; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC;
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; BOFA SECURITIES, INC.; JEFFERIES
LLC; UBS SECURITIES LLC; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC;
GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC; STIFEL NICOLAUS & COMPANY,
INCORPORATED; WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C.; and LOOP CAPITAL
MARKETS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-12883-NGE-APP (E.D.
Mich., Oct. 2, 2019) is a class action on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired SmileDirectClub Class
A common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's September
2019 initial public offering. The Plaintiff pursues claims against
the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933.

On September 13, 2019, the Company filed its prospectus on Form
424B4 with the SEC, which forms part of the Registration Statement.
In the IPO, the Company sold approximately 58.5 million shares of
Class A common stock at a price of $23.00 per share. The Company
received proceeds of approximately $1.27 billion from the Offering,
net of underwriting discounts and commissions. The proceeds from
the IPO were purportedly to be used for employee incentive bonuses,
certain equity arrangements, and general corporate purposes.

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

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

By the commencement of this action, the Company's stock was trading
as low as $12.94 per share, a nearly 44% decline from the $23 per
share IPO price.

The Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to
state material adverse facts. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose to investors: (1) that administrative personnel, rather
than licensed doctors, provided treatment to the Company's
customers and monitored their progress; (2) that, as a result, the
Company's practices did not qualify as teledentistry under
applicable standards; (3) that, as a result, the Company was
subject to regulatory scrutiny for the unlicensed practice of
dentistry; (4) that the efficacy of the Company's treatment was
overstated; (5) that the Company had concealed these deceptive
marketing practices prior to the IPO; and (6) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

SmileDirectClub, Inc. designs and manufactures dental equipment.
The Company supplies invisible aligners and braces to get straight
teeth. SmileDirectClub serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Marc L. Newman, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM
          950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852

               - and -

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160


SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Dec. 6 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Sonim Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:
SONM) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement")
issued in connection with Sonim's May 2019 initial public stock
offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering") of the important December 6,
2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Sonim investors under the
federal securities laws.

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

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

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

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

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

Contact:

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



SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TELCO: Bernstein Sues over Unsolicited Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BERNSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-01888 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 2,
2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited
calls.

Southern California Telephone Company is a California-based
Competitive Local Exchange Carrier, providing telecom solutions to
customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Susan S. Brown, Esq.
          SUSAN BROWN LEGAL SERVICES
          388 Market Street, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 712-3026
          E-mail: susan@susanbrownlegal.com


SOVEREIGN SERVICES: Underpays Valet Supervisors, Avila Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELI AVILA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOVEREIGN SERVICES OF HOUSTON, INC.; RAY
KARR; and HARRY KARR, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-3785 (S.D. Tex.,
Oct. 2, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Avila was employed by the Defendants as a valet
supervisor.

Sovereign Services of Houston, Inc. is a Texas corporation. The
company provides valet and parking services for special events,
restaurants, shopping malls, hospitals and hotels. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas H. Padgett, Jr.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com


SPECTRA360 INC: Flo-Tech Files TCPA Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spectra360, Inc. The
case is styled as Flo-Tech Mechanical Systems, Inc., individually
and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons
and entities, Plaintiff v. Spectra360, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07112 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 29, 2019).

The docket notes that the case was filed pursuant to Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Spectra360 is a Total Talent Management firm that specializes in
contract, temp to hire and direct hire placements with a focus in
several different industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



STATE FARM: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Connectors Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THE CONNECTORS REALTY GROUP CORPORATION, DARRYL
WILLIAMS, and ANTOINE NASH, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE &
CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 19C743 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Charles P. Kocoras of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied
in part State Farm's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended
class action complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).

Connectors is an Illinois corporation that manages and owns
residential and commercial real estate.  Williams, an
African-American male, was Connectors' owner and sole shareholder.
State Farm is an insurance company authorized to do business in
Illinois.

At all relevant times, Connectors owned a property at 622-624 West
79th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60620.  The Premises includes two
commercial spaces, six apartment units, and a basement.  To insure
the Premises, Connectors contacted State Farm at some time before
Jan. 5, 2017.  State Farm inspected the Premises and determined
that it was fully occupied, that all of the operating systems --
including heat, electrical, plumbing, and boilers -- were fully
operational, and that the Premises met State Farm's standards for
insurability.  State Farm recommended that the Premises be insured
for a replacement value amount of $400,000.

On Jan. 5, 2017, State Farm executed and delivered to Connectors
its Insurance Policy No. 93-GQ-Z610-71 for property and liability
insurance on the Premises.  Under the terms of the Connectors
Policy, State Farm insured against loss and damage to the Premises,
including water damage, equipment breakdown, theft, vandalism, and
loss of income for one year from the date of the loss.  The
Connectors Policy provides that loss will be payable 30 days
following receipt of a proof of loss statement.

The complaint avers that State Farm maintains data regarding loss
experience on its homeowners and small business insurance organized
by ZIP Code for the City of Chicago.  State Farm uses the ZIP Code
data to "redline" claims from majority-black ZIP Codes on the South
and West Sides of Chicago by processing such claims as
presumptively fraudulent through its Special Investigations Unit.
This policy results in the denial and unreasonable delay of payment
for legitimate claims from black-majority ZIP Codes.

The complaint cites to an analysis performed by R. Hasegawa and A.
Wyner at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania using
statistical evidence from the Illinois Department of Insurance.
The analysis concluded that the odds that a property insurance
claim remains outstanding and unpaid at the end of the calendar
year in a ZIP Code with a 75% black population is 23% higher than a
claim made in a ZIP Code with a 25% black population with
comparable median incomes.  The analysis was based on data from
property insurance claims made upon all companies authorized to
write homeowner's insurance in the State of Illinois.  State Farm
has the largest market share of the homeowner's insurance market in
the City of Chicago.

The Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on Feb. 5, 2019,
alleging claims for breach of contract and violations of 42 U.S.C.
Section 1981.  On June 25, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, adding claims for breach of the duty to defend and
indemnify and violations of the Fair Housing Act ("FHA") and 42
U.S.C. 1982.  

On July 19, 2019, State Farm filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
State Farm moves the Court to dismiss the amended complaint for
several reasons: (1) the Plaintiffs do not state a claim for
violations of 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1982; (2) the Plaintiffs do
not state a claim for FHA violations; (3) the breach of contract
claim in Count VIII is time barred; (4) State Farm has no duty to
defend or indemnify under Connectors' Policy; and (5) the Court
should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state
law claims.

Judge Kocoras granted in part and denied in part State Farm's
motion to dismiss.  He dismissed Counts IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, and
XV.  The remaining counts on behalf of Connectors may proceed.

Among other things, given that the Plaintiff has agreed to the
dismissal of Count IX, the Judge granted the motion to dismiss the
claim.  He also dismissed the federal claims related to Nash,
leaving only a state law breach of contract count and a claim for
attorney's fees under Illinois law.  Given that these claims do not
form part of the same case or controversy as those on behalf of
Connectors, the Judge declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Nash's state law claims.  As such, he granted the
motion to dismiss Counts X and XV (Breach of Duty to Defend and
Indemnify).

Also, with respect to Nash, the Judge agrees with State Farm that
the pleadings are insufficient.  Nash alleges that State Farm
processed his theft claim as fraudulent as a result of his
bankruptcy filing.  He asserts that a staff called him a liar, gave
him a hard time regarding his financial documents, and subjected
him to an examination under oath.  However, Nash does not plead any
facts to support the existence of racial animus on behalf of State
Farm, nor does he connect any such animus to his treatment.  Even
if the Defendants' actions were improper, they were not necessarily
racially motivated.  Absent that factual support, the Judge must
dismiss Counts XII and XIII (Violations of 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981
and 1982) for failure to state a claim.

Finally, the Judge concludes that State Farm rightly notes the
deficiencies in the analysis performed by R. Hasegawa and A. Wyner,
stating that the data, nature, and methodology of the analysis are
unclear and call into question the validity of the analysis's
conclusion.  Without a sufficient pleading regarding a statistical
disparity in State Farm's claims, the Judge cannot find that Nash
has stated a claim under a disparate impact theory.  Therefore, he
granted the motion to dismiss Count XI (disparate impact).

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 9, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/A2yXgw from Leagle.com.

The Connectors Realty Group Corporation, Darryl Williams & Antoine
Nash, Plaintiffs, represented by Kenneth G. Anspach, Anspach Law
Office.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by
Mariangela M. Seale -- mseale@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes &
Cancila LLP, Sondra A. Hemeryck -- shemeryck@rshc-law.com -- Riley
Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP & Sarah Elizabeth Finch -- sfinch@rshc
law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila.


STUMP PRINTING: Guglielmo Files Suit under ADA
----------------------------------------------
Stump Printing Co Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Stump Printing Co Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-10092 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019).

Stump Printing Co Inc. offers promotion, event, and party
supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



ULTA SALON: Faces Rowe Employment Suit in California Super. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ulta Salon, Cosmetics
& Fragrance, Inc. The case is captioned as Victoria Rowe and Paula
Scarpino, On behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs v. Does 1-10 and Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00267231-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Oct 21, 2019).

The suit alleges violation of employment related laws.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam Morris Rose, Esq.
          23901 Calabasas Rd., No. 2072
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 225-9040
          Facsimile: (818) 225-9042
          E-mail: adam@starrlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Attorney General Faces Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------
A.I.I.L., individually and on behalf of herself and her minor
children, J.A.H.I. and M.E.H.I.; L.L.H.O., individually and on
behalf of herself and her minor child, K.E.O.H.; J.L.V.A.,
individually and on behalf of himself and his minor child,
D.S.V.H.; J.I.S., individually and on behalf of himself and his
minor child, B.L.S.P.; and J.J.P.B., individually and on behalf of
himself and his minor child, A.E.P.F., Plaintiffs v. JEFFERSON
BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, Former Attorney General of the United
States; GENE HAMILTON, Counselor to the Attorney General; JOHN F.
KELLY, Former White House Chief of Staff and Former Secretary of
the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS); STEPHEN
MILLER, Senior Advisor to the President; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Former
Secretary of DHS; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary of DHS and
Former Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Protection
(CBP); MARK MORGAN, Acting Commissioner of CBP; THOMAS HOMAN,
Former Director of United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE); RONALD D. VITIELLO, Former Acting Director of
ICE; Matthew Albence, Acting Director of ICE; L. FRANCIS CISSNA,
Former Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS); CARLA PROVOST, Chief of CBP U.S. Border Control;
ALEX AZAR, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS); MARGARET WYNNE, Former HHS Counselor for
Human Services Policy; E. SCOTT LLOYD, Former Director of the
United States Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR); JOHN/JANE DOE
DHS Defendants; and JOHN/JANE DOE HHS/ORR Defendants, Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00481-JAS (D. Ariz., Oct. 3, 2019) alleges
violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants have
developed, adopted, implemented, enforced, sanctioned, encouraged,
condoned, and acquiesced to a pattern, practice, or custom of
violating the clearly established Fifth Amendment due process
rights of Plaintiffs and Class Members by forcibly separating and
then delaying reunification of families while in immigration
detention, depriving family members in whole or in part of the
ability to communicate by phone or otherwise while separated, and
failing to maintain personal information n regarding detainees in
immigration custody that was necessary for the reunification of
Plaintiffs and Class Members.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Marty Lieberman, Esq.
           ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
           3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235
           Phoenix, AZ 85014
           Telephone: (602) 650-1854
           E-mail: mlieberman@acluaz.org

                - and -

           Lee Gelernt, Esq.
           Judy Rabinovitz, Esq.
           Anand Balakrishnan, Esq.
           Daniel A. Galindo, Esq.
           AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
           IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
           125 Broad St., 18th Floor
           New York, NY 10004
           Telephone: (212) 549-2660
           E-mail: lgelernt@aclu.org
                   jrabinovitz@aclu.org
                   abalakrishnan@aclu.org
                   dgalindo@aclu.org

                - and -

           Alexander A. Reinert, Esq.
           55 Fifth Avenue, Room 1005
           New York, NY 10003
           Telephone: (212) 790-0403
           E-mail: areinert@yu.edu

                - and -

           Geoffrey R. Chepiga, Esq.
           Jacqueline P. Rubin, Esq.
           Emily Goldberg, Esq.
           Hallie S. Goldblatt, Esq.
           Steven C. Herzog, Esq.
           PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
           1285 Avenue of the Americas
           New York, NY 10019-6064
           Telephone: (212) 373-3000
           E-mail: gchepiga@paulweiss.com
                   jrubin@paulweiss.com
                   egoldberg@paulweiss.com
                   hgoldblatt@paulweiss.com
                   sherzog@paulweiss.com


USHEALTH ADVISORS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Berg Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA BERG, individually and on behalf of all, others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. USHEALTH ADVISORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-24097-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 3, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

USHEALTH Advisors, LLC offers life, specified disease, sickness,
accident, and disability insurance solutions for self-employed
individuals, families, small business owners, and employees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
           HIRALDO P.A.
           401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
           Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
           Telephone: (954) 400-4713
           E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


VENUS FASHION: Jones Suit Seeks Stop Unsolicited Marketing Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lathisa Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VENUS FASHION, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
3:19-cv-01282-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla., Nov. 4, 2019), is brought against
the Defendant to secure redress for its violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. 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 Wayne
County, Michigan. Beginning July 2019 and continuing up through
August 2019, the Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone.

The Defendant is a clothing and swimsuit retailer.[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


VIVINT SOLAR: 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 Vivint Solar, Inc. (VSLR) from March 5, 2019 through
September 26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Vivint investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Vivint class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1697.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) the Company engaged in fraudulent practices, including
forging customer contracts; (2) as a result, the Company's reported
sales and megawatts installed were overstated; (3) these practices
were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny: (4) as a
result, the Company's earnings would be materially and adversely
impacted; and (5) as a result, Vivint'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
11, 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-1697.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
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, pkim@rosenlegal.com,  
                cases@rosenlegal.com   
[GN]



VOLVO CARS: XC90s Not Compatible With Android Auto, Levine Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Scott Levine and Douglas W. Murphy, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH
AMERICA, LLC; and VOLVO CAR USA, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-19821-CC-JBC
(D.N.J., Nov. 4, 2019), arises from Volvo's ubiquitous
misrepresentations in its marketing of the non-compatible Volvo
XC90s that those cars feature compatibility with Android Auto, when
in fact, they were not.

In its public relations and marketing campaign for the Volvo XC90,
Volvo touted an in-car technology user interface, which it called
"Sensus." Volvo stated in its press releases and marketing
materials that a significant, cutting edge feature of Sensus was
that it was or would be compatible with the coveted Google
application, Android Auto.

Volvo's representations that the Sensus system in the Volvo XC90
was or would soon be compatible with Android Auto as a "standard,"
"included" feature were false and misleading, the Plaintiffs
allege. By making ubiquitous misinterpretation that the Sensus
system in the non-compatible Volvo XC90s was or would be compatible
with Android Auto, Volvo engaged in deceptive act in violation of
New Jersey's Consumers Fraud Act, the Florida Deceptive and unfair
Trade Practices Act; and breached express warranties, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased Volvo XC90s from the Defendants.

The Defendants are the current exclusive distributors of Volvo
automobiles in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barbara Hart, Esq.
          David Harrison, Esq.
          Anthony M. Christina Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 997-0500
          Fax: (914) 997-0035
          Email: bhart@lowey.com
                 dharrison@lowey.com
                 achristina@lowey.com

               - and -

          Edward F. Haber, Esq.
          Patrick J. Vallely, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          Seaport East Two Seaport Lane
          Boston, MA 02210
          Phone: (617) 439-3939
          Email: ehaber@shulaw.com
                 pvallely@shulaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Herrera Files Class Action in Pa.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. The case is styled as Armando Herrera, Monica Herrera, Deana
Lucero, Vanity Arrington, Nichole Dartis, Frederick Brown, Janet
Corpes, Terri Jones, Ria Marteins, Greta Carter and Janet Atkins
each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. doing business as: Wells Fargo
Dealer Services, INC. and Wells Fargo & Company, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-mc-00654-YK (M.D. Pa., Oct. 29, 2019).

Wells Fargo has filed a motion to modify the subpoena, and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed a motion to file document under
seal in the case.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Allison L Ebeck, Esq.
   McGuireWoods LLP
   260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 667-6061
   Fax: (412) 402-4161
   Email: aebeck@eckertseamans.com

WERNER MEDIA: Guglielmo Files Suit in New York under ADA
--------------------------------------------------------
Werner Media Partners LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Werner Media Partners LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-10085 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019).

Werner Media Partners LLC manufactures mattresses and
bedsprings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




WEST ELM: Lopez Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------
West Elm, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Victor
Lopez and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. West Elm, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10079
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 30, 2019).

West Elm offers modern furniture and home decor featuring inspiring
designs and colors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $288MM Accrual at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. disclosed in the Exhibit 99.1 of its Form 8-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October
22, 2019, that as of June 30, 2019, Crown Cork's accrual for
pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs
was US$288 million, including US$236 million for unasserted
claims.

The Company states, "Crown Cork, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Crown, is one of many defendants in a substantial number of
lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging
bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.  In 1963, Crown
Cork acquired a subsidiary that had two operating businesses, one
of which is alleged to have manufactured asbestos-containing
insulation products.  Crown Cork believes that the business ceased
manufacturing such products in 1963.

"Crown recorded pre-tax charges of less than US$1 million, US$3
million and US$21 million to increase its accrual for
asbestos-related liabilities in 2018, 2017 and 2016.  As of June
30, 2019, Crown Cork's accrual for pending and future
asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was US$288 million,
including US$236 million for unasserted claims.  Crown determines
its accrual without limitation to a specific time period.
Assumptions underlying the accrual include that claims for exposure
to asbestos that occurred after the sale of the subsidiary's
insulation business in 1964 would not be entitled to settlement
payouts and that state statutes described under Note O included in
Crown's consolidated financial statements, including Texas and
Pennsylvania statutes, are expected to have a highly favorable
impact on Crown Cork's ability to settle or defend against
asbestos-related claims in those states and other states where
Pennsylvania law may apply.

"During the year ended December 31, 2018, Crown Cork received
approximately 2,000 new claims, settled or dismissed approximately
1,500 claims, and had approximately 56,000 claims outstanding at
the end of the period.  Of these outstanding claims, approximately
16,500 claims relate to claimants alleging first exposure to
asbestos after 1964 and approximately 39,500 relate to claimants
alleging first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964, of which
approximately 13,000 were filed in Texas, 1,500 were filed in
Pennsylvania, 6,000 were filed in other states that have enacted
asbestos legislation and 19,000 were filed in other states.  The
outstanding claims at December 31, 2018 also exclude approximately
19,000 inactive claims.  Due to the passage of time, Crown
considers it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these cases will
pursue further action.  The exclusion of these inactive claims had
no effect on the calculation of Crown's accrual as the claims were
filed in states where Crown's liability is limited by statute.
Crown devotes significant time and expense to defend against these
various claims, complaints and proceedings, and there can be no
assurance that the expenses or distractions from operating Crown's
businesses arising from these defenses will not increase
materially.

"On October 22, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision,
reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an
asbestos-related case against Crown Cork.  The Texas Supreme Court
held that the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the
Texas Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending
against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June of
2003.  Crown believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court
is limited to retroactive application of the Texas legislation to
asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in
Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore continues to assign no value
to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

"Crown Cork made cash payments of US$21 million in 2018 and US$30
million in each of the years, 2017 and 2016 for asbestos-related
claims including settlement payments and legal fees.  These
payments have reduced and any such future payments will reduce the
cash flow available to Crown Cork for its business operations and
debt payments.

"Asbestos-related payments including defense costs may be
significantly higher than those estimated by Crown Cork because the
outcome of this type of litigation (and, therefore, Crown Cork's
reserve) is subject to a number of assumptions and uncertainties,
such as the number or size of asbestos-related claims or
settlements, the number of financially viable responsible parties,
the extent to which state statutes relating to asbestos liability
are upheld and/or applied by the courts, Crown Cork's ability to
obtain resolution without payment of asbestos-related claims by
persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964, and the
potential impact of any pending or future asbestos-related
legislation.  Accordingly, Crown Cork may be required to make
payments for claims substantially in excess of its accrual, which
could reduce Crown's cash flow and impair its ability to satisfy
its obligations.

"As a result of the uncertainties regarding its asbestos-related
liabilities and its reduced cash flow, the ability of Crown to
raise new money in the capital markets is more difficult and more
costly, and Crown may not be able to access the capital markets in
the future."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/tqkNwN


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Paid $1.5MM for Lawsuits in 3Q 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. has recorded US$1.5 million expense, net
of probable insurance recoveries, for known and future
asbestos-related litigation for the three months ended September
30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "We are involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses.  Insurance
coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such
claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and lawsuits,
based on experience involving similar matters and specific facts
known.

"Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or health
problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was integrated
into certain of our products.  We have never manufactured asbestos
and have not incorporated asbestos-containing components into our
products for several decades.  A substantial majority of these
asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other
forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment.  The
remainder of our closed cases have been resolved for amounts that
are not material, individually or in the aggregate.  Our defense
costs for asbestos-related claims are generally covered by
insurance.  However, our insurance coverage for settlements and
judgments for asbestos-related claims varies depending on several
factors and are subject to policy limits.  We may have greater
financial exposure for future settlements and judgments."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/9kyH7P


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 675 Open Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that it is aware of approximately 675 open and
active asbestos-related claims pending against the Company and
certain of its subsidiaries.  

The Company states, "These claims consist primarily of non-PC
Relationship Claims and claims against a subsidiary of PPG.  The
Company is defending the remaining open and active claims
vigorously.

"Since April 1, 2013, a subsidiary of PPG has been implicated in
claims alleging death or injury caused by asbestos-containing
products manufactured, distributed or sold by a North American
architectural coatings business or its predecessors which was
acquired by PPG.  All such claims have been either served upon or
tendered to the seller for defense and indemnity pursuant to
obligations undertaken by the seller in connection with the
Company's purchase of the North American architectural coatings
business.  The seller has accepted the defense of these claims
subject to the terms of various agreements between the Company and
the seller.  The seller's defense and indemnity obligations in
connection with newly filed claims ceased with respect to claims
filed after April 1, 2018.

"PPG has established reserves totaling approximately US$180 million
for asbestos-related claims that would not be channeled to the
Trust which, based on presently available information, we believe
will be sufficient to encompass all of PPG's current and potential
future asbestos liabilities.  These reserves include a US$162
million reserve established in 2009 in connection with an amendment
to the PC plan of reorganization.  These reserves, which are
included within Other liabilities on the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheets, represent PPG's best estimate of its
liability for these claims.  PPG does not have sufficient current
claim information or settlement history on which to base a better
estimate of this liability in light of the fact that the Bankruptcy
Court's injunction staying most asbestos claims against the Company
was in effect from April 2000 through May 2016.  PPG will monitor
the activity associated with its remaining asbestos claims and
evaluate, on a periodic basis, its estimated liability for such
claims, its insurance assets then available, and all underlying
assumptions to determine whether any adjustment to the reserves for
these claims is required.

"The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is
subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including
(i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) the amounts required
to resolve both currently known and future unknown claims; (iii)
the amount of insurance, if any, available to cover such claims;
(iv) the unpredictable aspects of the litigation process, including
a changing trial docket and the jurisdictions in which trials are
scheduled; (v) the outcome of any trials, including potential
judgments or jury verdicts; (vi) the lack of specific information
in many cases concerning exposure for which PPG is allegedly
responsible, and the claimants' alleged diseases resulting from
such exposure; and (vii) potential changes in applicable federal
and/or state tort liability law.  All of these factors may have a
material effect upon future asbestos-related liability estimates.
As a potential offset to any future asbestos financial exposure,
under the PC plan of reorganization PPG retained, for its own
account, the right to pursue insurance coverage from certain of its
historical insurers that did not participate in the PC plan of
reorganization.  While the ultimate outcome of PPG's asbestos
litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, PPG believes that
any financial exposure resulting from its asbestos-related claims
will not have a material adverse effect on PPG's consolidated
financial position, liquidity or results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/AXks3P


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.35-Bil. Net Reserves at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc. has net asbestos reserves of US$1.35
billion at September 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

Travelers Companies states, "The Company believes that the property
and casualty insurance industry has suffered from court decisions
and other trends that have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos
claims far beyond the original intent of insurers and
policyholders.  The Company has received and continues to receive a
significant number of asbestos claims.  Factors underlying these
claim filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers
seeking asbestos claimants and the focus by plaintiffs on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation.  The focus on these defendants is primarily the result
of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought
bankruptcy protection in previous years.  The bankruptcy of many
traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement demands
against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but remain in
the tort system.  Currently, in many jurisdictions, those who
allege very serious injury and who can present credible medical
evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial settings in
the courts, while those who have not shown any credible disease
manifestation are having their hearing dates delayed or placed on
an inactive docket.  Prioritizing claims involving credible
evidence of injuries, along with the focus on defendants who were
not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation,
contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense payment
patterns experienced by the Company.  The Company's
asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience
also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance
sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through
exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other
participating insurers.

"The Company continues to be involved in disputes, including
litigation, with a number of policyholders, some of whom are in
bankruptcy over coverage for asbestos-related claims.  Many
coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved through
settlement agreements.  Because many policyholders make exaggerated
demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of settlement
negotiations.  Settlements involving bankrupt policyholders may
include extensive releases which are favorable to the Company, but
which could result in settlements for larger amounts than
originally anticipated.  Although the Company has seen a reduction
in the overall risk associated with these disputes, it remains
difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims.  As in the
past, the Company will continue to pursue settlement
opportunities.

"In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been
launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by
individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking damages
arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries.  It is
possible that the filing of other direct actions against insurers,
including the Company, could be made in the future.  It is
difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, including
whether the plaintiffs would be able to sustain these actions
against insurers based on novel legal theories of liability.  The
Company believes it has meritorious defenses to any such claims and
has received favorable rulings in certain jurisdictions.

"Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder at least annually.  Among the
factors which the Company may consider in the course of this review
are: available insurance coverage, including the role of any
umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on
pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims; allocated
claim adjustment expense; the potential role of other insurance;
the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential non-asbestos
claims in any resolution process; and applicable coverage defenses
or determinations, if any, including the determination as to
whether or not an asbestos claim is a products/completed operation
claim subject to an aggregate limit and the available coverage, if
any, for that claim.

"Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in the first nine months
of 2019 and 2018 were US$150 million and US$161 million,
respectively.  Net asbestos reserves were US$1.35 billion at both
September 30, 2019 and September 30, 2018."

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



                            *********

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 ***